City Council - Regular Meeting

This meeting of the Aurora City Council, March 10th, 2026, is hereby called to order at 6:03 p.m. Will the clerk please call the role? Alderman Barrow here. Alderwoman Garza here. Alderman Messakos present. Alman Nunes here. Alderman Franco here. Alderman Seville here. Alderman Benuelos here. Alderwoman Smith here. Alderman Bug here. Alderwoman Vade here. Alderman Larson here. Alderman White here. Mayor Lash is present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh just before we get started, I wanted to let everybody know we do have inclement weather and a threat of tornado. Uh in talking to EMA, uh they're saying that it's moved south of Aurora, but just in case, we want to make sure if there is a need to evacuate the room, uh we'll go right through the door that you came in. Um our sergeant-at-arms, a police officer there, uh will be standing there. So, you do not want to use the elevator, but make an immediate right. Uh, and then there's a set of stairs that will take you down to the basement. Certainly, nobody's forcing you to go down to the basement, you're welcome to go out in the hail and tornado on your own. Uh, but we want to make sure that if if uh things do go ary, there's a place for people to go to to be safe. Um, next, uh, Sergeant-at-Arms. Is there a motion to approve uh, Sergeant-at-Arms for this meeting?

Second. Motion was made by Alderman Franco, second by Alderwoman Garza. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries by voice vote. Uh, next I will ask Alderman Messianos if you'd like to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And we'll move right to the mayor's report. We got a full house and a long night. So, take it away, John.

Thank you so much, mayor. We are going to start tonight with the city's annual Ramadan proclamation. Members of Aurora's Muslim community are invited to join the mayor up front for the reading of the document. We have copies for each of the groups here, so you're all invited to come on up as we read out the proclamation here today. If you could have the tall people stand back. If we could, let's have some of the taller people in the back and then some of the shorter people up front so everybody could kind of come together a little bit. That'd be great.

Yeah. So, we got to have people back here on the on the D. Everybody ready?

Okay. Thank you, John. Uh, whereas Ramadan is the holiest month of the Islamic calendar and marks the first revelation of the Quran to the prophet Muhammad. And whereas the arrival of the new moon, Muslims in Aurora, the greater Fox Valley area, and throughout the globe begin the celebration of Ramadan in February. Whereas Muslims around the world observe the month by fasting each day from sunrise to sunset while praying consistently throughout the day and expanding their acts of charity to the community. Whereas Ramadan is regarded as a time for spiritual reflection, increased awareness and giving to the global poor, sick and hungry and bringing of difference between people over a shared commitment to faith. And whereas the city of Aurora is proud to be the home to a thriving and growing Muslim community served by the Islamic Center of Aurora, the Fox Valley Muslim Community Center, the Beacon House Preparatory School in the Masid Al Abd and the Islamic Center of Neapville. Whereas Aurora is committed to recognizing the community service and civic participation efforts of our Muslim community as its members greatly contribute to the city's strength, diversity, and inclusivity. Now therefore, I, Mayor John Lash, do hereby recognize the holy month of Ramadan in the city of Aurora and extend the greetings of Ramadan Mubarak and Ramadan Karim to our Muslim community.

We got to make like two rows if we can squeeze in as much as you can. Um, so shorter people in the front, taller people in the back if needed. Um, We can squeeze in as tightly as we can.

Let us know what we got to do. Okay, everyone look at me. All right, you ready? One, two, ready. One, two, and three. Big smile. All right, you're all set.

We thank everybody again for coming out here today. Uh you're going to be welcome to go to visit the development services center. There's going to be some food and more time together. Special shout out to the community events division for making that happen here tonight. I know Mike Nelson is here, so give him a round of applause, too, for making that happen here tonight. We have a couple of other news and notes from around Aurora that we'd like to get to before we move on to the rest of the meeting here. So, on Saturday, we had Vibes on the River open here at downtown Aurora to much fanfare. The place was packed. So many people showed up that they sold out on Sunday. That's a good problem to have. Congratulations again to Vibes on the River. You can visit them. They're open now at 29 West New York Street. right in the heart of Aurora and we welcome them to the city of Aurora and the downtown Aurora. This weekend, the Aurora downtown district and the city of Aurora are also set to host a free action-packed weekend of St. Patrick's Day shenanigans following significant community interest in hosting a more interactive event for St. Patrick's Day weekend. 15 different downtown businesses are set to go green and bring the Irish cheer. From delicious Irish fair and festive food specials to live entertainment and family-friendly fun, there's certainly something for everyone here in Aurora this weekend. You can find more information and get a closer view of that map on the screen at aurortown.org/downtown happenings. And finally, tomorrow is going to mark a big day for the city's My Aurora 311 team as they launch the My Aurora 311 open data portal in conjunction with it. Round of applause for My Aurora 311 and it working together. As you can see on your screen right now, the portal features multiple dashboards that update in real time, tracking inbound and outbound calls, average call duration, and requests that have been completed by my Aurora 311 staff. It also boasts a new interactive map that depicts where requests for service come

from the city, plus furnishes an interactive dashboard that compares the number of requests closed by staff in 2025 versus 2026. The launch of the portal comes exactly one year after the launch of the city's new customer service software. And since its inception, it's been a huge success. They've sustained a 128% increase in inbound calls along with a 56% increase in online requests submitted. You can access that new portal tomorrow morning at myura 311.com. Another round of applause for myura 311. Our frontline staff here in the city making stuff happen. So appreciate everybody being here tonight and thank you all for taking some time to listen.

Thank you, John. Uh next we'll move to mayoral appointments. Um I'll ask clerk to please read the first item under mayoral appointments. 2600099, a resolution authorizing the appointment of Lee Kavu and Toby Gil to the Deferred Compensation Administration Committee. Is there a motion to approve this resolution? Some second. Motion was made by Alderwoman Garza, seconded by Alderman Franco. Are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? There being no further questions, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Guerrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Vanuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug,

yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. This resolution is approved. Uh, thank you, uh, Toby and Lee for stepping up. Uh, next, uh, I know there the next ones are on the Aurora Veterans, um, Advisory Council. Uh, did all of the alderman receive the redacted DD214s that were emailed over? I don't believe I did. Not all of them that are on the list, but all of them that were sent to us. Yes.

Yep, that's correct. So, there were several members uh who were out of town, I think. Nick, do you have just a minute just to ask any questions? I know there were a few people that were unable to get us their paperwork. Hello, Nicholas Rashard Thomasson, deputy chief of staff. Yes. Uh they were sent over to Rich and should have been forwarded. There's only one that will not have it, but they are not a veteran. Uh the board allows for I think two non- veteran members, so they would not have one. So, there should be five appointments and you should have four redacted uh DD214s. Nick, can you tell us who the nonveteran is? Cardiff Wilson. Thank you.

Yes. Are there any other questions for Mr. Thompson? I got a question. So, I was under the impression when I talked to the the group today that uh Mr. Cvantes has not submitted his, but you say he did. He was actually the first to submit it. Yeah. His DD2 his DD1 12 220 22 214. Yes. the DD214 it it is in the email and then the mayor's office did receive it and we reviewed it and legal actually went through and redacted it. I know that was a concern having someone without the correct experience going through and redacting it but what was that today or was that prior to today?

That was today. Yes. So that what happened was the president of the the chair of the organization there was miscommunication had had asked for them to be sent uh to him where we wanted them sent to the third floor. Uh so Mr. Cvante sent it directly to the third floor and the rest were submitted later today. Is that correct from No, the email that was sent has all of them compiled. So, we got them at different times, but when we sent the email, they were all compiled into one. Understood. Okay. Yeah. Any other questions? Alderman Nunes. Thank you.

So, the email that this is the 5:06 p.m. Is that when I believe so? Yes. Okay. I want to make sure I was looking at the right email. Thank you. Of course. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, I'll ask the clerk to please read the next agenda item under mayoral appointments. 26 260106, a resolution authorizing the reappoint of Pedro Rodriguez to the Aurora Veterans Advisory Council. So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderwoman Garza, second by Alderman Barrero. Uh are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? Hearing none, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrera, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes,

yes. Franco, yes. Sabil, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. This resolution is approved. Clerk, please read the next item under mayoral appointment. 260107, a resolution authorizing the reappoint of Michael Zapeda to the Aurora Veterans Advisory Council. Is there a motion to approve this resolution? Motion was made by Alderwoman Garza, second by Alderman Barero. Are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? There being no further discussion, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes.

Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bait, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. This resolution is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item. 260109, a resolution authorizing the reappoint of Oscar Ramirez Jr. to the Aurora Veterans Advisory Council. So, is there a motion to approve this resolution? Motion was made by Alderwoman Garza, seconded by Alderman Barero. Are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? Hearing none. Uh, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Brero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiacos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade,

yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. This resolution is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item. 260110. A resolution authorizing the reappoint of Curtis Wilson to the Aurora Veterans Advisory Council. So, second. Is there a motion to approve this resolution? Motion was made by Alderwoman Garza, seconded by Alderman Franco. Are there any questions or discussion regarding this resolution? Hearing none, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bait, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no.

Motion carries. This resolution is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item under mayoral appointments. 260113 a resolution authorizing the reappoint of Joseé Jesus Cervantes to the Aurora Veterans Advisory Council. Motion to approve this resolution. Motion was made by Alderwoman Garza, second by Alderman Barero. Are there any questions or discussion regarding this agenda item? Hearing none, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, no. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, no. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White,

yes. Ten, yes. Two, no.

Motion carries. This resolution is adopted. Okay. You want to take a minute to do we have Do we have any of the new appointees? either Toby Gil, Ali Katavo, uh, Pedro Rodriguez, Michael Zapeda, Oscar Ramirez, Curtis Wilson, or Joseé Jesus Cervantes in the audience today. Stand up. Stay. John, you want to get a quick picture? Justin, sorry. One, two, and three. Any alderman want to join Mr. Sundes? up here. Ready? One, two, and three.

Congratulations. Thanks everybody. Okay. Next, we'll move to public comment. Uh, Madame Clerk, do we have any members of the public wish to offer public comment? We do, Mr. Mayor. Okay. If I'll ask the clerk to please read the rules of public comment.

Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, all persons shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the council. Under our rules, any person may address the city council for up to three minutes with a maximum of 30 minutes allotted for all public comment. No person other than the timekeeper or the chair for the purpose of maintaining order may interrupt a person recognized for public comment during his or her comments. Members of the city council shall not engage with nor respond to a speaker during the time set aside for public comment. Staff is directed to follow up with members of the public with respect to any concerns raised during public comment within the scope of the city's authority following the adjournment of this meeting.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Will you please read the name of the first person wishing to offer public comment? Ben Maravia. Thank you, Ben Maravia.

Welcome, Mr. Maravia. You have three minutes beginning now. Thank you. Feel free to adjust the mic if you need to. Pardon me. Feel free to adjust the mic if you need to.

