City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the city council meeting for Tuesday, September 8, 2026. Tonight, we'll start out with our invocation that will be given by Pastor Carla Garcia of Gomez Chaplain AME Church. We just ask that you stand up to, excuse me, we ask that you all stand. And following tonight's prayer, we will do the Pledge of Allegiance.

Father God, we come right now in the precious name of Jesus. Lord, thank you for what you've done so far. We thank you for bringing us all here on one accord. Allow us, Father, to remove ourselves and remove anything that would hinder progress from going forth. Lord, we ask a blessing on this whole chamber. We ask a blessing. for the city of Rockford. We ask a blessing for the mayor as she make decisions for our whole selves, Father. We ask these things in Jesus' name. For his sake, amen. Amen.

Clerk, will you please call the roll? Awesome. We have the acceptance of the journal. So item one, journal of proceedings for the special city council meeting held on August 10, 2026. Do I have a motion to approve? No. Are there any questions or discussion? All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Thank you. There are no proclamations tonight, so we'll move on to petitions and communications. And we'll start with Planning and Development Committee. Item 1, we have a memorandum from Anna Carlson, Economic Development Manager, regarding the adoption of a proposed ordinance for the termination of the Springfield Corners Redevelopment Project Area and the dissolution of the Special Tax Allocation Fund for the Springfield Corners Tax Increment Financing District, referred to Planning and Development Committee. We'll move to codes and regulations. Alderman Punte.

Memorandum from Rudy Marino, Historic Preservation Commission Secretary regarding the proposed landmark designation of 2520 North Main Street referred to code and regulations. All of these are being referred to codes and regulations. Traffic Commission's agenda for the meeting to be held on September 9th, 2026 and minutes from that meeting for consideration at the Code and Regulations Committee meeting on September 28th, 2026. Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for the meeting to be held on September 15th, 2026, and the minutes from that meeting for consideration at the Code and Regulations Committee meeting on September 28th. Number four, Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board's agenda for the meeting to be held on September 15th, 2026, and the minutes from that meeting for consideration at the Code and Regulations Committee meeting on September 28th, 2026. memorandum from Martin Bloom project manager permits, project manager permits, and special events regarding upcoming special events, which include Rockford Police Department, Trunk or Treat, Earthrise 815, Sustainability Conference, and Festival of Lights. These are all being referred to Code and Regulations Committee.

Thank you.

Regulation.

Thank you. Up next, we have our Finance and Personnel Committee. I'll turn it over to Alderman Frost.

These matters will be referred to the Finance and Personnel Committee. Number one is a memorandum from Joshua Berluse regarding the proposed sale of city-owned property at 710 North Church Street pursuant to the Mode of Own program. Number two is a memorandum from Owen Carter regarding the acceptance of an IACAA DHS employment barrier reduction fund award. Number three is a memorandum from Carol Jorowski regarding the acceptance of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Fiscal Year 2025 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice JAG Award. Number four is a memorandum from Diane Hernandez regarding the approval of a lease agreement with Comprehensive Community Solutions. Number five is a memorandum from Angela Hammer regarding the proposed formation of the Rockford Regional Tourism District. Number six is also a memorandum from Angela Hammer regarding proposed IGA with the City of Lust Park, City of South Beloit, and the Village of Cherry Valley regarding the Rockford Regional Tourism District. Number seven is a memorandum from Timothy Hankins regarding a proposed IGA with Winnebago County for public safety building sidewalk construction. And number eight is a memorandum from Angela Hammer regarding a proposed contract with Motivations for 911 Police Dispatch Services. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and move into our public speakers. Just as a reminder, each public speaker will have three minutes to make their comments. We ask that you step to the back of the horseshoe to one of the available microphones and make your comments, at which time you will hear an alarm sound. Once that three minutes is up, we just ask that you bring your comments to a close at that time. That being said, our first speaker tonight is David Scott.

Good afternoon. I got a letter in the mail that I was quite disturbed with, and it's about voter registration. And I went to the election board, talked to them. They said it was above their grade, so I want to get the council's opinion of what they think about having permanent ballots sent to your house, which is a cost for a lot of... Ballots that would be incorrect. And I think that would be a travesty. It wouldn't be good for the city of Rockford to be incorporated into allowing permanent ballots at houses. I don't see any reason for that. That's my opinion. Just get your guys' opinion. That's all I got to say.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kenneth Dickens. I'll come back. John Tack Brantley.

Good evening, Acting Mayor and all the persons, our citizens of Rockford, Illinois. I'm blown away how we are stepping up with Camp Grant. And I'm also very impressed, and I want y'all to do a fact check. What other city here in Rockford have a female mayor, a chief of police, a chief of the fire department, and the head of the human resource department? The most powerful resources in the city is run right here. Y'all have just gave Jim Crow a slap in the face, and that's great. We're getting back to our project. We met with the Power District. Not only is the Power District going to handle the funding for the funds we're going to be getting for Camp Grant, they're also going to make a video with me talking about Camp Grant. Next Tuesday, we're meeting with the school administrators to talk about our idea about Camp Grant. We're getting the middle school, high school, and elementary school kids to participate in the camp grant. We're going to make the announcement in January. We already got several factories and Three different banks have already made commitments to sponsor the Camp Grant project. So I'm letting the Power District handle all of that. But what I haven't done yet, hopefully I didn't put my foot in my mouth, but just to give you all a heads up, the last week, the month of February, We want to bring the pictures, the winners of a different high school. We want to bring the pictures here at City Hall, placement at City Hall. Let the community come in and pick which picture will be the best picture that we want to have for the roundabout, Camp Grant. and the one that we're going to have, the Edward Park. Then come Juneteenth is the day that we'll make the announcement of who the winners are. Now I'm throwing this out here to everybody because we got an idea. We can give $1,000 to the high school for the graduate for going to college or trade. But what do you give a middle school or elementary school youth that's got an excellent drawing for Camp Grant where the money won't go into the parents' pocket or go on the parents that are doing drugs? We want to make sure. I'm just kidding in real with you. Because I know a lot of our parents could use drugs, and the kids don't see any money. We want to make sure the kids actually get the money. And lastly, not least, Rockford is known for what blacks here have to get the white man permission to do something. And whites feel like blacks have to get their permission to do anything. Well, Apostle Brown, we had a press conference. Now he have a sponsor that's going to cover the cost of refurbishing Rockford Memorial Hospital. And I'm not going to name some of the things they're going to add to the hospital, but we all need to be on board with what Apostle Brown is doing. Thank you for allowing me to speak. And good luck to all for the four horsemen.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Larry Johnson. I'm sorry, Larry Washington. Sorry about that.

OK, anyhow, I don't really like coming down here, but my conscience won't let me stay away. So anyhow, I'm starting off with an incident with Tamir Bell.

So I'm talking with a friend of mine out in the hallway here.

