City Council - Regular Meeting

Would you guys like to provide any additional? Yes. I responded to your email. You didn't respond back.

Oh, that's awkward.

You can respond now.

I'll wait.

We're not in a meeting right now.

It's just having a conversation.

No.

Public hearing is open for everybody.

Anybody can speak for as long as they want. Public hearing is about to commence. So, like, if instead I chose to try to filibuster for two hours the way I did the first time the 10th district was brought up, that would be allowed? Just figured I'd clarify it before we did.

Is there a motion to nominate Alderwoman Granath to serve as the mayor pro temp for tonight's council meeting? Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed?

I called meeting to order. We will do the invocation by Pastor Chaplain Davis and then the Pledge of Allegiance.

Is Chaplain Davis here?

Alderman Beach.

Father God, it is a privilege to come before you, and we thank you for this opportunity. Lord, we pray that you'd be with us tonight around this arena. There's a lot of business to take care of. We ask for your guidance and your wisdom. We also, Lord, want to remember those who are grieving tonight, who have sickness in their family, for strength for them. Lord, we thank you for our public service, our place on fire, and our first responders. We now ask you to guide and direct the rest of this meeting. In the name of your Son, Christ, amen.

with liberty and justice for all.

We need the clerk to take the roll.

Here.

Here.

Here. Here. Here.

We are going to move into the public hearing part of the meeting.

I will read this.

The next agenda item for the City Council is a public hearing pursuant to the Bond Issue Notification Act of the State of Illinois to receive public comments on the proposal to sell general obligation bonds, alternate revenue source, in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $103 million for the purpose of constructing a municipally owned municipal convention hall together with all necessary adjuncts thereto, including but not limited to a hotel. I will open discussion from the, any discussion from the council.

Thank you. That was my, well, I have a quick question about the audio system. And I don't think it's working. I just wanted to ask Director Hughes if, The individuals and residents watching online can hear us. It's not projecting like the other system here in the room. So I just want to know if it's working. Is it? All right.

All right.

It's really hard to hear in here. Thank you.

Alderwoman Meeks. Thank you so much. I just wanted to read a comment that a resident sent to me. And I just wanted to share it before we open it up to the public. Good morning, Alderman Meeks. I read in today's paper that tonight there is a public hearing regarding the issuance of bonds to finance the Hard Rock Casino Hotel. I believe that the city should probably not become involved with the financing of this private business. The casino is making a profit now. They should be able to obtain financing through banks or other non-governmental avenues. Rockford has given them a monopoly to operate a casino. That should be the extent of the city's involvement. Financing their hotel places other local hotel businesses at a competitive disadvantage. In the event that the hotel is not successful, the city will be financially at risk. I trust you will study the pros and cons of this matter very hard before making a determination as to whether you support the city financing this private business. Thank you for your consideration. I just wanted to lay out the different perspectives that some residents feel regarding this topic. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Council? Alderman Beach?

I wonder if I could ask a question about this, or is there another time I could ask a question?

Hold on a second. Hold on.

Our host agreement originally called for $7 million a year to the city. I think I remember, I'm not sure, but I want to ask, will that continue if these bonds are sold through the length of our obligation to cover it, or will it continue past that because we're willing to be a part of it?

Alderman Beach, you are correct. The host community agreement does have a minimum guarantee related to the gaming tax at $7 million. If you may recall, when City Council authorized us to take the step in the process to continue to evaluate the project and the feasibility of selling bonds, that was one of the points that that the council wanted to maintain that $7 million guarantee, you know, at least on average on an annual basis. So that has been our discussions with Hard Rock. We, sorry, we did, I mean, there's no doubt that we anticipate that there will be an impact on the Hard Rock Casino with the development that's taking place in Beloit. You know, they're scheduled to open later this summer and fall. And so we will see a direct impact on overall revenue anticipated should this project continue, probably during the construction period and then for some time afterwards. But then it is also anticipated to level off and recover. And Convention Center Hotel is determined to be a key piece of being a competitive related to the regional gaming.

If there are no seats available in the chambers, overflow is available and set up in the lobby. So for those standing at the back of the chamber, you will need to leave and go downstairs and sit in the overflow chairs. And you can do that in the overflow in the lobby downstairs. We have rules that there is no standing in chambers.

I will leave as soon as...

Well, there is... There's one more empty chair over here, by the way. So, every gentleman on that side needs to leave the...

So, it doesn't matter where they're sitting, if they're going to make a comment, they can come up here to make the comment, correct?

Yes. Correct, okay.

They said they're here now.

No other sample here at all?

We will wait until the chamber is, everybody is seated, or they leave and go to the overflow room. OK, now we will, is there any written testimony regarding the issuance of the bonds? No written testimony. Are there any oral testimony or public comments concerning the proposed issuance of the bonds?

Yeah.

Good evening.

Sorry.

My name is Theresa Hill, and I am a resident of Rockford. Sorry. I'm going crazy. Thank you. And I live in Signal Hill, but I've lived in Rockford for over 10 years. And I am opposed to offering any kind of help to all of these businesses that we've been doing, including this bond, because we have residents in the mobile home park that are getting displaced that maybe council will take a look at. I find that people losing their place of living is way more important than helping millionaires make more money. I'm not against helping business, but I think we need to get our priorities set and make sure that you've already quickly voted that they have to move. And yet, oh, well, sometime we'll take up getting them some help. And they're going to need help. And $4,000 when rent is $2,000 only solves the problem for two months. So we need something long term that will really solve the problem. And that's really all I wanted to say, is we need to start looking at the people and what is going to affect people, like the TIF districts for the data centers and things like that. Because we live here, and we need the help, too. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Weird that we have to play the shell game every time. I also want to reiterate what that other member of the public just said. Again, we're the public here. We're not supposed to be here. You guys know that. It's way easier for things to happen when we're not this upset. Why are we upset? Similar to what she just said. It's the fact that you're spending time, effort, and energy to try to win over big businesses as opposed to trying to win over your community. When this public hearing is specifically about $103 million worth of bonds that we're trying to sell in order to help a casino fund a profitable venture for them. I don't think that's in dispute. I think we all understand that that's what we're doing right now. We're trying to help a casino make more money. That seems ridiculous to me. It seems kind of like helping a multi-billion dollar data center make more money. We're not here because we're anti-business or that we're anti-advancement or that we're anti-Rockford. We're here because we care about this city. We're here trying to pay attention, trying to read through the lines and learn what's happening. The city of Rockford put out a series of public statements today. regarding something that you're going to vote on today, talking about something that might change in the future. We might have new legislation that could affect decisions that are being made today. I think that it behooves us to wait to make those decisions until we have the security in place to know that we're not going to misuse public funds. When we're looking at this particular project, we're talking about $103 million worth of risk. I mean, granted, there will always be some level of pulling that money back if the whole project goes bad pretty early on. Maybe it's only $10 million that we waste. Maybe the casino has to pay us back for that $10 million of wasted money. But if they go belly up, OK, that would be weird. We're talking about new casinos opening around us. We're talking about... Possibly not. So the idea is that this casino is going to perform incredibly well because of this $103 million worth of financing that the city is offering. That's a guess. That's a risk. That depends on what the communities around us do. And as we can see, the communities around us are also interested in promoting gambling. Uh, it also seems like the communities around us are interested in promoting other, other ventures that could be incredibly destructive to our environment. I want us to pay attention and realize that although we could approve this and have some level of control over the system that we're creating here, we could just say no. We could just, when businesses come to us and ask for assistance, we could just go, actually, I saw a homeless guy on my way into council chambers today. And I care more about that guy than I do the $103 million casino fund. I know you guys walk around here at night. I know you see the negatives of this city. I know when you drive by, you see the derelict buildings that we have. We could and should invest public funds into bringing the city as a whole up a level. We could and should spend city funds to help out the residents of the city. At best, the hope is that this $103 million effective investment into the casino will bring dividends. But we don't know that. We have no guarantees. That's why it's a risk. That's why the casino is coming here to put the risk on you guys as opposed to taking it themselves. When these companies come to you, please understand that they're coming to you guys as representatives of us. So if the public is against something that you're considering, you should understand that it's your responsibility to put a pause on it. It's your responsibility to say, I haven't done a good enough job of explaining why this is OK to my constituents. You need to make sure that we understand and actually have time to review any proposed legislation or any proposed things that could limit the amount of takeover of our tax dollars. We haven't had that time. We've talked a lot about vague things that could happen in the future. But until something's written down as policy and then approved, those are just words. We don't do a good job of ensuring that we follow the law, the rules, in general, in council chambers. I mean, we had, what, 20 minutes of other people standing up, even though that's a violation of the rules, but we didn't want to enforce those rules right then. That seems weird to me. We've had council members not present for incredibly extended periods of time. Love more comments about that, but I'm choosing to be respectful here. I'm choosing to not express the situation as I understand it. Please recognize that. Please recognize that when I walk away, I'm saying, please help us. That when I stop speaking here, I'm allowing you to continue. I could, as we all know, stand up here for hours and continue to speak and just make your lives suck just a little bit more. And I'm not going to do that. Because I do actually care about each and every one of you. Because you're human beings. You're Rockfordians. You're people that I should care about and should respect. I want us to all feel like a sense of community. I want us to all feel that what happens in Rockford is good for Rockford. The decisions that get made here are representative of the decisions and conversations that get made here. You really need to take a deep look and understand why you're sitting where you're sitting. Is it the $1,000 a month? It's really not that big of a paycheck, guys. I think all of you make that individually, by yourselves, no problem. I know some Rockfordians who could use $1,000 a month. So that leaves me in a really weird spot, where when the residents complain, you don't want to listen. But when big businesses ask for a handout, you will. I don't know why that is. I don't know why this particular meeting is so full of controversial topics. The fire department's here. They're upset. People against the data center are here. They're upset. We're talking about $103 million worth of funding for a casino's hotel, and not many people here actually care about that. Isn't it weird that we're talking about this big of a thing, and your audience actually isn't really paying attention to this portion of the meeting? Like, that should tell you that we need to put a pause in any sort of advancements of plans that are not with the residents' desires. Like, please, I'm not asking you to do more work. I'm not asking you to do any work. In fact, I'm asking you to do nothing. If you don't have a request from the citizens Don't do anything. If you have a request from somebody who's going to profit, you should pause and ask yourself, who are they profiting from? If they're profiting from the residents of Rockford, you should say no to them. At the very least, you should try to convince us why a yes is an OK thing to do. The city of Rockford has talked about annexations. Just today, we posted stuff about annexations that we did that we can't undo. That's really weird phrasing for something we're happy about. We're talking about not being able to undo these annexations that we've done on the south side of town because you recognize that the citizens are upset about it. So when we're talking about these large-scale decisions and you're not sure about what the public response to that is, ask us. Listen. Have listening sessions. Show up when the community shows up to talk about the things that you're doing. Every once in a while, a couple of you do that. I thank you. I thank you greatly for doing that. I just want to make sure that what happens on this side is what this side wants. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I've ever asked for. That and making sure that we understand the rules for this chamber. Making sure we understand things like the Open Meetings Act. Making sure we understand that if you have a meeting, and on that agenda form, there's a part that says public comment that is probably written there because that meeting requires public comment. I recognize that that's going to take a pack review, and we're going to have that conversation in a couple of weeks because it takes 10 days for you guys to be forced to respond. Please understand that the stuff that I get up here and spew is because I care. I make no money from any of this. I've never made a single penny from sitting back there for the last nine months. All of you know me. There are a ton of city staff that knows my name that I've never met. I would love to be a part of a conversation with those city staff members. I have talked to a number of them. And please, ask your colleagues. How those conversations have gone. If I've ever yelled at them or threatened violence or done anything incredibly disrespectful. Because I don't. Like, I know things about what happens in these chambers. I know the interpersonal problems that exist. Because I pay attention, guys. Like, the snide remarks, the little... I... There's a whole lot of tabloid press that could come to council chambers that shouldn't because it's not helpful. But like, if nothing I can do is helpful, well then I got no problem being your tabloid press. I try to pay attention. I try to FOIA things. I try to record things. I try to investigate things. I'm going to keep doing that. I want to do that to improve the city and to improve the relationship that you guys have with the people. That's always been my goal. Please, listen to us. When it comes to $103 million for the casino, no, you shouldn't approve the bonds. You should have a public hearing. You should actually have a public hearing where you explain what's happening, and then the public can ask questions. You could do that right now. I mean, city council has a way to allow anybody from the public to come up here and speak, and you could compel anybody from city staff to answer them. We have that system in place. If you're going to approve this $103 million for the casino, I ask that you do that first, that you actually allow it to be a conversation with the people of Rockford. That's what should happen whenever there is a contentious topic. We're talking about being in debt at the end of this year. What are we going to do about that? $51 million TIF district. That doesn't seem like the right call. That doesn't seem like you're actually doing what's best for the Rockfordians. We need you guys to actually respect what we think. We need you guys to be engaged in that conversation. I appreciate the stuff that's been floated by recently legislatively. That would be great. I would love to see some of that written down, enacted, actually published in full. But we haven't seen any of those things regarding any of our future plans for Rockford. So I can't just take you at your word for it. Your word has not been very good. These public hearings are supposedly something of importance. You're supposed to pay attention to these. You're supposed to care about them. We had a public hearing not terribly long ago about a TIF district. in which the residents all spoke against, including some government entities from the other taxing bodies that are affected by that TIP district. And those comments are not part of anything that you guys have in front of you for the agenda packet. So what is the point of the public hearing? We rescheduled that public hearing and had a separate one at 2 PM on a Thursday, because that's the right time so the public can be here. In fact, that wasn't the right time for any of you guys to be here. There was one alderman who sat in the back, and I thank her very, very much for being willing to listen to the public. Nobody else did that other than the one other member of city staff who was required to be here, or council staff who was required to be there. You didn't record any of that public hearing, despite the fact that in the TIF documents that you got in front of you, you explicitly say that the verbal comments from the public hearing are part of the record. I FOIAed that record. You have no recording. It appears that I am the only one with the recording for what happened at that public hearing. So again, I ask, what is the point of this public hearing? If you're not going to listen to us, if you're not going to listen to five hours of public testimony against the TIF district, then why are you letting me talk right now? Seriously, why are we giving me the opportunity to come up here and complain at you guys? If you're not going to listen anyway, if everything that the city of Rockford, like the actual people who live here, say, if that doesn't matter to you, then why even give us the opportunity in the first place? One could make the argument that you're legally compelled to do that, but you're also legally compelled to do your OMA training. You're also legally compelled to not get three DUIs while you sit here. I'm trying to be nice. I guess you're trying to be. Aw, come on, Frost. Aw, that little giggle. That little giggle's fun. Do you want to go over how you be respectful in council chambers? I mean, you threatened to take it outside with some other people. There were obviously some interesting words that got exchanged before a couple weeks ago. Any comments about that? No, we're just, we're, ah, okay, cool, cool. That makes sense. Respect goes both ways, and there's not a whole fucking lot of it from you guys. So I'm going to do the thing you won't do. I'm going to turn to the audience back here, and I'm going to ask them if they would like me to continue to talk for as long as I can remain standing up here, or if they would like to let you guys continue with the process.