Okay. Uh well, thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk. Uh one of the things that I um asked the gentleman that was talking, it was related to the uh to the showcase that we used to have there. And uh it was a trophy that it was worn by some of the Muslims kids too. And uh because I used to work at the youth center and we won like uh three or like national and regional championships and uh that shows that um as a senior citizen from the Hispanic community, we were able to embrace different uh kids um refugees from different countries and we get we opened the door to give them an opportunity to move on in their lives. It wasn't only um like soccer it was like a mentoring program and thanks to that several of those kids they are owners of business even though at the beginning they couldn't speak English we had some kids from India from uh uh Turkey and uh they reached the stars and uh a lot of us we are senior citizens in the Hispanic community but I can see I mean like I have an open heart surgery like what three months ago my wife has cancer and I was a little disappointed that I'm prided I couldn't find a place where a senior citizen can go I mean as a Hispanic senior citizen we had provide the city of Aurora with different different things all the way from hardworking people to do volunteer work to do small businesses now we have a lot

of uh our grandkids professional and uh but I would like to see more uh uh more things for the senior citizen in general. Not only I mean for the Hispanic senior citizen because a lot of them they are suffering now for like the immigration issues and also I know some of my friends they have their grandkids in the armed forces and nowadays it's very very hard for them to survive and and even the economy and and if we are able to find some kind of happiness for the senior citizen I could appreciate it very honest I mean and I know that you guys are doing an outstanding job but We do have to work as a team. In that way, we can show our aura that we care for our citizens. Thank you for your time. And good night.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, our director of community services is here and uh if she could just meet with him briefly to get his contact information. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wish to know for public comment. Verita Andrews. Good evening. Welcome, Miss Sanders. You have three minutes beginning now.

Yes. Um, good evening and, um, thank you all. Um, especially you, John, um, mayor, to my husband, and all the other veterans who have served, I just like to say thank you. So, this is like the third time me being here before the council. They say three times is a charm. So, I just came to make myself um clear to why I'm here. Um I wanted to say if the city uh of Aurora um made a priority for veterans, um it would have been already been done by now. So, Stable Able, um, which is my nonprofit organization, is here and ready to provide housing for veterans that they need and deserve. So, we're here to step up to fill in the gap. So, I'm asking today for partner, for your partnership, your support to make this happen. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, right? But for me, I want to bring a piece to the pie. And and so with that being said, that every veteran deserves to have a seat at the table. And we're here to ensure, you know, that they can have the um the resources and that they deserve. And again, I'm asking for your support to make stable able cornerstone for our community. um to make you know this just really happen. So again, I hope this third time me being before you guys, you know, um impact I hopefully I can say have said

something to impact, you know, your decision in helping bring uh stability or housing for veterans to King County. And again, thank you for your time and hopefully I don't have to come back a fourth time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Andrews. If you want to also uh speak with our community services director. I know we have some housing uh solutions, but nothing on veterans, but she can get your contact information. Thank you. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wish to offer public comment.

Rick Lawrence. Ethics and corruption. John, you made a campaign slogan out of that and pay to play, pay to play, pay to play. You got elected mayor. What'd you do about it? Nothing. In fact, every contract that you said that Rich Iran was corrupt and paytoplay, you borrowed $100 million to fund it. You didn't cancel any of it. And then you did the credit card with, you know, the whole thing with the credit card. You gave that organization millions of dollars more. you did nothing about it, you know, and somebody could say all the sta all your staff, the their husbands or whoever organizations they were involved in, they gave you money. Their spouse ends up with a job paid more than they would ever be made in their life. Many of them taxpayers are paying over $500,000 in your paytoplay for your campaign staff. You gave them all jobs, not because they were qualified, but because they worked for you. That could be corruption. So, we came up with this gimmick. You know, Mike, you've been around a long time. In all the time we've been around, one alderman was corrupt and got arrested and convicted on that. Had nothing to do with campaign donations. Had nothing to do with it. If an alderman's taking a bunch of money, it's very obvious. It doesn't take money. I didn't take money as an alderman. I paid for it all myself. It was nothing. But all of Dan Barrera was absolutely correct. The corruption has always been questioned in the mayor's office and his staff. Get rid of the mayor's office, you end most of the problem. Alderman Franco, when he said we need a a city manager, he's absolutely correct. Get rid of the political groups. Alderman Larson sitting up here because

the DuPage County re Democrats ran around and did a whole campaign. Did he declare that? No. They put his name on all the flyers and everything else. So, this ordinance wouldn't change that. This ordinance is a gimmick. It's to pretend to the public that, oh, we're going to knock out corruption when the corruption and all the contract is in the mayor's office and the staff that presents these corruptions. Yeah, I push back on the alderman for not standing up against the mayor and questioning some of those contracts, but that isn't because of campaign donations. That's a gimmick. That's just to pretend that you're doing something. But you did nothing about everything that you claimed that Rich Iran did. You actually funded them all. You put the taxpayers in debt, a hundred millions of dollars to fund what you said was corrupt. Why didn't you stop it? Why didn't you do something then instead of this this thing and saying all the alderman can't you know have this fee and that fee and do all this the alderman aren't collecting a bunch of money it's very easy to see what alderman Mike you know that we've been around a long time in the 40 years I've been in this involved in this city it has not been an issue

thank you Mr. Lawrence. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing now for public comment. So I have Kathy Yarbor.

Welcome Mr. Yarbor. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for having me here. My name is Kathy Yarro and I'm a lifelong resident of Aurora and I currently reside in the fourth ward. I'm here to speak in support of the proposed ethics reform ordinance. Last year, over 2,000 Aurorans signed a petition to limit the campaign contributions to anyone doing business in the city. Many of us in Aurora were fed up with the paytoplay that we saw occurring over and over again during the last administration. We've seen Scientel, Cyrus 1, Factor, and Penn Gaming walk into town and get sweetheart deals. and our former mayor and some city council members, even though they gave them everything they asked for, even though it was against the best interest of some of our residents. And it's for this reason I'm asking that you pass this ethics reform. I'm going to give some examples of why we need this reform. The following are contributions to our alder people that I found on the Illinois State Board of Elections website. Alderman Bade, Scientel Solutions, $2,000 contribution. Alderman Garza, Scientel, $3,000. Alderman Smith, Warman Construction Group, $5,000. Alderman Franco, JH Real Estate Partners, $1,000. Lindseay Windows, $1,000. Scientel Solutions, $3,000. Strive strategies inind donations $9,000. Your alderman Franco's total $14,000. Some of our past alder people, these are all from Scientel. Alderman Warman $19,000. Alderman Jenkins $8,000.

Alderman Llamas $1,000. So overall, Scientel donations between six older people was $36,000. That's half of the council and more than enough to sway votes and give out contracts. No one on our city council should have a problem with this proposed reform. It's simply holding everyone to a higher standard and providing transparency. This should apply not just to the mayor but also the alder people. I believe that any alderman who wants to bypass ethical transparency will surely be replaced in the next election. The people of Aurora want ethical and transparent leaders. And so as I wrap up, I ask all of you to act with honor. Pass this ordinance to strengthen trust in our city government. This ordinance is long overdue.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Arbor. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment. Steve Balina.

Welcome, Mr. Balina. You have three minutes beginning now.

Good evening, gentlemen and ladies. Um, I believe you're all sitting up there because you were voted in by the people. We the people. And you have before you today an ethics reform bill. So, I have one question. Actually, I've got two questions. One, what would the harm be to the general public for you to pass that bill? You are up there to represent us, to take care of us physically, and to protect us. Why wouldn't you vote for that bill? If you don't vote for that bill, you're acting in your own interests and you're not representing the people. And frankly, you shouldn't be up there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bolina. Let's ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing off for public comment. Salah Khaled.

Welcome, Mr. Khaled. You have three minutes beginning now.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. For months now, you have been debating an ethics reform ordinance. As a 29-year resident of Aurora, I urge you to pass the proposed ethics reforms before you for consideration and to pass the strongest versions of them. All of you are obligated to represent the will of the people, and the people have made themselves abundantly clear. More than 2,000 Aurora residents signed a petition to put a referendum question on the ballot that would restrict campaign donations from companies doing business with the city. Alderwoman Patty Smith, you were the one to file the objection to that question appearing on the ballot. Coincidentally, you have also benefited from thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from donors affiliated with Fox Valley Developers, a company that won more than $24 million in incentives, tax sharing agreements, and city contracts during the administration of Mayor Richard Irvin. Speaking of the former mayor, he and his political action committee received more than $150,000 from Scientel Solutions, a company which over the years has won millions in technology and security contracts from the city of Aurora. Their generosity hasn't been limited to just the former mayor, but several alder people, past and present. In fact, Scientel has donated thousands to the campaigns of Carl Franco, Wani Garza, and Schwab, in addition to others no longer on the council. Multiple independent and nonpartisan outlets have been reporting on Aurora's culture of pay-to-play politics for years, leading to deep and widespread frustration among city residents, much of which was expressed in last year's municipal election, in which we saw a massive increase in voter turnout compared to years past. Older people, listen to your constituents. Respect the will of the people. Our city's reputation has been tarnished by corruption, perceived or otherwise. This is your chance to put us on the right track. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Khaled. I'll ask the clerk to please read the name of the next person wish to offer public comment.

Anonymous Aurora resident. Good evening everyone. Welcome anonymous. You have three minutes beginning now.

I'm infamous for that. Uh, I just want to also real quick just help with stable able because my husband's a veteran and um we need to help support our our veterans as much as possible because of federal cutbacks. We need all the help we can get and I also along with many of you I recognize the faces at the warming center. Um we have plenty of homeless people here in our community and many of them are also veterans. So, anything we can do to support an organization that will help that population, I would appreciate. Um, I also want to help support our city workers. Um, anyone who is working deserves a fair contract and be able to be paid a fair wage and their benefits. Um, I didn't know any of them were even going to be here till I walked in. So, that was just an added comment. Um the older people who are here, some of which have a history and were here before the current administration as the previous people spoke, they have um received plenty of money um and the sources that they've gotten that from like Scientel or yeah, Scientel, uh Factor, etc. those um every level of this administration and and Rick is trying to target just the mayor's office. It's not just the mayor's office. Everyone from the top down should have the same level playing field and the same um scrutiny. So, it's not fair to just ask for future older people who are applying to go through these um examination of their funding and stuff like that. It has to be the current people here too because there's plenty of people that have a lot of explaining to do. Um I know now why there's some push back also from the union people here tonight because the unions have

supported a lot of those campaign funds. So that's why they don't want the gravy train to end. Apparently we need some reform for um the residents of this community. You've had at least 2,000 people who have put in their two cents in support of this. So, it is unfair for our older people to disregard their wishes. And believe me, when it comes time for reelection, we won't forget because it's time that we clean house and that we have uh an opportunity to have more ethics in in our local government. and the prior administration had a lot to um a lot to be desired for that. Uh it's systemic and the rules should apply to everyone in every level. So I appreciate your time and thank you and for those who want more information about the individual alder people. You can also do a foyer search and you can also

Thank you anonymous your three minutes is over. Thank you. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing now for public comment. Jim French.

