Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

going to be. So anyway, I talked to her for a minute. I told her talked to I went he was gone, you know, an extra minute. And so I called Dave. Dave said, he said, Turn and I don't know why they were concerned about her. She said something about letting us out. I think we should be able to make churches. Sunday afternoon. I just turned my phone off on my

calendar. He's just tearing it up. They're where they're just walking. I'd like to call to order the public works committee meeting of Tuesday, April the 8th. Uh to order. Roll call, please. Alderman Bob Iverson, Michael Kaine here, Jim Pashard here, Carolyn WS, Heidi Wilson, Ed Butler, Chairman Mike Poor present. Four present. Four present. We do have a quorum. Item number two is the approval of the minutes. These will be from March the 11th. If there are no corrections, need a motion to approve. So move. Second. All those in favor? I oppose. Okay. Item number three is approves the agenda. There are no uh deletions from the agenda. So need a motion to approve the agenda, please. So move. Second. That's it's got to be one of you three. All those in favor? All those in favor? I I opposed. Okay. Item number four, audience comments. Madam clerk, has everyone a chance to complete a yellow card who wish just to speak this evening? Okay. When I call your name, please come to the podium. You have three minutes to speak. Have Doug Ars regarding the council minutes council meetings and procedures item number 11. Thank you. Um and greetings all. Um I do uh rise this evening to to discuss uh that proposed change. I would suggest that if there are issues with obtaining quorums and things there perhaps are better ways to manage uh in order to get the eight votes. I believe that uh diminishing the role and the authority of the eight alderman that are typically required uh to approve things. Not to say that there aren't situations where the mayor does have the authority to break a tie and other votes. That should

remain the same. But I would suggest that uh or request that everybody consider moving forward with changing it so that it only takes seven aldermanic votes to get an item passed. Uh for 35 to 37 years, uh that's how it's worked. Everybody's known that it takes eight to get the job done and sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. Uh but that is uh what the standards were established. And I would hate to see the standards lowered due to the reasons. It wasn't real clear in the media why it was being proposed to to make the change. I'm assuming that's part of it. We have had some uh attendance problems over the history. I'm not familiar with recent years, but I know that one of the things I felt was appropriate and it was discussed but was not passed is if alderman can't get to the meetings, they shouldn't get get paid. And for me, that's city council meetings. Uh, you know, it's nice that we do a lot of work and we should do a lot of work outside of the realm of these meetings, but these meetings are when alderman serve their role, represent their constituents, and make votes that matter. And we all have circumstances that prevent us from getting to meetings sometimes, but I would uh strongly suggest that if there are other ways to do it, that perhaps managing that through stopping payment, and I know that's tough to do when you just had an election. We probably should have had that discussion two months ago uh to get that approved before an election can take place. But I can tell you this uh I would hate to see this be approved and then get revisited. I would be asking to revisit it soon assumably upon getting seated uh because I feel strongly that eight votes is achievable. It's reasonable out of 14 people. And uh sometimes if we have elected officials who aren't able to serve the role that it's time to step down. you know, we all have health issues and things that prevent us from being able to move forward. And no, no disrespect in that.

So, I would ask that uh this be u not passed, whether it be tabled or sent to the future council. I also don't feel a council that is in a lame duck, so to speak, session, uh should be approving what the next council will be operating under in rules because it may not be an issue with the next council. But I don't know enough of the history as to what drove this. But it does diminish the role and the authority of alderman that are the closest representatives to the people. And so eight is not an unreasonable number. Let's stay with eight. I have no issue with uh the u the fact that if it doesn't pass a committee, it should go to the council. I've always felt, you know, one committee shouldn't stop the vote of of the thoughts of 14 people. So certainly support that change. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Elect Arms. Just a little u just a little history. We talked about this a couple years ago and it's been going back and forth back and forth for a couple years. U we were informed by the previous corporate council that uh we could operate on a majority of a quorum of alderman present u to pass things. Uh we found out later that wasn't true. And since we don't have our own rules in place in chapter 31, it causes us then to have to go by the dictate of the state on what they say is required. So all we're doing is trying to get some language in our rules as to how things will proceed. Um that in part of it was uh because you had 10 alderman present. It was a 7 to3 vote, but yet it failed to move forward even though it had a majority. That was the last thing we voted on was was on the

