City Council - Regular Meeting

Microphones are live.

Yeah, yeah, I know about that. Yeah, early, too.

At the point of time of 530, I'd like to call the Tuesday, May 26, 2026 committee to hold an order, please.

Would you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance.

Thank you. Uh, madam clerk, would you please take roll?

Yes. Alderman Cox here. Alderman Gregory here. Alderman Williams here. Alderman Rockford here. Alder woman purchase here. Alder woman, no Triano. She is 30 minutes away. Okay. Alderman Carlson here. Alder woman Conley present. Alderman Donnellan here. Alderman Hanover here. Chairman of quorum is present.

Thank you. I'd accept a motion for approval. May 12th, 2026. Committee minutes. Move. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any presentations?

Not that I know of.

No treasurer's report tonight. No ordinances tabled.

No.

So we'll move to ordinance first consideration, please. Okay.

CWLP. 2026246, an ordinance approving and authorizing execution of a three-year license agreement with spring River Hunting and Fishing Club at the gravel pit property for the Office of Public Utilities.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye.

Ayes have it. 2026-247, an ordinance approving payment to substation enterprises and authorizing supplemental appropriation of the MISO J1610 deposits in an amount not to exceed $184,718 for the Office of Public Utilities.

Any discussion? Seeing none, ayes have it. All in favor, I'm sorry. Aye. I knew that.

2026, 248, an ordinance approving payment to GE.

Clerk, sorry. I'm sorry. We're ahead by one ordinance on the screens.

In case people are confused in the audience we're on 248 not 249 Thank you an ordinance approving payment to GE for Nova and authorizing supplemental appropriation of the my so J 1610 deposits in an amount not to exceed sixty nine thousand three hundred thirty three dollars for the Office of Public Utilities for consent second any discussion all in favor aye ayes have it 2026 249 an ordinance approving payment to MBA power incorporated and authorizing supplemental appropriation of the my so J 1610 deposits in an amount not to exceed seventy seven thousand and ten dollars for the Office of Public Utilities over consent any discussion favor 2026-250, an ordinance approving payment to Westco and authorizing supplemental appropriation of the MISO J1610 deposits in an amount not to exceed $12,055.55 for the Office of Public Utilities. Move consent. Second. Any discussion?

All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it.

Thank you. 2026-251, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of a new 2025 John Deere 244P loader from Martin Equipment in an amount not to exceed $149,890 for the Office of Public Utilities. Move for consent.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Ayes have it. 2026-252, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of an HVAC system for the Dahlman 4 power plant from Henson Robinson Company in the amount not to exceed $147,888 for the Office of Public Utilities.

Move for consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it.

2026 253 an ordinance approving payment to Trimble Incorporated doing business as Trimble Navigation Limited in an amount not to exceed $168,024.59 for annual software maintenance and related services for a one-year term for the outage management system for the Office of Public Utilities.

Move for consent.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it.

Twenty twenty six to fifty four. An ordinance accepting bids and authorizing contract UW twenty seven dash zero four dash fifteen crushed stone for shoreline stabilization, riprap materials with Crown Trucking Incorporated in an amount not to exceed one hundred forty seven thousand eight hundred dollars for the Office of Public Utilities.

Move for consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

2026 to fifty five.

ordinance approving purchase of substation control enclosures with invent and the amount not to exceed four hundred ninety six thousand eight hundred ninety dollars in relation to the Sangamon solar farm my so project J 1610 and authorizing a supplemental appropriation of the my so J 1610 deposits for the Office of Public Utilities Any discussion all in favor?

I say of it

2026-256, an ordinance authorizing the renewal of Cisco SmartNet support maintenance for the core infrastructure equipment from Procedo Network Solutions LLC from a state contract in an amount not to exceed $147,377.84 for the Office of Public Utilities.

Move for consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it. Public Works, please.

Twenty twenty six to fifty seven. A resolution notifying the state of Illinois Department of Transportation that motor fuel tax funds in the amount of two hundred eighty eight thousand three hundred fifty dollars may be used for land acquisition for the Hedley Road and West White Oaks Drive Safety Improvements Project MFT Section 20 dash zero zero four four six dash zero zero. dash PV for the Office of Public Works.

Move for consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Ayes have it. 2026258, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of real estate between the City of Springfield and Neiman Holdings, LLC, located at 3001 South Veterans Parkway, associated with Hedley Road. and West White Oak safety improvements in an amount not to exceed $85,700 for the Office of Public Works.