Welcome Mr. French. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, I appreciate the time. It's nice to be here. Um I'm not going to speak about the ethics, although I could. That would be perfectly fine with us. We're good with that. Um, we're here tonight because, as you may have seen as you walked into the building, we were uh demonstrating outside that we're having an issue with contract negotiations. We're the last the last union uh having difficulty getting to the end of the table. We're right near the finish line and we're just not getting the response that we would like from your staff. So, we would like a little bit of guidance if you could. Why are we out here this evening? We're out here this evening because we're at a lot we're at a standstill now and we don't like to be at a standstill. Our contract expired in December of 2024. We've been negotiating since January of 2025 in good faith and we'll continue to do so as long as we can get cooperation on both sides. That's what we're looking for. But we just seem to have again ran into a little bit of a log jam. Every other contract in the city has already been decided and has been determined and has been ratified and everybody is doing everything that they should have done exactly as it should be. We're in a position now where we've gone into our negotiations and I guarantee you we can point to each and every space because this digital age that we're in, we're able to show what the other unions received in their contract negotiations, which is exactly what we're asking for in our negotiations. We're not asking for any more than anybody else. We feel that we're just as important to you as any other entity is with the city and we want to be treated as such. We do not want to be treated as less. We've been offered less and my members are not going to stand for that. We have nearly 180 members and over 75% of them are women. I don't know if that matters. I don't know if that's anything important in this discussion. All I do know is that sometimes it takes a little bit longer to get to the finish line and we're okay with that. But we're not going to accept less than any anybody else has gotten and we think that that's fair. We just looking for a fair

contract as our sign said outside. just give us a fair contract. Our members include a wide variety of people across the city. And I think that I know that you have many different locals that you deal with, but you may not be aware of who's in our union. In our union, we have telecommunicators at the 911 center. We have the CDTs in the jail. We have the records department over at the police department. In this building, we have many of the financial institutions that we have positions within. We have all the customer service representatives in the city. We do all of the inspectors within the city, whether they be with property standards, building and permits, or even the fire department. We also have all the employees down at the animal control. So, we have a wide variety of people who do a various amounts of different jobs for different things at different times within the city. They're all critical services to you. We don't want to see any of that change. We're looking to make everybody's life better, and we think you can help with that. We don't always agree on everything when we say

Thank you, Mr. French. Time is up. Thank you very much for your time. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person now for public comment. Karen Gleos.

Welcome, Miss Gleos. Feel free to adjust the microphone. You have three minutes beginning now. Good evening, mayor and uh fellow council people. Um I'm my name is Karen and I reside I'm a resident of the 10th ward. I just want to speak directly to my um alder person who represents my ward or in where I live. I want you to vote yes and pass the ethics reform. um 2,000 people signed a petition to have it on the ballot and it was not considered. I um I have talked to neighbors and they are all in favor of ethics reform. My only my only comment is to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Giggos. Last clerk, please read the name of the next person wish to offer public comment. Astra Gene. It's draining. It's still draining. Um, welcome. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thanks. Uh, yeah. Uh, pass the ethics ordinance. Um, I think a lot of people have probably been calling and emailing you, uh, whether you've been ignoring them or not, you know, but like the people you represent want you to pass it, like, you know, it doesn't go far enough. You're right. Um, it should it should cover more uh more elected offices, but you know uh if you wanted that to happen that happened earlier in the process, not you know to the Chicago Tribune. Um, yeah, that's it. Thank you. Ask clerk to please read the name of the next person for public comment. Zack Bishop.

Welcome, Mr. Bishop. You have three minutes beginning now.

All right. Uh, good evening. Um, my name is Zachary Bishop. I'm an Illinois historian and Aurora resident, and I'm here tonight to speak about an opportunity that the city has to honor its rich history. As many know, in the decades leading up to the Civil War, Aurora residents aided enslaved black Americans on their journeys to freedom in Canada, a movement known as the Underground Railroad. The city owns a site that was part of this powerful historical moment. 22 West Park Place is a city-owned lot located in Ward 2 on the east side. From 1841 until 1856, this land was the home of the first congregational church of Aurora. The church's tr congregation strongly opposed slavery and turned their space into a hot spot for abnitionist discourse in Illinois. In the 1850s, the church even welcomed famed aurator and abolitionist Frederick Douglas to speak at its pulpit. The church has also been identified as the union depot of the Underground Railroad in Aurora and many of its members participated in the movement. The first congregational church building has been demolished and 22 West Park Place is now empty. But instead of selling this property or turning it into a parking lot, I propose that the city work with community leaders to transform the site into a place where RO RORA's role in the Underground Railroad can be recognized and celebrated. This could be a long project, but as a first step, I want to nominate 22 West Park Place to the National Park Services Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. In 2023, I successfully nominated a house in Downer's Grove to this network. So, I have a history of navigating the process. Being added to the network would provide prestigious national recognition um and help promote heritage tourism in Aurora. All I would need from the city is a letter of consent for the property be property to be added to the network to freedom. Last month I emailed Mayor Lacia's office with an invitation to talk about my proposal further. And

this morning I emailed information to Alderwoman Garza and also my alderman. I have also spoken about this matter with the members of the African-American Heritage Advisory Board who expressed their enthusiastic support to recognize the history of 22 West Park Place. I look forward to speaking with the city on this matter further. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I'll ask uh Nick Thompson if you'll Casey. Thank you. Madam Cler, do we have any other members of the public wishing to offer public comment? We do not.

Okay. If there's no more speakers, we'll move next to the consent agenda and the direct to council consent agenda. Uh I'll ask the clerk to please read both agendas in full. 260003, an ordinance reserving 2026 volume cap in connection with private activity bond issues and related matters. 2600050, a resolution authorizing the extension of a lease with the Fox Valley Music Foundation for property at 19 to 21 Broadway. 2600083, an ordinance amending chapter 2, section 2-5000 of the Aurora City Code to increase the membership of the mayor's sustainable Aurora Advisory Board from 7 to nine members. 26116, a resolution authorizing the appointment of Jenny Park to the Asian-American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Advisory Board. 260117 a resolution authorizing the appointment of Mercedes Walls, Jamil Morales, Raymond Bronky, and Kenan Cooper Gilmore to the Aurora LGBTQ Advisory Board. 260123, a resolution authorizing the director of purchasing to execute a contract with Air Productions in the amount of $318,978 for sound equipment at River Edge Park. 260125, a resolution authorizing the director of purchasing to enter into an agreement with Genserve LLC for preventative maintenance of the city of Aurora's lift station and facility emergency standby generators. 251052, an ordinance for the establishment of special service area number 225 Prairie Meadows for storm water management purposes related to real property located at the north corners of Prairie Street and Rockwell Road. 251054, an ordinance for the establishment of

special service area number 226, Wheatland Crossing for storm water management purposes related to real property located at the southeast corner of Route 34 and Farnsworth Avenue. 251055, an ordinance for the establishment of special service area number 227, Habitat Green Freedom for storm water management purposes related to real property located north of Jericho Road, approximately 450 degrees west of South Edgelon Drive. 251056, an ordinance for the establishment of special service area number 228, Cyrus 1, for storm water management purposes related to real property located at 2725 Built Road 251058, an ordinance for the establishment of special service area number 231, Eola Preserve for storm water management purposes related to rail property located west of Old Eola Road and north of Liberty Street. 251060, an ordinance for the establishment of special service area number 232, Abby Meadows, for storm water management purposes related to real property located east side of Radent Road at Mesa Lane 260139 approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, February 24th, 2026 city council meeting.

Are there any questions or motions to remove any items from either the direct council consent agenda or the consent agenda? So move. Second. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion made by Alderman Franco, seconded by Alderwoman Garza. Um, there being any further questions or discussion on the consent agenda, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Fade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no.

Motion carries. The consent agenda and direct council consent agenda are both approved. Uh, do we have Jenny Parks or Park? Um, Mercedes Walls, Jamil Morales or Raymond Bronky, Kenan Cooper Gilmore in the audience tonight. Let's give them a round of applause. Thank you for your service. And if you guys want to step up, we'll take a quick photograph. Of course. There you go.

Sorry. Are you guys ready? Here we go. One, two, and three. Let's give another round of applause. Okay. Uh, next we'll go to unfinished business. I'll ask clerk to please read the first item under unfinished business. 25779, an ordinance amending and adding sections 2-185,15-130, 320, 321, 322, and 354 of the code of ordinances of the city of Aurora pertaining to the disclosure of economic interests, campaign contributions, lobbying, and the use of city property and the city seal.

Okay, before we begin, just want to kind of ask for level of civility. I think last time we started cutting each other off before people were done speaking. Um, if we do do that, I will be uh gabling that person to close their comments. Um, I want to also begin by again thanking Corporation Council for all the extensive work that you put in this weekend um and uh answering people's phone calls and drafting amendments for this uh ordinance. And then uh again, thanks to Alderman Bug who uh shared this ordinance back with me when I was an alderman um and has been a lot of tedious work or all of the members of the RAP committee. Um typically for the public, any ordinance that impacts the 12 alder persons in any way takes a few months to get through council. Uh this one is no different. Uh before we go into this, I just want to talk a little bit of what this uh ordinance does not do because there's legal reasons and there's some discussion both among aldermen and in the public. Uh some alderman have asked if we can write an ordinance that caps campaign donations for political parties or other interest groups. Uh the answer to this question is that this would violate state law. The only reason we can cap campaign donations at all is because we are tying it to a clause about doing business with the city of Aurora. In other words, when we pick who we do business with, we can also decide what disqualifies them. Uh this is also true with the limits or caps on donations from lobbyists. A second question we received, there were some alderman who had uh concerns about a situation in our past to address uh several years ago when a city employee ran for office in DuPage County. That employee then successfully sought relatively large contributions from a vendor who did business with the city of Aurora. Um there's nothing we can do because uh this is very similar to the first one. After legal review, we learned that the city of Aurora cannot prevent a city employee from political activity and the city cannot regulate

contributions for a judicial race in DuPage County. Uh this is per the local government employees political rights act. Um what the ordinance does do, and this is a very simple ordinance uh for the public, it puts $1,500 cap on political campaign donations for any business or corporation that does business with the city of Aurora. It also prevents registered lobbyists who have business before the council from donating. Uh the only businesses that this would impact are those doing business or seeking to do business or seeking a financial incentive in any way from the city. Uh the other 5,072 businesses in the city of Aurora can donate um at will as long as they're not seeking business from the the city. Uh the ordinance also requires new candidates to file a six question disclosure. The reason we require new candidates to file the disclosure form is because existing alderman and and mayor already have to file those disclosure forms already. Uh currently existing elected officials and roughly 160 city staff members are required to fill this form out and they fill it out four times a year. Uh this puts a tremendous burden on the city clerk's office uh because they have to end up chasing around 175 people every quarter to make sure that they fill out the disclosure paperwork. Uh so one change that we're proposing is to move that from four filings down to one filing. Typically they don't change people don't change their jobs with the exception of a few summer jobs. Um and then the other thing is that it would be filed on May 1st which is consistent with where the state files their statement of economic interest. Um the other change that we're seeking is moving from three questions to six questions. And I know that there's uh some discussion about that and there might be an amendment on it. Um, but we also publish all these uh answers to these questions online. It's through our open data portal. Um, just so the public can see what that looks like if they want to do their own research. I'm going to ask John if he'll pop it up on the screen uh so they can

see. I know all the older people fill it out, but the public might want to know where they can find this information. Uh, so there's just a look at the campaign finance, and I think if you you find my name, you'll find it there because I I do have a political campaign committee. So, it requires both all the electeds and the 170ome employees to answer these questions. Uh, and then if you'll scroll down just a little bit more, John, you can see the rest of the questions that we currently answer or ask employees to to ask. So, yep. So, that that's where this information will be published. Um, and there are some more details than just moving from three questions to six questions. Um, but that gives the public some level of of understanding of what oversight will be coming. Uh, that being said, I know we've had multiple presentations on this. Uh, I know there were a few changes and we uploaded a new copy with some of the changes that were recommended at the last city council meeting. Um, if the you want to see another presentation, we can certainly do that. If you want to just move to the part of the changes, uh the clerk can I'm sorry, uh the chief of staff can go through those changes. John, why don't we go to the PowerPoint presentation? Do we want to go through the whole presentation or do we just look at the changes? Why don't we go through the whole thing?

