City Council - Regular Meeting

My elder's laughing at me right now. Oh boy, you've been asking that for 50 years. Let me get you some help.

Microphones are live. at 529. You sell 529 at 529.

Okay. Yeah. So Okay. The chair will call the April 21st, 2026 meeting of the city council to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Clerk Red Path, can you please call the role? Alman Cox, Alman Gregory here. Alderman Williams here. Alman Rockford here. Alderwoman Purchase here. Alderwoman Natrianiano here. Alman Carlson here. Alderwoman Connley present. Alman Donlin here. Alderman Hanau here. Mayor Busher present. Mayor Yavorn.

Thank you clerk. The civility pledge. In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we all are striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have different ideas for achieving that objective. This evening, there are no proclamations or presentations. The next item on the agenda would be docket number 2026-012 for the property located at 1509 Noble Avenue. The petitioners are Tate R. Hartman and Danielle C. Hartman. Present zoning classification is R1 single family residence district section 155.016. The requested zoning relief is variance of section 155.068B1 garages or accessory buildings or structures to allow the existing detached garage structure including the recent addition thereto remain in place as shown on the plat of survey with setbacks to the north property line of 2.1 ft for the northwest corner of the garage and 2.3 feet on the northeast corner of the garage. Springfield Sangaman County Regional Planning Staff recommendation is approval. Planning and zoning commission recommendation is approval to concur with the staff recommendation. The chair will now entertain a motion.

Thank you. Um I move that we accept the Springfield zoning and regional planning recommendation. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept the regional planning staff recommendation for approval. Uh is there any question from the alders on this particular zoning item? Seeing none, Mr. Sheen, do you need to say anything?

All right, sounds good. Uh, with that then the voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion, please vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is docket number 2026-013 for the property located at 1700 South MacArthur Boulevard. The petitioner is Abdullah Hussein. The present zoning classification is S2 Community Shopping in Office District section 155.031. The requested zoning relief is a conditional permitted use pursuant to section 155.031C9 drive-in or drive up window except for drive-in or drive up windows for the sale of alcohol located on zoning lots adjoining the R1, R2, or R3 zoning districts, but for an alley and section 155.203, 203 certain drive-in businesses to allow a drive-in or drive up window for an ice cream shop on a zoning lot which adjoins the R2 zoning district before an alley and a variance of section 155.322C illuminated signs to allow an illuminated sign menu board to be located approximately 92 feet from a residential zoning lot. The Springfield Sangaman County Regional Planning Staff recommendation was denial, but the Springfield City of Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation was based on the amended site plan grant the petition as submitted with the condition that the petitioner shall install a stop sign at the drive-through exit lane off of Laurel Road subject to the approval of the traffic engineer. The chair will now entertain a motion. I uh move that we approve uh the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission re recommendation. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second to uh grant the petition as the planning and zoning commission recommendation was with the inst installation of a stop sign. Um Alderwoman Connley, just real quickly, I want to point out, first of all, this is super exciting to see Baskin and Robbins coming back. Very pleased for that. Anytime someone puts um ice cream in a drive up window, I'm going to be in favor of it. Um, but I do want to point out I appreciate that the the exit from onto Laurel is a right turn only. I think that's really important. That's a very busy intersection and having people turn both ways coming out of there could be complicated. So, um, I appreciate but very much looking forward to having them back. So, thank you.

Thank you. Any other alders have any conversation for this particular zoning item? Mr. Hussein, did you want to say anything to the group? All right. Thank you for coming tonight. With that being said, the voting will now be open. All those in the motion, please vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no. Congratulations, sir. Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is docket number 2026-014 for the property located at 3126 South 6th Street. The petitioners are the Old Fashion Inc. Present zoning classification is B1, Highway Business Service District Section 155.033. The requested zoning relief is a conditional permitted use pursuant to sections 155.033 C7 conditional permitted uses in the B1 highway business service district and section 155.2000 taverns to allow a tavern with gaming terminals and having liquor sales by the drink. Springfield Sangaman County Regional Planning staff recommendation is approval of the conditional permitted use limited to no more than 861 square feet in the suite known as 3126 South 6th Street. Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation is concur with the staff recommendation for approval. Chair will now entertain a motion.

I move that we accept the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation. Second.

We have a motion and a second to accept the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation of approval. Any discussion from the alders on this particular item? Seeing none, voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no. This does conclude the zoning portion of our meeting. The chair now recognizes Treasurer Redpath Fagger for the presentation of the financial report. Thank you, mayor. The treasur's report for the corporate fund for the month of March. Beginning balance 63,34,481. We took in total receipts of 14,485,945. We had total dispersements in the month of March totaling 15,89,546 which left the corporate fund ending balance in the month of March at 62,430,881. The ending general fund balance included $3,229,89 which was the ending ARPA money for March. That concludes my report. Thank you.

Make a motion to accept the treasures report as submitted. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept the treasures report. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. Chair also recognizes the budget director Mezer for any questions of the OBM contract report that was sent out. Do any alders have any questions on the OBM contract report? Seeing none, we will move forward. The chair will entertain a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the April 7th, 2026 regular city council meeting and approve the minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. The chair will entertain a motion to incorporate the pre-consil first reading of ordinances into the record of this council meeting. So

move second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. The chair will entertain a motion to incorporate the pre-consil reading of the consent agenda into the record of this council meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say I. Those opposed? Nay. The eyes have it. The chair will now entertain a motion to place the consent agenda on final passage. Second. We have a motion and a second. Alderwoman Connley.

Thank you, Mayor. I just need to um point out again for the record, I will be abstaining on items 2026, 154, and 191 since those are both related to the Department of Natural Resources. Okay. So, with this consent agenda report, you have that clerk? 154 and 191. Yep. Thank you all very much. Yep. Any other discussion? Seeing none, the voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no

and the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no. There are no items currently tabled or raining remaining in committee. The next item on the agenda is 2026-155, an ordinance authorizing execution of an annexation agreement between the city of Springfield, Illinois, and 2631 North Durken Parkway LLC for the properties located at 2631 Durkston Parkway for the Office of Public Works. The chair will entertain a motion to recess the regular meeting and hold a public hearing for consideration of this annexation agreement. So move. Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion about the process? Seeing none, all those in favor of going into a public hearing, please say I.

I oppose. Nay, the eyes have it. The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone in the council chambers who wishes to discuss the annexation agreement for the property at 2631 North Durken Parkway? Motion to adjourn uh public hearing and uh and resume the city council meeting. We have a motion and a second to adjurnn. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. The chair now place will entertain a motion to place agenda item number 2026-155 on final passage. So move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, the voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no.

Okay. Alderman. Oh, there we go. Thank you, Alderman. Uh, the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no. The next item on the agenda is 2026-156, an ordinance annex annexing certain described real estate property located at 2631 Durken Parkway for the Office of Public Works. The chair will entertain a motion to place agenda item number 2026-156 on final passage. So move second. We have a motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, the mot the voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. I know. And the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no. The chair will entertain a motion for an omnivous vote for agenda items 2026-172, 2026-173, and 2026-174. So move.

Second. We have a motion and a second for an omnivous vote. I will read the ordinances in the record and then we'll go to discussion if anyone has discussion. The ordinances are 2026-172, an ordinance approving the appointment of William Matson to the police community review commission. 2026-173, an ordinance approving the appointment of Dr. Kamau Kamayo to the police community review commission. And 2026-174, an ordinance approving the appointment of John Herring to the Springfield Disabilities Commission. Now we'll go to discussion. Is there any discussion on these items? Mayor, I just wondering if anyone um who is being appointed is in the audience and would like to come up and introduce themselves.

Thank you, Alderwoman. Are any of the three uh members being appointed in the audience? Alderman Connley would like you to come up and say hello. Would you like to come up? I think the doctor is here. Come on up. Thank you for serving and thank you for coming up. Do you mind just telling the elders who you are? Yeah, just tell them who you are if you don't mind and and what commission you're serving on. I'm Dr.

Any questions? Thank you. And the doctor is at UI. Am I allowed to say where you work? Sure. Okay. UIS. So, I don't want to retired. Oh, retired. Sorry. Celebrate that. Yes. Yeah. Any other discussion? Yeah. I just I just wanted to thank you for serving on this. This is an important commission. Um, obviously there are a lot of issues that come up in in council chambers and in the city at large. And so, I appreciate your your time um on this commission. Look forward to um to seeing sort of the results of of your work as as things move forward. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, doctor. Appreciate you, bro.

Okay. So, the chair will now entertain a motion to put these items. We we did a motion and a second discussion. So, now we need to go on all those in favor of putting this on final passage before we vote. Please say I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it for final passage. So, now the chair should get a motion to place the items on final passage. 2026 1721 17374. We have a motion and a second. Did you get both of those, clerk? Yep. Okay. Uh any other discussion on these items? Seeing none, voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And the motion passes with nine voting yes. None voting no. The next item on the agenda is 2026-175, an ordinance approving an amendment to the rules of procedure for city council. And I'd like to make a motion to withdraw this ordinance.

Second. I have a motion to second for withdrawal. Any discussion from the alders? Seeing none, uh I'm sorry. I would button's not working very well. No, older woman. Alderwoman Nutriano. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I was just going to ask um was there any rationale for withdrawing or what's Well, I think based on the discuss if I can, mayor. Oh, absolutely. Alderman, go ahead. Being one of the sp one of the three sponsors, original sponsors, I would like to based on the discussion we had last week, an opportunity to talk with something. Okay, perfect. Yeah. Any other discussion from the elders?

Seeing none, all those Oh, sorry. Alderwoman Connley. Our button slow. Oh, Alderman Gregory. Sorry. I was just Yeah, it is working a little slow. I was just I I definitely agree with you. Thank you, Alman Donlin. But one of the things that we definitely got to, you know, get in our policy is the rotation of um the committee chair. So, I mean that's of the committee chair. The committee chair. That's important. That's something we do now. That was that was in that language as well. So there there is some things that that we probably need to look at sooner than later. Just FYI. I can. Yeah. Alderman Don and we did not talk about this. I don't want to too much broad, but Yes, sir.