Move for consent.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye.

Ayes have it. 2026-259, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of real estate between the City of Springfield and Panera LC, located at 3101 West White Oaks Drive, associated with Headlee Road and West White Oaks Drive safety improvements, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the Office of Public Works.

Move for consent.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it.

2026-260, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of real estate between the City of Springfield and the Plaza on White Oaks, LLC, located at 3001 West White Oaks Drive Safety Improvements in an amount not to exceed $140,000 for the Office of Public Works. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye.

Ayes have it. 2026-261, an ordinance authorizing the purchase of real estate between the City of Springfield and Westgate SC LLC located at 2733 Veterans Parkway, associated with Headley Road and West White Oaks Drive safety improvements in an amount not to exceed $12,650 for the Office of Public Works.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it. General City, please.

2026262, an ordinance to increase the number of Class A liquor licenses by one for the Old Fashioned Incorporated doing business at Goldmine Gaming, located at 3126 South 6th Street.

Second. Any discussion? Alderman Donnell.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Could someone answer for me what type of establishment this is going to be? Because what comes to mind is our 60% rule of non-gaming revenue for these new establishments.

Yeah, so this is going to receive a tavern license. That's the extent of the information I have.

Can we find out what their plans are as far as how to generate non-gaming revenue? Yes.

Do we want to move it to debate?

I'd like to put it on debate.

Okay. Thank you. Motion for debate. We got a second? Got a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Give you at least three. Aye, sir.

So I made a motion for debate. Thank you.

2026-263, an ordinance approving the appointment of Anthony Mayers to the Board of Managers of Oak Ridge Cemetery.

Move for debate. Second. And he's here. Yeah. Tony, would you like to speak at all?

Mr. Chair and all the people, thank you for inviting me to come up and speak. You know, it's an honor to be considered for the Oak Ridge Cemetery Board. I know that this is the second most visited cemetery in the country, and management of it is crucial. You know, I've served some time on some other boards. I'm sure you guys are aware, and I look forward to the opportunity, and if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Motion second, thank you 2026 264 an ordinance approving the appointment of Megan Mayton Back up all in favor.

All right. Thank you.

I thought we missed that 2026 264 an ordinance approving the appointment of Megan Mayton to the Lincoln Library Board of Trustees who to consent our debate.

Sorry Most for debate in a second any discussion? Alderman Donnelly.

Yeah.

Would you like to speak, please?

Hello.

Thank you guys for your consideration for the Library Board of Trustees. This is the first time I've ever served on a board, but I'm really looking forward to continuing to expand access to literacy resources in our community. I think the library is super important. Achieving my doctorate degree in physical therapy, the library was crucial to my ability to achieve that degree. I think literacy is important in our community and even just having access to internet and resources for those in our community who don't have that at home is also really important. I'm looking forward to serving on this board if approved, and I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Any questions?

Sure.

Yeah.

Not really a question. I just want you to know, and I don't know if Tony's already left, but these appointments go on debate just as part of our process. Okay. So please don't feel like that was in any way, shape, or form a reflection. Oh, no. It's good. Thank you. Thank you. Looking forward to this. Thanks. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

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

2026-265, an ordinance authorizing the renewal, extension, and execution of a one-year agreement and payment under contract number NB26-70C to Litmos US LP, providing employee training for leadership, personal development, and compliance in an amount of $28,458 from June 30, 2026 through June 29, 2027 for the Office of Human Resources.

Move for consent. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Madam Clerk, I want to make note that Alderman Notriano is present.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Excuse me. 2026266, an ordinance authorizing the execution of an agreement between the City of Springfield Office of Public Utilities and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 193 for the time period covering October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2029. Motion for consent. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Ayes have it. 2026-267, an ordinance authorizing payment to John Hildebrand, a City of Springfield Public Works foreman for settlement of a workers' compensation claim number 25-WC-030799 in an amount not to exceed $82,223. Move for consent. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it.

2026-268, an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $24,517.75 in order to return the ICJIA grant number

4 2 2 0 4 5 budget lines to the actual remaining balance in accordance with the original budget for the Office of Planning and Economic Development move for consent Any discussion? Seeing none all in favor ayes have it 20 26 269 an ordinance accepting the proposal with Johnson controls quote reference number 1 dash 1 r 5 6 d q 7 8 for a Metassi engine replacement in Municipal Center West for an amount not to exceed $27,760 for the Office of Budget and Management.