Okay. Shannon Cameron, chief of staff. uh so simplified this and also we'll talk through the changes that um were sent to you in this based on feedback from the last meeting as well as um the chair of the wrap committee. Um so we'll happy to answer any questions um throughout um at the end if there are any. So, um the ordinance matters really to help with any conflict or perceived conflict that may happen um through donations um specifically around um uh entities wanting to do or currently doing business with the city of Aurora. Um, city decisions, you know, like this should be made in the best interest of residents with a reduced level of financial influence and with transparency about financial relationships. Currently, as the ordinance stands, this applies to the mayor and all older people, candidates that are running for those positions, individuals required to file statements of economic interest like city officer staff members um like um the mayor just walked us through. on the um open data portal. Um and any individuals referred to as covered persons. So covered persons must disclose outside employment or business interests, real estate owned in Aurora or our zoning um exterior circumference. Uh uh ownership interest in businesses operating in the city, roles and organizations receiving city funding. That means if you're on the board of directors, etc., of a nonprofit, let's say, that applies for our um any of our uh CB well CDBG grants or our opioid settlement money, anything like that. Um gifts or services from entities doing business with the city or wanting to do business

um meaning they're in the process. So disclosures must include also polit political committee supporting a candidate, polit polit political action committees, excuse me. Um seeing this disclosure is transparency sees who's supporting those candidates. Um there is also contribution limits for vendors, people wanting to do businesses wanting to do business with the city um including um well I'm sorry there's limitations. They can of course donate to any candidate, any elected official up to $1,500. um applies again to those covered persons um and it's to prevent large contributions tied to city contracts that may have the perception that um one is buying influence. Lobbyist restrictions. We have updated the lobbyist restrictions in the newest um copy due to some comments. Um we have also gone through and added specifically um or I know there was a question around if employees lobbyist employees were um considered lobbyist and in that definition that is outlined in the ordinance yes they are um they cannot make political contributions to candidates for city offices cannot contribute to elected officials just ensures that people that are paid to do policy to influence policy sorry cannot uh finance campaigns And we've actually limited that to $0 in this new version. So, it was there was a $1,500 cap. It is now zero based on comments received. Um, public transparency. Uh, transparency is a core of this. So, the public can know uh what's going on and how uh and and see any possible conflicts of interest, but really the hope is to prevent them. Uh the

ordinance requires the disclosures be filed electronically as you saw. Uh the public will have access to them via the open data portal um that is linked on the city of Aurora website. And of course we'll link out to uh relevant state ethics um election records as well. Um enforcement and accountability. There seems to be questions and the original um our original ethics ordinance. I shouldn't say original, our most revised one that happened in 2019 that some of you are involved with. Um, we still had the election commission at one point, so that language is in there. Um, here in the city of Aurora, we don't have that anymore. All of our stuff goes through the DuPage County Ethics Commission. Um, right now if there's any um if there's any complaint, right? Uh, and these are things as far as ordinance focuses on the any penalties. the commission, the ethics commission in DuPage County is the one that will make those decisions. It's nobody in the city of Aurora making that decision. And I think there's been some confusion on that. Uh the goal of this ordinance, I think I've talked about this, um but really it's strengthening disclosure and contribution rules, limiting extra work on city staff. Uh especially as mentioned, there's 175 currently in the city of Aurora that um quarterly have to report and madame clerk has to chase. And then um you know just making sure that we're ethical, we're gaining more public trust by being as transparent as possible. Um some revisions that were in the new one. Um I made sure those were highlighted in yellow for you all. One of those things which is not up here is there are some like minor typos we fixed, but um immediate family means any individual we added over the age of 18

specifically. So that's language that's not up there. That's on page two of the ordinance. On page five of the ordinance, we changed the date of disclosure. Um, instead of January 31st, now it is May 1st, which aligns with the state um date where you have to file your statement of economic interest. Um, we reverted back to the covered person definition that is in our uh our ethics ordinance um as it was written or continued in 2019. Um to be uh to look at the word candidate uh and it is now reflected back to anyone filing their petition signatures. Um so and they have to do it submit their statement that day or they have 15 days. So that of course reflects also again based on comments we heard here um we reverted back to that um and that uh that change you'll see on page six for those interested um is the for the initial disclosures for first-time candidates without current statements of academ economic interest on file with the city shall file that initial disclosure on the date the candidate filing or within 15 days on page eight at the top, that's the candidate candidate definition that has shifted. Um, and again, it goes back to the election code um in the state of Illinois. And um on number in page 10, that's where the lobbyist change went. And we don't um we also added the terminology government relations specialist. Um, lobbyist government relations are used interchangeably, but we heard comments

that maybe um making sure that we wrote that out so it is clear is important. Lastly, on page 12, we took out some language um about ownership interest with lobbyists to make it simpler because that seemed confusing for some. Um, so those are the changes that we made from the cow meeting to city council tonight. Happy to take any questions. Thank you. Before we begin, I guess before I I don't want anybody to make any motions until we've made a motion to adopt and second. Um I know that we did print off some of the motions from different older people. Did everybody first? Did everybody get those? Alderman. Yeah. Amendments. Did you get the amendments? I got my amendments.

Your amendments. And did you get yours, Alderman Barrow? Okay. Okay. We'll we'll get to it in a minute. I just want to first start make sure you received them before before we went any further. And Alderman Alderwoman Smith has the most recent one. There was a quick typo. So she has um Deb Lang. Yes. Civil and and then there's a verbal a verbal amendment. We talked about it. I I don't have a written one. No, there hasn't been a written one. I was proposing I was going to propose an amendment as well, but it's not written out. Okay. So, first before there is a a uh any amendments or further discussion, is there a motion to adopt this ordinance?

So, move. Motion made by Alderman Larson. Second. Second by Alderman Ben Willows. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Discussion on this agenda item. Motion. Alderman Franco. Can we have Jolene Coulter come up? Jolene is here. Yes, she is. Jolene Coulter, director of purchasing. How can I help you?

So, Jolene, when we have people bidding on contracts and we rate them, who does the rating of the contracts to bring it to the city council to say they had the most points, therefore we're going to go with this when they bid on contracts and

so there's two different types of documents we go through. The bid proposal is the lowest responsible bidder. So that is the lowest cost. The qualified they've met the qualifications. They meet the required specifications of the items or goods that we're looking to receive. There's the RFP portion which is the request for proposals or qualified based selections. Those are rankings of based on the qualifications of the provider, what kind of services, staffing, history, things like that. And when we do that it is usually a team of people for instance a qualified base selection in engineering there is generally a group of three to five engineers who are ranking and re-evaluating the proposals for for evaluation and that's how that score comes to you.

So that's staff. Yes. And the aldermen have no participation in that at all. It's all staff to rank them and then it comes before the city council to vote on the recommendations of staff. Yes,

staff is hired by the mayor's office. So, the point I'm getting at here is that when people talk about the alderman and and person in the audience put it very well, we don't get involved with that at all. We don't we don't do that. We we you bring us the information based on who the mayor hired for the staff that makes those decisions in the rankings. So, I just want to make sure everybody understands that alderman don't partake in that process. So, when people say, "Well, we don't want you to be nefarious." Well, we don't even we're not even in the game with that. So, I just want to make sure we that's very clear to everybody because I think that might be a misconception and I'm going to leave that as my question for now. Probably come back later. I just want to make that clear. Hold on. There's confusion out there.

Thank you for coming. Can you remember a time when staff made a recommendation like say on a drive test scanner and then the alderman voted that down and chose a different vendor to provide that service to the city? I can tell you that was the first time in my 15 years here at the city that that's happened. Okay. So the alderman can override St's recommendations. They they can override it and that was the first time that's happened in 15 to 16 years. So thank you. Yep. Any other questions for Miss Colton? Is that what you're saying? That's that I'm aware of.

All of the contracts that we have gone through for the city of Aurora in 15 years, only one time the alderman overrode the decision that I can recall. Okay. Thank you. Make sure we all hear that. Any other questions for Miss Coulter? Any other questions or discussions on this agenda item? Alman Larson.

Thank you. Uh I know there's probably going to be some amendments, but uh before we get to any of that, um I just want to uh follow up on some comments I made last week uh regarding the referendum that uh I helped circulate. Um as people mentioned, over 2,000 people signed this referendum. uh in my personal experience, people were very positive regarding this uh their support for the referendum. But uh to be fair, that is anecdotal evidence. So, I went and I looked at polling data of US voters and the poll uh a poll was done in 2023 by Pew Research and that showed that 72% of US voters uh support setting uh campaign contribution limits for individuals and organizations. Only 11% opposed the limits and then 16% we're not sure. Um as everyone knows, American politics are very divisive. It's very rare for people, especially across the political spectrum, to agree so strongly on one thing. And I think the data and my personal experience both show that that is the case here. Um, we can hash out the deal the details here tonight. Um, and you know, I I understand that if I were to receive a donation, I don't think that would affect how I would behave, and I imagine that's how everyone else feels, but it's not what matters is not how we feel. It's more how the voters feel. And the reality is American voters do not trust the government. And I think that is a distrust that the government as a whole has earned. It's not specific to Aurora. um the government does not work for the people and people want there to be limits on the influence of money in politics. So, you know, this is not going to completely solve that. Uh this

is only within our little sphere and we have um limited power over this. Uh but I think it's a step in the right direction. Um, if we wanted to go further, I think that something like rank choice voting and publicly funded elections would be uh more optimal, but I think this is a good step. So, I am in favor of this. Mayor, are there any other discussions or questions? I do have a question. Alderwoman Smith.

