City Council - Regular Meeting

microphones are live.

Mhm. Lot of red, huh? Congratulations. Happy for you. Haven't seen you in about 100 years. I know that guy. I think everyone's getting tired of seeing ain't going to be

ready. Okay. The chair will call the May 12th, 2026 special 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, can you please call the role? Yes. Alderman Cox, here. Alderman Gregory, here. Alderman Williams, here. Alderman Rockford here. Alderwoman Purchase. Alderwoman Notriano here. Alderman Carlson here.

Alderwoman Connley present. Alderman Donan here. Alderman Hanower here. Mayor Busher present. Mayor Aorum is present. Thank you. And we'll acknowledge that Alderwoman Purchase has joined us. You're welcome. Can I get a motion to allow Alderman Donlin to join? Second. We have a motion and a second to let Alderman Donlin join by the phone. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. Alderman Donlin, welcome. Thank you, everyone.

The civility pledge. In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we are all striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have different ideas for achieving that objective. The next item on the agenda will be 2026-221, a resolution to support the expansion of the BOS convention center and other downtown tourism projects subject to the review and approval of the elected city council of the city of Springfield. The chair will entertain a motion to place the resolution on final passage. So move second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? No, mayor. Alderman Hanower.

I'd like to put in for amendment number one. We'll pass it out. Um it basically um well Jim doesn't need one but um it basically takes gets rid of some of the language that um is not u I guess not correct as far as what uh taxing bodies and things like that. But it does uh keep keep our support for the BOS expansion. So, the alderman has a motion for amendment number one. Is there a second?

We have a second. Any discussion on the amendment? On the amendment only will be discussion. I'll let you all get it before I close down discussion. That way you can have it. Well, my older woman not. Um, so what uh can can one of the authors explain like the motivation behind this. It looks like um instead of addressing the mayor's concerns, it looks like it redlines everything. Thank you. Well, what what does I'm sorry.

Pardon me. I think that's two separate issues to the resolution was different than Alderman Gregory's ordinance that I gave suggestions on. That's two just to clarify. But go ahead, Alderman Han. Like I said, what this does is uh it it just basically it it gives us our support to the BOS uh expansion. And uh you know, some of the language in here, we we know that it's not a it it it strikes language that uh just basically is not correct. Like uh they're not a taxing authority and things like that. I wanted to show our support for BOS expansion, but you know, some of the things in here is is just, you know, not correct and and uh so therefore we we put this together.

Any other discussion, Alderwoman? Oh, um yeah, I mean I guess uh I think that's it for now. Thank Okay. Alderman Williams.

Uh, yes, Mayor. You know, this is part of game plan and I just want the citizens to understand. So, everything is struck out, but we support something we already knew from weeks ago that we support the expansion of the center. Um, and we are really arguing about key points and tonight is about understanding the key points that I object to and I wanted to make sure we slow this down so all of us would understand what's going on but yet we start off with a amendment that just strikes the whole thing but a paragraph that says we support the ball center. This is playing with the system. He has every right to try to amend it. I recommend that we uh deny this amendment and go on with the original, discuss it, let our public speak and weigh in on this and then let's have our vote and not play these games. Thank you, Mayor.

Absolutely. Alderman Gregory.

Uh yes. Um you know, I I think um you know, looking at this, I you know, I don't have the bill in front of me to read. Um but Alderman Williams, I I know what you um are trying to get at and the main thing is is the council's um opposition or approval of SB 3499. So it you know and I think the authority within that um um and what the county has and what the city has and our point of view on that um you know my particular take on it is and you know I met with Brian McFaten yesterday. I told him to his face where I'm at with it and he told me to my face where they're at with it. And um I maintain mayor that that the city of Springfield not only provides fire and and and police and infrastructure that we have just as much um exposure and authority um um over anything in our taxpayers taxpayers dollars um on top of um um you know raising county sales tax and things of that nature. if those things happen. Um, you know, it's sort of hard to talk about this because we don't have the numbers, so to speak, of of how much we're being asked to commit to the project. Um, I do remember, um, some time ago, um, we we were sent communication and and and not only, um, not even you knew the full scope of it and, you know, we had some calls about the county u wanting to raise our sales tax and I believe all of us said no with that for this BOS. So, um, the knowledge of them trying to do something with it is is is not new to me. Certainly, um, we we realize that. I think we all have been trying to to do some things. Auto woman purchases have had some conversations even about the windom um and somebody trying to do something with that. So, you know, to me, you know, that's what the automan is trying to get at is is is really a um response to what how we feel as a council and the authority of it. Um, there's no reason that we should have one seat. We're, you know, and I said it like this, too.

We're not the little brother. We're the big brother of Sang County. And whether it's future sales tax, it's still city taxpayers money. Our citizens are going to use the hotels, too. They're going to have banquetss there, too. Um, and and we should have just as much say on how that board looks. is still going to be appointed by whatever mayor is here, Mayor Busher. Um um so so so those things are are still going to be appointment, but there's no reason why we have one seat on the board and and our sales taxes could be up for it. Um um you know, raising raising the hotel motel tax. I think what we're at, eight and a half, nine it to go to nine. They can under this um last year's law um you know they can raise the hotel motel tax up 3%. Could put us at 16%. So we as a council when do we start thinking hey hold up is that fund oversaturated. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. You know their position is 20%. Is when we start getting that close. So um it's a long way from where we're at right now. So those are things that we got to think about. It's just about informed decisions um for the future. Um you know, I'm not one of those that feel comfortable after I'm out leave this seat, whenever that may be, um to look back and and regret anything. I want to I want to be knowledgeable on the decisions I'm making. I don't think this is a um a badass from our alt um for us to really fully understand that they will have the authority. Um for me, I understand it's their, you know, that that's their lot. They're going to try to expand on it. They're donating to it and we're going to have to do everything else. So, um, that's my take on it. I'm against them having that much authority. Um, but I'm not opposed to working with them. This city has worked together on major projects.

The the rail improvement what we all brag on. We did that without a extra authority. Mayors worked together. Council did what we need to do. We put in our money. There's been other projects where we've been asked to work together. Um, that's my take on it and I appreciate your time. Thank you, Alderwoman Connley.

Thank Thank you, Mayor. Um, and and thank I guess we're going to kind of talk about the amendment in in the larger context of of also kind of what we're looking at with this proposal. Um, yeah, I also talked to Brian McFaden. I've talked to Senator Turner um yesterday even. And hopefully everyone around this horseshoe heard the same thing that I heard, which is this legislation is still being amended. It is still in flux. There is not a final product in place. And what I was told, and again, I didn't sit down with anyone else because I was on the road, so it was a phone call. It's just me, but what I was told um was that the city will have an option as to whether or not we even want our sales tax to be contributed as part of the the payment fund source for the bonds that would that would that would build this um expansion. Um, some of the things that I asked about, you know, what does this mean when we're talking about expanding BOS? Is it just a hotel? Um, no. It's it it includes what I think another 6,000 square feet of

50 56 60 sorry 60 I'm sorry no seats

numbers numbers were um thank you I forgot the other zero but a significant number. So ballroom space, meeting FA space, greatly expanding our conference capacity um in a way that is going to spread out and impact not just downtown but the entire city. Um we do know and I I did ask to be included on this largely because a I there are mis there are things that are misstated in here. This is not creating a new taxing authority. We as a city will not lose any of our other municipal authorities, our zoning, our code. Those are our the heart of our standards. If you know, we know how we deal with this. The code division, um, public works, that's where most of my calls go. That's where, you know, some of the hottest topics that come before us deal with zoning issues. We maintain that control. We, as a city, will still be opting into how we participate in this. There are still things that the city has to vote on that will come before a future city council. And and I think it's really critically important at this stage where we have Senator Turner making a huge push for one of the biggest transformational changes to our downtown in a way that can bring in more revenue, bring in more people and and show an investment in in expectations of what we expect to see in our community and and a higher standard of what we offer to people who come to our community. She's done a lot of work on this and it's not done because I did ask her, hey, we've got this special meeting. Do you have draft language that we can go through and we can talk about at the meeting? It's not ready yet. Right. So, I I want to be very careful that we not undermine the work that she's done that the governor's office is getting behind and and showing support in a way that I think highlights the fact that we are the capital city. We should be getting special treatment in something like this because we have a lot here to offer. Um, and it's it's coming out of that star bond model, which I think is also good for us. Um,

Alderman Gregory, you brought forward a a star bond concept. If this changes in how it's financed and it's not that star bond, which limits us to the one project, now we've got another we still have another door that we can open with with additional opportunities that are unique to the city of Springfield. So, um, I I think again I I want to be very careful that we not weigh in on something in a way that looks to undermine the work that that the senator's done, that the governor's office is investing in. Um, we've got, you know, bipartisan support with with Representative Coffee getting on board. They're doing a lot of work to help us help our community. And I think it's really important to not muddy that and to just say, "Look, we really appreciate this and we want to see this expansion go forward." Um, critically, I think we need to do something different. We've mentioned this before. I know it's difficult to participate when you're on the phone. So, I will say for Alderman Donalan, um, because he's said it here many times, we need to be creative. We need to see things done not the way they've been done. And we're not con we're not losing control of our city. We're not losing control of our downtown with this. I think there's been a message that's gotten mixed. We're we're discussing we're discussing a moving we're discussing a moving item that's not completely put together. I think the message has been heard that we as a city want to be engaged. We want to be involved and we want to be part of the process. I heard that when we talking to the senator and talking to Brian McFaden. So, I think while the target is moving, we need to be careful what we're slinging at it because in the end, what we're getting is an opportunity to really transform a part of our community that I know people want to see grow and thrive. I have w I know it's not in my ward, right? It's not my ward. I don't come this far downtown. Um, but I have a

lot of business owners in my ward who have businesses in downtown Springfield and they want to see a stabilization of our base. They want to see us grow and they want to see one of my one of my residents, one of my constituents was at that ribbon cutting and and I'm very proud and excited for her business and I want to see that one grow and thrive. And if that means that we need to be a little creative and we need to put some faith into Senator Turner, into our governor's office, and into this process that is still happening, then I'm willing to take that chance. So, thank you, Mayor. Uhhuh. Uh, Alderwoman Notriano.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh so I guess uh let's start off with saying that nobody is opposed to expansion of the BOS. Nobody is opposed to development in downtown. What the people who oppose this bill as it's put forward oppose is the lack or the loss of local control. So this uh will this bill in its form will give unelected officials with up to um well actually we don't know in this portion uh how long their terms will be but uh terms terms of of years um if it follows the medical district uh outline and these unelected folks will be the majority of of them will be appointed by the county board and one person will be appointed by the city and one person will be appointed by SMIA and that is not up for debate. Um that is the way it's been proposed. So my question to you all as my colleagues is why and how would you accept that giving away your duties and responsibilities with regard to economic development um and what goes on in downtown without trying to negotiate for more influence on this board. I I'm going to tell you, an un unelected board is not something I can get behind. Uh we have a very

in-your-face frontal assault on democracy in this country right now. And um an unelected board making decisions just rubs me the wrong way to begin with. But the fact that we would have only uh one vote essentially on this board is even more disturbing. Um the I I met Alderman Gregory and I yesterday met with the uh county administrator to talk about this project and um it was remarkable to me when I asked how does this fit into the city of Springfield's master plan and he said what master plan? So that's a problem for me and probably a problem for a lot of you uh who participated in gave your time and energy uh in and expertise to developing a master plan that this city passed last year that shows priorities for downtown. Uh so so that's that's a big problem. And then we also know that um the current model for Springfield's downtown, if we have one, is based on tourism and the legislature. And guess what? It's not working. You don't need me to tell you that. Just go outside uh and try to get a sandwich on a Sunday afternoon downtown. Good luck to you. Um, part of the the thing we should be looking at with

downtown uh is the fact that the SMIA board I'm not going to blame SMEA. The BOS center is operating at a $2.2 million loss annually currently. They say it's because they can't get these outside people to come um outside conventions. Um if you read the uh the the study put forward by the consultants hired by the county uh that's not really the full story. A lot of the story is that we are not maximizing on the types of events that would do well with people in and around the city of Springfield and would do well in that type of environment, that big um open uh spectator environment. Uh so one of the things that I know uh did really well and I have personal experience hearing from someone about attending was a monster truck show for kids. It is stuff like that that we need to focus on and prioritize uh that will get people who live 30 minutes an hour from here to come here and go to the BOS center and start chipping away at that $2.2 million deficit and make that convention center viable. And I've got to say to everybody on the SMEA board, I apologize for getting in your business. I did not want to do this, but this this entire issue has made it such that I now have to dig into the budget of SMEIA and dig into uh county

commission reports. Um, I don't want to tell anybody how to run their um, government entity, but what it feels like the county is doing is taking the BOS center, which is not doing well, and trying to plug the hole by developing a hotel to try to bail the BOS center out. Um, and we don't we we don't even have to if you look at the the the county's own report, we don't even have to build the hotel to help the BOS center do better. we could just expand it and spend 200 million less of taxpayer money um and and get more visitors and get more people to stay in our hotels and get more people to spend money downtown without incurring all this debt. Um and I I don't know, maybe I haven't been privy to the debate on these sorts of things. Um, but these are the types of things that your elected officials need to be talking about and bringing up when proposed with something like this. Uh, also another thing that shocked me in my meeting yesterday with uh, the county administrator, currently this is purely publicly funded. There is no public private partnership right now. All $20 some odd million dollar of bonds are going to be taken out by this Capital Area Tourism Authority. Let's talk. I mean, y'all, the bonds

right now that we're we're still paying until How How long until we pay off Dolman? Four. Yeah. Yeah.

So, we're, you know, we're still still worried about that. We're uh was it last year, the year before where we um reissued bonds to uh get more money for our just, you know, building firehouses um for the sports complex. I I am sports complex is in my district. I of course support it. I'm happy to see it doing well. Um, but we've already stretched ourselves on a new development project. Why? What's the urgency besid behind pushing for this huge project right now in downtown that's going to double down on our failing tourismbbased strategy for developing downtown? Boy, oh boy. And is director Doll here?

Hi, director. I have a couple of questions for you. I I wanted to start here, but I just get on a roll. Sorry. Sure. Um Okay. So, uh your agency uh your main focus is to draw tourism to Springfield. Destination marketing. Yeah. So, how would you interact with this capital area tourism authority? Well, we would we'd certainly work with them uh for sure. I mean, I don't I guess I've heard uh rumors that we would be folded into them and I don't I don't believe that's the that's the case.

I don't think the city's going to give up uh their power of the visit of visit Springfield uh and fund it at the same time. I think that's a certainly would not do that. Um, that's been floated through the years, by the way. Wow. So, I can certainly see us having a a larger role, though, with that authority. We would take on more uh and assist them. We have the professionals, right, at Visit Springfield, right? We have 15 of them. So, yeah, we could see helping them along and helping certainly the expansion as well. Yeah, definitely. Your your point about uh tourism in that failed strategy, uh we have record numbers. We sold 13,000 more room nights last year than we did the year before. We had four in the last five years, record tourism numbers.

So when I say failed strategy, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify because I do not want you to think this is a hit on you or your department at all. What I'm saying is what we're doing and as good as it is doing, businesses are closing downtown. I I I went to see a comedian, a nationally known comedian out at UIS, not at the BOS center. And that nationally known comedian made a joke about our downtown about the fact that he was staying in a hotel down here and he was like, "Where is everyone?" And and he said like, "I don't try to get anything to eat downtown on a Sunday afternoon because the show is on a Sunday." Um, that's what I'm talking about. And I know that you understand that's that's not your wheelhouse, right? That that's not you cannot do it all alone. Tourism cannot do it all alone. Um, so yeah, please, I apologize. I did not mean that as a knock on you or your department or any of your colleagues. They're doing a great job. And the issue is that's just one piece, right?

