City Council - Regular Meeting

motion here that we will start. Okay. We will call to order the uh February 9th meeting, 2026 of the Bloomington City Council and ask that everyone please stand for pledge of allegiance to the flag and remain standing for a moment of silence. Thank Next, we'll go to roll call for attendance.

Council member Karns here. Council member Mosley here. Council member Mney here. Council member Dannenburgger here. Council member Strazza here. Council member Hendris here. Council member Ward here. Council member Lee here. Council member Scott here. Mayor Brady here.

Thank you.

Next we will move on to uh recognition and appointments. And I don't know if any of the following individuals are here. they're going to be uh reappointed to the commission for safe committees, but if they are, please stand as I call your name. Uh Sierra Aiden, Ryan Bertran, Dr. Denton, um Elizabeth German, Robert Harris, Kathy Lust, and Caitlyn Silman. Thank you. Next, we'll move to public comment and other individuals seeking public comment. Madam clerk,

um for the record, we received no emailed public comment. Um but we do have two people registered to speak in person, which we'll um call to the front after you read uh your statement. We'll start with Tracy uh Pakunis.

Thank you. Um, ladies and gentlemen, uh, public comment is an opportunity for speakers to provide their views and feedback to the city council. It's also an opportunity for the city council to listen and hear diverse points of view. Uh, to maximize the impact of public comment and show respect for the expression of all views, speakers uh, should maintain and [clears throat] focus on the city issues. Speakers must identify themselves for the record, but are not required to give their address. Each speaker is given the floor for three minutes and the council does not respond or engage in debate. Any speaker that engages in threatening or disorderly behavior will be deemed out of order and their time will be ceased. First speaker mayor, members of the council and staff, my name is Tracy Patunis. I'm the immediate past president of the Mid Illinois Realtors Association. On behalf of Meera, I would like to express our strong support for agenda item 9C, the resolution establishing the 2026 city council strategic pri priorities and guiding principles for the city of Bloomington. We commend your leadership and we appreciate the inclusion of housing as one of your four strategic priorities and core principles which will guide future policy, budget, and organizational decisions. Meera is encouraged that the Bloomington City Council continues to prioritize the community's housing challenges. We previously supported many of the efforts you've already undertaken to address our community's housing needs from hosting housing symposiums to the launch of the Bloomington the building Bloomington website to the adoption of your standardized housing incentives ordinance to the revised housing rehab program to your zoning code review and willingness to explore missing middle housing in some areas of the city. You continue to show that the housing needs of your residents and future residents are important. Realtors share the goal of ensuring there are enough places for people to live and of expanding access to home ownership, especially for first-time home buyers, making it easier for them to find homes that are

affordable. And we share the goal that housing policies should strengthen communities rather than limit opportunity. At a time when we're facing a housing shortage and too many families find home ownership out of reach, we applaud your efforts to prioritize the housing supply and improve affordability as you continue to develop proposals related to housing. Meera looks forward to continue collaborating with you and we thank you for your leadership. Thank you. Thank you, Tracy Pacunis. Are there other speakers? All right, last up we have Christy Ingramman. All right. Okay. Thank you. There's no further public comment.

Next, we'll move to if there's no other speakers. Correct. Okay. Next, we'll move to uh public hearings and the public hearing on the program year 2026 community development block grant um annual action plan. Um we will call uh first off uh Mr. William Bessler, the grants manager, will be presenting along with uh Patrick Cordderero and director. And at this time, we'll call the public hearing to order, which is at 6:04 p.m. on today's date. Whoever would like to go first. Thank you, uh, mayor, council, city manager. Uh, tonight we're going to preview the annual action plan for program year 2026 for the community development block grant. Next slide, please. So the CDBG program, as many of you know, is a formulabased grant that is provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The city of Bloomington is an entitlement grantee, which means that we receive annual allocations, assuming HUD or excuse me, Congress provides funding for it. CDBG must be used to meet one of three national objectives. Benefit the low to moderate income persons, prevent or eliminate slum and bite conditions, and meet and/or meet urgent community needs. Regulations found uh that govern CDBG are found at 24 CFR part 570. Next slide please. The 2025 to 2029 consolidated plan. This is this annual action plan will be the second year of the consolidated plan. The consolidated plan is really the the foundational piece um to everything we do with CDBG. So every 5 years we go out to the community and we complete a robust outreach and engagement process in partnership with the town of Normal and the Mlan County Regional Planning Commission. And that process which complete was completed between April 2024 to January 2025 led to the following goals. Preservation of existing affordable housing stock,

elimination of slum and blight conditions, support of the provision of public service activities, public facility and infrastructure improvements, and administering CDBG effectively and proficiently. Next slide, please. The geographic priorities within the consolidated plan largely follow the city's comprehensive plan. Um, with this consolidated plan, we did add an additional geographic priority in South Central Bloomington. Uh, that covers the census tracks that are not already covered by the preservation or regeneration area. Next slide, please. So, program year 2020 six, I should say, excuse me, uh, is going to cover from May 1, 2026 to April 30, 2027. It's the 52nd year that the city has administered the CDBG program. Um the annual action plan outlines the goals and or projects that will complete within that year period and all those have to have a connection to the consolidated plan. Next slide please. So revenue assumptions um we we are in a tricky spot as staff because HUD is always delayed with with giving us the annual allocation number. So, we do have to estimate that every year, especially when we begin the budget process in September. We do assume at this point $555,000 based off the last four-year average program income from old re housing rehabilitation loans and prior year resources. Um, that will make up the revenue of $610,000, which is an investment in our community. Next slide, please. So I want to go through each goal and what we're doing uh proposing to do in this annual action plan. So a bulk of our of our funding will go to the preservation of existing affordable housing through our housing rehabilitation program. Um this includes homeowner assistance, our emergency rehabilitation program and water sewer installation services that are completed uh with Habitat for Humanity of MLAN County to provide new affordable housing stock. Elimination of slum and blight conditions involve residential housing

demolition of vacant and abandoned properties. Next slide, please. We also provide u funding to nonprofit organizations that serve Bloomington residents. So this year um we did have to include Prairie State Legal Services and I'll get to that towards the end of the presentation on why we had to do that. But we're once again funding Home Sweet Home Ministries street outreach program uh which is a great asset for our community and will work in tandem with the bridge operations which is new. KTB Financial Services for their financial empowerment program. Prairie State Legal Services for Housing Legal Services and then West Bloomington Revitalization Project for community operations. Next slide please. for public facility and infrastructure improvements. We are proposing an $80,000 project in in partnership with the housing authority of the city of Bloomington um for Woodhill family apartment playground upgrades and then finally to administer CDBG effectively and proficiently. That includes general administration which includes some staff reimbursement, community planning activities with the MLAN County Regional Planning Commission and the West Bloomington neighborhood planning funding that we uh are in introducing this year. Next slide, please. So, to receive funding from the city of Bloomington CDBG program uh through public service or public facility, organizations must go through a competitive process. So, we released the RFP in November and those applications are due in January. Um we received 10 applications in total requesting over $1.1 million. Eight public service and administration applications and two public facility and infrastructure improvement applications were received. awarded organizations are subreients of the city's CDBG funds. So, we enter into a subreient agreement with them and we are essentially providing oversight um on behalf of HUD. Next slide, please. Notable changes for this program year. Uh beginning on May 1st, um all new

pre-applications for housing rehabilitation assistance, um applicants will need to be within the preservation and regeneration area of the city as defined by our comprehensive plan. This will not apply to emergency housing rehabilitation requests, but this fits within our department's initiative to use our grant funding and other resources and a more targeted approach for community revitalization and development. Um, as I mentioned earlier, HUD did direct the city to put housing legal services with Prairie State Legal under public service um category this year instead of administration. Um I I don't think we agree with that conclusion, but that is the policy of HUD, so that's where we're putting it. Uh there is no sidewalk improvement project in program year 2026. Um we are working with the engineering department to evaluate future opportunities for that funding as it was identified as a critical priority in the consolidated plan. And then we are also providing uh funding for the West Bloomington neighborhood plan in in cooperation with the West Bloomington Revitalization Project um to do some really uh updates for from the quality of life plan that was completed back in 2008. So we're excited to do that in partnership with them and uh connect with the community in a more robust way with that. Next slide, please. So next steps. Uh public comment is open until February 23rd. Uh I do note that the city reserves the right to make changes based off annual allocation amount changing or other changes that are requested by HUD or city council. Uh consideration and action by city council will happen once we receive the annual allocation amount and we are allowed to submit by HUD. HUD then has to approve the plan and then HUD would release the funding. Typically that occurs in September. Next slide please. And that's the uh public comment information. You can send public residents can send public comments to me um or Joanie Gerard, grant specialist within our department. Next slide.