Um, so more or less I agree with everything you just said, Alderman Larson. um except for the 2000 number wasn't actually 2,00 because many of them were not city uh city residents. Um and 2,000 wasn't enough to put it on the ballot. So I get where you're coming from and I and and and I and I follow what you're saying. Um nobody here has said we don't want to do campaign reform. This is back like the ICE thing. Nobody said we didn't want to do that. We're here to discuss campaign reform tonight. How we do that is could be in another fashion than what we have in front of us. I don't know. But before we go into that, I would like to say those who stood up here tonight that when we went through our last elections and we were following the state election cycle during the state election cycle, it is okay for an individual to receive an individual polit political person running for office to see to receive $7,300. It was state level for corporations and organizations is $14,600. State level for candidate uh politi for political parties and political action committees it's $72,800. The only reason why I say that is because as people stood up here tonight and pointed at us like we took money that was not clean money or that we were taking money out of um of uh out of the state policy. We were not we were following state policy. So when we ran our last election, what we did was within state policy. I'm not saying that that's what we're going to do next time. I'm just trying to tell you that when we ran in our last last election, we were ethical. We followed the rules. We

followed the state policy and that's very important for you to understand that. Thank you. Any other questions or discussions on this agenda item, Alman'sville?

Yeah, I just want to say just a general comment right now um a little bit. Um I think everybody wants ethics in government. I don't know anybody that doesn't really. Uh we all want it. It's it's like uh do you like ethics? Well, of course I do. It's like ask people if they like mom and apple pie, right? Yeah, of course. You know, um so that's really not the issue. Um and I don't mean the muddy waters or or confuse things, but the council wants to do the right thing for the right reasons. Simple. And we're trying to come to agreement to be able to do that. I support the mayor's ethics ordinance with some minor modifications. Uh but I think uh you know we we all want to do the right thing for the right reasons. Um last Tuesday there was expressed concern regarding to certain aspects of it that I am listening to and and share. Um I like the fact that uh you know we're capping at $1,500. I could live with that. Of course uh filing one one period per year. I I understand why there would be a need to do that. Um but but I think uh I I can live with the the language that that we have in here now currently with regard to uh city staff and the mayor's position. Uh some of the concerns that we express with regard to the alderman and and families and those types of things. That's kind of what I'm listening to and thinking that it might be some modification. Uh, so I'm kind of prepared to to to make an amendment tonight, but I know some of the other alderman want to make amendments, too, and I don't want to to um to change that. I think Alderman Burrell wants to make an amendment, but um, you know, I'm prepared to to send part of it back to committee with the idea of them coming out with the recommendation to come back to us to vote on it and and adopt something finite and and workable. U, so I don't know, Alderman Barrow, if you has you have any comments based on that. I know you were looking to to offer an amendment uh to this.

Alden Brown.

Yes. Uh thank you, Mayor Lash. So, at the at the last uh meeting um made a comment that that um that I thought that it came out of RAP committee a little too soon. It's it did it's true that it did sit there for a while, but we didn't we didn't discuss it at many meetings because we had other things that we were discussing. So, um I spent a lot of time uh calling most most of my colleagues here uh to try to have a discussion and I have a little a little uh cheat sheet here. Um people like this, they don't like that. I can tell you that, you know, the people that I talk to um they all have an issue, you know, with with it as a whole. And so that that that's where the problem is. I don't think we've gotten to where everybody can can be happy and live with it. There's some things that are really important to some people and it doesn't have anything to do with with um um anything nefarious. Um, so with that said, I I was working on on a couple of amendments and so um based on um my conversations with people, I came up with with a proposal and um also listened to um other things that were being said. Um and so then my original um amendments have have shifted and so wanted wanted to explain those um before um making a motion or asking for a motion uh to for consideration. So, um, where I where I landed was, uh, on an amendment, um, would which would include, um, chapter 2 going back to the original

language with a change on the annual reporting uh, to one time per year as opposed to quarterly. Do Do you want to hand the amendment out? Yeah, people do. People want it. They can follow along with you. Yeah. So that would it would go back to the original language except for that. Um I think that was important a consideration that was a selling point for chap for for section two uh to take the burden out of the uh clerk's office. So that's in there but the rest of it goes back to the original um ordinance. The the second part section 15

clarification please give the page number and line. Yes. So the um page if you look at page two and three. So uh section D section D uh speaks to speaks to the frequency of the disclosure reporting so be made annually on or before May 1st. So, so the short the short version is that what you want to revisit because there were some people that had problems with the disclosure, the six questions, correct?

Was to remove the disclosure piece, hopefully take it back to wrap, uh, but leave the rest more or less the same. Is that correct? So, that's the first part. Did you say go back to wrap again? That would that would be uh he he wants to that that portion of it.

He wants to move the disclosure portion the six questions back to wrap. So he's so that so this removes it from there and then we would have to reinitiate another uh agenda item just to talk about the disclosure. So we're handling it a bite at a time. And then the chapter 15 uh ethics that's that's the meat and potatoes of what we've been discussing. And so um the one change there is the um uh changing um the uh covered covered person back to um the original language of when nomination packet is filed when nominating papers are filed. That would be the the one the one change uh to this. The other I did try to make

that is changed in there. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So the other the other So that's different now. It got ch it did get changed and what uh chief of staff was reporting on but it wasn't like that before. So the other the other thing I tried to do is to to uh entertain. Give me just a second. Yeah. Um, John Zigul, can you put this up on the screen? Do you have access to these the way the public can kind of follow along with what we're doing? And Alderman Pero, do you mind uh referencing the the page and line number so that we can we can all follow with you? Yes.

Thanks. So that's then chapter 15 in the um in the first part. As you will see, it's it's just the the language it was before where it says candidate means an individual has filed nominating papers or petitions. So that's back to the original. So that's page five, line two.

Yep. So that was one change. Um the other thing I did try to to have some something added to this with respect to putting a cap on packs and um state political parties at 5,000. I was informed that that was something that was not uh permissible. So um could the corporation council explain that why we can't do that? We we can't put um caps on political parties that would violate state law. So, a political party is different than a than a pack. Um, but it's

No, no, that's fine. Um, political parties are different than packs. Um, but um political parties um we can't put a cap on them. They um that would violate state law and probably the First Amendment. Um the reason we can we can put caps on um entities doing business with the city is because that's that's the hook we have. Okay. So that that's how we that's how we um the reason we can regulate them is because they're doing business with the city or they're seeking to do business with the city. They're seeking contracts with the city. So that that's why we can um apply it here. So if a political party wants to do business with the city pursuant to section the new section 1513H. So if the you know if a political party wants to um have a contract in excess of $5,000 or is seeking a contract in excess of $5,000, then they would be capped. But we can't have a separate um you know, regardless of they're doing business, we can't have a separate we're just not going to allow contributions from political parties. That's that's problematic. It violates state law and it's um I think it's a first amendment violation as well.

Can you give us an example how a political party would do business with the city? I've always been wondering about this since especially since we're nonpartisan and everybody got I don't I don't think a political party would do business with the city. I am telling you that that that the only way that this that we that we could put a cap on political contributions from a political party would be if they were seeking or doing business with the city. I agree. I don't think they could do business with the city. I I don't foresee an um a situation where they would, but that would be the only way that we could up a cap on it. Does that make sense?

Even hypothetical, so I guess could make sense. I mean, but in this case, like I ask, we're not running partition. So, what I'm saying, so we still um in the cap with that. I understand if we are Republican or Democratic, but in this case, the city, we not run partition.

So, so it's it's a nonpartisan election here that that's it's it's nonpartisan for the city council, but that does not impact. So what was what was proposed and what I what I indicated could not be done under state law is we cannot put a cap on a political party donating to someone's campaign. Any questions? Any other questions? Alderwoman Garza? No. Okay. Are were you I know you probably wanted to continue with your amendment or you have some more.

No. So So it's just very simple. Um, I just wanted to explain where where I where I landed with the amendment and the rationale behind it. So, um, that's what I'm proposing. Um, it kind of splits it in two to two parts. We can get the one part done and then work on the other. Is it is there a motion or in a second to support Alderman Barero's amendment to this agenda item? If I can. Well, well, I guess I guess I I I kind of want to if we want to continue discussing it and then take the motions um at one at a time or or discuss.

Well, we do have a motion. We have a main motion and a second to discuss. So, so there's the main motion is the original language. Um I think alderman um or I'm sorry, Alderwoman Smith is proposing discussing all of the proposed changes. Um, go first. But can I can I ask him just to clarify? You said before we have a discussion on it. We need a motion in a second to determine if I need a clarification of what he just said. Those broke it into two parts. Can you say what you mean? You know what, Mayor, please be respectful. You're the one that asked that earlier today. So, let's all be respectful. There's rules. I didn't. Yeah, there are. I just I need clarification before I can make So, before I can move forward,

Alderman Barrow. Uh okay. So my my my intent is here was to um to adopt this this amendment as is and then a lot of the things that were being changed in in uh section two would go back to the wrap committee for further review. And section two is the is the administration portion. Chapter it's a it's a chapter 2 section two the disclosures um you want to

so it' be one through one through four so it's pretty much all the disclosures and just so everybody's clear the other portion se page five section or page page five number two has been changed to the original base amendment as well. the redefining of the term candidate uh to be when you file your nomination papers except for the sorry want make sure the mic was on except for the highlighted portions I highlighted what was changed from cow okay that went from 500 to 1500

alman messakos thank you mayor without trying to hit any more confus confusion. What was what was described I believe by chief of staff Shanny Mrs. Shannon Cameron was that a candidate has to apply disclosure or submits disclosure statements at the time of filing or at least or at the most 15 days afterwards. And what I understand here from Alderman Barrero is they have to file it at the time of of filing or should say provide it with their filing for candidacy when they go to the clerk's office. Correct. At the time of filing.

So, and 15 days. Alderman Barero wants a little bit more of a stricter approach to that compared to what's in the new document. Now it's filing disclosure at time of filing for for candidacy plus 15 days and alo is just strictly filing it. Am I correct? That is correct. That's how how it's been. Okay. So it's a little bit more lenient based on what we have here from staff at this point. So in regards to that's the only change in the chapter 15 portion. Am I correct? Yes.

Okay. So chapter two you want go you want to go back administration you want to go back to uh committee and chapter 15 ethics. Are you proposing an amendment as well to remove the plus 15 days and that before we vote on it? I'm open I'm open to adding the 15 days if that's your pleasure.

Okay. Because it's already on the docket. So if we do nothing with that that concern that you have, we just leave chapter 15 as it is and then your only concern is chapter 2 administration. I'm correct. I'm just trying to get it all straightened out in my head here. So, there's a lot of moving parts. I wasn't able to keep up with the changes. I'm not trying to push you up against the walls. It's a good It's a good point. Okay. So, it's only just you're you're a chapter 2 administration at this point going back to committee. Yes. Okay.

So, and that section has been removed from your amendment. So it's not here and there's no disclosure part in his amendment. Okay. So the 15 days is not I'm sorry Alman Alman White. So the 15-day disc portion is not in your amendment. Correct. As I'm looking for it. I don't see anything. But he's okay having it in there. I'm okay having it added in there. Yes. Got it. Okay.