Move for consent.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. 2026270, an ordinance authorizing payment for an annual subscription to Emergency Services Organization, ESO, to provide reporting software and support services for the Springfield Fire Department.

Move for consent.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Ayes have it. 2026-271, an ordinance authorizing a contract of quote number 139593 with law enforcement targets doing businesses action targets to construct and upgrade the Springfield Police Academy outdoor target range in an amount not to exceed 165 thousand two hundred ninety six dollars for the Springfield Police Department move to consent any discussion all in favor 2026 272 an ordinance authorizing payment in the amount of 185 thousand dollars to Richland Community College doing businesses making County Law Enforcement Training Center and FY 2027 for the Springfield Police Department for consent second any discussion

All in favor?

Aye. Ayes have it. 2026-273, an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $515,360 to reappropriate remaining balance of the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Local Tourism and Convention Funds Grant number 26-751029 into the FY27 budget in accordance with the original grant award. Motion for consent. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it. Mr. Chair? Yes.

I'd like to make a motion for an omnibus vote for agenda items 2026274 through 2026282, which are all sponsorships.

Second. Okay. All in favor? Any discussion?

that motion I'll second that motion okay second all in favor okay please read them 2026 274 an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship to Hoogland Center for the Arts event to be held July 1st 2026 through June 5th 2026 for the 1776 musical production in an amount not to exceed payment of $3,000 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau I'm sorry

To interrupt, is there a date change that needs to be made to this? July 1st through June 5th? Is it July through July?

Should be.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

It says June 5th should be July.

Okay. I just want to make sure. Thank you. I apologize, clerk.

2026 to 75, an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship to pharmacy gallery and art space for summer tourism events to be held during the 2026 summer travel season in an amount not to exceed payment of $3,000 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2026 to 76 an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship to answer Shrine Foundation event to be held September 5th, 2026 for the Springfield Oyster and Beer Festival in an amount not to exceed payment of $7500 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2026-277, an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship to German Shepherd Dog Club of America Incorporated for the Springfield National Fall Show in an amount not to exceed payment of $2,500 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2026-278, an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship to Children's Museum Foundation Corporation for the Route 66 exhibit in an amount not to exceed payment of $5,000 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2026-279, an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship to United Way of Central Illinois for the United Way Ride, a Route 66 event in an amount not to exceed payment of $2,000 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2026-280, an ordinance authorizing sponsorship payment of $4,000 to Springfield Area Arts Council for the 2026 Artists in the Park Summer Series event for Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2026-281, an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship payment of $7,000 to Springfield's Finest Car Club for the Route 66 Corvette Show to be held June 26, 2026, through June 27, 2026 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2026 282, an ordinance authorizing a sponsorship to UIS Athletics for the 2026 Homecoming Route 66 activations event to be held October 7, 2026 through October 11, 2026 in an amount not to exceed payment of $2,500 for the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Move for consent.

Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Ayes have it. Next, we move to unfinished business. Aye. I'm sorry? Mr.

Chair, if we can, can we put the 2026 to 73 on debate. Um, Scott, talk to me about what we will be doing with the county and this tourism initiative.

Scott doll. Yes. So 20, 20 director at all, excuse me, 20, 26 to 73.

Um, w what are we doing with that? I I'm, I'm looking at the text. And I'm sorry, I looked at it later. Sure.

It's a real reappropriation into the new budget. So what happens is that I get that portion.

I'm talking about the the the the goal of the partnership with the county. And it says that we'll be doing some I don't have I don't have the details in front of me because it left the screen. But it was it sounded like what we were what the plans were to activate the the front of it with Mr. Duncan on there. And some of that wayfinding, it says all of that in there.

Okay. So this, this is our LTCB, our local tourism grant. This is our annual grant that we received from DCEO. So we, this is the grant that we received in July and it's the state's fiscal year runs to June, but our crosses over our, our fiscal year, which starts in March. So what happens is we, the money needs to be reappropriated from the state's fiscal year into our new fiscal year. So they're from their FY26 to our FY27. This is the, this is the grant that provides a relief for staff salaries, um, and other internal expenses. So. I think that might be a different grant that we're talking about with the county.

I mean, that's, that's not what the tech said. So I'll, I'll look at it. We could just put that on debate and I'll look at my, my paperwork.

Okay. I got a motion for 20, 26, two 73 for debate.

Thank you. Just real quick to clarify real quick. Sure. This you've already passed this grant. This is just a reappropriation so that we have budget authority into FY27. This grant, you already passed this grant last year.