lounge. Um, is why it was brought back for reconsideration. So, it's it was trying to clarify that a majority rules, I guess you could say, even though it does the state statute that we have to follow because we don't have rules says eight. So that's kind of some of the history, but we'll we'll be discussing it um this evening. Okay. Anyone else? No, that's all I have. Chairman, anyone else like to address the council public works committee? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to chairman's comments. I just made my comments, so we got rid of that one real quick. Um item number six, approves the payrolls. These will be for the payrolls from April the 4th. Need a motion in a second, please. So, a second. Okay. Questions on the payrolls? Seeing none. Roll call, please. Pashard, yes. WS, yes. Wilson, Butler, Iverson, Okaane, yes. Yes. Or yes. For yes. Thank you. Item number seven, approval of the vouchers payable. These will be the payables for April the 8th. Need a motion in a second, please. So, we second it. Okay. Um, any questions? All right. Roll call, please. Alderman WS, yes. Wilson, Butler, Iverson, Okaane, yes. Bashard, yes. Four. Yes. Four. Yes. Four. Yes. Thank you. Uh, moving on to item number eight, public transportation. Director White. We have 8A is a resolution awarding bid number 770 for the purchase and installation of a new engine for the transit bus. I need a motion to second, please. Second. Okay, Steve. Yeah. So, we put this out to bid uh a couple of months ago. Um unfortunately,

as always, we only got one bid, but it it came in about $4,500 more than what expected, but with the price of everything the way it is, um it wasn't that big of a surprise. Um, it does come with a fiveyear parts and labor warranty. So, um, at least it's a brand new motor and something that's not reconditioned. We know where it's coming from. Who ever thought you'd be paying $66,000 for an engine? Do we do installation on that inhouse public works or is that we have to do it? Uh, it goes to uh Cumins in Bloomington. Okay. And they install it that way. All the parts and labor warranty starts with them. So they can't say that anything was installed wrong. Questions? Anybody else? Oh, I was like for Sherry over there. Okay. Uh, roll call, please. Alderman Wilson, Butler, I Yes. Bashard, yes. Wans, yes. Poor. Yes. Four. Yes. Four. Yes. Thank you. Any comments on your report, Steve? No. I'll answer any questions. Ridership's up. Continues to grow. Yes, sir. Up uh about 11,600 riders from last year. So, gas keeps going up. I might be riding it. Yes, please do. I did hear it's going down though. Anyway, um okay, moving on to item number nine. Uh we do have uh police on our agenda tonight. Uh Chief Y asked me if we could bring a resolution forward. So, uh, 9A is a resolution requesting to encumber funds within the police department for the fiscal year 2425 budget to the fiscal 2526 budget for the purchase of police radios. Uh, need a motion in a second, please. I'll make a motion. Second. Okay, chief.

What we found out when we were trying to replace uh some parts and individual radios is that our radio is now obsolete and cannot we cannot get parts for it uh for them regularly nor um have any type of expectation of reliability. Uh therefore we were able to find money that we uh had saved within our budget to redirect. However, we always want to uh have a proper te uh test and evaluation period and we did not believe that making a purchase prior to the end of the fiscal year uh it would be cutting it very close and we didn't want to purchase something without uh proper uh assessing it properly. Yeah. So, it's using this year's funds this last this fiscal year's funds next year basically is what we're doing. Yes. And and we expect to do it as soon as possible. However, uh only after due diligence for the product. Questions. Okay. Roll call, please. Alman Butler Iverson O'Aine. Yes. Bashard. Yes. WS. Yes. Wilson Poor. Yes. For yes. Or yes. Thank you. Any item information, Chief? Not at this time. Thanks for letting me bring this. No problem. Okay. Moving on to item 10. Uh public works director Ruie. We have uh 10A is a resolution awarding the contract for bid number 771 to the tur turtle run stream stabilization project. Need a motion in a second, please. So moved. Sorry. Second. Okay. This is uh awarding the contract to uh the contractor for the Turtle Run stream stabilization project. this uh materialized about a year ago when we were approached by Turtle Run about erosion and so forth and I did bring this a several months ago that gave you all heads up that we were going to put

this out to bid. So we engaged Farnsworth Group to come up with a plan to uh uh do some work in the ditch there and this basically drains everything from townway to countryway east road and the mall. So there it's a large drainage area that goes through an easement that the city got from the Elks Club back in the early 70s. Uh and so within this permanent easement uh with the discharge and so forth, we're allowed to get in there and uh maintain it. So that's that's what this resolution is basically going in there to uh stabilize the the ditch. Chairman, some of the first calls I received as mayor were from neighbors in this area with issues of flooding in their yards and such. Um, so I hate that it's taken this long, but I'm glad that our team's come up with the resolution. Well, anybody that's seen it after a big rain or during a big rain sees the amount of water that goes through there. Yeah, it it is truly amazing how much water does go through this area. Any questions? Roll call, please. Vice Chairman Iverson, Alderman Okaane, yes. Pashard, yes. WS, yes. Wilson, Butler, yes. Four, yes. Or yes. Thank you. Um, I have information. Yeah, we got a few different things. I'll let Logan expand on one of them, but uh just wanted to give everybody a heads up. Uh, South Street, we're pushing very hard to get South Street opened up. Uh it will we are intending and pushing very very hard that it is opened up prior to the 18th of April. That's kind of the the timeline that we're looking at. Uh the contractor currently is running plenty ahead of schedule to allow for a little