Thank you. Any other comments in the presentation? Nope. Okay. Um are there anyone from the general public that would like to make comments at this time in the open public hearing part? We didn't have anyone register in advance. That's not required. So, if they'd like to speak, they can, but there were no advanced registrations. Thank you. Members of the council, um questions, comments? Ward?

Yeah, thank you. Thank you for this information. Um just a couple of of questions. Can you say anything about the um the um parameters of the preservation and regeneration um funding? what kind of are there limits as to how big those grants are or who they can go to? Can you just say that?

Yeah, so the CDBG housing rehabilitation program uh is income qualified. So it's for owner occupants that are have household annual incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. That can be found on the city's website. Um, in terms of the geographic priorities, like I said, this is relatively new um, for the city. Um, in terms of our CDBG funding, but it does align with the department. Um, they can receive up to $30,000 in hard costs. Um, soft costs such as lead based paint hazard removal or control um, is considered a soft cost. There's no limit on that. So, it just depends on the project. U, but $30,000 is the max they can receive in hard cost. that'd be electrical, plumbing, roof, a whole host of things that could be done in terms of housing rehabilitation.

And you say it's relatively new. So, how how many um projects are you anticipating being able to do with this? So, the housing rehabilitation program has been with the city since the CDBG funding um came to the city back in the 70s. So, that part's not new, but I think that the geographic prioritization is the new part for us. We're anticipating seven units to be completed within the program year. Um that that's a it's an educated guess because each project's very different um with housing rehabilitation.

And then can you um can you tell us um how many demolitions were done in the last year and how many you're I think you're anticipating two right for this coming year. We we anticipate one demolition that that is dependent on the on the demolition itself much like re rehabilitation. We can't we we budget for one but it could be two. Um for for this current program year we are in the process of of one demolition being out for bid. So we will meet our goal for this year.

Council member Ward if I could and Cordel if you want to jump in. We will also be talking to you about the use of other funds for more demolitions as part of the budget conversation. So this is just one source of funds that we hope to be able to use for demos. So there will be more as part of that other conversation that's going to be coming here soon. Thank you.

Also, mayor, members of council, um when we talk in terms of years, we're talking in terms of fiscal year. So our program year is the same as the fiscal year. Um so for this fiscal year, uh FY26, uh we are anticipating of doing at least one demo, but there are two others that are going through our demo process, right? So those may get de demolished in the next fiscal year after May, but still within this calendar year, if that makes sense.

Yeah. William, could you speak a little bit to the line item for the regional planning commission? Is that just for us to be part of that organization or is there some sort of service that we're receiving as a result of that amount of money? Yeah, so the the easiest way to explain it would be they provide technical assistance both Town of Normal and City of Bloomington. So we both partner u to provide funding for community planning efforts. So things like the housing data dashboard um the white papers that they release and also support with the consolidated plan is included within that technical assistance. Other members, member Mosley,

I have one question because you mentioned HUD and sometimes those unknowns. What what type of contingencies do we put in place if those funds don't come available? Um, is it something that we earmarked or we anticipate? Um, short answer is we always believe they going to send us the money. Uh, there are times where the general fund will carry the load uh for for the HUD programs and then we we reimburse back the general fund. Just in my tenure, I've never seen a situation where HUD has not released funds. They might not release them when they say they're going to release them, but at some point we do receive the funds uh to reimburse the general fund, but typically the general fund carries a load and and then the federal government funds just reimburse back the general fund so that we can continue to do those projects. And I would also just add that CDBG does enjoy wide bipartisan support in Congress um as and is funded within the most recent appropriation bill. Other members?

If not, thank you, gentlemen. No other public to speak, so we will close the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. and move on [clears throat] to our consent agenda at this time. Um, are there any members um wishing to have any of the items of consent agenda uh pulled and action for further discussion? Member Strazo. Yes, I'd like to pull eight 8H.

Okay. Other members award I'd like to pull 8F. Okay. 8F other members with any other items. Okay. If not, then we'll go ahead and ask for a motion to take the rest of the items on consent agenda that have not been asked to be removed at this point. I'll make that motion.

I'll second. I member Hendricks and member Ward. It's pretty good. If you'd call the role, please. Electronic. Sorry, I got booted out. Council member Ward, how do you wish to move?

I got it. Thanks. There's no names to announce. Item passes. Thank you. [clears throat] There. And next we will go back to uh member Strazza on item 8H.

Yes. Thanks, Mayor. Um, I pulled that one just cuz I want to have more discussion on just as I was looking at the contract. I know we're doing an addendum to the current one that we have, uh, which is three years. Uh, I was curious, they didn't state anything about having why we can't have a less of a time frame than three, two, one, whatever. And I just wanted to have a little more discussion about that. And then also the out clause. I'm trying to look at the original document. I read through that and I just want to make sure I understand the termination parameters. So that was the reason I wanted to have more discussion.

Thank you members. Not manager s manager Jurgens.

Yes. Uh thank you. So, the uh originally when we went out and looked for a a lobbying firm for the our our federal government, we did a three-year we did an RFP um and the council selected Thor and Run and it was for a three-year agreement. So, over the last three years, uh they've been very successful for us, great to work with. So, they proposed another three-year agreement and and that was the staff recommendation. there is a uh provision in the agreement that it and I'll I'll make sure my corporation council agrees with this uh but that the agreement can be terminated uh with 30 days notice. So uh while it is a and that's mutual both ways while it is a three-year agreement um if something were to change the council could agree to give notice and and end the contract at that time.

That's correct. That's my reading of the contract. Thank you. Other comments? Yeah, with that is like I said with the termination part, uh Chris, I was just curious, legal counsel, did you that has of course it looked like 30 days and then had a list of other things on there. I assume those are just more if something someone did something that wasn't correct, you can do it that way or it's just 30 days no matter if we choose just have a written notice and then from there we only pay up to that point. We don't have to pay any penalty or any other uh fees beyond this whatever that what we had up to that point. Correct. Correct. The list is caused. You are correct.

Okay. Thanks.

Any other comments? Ju just a question and I know we talked about this last time around but with such great relationships with our two representatives from this area um you know it's it's a challenge for me to see nearly $300,000 being paid to an intermediary for communication with Congressman Sorenson and Whipl Hood. and I'm wondering if they feel that this um uh middleman approach, I guess, for lack of a better phrasing, is um warranted. Just curious if those conversations have taken place between staff and our congressmen.