Cheers for continue to stand and talk for three or four hours until you all get bored and go home.

Cheers for letting me All right, well, how's it going, guys? What do you want to talk about? No data centers would be cool. I don't know how public hearings work. Can I talk about data centers? I just gave a two hour long presentation about data centers, actually. It was really fun. I can pull it up on my phone if you'd like. Oh, we're trying to figure out if I'm not allowed to say these words? Is that what's happening? Am I cool to continue on? Awesome. Cool. Let's see if I can pull up it's in my Google Drive somewhere.

I promise we are here to talk about the bond sale That is what the public comment is for So you're we are we have somebody we have somebody speaking right now about the bond Yeah, I'm sure yeah

I think we shouldn't do this. Similarly, I think we shouldn't do the TIF for the data center. And the reasons why I think we shouldn't do for the TIF for the data center.

We are here to talk about the bond sale, and that is what the open comment is right now.

Is that like a legal restriction or something? I mean, it's weird that we're having a back and forth here.

We are here to talk about the bond sale, and that was what open comment is about.

I guess you're here to talk about it. I'm less here to talk about it. I'm here primarily in focus of the TIF district, although I did offer lots of public comments about the bond sales.

So if you have no more comment about the bond sale, then is there another person in the audience that would like to talk about the bond sale?

If I give up my ability to talk, is somebody else going to be granted the ability to talk and then I can come back? There was a promise that got made at the last public hearing, and then it got taken away. Because somebody had physical therapy to go to? That was what I have on my recording. I realize the city doesn't have a recording of that specifically.

Excuse me, I'll ask the question.

Is it my turn to talk?

Comments are required to be limited to the topic at hand, which is the... The request to sell general obligation bonds. So if they're not related to that, then we can move on to the next speaker. Okay.

So if you are wanting to continue to talk about the bond sale, then we can continue to have the conversation.

Sure. Let's continue to talk about the bond sale. You shouldn't do that. Uh, You shouldn't spend $1 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $2 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $3 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $4. How much? $103 million? OK. You shouldn't spend $5 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $6 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $7 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $8 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $9 on the bond sale. You shouldn't spend $10 on the bond sale. Wouldn't it be so much easier if I could actually just give the public comments that I want to give right now? I gave you the opportunity to do that at the Finance and Personnel Committee meeting, the opportunity to follow the law as you're legally required to do. You've all received Open Meetings Act training. You should all understand that if we have one meeting and then we add another meeting, we should increase the amount of public speaking opportunities that can occur because there are two meetings. It's not really complicated. It's legally required. I would love to get some sort of additional information. Just for the record, I did get a response from City Legal. It's fun that it took me standing up here and complaining and offering the opportunity to get a response before you disappeared and then gave me a response. I appreciate the response, but you could have very easily done that publicly. Speaking about the city misunderstanding their own rules. I don't know, man. The city shouldn't spend $11 on the sale of bonds. The city shouldn't spend $12 on the sale of bonds. How long can I wait in between? Is there a certain amount of time I have to pause in between my statements? Can I get a drink of water? Can I go to the bathroom? How does this function? Do we have a system for that? I'm sure somebody can go acquire me diapers and a camel pack. We shouldn't spend $12 on the sale of bonds. We shouldn't spend $13 on the sale of bonds. We shouldn't spend $14 on the sale of bonds. We shouldn't spend $15 on the sale of bonds. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. What is it, it takes like one million seconds is 36 years, is that right? Whatever, we'll figure out how long I can talk for. Shouldn't spend 19 million on bonds, shouldn't spend $19 on bonds, shouldn't spend 20 million on bonds, shouldn't spend $20 on bonds, shouldn't spend $21 on bonds, shouldn't spend $22 on bonds, shouldn't spend $23 on bonds, shouldn't spend $24 on bonds. feel like if we were actually using the system functionally, my comments should be stopped by now. But we're not, because for some reason we appreciate the concept of rules and not the actual point behind them. When the public has things to say, you should let the public say those things, because when you don't, we get upset. Like, again, none of these people are here because they want to be here. These people are here because they're passionate about a thing that they don't want you to mess up for the next 23 years. They're passionate about a thing that we don't want to say, unfortunately, this has already happened. Unfortunately, we cannot undo the annexations that have existed. We also shouldn't have to undo any of the decisions you make Because you should listen to the people. You should make informed decisions. I haven't heard any reasonable arguments for this financing. that aren't the city taking on liability in place of the Hard Rock Casino. For the record, the Hard Rock does not give the residents of Rockford any money. I realize that they do give, what, $7 million a year, however much they are required to give us at the end of the year as a percentage of their profits or whatever it is, but that money

comes from the people who live here.

I'm not sure if you know how casinos work, but usually you put them places, and then people in the area go there and then lose a bunch of money. That's like the concept of the casino. That's like the casino's plan is that they'll put up a sign and then people will come over and then they'll take their money. That's the whole business model. So when we do things that prop up a casino, we're taking money out of our own pockets. The residents matter, guys. When we do anything that spends our tax dollars or affects how we could, in the future, generate tax dollars, it affects the people who live here. That's why the people who live here are here. That's why we care about this. That's why the whole concept of a TIF district or the concept of $103 million worth of loans, how am I getting told no? No, not for me. It's completely unrelated. I mean, I could FOIA it. Anyway, sure. When it comes to doing things in the city of Rockford, you really have to pay attention and understand that although we do get outside money and outside funding from other people, from visitors that come to the area, it's not nearly as significant proportionally when compared to the 150,000 people who live here. the 150,000 people who elected you to the seats that you're in right now, the 150,000 people who want to communicate better with their city. I understand how people build frustrations with their local government. Believe it or not, I worked for the federal government for about a decade. I understand people misunderstanding what I do. And I understand people misunderstanding what happens in this guise of complicated government shenanigans. It's your jobs to pull back the curtain and to show us exactly what's happening. It's your jobs to make sure that we're informed as a citizenry that we support the things that you support and that you support the things that we support. When it's a big business coming in, you've got to pay attention. Who owns that business? Where's that money going when it leaves Rockford? Because people only come here, businesses only come here, to profit here. So they're going to employ some people, for sure. But if they're selling goods and services in Rockford, like taking money from people at Rockford, hey, T, neat. If you guys want to grab snacks, I mean, go for it. There is a snack cart. I mean, they got a snack cart in there. It's fine. Anyway, so you got to pay attention to us. Again, it feels like we're going to continue riffing for a while because that's an acceptable use of your time and my time and everybody else's time as opposed to allowing for actual public engagement in the public process. Cool.

Your comments are getting repetitive. You've made your position known. Please yield the microphone so that somebody else can speak.

Can I say no?

Again, your comments are repetitive. You've made your position known. Please yield the microphone so that someone else can speak.

How about this? If you go ahead and give a synopsis of my comments and give a promise that you will actually listen to us, I'll yield the floor right now.

Your comments are repetitive.

We should not spend $24 on TIFF funding.

You've made your position known. Please yield the microphone so that somebody else can speak.

Do the same thing I did before. What do you guys think? Should I stop talking? Should I continue talking? Hey, great. Engage with the public, and they don't make you sit here for hours on end. Actually allow them the opportunity to feel like they're being respected, and we'll respect you back. Please.

Hello. I want to live in a wheelchair accessible town. I want our money to be going to wheelchair accessible sidewalks. I want to be able to ride my bike from all sides of Rockford. And I want to have sidewalks on every road. And I want trash cans around. The city is trashed. It's disgusting. And I want trash cans around. Rockford to be spending our money on needs of our communities like sidewalks, like a walkable and bikeable and wheelchair accessible town and trash cans and not giving $51 million to a corporation or other money to a corporation. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Just a couple comments about the data center and then I'll be out of here.

This is for comments in regards to the bond sale. That is not an appropriate topic for this open meeting.

But can I just say a couple things? Real short.

That is not what this open meeting is about. It is about the bond sale. So that is not what we are talking about right now.

So I can't talk?

No, it's not. It's about bonds. This is opening public comments about the bond sale.

I can make this very simple. You are not a bank. I look in these chambers, and I do not see a vault like a bank or tellers like a bank. Therefore, I deduce you are not a bank. So why are you extending loans as a bank or any financial institution does to a casino? I don't understand. Furthermore, this casino, I'm told, is very successful. It's very prosperous. It's doing such a good job. If they're doing such a great job, why can't they find their own financing? They're an established casino. I think Seminole Gaming, I believe it was. They're everywhere. I think all of the talented people in that organization can put their minds together and figure out whether or not they are capable of securing $103 million in financing. And if not, then that's it. There's no more discussion to be made. It's really hard to watch discussion about a budget and having these hard conversations and cross-examining and splitting hairs on every single just hopeful way to squeeze out a bit more capex and depreciate just a little bit longer. You know, it just prioritize. Furthermore, casinos and their need for financing. The thing about casinos is that you can only have so many of them, because the way in which they turn a profit is based on the populace of gamblers in proximity to said casino. Therefore, if I build a casino, say, in Rockford, and then build one just 20 minutes north in Beloit, that's what's called cannibalization, where it's feeding from its own profits, because there's a finite number of customers or gamblers. The other part of this is, as noted by others previous to me, these gamblers, the clients of the casino, those that provide revenue, are our own citizens. And so it's as if you're telling the casino, please, take more money from our citizens. We're going to help you. We're going to help you so much to the point of taking our own solvency and putting it at risk by financing you guys. Really weird. Don't like that. My public comment is, don't do it. Yeah, I think that's really all I have to say about that. Casinos, don't borrow to them. Oh, the house always wins. So what's funny about that is that if the house always wins, that phrase, that expression is to be taken literally, well, then they don't need to come to us because they'll always win some other way. So let them figure it out. Don't do their job. Have them do their job.