I'm not saying that. I'm trying to refresh myself because I was reading what was on the screen and what its uses for it. So I guess what I'm asking is what did we use that funding for? You said salaries and things of that nature.

Advertising salaries would be appropriate. the primary sources of what we use. I'm happy. I'll be happiest to email the horseshoe yourself, older person, the ultimate, the, um, let me do this.

Ms. Clark, can we, is there any way we can go back on our screens to two 2026 to 73 so I can pull it up now? Thank you. I'm talking about the, so the agreement says, um, between us and the County, to do things like promote visitor attractions and experience throughout the city and county, encourage extended stays, increase economic impact through enhanced tourism, drive traffic to local tourism businesses, events, attraction listings, event information, dining, lodging. I really don't see any salaries in here. So I guess my question is, can you just send the council what we normally spend this money on? Display on the interactive wayfinding wall and related digital platforms, visitor engagement and tourism promotion. So those are the type of things that's in this agreement that I'm interested in.

Okay. I'm happy to send the budget for the LTCB. Absolutely. If you want to see, because that outlines and itemizes what the expenditures are and what we're reimbursing at this point. So are these things? I think the county, when you talk about the county, When we go through our recertification every year, they ask us who we market to, and we market for the county. The way DCO breaks it up in the Illinois Office of Tourism is that they go by counties, and so we market for the entire county.

Absolutely. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying I see the ordinance. I know that we did pass this. I'm just more so talking about. the things directly in the text of what we would be doing and just how is that all lining up with some of these things on here. And salaries is just not one of the things I see. And I'm not saying that that's not eligible or not. I'm just saying that some of these things, can you just point out some of that? Display on wayfinding, interactive wayfinding. Where is that at?

Yeah, I don't think there's any way finding in there. Maybe that's just part of the general text. That's what it is. With the agreement. If I share the, when I share the budget, you can see the itemized expenditures and you can see what we're spending it on. But salaries is definitely one of those. I want to believe in the point. Thank you.

I appreciate you. Scott. Alderman Williams. Oh, I'm next. Sean, are you done? I'm done. Yes. Okay.

Thank you, sir. I needed, oh, I'm sorry.

Are you not a director at all? I'm not a director.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. Okay.

Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Say my name. Alderman Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I need to see Corporate Counsel Ann, but I'll wait. And the Police Chief, please, if he'll come up. I appreciate it. I'm asking you guys some questions related to a hotel in my ward. I don't know, Chief, if you remember this, but they were actually... I don't know, evicting maybe, whatever you call it for hotels, a lady of the night, a prostitute, wasn't paying her bill, didn't pay her bill, and I came to you and told you that our police officer who responded taught her how to say, oh, I've been here more than 30 days and there's this law, taught her to this law and then told her she could refuse to leave and it took them forever to get her out of there. I talked to you about it. You said you would get to the bottom. Do you recall this?

Yeah, it's been a couple months, so I don't remember all the details to it.

Okay, if you re-look at those details, because it's the same hotel, and I don't see the owner and the crew here yet, but they were supposed to be here tonight. But Corporate Counsel, so Chief, when we talk, I think you agree with me that our police should not be given that kind of legal advice or explaining those kind of laws when people are getting put out the hotel for nonpayment. No matter how long they stay, it's not the police's business. In this particular time, The owner from New York was in town, I guess. He was there and he ordered them, get out. You haven't paid, so just get out. Our police officers show up and go into this spill about the law. And that's what I want to hear from corporate counsel about. them giving that kind of legal advice to these citizens getting evicted from a hotel and it's an extended stay and they're playing with this law that says once you reach the 30th day you're in a whole different category now. So the police explained to them technically they can't kick you out now. And that's bothering me because I get the calls that they're stuck with these people like they are even as we speak. They can't get them out the hotel and they haven't paid because now we're going through a process that they did way back with the prostitute on trying to figure out how to get them out. And I believe they have to go through a whole court thing all of a sudden. My problem with this is, Chief, why don't we come or not come maybe if they're going to be saying and teaching people how to outsmart the owners of the hotel who just want their payment or when they don't pay, put them out. Now, if there's a law that protects them, this is what I want to hear from you about. Sure.