So, I have not personally had those conversations. It is uh it's very common for public bodies like ourselves, you know, to utilize these types of services. Um, and it's not as a representation on our local [clears throat] congressmen at all. It is more so that they are helping us navigate the the federal rules and the regulations. They are helping us identify what type of projects qualify for funding and helping us staff with those applications in those processes. Um, and there's, you know, there's a lot of turnover uh sometimes on Capitol Hill. So sometimes, you know, we find our lobbyists sometimes know the rules the best and are really able to help us out. Um, so in the three years that we have had them, uh, we have, uh, secured $5.7 million and in one of those years, the government didn't have a budget, so there was no funding. So that's really just out of two years. It's about uh I think about a 1900 1,900 uh over percent on return uh as to what we've received from that. And the only other thing I would say is we we went back and checked before we hired Thorn Run uh staff cannot find the last time that we got or received any congressional directed spending. So um it's a process that our staff is not necessarily qualified on. We had used others before Thorn Run that were not successful. And so that's I I understand it's obviously an expense, but we have uh we do believe it to be fruitful uh for the council and for the city to bring back as much in federal tax dollars that we're sending there as possible.

Member Mosley. Yeah. I [clears throat] just have a question as well. had prior to this relationship have we used a firm like this um from a lobbying perspective and so the city had a relationship with Cardinal Infrastructure which is another lobbying firm out in DC um and it is used by some of our partners we had they had not been able to be successful for us in uh bringing any federal dollars and I'm kind of looking at our engineer over there to make sure I'm saying that correctly but uh we had not been successful in the past before thorn run and were they part of that RFP process when we chose

I you know I'm not sure I think they did submit we had several lobbying firms submit proposals and Thorn Run rose to the top of that. Okay. Thank you. Member Ward. Yeah. I just have a question for the city manager as well. Um so I'm assuming Thorn Run has other clients besides us. Yes. And I'm assuming they're also talking to other representatives besides our own. Oh, absolutely. Yes.

And one might also presume that if um if our community has an interest that aligns with another one of their clients interests, they're also representing us to more than just our own representatives. That is that is accurate and and that's that raises a good point. So the the two lobbyists that we work with focus on the public sector and and I think Thorn Run has a a wide variety of clients but they also have some that just focus on the public sector. So the individuals that we work with have public sector clients all over the country and they do more than just help us with the earmarks. They are uh you know for example we've already had some conversation on housing. They've they've talked to us about the housing tax credits and have, you know, related the importance that we see on that. They um have helped Anthony Nelson and the arts and entertainment department with some issues with ticket master. So, they advise us on a number of things and help help keep us informed. It's it's more of a and we talk to them uh probably every couple of weeks at least once a month even when Congress isn't in session talking about different issues and and keeping us up to date on things.

Any other members? Member Mosley. Yeah, I do have just one more question and it kind of is to either the city manager or Councilman Strazza. Is your asked more so regarding the the length of this proposal or is it more so that we open it up and and routinely do RFPs or is it just because obviously there was an increase compared to the past three years. Is that reasonable or do we need to do a blanketed view? Is that what you're considering or asking or?

Yeah, one of the things one of the things I always in the things I've done in the past is you this I know it's only been three years that this thorn thorn run has done uh work for us and they've done very well. I don't know what the the measure is if that is good or bad. If that's you know it sounds like a lot of money uh but it is that someone can someone do something better. I've just always looked in in my course of business is over so many years, we always make sure we go out and vet other people and get other quotes and see if there's someone else that is better. Not saying that they're bad. It's just saying, is there someone better that can do more for us and what that means? What is the parameters of that? So, is this something we're going to go 3, six plus years until they don't seem like they're helping us or what what is the what is the measure that we will decide if we need to go back out to uh do another request for proposal from other groups? So I guess my my response to that would be certainly if at some point we we felt that they were not delivering then you know we could revisit the relationship as uh the attorney said that there there is a provision to be able to get out of the contract but at this point um again over the last three years they've been extremely successful for us and uh they've they've been really good in terms of getting information and keeping us up to date. So, you know, not to say somebody couldn't do better than almost 2,000%, but that that's a pretty high benchmark for somebody to hit and there's only so much congressional funding that's out there. So, you know, we've been very very successful, I would argue, over the last three years, again, and including that one of those years there was no budget. So,

just a real quick question, do they do they help us um with state action as well or just federal? it. They are only federal for us. Got it.

Any other members comments? Uh to our city manager. Ultimately though, the airmark comes from the elected congressman and senator. You're a senator on general matters. It's it's their budget, meaning it's their staff and the budget appropriations to the House and the Senate that's going to be allocated to them to divide through their districts. certainly um influence uh and any I think any lobbying firms will tell you they're very good. Um in fact, some would probably tell you they're the best. Um but it it does get back down to the that elected official who we establish and have good rapports with which is very important and that's why they are elected to represent us and come back to the district and meet with us. Um, so I think I think those are important and from my interest of things is is looking at the contract itself and and having the opportunity to go through that a little more in depth. And so I don't know if there's any motion of anything that anyone else wants to bring forward. I would just like the motion to bring this back as soon as possible because I know the contractors do and just look at do we want is it makes sense to look at other uh options or reduce the amount of years or is it just the 30 days is plenty and everyone's fine with three years and 30 days if we can terminate the contract. I don't know if people just trying to decide if you know I basically want a motion to say let's can we discuss this a little bit longer and bring it back on our next u meeting whichever is I don't know what the date is how my days in front of me 20 30 so there's a motion

I just another question if I might and I may have missed an email on this but there are one voice trip coming up where there will be visits to our uh congressman's offices and with their staff um coming up even here just within the next you know two to four weeks

there is um with the the lobbyists that they engage with do not write the proposals and you know figure out the bills and the qualifications. So we still rely on our uh represent our lobbyists to do all of that leg work for us. So, I guess I brought that up just for um you know, for context about their role in this and just kind of um getting some clarification maybe around this. Does it make sense if if this is going to be revisited in in two or three weeks? When is that trip? It it is uh I think March 2nd, 3rd. Yeah, somewhere around there.

So, basically three weeks. and and I'm assuming someone here from council is going on that trip has um so I mean I guess I'm just asking the question then of of you two would would that opportunity to engage with them be helpful information for us to make a better decision on this a more informed decision? Well, it it if you're asking me, member Monty, I that's possible, but I I think to our city manager's point and to u member Strazza's point, um the uh personal contact is irreplaceable uh with our elected representatives. Um I believe next week I'm meeting with uh Congressman Senson. Um part of that I've had discussions [snorts] with Congressman U Lehood and Senator Durban. uh which we greatly appreciate and I think if I'm understanding correctly it's to kind of look at the contract side of things uh and see the length of that can it be something shorter can we do something when we talk about the finances side of things and savings and do more of our own lobbying not only at the state level which we don't have representative right now which is fine I think we can find some people and secondly then in DC how best Can we have representation there uh for all the taxpayers at a at a cost and at a time frame in which um I think that we can all uh appreciate and understand.

I mean I I understand the results seem compelling. Um, city manager Jurgens, I mean, in light of these ongoing conversations, um, do you feel that it makes sense to give a couple of weeks for these conversations to take place?

It would be my recommendation, no. It's it's not going to change staff's opinion. We're in the middle right now of the uh, congressional the session, you know, getting ready to kick off. So technically we are out of contract with them right now and they are scheduled to help us sort through our projects and figure out what are eligible good projects to pitch to our delegation. So my recommendation would be these individuals have been very successful. Um we we have a 30-day clause if it's needed if we find them no longer successful or no longer necessary. Uh but the staff recommendation would uh be to continue to to move forward with them

and the opportunity to reduce the term to one year. It's what's your thought there? We already have the ability to end the contract for 30 days notice. So right. Yeah. So I'm not sure that that really gains too awful much. I I'm sure that you know we could talk to them and and revise the year, but um with with the 30-day clause, I I don't see that as an issue. Thank you. And and I would just say if if the council decided they wanted to go out for an RFP on this again, you know, then we would just we would give them notice and and we would do that. So, uh that would be obviously up to the council to decide. [clears throat]

Member Strazza. Well, based off all the conversation, which is good that we had this, um I'm guess I'm going to pull pull my uh what I was asking for and knowing that we have a 30-day that's a guarant that's guaranteed we can pull 30 days. That means we can still look at other options at the same time and knowing that we could give them a notice and go with somebody else what we choose to in the future, right? I mean, it it would be an RFP. We would be an RFP process. This would be a notice. Yeah, exactly. Yes, member Hendricks. Yeah, just given that there is no second to that motion, I would make the motion to approve this item as presented by staff.

