[0:44] And you came
[1:44] 2026 meeting of the Danville City
[1:45] Council. Roll call to establish a
[1:47] quorum, please.
[1:48] >> Alderman Ed Butler,
[1:50] >> present.
[1:51] >> Mayor Ricky Williams, Jr.,
[1:53] >> present.
[1:54] >> Alderman Carolyn Deoy,
[1:56] >> present.
[1:56] >> James Pashard,
[1:57] >> present.
[1:58] >> Tom High Totower,
[1:59] >> here.
[2:00] >> Barry Johnson,
[2:01] >> present.
[2:02] >> Mike Okaine,
[2:02] >> here. Mike Poor
[2:04] >> present.
[2:04] >> Rick Strie, Sher Pickering
[2:07] >> here.
[2:07] >> Trisha Teague
[2:09] >> present.
[2:09] >> Eve Lewig
[2:10] >> present.
[2:11] >> Jalle Jones. Doug Arn
[2:13] >> present.
[2:14] >> John Cooper
[2:15] >> here.
[2:15] >> 12 present.
[2:16] Madam clerk, please let the
[2:18] record reflect that Alderman Strebin and
[2:20] Alderman uh Alderman Jones are out due
[2:23] to family commitments this evening.
[2:26] At this time, we will have the
[2:27] invocation uh led by Pastor Tom Myers of
[2:29] Crusaders Church, followed by the pledge
[2:31] of allegiance led by Alderman Teague.
[2:32] Please rise.
[2:39] » Let me begin with just a little
[2:41] scripture to guide us along the way
[2:43] here. Uh this is from the apostle Paul
[2:46] and he said this. Therefore, I exet
[2:48] exhort you first of all that
[2:50] supplications, prayers, intercessions,
[2:54] and giving of thanks be made for all
[2:56] men, for kings who are and all who are
[3:00] in authority, that we may lead a quiet
[3:03] and peaceable life in all godliness and
[3:06] reverence. For this is good and
[3:09] acceptable in the sight of God our
[3:12] Savior
[3:13] >> who desires all men
[3:15] >> to be saved and to come to the knowledge
[3:18] of truth.
[3:19] >> Amen.
[3:19] >> So let's pray.
[3:20] >> Amen.
[3:21] >> Heavenly Father, we seek your guidance
[3:25] >> for each one of these men and women
[3:26] before you this evening. We ask you to
[3:30] direct our hearts, our minds, and also
[3:33] speech and our actions in all matters.
[3:37] >> [snorts]
[3:37] >> so that whatever is done draws your
[3:40] praise.
[3:42] And may it all be done right in thy
[3:45] sight.
[3:46] >> Don't let us be misguided by basing our
[3:51] decisions on what is most expedient or
[3:54] pleasing in the moment or financially
[3:58] profitable
[4:00] >> because that is so many times humanly
[4:02] destructive. Mhm.
[4:04] >> But help us see the lives and the
[4:07] families behind every decision,
[4:10] >> not the dollars and the cents of
[4:12] revenue,
[4:14] >> Lord. Shape our future direction
[4:17] >> for our community and shape it away from
[4:21] any misguided decisions,
[4:24] even those of the past that may have
[4:26] slowly led us to the problems we end up
[4:28] facing today.
[4:30] >> So reshape, remold us. Yes.
[4:33] >> And do it according to your will.
[4:35] >> Yes, sir.
[4:36] >> We appeal to you, our God,
[4:38] >> who has made this promise.
[4:40] >> Yes, sir.
[4:41] >> If my people,
[4:43] >> which are called by my name,
[4:45] >> shall humble themselves and pray
[4:49] >> Yes, sir.
[4:49] >> and seek my face
[4:51] >> and turn from their wicked ways,
[4:53] >> and I will.
[4:54] >> Then I will hear
[4:56] >> from heaven,
[4:58] >> and forgive their sin,
[4:59] >> and will heal their land. Yes, sir.
[5:02] >> Amen.
[5:06] >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[5:09] United States of America and to the
[5:11] republic for which it stands, one nation
[5:14] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[5:18] justice for all.
[5:21] >> Thank you, Alderman Teague. Pastor, we'd
[5:23] love to hear about uh anything you uh
[5:25] about the church you'd like to share
[5:26] with us. Well, I want to begin by
[5:28] thanking you so much for beginning this
[5:31] meeting with an invocation,
[5:35] which means to call for help or support,
[5:38] guidance, and blessing.
[5:41] And uh I'm so glad that you did that. I
[5:44] think of the Apostle Paul and the
[5:46] statements that he made. You know, he
[5:48] got to speak uh he even had a governor
[5:50] call him and say, "I want you to tell me
[5:52] more about the word of God." Mhm.
[5:55] >> Of course, he was in front of a lot of
[5:57] councils and uh well, we don't want to
[5:59] talk about those things. [laughter]
[6:01] >> Take too long.
[6:02] >> But you know, you know, he he said we're
[6:05] supposed to pray for those who are in
[6:07] authority.
[6:08] >> And and we need to remember that as
[6:11] citizens, every one of us. Um, now this
[6:16] Sunday there'll be a special sermon
[6:20] um talking about the Danville City
[6:24] Council
[6:26] >> and you're all invited. [laughter]
[6:30] » I don't want you to worry.
[6:32] >> Don't worry. Not that kind of sermon.
[6:34] [laughter]
[6:36] >> Uh,
[6:37] >> you don't have to be afraid.
[6:39] >> You know, it's it's really a good thing
[6:41] for me to be here. I remember the first
[6:43] time I came, I learned a whole lot.
[6:46] >> I've even applied some of what I learned
[6:49] in this council meeting.
[6:51] >> I I I learned a little bit about how
[6:52] things run.
[6:54] >> And uh I I the last time you talked
[6:57] about trees and deciding right away and
[6:59] stuff and you know, all of that that's
[7:02] knowledge that as citizens we really
[7:04] need. It's practical.
[7:06] >> Uh but I also got a chance to see your
[7:09] faces. I I do want to say that it
[7:11] disappoints me that the school district
[7:14] does a video with sound, not just sound.
[7:18] And I think that you guys deserve a
[7:20] video so that the the community can see
[7:24] your august personage and your smiling
[7:28] faces. So, uh if if that ever comes up
[7:31] for a vote, I'm voting for it. So, just
[7:33] if you you got I love your smiling
[7:35] faces. Uh [clears throat]
[7:38] it's uh it's it's going to be good news
[7:42] when I talk about the city council.
[7:44] Um good news, you know, that's literally
[7:47] a Greek word that that means the gospel.
[7:51] And whenever the gospel is used in the
[7:53] New Testament, that really is good news.
[7:58] And um one part of the good news that I
[8:02] have for you is that as I mentioned
[8:05] earlier, we are admonished to pray and
[8:07] intercede
[8:08] >> for each of you.
[8:10] >> That's our obligation.
[8:13] But it's also our privilege.
[8:15] >> So uh God expects us to be praying for
[8:17] you. And then Paul who who said that
[8:19] goes on and says every person is to be
[8:22] subject to the governing authorities.
[8:24] Now isn't that good news? Amen. Can I
[8:25] get an amen?
[8:26] >> Amen brother.
[8:27] >> Amen. For there is no authority except
[8:29] from God, and those which exist are
[8:31] established by God. Therefore, whoever
[8:35] resists authority has opposed the
[8:37] authority of God, and those who have
[8:41] opposed will receive condemnation upon
[8:43] themselves. For rulers,
[8:45] >> Yes, sir.
[8:46] >> are not a cause for fear,
[8:47] >> preaching now,
[8:48] >> or good behavior, but for evil.
[8:51] >> Yeah. See,
[8:52] >> do you want to have no fear of
[8:55] authority? Paul says, "Then do what is
[8:58] good and you will have praise from the
[9:01] same."
[9:01] >> Amen.
[9:02] >> So, that's really good news, but it's a
[9:04] double-edged sword.
[9:05] >> That's right.
[9:07] >> Because it requires citizens to be
[9:09] subject to authority, but it lays upon
[9:11] authorities
[9:13] >> the responsibility go ahead
[9:15] >> to promote good behavior
[9:18] >> and to oppose evil.
[9:19] >> What you say? So authorities and
[9:22] subjects alike must recognize that our
[9:26] primary concern
[9:28] >> is the con condemnation condemnation or
[9:32] praise from God.
[9:34] >> Amen.
[9:34] >> That's our concern.
[9:36] >> So the bottom line is that we are all
[9:38] ultimately subject to the authority of
[9:40] God.
[9:41] >> And that is why we should all be what we should all be praying about.
[9:45] >> Amen. So, Mayor Williams and members of
[9:49] the council and all those elected and
[9:53] appointed city officials and all those
[9:56] who serve this community, I want you to
[9:57] know that we'll keep praying for you and
[10:02] we'll give thanks to God for your
[10:04] service.
[10:04] >> Amen.
[10:05] >> So, God bless every one of you.
[10:07] >> Amen.
[10:09] >> Thank you, Pastor Myers. Amen.
[10:11] >> Amen.
[10:14] You have before you the minutes of uh
[10:16] September 1st, 2026 meeting. Is there a
[10:19] motion to approve those?
[10:20] >> So moved.
[10:21] >> Second.
[10:22] >> It's been moved and seconded. Is there
[10:23] any discussion or debate?
[10:26] >> All those in favor, please signify by
[10:27] saying I.
[10:28] >> I.
[10:29] >> Any oppose? Same sign.
[10:31] >> Thank you very much. You also have an
[10:33] agenda for this evening. Is there a
[10:34] motion to approve the agenda?
[10:36] >> So moved.
[10:37] >> Second.
[10:37] >> It's been moved and seconded. Is there
[10:39] any discussion or debate?
[10:41] All those in favor, please signify by
[10:43] saying I.
[10:43] >> I.
[10:44] >> Any opposed? Same sign.
[10:46] >> Thank you very much.
[10:49] >> Um, as far as my report goes, I do not
[10:51] have any proclamations this evening. Are
[10:53] there any uh board, committee, or
[10:54] personnel appointments there? There are
[10:56] and there are no commit board,
[10:58] committee, or personnel appointments.
[11:00] Are there any reports of boards,
[11:01] agencies, or commissions this evening?
[11:05] Seeing none, a couple of items of
[11:07] information. I just want to uh thank and
[11:09] congratulate uh administrator Pierce and
[11:13] her team on an outstanding effort that
[11:15] they did with the Labor Day. Having to
[11:17] do that so quickly behind um the first
[11:20] Friday and so many other events that we
[11:21] have coming up, I just was really proud.
[11:23] Uh for those of you who don't know, um
[11:26] national organizations have been forcing
[11:28] consolidations. So, for example, the AFL
[11:31] CIO in Danville, which has run the Labor
[11:33] Day parade for so long, was forced into
[11:35] a um combination with Champagne. Well,
[11:38] when we talked to the Champagne folks,
[11:40] they said, "We're going to concentrate
[11:41] on our parade." And uh we said, "We
[11:43] can't let this not happen here in
[11:45] Danville, especially with it being our
[11:46] 90th anniversary." So, I just want to
[11:48] appreciate I really appreciate you and
[11:50] your team for stepping up. Thank you to
[11:52] everyone who participated in the parade.
[11:54] Um it was our first time, so we're still
[11:56] learning. There were a few little kinks,
[11:57] but I think overall it was a great day
[11:59] for Danville. So, just uh administrator,
[12:02] thank you and congratulations to you and
[12:03] your team. [applause]
[12:08] We also had a great time at the First
[12:10] Friday event and just want to remind
[12:12] everyone every first Friday from uh
[12:14] usually around 5 to 8 o'clock we have
[12:16] something that's free or lowcost
[12:17] downtown for everyone to come and enjoy.
[12:19] So, please come out and join us. Uh this
[12:22] next month we have a progressive dinner.
[12:24] I believe you do need to register for
[12:26] that one ahead of time and there is a
[12:27] little bit of cost but it's going to be
[12:28] a good evening uh with food with meals
[12:31] and entertainment at different places
[12:32] around downtown. So madam clerk at this
[12:36] time do we have any petitions commun
[12:38] also I'm sorry I forgot we also
[12:40] dedicated uh Garfield Park yesterday and
[12:43] that was a great day a long a long time
[12:45] coming. It was so wonderful to see so
[12:47] many of you out there and see so many
[12:48] kids and enjoying the park. I mean,
[12:51] there were probably a couple hundred
[12:53] kids there enjoying themselves and
[12:54] families. So, want to thank again public
[12:57] works and for all their efforts and
[12:59] leadership there. Uh, I did forget one
[13:01] person that I should have mentioned
[13:02] expressly and that was Kaylee Sanchez,
[13:04] our grants administrator. Uh, she went
[13:07] back and forth and got us a heck of a
[13:09] deal on the playground equipment. So,
[13:10] uh, really appreciate her leadership
[13:13] there.
[13:15] >> Madam Clerk, at this time, do we have
[13:16] any petitions, communications, and
[13:17] audience comments?
[13:18] >> We do. When I call your name, please
[13:21] come to the podium. You'll have three
[13:22] minutes to speak. We have Pastor Ken
[13:25] McCrae.
[13:32] » Good evening everyone to
[13:35] the mayor and all the city council.
[13:38] >> [clears throat]
[13:38] >> I I'm standing to share with you, it has
[13:42] been placed upon my heart to initiate in
[13:46] collaboration with others a meritorial
[13:49] forum
[13:50] is going to be launched on November the
[13:54] 5th at 6 PM at the Fiser Theater.
[13:58] I've spoken to each one of the current
[14:01] candidates this running minus one and
[14:04] each one has consented to participate
[14:08] after October the 21st. We'll know
[14:11] exactly who's present and who to work
[14:13] with in regards to this meritorial
[14:16] forum. Some people call it a debate. I
[14:20] do my level best to stay away from that.
[14:23] We're going to operate by the Marcus of
[14:25] Greenberry rules. No rabbit punching, no
[14:29] hidden below the belt.
[14:31] It's going to be done with decorum
[14:33] professionalism
[14:35] and it's going to be monitored properly.
[14:38] We're going to give space for the
[14:40] council and other city officials to
[14:43] suggest some questions that will be
[14:45] posed to the meritorial candidates. It
[14:48] also will be given a space and a room
[14:51] for the community, the citizens to
[14:54] generate some questions which will be
[14:56] vetted prior to being used. We are
[14:59] hoping that uh Chief Yates would have
[15:03] some muscle present in case somebody
[15:06] gets out of hand.
[15:08] That was meant to be funny. But
[15:12] in any case, uh we have spoken to some
[15:14] individuals and asked their
[15:16] participation and they have consented to
[15:18] do so. Again, I just want to reiterate
[15:20] it will be done with professionalism. It
[15:23] will be done with the quorum and it's an
[15:26] opportunity for the candidates to
[15:28] present their forum and present their
[15:30] vision
[15:32] so that we'll be able to make an
[15:34] intelligent decision about who's best
[15:36] suited to sit in that seat and then move
[15:40] it away from personality driven to
[15:43] performance driven. So I will feel any
[15:46] questions that anyone has in regards to
[15:48] that. I'm trusting that there will be
[15:51] participation and presence by everyone
[15:53] that is here so that we can make sure
[15:57] that it's done and executed with
[15:59] excellence. I'll feel any questions that
[16:02] anybody has.