Hi, my name is Stephanie and I really did not intend to speak tonight. But after listening to all of that, I have some things to say. As a business owner who's been put out of business by the actions of this city, for a developer who happens to give a lot in campaign contributions, The fact that you're looking at taking on debt of this model for an entity that makes a profit, it doesn't need our help. We are not in the business of owning hotels and convention centers. We already own one. And that was an entity that was just beginning. So they did not have a profit to show. I know most of you sitting around this table, many of you for decades. And I have to ask, Frank, you vote no on every liquor license that comes along, minus maybe two that I've witnessed in my life in this city. I can't imagine that you could support funding for what is basically a sin industry, is it not? So I imagine you will not be supporting this bond issue as well. And I know that since 2017, when McNair got elected and when I was pulled out of business, I got to raise a repair order on a building that had no smoke or fire damage, but to give it to the owner of the building that was condemned that an arson took place in. I know that you as aldermen have gotten used to funding big money and big developers and giving a tip to everybody in the world, but a tip is only supposed to exist if the project could not go forward without it. Much like this bond sale. Every tip you've given to UEP Those projects could go on without funding from the development fund or TIF. They just want our money to help them. And you have approved this over and over and over again. And also tonight you'll be looking at the Spaces to Places grant. And I did an inventory of vacant spaces today from the River District. And you've already given money. to over half of the vacant buildings in the form of redevelopment funds or TIF to the developer. At what point do we decide that city government and city tax dollars are not to fund and bankroll businesses?

It's extremely hard to hear the speakers. I don't know if you have to turn them all the way. MARTHA MINOW, JR.: I maybe have people. Can you bring the microphone up to your? There you go.

I'm a lifelong Rockford resident, over 65 years plus. And I just want to say, I remember when the West Side was desirable to live in. Rockford has had a history of making bad decisions. I won't go into all of them, but the mall, the killed West State, there's just so many of them. And it seems like it can't be statistically possible to make 60 years of bad decisions. I mean, we gave away Oshkosh, their show. I mean, we've done so many things. We gave away NASCAR. We've done so many things that was detrimental to the city. Putting a metro center in the downtown district to save the downtown district. Now we've got casino over here bringing world-class entertainers. What I'm saying is, let's stop funding millionaires, and let's take care of our people. I mean, casinos, they don't build million dollar facilities to hand out money. If you believe that, boy, there's swampland to be sold. I have a problem with casinos because I had two cousins worked in them. They're both dead. They got into the wrong crowd. I mean, it's not a Bible-believing group. You're not going there for Bible studies. I mean, you start burying your kinfolk.

I didn't come here this evening to speak, but I just feel compelled to. Um, I understand the need to have a hotel to compete with Beloit, but what I don't understand is why we have to fund it, especially when we've got hotel chains across the nation. And we have a president who owned one, um, who you could put a request for proposal out there. And if you want to make some sort of money from this deal, you can make that part of the deal. So why don't you seek. an opportunity with an already established business that builds hotels and then proceed from that position. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

In today's day and age, with everything being electronic, why are we as citizens of Rockford not voting on this? Why is this not on a bill where we vote on what we're going to hand out? Why is this... your decisions when were the community why is it not our decision in today's day and age why are you not writing and proposing this and putting it on where we vote and decide where our money is going everything else is electronic now why can't that be

There are more than one Hard Rock casino. There's many of them, more towards Florida and around the country. It would behoove you to check that the casinos, each casino can throw in $10 million and get to $103 million. That's 11 casinos. But they're all Hard Rock, and they're all tied together. If they want to support Hard Rock, those casino here, let them do that. Let them seek a way to find the money and not use Rockford to support them. It's very simple.

My name is Patty Bremer. Yeah, I feel the same way everyone else here has said, but we are not a bank. Um, the city, we just had this whole report about, um, you know, how are you going to try to solve the budget problem? The firefighters are here because you know, they are, are firefighters are underfunded and understaffed. Um, our police department is, is so understaffed. Um, but yet you're giving out loans to corporations. And we need firefighters. We need police officers. We need a positive balance. And if you're in a negative of 9 million, how can you be talking about 103 million here, 50 million there for the other project, and all these things? They're not what the people want. A casino is, like the gentleman said, it's not like, I would never go to it. Who can afford to gamble? Who can afford to gamble? I would never go to a casino, ever. And on top of it, casinos cause terrible addictions. Terrible. They cause domestic violence. Terrible addictions and violence. And so it's not ethically correct. good thing to do. Citizens don't want that. It's not like, oh, we're doing this for a great cause. It's a casino. We're not a bank. We're not a bank. We're not rich folks. We are not rich folks. And we don't want you guys frivolously spending money, not even spending our money that we have. We don't have it. We don't even have it. You guys are supposed to be working for us. We shouldn't have to take out how many jobs to afford the taxes here. And I mean, I can go on about I have things to say about the other TIF district, but we can't say that right now. But I can say that we're going to have to pay for their roads, infrastructure, everything. Why are you doing this to us? We don't make this kind of money.

Hello, my name is Morgan. I'm 17 years old, and I don't usually do public speaking. So I might be a little nervous, but I do have two jobs, and I'm working really hard to pay for college. And if you guys have millions of dollars to give to a casino, that people get really bad addictions, and it ruins families, and it causes many issues in so many different lives. I know someone who... their father gambled away their mortgage. And if you guys really want to take those risks instead of helping kids like me who want to go to college and kids like me who don't have a lot of money and want to do something, like helping the community, being a teacher, then I think that you guys should be putting your money towards things that are actually important, like young people wanting to have jobs that support our future generations.

All persons desiring to be heard have been given an opportunity to present oral and written testimony. Yeah.

All right. So just listening and getting things done. So when I saw the agenda, the first thing I looked at, I was like, what is this? I have no idea what this is when it was brought up. And then thank you for the question from Ms. Meeks. It explained what it was, and I kind of caught up. And I understand. A lot of the time, I have no idea what's going on during all of these things, and I just listen. But this one, I was like, wow, that's a big one. What is that? So the fact that I know nothing about it and I come to these every Monday was a little bit strange that that's the first time I'm hearing about it. So what I'm getting is it's in anticipation of funds going down once the Beloit Casino is finished. So right now, there is no hardship to the casino. It's in anticipation. So again, there's no problem. We're just anticipating these things, which is, I understand a lot goes into the casino fund, and you want to protect that. But did anybody ask for this? Did anybody? What? Like, why wasn't it brought up? Why are you looking to do this to help them out once Beloit gets in? There has been no explanation. So we're hearing this. And normally, it wouldn't. Normally, there's something else on the agenda that would bring that this would get passed, and nobody would know anything about it. You would decide to do whatever you're going to do. Nobody would ever hear about it because there's not a room packed full of people. And it would take tons of social media coverage to get anybody to be aware of it. How many people aren't even aware of the TIF district or the data center that aren't in this room? So like these sort of things, you have to tell people about them. Like the same thing, listening to a, I'm not even going to try and say the words because it's gone now. Thank you, that word. Like that was just presented. Like I just saw that today. like from an older person that, when I talk to the businesses in his ward, they don't even know that he is their older person. So if they don't know who this person is, and we have heard things from other people, the older people that come out to their districts and come out to other districts to talk to the citizens and the public, and we'd like that to be considered, We've heard about that. That's been explained to us. But then you're giving this other thing consideration. Those things have to be discussed. All of these things should be presented, should be talked about. We understand we can't be here every Monday. We've elected you to do these things. But at the same time, where is the transparency? Where is the more than 24 hours notice that these things are happening, what they're happening for? Those kind of things are frustrating. So whose district is the casino in anyway? I'm kind of wondering that. Who asked for this? Do they believe that these funds are for everybody? Or are they for just themselves? So that's kind of a question I have. And then gambling. I love Hard Rock for the entertainment, the gambling. But how many small businesses every five feet, sometimes two in a strip mall, of those small little slot places do we have everywhere? So you have gambling in the casino. Why aren't we taxing these? Why aren't we taxing these small little things and getting a little bit of theirs? If you're going to open these slots and get everybody addicted, in some sort of districts, there are more of these than there are in other ones. So you get gambling, but fancy gambling in this district. But then you get this, OK, you've fallen on hard times. Just kind of try and make it up with gambling here. Why isn't tax dollars, why aren't we getting a kickback from each one of those little guys? Why aren't you looking at those kind of solutions instead of us trying to anticipate a solution to a problem? And I don't understand that. Oh, yeah, so like funding, why aren't we looking at other things before they're brought up for a vote, before they're an issue? Because we've got the budget, and we're talking about pensions.

I'm going to save that one.

But yeah, pensions, and then we're talking about funding. I was here when we talked about giving forward new cars and things, and I understand wear and tear. But I also understand that most of those police cars are driven like they stole them. So how about we also look into maybe not driving them, if they're not going directly to the car, like back and forth to home. How about we not drive them 90 miles an hour passing Those kind of things. How about we make sure that we're driving in a way that public tax dollars are paying for your vehicle? Those kind of things. Look at those ways of cutting them. Maybe ask. So, yeah, that's all I have. Like, don't spend, like, maybe do a bailout and ask people if they'd like to do that. But why are you trying to spend money on something that's not even a problem yet? They don't need our money. Thank you. No.

All persons desiring to be heard have been given an opportunity to present oral and written testimony with respect to the issuance of the bonds. Do I have a motion to adjourn the BINA hearing? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. The motion carried and the hearing has been adjourned. OK, now we will move on to petitions and communications. Alderman Logerman for Code and Regulation Committee.

Petitions and communications. Item number one, the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for the meeting to be held on July 21st, 2026, and minutes from that meeting for consideration at the Code and Regulation Committee meeting on July 27th, 2026. Refer to the Code and Regs Committee. Item number two, Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board's... Agenda for the meeting to be held on July 21st 2026 and minutes from that meeting For consideration at the Code and Regulation Committee meeting on July 27th 2026 Referred to the Code and Regulation Committee item number three memorandum from Martin bloom project manager permits and special events regarding upcoming special events which include 815 block party Polish Fest and PCI employee picnic referred to the Code and Regulation Committee Item number four, memorandum regarding a proposed resolution establishing a moratorium on data centers and directs the city administrator and designees to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of best practices for regulating development, expansion, and operation of data centers within the city of Rockford. Refer to the Code and Regulation Committee. Thank you, Chair.

We will move on to the Finance and Personnel Committee with Alderman Frost.

Thank you. All six of these matters will be referred to the Finance and Personnel Committee. Number one is a memorandum from Joshua Versailles regarding a lease agreement between the city and a lease agreement between the city and Theresa McDermott for property located at 211 Elm Street. Number two is a memorandum from Theresa Flowers regarding the approval of a subrecipient agreement with Comprehensive Community Solutions. Number three is a memorandum from Charlotte Haas regarding the consideration and approval of state line area narcotics team interagency agreement. Number four is a memorandum from Jamie Rot regarding the IEPA revolving loan fund application approval and authorizing ordinances for lead service line replacements. Number five is a memorandum from Carol Jurowski regarding the acceptance of the fiscal year 27 organized retail crime grant award. And number six, an amendment from Angela Hammer regarding the approval of the fifth supplemental indenture resolution regarding the industrial project revenue bonds at Wesley Willows Project Series 2011. Thank you.

We will now move into the time for public speakers. The microphones are at the back of the chamber. And you will have three minutes. I will have a timer set. And we have a new list of speakers. The first one to speak is Jeff Tilly.