Alderman Bug. Thank you. I I would love to have discussion right now, but we have to do it so we're all looking at the same thing. So when you look at the document, a document, and you want to discuss it, say what page it is, say what line it's on, and speak to that. If it's from there to another piece, if it's page one, line one to page three, line five, please say that the 12 of us at least up here have no idea. Oh, section five. Section 13 se

and we can't hear that well. Yeah. And the mic's going from this side to that. I don't know if you can hear us well. We cannot hear you guys well at all. Any other? No, I just want to hear it, but I want to know where we're at.

So, so just for some clarity, in Alderman Barrero's proposal, what he's done is removed the section that has to do with disclosure. So, on this paper labeled Barrerero proposal one, there is no disclosure language because he's removed it. And it's my understanding that you're okay keeping the language from the original document, page five, section two, I'm sorry, page five, line two, uh, to read as it does in the original document. So, it includes a 15 15day uh, grace period. Oh, I'm sorry. I lost where you're at.

I'm sorry. Sure. No, the the reason the the reason if you're looking for page numbers and line numbers for the part that he's removing is because it's not there because it's removed. This is the this is how it would pass. This is what you would be voting on if the amendment uh were to be approved. Is that So for clarification, you want to remove because I have barero proposal one. Is there a second proposal? No sir, there's just one.

So you are removing page one, line one to Page four, line 14. You're removing all all that and sending it back to RA. That's your proposal.

Yes. To to go back to the original uh language, taking out all the new and and anything deleted. So just putting it back to the way it was except for section D which changes the um quarterly reporting to annually section D uh the line three or on line 18 I'm So he wants it to go back to its original state except one. But

but wasn't the annual already reinsert inserted in there? where the annually part can be found. The annually part can be found on page two line 16 frequent of of his amendment. Frequency of disclosure reporting period the disclosure required of covered persons under paragraph C shall be made annually on or before May 1st. So we don't need anything then.

No. So so just just so I think maybe maybe I've realized what the confusion is. So the proposals that I the the amendment or the proposals that I drafted I took the original text of the ordinance and made redline changes as requested by the alderman that asked me to make changes. So I would so the so the the the red line changes in here would be changes from the ordinance as it stands now. So this is not the it's highlighted to show what um what Alderman Barrero requested in his amendment which is what he's go what he talked about but it's not um so Alderman Sevil it's this has not the red line language here has not been adopted by city council yet is that

is in it was in the proposal it was in the proposal that was discussed at at cow last week. Yes. Ex agreed without the rest of it though. Yeah. That that's the difference, Mike.

It it does not have what was what was being proposed. It only has one part and that's just the um annual reporting. Everything else is is not in here. So, so maybe I can rephrase and correct me if I'm not rephrasing correctly, but but it was my understanding in drafting this that chapter 2 he did not want any changes to except the annual reporting which would be subsection D. And that's page two, line 16.

Page two, line 16 through page three, line two. Um I also kept the change um page three line seven because the language quarterly so there wasn't a contradiction in the ordinance and then on page three line 18 um that I believe was an earlier ch that was a earlier change because we've always reported it to the clerk and um not to the mayor so it made sense to keep that in um so I took some liberties there um And then the changes that um so those were the only changes that he wanted to move forward with for chapter two.

Clarify something. He wanted to bring it back to its original state with these things that you are speaking. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Th those I think are friendly amendment changes. More like we could we couldn't hear you. They couldn't hear you over there. Alderwoman Smith,

Mike, what I was reiterating is that you want to bring chapter 2 back to its original state from eons ago, 2019. Oh my god. Um, except for the changes that you um referred to that council has highlighted um and andor taken out. Am am I correct in that? The only the only changes uh to the original ordinance. The ordinance being discussed, not 2019, the ordinance that is in your That's what I'm questioning. Is it the ordinance that you No, you gave us or is it the ordinance from This is 20 This is what is not redlined in here is 2019.

That's what I asked. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. And my understanding of Alderman Barrow's amendment is that he would like chapter the other changes to chapter 2 to return to RAP for further discussion, which is not part of the motion, but it can go back to RP, which is not part of this. That that's that's why it's not part of this. So, I guess the the question is whether or not you want to make a a motion to amend the the main motion right now is to adopt the exhibit A, which is the document that that's

exhibit B, I'm sorry, exhibit B. Exhibit A was a presentation. So, exhibit B, which is the revised um proposed ordinance from um I'm just going to call it from the mayor's office so that we can keep track of them. Um if you would like to amend that motion to adopt your proposal um which was just circulated and is on the screen. Madame council, can I ask a question? Alman B. So uh this is one amendment to move chapter 2 to wrap but there will be another amendment for section 15 right we can split

so we can do it all together but if you want I guess it's up to alderman burrow if he wants to divide it up or if he wants to do it in one swoop and 15 remains as it is what is in exhibit B.

So what on Bero's proposal the changes that he wanted in um chapter 15 are so so what is not redlined is part of um that's so he went back to the candidate definition on page five lines 2 through 7. So that's what was in 2019. Then lines 9 through 24 on page five is consistent with what was proposed by the mayor. So keeping that that language from the the mayor's proposal. Um the next page um page 6 through so lines 1 through 14 on page six that's the 2019 ordinance. Page Fif uh page six, lines 15 through 24 are the mayor's proposal unchanged. Page seven is the mayor's proposal. The only changes in it are the um 1500. We went from 500 to 1500. That is consistent with what the mayor proposed tonight. and the paragraph B which is line 15 through line 19 which I talked about tonight and page 8 and page nine is also consistent with the mayor's proposal tonight.

Okay. So it's all one amendment or there are two amendments. That's what's my question. It's it's one amendment. Well, that's one amendment. I don't know if the returning the other part back to wrap is is a necessary amendment. Yeah. So, what I what I would recommend is that we we work on getting whatever let's work on amending and getting whatever passed and then if you want to propose some language to or some discussion to return to RAP, let's do it as a separate motion. That way it's that way everyone knows what they're voting on. I can't hear.

There's there's only one amendment. Alderman Barrow's had one amendment prepared. Uh we can vote or you can we can open it up to a second amendment. Of course. Uh real quick, um there's a technical question and I'm probably going to lose people, but if there's a motion, a second on this amendment and then it passes. We could also move to amend this amendment to include the 15-day praise period. Correct? I mean, I know legally we can. I just don't I know I'm going to confuse people by saying that. Yep. You can amend amendment. So, we could fix both tonight pretty easily.

Can we can I entertain a friendly amendment? Burough on your own amendment. Well, I would like a friendly amendment to add the 15-day grace period. Okay. So, let's all go to page to page page two. Is that line 23? And give Deb a chance to catch up here because she's making the changes live. Okay. So, page two, line 23. So return to return the starting at the 15th day or no. What are you doing here?

It would it would take adding a sentence. It would take adding a sentence May 1st

or 15 days after. No, sorry. Nope. I'm in the wrong spot. It would be I'm sorry. It would be um page five. who has filed nominating p pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap papers or pet petitions for nomination or election to an elected office has been appointed to fill a vacancy in the nomination and who remains eligible for placement on the ballot or regular election as defined in section 13 we need to add here 15 days so it's when you become a candidate is that correct

I'm not sure how um how so page guideline seven.

That's where you're adding. No, that's that's definition of candidate. So, I guess I'm not I'm not following what we need 15 days for. I guess I lost I it actually it's it's in here. It's it's page three, line three, initial disclosures. Whenever a person first becomes a covered person as defined in this section, such person shall make the disclosures required under paragraph C within 15 days of qualification. This disclosure shall be made with respect to the preceding reporting period. So it's still in there already. It was in it was in the 2019. Okay. Okay. So then we don't need a friendly amendment. Correct. Okay.

Glad we talked about it. All right. Mr. Mayor, all the men's bill, were you finished? Yeah, that was trying to just make it simple and I hope that was simple, but it didn't seem like it was simple. You did a good job. So, that that's my um recommend um amendment. Is there a first and a second before we continue? So move motion by Alderman Bug, second by Alderman Nunes. Mr. Mayor, did you second it? Yes.

Okay. And then discussion. Alderman Seville.

Again, I don't mean to muddy the waters. Okay. So, I'm going to be say what and I I I'm very respectful of Alderman Burrow's amendment here and want us to be able to vote on it. But at what point from my discussion with our corporation council and yourself do I initiate the amendment that I was looking to have the council talked about and considered which is if I may state that now your Dana which is I'm in favor of the ordinance that applies to the the mayor's position and the staff. The concerns that I have again that I said earlier was with regard to the alderman that I heard from the certain people that spoke up last Tuesday that needs to be separated to discuss on another day back at at the the rules committee. Um I think what you're trying to do with again and I'll reiterate what what you're trying to do with the mayor's position city staff makes sense. Do I wait till we vote on Alderman Brero's amendment before I propose mine?

Ideally, the the way it's supposed to work is we wait for a motion and a second on before even having discussion because if there's no motion and second, why discuss it is generally how Robert's rules of order works.

We got a motion. If there's a motion and a second, we can discuss Alderman Barrero's amendment and then uh there could be additional motions to Alderman Barrero's amendment or we can vote in vote it up, vote it down and entertain additional amendments. Uh and just so people know what all the amendments are. I think alderman is as part of discussion on Alderman Barrow's amendment. You've made known what your intended amendment is. Uh, Alderwoman Smith, feel free to What? You've brought two amendments. I'm not sure if you're He hasn't provided his amendment yet. I I understand that, but but if you want to just let people know what yours are uh in case they favor them and don't want

I'm going to wait till I hear Alville's amendment and see if I want to go forward. Oh, I'm so sorry. I deserve that because I'm the one that said I couldn't hear them across the room. So, I apologize. I want to hear. Alderman Seville has amendment and he has not um voiced his amendment yet. So I will wait and hear from him to see if my if I'm going to go forward with my amendment. Okay. Alderman Seville did voice his amendment. What was your amendment? But it's he if if Alderman Barrerero's amendment fails, tell us generally what it is you'd like to amend and then we can work it into language afterwards.

Okay. Uh what I'd like to have amended is this would apply to both um uh section two and or chapter two I should say I should say and chapter 15 uh that we vote on that we take out all references to the alderman and vote on just the uh applying for the mayor's position and the city staff and refer the ordinance that would apply to the alderman which is everything else back to committee the rules committee for discussion. So essentially if you divide every everything in thirds we would vote on two Thursdays tonight and refer the other third back to committee for further discussion. That's essentially my motion and your Dana you we tal talked about the language. Does that make sense to what you

why don't we hear what legal's perspective is on on that? But okay thank you.

