City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Okay. Wonder if Pat's accounting for the snow.

Well, I'm seeing less than a minute. Is that what you guys are seeing as well? clock seems early. I wish I could be as punctual as well. There's a difference between punctual and uh we'll see. Should I text him?

He's driving. It's probably a bad idea. So we just go by

for those that are watching online. I apologize. It is 6 PM, but I think our attorney is just pulling into the parking lot. So we'll give it another minute or two. What? Your partner in crime, Lance, ain't here tonight, man.

Said Ross alone, but I said keep it lively. I believe. So, what's that? Is it?

Do you want to check just to make sure before we get started? It's on. It is on. Okay. Mics aren't on. The mics aren't on. Mics aren't on yet. Well, your mic is on, but Okay. My mic's not on. Hi, how are you? [laughter]

How are you?

Okay. That's okay. It It happens. Yeah. No, no, no. When you cut her when you cut it close, it's bound to happen. All right. Are you ready though? I am. Okay. Like to call the Oglesby city council meeting to order. Roll call, please. Baldridge here. Colin, here. McDermott here. Moy here. Curran here. Please stand for 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, and justice for all. All right. Number four, public comment on agenda items only. Seeing if there's none, we'll move on. Number five, approve minutes from November 3 uh 3rd, 2025 regular meeting. If there's no additions, corrections, or modifications, can I get a motion to approve the minutes? Should be the 17th. Should be the 17th. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for the 17th. The 17th. Yeah. Got it. All right. Thank you. I'll second. Roll call, please.

Waldridge, I. Uh, Colin, I McDermott, I. Moy, I. Currant, I. Number six, approve bills presented for payment in the amount of 882,195.38. If there's no additions, corrections, or modifications. Can I get a motion to approve the bills? All I'll add on the bills is that there are two big payments, uh, one to IMEA and one to Vering. So, that's why they're a little bit, uh, higher than usual. So, uh, with that being said, I will, uh, motion that we approve bills presented for payment in the amount of $882,195.38. Can I get a second? I'll second. Roll call, please. Uh, Baldridge, I. Colin, I. McDermott, I. Moy, I.

Currin, I. Number seven, approve payroll for November 21st, 2025 in the amount of $67,63.71. If there's no additions, corrections, or modifications, can I get a motion to approve the payroll? I will move that we approve payroll for November 21st, 2025 in the amount of $67,63.71. I'll second that. What exactly? Wait a second. What exactly are you approving? Because I haven't seen anything at all. It's in your drive. It's in the drive now. Yeah, it was added late. One second. So, there's a motion in a second. Again, if there's ever a time that somebody wants to say something, so I apologize. I usually that's just what they consent agenda. if anybody has anything that's an open forum. So, um, do we need to back up from that if somebody has a concern?

I think we do because apparently your second already. Sorry, I didn't know you didn't. I heard him. There was We have a first and a second. Yeah. Okay. Roll call, please. Baldridge. No, I haven't seen it. Uh, Colin, I. McDermott, I. Moy, no. and current. I Okay, we'll take a look to see if there's something wrong with the uh the share drive that not everybody's seeing or something. The issue is that it was added late. Well, and it's black. Um I think that's an issue. Yeah, they don't. There we go. It's on there though.

Okay. Uh number eight, uh old business a discussion and review of current travel ordinance. Moy. So I wanted to put this in the agenda and this is just my experience with the IML conference that the check was issued prior to me attending and then actually what I was being paid for I didn't fulfill. So I did ask for it to be changed which is very cumbersome for the clerk's office to have to reissue checks. So after a review and this is my fault. Um, when we revised the travel ordinance in May, I missed that you were authorizing the ability to approve checks or issue checks prior to the event occurring. And I just I don't think that's good practice. I think that reimbursement should happen after the event. In the event that my son broke his arm, I didn't even go, the check's been out there, or I left early. I could think of a hundred different reasons why you wait till the event happens and then you can issue reimbursement. So that's where I kind of wanted to start the discussion.

Okay. Um I think this has already been resolved, but that's okay. We'll definitely go around the room and give everybody opportunity to talk about it and then I can have my comments at the end. Uh well, I agree. I think uh the check shouldn't be written until after we get back. Like you're saying, if you broke your arm or something or your one of your kids, you uh you're not going to be there for the whole thing. Yeah. I also had some concerns on it. I'd just like for everyone to be fair and honest here. Uh if some of the money you don't deserve from the taxpayers, don't take the money. It's not deserved. You shouldn't You're not entitled to that money. So, you should have the respect and decency to give that money back to the taxpayers instead of taking something that's not yours.

Absolutely.

Yeah. I think uh I I think the idea behind I don't you can probably comment more on this because you were on the council prior to when I was um but from my understanding the idea of um pre-authorization was uh came from I think last October um and so that's kind of I assume why the checks were issued um beforehand. Um, but no, I mean I I I agree. I think maybe [snorts] I I don't know. I I I agree with what what everybody's saying, but I I think that was kind of um to a certain extent kind of a maybe a a result of that ordinance ultimately being passed. Um, but yeah, I I looking at the ordinance, I have a copy of it right here, and it does say, "A receipt for any travel, meal, lodging, or parking expense, or event. Uh, at a minimum, the following documentation must be submitted into writing uh to secure approval for any such reimbursement request. the receipt for any travel meal, lodging, or parking expense, or in the event pre-approval is sought, an estimate of the travel meal, or lodging or parking expenses anticipated to be incurred. I would assume the pre-approval part came from that October ordinance that had been passed um last year. Um but I I do kind of agree. Um I I think for the hotel, I mean, for lodging, I guess it kind of makes sense unless you don't end up going. um you know for parking I mean if if we know what people are doing as far as parking is concerned it's not really big issue I guess but um the meal thing I think was probably the the most

significant thing because you get a perdem of $75 per day and for the checks to be issued prior to that uh prior to you even attending the event or the day before you go to the event um you don't necessarily know how much you're going to spend on meals um so I I just think it's it's kind of weird to do an estimate for meals because you don't know what you're going to spend most. Yeah. So, yeah, I can I was going to give the history on it first. You go right ahead.