Sure. I Yeah, you have to diversify. But the issue right now is that uh we need new space. And the issue right now is that we have a hotel that's closed. That has reduced our largest our biggest advantage when we're selling meetings and conventions and that is our peak room nights. We had 500 peak room nights. five rooms that you could use on one any given nights that were right across the street from each other. We had 50,000 square feet in in the Windom obviously the 40,000 square feet in the BS center and then the double tree as well. So we had that all within walking distance right there.

Certainly with the Windham closed uh and with the BS center space getting older, we need new competitive space. So why do you think there has not been hotel developers? Why why has the market not um generated that new hotel in downtown Springfield? Because we do need it. So my personal I mean I'm guessing we do.

No, my personal opinion is because I don't know what's going to happen with the window. If we could if we knew what happened with the window, you would have a hotel developer that would be here in a heartbeat. They would develop downtown and they would do that. I'm sure they're they're afraid of putting in 250 rooms downtown and then having the window reopen with 200 rooms or, you know, 250 rooms. So, is that that's out of mix at that point. So, is that going to say this goes through and passes, is that going to hurt that project then? What project?

The county's project of expanding the BOS center and building the convention hotel. Like is the fact that we have ambiguity around the Windom going to harm that undertaking to begin with?

Well, I think that's that's the choice of the developer, right? I mean obviously that's a risk you take uh at that time but certainly uh you know we don't know what's going to happen with the Windham and somebody's going to take that risk uh and and and see if they do reopen some hotel rooms. I mean I I think that the mix would be about 100 rooms uh if if it by chance did reopen uh at that time. And I want to make a quick point about the BOS center. it currently isn't being used for what it needs to be used for, expo, entertainment, sporting venue, because many times the their space is booked with these meetings and conventions. So, when you're trying to hit a music act on their way uh to a a metro city and you can have them here on a Wednesday or Thursday night, it's already booked. And that expansion will give us an opportunity to put the meetings conventions in one side and have the BOS center operate what it needs to be. You can see it right now. 60,000 square ft next door. And you maybe you have a concert the same night that you have a convention here.

Yeah.

And you you know what's wonderful about that is SMEA in 2021, I believe, took out bonds to get that extra money so they could do that expansion. So I'm wonder like why I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what this is all about. We want the expansion. Everybody wants the expansion. The SMIA wants the expansion. Why is it taking this form? Why are we creating, and this isn't for you, this is for everyone else. Why are we creating an entirely new unit of government to get this done? Um I by no stretch of the imagination am not a person who's you know all for small government but um this this um it it's it's it's challenging it um it's sort of I it's kind of ridiculous to think of creating a new government authority for this this purpose uh when we could do it using the current uh apparatus that exists in state law. But again, that's not directed at you. I am so sorry. What I do want to ask you about is this 3% potential increase to hotel motel tour tax.

So, when the budget was being passed, I asked you, do we have room? Is this can we raise our hotel motel tax to get a little more revenue because we need it? And you said, I don't know if you remember. I don't remember. No. Oh, okay. Go ahead. You You said that we were like at the top. Yes. We We were

We were getting to the point where we didn't want to add another percentage point. So in this instance, I mean, what are we as as city legislators to believe or or think like how how do we make this decision given that?

So we currently are we're competitive right now. There's uh actually cities that are a little bit uh more hotel tax than we have right now and there's some cities that surround it a little bit lower. Certainly tourism improvement districts around the state are changing that as you see tourism Chicago just created one uh they added 1% uh to their hotel tax. We'll see others being created throughout the state. You'll see that that hotel tax increase. Uh so you'll see 15 16 17% becomes the norm. I think what I was getting at at in the budget was that do we have room to increase it just to increase it or to use it for something that will not uh bring back tourism dollars to the city. So I think it's an investment. So if you're looking at increasing the hotel tax, you're looking at making an investment in that increasement

and that increased amount. Sure. That's that's really where where we're at. if if you're going to use it uh and increase it for just general funds or revenues or maybe infrastructure, whatever it may be, uh I think that's a bad move, increasing it for that. If you're using it for something that's going to reinvest in those tourism dollars, then absolutely I I do. I think the TIDs catch up. I think you'll see hotel tax anywhere between 15 and 17 or 18% in the next five years. Okay. Okay.

To me, we were just ahead of the curve. Okay. And and that is a question we should all think about. Can we uh is it a good idea for us to be ahead of the curve? Uh can we maintain that? Um but but yes, thank thank you for that. Um so this question is not necessarily for you but you might know how much public engagement uh has been done on this BOS expansion like public meetings and things like that.

Well I I would say that you know we first took a look at this with with the tourism improvement district. That's the first year. Uh the reason it didn't work immediately is because there's a 20-year cap on the tourism improvement district and you and you you couldn't bond it out. You couldn't get the finance work on 20 years. You really needed uh 30 years or more. So we did take a look at that. Actually, one was formed uh at at the time. So that was one mechanism we looked at. Um there was some some public input there uh as well uh for that. But I think what's happened is that the county decided that yeah, we are going to uh redirect this and move this forward. Uh we tried the tourism improvement district, it didn't work. Uh and so this was another avenue for the county to move this forward. Okay.

But I don't want to speak on behalf of the county for the public input. Sure. Sure. Thank you. Um Okay. I I do believe that is it for my questions for you. Thank you very much for being a good sport. Yep.

Thank you, director. Um, yeah. So, I I really don't know. I really don't know that any of that um makes me feel a whole lot better. Um I I will say that in the bill as it stands, our uh contribution is 50% of the taxes from this district above and beyond the year the district starts. So that's what's in the bill. That's what someone has negotiated on behalf of the city of Springfield. Um I I'm thinking uh you know I I I would say why do we choose 50% and also is one vote does that equate mayor? Do you know why we chose 50% of the future?

The city hasn't committed to anything. The city cannot commit to anything unless the city council passes it. I guess I don't have the authority to do that, ma'am. Um, but it's in the legislation and your lobbyist has been lobbying for the legislations. So, there's amendments going forward as Alderwoman Connley pointed out. So, I think you're discussing something that none of us know currently what's going on.

Okay. Okay. Um, I I think, you know, I've talked for plenty. Uh I am going to uh end with this. So uh in the meeting yesterday with the administrator um the the pitch was the argument was that in this new taxing district, the county should get more of a say because they're going to give all of the revenue that's that they would get uh from the district to this new governing body. that is their decision to do. Um, and it has not been decid like the county board still has to vote on whether or not they're going to give 100% of this revenue. So for us to put in statute the representation of a board where we don't even know how much the potential uh governing bodies, the city, the county, SMIA are going to put in to the body. Why would we as a city agree to set representation that disadvantages us? Um, this is I This seems like such a bad deal. Um, I it sounds like I'm not for this. I am for expansion of the Bank of Springfield Center first and foremost. Um, but what we're what what is trying to be done in statute

is trying they're trying to circumvent the city of Springfield lawmakers in order to get this big behemoth of a project done. Make no mistake. And I would say we should all be paying attention to the individuals who are going to support that. Thank you, Alderman Williams.

Yeah, thank you, mayor, and thank you. You you you stole a lot of my thunder, but I'll just say uh you did a good job. And I will say to the older woman first because she keeps talking about moving parts but yet she wants to vote and do everything for the moving parts except the stuff she don't like. For example, we didn't make up the board. It's in the language. That's not a moving part. That's why I asked citizens to come and address that and come to talk about that the borders. You're talking about me the territory. I'm talking You haven't spoken yet. You said older woman. That older woman that spoke. Yeah, the one that spoke

the one that spoke what I'm talking about which was moving parts. The senator tells me that moving parts. So why are we having press conferences if we don't know enough? Mayor, she participated. So she triggered me because like they tried to do this thing like it was a done deal and they had and it wasn't obviously amendments. She's saying it there's a lot of amendments going on. That's their process. Not just this bill, any bill, it can change and go depending on what house is in and what what they got going on. What I was after was Carlson's celebration that we could do this and that. And I said, "No, we got to slow this down. We haven't even heard from our people." Then we went through every step possible not to hear it. Now tonight, we're trying to, you know, to really knock it down, but we need to hear from our people. We need to listen and we need to learn. I'm learning. So you should be willing to learn because in the end until we understand what's going on, who the major development, nobody knows who the developer is going to be. You know, you keep hearing, oh, what authority is going to be to do. That's straight from the senator. There's no moving part there. There's going to be five people on this board, three of them. If you really want to zip in and make us have the polarity, let the city council have the majority on that board. In other words, the city control the majority. I don't care what the number is and then we're fine. They can build their hotel. They can expand their boss center cuz all of us want that. But it doesn't take them to have to create their own mini city council to do this. That's why I agree with my colleague when she says they're just still in authority. They're still in power and all this about they paid for a study. So that's all it takes to buy a zip code. Senator Turner 62701 or is that all it takes? Because there's got to be a territory. If you read the bill, they have to have a territory. It

has to be at least 10,000 people. It's supposed to be blighted underprivileged area. It's a lot of rules to this star thing.

But the problem I'm having is that when it's their turn, they do all this publicity. They do all and then when I ask the citizens to come in and speak, we still fighting to get heard. The people are going to be heard tonight. And I thought after they were heard, then we'll just make a decision. And if you think this ain't correct, we'll put the right language in there and get it right. But it's kind of hard to do when all they do is they have something down there cuz they're passing something down there. And that's all I'm going by. You could play with words. It's still It may not be the kind of taxing body in a traditional form, but it's still going to involve sales tax. It's still going to involve our hotel motel tax. It's still going to cost that hotel is not going to be free. So, we might as well quit that. It's going to get revenue generated and maybe in a non-traditional way, but it's revenue that this council was elected to be over the sales tax in the territory. And now it's lately it's been, oh, only the sales tax in that one hotel really for 200 million? Come on. And then they still won't address projects. It's more than one project. That's just the first of many. So the county is going to be running the city. Like I said, we may not we you may think we not losing, but we are because each project that took they will fall under that authority. Now, yeah, we'll still get to she'll still get to do her plants. We'll still get to do the sidewalks and and the zoning. You're right. But the big stuff, the intimate domain, oh yeah, it's in there. That's a very important power. Demolition, it's in there. So, there's powers that they do get. I wanted to spend time talking about what's it going to cost us as a city. What are we really giving up and what are we going to gain from it and so we could weigh this thing properly instead of the rush rush job that y'all put on this through the mayor just

saying well cuz her reason is I talked to your mayor. Your mayor is on our team. Well, the mayor sure hasn't talked to all of us cuz she like I said earlier she didn't even talk to the two aldermen that represent downtown. we have to stop this and think about this. That's unfair and that ain't right. And we hadn't heard from our citizens. But yet, we was doing press conferences and all everybody was happy and this was going to go on. And the more I learned about it, the uglier it gets. And if I'm wrong, we wouldn't get a redlinined out thing but one paragraph. What are they scared of? They don't want to hear the discussion. They don't want to understand that other people have ideas what to do about town. is curious that the ones that have been on the city council the longest are the ones acting like only the county can fix it and we should let them fix it. You've been here a long time. Ask yourself why to wind them because before they had their problems, it's that side that voted no on developers straight up developers saying last week he was saying oh and we need bodies down there. We need residents. Well, the guy came and was wanting to do apartments and both developers wanted to cuz they both told us this is the way they're doing these new big hotels. They're mixing it with hotels. People live downtown. They told you their shopping was going to be there. Restaurants, the whole bit. We rejected it not once but twice. And then we going to sit up here and act like, "Oh, we need this authority because they studied it." No, we failed. We should have picked one of those developers and maybe wouldn't be where we at today with the Windom. So, we need to just be honest with oursel as a city council. It's our job to develop our downtown. They want to own a hotel. We treat them like any other developer. They just need to go through the process, develop the hotel, then build it. But they can't just create an

authority and cut us out because they got the right mayor to do it. No. And we need to do our jobs. We elected as Springfield City Council members, not a Sangman County Board member. Carlson, maybe you need to go back there. Direct your comments. I was never a board member. I can interject. I was never on the county board. We say that all the time. Okay, fine. We're all represented by county board members by Oh, who don't know that? I've got three of them. Who don't know that? Well, everybody knows that we're we're by the way, since you want to say that, we're 60% of the county. So, we got them that way, too. We the majority of the county. Thank you.

But yet we're letting them do this. I don't know what the game plan was with the amendment mayor or what this was all about, but it's very different from what the people come out for. We need to hear from the people, discuss this thing, like I said, and then just make up your mind and live with your decision. If you think it ain't enough information, then you ain't going to vote for it. That's fine, too. Take a position, though, and quit hiding. Oh, well, it's moving parts and so we're just going to say very little. No, we have to let them know our intentions as well, what we feel about it. We shouldn't just sit here quietly. Thank you, Mayor. Alderman Hanower.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, first of all, um, we haven't put anything in this project. Zero. Absolutely nothing. Counties put in, they're given the land. They put in I don't know how many thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousand dollars whatever projected

um convention center has put in some has pledged money for it. I think what was it two $2 million or something. We pledged zero. We've given zero. We've had quite honestly, you know, they're letting us be a part of this project by and and we should want have one person on the dang board because right now, here's what they're as of the meeting that I went to yesterday, and this is my understanding, and if I'm wrong, somebody correct me. they they would like for us to give uh the hotel motel tax, city hotel motel tax for that particular hotel for that particular hotel. You know how much we give them now? Zero. Because that hotel doesn't exist. And then it's up to us how much of an increment above the current base of the sales tax in the 62701 that we decide to put in. We could put in 25%. We could put in 10%. That's up to us. But we benefit

of information and I don't know if this is legit. But what takes precedence? What we vote on or what's in statute with regard to what the percentages according to what I heard yesterday. The sit that we we will have to vote on what we put in. How much we put in

what we put in. It's not in a statute that we have to put in that. That's the other point. That bill, that House bill that everybody keeps throwing out there, my understanding was that was somehow that that got through in the House. It was a draft bill that got through and that's basically been been gutted and they're redoing it in the Senate. So, you know, we get we are absolutely we're not committed to anything right now. And and quite frankly, if they wanted to, if they if they if the numbers work out, they could tell the city, you know what, we don't want you. We don't we don't need your money. We don't need you on the board. At least we'll have somebody up there to and I would assume it'd be the mayor or the mayor's design that that would take part of that board. So, that's that's the way I understood things. Um, in regards to the Windom, yeah, we voted it down. 325 ft apartments. Terrible. Terrible. And then, oh, by the way, let's look at what happened allegedly by the owner of the Windom. That's why why it's in the shape it's in now. And we were going to we were going to pledge $17 million towards that. Absolutely not. I I I don't I don't think twice about that vote. It It was It was That That's not what downtown needed. That is not what downtown needed. What we need is we need more conventions and more people walking downtown. I've talked to I've talked to plenty of business people downtown. They want to see more foot traffic. Period. And you know, concerts and all that are great, but people come to the concert, they go home, they may give one night stay. We want conventions are going to be here all week. They spend the money. So, you know, this is not we we we keep talking about the taxing body. It's not

a taxing body. They have no authority. And again, this is from my meeting yesterday. They have no authority to raise taxes on the citizens. That's us. That's the county board. That's the convention center. We are taxing bodies. That's the only group that can raise taxes. And if we decide that we don't want to give any sales tax in, that's up to us. But that's going to come back to us. So, we got to do something about downtown. Everybody complains downtown. What are you going to do with downtown? What we've been doing in in it? It's not working. It's just not working. And you're and you're right on that, older woman. It it what we're doing now is not working. This is something new. Uh my understanding this board is in in a sense like the MC Pier up in Chicago that runs uh the Navy Pier and the McCormick Center. That's kind of how they've they've um they've they've kind of got got the formation kind of through that. It's not a star bond. The star bond's out. That is not a part of it anymore. So all that is gone. that was all you know that as of yesterday from what I heard and correct me if I'm wrong that is all gone. It's not a starbond anymore. And so, you know, I sat up here with with Senator Turner for many years, and the senator and I I I consider her a friend. And I think that what she's doing is trying to do her best to get uh things downtown and to help this area. And I can't thank her enough. And I trust her when she says this is going to

be good. And you know, and Mike Coffee, I know him real well. I consider him a friend. And and they they both tell me that this is going to be good for the city of Springfield. And and and unless and I I would be the first one if if if I don't like something, I I'm not afraid to say it. But so far, what I'm hearing, I like. But you know, we got to stop with this star bond. We got to stop with the with the taxing authority because they cannot raise taxes. It's it they're oversight. That's all they are. So, I would appreciate uh I appreciate everybody listening and uh hopefully we can get to a vote before tomorrow morning. Thank you,

Alderwoman Connley.