Can I ask one more question? Can I ask one more question before you address the motion? I'm sorry. Um, with that, right, do you guys typically have data looking at or did they provide that when they send us because like you said two 200 I think you said 200,000%. 1,999% I think somewhere around. So, so comparable to cities like us, right? I mean, are other cities seeing this type of return or just telling we're getting beat out the moon, right?

Yeah, we I think no, I don't have other data to compare us to, but I I can get that. Um I think um based on my history, we've been very successful with it, but um as as the mayor said, obviously it's very important and as as some of the members have said, obviously very important to maintain those specific relationships with our elected officials. This is this is not um you know sometimes people think of lobbyists as you know they're the ones in there you know uh doing the things but they are really helping us with the administration of this and with figuring out what bill is going to qualify and what projects going to qualify. So so they help us a great deal with the administration of all of this and they've been very successful in identifying what works and what doesn't work.

Okay. Okay. And with that then I um because today is my one year and after maybe next year I may not be here depending on things but um I I think it's important for some stability right regardless because we can move right and we have some consistency. So I'll second um the motion. Thank you. Yeah, I was just gonna say uh I'm sorry, member.

Um uh uh member Mosley, I had the same question and I and I looked it up and I did find one study from the University of Chicago that saw a significant positive correlation between municipalities that hire lobbyists and the funds that they returned. Not many very many studies, but it made me comfortable that there is something out there, of course. And then uh this information for us specifically and our relationship with them makes me uh support the motion as well. The item passes. No needs to announce. Thank you. Next.

Yes. Thank you. Um, I asked to pull this item not because I'm um looking to vote against it, but I'm looking to amend it. So, I'd like to move approval of it um with a couple of amendments, actually three amendments. Um, and I also have some questions. So, I'm not sure what order I need to do all that in, but um maybe corporation council could give me some guidance in that. What why don't you go ahead first and director if you'd like to line of questioning.

I was just going to say if you want to ask questions and then tell us what your amendments are. I don't I can try and help you from there.

Sure. Um so I have a couple of questions about what kind of guarantees we might have um that what we're looking at now won't happen again. So, are there any warranties or any um guarantees from the manufacturers that that we would be able to um call in if we were to discover a similar problem? So, that's question number one. And the other question I have is um what if anything are the options for recouping any of our costs from the manufacturers of the old weapons? And I'm not sure who to direct that those questions.

Start with Yeah. Chief. Yes. Good. Good evening, Mayor Council. Um, so most importantly, these guns do come with a manufacturer warranty. Um, however, we we made sure we took a our time. We're diligent in research. Um, there are agencies that have put thousands of rounds through this weapon and they've shared their results with us. the the out the the outcomes have been positive as was with the gun that we currently carry. Um so based on the the specifications [clears throat] and all of those the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. I challenge my staff which that falls under Associ. Um so we weren't fast to to push this forward. Um but now we're we're at a point where we know that this is the best weapon to go with. We tested it ourselves um as well and received feedback from our staff which which was also important in this process. Um as far as the current weapon and um any recourse for for liability, I'd have to defer to um corporation council on that. I will say that there there are many um suits that across America um on both sides. I believe the manufacturer has sued others have sued the manufacturer um because of of some disagreements. Um we actually brought a representative in from six hour spent hours with us going over their testing of the weapon. Um they did tell us that in in their strong opinion the weapon is safe. Um, however, we can't control the outcomes of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board. They're the ones that set forth this um, pause on using a weapon, discontinuence, I should say, of using a weapon for training here in

Illinois. So, that that's is as much as I can speak to. You have anything else to answer? In terms of the recourse piece, um I'm guessing it would take a lawsuit then in order to recoup anything or [cough and clears throat] I'm not an expert on six hours or handguns in any way. Uh what I know I learned mostly after Chief brought it to my attention and I did some research. There are a number of potential class action lawsuits. I don't know exactly where they are, but my familiarity with how class action lawsuits work. Um, I believe there are people who have filed and they're seeking from the court uh a ruling that would allow them to proceed as a class action. I have no idea where they are. The little bit that I've read, Chief can can confirm or tell me I'm wrong, but uh that as I understand it, Six Sour is defending it, saying there's really nothing wrong with this gun. Uh so there is still a dispute although the statistics continue to gather or accumulate with uh misfires. One of the issues with the weapon is that it will miss it will fire on occasion without pulling the trigger. Um that being said, uh um Assistant Chief Beerman sent us an email today saying that the IND Indiana State Police just reached an agreement with Sig Sauer to arm all of its officers with this weapon. So obviously the Indiana State Police doesn't think there's a problem with it. Um I think it's uh based on the information that I see and it seems to be a good time to move on to another weapon if we're in a position to do that. Um, I don't think it's bad enough that we would I think maybe one of your questions is going to be about what should we do with them then. Should we even be allow the allow

the officers to purchase them back? I think that's something that we could do as long as we get the appropriate waiverss. Uh, so the city's not maintaining any liability. I anticipate the next question. I'm sorry if I got ahead of myself, but um anyway, that's that's what I know about it at this point. Um we wouldn't want to be the plaintiff right now taking on the gun industry or at least six sour in the gun industry. Uh but certainly if there is ever a class action certified down the road um and if we can establish that we suffered a loss then it would certainly be something that we could consider u whether or not we want to.

And if I may I have a couple more comments. This weapon has had zero failures for the Bloomington Police Department as well as um many of our sister and brother departments throughout Illinois. It's been very dependable for us. Um we've put thousands of rounds through these um and upwards of 20,000 for the one that is shot most. Um and that that would be with a SWAT team member. Um the other thing to say is the best practices in law enforcement in his profession is to rotate guns out every five to seven years. Um we are nearing that next year. So we're we're literally almost at the end of the shelf life for this gun unless we went in and changed the internal mechanics, the spring um the um you know firing pin. Um, we we could we could do that um to extend the life of of the weapon, but we we're we're in a sweet spot right now where the end of life is is coming up on on this particular weapon. Anyway,

would that resolve the issue that's been raised doing that kind of um modification, shall we say? Not according to the Illinois Training and Standards Board. No, the the weapon has been um barred from training. Yeah. themies. Yeah. Um so thank you for that. That that answers those questions. And I