The council back in the day was like 20 pass, but it never got to do some things for sure. I appreciate your willingness to sit down. No problem. Always. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion withdrawal, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Mayor point voter. We have two speakers. There's wanted to speak on this ordinance. If you want to still speak, you can speak at the public for part of this meeting at the end of the meeting. Yep. Yes, sir.

So, the eyes have it. There was no nays. So, the motion has been withdrawn. The ordinance has been withdrawn. The next item on the agenda is item number 2026-176, an ordinance authorizing notice of intent to establish a state tax and revenue starbond district and authorize a feasibility study not to exceed $75,000 to evaluate the potential creation of a tourism and economic development district utilizing starbond financing in support of the history across the tracks initiative east west downtown development and future expansion opportunities for the Bank of Springfield Center. The chair will entertain a motion to place agenda item number 2026-176 on final passage. Some move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion from the alders first?

Seeing none, clerk. I have one speaker, Aaron Kurpatre. I'm going to announce it one more time. Aaron Kurpatre. Okay, that was the only one we had on that one. Thank you, clerk. The voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no.

We got slow computers today, don't we? I know the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no. I'll slow down for you all. Sorry. The next item on the agenda is 2026-187, an ordinance authorizing execution of a contract with the board of trustees of the University of Illinois for advisory board development, facilit facilitation of research, and planning in an amount not to exceed 54,592 for the Springfield Police Department. The chair will entertain a motion to place agenda item number 2026-187 on final passage. So move. We have a motion and a second. Um, any discussion from the alders on this particular ordinance? Alderman Williams. Yes. Uh uh can somebody explain? Uh yes, Chief Bill is here.

Thanks for the opportunity. U so this is to pay for some research done by UIS. So back in 2022 a study done by community health round table that that study essentially looked at the and also to relain that study there was conversation started with table since then we've had countless meetings about what does this look like how do we better relationships through that was a discussion about putting together some kind of group of folks who can be essentially a conduit between the community members and the police department. So through that we want to have UI and we have them mess. So there's a lot of studies around the nation that really look at these boards. groups of folks and what does that look like?

Okay. So, we're using a university um to actually conduct the research. Yes, sir. Are is are they going to use they're going to talk to our community members? Yes. members listening session on conversation with what this might look like within the Springfield community. Thank you, Chief Alderman Gregory.

Thank you. I'm I you know I'm for this and I I know um um Audible Simpson I'm I'm I'm I'm for this but I I just I I just think that we will not get anywhere with true um data and true true opinions if we don't have people on the advisory board from the most policed areas whether those are good interactions or whether those are bad interactions. I think that's so very important that that these opinions and this whatever we're going to do h has to has to have some folks that come from, you know, been pulled over, been through it, good and bad, that can really get some some truthfulness to this thing. Um, and and when I look down the those who are going to do the research, I don't see that, you know.

Point of order. The the mic there is not working apparently at the podium. At the podium. So, Is it not plugged in? Let me plug it in. Good job, Chief. Hello. Jack of all trades work now. Hey, there you go. Much better. Oh, sorry, Arman Gregory, for the interruption.

No, thank you. Um, and I think that's important. I mean, we even have officers that live in in in some of this area. You know, I I see the cars parked there. They live in those areas. So I I even think you know they would be good to be a part of this you know um I think when we when we have people studying from the outside to the inside we we sort of don't get a true sense of feeling and and and you know that's why we're still here you know and um you know I got good respect for you great respect for you um I respect our department you know good policing um and that's just my take on it. So that's that's what I would like to see uh uh that that that be a part of this that at least half of these members are are that we that we um put together are from that area. Yeah. That that that would be my you know per se amendment to this is is that

when they do the research and we put together this advisory board those people are from that area that's going to at least half of them are going to be from that area to give you their expertise.

Sure. I might be able to dispel some of the concerns that you might have. Um the the research that US has done is for a nationwide research of what this looks like nationwide, not necessarily for Springfield. Uh from that through conversations with Scot and the health round table, we're like, what does this look like in Springfield, which is what sparked the January 24th meeting with our community, there was uh 15 or 16 different uh groups, if you will, that were invited to this. an extremely diverse group of folks came in. They were invited to the table and asked questions about what does an advisory board look like in Springfield, Illinois. Um yes, we know what this looks like nationwide, but what does it look like in our community? Um

UIS is not going to select this board. Um they this board is going to be community uh community born and selected by uh those members that have been part of these conversations for the last three years. Scot round table and the spring police department specifically myself. I've been there from the very get-go on these meetings. And so yes, I I understand your concern and I we we as a group as a whole, I think I can speak for us all. We agree with you. Okay. So that' be my amendment when we're done talking. I appreciate you. Alderwoman Nutriano.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so it's it it was a little uh nebulous at first what the the commission was going to be, but okay. So it's an advisory board, but it's not I guess where is once we get the study outlining what the board looks like, who's going to fund it? It like

Yeah, this would be held separate from from this from the city. It would not be uh this the city would not there would not be appointed by the mayor would not be put nobody would confirm it from the from the council members or anything like that. This would be held separately from that. Um we have not had that conversation about where it might be funded but in my understanding it would be a voluntary voluntary basis. Um it's community born. Uh it's really a relationship builder between uh the police department and our community members.

Okay. I I just um my fear is that uh we'll get a study saying we should do XYZ and if there's no ownership so to speak uh there's no organization whether it be community based or the city or UIS uh to actually you know implement the findings of the study then you know have we gotten our $54,000 worth sort of

and this this been a commitment that started uh before me before I was a chief it started with Chief Scarlet But uh I was part of those conversations with him when I was the commander of field operations, been part of him since day one. Um it was a a commitment that I made not only to SCOD and the round table um but to the administration that that we're going to continue these conversations. We see the value in this and we're going to follow through with this. Um I'll be honest with you, I've been pushing this to move faster than it is. Um and some of my uh some of my partners that are in the crowd tonight can tell you that I want this thing done like yesterday. Um, but we also know that's important to make sure we get it done right. Uh, so it doesn't just fall flat on its face.

Sure. And so, um, we're I know we had a a recent meeting, but the data that they're using is going to be has already been collected and is from like 2022 to January. Yeah, that's that's from the community health roundtable study that they did. UIS uh is doing studies to look what does this look like nationwide uh as as a committee outside of outside of the city um and what does this look like within our city um as it pertains to our community and what does our community foresee uh this partnership looking like.

Okay, great. if we at all could have uh someone from UIS come and speak to us a little bit about, you know, their plan, what they're going to do. Um I I would I would be uh interested to hear that and interested to know of any ways that we as council members can help support that effort. Sure. And make sure that you know it goes somewhere. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um Alderwoman Connley, and we do have a committee member who signed up to speak who is an expert on this, by the way. Alderman Connley. Alderwoman Connley. Sorry.

That's fine. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chief. Um I would just like to echo I I kind of, you know, I've read some of the background of this. I know remember when these conversations started. Um just want to make sure that we get um I know part of the scope of this work is is to develop sort of that um that the design and whatnot, but then microphone, please. Sorry. Can you hear me now? Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Sorry, Tony. Um just that we get regular updates. Sure. um um of of when the meetings are and and it can just be an email so that we understand where things are and what what this what the progress is um because I I'm intrigued to see how this plays out and and hopefully we'll have some again more best practices that we can implement and and take away and and see active progress. So, thank you very much. Thank you, mayor. My pleasure. If the elders don't mind, I'd like to let the community member who's an expert at this situation speak. Go ahead, clerk. Gail Simpson. Definitely an expert. Welcome back,

Madame Mayor. Alders, good evening. Good evening. Good evening.

I'm here to bring additional context to uh Chief Bill's request. My name is Gail Simpson. and I'm a former city alderwoman. I'm an actively engaged community community member both civically and politically. My community engagement began many years ago and continues. I align myself with people and organizations that are also actively engaged. The community health roundt consists of community engaged individuals. We are ordinary citizens who saw that there exist a disconnect between many in the Springfield community and the police. We developed a white paper in March of 2022, a few years into our coming together that is very intentional in its examination and recommendations on policing and community health. We organized with the specific intent of figuring out how to address the social determinance of health. Those social factors that when not given positive attention can have detrimental impacts on the community, especially communities of color. Some of that we pay particular attention to are economic stability, healthc care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, social and community contexts. All of which can bring on stressors that lead to health issues and impede one's quality of life. We invited the Springfield Coalition on Dismantling Racism because of their work with discrimination and racism and involved the Springfield Police Department because they are central to many of the determinance of health and a positive relationship with the police could be impactful. I'm going to stop

right there. We have members with me if you would stand. These are members of the community health round table and also SCOD. Thank you. It is imperative that we continue these discussions and the framework both of which have led us to where we are this evening. Our efforts did not emanate from any specific crisis, but from the knowledge that police and community relations across the country are broken and there needs to be a method to repair, rebuild, and sustain healthy police community relations. While this endeavor has not been driven nor controlled by the Springfield Police Department, under then Chief Scarlet and now Chief Bill, they have been active, willing, and meaningful partners. We understood then and now that addressing the community relationship with the police and vice versa would be paramount to making Springfield a safer and more inviting place to live. Our recommendations and goals have always been to work with like-minded and cross-sections of the community to bring change. Change is sometimes a slow process, but diligence, intentionality, commitment, and determination help where there are obstacles and setbacks. After many meetings and outside discussions, it became abundantly clear that we needed to ground any proposed plans in research and empirical data. Molly Lamb, a member of the round table and a staff member at UIS, became a valuable resource providing administrative

support, administrative support with the credibility of an institution of higher learning. We supplement supplemented their research with real life's experiences during our community community event in January where we boldly ask community members to share any and all experiences dealing with the Springfield Police Department. These efforts continue to be a work in progress with a goal establishing an entity, not an advisory board. We don't we don't have a title at this point, but an entity that brings the police and the community together and is sustainable. We are steadfast in our commitment to continue the work. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Alderwoman. I appreciate it. Alderman Gregory, you still have your button pushed, so I'm assuming you want to speak.