Um, and I'm, I'm happy to address that first. Nobody should be giving legal advice unless they're a trained attorney. Um, and, and our officers know that. So I just want to be clear that only the attorneys and only my office can give legal advice on behalf of the city of Springfield. Now, in the training that we give the the our officers, there is a line of demarcation between who is who's who has rights as a tenant and who's just a guest at a hotel under the Innkeepers Act. And in the 30 day mark is what we train our officers, because once once an individual has stayed at a particular time, stayed in a particular unit for an extended amount of time, they can gain rights to remain there and the owner of those extended stay places actually need to go through the eviction process. Now there was recently a change in the law that allows officers to more readily remove people from their houses because I think our General Assembly has noted that this puts officers in a really tough position because they show up at at a place and somebody says, Oh, I'm allowed to live here or I've been living here for a month or two months. Um, but there's no documentation for it. And then our officer has to decide whether or not he can remove that person from the, uh, from that unit. And if they're wrong, then you have a wrongful eviction and it falls back on our officers. So they do go through training on how to address those situations. And the 30 day mark is what we use. And that's, that's the general practice in the state of Illinois.

Okay. So the, the hotel owner, when they called the alderman, the most I tell them is get that person's name and badge, which they did. We can provide the names and badges of the officers who help explain this situation. Now, in my mind, I was telling a hotel officer, I believe our officers think they're doing the right thing, so we got to get this fixed. Either the officer, somebody's got to change their policy or do something if it's this big of a deal and a nuisance to where the owner is saying, not only do you not pay, but you're causing all these troubles that we have to call the police, so I want you out. I don't think the police should show up, chief, and explain what he just said, even if it's the law. Because now it looks like he's calling somebody to show them how to get out of it and stay like they are still on the premises. And what I'm trying to do, I don't know if it's something the city council needs to take, or if it is state law, are we abusing it? Can he change his policy to do some difference? He didn't make it here yet anyway. I think my move is going to be to ask to have a conversation with you, Chief, because I know the last time you were going to take care of it, but this owner is very upset, and I think if he talks with you and you all can come to some kind of understanding about, and maybe even with you, I'm not sure how to handle this, but I know our officers shouldn't be encouraging this. And that's what it appears to do. They have our city uniform on, their city badge on. They're doing this, and they're saying these things. And then other bad actors are hearing this. So I don't know if extended stay is the problem, that language, or them hitting that 30 days, if they maybe should check them out before the 30 days and make them recheck in or something and start the clock over. But I do think we're at a point where we need to try to address this in some kind of way So it doesn't look like the city is encouraging, teaching these folks this. Because this particular extended stay does use a whole third floor to help us with some of the agencies that are working with families. with homelessness dealing with children. So I don't want to destroy that program up there and have him just quick or walk out of that because we have that whole third floor when they have kids in their home as an option. I don't want to lose that and at the same time I don't want our police to be keeping bad actors or bad tenants, whatever we want to call them, guests as hotels, there if the hotel staff and the hotel owner in this case says you got to go. So we have a situation, he's not here, but I'll try to marry this up and see if we can get somewhere with it. He'll share the badge number and names. With you and I'm hoping this doesn't come up again But I think right now we have a group of officers who think they're doing the right thing when they explain this and it's not the right thing to do because They're at a point to work. They're being asked to leave a business So I'm not saying the officers are wrong. I'm just saying the way We arrived shouldn't be about teaching this That's what's really bothering me more than anything. So I if we can work toward that and get a resolution, I'll, I'll give him the information and have him reach out to you. So thank you. Thanks. Thank you, chief.

Ethan, did you have a little bit more context because our office over the past couple of weeks have received multiple calls. I don't know if we're necessarily saying that our officers are teaching, once someone has been in a hotel long enough, they essentially established a residency and like, uh, corporation council said the owner would need to go through the eviction process at that point to get them out, which would become a civil matter and be on the County sheriffs. So it's kind of up to our officers to let them know, Hey, once it's past a certain point, it's no longer an SPD jurisdiction of, Hey, we can come and get you out of here. because you've now entered the realm of a different process. So categorize categorizing it as them giving legal advice may not exactly be the way to, you know, kind of box it in here. We have gotten a number of calls about different residents in hotels in Ward three that want to get people out. And we've explained over the past few weeks, hey, they've been there for a month's worth of time. They've been there for six months worth of time because we get the calls from the people who've established residency as well. And that person needs to follow through the eviction process at that point. So for our officers, they do when they're called to respond, they don't necessarily know the full extent of the situation before they get there. So they do kind of have to explain to the person why it is they can't act, whether it be the owner of the hotel or the person who's there. So I, I would kind of call it a mischaracterization to say that our officers are teaching that, but it's not really a SPD policy thing. They have to change once you have to start the eviction process and it's a civil matter. It's the Sangamon County sheriffs who respond just like any other eviction situation that we have here in the city of Springfield. It's not our SPD officers that respond to get someone out of a residence. It's the Sangamon County sheriffs.