[16:03] >> Pastor time again.
[16:05] >> I'm sorry.
[16:05] >> Date and time.
[16:06] >> November the 5th at 6 pm at the Fischer
[16:11] Theater.
[16:14] Thank you, Pastor M.
[16:17] >> Kendra Tillitson.
[16:24] » Hello everybody.
[16:26] Um, my name is Kendra Tilson. I'm the
[16:28] board president of Downtown Danville
[16:30] Incorporated, which are is our special
[16:32] service district for downtown. Um, pull
[16:35] this up here.
[16:40] Downtown Danville Incorporated uh
[16:41] supports the purchase of the property
[16:43] located at 33 Hazel Street to help
[16:45] address the need for additional parking
[16:47] in the downtown district. This
[16:49] acquisition would support continued
[16:51] downtown development by improving
[16:53] parking accessibility for businesses,
[16:56] residents, and visitors and community
[16:58] events. As downtown Danville continues
[17:00] to grow and attract new business
[17:02] investment, events, and visitors,
[17:03] adequate parking, adequate and
[17:05] accessible parking is essential to
[17:07] sustain that momentum. DDI believes that
[17:09] the property can provide a valuable
[17:12] long-term asset that strengthens the
[17:14] continued economic growth of downtown.
[17:18] >> Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
[17:22] >> PJ Bourne.
[17:31] » Good evening again. Um my name is PJ as
[17:34] you spoken of and I'd like to present to
[17:39] [snorts] the city council and our mayor
[17:42] some um [clears throat]
[17:44] signatures which has been noted
[17:47] according to the regulations
[17:50] um of 157
[17:53] uh 04 which talks about changing the
[17:56] name of the street. In um one and two it
[18:00] says the applicant shall present a
[18:03] petition signed by 66%
[18:06] of the owners of the property which
[18:08] abuts the street segment in question and
[18:12] the sign signature shall be verified. So
[18:15] I'd like to present um those signatures
[18:18] to the county to the city clerk actually
[18:22] to our mayor and let you all look at
[18:25] them and verify them. There are 80 of
[18:27] them here and I will get the other 200
[18:30] or more so that you all can look at
[18:31] them. I have been coming to the city
[18:33] council for almost two years and
[18:36] apparently I don't know if we have a
[18:37] deaf spirit in the atmosphere or what
[18:39] but according to the regulation 157.04
[18:44] the name change of the street should be
[18:46] no problem. As I have said for almost
[18:49] two years and I will continue to say
[18:51] there is no one on the street but me. I
[18:54] am on a dead in um Cottoac. I own that
[18:57] area. My house is the only one there.
[19:00] And I've also looked around and for the
[19:02] last I believe it's the 10mi radiance,
[19:05] there are other houses on the same area
[19:08] who also have their name as well, mayor.
[19:11] And so I am again and I will continue to
[19:13] come until this is complete. There is no
[19:16] reason whatsoever that would hinder me
[19:18] from having my street changed. And so I
[19:21] will continue to bring that to um the
[19:24] city council and to our mayor. And I
[19:26] would like the record to show that I'm
[19:28] going to pass out um 80 signatures from
[19:32] the city of Danville. And I have more
[19:35] than that on the change.org
[19:38] that will also present to the city of
[19:40] Danville. um so that we can get this
[19:43] clear and that we will remove all
[19:45] discrimination, all biases, all
[19:46] prejudice and we'll do just like the the
[19:49] uh pastor just prayed that we'll
[19:51] continue to do the right thing for the
[19:52] right people because we are a city that
[19:55] should not be divided. As I said before
[19:58] and I will continue to say there should
[19:59] not be a white Danville and there should
[20:01] not be a black Danville. It should just
[20:04] be a Danville where we all created equal
[20:07] as we have all spoken and have the
[20:09] prayers going forth. We also sit here
[20:11] and we shake our heads and that's true.
[20:13] But let us be about it. Let's be
[20:14] sincere. Let's be real. Let's be
[20:16] genuine. Let's not pretend like we're
[20:18] something that we're not. But let's
[20:20] treat each other correctly and right.
[20:22] Let's treat each other like Jesus want
[20:23] us to be treated, like we belong, like
[20:25] we're love, like we say, like we pray.
[20:28] And let's work together. And let's get
[20:29] this together. I see nothing wrong with
[20:31] my street being changed since I'm the
[20:33] only one there. And if you did it for
[20:34] Dr. Harding, you can do it for me. Thank
[20:37] you so much.
[20:39] Thank you, Mrs. B.
[20:41] >> Sorry, Brenda Brown.
[20:54] » Good evening again to the mayor, the
[20:55] council, and our corporation council.
[20:57] Again, I am here speaking on the regards
[21:01] to
[21:02] >> [sighs]
[21:02] >> uh the council considering to change the
[21:07] treasures position from elected to
[21:11] appointed. I beg and I plead you again
[21:14] to leave this as an elected position. As
[21:18] we all know and you've heard me speak
[21:20] and you all have read consent decree and
[21:22] all that went in with it. We've talked
[21:24] about the seven plaintiffs. Uh we've
[21:27] even mentioned that one of the
[21:28] plaintiffs would be willing to come to
[21:30] speak. Uh none of this um has come forth
[21:33] as far as that invitation, but I'd like
[21:35] to say that remember
[21:38] this wasn't just about
[21:42] what you're making at changing a
[21:44] position for the treasur because we see
[21:47] we have different opinions on that. But
[21:50] it was for
[21:52] equality
[21:54] for the city council that included
[21:58] ethnicity, races, gender. Again, we have
[22:02] now sitting we have women and I've said
[22:06] because of this consent decree, we have
[22:08] African-Americans. I don't know if we
[22:10] have any Hispanic or uh other um
[22:15] races or here that have sat on the
[22:19] council.
[22:20] But I do know
[22:23] that we need
[22:26] to recognize what this was set forth for
[22:31] and not just pick and choose what we
[22:33] want for for our own selfish reasons or
[22:37] veins or or whatever reason you have to
[22:40] change this position of the treasur from
[22:42] appointed
[22:44] uh from elected to appointed.
[22:47] It has served our city all these years
[22:50] uh since 1987
[22:53] and I do recognize you had one issue but
[22:56] now uh we have a treasure that's there
[22:58] and doing a great job and I believe if
[23:01] we continue with an elected treasure
[23:05] we'll continue to do well and so I beg
[23:08] of you remember that as we said our
[23:12] pledge of allegiance liberty and justice
[23:15] for all
[23:16] And that includes all of us regardless
[23:20] of our race or religion,
[23:24] our color of our skin,
[23:27] where we live.
[23:29] And I think we need to put this on the
[23:31] back burner
[23:33] and consider
[23:34] what this consent decree was set forth
[23:36] when this change of government came
[23:38] forth and that the treasur's position is
[23:42] included as an elected. It says the
[23:44] mayor and the treasur. Let's leave this
[23:46] alone.
[23:49] I beg you and I plead. Let's leave it
[23:52] alone. Don't Don't go through uh having
[23:54] to do a lot of changing referendum. It's
[23:58] working for us. Thank you for your time.
[24:02] >> Thank you, Mrs. Brown.
[24:06] Karen Schult.
[24:17] My name is Karen Schil. I've been here
[24:19] before. Good evening to the mayor and
[24:22] alder persons. This [clears throat]
[24:24] evening, I want to ask you um to
[24:27] consider doing more for the homeless in
[24:29] Danville. There are now 70,000 people in
[24:32] 200 concentration camps in this country.
[24:35] Most are not criminals and they were not
[24:38] here illegally until our government
[24:40] changed the rules. Last time this old
[24:42] white lady was here, I brought a similar
[24:45] concern and you said I had nothing to
[24:47] worry about. Well, I haven't been
[24:49] kidnapped, but my heart breaks and I am
[24:53] sick with the brutality and cruelty of
[24:56] those
[24:58] who are kidnapping people. I'm sick when
[25:02] I read of children appearing in court
[25:03] with no parent or advocate. And when
[25:05] everyone in those detention camps are
[25:07] suffering from filth, dirty water,
[25:10] contaminated food, no health care,
[25:14] and torture. People are dying. And these
[25:17] are people with families and friends and
[25:19] attorneys who can advocate for them. If
[25:22] the homeless are snatched up, there is
[25:25] often no one to advocate for them. We
[25:27] already have no due process in those
[25:29] camps which are privately run. What do
[25:32] you think will happen to those people?
[25:34] The Euings are doing a great job in
[25:35] Danville, but as much [clears throat] as
[25:37] they can, but a bed is not enough. We
[25:40] need addiction and mental health
[25:42] services. We need safety and food
[25:44] education. We have the experts. I've
[25:47] heard them right here in this room.
[25:53] No, I am not safe and neither are you.
[25:56] Government rhetoric right now includes
[25:59] incarcerating or deporting domestic
[26:02] terrorists. That's anybody who is
[26:04] against the government or speaks
[26:07] negatively. We're socialist, we're
[26:09] communist,
[26:10] whatever.
[26:12] Censorship is real and it is here. And
[26:16] if everyone is not safe, no one is safe.
[26:19] We elected you all to take care of all
[26:22] the people of Danville, even the ones
[26:24] who are unckempt. look a little weird,
[26:27] act a little weird, and make a mess
[26:29] living in the rough. We They are our
[26:32] citizens also. Thank you.
[26:35] >> Thank you, Mrs. Sch.
[26:38] >> That's all I have. Mayor,
[26:40] >> is there anyone else who wishes to
[26:41] address the council?
[26:44] >> All right. We do not have any zoning
[26:46] petitions this evening. However, you do
[26:48] have before you the payrolls of
[26:50] September 4th and September 11th. Is
[26:52] there a motion to approve those?
[26:54] >> So moved. Second.
[26:56] >> It's been moved and seconded. Is there
[26:57] any discussion or debate?
[27:00] >> Roll call vote, please.
[27:01] >> Alderman Arns,
[27:03] >> yes.
[27:03] >> Cooper,
[27:04] >> yes.
[27:04] >> Butler,
[27:05] >> yes.
[27:05] >> The Toyo,
[27:06] >> yes.
[27:06] >> Pashard, [snorts]
[27:07] >> yes.
[27:08] >> High Tower,
[27:09] >> yes.
[27:09] >> Johnson,
[27:10] >> yes.
[27:10] >> Okaane,
[27:11] >> yes.
[27:11] >> Poor,
[27:12] >> yes.
[27:12] >> Pickering,
[27:13] >> yes.
[27:14] >> Teague,
[27:14] >> yes.
[27:15] >> Lewig,
[27:15] >> yes.
[27:16] >> 12, yes.
[27:17] The motion carries. You also
[27:19] have before you the vouchers payable for
[27:21] September 8th and 15th of 2026. Is there
[27:24] a motion to approve those?
[27:26] >> So moved.
[27:27] >> Second.
[27:28] >> It's been moved and seconded. Is there
[27:29] any discussion or debate?
[27:31] >> Yes. Alderman T.
[27:33] >> I have a question about
[27:36] item number 103
[27:39] on the September 15th vouchers. I think
[27:41] that's page uh three.
[27:46] It was for fire department lawnmowers.
[27:51] And so I'm curious as to why the fire
[27:55] department would need lawnmowers and not
[27:58] public works.
[28:01] >> Yeah. The uh fire department does mow
[28:03] its own grass and takes care of it
[28:04] stations in general do our own cleaning
[28:05] and everything like that. So
[28:06] >> Okay. So public works has never taken
[28:08] care of fire. Uh
[28:09] >> I don't never but not in recent history.
[28:11] Yeah.
[28:11] >> Okay. Thank you.
[28:14] >> Any further discussion or debate?
[28:17] >> Roll call vote please.
[28:19] >> Alderman Cooper.
[28:20] >> Yes. Butler,
[28:21] >> yes.
[28:22] >> Stoy,
[28:22] >> yes.
[28:23] >> Pashard,
[28:24] >> yes.
[28:24] >> High Totower,
[28:25] >> yes.
[28:25] >> Johnson,
[28:26] >> yes.
[28:27] >> Okaane,
[28:27] >> yes.
[28:28] >> For
[28:28] >> yes.
[28:29] >> Pickering,
[28:30] >> yes.
[28:30] >> Teague,
[28:31] >> yes.
[28:32] >> Lewig,
[28:33] >> yes.
[28:34] >> Arns,
[28:34] >> yes.
[28:35] >> 12, yes.
[28:36] The motion carries. At this
[28:38] time, I'll receive our public works
[28:39] committee report. Chairman Po.
[28:40] >> Thank you, Mayor. 11A is an ordinance
[28:43] approving the acquisition of real estate
[28:45] at 1703 E4E for economic development. M
[28:49] dispense read and ask for your approval.
[28:51] We need a second. [clears throat]
[28:52] >> Second
[28:54] Cooper.
[28:55] >> I guess I should go to Logan
[28:58] the solar panels and back. I'm assume
[29:02] we're taking them with us.
[29:04] >> And what's the plan?
[29:04] >> That's correct.
[29:05] >> And what's the plans for them?
[29:07] >> Yeah. So in front of you, I've uh placed
[29:10] a handout that provides a a brief
[29:13] summary of all the information that we
[29:16] are able to obtain um by either uh
[29:20] Pepsico or Amaran and a little bit of
[29:23] pro proono help from third party
[29:25] consultants.
[29:26] And um essentially what I wanted to show
[29:29] here was um what the current market rate
[29:32] for on peak hours or while the sun is
[29:34] shining um because there is a different
[29:36] rate for that for when it's dark out
[29:38] which it's substantially higher. Um and
[29:40] I wanted to kind of reflect the the
[29:42] revenue versus liabilities. Um and
[29:45] essentially we we came up with a really
[29:47] conservative num number of an estimated
[29:49] annual revenue based on current rates
[29:51] and power production from the from the
[29:54] panels. And that's um 85% so very
[29:58] conservative. That's roughly $94,000
[30:01] annually. And we're expecting 28 more
[30:04] years of life expectancy out of these
[30:06] panels. So um what we understand in
[30:09] terms of liabilities
[30:11] is um there's inverters on site probably
[30:16] I'll give you a we don't exactly know
[30:18] the exact number because they won't uh
[30:20] we can't get on the property to assess
[30:22] them at this time. 15 to 30 inverters
[30:24] roughly at um $10,000 um replacement
[30:29] every 10 to 12 years. So that is about
[30:31] the only liability that comes with these
[30:33] solar sites other than if a panel gets
[30:36] damaged randomly. Um other than that uh
[30:39] we're projecting roughly over the life
[30:41] of the panels uh $2.6 million of revenue
[30:46] generated not subtracting out any
[30:48] maintenance expenses.
[30:50] So, are we putting that in a special
[30:52] fund or what are we doing with that?
[30:53] >> Yeah, the next public works and city
[30:55] council meeting uh next month we will um
[30:58] have a fund um to have this allocated to
[31:02] for long long-standing maintenance.