Okay. So, long story short, I think it is resolved right now. It's been resolved. Um, up until 20 before 2023, how it always was done was somebody goes, they come, they fill out a travel claim and and the receipts and they get paid for what their costs that they actually incurred were. Back in summer of 2023, I had an argument with the commissioner at that time who wanted to change it to where everybody got paid upfront. I didn't agree with that. Uh, I thought I gave many reasons of why I thought that was a bad idea. Um but he had consensus from people and they wanted to make a change of that and so we did that for the years of 23, 24 and 25. Again, not a fan of it because it gave people a certain amount of money ahead of time and not everybody spent the same things. The argument I even made afterwards was for example, somebody might be taking shared Uber rides, somebody has to pay for the Uber, somebody doesn't have to pay. To me, when it comes to taxpayers, everybody should be compensated for what they spent. Um, so that's how it was done for 2023 and 2024. It was a I think a check amount was $350. For some reason, this year the check amount was higher. Um, and to make matters worse, there was other things that weren't even included. Um, like for example, I think the parking was paid for. So, um, what we did was I think from my understanding is everybody has come in and they've paid the parts that they needed to pay back for. Um, so that's been resolved as of now. Um, so I don't think this is a problem going forward. I don't think it's an issue. Um, but if anybody wants to change anything, I think what we talked about the plan going forward is we are still going to pre-approve a certain amount as a council when we go to these travel things. But then for everybody to get paid, they don't actually get paid until they submit their travel claim and their expenses that they actually incurred. That's my understanding of it. So we can go around if anybody has anything else they'd like to add to it. Yeah. You uh

made the claim here that you fought it or argued it, but have you cashed this year's check? I did. Okay. And I and I recompensated back for what was uh not I asked for that, but I got a 2 in stack papers. I can't confirm. Uh the next question is who did how did this go from the $350 to the 54740? Does anybody know? Why? 350 is for lodging I believe and then the rest no $350 300 for lodging one so 300 for lodging per DM was $75

IRS IRS IRS reimbursement for mileage I don't think it says anything about it's the it's what they said for miles is there anything where it says it's a $300 $ maximum period or 375 in the past as he's referencing here is the past was $350 which we had agreed upon due to the fact that a lunch up there will cost you a hundred bucks. I mean $50 whatever you're not going to eat three times a day in Chicago for $100. So that was the consensus that we had reached prior to this

and uh it again was only $350. Somehow this year after the agreement, and I would like to see the bills on this, we came to a consensus also of a top money being $13,500, not to exceed. Did we exceed that? I would assume we didn't. I don't know either. I would like to look at it. I mean, we let a lot of things just slide around here. And uh I guess

I think we need to start looking at stuff like that. And as I said, if you didn't deserve the money, give it back. My understanding is everybody that was overpaid has come in and and rece um or like Hillary, you know, had extra or whatever, those all got paid back from people. Um and the the way that it got filled out this year, that happened, Becky did that before I was here. Um but she had there's a there's a travel sheet and she just filled out for everybody. She looked at the I'm I'm assuming the mileage from here to the hotel and and back and did that. Um and then she did the PDM of of the 75 per day and then parking for 60 or something like that. 60 a day. So that's where the the the total came from this year.

I I would like to reference that as well, but unfortunately I' I've asked the two appointed officials here for that information and uh one was on October 21st. I had sent that email to you to request all the information and checks that were cut and already cashed and then the money that was returned. And then I texted Commissioner Cullinin on uh November 11th, I believe it was. And I never got any of that information either. So I it's hard to reference it when you can't even you're not entitled to see it. I guess I don't know what you got to do to get stuff.

Well, so I look at two issues here. One, do we have a good process going forward? And my understanding is that we do. If there's still some concerns that if the money was accounted for yet, we can we can definitely look into that. So, let's go around. First of all, I guess is everybody happy with the process going forward? I think the process going forward is fine, but the ordinance does allow for issue of check prior to the event. And I think that's what needs to be changed because we can all sit here and say, "Yeah, that's the good policy. We can all follow it." Then a whole new council comes in and then we're back to I don't know if that was in there specifically because we were we were issuing the checks out before that policy was in

was in the I believe the original ordinance from May because in the top of this one that Austin I am involved in it says whereas the council had previously said on May that checks can be issued before or after travel. So, another history piece that I think the one you're referring to that we approved in May and Pat, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm looking at that. I think it was the one that we thought the city had approved like 10 12 years ago and did not. Okay. So, is that correct that like 10 12 years ago? We we did a new travel ordinance. Well, we updated it though. But the first one and then we revised it again. I thought in May was the last time. That's the last one in my file. Do we have another one since then? them in

Austin, October. So, we have one from October 7th of 2024. Uh, and then we have obviously the one from May. Those are the only two I'm aware of. So, the first one that we approved must have been the one that we thought we were operating under for like a decade because many, many years ago they place it on file, but it was never technically approved and it's required by the state that we have that approved. Yeah, the state statutes changed in that 10-year period. No,

I can tell you to require preapproval and also um you guys have required um receipts and things for reimbursement, which I think is completely appropriate. How can you get money for something when you don't know exactly how much it's going to cost yet? Makes no sense, right? My suggestion is pre-approval before you go. um so that everybody knows what's been approved to spend and then follow it up with a travel reimbursement parking expense reimbursement form uh with receipts for all of your expenditures while you were there and you'll get reimbursed to the exact penny.

I honestly think you could even do the mileage if you can prove that you went to the the conference and I think you can since there's five of us here that would say he wasn't there but the mileage should only go from the city hall building. You shouldn't be able to if you live in uh Champagne or like you couldn't you have to live in these people [laughter] say you got to live here still the same mileage from city hall to the facility is how they think it should be done that that could also be incorporated into the overall check. Um but one thing I'd like to clarify is that I talked to someone that has a little bit of history in town understands it a lot better and they they stated to me that the stipen was initially created in 1995 or 96 and they have the history of that necessary. So, just wanted to say that it wasn't done here just in 2023. It had been done prior to that quite some time.

I think probably the stipen was created originally because people may have needed some money to be able to attend this event. It was created at the time by the commissioner of finance because up to that point commissioners turned in their expenses with no cap and the mayor approved or disapproved of them. They weren't sure if the problem was a question of the approval process or a misuse of funds. that gave the commissioners all the same and it was considered a fair amount. Well, I think it's inappropriate. I think you should return in receipts and get paid for what you spend. That's what I think.

That's what I think. I know that was the argument that was made that everybody gets paid the same amount, but my argument back to that was not everybody incurs the same amount depending if there's ride sharing or whatever it is. So, so again, I'll ask the question, is everybody good with the process going forward? That's the first part I guess. Hearing none. Next thing is is if there concern is there concerns out there yet that not all the money was recouped for whatever needed to be. Is that if that's still the concern, we can look into that. I just received the information. I would like to thank Aaron for uh paying attention to this prior to all of this and warning that this could possibly be a problem. [snorts]

Okay. All right. Well, I guess unless something comes up new, is this a done deal or anybody else have anything else on it?