I do want to um emphasize that that um I am not suggesting that we not purchase new weapons and that we um keep these old weapons. I'm I'm in favor of purchasing new weapons. what I am um wanting to amend and this is maybe where I just need help in the language. I simply want to strike um portions of two of the whereas clauses and one of the whereas clauses al together. So the first whereas clause what I'd like to strike is um the the second part of the a the whereas clause that begins the cost of 145 is it Walter PDP pro handgun systems um that whereas clause I'd like to strike everything after um 132,530. So that would strike which will be reduced by 20,800 with a tradein credit for a total cost of 111,730. I'd like to strike that clause that provides for a tradein. And then I'd like to strike alto together the very next whereas clause that says the cost will further be offset by an estimated 68 officers purchasing their prior weapons for an estimated total credit back to the police department of 23800. And then um in the

see the final whereas clause uh that I want to strike something from is is the next longer one. Um the one that gets at waving formal bidding requirements. Um, and the I'd like to strike um the section that begins with to help offset clo costs, the vendor has also offered to purchase BPD's existing Sigour firearms. I my point in all of this is what I'd like to eliminate is the tradein and the buyback. If we as a community are purchasing these firearms because they've been determined to be unsafe and we're making that argument that we need to spend over $100,000 to purchase new firearms to replace ones that are unsafe, I think it is it is not in the interests of the public for us to then make those available to be sold again to be used by members of the public for their personal use. Um I I think that while that may be legal, it it doesn't feel very ethical to me. And the idea that we have to even have a waiver that people sign saying we won't be held responsible. to me that actually reinforces the problem in in the sense that it it says we know that this is wrong. And so as a community, I think that we have an obligation to keep the community safe. That's kind of like the ground rule of keeping people safe. And if we're saying that that these are too dangerous to be used by people who have the skills and the expertise and the training to use

them as members of our police force, then why on earth would we be selling them for cheap and possibly having them wind up back on the streets in the hands of people who have far less training and skills. So, I would move that we approve this with those amendments that I've indicated. Other members, member Hendricks, I will second it for discussion purposes. So, there's a motion. It's been seconded. Um, is there any other discussion from members? Yeah, member Mosa,

I have um just a question or comment towards that because what I think I heard you guys just say is we don't have any experience that we've felt default and the reason I asked that is because I don't want us to put our because I did look in six hour saying that they don't think that it's a problem. I think we believe that it from a best practices the industry or the body right for from a training perspective have said it's best practice to kind of move away with it from it because we're not going to allow training and your position is we're up almost a year in we should probably replace these weapons a year to our deadline we would replace these anyway let's do it now we have a price but I'm just concerned or do you feel the same way if right because I had the same question right are selling these? Do we create our put oursel into a liability perspective? Waiver is going to be subject to litigation anyway. But if we if we put that in, are we admitting that putting oursel injecting oursel into the fact that we now think that there's a problem with the gun? Because technically we're we're doing this not because you've experienced it. You're doing it because you can't use this to send anyone to training, right?

Yes, Mr. Mosley. Um, again, we have not experienced any issues with this, nor have our other agencies in Illinois. Matter of fact, the gun has been um proven to be dependable, very dependable here. Um, there have been federal agencies who have also recently chose to go with the gun. There have been numerous state police agencies that are, you know, Indiana State Police, for instance, they're buying 1,350 of these weapons, I'm sorry, of the sixth hour. Um there are other I think Delaw Delaware State Police, there are other state police agencies and bigger police departments um that are you know substantially bigger than ours that have chose to go with this weapon. And so I I can't dispute the challenge for the weapon that's um that has brought forth this matter. Um nor can I speak for the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Boards. We were really surprised that that's what they chose to do. But we do want to be in compliance with them. We have officers that are borrowing guns just to go to the academy that we can't provide for them because it's, you know, they need a different model of guns for their training purposes. And so it is our position that we are just trying to be in compliance with the request of the training and standards board. Fast forward a little bit. Let's say sixh hour develops a fix for this, which could occur. Um, we do have the most upgraded gun. if you go back a generation, a model um before this one, they fixed an issue before the city of Bloomington purchased the guns that we currently have. So, they're saying that upgrade um took care of any any issues. That's that's has been six hours position from what we have been been told. Um so, yes, I I would agree with your and I'll just I'll just say for council member Ward and council member Hendricks, the only reason that I I asked that question was because I think back, right? If we buy a pool car, if I

buy a lease turn in, right, I'm signing that waiver that it exists. I don't want us to put oursel in a position where we can recover some of this funding for something that is may be a problem for others but may not be a problem for us and that class action never goes through and we've taken that position. Now we're sitting on inventory or we've disposed on opportunity for us to recover some of our expenses. So that was the reason that I brought that up or asked And if I may just make one more comment. I I had a few officers approach me today um expressing chief this is sentimental to me this weapon and although I may not ever shoot it again, it means a lot to me as it has for I think 25 or more retirees that have retired with more than 20 years. We've already allow them to take that gun that has been the best practice or that has been the city's practice is to allow them to go into retirement with their weapon. Um, so do we then recall all those weapons? Right. It's their property now. Um, just wanted to bring that before the council.

Any other members with questions, comments? If not, there was a motion made. It was seconded. So, there's a motion on the floor. And are we clear as to the content and wording within that motion? Yeah, we also have a recording, several recordings of it. So, I'll make sure that it's right the way that I've stated it for the screen um is to move approval of the item with three amendments to the resolution as stated. And like I said, we'll go back and make sure that we fine-tune it exactly as she has requested. Okay. I think unless there's any other questions from members, we'll go ahead and record the vote.

Just really quick, I'm sorry. So, what we're vote So, what we're voting on is this item with the amendments. Is that correct? No. Right now, before you you have Well,

we have a question with the Yes, you have a motion to amend taking those three things out. So, if you vote yes, that would be the amendment. The motion would be approved as amended. One point to make too is that if you take those out, there'll be an adjustment to the cost. So you're going to have to increase the cost uh by the amount that whatever the net is the credit uh so there'll have to be an additional amendment to the the total amount which I haven't done the math on. So, if if we're getting to that point and members have some questions

to clarify question. Wait a minute. I'm talking if the member would consider putting the wording and bringing it back for the next council meeting. Is there some timetable in which we have to follow something here?

I don't think we need to do that. I think that if you look at the first whereas clause that where she where uh Councilman Ward, council person Ward uh asked to take out the addendum which would lower the cost which would then end it at 132,530 instead of the reduced amount of 111,730. So I was just trying to make clear that this amendment will change. I don't think we need to make any other adjustments to agree with that. Okay. Member Matney.

So, I'd just like to ask a question of the staff that's presenting here tonight. Um, you've brought forth a recommendation that does not include these amendments and and you know, I just want to understand better your feelings toward that in light of the motions that have been put forth here. Um, you know, it sounds like you came forth with a strong recommendation that we not um have these amendments. I'm trying to get a read on the implications of this in a subject where I wasn't prepared for um amendments, you know, on the fly. Um, so just if you could speak to that, the implications of these amendments on on you, on your staff, on the cost structure, etc. Yes, ma'am. Um, certainly I, you know, we have approximately 100 and approximately 100 officers as of today that are interested in purchasing these weapons in a buyback fashion. Um, they they understand we have been very transparent about the concerns of the weapon um with the training and standards board. We we have again no evidence that the gun is is a failure and given um that a we only had 10 officers so far that said they don't want to purchase it and that's only because they they just they're not gun enthusiasts or collectors and um so I I I think it would would be beneficial to to take their interest into perspective. Um, part number two, the company understands that we may have a higher or lower tradein to pro provide them. I can't speak to what the company will do with the weapon once the weapons are transferred to them as as a part of

of some credit. That is normal for police agencies. We don't typically destroy weapons that are are of good use. The last time the Bloomington Police Department purchased weapons, they had to trade trade in opportunity as well. I come from an agency where we had 3,000 sworn officers. We've traded in weapons towards the purchase of of other weapons. Again, I can't account for what Acme Sports decides to do and where they decide to sell it. If they decide to sell it, I can't speak to them on what the next steps would be there. Um, but they are a reputable company. They have serviced several hundred police agencies throughout the country um without without any concern that the their relations with municipal and other governmental ent entities has been high standard from what we've been told. I hope that answers your question. [snorts]

One last thing is that is that working? Sorry. this is kind of like the officer's last line of defense between life and death could be at times and this is very very sentimental to these officers um that this is what they've carried. So um it is extremely important to them. Uh I think that was kind of where you were getting at a little bit in regards to that. [snorts] And to be clear, you have no concerns about allowing them to acquire these as it sounds like has been the pa in the past an approach that's been taken for as part of the longevity of the department and typical in other police departments.