Can you hear me?

Good evening, everyone, council members. I'm Jeff Tilley. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'm the president of the Winnebago County Forest Preserve Board of Commissioners. I'm here tonight to recap the previous letters that were submitted by both myself and our executive director, Dan Olson. Excuse me. Although I'm not going to cover all aspects of the previous letter, but I do want to emphasize our overall objection to the criteria used to qualify the properties in question for the TIF district. From the perspective of a taxing body within the city of Rockford, as well as Winnebago County, the overall intent and purpose of a TIF district is to enhance blighted areas throughout the community through incentivized development that would otherwise miss opportunities for improvement. Normally, TIF districts require five out of 13 compelling factors to true qualify them as such. However, the criteria that was used to determine the redevelopment project area as qualifying TIF are plain, ambiguous, and inaccurate from our perspective. Identifying the equalized assessed value of properties in this area as stagnant or declining as one of the factors over the three to five years compared to the rest of the city of Rockford as property values have increased at record levels, is really a stretch. Identifying the area as a qualifying district because of improper or lack of community planning is also incredibly misleading. This qualifying factor determines that when the area was developed, a lack of planning and or adverse land use relationships are evident. No development does not equal lack of planning. However, the area is not considered blighted. A lower amount of criteria may be used to designate the area as a conservation area. We believe this classifying this area as conservation was done because five of the 13 factors could not be met. Conservation areas, not to be confused with conservation or land conservation, in regard to TIF considerations, are regions defined in the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment as, quote, any improved area within the boundaries of a redevelopment project and following factors is detrimental to safety, health, morals, or welfare, and such an area may become a blighted area. A redevelopment project area is far from improved and is far more likelihood of remaining safe, healthy, intact, and morally beneficial when left in natural state. Reclassifying the area as conservation allows the standard to be lowered, otherwise the area cannot be considered as a TIF. Later this week, I'll have the privilege and the honor to introduce the Forest Preserve District's 45th Forest Preserve in the county. The 88 acres of land was donated by a family that cherishes nature and natural lands and wants to see the land preserved for future generations. Similarly to property being considered for annexation, this development area...

Thank you for speaking. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no seats available in the chambers, you will need to go, those standing need to either find a seat or go into the overflow section. Okay. Next speaker is Jim Roberts.

I'm Jim Roberts, and I've been a pastor and the activist for 53 years in Rockford. And I have to say that with all the divisions that are going on around us, and it's like, and we've got a wall here, but let's look at each other here. Let's look at, this is us. These are the people. I've never been more proud of Rockford than tonight. To hear all this. When do you ever hear this in this city? and to listen to things that you don't agree with. But like a family in crisis, we gotta work this out together. If we're gonna be a family, I feel like our city's in search of being a community. And I felt that a little tonight. Could that be a start of something? where we actually look at each other in a council meeting, see each other. Look at all these people. They came here to speak. They came here to do what citizens do in a city, in a family. Sometimes you have to fight for your family. Keep together. I feel like we could have a fight here, a good kind, like families do. and look at each other and really listen and respect. I'm here to talk about the Rockford Data Center. And that's... That's a really tempting offer, isn't it? There's a lot of money available. There's tax dollars. There's investments. There's more money. There's a lot of money on the table with this data center. But there are huge costs. That's why it's so tempting, too. to not look at that thing, huge costs. We are sitting on a gold mine here. Water's the new gold. And boy, would Arizona love to be sitting on where we are. Who has this kind of a resource? Who has this kind of water? This corporation wants to come, and they want three, Million gallons of water every day. That's today, and then there'll be another three million tomorrow. Are we ready to put our kilbuck crease? Oh, really?

Thank you for your comment. Your time is up.

Oh, my.

The next... The next speaker is Christopher Bayer.

Thank you. 15 years ago, in 2011, the city of Rockford created what we now know as the Global Trade Park South. A lot can happen in 15 years. To put that in perspective, at this time in 2011, we were all on the iPhone 4, and now we're on the iPhone 17. My point is simple. Technology, regardless of the application, always does one thing. It changes, it evolves, it adapts, and it is never stagnant. And that brings up my main question. Shouldn't our policies and regulations that protect the city of Rockford also adapt and evolve? If Rockford is to open its land, the roads and its rail access to big businesses promising high technology job growth, then it is our responsibility to lay out the framework to adequately measure, monitor, and mitigate their impact to our environment and natural resources. We cannot approve this TIF until we have zoning protections to appropriately and accurately define and regulate data centers. But Chris, I thought Mayor McNamara has specific language around not giving TIF money to a data center. And to that I say, good. That's a great start. Now finish the job. Any company claiming to invest $12 billion does not need our money, especially not $51 million, which equates to around $32,000 per acre given to them, by the way. In that same language from the, from Mayor McNamara's, from those same language, it states, whereas city council has determined that data centers place a significant disproportionate demand on local energy grids, water resources, and sewer infrastructure, while generating comparatively minimal long-term employment relative to the public investment in infrastructure costs justified and required. Couldn't agree more. You have aldermen in this room who are ready to modernize our zoning codes, work with them, and work together to fix this, such as introduce new performance requirements, like a baseline pre-development sound study, noise standards, water usage standards, a community benefit agreement, and countless other opportunities in the proposals and drafted text amendments that continually get suppressed because, say it with me, we have no proposal for a data center. The time to act was months ago. The time to course correct is now. Do not become another municipality that waited too long and paid the price.

Next speaker is Grace Baer.

Can you hear me?

Thank you.

I'm here to speak out unequivocally against the TIF and against a hyperscale AI data center. I've been racking my brain trying to see this issue from your perspective. So tonight, I'm going to try to see things through the eyes of a Rockford politician. Here we go. We must protect the little guys like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk. They need our handouts. Look, the mayor is right. We have yet to receive a final proposal. We don't even know which billion dollar techno-feudalist mass surveillance corporation will ultimately own us. Monarch is just the middleman. If the city of Rockford doesn't pave the way for this data center, who's gonna assist those poor little rich boys in committing ecocide? Who is gonna help them replace humans with machines in our workplaces? If we don't ram this data center through, who's gonna help AI make decisions for our military about which innocent civilians we should kill? Who will help AI hallucinate false information into our medical records, court documents, and scientific research? If not Rockford, who will help big box stores roll out surveillance pricing where prices change based on AI facial recognition? Who will ensure that flock cameras maintain the AI capabilities to partner with ICE agents and allow cops to stalk their exes? If we don't fast track this data center, who will help generative AI create on-demand sex abuse material? And who is going to help chatbots drive users into psychosis, sometimes even assisting them and encouraging them to take their own lives? That's enough of that, because I feel sick even pretending to be on your side of this issue. My point is, when you step away from the limiting belief of economic growth at any cost, the absurdity of a hyperscale data center proposal becomes clear. Rockford should not be an accomplice to any of this. There is still time to interrupt this data center development and you have a choice. And I know that folks are saying, the train has already left the station, but let me assure you, the longer you stay on the wrong train, the more expensive it is to get home.

The next speaker is Carrie Humphrey. Carrie Humphrey.

I didn't know that I was going to be able to speak tonight. I was told it was all filled, so I wasn't prepared. But I'm just going to say I am not for this TIF district. I'm not for the data center. I'm for people and birds and animals.

There's lots of wildlife out there. It's beautiful. Kilbuck Creek, that forest preserve there, I go there often with my family, and I love it. It's beautiful. It shouldn't be surrounded by industrial, gray, banging, clanking buildings and noise. I live right by there. I don't want the noise. I don't want the pollution. I want peace. I want quiet. I want clean air. I want the Kishwaukee River to be beautiful and clean. It's one of the cleanest rivers in Illinois. There's like 46 endangered species that count on that river. Let's not pollute it. How about that? How about that? How about we just care about people and start caring about nature and not have everything be our phones and just let's start caring about things. Let's not have our face in our phones. Let's go for walks.

Like someone else said, let's look at each other. Let's love each other.

Let's consider other people. Consider people. Consider animals. Consider birds. We all share this space. For heaven's sake. My gosh. And why are you not facing me? Why is it like this? It's not right. It's not right. God is watching. So, yeah, pay attention. Because he's watching. And there will be a judgment day. I'm just saying. There will be. So, think about that.

We will move on to new committee reports. Planning and Development Committee. Alderwoman Neal.

Thank you, Your Honor.

For code and regulation, no committee reports one item. Committees recommend approval of plat number two of Rosewood subdivision. This is a replat of an existing lot that was approved for a duplex development.

Is there an approval on item number one? Right. There wasn't. You're right. Was there an amendment to that one?

For an amendment?

Oh, OK. OK. Sorry. OK.

So we have the Alderman McNeil said about the IBEW, and we have Alderman Frost.

The committee's recommendation for denial to approve the committee report for the proposed funding agreement with Goodwill in partnership with the IBEW Local 64 for electrical workers trade programs to better prepare individuals for IBEW application process in the amount of $85,172.

So there's a motion on the floor to, and it was seconded. Any question or discussion? No, clerk. Yes.

There's a motion and a second on the amendment, and the discussion was about the amendment. The discussion was about the amendment. We'll take a vote on that amendment, correct? Yes.

Thank you. The amendment is to change it from recommendation for denial to approve, denial to approve. Any discussion?

Alderman Beach? Would you remind us again as to why there's a denial recommended in the first place?

Who would like to?

If I recall correctly, it came out of committee with a vote of two to one. And in a five committee, it requires three positive votes. So as a matter of rule, it comes out as a recommendation of denial.

Alderwoman Meeks.

Thank you so much. There was also conversation about the time frame of the classes and if the time frame was enough to really get people into this field. So I just wanted to make that comment as to some of the reasons why the denial was there. But I also, sorry I'm not on the microphone, but I also just want to state that When this was first introduced, it was introduced for the trades as a whole, not a specific trade. And so to see the IBEW Local 364 as the one who's pushing forward the program, along with Goodwill, of course, Considering there are still so many questions around data centers, and I know that the careers for data centers are electrical electricians, I do believe that this is something that probably should be paid for by the end user instead of us. So I am going to continue to say no to this particular proposal, and I just wanted to make that statement. Thank you.

So in front of us is the amendment to change it from a denial to an approval. I'll call the question. Do we just do a vote? Yes, on the amendment. We're going to vote on the amendment. Clerk, take the record.

Durkee.

No.

Bogeman. Aye. Toomberg. Aye. Frost.

Aye.

Terina? Aye. Princey? Aye. Neal? Aye. Granite? Aye. Beach?

Aye.

Salgado?

Aye.

Meeks? No. Bell? Aye.

Bonnie?

Aye.

Eleven ayes, two noes. Okay, so now we will move on. And in front of us, we have a... Yes, Alderman Bonney.

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I think we now need to approve it as amended.