[31:05] >> Has anybody been biting on this
[31:07] property? Um, we actually have received
[31:11] a big helping hand from Norfolk Southern
[31:14] since there is a rail leg on this
[31:16] property and they are going to assist us
[31:18] on nationally marketing this. Um, we
[31:21] have one major obstacle to overcome
[31:23] first which we believe there is a
[31:24] revenue source coming which is the flood
[31:26] plane that splits the heatcraft and
[31:27] Quaker site.
[31:29] >> Okay, good
[31:32] arms.
[31:33] >> Couple questions follow up. I did speak
[31:35] with uh Mr. Kron. Uh, regarding some of
[31:37] the other questions regarding these
[31:39] particular panels, are they currently
[31:41] hooked up to the grid and are they
[31:43] producing for the grid?
[31:45] >> Yes, it is our intent come uh property
[31:47] closing that the account will just get
[31:49] flipped over to the city of Danville and
[31:50] it will be uh producing income.
[31:52] >> Okay. So, Amaran is satisfied or has
[31:55] approved any switch gear, any controls.
[31:57] >> Yeah, the switch gear is on site and we
[32:00] had a big meeting with them and they
[32:01] feel comfortable with that.
[32:02] >> Okay. And then uh second question
[32:04] followup would be is there an estimate
[32:06] for what it will cost to remove and
[32:08] dispose of the solar panels at the end
[32:10] of their life?
[32:11] >> Yeah, that was where the proono work
[32:13] from the third party came in. Um the
[32:15] decommissioning at current rates could
[32:17] roughly be anywhere between 300,000 to
[32:19] half a million dollars.
[32:23] » Thank you.
[32:24] >> Okay,
[32:26] D.
[32:27] >> The contract referred to environmental
[32:30] testing reports. So, have there been any
[32:34] reports provided or requested
[32:37] um concerning uh the soil and
[32:40] particularly in the spot where the solar
[32:43] panels are?
[32:44] >> Yeah. [clears throat]
[32:45] Um so, yes, the city of Danville
[32:47] performed um their own in-house phase
[32:49] one environmental study on this
[32:52] property. Um no soil borings were
[32:54] completed. Um we do oftentimes take the
[32:57] guidance of that phase one report from
[32:58] the consultant to um assess a threat
[33:01] level. They never will say there's no no
[33:04] threat of environmental contamination,
[33:06] but there wasn't a lot of concern. They
[33:08] understand there was a manufacturing
[33:10] company here and they they identified
[33:11] that. Um other than going out and and truly spending six figures and
[33:16] drilling, you know, every 10 15 feet. Um
[33:20] the unknown is there, but it is our
[33:22] intent to make this more marketable. um
[33:24] once acquired to uh do a a limited base
[33:27] soil boring essentially. Um, so it's responsible with taxpayer dollars,
[33:32] but it should paint a whole picture of
[33:34] what the soil types are like. But our
[33:36] consultant, while they can't guarantee
[33:38] there is no contamination, they had a a
[33:41] high confidence level that there
[33:42] wouldn't be
[33:46] >> percentage high, please. If if there was
[33:48] one provided,
[33:49] >> yeah, that was no, they cannot. Um,
[33:52] yeah. And if there is contamination on
[33:56] the site, what would be the estimated
[34:00] cost of remediation?
[34:05] >> Yeah. Um, while I'm no expert, my
[34:08] roughly seven years of experience doing
[34:10] this, um, it's going to be truly
[34:12] specific on the hot spots on site. So,
[34:15] from it depends on what materials or
[34:18] solvents, so how it gravitates around
[34:20] the site, etc. Um, so I I can't give you
[34:24] an answer on the magnitude of cost
[34:26] without knowing exactly what it is and essentially how far what it may be
[34:31] sprawls throughout the site.
[34:34] >> Okay. There has the reason why I asked
[34:36] those specific questions is because I
[34:38] had had anecdotal
[34:41] conversations from former employees
[34:45] pertaining to the possibility of dumping
[34:48] in the site where the solar panels have
[34:50] been placed.
[34:51] So,
[34:53] um, the comments that were made to me
[34:55] was, well, of course, Quaker wants the
[34:58] city to take the site for $500 because
[35:02] then the remediation responsibility then
[35:05] becomes the cities.
[35:07] >> And so, um, that is the reason behind my
[35:10] line of questioning. Obviously, no one
[35:12] has provided me with evidence
[35:14] um of anything, you know, that occurred,
[35:17] but like I said, it was anecdotal and
[35:19] they were former employees who brought
[35:20] this uh to my attention.
[35:22] >> Yeah. Um just to follow up to that, it's
[35:26] obviously in my mind that that is a
[35:28] hopefully minute possibility. Um but
[35:30] like we're dealing with the flood plane,
[35:32] if if something is identified, uh we
[35:35] will obviously be very aggressive at
[35:37] trying to uh seek funding to be
[35:39] aggressive at remediation for that.
[35:41] And I know that in the past we have
[35:42] received uh brownfield remediation
[35:45] grants like we did for the corner of uh
[35:48] Fairchild and Vermillion. So I imagine
[35:50] that if there are opportunities we will
[35:53] go after those as well. But obviously
[35:55] having that cost um and having that
[36:00] potential issue
[36:02] does present some additional challenges
[36:04] beyond just the flood plane.
[36:06] >> For sure.
[36:09] Order Johnson.
[36:11] >> I just for a point of clarification so
[36:13] that we on the committee and the people
[36:16] audience that are listening either here
[36:19] or on the waves know exactly where 1703
[36:24] Vorhees is so you can understand the
[36:26] specific site we're talking about.
[36:28] Please.
[36:30] >> Yeah, this is the former PepsiCo or
[36:32] Quaker site on East Vorhees Street. It's
[36:35] roughly 45 to 50 acres.
[36:38] Thank you.
[36:43] » Yes.
[36:44] >> Uh just I'm this is something that we've
[36:47] been working towards for a couple of
[36:49] years now. One of the biggest issues we
[36:50] have in the city of Danville outside of
[36:52] you know state regulations that make
[36:54] business sometimes prohibitive uh here
[36:57] when we're competing with neighboring
[36:58] states particularly um is us having
[37:01] either the space or the utilities. We
[37:04] either have the land but not the
[37:06] utilities. And utility companies usually
[37:09] won't spend tens or hundreds of millions
[37:10] of dollars on speculation. We might get
[37:13] something there eventually, right? Or we
[37:15] have utilities, but we don't have enough
[37:16] land. You know, most of the places
[37:18] logistics and manufacturing that are
[37:20] building places are looking for 50 plus
[37:23] acres, right? So, the good news about
[37:25] this is that we already own um the the
[37:28] former Heatcraft site next door. With
[37:30] the addition of this property, that
[37:32] would give us almost 100 acres
[37:33] [clears throat] of land that has all the
[37:35] utilities right there. It has also a
[37:37] railroad spur which is why the railroad
[37:39] is working interested in working with us
[37:41] as well as a solar installation which
[37:43] would make this highly marketable. So
[37:45] both uh and not only that but the state
[37:47] of Illinois is actually working with us
[37:49] to bu to market this site as well. So,
[37:52] um, my my, uh, my recommendation and my
[37:55] thought is that this is one of our
[37:56] greatest prospects for economic
[37:58] development in the community of
[37:59] Danville. And, uh, it's already a place
[38:02] where there's been manufacturing for a
[38:03] long time, so it wouldn't interfere with
[38:05] the people or the neighborhoods in any
[38:06] way. So, it's my hope that we can make
[38:09] this possible.
[38:12] » All right. Uh, see no more roll call on
[38:15] 11 A, please.
[38:16] >> Alderman Butler?
[38:17] >> Yes.
[38:18] >> Detoy? Yes. Pashard? Yes.
[38:21] >> High Tower.
[38:22] >> Yes.
[38:22] >> Johnson.
[38:23] >> Yes.
[38:24] >> Okain.
[38:25] >> Yes.
[38:25] >> Poor.
[38:26] >> Yes.
[38:27] >> Teague.
[38:28] >> Yes.
[38:29] >> Pickering.
[38:30] >> Yes.
[38:31] >> Ledwig.
[38:31] >> Yes.
[38:32] >> Arn.
[38:33] >> Yes.
[38:33] >> Cooper.
[38:34] >> Yes.
[38:34] >> 12. Yes.
[38:35] Thank you. 11B is an ordinance
[38:38] approving the purchase of real estate at
[38:40] 33 Hazel for community improvement and
[38:42] amending the budget for fund 122 for
[38:45] fiscal year 2627.
[38:47] Move. Dispense read and ask for your
[38:48] approval and need a second. Second
[38:51] >> questions. Alman Ess
[38:55] regarding the TIFF fund. What What is
[38:57] our balance in the reserves? We're
[38:59] pulling 50,000 out of reserves.
[39:01] >> Yeah. Um
[39:03] if you [clears throat] have other
[39:04] questions,
[39:06] >> yeah, if we have other questions, I'd
[39:07] like to get an exact number for you. I
[39:08] would ask for the comproller to please
[39:10] pull that up for us.
[39:12] >> I could give you a ballpark, but I want
[39:13] to be exact.
[39:14] >> Okay.
[39:20] And and for clarification, this is an
[39:22] empty parking lot if I'm correct at the
[39:26] southeast corner of North Street
[39:30] and
[39:32] Walnut or
[39:33] >> Hazel. Yeah.
[39:35] Figure out where
[39:37] >> 431,000.
[39:38] >> Okay. And
[39:41] recognizing that we have some large
[39:43] structures as we talked about at the
[39:45] last meeting to take down
[39:47] Um, if we were to move on those
[39:50] structures right now, would it be likely
[39:53] that it would take all of that to remove
[39:55] them?
[39:58] >> I would say that that's a safe bet.
[40:00] Yeah.
[40:01] >> Okay. How many buildings do we have
[40:03] downtown that are suffering detrimental
[40:06] damage due to the lack of roofs and lack
[40:09] of uh water protection from neighboring
[40:12] and adjoining structures?
[40:17] around five or six, I would say.
[40:20] >> And so, you know, as I indicated at that
[40:23] meeting, I I don't have a problem with
[40:26] if we want additional parking, let's
[40:28] look at additional parking. I I question
[40:30] whether the need is there, considering
[40:32] we just gave up some on street parking
[40:34] for other enhancements, which may be
[40:36] beneficial.
[40:38] But I have real concern that we have
[40:40] these buildings that are currently
[40:42] occupied with conditions based on some
[40:45] of the conversations I've had with
[40:47] property owners and others. Maybe they
[40:49] shouldn't be because they have black
[40:51] mold and some of the same experiences
[40:54] under the circumstances that we move
[40:56] people out of our own building for. And
[40:59] I don't feel it's responsible use of the
[41:01] dollars in the tiff to continue to buy
[41:04] more property that is not harming anyone
[41:06] right now while we have roofs that are
[41:09] actively leaking with building owners
[41:11] that have either abandoned the buildings
[41:12] or are unwilling to apply for tiff
[41:14] grants and use those funds in the
[41:17] downtown area. So once again, I ask for
[41:20] what is our plan to tear down what with
[41:24] what money and who's going to put roofs
[41:26] on these buildings that the owners are
[41:28] refusing to do. You know, the city does
[41:31] have as a home ruled authority and the
[41:32] mayor's office does have certain
[41:34] authorities to protect the public health
[41:36] and safety from these types of
[41:38] conditions. And that has been exercised
[41:41] in the past where someone has an awning
[41:43] getting ready to fall off, somebody has
[41:44] a sidewall getting ready to fall off.
[41:46] There have been circumstances where the
[41:48] city had to step in, spend its money,
[41:49] place a lean on the property, and then
[41:51] pursue the lean. And I guess my question
[41:53] is, how long are we going to let these
[41:55] roofs continue to destroy buildings next
[41:58] to them where some of these people have
[42:00] actually put new roofs on their own
[42:01] buildings trying to solve the problem?
[42:04] And so once again, we need a plan for
[42:06] how is that half a million dollars in
[42:08] reserve going to be spent and how is it
[42:10] going to best benefit the people that
[42:11] have already invested their own personal
[42:13] dollars in their buildings downtown?
[42:16] they're now being harmed because we're
[42:18] not able to effectively require the
[42:20] building owners adjacent to them. So, my
[42:23] suggestion is is that we should have a
[42:24] plan. If we don't think those buildings
[42:26] are salvageable, they need to go now
[42:29] before they continue to damage their
[42:30] adjoining neighbors. And I've seen no
[42:33] plan. We've had not a thing presented to
[42:35] the council. It was news to me that we
[42:37] had this many structures that are being
[42:39] damaged by their neighbors and they
[42:41] can't get a response or at least a
[42:44] satisfactory one to this point. So, I
[42:46] will be voting no on this and I would
[42:48] encourage you to do the same until we
[42:50] all understand how much of a liability
[42:52] we have down there and what's going to
[42:54] have to be torn down. And two, how can
[42:57] we get roofs on these to protect the
[42:59] people who have already made significant
[43:01] investments in their own property? And
[43:03] that's my position. Thank you.
[43:05] [clears throat and cough]
[43:06] I I appreciate DDI supporting this and I
[43:10] understand the purpose and that's not a
[43:13] bad thing if we didn't have what I
[43:15] consider to be a much higher priority in
[43:18] damaging buildings of people that are
[43:19] trying to run businesses. Thank you.
[43:24] » Anyone else? Mayor.
[43:27] >> Yes. Uh I understand Alderman Aron's
[43:29] concern, but I would put the question
[43:30] back. Most of these buildings have been
[43:32] empty for longer than this
[43:33] administration has been in place. And in
[43:36] fact, when others oversaw public works,
[43:38] these buildings were in similar or worse
[43:40] conditions. And in fact, we have torn
[43:42] down many of the buildings that were
[43:44] allowed to rot under the previous
[43:46] administration that we owned that were
[43:48] causing similar problems for decades.
[43:51] So, what I would say is that we have
[43:52] taken a very aggressive stance in
[43:55] remediating the problems in downtown by
[43:58] getting rid of problematic buildings.
[44:00] However, as you well know, having
[44:01] overseen this for so long, $500,000 is
[44:04] not going to tear down even one of these
[44:06] buildings. So to say to suggest that all
[44:09] of a sudden that this 500 400 and some
[44:11] thousand dollars is a miracle cure to
[44:14] fix a problem that's been ongoing since,
[44:16] you know, previous administration and
[44:18] when, you know, public works oversaw it
[44:20] and was aware of these same problems in
[44:22] many of these same buildings, uh, I
[44:24] think is a little bit misleading. Um but absolutely we are going through the
[44:30] court process. We are prosecuting these
[44:33] folks where we can and uh getting the
[44:35] right to do something about the building
[44:37] so that we can move if we have to and
[44:40] the emergency powers that you meant it
[44:41] has to be an immediate threat to to life
[44:44] or public safety. So the things that we
[44:47] have addressed have been immed life or
[44:51] safety. For example, over on Fowler
[44:53] Street, again, a long time, I mean, not
[44:55] Fowler Street, on Factory Street, a a
[44:58] known problem that the previous
[45:00] administration knew of for decades. It
[45:02] took literally the building start
[45:04] crumbling into the street when I became
[45:07] aware of it and then we did something
[45:08] about it. We got rid of it. So, what I
[45:10] would say is that this this
[45:11] administration has taken a very
[45:13] aggressive approach to addressing this
[45:15] issue that was not addressed for many
[45:17] decades, even though these conditions
[45:19] were known to exist.