He comes out here, gives him a piece of paper. I guess this is something to help him out about something, his phone number, whatever like that. So anyhow, I said, wow. I wish my alderman would do something like that. And then he gets an attitude. He says, well, I'm not your alderman. What's with the alderman? Dude, what's with that? I don't understand that. And then I'm sure that same particular night, as a speaker is speaking, eating potato chips, sipping on pop, looking around the room like this, We're supposed to get your undivided attention as I'm getting it right now, okay? Now, good job on the sidewalk, the street thing and all that that you got going on. But you know, I'm about those people riding that bus, okay? Now, sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but they're not getting treated right. But at least they're gonna be on a smooth street while they're not getting treated right.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Prophet Yusuf.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. In the book of Proverbs, the third chapter, the fifth to the sixth verse, It says, trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he will direct thou path. What I want to speak about tonight, 9-1-1 rescue works. Apostle Paul understood the need for rescue workers. Physically, people find themselves in all kinds of predicaments. And it takes rescue workers to lead the survivors to safety. At times, the rescue worker itself takes the life of the rescuer and soberly remind us of their importance. Miss Gunnell Guzman was the last survivor found among the rubble of the World Trade Center following the disaster of September 11, 2001. She had fallen from the 13th floor stairwell when the building collapsed and was trapped among the concrete and still for 26 hours as rescue workers searched for survivors at great danger to themselves. Miss Guzman clung to hope. She was able to do so through the power of prayer and because of the presence of an individual beside her, laying amidst the hard debris. Miss Guzman felt something soft near her. Before long, she realized that it was the body of a New York firefighter who had died trying to rescue others. She tried not to think too much. about the fact that she lay near a dead body. Shortly after noon on September the 12th, 2001, Ms. Guzman was found. Rescue workers told her that they never would have found her if it was not for that firefighter. Her civilian clothes had blended in with the debris, making her virtually invisible. But the firefighter's uniform highlighted I ever had reflected tape on it, and that drew the rescue workers to the spot where Ms. Guzman had been trapped. The five in death had literally saved Ms. Guzman. In an interview, this is what she said. In an interview, Ms. Guzman said, I thank God. for answering my prayer. I thank God for that fireman who was my guardian angel, who saved my life. I want to thank God. Now, this is me. I want to thank God for all first responders and all veterans, because I'm one. Are you willing? to lay down your life for others? Are you willing to make yourself vulnerable, even put yourself in danger to save another? Lord, make me willing to lay down my life for others who need to be rescued. Thank God for first responders and veterans. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you. That concludes our public speaking portion for tonight. Next, we'll move into new committee reports, Planning and Development Committee. Item 1 is a committee recommends approval of the proposed funding agreement with Living Well Center of Northern Illinois in the amount of $100,000 annually for a period of three years not to exceed a total amount of $300,000 to support the establishment of a senior center located at 1111 South Alpine Road. The funding source is casino funds. Item two, the committee recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the funding agreement with the Rockford Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, Go Rockford, extending the term of the agreement from an expiration of 2028 to an expiration of 2034 and the continued lease of 102 North Main Street. This is an extension of six years from the existing agreement and lease. Do I have a motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments? Alderman Bonney.

Thank you. Yeah, I have some questions on item two. I don't recall that we've been given, and maybe we have, The 70% of the hotel and motel tax that currently goes to Go Rockford, what is that equal in dollars? And how much more in dollars would Go Rockford be receiving at 75%?

70% works out to just over $1.9 million. And this change would add an additional $140,000. Thank you.

And if we approve this tonight, does that go into effect immediately? When is the effective date?

I believe it goes into effect beginning with collections the first month following approval of the agreement.

So the beginning of next month. The exemption for Go Rockford to not be bound by Legend's global labor agreement with the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees. Can somebody explain what sort of the rationale is for that? I assume that. It has to do with size of events. But I would also assume that Go Rockford might be using the new stage there and essentially, even though an event may be community or regional, may still be Taking my time up. I'm sorry. Apologies. I can continue. Thank you, Madam Mayor. In other words, if it's not sized, why would, I mean, I can understand logically why events of a certain size wouldn't be required to be bound by that agreement, but I would assume that Go Rockford could be staging events just as large potentially as what Legends Global would be staging and then not be bound by those agreements and then potentially, I don't know if there's I don't know if there's a competition there for the same event, whether it would even matter.

Who wants to respond?

I can, Your Honor. So there was a series of questions in there, and I can't speak to the specifics related to all the terms of the respective parties' agreements. What I can tell you is that Rave has their contract, but Go Rockford has their own contract with the unions as well, which are two different contracts, understanding that two different organizations. I don't know if that fully answers your question, but I wanted to make sure you understood that go Rockford has their own contracts I Did not know that what does who is go Rockford's contract with and from?

For what and how does it how is it invoked in?

So I would need to lean on John Groh to answer those questions. I apologize. I typically haven't got into the minutiae in regards to their contracts with their providers for their events and activities. If it's OK with the council and the chairman, if John could answer that question.

Are there any objections to John Groh answering these questions? Mr. Groh, if you'd like to step up to the microphone.

So previously, we have worked through RAVE and hired members of the IATSE union, for example, for Strollen State. Recently, we entered into our own agreement with the union for events that we host or would host at Davis Park or other events, for example, like Strollen State, which extend beyond the boundaries of Davis Park. For example, at Rockyard a few weeks ago, in the days leading up to and the two days of and following, we had stagehands and other members of the union who worked under our own new contract versus working under the RAVE contract.

It's good to hear. Thank you Is there any I know there's language in the proposal about The requirements for Legends Global can submit up to 10 annual events yearly, and there's language about an agreement that will be worked out with Go Rockford, but I'm curious as to why we're not talking about any sort of required level of programming that we would be expecting in return for the additional $140,000 annually. Is that something that would still be worked out?

I believe I understand the question that you're asking. And I believe, are you referencing the draft agreement between Rave and Go Rockford? So certainly Rave and Go Rockford have, along with the city, had a number of conversations related to how we can activate this park as much as possible. When City Council approved the IGA with Rave, it excluded a number of activities. So our intention is to bring Go Rockford in to augment the operations down at Davis Park. Have we identified a specific amount of activities? No, we haven't. We recognize that the amount of funding that is being proposed in the increase won't be sufficient to fully activate a complete and comprehensive budget. But we believe that we'll be able to augment the work that RAVE currently does to a significant effort that is worth advancing. But we have not identified you need to have x amount of particular activities. In part, that we recognize that some of these activities will be low cost. And we can likely have a number of events over and over. Some will be higher cost. And both may rely on fundraising opportunities. So we're moving forward with this proposed recommendation, understanding that we have three parties, the city, Go Rockford, and Rave, all trying to make this park be successful and will likely need to adjust as we continue to go forward.

So in the agreement that would eventually be signed, we could have some court sort of required volume of programming if we want to and can figure out how to describe that, articulate that?

Potentially in the future, I think after we activate and have operations going, we'd have a better idea on what to expect and the full costs associated with those accomplishments. But understanding that the agreement between Rave and Go Rockford, we may not be a party to. But certainly, we have representatives from city council on both of those boards.

Is it, I can't think of another time where we have, I'm sure there probably is one, but where we have approved funding. So if we were to approve this tonight, we're approving funding that would start the beginning of next month. But then the language that the city of Rockford and Go Rockford will develop a formal agreement outlining Go Rockford's responsibilities, why would that come in the future after we've already approved the funding? Why is that not coming now?

I mean, there's certainly a scope of work that's identified in this agreement. And that wouldn't be uncommon with a funding agreement.

I know it was stated at committee that Legends Global or Rave isn't interested in this smaller scale, non-ticketed programming, but I'm a little concerned about all the fingers in the pie and if Davis Park is going to be successful. Who's ultimately responsible? I think the answer is we are since we own it, but Is it out of the question to make this simpler and have BMO, Rave, Legends solely responsible for all of the programming with expectations that it's not just ticketed events? and not have the additional component of Go Rockford involved with a increase in its take of the hotel motel tax.

No, because that hasn't worked historically. Prior to these investments, we had very limited activity at Davis Park. We have two partners, Go Rockford and Rave, that have worked. extensively to come forward with a proposal that we believe we can maximize the benefit for the community each Specializing and what they believe they do best and we would concur And so our overall conversations have been how do we move this park? forward with the conversations and proposed agreement that we have I

Also, this has been covered before, I think, too, but for many years, the park district was part of the equation. The park district was maintaining the park. The park district didn't want to continue to do that. Where are we with how the park is going to be maintained? Are we doing that on an ongoing basis and contracting that out? How is that working?

So yes, the city of Rockford will be maintaining the park. At the time of the award of contract for the improvements, our public works team prepared a preliminary budget associated with the cost for maintaining the park. And those funds have been identified within the redevelopment fund. And that would be a combination of in-house in contracting out So that'll be continued to be fine-tuned as we advance I know our public works teams and conversations and reviewing their team as they prep for the completion of Davis Park to take over those activities understanding some of them are currently being continued under the construction Contracts you are correct that at the time of the the Davis family Maybe making a significant donation to the city in the Park District There was a 30 agreement that included responsibilities during that 30-year, as well as beyond that 30-year, understanding that this was an agreement that dates back to, I want to say, late 80s, maybe it was 1989, where the Davis Trust donated approximately a million dollars for land acquisition and improvements at Davis Park. which set forth both responsibilities for the city and the park district for ongoing construction, maintenance, and so forth, generally setting obligations on both taxing bodies. Shortly prior to the contract, or the design process wrapping up in Davis Park, the Park District notified us that they were terminating their involvement in Davis Park. And so that was obviously part of the conversation as we evaluated these bids for construction that ultimately council approved and moved forward. But yes, the Park District has stepped away from Davis Park.