Thank you, Mayor. I I just want to really quickly correct something. I want to be very clear. I have I first of all, we have been talking about this I I I can tell you we've been talking about it because my mom called me and it was in the PIIA newspaper what we're talking about here. And then some of the context it was in was the fact that PIIA is getting the Future Farmers of America conference and we're losing it because they're expanding. She's like, "Oh, and I saw you guys. I saw what you're talking." Oh god, I'm sorry. I'm doing my mom voice her. I saw what you're talking about. It is it our conversations. We have been talking about this legislation for weeks now. Yeah. I I promise you, Alderman Williams, that will come back at me. my mom's going to get me. Um, but we've been talking about this. So, I want to be really clear. There is no fear. There's no lack of desire to hear from people. We've got people who signed up tonight. I've had people contacting me. I think we need to be very careful that we're not painting any of this as a disinterest in hearing from residents or from hearing from each other. I mean, I'm making notes. I I think there's some interesting points that are coming up. I'm making notes. I want to make sure I understand. And um I didn't have the t chance to do the deep dive into SMEIA's uh budget that Alder Notano did, but so I appreciate that she brought that forward. Right. These are good conversations to have. I did support the amendment. Um and I do support this amendment largely because I think that there are things in the underlying resolution that aren't factually based. Again, just talking to all to Senator Turner yesterday, who I want to point out, we are also constituents of hers. There's no reason why people have to just talk to the city council about this. She's my senator. She's my state senator. I voted for her. I got her signed. I call her. We should be calling her. We should be having these conversations with her body, too, because that's where a lot of this debate is going on. uh there there's no reason why we can't talk to her. She is

an extraordinarily approachable woman and if you can't find her, you can track her on Facebook, right? Um so I think it's it's really let's be very careful. I Alderman or Senator Yeah. I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to promote you and then demote you and I'm not sure which one's which.

Alderman Williams, I told you last week I said I'm I'm glad we're having this conversation. There needs to be no even no in no hidden sort of sense that hey council's afraid of this people are afraid to hear from others. That's not the case. So I want to be really clear about that. I'm hearing a lot about this. There's been a lot of conversation. My reasoning for the for this amendment. My thought behind this is there is a it is not a done deal. I think we we are making some good points. We're having good conversations and we need to make sure that we are making our thoughts clear to the people who are actually considering this legislation which is in the general assembly and we have elected representatives that we should be talking to about this. Right. I also think that since we all support BOS and we're not going to agree on every component of of what you put forward because I I I don't think it's all factual. I again it's not a taxing body. We retain our municipal authorities. We are not seeding control to the to the county. We don't control the county's property anyway. They we don't control the county building. They're using their land for something like this. That's their choice. We need to talk to our county representatives. We need to talk to our state representatives. And we have this conversation. We have a full airing so people understand we as a city want to retain authority over city city property over how the city spends its monies about how we allocate our sales tax revenues. These are important decisions for us and we don't lose that control. And I think it's really important that we're having this conversation that we're making that very clear. The reason I support the amendment is because at the end of all of this, I think what we need to send over as a united vote is something that we can all get behind, which is as everyone's saying, we support this expansion. We want to see this big change here. Since it's still being made, you know, it's still that whole process is happening. Let's have feedback with the people and input with

the people who are doing that process. That's critically important. We're going to hear from more people tonight. That's great. That gives us more our obligation as representatives. Yes, this is what I heard from my constituents. This is what I'm hearing. But also, I am your constituent. I am Senator Turner's constituent. I'm a constituent of Governor Pritsker. I'm a constituent of my county board member. And I well I don't talk to the governor. Um, but I do reach out to my local officials. That's what we should all be doing. And I appreciate that we're having this tonight. It's a It is a I think we're having a really full robust discussion about this. We have a significant number of people who signed up to speak about it. But let's please not imply that there's any sort of a fear or a running away from hearing from people, okay, alderman? because we are not that's not you know I sit here I stay here because I believe it is

that is what we can agree on and that is not afraid to talk about it that is redlining stuff that is not factually accurate you can wave it at me all you want I know listen we can we can disagree we can be respectful about it I think that's that is the heart of being good politics aldermano is right is correct there is some crazy stuff going on in our country right now in this room in these chambers we can control our conversation and we can be reasonable and respectful to each other. We can have a full robust conversation. We can disagree. We can highlight issues. We can learn from each other. And I think that's what we're doing right now. So, I want to be real careful that we're not presenting something as a denial of a conversation or a fear of hearing from people because that is never my intent and that is never my actions. Thank you, Mayor.

Alderman Gregory. Thank you. And I'll try to be quick. I I you know, I sat back listening to the conversation. I didn't plan on speaking, but you know, the windows going to have to be dealt with either way, right?

Yeah. And and and I don't like talking about that. I I I I feel like the city's implying something that we don't know. So, but within that, that owner who whatever he brought a different buyer to it that the growth alliance came up and said, "Hey, he's good. He's a good guy. He's this and this." They already have 200 apartments in there. That's been approved. That's that was approved. The question was, could he do a hundred more? We said no. We needed the hotel rooms. Now there's none. We're doing fine. We breaking record numbers. I get it. See how that works. Then we say, Ralph, Alderman Hanower, you say, well, you didn't like the size of apartments, but we'll vote to put that over there in my ward tiny homes against what I'm asking, but we don't want to do it in a in a apartment complex that's already there. It's already there. We need people staying downtown. The the expansion, all that ballroom, I get that, but that's stale. It is still for what people really want to see our downtown. They want to come down and have some fun. We have to get into the 21st century. We have to do some different things. We got to get people living downtown. And you know who's going to live downtown?

Probably 40 and below. And what do they like to do? They like to have fun more outside of just bars. So, we have to get some unique businesses down there to attract people. You know, we go to events. All of us go to events and it's cool. It's the same thing. We going to eat the same meal. We going to hear it's going to be some different things. At what point do we worry about those conventions, you know, the rooms being so high that those conventions are like, man, you know, I know people looking for weddings and all types of stuff. It's like $6,000 for a stinking caterer. Um cuz we use these hotels and we use these facilities too in our city and we cannot forget about our own citizens and and and and to base everything off you know visitors and tourists going to come in. So we're going to you know jack prices up on them and stuff. I don't it just makes me feel cuz I don't whole thing praying on me when I go to these different places. I I I know people gotta um um you know pay for things, but good grief, the way we talk about it's like, "Oh yeah, you know, visitors gonna come in and pay for it." And so everything's going to be skyhigh cuz they ain't going to have no choice when we go to the airport. Don't we hate that? That iPhone charges 40 bucks when we know it's only 20. You know, things are getting high. I'm not I'm against raising anything unless we absolutely have to. It's already I mean I know hey everybody money different but man it's getting tough. Everything is so high and then we want to raise the hotel rooms up even higher. The sales tax portion of it. We just don't know. We may need it. My community may need it. Your community may need it. We don't we don't know. So I feel like anybody proposing anything or they don't need our tax money, fine. Go build it. Do what you want to do. That that's fine. But we still have concerns about raising taxes on all hotels. The hotels don't like it. They against it. Those are our citizens.

Those are our businesses. We should take that into consideration. Those are important things. You know, everything everything is raise raise. That's why I'm against a simple $10 raise. Jeez, we got to hold for a second and do for people. We getting beat down, you know, and and and you know, I'll say this. You know, I heard so many good things said about the state and Senator Turner, but but boy, before we was getting some, it was all the state is running crazy. Democrats is running it in the ground and all of these these things. It's a hypocrisy.

Y'all don't love the governor. Some of us don't love the governor or Doris no more than outside this stinking project.

We live in our community. We know our sister. I've grew up. Ain't nothing that nobody can say up here. Make us look like, oh, we against the senator and her bill. Y'all can keep calling her name a thousand times. She absolutely understands that we don't want the county to be controlling, telling us to do anything. I get it. Y'all have a different relationship with them. We don't agree with that because for us and and and their roles and the things that's supposed to be for my community, we don't we don't we don't get the good services. I'mma die 20 years before somebody like you, Roy, Alderman Han. That's what the stats say. We got to improve on those type of things. And that's that's in their hands. We gave that away. So, you know, I I got a few more notes on on on that. Um, you know, the hotel across the street, the Abraham Lincoln and things and and and I agree with my my my uh my brother. We It is our job to develop our city. That was that was really what I took away from that because you guys can't do it. We going to do it. We had a chance to do it. We could have got it out of the If everybody believes he's the bad owner, I don't know the guy any more than anybody else, but we could have got it out of his hands.

And boom, the window's there. But regardless of what happens, this thing can go whatever. We going to have to deal with the window one way or the other. The new owner going to buy it. He going to want to incentive to tear it down. It's going to be 30 18 in 12. I've heard a bunch of different numbers. But it's going to be like a Pillsbury. It's going to set a while. It's going to take a while. So, we we you know, good things come across us all the time and and at times it does seem like we don't want to do things. It it does seem like we want to sink the window for this opportunity and that's not good for us on the city side. We we you know um still over there, still boarded up right now. It's going to be boarded up with this brand new thing. How embarrassing is that for our city? brand new hotel next to one that's boarded up. People come out of the Bos Bank of whatever walking around downtown and walk past like cuz we do it when we go to St. Louis and we go to other places and stuff. We we say the same things. So, um, shiny new objects always take the attention. So everybody go stay there and then they won't stay at the aw Lincoln and you know they'll come from the crown and now we'll hurt them.

You really hope not but now we'll hurt them. We have to think about those things. It's important to balance it. Um just same thing with the sports complex. Everything going to go out there and then we going to have problems in different places. You going to have some things to address soon but I won't tell you now. Um thank you. I appreciate you Carlson. Thank you. Um,

you know, it seems like, and I'm I'm going to try not to talk long. We've been talking about this for a month, and I think we're going to end up talking about this again because tonight I think we're overthinking this thing. It's just a resolution. It's a simple resolution to say as a body, uh, we're for the expansion of the B center. I mean, we're probably going to always agree to disagree on on your resolution, Roy. Um because and so that's why I think you know we had to amend this thing but everybody says up here they're for the bo everybody says they're for the boss expansion. So um I I'll address a couple points though but I think it's just a simple vote tonight to send a clear message a clear message to the capital that we appreciate what they're trying to do and and I think you know I know the big hangup is this authority. I mean, this authority is really just a mechanism for bonding and to get this project off the ground. Uh, you know, we all sat we we've all been up to speed the last couple days of what's going on. And, uh, you know, apparently I was in a a meeting differently than some others, but as we all know, the county is in for for the land. Uh, they're imposing a hotel motel tax. They're taking 100% of the hotel motel tax, 100% 100% of the sales tax. They have I have the floor. They've said that. I have no reason I don't have any reason to to to believe they're not telling the truth. We are in it for a free ride. The city h is in it for a free ride. All we have to do because we're going to debate this again, I'm sure, in a couple months when we vote for what percentage we give the sales tax, you know. So, it's it's we get all the advantages and no risk. That's why the authority is set up. They assume all the risk. If for some reason this would go bally up 2, three, four, 5 years down the road.

There's nothing there's nothing in it on us. There's no risk at the city at all. This is essentially I mean I'm not going to say free money, but whatever percentage of the new hotel of the new hotel, not right now. And so that's where I'm looking at it. I mean, it was mentioned today. I mean, FFA is leaving. We need bodies downtown. And thank God that that that the governor and Senator Turner are trying to help us with this because I at the same time I don't think the governor is going to get state employees back to the office. So we need people downtown. We need to go be able to walk downtown on a Sunday older woman and get a sandwich like you said mentioned an hour ago. And I don't know why we're fighting this why we're fighting this. I mean up until now I mean up until this expansion you know we can have what one convention at a time maybe two. Pory has multiple conventions. We need to have multiple conventions at one time. We're the capital city. Five months a year. We have legislators here. We have out of town lobbyists, out of town out of out of town staff. Um that's why we need the hotel to go along with the convention space. And you know, I I I I just I just think there were a number there's just a number of of misrepresentations that that I've heard tonight. Again, the simplistic thing, there's no risk to the city. We're just going to end up voting eventually. So, I'm sure we'll have another long discussion on this, which is fine, on what percentage we give back to them. But tonight, it's just a simple resolution. Again, I hear everybody. They agree for the bank uh they agree to the Bank of Springfield expansion. So, let's just do that and send the right message to the capital that we are grateful uh of of what they're doing to help the city of Springfield. Thank you, Mayor.

Alderman Cox. Oh, boy.

Welcome. Um I I want to address just a few points. Um, and there's a lot of talk about local control and giving up responsibilities and what have you. And I don't believe that regardless of if it's five people appointed by our council or zero that we are giving up any local control because the CATA will be a authority that is guided by a statute, not municipal ordinance, not our city codes. So no matter who sits on this board, they're going to have to follow state statute. Okay. Um, we've talked enough about the liability, the bonds, what have you. Uh, bonds are incredibly expensive, especially for um what's probably considered a medium to high-risisk situation. I'm in a high-risisk industry myself, and I know bonds are very expensive. U, I don't think the city of Springfield wants to take on that bond. I think it makes a whole lot more sense for a state agency or state authority to take on that bond rather than us. I will reiterate that this is not a star bond, which I don't think there's any argument about that anymore. The city's risk in this situation is basically zero. All we will do is reap proceeds and tourism and new restaurants and high bar tabs. Keep in mind too that typically, and I'm not all for raising taxes. I don't want to raise anybody's taxes either. But if taxes get raised, if we are having conventions come in here, do you think that the mechanic at Caterpillar that has to come in here from Philadelphia or something is paying that hotel bill? He's not. Caterpillar's paying that hotel bill and they can afford the extra two or three% that gets put on there because they don't mind coming to Springfield that also has some tourism stuff that will have a state state-of-the-art hotel. Um, a ballroom, which we don't have one in Springfield to speak of. Uh, so some of my thoughts. Um, oh, back to local control though. They want to put a sign up that we don't like and it and

they need a variance. Guess what? We can vote it down. They want to do something in the street we don't like because it's against our code. They need a variance. We can vote it down. We have to issue permits. We have to perform inspections. We have to approve a a certificate of occupancy. So, we're not giving up control. We will still We don't control the place as it is. We don't control that parking lot. We don't control the building across the street that needs that needs some rehab. Um, and yeah, to follow on, I mean, think everybody in the room's point, what we're doing right now is not working. I'm new here. I've been watching this city for the last 45 years. Downtown's not working. And that's not a knock at anybody in this room or anybody that sat here before me. It ain't working. Here we have the golden egg being presented to us saying, "We're going to give you $200 million and we're going to take a little bit of your tax proceeds maybe." And let's not forget our debate right now isn't even about the legislation because the legislation isn't our choice. They're going to do what they do at the dome. We don't have a choice. We need to be paying attention. We need to lobby what we can lobby. I agree 100% with Alderwoman Connelly that we need to be reaching out to our local state senators, whether it's Mccclure or Senator Turner, Mike Coffee, call your US reps. You don't think they all have connections, talk to those folks, too. If if the amendment that we're actually debating uh passes and and we adopt this amendment, just for everybody's clarity, it's going to say, "Whereas the city of Springfield as a home rule unit as defined in article 7, section 6A of the 1970 Illinois Constitution has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to its government and affairs and

the city corporate authorities of the city of Springfield hereby states its support for the expansion of the BOS Convention center. You want to vote no on that. That's fine. Um because all the stuff that we marked out in red, it's it's not to be argumentative. It's because it's not factual anymore because it's an old bill and a lot of this stuff is changing. Now, when they pass a new one, somebody wants to file a resolution in support or against the new bill that when it when it actually goes somewhere, so be it. Bring it in. Let's chat. But right now, what's in the original resolution is no longer factual. It would be irresponsible to push it forward as originally drafted. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the time.