[45:23] HS.
[45:24] >> Well, I I I think the relevant points
[45:26] here, mayor, is that people want to look
[45:28] forward. We can go back and revisit what
[45:31] was done over the last 30 years, but
[45:32] that doesn't do us any good in this
[45:34] community for the existing conditions we
[45:36] have today. And while you like to
[45:38] continue to refer to a prior
[45:40] administration, I was not in charge of
[45:42] that administration. I was simply a
[45:44] worker like all of they are, and I had
[45:47] no authority to vote on anything. But
[45:49] most importantly, I think the
[45:51] distinction between this administration,
[45:54] if you want to go there, and and those
[45:56] are is they were never handed $25
[45:59] million to use how they saw fit in their
[46:01] community. You chose to put $19 million
[46:04] into Garfield Park. I think five would
[46:07] have been adequate, maybe a little more,
[46:10] but we could have torn down every
[46:11] structure in this community that needs
[46:13] torn down with the balance of that. So,
[46:15] let's focus on what we need to do going
[46:17] forward. Talking about what didn't get
[46:20] done before does not stop the water from
[46:22] leaking in on the neighbors roofs. And
[46:24] so let's focus on where we need to go
[46:27] forward. And going forward means these
[46:30] things aren't going away. Yes, there
[46:32] would have there's a lot of things we
[46:33] can all sit and talk about what we wish
[46:35] we could have, should have, and would
[46:36] have done had we had $25 million, but we
[46:40] didn't have those choices. We had
[46:42] council members like yourself that voted
[46:44] against every fee increase regardless of
[46:46] what it was used for. And so what we're
[46:49] dealing with today is what we need to
[46:51] deal with today. And that is we have
[46:54] building owners in their downtown area
[46:57] and we're waiting for the courts to
[46:58] solve the problem. And all the courts
[47:00] will do is require the owner to do it.
[47:03] And if they choose not to do it, they
[47:04] can still walk away. That's why we're
[47:06] tearing everything down. That's the way
[47:08] it is in America. You can walk away from
[47:10] property. But we need to decide which
[47:13] ones are salvageable, which ones are
[47:15] not. So, as people are coming into the
[47:17] downtown area, they're not buying a
[47:18] property that they find out next door.
[47:20] Well, the city knows it's bad, but
[47:22] they're not going to do anything about
[47:23] it. So, let's not go back and forth on
[47:26] that. Let's figure out what is the plan
[47:28] for Danville. How are we going to do for
[47:30] these structures? And how are we going
[47:32] to stop these folks from being damaged
[47:35] from things that are going on today, not
[47:37] 10 years ago? Thank you. Okay.
[47:39] >> I would just I would also just add that
[47:42] uh $25 million 18 million of ARPA was 19
[47:46] million of ARPA was not spent in
[47:48] Garfield Park. Um you've forgotten about
[47:51] you all put together a master plan for
[47:53] storm water management. We actually have
[47:56] completed seven of the 10 worst ma
[47:58] problems of storm water management in
[48:01] there with ARPA money. We also bought
[48:04] new fire uh trucks. We also did a lot of
[48:07] other things. uh in the community
[48:10] with that money. So, let's just make
[48:12] sure that we're honest about what was
[48:14] used with that. Also, we need to make
[48:16] sure that we're honest about the fact
[48:17] that you know that when you de demolish
[48:20] one more than a certain number of
[48:21] properties in area that there are
[48:23] additional criteria, additional steps
[48:25] that you have to take. And if you take
[48:27] those additional steps, then you have to
[48:29] spend much more money. So the cost of
[48:31] demolition, let's say we did exactly
[48:33] what you said and we demolished every
[48:35] bad structure in Danville, we would have
[48:37] paid three times more for each one of
[48:38] those structures to do it. So we would
[48:40] not have been able to get quite as far
[48:41] as as you supposed.
[48:46] » Okay. Is this about the resolution?
[48:49] [laughter]
[48:49] >> Yes, it is.
[48:50] >> Okay.
[48:52] Um,
[48:56] in my thinking about the resolution, uh,
[48:59] I take
[49:04] the influence of DDI and their decision
[49:07] as a body, um, to have come to have the
[49:11] president come forth and provide their
[49:13] support for this um, very very heavily.
[49:16] Um especially considering I know that
[49:19] some of the business owners who are
[49:23] directly impacted by some of the issues
[49:25] that are happening in adjoining
[49:27] businesses are also members and voting
[49:31] members or board members for DDI.
[49:35] I like to think the two things can be
[49:37] true at the same time. you can deal with
[49:41] the issues of problems that we have and
[49:45] also at the same time do the things that
[49:48] promote growth.
[49:50] The fact that DDI has come forth and
[49:53] said we support this because it's going
[49:56] to help grow downtown to me um is a very
[50:01] strong
[50:03] influence on how I will vote on this.
[50:06] And I do take into consideration that we
[50:08] do have a number of b uh buildings
[50:10] downtown that need to be demolished. Um
[50:12] and if DDI was opposed to this, then I
[50:15] would say that I would be opposed to
[50:16] this because the people who are on the
[50:19] board of DDI are also the people who are
[50:21] paying additional uh taxes for that
[50:25] special service area and and how that
[50:28] money is being used. So,
[50:31] I do believe we have to address the the
[50:34] buildings that need to be demolished. I
[50:38] would love to see a plan. I am in
[50:40] agreement on that cuz we've not really
[50:41] heard anything about the issues with the
[50:44] buildings downtown and whatnot, but that
[50:46] should not stop the growth that we need
[50:49] to have downtown, particularly because
[50:53] our organization DDI has said that they
[50:57] want this. For that reason, um, I plan
[50:59] to vote yes. Um, and it is heavily
[51:02] influenced by, uh, DDI's decision to
[51:04] support it.
[51:08] » Just as a point of clarification, it's a
[51:09] parking lot today. Our plan is to keep
[51:11] it a parking lot. No change in status,
[51:15] no benefit that isn't there today. Thank
[51:17] you.
[51:19] >> Well, it is a private parking lot today
[51:21] and is actually closed off from parking.
[51:23] So, I think the fact that the city is
[51:25] acquiring it actually gives us the
[51:27] opportunity to o reopen it for parking
[51:30] because you cannot park on that lot
[51:32] today.
[51:34] Alderman Teague, I also might add that
[51:36] uh you know, one of the things DDI has
[51:38] asked for is additional parking. Our
[51:40] goal would be right now we have parking,
[51:42] we have paid parking by the building
[51:44] owners in in the I can't remember, maybe
[51:46] it's the G-OT immediately behind in
[51:48] between uh Vermillion Street and Hazel
[51:51] Street. So, our goal is to move the paid
[51:54] parking out to this new lot that we're
[51:56] going to acquire and then to have free
[51:58] parking or, you know, available parking
[52:01] to the public right there adjoining the
[52:04] businesses in that first in that block.
[52:06] also with a goal of using of having the
[52:09] food truck court there near nearby soon.
[52:11] I think that will substantially bring
[52:13] additional um folks downtown to park and
[52:17] they're going to need places so they can
[52:18] go and buy their food and enjoy enjoy
[52:20] themselves.
[52:23] >> Follow-up question based on what you
[52:24] just said, does that mean that we will
[52:26] have limitations on the time frame for
[52:28] parking? Because one of the issues that
[52:30] we have downtown is that you can't be
[52:32] downtown for more than two hours without
[52:33] moving your car because you might get a
[52:35] ticket.
[52:36] >> That's actually not an issue. We have
[52:37] we've we've uh for over eight months now
[52:41] uh temporarily suspended that and we
[52:43] have not had any issues with it. DDI has
[52:45] been very
[52:47] >> there is no more there is no more um uh
[52:51] time limit for downtown
[52:53] >> tempor it's temporarily it's temporarily
[52:55] suspended continued. So then will it
[52:57] come back? Is the plan for it to come
[52:59] back at some point then? Because you
[53:00] can't say it's not an issue is those
[53:03] there's not a plan for it to come back.
[53:05] >> Not at this time unless we
[53:06] >> So then all of the sign this have the
[53:08] signs been taken down?
[53:09] >> They have not because it's been
[53:11] temporary. I I have the authority to to
[53:13] do so for a limited period of time. If
[53:15] we were to change that totally, I would
[53:17] need to bring it to you as a council.
[53:19] >> How would this Okay. This is the first
[53:21] that I've heard of of that because I
[53:23] know I've gotten tickets downtown
[53:24] previously and I've avoided parking in
[53:26] certain spots. As a matter of fact, I've
[53:28] parked I went to a meeting actually with
[53:31] DDI and parked far away because I
[53:33] thought I was going to get a ticket or I
[53:35] thought I was going to be there for more
[53:36] than two hours. So, I walked further
[53:38] than I needed to and it wasn't that long
[53:39] ago. It was maybe a couple of months
[53:40] ago. So, this is news to me and probably
[53:43] news to many of the citizens. So, I feel
[53:45] like we can't say that we have a parking
[53:47] issue and then we're going to provide
[53:48] free parking, but it's not going to be
[53:50] free parking and we might not make it
[53:52] free later, but it's free right now. I
[53:54] think we need to be able to say it's
[53:55] either going to be this or it's going to
[53:56] be that. If it's going to be paid, then
[53:58] it's going to be paid and people should
[54:00] know that all the signage downtown says
[54:02] that that's what's required. If that's
[54:03] not the case, we could take the signs
[54:05] down and then if we need to put it back,
[54:07] we can put them back later. But right
[54:08] now, it's confusing. But that's neither
[54:10] here nor there as it relates to this.
[54:11] is about acquiring a lot to provide
[54:14] for parking that is sorely needed
[54:16] downtown. And I think that the downtown
[54:18] businesses would love for us to be able
[54:20] to have the signage down because
[54:23] not having parking keeps people from
[54:25] coming downtown.
[54:26] >> They had they had previously been in
[54:28] agreement with us that while we were
[54:30] doing a trial basis to see how it would
[54:32] impact tra traffic patterns that we
[54:34] would leave them up in case it were were
[54:36] to return. So far we have not had a need
[54:38] of that. But that was that was actually
[54:41] a mutual agreement with DDI.
[54:43] >> That's understandable. But the DDI
[54:46] people aren't the people who are
[54:47] actually patronizing their businesses.
[54:49] So I think that those of us who actually
[54:50] want to come downtown and shop might
[54:52] would love to be able to know that we
[54:54] won't have to worry about tickets or any
[54:58] of that any of those things in act in
[55:01] order to uh patronize the businesses
[55:03] that are our downtown.
[55:08] » Okay.
[55:09] Roll call on 11B.
[55:12] >> Alderman DeToy.
[55:13] >> Yes.
[55:14] >> Pashard.
[55:15] >> Yes.
[55:16] >> High Tower.
[55:17] >> Yeah.
[55:18] >> Johnson.
[55:19] >> Yes.
[55:20] >> Okaane.
[55:21] >> Yes.
[55:21] >> Poor.
[55:22] >> Yes.
[55:23] >> Pickering.
[55:24] >> Yes.
[55:24] >> Teague.
[55:25] >> Yes.
[55:26] >> Lewig.
[55:27] >> Yes.
[55:27] >> Arn.
[55:28] >> No.
[55:29] >> Cooper.
[55:30] >> Yes.
[55:31] >> Butler.
[55:32] >> Yes.
[55:33] >> 11. Yes.
[55:34] Thank you. 11 C is a resolution
[55:37] approving a change order to bid number
[55:38] 795 2026 Cape Seal program. Move read
[55:43] and ask your approval. Need a second.
[55:44] >> Second.
[55:46] >> Questions.
[55:49] Seeing none. Roll call.
[55:51] >> Alderman Pashard.
[55:53] >> Yes.
[55:54] >> High Tower.
[55:55] >> Yes.
[55:55] >> Johnson.
[55:56] >> Yes.
[55:56] >> Okay.
[55:57] >> Yes.
[55:58] >> Poor.
[55:58] >> Yes.
[55:59] >> Pickering.
[55:59] >> Yes.
[56:00] >> Teague.
[56:01] >> Yes. [snorts]
[56:01] >> Lewig.
[56:02] >> Yes.
[56:03] >> Arn.
[56:03] >> Yes.
[56:04] >> Cooper. Yes.
[56:05] >> Butler.
[56:06] >> Yes.
[56:06] >> Doy.
[56:07] >> Yes.
[56:07] >> 12. Yes.
[56:08] Thank you. 11D is a resolution
[56:11] awarding a contract for phase 1
[56:13] preliminary engineering services for
[56:15] Seminary Street and Bowman Avenue VRU
[56:18] improvements and authorizing a budget
[56:20] amendment. Move to Spence Reed and ask
[56:22] for approval.
[56:24] Need a second.
[56:25] >> Second. [laughter]
[56:28] >> Alman Arms. I know.
[56:32] If I read the scope of of work
[56:34] correctly, is it stops at Bowman? So the
[56:39] section of seminary from Bowman to
[56:41] Griffin will not be receiving a sidewalk
[56:44] as part of this.
[56:45] >> Seminary from Bowman to Griffin. Yes.
[56:49] [clears throat] Yes. It's essentially
[56:50] seminary from Vermillion to the Bowman
[56:52] intersection, including improvements at
[56:53] the intersection itself.
[56:55] >> Okay. So we're replacing existing with
[56:58] either a shared use or whatever is
[56:59] appropriate. Correct. But the section
[57:01] that's been talked about for a while
[57:02] that remains without a sidewalk, that's
[57:04] not part of this scope.
[57:06] >> Correct.
[57:07] >> Okay. Thank you,
[57:09] >> T.
[57:12] I was reading the resolution
[57:14] and I'm not sure if I understand it
[57:19] correctly or not. So, I'm really asking
[57:21] questions for points of clarity. Um the
[57:25] grant covers
[57:28] the later phases but not does not cover
[57:31] phase one. And so this is for us to pay
[57:34] for phase one.
[57:36] >> Correct.
[57:37] >> Um and then
[57:42] was this already budgeted or is this
[57:46] are we moving money from someplace in
[57:48] order to cover uh this expense?
[57:50] >> Uh yes and no. Um, we had we were
[57:53] carrying money in this budget. This is
[57:55] something we we were carrying $600,000
[57:58] in there. It was not essentially
[58:00] predetermined for this. However, we got
[58:03] the grant award in recent years and this
[58:05] has come to fruition in the past year of
[58:08] we need to get phase one going to do
[58:10] this stuff. We have the $600,000 sitting
[58:13] here unassigned. Currently, it's 700 for
[58:15] phase one. So, we're amending to pull
[58:17] out of reserves to fund the remainder.