And our last meeting approved the public hearings of the Tourism Improvement District. Is that public hearing date set yet? And if so, when is it?

So yes, the resolution that City Council approved set the date. And that will be the 21st of this month in front of City Council. So we have two referral items on the agenda tonight. One would be the referral of the Rockford Tourism Improvement District. as well as the intergovernmental agreement between the taxing bodies that are part of the Tourism Improvement District, the municipalities, I should state. So those items will be at committee next week, the 14th, and then the public hearing will be on the 21st. And I believe our tentative schedule is for the all the documents to be up for first consideration If not on the 21st the 28th of the month after the approval of the IGAs from the other governmental bodies Which are all going through the process concurrent with our process And as far as the length of this agreement goes to extend it six years to a total of eight I Mean that's

more than twice, at least twice as long as probably any of our labor agreements ever were. It is more than twice as long as the extensions we gave to the recently to the Arts Council and the Chamber of Commerce to go from one to three years, longer than the term of a US Senator. I'm just wondering what was the rationale for needing to renew it two years before it actually expires and renewing it for that long, because I assume we could approve the funding increase as an amendment to the existing contract without extending the contract, correct?

So a couple of questions there. So I'll start with the last one first. Yes, could city council solely mend the increase without the extending of the time? That could take place. Recognizing the level of investment at Davis Park, the amount of programming that will take place, we felt that the extension of six years was appropriate, understanding we would be starting these conversations anyways early 2020. It also allows for opportunity for long-term sponsoring agreements and grant agreements for Go Rockford. And I would say, lastly, one of the conversations, although separate, is a tourism improvement district. And I don't want to suggest that they're tied to one another, because they're not. But certainly, our hotel industry recognized and wanted to ensure that our hotel industry that if they were going to support the creation of the Tourism Improvement District, that that was money that was added to the top, not taking away or paying for obligations that were already in existence within the tourism industry and recognizing that Davis Park is already an existing obligation. That would be one of those.

Thank you. I've got some other thoughts, so I'm going to hold them for now. Thank you for the additional information.

Thank you. Alderman Thunberg.

Mayor I appreciate the questions from the 14th Ward alderman as a member of the rave board representing City Council along with the Tenth Ward alderman we have put in obviously as many people know quite a bit of money into Davis Park So we would like to activate it to the extent. It should be Rave has expertise individuals such as legends global that work for legends global and obviously sit as members of the raid board they have expertise in things you know concerts comedians they have the connections with the promoters on a national scale Where Go Rockford comes in to fill a gap is as we try to get more programming at Davis Park, Go Rockford fills that gap. They have the connections locally they have quite a bit of marketing expertise, so We really would lean on them to activate Davis Park In those areas that rave. It's just it's not part of their mojo per se so That's where I think what we're looking for Go Rockford to come into play. I, you know, as much as I would try to connect the hotel, this hotel motel deal to it, I would have difficulty doing that myself. So I would stick really on the 70 to 75% or the 5% increase from 70 to 75. With that, I do have an issue as what was just brought up with the extension going from an expiration in two years to add a six-year contract, a six-year agreement onto that. Again, I think there was some good points that we don't have agreements with many entities that go eight years. I would like to see the increase in 5% because I think the importance of additional activation in Davis Park for that reason. But I would be looking to amend this to be voted on two separate items, the extension and the increase from 70 to 75. i would you know i just think that an eight year a lot can happen in eight years uh i think that i do have confidence in go rockford being able to activate davis park and with that additional five percent uh would be helpful in their endeavors but being able to come back and revisit this contract and make sure that's happening in two years is something that I think would be important. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Meeks.

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. So in my perfect world, I would like to see the Rave Board and Legends be the ones taking care of Davis Park as it is in the contract that we have. I know it's very explicit where things are changed, but that's what I would like to see in my perfect world. But I guess my question is, the additional 5%, let's say we did not do this, and we were in my perfect world, and Rave was taking care of Davis Park, and we didn't need Go Rockford to do this. Where would the 5% go? How would that be spent?

I can get it. It would go into the redevelopment fund.

OK. And could that be used to pay down debt?

Yes.

So this would be additional funds from our 5% hotel-motel tax that is restricted for tourism-related purposes. The portion that's not currently going to go Rockford is being used to help offset debt service currently. So if this increase did not occur, that money would continue to be used to pay down debt service.

Could it be used to cover the maintenance costs at Davis Park?

Potentially, yes.

All right.

That is currently included in the redevelopment fund budget to be paid for out of the 1%, the same funding that we use to pay for the operating subsidy for Rave, or excuse me, the capital subsidy for Rave, 1% hotel-motel tax, 1% package liquor, and 1% food and beverage tax. It is included in the redevelopment fund currently.

And prior to the change, was it the park district? Were we paying the park district out of the redevelopment fund in order to do the maintenance?

Yeah, we did not pay the park district.

So the park district paid for it? Correct. So this would be a new cost added to the budget? Yes, it is. And do we have an estimate of what that cost is?

I believe we budgeted $250,000.

Wow, okay. That is a number that is new to me. Okay, thank you so much. I don't have any more questions.

Thank you. Okay.

Can I just clarify that? The $250,000 included $75,000 in recurring maintenance costs and then additional set aside for future capital improvements.

Alderman Durkee.

Thank you, Your Honor. I also wanted to dovetail on some very good comments from my fellow aldermen. I'm troubled by this contract. I think it's way too long. And I think if Davis Park is going to come online, I think a fair amount of time, maybe two years, to see what they can do, if they can accomplish that. And I think the contract is incomplete. There's got to be some reasonable expectation or goal that they have to achieve in programming Davis Park. I think the contract's incomplete. And it's also too long. The other is, do we ever have a contract with anybody that's percent-based?

This contract is percent-based?

Yeah. Who do we contract with on a percent basis?

Oh.

Anybody? Because I don't recall. So I'm wondering historically why this is a percent-based contract. It's not a finite number. So that troubles me.

The percent basis not only encourages Go Rockford to... secure additional bookings and more events to the city to increase their share of hotel-motel tax revenue. But it also protects the city in the event that we have a decline in revenue, as we saw during COVID, where if the revenue is not there to pay, we do not have to pay a fixed amount.

Yeah. But there has to be, in my opinion, there has to be some kind of ceiling. And the other element of this that's another moving part in the contract is Go Rockford is now contracting with the hotels regionally to promote activities that fill the hotel rooms. Every time we get a quarterly report, the quarterly report alludes to Go Rockford's activities to promote filling hotel rooms. So they're getting paid twice now for the same thing. So I don't understand why the increase. They're going to get funding, additional funding probably, to fill the hotel rooms, which offsets their ability to program Davis Park. So the increase doesn't make sense to me because they're already getting an increase. They also get an increase. They get increases even from things that aren't part of their activity. Every time a hotel goes up, which one will be going up, they get an increase in their budget, and they had nothing to do with it. So the percent contract bothers me a little bit. I think there needs to be a cap if there's a percent. I think they're getting paid now twice for doing the same thing. I think the contract is incomplete and it's way too long. So I'd like to make a motion that it goes back to committee and we actually get a contract that's workable. I don't see anything that we can vote on tonight. It's just not a good contract. It seems like this contract, in some ways, we were bargaining against ourselves. Because I don't see, there's not a lot of protections for the city. And there needs to be protections for the taxpayers. So I make that motion to send it back to committee to work with staff to get a new contract.

I'll second that question.

So you did second, so we can open it for discussion.

If we send it back to committee, does It goes back on the agenda, but there's no requirement that it advance to council in two weeks from committee, because otherwise we could just lay it over for two weeks. I mean, are we sending it back? Is sending it back to committee essentially laying it over indefinitely?

So if you want to send it back to committee, if that motion passes, it would appear on the next planning and development agenda with direction for staff to make the changes or negotiate those changes suggested by Alderman Jerky and the rest of the members of council. It's certainly another option to lay it over before council and provide staff that same direction.