Yes. Okay. Thank you, Al former Alderwoman. Um, I appreciate that and much love to those who was on um that board. I was on the community round table, a part of that as well. And I do remember that it was good conversations. Um, but as we know, what it says on paper is what um it ultimately is. And on this paper it says for advisory body development and um I truly feel for us to pro progress and proceed that members of that board or any advisory board that comes from a study have to come from our most policed area. What would you say that is chief? I mean

our most that we you know ACLU has done our studies. We've talked about the areas that that Yeah. Look at stats today. 47% of the calls for service in the city come from wards two and three, right? Can we can we get it a little tighter because I know it's like a one area that that has most B400 is significant takes Yeah. significant calls for service in B400. So that's my amendment, Murdoch. My amendment is that half of whatever body comes from this needs to live in whatever area, whatever beat has the most stops. And that may change. Let's just call it beat 300 and beat 400. That would be

B300, B400 because it may change. Hopefully, we can get it get it together through not only policing and community health methods, but through investment. Yeah. like we can hire 500 police, we can hire a thousand police, but if we don't invest and make our communities better, then y'all got your work cut out for you. So, um, that's that's my focus. That's that's, you know, I'm I'm all for it. So, all right. So, that's my amendment, Murdoch. Do I got a second? Second.

Okay. So the motion is to um what what body just any any body put together? Any body that that that comes from this half of that body comes from comes from 300 and 400 from the city side or from everybody who's a part of this collaboration. whoever's a part of this collaboration. Okay. Cuz shouldn't we shouldn't we have their opinions? Shouldn't should I mean I'm just I'm just asking as a person who you know may I ask a point of order during this? Do you mind alderman?

I guess I'm curious because the money is to pay UIS for the work, not to create the advisory body or whatever it is. So, I'm not sure um point of order if we can dictate the board if this is only to pay UIS. That's why I'm asking like are we splitting hairs here? I guess I'm trying to figure out. It says it says to it says authorizing a contract with the board of trustees with the University of Illinois for advisory body development facilitation and research or planning and amount not to they're doing the research but I don't know that they're creating the council I guess or the board or whatever it's going to be called. I don't know the name. Yeah, UIS would not be creating the this council. This this this this this

this group of folks uh this this this partnership, I guess, if you will, would be would be created by the community members. Um it's going to come from and selected by by the group that we've had, this working group that we've had uh with community health roundt, SCORE, and the Springfield Police Department. and and I think those those groups that are involved in this see the value and lived experiences uh that pe that folks have uh with involvement with the police department. So um I think that we would we would understand we obviously take that into consideration in when we bu when we're building bylaws and mission statements and things of that nature.

I and and I totally agree with you. I just think that um that has to be in writing that when when this study is done and whatever presents itself like it will say the you know you guys need to put together seven people or 10 people and and and have them working on police and community relations throughout time pass you pass me and everybody else. Half of those people need to come from the highest area of stops the most interactions with policing and that may be three and 400 now it may be eight next year. It might be 10 and 10 years. Who knows? But that's where the the we have to get that like me telling me telling somebody else my experience with policing and then them delivering that is different from me sitting right there eye to eye and saying, "Man, this is what I went through. This is this is what I went through and this is how it made me feel. This is, you know, what really truly goes on." True. You know what I'm saying? versus us telling somebody else. And we're not going to tell them the whole story. We're not going to tell them the truth. You know what I'm saying?

And I guess, not to interrupt you, but I guess UIS is not, they're not building this board from start to finish. They are making the recommendations as to what bylaws might be, what mission statements might be, what this may look like, how many members are on the board. Is it 25 or is it five? And things of that nature. Like, we we don't even know those answers yet. Um, so it's it's a lot there's a lot of there's a lot of red tape yet to be worked out and this ain't even with the police department because this is a separate entity. So my my thing is is is is my my ask of UIS is that through their research and study that half of whatever body or board that they research and come up with that that should work should come from the highest areas that that is that is policed that has the highest interactions and they'll always have that stat um throughout time. I I understand your concern, sir, but I I guess UIS is not making they're not making the selections.

I understand that the selections are going to be made from community members uh that are part of the representation of this SCOD round table and the Springfield Police Department mostly from SCOD round table since they have that. There it is. Put that in the language that that round table and whatever comes from it that half of that a portion of that needs to be needs to be from the highest interaction areas. I I just don't understand what's well my confusion with your amendment is the is the

the researchers at UIS you're not asking for those researchers to come from that but whatever advisory board is eventually created correct um because that's what their plan and that's what their study is going to tell us what's the best route to do it okay chief So, I'm gonna let him finish. I mean, so the the amendment then would be that the that we I mean, we have a team of people now that we that we work with and stuff. So, I mean, I I I understand what we're trying to do.

I I understand I think I understand the goal now. This is just a contract to approve the study, but we can we can put trying to see how we would work this in. Um but it would would likely be uh facilitation research and action valuation planning amount not to exceed $54,592 provided that such advisory body shall or must um thank you. Uh shall or must be comprised of um half of what was the what was the phrase that you used? Half of uh is it beats 300 400? Is that what you're saying?

Or the highest action. Correct. Highest beats for call to service would be the two highest I think that's limiting UIS in what they're doing and it's putting it's putting

it's not limiting it's let me say this and and honorwoman I I respect you. I appreciate you. Your five minutes is is done. But I will I will say this that I understand what we're doing, but we're not going to get a true outlook from any board. We have we we work with people right now, right, that's from the east side, that's from different areas of the thing that we talk with, that we work with when tough times come up. We have that going right now. So what I'm saying with this this particular contract, whatever comes out of it, whatever body, whatever whatever group of people, they got to come from the area that's getting stopped the most. It only makes sense to to to work with those people. They're smart. Some of them got degrees. Some of them have turned their lives around, been stopped, been pulled over. They can help us get to where we trying to get and give us some truth stories.

Yeah, I understand. And and and and guess what? all the researchers, all the the people uh u with degree, they're going to do the work, the analysis or whatever, and they're going to tell us what type of group we need to put together to to help us build this gap. And half some of those people got to come from that area. They got to they got to been through something. And not saying that people have not been through something, but if if you ain't been stopped and felt it, you know what I'm saying? Just just right now. If I can get stopped right now, I'm going be spooked. Whole argument. You know what I'm saying? So, it's got to be people like that for us to get a real look.

I I I agree with you. It needs to be a diverse group of folks and it needs to be some folks that have had interactions with the police. But I don't know that's within the purview of UIS is is my point that I'm trying to make. It's not. I'm just they they're going to do their study. I'm not trying to direct them how to do their study, but what comes out of this this this this study, whatever one one requirement that I'm asking that comes out of this study is that half of the people that's on this whatever we do, community engagement team that we put together that we might have to fund in the future come from the area that's getting that that that goes through it the most. It's only fair. It's only right. I'm not I'm I'm not even trying to make this a difficult thing.

Sure. No. And I think through the study from UIS, I think you would you would find that look the that's probably the recommendation of their their research that they're in their findings. It is um but I don't know that we can we can't tell UIS this has to be what you're going to do because they're not the ones that are building this board. They're giving us the research what the board looks like but then go to the round table and the Springfield Police Department are the ones going to build these bylaws off of what potentially is recommendations from UIS. And that's fine. Build all of those. But when when the board and the people are put together and that's going to carry out all of that, they should come. Some of them should come from that area. I agree. I believe they probably will.

That's But I I you know, you might be going, who know? It needs to be in writing. Nothing is factual unless it's in writing. And I I don't think that's hard. I don't think that cuts UIS out of anything. They still going to do their thing. They still gonna get their $50,000. They're not losing no money. But what comes after it? They should have to come. They should some of them half of them if it's a seven four of them if it's eight four of them need to come from the area that gets policed the most. Yeah. And I think I think there's value in that. I think there's obviously we would be looking at that. I just don't know that we that's the conversation for right now. This is a conversation after this thing the bylaws are built the mission statements built and what does this look like? Who are now we now selecting?

I'd like to have an understanding from the get-go. That's all I'm that's all I'm saying. the money's here. This changed nothing with what nobody's doing. This this is just saying the after effect. Some of those people need to come from that area and and and it will help us a bunch. And I think we run away from that. I think we we really run away from those who who who who you know are are different than us. Yeah. And and not you as particular police, but this this whole system, we got to let people be involved and that's how we fix it. If not, we just gonna keep running around in circles because we don't know what it's like. We don't even in good times. You know what I'm saying? So that's my amendment. Mock, what you got for me?

All right. Go ahead. Okay. So, under section one of the ordinance, this amendment would add after the um after the first sentence, which ends not to exceed $54,592. would then add a sentence that would say the project scope uh or the agreement's project scope shall specify that at least half of its advisory board. Let me make sure that's right. At least half of its advisory body members shall be comprised of individuals that reside in the two beats that have uh the highest crime rate. Yes.

Okay. So, you had a second. I heard the second. Um, so we have alers signed up to speak, but only on the amendment right now. Sure. So if you're signed up to speak, we're only talking about the amendment at this time, not the ordinance itself. So Alderwoman Notrano, do you have anything on the amendment?

I do. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I uh definitely want to give support to Alderman Gregory and um his effort to make sure that uh justice impacted individuals are a part of this body. Um I think it does fit the proposal. Um although it doesn't fit in the ordinance itself like if we actually look at the the project scope um they are going to be helping them draft bylaws uh and things of that nature. So for us to say now um whenever you draft those bylaws make sure half of the people participating in this entity come from uh the the two highest beats what I yeah like I don't know however you want to specify it however you said it

um but yeah it it it definitely fits in with the project scope page that was submitted with this I think it's just like all okay let me see so um it would say it will so the body will design a community-based particip participatory research approach to garner community voices and perspectives and so right there we could just be more specific about the community-based like make sure that this community that we're drawing from is the two highest uh calls for service beats. That makes sense. Yes,

it makes sense to me. But I guess still I go back to this not a UIS thing, I don't think. But it but the other point being I guess would be what happens when we have a shift in in crime data

in the middle of somebody's term. Do we remove them from the board? You know what I mean? That's just another concern. Like I understand that, but then what if things change? What if hey shootings went down in this particular area now we have you know an abundance of criminal activity in particular area then do we do we remove that person from this board? I mean that's that's challenges I think we're just we're handcuffing ourselves. Um I I I think I think the representation that we put into this um especially in January 24th when we had 16 or 17 different groups of folks from extremely diverse uh you know segment of our community shows the representation that you're going to get from the the people that have been working on this for almost three years being Scoter round table and my and ourselves.