bit of weather delay there. Uh however, I just wanted to be clear. We're going to open it um to ensure that it's open for any detour routes for uh the breezy demo. Uh however uh it'll be kind of temporaried and as soon as we are able to ensure that it isn't going to be needed for a detour route, we will then have them do the permanent patching. So uh you'll see it open back up, but just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that it won't remain like that. Uh there's patching that has to be done uh after that uh time, but we want to make sure that that is available for a detour route if and if if and when it is needed. Okay. Okay, I'm I'll have uh Alderman poor uh circulate a couple of documents for you. Um I got theirs. I'll get I'll grab one of you pass. So what he's going to pass around is um for consideration to send a resolution to um city council next Tuesday. Uh the reason why is the numbers were not received until 3:30 today. Um, so this is in regard to the Dyn machine relocation project. I've been kind of sprinkling information as it comes in over the last couple of months. It's taken months and months to figure out a couple of um items for the relocation that are over what the original bid contract was. So, what you'll have in front of you is a item itemized breakdown and brief summary of the requested change orders from the contractor for the project. And I think out of simplicity, I can just go down through each one of them and tell you what it is and how it came to be. Um, so we started out with the original

contract sum of roughly 1.495 $495 million. Um, and then the contractor initially had requested these first four change orders, which is the concrete ramp edition and roughly $19,000. Uh at the design, we thought that a loading dock that had a little bit of a ledge on it would be beneficial for the movement, the relocation of the equipment. It turns out that is not the case. A ramp needed to be installed to get the trucks actually into the space or forklift. Um, asbestous abatement, the office space had asbests. It was just covered up. Nobody knew about it in the amount of $17,000. Um, we had to replace the heaters in the facility. um they were functioning but most of them were not functioning very well or not functioning at all by the time the project came to fruition. Uh so that was in the amount of $40,000. And the good news was we were able to save some money on the type of roofing material installed um to offset a lot of those change orders in the amount of $47,000. So that brought us to the point of a contract sum to around $1.5 million. The the items that came in today um for which we've been waiting on for months um are what you see in the amount of $316,000 and $32,000. Okay. So where does the $316,000 come from? As the project started to progress, uh it was the initial welding shop was going to be out in a um nonclimatec controlled shed. It's located to the east side of the property. As the project

progressed, that wasn't going to work out very well. Uh they wanted to they wanted to bring it inside where there's a climate control environment for their employees. With that happening, other code requirements become necessary. Um, electrical upgrades, mostly uh ventilation of the space. Um, so it is it is quite costly to do that. Um, to be frank with you, if if we would have known that at the start, this would have been a cost in the bid initially. It's just coming right now. Um, and then the $32,000 um is for when the new heaters were installed. They um are larger and they dropped lower which brought in another code item which requires safety bars to surround the heaters for potential forklift collisions. Um and then exit signage is added into that for um some safety measures to be included. So that brings a grand total of change orders in the amount of $378,000. Um and then I have down at the bottom the funding breakdown. So on the initial resolution for contingency, um it was passed by city council to bring in $185,000 for contingency p purposes. So that's already set aside for this to make up the remaining of the change orders. I've got we've got enough money the city has enough money in budget 121 which is the Eastern Borhees tiff district in the cash reserves and that will co that can cover the remaining $192,000 to afford these change orders. So that that is those budget amendments would take place to move the TIFF funding into the current Eastern Borhees