Approve it as amended, yes. So now we have in front of us the approval for the IBW as an approval. So we will, any discussion on this? Alderman Durkee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was one of the opponents to this, and I just want to reiterate why that was. It's nothing to do with the electric workers or apprenticeships, which I think they do, the IBEW in the in our region does a great job at recruiting and working to get students ready for the trades. Currently, Rock Valley College has the Highway Construction Careers Training Program. That program is about 12 weeks and about 450 hours. The program also gets students OSHA certified. They get them familiar with not just the IBEW, but all the trades. The IBEW is involved in Rock Valley's program. In fact, Rock Valley has an IBEW apprentices program. There are certain educational requirements that one has to have before. You can't walk into this Goodwill training program and understand mathematics in the six sessions that they have. It doesn't work that way. We have a number of teachers here and basically the program at Goodwill appears to teach just to the test, but does not give comprehensive understanding of what it takes to do the trades. In addition, Rock Valley's program also does blueprint reading, hands-on things, a far more robust program. For the students that struggle with the math level that it would take, Rock Valley also has a feeder program, which students who have struggled with English, mathematics, reading, things like that, can take and then funnel into this program. All of this is paid for by taxes, and it's no cost to the students. It's tuition free. This program is redundant. I frankly don't even understand why we're paying for it. Goodwill Industries had $41 million of income in their last filing as of 2025, the prior five years. In addition, their salary is almost 40% of their income. So Goodwill has plenty of money to do this. But the other thing is, it's one of these programs that's just seemingly redundant in Rockford. And it's far less robust than what exists already at Rock Valley College. Rock Valley College also has the same demographics in accepting students and student goals. So I see this as redundant. I don't see it as necessary. And I think the money could be better spent somewhere else. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Alderman Bell?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to speak. I wanted to ask a quick question regarding this item to Mr. Cognoni about the collaboration with the different stakeholders. Last time this was in front of us, I talked about the investment from the state of Illinois to provide funding for the siege of programming in our community. And Rockford is fortunate to have a hub that is training individuals. More than 100 students have graduated and right now have a 64% graduation rate. And so I think that should we move this forward, and I stated this before and have had some offline conversations about, If we make this investment, this could be the bridge for those graduates from the CEJA hub here in the city of Rockford that benefited from state funding to bridge them right into and preparing them for the IBEW Local 364. The barrier for many minorities in our community, and we know this as we, several of us, have had conversations with this local and with each other, that the barrier oftentimes is the test. And so I think this funding could really help prepare, give some additional preparation for these young individuals who are trying to make a living in our community through this awesome opportunity. But I just haven't had... Any more conversation or any reply back with whether or not we are looping in the CJ hub? So I just wanted to ask that question, Mr. Cognoni.

So certainly, make sure I understand the question. Is it that the individuals that are graduating from the CEJA program, you do not, is there a belief that they are not prepared enough to take the IBEW test and pass it so that this would be an additional step in prepping them for the test? Is that the question?

been any effort as requested by myself the last time this was in front of us from the administration to bring those partners to the table.

We have no objection to bringing those partners to the table should this program get passed. But per my question, I'm just trying to make sure I identify what the gap is.

I think the gap is that this was laid over. I actually believe that I laid it over last time so that you all could bring those stakeholders to the table. So I just wanted to get an update as to whether or not those stakeholders were brought to the table during the time frame that this was laid over. That's it.

Yeah, we're more than happy to connect. I mean, they already, you know, Goodwill and CEJA are already connected to the extent that they've had additional conversations related to this program. I can't speak directly to it, but we're happy to help advance that.

Yeah, and then just really quick, I think this is a significant investment to being a bridge for individuals in our community to access a high paying or quality job. I don't believe that we should be moving forward without proper MOUs with these organizations that are being mentioned, as they are already developing our young people. I've been a part, and I know the mayor has as well, in conversations with the CJ hub. I just would caution us to move forward with making this investment without having all of the partners mentioned. at the table prior to making this investment. So I personally don't, I can't support it as is today because what was requested a few weeks ago wasn't done. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Can I make a motion to move this item?

There's a motion on the floor to lay this item over. Do I have a second? I have a second. So this motion will be laid over.

Thank you, Your Honor. In my review of the agenda from June 29, my notes reflect that this item was held out without objection. rather than being laid over pursuant to the two alderman rule.

Thank you. Okay. So that item will be laid over. Now we will move on to Alderman Logerman and Code and Regulation Committee. I apologize for my false start earlier.

Item number one, committee recommends approval of plat number two of Rosewood subdivision. This is a replat of an existing lot that was approved for duplex development at 6002 Phaeton Drive. Thank you.

Do I have a... Any questions or comments? Clerk, take the record.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Thank you. We will now move on to finance and personnel with Alderman Frost.

The committee recommends approval of vouchers in the amount of $18,293,651.23 as approved at the Finance and Personnel Committee meeting held on July 13, 2026. Number two, the committee recommends approval of the request to use up to $200,000 in casino funds to assist in qualified relocation funds. And number three, the committee recommends approval of the proposed sale of city-owned property at 218 South Independence Avenue under the city's MoToOwn program to Christy Williams. Thank you.

So we have these three items in front of us. Is there any questions or discussion? Alderman Bell?

ALDERMAN BELL JR.: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if I should say Madam Mayor. Maybe to just pose this question. Can we get an update from the administration regarding item two from the last, I believe it's committee night? Maybe on the status of this item. Any new items taking place when it comes to this? Any new developments?

I'll defer to Director Parham, but I'm not aware of any new inquiries based on the discussion at committee and the approval comes before city council tonight for consideration.

That is correct, Director Cagnoni. We did not receive any other correspondence from members of council or other questions or additions or modifications, no. So it's the same.

Alderman Bonney.

Thank you, Madam President Pro Tem. I would obviously was not here for a period of time and I Appreciate the work that has gone into item two but I feel like it is misplaced that we are It stems out of a couple of recent incidents where we've had People who have been been displaced but had I been here I I mean, the primary one, I think, is the mobile home park in the Fifth Ward. I would have opposed that redevelopment that is displacing those residents. And I feel like this is sort of a consolation effort when we should have denied the redevelopment. I know Windsor Apartments has also been cited. And that landlord is unscrupulous. It's also the same ownership as the Versailles Apartments in the 14th Ward, which we have spent a lot of money in court enforcing a variety of code violations there. But I feel like we are, rather than holding In that case, the landlord, or in the previous case, the developer responsible. We are using tax money to do what they should be doing. So I appreciate the sentiment. I feel very badly about the people who've been displaced. And I think they should receive. assistance, but not from tax money from we need to hold the Developers and the landlords accountable. So I'm gonna be voting against this.

Thank you any other comments or All right clerk take the record I Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay, now we will move on to the Legislative and Lobbying Committee. Alderman Frost. One item.

The committee recommends approval of the renewal of a professional services contract with Zephyr Government Strategies for $10,000 per month for the City of Rockford's 2026 Lobbying Services.

Okay, we have one item in front of us. Discussion? Comments? Clerk, take the record.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Alderwoman Neal.

Thank you, Your Honor. Item 1, Committee recommends approval of an ordinance terminating the Global Trade Park Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and the dissolution of the Special Tax Allocation Fund for Global Trade Park South Tax Increment Financing District. Item 2, Committee recommends approval of an ordinance approving the South Rockford Industrial Tax Increment Financing District Redevelopment Project Area. Item three, committee recommends approval of the ordinance designating the South Rockford Industrial Redevelopment Project Area. Item four, committee recommends approval of an ordinance adopting tax increment allocation financing for the South Rockford Industrial Redevelopment Project Area.

OK, we have four items in front of us. Is there any discussion? Alderwoman Meeks.

don't really know when to make my comments so I'm just gonna make them now so I don't have to make them after all of this I'm going to start with just questions, if that's OK. And I'll just preface this by saying I do understand that this is related to the TIF. But I think before we move forward with the TIF, I need to understand some of the questions that I have. So our zoning, and I think I'll direct this Administrator Cagnoni. Thank you. Sorry. I almost called you director. Administrator Cagnoni. And I'm sorry, I'm not in the microphone.

You got to be in the microphone so people can hear you now.

Okay. Our zoning ordinance establishes I-1, I-2, and I-3 industrial districts. How does the city currently determine where a new industrial use belongs if that use is not specifically listed in the ordinance?

Mr. Cagnani?

Thank you, Chairwoman and Alderman Meeks. It is done by the zoning officer as a review of similar type uses as well as past action by the city related to uses. So in circumstances, we may have already made a ruling that allows a particular use in a district. And we would stay consistent with that until some point in time that there's a change. And so this process is spelled out within the zoning ordinance, but that's generally what it is.

Can you just clarify for me, is it spelled out in Article 40?

When you say, is it, you're referencing what use?

Yes, the usage. Where is this, what you're referencing, spelled out?

It's within I believe it's within the administration section in of the zoning ordinance related to how a use is determined So that's where the authority of the zoning officer is spelled out as well as zoning officer determinations Okay, would I be able to find that in article 23 in relation to industrial districts I don't think it's specifically in Article 23, but I'd be happy to locate the article and provide it to you.

Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you so much. So I guess I need to get a little more specific. Under what authority would staff determine whether a hyperscale data center is similar to another usage? Because I feel like when we first kind of talked about this, it was comparable to a warehouse, I think it was. Is that accurate?

It could be. When the zoning officer is contacted related to the permissibility, the authority would come from the same section that we previously discussed where the zoning officer does a review of the use to make that determination. Understanding that if we're referencing just data centers, data centers have been established previously within the city of Rockford through a similar process without being specifically stated.

So that would have been taken into consideration at the time as well Because we get we get specific for certain things that's what I kind of noticed like when we when you move into article 40 we get specific about wireless communication facilities and it's it's basically a gets very specific about each applicant requesting a permit for a wireless communication facility must submit with the application a scaled site plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation signed and sealed by appropriate licensed professionals showing the location and dimension of all improvements. information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height requirements and setbacks, drives, parking, fencing, landscaping, and adjacent uses. I guess I'm asking then, is this what we can do to get specific about a data center in the zoning ordinance?

So yes, we could. Understanding that there was a referral this evening from Alderman Logeman. And we had also spoken to you, Alderman Meeks, about additional regulations related to data centers. And Alderman Bell had brought forward a variety of different suggestions, ideas related to data centers. Should the resolution be approved at committee and city council in the coming weeks, that would put a moratorium on the establishment of new data centers in the city of Rockford, as well as identify best practices and regulations that would be appropriate for the city of Rockford for consideration, not only through the Zoning Board of Appeals process, but through the council process. We would anticipate that that moratorium would be for a period of six months to allow staff to go through the process, bring forward ideas and recommendations to committee and council that could then proceed through the more formal process.

amending our code of ordinance and zoning ordinance as may be necessary so can we require developers to pay for independent studies evaluating electrical demand and grids and let me just say this too this isn't just specific what I'm speaking of isn't specific to the debt it's specific to industrial industry as a whole. So when we're talking about the electrical demand and the grid impacts, the water demands, the aquifer impacts, waste water capacity, air quality, noise, traffic, emergency services. I think about that a lot of creating this annexation, moving further out into the city, and then what that means for emergency services, how our police are getting there, how our fire are getting there, how we are paying for all of that. Because at the end of the day, every time we expand this city, there's a cost associated with that. So I just want to know, will Can we, as a non-home rule community, require the developer to pay for these studies that are needed for the safety of our citizens?

All the women, those are all excellent questions. And part of the reason we had recommended to put a pause with the creation of the moratorium and come back with a set of regulations so that we can make sure that we identify what's within our authority as a non-home rule community versus what is not. I believe there is the opportunity to accomplish having the developer pay for the costs associated with a number of different components. But we also want to make sure that we're following the law in those regards. So I'm not going to give you an absolute yes without making sure that our legal department has the opportunity to confirm and review. But I do believe there is that opportunity.

OK, I'm going to pause for a second. Thank you. OK. Anyone else have any questions? Alderwoman Prenti.

If we're pausing for that, would it benefit us to pause for this as well?

So I'll repeat the question, because I think others might have a hard time hearing. Alderwoman?

I'm saying if we pause for, I believe, Alderman Logerman's proposal, should we pause for this as well?

From a staff perspective, no, we do not believe so. Obviously, we've had concerns related to the establishment of data centers that have been brought up by our elected officials as well as the community. So the steps that we've taken related to the establishing ordinance of the tax increment financing district is that a data center would not benefit from the TIF. We do believe that the TIF is important on supporting industrial development within our community. and job creation. So to directly answer your question, no. We think we can accomplish both at the same time.

All the women printing.

Yeah. So I just heard somebody say something that's already a tip. Can you explain what's going to be different about what's there and what we're proposing so that people can understand

Certainly, Alderwoman. So there is an existing tax increment financing district that was created a number of years ago. It has not had the results that it was anticipated. I mean, understanding there's been a lot of economic change shortly thereafter of creating the TIF, where we didn't see any growth within our city at all. And the city has gone through a crisis in which we saw a number of foreclosures, as well as significant devalue in property. We have seen a growing interest in job creation and investment within our community, but we do believe there's still a gap in a number of areas. So the existing TIF does extend for some additional years, and there's no restriction on having it benefit a data center. However, it doesn't without coming before this city council. We believe that the reset of the TIF district is important. not only to help advance the development that Venture One and Mark Good is proposing also on consideration this evening, but also additional development in this general area.