Alderman Rockford. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Uh, first I'll start off number one, the eyesore that sits over it called the Windham. Eventually, you know, we if we put a new hotel in or whatever, something's got to be done with this and this is going to be here and it's it's embarrassment. Number two, we talk about people downtown. Can somebody tell me how many state buildings are downtown with no workers in them?

Can you can you tell me that and and just so can we, you know, are people still working remotely? I'm sure. So there there was a ton of foot traffic that were, you know, because of our pandemic that we lost. So that has a big effect effect on downtown, you know. And then thirdly, you know, we had how many outdoor festivals and and and parties and stuff going on downtown that we don't see anymore that we don't see anymore. So, uh, that plays into foot traffic also. So, all these small restaurants, these mom and pop shops and everything that moved out and you know, this had a big effect on it. So, your pandemic was a big big factor. So, if we can get workers back into some of these state buildings, maybe we can get some businesses back. Thank you. Mhm. Alderwoman purchase.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, I think the I wanted to hear from the sponsors of

this amendment, which was Alderman Cox, Alderman Carlson, Alderwoman Connley. Um I know Alderman Donlin is on the phone, so we haven't heard from him yet, but he's spoken a couple of weeks on it. And then Alderman Hanower just to see where the thoughts was because I think I have to take notes because we've been talking for over 45 minutes. So, I want to make sure I don't misquote. Um, I know that Alderman Carlson brought up a good point. It's just a resolution. So, I know that also Alderman the resolution that Alderman Williams brought forward is just that, a resolution. And listening to everyone, which I am so glad that this is a fruitful conversation because I see a lot of my downtown businesses in the audience. I see DSI in the audience and there's been a lot of ordinances asked for downtown and we've never had this much conversation about saving downtown. I want to be very clear on that. So, I'm I'm glad we're talking so much about downtown right now, and I hope to keep the same energy as we move forward with um businesses like or organizations like Kids Young that's been asking for a lot of help as well because when these different groups come here, sometimes they're going to be looking for something for their kids to do and they shouldn't have to just go out to the Shield Sports Complex. They should be able to stay within downtown within walking distance. I said, "This doesn't work without one or the other. Businesses can't be closed, but conventions come here and they come outside to, as it's a a running joke, the sidewalks pick up after 5:30. So, we're missing our local dollars and our local population that should be going downtown as well, too. So, trying to find that balance. And I thought that I was doing a good job by bringing it up with we're having concerns about the authority, right? 221. That means two people appointed by the

mayor for the city, two people pointed by the county. Now, I ain't hear nobody bring that up. So, I was finding a solution for all of us to be okay with. So, I want to just reiterate that. And I'm sorry. I don't want to forget about SMIA one. And nobody has said anything about that so far. When I went and spoke with Andy Van Meter and Brian McFaten and um one of my uh local business owners, Karen Khan, we brought they brought up to me that made that gave me a little bit of relief. So, I want to be transparent on why I said I was okay because Andy Van Meter brought up that um one of the biggest considerations for the appointment may be for one of the three seats could be Senator Turner. So, everybody keeps saying Senator Turner's name tonight. So, I thought that, okay, well, that gives me a sense of she understands where we're coming from, so I can digress with that. So, then I said, okay, well, that could be the 221, but it's not a guarantee cuz I asked that question. So, I felt like if we could really just bring that as a solution moving forward that everyone would feel okay around the horseshoe. There is neighborhood associations, downtown business, small business owners, and we need to hear from all of them. Especially when I'm seeing the people that I represent in the audience as well, as well as some of your businesses. They live in your ward, but their businesses downtown. So, I totally get why you all are talking about it. I think we really need to hear from them. I'm 100% in support of the BOS expansion and I will continue to say I'm not going to talk for 15, 20 or 30 minutes on this. I've been talking every week about it and it's the same thing. That was the request when we were in the meeting with

Senator Turner. She said, "What is the request that you have?" I said, "My only request to make everyone feel feel okay about this is having two people appointed from the city, having two people appointed from the county, and one person appointed from SME." I I didn't think that was a huge ask. I didn't think that it would be a big problem, but it's kind of been silent. So, I think I've gotten my answer on where that stands because as you stated, there's multiple amendments coming forward and that has nothing to do with who's being appointed to the board. So, I have to wait to hear from that. So, I don't want to put the cart before the horse. So, I'm supporting my colleagues on what they are bringing forward. And I'm also supporting my own backyard that I represent. That's why I chose to speak last and talk about it. And I want to hear and I also see that we have our hotel motel representative here. So, I'm I'm hoping that we can hear from him, too, as well. A lot of people coming in to speak. You guys get to hear us every week. We don't get to hear from some of the people that's in the audience. I I can say some of the people that's in the audience I haven't seen in years in here. So, I'm hoping that we get to hear from them and really really take in and listen. Not listen to respond, not listen to go and post, not listen to go and do a interview, but actually listen to process what's being said. I'm trying to listen to y'all for an hour to process what was just being said. I want to really hear from the people in the audience. And as I know, half of them that are here is going to speak to why they are in support of this that sit right here in downtown. And some of my neighborhood people are out here, too. But it shouldn't be a problem for us to ask questions, get clarity, because I see that's what just happened tonight when this amendment came forward. And I thank all of you for speaking on it so that I could understand too, you know, why you did this. And I get it. But I also got to do my due diligence, too. And I I need to continue to put that

forward that that was the solution for us having concerns was two people from the city of Springfield, two people from the county, and one person from SMEA. And I'm looking forward to hearing from everyone in the audience too that signed up to speak mayor. Thank you.

Alderman Carlson person, let me ask you that. I I probably didn't close the loop earlier, but I think for me when you assume the risk, you be you get a few more rewards. And I think the four or five things that we've talked about what the county is putting in and assuming the risk that's why they get three uh uh members. I mean after the next study, you know, we we did that. We all were invited to the study a couple years ago. The the uh the consultants were in, they had meetings and we all were invited. Maybe not everybody showed up. Um, but there's going to have to be another study as we all were told to confirm the original study. It's got to be from a different a firm. So, in the end, uh, I think the number is, you know, the county is going to be in for well over $2 million to get this project off the ground. And for them, again, back to what I said, we we're in for nothing right now. We we don't have any risk at all. So hence the one member similar to BOS I mean it's about to me you know a little bit of fairness and equity in the whole thing when you have more risk you get more reward and right now they are they are in you know a heck of a lot deeper than the city that that was my take the last few weeks and it was clarified to me yesterday.

Thank you mayor Mayor can I rebuttal just to what he just said to me Nana do you mind if she speaks?

Oh no please go ahead. Go ahead. So, um, thank you, Alderman Carlson. And that's why I also said, too, I'm not contradicting myself at all. I said when I went to the meeting that I felt a little bit more at ease when Andy Van Meter said that Senator Turner may be one of those appointments of the three because she also understands where we're coming from and we had a meeting with her. So, I'm in a place of trying to find a solution and a common ground. And I'm going continue to do that sometimes. And sometimes it look I'm I'm going to be honest. It look like from the amendment that we have sitting up there, it's a certain group of us. And then looking at this amendment, it's another group. So I hope that it doesn't put us against each other because I had just said to you a few weeks ago too, Alderwoman Connie, it was a breath of fresh air. It seemed like it was a new leaf turning. It was um a lot of support and a one thing that was a common ground for everybody to agree on. But today, I think it's looking just a little bit different. But I want to hear from everybody and try to figure out where that common ground could come back again. Thank you,

Alderwoman.

Thank you, Mayor. Um I just in response to Alderman Carlson, um the county has put in so much upfront because this was their project. It's their land. They want this. They're coming to us now because they can't do it on their own. They're asking for us to give. And I'll call your bluff. It's easy to promise 100% of revenue that doesn't exist. Why don't we go ahead and and pro if it's going to get us equal representation or more representation? Let's let's promise 100% all in. I'm for it. We want to see this go somewhere, right? Thank you, Mayor.

Alderman Donlin, do you have any comments you would like to make? You've been patiently waiting on the phone. No, mayor. I think I've said all I needed to say in the last couple weeks. I appreciate the opportunity. Thanks for the discussion this evening, everyone. Okay. Thank you, alderman. If you want to go ahead, clerk judge, and let those who signed up to speak. Yes. We we want to do the amendment first. Well, no, we do not. Point of order. Or is it okay to let the community speak before they vote on the amendment? It is okay. That's in the chair's discretion.

Okay. I feel it would be best to let the committee members who signed up to speak speak first, then we'll vote on the amendment. If you don't want to speak prior to the vote on the amendment, you can wave and then come back and speak your one time on the entire ordinance. I'll leave it up to the community member. That way you can decide when you want to speak on it. Go ahead, James Johnson. So, Mr. Johnson, I just want to make sure you're aware. You can speak now or you can let them vote on the amendment and then speak. I just want you to have your choice. Okay.

Thank you. I'mma speak now. Um, the amendment kind of throws everything off. I'm in agreement. Um, thanks to the orderwoman Lkesha. I I'm for the BLC expansion, but I don't like power being taken away. So, um, the 221 sounds great to me. But nobody else mentioned that until she spoke. So, that's where I'm going to stand with that. Um, I really I have to say that you guys forget that all of you all are politicians and everybody at that dome is a politician. Now, do y'all really want me to say how we feel about politicians and what what we think what comes out of their mouth? because I heard everybody throw up names. The only person that haven't threw up who they be talking to is the mayor. And mayor, I would love to hear who you be talking to because we all know this is Springfield and everybody talks to everybody, you know, and everybody has their conversation, private conversations. So, we want to be able to call and talk to the same people you talk to, so we can let them know where we stand. Now, I don't know about the rest of y'all, but for us ones who've been around Springfield for a long time, a franchise called McDonald's and Hardies used to be downtown. They left. When was the last time you known a McDonald's to close? So, that should have told somebody then. Somebody should have looked at their study

and said, "Well, why is McDonald's leaving downtown Springfield? Why is Hardy's leaving?" But this has been going on for years. And like Alderman Rockford said, we don't have the Lincoln Fest no more. We don't have the Black, White, and Blues Fest no more. We don't have anything downtown anymore. But we want to get downtown back to where it used to be. News flash, it's not going to happen. It's definitely not going to happen overnight. Now, I don't know what's coming and what they're bringing, but if you guys think just hotels and more space is going to bring people downtown, it's not. I'll give you a suggestion, though. How about we start with some parking downtown? Because if people don't have nowhere to park, they ain't coming downtown. Especially the senior citizens who got to walk. You're not going to do it. And then you need to get some places to eat downtown. Until you get some places to eat that got some good food. When you get that, then you can bring your conventions in and your concerts. And let me say something about the concerts because all the concerts that come downtown since I've been around, I can count on one hand and have fingers left how many of them were something I wanted to go to.

State Fair is the same way. We don't get nothing for my people. And uh, Brother Carlson, I watched your face when the order woman said something about democracy being attacked. Yeah. Our people were being attacked. Our voting rights are being attacked. It's no joke. Some of us know what's going on and we ain't standing for it just to let you know because in my opinion, I think they're trying to take power away from uh uh Ward two and three. That's what this is all about in my opinion. And we're not standing for that, mayor. So you can let them know that we want this horseshoe to have a say and anything that deals with war two, war three and war five, the people want to be able to say something. And then because the attack on our 14th amendment and our voting rights and our civil rights, we will stand up and we will fight. And we're going to get to the point where I'm at this point already. I'm not asking for permission. I'm taking a position.

Clerk Rosanna Pledo.

Miss Pledo, just making sure you are aware you can speak now before they vote on the amendment or you can choose to speak after. Thank you. I'd like to speak now. Thanks. Yeah. I don't understand all sorry you're

all involved in the mega project bill but I did my research and found some legislators who had voted against the mega project who did the work for me. The following are talking points um from what they did. Um the 377 bears bailout bill was rushed through the legislative process is another example of self-deing and influence pedalling that has become the calling card of Illinois government. This bill is a clear example of Illinois picking winners and losers and the working people consistently are on the losing end. By granting millions in property tax relief to billionaires, we are shifting the tax burden on to local property owners, jeopardizing home own home ownership and harming the middle class. So the bill that's why these legislators voted against it. They said the result of it is going to be taxing people out of their homes and decimating the middle class. Um, the other one is, you know, I heard Mike Coffey's name mentioned and this is what I got from Americans for Prosperity. Rosanna, we appreciate your help in taking one small step in keeping our elected officials accountable. Thank you for adding your voice to the letter. disgraceful betrayal of Illinois taxpayers me mega project bill and uh it's been sent to Mike Coffee. So that's what Americans for Prosperity had to say about what's going on and the people's taxes um literally taxing people out of their homes so we can have a mega project. And

um you know, I'm just kind of confused because I don't know that government should be getting into the hotel business and um you know, we have private enterprise downtown and we're going to be competing against them. But what this has all brought back is as a young woman uh in Chicago, I worked at Navy Pier and McCormack Place, the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority. I was a security officer, an emergency medical technician, and my first day on the job, this is one thing that hasn't been mentioned, but what I know, I've lived it. Um, and so an officer came up to me and said, "So, who do you know?" And I said, "What?" He said, "Yeah, who do you know? You have to know somebody to work here." And I said, "I know the man upstairs." And um you know I was pretty stunned, but that's you know Chicago's the home of Mike Madigan who's in jail now. But we know that he gave jobs and favors and perks to anyone who would vote with him and vote the way he did and um all the different people that were appointed, you know. So now you're going to have the friends of friends of friends and be able to use those perks. The director of security that I worked for. I loved the guy. Of course, he was appointed by somebody. It's who you know, not what you know. That's what we're setting up very strong here is it's not who you know, it's what you know. And the taxpayers are going to foot the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Clerk. Bradley Russell. Yes. I want to talk now. Thank you, sir.

Not really sure where to start. One, Brad, you're voting for us. You're not voting for the state offices. Sir, if you would direct your uh comments to the chair, that would be great.

You guys are crazy with this. You can go on the radio show and talk about us and you can go into your little inaugural thing and talk about somebody over there. Like why is it you can talk about us but we can't talk about you? Make that make sense? This is for the citizens to speak. Who are we speaking to? We can only speak to one person. That makes no sense. He said something that doesn't He's not voting for anybody in the state. He's voting for us. We voted him in here. So I I'll tell you everything. Like it makes no sense. You guys are just going to give away downtown. And you know that the the thing that really somebody over there made a an amendment that you weren't here for. Two, three weeks later, you show up and you're like, I'm vetoing that. And then somebody over here came up with an amendment that said, "Oh, you know what? There was a bunch of stuff in there that was wrong." That was yours. That was your amendment that he said there was a bunch of stuff in there was wrong.