And if we do it this way, when it returns to council, this does not take away the ability to lay it over on the two aldermen.

Correct.

Yeah, I mean I agree. I don't think the cakes really baked on this yet and and I and it's not because Davis Park doesn't need to succeed. We've got a huge investment there and it does needs to succeed, but I think that you know, I just think that this Eight years is extraordinary. I don't you know, I I don't know how much the general public thought is going to give to it, but I think the chattering class in Rockford views this as our former mayor trying to feather the nest of Go Rockford on his way out the door, even though he's already gone. And I just don't think we should... rush this through without looking at some other options, including for the $140,000, I don't know if Go Rockford is planning to add staff for that amount of money. But have we given any consideration to adding our own staff? Doing this on in-house with our special events team Could we do this it could could we do it since we're ultimately responsible I know there's an expertise question there, but I think those are all things we should look at so I will second alderman Durfee's motion

That being the case with the two alderman rule that does just advance to there, do we need to take a roll?

So the motion, as I understand it, is to send it back to the Planning and Development Committee as opposed to under Rule 11, which would be the two alderman rule before council.

Thank you for clarification. Yes. Alderman Tuberg.

Thank you, Mayor. I think our special events department, as good as they are, are... correct me if I'm wrong more probably in the permitting process than the promotion process so as much as I enjoy everyone in special events department they do a great job I'm not sure about if we want to add promote promoting events to their their work process but again I think there's some valid points if I could ask Administrator Cagnoni. I don't have it in front of me. I know in the rave packet we had responsibilities of rave responsibilities that would be On go Rockford and also the city's responsibilities. So we have three entities there and Were those passed on to the aldermen in packet? Because I don't recall whether I read that in packet or not.

Yes. You're talking about the scope of work. Correct.

And it addressed gated. I'm sorry for interrupting. It addressed things such as gated events and ticketed events. And so I guess when we, and I have no issue with aldermen asking more details. it's just i just want to make sure that there was some things that were pointed out that may address those questions in particular and i wouldn't be opposed to additional questions beyond that so

So I'd like to elaborate, please. Yes. Thank you, Alderman. So yes, there is a six page document related to roles and responsibilities between Go Rockford, Rave, and the city, where we spelled out whose responsibilities take on one action. This is an item that has been in communication with Rave and Go Rockford for Probably almost a year if not a year to to suggest that this was the previous mayor throwing out a contract right before he went out of office is just One it's not accurate nor do I feel it's appropriate to make such a statement, but I understand that's not my role When we look at this overall we are happy to answer any questions that anyone has. But I've got a lot of mixed information, right? Uh, a document that's referenced as incomplete, but also too long at the same time. Um, so I think understanding where the, the, the, the differences or the goals that council would like to meet would, would be helpful. I would also note that this is an addendum to an existing contract, which is extensively comprehensive, which does provide some outs and accountability to go Rockford as it relates to the work that they perform for us.

Did you have anything you wanted to add, Alderman Tunberg?

ALAN TUNBERG JR.: No. I mean, there has been something put out you know, maybe there are additional questions beyond what has been put out there already amongst the responsibilities of the three entities. So if that's the case and individuals have further questions or want to address things that are not in that document, existing document, then that's fine. So thank you.

Thank you. So we have Alderman Bonney.

Thank you. So I think the advantage of the motion to send it back to committee versus laying it over, if we lay it over for two weeks, what typically happens is individual aldermen talk with go Rockford and or city staff. And then we come back and we vote. But we're all going out getting information individually. And it might not all be that all of us aren't then privy to unless we share it when we come back to council. But by sending it back to committee, it allows for more discussion. around the horseshoe with everybody hearing the same things. And I think that's why this is preferable to a layover. And some of the questions that Administrator Cagnoni raised about not having direction or clear direction, hopefully that will become more clear when it goes back to committee. Thank you.

Alderman Salgado. Can I call the question? Yes. I think we're about due.

All right.

So we have a motion and a second on the floor to send this item two back to committee. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Aye. Super. 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.

No. Aye.

Thank you. Now we have one item still up for discussion. Are there any questions or comments on item one? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the roll?

Sorry, I was talking with the minister, or he was talking. I'm sorry, the vote, I apologize, I was talking to the city administrator.

Senior center. Senior center.

Aye. Thank you. Ross?

No.

No.

We'll move on to codes and regulations committee and I'll turn it over to Alderman Prenti.

Okay, thank you. Committee recommends approval of plot number two of Hopkins subdivision for the property located at 1522 Rose Avenue. Number two, committee recommends approval of plat number five of Hickory Crest subdivision for the property located at 4750 Pepper Drive. Number three, committee recommends approval of the final plat of Culver's 11th Street subdivision for the property located at 3218 11th street number four committee recommends approval of the annexation of 2010 new milford road new milford excuse me new milford school road the owner of the subject property has requested connection to city water resulting resulting from a failing well. Number five, committee recommends sustaining the Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a special use permit for a planned unit development consisting of an expansion of the existing automotive truck vehicle inspection and vehicle truck repair shop in an I-1 light industrial zoning district at 2318, 2320, 2326 Star Street 2305 Kishwaukee Street, subject to conditions. Committee recommends sustaining zoning board of appeals approval for a special use permit for automobile repair and maintenance facility in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2619 Charles Street, subject to conditions. Number seven, committee recommends sustaining the zoning board of appeals approval for a special use permit for a mural in a C4 urban mixed use zoning district at 314 Prairie Street subject to conditions. Number eight, committee recommends sustaining the zoning board of appeals approval for a variation to reduce the required off street parking spaces from 200 parking spaces to 94 parking spaces B, variation to reduce the minimum required landscaping street frontage width from 10 feet to 5 feet. And C, variation to reduce the required number of shade trees from 10 trees to 5 trees in a C3 general commercial zoning district at 2640 North Main Street, subject to conditions. number nine committee recommends sustaining the liquor and tobacco advisory board's approval for the sale of liquor by the drink class ngl in conjunction with a restaurant in a c2 limited commercial zoning district at 60 59 east state street subject to conditions number 10 committee recommends sustaining the liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board's approval for the sale of liquor by the drink, class NGL, in conjunction with a restaurant in a C2 Limited commercial zoning district at 6061 East State Street, subject to conditions. Committee recommends sustaining the Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board's approval for the sale of liquor by the drink, class NGL, in conjunction with a restaurant in a C2 Limited Commercial Zoning District at 5811 Forest Hills Road, subject to conditions. And number 12, committee recommends sustaining the Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board's approval for a modification of an existing liquor license for the expansion of an existing business to the second floor in an R2 two-family residential zoning district at 320 Kent Street, subject to conditions.

Thank you. Council, we have 12 items before us. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the roll?

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

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

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

Thank you. We're going to go into finance and personnel. I'll turn it to Alderman Frost.

Thank you. Number one, the committee recommends the approval of vouchers in the amount of $9,707,390.16 as approved at the finance and personnel committee meeting held on August 24, 2026. And number two, the committee recommends approval for the addition of city-owned property located at 638 Whitman Street to the city's MoToOwn program. The property will be part of the MoToOwn agreement between the city

the adjacent property owner Jessica Cortina's it pleases two matters before you we have two items before us are there any questions or comments on these two items clerk will you please call the roll all right Next, we have officers' reports. Do we have any officer reports today? All the women weeks?

Thank you so much. I just wanted to really quick let everyone know that I'll be having a town hall meeting Wednesday, September 30th. It'll be at 700 West Riverside that for many of you who know is Cliff Breakers or Riverview Inn and Suites is the location from 5 30 until 7 30. and so um this is definitely geared towards the 12th ward but anyone is invited to attend so i just wanted to let everyone know that thank you so much

Awesome. Are there any other officer reports? Alderwoman Granath.

I would like to thank the Labor Day parade committee yesterday. They put on a great parade. There was a lot of candy had by all. And it was a lot of fun to see students and everybody else that you don't normally get to see. But I do appreciate what the committee does and how much work and effort it goes into putting it on. But it was a great event. Thank you.