Can I ask you were any of those individuals people who live in Beats 300 or 400? I'll tell you who they are. Coral, Black Lives Matter, Faith Coalition, Greater uh Springfield Interfaith, H Heartland House, Junior Frontiers, Massie Commission, Ministerial Alliance, NAACP, Neighborhood Associations, One in a Million, Scion, SPD, obviously we're there at the table, uh Urban League, and the Mayor's Youth Council. So, you have a diverse uh group of folks from all over the city. I mean, and I think your board is going to be representative of that.

And and I I can't speak to the membership of every single one of those organizations. Um, I I would imagine that a a few of those organizations do have people who live in 300 and 400, but not all of them do and a lot of them aren't like based in beats 300 and 400. I I would say um but I it it definitely like to say that we're handcuffing them in this vote.

The problem is we're outsourcing making a a policy to UIS when we would really like to make sure that you know we can have some say over what this body ultimately looks like. Um, and if you don't want to put beats 400, 300, and 400, you can just say based on evidence, the membership should be from Beats who half the members should be from Beats who have most calls for service. And they're going to in the bylaws, they're going to say like this person, our our members are going to our terms of our our members terms are going to be like one year, two year, four year. And so that will determine when people get replaced or not.

Are you I feel like we're building bylaws right as we stand here right now to be honest with you. So well I mean all all I'm saying is um that we're we're definitely asking them to uh like engage the community that Alderman Gregory is talking about. So, if we could be more specific with the members, um I I don't I don't see how that uh conflicts with the proposal as it stated. And um I think we should all support Alderman Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. Alderman Williams, are you also on the amendment?

Yeah, I'm on the amendment. I think we're making much about nothing. I I I think that what he's proposing is fine. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't disrespect and I'm a part of some of those groups that was named. All we do is put the language in. Now it's in writing and we're done with this. We move on. Uh I don't know. This is the problem, chief, with relationships now that they here and listening. It was because y'all resist everything. What's wrong with putting something in writing? That that gets gets me with with the law enforcement mentality that goes on. We're Okay, so what? It may not be UIS that we're really going to do this piece, but it's in there and we have it in writing. So when UIS finished, can't nobody go back and say, "Well, that ain't what our intention is." Or or play the games that we deal with. This is what's causing this and making us look at stuff and saying, "Well, let's put an end on the front end. Now we ain't got to worry about it. It's not hard. And it's not for you to accept. It's for you to We're telling you we made a motion. I'm calling the question and let's find out what's gonna happen. Mayor,

are we allowed to let the other alers speak? Well, if he if he moves to call to question, then he needs a second and that would that then needs to carry by Okay. I I won't be disresp. You're withdrawing your call to question? Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other comments? I'm finished right now. Alderman Hanower. Okay. So, you're on the amendment as well, right? Yes, ma'am. Sorry. Just making sure. But but so I understand that when this is done when they're done it comes doesn't it come back to us at that point for we have to approve we have to approve what they do

I think uh if they want funding yes it would come back to us but it is not going to be an appointed border commission by the city this border commission or advisory council or whatever term they decide to call themselves because that's not been chosen yet will be of community members ers chosen by community members to then have engagement with the community and come back to the police department and hold the police department accountable. It's that armslength transaction that we've all been asking for and this started in 2022. So the city is not involved. We're just we're just given money.

We're we're helping pay for the research for it because it's something the community has been asking for. And again, this started in 2022. The community has been asking for it. I've been supportive of it since I became mayor. I've been meeting with these groups as well and I support this advisory group. I just my concern is is it is is it handcuffing UIS handcuff? Is it handcuffing the commission? The amendment. Yes, that's your question. Gotcha. That's that's my big concern. So, thank you. Uh Alderwoman Connley, do you have questions on the amendment?

I know on the amendment. Yes. Um I I would just like to point out to everybody um on the horseshoe what we're actually approving in this project scope is conducting research on evidence-based best practices and successful models for community participation in policing partnership advisory bodies and and I understand Alderman Gregory what you're trying to get at. I I genuinely hope and expect that best practices, evidence-based best practices and techniques will bring forward exactly the kind of um recommendation that you're putting in. Um but I also understand there there's a certain concept of continuity of of how this will work and how this will carry forward and and I think expressing that that that interest and that desire to ensure that that impacted individuals have a secured seat on this body I think is is an important point for us to make at this time. Um again my expectation um just you know kind from some of the reading I've done around this this this concept um I've gone to some of these different sorts of trainings my expectation is is that very much we will see evidence-based best practices that will support exactly that kind of a makeup. So, um I think uh corporation council the language you proposed certainly gives flexibility to ensure that wherever those highest crime data numbers go that that's where there is we we expect to see active participation from those parts of the community involved on the board. So, I I think I understand the concerns, but I also I think that we will I I don't I'm not bothered to vote for this to support this ordinance simply because I do expect that what we will see as a best practice and what we will see as as evidence-based from the research that

has been building in this field will actually support lived experience as part of a mandatory requirement for anybody. So, um I certainly I appreciate your your concerns, Alderman Gregory. We've we've seen things come and go that maybe is um less effective and and this gives a little more of a united support behind ensuring that lived experience is is part of the um the panel that we would hope to see from this. And again, we we but we've seen this in in all the practice. We've seen this when um our our community partners from the unhoused community come forward. People with lived experience and having that voice and having that those actual practices and as part of a deciding body is is is a critical component to any sort of an advisory body like this. So we've already seen this this as as an example in other agencies that we deal with. And again, I I don't have a concern with voting for your for your amendment simply because I think it's going to be supported by the project itself and and what UIS comes back to with us. So, thank thank you for the consideration, Chief. And and I just want to say I I appreciate I think I see where you're coming from this, too. And and you want to make sure that there's there's flexibility that we give. We're kind of we're we're putting people with research experience and and that background in charge of designing this for us. And again, it's been kind of a constant theme. We don't want the police to be the leaders in this. We want you to find good partners, work with them, and build from that. So, I I understand that. I think that in the end though, what we're looking at is probably coming to the same place anyway. And um so I I think it's important for us to express this in writing that that ex expectation, but I also again truly alderman I I believe that this will be borne out by the evidence and and chief I think you'll be able to see I think I

think we'll be coming to this point anyway. Um, and again, once we hear back from the UIS, once we hear back from from the results of of this research base, um, I'm a big believer in seeing what what subject matter experts have to say on on an on an issue. And I think, Alderman Gregory, what you're highlighting is when it comes to over policing, we have subject matter experts in our community, and we want to make sure that they're heard. So, um, thank you, mayor. Any other discussion on the amendment? Alderman Gregory, Alman Williams, I see that you're still uh signed in. Just want to make sure. No, you're good. I just want to ask.

Okay, seeing none, we'll take a vote on the amendment only at this time. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. So, the ordinance 2026-187. Now, we can open it up for discussion from the council as amended with the new amendment. So, any discussion from the council members on this ordinance as amended? Yeah, Alderman Rockford. Yeah. Uh, thank to the folks that are here, uh, from the board. Chief, uh, my question is is how soon we we approved this money. How soon is this? What's the timeline on this for them sitting down? I mean, you you start in 2022. Some of this already been discussed and

Yeah, some of it's been discussed. Some of the data has already been collected. It's a matter of aggregating some of the data that we collected on January 24th and putting it all together and seeing what does what does this look like for the Springfield community. Okay. So, vast majority of this we've already, you know, but I mean any any can you give a uh my goal would be by the by September 1st to have this thing completely done. Now, that's my goal. Um whether we get to that point uh before or after uh you know things things could change. I don't control everything. So, but yeah, sooner the better. Um I wish this was done last summer. Um but here we are now.

Yeah. And and again, I hope that there's there's more talk and more communication that this thing just we don't form a board and then next thing you know there's there's guidelines going on and and everything else is ignored. So I hope hope you come back with information for us and we've always everybody asks you know give us input you know the sure so report. So appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you alderman Donlin.

Yeah. Thank you, mayor. And I just want to thank the people working on this for for years, literally. And uh and it's a lot of uh people that aren't in this room, the effort we need to do better in this community, and it's extremely important. Um Chief, I just want to make sure once a report, whatever you want to call it, an outcome that they're not may not be requesting money that whoever UIS comes here and and or you maybe both explains what out of it. I believe the group that has been driving this would probably be very active in telling us how much

I'm sure the meeting for a very long time and as the mayor I just want to thank you for all of your time and effort you've been putting into this to try to help us with the community and our relationship with policing. So I thank you groups. Any other discussion? All right, then the voting will now be open. All those in favor of the motion will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no.

Thank you, Chief. The next item on the agenda is item number 2026-20221, a resolution to support the expansion of the BOS convention center and other downtown tourism projects subject to Springfield for emergency passage. Can I get a motion? I'll make a motion that we approve this. Second. So, we have a motion and a second for approval. Now, we're into discussion. Looks like Alderman Williams, you have signed up to speak.