TIF this fiscal year to cover the changes. So with all that being said, what questions do you have for me? I also have I mean Logan's busted his butt trying to find solutions uh to to these costs, but as everyone knows, I mean, costs have escalated so much. Codes are changing so much, and I think we'll find that out when we start really delving into the fire stations and things on on the costs that are going to be associated with all the new codes. But uh you know um it's a commitment we made um and he's found the funding for the change orders. The rest of it's already budgeted. Yeah. Um so it's basically authorizing him to bring forward to the council a resolution to move the tiff money and Yeah. And to try to lessen the blow as much as we can. um the tiff district being utilized for funding in this instance. I don't have the calculation for how much is going to be brought back on the EAV upon reassessment of the space, but some if not all of this funding invested out of the tiff will be returned to the tiff district to be reinvested throughout the eastern borheis tiff. Will this be our last project with this kind of monies going into that project or is it going to be into the dines into the dynastic events occurring. Um but I hope so. Yeah. People not understanding exactly why we had went that direction. But this is this has been this has been a very challenging project. It is not easy to move a machine shop. Um there's we we hired experts um to assist us through this project. Um and even I'm

not saying mistakes were made but things happen. Other questions? Okay. So that's basically an item of information. and it'll be brought forth to the full city council next Tuesday with resolution um we haven't named it yet 2025- Yeah. So that's the resolution you have as well that would be coming with the supported document to the next full city council meeting. Okay. Yeah. I do have two more things. We can make it a little bit lighter. Um, one, I just want to make a public announcement that uh we will be accepting community block uh development grants or development block grants starting on May 1. There will be a publication listed by the city of Danville. Um, it will be a shorter time window. Typically, um, we allow applications to filter in throughout the year. As this program has grown and developed, it was unfeasible to allow for applications to come in any longer. Now, we want to make a a public announcement for an application period of two weeks on May 1. We've been telling every person that's called us throughout the year, May 1 is the date that this will open. Again, this is for um low to moderate income based on HUD standards. Um, house rehabilitations for exterior improvements only. For example, windows, doors, roof, siding, exterior items that are physically affixed to the home. Okay. So, I will be releasing um with Mumu a press release with the application. Um, come into public works. There will be an online portal, but typically um we like to have applicants come in. We can assist them with the application.

Um and it's it's quick. It takes five minutes to fill out. So um again, that will be made available May one at public works. And finally, we will be doing the same kind of application opening on May one for the downtown TIFF um RIP program, redevelopment incentive program. We'll we will be doing a press release to all downtown property owners and tenants. Um all of the details on what TIFF is and what's what's qualified will be located in a packet, but we will be opening that that program up on May one. Again, the the application um the vast amount of applications we have received throughout the year for downtown TIF has been astronomical. And typically we've been seeing in the last two to three years, the money is already allocated by the end of May. So, we want to make it fair for all business owners and property owners come in and apply and then those will be scored and assessed um by the city and then the funding will be allocated appropriately. Are those already that have already received funding from that eligible to apply again for more funding? Yeah. So we have not created a policy to limit that. Understanding the need may continue to go with these type of buildings year in and year out. Okay. Yeah. I'm sure I get questions. Hey, I've got this building. You guys got that money again. How do I get it more of it? But what is the uh financial limit on the block grants? On the block grants per. So, there isn't technically a financial cap um but the home is assessed and

um you can't really put it in writing on when a house is too far gone past it. Uh it's tricky in the city of Danville because our median and average house value is is lower than than the rest of the country. So, we can't really take the amount of investment versus the value of the home, which is typically a standard. So, we truly have to take an expert opinion or an opinion on is this house worth putting $20,000 into? And and you it's it's a lot easier than that. If the house has a roof collapsing in, we know what the inside looks like. It's pretty much that simple. You still feel comfortable about grants being received or is there going to be a hold up on that? Yes. Yes. As of right now, our marching orders is to operate business as usual. Um, all of our major funding sources, whether that be state or federal, we have received contact from them. That is assuring. Um, they are opening back up maybe in a different format or style, but they are all of them that are impacting us right now are business as usual. Okay, it's good. Okay. Any other? That's it. Got one for Dave and Eric. I noticed uh some folks were visiting the 1300 block of Chandler. 1300 block that where we just repaved and everything. Oh, yes. Yeah. We uh brought the consultant back to look at the I'm sure you witnessed the water that's percolating. So, we are working with them to get a tile under drain on the back side of the curb there. On the back side, so the road will not be torn up. No, we're not going to tear up the the roadway. We determined, yeah, we can put a tile behind uh the back of curb to capture. It's just a real high