Okay. Moving on. Um B, code enforcement letter current. Um so talking with some residents and finding out some of the things that we have not gotten resolved yet. A little over a month ago, we approved a process that allowed us to um send out a letter with violations that would assess a fine to people's utilities uh if we needed to do so. Uh because we realized that having the friendly approach wasn't working very well. um and then we'd send out actual formal letters, but unless there was some teeth into it, we weren't actually getting some results. So, it's been over about a month. So, um I checked in with some of the departments that were doing it and it seems like there is still a little bit of confusion out [clears throat] there. So, that's why I thought I would um go around of what I think I understood it is what the consensus was here and if anybody has anything uh that they think that's different than that, we can uh um talk about that. So, let me read what I had sent out to everybody. [clears throat] So, policy. I'm concerned there's still some confusion of how we plan to tackle everything. Let me summarize what I think was discussed publicly on how we are handling these items. As it was believed, we currently have the resources in house to do these. If there is confusion or disagreement on that, let's talk about it publicly again so we can put this to bed. If everyone's in agreement on what was decided, we can just carry it out and with some KPIs to watch. One, in all cases of these violations, first and foremost, we are adopting the same mentality as the community policing strategy in that we attempt to have a friendly conversation with the violator, cite the reference of what's being done wrong, and establish a time frame that they will fix it. I think Austin is working on something that we can track whatever these are. First KPI wants established time frame is to be given within the purview of the person delivering the news. Maybe grass is seven days, maybe parking issues is seven days, maybe building code issues are two weeks or even a month depending on what is reasonable to resolve. Number two, depending on what the violation is will determine the expertise that will explain it to the violator. Examples: clear legal issues such as illegally parking in street, cars parked in

people's fronts yards, grass too long, etc. Ogresby police department zoning related things equals zoning administrator. Building code specific items equals building inspector. Number three, if there is to be a home visit to deliver this news, in all cases, the Oglesby Police Department will accompany whoever the expert is. Number four, if the violation isn't resolved by the time that was discussed with the violator, a formal letter is issued with the citation in writing. Also citing our new ordinance that a $100 fee is being accessed to their monthly bill automatically for having to generate and send the letter. Uh hopefully this new step will cause many issues to no longer just keep coming back. Number five, if it's not resolved after the $100 fee is issued and the deadline is passed, then we can go to our previous established means of placing leans on properties. It's our last KPI, which was never really a great long-term solution to see something fixed anyways. But hopefully with the new step in there, we'll start seeing some more things fixed if this if they see something actually added to their current uh wallet, not a threat just 10 or 20 years down the road. That's my understanding of how we're moving forward with that. Okay. So, now that I've said all that, is there anybody here that thinks that we have a different policy established that we talked about as consensus? I'll go around the room. Austin,

um, no. I mean, that that sounds like what we discussed. Um, [clears throat] but I don't know. I've talked to Hillary before this meeting and I think my what my uh recollection of that discussion might have been a little bit off. I'll pass it to her. Hillary, no, I agree. Okay, Matt. Sounds about accurate. Okay, I guess Rich,

I didn't agree with it then. I don't agree with it now. I think that the mayor should possibly send a letter to these people and inform them that we did have a meeting. A lot of people work and they're going to take their money from them if they don't clean their yard anyway. So, I think you should send a letter to them and let them know that, hey, we're serious about this. It's a possibility even up to a lean cleaned. Uh I think they should be notified possibly by the mayor. We're a small community. I think that'd be the way to go with this. not send the cops to their house or get ignorant with them immediately because all that does is causes bad blood. So, I think a nice friendly letter from the mayor. I think that would be sufficient to begin with. Okay. I'm not saying [clears throat] that's not a good option. I'm just I I think this is the first time hearing of that. I don't Has that been something that we discussed before that the mayor sends a letter for property violation stuff?

I don't think so. I don't think I've heard of that before. Um, so well that would be a change [laughter] to what we as I recall the discussion at the time was that people who are familiar with the issue, a building inspector, a zoning enforcement officer, a police department employee should be the one to really address the concern. Not that you're not a specialist at all those things, Jason, but it really throws a big burden on you to deal with issues that you might not be so familiar with.

What I think with you saying that that the officers and that need to go to their house, that's getting personal. I mean, you're going knocking on their door, people get scared. They they worry about what's going on. It's not a friendly conf, you know, confrontation there. A lot of them get nervous right away. And then if they do have something and they haven't cleaned it up or haven't had the time, then they're defensive. I just think a friendly letter would be much more appropriate to begin with here.

So, one of the things we talked about at one of our earlier meetings on this was uh because Austin and I we talked to Marcel's and Ottawa and that's why they had a specific person designated. Matter of fact, in Ottawa it's their former chief of police um who does it as a part-time job basically. So, the reason they did that is because that way they're not having a city employee or a city official. They have a designated person that's actually going around doing that. Um, and I remember we brought it up here and I think it was you that said we think we have the in-house resources to do that here, which I I don't disagree that we do, but the push back that I'm getting is I'm I'm getting the impression that employees think that the council would not support them on that. That's why I wanted to have this conversation here to make sure that that is not the case because if it is, then we need to go with a different method. Um, so I'm I think what I'm hearing is that was the established plan, but now I'm hearing that at least one person wants to do something different. Is that is that also correct?

Yeah. I didn't want to find them to begin with. I don't want to know.

Oh. Um well the fines only after we still I mean because the plan was that the community policing has been very effective in a city of our size. Um so again that's supposed to be just a friendly conversation when the police are there just let them know hey do you know this this is in violation blah blah blah blah and nothing happens nothing negative happens out of it if they get it resolved. Hopefully that would solve 95% and and for the most part I think from my understanding when it comes to like grass issues and stuff like that, it does resolve most of the issues. It's the problems of the ones that completely ignore it or don't do anything about it. That's where we needed to come up with something that was a little more serious. Um so we got one council member wants to do something different. Are is the rest of everybody else do we have a majority that are still on board with the current plan or do we need make a modification? Why? So, as far as the friendly letter is concerned, why can't the building inspector, the plumbing inspector, if law enforcement, whoever's responsible for

respect, authority, huh? Respect and authority. I don't I don't really have I don't even know what No, most people probably don't even know who the building inspector is. What authority is he going to have? Like, they think he's going to come and handcuff him or something. I mean, that comes from the mayor. I think it's a little bit more respectful, has more authority. I don't know if I like the idea of the mayor doing it just because the mayor is an elected office and that puts a lot of pressure, political pressure on the mayor to maybe pick and choose. I'm not saying that he would, but you could have somebody in that seat who well, you know, I really don't want to upset this person, so you know, I'm not going to, you know, I'm I'm not going to I need this person's support, so I'm not going to go knock on their door. And I I I kind of worry about that.