Uh that's that I go ahead and then I'll go to Alderman Mascos. So the I mean I can talk a little bit about the language and and how this would operate but um okay so so because I guess I guess there's a couple of questions and this would have to be flushed out during the discussion on whether or not my understanding from my discussion with um Alderman Seville is that the the way he he looked at this was that the Um, the 2019 ordinance would still apply to the alderman. It would just be the new changes. And so what I would need to do is pull all the new changes out of the ordinance and essentially create because right now they're like woven throughout the text of the ordinance. And um, so it's it's not like it refers to the mayor's office or or or mayor and staff separately than alderman. It's all it's all grouped together right now. And so in order to do that, I'd have to kind of rework the way the ordinance is drafted. Um it's less of a problem with section 15 because that is is more, you know, that's a whole new section. Um it's more of a problem with working through section two. Um what I what I thought we could do um but I'm a little concerned with how it's codified when when it actually makes it into the code is that the um you know this is what we're discussing right now is exhibit B right and there's an in legar there's an ordinance that adopts um exhibit B which is you know what we're what we ultimately vote on right so what I could do is put a sentence in um the the ordinance on you know on legisar that just says that this is only applicable to the mayor and staff and not the

alderman but it becomes it becomes a cotification question when this this goes to and I and that's you know that it becomes an issue for um how we codify it when it you know is entered into our ordinances online and into the official book and published etc. We want to make sure that um there's not confusion later on and so um it's a nightmare scenario for clerk stallings and I try not to create those too often.

Okay. So for now we are just discussing uh alderman exhibit B alderman Barbero's alderman Barrero's proposed amendment. Um any other discussion on uh exhibit B questions? All one Smith,

my question I guess would be to council. Is after the discussion here, are are we prepared to vote or what are we doing? Where are we? We would be we're not are we just we just knocking his out and and saying no. I Well, here's the thing. We have we have one motion to amend.

Yes. And I would rather take frankly it just for I think it just for bookkeeping purposes and stuff. I'd rather take the amendments one at a time rather than amend the amend the motion to amend and then figure out what order these motions all come in. It would just it it you know we have a main motion on the table which is to adopt the changes. That motion has been amended by Alderman Barrow. There's a second on the table. Let's vote on that motion on the motion to amend and then if there's other amendments to be considered we can discuss those amendments and there can be separate motion. There can be as many motions to amend as we want but it would just be kind of bookkeeping. It would just be easier to do one at a time. So we would be amending the entire thing to what Alderman Barro said with the changes in two and then the minor change in 15, but we'd be keeping 15 as it is overall with that minor change. Is that correct?

As as Alderman Burrow proposes and then we would work from the new the new one. Is that if it pass if it passes? Yes. If the amendment passes then then it amends the main motion. Okay. Alderwoman Bade, this is a questions on Alderman Barrero's proposal, exhibit B. Yes. Um uh based on Alderman Seville's motion, do we want to ask if Alderman Barero want to pull back his motion and we address his first so there's less confusion because these are two there's a motion and a second we're only discussing. Yeah. Uh exhibit B. Once we're done with B, we'll move to other amendments

because it's already confusing. Yeah, that is why because this these are very different motions because you might want to do one versus the other huh like the next one better alderman bug I call the question call the question so uh alderman bug has called the question discussion closes on the motion ex on exhibit B the Barero proposal number one I'll ask clerk to please call the role yes Garza, no. Messiacos, pass. Nunes, yes. Franco, pass. Seville. Pass. Andos,

yes. Smith, no. Fog, yes. Fade, no. Larson, no. White, yes. Makos. Yes. Franco. No. So, no. Six. Yes. Six. No.

Yes. Are you sure it's right? Mhm. Okay. I vote in favor of it. Yes. Uh motion carries on exhibit B, the Barrero amendment. Uh any further? So we have just said that we uh will accept the Barero amendment. So this is the new document that we're working with. Um and we still have we just voted on the amendment. We have not voted on a full agenda item. Uh it's my understanding that there are potential other amendments or discussion on the legisar item 2550779.

You want me to go you want to go? You finish. Well, which brings me back if I if I may. which brings me back to what I was considering. Is it now an appropriate time to bring that up? Go ahead. Sure. So, can I clarify in in my desire to bring this up? What does this now do to the amendment that we just city council just approved? Is that a question for legal? Yes. So, the the amendment that city council just approved now become because that amended the main motion. So, now that is the main motion. So now the main motion is what was previously Burough's amendment.

Okay. So how would I frame this as our corporation council? My amendment. So So your amendment is you would like to take um you would like to apply this only to the mayor's office and city staff or city employees um not to the alderman. Right. But in the same breath to refer this item back to the RAP for the alderman for consideration, not with with the changes that were just made. Well, could you just do a motion to return it to RA?

Do you want to just Yeah, that's what I was wondering. So, so let let me let me clarify. I I think that so so what you can what you can do is um do you want to re just so I can clarify because Alderman Burr I think once we're done with this this discussion about what we're adopting tonight. It's my understanding that Alderman Burough plan to make a motion to return section or chapter 2 to wrap for further discussion. So, um I So, I don't know if that changes how you want to do your motion. If the chapter 15, which is the cap section, the the ethics section, if that is is um you want that just to apply to the mayor and city staff.

Yes. and and probably the boards and commissions and everyone but the alderman I guess would be the is that accurate? That is the the the meat of the matter. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. So um I think the easiest way to do that I don't I don't want to lose my voice. I think the easiest way to do that would be to um amend the um amend what the proposal or amend the what is being proposed so that it only applies to the mayor's office and city staff.

Chapter 15. Chapter 15. Chapter 15. So move and and then again what applies to the all going to go back to committee for for consideration and a vote and a recommendation so we can come back here and consider that one. Correct. Yes. So so it doesn't get lost. We I'm in my amendment whether I have uh the council agreeing with it. I still want to take a vote on an ethics amendment for the alderman of course. Mhm. Does that go in keeping with what you just said? Then I want to make it clear. So tonight you want to

do you want to verbalize an amendment? Do you want to verbalize amendment to send this back to RAP? See if there's a motion in a second and then uh and then we can discuss we can discuss it. Uh and if it has the votes. Um I'm I'm understanding differently. No, I'm understanding. What I'm proposing is that we actually take a vote, a vote, a permanent vote on applying this to the mayors and city staff and any candidates of course, but refer the back to the alderman as Dana said ethics portion right back to committee for their consideration and input from the alderman and with the recommendation to come back to council to to consider that

the microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. My lights on. I apologize. So, do you want to verbalize the amendment one more time? Take your time. See if there's a second. Okay. So, my motion would be to um consider all applications of chapter 15 for the mayor and and and candidates and city staff and refer what applies to the alderman back to the wrap committee for consideration and recommendation back to the council. Second. There's been a motion and a second. Discussion on Alderman Seville's motion. No,

Alderman Franco for for hold on just for a second. So for some clarity Well, go ahead, Alderman. So I just because this is it's been very confusing tonight. So I want to know I mean I'm going to give you a real life situation, how does this apply to that? So when a fellow who happens to be the spouse of the uh chief of staff periodically gives hundreds of dollars to the mayor and then the chief of staff gets hired. Where is that? How is that addressed in there? I mean what what part of the ethics ordinance would that be under? Would that be illegal with what we're talking about now? Would that still be acceptable? I'm I'm I'm just trying to Are you asking Are you asking Alderman Seville about his amendment?

Well, I just want to know. Are you asking Alderman Seville about his asking legal about where we're at with this? I mean, because I want to I get I want to get real life situations because right now it's very gray. So, a lot of times when you say, okay, in this particular instance, this is what that means. So, I'm asking what that would mean when somebody gets hired after they donated to the mayor's office because we're talking ethics, what that means, and will that be allowed going forward or is it not appropriate? Now, that's I mean, I'm just trying to clarify that because we really want to see this in black and white. The question is, is that part of I think a better way to phrase that is is that part of this ordinance as it stands? No. No. That's a problem. Any other questions or discussion?

Yeah, I have a I have a clarification. Can um just I'm just going to restate for um to Alderman. Alderwoman Smith.

Yeah, I thought you said that. I'm sorry. Go ahead. It was the audience talking. I thought it was you. My apologies. I do apologize. I did not I did not mean to overspeak. My understanding, Alderman Seville's proposing that chapter 15, which is the ethics portion of this ordinance to be as it's written to be for the mayor and his staff and that the ethics in portion for the alderman would go back to RAP to be rewritten, relooked at um and in changing the ethics portion or going forward with your with your proposal wouldn't change the campaign finance part of it because that that's in section two. Correct.

Yes. Okay. So, what we're working on now is not the dollars because we already went through that with section two. So, what we're working on right now is the ethics portion,

which from my perspective, as we've talked about this the last two weeks about the campaigning and what goes on and all the problems that occur, there's so much more that goes into a mayor's campaign for such a large city than what goes into part-time alderman for a large city. So the restrictions that are put in here um in many cases are very good restrictions I believe um for a mayoral race but far too restricted and it's not dollar restricted for a alderman's race. So I second what you're saying and then this portion would go back to the wrap committee for the wrap committee to rewrite the ethics portion for the alderman. Is that correct?

We'll review it and make recommendations. Review it and make if they so desire. Can you turn your microphone on? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Review and make recommendations as they desire based off of the original. Oh, never mind. I'm not going down that road. Yep. Any other questions or discussion on uh Alderman Seville's amendment as he's presented it? Yes. Alderman Bug. Yeah. The document of itself, I mean, if you're going to split something up, you you would split up chapters, not people. So, I mean,

as a chairman of the RAP committee, I'm not opposed to looking at this more, but if you have questions, ask your specific questions, get them answered, and vote. So, if you want the whole thing to go back, I'm fine with that. uh but splitting pages and sections of pages right defeats the document right

so we need to send the whole thing back or uh amendment just passed vote on his amendment as is so send it all act or vote. That's what I say. There's a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any members of the council that would like to weigh in on the amendment before we get a tornado? Alman Messakos,

can our legal the chair or legal counsel or clerk uh help the chair to restate the amendment? The motion, I should say. the motion.

Sure. Um the motion is to amend. The motion is to amend um what is what is labeled burough proposal number one. So that that's the document you need to be looking at now. That's the main motion at this point. So, the motion is to amend that um document in order to um apply it only to the um mayor and staff at this time and send the document um send send the rest of it back to RAP for consideration for the um for its application to the alderman,

but only certain sections of it only certain se I'm sorry only for section two good only for section only for chapter 15 so what happens in section two chapter two Mike well turn your microphone on chapter chapter 2 is already supposed to return to wrap yes with so

it returns chapter 15 to wrap for discussion on it application to the alderman. Chapter two, I believe Alderman Bero would like to um would would like to um um return chapter 2 to wrap separately. I'm sorry. I'm a little distracted by Okay, I just want No, it's fine. I'm just wondering how that's going to help the tornado, but it's okay. Keep glass. It'll keep glass from injuring anybody. I know where you're at. Okay, that was a question from Alderman Messiakos. Do you understand with clarity? No, I do not understand with clarity.

I understand, but not with clarity. And I seem to agree with my colleague uh from the ETH ward. I'm not an attorney, but unfortunately I've had to deal with enough in my time that every single word makes a difference. uh if we don't have the page number and the line item, uh we've been through this before uh in a different resolution in the past. Uh we took a t we took a timeout or we took a break uh to let the cler I should say our attorney work out a revision based on a civil amendment if I if I'm correct

uh not too long ago. Uh, I think either we take a pause and let that let give the attorney an opportunity to to work it out and print something and give it to us or we just send it back to committee uh to work out the Barrerero amendment exhibit B or proposal. Can I ask a question of Chairman Bug? If if the portions of the Barero amendment return, would you be open to working on other parts of this? If we even if we vote on the Barero amendment and it goes through, I mean, I think if the Barrero amendment goes through, the votes are probably there to keep it as is. I understand that. I understand that.