groundwater there. That's what we're seeing. And uh so, yeah, we got to get that obviously underground. And we've got some inlets that we put in about midb block. So we will uh be doing that. Okay. All right. Uh any other questions for public works? All right. Moving on to the fun one. Item number 11, legal. We have uh Corporation Council Parker. We have 11A is an ordinance many chapter 31 city council meetings and procedures. Need a motion in a second. So move. Okay. uh by Bob Alderman Iverson was going to um present this tonight. Um Bob had to go to the hospital again. Um so I've talked with Eve. I talked with Bob. Um we had Sher Pickering, Eve Lewig, Bob Iverson worked on this along with Corporation Council Parker Corporation Council. um yeah, Richard Alenberg and the mayor and uh kind of what they came up with. This is something we'd like to say started a couple years ago, language and things trying to define for our own chapter um you know what our rules were concerning meetings. So, having not been involved because we didn't want to violate the open meeting act with too many aldermen. Um Sher, did you want to say anything? Well, I yes I would. Um we started investigating I'm sorry when we started investigating this um the quorum of 8 through 14 we asked about the attendance at our meetings and we found out that um out of 24 meetings five meetings we had 14 people at so a little over 20%. So it's, you know, we we looked at all the numbers we come up with. That's why we come up with a seven to have the

seven. Uh because we felt like at least we could do business. It's hard to do business when you have to do if you only have 13 or less people at your meeting and you need a you know a vote of eight. So that's why why we come up with a seven. I say this is something we operated like this for the last couple years until a couple meetings when Alderman Okaine said you got you can't do this. You have to have eight. Well, we've had eight since I've been on the council and since you've been on the council. No, I mean but under the previous corporation council now Simon was wrong. Well, that's why I say he was telling you what Urbana does, right? Yeah, but that's how we were operating. Yes, we were. But so anyway, um you have anything else or do you want to turn it over to Leon? I'll turn it over to Leon. Thank you. Um so um as uh was stated uh we legal uh met with older persons uh Lewig and Pickering and provided some guidance uh to help them uh with their proposal. And so what what you have is and added to um section 31.30 of the uh Danville city code. Uh there's added a paragraph B and essentially um uh as it's been mentioned currently it takes eight votes of all alder persons then holding office uh to pass a measure ordinance or resolution. Uh as you'll note uh in the proposed modification, it shall take eight votes to pass a measure, ordinance

or resolution when all alder persons then holding office are present at a city council meeting. If there's less than the full city council present, uh it can pass with seven affirmative votes. The mayor may cast an eighth or seventh vote to pass a measure, ordinance, or resolution, whether or not the vote of the alderman has resulted in a tie, or when a vote greater than a majority of the city council is required by state statute, or city ordinance to adopt the ordinance, resolution, or measure, the mayor shall not cast a vote if such vote would result in a tie. The remainder of that, the existing paragraph B, C, and D is just changed, modified uh to C, D, and E. Um, do you want to take this section by section or you want me to go through? Let's go through it and then we can ask questions. So then we do want to see now or do you want to do you want to stop and make comments? Um, I I've been at somewhere where it's been very hard to to pass something and you all have been and um I feel like we need to make some changes. Um, I'm I am for this. Um, basically because we've got to do business. We're put here to do business, not put it off. And um, I think too many times things have been tabled and sent back when they should have been voted on. And

um, for one reason or another. So, I'm I am in support of this uh to try to get um more business done in a more expedient time. Um we just in in in an ideal situation, we'd have 14y old full counsel every time. But let's face it, life happens. And I'm going to be gone one meeting in May. You know, does that mean that we can't get sick? We can't have a vacation? We can't, you know, there's going to be things and sometime it's happened that three or four have been gone at one time, you know, uh not all their faults, not you know, some for one reason or another. So, under ideal situation, eight's great, you know, but we don't have ideal. We have lives and we do do our best. I don't disagree with with uh Alman Arts about this at all. uh that we are elected to be here, but we do have lives. And so I think we need to take that into consideration when we think about this that um I mean just like Bob, he's he's not able to be here tonight. You know, it's there's this life happens. Life happens. I've been on the council for 24 years and I think I've missed maybe six meetings in 24 years. Bution that's just me the rule. But I've never I mean when only 20% is present at five meetings out of 24. That's tells you something. Yeah. I worked 38 years and had six months of time saved up when I retired. So, I mean, but anyway, um this in no way

affects the supermajority vote of 10 for overturning things, I'm assuming, right? It still takes 10 to overturn like the zoning commission or anything that requires a supermajority, correct? Elected alderman. So, that doesn't affect that in any way, shape, or form. It's mainly just for operating business during full city council meetings. Um, you going to talk? Okay. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to somebody not having a vote going their way on on occasion. I I still believe in the eight vote. Uh, I think it makes us work harder. Uh, I Googled that uh just to see what it said. It says it uh it helps a majority of our members ensure decisions reflect the view of the broader body of the whole council, not just a a handful to show up, not a small minority. Also, I don't know where it you guys came up with the mayor voting. The mayor is only allowed to vote on state statute for ties. If if I'm gone, that means the mayor can vote for me. That's not right. The mayor job should not be voting except for a tie at seven votes, which technically if you had 14 alderman, you had seven yes or seven no. Then the if you changed it to the seven votes, he could vote to seven, but he could vote two or three different ways. It's not we're not set up for that. We didn't our the city people of Davville did not vote for a mayor that could vote. They voted for him to run the city and the councilmen run the meetings and do the legislation, not him doing both. That'd be like the president going to the