What? Alderman, you said that that this was all about the amendment that you vetoed. Is that correct? This is your time, sir. I ask Sean because I at least know I'll get answers from him.

It makes no I know. I know. I'm just saying this. This is useless. We're useless. We put you in office, but but we don't really have a say. Like, you know, the ones we voted in are just trying to please other people. You know, the the whole registry, landlord registry, you know, you didn't want it in. Your husband's in real estate. Of course, you don't want it in. It's everything that goes on. There's something else behind it. It's not really what it is. It's all smoke and mirrors. The 1908 like across the tracks. 1908 was over a hundred years ago and we have nothing to show for it. We don't have a building for it. You talk about, you know, bringing people here. You don't think that would the end NAACP was started from it? You guys don't do what you need to do to make downtown that way. You You're just like, "Well, we can't do it, so we're going to give it to somebody else." Why can't you do it? This is a job you took. You know, this is the thing you said that you were going to make Springfield better. You were going to bring businesses in. Nothing has been done since you've been up here for the last three years. And now we're giving away downtown and and we're gonna have a a fivep person board. We didn't vote them in. We voted these people in. We want these people to make our decisions for us, not some five people in the other building. It makes no sense. Like are we going to have a time to we can have our five

minutes to talk to them? Like it it seems like our vote is even useless because, you know, we vote you in and then you're not really there to make us happy. You're just there to make some senators happy. This is ridiculous. And you keep it up. Mr. Johnson's right there. There's going to be an uprise and uh have to figure out what side you're on. Mayor clerk Sheila Stock Smith.

Oh, it says do not touch the microphone. Sorry. Um, madame mayor, council members, city officials, and the public. My name is Sheila Stock Smith and I live in Ward uh, Springfield's Ward 7. As you know, as you all know, two weeks ago, I submitted to you an opinion letter voicing my concerns about the BOX expansion effort. The letter was also printed in the Illinois Times. At the core of my concerns is the fact that this authority with its expansive powers and large boundary is in no way accountable to the public. No one on this authority will democratically represent me. I cannot vote them in or out. And they have no obligation either directly or indirectly to represent my interests. None of our elected city or county representatives will have any official power to influence their decisions. Upon passage, the statute creates the Capitol Area Tourism Authority with broad powers and duties. I'm reading from the statute, directly from the statute that activate if and only if the Sangaman County Board imposes a tax on all hotel operators in business as a hotel operator within a Starbond district that is established in the territory of the authority and resolves that all of the revenue generated from that tax as well as all of the tax receipts generated from local sales tax within such a Starbond district shall be dedicated to the payment of the project costs for any Starbond project. First, which is it, a hotel motel tax in the Starbond district or a countywide tax, which it states later in the statute? Second, how can the county board resolve that all local sales taxes within a Starbundance be dedicated in this way? Perhaps they can dedicate their portion of the local sales tax to the project, but how do

they resolve to dedicate the city's portion? I'm assuming the city would have to vote approve this. The minimum combined sales tax for Sangaman County is currently 10.75% with Springfield's rate ranging from 9.75% to 10.25% with increases up to 11.25% in certain business districts. So, sorry if I'm playing catch-up here, but are you as representatives of the city of Springfield in favor of dedicating all of the local sales tax revenue generated from Walnut to 11th and Northrand to Southrand, essentially the entire downtown and beyond to an authority unaccountable to you or to the citizens of Springfield, without even knowing what the fiscal impact of that would be. I've heard no discussions about how doing this will impact the broader city budget or how increased hotel moto taxes can stifle tourism, making Springfield too expensive for travelers. It's simply unconscionable that any of you would do that. It's also crazy to me that this statute does not list terms for authority members or end dates other than a brief mention in the county code amendment portion that says taxes generated can last no more than 40 years. 40 years. Let that sink in a little bit. I don't doubt that those in a support of this genuinely and apparently desperately want to find a way to pay for the BOS expansion and hotel and believe that this mechanism will help revitalize downtown. However, dig in a bit to the work of Hayward T. Sanders, a retired professor at UT San Antonio, and you may rethink the accepted assumptions that convention center expansion is an effective tool of broader urban renewal. He's a recognized

expert on urban development, convention center expansion, and public investment, frequently analyzing the economic impact of these projects in cities large and small across the country. He basically concludes that convention industry does not generate sufficient direct or indirect return to justify the huge public investment required. He calls them loss leaders since they rarely if ever turn a profit and describes a neverending arms race of competition for newer and better facilities often fueled by the very consultants the pitching the projects who are also making a lot of money along the way. He tracks the history of convention center development from the early days when they were promoted as a public improvement meant to benefit the general public and paid for with city tax dollars to today when projects are reframed as downtown revitalization catalysts and lynchpins of growing tourism industries. More dramatic dramatically, they changed from projects requiring voter support and/or approval to projects that today remove that pesky uncertain public accountability feature by creating standalone authorities. In one statement, Sander concludes

this is a ma'am, please wrap up. Your time is over. Thank you,

Joe McMinan. Good evening, mayor. Good evening, council members. So, I've been working downtown 47 years. I was born 26 years before that. That puts me at 73. I uh first work downtown as a Illinois Department of Revenue manager in the legal division with uh what they call term appointments where you study legislation, you study fiscal impact, you try to get to the bottom of things. Um, I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made from the public tonight and and from the older persons that are questioning the legislation as introduced. What the problem we got now is that there's all these moving parts. But I'll tell you what, as introduced, that legislation was not a golden egg. It was a stolen egg. By that I mean it said that all the sales tax increment from this massive area which was at that time South Grand and North Grand Walnut to 11th Street is housing two McDonald's restaurants still in that area Lulu's a lot of different places it was going to be the sales tax increment over inde indefinite number of years. Um, so it's it's a taking of revenue that this city council has specifically appropriated to infrastructure. Some of

the sales tax is appropriate for infrastructure. Uh, the sales tax goes, you know, to pay all those services we get, police, fire. But anyway, it was a taking. Now, now we say, okay, it's not that large area anymore. It's 62701. Now we hear it's not all of the sales tax increment. It's 50% of the increment. Now we hear all these uh different possible amendments. Let me jump to some conclusions here. Um my wife and I own a building downtown, 423-427 East Washington. It's directly across the street from the Meyers building. What's unique about that building is that it was born, it wasn't born, it was erected in 1855. And guess who used to meet in our building on the second floor? The Springfield City Council as indicated by the city directory from 1855. And when I go to that building every six days a week typically, I try to take a nap every once in a while. And and I had this dream and it was, you know, Lincoln and Willie H. Hearnden, they were partners. They their last office was across the street from our building. I had this dream and Willie H. Hearnden who was mayor of Springfield in 1855, one year at terms at that point in time. In the dream, Willie H. Hearnden is saying, "The city council is responsible for downtown. Don't let these other people try to grab it. uh don't let unelected unaccountable persons get involved with downtown. Um then then Abe Lincoln was also in the dream. He's also against you know most of the the bill that's introduced and uh Lincoln said you know you can't trust the people that wrote that bill because

they didn't even come to the city council to get input at the front end. Now they're changing everything at the back end and we don't know what they're changing. But I want to address I got a minute left. You know, I was on the city council the last time we passed an expansion of the convention center. And you know what? I'm a a real fiscal conservative. And I said, "No, the city of Springfield is not going to subsidize the convention center at $100,000 a year." And we're still doing it because we have our own responsibilities and the convention center's got their responsibilities. Tim Griffin, you were on the council that time. Hope you remember it the same way. We also dedicated $5 million of TIFF money to the convention center to make that con expansion grow and be better. How far did that get us? Um, but I remember sitting in right in W six, Corey Job, he said, "I'm not voting anymore for any tiff project except for housing development. We want bodies downtown to live full-time." And I wish I could address that vote that was taken in the fall of 2022. said four years ago we had a buyer for the Windom and uh all he wanted was zoning relief and this council voted no and I remember who voted yes and who voted no and I said at the time I wrote an email we're playing Russian roulette with the windom and we did and we lost all 400 seats

not just the 200 rooms at the time so any rate your time is up sir everybody hang in there clerk Ken Pesa say it again please yeah Ken Paca Thank you.

Give me one sec, please. So, I got to say I'm confused because what I hear from some of the council members doesn't sound like what I hear from the people that are actually involved in it. It kind of sounds like you guys either don't know what they're actually saying or you're lying. The simple fact is, as Van Meter's openly admitted, there's no guarantee it won't include more of our sales tax. We're looking at $14 million a year in bond payments projected. There is a litany of things they're going to draw money from and a lot of it's the city. So, I mean, it just seems foolish that you guys describe it as a golden egg or some sort of wild scheme that's going to just rain down money downtown. Build model airplanes, said the man. But what if the man's a crazy glue sniffer? I mean, come on, guys. How ridiculous does it sound that we're going to have a municipality funding what they're promising will be public privately run? Counties already said that they got Marriott and other places lining up to do it. So that's our money going to that, right? Are we What kind of small business conservative wants government money going to private enterprise? I mean genuinely any other time you guys would argue against it, but now it's suddenly a brilliant idea. It's ridiculous. Let's talk about who actually benefits from this bill. Saputoudos is right next door. Who owns it?

Are we kidding ourselves with the the clear conflict of interest in who's pushing this? Not only does he own Saputos, he will directly benefit because he's also what?

The president of SMIA. I mean, are you guys kidding? You don't even acknowledge the truth of what's happening here because you try and pave over it with promises of dollars you can't deliver. 55% is our hotel capacity on a good night. It is $160 cheap night at the Abraham Hotel over there. How many families packing four, paying $5 a gallon are coming here to blow money because you built a convention center? How much glue are you inhaling at this point to buy this stuff? No, because it seems crazy that you guys literally talk about organizations that come up here like one in a million or better life, better living for kids and how long do you make them stand here and do a dance for you for 30k, for 70k, for 50k for business incubation on the east side. But you guys are willing to literally bulldoze a $200 million thing and and what? Trust Pritsker. And that isn't because I don't trust Pritsker. It's because if I catch you guys sitting over at Saputo's, which is where you head out of here early when citizens come speak half the time, I promise you'll be sitting there with coffee while he holds court. Don't act like we don't know what goes on in this town. This is embarrassing that you guys are getting usurped in your authority in our tax dollars by county. It is taxation without representation for an appointed board. And any other time, again, most of you would actually stand up against it. But the simple fact is is you know who's lying in your pockets. You usually do. It's a big club. We ain't in it. I ain't never been invited over for cocktail hour with coffee and I bet I never will. And I wouldn't want to to be honest because I don't want the kind of person who would manipulate the process to

benefit themselves and the old boy network that's been corrupting this town for decades. You want to know why downtown isn't doing well? Because businesses are dying in front of you. And what are you doing about it? You're going to hand over our authority and how much money? Because there is no promise that it won't be more of our sales tax. They absolutely have the ability to add additional sir charges. This is all in the bill and that isn't changing. That isn't being admended or anything like that. That's still there, guys. You can go look at it right now. The simple fact is is what's happening in front of you is a usurping of your authority. They said, "You guys can't handle downtown, so we'll do it for you." I'd be embarrassed. If I were a business owner, I wouldn't be excited about an independent board that has no recall ability and doesn't actually owe anybody anything other than the people that got them there, of course. Right? If you guys bulldoze this through, if you don't really think long and hard about how much you're leaving out of what you're actually saying, not only will you be remembered as the people who sold out our downtown when we end up paying more of our money when that hotel fails, because what guarantee do you have that it's going to succeed? Projections, pie in the sky ideas, the the idea that we're going to pull away hundreds of millions of dollars from Peoria. You ever been up there during a convention, guys? You ever been to their 20,000 seat facility? We have 7,000. That convention center is not going to save downtown. It's not going to manufacture hundreds of millions of dollars. And the idea that you guys are time, your time is up.

Code to that. Sir, your time is up. Thank you. Lori Mckieran.

Good evening. Well, I think everything I'm going to say has been said already tonight, but I'll I'll I'll keep going here. So, I fully support the expansion of the BOS center. Um, now I understand there are discussions outside of this meeting in order to move projects forward. However, with this legislation, it seems obvious that there's more than just planning economic development in downtown Springfield going on here. This looks like a power grab by the county. From city council members being left out of discussions to the last minute veto of unanimously passed ordinances, it's pretty obvious that people are trying to take power away from the city and give it to the county or sell it to the county. Maybe with the mayor's veto and the majority of alders voting against um Mr. through Alderman Williams ordinance to oppose the state bill. All of you who are supporting this state legislation without fighting for the city. All of you are abdicating your responsibility to lead this city. It's our city. That's our contribution to this project. So regardless of the details of this bill, all these moving parts, this city still needs to have the majority of votes on this commission. You show us on a regular basis that you don't want to take responsibility for oversight and management of CWLP. Now you're doing the same thing here. You've already delegated a huge portion of our economic development to the Springfield Sangman Growth Alliance who's not held accountable for their decision, who doesn't have to report to you or to us on the work that they do on our behalf. Now, to hear several of you say, "If this commission doesn't do the development for downtown, then who will?" is so disturbing. It's your job to do this. That's what you were elected to do. Good leaders delegate, but good leaders also understand their responsibility to own the decision-making process. You were elected to lead. The voters put their trust in you to make the best decisions for Springfield. If you give away your power as an elected official to an appointed board, you take away my ability and the ability of the entire community to choose who manages our city. When you ignore the

responsibilities that go along with that support from the voters, you give away your power. And when you give away your power, you give away my power. And you give away the power of all the people sitting behind me. And you give away the power of all the voters in Springfield. The Growth Alliance and the Sangaman County Board have proven that they don't understand responsible economic development. And that they don't care about their constituents. They can't be trusted with managing a huge portion of Springfield. This is a power grab, an obvious power grab that you can't let happen. The decisions by county board members about the data center will have repercussions in their future elections. The same will happen here with this vote in next year's city council elections. We want leaders who understand their responsibilities and take them seriously. It's time to take back control. It's time for change in Springfield. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah Al. Do you want to say it one more time? Sarah Al. Jim Langfelder.