Do you think an officer would have the same concern? Like if one of these officers went to say my house and I come back here and I flip out on all you guys and he come there. Sure. Well, I think with the exception of the chief and the deputy chief, at least with the the regular officers, most of them are I think basically all of them are union employees and so they have a degree of legal protection there. Um, so

I don't have an issue with the mayor sending a letter. Um, that that's not an issue to me at all. The the issue I have with that is it's clearly things that are in other people's department to enforce, right? So that that to me is unless we're going to say the mayor is the one to sign those letters, which again I'm fine with. Well, any mayor should be fine with that. There's nothing wrong with that. I thought we we talked about the expert that is the one that's whe whether that's the zoning administrator or the building inspector because is a mayor going to come in and say by the way your sighting is off on this thing or your your fence is not within standards of blah blah blah blah blah how's a building inspector going to tell you about grass well that's why a car in your yard what is the building inspector telling you why would he be telling you about a car in your yard

well I think those were the legal ones those were the clear legal ones that that we that they fell on the police department I think I think that's our problem is that there's so much scattered around here that nobody has any direction. It's it's not one person's job. So I think you're doing something, you think I'm doing it, it doesn't get done. That's that's where we're at here. Nobody has direction. My understanding is like in the summertime, the grass related stuff was relatively Yeah.

easy to do. I I I think that's been super effective. Um, it's it's the other ones that haven't been like like parking issues or building code stuff with buildings or fences that have not been rectified or somebody put something up that they weren't supposed to or things like that that are a little more complicated. I again I was a proponent of hiring making a part-time position for this to do that if if that's going to be an issue. But I think the argument was that we have the resources in house which I don't argue with uh that we do. I just want to make sure that we're all on board with it and that our employees and stuff are going to be doing these things. Um, I mean, if I have a majority that still wants to do that, we can do that or we can look at another option.

Are there some instances that are troubling you right now that this keeps uh I didn't have I did not print that one off. I think in the email that I sent to both uh um I sent it to the clerk, the chief of police, and then I realized I should have had the building inspector on it and then I think I CC both uh Hillary and Austin about it. I listed five or six of them that have that residents have come to me specifically on in the past that I know have not been resolved. Um, so and I know we've approved this thing. So, I'm hoping that we're going to get movement on. I grant it's winter right now, so building code stuff is not the greatest things to be trying to enforce right now, but I I still think we need to get mo movement on all these things.

Hillary sent me the tech uh text the other day and I just now got back to her here, but um we need a we're thinking of just having a meeting with u the um parties of interest um and just hashing this out and going from there and getting everybody on the same page. Um I think kind of what Rich said, there might be some miscommunication or not exactly super clear expectations as for what's supposed to happen. So, and and also you are the mayor. You get the most complaints, right? They have to be shared. [laughter] Like the email was like, "What are we going to do with these park cart where So that would be helpful if you're expecting something on.

Well, I usually send them I usually forward them on if I got a picture. Sometimes somebody sends me a picture of something and they say, "Why is this like this?" And then I'll I'll send that on or something like that. Um, that's kind of why I think that there needs to be kind of one complaint log similar to the the building permit thing that I sent out to everybody where you can access it and you can have you have view access, you don't have edit access, but there needs to be a similar shared document where if any of us get a complaint about anything like that, whether it's people in city hall, whether it's the police department, we can add those in there and then we can track them. I think I I think that's And you said you're working on something like that, right?

Yeah, I I think police department has something along those lines. I'm not sure if that's exactly what we want to use or or what, but there does need to be something that we all have access to and we can all I think that is is super important and super good. That way if anybody's fielding stuff like that, they can they can check it and say, "Hey, yeah, it is being it's being tracked or whatever." So you can answer to that. So to me, that's a secondary thing. I think the first thing is we got to work on the communication to make sure that we're with it because I'd like to test I feel like we haven't tested this yet. We we've had this approved over a month and to my knowledge no letters have gone out yet.

So to me it needs to be tested to see if this is if this is actually going to work. If it's not going to work, then we need to go with something different. Um because I'll be honest, even if those formal loans go out, I don't know about a letter from the mayor is going to make much if that's g that's automatically going to solve everything. I doubt that highly. So can I ask this? Are are we sending people out like the building inspector? I assume the police, but like for instance, the building inspector because I he would fall under me. Are we sending him out and proactively having him look for violations and then send letters as

I I think as they that's a whole other question because remember we talked about that that part-time individual that's what they did. They actually went around, they looked for violations. And then they also spend some time sending letters and notifying people. I don't know if we need to be actively looking. I mean, I'm not saying that if we know of something that's an issue or if we get a complaint of something, I think we should take action on it. Um, but in in the other examples I gave, it doesn't mean a cop has to knock on the door necessarily. Let's say we have the number of the individual and the the

I'm just saying if somebody has to make a home visit, I think the police should be with with them, whoever it is, right? I don't feel comfortable sending our city clerk out to somebody's home. Uh um things like that. So, I mean, if if they have the number and say, "Hey, I just want to give you a heads up. We got a we got a notification. Uh it looks like your your lawn needs to be uh cut. It's over the number. Can could you get that fixed by Friday, please?" And if they say, "Yeah, thank you." Okay, great. And if it's solved, it's solved. Nobody had to go to the house or anything. But if nobody's answering the phone and you need to go to the door, you got to put something on the door. You got to knock on the door, whatever it is. Remember we talked about was it Marcel or Ottawa? They got the big sign. Yeah. They put these metal signs in people's yards to let them know they're under violation, which is a little aggressive.

I mean, as far I agree with Rich. I I kind of think you should probably send a letter before you knock on somebody's door. I I do think that's I don't know. But I mean, could you not send something out just like so we have a record of everything like certified mail? Well, the problem is we we specifically wrote a ordinance to say if we have to sign a send a letter, Yeah. they get fined $100. But with that being said, I mean, we could send like a Yeah, we could always attach something to the bill for that matter. Well, that's that's where the $100 comes in. Well, I mean, a letter saying, "Hey, we need this fixed before we send the letter out for $100."