So would the sheriffs give the same answer or? So, so don't matter which ones respond really. And the reason why I'm using teaching, cuz they don't know, they don't know about this thing until they come and our officers say, how long have you been here? And then that person answers and that triggers this, this confusion starts up.

You'd be surprised how much different residents and the owners of these hotels know when they call our office. And many times they call us and give us this explanation. And when they don't get the answer that they want to hear, they'll call you guys expecting a different response. But I can tell you we've gotten a number of calls on this specific subject, and they've all been told the same thing of you have to go through the eviction process.

So here's what's at risk, and I'm talking to my colleagues now. So say that's the law and we're all obeying it. What we're going to do is they're not going to take the vouchers. They're just going to stop because it's not just one hotel. It's several of them. And when the program ends, the people don't want to leave. And I wouldn't either. To be honest, I don't want to become homeless all of a sudden because my six-month voucher or three-month voucher, whatever the program gave them ends. So they just start staying. And then the hotel staff is trying to get them out, and then they get told this. And now you know how long and slow the courts are. So this is how we get stuck with them. That's going to make all these owners up and down Dirksen from Sangamon to Stevenson, all those little bitty ones and the few big ones, all say, well, we're just not accepting those programs. Because the law does allow them not to do it. Like I said, this particular one happens to be the one where the homeless with kids, they have dedicated that whole third floor to this program. And that helps the whole city. Because now they have an option. So the option your staff and others who work in these areas tell them that they have over there on Durson, we could possibly lose it. is all I'm saying. Because all they got to do is say, well, I'll say from up front, I don't want to deal with this. And then they're on the streets. And then we're back to, you know. Yeah, a bigger problem about homelessness again. So I don't think the city can have it both ways. I really hope Chief gets this owner to understand that, but he may still say, well, we're not just going to participate with that particular program anymore or any of them. And then that catches fire and we have a bigger homeless problem than you think, you know. You know, I realize we're doing better downtown because they're all out east now. But when our cops start showing up and they start saying these things that may be the law, somebody has to speak up for the people that's putting up with them and participating in these programs. And if we're going to say... Well, no, they get to stay until they go through the eviction process. Now you got a building full or a few most of your rooms going through this process that takes forever, can be continued. And this is what I'm hearing from them. So the only option left is Chelsea City, no. We don't want the voucher. We don't want that type of business. They can't pay us cash nightly and with the reduced rate because they get a reduced rate and everything. But when it's time to go, it's time to go. And the last thing I hate hearing is that it's ARPA cops. Okay, maybe we shouldn't say teaching, but it's explaining to everybody what the rules are, what the law is. Gets us out of it. I know calling the county ain't the answer because first they got to respond. And then if we get them to respond, I don't know what will happen from there. So I appreciate you because that did take us a little deeper into what I was expecting to go tonight. But I just want you to know the risk, even for your office, who uses those resources and those places as resources at times. They very well could quit. Then where is everybody going to start trying to use the voucher?

I would be more than happy to have you come sit down with our staff or sit down with me and work on some things and figure out some ideas. Will the checkout early thing do it?

Break the 30 days. Make them start over. Would that help?

I can't on this amount of information I have tell you definitively yes or no, but it is something that we can definitely look into and see if that's something that could diffuse these situations. Thank you.

Thank you. If I may. And thank you. Hold on. Before before we move on to the Corporation Council, we had a motion on twenty twenty six to seventy three to to move to debate. We had a motion and a second. And I don't think we voted. We we have not. We did not vote on that. So I want to go back and in and vote on that. All in favor. Aye. OK. Thank you very much. No problem.

So. So I've been agreeing with my with my colleague, but but You know, not only that, all of those hotels down Dirksen, I mean, they play into our factor of hotel rooms that we need for tourists. So that's a major issue. But I don't think this Murdoch, from a legal standpoint, can that, should that be the, I ain't going to say should it be, but if they design their policy to not allow somebody to take a dwelling over a room or something and then restart that, does that break that from having that?