Do the boundaries change?

The boundaries do change. There's an expansion of the boundaries to include the property that's being annexed into the city or being under consideration for annexation to the city with Venture One.

Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? Clerk, take the record. Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairwoman. Mr. Gagnoni, would the proposed moratorium include the annexation zone or any properties in the TIF? That is with the proposed TIF.

Could you repeat that just to make sure I understand?

Would the proposed moratorium be, would the annex, sorry, I wrote this question down. Does the moratorium include the annexation zone or not?

So the moratorium includes the property that is under consideration for annexation for marked good. In addition, that annexation agreement has a specific clause that prohibits the establishment of a data center on the property. Now, the other portions of the property that were annexed in 2008, 2011 have existing annexation agreements. So those annexation agreements, in essence, would supersede a moratorium related that's under consideration related to data centers. However, that's why we had proposed the no TIF benefit for data centers within the establishing ordinance of the TIF district. We've tried to take steps based on our conversations with you as a city council where we have existing authority to regulate data centers, whether through the exercise of the establishment of the TIF, Whether it's the annexation agreement such as mark good where we specifically prohibited and quite frankly when we did the development agreement Agreement with Hillwood at 2 and 20 where it specifically prohibited a data center However, because of that existing annexation agreement Those are obligations that were made by previous City Council and we do have to honor those And so just to follow up to that

for the proposed site for Monarch, or the site that they have under contract, that moratorium would not overrule their authority to build tomorrow? Correct. So it's essentially, I mean, OK. Thank you.

Might come back. Any other comments?

I don't I don't really want to speak right here the whole night.

I don't know are these able to Extended microphones and we would be happy to have those established within the council chambers.

I

OK, so maybe we should. You guys can hear us, right? All right. Yes, we can do this all over again. I'm happy to.

So let's go all the way back.

Does the moratorium that is being proposed to the Code and Regulations Committee include the annexation zone or not?

So the moratorium does and is applicable to the annexed property that's under consideration tonight that Venture One Mark Good is proposing. In addition, that annexation agreement specifically prohibits data centers. As it relates to the TIF, as I stated, there is no benefit for data centers within the establishing ordinance of the TIF district. However, a portion of the property included within the TIF boundary as a result from annexations that took place in 2008 and 2011, which established I to zoning on that property and so those permitted uses would remained in the moratorium Would not apply for those portions of the property

Thank you. So, I mean, I guess we can go back a little bit. I wasn't planning on doing this. I know where I stand. But just, I guess, for the public, back in April, proposed a resolution that was tabled, which means the conversation never happened, and no one around this horseshoe wanted to have that conversation and so you know I think that whether or not we take pieces from it we're in director hammer thank you for getting me a revised version of that resolution either I think it was July 13th maybe seven days ago And so I just think we're doing a disservice to our community. I'm pretty disappointed that today we get an announcement for a moratorium that really is not going to cover what the community is expressing. I just think it's a smokescreen. And a lot of the things that have been going on lately surrounding the data center has been a shell game. And to get to this point today when it comes to the TIF, I think that moving forward, since it's in front of us, you have every right to vote how you want. But we ought to come together more and have conversations, whether that be in caucus, joint caucuses. I think we're at that point now where as it was expressed by many, many, many of the residents. It's no secret that this council is divided. And so I think we ought to come together on behalf of the residents to have conversations, deep conversations, whether it be Alderman Logeman proposing a proposal or myself or any other alderman. We should be having these conversations before these big, big investments or decisions have to be made. Thank you.

CHRISTINA PAXSON- Any other comments or questions? Alderman Durkee. ALDERMAN DURKEY.

Just one comment. The development of this land and its purposes didn't arise because of a data center. This land use has been in the comprehensive plan for years. If the development south of the airport was always meant to be industrial this way the city's growth was planned There's nothing to do with the data center predated data centers the other thing is the state of Illinois under governor Pritzker already has a two-year moratorium on constructing any data centers within a tiff as they as they try to address the concerns of the impact of data centers. So while I support, I will support Alderman Logerman's also moratorium as this is examined. But none of this is new or surprising. We live in a borderline crisis. State a border state border city. I'm sorry. We've been a border city. We compete with Wisconsin and TIF districts in order to provide industrial growth are essential the airport is growing and It's turned into the, I think, the number 14 hub in Cargill. The area is set for growth. And this TIF will support that and will support the industrial expanse of Rockford. The only way that a city can grow in revenue and the ability to pay for certain things is to grow the economy. It's not to raise taxes. So I'm in full support of all of this. Like I said, this is nothing new. It's not surprising. This is the way this land was intended to be developed.

Any Alderman Salgado?

Yeah, just real quick, I got a question for Mr. Kignoni. Since it's already been annexed, 2008, for the Monarch, if we were to do tax amendments, would those Would they be grandfathered in on the existing, or would those tax amendments take place now going forward?

They would be, in essence, grandfathered.

So none of these would apply to them, then, if you were to do tax amendments from now on?

As it relates to the zoning ordinance, they would be grandfathered. As we go through the analysis, there could be provisions that are general to the entire community that would be applicable to them.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Seeing none, clerk take the record.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Nope. On all four? Yep. Bonnie? Aye.

All right. The next committee, Code and Regulation, Alderman Logeman.

Code of Rights has three items before us. Item number one, committee recommends denial of the annexation of 14XX Edson Road and 15XX Edson Road, 16XX Edson Road, and 42630 Marlowe. Subject property is currently an agricultural farm. Contract purchaser plans to develop an industrial subdivision on the slant. Item number two, committee recommends denial of the annexation agreement for 14XX, 15XX, and 16XX, Edson Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. And finally, item number three, committee recommends denial of the zoning map amendment from County AG to I-3, Airport Zoning District at 14XX, 15XX, and 16XX, Edson Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. Alderman Thunberg.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion to move to reverse the committee's recommendation from denial to approval for the annexation of 14XX Edison Road, 15XX Edison Road, 16XX Edison Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. Thank you.

So do you have a second? Second. So in front of, before us we have amendment to change it from a denial to an approval. Do we have any discussion on the amendment? Alderman Logan.

Madam chair, if I could read in, uh, two more reversals, the purpose for the broader public and city council to understand, um, more easily if it's approved or not. Um, cause we're reversing a denial. So on item number two, I moved to reverse the committee's recommendation from denial to approval for the annexation agreement for 14 X X Edson road, 15 X X. Edson Road, 16XX Edson Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. And finally, one more item. I move to reverse the committee's recommendation from denial to approval for the zoning map amendment from County AG to I-3 Airport Industrial Zoning District at 14XX Edson Road, 15XX Edson Road, 16XX Edson Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. Second.

So we have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion on the motion? Alderwoman Meeks.

I just have another question. Since I'm trying to understand that if we were to put forward a tax amendment, that couldn't apply because it's grandfathered it. if we put forward a moratorium that causes things but it doesn't apply to the development that we're speaking of. So what actually can be done to require environmental standards and decommissioning standards? if you can't do it with a tax amendment and you can't do it with a moratorium.

Well, the item that's under consideration, it would apply to these properties.

Well, I'm talking about industrial in general. I'm not speaking on the data center. So just industrial industry in general. Anything, if we were to make changes to a tax amendment, Are you telling me that those changes would not apply to all industry?

So the item under consideration being discussed at this point for Edson Road would be subject to the moratorium, and it would be subject to the amendments.

Yes.

Any further questions? Alderman Bell.

Yeah, I don't know if this is necessarily going to help. I think that I guess I'll speak for myself. I would love for the administration to prioritize doing research around the standards that myself and Alderman Meeks and probably a few others would And maybe we can have an ad hoc committee to establish some of those recommendations or ZBA or Community Relations Commission. I don't know who we need to work with if we need to establish a new commission, but I think it's Now that you know, we're moving forward with these industrial developments. Maybe we should work on Providing, you know establishing safeguards around environmental issues that could come with these large-scale industrial properties I Don't know if that was a question or statement, but we would be happy to follow through Any other

Comments on the amendment? Seeing none, I'm sorry, all the women printing.

Procedurally, are we in line? There have been three amendments. One was second. OK. I'm sorry. OK. OK. Hold on. Hold on. Everybody's saying stuff. I want to hear you, and then I want to hear.

My notes reflect that there was a motion to reverse each of the three items, and each motion was seconded as well.

OK. And our discussion is about the amendment? Yes. OK. Sort of.

Thank you. So seeing no more discussion on the amendment, clerk, take the roll.

Aye.

Logan? Aye. Tuber? Aye. Ross? Aye. Tarina? Aye.

Fronting? Aye.

OK, so now we have a approval on all three of the items before us. Any more discussion? Alderman Logeman.

I appreciate the comments from Alderman Meeks and Alderman Bell. I think generally a lot of us are on the same page here and on the same team. And I just want to acknowledge many, many conversations I'm sure all of us have had with city administration. So I just want to acknowledge those good conversations with Administrator Cagnoni and then the mayor as well over the past several months as this has come out. Thank you.

Alderman Bell.

Thank you. I would just say I can't second that one. Thank you.

All right. Any more discussion? Clerk, take the record.

Derny?

Aye.

Lohneman? Aye. Titor? Aye. Ross? Aye. Tarina? Aye. Bronte? Aye. Neal?

Aye.

Granite?

Aye.

Okay, now we will move on to officer reports if anybody has Alderman Beach

but I just want to say welcome back to Alderman Mark Pani after a long delay and a medical issue. Welcome back.

All right. Any other comments? Alderman Thunberg.

Yes, welcome back. Alderman Bonnie and a little rusty on one of those votes back then where you voted no on all three when you only meant to vote no on one so Got a little catching up to do but I'm confident you can do it.

So welcome back Any other officer Alderman turkey and just a request We've had some discussion Most recently about police and fire protection and services I think as government one of the number one priorities is public safety and I just want to Possibly make an invitation to both chiefs if at some point in time in the future they could Provide us with some long-term projections regarding coverage, both for fire and police. I think Alderman Meeks brought up a very good point, is that the city is expanding both east and now south. It will put a strain on some of these services. So that's just a request if they can do that.

Okay. Thank you. Any Alderman Prenti?

Yes, I have a ward meeting on August 6th, Thursday, August 6th at 6 p.m. at the House of God Church at 840 Brook Road in the 6th Ward. Our featured topic will be lead service line replacement program. So just wanted to let everybody know that will be August 6th at 6 p.m.

Thank you. Alderman Bonney.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank everybody here in the chamber and the general public for all of the well wishes that I received, the texts, the cards, the phone calls, and even the hospital visits in Chicago. That really meant a lot during my extended time away on medical leave. I understand there was a collection taken up to help stock my refrigerator by Alderman Thunberg, and he did not charge his customary fee off the top, so thank him for that. As everybody I think but one of our speakers tonight knows, I was on life support for eight days, was literally dangling by a thread. And so I would apologize to those people who had to cancel parties when they found out that I pulled through. There are quite a few of them, I understand. And I also understand Dr. Durkee gave an update at one point on my condition, but I have to go on record denying his... comment that I am coming back to switch political parties, which I assume was a joke, but he should have stuck to just to the medical report. And I'm just, again, glad to be back after a two and a half month absence and to no longer be the Mitch McConnell of the Rockford City Council. Thank you.

Any Alderman Meeks? I just have a question. Do we take an oath not to lie on the floor? Yes. Okay. Just wanted to verify that.

Thank you. All right. Any other comments or questions? Alderman Salgado. No.