Yes, ma'am. That that is correct. And just for the record, I myself want to purchase the weapon as does all of the other assistant chiefs is my understanding as of today. Thank you. Any other members? Oh, I'm sorry, member Lake. So, I just want to clarify the reselling will be going to trained officers and not just anyone who's wanting to buy these. So, it's specifically for

the officers that currently have them, giving them the option to keep their their weapon. And then the other portion is uh for the the manufacturer um will be so it's not like going out to the public for resale. Correct.

Correct. The officers will be restricted to receive the weapon that they currently have. We're not allowing them to buy more than just their weapon um for the sentimental purposes. Um again I cannot account for what AC act acme sports decision would be what with what they do with the guns. They are a federal um licensed [snorts] dealer. So I I can't speak to what their next steps would be them and not anyone else. Thank you. Excuse me. member question. Yeah, I just um Jenna Karns.

Yeah, thank you. Uh just quickly, I I feel like I had similar concerns going into this meeting wondering about like, you know, the safety, you know, that there's someone has decided that they're worried about the gun. But I appreciate the conversation and the things that you've said tonight that it's really helped kind of put it into perspective for me. So, I appreciate everything that you've said. Thank you. member Scott.

Thank you. Um, so I I too am uh a little wary of uh the city being a vendor of guns that some agency called not safe, but I recognize and I certainly empathize with with your situation and that this is this is one agency you don't understand. But perhaps is there another example of a time when you've said no, these these guns are not safe. These is we are taking these off the the buyback list. No, [clears throat] ma'am. I' I've been in law enforcement for 33 34 years and this is I've never heard of that example um in in my career.

And then one follow up from there. I I understand that these officers um are be trained. They then of course have the ability to resell those um as they see fit. Yes. there federal restrictions um on that. The transfer has to be legal within the the capacity of the federal law and state law and they would be subject to having to follow those those rules. Gotcha. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah. I just just want to um clarify what you just said. So the officers and Acme subject to federal laws just like anybody else could sell these to the public. Yes, ma'am. I I don't have an ability to restrict that.

Any other members with comments? Okay. I think what we'll do at this point is go back and have the amendment that's been changed now read so everyone hears what we're actually going to vote on if you would please.

To be consistent with the the motion, there are two other spots in the in the uh resolution or ordinance that needs to change. One is in the title of 120,000 would now be 32 uh 530. And in the end of the first whereas clause, it says in the amount not to exceed $120,000, it would now say in the amount not to exceed $132,500 to be consistent with what you ask. Um but I I do have all of the amendments highlighted, your honor. 30 years of that,

but I do have them and I don't think there's anything wrong. Um, if you'd like me to read those. I would like you to read it. [clears throat]

Okay. A resolution to authorize waving the formal bidding requirements and approve the purchase with Acme Sports, Inc. for Walter PBP Pro handguns for the Bloomington Police Department in an amount not to exceed $132,530. Whereas, subject to the provisions of the city code, city staff are recommending the authorization to wave the formal bidding requirements and the purchase of Walter PDP Pro handguns for the Bloomington Police Department in the amount not to exceed $132,530. Whereas the detailed quote is attached exhibit A. And whereas BPD staff completed extensive research into various handguns and have determined the Walter PDP Pro system to be the best fit for the city. And whereas the purchase consists of a ready out ofthe-box setup coming fully equipped, reliable, and ergonomically sim uh similar to the Sig Sauer P320, making training and proficiency on the firearm easier and less costly to the city. And whereas the cost of 145 Walter PDP Pro handgun systems is 32,530. And whereas the city has the ability to wave the technical bidding requirements pu pursuant to city code chapter 16 section 403. And whereas BPD is also requesting authorization to wave formal bidding requirements due to several compelling factors, including the urgent

need to initiate the manufacturing process and recent lapses in training sessions taken together. These circumstances make it critical to proceed without delay through the formal bidding process. And whereas the city council finds it in the best interest of the city to wave the formal bidding requirements and approve the purchase. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the city of Bloomington, Mlan County, Illinois. Section one, the above recital are incorporated herein by this reference as is specifically stated in full. Section two, that the formal bidding requirements are waved. Section three, the city manager or designated representatives are authorized to execute the purchase and any other documents necessary to complete this transaction pass this 9th day of February 2026. Approved this blank day of February 2026.

Thank you very much. Is there any other members that have any questions or comments before we take a vote? Madam clerk, are both the motioner and the second in line with what was just read? All right. So, I've I've adjusted the motion that reads up there. So, it just says with amendments, not number three. And if you have already voted, you can still change your vote. It hasn't been finalized. So, you can do it how you'd like and then we'll go ahead and call it when I have them all in. I I do have one more question if you don't mind.

I I mean I don't mean to belabor this, but in light of the motion that's on the floor,

there is no giving these to the manufacturer, there is no um allowing the officers to purchase them. So in this scenario, what happens to these? Well, ma'am, we would have to um destroy them. Um so, we would go through a destruction process. Um take it off of the city's inventory. With that, then no other comments per take the vote. The item fails. If I could read the names. Jenna Karns, Michael Mosley, Sheila Mney, Michael Strazza, and Kentley.

Thank you very much. Next, I'd be happy to make a motion that we present the item or approve the item as presented. Thank you.

I'll second The item passes. Just one name to announce. Council member Ward. Thank you. We'll move on then to the uh regular agenda item this evening. And under 9A, we have the consideration and action on a resolution approving the fiscal year 2027 John M. Scott Healthcare Trust Category and category grant awards and Mr. Jurgens. In the interest of time, I'm going to turn this over to our grants manager, William Bessler, and Katherine Porter from the John M. Scott Healthcare Commission. As the community in this council knows, you also serve in the dual role as the trustee for the John M. Scott Health Trust. So with that, uh, William, uh, thank you, mayor, council, and city manager. Uh, before I hand this over presentation over uh, to John Scott Healthcare Commission chairperson, Katherine Porter, I wanted to take a moment to say thank you to all the folks that made this nearly $1 million investment in our community's well-being possible. First, I would like to thank Chairperson Porter and the entire John Scott Commission for their tireless efforts. I would also like to thank the community members that assisted the commission review applications for this grant cycle. And finally, I want to thank my staff, especially Joanie Gerard, for the support they provide the commission. And with that, I will turn it over to Chairperson Porter.

Okay. Good evening. Thank you so much for allowing me to present this evening, Mayor Brady, um city manager, and the full council. It truly is, um an honor to be part of the Dunham Scott Commission, and I'm glad to be here tonight to share a little bit about what we've been doing. Um so, next slide, please. So, the Dunham Scott um healthcare trust program provides funding for health care services here in our community um and for the services that tackle the social determinance of health. Um the trust funds must be used for MLAN county residents and for people that are have an annual income um at or below 185% of federal poverty level and um the grants are divided into three different categories and I can illustrate those this evening. So if you could um next slide please. So our grant categories one, two and three. Um currently we have we're in our entering our second year of our category one grant cycle. Those are large grants and it's a three-year cycle. So that is um fiscal year 2026. So heading into the second year there, we have two recipients in that category. Category two are more related to the community health improvement plan, the CHIP. Um that is an annual grant and we have um uh several um of those this evening that will be up for council's vote. Uh the RFP was released in September of 2025 and it was open for about six weeks. Um and those are separated into capital and program funding requests. And then category three is also an annual cycle. Um it's off cycle between one and two and those applications will are open currently and we'll be presenting to those um to council in May of 2026. Um and those are typically between emergent or emergency needs. Next slide please. So the funding process, the request for proposal was open in September, like I