Alderman Toonberg Thank You mayor I had the honor to ride in the annual Jamie Cox Memorial Ride a couple Saturdays ago very well attended I want to thank you Rockford Police Department the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department and the Ogle County Sheriff's Department for helping at intersections and the escorting so I It was a well-attended event, like I said, and for a good cause. Also, hats off to our community policing unit for doing a successful neighborhood event with over 100 kids at Kenrock Community Center in the third ward. So it was a great time, and the chief was there, and plenty of fun to be had. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other officer reports?

We'll move into our motions and resolutions.

Under planning and development, we have two items. Item one, 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 2026 and 2027 casino funds. Item two, committee recommends approval for the designation of Sarah Lise, community and economic development director, as certifying officer for environmental review submitted to HUD. Do I have a motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments? Alderman Bell.

Thank you. I'll be brief. I'm not feeling that well tonight. But I will be making a motion as I sent correspondence to each of you. Over the last few weeks, we've had much discussion about supporting small businesses through this Spaces to Places program. And just want to say thank you to city staff for all of the back and forth on what we could do to adjust and take what us as city council members have shared over the last few weeks and not just say no and just wipe this completely away but to come back and reduce the amount just to launch a pilot program rather than a two-year program i'd hope to see that you all do the work through this year so that we can see the success and and potentially bring this back next year so i'll move to amend the resolution to reduce the funding for spaces to places program from $300,000 to $150,000 and set the maximum funding available per business at $15,000.

We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. Are there any questions or comments? Clerk, will you please call the roll?

13.

Madam Chair.

Oh. But I'm sure the first board alderman wanted to hear me speak so the uh i yeah i would uh i would back this amendment from the 300 down to 150. i'm still not absolutely sold on the program itself i think there still is plenty of questions and you know how far should municipal government get involved in this as well possibly with businesses that maybe aren't absolutely set up for success But with that being said, if it does pass tonight, that I am more comfortable with the $150,000 starting out with than the $300,000. One of my questions is that how long are we going to continue this program for again?

I believe it was for one year, but I think it's one year. When we got approval, we would run it for one year with the intention that it was a pilot, and we would learn if the funding was effective or not and bring that back to you all.

Okay. Because, yes, I absolutely wouldn't want this program to go on indefinitely. So, yeah, I would like confirmation on how long we are going to have this program for.

Well, the funding sources we chose, we thought we'd be starting in the summer. So we chose some of the 2026 casino funds and some of the 2027 to make sure we were covering one year from, again, we thought start in the summer, so it would go to the next summer. So one year. But we'll mend it down and use, I don't know if we'll need both years of what year it will come from, but only the 150. So that would just be one year.

So we'd evaluate after one year the success of the program. And then if we want to continue with this program being funded the way it is as well, then we would come to vote on this program again in one year, correct?

Correct. And we could bring back how we used it, who it was successful for, how the amount helped them, all the different information you need to make a decision.

OK. I will possibly add additional comments after the motion.

Are there any? Alderman Bonney. Thank you.

Third ward alderman's question and the answer now, now I'm confused about the reason for the amendment. If we're going to be approving the program for one year, my understanding was that this amendment would be to reduce funding in the second year of the program. But we're not approving a second year of the program?

I was just sorry. I was just making a comment. Sorry, if I was confusing. I was just making a comment that We had two different calendar years when we thought we were going summer to summer for one year. So that's why there was two years of funding noted. But the intention was for one year to run the program. So I apologize for the clarification. It's just one year, $150,000. There wasn't a second year of funding delineated. It just comes from two different budgets.

OK. My understanding of this before the amendment was submitted was that it was $300,000 in the first year and $300,000 in the second year. It's $300,000 for one program year that straddles two fiscal years?

No, we originally proposed one program for $300,000 that would be up to $20,000 per business. And that was approximately three businesses each in each of the five districts. So 15 businesses would be helped with up to $20,000, $300,000 total in one year. It came from two different casino budget years, the money to make up the $300,000, but it was one $300,000 in one year. We're just now reducing that to one year and $150,000 with 15 per business, so we'd be able to help up to 10 businesses instead of the 15.

OK. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments on the amendment? Clerk, will you please call the roll?

No.

Aye.

Tuber?

Aye.

Ross?

No.

Trena?

Aye.

Bronte?

Aye.

Neal?

Aye.

Hoffman?

No.

Granite? Aye. Beach?

No.

Sobel?

Aye.

Meeks? Aye. Bell?

No That amendment passes now we still have two items still in front of us are there any questions or comments on those two items See all the way to work Now we're voting on item one one of the votes coming up and it is going it is going to be

For 300,000 correct or is it the 150 150 I know it's been two weeks. So So the you know, I still have issues like I mentioned that I'm comfortable that it went from three down to 150 in the sense that if this does pass I would rather have 150 put in Again, I still have some issues that know we did I have talked with various parties on this the city along with outside parties that do have business interests and expertise in this matter as well You know, I do have a tough time in just handing a business over the course of a year and then what happens afterwards in year two or year three. And, you know, there are other entities such as RLDC and SBA that really do have the underwriting expertise and capabilities to evaluate businesses which can then possibly be looked at as the possibility of success or failure not always guaranteed of course but also the matter of which we talked about in our meetings the ability to leverage some of these dollars uh into more dollars uh yes they're they they possibly are then getting into the lending aspect of of committing to a loan but the opportunity to have some of this money to then leverage uh for more but yeah so that's that's it is where where do we draw the line as as far as government coming in and and giving these businesses uh dollars for the first year um that they may not succeed without that and then the question is is you know how you know how were they going to succeed in the first place which many other businesses have had to go about it without help from the city so all right thank you

on all the men frost thank you i i understand the promise behind this was trying to really try to fill in some of the plighted and vacant vacant storefronts and retail spots we have amongst a number of different business quarters but having having a one-year pilot program and then i'm going to reassess in the year well i mean i i i bet you i can tell you how it's going to go uh... if if like i said before If a business plan and a new business can't afford a security deposit to get into a spot, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're probably not going to succeed. And I just don't think paying a security deposit and partial rent payments is the right thing. If they needed help, we don't. We have an entrepreneurial center here in town to help small businesses. There are lots of different avenues and mechanisms in place to help a small business. And just to give them cold, hard cash from the city, especially in light of we are facing a budget deficit this year that we have to figure out a way to solve. And I just don't think it sends a good message to the residents that at the same time we're doing that, we're throwing money at, we're basically taking a bet. We're really becoming... not even like a venture capital. We're really just betting the farm. And I just don't think it's prudent for us to. And I appreciate that it was lowered from $300,000 to $150,000, but that's $150,000 that we won't have to utilize on another program. And just tonight, we just... We haven't got to the ordinance yet, but everyone voted, but me, voted yes on the senior citizen $300,000 out of the same casino fund. So I don't even know where we're getting that money, because my last recollection from Ms. Haggerty was that if this went through, the casino fund was going to be down like $80,000. So I don't even know how we keep spending money out of these funds that are either depleted or going to be depleted. So I just wanted to throw some light on this rental issue and why I think it's just not prudent to vote yes. Thank you.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Did anyone want to respond?

give the existing fund balance for 2026 and 2027 based on both approvals and commitments under consideration.

Based on what has been approved so far under the $850,000 allocated in casino funds for economic development in 2026, with both $100,000 for year one of the senior center and $150,000 for the storefront program, we have $300,000 remaining in 2026 funds. And if that's the whole funding would come out of the 2026 amount then, so 2027 would be untouched.

I recall a different one. This was asked about before with the casino fund on another issue. I recall a much smaller number being left in the casino fund.

That could be the case when but there's also been additional amendments for reductions on other proposals as they've gone through council consideration mobile grocery we won that was You know significantly reduced so you could have recalled a Lesser number, but director Haggerty has adjust that based on decisions made by council.