Uh, yes, Mayor. You know, um, this issue here is is is really, in my opinion, vital. It's it's a vital importance. Uh, we did meet with the senator. Um and mayor the senator is saying it was your responsibility to tell the impacted alder people what was going on and what was happening. I point blank asked her how come she didn't ask ward five where where where it's at and and and what was going on and how come W five wasn't included in war two the other piece of downtown and she said it wasn't her job that it was yours. So I I would have appreciated if you would have been speaking with them all along since everybody is saying this has been going on four or five years. Uh I called up the old mayor. Same thing. I'm I we keep us up. Especially the ones whose wars are impacted. This particular legislation touched me not because I'm anti- expansion. I'm for the expansion for the record. Cuz I got a bunch of calls. Why are you against it? Why? I'm for the expansion. I'm for downtown Springfield. If the county wants to run a hotel, fine. It's not my job to stop them. Where my problem comes in is how this is being done. And this is what I have said to the senator. Well, the authority is just a developer. Well, we don't give a developers all this power that this authority is getting. We are in in my opinion creating a city council within a city council or within a municipality. So I'm going to read my six statements on why we should support this and be on record so that the legislators downtown who are still it was still in revenue committee. They could hear where we

stand on this and and you vote it up or down and and we'll deal with the consequences later. This is not going to turn into an enemy thing. I told the senator this. I support the senator, but this is really not right because it's never been done. So, let me read my points. I emailed you. You have a copy in front of you, but I want the public to know, too. So my first point is this is totally without precedence for a county government to attempt to create and operate a local government municipality corporation within the boundaries of a municipality. Unprecedented never been done before. That's why I'm against them creating this authority. They can still have their hotel. They can still do the expansion. They just can't create a authority and give it all these powers similar to our powers. Secondly, my example was Cook County. Cook County does not operate or control a taxing body within the city of Chicago. Unheard of. They just don't do it. No county in Illinois operates or controls a governmental taxing authority within a municipality like this. So, it's the authority that's my problem, not the expansion, not the hotel or casino and all this other stuff they talking about. It's strictly the authority and the boundaries, which is what I'm going to get to. The proposed district, my third point, the proposed district duplicates the existing taxing and bounding authorities of the city of Springfield. mayor should know this and should care about this and should have been telling us about this because that's what they're doing. They're dup duplicating what we do. You know, the city has a broad home rule authority. We all know that to issue bonds and establish taxes for public projects.

So, they got to make up their mind what actually is going on here. Uh I'm told they're going to run the hotel. Then I'm told, "Oh no, the authority is going to run until be the developers." Either way, this can be done without having to do this authority. My next point, municipalities operate and exercise municipality authority within the corporate boundaries of the city. A county operates in nonincorporated areas and outside of the municipality's boundaries. That's what counties do. Again, that's how we've been operating in Illinois forever. And I don't understand how we could be so comfortable to not take a position on this or say nothing and talk about the horse before the cart and all that when it's moving in in revenue. It's signed to a committee. We have to let them know where we stand as a council at Springfield, Illinois on this matter or else they think, "Oh, well, we're fine with it. We're all happy." Yes, we are fine if we can find a way to do a boss expansion and fine even with the hotel maybe, but we can't give our authority away, guys. Fourth one, and it's only six of them. So, the fourth one is as authorized by the Illinois Constitution, SMIA, the county, and the city of Springfield could enter into a governmental cooperation agreement to address the expansion of the convention center. So, you've been talking about this five years. Maybe that's what you call yourself doing it. But then somebody comes up with we're going to create what they're going to create. I hope you guys have read it. I I I talked about it two weeks ago. You wouldn't let it be on first reading. That's why I'm on emergency passage now. I'm trying to make us aware of what we have going on here that this bill can really impact us. Five, as a public policy, we should

not be trying to create another governmental taxing body when there are already 11 existing downtown uh which duplicates existing municipal government authority. So, we're just adding on adding on to the people. The people have enough people taxing us. This is not even needed. They got to figure out a way to do this without that authority and and we'll be fine. We'll all be happy. Now, there's people that's, "Well, why don't you do the Windom first? Why don't you take care of what you already got first?" All that has some some legs, too, if you will. But we decided not to as a council. Most of you who don't want to take action on this are the ones who voted against the Windom saying, "No, I don't want New York to do it. Oh, I don't want Houston to do it." No, because she was playing with local control. And look what local control got us. They got us creating their own city council, I guess, of five members that we only get one vote or one seat. And it possibly could be the mayor. I don't know. You know, I'm hearing all these rumors now who's going to be on the seats, but we only get one seat. And it's it's just ridiculous. And I think you guys understand more than what you letting on. And my final one is the approach proposed by this Senate bill is in conflict really with the requirements established under 55 LICS5 of the county codes corporate council. Basically, it provides that after a county adopts a countywide hotel motel tax, then a tourism board shall be established and is to be controlled by the municipalities within the affected county where the board vote is weighted by the populations of each city and municipality. Well, we're 60% of Sangaman County. Again, we should have the plurality on this board. We should

have the seats. So, I'm not going to argue it anymore. I think you guys understand. You play games like, "Oh, well, you're mixing legislation. The boundaries are in that legislation." If you read it, you know it is. Now, they're going to go from 11 Street to Walnut. They're going to go from North Grand to South Grand and say, "Now, it'd be different if they were just saying, "We want to do our one little block and we want to do our convention center." That's two blocks. Maybe we could live with something like what they want. But they're talking about this big area. And if you read into the legislation, the word projects are in there. So maybe this hotel is the first project.

Mayor, there's many more projects that are going to be done that that they're thinking about that we don't know about. And they got all this vast. It it touches three, four, five, six. I don't I I don't think it gets you there. But in other words, it's a pretty big block of area in that bill. It hasn't changed. The 24th ain't here yet. The 24th is the deadline where if it don't get moved out of committee onto one to the Senate floor, then then it's going to die and they got to wait, but that's not until Friday. They still have change. So, I'm saying we should have a position on this somehow about what's going on so that it doesn't look like we're in agreement. The silence is what's killing me. The not acting like you care. Like I said, it bothers me because I don't know if it's because some of y'all are leaving, some of you don't want to take the time to do reading, but the fact is it is what it is. That authority goes up against it's just not right. It's never been done. I gave you the facts. You have it in front of you in writing. You have it on your emails. And I I I hope that somebody supports it. Thank you.

Any other discussion? Alderman Donlin. Yeah. Thank you, mayor, and and I appreciate your passion, alderman. And can can is my mic working because they told me Donlin,

I'm in W nine and a half now. So, anyway, I I did want to say a couple things uh uh that I heard based on what I heard this evening. And you know, you're right. This has never been done. And uh I think I said a couple weeks ago that I applaud the efforts of Senator Turner, Representative Coffee, and anybody else that was involved in the development of Senate Bill 3499 because it is outside the box. But when I read originally read it and I heard about this uh you know, we've all heard about the the study that was started a few years ago and you know, I think some of us some of us uh on this council and past councils were even interviewed. We were called over to the convention center. Um, I think we're all given that opportunity at the time and uh, you know, like where is it? We all heard about it last session, the end of last session. Where is it? How come nothing's happen? Are we going to expand the convention center? And, uh, which I'm absolutely in favor of expanding the convention center. We need to do something different. Uh, my organization, other organizations in the state that represent statewide uh, groups. Uh, they're they're looking at other cities because our space isn't sufficient for some of the conventions. That's a problem. I don't think we any of us disagree that we need to do something different.

But skip that. You know, this is like uh when I first read it, it reminded me of the medical district. The medical district is not a taxing district. Neither will this be because a taxing district is by defined by statute as an entity that has the ability to levy real estate taxes. This would not. I think all those who have been involved have been very clear about that. What it would do is outside the box find a way to uh harness revenues. And I know the county is charged with some uh alderman, I have the same concern. I'm always I'm always counting how many people are on what board and where they come from, but the county, it's county land. Uh I thought Senator Turner did an excellent job this morning on the radio explaining that it's county land. Uh they've funded, they and the SMEIA have funded the study in the tune of over $500,000 is what I heard her say. And they have investments. Uh there are some taxing items. The only thing that we would really be asked to do per this amendment or excuse me legislation that I have read more than once um would indeed uh dedicate sales tax dollars from the new hotel. So in other words, tax dollars that are not being generated presently. So again, I appreciate the passion. I I think we just have a a dis a disagreement on where we head. But again, I just want to make sure that I applaud these efforts because it is outside the box. My fear is if we don't do something, and really it's not our decision. The the bill's at the legislature. Not saying we don't have input and people don't listen, but if it doesn't pass, what are we going to do? Because the revenues and the the the the revenues that I'm hearing and that I've read about are revenues that won't exist for towards a project. And my fear is nothing will happen. We need to do something different. Thank you for my time here.

Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Gregory.

Thank you. And I I want to make it clear I support BOS expansion. We just, you know, passed passed uh um the last ordinance stating that. So I I I totally do. Um this this authority I I'm in agreement with my colleague. I I I think anything um that wraps our sales tax dollars because it still would be our sales tax dollars in anything um should be should be our decision. And I know we we'll get a crack at it. Um it troubles me a little bit that anybody studying, you know, how you know how how that would be effect. Um and I think more of the concern is the overall box um that's displayed out in in that legislation that does go um further than just right there at that hotel and and within a Starbond district. Um those projects um necessarily in that area can can go towards the um um that sales tax can go towards that project. Um, you you know that's why you know for me it's just knowing about it. I didn't really get the invitation over. I've had you know some off track conversations about what would be good for but from my understanding and you know what was on WAY San Monia show the actual BOS center is not expanding the seats is not going to get bigger and we're going to do some fancy stuff. They're going to build a hotel on their portion. But if we don't add into the BOS, what are we doing? Why would we risk taxpayer dollars into a hotel? It's risky. Could oversaturate the market downtown. Sever several several things. So that that's that's more so where I'm at with it. Um you know, Springfield Business Journal, they've done their reports on where where we're operating at with the BOS center right now. Um, you know, so as a city council member, you know, from from our authority, it's just nice to know the actual plans and stuff and then let us make a decision. Um,

and and I think everyone's made this clear. Of course, we support Senator Turner. I work with Senator Turner. The things that I've learned up here, I sat next to her and him down there. So, I definitely have learned a lot sitting up in here in this seat. So, you know, the the the main thing is is just about making sure that we know what we're doing. I I I think that we all want to see the BS. We all want to see downtown um grow and and we're going to do that. It's just about knowing what we're doing and having some some some authority um to make those calls. So, um I support you. Thank you, Alderman Williams.