Good evening, Madame Mayor and City Council members. Uh Jim Langfeld, Ward One. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you tonight regarding the resolution to support the convention center expansion in the Capital City Tourism District. It is abundantly clear that downtown Springfield needs investment and everyone around the horseshoe is for the convention center expansion. The only difference that this resolution rightfully brings forward is that the city of Springfield should have the majority of appointments on the proposed capital city Tourism Authority Board. After all, the entire district lies solely within the city's corporate boundaries, as do all the hotels that will generate the majority of hotel motel tax dollars for the proposed $200 million initiative. Unfortunately, some people are trying to cloud the issue of providing the best accountability and transparency to the citizens of Springfield. The primary responsibility of elected officials is to provide accountability and transparency for its citizens. As a policy issue, the city of Springfield has continually supported the convention center by providing $5 million to the last expansion. In addition, since 2011, the city has given the convention center $100,000 annually in hotel motel tax money for the entirety of the term of their 2032 bonds. The city also supported the transportation hub in numerous ways. One of which was to transfer city of Springfield property to the county along Adam Street with no strings attached. This decadesl long financial commitment by the city to the Bank of Springfield Center substantially overshadows the county's one-time gift of the property across the street and money for a feasibility study. Under the city's leadership, collaborate projects utilizing cooperation between multiple governing bodies and revenue streams have been done. We did that via the Shields Legacy Sports Complex. The city of Springfield provided the lion share

of tax revenue via sales, hotel, motel, and property taxes, and other taxing bodies pledged property taxes for this public private mega sports tourism project, which is like no other in Illinois. This was accomplished without creating a new special governmental body with a non-elected board that is not directly accountable to the public. The proposed non-elected board will have special powers like the condemnation of property. It is essential that the city of Springfield takes accountability and make it transparent of what happens to the Windham Hotel because other bordering governmental entities have a conflict of interest in the property. One elected official and private property owner is on record for wanting to tear down the Windham Hotel prior to its closing during our discussions of the Windham. And it's unfortunate that the Delta Marriott project didn't have enough alderman to support it and had the guts to support it. Otherwise, we'd have a better downtown today. Since over 80% of the tax revenue generated for this project would come exclusively from within the city of Springfield, our city elected officials should have the majority of the appointments on the proposed capital tourism board. We do not need people living outside the city prioritizing for us how city resources have been should be allocated within the city. That is what each of you are elected to do. I ask that each of you do what is right for the citizens of Springfield and support this resolution so without amendments so the resolution and the initiative can move forward with the best interest and accountability for the transparency for our residents. In summary, we all agree and support improving downtown Springfield, which is the heart of the city. The elected city council of Springfield must have a direct input and oversight of significant downtown developments which

use city tax resources to ensure the community's priorities are fully whoop sorry are fully met. Uh oh well I lost my last page. Anyway, the bottom line is we should you should as a governing body, you want to take the vote for that responsibility. You don't want to seed your authority to others. We do not need another animal control board like is currently in place with Sangaman County. All of you have complained about that. This is a duplication of that. One last thing, I'd like to thank uh Jennifer Alderman Nutariano for bringing up the SMEIA uh financial issues. That would explain why one previous board member came and had the idea of consolidating the tourism convention visitors bureau with the city of Springfield. It should be the reverse if it is done at all because the city is a driving economic force for not only the city as a capital but for the county.

Thank you. Thank you. All the citizens who have signed up to address the council were on amendment number one. We had a first and a second. We had discussion. Is there any further discussion before we take the vote on the amendment itself? Alderwoman Connley. I'm sorry, Mayor. I just want to be really clear. We are not the general assembly. We're not voting on this legislation, right?

The the amendment that we're voting on is simply to express support. The one thing that we know that we can all agree on, as as Alderwoman Purchase said, we can all agree on exp on supporting this expansion. I think we've made it very clear tonight and in previous conversations that that there are still issues of concern to our community and again I will encourage people this is in the general assembly. It is not a vote that we're taking. We don't we are not elected to the general assembly. We're in the city of Springfield. If you have concerns about the actions that the general assembly is taking, please reach out to your elected officials there. So, I am going to vote in support of this amendment because I believe this is the one thing that we can all agree on and I think it's really important that we express that support. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you. Excuse me. Signed up to speak. What's your name? What is your name? Megan Swanson. Not on the special one. Not for the special meeting. She said we haven't gone to the committee the whole meeting yet. That meeting is still coming. I I selected the special meeting when I signed up. I'm going to let the clerk pull your slip. Okay.

Okay. It looks like you just signed up one time. It does say in the subject matter starbond mega projects bill. Um so if you want to utilize your time now I'll allow it but then you can't speak at the committee meeting if you didn't sign up for it. I don't want to speak. Okay. Gotcha. No problem. Thank you for speaking up Miss Swanson. Let me just Can you give us one second so they can get their computers ready? Sorry. Oh, yeah. May I ask a question while we're waiting? We are talking about Senate Bill 34.99, right? We're talking about a resolution that was Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I

We don't vote on Senate Bill. No, no, no. But I understand that. Okay. They're ready for you, ma'am.

Thank you. Thank you so much for letting me speak. I am here because I do not understand why this process has been so hard. Why is the city not able to advocate for what we really want and need instead of what the legislature thinks we need? I have some ideas about it. And the first one is transparency. Even tonight as we're sitting here and listening to different aldermen speak about what's in this bill, you're saying uh everything is different. This is changed. There are amendments. There's a lot going on. What is in the record right now as of probably 6:30 tonight because I went back and checked was the Starbond language. It was the taxing body language. There is no amendment that has been submitted and that is registered and posted. So when you say that that's all out of it, you're talking about something that is not true. That is just factually not true. There is a severe lack of transparency. A bill like this should not come as a surprise to any of the people that will be affecting. So who's really behind this and who was in the room when it happened? When these decision questions have been asked, the mayor and her supporters portray themselves as just as surprised as everyone else about what's in the bill. We don't know what's in the bill. This is a shell bill right now. There's nothing in the bill. I don't know why we would support a bill that we have no idea what is in it. That's wild. If this was truly a surprise to the mayor and to everyone else, there's clearly been a fundamental breakdown of communication between the city, the county, and our legislature. The city is standing by and allowing the county, the t have a taxing body to take control of downtown. I can't make it

clear. I love Springfield. I love Springfield with all my heart and I support the expansion improvements to the Bank of Springfield Center. Facility needs it. The downtown needs it. I love downtown. But without any real input from the city, we know that this is not meeting our needs. We have a mayor and council members that rather push the responsibility for this onto Senator Turner, Representative Coffee, huge conflict of interest, and the Illinois General Assembly. They feel like we need to sit down, shut up, and take what's given to us and be happy for it. This highlights the failure of the city council to lead. This is a once in a generation opportunity for the city to revitalize a flagging downtown to create a venue that can host concerts, conventions, conferences, and to give our city something to be proud of. Several weeks ago, Alderman Williams tried to initiate a route for the city to advocate for what they need, what we need, the constituents, adequate representation on the board, and clear boundaries on what this bill will and will not allow. Recently, even Chairman Van Meter said that this bill was confusing and that there was some language that would need to be addressed before it passed. Yet, when our older people want to do the same thing, they're warned against micromanaging or conspiracy theories. Or my favorite, making Senator Turner so mad that she somehow will not help us. That's my favorite because that's ridiculous. She is a professional. She is not going to throw a tantrum because the city tells her what we need. It's insulting to refer to her that way like she doesn't have control of her emotions. She does. It makes me wonder what the people making these bunk excuses. Are you just providing yourselves cover for the day when things go bad for the city and the starbond district and this fails because you're too scared and weak to actually work with the county and state towards the changes that need to be made.

It seems that way. The good news is this. Senate Bill 3499 is sitting in committee. Amendments can be made. Compromises can be made. Clarity can be found. We can work together to do what's best for the whole city. We can make sure that the historically disenfranchised citizens in words two and three are clearly represented. We can communicate clearly with our community. No one in this room, even you guys up on the horseshoe, do not know what is in this bill. We need to communicate with the community about what is in it. We need to work with our downtown business and hotel owners throughout the city to make sure no one is being heard or left behind. And guess what, guys? There's no huge rush. This bill is sitting in committee in the end of sessions in two weeks. Focus on making it the best that you can for the city and pass it in veto session. Do it this fall. This is all worth doing, but only if we do it well. This is an opportunity for you all to make a positive lasting change in Springfield. You can do this. It's not hard.

That's it. We're going to allow a roll call vote on the amendment only. So, the roll call vote because I'll let the machines be for the final uh the roll call vote is for the amendment only. That was proposed. Amendment number one. Alderman Cox, yes. Alderman Gregory, no. Alderman Williams, no. Alderman Rockford, no. Alderwoman Purchase, no. Alderwoman Notriano, no. Alderman Carlson, hi. Alderwoman Connley, hi. Alderman Donalan, hi. Alderman Hanower, I. So, it's five to five, correct? Yes. I vote I as well to break the tie.

So the resolution passes. Amendment number one for the resolution passes. Sorry. Correct. Okay. So now we have the resolution itself that needs to be voted on. Is there any discussion from the alders prior to that vote and you'll use your machines for that vote? Mayor Alderman we uh put the amended version on final passage. Second. A motion and a second to put the amended version of the resolution on final passage. Um all those in favor would say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Nay. So we say final machines or have to put on to put it on final. Yeah. We'll take a vote still. Yeah. As amended. This is not

So it's on. So we'll take a vote. I Sorry. Go ahead. Well, we we already had a motion in a second to put it on and then it was amended. All right. Never mind. We already had that. We didn't need it. We didn't need it. We don't need that cuz it it was already it was moved and amended to go on final passage. Okay. And or it was moved and seconded to go on final passage. No, she needs to vote. And it was amended. And so now it's back to the original. You're the boss. I thought that we had to do now. Now we need final vote. Yeah. All right. So this would be the for the resolution as amended. Uh all those in favor would vote yes as amended. All those opposed would vote no on the resolution. Voting will now be open.

So are we missing? Oh no is not here. Alderman Donalan. How do you vote? Alderman Donan votes I. I. So the motion passes. You want to wait? Uh because it's five to four. So it takes six votes to pass. Okay. So with five voting in favor of the mayor but it not passing the mayor's law to vote. Okay. What? So isn't alder woman not just I assume she's I don't have a mouse. I was out. There we go. Can you say it again? Corporation council. You want to speak that in the microphone so they all hear first. Sorry.

Sure. So the the v So the vote right now is 5 to four. So half of the alders have voted in favor of the resolution, but the resolution will take six votes to pass. So the mayor is allowed to vote. And do we need Alderwoman Neutrio? Doesn't matter. I think she's left. She left. Doesn't matter. Be still to be six votes. You just need 86 votes. So we have six because Alderman Donland voted yes. Yes. But I understand alderman's gone. It she votes no. It's still six votes. That's nice. So it fails.

Does the resolution fail then? passes at six. Yes. So the motion passes with six voting yes, four voting no, one not present for the for the

And so did everyone speak? Sorry, mayor. Just for clarification, Alderman Donan voted yes on that also. You are correct. Yes. That's how we got to six. So was that all the citizens? Yes. For so motion for adjournment. Second. All those in favor. Mr. We've got a All those in favor first say I. Those opposed, nay. The eyes have it. We're going to take Yeah, let's get back about 10 till. It's 7:47. Head 10. We're gonna take a break because they do need to redo the mics and the recording. Sir, whenever they're ready, they're

We're on the appointed time of 5:30 and when it is stand by. You're not on yet. The rest of us are, but for There you go. You're on. Having the time of 7:54, I'd like to call the Tuesday, May 12th, 2026 committee the whole to order. Please, would you please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Madame Clerk, would you please take the role? Yes. Alderman Cox here. Alderman Gregory

here. Alderman Williams. Alderman Rockford here. Alderwoman Purchase here. Alderwoman Notriano. Alderman Carlson here. Alderwoman Connley. She's She's out right now. She'll be back. Okay. Alderman Donan here. Alderman Hanower here. All right. Chair, a quorum is present. Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion to allow Alderman Donan to join remotely. Okay. Second. All those in favor? All those in favor? Thank you. Uh I I would accept a motion of approval of the April 28, 2026. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I.

Uh Madame Treasur, Mr. Treasure, I'm sorry. You lost your hair.

Thank you. Alderman Rockford. Uh treasures report corporate fund for the month of April. Beginning balance 62,430,881. We took in total receipts of 10,686,241. We had dispersements in the month of April totaling 12,586,597 which left the corporate fund ending balance in the month of April at $60,530,550. The ending general fund balance includes $3,229,089 which is the April ending balance for ARPA money. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Catcher. Um budget management, anything we have to approve that.

Oh approval. So move. Any any discussion? All in favor? I thank you. Um any are there any I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, now the ordinance is tabled. Do we have any ordinances tabled or committee? I don't think so. Tabled. No.

Okay. Uh, we move for committee consideration ordinances, please. CWLP 2026223, an ordinance approving a professional service agreement with BHMG Engineers Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $360,000 and authorizing supplemental appropriation for engineering services in relation to the Lincoln Capital Land LLC solar farm project E003 for the Office of Public Utilities. Move for consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Eyes have it. Thank you.

2026224, an ordinance authorizing a payment to Itron Incorporated in the amount not to exceed 100,53812 for services in relation to meter reading data for the Office of Public Utilities. Move consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I got it. 2026 225, an ordinance approving payment to Advance Utility Systems Corporation, a division of N. Harris Computer Corporation in the amount not to exceed $664,391.89 for annual software support and maintenance for a two-year term for Infinity Customers Information System CIS for Office of Public Utilities. Move consent.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Eyes have it. 2026226, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of a 2026 Ford T350 cargo van from Landmark Ford Incorporated in the amount not to exceed 63,112 under state contract number Boss 4P28544 the Office of Public Utilities. Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

I have it. 2026 227, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of a 2026 Ford F350 truck from Landmark Ford Incorporated in the amount not to exceed $72,874 under state contract number Boss 4P23568 for the Office of Public Works. Move a consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I haven't. 2026 228 an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $312,372 from from unappropriated fund balance to accommodate FY2026 electric pilot contributions for the office of public utilities for consent.

Any discussion? All in favor? I have it. Public Works 2026 229 a resolution for temporary closure of a portion of Illinois State Route 97 Jefferson Street from 9th to Fifth Street for the annual Halloween parade to be held October 24th, 2026 for the Office of Public Works. Move to consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I have it. 2026 230. A resolution for temporary closure of a portion of Illinois State Route 97 Jefferson Street from 5th to 9th Street for the annual Christmas parade to be held on December 5th, 2026 for the Office of Public Works. Motion for consent. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? I. 2026 231, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of a 2026 International Tandem axle dump truck from Rush Truck Centers of Illinois Incorporated in an amount of $219,567 and authorizing a supplemental appropriation from unappropriated fund under state contract 24416 CMS boss 4P75582 for the Office of Public Works. Move to consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Oh, I'm sorry. Alderwoman Connley.

Thank you. Um, if the director could just come up real quickly, I I don't remember if this was in the budget or if this is replacing something that we didn't have planned. I believe it was on fire. It caught fire. Oh, okay. Apologies, director. This is the one that we we have that caught fire

on the sad day of the 28th of January, 2026 at approximately 8:30 in the morning while the street department was cleaning trucks uh after a several day uh snow removal event. Uh one of our gentlemen went out to fire up uh one of our dump trucks. Uh at that moment it uh began start it started rough. It was running even more roughly. Uh smoke began to come in through the vents into the cab. The cab was filled. He exited the cab, called for help. Several of his fellows came with fire extinguishers, attempted to put the fire out. They were unable to do that. We called our uh colleagues at the Springfield Fire Department. They arrived. Uh it was consumed in the fire. The fire was put out. No one was hurt. Uh the motor was uh was destroyed. The forward compartment was destroyed. And the cab was destroyed as well. And it needs to be replaced. Do we need a moment of silence for this?

We've already had one, sir, but I appreciate your good wishes. We We do. We do. Finish that. So, thank you. I just wanted to be really clear this because this is a larger purchase. Yes. And while we would love to be adding new new trucks like this, um this was this was an unexpected addition. Yes, ma'am. And it's replacing a truck that was how old? Uh it was one of the older ones we had. I can't off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you how old it was. That's how I want it listed on my gravestone, too. Okay. Thank you very much, director. Thank you, director. Any more any more discussion? All in favor?

2026 232, a resolution authorizing the execution of a letter of understanding between the city of Springfield and the state of Illinois for the 6th Street Road expansion from I-55- I72 interchange to 900 north of Stevenson Drive for the Office of Public Works. Concept second. Motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor? I I have it.

2026 233 a resolution notifying the state of Illinois Department of Transportation that motor fuel tax funds in the amount of $45,62 may be used for preliminary and design engineering services PE1 for the 11th Street and South Grain Avenue safety improvements project MFTt section 23-00497-00-TL for the office of public work. Motion for consent. Second motion second. Any discussion? All in favor? Eyes have it.

2026 234, an ordinance authorizing a supplemental agreement with Hansen Professional Services Incorporated to perform phase one preliminary engineering services for the reconfiguration of the South Grand Avenue and 11th Street intersection and mill and overlay of South Grand Avenue from the east side of 9inth Street to east of 11th Street. MFTt section number 23-0000497-00-TL in the amount of $45,62 and a total amount not to exceed $315,062 for the Office of Public Works. Motion for consent. Second.

Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? 2026 235 an ordinance approving the variance request of section 153.158 B2 pertaining to access to a private road for lot one of Ro subdivision for the office of public works consent second motion is second any discussion all in favor eyes have it 2026 236 an ordinance approving the location and sketch map of Ro subdivision for the office of public works move consent Second. All in favor? I'm sorry. Any discussion? All in favor? I have it. No discussion.

General city business 2026 238. An ordinance to increase the number of class D liquor licenses by one for a Toz Realy Investments LLC DBA Crowns Pub and Grill located at 2690 South Dirkson Parkway. Move consent. Second. Motion in a second. Any discussion? All in favor? I 2026 239 an ordinance to decrease the number of class B liquor licenses by one due to the sale of business by Beline Properties LLC DBA Beline mark number 10430 located at 430 Stanford Avenue consent second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Eyes have it. 2026 240 an ordinance amending chapter 82 section 82.03 02 of the 1988 City of Springfield Code of Ordinances as amended to increase the penalties for parking violations. Motion for consent. Motion for debate. Motion for debate. Do we have a second? Sure. Second. Sure. Doesn't need it. But yeah. Oh, he doesn't need. Okay. Got a motion for debate.

And I I'll just say that I put this on debate because I'm, as I said before, I'm not in fan of of um raising anything. Um, I think our downtown parking I represent um portions of downtown. We have parking as well. And I can tell you, we just got hit with with private lots being charged and stuff. And I can tell you that some of those lots, they shouldn't be, you know, they should probably let people park on them for free. They haven't they don't maintain them. They don't pick up the trash on them. I deal with it. I look at it every day. Um, so and and and you know, as far as raising them, I you know, over the last five years, we have gotten free money out of those meters. So, we should take that free money and we should put it back into some digital signs and and and some digital um parking um um things. They have one in St. Louis. It's a you know, nice little thing. You walk up, you put your license plate in. It can still be free for two hours and then automatically, you know, charge them. They can opt in to to park longer. We have to start moving our community into the 21st century. So, you know, that's something that I'll be looking at these things. It's not like our our woman has not heard this from me before. Um but but that's what I I I really truly believe that we take that free money that we've been collecting since 2025. It's been free. People have put in hunter I think we're down at low at what $40 $50,000. But over the last five years since since co it's been free supposed to been free and we've been collecting that money ever since. Um and we should turn around and put it back into um our parking situation. color code, make it easier for people. That's just my opinion. Thank you as a representative of downtown.

Thank you, Alderman. That it, alderman Carlson,

I won't take long. I mean, I think we may talk about this next week, but I mean, parking is still free as we all know and all all we're trying to do is is to to go after, you know, violators. I think we all hear we all hear that there's no parking downtown. Well, I don't know if we can have it both ways. First of all, we know state employees, as we've talked about tonight, are not back in the office. And so, I think we need the turnover of these parking places in front of our downtown businesses. Um, and the only way, unfortunately, is just going to get the attention of people who park in these spaces. We've got to, you know, we we've got to raise the fee and the cost of uh of not moving their space. I mean, some of these people are just, hey, parking down there $10 all day or $20 all day. We need to have the turnover of these vehicles and and you know, I don't know. I mean, there there are probably some a few state employees down here, some city employees down here. I think along with this, I think it's going to be incumbent upon us to make sure uh uh government employees are not parking in the street. We have a free ramp right across the street. Um, you know, it's it's I got downtown a little bit late today. Oh, man. I usually try to get here about 4 o'clock.

Got here about 4:20. I can tell you one thing. When I get here at 4, I got to find a little place. I get here at 4:15 or 4:20, I can get right on Monroe Street. Um, so I suspect, uh, you know, I think we know who those people are. So, thank you. Thank you, Alderman. Uh, Alderwoman Purchase.

Thank you, Chair. And um I will echo some of what um Alderman Carlson just stated because I and it's not like Alderman Gregory hasn't had this conversation with me. I told him the intent was for the people in the daytime after 5:00. Parking is completely free. Um most of our local citizens are not down there during the daytime. So we know who is parking in these parking spaces who are taking up to parking spaces by not parking within their per within the lines that's required for them to park in. And then I've attended multiple um alliance meetings that we have with our downtown businesses. And I have my DSI executive director Jay here today who also would speak up to some of this um that we've came to this solution. And also too, this is a problem and it's everywhere. We have to do gradual steps in increasing fines, increasing anything because the cost of living is going up, the cost of wages are going, everything goes up. So when we're doing the increase instead of hitting it 13 years later, if we was doing it a little bit at a time, I know it's a saying that I use. You have a big elephant and you taking a bite at one time. You can't eat the whole elephant at one time. We got to stop not doing things gradually. We got to stop waiting 10, 15, 20, 30 years to do a increase. So then it feels like it's big. It's just like people with their rent increases. If you wait five years to increase somebody rent, it it's a hard time on them. But if you do it gradually every year, it's that 10 or $20. It's okay to them. They understand what's going on. So I will be in favor of this, but I do respect my my counterpart who is also representing downtown as well and looking at his portion of it. So I respect that he will be voting no on this. Thank you.

Yes. So, so to be so to be clear, I you know,

$10 more is not going to move the needle. None. I mean, if you want to move people and and just get them, charge them $100 then. You like rais everybody like raisin stuff. Charge them $100 more then for ticket. I I'm not going to vote for it cuz I'm not in favor of of that. I think we have to fix the issue. People don't know it's free and it's not free. It's free for two hours and then you get charged. That's what we're trying to raise, right? Um, so I I'll just say this. Um, Director Fukes, can you can you next week give us the amount of of um this situation happens? Can can you um from our parking enforcement, how many times we got,

you know, not tickets, right? But, you know, give us some some idea of where we're at. Are these, you know, five minutes after tickets? Are these hours tickets? And and how many are we having this? I think that will help us um um you know, figure out what we're doing. But um again, I I I'm I'm real big on improving our our our situation so people know. I I work down there. I see people get out of the car. Our tourists, they get out, there's no signs, there's nothing. So, fix that first, then let's see how it works, and then come back and raise the fines and stuff. But people don't know, how are they supposed to know? So, that's just my take on it. I appreciate everybody. Thank you. Uh Alderwoman Purchase,

thank you. I do agree on that with Alderman Gregory about more signage being put up and I've been a huge advocate of even when we put the bags on the meters to put what days that it's unavailable and the time frame. So just educating the community and then also just following the rules. I know Alderman Gregory shared with me somebody's car got towed and I said well why did it get towed? How many days had it been sitting there? We just don't go towing people cars to sitting in a legit spot and following rules. So something has happened for it to take place. So, we just got to follow the rules too as well. Absolutely. Absolutely. Alderman Han,

thank you. Um I know in the past we have looked at uh when when the meters were the and I I appreciate us taking the meters out. Yeah. Um we way back and I don't Sean, I don't know if you were on the council at the time, but but we were told that the meters are in such bad shape we cannot repair them anymore. Right.

And so they looked they they did a study or they had they got a RFP or something to look at bringing in um you know the kiosk or the smart meters and all that. And it was great. You you could do a lot of things. You could see where people are you know what where where open spaces are and that. And that was all fine and dandy until we got the cost. And the cost was crazy. And then for every ticket we wrote, we had to give I can't remember. It was like the 20% or something crazy to that. And if we if we wrote them in and we wrote them a more ticket, you know, if they didn't pay, they still got the company got that. I And in the end, it was never brought forward.

I I do agree. I like the kiosk idea. What this does, though, is once we get the meters out, Yeah. we I I agree. We got to have signs that say this is a 2hour period. I I agree with that. I I I think that that's important and and you you people just have to know in two hours they got to move.

Um we need to raise our prices though because let's face it, the we're paying our our traffic wardens a lot more money, you know, based on union raises and that we're we their salaries are have gone up. So, I do think we need to to to raise it. I agree with you that it who knows if it's going to really make a big difference, but when they get a couple more, you know, if you're sitting there all day and you're getting three or four tickets, that's going to make a difference. It's it's it's it's makes a bigger difference than paying $30 a month or $50 a month for a parking spot. You know, parking lot of for some people money down there now ain't tripping. But I do I I will just say that I look I would have no problem voting for depending on the cost of of of like the kiosk or whatever if we wanted to go that route. But right now I I'm I'm happy with the free 2hour parking or whatever and and us going forward. I do agree I think we do need more s signage. So thank you.

Thank you uh Alderman Cox. Uh, real briefly, I agree that um there probably need to be some increases, especially, you know, I'm like really happy to see parking for persons with a disability jump to 500 bucks. Um,

those those violations absolutely need to be a big hit to the wallet. Some of them though, maybe we don't need to double just because of the types of situations, which is why Director Fuks, it will be it would be great if you could get us some some kind of stats on what type of tickets are typically written. Um, how much how much we're actually making off of tickets now. Um, I mean, money's money. we need to know about it. Um, and then also it will help a lot, I think, just cutting uh our current meters down. That's going to help just because people won't have anywhere to waste their money. They'll understand it's free. Um, but anyway, that's all I've got. I appreciate the time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Alder Carl.

Sorry, chair. One more by the Apple. We're talking about, you know, penalties here and glass half empty. I want to I want to finish on a positive note. To me, this is pro downtown. This is pro business. We get cars in and out so people can come downtown and enjoy the shopping that they have. So to me, this is pro downtown and uh shop owners. Yeah. Thank you. And you know, and just to finish up, is it habitual people, the the fenders that come down and and it's the same people over and over? And I don't know if there's a way to track that kind of stuff, but is it the same people, you know, pulling the same annex to, you know, sitting there for six hours a day, eight hours a day, you know, maybe stiffen it up on those folks, you know. Anyway, uh we had a motion for debate. Uh, all in favor?

I Eyes have it. Thank you. 2026 241, an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship payment of $30,000 to Junth Incorporated for the 2026 Junth celebration to be held no later than June 20th, 2026 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. Um, motion for consent. Um they the the the group is in the back and they have waited all night long and I wouldn't ask chair they don't want to speak. All right. I'm just making sure but this this is let's keep going.

This is I thank the um thank the mayor. We did have a good conversation. We have put this in the budget annually. So it will um continue on. If Scott was here I would press on him to make sure that gets out earlier. So good job over the years. I appreciate everyone. Thank you. Oh you is over there. He heard you. Wow. He's still here. Very good. Scott. All right. Thank you. Only thing we want to say is we're expecting wine from a certain somebody. She knows that. Oh. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Thank you for your hard work. Motion and a second. Uh discussion. All in favor? I have it.

2026 242. to an ordinance authorizing a 2-year extension agreement under RFPHR24-32 and authorizing an additional payment of $94,662 and a total amount not to exceed $277,662 with IO solutions to furnish, develop, and administer entrylevel exams for the police and fire departments and a lateral officer exam for police for the office of human resources. Move consent. Second. Uh, no discussion. All in favor? I.

I have it. 2026 243, an ordinance authorizing a two-year extension agreement under RFPHR24-33 and authorizing an additional payment of $126,038 and a total amount not to exceed $57,388 with IO solutions to furnish, develop, and administer promotional exams for the police and fire departments and a lateral officer exam for police for the office of human resourc. Any discussion? All in favor? Eyes have it.

2026 244. An ordinance authorizing a contract with Springfield Project for the period beginning March 1, 2026 through February 28th, 2028 to support a comprehensive and cohesive strategic plan for economic development in Springfield and authorize an annual payment in the amount of $50,000 subject to the city council approval of the city's fiscal year budget. Much for a debate real quick. Oh, debate. Debate. Yes. Just real quick. Yes. I I just need to gain understanding what we do. Um Mr. Mr. We got a second. So my my only question is um Go ahead, Dominic. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. I I just I guess this question would be for the mayor. Mayor, I I see in the description it is a comprehensive and cohesent strategic plan. What may I ask? What is it that we are looking for from the Springfield project? I'm going to let Mr. Watson answer that because he and I both worked on this contract together and he's going to give you a presentation.

Yeah. So, to simplify it for the sake of time and I just FYI, I did have um have uh the clerk pass out um presentation. So, if there's any reference that that um you want to make as it relates to that, please let me know. Um so, I'll simplify it really quick. Um it's to supplement uh funding for the things that we're already doing at a high level. some of which are outlined in the in that um in this presentation. Um just to give you kind of an overview, we have an incubator program for um for underserved underresourced businesses. We have an accelerator that we recently launched um in conjunction with SIU system. We oversee a cultural district that we're looking to figure out how to develop and elevate the cultural district. We're also doing working with the with the re-entry population to do uh record record sealing and expungement. And then we're working with youth as well.

Thank you. I I'm not trying to hold you bel you. So So what you're doing and and in and the the text comprehensive and cohesive strategic plan, it it doesn't seem to match up a little bit um for me when I when I think about um you guys doing a co comprehensive and cohesive strategic plan. Um, I I I think of that being for the whole community and and I'm not saying that part of your what you do is not for the whole community. So, you know, I I looked at this and I seen this in there um Miss Mayor and and I would like to just address I know last week we had a veto in in the um introduced and we haven't taken a vote on it yet and I've been really really thinking about that. So, you know, Dominic Springfield Project and his staff is a um community development corporation and you know, I work really really me and those who support me work really really hard on the Starbond thing that we did in the district and that that that um um presentation and everything and you know it got vetoed. You know, I won't say feeling but it got vetoed. So, so I would just introduce a a new replacement ordinance and I will send that to you, um, Mr. Murdoch. Um, but I just want to read this. So, honorable mayor, in response to your agenda, item 2026 176, um, I'm going to be submitting a new levy district redevelopment ordinance. Um the ordinance in question were originally adopted um by a city council with a 90 vote authorizing starbond feasibility study tied to BOS expansion concept and the broader history across the tracks redevelopment organ uh redevelopment initiative. Um it's also my understanding that based on your u veto action while there is not a disagreement on the goal of redevelopment itself there are things regarding the district structure and

boundaries um implement uh implementation authority between taxing bodies and financing mechanism as originally proposed. Um those concerns was communicated to me and asked to change. If I change those things then then you know what what what um we were trying to accomplish shouldn't shouldn't matter. Um, so what I would like to propose is um the new levy district. It plays into our historical context um of of black businesses and and and and black success um being on the west side of the tracks and was all burnt down as we know from the 1908 race. And we're going about to build over all of that by the way. Um so accordingly I'm going to be submitting a new levy district replacement ordinance for that redevelopment ordinance and it's just a simple framework. It maintains the original um redevelopment intent. Um it preserves our history across the tracks activation goals. It shifts implementation into a locally controlled TIFF based model and allows immediate phase execution without dependency on external financing alignments. The boundaries are similar, but they will not encompass all of downtown. when I wanted downtown. So, I ain't about to do all of that, but it will go down 11 Street um um to um cook pick up Route History as well as my businesses there in in W 2 as well. Um this district that that that I'm proposing has 30 plus existing operating commercial business. Um there's active sales tax generation in in this in this district. Um there's plenty of vacant land in this district. Um, and and we have plenty of entertainment that we want to improve on in this district. Um, and and I know it'll have to be done in phases, but I just want to give you a framework um um of the what this district will include. It's already a tiff district. Um,