Congress and voting. It's just not right. Does. So, so he doesn't vote. So, Alderman Okane, I understand what you're saying and I agree with what you're saying hypothetically, but what you've said is not quite accurate. the way the the way the language is written currently it says and this is uh this is uh C under under exhibit 31.3 oh it is 30 I'm sorry 31.31C it says the mayor shall not vote on any ordinance resolution or motion except when the vote of the alderman has resulted in a tie so that's exactly what you're saying right or when one half of the alderman then holding office have voted in favor of an ordinance resolution or motion even though there is no tie vote. So currently I can currently if you get to seven votes I can or whoever is the future mayor he or she can cast the eighth vote. That's the way it's written currently in our ordinance. Read please. Yes sir. Um it says the mayor shall not and it's been this way since I think Mayor Jones. The mayor shall not vote on any ordinance, resolution, or motion except when the vote of the alderman has resulted in a tie, which is we agree on would be 77 right now. Or when one half of the alderman then holding office have voted in favor of an ordinance, resolution or motion even though there is no tie vote. So that's scratched. So right now if there were a vote of 7 to six, 7 to four or 7 to 5, 7 to four, 7 to 3, 72, 7 to one, I could cast the the eighth vote or if I'm if I die tomorrow, whoever you make the mayor could cast the vote. Um could cast the eighth vote if if it gets to seven by the seated alderman. That's the way the ordinance is currently written. Okay. I have never That's in our language right now. I I hear what he said. I've never seen that. It's never

happened. I've done it here. Well, but has has it ever happened? I've done it like once once, I think, or twice. And I think when Mayor Eisenhower was here, it happened a handful of times. Five or six, but not not often. It rarely happens. Okay. I just But when there's been six affirmative votes and you're and two people are missing and you're voting, I'm sorry, not against you, against the office. You shouldn't have a a right to vote and I just want to clarify that I was not a part of this committee. Um after after they came to their conclusions, they did show it to me, but I was not a part of this committee. said this is not something that I and the same time report it was it was when Bob and I were working on it. We just presented it to the mayor but he had nothing to do with saying anything about it. Alderman I mean elect alderman electrons just couple brief comments. I I'd just like to confirm with everyone that the way I read this the mayor would be able to vote if there's six affirmative votes and that is and that is the majority they're voting of the people that are there. If there's 10 people at a meeting, six of them vote in the affirmative. The way I read this, the mayor would be able to become the seventh vote. So now you've got six alderman and the mayor making a decision for a body of 14 people. And I having served two mayors and with all due respect to all the mayors, that is not how this is set up because the mayors control what's on the agenda. And then you start doing the picking of who's going to be at the meeting and this is the night we run things through. And so it needs to be eight. I agree with the mayor that he certainly has the authority and ability to be the eighth vote if if it is deficient by one vote. But that means that at least seven council members have agreed. The way

this is written, I don't read it that way. The way this is written, six members have agreed and he can be the seventh vote. And it just it almost makes me think that maybe if it gets to that position, I don't like the cause. I refuse to vote. So there you can't be the seventh vote. You know, it just something's wrong the way it's written with currently I would say that the way it's written, I did the math just really quick. Um basically if and this is not in taking aside it's just forformational purposes. Um you know kind of like the quorum operates on a you know they can't in the Senate they cannot um they cannot close debate unless there are 60 votes right. Um and so I mean so 60% essentially and I ran the numbers for this um and basically if you have eight that's 57% so you're almost it's we currently operate almost like the Senate of the United States of America. In that sense, I'm just again I'm not either way. I'm just saying that's practically how it works. That eighth vote does protect minority interest on a lot of things because they're they're not as many of them is not as vocal and maybe that's why it was put in as a eighth vote. I don't know. It's just something that's worked. I hate changing so much. I understand. I surprised that we haven't just gone to Robert's rule of order on quorums, but but you know, my biggest objection right now is the the six mayor voting that six votes to seven and stuff like that. It just I I think we're opening up something that could be a problem in the future. Well, some of the frustration though is if you have you have 10