Thank you All the woman Torino Thank you very much to correct. I that I also voted no for the senior center as well. So you were not alone in that. I didn't vote for it earlier in this year, and I did not vote for it again today. I did vote yes to amend the item to a lesser dollar amount, but I also will be voting no to support this item. I wasn't satisfied with the answer that initially was given about the list of individuals that were prepared to even utilize this program. And it was mentioned that There is allegedly businesses coming out of Think Big that could use this. Again, I wasn't satisfied with that. I, earlier this year, actually went through the Think Big program myself. I am a business owner, but I also wanted to see where our tax dollars are going. I wanted to experience the curriculum and to see if it was a quality program. I did feel that the curriculum was good for a new business owner. I was in a class with maybe 50 other businesses, and my personal experience at that time was not that there was anyone else in that room that needed a storefront. There were a lot of consultants, a lot of people with food trucks, and so I had a very clear vantage point of what was in that classroom. So it didn't, to me, doesn't, This is not filling a need that I felt that I experienced amongst my classmates and peers in the business space. So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this item. Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to... give kind of a different example. I know one example won't change people's minds or deter anything. And nothing's etched in stone. But one example in my area that I think could be useful is there's an individual that is looking to begin or continue on with the pre-apprenticeship program. They're currently in a smaller space looking to expand that space. And so they're looking in an area in my ward to do an expansion. And I do believe that this Spaces to Places program would be very beneficial to them. They're currently paying rent in another location outside of the city. So they would be coming into the city from another location outside completely. And yeah, like I said, they need a larger space. So it's just one example of where something like this could potentially be beneficial. I actually understand everybody's perspectives and how this could potentially not work out as well but there's also some examples where it could be beneficial to to some of the residents and I know when it comes to SBDC and think big there's a lot of technical support but there's not really a lot of support surrounding the the funding and so I think that it is helpful and At the same time, we are faced with budgetary issues, I guess I'll describe it as. So we do need to be very cautious. But I do feel like this is something that could bring something impactful to the city as well. So I just wanted to make that point that there's kind of two sides to this.

Thank you. Alderman Bonney?

Thank you, Mayor. So Alderwoman Torino made a point about supporting the resolution, the amendment rather, even if you're not supporting the program overall. And I think if we're going to approve the program, I think we're making it's a mistake to reduce the amount. Because I think you've got to beg the question then, is the program going to be as Alderman Frost pointed out, with the viability of the businesses that would be receiving the money. I think you asked the same question about the success of a one-year pilot program funded with $150,000. Is that likely to be deemed a success after the end of the first year? And I think it probably isn't. But I mean, I have I, in addition to that very valid point about the viability of the businesses that we would be propping up, I still think there's the underlying issue of this being a subsidy for landlords who could reduce their rents. And I wonder if there aren't other ways to attack this problem. And I don't know if home rule would preclude us from doing this or if state law would even allow it, but things like a vacancy tax or a vacant storefront registry and fee, or We talk all the time about our housing needs here and whether or not there aren't incentives that we could offer to convert some of these buildings that are no longer viable as retail into residential. In addition, I don't like the way that it's limited only to the business districts that have active associations. because those parts of town are already receiving extra city funding because they have formal business associations that we fund. And so now we have a lot of other struggling business districts in the city, but they're not going to be eligible under this program because they don't have an active association. Other Woman Meek's example made me think of one on the east side of town that has been bugging me for the last several weeks. And it's similar in that it's a different form of assistance. But several years ago, the council approved TIF funding to take, I believe it was the old Chili's building, and to help Chavez Restaurant move to that location. And now, lo and behold, within the last month or two, and that's in Alderman Beecher's ward, across the street in my ward, Dos Reales is now closed. And, you know, I just wonder sometimes if when we are offering these, we're offering incentives to businesses that then only end up, you know, we're just moving the problem. And they only end up putting out a business to somebody else. So if in the unlikely event that one of these businesses that can't afford to pay their Security deposit actually succeeds. What is that business doing? Is that business? duplicating a service that we already have say in the River District as an example and Then does that business that didn't have that subsidy? End up closing and so for all those reasons, I'm not going to be supporting this.

Thank you Are there any other questions or comments Alderman Salgado

to speak real quick just want to look at exhibit a property eligibility I think it's pretty obvious the reasoning for for this it's obviously for the storefronts I can tell you a test Broadway Midtown district we have good good businesses that rent upstairs and put their front storefronts on the on the top on the bottom are not filled, been vacant for six months, two years, three years, whatever the case may be. Maybe that expedites landlords to invest in that property to essentially assist those individuals to come in from that perspective. So I looked at the eligibility, the Exhibit A. I do think it's a good way to invest in these certain sectors that have the badge program. or that are establishing a bag program from those particular inferences. And from my perspective, I think we need to focus on that. I can tell you that I have a lot of storefronts that are pretty empty on my And I've been trying to push for the bag program, the badge program in these particular areas from that perspective. So I don't think it's a subsidy from my perspective. I think it's an investment just like we do with their $25,000 that we promote for businesses to get up to core. They got to put 25% down. Different things like that, I think those are things that we need to do to initiate investment and obviously increase sales, whatever the case may be from that perspective. So I honestly, it would benefit my ward, so why would I go against it? So from my perspective, right? So certain sectors may not need it. understand some people feel that it's a subsidy from my standpoint there there needs to be a give-and-take I can tell you that with the livable community initiative that's what the residents decided to do they are going to invest in storefronts on painting on awnings and so forth and so forth. That's what the Louisville Community Initiative has proposed. So it's the sentiment of that particular area that they want to invest in storefronts, beautify that area, ensure that the storefronts is vibrant and there's individuals that are in there. I understand that nothing's a guarantee. Competition's always there. As we talk about capitalism, I totally agree. It's competition, competition at the end of the day. So some might succeed, some might fail, but at the end of the day. I want to also say this again. I've also asked... Our public works director and we've had some issues on 11th Street construction, so he probably has heard it multiple times from businesses. You know that are struggling when we're going on year two and when it was proposed that it was only going to be for one year. construction and some of these businesses are suffering it would be good to have some sort of subsidy especially when they we say it's a one year but it's now two years right weather the storm for one year and you know now an additional another year that these businesses are struggling because their customers can't get in, or the frustration on the construction. So these are similar programs that I think can help out some of these issues that arise. in certain sectors, parts of the city that don't get the foot traffic that they typically do. And so that's where my mentality is. I understand that we can't help every business, but certainly during those things, we did it during COVID. If I don't recall, there's a state representative that has done multiple things, especially during those emergencies. We did it with rental assistance as well during emergencies like that. So I just think that from my perspective, it's very useful to have programs like this that is resident funded and taxpayer funded to help some of these businesses in these particular sectors of the city that are struggling from that perspective. So I just encourage folks to think about that and to vote for this. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Bell?

Thank you.

Writing down a few notes here. Trying to get my words together. I think when you look at supporting small businesses, it's necessary in order to redevelop and strengthen our community. I get the comments about the funding. We just voted to reduce that amount. I think now I'm hearing the viability of the program, it being a pilot now for one year. I say we let staff do what they do best every single day. I mean, I'm not a full-time alderman. which I was, so I can continue to help city staff implement the programs that we pass at city council into my ward and throughout our community. But I would just say, on the staff side, thank you for continuing to to work on this. Again, I've been an advocate for this program. I just want to ask Director Lise, can you share with us what you're hearing from small businesses throughout our community and why you and your department believe that this is a necessary investment?

Sure, thank you. So totally understanding the concerns and some of the issues that were brought up, what we're hearing for small businesses is a variety of things, which is why we've proposed a variety of activities and programs over the last years. We've had the CDBG-funded ones. We've had TIF-funded ones. We had corridor. Because when you're setting up a location, there are property expenses, there are capital expenses, and there are operating expenses. For property expenses, we found some programs worked, you know, often we're moving a tenant in, so they're having to work with a property owner who then gets the benefit of that kind of funding. Capital expenses, and that's like your, you know, your ovens, your furniture, those kinds of, that kind of layout, you know, we have some funding that can help with that. When you're talking to our partners, like SBDC and RLDC, those kinds of expenses are also what is a little easier for them to underwrite also, because you've got something tangible that you're doing. with the company. There's an asset. There's something to attach the underwriting to. It's the operating expenses that are the hardest things to float. So say we have, and we believe we have, some spaces in the business districts that we've told you about that don't necessarily need huge amounts of property or capital improvement. They just need a jump start in the operating to get moving. And that's what we're aiming this type of program to find out and and make it another tool in our toolbox to say like You know, we haven't we just haven't successfully activated all of our corridors all of our business districts and could this a lift in operating that isn't as expensive as a loan on operating Get some of those occupied I understand some of the frustrations and some of how it can appear with our partners, with audiences that they're serving, and I understand Alderman Tarina's point on maybe a large percentage of people who do end up coming through some of the classes and have received some of the services. What we heard from Think Big is they now have their 1.0, their 2.0, and their 3.0, 3.0 being... now a set of series of classes of graduates from previous what they're looking to sustain their businesses and move them into the next iteration so it's beyond just ideation and establishment or moving to that sustaining they felt they had four to six that would be open to a location and maybe had even eyed a location and knew it was possible for them if they maybe had just something to push it over the edge. We also know from small businesses that they are looking to other communities outside and around Rockford and often choosing other little Main Street areas because of what they're finding available to them through those communities. And if I'm being honest, I'd like to make sure we have a tool that competes a little bit to keep them in Rockford. So there's a couple different things that, again, I completely understand the concerns. And I understand this is a different kind of program. But we're asking for one more tool to add to the other tools that we've already been using.