As a chair, I'm obligated to address any agenda items that come to me. So yes, I will whatever comes to the wrap committee, the wrap committee will address it and review it and send back a recommendation whatever that is. So we could go through with the Barero amendment as it stands tonight. I will call the question because we do have a motion in the second on the table from Alderman Seville. I'm calling the question. Okay. Uh Alder alderwoman Smith has called the question. I'll ask clerk to please call the role on and this is specifically this is on the uh what we'll call the civil amendment who is a second

thank you

pass garza yes miss eos pass nas no Franco Yes. Seville. Yes. Ben Willis. No Smith. Uh, yes. Bug. No. Bade. Yes. Larson. No. White. Yes. Miss Barero.

No. Say no. No. andos. No. 66. The uh mayor votes no. So the civil amendment is dead. Back to legisar item 25779 which reads as exhibit B the bureau amendment. Next amendment. amendment is the Smith amendment. Um, do you want to distribute them so people can follow along? Yeah, but I'm going to go off of this. So, this won't be real accurate. Yeah. Sorry, it's already changed quickly.

Just based on So, do you want this out anyways? Mine is a real quick one. It's going to be quick. Yeah, I don't even know that with the burrow. Are you talking about one or two? I'm fine with the bur with two. I'm fine where we are with two. My amendment is to send chapter 15 back to the wrap committee for review and stay with um the bureau amendment for two. So, chapter 15 back to the wrap committee to have a reook um with whatever goes back from. So, for for a little bit of clarity, you want to send there's a motion to send chapter 15

15 the ethics portion. Yes. Which talks about uh the definitions of doing business, what it is to be a candidate, the $1,500 cap, and everything. That's pretty much the

Well, I would I will I will take I'm my apologies because I don't want to remove the $1,500 cap. So, um I do want the ethics portion which is page five starts at line one, page six through 24, page seven, 1 through three. We could keep on page seven 5 through 8. Page seven 9 through 24. Page 8 1- 24. And page 9 1-13.

So what's your amendment? Um I would my amendment is to send chapter 13 back or 15 back to RAP with the exception of page seven five through eight which is the $1,500. Okay. So you're So just just so you're clear, you're making no changes to page five and six. Making no pages. No, no, no, no. I'm sending the entire thing back. The only thing I'm not changing is page seven, lines five through five through eight. This just needs another look. Okay.

So, all of chapter 15 with the exception of those lines that have the 1500 in it. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion made by Alderwoman Smith, second by Alderman Franco. And just to restate the motion to send all of chapter 15 uh ethics with the exception of page seven lines 5 through eight back to the wrap committee for further discussion. Right. 5 through 8 does keep the $1,500 34. There's there's been a motion and a second discussion on this amendment. Okay. Uh Alderman Larson.

Thank you. Uh just a question about how this would work. Um it looks like on page seven uh up at line two there is a section that uh those lines 5 through 8 are like part A of section 15-321. Um are we going to need to keep that in? So this is uh it has its own section or would this become part of section 15-320? Um, I just don't want it to be like floating in there. I I would think it would it would make from an administrative standpoint, it would probably make the most sense to send it all back to I Yes, I My motion is my motion.

Okay. If you need to keep that two lines in there to make it easier for you, I can do two through eight if that's simpler. Yeah, but I think we're looking at different documents right now. Yeah. So, we're we're working off of the the exhibit B, the Barrerero proposal number one. Exhibit B, Bar proposal number one, which I think you're working off of because

Yes. Yes. So, I am what I was suggesting to keep in there is is a on page seven. A five, six, seven, and eight. line five, six, seven, and eight. Okay. So, what that would leave is chapter 2, pages one, two, three, and four. And then it would leave a little sliver page seven, lines, five through eight.

It's six, too. Page six, the little sliver on seven, all of eight, and all of nine. No, I was talking about what it would leave, not what it would remove. What? Not what it would send back to. It only leaves one sentence. Okay. Okay. There's a motion in a second. Discussion. Alderman Larson asked a question. Did you get your answer?

Uh, yeah. I guess this might be a a question for legal if this is if this is something that we can uh include in there and it won't um it won't make the the language confusing for the time being. It you know this ends up getting passed and sent back to RAP. I just don't want a section hanging out in there that doesn't have context. Well, the the title for that section section is too big is lines two and three. Yeah, that's just the title. So it's it I I mean I we can codify it without a title. That's

Yeah, it it changes my whole motion because um it adds political action committees. That's not part of it's part of what I asked to have. I don't so I guess I don't know if if it if I can recommend then is it instead of because it's be because what it would do let me um what it would do

question maybe a better way of saying this is that um if you go back to page six we have section 15320 political contributions ions. We have A B and then this would become paragraph C. No offense, but this is my motion and I'd like to move forward with it. And I think that this little tiny sentence will be able to as we revise it will be able to be worked in. Understood. But the alderman had a question for legal. She's trying to answer the question. You're trying to change my motion. No, the I was just the number

she's trying she's trying to explain to Alman Larson how it would work. She's saying that it would just change it from it is currently section A. It would move to section C of page six. Is that correct? My apologies. Section Yeah. So, so it's just it's getting late.

So, no, that's fine. That's that's why I was speaking really slowly because my head's pounding. So, um, so section, so what's in the 2019 ordinance is section 15-320, political contributions. And I think that lines 5 through 8 on page seven would just be moved into subsection C of that political contribution section on page six. Okay, I think that'd be Larson, got your question answered. Any other questions or discussions on this amendment? Alderman Bug, your lights on.

It is um respectful of my colleague, I again I will ask uh you to vote no on this and I will make the motion to send the whole thing back to wrap and we will I will ask the people who have amendments to type them up. Barrerero would be the standard because that passed and we'll go through it line by line, make sure everything's there, but we're not I mean we're flucking out sentences and moving this back and leaving this here that no one could be able to vote on this yet. Any other questions or discussions on this?

Yes, with all due respect, my my motion was a lot simpler than the or my amendment was a lot simpler than the first two amendments. It was one section and it left one one sentence in it. It's not it's not a difficult motion and I am going to call the question. Okay. So, there is a motion and a second on Mayor. We should have an opportunity to deliberate on this before call a question. You can't make a motion and then say call the question. Well, I'm sorry, but he's telling you all to vote against it. Please, Alman Messi,

please. Please. Thank you. I'm I I'm trying to understand the the logic behind making that big of a of a change because the first thing that comes to my mind is we're okay with a lobbyist having one two $3,000 plate dinner for someone running for office here in the state of in the city of Aurora and as a present lobbyist uh for the city as well. Um, my concern is we're going back to making this a barer proposal light uh for all practical purposes. And I agree with my my colleague uh from the ninth ward. I I referenced it a little while ago. I think we need to have everything worked out, things clarified, the words in front of us, crossed out, that way we could ask more concrete questions on what the intent is of some of these these amendments are. I think that's the key element right here that we're missing. So, I also will urge my colleagues to vote no and I will second that motion if my colleague from the ninth ward, the chairman of of the RAP committee makes it to send it back to the committee.

Okay. Alderwoman Smith's uh amendment is still up for discussion. Any other discussion or questions? Yes. Only that the lobby portion of it was taken out already because of council told us at the beginning that that 15 through 19 on page seven was already marked out. Correct. The lobbyist portion. That's No, that's part of the burrow proposal that's in there. Yeah. Yeah. That's part of the Barero. Yes. Right. That's why I didn't deal with it because it's already been dealt with. Okay. Any other questions or discussion on the Smith amendment? Hearing none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. We are only voting on the Smith amendment. Guerrero, no. Garza, yes.

Messiakos, no. Nunes, no. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, no. Smith, yes. Bug, no. Bade, yes. Larson, no. White, yes. 66. Again, it's tied. I I'll vote no. I think we know how this is going to go down. I make a motion to uh move the Barero amendment that was passed back to RAP as a whole. So, move.

I will ask that if you have amendments, type them out. refer to the page number, line number, and the Buro amendment, and we will take them one by one and get this hashed out. There's a motion to move legis779 uh back to the wrap committee. Motion was made by Alderman Bug, seconded by Alderman Messiakos. Any questions or discussions on this motion to move the current bureau proposal back to the RAP committee? Hearing none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role on the motion to send this back. Barrerero,

no. Garza, no. Messiacos, yes. Nunes, no. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Fade. Yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. Nine, yes. Three, no.

Motion carries. Legar item 2550779. We'll return to the wrap committee for further discussion. I feel like at several weeks ago at RAP, I asked for motions to come forward, but they came out last minute. So, please do some advanced work. I'm sure legal will appreciate it. All right. Right. Next on the agenda, I'll ask clerk to please read the next agenda item. 2600088, an ordinance amending the W one budget for fiscal year 2026. So moved. Second. Motion and a second on this agenda item. Are there any questions or discussion? There being no further questions, will the clerk please call the role? Ferrero, abstain.

Garza, yes. Messiakos. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. Nunes. Yes. Franco. Yes. Seville. Yes. Benuelos. Yes. Smith. No. I mean Yes. Bug. Men. Bug is left. Bade. Yes. Larson. Yes. White. Yes. Uh 10. Yes. One abstain. one absent. Motion carries. This ordinance is adopted. There's no new business. Uh next we'll hear the treasurer's report. Stacy still here.

I acknowledge receipt of the June 2025 through December 2025 treasurer's report. Are there any questions or discussions on the treasur's report?

Are there any questions for the CFO? Okay. Next, uh 260150, the corporate funds investment report fourth quarter 2025. I acknowledge receipt of the corporate funds investment report for the fourth quarter of 2025. Are there any questions or discussions from the council uh for our chief finance officer? Okay, there are none. Um next, uh the bills 260148. the bill summary large bill list. Is there a motion to approve and pay the bills as presented? Second. Motion made by Alderman Seville, seconded by Alderman Franco. Are there any questions or discussion on the bills? Okay, hearing none, I'll ask clerk to please call the role.

Bero, yes. Garza, yes. Makos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith. Bug Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 10. Yes. Zero. No. Two.

Motion carries. The bills are approved for payment. We are in need of a closed session pursuant to the following sections of the Open Meeting Act. Section 2C1 to discuss the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of a specific employee of the public body. Section 2C2 to discuss collective negotiating matters. Section 2C11 to discuss pending litigation. Do I have a motion to enter into close session and therefore adjourn the city council meeting with no further action or public business take place for purposes of this meeting? Motion was made by Alderman Seville. Second. Seconded by Alderman Franco. Will the clerk please call the role? Ferrero, yes. Garza, yes. Makos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes.

Smith, Bug, yes. Fade, yes. Larson, yes. White. Yes. 11. Yes. Zero. No. One absent. Motion car. Motion. Motion carries. The time is 8:33 p.m. If we can be uh back here in five minutes to Better.