alderman present and seven vote affirmative and three vote in the negative, it fails. And it's happened. I mean, even though it's a seven, technically, if every, you know, the seventh vote, the mayor would be allowed to cast the eighth. I mean, that's how it is now. If it was 77, the mayor cast the eighth vote. I'm sure there's been a lot of votes that he wished had passed that hadn't or a lot of votes that passed he wish hadn't. You just that's that's the way I don't know if you want to call this politics but it's the way that things go. So So Alderman Okane um let me ask you this. So if they if they were again I don't care either way. If they if they were if you were to strike the fact that I could vote to make it a seventh and and it said that seven could be the ma could be the deciding factor and there weren't 14 alderman here. Would you be okay with that? I'm okay with it but I could live with it a lot easier than I mayor could not vote could not cast the seventh vote. to me the mayor votes for ties or as you say to make the that one vote but I mean just you know I don't think the state of Illinois set up the mayor to vote unless he is also an alderman elected alderman and then appointed as a mayor. So do you want to strike C or that well that's in B isn't it? No, it's in C. 13131 C. It's in both. It's in both technically, but I worry there have been times also where we've had as few as 10 here. Well,

that's what I'm saying. That's and you get a seven three. And and you you all recall. I mean, thankfully, it's not been in a long time, but we had an alderman, my co-aldderman and ward one who didn't show up half of the time, and there was nothing we could do about it. And I um alderman elect will tell you I worked hard to try to pass a a vote that we were paid per DM for meetings and it didn't go anywhere. So, there was no way there's no way to hold people who don't attend accountable, which is which is sad. I've also thought that maybe you if you're worried, you should pull people ahead of time because you could do that. You can call us up and pull us and if you don't think there's going to be enough people showing up, you could pull that vote yourself before the meeting and wait for the next meeting or something. Oh, no. I mean, I I I could and would I this is not this is not my impetus, but I understand the frustration because I was an alderman who had to deal with it. That's that's all. This is not my but I but I I I don't think it's bad. I don't think but I I'm not like the champion of it either. And I understand completely. I want everybody here, too. But that's not realistic. I mean, just like I said, look at the last uh last year when we pulled that. And the thing is with this last ordinance, which was when Scott Eisenhower, it was May March of 2009, they had eight pres. Yeah. I'm sorry, nine. There was eight yays and one no. So there was nine present at that meeting. So, it's not something that's just happening now. It's happened in the past. So, Mrs. I know you gave one of the numbers. I It looks like you have some other numbers written down there. Well, it was uh at five meetings we had 14. At 11 meetings we had 13. Five meetings we had 12. Three we had 11. Okay. Mike, if in B if would you be okay if we struck uh that it takes eight votes if all older persons and holding officer

president city council meeting if we leave that if less of the full city council president a a measure ordinance and resolution will pass with seven affirmative votes period and strike the mayor may cast for seven or does that you're talking 3131 C. That's This is 3130B. Okay. Does it read you can only cast a vote for the the affirmative or or the negative? Why does it say just strike the may or may cast a vote for the seven? It take if it's a full council, it takes eight votes to pass. If it's less than a full council, it takes seven votes to f seven affirmative to pass. Chairman, I think if you struck se or seventh and just said the mayor may cast an eighth vote to pass a measure because that's how it is. The seventh strike or seventh strike or seventh, which is the way it is now. He could cast an eighth vote to make it to pass, right? Uh well, I thought you said we were and then we would have to strike um whether or not the vote of the alderman has resulted in a tie, right? I think we I think we would I think we would then leave I think then we would just leave C how it is because it already it's operate it's and then leave the C below C we would revert to the original the 3131C we would just leave alone and not make any changes not make any changes to that and then the 31 3130B strike or 7th that would accomplish what Alderman Okaine is talking about that would accomplish what you're talking about that's So if we don't have a full council takes seven, but if we do have a full council takes eight. And it doesn't change the mayor's vote or anybody else's in any way,