Thank you, Chairwoman. Just real quick, we did have a town hall last week, last Wednesday, and we talked about the data center and stuff like that regarding the TIF. So information was put out there. From a TIF's perspective, as Mr. Cognoni i expressed the same sentiment is you know the data center will not be applicable from that perspective so i don't have a problem with the tiff district from that perspective um i do um have issues and you know we've expressed this with uh mr bell and miss hoffman jumping on the resolution that was presented on the standards but come to light i just want to make it clear that you know those are grandfathered in nothing that can be done same with Pritzker those those credits whatever to monarch those you know have been applied and continue to be that's why the TIF wouldn't be beneficial for them regardless from that perspective so you know going forward I do think it's good recommendation to update our tax amendments to technology like that, but not only that, but the industry as a whole. Because I heard from multiple people, what about other industries that take a lot of water, electricity? We should somehow make sure that we sort of regulate from that perspective. The other thing that I want to bring up is that conversation was is, you know, if it is going to generate X amount of millions of dollars that, you know, somehow some subsidy can go back to citizens for the utility cost going up based on the usage, consumption of this particular facility. And so that's one other request that residents are asking. is some sort of subsidy from that perspective and not just going to a general fund or whatever the case may be from that perspective to close any gaps. That's the recommendations that have brought forward. I know I talked to Alderman Meeks regarding this, as she has been working with Alderman Bell, is my understanding, or there could be more, on different tax amendments as well. So it's unfortunate that we weren't able to, use those because they're already grandfathered in. That's why I voted the way I wanted I voted, because I don't think it has anything to do with the TIF from that perspective. from my perspective, development as well. My concern is, once again, and I told the residents, is the conservations that are forest preserves that are there. Those are my concerns from that perspective. And so regulating any big industry in that particular area makes a lot more sense from that perspective, but doesn't justify what's currently happening that potentially will come forward so I kind of expressed that to my residents that most likely if it does come forward it's going to come in the near future with those caveats that the tax credits from state and you know obviously without the use of any TIF money from that perspective which doesn't help the cause at the end. So I just wanted to bring that up because that was discussed and give you guys the feedback that I'd gotten from some of the residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairwoman, and to the 11th Ward Alderman's statement about potential text amendments. There was a proposed text amendment that I emailed over to Director Hammer and got a response, and we are working on this to bring this to a discussion as it relates to essentially requiring the use of a data center to be a special use in I-1, I-2, and I-3 moving forward. And so that would, of course, have to go through ZBA and come back to Council for approval, and then the process continues. I do believe that should, if a data center come to our community outside of the monarch's property, that moving forward, if there's nothing to be done right now as it relates to the monarch's property, moving forward, I think that we do have an obligation to continue to see what we can do and put safeguards around it. and stuff like that. So that proposed industrial use amendment hopefully will be coming forward for a discussion maybe in caucus, during caucus, and then we can move it through should you all want to entertain that. Happy to continue to have conversations around this. I've grown a deep passion now, as I've expressed on this floor and in the community. But I think we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the residents who voiced their concerns and showed up to city council consistently. We oftentimes don't get a consistent crowd like this, and just as a resident myself and an alderman and a leader, I just want to say thank you to all of the residents that showed up and called us and emailed us. The work continues, so please continue to show up. Thank you.

Any other comments? Okay. We will move on to appointments. We are not... You are out of order. You are not to be speaking. You are not to be speaking. You are not to be speaking. You are not to be speaking. Officer, can you please? You are not to be. So we have in front of us the appointments. There's no proposal. We have in front of us the appointments. Do we? This is ridiculous.

It's too late. But we don't have a proposal yet. But it's too late.

So for the appointments, we just take the vote? I read them in? Okay. So the reappointment of Jeremiah Griffin to the Community Action Advisory Board as a private sector member for a term ending June 2029. Second one, reappointment of Mary Cassiope to the Community Action Advisory Board as a private sector member for a term ending July 2029. Do I have any comments or questions? Seeing none, clerk, take the record.

Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.

Aye. Aye.

Now we will move on to motions and resolutions. The Planning and Development Committee, Alderwoman Neal.

committee recommends approval of the spaces to places program which is intended to reduce commercial vacancies and support small business growth by providing temporary rent assistance for new or expanding businesses the city will reimburse security deposits and 50% of rent for up to 12 months for a total funding level of up to $20,000 per business the program will have $300,000 designated from the 2026 and 2027 casino funds

Alderman Thunberg.

I'd like to make a motion for layover, please. Second.

Second. I see a motion to lay over. We will do a roll call vote. Or do we have any discussion on the amendment? Do we need to have discussion on the amendment? Do we have discussion? OK, so discussion on the amendment. Alderman Bell.

I'll be quick. I'm happy to support this Layover I do think as we have conversations for over the next two weeks Maybe we should consider because what this looks like to me is a pilot program One that we have not done before I do plan to work with I do plan to work with, as we launch a business association in the 13th ward, and we, of course, have the River District Association, I do plan to help support the businesses in my ward. But I am a little fearful of allocating 2027 casino funds to a program that we just have not seen any success with. And so whether that be cutting down half and go into $150,000 for with 2026 casino funds and to see If this program is is worth another year years worth of investment, so I mean I would I was going to Lay it over. So I'm glad that alderman Toonberg beat me to it. I'll be supporting this layover.

Thank you Alderman Thank you.

Um, yeah, I would agree with the with laying this over I I I wonder if we all I would have to agree with what one of the speaker said tonight about the number of programs we now have to support businesses, and I'm wondering if in the interim we can get a Accounting of all of the programs that we currently now have and and what their rate of utilization is. I know we have the corridor program. We have the business association program. I know that there are others. This one bugs me a little bit because it's to pay rent. So the benefit, while it's going to the business that's renting, it's also going to the landlords who probably aren't struggling. I just question if we wouldn't be better off to put the funds into the programs that we already have rather than creating a new one.

Any more discussion on the layover? Alderman Thunberg.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. And I apologize for calling the chairwoman earlier. So yes, good points made just now. I have had discussions with Director Cagnoni regarding meeting with a few people regarding this from some other associations that are related to business development. Going forward to, yes, maximize these dollars, I think we all are in agreement that vacant storefronts are a form of blight, in a sense. We'd like to see them filled. But if we are going to commit money to this program, that it is maximized to the fullest extent, and also to businesses that have proven themselves through various ways to whether it's to the city or a city with an agreement with a couple of different organizations that It is not just given willy-nilly per se out to these businesses. We want to make sure that these businesses are sound. They do have a very high chance of success. So yes, I am If off if director Cagnoni would like to elaborate any further But it really is laid over to give more time to make sure this is a successful program Alderman

Thank you. I'd also add to maybe the task list. I'm happy to work with the administration and Director Lise. I'd like to see MOUs with the partnering organizations so that we know who and, yeah, who's going to be supporting our small businesses in these several business districts as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more comments on the layover? Alderman Prenti. Yes.

Thank you. I guess I've heard a few comments from older persons. And I was just wondering, I know that we're voting on the layover at this point. But if someone could answer the question for me now or later, well, I think it would help me decide my vote on whether or not to vote to layover. Someone said that to maximize it, Maybe if somebody could explain how it is different from other programs and then what criteria you are using to ensure that it's not just giving out, I think I heard the term, willy-nilly.

Who would like to?

Try and get close enough. OK, so it's different from other programs. Programs that Alderman Bonney mentioned were the corridor program, the TIF 5050. Those were focused on setup of a space and physical improvements. So you could get work done for signs or your parking lot or different investment in the physical structure. And what we found in the programs is we had really inconsistent use. If you were up and running business and did pretty well, you could manage a construction project and you could manage the matching funds. a lot of our businesses in the corridors that we had the tips or we had the corridor program were not really capable of those two things the match and then the managing of the construction process the contractor on the corridor program made more of a impact on In that discussion because the match was reduced so you could you received more benefit. It wasn't a 5050 so We thought we would have a few more people through that and I can what I can do is get The numbers and the success of each in each corridor and how this was used Those programs we run them on cycles and they are not we don't currently have an open application for either one of those and We did run a, I just forgot the name of it, but a program with our CDBG dollars that we recently picked five businesses to get some funding. It's again a 50-50 match when we're doing those physical investments. But again, all of those programs focus on the space and doing something about the building and the space. This program and what was meant to do differently with this program is to give another answer. We've had our intern go and look at all five of the districts to determine if there are spaces that are vacant, how many are there. And then we're trying now to rank physically which ones are most capable of just having someone move into it. And how could we just get, again, some spaces activated as quickly as possible? And this rent and the rent incentive could help people with that conversation and really incentivize them to come into Rockford. We had a proprietor with a successful local business in one of our partnering municipalities that was looking downtown and then got incentives to be not in Rockford and in another community. So we think we'll have better chance of being attractive to the local people that are looking at where they're going to be in the region. And this program was meant to address that. I do get the concerns or what you'd like to see from partners and how you want to vet the businesses and make sure that this is a jumping off point that keeps them successful, doesn't just occupy a space for a year. So we'll meet with the partners. Alderman Thunberg has been working on that. And then we can come back with more information on that.

OK. So we have in front of us the motion to lay this over. Do we need to put a time on it? OK. Okay, so we will do a roll call vote on the motion to lay over. Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Thunberg.

Again, just a clarification very quickly. sure the again for this program we are and and thank you director lies on that but yeah those are some of the conversations I'm expecting them the our organization our city to have with these other parties as things like vetting the vetting process you know looking at who's going to be looking at their business plan who's going to be doing credit checks things that we as a city, are we doing those things? And so it's to make sure these businesses have the best chance of success, not giving money to a business that may not have much chance of success in the process of just filling a storefront. I mean, I don't want to get off topic here, but when we looked at, we talked about the casino money earlier, things like that, we did have a whole process involved with that in the capital structure or looked at by outside entities, investment banks, underwriters, sometimes what we call the syndicate. There was a whole host of things being done Uh for that process, so we want to make sure that this process much much smaller in scope obviously But has the has the highest chance of success So, thank you So the question has been called take the record no

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Extra aye. No. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay, so that will be laid over. We will move on to Code and Regulation Committee. Alderman.

Thank you. Two items for the Code and Regulation Committee under Motions and Resolutions. Item number one. The committee recommends approval of the Rockyard Music Fest. This is a new event celebrating the spirit, energy, and identity of Rockford. The event is scheduled for Friday, August 14, from 4 to 10 PM, and Saturday, August 15, from 7 AM to 10 PM. The event will be held in Davis Park, 320 South Wyman Street. Final item, item number two, the committee recommends approval of the Ramp River Run. This is an annual 5K run walk event. The event will be held on August 15th from 5.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The run will begin at 6.30 a.m. The event location will be at 202 Market Street at Water Street, City Market Pavilion, Madison Street, Rock River Recreational Path. Thank you.

So we have two items in front of us. Anybody have any comments? Alderman Bell?

Thank you. On item one, and maybe this is to Chief or Director Haggerty, are there any additional costs to the city for item one as it relates to our first responders or police for item one?

Chief?

Sorry. I am not aware of any additional costs for this event.

There is no city support requested. And it appears from the memo that any costs of the event are to be paid by the event organizer.

OK, thank you. And then, oh, one more. Yes. OK, sorry. That's in my email. It's not in my ward, but right next door, right across the street. I know that the residents in the downtown area will be impacted by this. I'm super excited. I'll be attending this as well. But as it relates to street closures, do we know which streets will be closed for this, if any? Maybe Director Sanders?

Director Sanders?

I believe it's just this portion of Wyman Street that's adjacent to the park that will be set up for food trucks. OK, thank you.

Any other comments? Seeing none, clerk, take the record. Murphy.

Aye. Goldman.

Aye. Timber.

Aye. Frost. Aye.

Williams. Aye. Crossey. Aye. Neal. Aye. Brandon.

Aye.

Beach. Aye.