[58:20] >> Thank you. That's exactly the clarity I
[58:22] was looking for. Thank you.
[58:25] >> Other questions,
[58:26] >> chairman, just for clarification, um,
[58:28] you know, I've seen people, a lot of
[58:30] people misunderstand and focus on the
[58:32] wrong things. The great thing is, yes,
[58:34] we're going to be getting sidewalks so
[58:35] we can make sure that we keep our people
[58:37] safe when they're walking, getting kids
[58:39] getting to school, folks going to get
[58:41] their groceries, going to doctor's
[58:42] appointment. But the other important
[58:43] part is we're going to be able to redo
[58:45] the road. Uh I for many years from the
[58:48] time I was 18 until a couple years ago
[58:50] attended Community Church of God and for
[58:52] a long time that's on South Bowman
[58:54] across from Douglas Park. When you drive
[58:56] down there it's like you're riding on a
[58:58] wooden roller coaster, right? When
[58:59] you're going up it kind of just shakes
[59:01] you. Same thing we have on Seminary
[59:03] Street, right? And so this is actually
[59:05] going to allow us to reconstruct those
[59:07] roads as well. So it's more than just
[59:10] sidewalks and safety for pedestrians.
[59:11] While that is important and we're
[59:13] thankful for it, it will also allow us
[59:15] to redo the roads in those areas which I
[59:17] think is is equally important for our
[59:19] citizens.
[59:22] » Okay. Um roll call please on 11D.
[59:25] >> Alderman High Tower.
[59:26] >> Yep.
[59:27] >> Johnson.
[59:28] >> Yes.
[59:28] >> Okaane.
[59:29] >> Yes.
[59:30] >> Poor.
[59:30] >> Yes.
[59:31] >> Pickering.
[59:32] >> Yes.
[59:32] >> Teague. [clears throat]
[59:33] >> Yes.
[59:34] >> Lewig.
[59:35] >> Yes.
[59:35] >> Arn.
[59:36] >> No.
[59:37] >> Cooper.
[59:37] >> Yes.
[59:38] >> Butler.
[59:39] >> Yes.
[59:40] >> Doy. Yes. Pashard.
[59:42] >> Yes.
[59:43] >> 11. Yes.
[59:44] Thank you. 11E is a resolution
[59:48] approving the purchase of a rear loader
[59:50] refuge truck for the city of Danville.
[59:52] Move to dispense three and ask for
[59:53] approval. Need a second.
[59:54] >> Second,
[59:57] >> questions.
[59:59] >> Second.
[1:00:00] >> No questions.
[1:00:01] >> Oh, sorry. I didn't hear anybody say.
[1:00:05] >> Okay. Say none. Roll call, please.
[1:00:08] >> Alderman Johnson.
[1:00:10] Yes.
[1:00:10] >> Okain.
[1:00:11] >> Yes.
[1:00:12] >> Poor.
[1:00:12] >> Yes.
[1:00:13] >> Pickering.
[1:00:13] >> Yes.
[1:00:14] >> Teague.
[1:00:15] >> Yes.
[1:00:15] >> Lewig.
[1:00:16] >> Yes.
[1:00:16] >> Arn.
[1:00:17] >> Yes.
[1:00:18] >> Cooper.
[1:00:18] >> Yes.
[1:00:19] >> Butler.
[1:00:19] >> Yes.
[1:00:20] >> Doy.
[1:00:20] >> Yes.
[1:00:21] >> Pashard.
[1:00:22] >> Yes.
[1:00:22] >> High Tower.
[1:00:23] >> Yes.
[1:00:24] >> 12. Yes.
[1:00:25] Thank you. 11F is a resolution
[1:00:27] authorizing application to ITEP for
[1:00:29] funding design and construct Bowman and
[1:00:32] construction of Bowman and Vory's
[1:00:34] pedestrian accommodations.
[1:00:36] Uh move to Spencer. Ask for approve.
[1:00:37] Need a second. Second
[1:00:41] >> questions.
[1:00:44] Seeing none, roll call, please.
[1:00:46] >> Alderman Okaane,
[1:00:47] >> yes.
[1:00:48] >> Core,
[1:00:49] >> yes.
[1:00:50] >> Pickering,
[1:00:51] >> yes.
[1:00:51] >> Teague,
[1:00:52] >> yes.
[1:00:53] >> Lewig,
[1:00:54] >> yes.
[1:00:54] >> Arn,
[1:00:55] >> yes.
[1:00:56] >> Cooper, [clears throat]
[1:00:56] >> yes.
[1:00:57] >> Butler,
[1:00:58] >> yes.
[1:00:58] >> Detoy,
[1:00:59] >> yes.
[1:00:59] >> Pashard,
[1:01:00] >> yes.
[1:01:01] >> High Totower,
[1:01:02] >> yes.
[1:01:02] >> Johnson,
[1:01:03] >> yes.
[1:01:04] >> 12, yes.
[1:01:05] Thank you.
[1:01:08] Okay. 11G, a resolution authorizing
[1:01:11] application to it to for funding to
[1:01:13] perform phase one and two engineering
[1:01:16] services and rightaway acquisition for
[1:01:18] the kickpoo rail trail extension into
[1:01:20] Danville. Dispenser read and ask for
[1:01:23] your approval. Need a second.
[1:01:24] >> Second.
[1:01:27] >> Anybody questions?
[1:01:29] >> Chairman.
[1:01:30] >> Yes. Oh,
[1:01:32] >> no question. Just a comment. This is
[1:01:34] absolutely important to get done and I'm
[1:01:38] glad to hear from all the parties that
[1:01:40] helped continue to nurture this project
[1:01:43] and get it in here has tremendous
[1:01:46] ability to help our heights as well as
[1:01:47] other parts of our central community. So
[1:01:50] getting that trail into Danville is
[1:01:51] critical going forward.
[1:02:00] » Okay.
[1:02:01] All right. Uh, any other comments,
[1:02:03] questions? Roll call, please.
[1:02:06] >> Alderman Pickering,
[1:02:07] >> yes.
[1:02:08] >> Teague,
[1:02:08] >> yes.
[1:02:09] >> Leadwick,
[1:02:10] >> yes.
[1:02:10] >> Arn,
[1:02:11] >> yes.
[1:02:11] >> Cooper,
[1:02:12] >> yes.
[1:02:12] >> Butler,
[1:02:13] >> yes.
[1:02:13] >> Doy,
[1:02:14] >> yes.
[1:02:14] >> Pashard,
[1:02:15] >> yes.
[1:02:16] >> High Tower,
[1:02:16] >> yes.
[1:02:17] >> Johnson,
[1:02:18] >> yes.
[1:02:18] >> Okaane,
[1:02:19] >> yes.
[1:02:20] >> 12. Yes.
[1:02:22] >> 11H. Items of information
[1:02:26] once we figure out the remote.
[1:02:29] >> Uh, Logan's got something really quick.
[1:02:31] >> Okay. Yeah, thank you for the reminder.
[1:02:35] Um,
[1:02:37] >> uh, little update on an emergency we had
[1:02:41] at Milican dry cleaner demolition and,
[1:02:43] uh, underground, uh, tank removal.
[1:02:49] » Uh, we hired consultants uh, to come in
[1:02:53] uh, remove remove the tanks on site in
[1:02:56] the last two weeks. I don't know if
[1:02:57] anybody drove by and saw them sitting
[1:02:59] out on ground. There was only supposed
[1:03:00] to be four tanks sitting on the ground
[1:03:01] and if you drove by there was a
[1:03:03] significant amount more than that. Um
[1:03:05] four of them four tanks were registered
[1:03:08] with the with the state fire marshal and
[1:03:10] that is all we knew about. Um as the as
[1:03:13] the contractor started digging around
[1:03:15] the site they doubled in and the amount
[1:03:17] of tanks that were underground. I laugh
[1:03:19] because it hurts. Um, so, um, I needed
[1:03:23] to let the city council know that
[1:03:25] essentially the original proposal I did
[1:03:27] not have to come to city council with,
[1:03:28] which was, um, $49,300
[1:03:34] and it it essentially doubled, um, with
[1:03:37] the tanks that need to be removed and
[1:03:38] then, uh, the required excavation of the
[1:03:41] potentially contaminated soils around
[1:03:43] them. It's a part of the um, underground
[1:03:45] storage tank removal process. Um so I am
[1:03:48] informing the city council that
[1:03:49] unfortunately
[1:03:51] um the increase of price was $45,615
[1:03:55] uh dollars. The intent is to um fund
[1:03:58] that through Midtown TIF through
[1:03:59] property assembly um which fortunately
[1:04:02] that that fund has an operating budget
[1:04:04] that has um enough funds to cover this
[1:04:06] expense um to get this ready and down the road. But yeah, that that is
[1:04:11] what I needed to inform the city council
[1:04:12] of tonight.
[1:04:18] Alard, do you first?
[1:04:19] >> I just had a question uh regarding the
[1:04:22] Cape Seal program if we had a date when
[1:04:24] they're going to come back and do uh the
[1:04:26] repair work
[1:04:28] on uh
[1:04:30] >> uh it's supposed to be I think it was
[1:04:32] two weeks from last time I talked to
[1:04:33] you. So, it's probably this week. I'd
[1:04:35] have to follow up and check with our
[1:04:37] project manager.
[1:04:38] >> Thank you.
[1:04:41] the Midtown TIFF change. Does that need
[1:04:44] to come back come to us for a vote or uh
[1:04:48] No,
[1:04:49] >> I would seek to make sure with the
[1:04:52] comproller, but since it's emergency,
[1:04:54] would it have to come back?
[1:04:56] >> Um,
[1:04:56] >> doesn't matter. Yes. Yeah, I'll bring it
[1:04:59] back.
[1:05:00] >> Okay. So, it'll come to Will it come to
[1:05:02] public services or just as soon as you
[1:05:04] get it done? I'm just curious.
[1:05:06] >> Yeah, I can I can bring it to public
[1:05:08] services. That's no problem.
[1:05:10] >> Yeah.
[1:05:11] >> Okay. Anyone else?
[1:05:15] >> All right. [clears throat] Well, uh,
[1:05:18] today I bring you some exciting
[1:05:20] information. So, I've received a a
[1:05:23] number of questions from a number of you
[1:05:25] about, uh, just how the demolition
[1:05:28] ranking process works and the process
[1:05:30] that we've put together over the past
[1:05:31] few years. So, I just actually wanted to
[1:05:34] just really quickly run through this is
[1:05:36] very short. I won't take much of your
[1:05:37] time. uh but also just wanted to make
[1:05:40] sure that everyone was informed and I
[1:05:41] was able to uh express this out loud to
[1:05:44] everybody on how we do things. So the
[1:05:47] focus of this presentation just so we're
[1:05:49] clear is once we have the legal ability
[1:05:52] to tear down a house, what happens, how
[1:05:55] does it get ranked, uh and what's our
[1:05:57] process there. So uh leading up to that
[1:06:00] is more, you know, is more through the
[1:06:02] legal process, but uh but this is this
[1:06:05] is after that. So, um, and then just to
[1:06:08] be clear, too, this is just a snapshot
[1:06:09] right now of where we're at. Um, and
[1:06:13] we're working on taking a very holistic
[1:06:16] view of the entire demolition, uh,
[1:06:19] program that we run. Uh, and that was
[1:06:21] listed in our public works top 10, uh,
[1:06:23] within the business plan section. So uh
[1:06:26] with that uh you know we want to just
[1:06:29] make sure that uh when we look
[1:06:31] holistically we understand all of the
[1:06:33] assumptions that were taken in the past
[1:06:35] and where are we at now and where are we
[1:06:37] going in the future and where where are
[1:06:39] the trends going. Uh so all of that is
[1:06:42] being taken into consideration as we
[1:06:44] develop our business plan. Uh but this
[1:06:46] is a snapshot of where we're at now and
[1:06:48] how we uh how we do that with our uh
[1:06:52] with our process. So uh basically the
[1:06:55] goals that we started with the ranking
[1:06:57] process uh is making sure that we have
[1:07:00] an objective and transparent
[1:07:01] decision-making process there. Uh we
[1:07:04] want to have that mindset of what we do
[1:07:06] for one we're willing to do for all and
[1:07:08] we want to be fair across the board. Uh
[1:07:10] so we we want to take a look uh at
[1:07:13] things through that type of a lens. Uh
[1:07:15] and then we also want to make sure that
[1:07:17] hey we get the biggest bang for our
[1:07:19] buck. Uh we want to focus the limited
[1:07:21] resources on greatest impact. Um and
[1:07:23] then prioritizing public safety and then
[1:07:26] supporting neighborhood stabilization
[1:07:28] and reinvestment. You'll see one of our
[1:07:30] ranking criteria is focused on the
[1:07:33] stabilization of of healthy
[1:07:35] neighborhoods and uh and trying to make
[1:07:38] sure that we are uh adding that into the
[1:07:40] weight as well. Uh and then just
[1:07:42] aligning with redevelopment goals uh
[1:07:44] which we'll get into here in a second.
[1:07:47] All right. So, uh, when are properties
[1:07:49] added to the list? This is just, uh,
[1:07:51] okay, this is how they they get put on
[1:07:53] the list. Either, uh, the city acquires
[1:07:55] the property, uh, or court demolition
[1:07:58] orders, uh, dangerous building
[1:08:00] determinations, owner consent, uh, with
[1:08:03] legal authority. Uh, those are those are
[1:08:05] a few avenues, uh, that things can get
[1:08:07] added to the list. And, uh, those are
[1:08:10] case-byase basis, uh, most of the time.
[1:08:13] And, um, so let's see. The uh the
[1:08:18] biggest thing I wanted to note on this,
[1:08:20] if there is concern over where we're at
[1:08:22] on a property, I know that this is
[1:08:24] discussed pretty regularly. I get calls
[1:08:26] quite a bit. I know uh Council Parker
[1:08:29] does as well. Please continue to reach
[1:08:31] out, let us know, and we can let you
[1:08:32] know, you know, if a propertyy's made it
[1:08:34] to the list, if we're in process on
[1:08:36] something, um we're always able to
[1:08:38] answer those questions. So, okay. Okay.
[1:08:40] So, the scoring philosophy uh and these
[1:08:43] are a lot of what we uh we talked about
[1:08:45] earlier, but when we uh when we were
[1:08:48] putting this together, a biggest thing
[1:08:49] that we wanted to talk about on this uh
[1:08:52] slide is I wanted to talk about the fact
[1:08:53] that we want to make sure that we are
[1:08:55] taking into consideration what the
[1:08:57] impact is of a demolition of a property,
[1:09:00] not necessarily the time on the list. Uh
[1:09:02] I know that uh it may it may seem
[1:09:05] logical at first to just hey in the
[1:09:08] order they come in is the order we
[1:09:09] demolish them but that could also push
[1:09:11] some really really important properties
[1:09:14] to get out of the uh get get demol
[1:09:17] demolished um push those pretty far down
[1:09:20] the list. So uh all right so our
[1:09:23] evaluation and scoring categories these
[1:09:26] are the categories that we use and we
[1:09:28] score by and you'll see the scoring
[1:09:30] matrix on the next slide. Uh but we
[1:09:33] first look at safety risk. Uh what is
[1:09:35] the risk to you know residents uh people
[1:09:38] in the area? I think I always think of
[1:09:40] you know kids playing in the
[1:09:42] neighborhood and wanted to make sure
[1:09:43] things are safe. Uh and then the
[1:09:45] neighborhood stabilization impact.