Yeah. I just want to say Alderman Donine, you never address the area. You talk as if they're only doing right there. And as I say, it goes from 11 Street to Walnut. You know how much real estate that is? And then it goes from North Grand to South Grand. Now I realize there's other plans and it's taking care of other things. And as Carlson likes, Alderman Carlson likes to say, "Oh, it's complementing these all three bills." And that's kind of true. It is, but change that. Make it just those two blocks and we'll be fine maybe. But they're not doing that. And you're not listening. They are passing this thing. And in revenue, if you pull up right now, this is the language. That's the borders. We need to understand that. Of course, I wanted to. You've been on here 12 years. Well, and getting ready B12, you know, and you're on your way out. But my thing is, so we got to look at what have we as a council done for downtown since we keep wearing about, well, if it don't pass, what then? Well, yeah, what then? You I I was for remodel on both of those occasion. You wasn't. So, we have to quit acting like uh only the county can fix some, first of all. We need to quit that, too. and we need to own up to our actions. We had developers come in here that tried to say, "Let's do something with the window and came up with plans and made adjustments and did all that." It's just true and we end up with nothing now. And and so my whole point is when are we going to look at us and make some decisions and decide things instead of saying, "Oh, they came up with idea. Oh, I'm selling the farm to get it, but let's let them have it because you're on your way out. I don't know what your motivation is, but I know this that if

you took a picture of what downtown looked at when you got here and what it looked like today, you should have a better attitude. You should be for us really trying to to voice ourselves to say get something done instead of playing this local game that they play when they know it's not free. We keep hearing ain't no taxes going to be raised. Ain't that okay? So now we relying on some taxes on something that ain't even a reality yet. Well, we're gonna build a hotel and expect the people that stay in that hotel is going to cover the bonds for $200 million. No. And then they get the sales tax. Oh, we can't forget that. Because they have other plans. They're going to have to develop within this big block to produce the money. That's what they're doing. And it's no longer gonna be Springfield's downtown. It's going to be like everything else you see in come. It's going to turn into Sangman County because they're gonna slap their name on stuff. I don't know what they're going to call the hotel. I I'm a little ashamed of my senator right now. She knows me and her at a disagreement. I'm ashamed of my mayor right now cuz no one stopped to take care of Springfield or think about Springfield in the language. they can read. And if it wasn't true, or as Carlson says, I'm confused. It wouldn't read what it reads. It wouldn't be going through a state legislative committee in this language. So, I mean, do what you want. You'll be on record one way or the other. I'm at peace with it now. I've done my part. I made you guys aware of what I feel and think, and and we're going to call the vote.

Alderwoman Purchase. Thank you, mayor. Um, I would like to ask, as Alderman um Williams had pushed out there, when we were in the meeting with the senator, I think that was the only part that was like uncomfortable when she said, "Well, haven't you all met with the mayor? Has the mayor kept you in the loop with um those conversations and I had to be honest and say no." But is there more conversations going on as this comes forward? Because it's my understanding that you all need meet need to talk about this and And once it passes, anything moving forward would still have to come back in front of us. But is there continuing conversations with you and the county and SMEA and the senator?

I have not been in a meeting for probably a month now. So, okay. Um, and do you mind meeting with me and alderman Gregory to talk about I guess from before how where does the city sit? What where are you trying to go with your vision as you're the person at the table with them? Absolutely. Um, so I I've never denied you a meeting.

Yeah. But but when she asking us that, I guess like that's and I might need to take some of the responsibility of not reaching out to you to ask those questions like, "Hey, where are we at with this? What are your thoughts about this? What will we be contributing as a city? Have they put a request in for us to contribute any funds?" I think you said, Alderman Donald Donan, it was 500. I think I heard it was 600,000 that they put in. They're donating the land. So, I can see why they're asking for the three positions. And as you all heard me say last week, I asked, could it be 221? So, two people from the city, two people from the county, and then of course, Senia, I don't think that that's going to change. So, we have to continue to move forward, but I would ask that we're me and Alderman Gregory are included in these conversations as it encompasses our backyard.

Sure. And I will have a conversation with you. And this has been public knowledge. There's been I don't know how many umpteen newspaper articles written about a BOS center expansion four or five years. And we all did get invited to the BOS center and we got to be quizzed about it and talked to individually so we didn't violate open meetings act. So I wasn't trying to hide anything. This has been going on for a very long time and you've all been engaged in conversations. So I just I don't think I was involved in the authority the the the makeup of the body of the authority. There's no authority made up. It's it'll be and it'll be forthcoming where you have the three county members or am I wrong with that part? It'll be that is all at the state house. I've had that's not my input ma'am. So that's so they just came up with just one person from the city.

I believe I believe the the reason the county was requesting so many is the financial contribution from the county, the responsibility financially from the county and then the property that they were donating. So okay, which we are not doing any of those things. So correct. and then just move. I know you say and I tell people that all the time. Of course, I read the paper like you do too. So, I I get to stay in involved by reading the paper and listening to everyone, but then when it's asked more in depth, I think that's where that question came from in the meeting. So, just I'm just saying moving forward, could we be included in that if it's anything or if you have any questions that we may want to have some input on? Absolutely. Thank you.

Uh clerk, do you want or Alderman Gregory, sorry, did you want to speak in before we go to the public? No. Okay, clerk, I'm gonna let you. Alderman Gregory, you'll get another opportunity if you'd like one.

I have two two speakers. Anel log. Ann log in regards to Illinois Senate Bill 34.99 that we create a new governmental taxing body to exercise municipal authority within the corporate limits and jurisdiction of the city of Springfield but under the supervision and control of the Sanguin County Board. This bill is a opening a slippery slippery slope that seeds city authority to the county. If this does pass, the board should consist of at least the three city council members that have wards in this very large area. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh Lori Mccuran,

good evening.

Um I'm here in support of this ordinance and I'm in support of development, but we need economic development that's led and controlled by the city. Don't give up control of economic development of our city without a fight. You've already handed much of the responsibility for development over to the Springfield Sangaman Growth Alliance and as a private company, they're spending our tax dollars and none of us know what their plan is or what their projects they're negotiating. So, please maintain control of our development. The county board thinks a data center is positive and e economic development. Are we willing to take economic development at any cost? Development that has impact to our residents? Of course not. The county board seems to be willing to do that. And now you're willing to allow state legislation to turn over control of a huge swath of Springfield to the county. That huge swath of town is not county property. You were all elected to be leaders. Leaders don't relinquish control of city authority to the county. Don't be willing to throw away your authority and your responsibility for accountability and oversight. This is our city, not the counties. You should be driving our development, responsible economic development that benefits the city and the residents. Transparency around responsible economic development needs to include public hearings and public input and decisions need to be controlled by the city. No one else. Don't give away this responsibility to someone outside of our city or to an organization that has no public visibility. Do what you were elected to do. Lead and vote yes on this ordinance. Thank you.

That's it. Okay, that's all we have for uh citizens who have signed up to speak. Any alders have any other further discussion before we take a vote? Last call. Okay. So, uh mo the um ordinance will be up for a vote. All those in favor of the motion will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. Oh, there we go. Voting is now open. And the motion fails with six voting no and five voting yes. Mayor, Alderwoman Connley, I'm sorry. I think you're listed twice on the

So, five voting yes, five voting no. Good job, honorable woman. I didn't even look at that. Did I pay somebody to do that? No. I'm teasing. It's a joke. It's a joke. I did not. So, the motion fails with five voting yes, five voting no because it takes a supermajority on emergency passage. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Thank you, Alderwoman Connley. I appreciate that. The next item on the agenda is item number 2026-222, an ordinance authorizing subreient agreement 102601-5 with Memorial Behavioral Health pursuant to ICA corresponder grant agreement number 102601 and payment in the amount not to exceed $752,000 from July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2026 for the Springfield Police Department. This is for emergency passage.

So move second. A motion and a second. Any discussion from the elders? The chief is standing up because he's expecting some. John, did you make the motion? Yes. Yes. And then Alderman Rockford made the second. Any other discussion? Um Oh, Alderwoman Connley, sorry. Go ahead. I think um I think we owe the chief an opportunity to just kind of explain once again if you could what this co-responder model looks like um and how it operates. And I see some of his recipients in the audience. So, thank you for coming by the way.

Yeah. So, uh, our co-responder model looks like at Springfield Police Department. It's a, uh, it's a mental health, uh, professional riding along with the police officer. Uh, we ride anywhere 60 to 70 hours a week. Um, and we respond to those mental health calls for service, uh, where the prof the mental health professional can engage with, uh, the person that's in crisis. Um, this grant money is not only for that, but it's also covers the district 186 mosaic program that they have there where they have quiet rooms with mental health professionals within those quiet rooms. and we support that through this grant as well. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you, Chief. Alderman Gregory.

No, I was just going to say this has been a a a good good program to keep going and and we we've been fast about this. I think we we did a pilot back in 2019 and um you know, it's it's paying out dividends and and it's something that um we hear frequently that that that we want. We know um so hey, keep applying. It's a It's a great program and um no matter what happens with the funding, I think we need to find a way to keep it going. Absolutely. That's good to hear. Thank you. That's I see no one else signed up to speak. Thank you, Chief. Uh voting will now be open. Those in favor of the motion will vote yes. Those opposed will vote no. And Alderwoman Connley, you helped me out. So, the motion passes with 10 voting yes, none voting no.

Yep.

Thank you, Alderwoman Connley. Uh before we get to unfinished business, I would like to ask everyone in the audience and at the council chambers uh to have a moment of silence. We did lose one of our library pages at Lincoln Library over the weekend, Donna Page. So I would or Donna Call, sorry. She's a library page, not Donna Paige. Name is Donna Call. So I'd ask like to ask for a moment of silence for one of our employees. Thank you all very very much. I appreciate it. Is there any unfinished business to come before the council from the council members? Seeing none, is there any new business to come before the council from the council members?

Seeing none, we will go to citizens who have signed up in advance to address the council. Ready? Mhm. Skyler Willis. Skyler Willis. James Meister.