Thank you. And just talking about the qualifying zones, it was mentioned in some of the discussion today. I just want to come out publicly. I think I've said it before on this same topic in debate over the last few weeks. The majority of my ward does not qualify for this program. But I know that this program is important for our whole community. But then taking a step further and expanding the zone for our businesses and bringing together the businesses within the 13th Ward, that's what I'm doing, so that eventually we can qualify for this program. And so I'd be voting for this. And should this pass, yes, for us, the River District, Association is the only business district in my ward. But we're creating a 13th Ward Business Association so that if this passes, of course, we'd be able to qualify for programs like this or the business advancement grant or the badge program business association development grant agreement or engagement. So I think these are the building steps. And I just want to continue to say thank you to your department. I've been able to work with you guys closely on this. I really want to see this go through, but if not, I think, you know, if it's not going to, we should take a step back and start to propose alternative solutions to improving our community with these funds that are available clearly because we're taking a vote tonight on whether or not to spend it. And so should this not pass, I think, you know, taking these dollars that have been, these projects that have been voted down within, you know, casino fund or other funds as we've reallocated funds in the past specifically regrow to go into the general fund maybe we should start looking at proposing that as it relates to as we're heading into budget season and ensuring that we're closing our labor agreements that are currently outstanding so Yeah, I think we should start proposing alternative solutions if we're going to Not make investments like in improving our small businesses.

So, thank you Thank you alderman Beach Thank You So small businesses very difficult time to surviving they're luckily if they get past the second year and And it seems like we like to do things to help people succeed, not to set them up for failure. And when I look at this program, as well-intended as it seems to be, I don't see anything here to help strengthen the entrepreneur, to give them the skills they need to be successful when we know by looking at national statistics that maybe as many as 50% of the businesses are going to be out of business in the first five years, and perhaps 20% are going to be out of business in the first year. So there's anything here that shows how we're going to take that entrepreneur to help them be successful rather than to give them some false feelings that we're going to give a security deposit, maybe pay half their rent, and that's going to solve their problem. That's going to build their business. I don't get that. For that reason, I'm just going to support it. Because I don't think ultimately it's going to help the entrepreneur to feel better about himself and be successful in whatever business he wants to start. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you. Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a different perspective on the previous comments. Just want to highlight a few different programs or initiatives that actually support our entrepreneurs in small businesses, one being Think Big, RLDC, SBDC, Business First through the city of Rockford. I mean, the partners within this program that will be participating. Also, for the River District specific, Go Rockford has been helping grow that from a marketing perspective, which has brought in more customers in the downtown area and activating that space more through events and more. But, yeah, I'll stop right there.

Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm sorry. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Apologize. I'm voting on two things. No to one. Aye. On two.

All right. Are we voting on the space of the place ?

We're voting on items one and two.

As an amendment. I'm sorry, I changed it. I went to a no.

Object. Just on item one and yes on two?

Correct.

I'm sorry. The amendment from 150 to 3. That already passed. So this is the amendment for the items to go through.

Can we just restart the mobile? Yes.

So under planning and development, we have two items. We have the first item, which was amended, that went from the $300,000 for that year to $150,000 total, with the total level of funding up to $15,000 per business. So that's what we are voting on for item one. And item two is as it reads. Please call the roll.

Aye.

Aye. No on item 1, aye on item 2. No on 1, aye on 2.

No on 1, aye on 2.

No on 1, aye on 2. 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.

OK, thank you. We're going to go to Codes and Regulations Committee, where I'll turn it over to, I don't know, I don't know who right now. Since we do have Alderman Logerman here, I think it's appropriate that we have.

Thanks for covering down for me. I was playing soccer coach earlier. Code and Regulation Committee, two items. Item number one, committee recommends approval of the Boylan Homecoming Parade. This event is scheduled for Sunday, September 20th. The event will be from 3 to 5 p.m. Parade route will be the following, St. Francis Drive from Krampus Hills Boulevard to Boylan High School entrance on Muldoon Drive. Item number two, resolution for settlement of Cornelius Williams versus City of Rockford in the amount of $25,000. And rule number nine would need to be suspended for this. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm actually going to ask that we hold out item two until after we have closed session. So we have one item before us. Do I have a motion to approve? Second. Are there any questions or comments on this one item? You can. OK. I don't know if we had a question. Clerk, will you please call the roll? 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

Item one, under code and regulation.

Just item one? I.

Thank you. Next, we'll move to finance and personnel. I'll turn it to Alderman Frost.

Number one, the committee recommends approval award a bid for traffic, signal, and street lighting electrical services to Helm Electric and William Charles in an estimated annual amount of $50,000. It's a one-year contract with four possible one-year extension options. Annual price adjustments for CPI will be considered a contract renewal only. And the funding source is the traffic section operating budget. Number two, the committee recommends approval of joint purchase contract for network cloud storage of CDW government. The contract is for three years. The funding source is the information technology and integration operating budget. Number three, the committee recommends approval of joint purchase contract for data analytics solutions and services to Dark Horse Emergency LP in an amount of $89,500 for year one and $49,500 annually thereafter. Plus a CPI increase the contract graces through April 30 2029 with two possible one-year extension options the funding sources the fire department operating budget Number four the committee recommends approval of an engineering agreement supplement number two Auburn Street corridor improvements to Crawford Murphy and Tilly in an additional amount of two hundred and twenty six thousand seven hundred eighty thousand four cents For an amended total of one point two three three million dollars the contract duration is from September September 2026 through December 2027 the funding sources a general fund 2022 surplus funds Number five the committee recommends approval of Board of Engineering agreement for the 15th Avenue over Rock River Bridge replacement to Crawford Murphy Tilly in amount of two million three hundred and sixty six thousand three hundred and sixty eight dollars the contract duration is from 2027 through 2029 the funding sources are the state grant local project funding funds, MFT funds, and water replacement and improvement account funds. Number six, the committee recommends approval of the resolution approving supplemental appropriation of MFT funds for improvement under Illinois Highway Code 15th Avenue over Rockford Bridge replacement in an additional amount of $2 million for a total of $4 million. Number seven, the committee recommends approval of rejection of bid and to solicit new bids for the public works materials. Only one bid was received for the asphalt material only and staff will need to re-bid to ensure stone aggregates and asphalt materials are included. Number eight, the committee recommends approval of rejection of bids to solicit new bids for Coronado elevator replacements. Only one bid response was received and it was significantly higher than anticipated project costs. Number nine the committee recommends approval of a reimbursement of tip increment Generated for improvements to the armory at 605 North Main Street to the Rockford area Arts Council for a period of up to three years Ten can you recommends approval of a city-state joint funding agreement for federally funded construction? Between the city and I dot for the 15th Avenue or Rock River Bridge replacement with an estimated city share of four million one hundred eighty seven thousand seven hundred forty three dollars funded by three million eight hundred and thirty six thousand seven hundred forty two dollars in MFT funds and three hundred and fifty one thousand dollars in water replacement improvement account funds a Number 11, the committee recommends approval and acceptance of the Community Foundation of Northern Illinois Family Crisis Grant Award in the amount of $25,597.94. The grant does not require a cost match. The grant term is from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. 12 the committee recommends approval acceptance of the of the HUD continuum of care planning grant award in the amount of one hundred eighty nine thousand six hundred and seventy five dollars the grant requires a 25% cost match in the amount of forty seven thousand four hundred eighteen dollars and seventy five cents Which will be funded with community services block grant funds the grant term is from to look December 1 2026 through November 30 2027 Number 13 the committee recommends approval acceptance of the HUD continuum of care rapid youth housing grant award in the amount of one hundred and twenty nine thousand eighty nine dollars the grant requires a twenty five percent cost match in the amount of thirty two thousand two hundred and seventy two dollars and Twenty five cents which will be funded with community services block grant funds the grant terms from November 1 2026 through October 31 2027 I placed these 13 matters before you

Thank you a number nine do do we know I assume we know what the Project admit projected increment is for the improvements at the Arts Council in other words, what would be what is going to be the anticipated reimbursement and

The total increment created off of that is $36,840.