[1:09:47] That's that's what we basically call um
[1:09:50] we want to strengthen a neighborhood. If a neighborhood is completely healthy
[1:09:54] and uh and has an isolated blight uh
[1:09:58] instance, that receives a higher score
[1:10:01] than maybe a more uh saturated
[1:10:04] neighborhood with blight. Uh and then
[1:10:06] we've got the priority area designation.
[1:10:09] That's one of those like a targeted
[1:10:11] redevelopment area such as what we did
[1:10:13] in the Madison neighborhood. uh and we
[1:10:16] purposefully try not to share those uh
[1:10:19] too much publicly for obvious reasons of prices going up if we're trying to
[1:10:23] acquire properties for a uh a
[1:10:26] redevelopment. Uh and then arterial road
[1:10:30] visibility. Uh this is one that uh we
[1:10:33] actually have um added in as a uh an a
[1:10:38] score uh here in the last couple of
[1:10:40] years. This wasn't on it when we
[1:10:42] initially uh developed this. Uh but I
[1:10:46] will get into uh why that has been added
[1:10:48] here uh recently. Um and then fire
[1:10:51] damage obviously for one safety and and
[1:10:54] that but also the appearance of a fire
[1:10:56] structure is is a little bit uh um more
[1:11:01] impactful at times as well. So all
[1:11:03] right. So this is the scoring matrix. We
[1:11:05] do everything on a 20point scale. And
[1:11:08] what we did initially is we set up our uh categories with the uh point
[1:11:16] system and we sent out three of our
[1:11:18] different supervisors to run through the
[1:11:21] list and rank our properties. Uh those
[1:11:24] supervisors then came back and we input
[1:11:26] all of their scores into uh an Excel
[1:11:29] sheet and compared their scores to see,
[1:11:32] hey, if we're looking subjectively,
[1:11:34] these are three people. All I did was
[1:11:36] give them the uh give them the
[1:11:38] description of what they're rating and
[1:11:40] then send them out. And we wanted to
[1:11:41] see, hey, how closely do they align? Uh
[1:11:44] and after a couple of tweaks uh and then
[1:11:47] redoing it, we we found a spot where we
[1:11:50] aligned pretty stinking close uh with
[1:11:53] each other as far as order of houses are
[1:11:55] concerned. Um, one of the big things
[1:11:57] that we had happen though is,
[1:12:01] uh, we had some houses that were pretty
[1:12:05] visible from our arterial roads. Uh,
[1:12:08] couple that I can give an example of,
[1:12:11] uh, would be on um on Hazel just just
[1:12:15] behind uh, like Royal Donut area. And as
[1:12:18] you're going to the uh as you're going
[1:12:21] to the high school, they were glaringly
[1:12:24] obvious right there in one of our main
[1:12:25] thoroughfairs. And you have a lot of
[1:12:27] visitors coming from out of town going
[1:12:28] to the high school and want to make sure
[1:12:30] that those are prioritized uh so that
[1:12:33] we're we have I guess our highly
[1:12:36] trafficked areas looking nice uh and
[1:12:40] putting on a good face there. So uh
[1:12:43] that's one of the bigger things that
[1:12:44] we've changed in the past. uh and um I
[1:12:49] guess in the last two years. Other than
[1:12:50] that, we've been pretty solid on on our
[1:12:52] rankings here as of late. So, all right.
[1:12:55] So, basically how we develop our
[1:12:57] priority score. We basically rank all
[1:12:59] those one to 20, add them all up. Uh the
[1:13:01] higher the score, the higher the
[1:13:03] priority. Uh if there's a tie, that is
[1:13:06] when we take into consideration time on
[1:13:08] list. So, if we've got four houses that
[1:13:11] are all ranked, uh, you know, an 86, the
[1:13:14] longer it's been on the list, the higher
[1:13:16] it goes. Uh, and then, uh, re-evaluation
[1:13:20] of scores. Uh, we're trying to get
[1:13:22] through the city, uh, twice a year just
[1:13:24] to re-evaluate. Uh, so that's a way that
[1:13:28] things get repprioritized. The other is
[1:13:31] complaint driven evaluation with just a
[1:13:33] windshield survey, honestly. Um, and I
[1:13:36] wanted to give an example, a specific
[1:13:37] example of this. uh Otterwoman Teague re
[1:13:40] had someone reach out to her and she she
[1:13:42] passed that concern along to us uh on
[1:13:44] John Street. Uh and so we did a
[1:13:47] windshield survey a couple of weeks ago,
[1:13:50] probably three weeks ago, and uh the
[1:13:53] house had uh in the time so we have
[1:13:56] pictures every time we go out. So we
[1:13:58] have a picture of this what it did look
[1:13:59] like when we raided it. Uh and when our
[1:14:03] supervisor went out and uh assessed it,
[1:14:06] basically all the trusses had collapsed
[1:14:08] in and the house was uh structurally
[1:14:10] unstable. So that house got reranked and
[1:14:14] shifted way up the list to where we were
[1:14:16] getting it done in almost an emergency
[1:14:18] order at that point. Uh
[1:14:21] so uh the last slide here is just
[1:14:25] exceptions to our priority order. So
[1:14:28] there are there have been plenty of
[1:14:29] times where houses are um in grant
[1:14:34] eligible areas. Uh we want to make sure
[1:14:37] obviously if we're able to use uh
[1:14:39] outside funds uh rather than our own
[1:14:41] local funds, we want to do that as much
[1:14:43] as humanly possible. Uh and so that way
[1:14:46] we can stretch our local funds as far
[1:14:48] down the list as possible as well. So
[1:14:50] there have been times where uh whether
[1:14:52] we have grant funding or we are waiting
[1:14:54] on the grant funding, we'll pass by some
[1:14:57] of the houses uh so that we're able to
[1:14:59] uh stretch the dollar as far as we can.
[1:15:02] Uh and then uh obviously emergency
[1:15:04] demolitions if there's, you know, some
[1:15:06] major uh health and safety issue there
[1:15:09] and then active development areas such
[1:15:12] as what happened in the Madison
[1:15:14] neighborhood there. So um with that,
[1:15:17] that's kind of how we get our rankings.
[1:15:19] Uh, that's all I wanted to go through
[1:15:20] tonight is just kind of explain that.
[1:15:23] Um, I'm going to pass around some the
[1:15:25] SOP for it that coincides with this
[1:15:28] slideshow. Um, I'll do it now because I
[1:15:30] forgot to do it before I started. My
[1:15:32] apologies. And uh, that way you guys
[1:15:35] have something. What I would encourage
[1:15:36] is if you guys have any feedback uh on
[1:15:39] any of this, feel free to get get a hold
[1:15:41] of us. We are always looking to get
[1:15:43] better. I know we can always get better.
[1:15:45] So, if you guys have any input on it,
[1:15:47] love to hear it. So, all right.
[1:15:50] Appreciate you.
[1:15:50] >> Thank you. Director Alman,
[1:15:52] >> how many structures have been ranked to
[1:15:55] this point?
[1:15:56] >> Uh,
[1:15:58] what do you mean? I mean, I know how
[1:15:59] manyish are on the list right now, but
[1:16:02] >> Okay. What's that number?
[1:16:04] >> Uh, it's a little over 200, I believe.
[1:16:06] >> And and we believe that's probably a
[1:16:08] larger number.
[1:16:10] >> Uh,
[1:16:11] >> or are we suggesting there's only 200
[1:16:13] houses that still need to be demolished?
[1:16:15] No, I that's what we have. The list that
[1:16:18] we have is only what we have the legal
[1:16:20] authority to tear down at this moment.
[1:16:22] >> Okay.
[1:16:22] >> Yeah.
[1:16:23] >> Do we have an idea of what the full
[1:16:25] scope of the problem is yet? I asked
[1:16:27] this about a year ago.
[1:16:29] >> How many of them are out there waiting
[1:16:31] to get court approval? Yes. Or legal
[1:16:33] approval.
[1:16:34] >> So, that's within our kind of our uh
[1:16:37] demolition business plan that we're
[1:16:39] putting together. We're trying to get a
[1:16:40] holistic view of that. That's not put
[1:16:42] together yet. So, we're in we're still
[1:16:45] in process on it. Yeah. Okay.
[1:16:46] >> I think a pretty good number could be
[1:16:48] generated by inprocess condemnations,
[1:16:51] right? Ward by ward.
[1:16:54] >> Yeah.
[1:16:55] >> There's a lot of ways you can get it.
[1:16:56] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:16:58] >> Thank you.
[1:17:00] >> Hold on. I'm writing down a question.
[1:17:03] >> I have a se several questions. Um first
[1:17:06] question is, is this just residential or
[1:17:08] is it residential and commercial?
[1:17:10] because I know the property on Factory
[1:17:12] Street that the mayor brought up. I if I
[1:17:14] recall, Alderman Okaine was uh bringing
[1:17:18] up that property for quite some time
[1:17:20] prior to uh prior to it becoming
[1:17:24] emergency status where it collapsed into
[1:17:26] the street. So, I'm just curious to know
[1:17:28] and I know that I have sent you some
[1:17:29] commercial properties in our ward as
[1:17:31] well. So, I'm just curious to know is it
[1:17:33] only residential or is it a mix of both?
[1:17:35] >> Yeah. So, so we do on on the list we do
[1:17:37] have some uh commercial properties. Now,
[1:17:40] obviously those are handled a little bit
[1:17:41] different uh and because you know the
[1:17:45] larger the commercial property is uh the
[1:17:47] more of an eye that we keep on things uh
[1:17:49] as time goes on and obviously funding
[1:17:51] sources are so much higher. So those
[1:17:54] don't really I guess fall into the
[1:17:56] consideration of just going straight
[1:17:58] down the list uh because of the the
[1:18:01] amount of funding it takes to demolish
[1:18:03] most of those. So,
[1:18:04] >> and then um
[1:18:08] the the scoring process, this is me
[1:18:13] doing data stuff. Um
[1:18:16] you said that there are three people
[1:18:17] scoring. So, all properties go through.
[1:18:19] So that was our initial scoring is to to develop our our list to ensure that
[1:18:24] no matter who went out to to score
[1:18:26] something that we knew we were falling
[1:18:28] roughly in the same priority after that
[1:18:31] like our the demolition manager Dustin
[1:18:33] Brown basically goes through and uh and
[1:18:36] associates scoring for each of the uh
[1:18:39] the
[1:18:40] properties.
[1:18:41] >> Okay. And then you said that properties
[1:18:44] get re-reed periodically. Was it every
[1:18:47] six months? Yeah, that's our goal. Um I
[1:18:50] will be honest with you that is uh we
[1:18:54] probably missed that goal this past
[1:18:56] year. Um but uh that's kind of been an
[1:18:59] assigned goal uh that we're looking for a key performance indicator of that
[1:19:04] is just trying to get through those
[1:19:05] every six months to ensure that we're
[1:19:07] monitoring our houses.
[1:19:09] >> And then do they get rescored then at
[1:19:11] that re? when he goes around, that's
[1:19:13] what he'll do is he'll rescore those and it may end up shaking up the list a
[1:19:18] little bit. Now, if the list is uh if
[1:19:20] this system works properly, the hope
[1:19:23] would be that they don't really change
[1:19:24] order too much unless we've had a major
[1:19:27] um collapse or something such as what
[1:19:30] happened on John Street.
[1:19:31] >> But that would be the point of restoring
[1:19:32] then, right? Yeah.
[1:19:33] >> And then um
[1:19:35] >> will we get
[1:19:36] >> You haven't passed out the papers yet,
[1:19:38] so I'm going to remind you. And then
[1:19:40] will we get a copy of the presentation
[1:19:43] or is that included in what's on that?
[1:19:45] >> Basically the presentation is right off
[1:19:47] of that. There's more information on
[1:19:49] that than there is in the presentation
[1:19:51] slides, but
[1:19:52] >> we'd be able to get that electronically.
[1:19:54] >> Yep. I can send that over.
[1:19:55] >> Thank you. I think
[1:19:59] >> I got a couple.
[1:20:00] >> I think that's all I got.
[1:20:01] >> Do we got a dedicated crew that's going
[1:20:03] out there every week? Every day or every
[1:20:05] week tearing down houses?
[1:20:07] >> Yeah. So, we have a demolition uh
[1:20:10] operator that is constantly um working
[1:20:14] on houses. Uh I will say obviously
[1:20:17] there's times where the machine's down
[1:20:19] or something like that, but yes, we have
[1:20:20] a a crew dedicated to that.
[1:20:23] >> How far out
[1:20:25] is the city out on these things? I I
[1:20:27] talked to somebody in public works. They
[1:20:30] said it's about nine months out the
[1:20:32] house I had. But how far out is it? uh I
[1:20:36] wouldn't necessarily be able to give you
[1:20:38] a really accurate understanding, but if
[1:20:39] there's over 200 on the list and
[1:20:42] internally we can get two to three down
[1:20:44] in a week. Uh you know, now that being
[1:20:46] said, we also have we have a funding
[1:20:49] related uh things where we can contract
[1:20:51] out more to get more done. And that's
[1:20:53] what we've been doing uh pretty
[1:20:55] prevalently here uh in the past few
[1:20:57] years is just really trying to push to
[1:20:59] get as many down as we can as quickly as
[1:21:01] we can. So,
[1:21:02] >> if we've got a house and
[1:21:05] it's in a real nice neighborhood, it's
[1:21:08] been
[1:21:10] probably should have been on demolist
[1:21:12] three or four years ago. Can can we as
[1:21:14] an individual on this council pushed it
[1:21:17] up the list or not?
[1:21:18] >> So, uh I would uh say that if our
[1:21:22] scoring works correctly, it should end
[1:21:24] up towards the high end of the list as
[1:21:26] soon as we have uh the authority to de
[1:21:29] demolish. if you want, maybe after the
[1:21:31] meeting or whatever, you can give me the
[1:21:32] address and I can check the status of
[1:21:35] that uh tomorrow and find out where
[1:21:37] we're at with it.
[1:21:41] » So,
[1:21:44] how long
[1:21:47] could you say we have 200 that we have
[1:21:49] the authority to demolish?
[1:21:51] >> Probably a little bit over that. Yeah.
[1:21:52] And what is if we were to try to get
[1:21:56] through all of them without any new
[1:21:57] houses coming on the list or shifting
[1:21:59] the list around, how long would it take
[1:22:02] us to get through that list?
[1:22:04] >> Uh, a few years. Like I said, uh, I
[1:22:06] think I pulled I just pulled the data
[1:22:09] uh, that we had on the last three years.
[1:22:11] I think we've been averaging
[1:22:14] um, I wouldn't want to get quoted on
[1:22:16] this, but I'm pretty sure the average
[1:22:18] was between 80 and 90 that we've
[1:22:20] averaged the last three years.