Could you not send out like a second letter for $100? Send like an initial warning letter. We could tweak the ordinance to indicate that the mayor or the clerk or somebody's going to send an initial letter, but if it has to be followed up with a violation letter, then that 100 bucks would kick in. You could send it with the bill and have them sign it. They received it. Yeah. I don't know if we necessarily need to put that in the ordinance because however the notification happens that whether that's in person, phone call, letter, we we can do that. I'm I'm good with any of those. I just want to make sure that we're making that friendly attempt to let them know. say, "Hey, just so you know, you're aware just so you're aware you're in violation. Please get this resolved by." And that's why I'd rather have that conversation.

I I think that's kind of where the the sheet comes in. Um I think that would be important because I one of the things I think we'd have to list is uh the the type of uh contact they had and who had that contact. Um so, and on what date they had that contact and the remedy date. Yeah. And the remedy date. So, when the police department makes contact with people, they make a record in their their system. So they do have the record, the date. More than more often than not, I mean, you say we need to get a letter to see how it works. When the police call, they fix the issue. So I mean, the friendly knock on the door is

and maybe most of maybe most of the issues are working. I'm just So there was like six items that I knew that were not resolved yet. That's been going for a long time. Um well, maybe one of them might not have been I guess one of them might not have been a violation in the first place. That's a whole other other thing. My thing is I think there does need to be a conversation. Uh because sending a letter doesn't go with our thought process of the community policing where everybody's friendly, right? Let's say the police show up and and chief could probably talk to this more, but let's say they show let's say they talk to somebody on the phone and they say, "Hey, your grass is overgrown or whatever." Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm on I'm on vacation for two weeks. I'm not even in the area. You know, so a letter wouldn't solve that because a letter would be like, "Hey, if you don't get this solved by the end of the week, we're going to slap you with a fine." You know what I mean? So having a conversation might be like, "Okay, I understand. Can you can you get that fixed the day you get back? Great. Thank you." Something like that. Whatever it is, I think I think whoever those experts are, they should have the levity to be able to

the discretion to the discretion, not discretion to be able to resolve how they want to resolve. I think as council members, our job is to make sure that we're progressing the right direction. And right now, I haven't seen any of that happen this last month. That's the reason I'm bringing it up.

What's odd is that I find it funny. That's kind of what I was saying back when you guys went ahead and hastily passed that. I said, "We need to get it in order more. Find out some structure to this and you guys decided that you're going to send this letter." We we I asked them, "What do you how do you how do you stop someone from taking advantage of Billy's my buddy? He can let his grass grow, but Bob over here, let's he gets he gets a ticket for $100 every every couple months." Why why is that? You're giving there's nothing set in stone here. And that's what I asked at the last meeting was make it more structured so that people know what's going on. The officers need to know what's going on. The person needs to know what's going on. This can't just be flying by the seat of your pants here and figured, "Oh, well, Bob's getting a ticket today. That's I've had enough. It shouldn't be like that." Or, like you said, someone's on vacation, you send them a letter, and then the neighbors grasses the exact same height. How do you how do you handle that?

Send that ticket. Like I said, I think what Austin said there by having a log that puts that in if somebody puts in a formal complaint about whatever it goes in the log, people can see it. Um, maybe there's a note that's made that, and again, I'm just kind of shooting from the hip here. Maybe there's a note that's made in there that officer contacted them. They're in Florida for two weeks. Uh, they said they're going to fix it the day they get back on this date. So, how do you rectify it then? Bob cuts his grass and Bill next door to him is on vacation. He never did cut his grass. And now Bob's really upset because the cops had to come and tell him, "Hey, you need to get your grass cut." And this guy next door never did cut his grass. So, how do you Well, I mean, I think I think if he rectifies it by the date he gets back, I I don't really see an issue with it.

You, you know, as a person that that got that and did the grass, you're going to be upset that someone else did the exact same thing and didn't get in any any problems at all. Well, I mean, he did get spoken to. I mean, you know, there was an exception because he was out of town. Maybe there shouldn't be. Are you saying there should be an exception because he was out of town more structured there there has to be cut. You can't have

I I agree with that. But I think you're getting too granular saying this to to that specifically. My thing is as long as we're moving in the right direction for everybody. That's all that matters. And nobody should get a fine put to them if they legitimately didn't know that they were in violation. That's my only fear, right? Um I I don't want to hear about any any good residents out there that literally didn't know that they were making a mistake and all of a sudden they get a $100 fine. I don't want that to be happening. However, people that willfully say, "Screw it. I'm not doing something, whatever, and it's making other people angry." I don't have a problem with those people getting a $100 fine because I think that's what will start solving problems.

Well, I feel like that's why I passed the the administrative fee, and I was going to let the police department determine the discretion when it's appropriate to apply the administrative fee or not. And they would know because they're making the contact. They're out there. They see if it's been cleaned up or not. I I think there has to be some discretion involved with this. And and no matter what you do, I get it. That guy that gets the two week thing because he's on whatever, he happens to be the police officer's best friend or something like that. Those things are going to happen. It's going to look like that or whatever. But to me, at the end of the day, are we doing the right thing and are we solving problems?

Yeah. I I will say though too, I I think that like a lot of things, we obviously need to do the best job that we can do, but at the end of the day, we could do this totally perfectly, cross our tees, dot our eyes, and you're still going to have people that are going to complain about it and say, "Oh, they're targeting me. They're doing this. They're doing that." And so, I mean, at the end of the day, sometimes you just got to be the bad guy, and you can't make everybody happy. So, okay, I'm I'm hearing at least one commissioner thinks there should be a different route to go about this, but I think we have consensus to go forward. I think we need to have some better communication. We definitely do that. Yeah. And that's I'll I'll take responsibility for that. I I should have been more proactive.

So, how about this? If you guys want to get together, come up with how you think the better communication can be, tracking or whatever, we can readress this again in in January. My big thing is right now I can't even tell if it's a if it's a failure or not, right? Because we haven't sent the letters out to even see if we can get fixes yet. So, we need to get to that point to where we can happen and then if it's not working, we'll readress it. Anything else on this topic? Have we determined who the who the person is that's going to the doors and or even making first contact? It's the police or it's the building inspector or it's decided upon what the problem is?