we definitely want to use on on new improvements just like what we was going to do with the star bonds brows. we were going to use future increments, sales tax increments to go back into those projects. So, we want to consider that too for our for our district. We also want to consider some hotel motel tax to come our way too off of visit stays, off of um um um successful tourism drivers um and be a part of that and that be reinvested back into our projects um and of course private um capital investment for build out and operations. So I I just want to be clear that this proposal is not about rejection of of of my original uh concept, but it is a continuation of the same goal under the structure that is more immediately uh implemented. So there's there's you know and and mayor we we met briefly um well not briefly I I held you for a little bit but um there's about seven different projects that we talked about um Junth and their annual um allowment was one of them um among some other things. But what I would like to do and part of my amendment is I want to shift that $75,000 to this ordinance to make it 125 because if he's developing a comprehensive and cohesive strategic plan for wars 2 and three, he should be funded correctly. Um we we fund Sang County Growth Alliance to do the whole city and we give them $250,000 a year and we should give this community development organization the right tools to really to really perform and do his duties in in our community. Um, currently there is a TIFF application submitted with Miss Amy for um some funding um from from Bourbon Street Rhythm and Ribs and and that is one of the um first projects that I would like for him to help out on. Um they they're doing a good job as well as the Lincoln Color Home. I'll be asking for ordinance for that um to come forth as well. Uh and these are all in this district box um as well as some other things that

that I will put in the ordinance. But um so that that would be my goal and that is my amendment and I will send that to you Mr. Murdoch for next week's preparation. Don't want to put more work on you but I definitely want the community to know that the funding that you're that you receiving from the city is going to go to good hands. There's also opportunity across the street from here on a city own lot. We're about to redo South Grand and things of that nature. That's a city-owned lot. there's opportunity for us to do our food court, entrepreneurial court, similar to the to the um rail yard. I love that place. I always go there and we want to do that. We can either do it there or we can do it um down by the hub. They're advertising for commercial space and things of that nature. But let me let me let me say this. Why? um because we have so many entrepreneurs in our community that engage in these activities that need a home and and and we should be cultivating that and we should be doing that. It's right across the street from where they specialize in incubation and you know I would love for Dominic and Springfield Project and their staff to really look to see if that's feasible. Yes, I know that there'll probably have to be some type of environmental study on that. I know it was a old gas station, may have some tanks under there, but um if we're talking about beautifification of of South Grand and the things that's going to enter into downtown into the BOS expansion, um our community needs the attention as well. Um I'm I'm not like other other areas. I'm not sitting back waiting on nobody to do nothing for our community. I'm trying to push the initial. I'm trying to come with plans um for our community. And I think we put together something really, really good for our community with history across the tracks. I think everybody recognizes from it being nine and0 that it's really really really a good idea to bring extra tourism to our community. Um and and you know we have some tools in place um um to do those things to start some of those things out and keep um working with our state partners to deliver for our community.

So thank you sir. Any more discussion? Okay. This is a motion for debate, right? Yes. Okay. Uh all in favor? I Thank you, Mr. Watson. Thank you. Unfinished business. Uh, unfinished business. Next is unfinished business. Alderwoman purchase.

Thank you, Chair. Um, Alderman Gregory, I know you just you had to say what you needed to say, but when you say that we're not wanted downtown, you got multiple black businesses downtown. So, we are wanted down there. But it goes back into a little bit of what you said today that I'm very disappointed in. three of the black businesses black

had to put out a small fire in the 1908 landmarker today. You don't know about that. And I could have did a video and put it on Facebook, but I didn't want to. And it was us taking pictures of water and pouring it into there and uh Miss Linda from uh Vintage was right there to say they're starting it back up again. But what I noticed was that on either side the city planters wasn't touched at all. But that was intentionally touched. And you're talking about a street that got three black businesses on it.

Over the weekend, we had um people who came from out of town. They parked as far down from uh Alamo to be able to go to an establishment that was right there. Didn't have no issues. Didn't have no issues with parking. Wasn't nothing touched. But for me to see that today, it was very disappointing. So, I would like to ask um I know we have our assistant police chief right in the back and I would like to ask um assistant chief Leech to have our NPOS's to walk around a little bit during the daytime to be more vigilant as well as it's our jobs as downtown businesses. When you see something, say something because this was intentional. This wasn't an accident. We have cameras

and we don't Yes, we do. Right there on the corner. So, I'm going to ask to review them as well. This wasn't an accident. Yeah. And the fact that it was a planter on each side and those are city planters planters and they weren't touched at all. But that 1908 landmarker was touched is very disappointing and I'm very upset about it. And we don't need to call the Springfield Fire Department to come out because all three of us came together to make sure that it was getting put out.

Appreciate y'all. We're one month away from Junth with everything that's going on in this nation right now. We need to be sticking together. We need to be coming together and that is unacceptable. And so I would just ask that it's on us as businesses, it's on us that people who live down there every day, people who are walking, when you see something, say something. When you see somebody doing something that's not appropriate, say something as well. And make sure you call and report it. And I'm very accessible. I'm around walking downtown a lot. I walked down here to work today and getting ready to walk back in the dark back to my my place that I stay in. So I I'm not afraid neither as well to speak up about this. But we are wanted downtown. We are sticking together and I wanted to acknowledge that that that just took place before I came here to work.

Yeah. Tonight. Yes. Literally. Make sure we get Thank you. Thank you. Old woman cottonley. I I just want to say alder woman purchase you're absolutely right unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. And I I hope um we get that video to the police department. And was was the was it damaged badly? No, it was you you saw a lot of smoke, but one of our entities, they kept bringing out water and pouring it in there and I said, "This is not something we need to call the fire department about, but I will speak on it." And it literally just happened. So, I was getting ready to come out and walk down here. Unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it up though. Thank you. Thank you,

Holder. Connley, that that was all my Any old business? Any new business? Of course.

Sorry, got to switch hats again. I got my notes. So, this weekend downtown, we have four major events. We have the kickoff for the Old Capitol Farmers Market. It opens up on the 27th season this Saturday at 8:00 a.m. which I always like to brag about. We're at the downstate's largest producer only farmers market and we have tons of people who come out. Sometimes it's over a thousand people on Saturday mornings just out. Oh, Jay said it's way more than that, but I'm making sure I don't misquote, but I know for sure it's around that amount. And then we also have the Lincoln Library summer book sale that starts at 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. We got the Old Capitol Art Fair that opens up at 10:00 a.m. for both Saturday and Sunday and features are over 130 artists and they have some amazing unique items. I know I have like a welded butterfly and a flower in my yard just from that. So, I love supporting local. And then we have the Springfield Pride 2026. Um we have the parade that runs at noon. Um, and then we also go all the way I'm sorry, it runs at 11:30, but we go from noon to 10:00 p.m. with live performances, food truck, kids activity, and a variety of local vendors. So, there's plenty to do this weekend. I encourage my colleagues and the whole entire city is welcome to all of these events. It's free of charge and it will be um it it's normally very packed, too. And I'm just praying that the weather is good. We had the fat ass 5K last weekend and it was amazing. The weather was great on Saturday. Over 3,700 entries. When they got ready to start at the starting line, it started at 5th in um I'm sorry, it started at 6 in Adams and people were as packed to 6 in Washington before the start took off. That's how well it was well attended. Um these proceeds go to our nonforprofits. So, I'm very excited to see what the

numbers was generated from this year. We have things going on. So, everyone, please pay attention and everyone are welcome to these events. Thank you. And I hope to see y'all this weekend because I'mma be out. Don't pay for parking downtown. I tell anybody I see don't put the don't feed the meters. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Alderwoman. Alderwoman Connley. Thank you. And I I knew Alderwoman Purchase was going to bring up all the downtown stuff, but I just want to reiterate, I've had a number of people reach out. But I'm I'm I I love I love this weekend. I love this weekend. We have so much going on. We have this our our Pride Festival is is big. It's loud. It's fun. I see families and

just a wide range of people coming to that. I'm really excited for this. I just wanted to I knew you were going to say it. I I was I was going to wait and let you do your wonderful introduction, but really encourage people to get downtown this weekend. We've got Pride, the the the farmers market. The only thing I'm going to say, bring your walking shoes. It's worth walking to everything. Um, Alderman Greg, you talk about walk I when I work downtown, I would frequently park um across 11 Street because I was I was too broke to pay for a parking spot. But you know what? It's it's a city. We are a city worth walking around and and there's a lot going on this weekend to walk to go see. And if you can get from all of these events, you're going to have a wonderful weekend. Looking forward to it. We do have a lot in the city. I know some people have already expressed concerns to me about the the road work going on. We're going to pivot. We're going to be flexible. We're going to enjoy this. So, but thank you, Alderoman. I I knew you would do a fabulous job. I just had to add add a little applause because I'm looking forward to this a lot. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, woman. Um, now it's time for citizens. Joe McMinnon. Joe, I'm gone. No, Joe. Yeah, he just um Marbel Cruz Hine not here. Rosanna Pledo, I'm still here by the way. Yeah, I Yeah, we'll yell at you. You're next.

Down to 350. Well, I already gave you guys a heck of a time earlier, but I mean I I think the thing we really need to realize is we've we've briefly touched on the national level. There is a real and concentrated effort to reduce black voting power in this country. People died for that. People bled for that. People marched for that. Most of you have been alive for that. That's not a distant memory. The reality is is even if you want to deny that, a backdoor move to usurp two black aldermen in districts that were dearly underrepresented to the point that we had a court decree creating this aldermanic group because of it. Here we are years later and what are we at? Ask yourself that. You have a white majority GOP controlled board and don't take that as a race issue. It's recognition though that those are not the people whose rights are being usurped. It's not their voting power being reduced. And if you don't believe that that's happening, if you think I'm ringing the alarm bells for ridiculous ideas, go look at the Tennessee legislature. They didn't even wait a day after that Supreme Court decision to completely eradicate the only black majority district. This isn't me guessing, guys. This is reality. What you're watching is a usurping of power of two gentlemen who've worked very hard for their wards and not only were they not consulted, but they were left out until they forced their way in. What they're asking you guys to do is respect that as alderman to have the city included in those discussions. Nobody's against the Bank of Springfield expansion just like nobody's against Doris Turner. I saw Doris at my precinct committee person meeting last week. She's not mad at me. We're not having an argument. that we're adults having a discussion about legislation. The reality is is if that legislation is

changing, you guys should be more interested in taking an active and ardent role in protecting the city's interests. I don't care what county wants. County is the kind of place that got us into the Sonia Massie situation through their administrative failures. So, you'll pardon me if something that took a Massie commission and now a mental health board and numerous other things that are going to come from their failures to do anything proper with the county. Now, I'm supposed to trust them with my downtown. An entire zip code. Why don't we just draw a tiff around it? Give that parking lot and Bank of Springfield a tiff. Let them have it. Give them the money from it. Let them build the expansion. We'd all love an expansion. Again, nobody's against bringing people here, but the idea that tourism is going to sustain downtown as opposed to say renovating the window into multi-level units, all of them, not hotel rooms. Bring in the hotel we're talking about right now. Turn that into highdensity housing. What's that called? Permanent downtown residence. Guys, you want to get real crazy? I'll borrow this from a conversation I just had. Why don't we turn the Hilton into a UIS housing unit? Why don't we bring some of those university students downtown and get a flavor of champagne since we keep talking about them? The simple fact is is this has been done elsewhere and you guys are missing the easy stuff. We're going to hand over a whole zip code to downtown for the maybe oh well he might not use your sales tax. I don't trust Van Meter and neither should you. He's not your party. He's not your people. He doesn't work for council. He works for his board and you should be very suspicious of the idea that he wants to leave you guys sitting on the outside watching because we do have good ideas that could change things. I'm really curious and I'll be honest here. What happened to that city planner who got hired in December? What does she think about this? Does she think this is a good idea to hand over an entire zip

code based on the idea of a publicly funded private hotel? I I sincerely doubt that. And if I if that is the case, if she's like, "Yeah, this is a banger idea." You should probably fire her because any city planner who's going to tell you you should hand over things to an entirely different body that's not even elected that you have no say in who's appointed, that doesn't make any sense. Ralph, you got elected, Brad. You got elected. Jeff got appointed. I'll leave him out of this. The idea is though is people wanted you here, right? Your constituents wanted you here representing their interests. Nobody gets to do that for this cataport. Nobody's going to vote these people in. How do we even remove them? I mean, I think that's the idea. We have a governing body that could improve downtown right here in front of us. You guys just got to start thinking out of the box rather than hoping for Superman to swoop in and save us. Because I'll be honest with you, that's not a solution. Hoping for this golden egg approach is not realistic city planning. That is not long-term building. And it is absolutely not the kind of thing that makes people go, "Wow, this is great leadership. I'm really glad that we're going to hand things over to another body to handle things instead of the people I elected." Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah L. Well, she left. Vanessa Knox, also Robert Frasier. My god, thank god you're here, Robert. I was going to be like, please don't make me say in a row.

Thanks for hanging, Robert. I love y'all.

Everybody. I love everybody. Good evening. Um, tonight I stand here humbly and grateful uh and hopeful for our city. Here I hold two certificates and these are certificates uh that represent more than completing a program. They represent something much larger. It is an intentional effort by the city of Springfield to open doors, build relationships, and create opportunities that strengthen the future of our entire community. I want to sincerely thank Mayor Busher, thank you. And her administration for recognizing that investing in people is one of the strongest investments that the city can make. I want to sincerely thank Oh, read that part. Too often conversations are about underserved communities focused only on problems. Tonight, I want to focus on progress, partnership, and possibility. The Springfield Minority Business Institute was is important because it does not simply hand out information. It creates access. It creates exposure. It creates relationships. And for many entrepreneurs and nonfor-profit leaders, leader uh relationships are often the bridge between surviving and truly growing. I especially want to recognize Ethan Posey, our director of community relations, a black male servant as an important leadership position within this administration. His presence matters, his representation matters, visibility matters, and his leadership matters. But beyond the title, what matters most is the willingness to engage people to listen to help bid pathways forward. Ethan represents the idea that our city can continue moving forward toward inclusion, professionalism,

collaboration, and opportunity for everyone. And I want to personally thank him for the work that he is doing, for the respect he has shown to communities that simply want a fair opportunity to contribute and and succeed. I also want to give a heartfelt thank you and let's go to our Senator Doris Turner. Senator Turner has consistently shown leadership by bringing people together, creating relationship that move beyond politics and towards progress. Her leadership has helped create conversations and partnerships that many people once thought were impossible. And I and tonight I think it's important to recognize something powerful is happening in our community. We are seeing Democrats and Republicans willing to cross political lines for the betterment of Springfield and Sangman County. That deserves recognition. A stronger community that benefits everybody. The kind of leadership that matters because economic opportunity should have never be a partisan issue. Workforce development should never be a partisan issue. Helping families succeed should never be a partisan issue. When leaders from different backgrounds and different political beliefs can sit at the same table, we want better outcomes for our community. And that how that's how real change begins. I truly hope this becomes a growing trend throughout our city, our country, our state, and frankly throughout our country, uh, our county first, and then the country also because every culture, every neighborhood, every family shares many of the same goals. To work hard, to build stability, to create opportunity, and to live with dignity, and to leave something better behind for the next generation.

That is not about race. That is not about a party affiliation. It's about humanity. Leveling the playing field across does not mean asking for special treatment. It means creating fair access to opportunity, education, resources, and relationships so that talent and hard work have the chance to succeed no matter where they come from. Springfield has an opportunity right now to become a model for what collaboration can look like when government, nonforprofits, business leaders, and educational institutions in the community choose partnership over division. Not arguing over who gets the credit, but focusing on the results. Because when communities grows economically, everybody wins, businesses grows, families stabilize, neighborhoods improved, and workforce expands, hope becomes visible again. Tonight, I want to simply say thank you. Thank you for believing in the collaboration still matters. Thank you for believing that more people at the table strengthens the entire city. And thank you for creating opportunities to help people not only dream but build. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fraser. That's it. Uh executive session. No, no need. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Meeting adjourned.