shape, or form. Yeah. And also, you know, is one vote or one 13 enough to make it seven or is it got to be 12 to make it seven? Well, it' be anything under 14 would make it would take seven. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It nothing would change except if it was 13 or under. 14's going to stay the same with eight votes. This is going to go through no matter what anyway. Well, no, it's got it's going to go through the this from this committee with or without a recommendation to the full council next week. I I got to discuss it and think about it before I can accept it. But, you know, I understand that clarifies some of your concern or Yeah, it does. addresses some of your concerns. Yeah. Doug, do you caller? Well, that could be added in too. But again, we'll discuss at the full council next week, but that was just something that that they worked hard on. I mean, like I said, this has been off and on for the last couple years trying to address our rules. Uh, it doesn't affect committee structure. still takes four um to pass it through to the full council with a recommendation. It still passes regardless if it's doesn't if it doesn't pass this comm because technically if it doesn't pass this committee it shouldn't move on to the full council. No, it does. No, but I mean technically it shouldn't. It goes on without recommendation. But yeah, but it but it'll still it'll move on with with or without recommendation. Doesn't make any difference on the voting. No, I think me as an alderman is the reason why we understand that because I I called and said it failed, it shouldn't go on and it didn't go on and then we did a little research, found out that it should. Yeah.

So, Doug will remember this. Just to go back a little bit on the history, when this form of government was first founded in 1987, you were paid the the way they came up with the 225. It was $75 per meeting and you had finance committee, public public works and public services I believe were the three committees and that made the 225. Um, and then they did away with finance. Then each alderman had to go to the full city council meetings and one committee meeting. So there was three meetings again for uh your $75 a meeting. So I mean that's kind of was the philosophy way back then. And then some of you got a big raise two years ago. Yours is coming. Us that weren't elected didn't get that big bump in pay. So I've been out I've been receiving the same dollars since 2001. But anyway, so that's a little history on how that all came to be too. So if you wanted to do PDM, I mean that's you can take the four meetings divide it by divide it into what we get paid and you get that much a meeting and if you don't show up you don't get that money. I mean that's that would be something we would have to do in our own rules. Um but I don't think could be done until the next or two years from now in the next because you can't vote yourself a raise or change in pay during you know if you're up for election. So that's not on the agenda either. Well, no, I'm just saying. But anyway, u Well, and and in looking when we've gone through all this, because we went through it with fine tooth fine tooth comb, there's a lot of things that need to be changed in here. So, that is something we're going to work on later. So, yeah. So, ideas like that, you know, we need those kind of ideas. There's a lot of things we talk about and vote on that aren't resolutions and stuff that, you know, Robert's rules, a simple majority might be. Let's just adopt

Robert's rules then. Yeah. Huh. Well, no. No, I know. Okay. Anybody else? Leon, do you have anything more? No. Thank you for your time and effort and riches. And um with that, we'll do a roll call and see if it moves forward with or without a recommendation. chairman. There is clar that clarification and see at the end that you guys Oh, and the three. Yeah. All ordinance resolution measures brought before subcommittee will pass the full city council whether or not they are recommended by the subcommittee. Four affirmative votes by subcommittee constitutes recommendation of the resolution res ordinance or measure. So basically what I said four would make all four of us would have to vote. That's what you're elected to do. So let's that's what you were elected to do. So roll call please. Alman Kaine. Not tonight. Bashard. Yes. Wans. Yes. Wilson Butler Iverson. Poor. Well just to make it a tie. No. Now what do we do? Oh my gosh. We have a tie. Go. This goes without recommendation. It would have went without a recommendation anyway. So anyway, uh okay. Uh items information corporation council. Any items of information? Nothing. Okay. Well, see you still under you still on here. It's illegal, correct? Okay. So, nothing to uh let me get my paper. Close session. [Applause] There is no need for close session.

Didn't get a frazzle out of them. Okay. I have information for the good of the council. I have a couple things. Okay. Um if you haven't um been out to the stadium lately, it's amazing what they're doing out there. It's going. I'm I can hardly wait for people to see it because um this in-house thing, we've got some great carpenters and some great people out there. My goodness. And then I went over to Harrison Park and was overwhelmed, too. So, um things are really happening and I'm very excited about both projects and it's going to make a big difference in the stadium and a big difference in Harrison Park. Okay. Speaking of that, the ball diamonds at Winter Park. Yeah. And the Legion, are they somehow connected now? So, uh it's just the same the same nonforprofit entity that is funding the uh pro funding those projects. Okay. Yeah. Which is the East Central Illinois Athletic Association. Okay. Because they're doing improvements there too at the Legion and at uh Yeah. Park. Okay. And then what else? Chairman, we're going to have some we're going to have some improvement at nearly all of our parks this year. Working at Douglas. I can see that. The rain quit. A lot of good things happening. Oh, yeah. Spring is busting out all over. I think there's a musical like that. All right. Anybody else? All righty. Committee members, comments, anything? Oh, we did that. Having satisfied the agenda, motion for adjournment. So move. Second. All those in favor? Opposed. We are adjourned. Just in time for something. Is there anything basketball?