As I said, it's as I think we all said, it's depending upon what the problem is. If it's a zoning related issue, then it's a zoning administrator. If it is a building code specific uh related issue, then it's the building inspector. If it's any kind of legal thing, obvious legal thing, parking, citation, whatever it is, then it'd be the police. Well, that also begs the question, who's the zoning administrator? I think it says it in I think isn't our city clerk the zoning administrator? Is it blank right now? Oh, yeah. That was one of the two items. I wanted to make sure that got in there, but we didn't go into close session that night. I remember now.

Um [snorts] I don't have an answer for that. I guess that I don't know if that defaults to you in the meantime, which is unfortunate because then we go back to the same thing where an elected official is uh having to do that. I can do it. We'll probably have to do be have to be between the the building inspector and the uh the police department then at that point. Okay. Anything else? All right. Number nine, new business. A property tax levy on file. Cullinin.

Uh yeah. So, um sat down with um Paul Danakus, the city's treasurer, uh prior to the last city council meeting, and he put together uh proposed tax levy for uh 2025 2026. Um two big things of note. Uh one is that the rate for the city uh will be decreasing. Um, and he attributed this to an increase in net assessed valuation after the county came out and reappraised everybody's properties last year, the year prior or something like that. Um, uh, property values went up. Uh, and so with that being said, uh, the city can bring in more money at a lower rate. Um the current rate is 2.12336 and uh using his um proposed numbers that would drop to 2.04932. Uh with that being said though um the city would still bring in an additional $81,000 for 2026. Um so um sent this out to everybody. I think it was after that meeting. Um and you have it in front of you. So that's what I got.

Okay. Go around the room. Anybody has any other comments? Moy? Nope. Mac? No, I don't have any comments on this. Aldridge? No. Okay. I don't have much other just uh Thank you, Paul, for for putting all this together. Again, um you know, we're we're just under the amount that we don't have to I mean, just barely, but we're under the amount. We don't have to do a truth and taxation hearing. Uh I think we're placing it on file today and then uh unless there's any crazy changes, it'll get approved at the uh next meeting. If there's nothing else, uh if we can get a motion to place it on file, I will motion that we place on file. Um the tax levy for 2025 2026. I'll second. Roll call, please. Baldridge. Hi. Colin. Hi. McDermott. Hi. Moy. I. Currin.

Hi. B. Discussion and possible action on intergoal agree. Excuse me. Can I interrupt you for a second? Boston. Did you see my note about abadating the bond levy that's already in place? So,

in 2013, the city adopted a refunding bond ordinance. And that ordinance establishes a levy every year over and above the levy we just placed on file. And this year it's $167,820 uh which will be levied in addition to the levy you already have in place unless you abate it, which you have done every year since 2013. So, I'm assuming you want me to draft an abatement ordinance for adoption at the next meeting, too. So, normally we do that every year. And you know what? I apologize. We have too many people on the council. That is one of the things I should have caught and and realized because I think we we place both on file and we approve next.

Well, you don't have to place the abatement. The abatement we can we can place on file and approve it the same one. Yeah. Perfect. You you don't need to place that one on file because you're actually cutting expenditures, not increasing it. And I assume that's what Paul wants to do, too, because he's got here bonds and interest extended by county clerk zero. So, I think he wants us to abate that and just levy this amount of money. You can double check with him if you want, Austin, but I'm going to work on the assumption that you'll want to abate that at the meeting at the same time. Yeah, it doesn't look like you factored it in. So, remind me again, if we don't do that, what happens is everybody else gets a higher tax thing, but then they get it back at the end. If we abate it, it stops that from

I don't know where you're coming with the get it back at the end. No, they're just going to collect more tax revenue next year and uh everybody's going to pay more than 105% essentially. Well, I would suggest that we retract our Well, no, that that's still placed on file. Normally, I guess we would normally place on file this other one. Normally, we do two, the levy and then this ordinance, but we didn't prepare the ordinance. So, um, well, and that's because I didn't have any direction from you guys. I could have presumed that you wanted me to do it, but it doesn't have to be placed on file, and I would suggest you adopt it unless you want that levy to extend, which will I think if that's been the past practice, I don't see an issue with doing.

I don't think it's an issue. I unless do we need a motion to to have him direct that? I think we just we we get it because it's been done every year and we just place it on file and approve at the next meeting. I I made a note to bring it to the next. Does anybody have an issue with that? Okay. Do we have any intrafund transfers, Austin? Sometimes we address that at this time of year, too, where you want to move money from water and sewer over to general or vice versa or whatever. Are there any of those, Jen, that Paul has talked about? No. No, we we haven't had to do anything. Um, he would have known before because he would have had everything if you guys did it before I got here, and we haven't had to do any of that since I got Just keep it on your radar in case you do. Well, I guess we'll check all that to make sure we don't have any surprises for the next meeting.

Well, and your fiscal year doesn't end until the end of April. So, we have plenty of time to do that resolution, but not the abatement. No, the abatement has to go in with your levy. So, the county clerk has everything in their file to know what they're going to extend for this year. Okay. All right. Um B. Sorry, Jason. I don't interrupting you here. That's all right. B. discussion and possible action on intergovernmental agreement to participate in the Illinois public works mutual aid network moy.

So this got assigned me and I really don't know why because [laughter] it's public works but I'll give it a shot. Um I guess this will allow us to use other cities participation after a datio or some kind of large event so it would be specific to water, sewer and electric. Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't know why I got it. I'm sorry. I should have read it a little better. I was thinking mutual aid like ambulance, police, fire, things like that. Okay. I I could speak to it first and that's fine. So, um I don't know when the last time we've done one of these. Gentlemen, do you know if the last time you responded to one of these IP workmen things? No.

The last time I think I did something was around the do time frame. That's when resources can come in. Whether we ask for resources or or they ask for us. I think we've been asked a few times to I can't remember what they were, but there's times that we have sent help out to other loca minor things like that and then we can request help to come in. So, um I looked at it over it didn't look like there was really much change. I think it was about uh notification items on there of who makes up the board or something like that. The biggest thing I was interested in when I looked at it was if there was any changes to any rates or how it's paid. How it's paid. It's the same as the IMEA thing. Whoever comes in, we pay them at whatever their rate is that they have in their contracts or collective bargaining agreements, whatever it is, we abate that exact abate. I got the word bait my we spend the exact amount uh for what that cost is. So, uh, anybody else want to talk about they can go around the rest of the room? Well, I got a lot of to read up on it and want to make sure everything's done fair and across the board. Um,

is one of you guys seeing those text? So, I used to see all those like every month there was a test that come out for it all as commissioner, but I I don't believe heard anything about it. I I haven't. After Commissioner Moy alerted me that it didn't actually have anything to do with mutual aid in the police, right? I reviewed it a little bit. Um, I believe what you were referring to was when the IMEA was called and uh we had our cooperative program with them. I don't know that we utilize this program here. Um, it would be anyone anywhere in this area, I don't know what the radius is, could call us on even a just a a day where it's raining outside or anything there. There doesn't have to be an emergency or anything like that.