Name's James Meister. 1139 North Franklin, Springfield. I'm going to give you three different phrases, words here. Perjury, sovereign citizen, qualified immunity. Obviously, yes, this is about Springfield Police Department. Perjury in the Illinois state statutes is a person commits perjury when under oath or affirmation in a proceeding or in other matters where by law the oath of or affirmation is required. He or she makes a false statement material to the issue or point in question knowing the statement is false. This is u a class three felony. Second one is uh qualified immunity. We all know that the Supreme Court has given the police department qualified immunity and they're allowed to lie to our citizens. This is something that needs to stop. This is why the citizens and the police have such a divide. Sovereign citizen is a sovereign citizen is an individual who believes they are not subject to government laws or authority and answers only to their own interpretation of the law. Police officers pull over a person. Person goes, "Well, I don't want to answer your questions. I have a fifth amendment right." What are you, a sovereign citizen? No, I'm not a sovereign citizen. I have a fifth amendment constitutional right not to incriminate myself and not to

answer your questions. They get on the on the uh radio and ask for backup because they've got a problem. This is bad. Again, our divide between the police department and our citizens. Police officers are allowed to falsify reports because the other police backed them up. They're only now just being required to answer for these because they're getting videotaped and the tapes are not matching what they're putting in their paperwork. I have been in the last few months trying to get the police department to quit parking outside Walmart, blocking the sidewalks and fire lane. I've seen several officers shopping in there while they're doing that. No lights on, no nothing. I've talked to internal affairs. They said they talked to the police department. Uh seven, eight months ago, uh Sergeant Michael Egan almost killed two people drunk. Police officers didn't arrest him like they would one of us citizens. They waited five to six days before they arrested him. He got to go home with his family. They went to the hospital. Few weeks ago, we have an incident in here with an old police officer making derogatory remarks. Inappropriate, but the police stood up, said no, he didn't do that. A few uh about a month ago, some other people were in here talking about the fact that um the uh excessive force in our schools. Police chief comes up, police chief be comes up and says, "Well, I know nothing about that. I'll have to look into it."

Police Chief Beal apparently doesn't know much. I know you guys love him. I know he's working hard, but when it comes to his officers, he protects them and not the citizens of this city. It is time. I've asked for his resignation before, I'm asking for it again. Police Chief Beal needs to resign. If Police Chief Real refuses to resign, this city council needs to take this matter up. That's just four incidences that I'm giving you now. We can come up with a whole lot more just since he took over. So, we need to stop this qualified immunity. They lie. They lie. We don't need those police officers. We need police officers that'll tell the truth to citizens and tell the truth in their reports. And it's time to stop calling the citizens of Springfield names like sovereign citizens. The only ones that think they're above the law is the courts and the police because they have qualified immunity. Let's remove it. Thank you.

Robert Collinsworth. Robert Collinsworth.

Hilda Rays. Hilda Ray. James Johnson. I don't even know where I want to start after the way this meeting started today. It's kind of sad that the alderman in Ward 2 just asked for people out of beat 300 and 400 to be on this and we discussed this for 4 20 30 40 minutes and he's right. Oh, let me mention that I'm from B400. I'll volunteer to be on that. So, for the ones who saying if there's anybody that's want us to be on it, I volunteer. But those people that were sitting right there part of that, they're going to make sure that it has. So, Sean, no worries. They are all on top of what you were talking about. and you were right and just for that. Now, mayor, that James that just spoke, that calling for the chief, that's getting louder and louder. I don't know if you've been hearing it, but it's getting louder and louder. And I want to say this for my people of cuz I was here a few weeks ago on one of those incidents. man, you know, we're not we're not going to get mad about people calling us names. We're going to

overlook them. We're going to smile at them. But in the meantime, I want all y'all to be getting ready. Be prepared. See, we got to stay focused on the bigger picture. So, we got to prepare ourselves, black men and white men who are on the same path that we are. Now, what really gets me, you know, it's bad enough that we deal with the wolves, but you know what's worse than a wolf is a wolf in sheep clothing. So from here on out, there's an old saying, still waters run deep. We going to sit still on some stuff and be real quiet. But we see what's going on and for that the police department or better yet for that news department because in you know once again here we are with black history again for us because the news department thought the incident at KM Cox was a big deal and we had to do two news stories on it. So, how about we have our police chief come up here and and tell us when things get real big in our community and beat 400 and 300, have him share it with all of us and not just with you guys because whatever happened at K Comox Park, it became newsworthy. But let me also remind you or tell you about there was a high-speed police chase early Sunday morning and we ain't heard nothing about that one. So, how about you have the police chief start reporting on activities that goes on in our community. Now, to my alderman

and all the gentlemen around this horseshoe, we got to get back to educating our people. We got to get back to educating our kids cuz we want to blame the police sometime, but it ain't always the police fault. And let me make myself clear because there's a lot of misunderstanding about where I stand with the police. So, I'm going to say it this one last time, excuse me, that I like the police that come through our communities and wave and speak and treat us with respect and with dignity. I dislike the police who think they above the law like that one man was Mr. James was saying. And we have that. And mayor, let me tell you, them officers that have that mentality, they gonna get your community, your your city in trouble. You got some lawsuits coming. Park District got some lawsuit, too. If you don't know about it, and guess what? We ain't forgot about the shootings. and the officers who who shoot young men in the back, we don't like them. So, um you might want to have a talk with your with with your command staff and your chief because you're the head chief or the head person of our city. Dan Daniel Ox.

Good evening. My name is Daniel Ox. I'm a resident of Ward 4. I live on Sand Hill Road. I was born here and I've lived most of my life here. I've raised daughters here and I'm not here tonight as an activist or an opponent of law enforcement. I'm here as a member of the community asking for specific reasonable changes that improve outcomes for everyone involved. I am not anti- police. I am pro- effective policing. So tonight, I asked myself a simple question before coming here. What do I actually want to change? Not everything, not ideology, not politics, just a few things that are clear, measurable, and within your power to fix. I'm asking for three things. First, identification and justification. Any officer initiating a non-consentual encounter should be required immediately to provide their name, ID number, and the lawful reason for the interaction. Not eventually, not if asked, but immediately per policy. And I want inside that policy written, codified in the writing that if that standard is not met, then the encounter defaults to consensual and the citizen the of Springfield can just walk away. That protects the public and it protects good officers from unnecessary escalation. Second, use of force. Striking a person who is prone or otherwise contained should not be standard practice outside of clearly defined extreme circumstances. We all understand officers face real

danger. And that is exactly why policy should require them to wait for backup when a situation exceeds what they can safely control without escalating force. That is not hesitation. That is discipline. and discipline is what keeps both civilians and officers from getting hurt. Third, hiring and training. Right now, there is no requirement that an officer candidate demonstrate proficiency in non- striking control techniques before be being given authority over the public in life and death situations. To me and many others in this community, that doesn't make any sense. I'm proposing a requirement that all officers, new and current, be trained, certified, and annually reertified in effective non striking combives such as jiu-jitsu or equivalent systems. Because when an officer has the skill to control a situation without striking someone, they are more effective, more confident, and far less likely to cause unnecessary harm and escalation. that reduces injuries to officers and civilians, that reduces lawsuits and work injury claims, and most importantly, that builds trust with our community. These are not abstract ideas. These are not these are practical and enforcable standards and they are narrowly tailored on purpose because they are achievable. So here's the only question that matters now. If these proposals improve safety for civilians, reduce liability for the city, and make officers more effective, what is the argument against them? And if there is an argument, then it

should be made here in public in front of the people that you serve. I'm looking at you also, Chief Bill, because I'm glad that you stayed to hear this. We we would like that response not later, not privately, not buried in process because this community is paying attention now. And we are not asking for everything. We're asking for what is reasonable. And the question is whether this council is willing to meet that standard. Thank you,

Joseph Comr. Joseph Comr. Sharon Commer. Oh. Oh goodness. This moves. Okay. Don't touch. All right, I will give a glimpse in less than five minutes, but there's a bigger picture. You guys know her as number 141601. I know her as my chicken nugget. Her name is Promise Davis. I came into her life when she was about 9 to 10 years old. Freaking awesome kid, but OMG. I seen a pattern in her behavior that I could tell was not just a kid being defiant, but actually couldn't control some impulses. Bright kid, but manipulative. learned quick. Her life's blueprint, birth to five, was rough. She's had many family members try to help teachers, myself, because all we see, we all see something in this girl. I put it like this. There's two households. When she was 14, she was able to choose where she wanted to live. What 14-year-old won't choose the fun house? Where's the help when we try to get her the right help? families, they tell us get an attorney, do this. Where do we have the time to do that, when we got to pay bills, and then definitely when the child is fighting as well as that other party against it, we tried to warn her about jail, but every jail experience let her right back out. This no bail thing, it's not good. She turned back into that lost little girl that I know when she got hit with

fist of reality. Mental health is real and our Springfield Police Department is trained for it. I know we have seen some very well-trained officers. Why? I sat and watch officers by my job fully deescalate situations that could have definitely turned into a shots fired, shots fired call. I love working with the officers by my building. They treat all races with the same respect properly. Deescalates all situations, even when being charged at by a black man. It's the reason why the situation did hurt me and made me question that particular officer's heart. I knew she was going to miss court dates. Why? I know her pattern. So, I'm now mentally walking her through something very traumatic. And also, social media is using her face like crazy as she goes through the down part of her pattern. I can't tell you her diagnosis. When did she start putting on the news? When did we start putting on the news when someone misses court dates? She's literally just got hit with reality. literally. So, can you imagine your inner child dealing with a big adult moment? She knows she messed up and the situation is part of her bigger picture when she grows up successful and rewriting her early life's blueprint. I ask media to remember mental health is real. Please be mindful and understand that there is more to this story. Our youth are crying out. Our culture always kept mental health silent. They call it being crazy or culture didn't they didn't trust the system. So, you were taught not to tell no one what goes on in the house. We need to teach our youth and our culture that mental health is real and it's time for all of us to see the bigger picture. But like Michael Jackson said, we need to look in the mirror. Look in the mirror and that's where it starts at. She's it's not just her. It's the whole it's it's a lot more. It's a lot more. um some s systems really need to be put into place to help these particular individual children cuz it's this she's not the only one and

it's only going to get worse if you understand mental health in a person's blueprint how the child was raised when you understand when there's two different households and they're both fighting going back and forth and you see you see this individual you see this child and you know exactly where destruction is coming but then we go to state attorney she's 14 she can choose where she wants to live at at 14. What choices do you have at 14? At 14, we tried and we're still trying. But understand, this can happen in any household. Thank you.