Okay moving on to Finance and Personnel Alderman Frost

The committee recommends approval of award a bid for citywide pavement marking to precision pavement markings in the amount of eighty five thousand two hundred eleven dollars and seventy cents is through October 2nd 26 and the funding source for motor fuel tax funds Number two, committee recommends approval of a bid for citywide street repairs group number six to Stenstrom in the amount of $434,060.50. The contract duration is through October 2, 2026. The funding source is the 1% infrastructure sales tax and the parking fund. Number three the committee recommends approval of award of RFP for environmental review and assessment services to ECS Midwest Professional environmental engineers and specially consulting an estimated annual amount of eighty four thousand four hundred fifty dollars the contract is for one year with four possible one-year extensions the funding sources are various grants and Number four, the committee recommends approval of joint purchase contract for command vehicle upfitting to McQueen Equipment in the amount of $90,671.36. This is a one-time purchase. The funding sources are the capital lease funds and the fire department capital budget. Number five, the community recommends approval of a renewal contract for neighborly software to benefit in the amount of $29,672. The contract duration is from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. The funding sources are from the CDBG IHDA grants and the Community and Economic Development Operating Budget. Number six, the committee recommends approval of the plan of acquisition of 4100 East State Street by the Rockford Board of Library Trustees. Number seven, the committee recommends approval and acceptance of the Attorney General's Office Violent Crime Victims Assistant Grant Award in the amount of $63,505. This grant does not require a cost match, and the grant term is from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. Number eight, the committee recommends approval and acceptance of a DOJ Office on Violence Against Women grant to improve criminal justice response fiscal year 2025 in the amount of $500,000. It does not require a cost match and is from April 1, 2026 to March 31, 2029. Number nine is an award a bid for the South Pierpont Avenue resurfacing to TCI concrete in the amount of five hundred and three thousand three hundred and seventy three dollars and forty three cents the contract durations through October 9 2026 the funding sources the Lincoln wood tip funds Number ten is an approval Department of HUD grant funded sub recipient agreement with Rose Cranston in the amount not to exceed one hundred ninety three thousand three hundred and twenty dollars and The grant term is from June 1, 2026 through May 31, 2027. Number 11 is approval of a HUD grant-funded subrecipient agreement with Rosecrans consolidated in an amount not to exceed $1,049,712. The agreement term is also from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2027. Number 12 is an acceptance of a HUD Continuum of Care Roast Grant Consolidated Grant Award in the amount of $1,074,080. The grant does require a cost match in the amount of $268,520, which will be provided by Roast Grants. The grant term is from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2027. Lastly number 13 is an acceptance of a HUD continuum of care roast grant grant award the amount of two hundred and one thousand three hundred and seventy nine dollars the grant does require a cost match amount of fifty thousand dollars fifty thousand three hundred and forty four dollars and seventy five cents which will also be provided by roast grants the grant terms from May 1 2026 to April 30 2027 I place these 13 matters before you Is there any discussion on any of the items alderman Bonnie

Excuse me. Thank you Regarding item six the acquisition of the property on East State Street by the library I Have to agree with What alderman Beach? Talked about last week when this went through committee and this is in his ward that And to take off the tax rolls, something that is in a retail district to create a storage facility, it just gives me deja vu of U-Haul all over again. I mean, if we're serious, if we want State Street to remain a viable retail district, we can't allow, even if it's the library, to use the retail property for storage, even if the mobile library program is great. But there have to be a number of other sites that are not in a prime retail location that could be used for storage that wouldn't be taking it off the tax rolls. Again, same as U-Haul. Although U-Haul would have been paying a property tax, we would have been losing the sales tax revenue had we approved that because they'd be renting mostly and not subject to sales tax. So I don't know if other sites were considered. And I don't know what the underlying rationale is for this site. And I just think that this is not a good use of the time. of the retail space on East State Street. And I would move to lay this over until maybe we can get some more information from the library. I also think the estimate to rehab the site to work for the library seems awfully high. Those aren't our funds. They are tax funds that are going to be presumably used for that purpose. So I would move that we lay this item over.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Second. So we'll move and lay that over. So that was number six. Oh, we need a vote. OK. So we need a vote on this. So we are having a vote on the motion to lay over. Alderman Frost.

because this is a private business that was there that had its building for sale. And for us to try to step in and acquire a deal, I know part of the deal is with the library, but there's a private seller who had the property for sale. And I think we may be getting over our skis and trying to unravel a real estate deal where we really don't have standing to do so. So that's why I'll be voting no on the layover.

Any other? Alderman Beach, this is a motion on discussing the motion to lay over.

I do appreciate the comments by both Alderman Bonney and Alderman Frost. But I want to say again, we've worked very hard in the American mile to fill the spaces up with taxpaying businesses. And it did hit me hard, I didn't have any conversation with the library, but to learn that that business was going to be acquired and taken off the tax rolls. And I'm sure the library doesn't want to keep paying tax on it, although if they did, maybe I'd have a different opinion. But I don't see why in the world all the work that that association has done to fill those spaces to take this building right off the tax rolls, especially at this time. Thank you. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Alderman Bonney. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY.

ALDERMAN BONNEY.

ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY.

ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BONNEY. ALDERMAN BON

Right now, the motion is to lay over.

So Correct. I mean, depending on the explanation of why this site, I would maybe withdraw the motion to lay over, and we just vote it up or down tonight.

Alderman Bell? Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Procedurally, and I'd agree to allow this gentleman to speak, procedurally, I guess, Director Hammer, are we able to, without objection, allow them to speak?

Thank you. Yes. Under the rules of procedure, city council members can allow members of the public to speak. It requires a two-thirds vote or without objection.

So alderman Durkee, this is the point of the layover I Have the discussion with the library board in a more robust manner Offline those of you have questions. Otherwise don't lay it over you can't have both if you're laying it over talk to the library board and

You know in a off off, you know City Council Otherwise, so it makes no sense You've changed two opposite things So we have a projection so we need to take a roll call vote if we want to allow him to speak so Alderman Bonnie, I'll withdraw the request So the motion

I'm withdrawing the request for the layover. I'm withdrawing the request for the library board president to speak.

Yes. OK. So in front of us, we have the motion to lay over. Clerk, take the record.

Jerney?

Aye.

Wilberman? No. Tuber?

Aye.

Groth?

No.

Terana?

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. So that will be laid over. So we now have items one through five, and then seven through 13 in front of us. Alderwoman Meeks.

I just have a question for item number three. I read that the federal government requires environmental review and assessment on all of their grants. What instances do we as a city require environmental review?

So this request and contract is related to our HUD entitlement dollars and would also be used for the congressional earmarks that come through the CPD office of HUD. There are certain grants, like one was awarded the Family Peace Center. When those monies come through, we have to do an environmental review through the HUD system. And it's a specialized thing that we then, if it's going to take too much time for our staff to do directly, we then send out for a quote based on this RFP. So we use it mainly for that. We have also helped the housing authority a couple times connect to these consultants also, because there's certain projects that we're the responsible entity for approving their environmental reviews. So then these consultants just help make sure that we keep those projects moving forward, because they can be very time consuming for our staff to do directly.

So what is the reasoning for the environmental reviews in most cases?

The HUD likes, there's like eight elements that they want checked before something happens. You know, like are we aware of lead and asbestos, like the typical kind of environmental things. They also asked us to like see if there was a former mine anywhere near somewhere that we might disturb We have to alert tribal councils so that if we're going to be digging in the ground They could object if they wanted to we allow alert the historic office The state historic office there's these eight checks that they do just to make sure that whatever project we have scheduled we've thought about and we're making sure that the community understands the impacts both It's called environment, but they take environment to be like the community. So the actual environmental impacts, but then also the communities that could be involved or engaged.

OK. And so this is the last question.

Do we as a city have anything similar to that? Any kind of similar environmental requirements that we require from our ordinance?

Sure. don't know I guess what our requirements but most developments require what's you know a phase one and if there's recommendations in phase one there's a phase two you'll need that for any type of funding and when we take possession of property there's different ways that we go through that process on and on things that we do with land thank you so much any other

Questions? So we're voting on 1 through 5, 7 through 13. Seeing none, clerk, take the record.

Church.

Aye.

Goldman. Aye. Weber. Aye. Ross. Aye. Crossey.

Aye.

I'm sorry, . Aye. . Abstain on 7, aye on the rest.

OK, moving on to Codes and Regulations Committee, Alderman Logeman.

Four items before Codes and Regulation Committee. Item number one, an ordinance approving the sale of packaged liquor in conjunction with a grocery store in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2614 and 2600 Kilburn Avenue, subject to conditions. Item number two, an ordinance related to the annexation of 14XX Edson Road, 15XX Edson Road, 16XX Edson Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. Item number three, an ordinance related to the annexation agreement for 14XX, 15XX, and 16XX, Edson Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. Item number three requires 10 votes to pass. Item number four, an ordinance related to the zoning map amendment from County AG to I-3 Airport Industrial Zoning District at 14XX, 15XX, and 16XX, Edson Road, and a portion of 8631 11th Street. Thank you.

We have the four items in front. Any discussion? Alderman Logerman.

Thank you. Administrator Cagnoni, item number three, which requires 10 votes, referencing this item here, if this does not pass, would there be any implications as a result, or as it relates to a possible construction of a data center at all?

Mr. Cagnoni.

Thank you. So the annexation agreement is item number three, which requires 10 votes. And the annexation agreement includes the language that prohibits the establishment of a data center. So if we fail to get the 10 votes, then that prohibition related to data centers would not be in place. And the other items require eight votes. So theoretically, we could be in a situation where we have the annexation. of the property, the change in industrial zoning, but not the provision prohibiting the establishment of data centers. So we would encourage council to secure the 10 votes so that we can have the language within the annexation agreements which prohibits the establishment of a data center.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Seeing none, clerk take the record.

Aye. . Aye.

. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

OK, moving on to planning and development. Alderwoman Neal.

We have four items tonight. Item 1 is an ordinance approving the termination of the Global Trade Park South Redevelopment Project Area and the dissolution of the Special Tax Allocation Fund for Global Trade Park South Tax Increment Financing District. Item 2 is an ordinance approving the South Rockford Industrial Tax Increment Financing District Redevelopment Project Area. Item 3 is an ordinance designating the South Rockford Industrial Redevelopment Project Area. And item four is an ordinance adopting tax increment allocation financing for the South Rockford Industrial Redevelopment Project area.

So we have four items in front of us. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, clerk, take the record.

No one won. Aye, and the rest?

One has been pulled. One was laid over.

Oh, sorry. Two, aye on the other ones, two through five.

Wilkman.

Aye.

Tuber. Aye. Ross.

Aye.

Turina. Aye. Frenzy. Aye. Neal. Aye. Granite.

Aye.

Feese. Aye.

Salgado.

Aye.

Meeks. No and all.

No, I'm not. I. I.

Moving on to finance and personnel, Alderman Frost.

Alderman Frost approving the request to use up to $200,000 of casino funds to assist in qualified relocation funds. And number two is an ordinance approving the sale of city-owned property located at 218 South Independence Avenue under the city's Moda Owned program to Christie Williams. Thank you.

So we have two items in front of us. Any discussion? Seeing none, clerk, take the record.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

OK, moving on to legislative and lobbying committee, Alderman Frost.

One matter. It's an ordinance approving the renewal of a professional services contract with Zephyr Government Strategies for $10,000 per month for the city of Rockford's 2026 lobbying services. I place this one item before you.

So we have this one item. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, clerk, take the record. Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Prenti. Thank you.

I guess one of the things that I had asked for.

Can you bring your microphone?

Oh, thank you. Sorry about that. I had asked for our ordinance as it relates to procurement. I didn't get a few emails that I requested. So maybe can someone tell me that they Send it, or since I didn't get several emails that I had requested information from, I'm just wondering if there's a problem with my email as well.

Procurement?

Hey, Ms. Haggerty?

Apologies. We'll get that to you as soon as possible.

Oh, OK. All right. OK. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, any other comments?

Alderwoman Meeks. Thank you so much. I don't know who to ask the question to, but I just want to confirm, because we had on our 25, 26, I believe, legislative list where Pension reform was a part of the conversation. Is that still going to continue reform of pensions and that conversation through our lobbyists? CHRISTIE WOODARD- Mr. Cagnoni?

So Alderwoman, you are correct. Pensions was a legislative lobbying item in our 2526 plan and has been for a number of years. And I would anticipate that it will be a suggestion for the 2627 plan as well.

So when we ask our lobbyists to lobby about pension reform, are we specific about what our needs are for our city? Or is it just kind of a general?

So it's both. And it's not just an effort by our lobbyist alone. The Illinois Municipal League has been well engaged in that conversation as well. But Director Haggerty will provide a slew of information to our lobbyists and IML as they're having discussions in regards to what impacts may or may not be as different proposals are evaluated.

OK, got you. Thank you so much. I look forward to kind of seeing that going forward. Thank you so much.

Any other comments? Clerk, take the record.

So I have a motion to adjourn a second all those in favor meeting is adjourned