[1:22:21] Okay. The reason why I'm I'm thinking
[1:22:25] about this further and asking this
[1:22:26] question and it actually makes me think
[1:22:28] about another question that was on here,
[1:22:31] but you actually answered it in the
[1:22:33] presentation and that was about weighted
[1:22:34] scoring. Um, obviously there is no
[1:22:37] weighted scoring, right? All of the
[1:22:38] categories are equal.
[1:22:41] I'm wondering if some categories should
[1:22:44] potentially have a higher weight. The
[1:22:46] thing that I'm specifically thinking
[1:22:48] about is fire. And the reason why I'm
[1:22:50] asking this specific question because I
[1:22:52] know that there's a house that I asked
[1:22:53] about. I believe the address is it's on
[1:22:55] McKenley. I believe the house number is
[1:22:57] 1310. Um that has a fire that had a fire
[1:23:02] in
[1:23:04] 24
[1:23:05] that corporation council has said we
[1:23:08] received the right to demolish in either
[1:23:11] January or February of 25. And yet that
[1:23:14] house is still standing. And it seems
[1:23:16] that as if, okay, well, if that house
[1:23:19] wasn't on McKinley, right, if it was in
[1:23:22] a neighborhood that all of the other
[1:23:24] houses around it were great, it might
[1:23:26] actually or if it was on a major street,
[1:23:28] it would have a higher score because the
[1:23:31] other houses in the neighborhood are
[1:23:33] also some of the other houses in the
[1:23:35] neighborhood are also deteriorating
[1:23:39] at the same time. Then because the
[1:23:42] neighborhood is unstable, then it
[1:23:45] actually leads to the house being on the
[1:23:47] list longer, which seems to be
[1:23:50] detrimental to the neighborhoods where
[1:23:54] there's a multiple houses deteriorating
[1:23:58] because we're doing things to stabilize
[1:24:00] neighborhoods that are already stable,
[1:24:02] but letting neighborhoods that are
[1:24:04] unstable remain unstable based on how
[1:24:08] this is been explained. And we can have
[1:24:10] further conversation about what that
[1:24:13] could potentially look like. But it is,
[1:24:15] I think, troublesome to many people,
[1:24:18] particularly the neighbors on Mckenley
[1:24:20] Street, that they've sat and looked at a
[1:24:22] house that had a fire
[1:24:26] >> almost two years ago and the house is
[1:24:28] still standing.
[1:24:29] >> Yeah. So, I'd say just a couple things
[1:24:32] in response to that. So, as we're going
[1:24:34] through and developing the demolition uh
[1:24:38] kind of business plan, we're trying to
[1:24:40] let take a holistic view of like, hey,
[1:24:42] how what are what are other options?
[1:24:44] What are big picture options that we can
[1:24:45] look at here? So, um with that, I
[1:24:49] understand your uh your thought process
[1:24:52] there and also I appreciate the feedback
[1:24:55] on kind of the priority uh or the uh
[1:24:59] neighborhood blight scale. Um, I'm
[1:25:03] always open to hear that. Uh, I think,
[1:25:06] you know, the thought process was just
[1:25:08] trying to stabilize neighborhoods that
[1:25:10] haven't um that haven't gone downhill
[1:25:12] yet, but uh understanding that thought
[1:25:15] process as well. So, I appreciate the
[1:25:17] feedback there. And I and I know in this
[1:25:19] particular instance, and I imagine it's
[1:25:21] probably the case with every house that
[1:25:23] has had a fire because everyone knows
[1:25:26] that the house is empty, that the house
[1:25:28] is falling apart, that there's dumping
[1:25:31] and and you've seen the picture of the
[1:25:33] one on Mckenley because I sent it to
[1:25:35] both you and Corporation Council. So,
[1:25:38] the considerable amount of dumping
[1:25:40] that's happening at that particular
[1:25:41] address, I'm sure has happened at many
[1:25:45] other addresses where the house is
[1:25:48] clearly
[1:25:50] uninhabitable.
[1:25:51] >> Um, and so I don't know if that can be a
[1:25:54] criteria. Um, obviously, like I said
[1:25:58] before, we've talked about it many
[1:26:00] times. So more than happy to sit down
[1:26:02] with you and brainstorm on what some of
[1:26:04] those additional criterias might be or
[1:26:07] what
[1:26:08] >> a weighted version could also look like.
[1:26:12] Um but
[1:26:16] there see what you guys are doing is
[1:26:19] great. It is definitely needed. Um and
[1:26:22] there's obviously way more that needs to
[1:26:25] be done than you have the capacity to do
[1:26:27] in a year or two years. Right. You said
[1:26:30] it again what five years to get through
[1:26:33] all 200 or something like that.
[1:26:34] >> Uh no it probably be two and a half
[1:26:36] years.
[1:26:36] >> Two and a half years. Okay.
[1:26:37] >> Yeah. That's not taking into
[1:26:38] consideration anything being added to it
[1:26:39] but
[1:26:40] >> Right. So
[1:26:42] obviously
[1:26:44] there's a lot of work to be done and you
[1:26:46] guys are doing a lot of great work
[1:26:47] already
[1:26:49] >> and yet and still we still know that as
[1:26:51] you've already said acknowledged we can
[1:26:54] do better. So I appreciate the work that
[1:26:56] you've done. you know, by the way that
[1:26:58] you giggle because I was look making eye
[1:27:00] contact with you like, "Oh, yes." Cuz
[1:27:02] those that's what my eyes were saying.
[1:27:03] Um, I really appreciate you bringing
[1:27:05] this presentation because it is
[1:27:07] something that I have been asking about
[1:27:09] a lot and we get asked about a lot. So,
[1:27:12] for us to be able to have something that
[1:27:14] we can share with people um about
[1:27:17] priorities is great. Um, I would love to
[1:27:21] be able to see whatever the list looks
[1:27:25] like because especially considering that
[1:27:28] this list is only of properties which we
[1:27:31] already have the legal authority to
[1:27:34] demolish, we should be able to see it
[1:27:37] and be able to share it because those
[1:27:39] properties are already under the city's
[1:27:41] responsibility. If there are other
[1:27:43] properties that are not our
[1:27:44] responsibility, I can understand why we
[1:27:46] do not share that publicly. But there's
[1:27:48] no reason why we should not be able to
[1:27:49] see this list and for it to be able to
[1:27:51] be shared publicly, especially if we
[1:27:54] already have the legal authority.
[1:27:58] » Awesome. Anybody else?
[1:28:01] >> Uh, yes. I don't want to call the name
[1:28:04] of the house. I'm glad that y'all really
[1:28:06] kind of concerned about around the high
[1:28:09] school areas and and I'm talking about
[1:28:11] this one particular house on Hazel.
[1:28:13] We've done put a fence around it uh
[1:28:16] right now and are they waiting till the
[1:28:20] house fall down or we still keeping in
[1:28:23] contact with the foundation?
[1:28:24] >> I will what they going to do with that.
[1:28:26] >> I'll have to look into that and get back
[1:28:27] to you. I'm not actually aware of what
[1:28:29] you're talking about at the moment. So,
[1:28:31] >> okay. I guess
[1:28:33] >> it's a dig van Dyke house.
[1:28:35] >> Oh, okay.
[1:28:35] >> Yeah.
[1:28:36] >> All right. Yeah, I'll have to get back
[1:28:37] with you on that one.
[1:28:38] >> Okay.
[1:28:38] >> And find out what the status is.
[1:28:40] >> You're right there because it look like
[1:28:42] it's getting ready to fall down right
[1:28:44] now.
[1:28:44] >> Gotcha.
[1:28:45] >> Yeah.
[1:28:48] » Two items uh in in followup to Alderman
[1:28:51] Teague's comments.
[1:28:54] Based on what's likely out there, it's probably a 5 to 10 year period at the current rate. And so that's where
[1:29:01] in order to accelerate that, we would
[1:29:03] have to dedicate additional resources
[1:29:05] because while there are 200 that are
[1:29:07] legally qualified to demolish based on
[1:29:11] previous structural surveys and things
[1:29:13] like that that identified up to,200
[1:29:15] structures not so long ago and I think
[1:29:17] the mayor's indicated they've torn down
[1:29:18] about 500 to 600 during his tenure.
[1:29:21] there's still 500 to potentially 700
[1:29:24] houses [clears throat] out there that
[1:29:26] are going to need it or need it today
[1:29:28] within that that same time frame. The
[1:29:31] other thing that is unfortunate and and
[1:29:33] uh I think we have to be careful in how
[1:29:36] we communicate this is some of us
[1:29:39] suspected that houses were catching on
[1:29:41] fire because neighbors knew that moved
[1:29:42] them up the list
[1:29:44] >> and that's why it was so important to
[1:29:46] keep them secured and and keep them
[1:29:49] unable to get inside them to start the
[1:29:51] fires because
[1:29:54] that was an unknown.
[1:29:56] But sometimes there were some
[1:29:57] coincidences were a little too
[1:29:59] coincidental. So thank you. And it's a
[1:30:02] big big task. No question about it. And
[1:30:04] they do change. A winter snow load can
[1:30:08] change the condition of any of these
[1:30:09] structures. And so it's important to
[1:30:11] keep that followed up. And really I
[1:30:14] think it's critical that we get a a full
[1:30:16] scope of what is the total problem for
[1:30:18] the council to be able to set aside
[1:30:19] whatever they feel is a reasonable pace
[1:30:21] of time. If we want to get them all done
[1:30:23] in three years, five years, we need to
[1:30:25] know the numbers. Data is what we can
[1:30:28] base it on. Thank you.
[1:30:31] >> One last question. Does the list then
[1:30:34] have
[1:30:38] does a list currently have estimated
[1:30:42] date or
[1:30:44] >> no
[1:30:44] >> or desired date?
[1:30:45] >> No. Um, one of the So, we do scheduling
[1:30:50] uh out but uh we try to set we I have
[1:30:54] our demolition manager send me like
[1:30:56] what's he got in the upcoming months uh
[1:30:59] like couple months. uh we try not to
[1:31:02] share too much of of the dates within
[1:31:05] two to three weeks because we have a for
[1:31:07] instance situation like the John Street
[1:31:09] one where something changes and uh I
[1:31:13] always want to be a man of my word and I
[1:31:16] think that enough has happened that I
[1:31:18] have regretted [laughter] sharing too
[1:31:20] much information. So, if I'm being
[1:31:22] honest, I just I I try not to share a
[1:31:24] whole lot of the time frames. Just
[1:31:26] knowing how things end up going.
[1:31:27] [laughter]
[1:31:28] >> And the dumping is the other big thing
[1:31:29] that you mentioned to me too, Dave, is
[1:31:31] that when people know, then all of a
[1:31:32] sudden, as you mentioned, Alderman
[1:31:34] Teague, it becomes an even bigger
[1:31:35] problem more rapidly. and and that's
[1:31:38] understandable, but that doesn't mean
[1:31:39] that there can't be something done to
[1:31:43] share more information with us. whether
[1:31:46] it's a house is in the top 10 or
[1:31:50] um these are the things that we actually
[1:31:53] scheduled
[1:31:54] >> the week of that it gets scheduled or
[1:31:56] something of that nature because right
[1:31:58] now we are flying blind and it is
[1:32:04] >> there is an exceptional amount of time
[1:32:06] spent
[1:32:08] on at least by me
[1:32:11] >> um when I get calls on this I don't know
[1:32:12] about anybody else but there's an
[1:32:13] exceptional amount of time spent
[1:32:15] on empty houses and problem properties.
[1:32:19] And I personally, my approach has always
[1:32:22] been when somebody calls me about a
[1:32:24] house, regardless of where it is in the
[1:32:26] city of Danville, I drive by. I look at
[1:32:29] it for myself, I take pictures, I send
[1:32:32] emails, I follow back up with the person
[1:32:34] who contacted me. So, there is a
[1:32:37] significant amount of time that happens
[1:32:38] on every property. And it seems like
[1:32:42] all we're doing is
[1:32:45] cha from my perspective chasing problem
[1:32:48] properties when if we actually had some
[1:32:50] information I could at least say yes
[1:32:54] it's on a radar.
[1:32:57] >> Yeah.
[1:32:57] >> But I can't say that because I don't see
[1:33:01] it.
[1:33:02] >> Alderman Teague. Um we were to be providing a monthly update
[1:33:08] of what's coming up in the month and
[1:33:10] there was a little miscommunication on
[1:33:12] that. So that will be um happening
[1:33:14] moving forward.
[1:33:15] >> Well, we'll talk internally too and just
[1:33:17] see I'll I've got some ideas kicking
[1:33:20] around that uh I'll kind of run past and
[1:33:23] see. We'll talk internally and I'll
[1:33:25] figure out what we might be able to do
[1:33:26] to communicate a little bit better with
[1:33:28] you guys.
[1:33:29] >> Okay. and and if you want feedback, you
[1:33:31] know, feel free to call or text me
[1:33:32] anytime.
[1:33:33] >> Awesome. Thank you.
[1:33:38] » I'll text you.
[1:33:40] >> It has been my experience that
[1:33:44] um when the public finds out something's
[1:33:47] going to be demolished, all of a sudden
[1:33:50] it becomes a dumping ground.
[1:33:52] I really think we're causing we would be
[1:33:56] causing more problems for ourselves if
[1:33:59] we made it public that this house is
[1:34:02] going to be torn down at this time. Um
[1:34:07] it it happened in my own neighborhood,
[1:34:09] you know, they found 20ome tires in one
[1:34:12] house, you know, and they hadn't been
[1:34:14] there to my knowledge
[1:34:18] before it was said that it was going to
[1:34:20] be torn down. So, I think we have to be
[1:34:23] careful what we say. It's not that we
[1:34:26] don't want the public to know. It's just
[1:34:29] that the houses are dangerous and we
[1:34:32] don't want people in them. And if
[1:34:34] they're dumping in them, they're they're
[1:34:36] in them. So, I I don't I don't think
[1:34:40] it's all that good of an idea to to
[1:34:43] release a list of of demos that's going
[1:34:47] to happen in a recent
[1:34:50] projection.
[1:34:57] » I can appreciate that people will dump
[1:34:59] at houses that they know are on the
[1:35:01] list. People are dumping at houses that
[1:35:02] they don't know are on the list. I mean,
[1:35:04] Mckenley has been on the list since at
[1:35:07] some point since January 2025. And if
[1:35:11] you saw the pictures of that house, you
[1:35:13] can't see the house hardly because of
[1:35:14] all the dumping. I also sent uh Dave a
[1:35:18] house. Oh, I can't remember when, but I
[1:35:21] can remember where. It's over by
[1:35:22] Douglas. Um that there was a bunch of
[1:35:24] dumping. You guys went out there cuz it
[1:35:27] was dumping in the back and dumping in
[1:35:28] the front. in the front of the house. I
[1:35:30] have I still have the pictures. The the front of the house had actually
[1:35:34] collapsed. Um the front on the front
[1:35:36] porch area had collapsed and I remember
[1:35:38] that there was a bunch of dumping and um
[1:35:40] you guys went over there and clean it up
[1:35:41] and I don't believe that that house was
[1:35:43] on the list at that time or not. Um
[1:35:45] people are dumping just because they're
[1:35:47] dumping. They're dumping at the end of
[1:35:49] streets. If I drive down Shasta Street
[1:35:50] right now, which is in my ward, and go
[1:35:52] to the end of Shasta Street, I guarantee
[1:35:54] you I'm going to find tires. And there's
[1:35:56] no house there. They're just dumping.