Thank you,

Ken. Can Pacia First, let me say thank you for withdrawing the ordinance of the rule changes. Those were guaranteed to get you guys in trouble. um squashing free speech, restricting things like that. That's always problematic. I got to say though, the metal detectors are a nice touch. Um I got to wonder how serious the threats are that we actually have to create another barrier um to citizens coming out here to speak at council. It's already kind of problematic. When I came here years ago, we didn't have problems. And I'll note for you, most of the threats are coming from whose end of the audience? It's not mine. Those threats didn't start when my people started coming here. Those threats started after somebody who's still not banned from here for using some pretty offensive language that apparently only five of us sitting directly next to him heard and nobody asked us about her for the investigation, which I thought was odd. But I digress. I don't expect fairness or equity in terms of distributing those kind of things. I mean, after all, it's here to be here to speak. a 60-day ban. 60-day ban. She'd been banned before. Did I miss that? We just jump to 60 now. We just use a completely random system of days we pick for when we decide to throw people out of here. Oh, I forgot. We're not We're not throwing them out of here. We're just not going to broadcast them. We're just going to prevent the rest of the public from hearing what they have to say. As though most of you are listening anyways. It's just frustrating because the what I hear is promises. Promises from the chief, promises about yet another advisory council, $54,000.

Dude, I I live in 400 right now. I can tell you exactly what it's like over there. I've been a justice. It's called a justiceaffected individual. By the way, if we're talking about restorative justice means we want someone who's been affected by the justice system, not someone who studied it or sat in a classroom or talked to an affected individual for a couple hours. You ever been beat up by a cop? You ever been smacked around? You ever been sat in jail for longer than 72 hours and they just wanted to teach you a lesson? When you talk about who you seat on these committees, professors and degrees sound great, but those are the same results we've gotten for years. You're not talking to the people that are actually affected by these things. I am. I've been affected by it for years. I still live in that neighborhood. I still get anxious when the police pull me over. I still get anxious when I even see them because they've threatened my life in safety. They've taken people's life in safety. And every year of my life, I have to hear about these exploratory committees. Where's the other member we just named of the police commission? Who is this mystery fellow? I've been trying to find out who he is. Is he Is he the documentary guy? That's the only name I can come up with. Where's his bio? Who is this man representing us on the Police Civilian Review Commission? Which by the way, I would think that the appointees would be able to say it's disgusting, man. It's insulting to my intelligence and everybody else is that we do these kind of things or we're going to we're going to get advice on it. You want to hear from those people? They're literally right down the street. I guarantee you they'd love to talk to you. I'm sure they have plenty to say about their interactions with SPD, but we need a study for it. $54,000

after another study, after we talked to all these groups, but those groups will tell you the same exact thing. You need to hear from the people that are actually affected by it. The 5:1 pullover ratio. That make sense? Any of you guys? Anybody know the population that that black people are in Springfield and yet their ratio to pull over is that much higher? Do we need another study on that to figure out that the police are disparitly overpolicing particular neighborhoods and individuals? It it's just it is so frustrating week after week to come here and have people act like they don't understand it. Like you need someone who's smarter than the rest of us to tell you. They're going to tell you the same thing. They don't live there. They don't know. and they'll never find out because the closest interaction they have with police is shaking their hand at these meetings. It's frustrating because if you really want to find out what's going on, if you want to really hold the police accountable, get some people that got some teeth behind it and aren't worried about making everybody feel better or being nice about it. I don't like cops. I'm not friends with them. They are cordial to me because they're serving my community. That's the bare requirement of their job. But I don't like them. I don't have to defend that. I don't have to say I'm buddies with them and I hope everything's good for them. That's not what an adversarial relationship is between members of the community and police. And that's what we see now.

Thank you. Thank you. Salem King. Salem King. Can I get a motion? Is that the last speaker? Yeah. He's not here. Jordan Shaw. Oh, I thought that was Oh, we had two that signed up for the ordinance. I'm sorry. These are the two that sign up for 17. You're right. Sorry. My apologies, Miss Shaw. One moment. Good evening.

So, I'm going to be completely honest. Um, I had a short little respit this weekend because of the Midwest Con that was happening over at Springfield Fairground. and I got to talk and hang out uh with uh one of my favorite online creators, Brad Jones. So, I'm gonna be a little happier than a lot of the other previous people because I'm still on that like uh good feeling, but I'm also still aggravated with the things that are happening. So, apologies. My mood's going to seem a little more mellow, but that is why. So, I'm here to talk as not only a resident of W 2, but also as somebody who volunteers at Intricate Minds and works closely with executive director Tiara Standage. And yesterday she had posted that she was banned for 60 days due to uh her understandably upset public comment in regards to the remarks that happened uh during the previous city council. Now, I understand that people will not believe me when I when I tell you I had just found this, but I'm going to read it. I pulled it online and it is so phenomenal. It basically goes on that not everybody can speak about how they are. They cannot speak their anger because they will be you could take it literally or not. They will be policed on how how emotional they get or how angry they feel. And that is a privilege that I have. I have very rarely ever been told to calm down or that I'm too loud or too aggressive because I have a fairly light

speaking voice. More often than not, people ask me to be louder. So to not understand how people feel and how they are reacting to legitimately upsetting information such as hearing somebody using a racist or sexist slur, not even what we're talking two seats in front of them, beside them. and to understandably speak about that emotion from their gut. A and try to speak up for not only the older people, but the older people who are trying to help the citizens and residents of this town and for them to get in trouble for speaking how they feel. I understand that there are people who cannot voice how they truly feel because they have to hold that in because if they show their anger, if they show how they feel, they will be reprimanded. Whereas I have the privilege of being softspoken. I don't honestly see me ever getting in trouble for having this kind of tone. And it is very unfortunate to know that there are going to be some people who come to this podium and speak about far-left idiots and four or five older people who don't know what they're doing and they're going to be able to walk out walk out with support and not be banned. But then when citizens come up here and are understandably enraged about it, they're the ones who get in trouble. people who who have this automatic reaction to the negativity that this disgraced SPD chief had given, they're the ones who are going to get in trouble

for it and not for the initial cause of just anger. Now, I understand that in this day and age, there's probably a lot of glazed eyes and laying back in your chair and not really caring about what people are saying. And that's okay. It's a lot. But you really got to stop policing how people feel and how people react. Especially when somebody who has a clear and a clear and obvious reputation of not really caring about their citizens and really are fine with just openly insulting people. You got to give them space to react and you got to let people voice how they feel and not have this fear over their head that they will be reprimanded. Thank you for your time,

Trisha Duckworth.

Thank you. Good evening, council members, mayor. I'm here to speak about the proposed rule changes, and about what happened in this room because while they may not be directly connected, the way that moment was handled matters. I briefly spoke on this last week, but I want to fully address it. I had hoped to address this directly through email with the mayor and not have to come back before the full council, but that was not responded to. So, I'm going to say it clearly. What happened in this room was not a disagreement. And the response to it was not accountability because after that night after a racial slur was directed at a sitting alderman and I was also called a degrading name. I listen to your response mayor and what stood out to me was not just what you said but what you didn't. At no point did I hear a clear statement that those words being used are wrong. Instead, I heard that no rules were broken and we were told this is a disagreement and we should meet in the middle. But that was never a disagreement. And that should have been the easiest thing to say because leadership does not require an investigation. To say that racial slurs and degrading language is unacceptable. It requires judgment. It requires clarity. And it requires the willingness to say it out loud. That did not happen. What was said to me is not the issue. I addressed it when it happened. What is

unacceptable is what happened after. There was no meaningful followup, no effort to gather additional accounts or verify what was already being reported. So that was not a lack of information. It was a lack of action and still a public conclusion was made. What exactly was that conclusion based on? Because when leadership makes determination without gathering firsthand information, that's not due diligence and it does not reflect accountability. It gives the appearance of an investigation without the substance of one and raises serious questions about whether the focus was on understanding what happened or just simply covering it up. And that undermines trust completely. So I'm trying to understand what message did that send because when language like that toward anyone is not clearly condemned, it tells this community that accountability is optional. And when others have faced consequences in this chamber for less in the past, that raises a serious question. What standards are you applying? When enforcement depends on the situation or the individuals involved, that is not fairness. That's double standard. That erodess trust. That brings me back to the proposed rule changes. Phrases like personal wrongdoing and behavior that intimidates other are extremely broad. They rely on perception and we have already seen how perception played out in this room. So when authority is expanded based on subjective interpretation without clear standards that does not create fairness. It creates discretion and leads to inconsistent enforcement. Who's deciding what is intimidating? Who's decides what is wrongdoing? If those decisions are left to

perception alone, then these rules do not protect the public. They create a way to silence it. You already have rules prohibiting slurs, degrading language and personal attacks. Those rules were not enforced. And now instead of addressing that failure, you are discussing new new rules that further restrict the public. That is not accountability. That's deflection. When leadership fails to investigate, fails to enforce existing rules, and fails to clearly condemn behavior that should never be acceptable, that is not effective leadership. And if this is your standard of leadership we can expect, then that is something this community needs to seriously consider because this is not just about one moment. It's about what your response to that moment says to everyone that watched. Also, I'd like to address that you said you've been called worse at your podium. Okay. You campaigned for your position. I was just in the audience. I didn't campaign. I don't get paid. I was only here to advocate for children with autism, how they can be mispersceived, especially my black child with autism who's going to grow up. But I was called things and I said it in the moment. But you never reached out. Thank you. Can we get a motion?

Okay, second. We have a motion and a second to adjurnn. All those in favor. All those opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you, Alderman Gregory, for saying I. I think you were the only one. So, thank you.