So I would need to I would need to look at the recent change in the law. We haven't advised on that. I think that that would be advice more geared towards the owner. And I've only looked at the city side. I do know that in In prior private practice, I've dealt with this representing individuals and looked at it in the past, and I do believe that it doesn't, that that would help in breaking the tendency that would be created. But I'd want to research that and then work with Ethan on it.

And I think that it has, you know, all of our services who have that, I think, you know, Roy, you know, I'm willing to definitely join in with you about that because, you know, we all get emails from different businesses and things about this. We definitely want to help everyone, but how do I say this? But we got to handle business. And, you know, people who are we putting in these hotels and things, I deal with it at mansion views right across the government. Hey, you going to be here? You going to do your thing and improve, you know, and not be no headache. So we get it. Things, you know, happen in life and stuff, but You know, we, we, at the same time, from a services standpoint, you know, the city of Springfield is doing a good job. Harlem continued care has come a long way doing great work. You know, we've been through it and, and, you know, we just don't want, you know, everybody getting these and then, then going, going to make us look bad from a city side. So, you know, we talked to, you know, people who's come up here, who we've tried to help and stuff, and we keep it Frank with them. And, you know, we just keeping it Frank with everybody, like let's handle business when we get in these things. And, you know, this shouldn't be a hard tweak to, to some policies to make sure that we don't get in these situations because we don't want to lose the help that we do have. Thank you. Absolutely.

Uh, any more,

Good evening. I just wanted to remind everyone and invite you all this Saturday to station two for our open house. It's from nine to noon. Uh, come out and see the firehouse. The rigs will have Some special teams demos, I think the drone team's gonna be flying around. Potentially have like some hazmat and some tech rescue stuff, as well as the explorers program will be out there with information and recruiting info. If you have like high school age children that might be interested, bring them out and speak to Brad Miller, who's our director for the explorers. He's excellent, that group is fantastic and a great opportunity to kind of learn a little bit about the fire service and get started. Before you're actually eligible to join the department.

So hopefully see everybody Saturday 9 to noon 2810 Stevenson You know there I've had a lot of calls But about three or four calls from different people are excited about taking the fire test and stuff So I think the the media, you know buzz around it is letting people know, you know that those opportunities is there and stuff and you know It's crazy, because two different versions have called me on this. And one of the questions I asked, which I forwarded on to you, was just about different study guides and things that help young people, especially 18, 19-year-old young people who want to get into it. And I'm sort of nervous and sort of looking to go to some things. And I know you gave me some of those services. And I think if all that we could give to those young people to study for those things, we'll be good, as I know you do.

Well, I encourage anybody, especially in that age group, to come to these open houses. And the biggest tool we can use is just speaking with them and learning from the current firefighters, the men and women of the Springfield Fire Department. The houses are always open. I mean, stop by and just talk to us. Um, it's, it's so easy to kind of mentor them that way and just kind of, you know, here's some resources, here's some people, here's some websites, books, all that, um, is out there. And especially when it comes to the testing, there's a lot of websites that will, I mean, it's a general knowledge test. So just getting your mind into that repetition of, you know, reading comprehension, so many math problems in, in so many minutes, you know, some people that just haven't taken tests like that before or haven't taken them in a while. It's in, it's, you know, good to kind of practice.

They always worry about if the information is right or if I'm taking it, you know, it is going to be different. I'll study for something else. So, you know, um, you know, anything that we know is, is, is factual and things like that for them will be good. But, um, there is some excitement about it. I know, you know, we've been here before, Um, previously, and you know, we, we, we seen our first black female and, um, there was a guy, David Alexander, he, he was there eager. He had just, you know, got shut down from the, you know, lineman and was bummed out and he came in and now he's a firefighter.

So I think we ended up with 358 people that signed up for the testing. I don't, I didn't see the exact number that, that actually took the test, but the three 58s up from previous years where we were just a tad over 300, I believe. And what, what's your company number?

What's the number you want to be at confi?

On the department? No, on the recruit test. Oh, as many as possible. I mean, the more the better. You know, 25 years ago, there were over 1,000 of us that tested. And it's down to, you know, 300 and some. You know, PD's seeing the exact same thing you might have seen in the article in the paper. The numbers are just down across the board for any public service. Military, police, fire especially, we kind of pull from the same pool of people. Um, and it's just not a popular thing to get into anymore. So we're, we're kind of fighting to do things. I know there's some legislation to potentially hire at 18 instead of 21. Um, there's some other things we're working on to maybe bridge that gap because the explore program does only go till 18. Um, so we're trying to find a way to not lose these people that maybe they enlist in the military because at 18, they can't become a firefighter or whatever. So. We're always kind of looking at a way to kind of fill that gap.