And I don't know who would eat the costs on that. [clears throat] It appears we've been doing this since about 2009, I believe. I read. I've never heard of it. I don't know. Yeah. So, the do thing for the electrical stuff was it was a different one. That's a different mutual aid agreement. We have uh we actually have two of them. We have one with just LAD uh Princeton and Peru and us and then there's the greater one where we need to bring in bigger resources from outside from the IMA. But however, in that case, for example, I think one of there was a cleanup truck that came through at Hen Highway Road because there was debris all over the place and it was more than our uh street department could handle. So, they actually brought somebody in for that. But, we have sent other resources out in the past. So,

I'll have to dig through my phone. I don't know what that that should have transferred to you guys then if you're not seeing those messages because there's like a test message that come used to come out every month anyways and then every once in a while if somebody's having an emergency you would see something come in and if your guys were available you could send your resources to them. So um I'll see if I can find an old contact for that so that way you guys can get access to that. Appreciate that. Okay. Uh anybody have anything else? Do we have to re-up this agreement or

I thought I saw it as a I haven't seen it, but it says in possible action. So, that told me somebody thought something needed to be done. But you I don't know that there's any urgency to it. If you want to take a look at it between now and the next meeting, you could just table it and have a better understanding of what Let's do that. Well, I mean, obviously, I don't want to approve anything if our attorney hasn't seen it yet. I mean, I look through it and I all I really look for was the rates to make sure we're going to pay something crazy. Um, I would recommend let's send it to Pat, take a look at it, and if it's good, we can approve it at the next one. Make a motion to table. I second that motion. Roll call, please. Seems himself. Uh, Baldridge. Hi. Colin. Hi. McDermott. Hi. Moy. Hi. Currant.

Hi. Number 10. Public comment on any topic.

Well, thank you, mayor, and good evening, commissioners. It's nice to see you guys again. I hope everybody's doing well. as well.

I'd like to provide some clarity regarding the uh agenda item on travel this evening. I'd just like to set the record straight here. The commissioner in 2023 didn't start the process or make the decision solely. That wasn't the case at all. What actually happened in the past was a consultation with [cough] other council members and the city clerk. And just to be specific here, I'm talking about travel to the Illinois Municipal League conference where every single council member attended, including the city clerk and the chief of police. Uh we considered what would be the easiest way to pay for the Illinois Municipal Training Conference that every council member and the city clerk and the police chief would all attend together. And we followed a past practice that was used even prior to the council before us. uh a mileage rate for uh everybody attending would be identical because everybody was traveling from Oglesby to downtown. So that number is fixed. It was the same. The cost of a standard hotel room for each person attending was identical since they were all booked prior to the conference. What would happen is is that the clerk would decide or or get information as to who was planning on attending. She would book the rooms, she would book the standard parking. Um the only dynamic was the cost of meals and due to the event being held in the city of Chicago uh there's uh essentially various things that could happen here and I want you guys to think about this as you keep talking about this because as somebody who's been there I'm seeing you kind of go in circles with it. So the example that I'd give you is this. Commissioner A comes back with a receipt for $40 for a pizza dinner and mayor or other official comes back with a receipt for $200 for a steak dinner. There's obviously a big difference there. And then we start getting into a a period of where now we're going to qualibble about, well, wait a minute,

you spent $200, I only spent $50. So the majority group at the time agreed the easiest way was a pdeium amount of $100 per day per person which would cover the meals and fuel for your vehicle to drive down. That's how we got to that part. Uh this pdium allowance was reflected in the bills and it was available to any public reviewer. There was no objection raised uh or issued by uh then and current city attorney, the honorable Pat Barry. You're welcome, Pat.

Thank you, Tony. uh all other events of individual attendance would require the council member to submit the information for council approval. The intent was that a consensus could be achieved and transparency to the taxpayer as to where the person was going and the cost and what the benefit to the city was. So I want to I want to stress that and emphasize that there's a difference here. We're talking about group travel where everybody was going where it was basically a rubber stamp because everybody was on the same page. There was nothing to argue about when an individual went to travel. This is where it came up of what's the benefit to the city so that everybody could feel good about making the approval. Uh this was all considered and uh and done transparently with an allowance for debate. The final result was that an ordinance was passed uh and the council moved on to consider more pressing matters like how to fund a wastewater treatment plant mandate. So finally, I want to point out to you folks, you're the ones who make the decisions on travel, not the commissioner who was here in 2023. Whatever you choose to do, that's your call. What this is the way it was done in the past. What I just explained to you is exactly what was done in the past. Um, and I just want to emphasize that elected officials are supposed to be here to serve, not whine and dine on the taxpayer dime. And I'm I'm proud to say that myself and the people who went before were very cognizant of that. And that's how we came up to that predium. So with that, I want to say thank you for letting me come up here and clarify that for you. And I hope that gives you the ability going forward to get this all worked out. So, thank you very much.

Appreciate it. All right. Are there any other public comment on any topic? Seeing none. Number 11, [clears throat] commissioner reports. Commissioner Cullen.

Uh yes. Uh just three things. Um uh in the office this week, um Aaron has training Wednesday, uh with somebody from Civic Systems. Uh again, regarding that customer portal, I asked her today just to confirm my estimate that um this should be done by the end of the year uh or early January and she says that sounds about right. So again, that's coming down the pipeline. Um, one of the things uh that uh I decided upon or we decided upon maybe is the better way to put it um is that to incentivize people uh to pay their bills online because we do have a large number of people who come in and pay cash for bills um for which there's no fee. Um there is a fee if you come in and pay credit card but or pay online through our current bill pay provider. Uh, one of the things that we're going to do is uh wave the credit card fee uh for people who pay their bills online uh in order to try and get more people moved over to that. Um there are just sitting in the office and I've probably as far as I've I've spent a few days in there. Um but there are really a lot of people who come in in person to pay bills. Uh and it is um It's I think it's great to see their faces. I think everybody likes the the inerson connection, but uh it is it does make the office a very busy environment. And so that's kind of um we're going to try and incentivize people to pay online as much as possible by uh waving that credit card fee. Uh the last thing uh is that Santa Claus will be coming tomorrow to Senica Square between uh tomorrow, December 2nd and December 9th to Senica Square. uh between five to six uh children will again be able to enjoy hot cocoa and take a picture with Santa. And I believe that is all I have for

tonight. So what you're saying is Santa Claus is coming to town. Uh I believe that would be correct. Yes. Commission.