said, for about six weeks. The John M. Scott Healthcare Commission also has a grant committee that reviews all of those um applications that come in. They they met three different times in November and December. Made a recommendation to the full commission which was approved on December 16th. Next slide, please. The applications that were received, we received two for the category 2 capital um category, a little over 72,000, and then there were 18 requests for category 2 program requests um totaling just over $750,000. The total amount that was requested was over $822,000. Next slide. So this slide really helps to see what's happening and what's being requested this this evening. So their category one is $250,000 is year two of this three-year cycle. Our category 2 capital grants, there's two of them totaling over 72,000. And then category 2 program grants of uh 584,000 for a total of just over 900,000 um for FY 2027. Next slide. So, some funding highlights. Category two, the the top grant that we award in a category two for program funding is 75,000 and Home Sweet Home um is on that list for the bridge operations. One Hope Project eating disorder program um requested 70,000 and then Breitpoint Bloomington Crisis Nursery for a little over 55,000. Those are just three of the 18 um grants that were are part of this resolution. Next slide, please. So, the the funds that we're talking about this evening really are are helping with our community health improvement plan, our CHIP, with addressing access to care, healthy

eating, active living, and then behavioral health. So these organizations that are funding are also working on the social determinance of health to address the root cause of the health disparities in our community and in the spirit of Jud Judge John Scott um we are really serving those folks in our community who are underresourced to make it a more equitable community. Next slide please. So next um steps would be if the um council approves um the staff would be able to execute those grants to the um 20 organizations that would be funded this evening or 22 sorry um all application all applicants would receive feedback so that they really had a better chance of getting funded in future years and then the funding would be released sometime May or June of this year. Any questions?

Any questions from members of the council, comments? If not, thank you both very much for your presentation and for your service. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to Do we need a motion to approve? Yeah, we have a motion, don't we? I'll make a motion to approve. Second by member Dannenburgger. Second. Thank you. Take the vote.

The item passes. No needs to announce. Once again, thank you both very, very much. Did a nice job. Thank you. [clears throat] move on the regular item to uh regular agenda item to B and I believe the consideration and action on a resolution waving the formal bidding requirement and approving a three-year agreement with uh backflow solutions and we will have um Kelly Feifer the director presenting.

Sure. Mayor, council members, um thank you for this opportunity. First, I'm going to explain what this is. Um and seated next to me is our plumbing inspector. Um he'll be assisting in any questions. So, a cross connection program um is required by the EPA. Next slide, please. This is a nice diagram um of what it looks like. So, the EPA portion, our portion is the public water supply. Um, when people have plumbing systems on their private side, the house side, the commercial side, they can have devices that leave themselves vulnerable. If we would have a break or something and change pressure, they literally can suck the private water back into our system. So, this is about protecting our water supply. Um, next slide. So this comes out of our chapter 34 which is actually our plumbing code. Um and EPA safe water act requires us to do this. Um so the again the backflow can occur when you get some backwards pressure um and suck it into our system leaving us vulnerable. Next slide please. So currently um we do not meet current rags. We only provide a cross connection um survey program for commercial entities. We have about 3,300 of them. So we have 29,000 um res uh customers of our water system. So right now these commercial accounts um they have to supply a survey every two years and they pay every annually for every device um to test to us. Again, right now we're not doing residential accounts. We have about 3700 sewer only accounts, which is kind of you can infer

um that water only, sorry, water only, no sewer accounts. Um you can infer then that that is a potential that they have a cross connection device. It's like if you have a sprinkler system, you have a second meter, but you're not paying sewer on that meter. That's an indication that you may have. So we think roughly about a thousand of our residential customers may end up having one of these crossconnection devices. We are currently not collecting any surveys and not requiring any testing. They're still required to do that but not submit it to us. I'm going to assume they're probably not getting done. Um next slide please. So our proposed solution. So internally we only manage we manage 3,300 right now. Um, and that is very difficult for our staff to do anyway. And we have some really old software, so the transparency isn't there. Um, BSI um, provides this. They do this all over Illinois. Um, we're looking at a three-year um, agreement. So, it's Backflow Solutions, Inc. to manage our program. Um, so they do they are very predominantly in Illinois. We did find another company that does something like this, but they're not in Illinois and they were about three times as much. Um, so right now the cost is 148,545 to survey all of our customers. It's basically $5 per address. Um, and there's very limited setup. So 4500 plus an annual of95. So this if we go with them, we can bring ourselves into full compliance um with the EPA and fully protect um our water system. Next slide, please. So these are some of the entities. So Illinois American Water is all over Champagne, things like that. Champagne doesn't do its own. Um these are some other companies that they partner with to provide um this service. Next slide,

please. So this is they have 30 years experience. Again, they're headquartered here for SH75 um employees. They do a thousand water systems. Um we did talk to a lot of plumbers and entities that actually have to upload these tests. Um and they were pleased with BSI's interface and the ease of doing that. That was one of our considerations. Uh next slide, please. So currently the um a general commercial account with a device will actually have a cost decrease um under this. So right now a current account would pay $40 every year for a device test and they would submit a survey to us every two years. The state requires a survey every three. Our code requires them to do the survey every two. So we're proposing to charge 65 annually um per device. Um but the this program the city would cover the cost of the survey for all entities. Um this will generate about $120,000 a year in revenue that will hopefully pay for um the then um next survey that's needed to be done in three years as well as this won't come without some staff um as some uh they will send three notices failed. you need a test. Um, we still may have to follow up with a small percentage of these, but it'll be small and we can do that with internal CIE staff. So, the residential accounts, we're proposing not to charge them at all for the uploading of their test. Um, the revenue from the program will cover that. These residential accounts, so, you know, they will have to hire um a plumber to do these device tests. They probably already have them. like if you have a sprinkler system, you already got somebody coming out and starting and stopping. The difference is they have to

upload um the test into BSI. In this case, that would be 1695, but under our cost structure, we would we would cover that under this through the revenue from the commercial accounts. Um so there is a cost to those people that are not getting that testing done. Um we found that that's roughly about 75 to $100 um for those and again they might be actually doing it with their like sprinkler startup and stop up. Um so next uh slide please. Oh and questions.

Are there any questions for members? Member Mosley I have a question and it's kind of two parts. One for you and then maybe one for you city manager. My question is those that aren't testing that you may identify, do we have steps that we're going to kind of help get them in or are there consequences because they may not have been testing? Right.

So, the survey will inform us of how many have devices that need to be tested. It's kind of a pretty easy survey. It asks you some basic questions like do it's like if then do you have a sprinkler system? that says yes and then you're already flagged. So BSI will flag them and then let them know they have they have to submit a test of that device. So when we roll that out first we're going to get this working with our commercial uh customers and then we'll move into um implementing with the residential.

Okay. And then my second part of my question is obviously using a third party right to help us get in compliance and this serves as our attestation. Is this something that we do for all of our or other compliance issues or is it an opportunity for us to kind of centralize this as a whole? And you don't have to answer that question now. It's just something that we may revisit and things like that. I I think it's a mix, but I'll I'll let Kelly and if you guys are able to answer this now.

Well, as far as compliance with this program doing to a we could do this internally. Um, we absolutely could do this. We just need a couple more staff and entire new software program and things and we're looking for efficiencies. Um, and you didn't ask this, but I forgot to say this. One of the things right now is our current system has limited login. So, every time the clerk has a license that they need to see whether or not they're compliant um, with our cross connect. They have to send an email. Then our folks have to log in. This will just make it nice and transparent for all city users to be able to see statuses. I forgot to say that.

No. And the only reason I was asking right I was thinking thinking ahead is there other services that they can you could provide that could free you up for other things right from a we are absolutely looking at every possible thing that that we could do um given staff resource limitations. Yes. Any other members with questions? Member Lee. So um you said we're currently not in compliance. Um are we being penalized for that? I'm surprised that um you know we've gone this long without being compliant. Eric is thrilled that I'm going to have him do this.