[1:35:58] And they're dumping all along Fowler
[1:35:59] Street as well. People in this town are
[1:36:01] dumping regardless. But we still need to
[1:36:03] see the list. I'm not saying that it has
[1:36:05] that we have to make it public or that
[1:36:06] we got to post it anywhere. But if
[1:36:08] somebody calls me about a house, I
[1:36:10] should not have to then go drive by the
[1:36:11] house, take a look at it, and then go
[1:36:13] call Dave to see what's going on with it
[1:36:15] for me to know that it's already on the
[1:36:17] list. I just want to be able to know
[1:36:19] that something is imminent and I could
[1:36:22] at least see it on the list. And if it's
[1:36:24] in the top 10, I know that it's going to
[1:36:26] be taken down at some point soon when I
[1:36:28] get a phone call. And if it's not in the
[1:36:30] top 10, I can say, "Well, you know what?
[1:36:32] It's on the list and they'll eventually
[1:36:33] get to it." And at least that satisfies
[1:36:35] the person who is calling me because
[1:36:38] they think that the city is not paying
[1:36:41] attention to what's going on in their
[1:36:43] neighborhoods and we don't have anything
[1:36:46] to tell them because we don't know
[1:36:47] ourselves. So, we need to be able to
[1:36:50] tell them something. And for us to not
[1:36:52] have the information to me is
[1:36:53] problematic. Whether or not we make it
[1:36:56] publicly accessible,
[1:36:58] I'm open to whatever works for everybody
[1:37:00] and it creates a win-win situation. But
[1:37:02] having nothing to be able to give them
[1:37:04] is not a win-win situation. It's a
[1:37:06] win-lose situation because the citizens
[1:37:09] feel like nobody cares.
[1:37:18] » Two things. uh the there is a little bit
[1:37:21] of subjectivity in the objective
[1:37:23] evaluation scoring and what have you and
[1:37:25] that's where I do think the alderman
[1:37:27] could support play a supportive role in
[1:37:29] staying in communication with the
[1:37:31] department of hey you guys have this one
[1:37:33] ranked here but this is what goes on at
[1:37:36] night that you don't see as an inspector
[1:37:37] or something like that and that's
[1:37:39] something that perhaps can be worked out
[1:37:41] between the others
[1:37:43] >> the other has been wrestled with for a
[1:37:45] long long time and what I can tell you
[1:37:46] is if it's provided to us It's foyable
[1:37:49] which mean it's available to everyone.
[1:37:51] And so the the concerns that we had in
[1:37:55] the early days go back to what Alderman
[1:37:57] DeToy indicated is they were getting in
[1:37:59] these places and taking out stairways
[1:38:01] and everything else and anything else of
[1:38:03] value. And I assume that still happens
[1:38:04] if they can get in them, copper,
[1:38:06] everything. And so it is a problem to
[1:38:08] have the list out there. I get it. But
[1:38:11] there does have to be a way that the
[1:38:12] elected officials can interact with the
[1:38:15] administration to get the data they need
[1:38:17] without creating documents that can then
[1:38:19] be distributed.
[1:38:22] >> And and you're right because I watched
[1:38:23] the houses around Garfield Park when we
[1:38:26] purchased them get torn to shreds.
[1:38:29] >> Yep.
[1:38:32] » All right, Mayor, that concludes our
[1:38:33] report.
[1:38:34] >> Thank you, Chairman Boore. At this time,
[1:38:36] we will receive our public services
[1:38:37] committee report by Chairman Vicker.
[1:38:39] >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh 12A is a resolution
[1:38:42] authorizing the purchase of surveillance
[1:38:44] cameras through organized rental crime
[1:38:46] grant program. Um at this time I make a
[1:38:49] mo I'll make a motion to dispense with
[1:38:51] the reading and ask for uh their
[1:38:52] approval. Is there a second?
[1:38:54] >> I second.
[1:38:54] >> Second.
[1:38:55] >> Is there any discussion or debate?
[1:38:59] >> This one Mrs. P.
[1:39:00] >> Yes.
[1:39:01] >> The chief controller did very well with
[1:39:03] that presentation by the way at public.
[1:39:05] This did come to public works because it
[1:39:07] was timesensitive. So, it went to the
[1:39:10] public works committee last week and got
[1:39:11] moved to the full council this week.
[1:39:14] >> Thank you.
[1:39:17] >> Roll call, please.
[1:39:18] >> I'm sorry.
[1:39:20] >> Oh,
[1:39:21] >> I was just stretching. [laughter]
[1:39:25] » Look like you had a pressing question.
[1:39:26] Alderman.
[1:39:27] >> Oh, yeah. I'll just stretch and tell
[1:39:28] you, you know, kind of [laughter]
[1:39:30] >> exactly where are these cameras going to
[1:39:32] go as a retail grant? I mean, what are
[1:39:35] you planning on doing? Where are you
[1:39:36] putting them or are they not in the
[1:39:38] parks?
[1:39:40] >> Well, I I will say that some of the
[1:39:42] parks that we will be taking the cameras
[1:39:45] that we're getting, we're finding that
[1:39:47] there's a
[1:39:50] I think the effectiveness with some of
[1:39:51] the cameras that we're getting will be
[1:39:53] better there. And then we'll be taking
[1:39:56] some of those cameras and putting them
[1:39:58] in another area where the vantage point
[1:40:01] is uh taken care of with that current
[1:40:05] status of the camera, you know, angles,
[1:40:07] views, uh capabilities,
[1:40:10] uh and and so forth. So, this is all a
[1:40:12] continuence of what we had talked about
[1:40:14] with the parks. uh the this was the
[1:40:18] second part of the funding that was
[1:40:21] approved and then the grant came in
[1:40:23] after uh fiscal years.
[1:40:26] >> Okay, that's fine.
[1:40:28] >> Yeah.
[1:40:29] >> So, this is just essentially to spend
[1:40:31] the money that you already approved for
[1:40:32] us to spend. But
[1:40:35] >> any other questions? Roll call, please.
[1:40:38] >> Alderman Teague,
[1:40:40] >> yes.
[1:40:40] >> Leadwick,
[1:40:41] >> yes.
[1:40:42] >> Arn,
[1:40:43] >> yes.
[1:40:43] >> Cooper,
[1:40:44] >> yes. Butler,
[1:40:45] >> yes.
[1:40:46] >> The Toy
[1:40:46] >> Yes.
[1:40:47] >> Tashard,
[1:40:48] >> yes.
[1:40:48] >> High Tower,
[1:40:49] >> yes.
[1:40:49] >> Johnson,
[1:40:50] >> yes.
[1:40:51] >> Okain,
[1:40:51] >> yes.
[1:40:52] >> Poor,
[1:40:53] >> yes.
[1:40:53] >> Pickering,
[1:40:54] >> yes.
[1:40:56] >> 12, yes. Uh 12B. Items of information.
[1:40:59] Uh we will have our public service
[1:41:01] meeting uh September the 22nd, next
[1:41:03] Tuesday at 6 PM in these chambers. Uh
[1:41:06] and that concludes our report. Mayor,
[1:41:08] >> thank you, Vice Chairman.
[1:41:11] At this time, we have our items of
[1:41:12] information and uh first which has been
[1:41:15] on our our list for some time is a
[1:41:17] potential change in treasurer selection.
[1:41:20] Although we do not have a written
[1:41:21] opinion yet, we expect that any day uh
[1:41:24] corporation council parker and I did
[1:41:26] have occasion to speak to the attorney
[1:41:27] who is writing the position. So I wanted
[1:41:29] to have uh corporation council provide
[1:41:31] you with a verbal update of what he
[1:41:32] shared with us.
[1:41:34] So, the city retained an attorney to
[1:41:37] provide a second opinion on changing the
[1:41:39] treasur's position from elected to
[1:41:41] appointed. As the mayor mentioned, last
[1:41:43] Friday, um we spoke to attorney Lance
[1:41:46] Molina of Klein, Thor, and Jenkins.
[1:41:49] They're located in the Chicago area. Uh
[1:41:52] Mr. uh Molina was hopeful he could have
[1:41:55] the written opinion to us uh by this
[1:41:58] evening uh for the council meeting uh
[1:42:01] but we have not received it. So, he was
[1:42:03] able to provide the mayor and I with his
[1:42:07] preliminary opinion stating, however, he
[1:42:09] was completing some research for his
[1:42:12] final opinion.
[1:42:14] So, should the council choose to change
[1:42:16] the treasur's position from elected to
[1:42:19] appointed, his preliminary opinion is as
[1:42:22] follows. Uh, he does not believe the
[1:42:25] federal court has jurisdiction.
[1:42:27] The city absolutely has uh the authority
[1:42:29] to place the question of changing the
[1:42:32] treasur's position from elected to
[1:42:35] appointed through the referendum process
[1:42:37] without going to federal court. He does
[1:42:40] not advise making the change by
[1:42:42] ordinance. He does not believe case law
[1:42:45] allows to change the form of government.
[1:42:49] Uh he was also asked to uh provide an
[1:42:51] opinion that was brought up. uh he uh
[1:42:56] states there is no rule requiring
[1:42:58] Danville to keep two elected positions.
[1:43:02] Um so he is uh like the mayor stated, we expect his uh formal written opinion
[1:43:09] any day now. Get that to you as soon as
[1:43:12] possible.
[1:43:14] So the key points being that the it it
[1:43:17] may not be changed by ordinance or he
[1:43:19] recommends that it cannot be that it
[1:43:21] would have to go to referendum.
[1:43:24] >> He didn't he did not recommend we do it
[1:43:27] by ordinance.
[1:43:28] >> Well, yeah. Yes, that's correct.
[1:43:30] >> Um and in that um the other thing which
[1:43:33] we've had some question about and I know
[1:43:35] Alderman Okaine, you brought this
[1:43:36] question up again recently and it's been
[1:43:39] for many years a discussion. We've
[1:43:41] always been told that we have to have at
[1:43:42] least two officials elected at large.
[1:43:44] That is not the case. That is not a
[1:43:46] statutorial requirement. Um we we could
[1:43:49] determine that through referendum.
[1:43:53] >> Yes. Alderman Okaine.
[1:43:55] >> If it council decides to send it to
[1:43:58] referendum, what's the drop dead time
[1:44:02] that they have to get it to the November
[1:44:06] or any other election?
[1:44:07] >> November has passed. November has
[1:44:10] passed. I believe it would
[1:44:12] >> so
[1:44:15] uh 79 days before the election. So you'd
[1:44:18] have to have uh that question certified
[1:44:22] uh to place it on the ballot. So the
[1:44:25] general election is
[1:44:28] April 6th of 27.
[1:44:30] 79 days would be January 17th of 27. The
[1:44:35] primary is February 23rd of 27. 79 days
[1:44:40] would be December 6th of 26.
[1:44:47] » Yes, Mr. Butler.
[1:44:49] >> So, what you're saying then is that the council has the
[1:44:54] uh the authority to to put it on the
[1:44:58] referendum, right?
[1:45:00] So we also have the authority to uh vote
[1:45:04] it up or down whether we want to or not.
[1:45:08] >> Correct.
[1:45:08] >> Okay.
[1:45:12] » Any Alderman Ars
[1:45:14] >> did he offer an opinion on uh what
[1:45:16] chairman poor had indicated as far as
[1:45:19] the number of alderman and are any type
[1:45:21] of a waiver for not complying with the
[1:45:24] statutes on the number of aldermen?
[1:45:28] That was not something uh that he was
[1:45:30] asked
[1:45:31] >> before him.
[1:45:31] >> Correct.
[1:45:32] >> Thank you.
[1:45:34] >> In in speaking with the council, it was
[1:45:37] my understanding that the we were to
[1:45:38] focus on the treasurer's position.
[1:45:42] >> Any further items on that discussion on
[1:45:44] that?
[1:45:45] >> Yes. Alderman T.
[1:45:48] >> Did he have any opinion on any potential
[1:45:51] cost if we were sued as a result of the
[1:45:55] change?
[1:45:57] He was not asked uh to give an opinion
[1:46:00] on that matter.
[1:46:03] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:46:06] >> Are there any other items for the good
[1:46:08] of the cause?
[1:46:09] >> Mayor, I do have an item here.
[1:46:11] >> Yes.
[1:46:11] >> Um we had sent out a press release
[1:46:13] earlier and I've just got it posted on
[1:46:14] social media while here tonight. Um we
[1:46:17] will be having a meeting at Mad Goat u
[1:46:19] Monday, September 21st at 400 p.m. It is
[1:46:22] to talk about the Kickapoo Rail Trail,
[1:46:24] what that plan looks like. um and to get
[1:46:26] engagement from the community. So, if
[1:46:28] you do or don't support it, please come
[1:46:29] out or if you don't understand what it
[1:46:31] is, um please connect with us. We'd love
[1:46:33] to share more information. Yes,
[1:46:36] >> that Mad Goat South.
[1:46:37] >> Yes, Mad Goat South. Thank you.
[1:46:39] [laughter]
[1:46:40] Um we've got that sent out on our media,
[1:46:42] social media, all of the things. So,
[1:46:44] first that and then the second thing is
[1:46:46] we'll be sending out more information.
[1:46:48] It's going to be a survey about
[1:46:50] pedestrian safety um and like extending
[1:46:53] sidewalks. So, just keep an eye out for
[1:46:55] that. that that will be coming shortly.
[1:46:56] We did one a couple of years ago, but we
[1:46:58] are just trying to get that refreshed
[1:47:00] and get some additional um feedback on
[1:47:02] that. So, just keep your eye out for
[1:47:04] that one.
[1:47:05] >> Thank you. Administrator,
[1:47:06] >> could we have the date and time again,
[1:47:08] please?
[1:47:09] >> Yeah, absolutely. September 21st, which
[1:47:12] would be Monday at 4 p.m.
[1:47:14] >> at at Mad Goat at Mad Goat South. uh so
[1:47:17] on South Gilbert
[1:47:21] » 4 pm [snorts]
[1:47:23] >> it's on our website if that's helpful
[1:47:24] for you guys to share it and I've also
[1:47:26] got it like I said posted on his social
[1:47:28] media so hopefully that helps you guys
[1:47:31] >> are there any other items of information
[1:47:32] for the good of the cause
[1:47:35] having satisfied the agenda I would
[1:47:37] enter we don't need close session I
[1:47:38] would entertain a motion to adjurnn
[1:47:40] >> so move second
[1:47:41] >> it's been moved and seconded any
[1:47:43] discussion or debate all those in favor
[1:47:44] please say I Any oppose? Same sign. We
[1:47:47] are ajourned.