I want to thank Nobles Dorf and we are Oglesby for thinking of our e our first responders on November 26th. They provided Thanksgiving meal kits catered by two brothers. They provided 11 feed his children Thanksgiving meal kits. 15 to Meals on Wheels and eight to our first responders and two meal kits to the pad shelter. And in addition to that, they continued their generosity by donating $500 to the food pantry. So, thank you. Um, as far as statistics for the month of November, the police department has conducted 74 traffic stops, 418 business, park, and house checks, five accident reports, assisted EMS 36 times, and completed 22 incident reports. For the fire department, there are 19 total calls, six vehicle accidents, four auto aid, three activated alarms, two rescues. They assisted with the turkey trot, one vehicle fire, and one controlled burn. And then lastly, with the ambulance, they had 55 911 calls, one event standby, five transfers, and seven ALS intercepts for a total of 68 calls. That's everything I have.

Thank you, Commissioner McMurray. Well, I first need to ask residents to please do not put shovel snow out on the city streets as this creates a safety concern for everybody. Um, please don't do that. Um, we got to think of everybody. Also, I would like to reassure residents that although it might have been done in the past, the city cannot plow personal alleys as this is a liability to the city and could create a hazard as well. Um, we have the wastewater treatment plant that is on schedule as planned and hopefully we get the dry bridge done. I'd like to also thank uh Don Finley for his concern about the uh lights and moving it so the safety of the residents and the semi drivers can get through there. Thanks, Don.

Go ahead. Commissioner Baldridge. Uh last night the electric department was called out. They worked all night. The GTI transformer had gone out. Problem was it kicked out the whole west end. The transformer is bad. Uh they replaced it. They were able to get the west end up quickly with a new switch, but had to check everything at GTI. They finally got them going 100% as a transformer went bad. Was for the newest section that was hardly anything in that section yet. [snorts] Uh it's not under warranty, so they probably will be purchasing a new one. And uh [clears throat] that's all I had. Okay, thank you.

Number 12, mayor's report. Uh first thing just like Austin said uh Santa and hot cocoa will be at the Senica Square uh Santa Hut on December 2nd and December 9th. So that's tomorrow starting tomorrow uh from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. And also Santa will be at uh the Dickinson House from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. on the 13th which is uh so that'll be ending about an hour right before we are Oglesbee's parade at kicks off at 5:00 pm. So I think this is their third one. I think it's their third. Um it's not that right. Could be third, could be fourth. Third. Third.

Okay. Third and super excited. It keeps getting bigger and better every year. So hats off to them and we look forward to that event. Uh number two, Amaran transmission line. So um [clears throat] so I had been contacted by Amarind by their public uh public affairs people um last week. Um, so there is a transmission line that kind of goes through the city. Um, mostly kind of goes along um, Oakwood, goes up around Arbor Street. It goes through a lot of people's uh, residential residential backyards and things like that. So, apparently that that line has been deenergized and they're looking to remove it. However, they didn't reach out to anybody ahead of time and they thought their construction crews are going to start tearing it down last Monday, the week of Thanksgiving. So, I was able to get them to stop uh on doing that, at least in the residential areas. So, here's what's going on. Amron is looking to remove an old transmission line that's no longer being used. The lines go through the city uh and goes through many people's yards right now. The good news is the lines are going to be removed and the poles. So, everybody should be happy about that. If you have a house that's affected by it, you're going to get a the pole and the lines all removed and land's going to be restored. The bad, it's going to be relatively inconvenient because they got to get some heavy equipment in there to do so. So, starting tomorrow, they're going to start uh knocking on people's doors and putting door hangers up there trying to get a hold of uh the homeowners to to coordinate with them the best time to be able to get the equipment in there to remove all the stuff. So, um so if you wonder why somebody's walking around knocking on your door or what they're trying to get a hold of you for, it is a good thing. They're trying to remove all the stuff that you don't want to have anymore. So, um, and the last thing I have is I put it out on on Facebook, but just so you know, our our city clerk was able to put on the city's main web page. It's on the main page if you scroll all the way down. Uh, Ogulby, our hometown. This was the 1902 to 2002 book that was done. Uh, the state of Illinois uh, Governor's Award uh, gave us our hometown award for it because it was such a great project.

There's a lot of people uh, that that were part of making that project that are not here anymore. Uh there's a few people that are still here. Their names are recorded in the book. You cannot get a physical book for it anymore. However, the clerk's office happened to find an old CD of it actually. So, if you were to try to get this CD downloaded back in 2002, it probably would have taken you about two days. Now, it takes about 15 to 20 seconds. So, it's on there. Um there is a little weird Sorry, I didn't talk to you about this yet. There's a little weird glitch where it says click here. That doesn't work. If you click on the picture of it, you can download that file. It's a great file to have. Uh it's a 331 page uh book of the history of Oglesby and again a lot of residents put it together, put a lot of work on to it. So that's all I have. Uh number 13, [clears throat] executive session four, the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific employees, 5LCS120C1, and collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or the representatives or deliberations concerning the salary schedules for one or more class of employees 5CS120C2. That's all. And after that, do I have a motion to go into executive?

I'll make a motion going into executive session. I'll second. Roll call, please. Baldrich. I call in. Hi McDermott. Hi Moy. Hi Curran.

I And there is no planned actions after executive session. Thank you everybody. Thank you. moving forward.

I get I understand I understand they're not also

People just slam against the door. Are you driving up in the morning, Jason?

I have to go to uh Yeah, I have to My flight's at 7:30 tomorrow morning. So, God, I know. Not fun. Um Hey, we should maybe put the Christmas tree in the corner there because there used to be a door there before. So now that there's no door, maybe that would look really nice in our in our shot. Perfect. Yeah, you can do that. Cool.

We got everybody here. Back in open session. Uh, roll call, please. Baldridge, here. Colin, here. McDermott here. Moy here. Currin here. Number 14. Uh, adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Second that motion. Roll call, please. Baldridge. Hi. Cullinin. Hi. McDermott I Moy I Currin Hi we are journal

no but I didn't understand what you and Mark sent me a week before so are you talking about a different path if we have to pay for a different path and that's have to do has anybody talked to those land owners