Total over the three years?

No, that's one year.

One year, OK. And is that created essentially by the abatement work that's being done through the EPA grant? What's increasing the value of the property?

The property had a zero value base when we transferred the property from the city to the Rockford Area Arts Council. So all the property taxes, in essence, is increment. And the assessment and the number that Carrie gave you from the assessor's office is this year's assessment. We do anticipate, because they've had conversations with the assessor, that that will likely go down based on other comparables. So I would anticipate that that will be reduced. But ultimately, it would be approximately over a three-year time period, almost $100,000. I would note that we did anticipate that there wouldn't be property taxes that fall under their tax exempt status, but we've seen a number of recent rulings where not-for-profits had taken on properties and the process to get tax exempt is not as consistent as what it was in previous years. Not to suggest that it's wrong, it's just the practice has changed a bit.

Status-wise with this project. I think it was in Over a year ago. There was a news conference in front of the armory and at that time there was targeted Clean update by the end of this year and that there would be a capital stack determined by January of next year for what was estimated as a $45 million project? Is that still the schedule they're running on, or where are we with that?

What director lies is it my last conversation with the executive director? They are I think they're behind on the remediation, but they believe they'll be assembling their capital stack in court the second quarter of next year and they have reduced the project down In scope they believe it will they're aiming for around 15 million in total now Down by 30 million Yeah, I think they're redoing some of their expectation when it comes to the residential components they were anticipating at one point. I think they're imagining the space a little differently. The historic tax credits and things that they would get, there was still a significant soft funds gap. And so they have been working with developers to get to a more reasonable number.

And their development partners, is that still, it's my understanding that Gorman is no longer involved. Is Urban Equity Properties still a development partner?

Urban Equity is still involved with them.

So that's their only private sector?

I don't know that it's their only, but I know that Urban Equity is. I just don't know if they've, I know Gorman, I also know that Gorman is not, and I don't know if they are looking to replace that or what they're doing.

So I was wondering if we couldn't, in our next strategic planning session, which I think is at the end of November, if it wouldn't be smart for us to bring in a number of developers of projects that we are invested in or contemplating being invested in to update us on the status of those. This project included, but also Jay Jeffers with Barbara Coleman. Urban Equities with the News Tower, Joseph James with the Times Theater, the Emerson Development with the Watch Factory, I believe it's now platform group with the Avon Street project. If we couldn't either have them come before planning and development between now and then, or if we couldn't reserve that meeting for a status update where those developers all come in and explain to us where these projects are, because some of them look like they're not going anywhere. Yeah, I mean, I can bring that as a resolution later if necessary, but if we can just do that.

OK. Will do. Alderman Meeks.

I was just curious for item number nine. What is the name of the TIF that this falls under?

I was just curious.

That's in the .

Thank you so much.

Were there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, clerk, will you please call the roll?

Aye.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Moving to new business, we have one item under planning and development. Item one is an ordinance approving the funding agreement with Living Well Center of Northern Illinois in the amount of $100,000 annually for a period of three years, not to exceed a total amount of $300,000 to support the establishment of a senior center located at 1111 South Alpine Road. The funding source is casino firms. Do I have a motion to approve?

All right.

Any questions or comments? Seeing none, could you please call the roll?

Durkee?

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

No.

Tarina? No. Frenzy? Aye. Neal?

Aye.

Hoffman? Aye. Granite? Aye. Speech? Aye.

Salgado?

Aye. Leach? Aye.

Moving to codes and regulations, I'll turn it over to Alderman Logeman.

We have nine items before us. Item number one, an ordinance approving the annexation of 2010 new Milford School Road. Item number two, an ordinance approving the special use permit for a planned unit development consisting of an expansion of existing automotive truck vehicle inspection vehicle truck repair shop in an I-1 light industrial zoning district at 2318, 2320, 2326 Star Street, 2305 Kishwaukee Street. Item number three, an ordinance approving a special use permit for automobile repair and maintenance facility in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2619 Charles Street. Item number four, an ordinance approving a special use permit for a mural in a C4 urban mixed use zoning district at 314 Prairie Street. Item number five, an ordinance approving a variation to reduce the required off-street parking spaces from 200 parking spaces to 94 parking spaces. A variation to reduce the minimum required landscaping street frontage. from 10 to 5 feet, and a variation to reduce the required number of shade trees from 10 to 5 trees in a C3 general commercial zone district at 2640 North Main Street. Item number six, an ordinance approving the sale of liquor by the drink in conjunction with a restaurant in the C2 Limited Commercial Zoning District at 6059 East State Street. Item number seven, an ordinance approving the sale of liquor by the drink in conjunction with a restaurant in the C2 Limited Commercial Zoning District at 6061 East State Street. Item number eight, an ordinance approving the sale of liquor by the drink in conjunction with a restaurant in the C2 Limited Commercial Zoning District at 5811 Forest Hills Road. And item number nine, an ordinance approving the modification of an existing liquor license for the expansion of an existing business to second floor in an R2 two-family residential zoning district at 320 Kent Street. Thank you, Mayor.

Do we have a motion to approve? Any questions or comments? um we'll still do a roll call hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi no six seven and eight i and the rest

Aye.

Meese? Aye. Beall? Aye. Dunn?

Aye. Go to Finance and Personnel Committee. Alderman Frost?

The number one is an ordinance approving the addition of city-owned property located at 638 Whitman Street to the city's motor-owned program. The property will be part of a motor-owned agreement between the city of Rockford and the adjacent property owner, Jessica Cortina, as I place this in front of you to vote.

Do I have a motion to approve? Any questions or comments? All those in favor, please indicate by stating aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign? That item passes. Alderman Frost, I'll turn it over to you as we do have closed session.

I would make a motion to convene in closed session to discuss pending litigation matters.

Second. Any questions or comments on that? All those approved? I'm sorry. Thank you. All those approved, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. All right, we're going to call the meeting back to order. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Here. Here.

Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.

Here.

Here. Here. Here.

Here. Here.

Thank you. We have one item in front of us that's coming under codes and regulation committee, so I'll turn it over to Alderman Lagerman.

Resolution for settlement of Cornelius Williams versus City of Rockford, case number 24CB5315 in the amount of $25,000, and we'd have to suspend rule nine.

Second.

We have a motion and a second on that. Any discussion? Alderman Prenti?

was why this was under codes.

I couldn't hear the question.

The question is why this item is under Codes and Regulations Committee.

Thank you, Your Honor. So we had a prior practice of putting it under Code and Regulation Committee back before the Committee meetings were consolidated. And so I think we just inadvertently reverted back to that practice rather than having it under F&P. So moving forward, we'll put it under the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. The item passes. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Any questions or comments?

Is that just a motion to suspend Rule 9, though? Oh, yeah. We didn't vote on it. That was just to suspend Rule 9.

OK. All right. My apologies, team. All right. So we still have this item up for us to vote on.

I apologize for interrupting, Mayor. Since this involves the expenditure of funds, we would need a roll call vote to approve the resolution, please. Gotcha.

All right.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Durkee. Aye. Hogeman.

Aye.

Tunberg.

Aye.

Frost.

Aye.

Tarina.

Aye.

Punte. Aye. Neal.

Aye.

Granitz.

Aye.

Beach. Salgado.

Aye.

Meeks. Aye. Bell. Aye.

Bunn.

Aye. 13 ayes.

Now that item passes, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved.

Second.

Any discussion or questions? All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. This meeting is adjourned.