Indeed. So, member Lee, um first of all, thank you everyone for considering this this evening. We currently have a very strong reputation within the Illinois within the communities, especially with the Illinois EPA. Um I have had discussions discreetly and um Bloomington has a very like I said a very strong reputation for being very proactive. Um it is currently to some estimation the strongest cross connection program in the state. Um and for a city of our size I think that's quite impressive that we can get that comment made to us by a state agency. Um, [clears throat] there are many reasons why we probably wouldn't have been we could have probably skated by a little while. It's one of those it's better to be prepared and not needed than needed and not be prepared. Thank you. is um yeah, I I know um compliance with regulatory bodies is very important. So um I'm glad we we're doing this. Um I just I'm surprised that we it wasn't sooner. So thank you other members. Thank you very much.

No. If not, is there member who wish to make a motion? Make a motion to approve. Okay. Seconded by member Dann I'm sorry member Strazza. Okay. All right. You take the vote.

The item passes. No needs to announce. Thank you. Thanks to both of you for your presentations and answering the questions. Um, next we're going to move to uh consideration and action on the resolution established in the 2026 uh city of Bloomington Council strategic priorities and guiding principles for the city of Bloomington and uh city manager Jurgens to present.

Thank you again uh mayor and councel. Uh if you go to the next slide, this is a continuation of the uh discussion that we started at the committee of the whole in February and follows our the retreat that the council held last year. These are the strategic uh priorities uh that we have been discussing and I won't go through all of it again except to say that we identify three core principles uh which are to um make sure that our actions are fiscally disciplined that we are looking at quality of life and that we are also focused on community engagement. And then when you go to the strategic priorities on the next slide, we have identified infrastructure, housing, public safety, and economic vitality. And there are a number of different things uh beneath all of those categories. Um so the information is all on the presentation if we want to see it on the screen. Uh but again, this is just a repeat of the presentation from uh uh January. So at this point uh we would be happy to answer any questions but this uh approval of this resolution tonight will help guide us as we start to bring items forward. We will identify how we are meeting these strate uh the strategic priorities and how we are following these core principles. Happy to answer any questions

and are there any questions or comments from members of the uh council? If not, is there a motion to motion by member Scott, seconded by second by Dann.

And if you take the electronic vote, please Council member Ward, how would you like to vote? I thank you. The item passes. No names to announce.

Thank you very much. Um being that that is all of the items on the agenda, um we will move then to um our city manager report. City manager Jurgens. Thank you again. Um just one slide tonight. If you could go ahead and go to it

or maybe two. Okay, just one. Um uh last Thursday I did in accordance with the city code issue a proclamation on our water conservation efforts. uh our combined lakes, Lake Evergreen and Lake Bloomington hit a combined deficit of 10 feet under and under our city code that triggers a number of measures that we are to take. And so we have been talking about water conservation for some time and that's because as you can see on the uh screen we are in a drought and we've been in a drought for a while. Uh the numbers the statistics that I have up there tonight are uh from the government's website on this and this um shows that we had overall in the entire state I think the 28th driest year um in a number of years. But when you drill down to McClean County and I I shared this before I think it was the uh ninth driest year since over the last 131 years. So we are certainly in a drought. We're seeing a lot of communities that are enacting these water conservation measures and and they are best practices. What we are encouraging people to do is just, you know, again, best practice, use uh the uh nominal water that you need. So, if you're brushing your teeth, don't don't have the water on, shorter showers, you know, do a full load of laundry, a full load of dishes, maybe don't clean your car, wash your car three times a week, you know, those types of things. Um because we are in the middle of February, we are a lot of the actual mandatory provisions of the city code are not applicable because people are not watering their lawns right now and those types of things. So again, we are just asking the community to engage in those best practices. We are we have a goal targeting 10% of reduction. When we came out with the first round, it was a 5% goal and the community truly did step up. We think based on some of the measurements we were hitting up to 6% in

savings. And so now we are asking the community to step up again and continue to conserve as much water as they can until we hopefully get those spring rains. Uh so uh happy to answer any questions about that, but we will continue to spread the word about water conservation until uh we get out of this. That's all I have. Mayor, thank you. Are there questions or comments of the city manager by members? If not, then we will move to the uh council members discussion. Any comments? Member Karns? No. Member Mosley?

Yeah, I'll just say um I think I mentioned earlier today that today was my one-y year anniversary being on council and so thank you um Miss Yokum for swearing me in. Um but just wanted to apprec thank everybody for all your help support getting me acclimated and the constituents in war 2. Thank you. Thank you. Happy anniversary, member Montney. Okay, member Dan. Member Strazza.

Yeah, just one one thing I wanted to just share. A couple weeks ago, I got a a message from Tracy Henry from the she's the associate executive director of IHSA. She just wanted to say that just a compliment to uh to Anthony Nelson and his team. Uh that they had the best IHSA dance state final ever at Gster Motors. uh they had 22 seat 22 suites and they all sold out and had a waiting list on Friday. So she just wanted to make sure I communicated that to the staff and to everybody that that the team that he has was such a great success and just you know wanted to make sure everyone knows that his leadership is very valued by the HSA and just wanted to make sure everyone was aware how great the team did and the other names was Kristen and Maurice were the other two that were part of that team. Thank you. Good to hear. Member Scott.

Yes. I just have one thing I want to say. Big thanks to our fire department and Italian Chief Gavin Pitcher for my ride along a week and a half ago. Um it was it was amazing. It was mind-blowing. Um and every single uh every single person uh in the uh in the station was fully available. They were fully engaged, asking me about what questions I had, offering me to intubate their dummy and practice tracheotomy, not on a human, but again on a dummy. Um, and I I just I learned a lot. I just clearly it's a culture of of folks that are are committed um and committed to their jobs. Um, and I learned also that it's it's clear in our community that besides crime or besides uh public safety along those lines, the fire department is really the first place to go for all emergencies. Um, regardless of whether or not uh it's appropriate to and every time uh they came out, they had excellent um just for lack of a better word customer service. And they were absolutely uh just top-notch start to finish. And so thanks to to Mike Strazza for providing the fear of missing out uh for me to do it and I certainly encourage anybody to do it as well.

Thank you member Lee, member Hendricks reward.

Thank you all for your comments. Um and I have some brief remarks I think coming up. Uh first off, uh over the weekend, while there was many events, uh I do want to thank there was a number of council members that attended the uh MLAN County Chamber, Gayla, and was able to salute business uh in MLAN County and obviously Bloomington. So, we thank you for that. uh and the tour to chocolate which was this weekend on Friday in downtown Bloomington. Uh some numbers to share with you uh was very encouraging um that the um full boundaries of of downtown. They were estimating over 17,000 uh people uh visitors and over 3,000 higher than what it was last year they anticipated. We want to thank Ferrero who was a sponsorship uh with the candy and chocolates as well as some others. Uh we also saw that then just the Buckle area as it's referred to as there was uh over 4,000 um visitors 18% higher than last year. And just in the arena area from 5 to 8 that evening there was uh or for the entire event that um was the um um event that member Strazzo alluded to there's over 10,000 u 500 visitors 4% higher than last year for the IHSA state chair uh chair finals. Um, so we want to also thank all those involved obviously and the total concessions is estimated for the weekend uh at the uh arena was over $105,000. So we're encouraged by that as well. And we also um want to say thank you again to uh the partners uh from the IHSA, our downtown team that worked very very hard on that event and deputy city manager Billy Tyers who worked very hard on that. Um and to all of those involved, thank you very much. We look forward to

more events as the weather improves. So with that, I need a motion to adjourn. I'll make that motion. Second. Second [snorts] member Dannenburgger. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Have a nice evening.