Okay. I appreciate you. Thank you. Any more questions for Chief? Thank you. Thanks. Any more? New business. Okay. Citizens sign up to speak.

All right. Ken Pasha.

I thought we would. You might be.

Well, I mean there's been a few interesting things in the last week I'm sure everybody saw the Wyndham case might be winding up. They told us it'd be a years if I remember correctly My understanding is that it may be resolving very soon and we could maybe even see that guy back here He may not get an insurance payout But have we thought about any plans for that? Are we just hoping it gets torn down, that that guy's not going to show back up and maybe find someone to sell it to on his own? Leave us again with a new owner that we don't have any say over? I mean, I think that's really the worry about the Starbond issues. I'm not against the growth of that. I'm not trying to beat a drum against taking away the expansion, guys. I'm all for that. But did you read the new language? I'm still getting through it. It's pretty wordy. But the establishment of the revenue fund for the CATA seems interesting. Strongly recommend you get into that language because it's talking about our sales taxes and the share that's distributed from like the motor sales tax and things like that. I haven't gone quite all the way through that, but that's a lot of suspicious language about funding that maybe would be coming here if I'm correct. Right, guys? I guess I'm just curious about where this all goes, because guess what? Their property, CATA's property, is gonna be tax exempt. I mean, we're facing a massive deficit, but I'm sure the school district is facing an even bigger one. Can we afford to keep denying them income? I mean, let's be honest, guys. The youth problems that we hear people complain about stem from children that are not getting good outcomes. Putting resource officers in schools, which started when I was in high school, leads to the school to prison pipeline. And that's already well established by decades of research. So we should really consider about what it means for a school district that's already $20 million into a deficit with a city that's how much in deficit? 20, 25 million? 54 over two years? I mean, I don't want to get too specific, but it's pretty scary numbers, guys. And when they start talking about taking our share of taxes, I would get, specifically worried about what that really means. Because while that may generate some revenue, I think we're all not under the impression that that's gonna solve all of the city's problems, is it? I mean, somebody called it a golden egg, but that doesn't mean it's a one size fits all answer for what ails this city. I mean, It's frustrating because people treat this like it's gonna solve a lot of these big issues, but a lot of our big issues stem from small funding that could be distributed much more precisely and surgically in ways that would actually affect outcomes much quicker and faster than some wild pie-eyed scheme about tourism changing the financial outlook of this city. I mean, it's frustrating because we do have options, but we're not gonna get anywhere when we're paying, how much for is that shooting range we're gonna build now? Do they have a wish list at SPD that I missed? New weight room, new shooting range, new Bobcat. I mean, what else are we going to get them? Guys, Christmas isn't here yet. I'm sure we could cook something up. Do the numbers on that. Those three things I just named are almost a million dollars cumulatively. What could we do in the community for a million dollars? We cannot keep pumping up the police budget and giving them every item they ask for while the community keeps suffering. Because I live in those beats that are high crime. I don't see money invested over there. I see a lot of cops though, and we keep hiring more and more. That weight room, well, I mean, what are we making them bigger and stronger for? So that strong hit to the 19 year old knocks her out? Hard to be a witness. That guy sounds sarcastic, but maybe it's just my exhaustion with keep having to have a conversation about where we could be applying money better when we're running out of it. We do not have a surplus. The federal government's not going to hit us with more ARPA or Dream Funds. Not unless you guys are going to build a giant ballroom or something, I'm sure. But that's the idea, guys. We have to get better about this. We cannot hope for something like that which is not gonna give us a lot of money and is gonna take more of it than we have right now when we have an entire city that is having problems that can be solved by actually applying smaller amounts of money in better ways. And I'll be honest with you, you might be like, well, Ken, what are those ways? I'll be honest with you guys, I'm not a city planner. I'll just be honest, but you have a lot of cities around you in central Illinois that have been trying to figure out those exact same problems, disparate youth, lack of resources, shrinking funding. It's not a new issue for people, but we do have better ideas than just give the police more money and hope they can police their way out of it. Because I'm a hundred percent sure chief Beal will tell you that's not an answer either. Thank you guys.

Allison Ford. Robert Frazier.

That's it. Mr. Frazier gone. Mr. Frazier's gone. Corporation constantly need for executive session. There's no need. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Order in court.