[0:33] Alderman Ashau
[0:35] >> here.
[0:36] >> Alderman Augustovich
[0:37] >> here.
[0:38] >> Alderman Barry is absent. Alderman Davos
[0:40] >> here.
[0:41] >> Alderman Kuckenberg
[0:42] >> here.
[0:42] >> Alderman Lockett
[0:43] >> here.
[0:44] >> Alderman Widner
[0:44] >> here.
[0:45] >> Alderman Wilki
[0:46] >> here. Now, if you'd rise as you are able
[0:48] and join me in the pledge of
[0:49] >> allegiance
[0:53] to the flag of the United States of
[0:56] America and to the republic for which it
[0:59] stands, one nation under God,
[1:02] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:05] for all.
[1:21] Glad I left it here. Well, good evening
[1:23] everyone and thank you and thank you for
[1:24] being here. Welcome to the Warrenville
[1:26] City Council meeting. Uh we have a
[1:28] little bit of excitement before the
[1:29] meeting proper starts and that is the
[1:32] announcement of who will be located
[1:35] within the Warville Merkantile.
[1:38] Hopefully you know what the Warville
[1:39] Merkantile is. It is the small
[1:41] storefronts that are now being placed
[1:43] now have been placed uh at Leon Schmidt
[1:46] Park and are going to be opening up
[1:48] September 10th through December 6th with
[1:51] some local vendors in those shops for
[1:53] that period of time. And then we'll
[1:55] continue on in a process going forward
[1:57] to try to get people an opportunity to
[1:59] shop local and shop small and then
[2:02] hopefully those companies, those
[2:03] organizations maybe will develop into
[2:05] something bigger as time goes on at
[2:07] that. But I have the great good pleasure
[2:09] of introducing who will be the vendors
[2:12] joining in the grand opening week. So I
[2:14] don't know if any of them are here. Uh
[2:17] Miss Emry, I don't know if you can tell
[2:19] if from the crowd who's here.
[2:20] >> I'm not sure. I know some were going to
[2:22] try to attend, but many were going to be
[2:24] viewing online. So
[2:25] >> or maybe they're viewing from home. So
[2:27] uh regardless, if you know of these
[2:28] companies, congratulate them and welcome
[2:30] them on September 10th for the grand
[2:32] opening weekend. Uh they are Crow and
[2:35] Moon,
[2:37] Bada Bling,
[2:40] K A Beauty or K Beauty, Bread and More
[2:44] and the Hey Turbo Collective. So those
[2:47] companies were selected from the many
[2:49] who applied to be our first vendors at
[2:51] the Warville Merkantile. So
[2:53] congratulations to them and if you know
[2:54] any of their owners, give them a round
[2:56] of applause. Tell them thank you
[2:57] [applause] for putting themselves out
[2:59] there and being our first first
[3:01] opportunities there. Director Emory,
[3:03] would you like to say anything about the
[3:04] merkantile?
[3:05] >> We're just really excited to see this
[3:07] initiative launch. Thank you to the
[3:08] council for your support of the decision
[3:10] package and to help us get to this
[3:11] point. If you haven't been by the
[3:13] location recently at the Leon Schmidt
[3:15] Park, you can see all of the storefront
[3:17] units have been located there. Um, as
[3:19] the mayor said, we'll be opening in
[3:21] early September. We do have some spaces
[3:23] this season that will be flex spaces.
[3:26] So, we have some vendors that will be
[3:27] popping in and out throughout the
[3:29] season. Look for announcements and
[3:31] information about that on our website
[3:33] and in the market itself. I hope you all
[3:35] come out to enjoy. Thank you.
[3:37] >> Thank you, Director Emer. We appreciate
[3:38] that. So, uh, next are public comments
[3:41] and we do have a number of people signed
[3:42] in to speak. So, I I know I speak for
[3:45] everybody on the council here. We are
[3:46] all our neighbors here together and we
[3:48] welcome your comments at every public
[3:50] meeting of the council. Uh, the public
[3:52] comment period is for the public to
[3:54] address the council on matters
[3:56] pertaining to our town. So we know that
[3:58] public speaking is not always easy. So
[4:01] please remember if you are speaking you
[4:03] are amongst friends, you're amongst
[4:04] neighbors. And please one and all be
[4:06] respectful of each other. So we ask
[4:08] speakers to limit their comments to
[4:10] three minutes so everyone has a chance
[4:11] to be heard. And if it gets to that
[4:14] point where somebody's going on and on,
[4:15] I'll ask Director DR to to to give you a
[4:18] wave. Uh but generally three minutes is
[4:20] seem to be appropriate. Um our meetings
[4:23] are livereamed and recorded. So, if
[4:26] anybody's ever seen them, you you know,
[4:28] sometimes the the quality of the sound
[4:30] can be impacted by whether or not
[4:31] somebody speaks into a microphone or
[4:33] backs away from it. So, we ask that um
[4:36] that you be clear when you're speaking
[4:38] um and and approach the microphone, use
[4:40] the microphone. Might be uncomfortable,
[4:42] but nonetheless, it's for everyone at
[4:44] home um uh to to make sure that we get
[4:47] good sound for them. So, uh, where else
[4:50] was I going to? So, to ensure that
[4:53] people watching at home and in the
[4:55] future can clearly hear everyone speak
[4:57] and to ensure no one feels intimidated
[4:59] either way on the subject, whatever that
[5:01] subject is, we ask that you refrain from
[5:03] public any comments, outbursts, or
[5:05] applause.
[5:07] And if you signed up to speak when I
[5:09] call, please approach the podium. Use
[5:11] the microphone, state your full name for
[5:13] the minutes. And uh while the council
[5:16] appreciates all questions and comments,
[5:18] we don't typically respond to public
[5:20] comments from the dis unless they relate
[5:22] to agenda items. But rest assured, we
[5:25] are listening and we hear. So let us
[5:27] proceed. And I'll I'll say a few names
[5:29] so you know when to prepare to come up
[5:32] or maybe you wish to stand in order um
[5:34] at the time. So, the first three uh
[5:37] speakers we have signed up are Bob
[5:38] Sbert, Scott Albert, and Betsy Dudak.
[5:43] So, Bob approach
[6:05] Bob Sabbert,
[6:07] Albbright Street.
[6:09] I would like to thank the four aldermen
[6:13] who voted against the $9 million tiff
[6:18] funds for 180 apartments on Route 59 and
[6:23] 56.
[6:25] You folks stood up for the taxpayers.
[6:29] Thank you.
[6:32] In tiff one, why did we give 50 cents of
[6:37] every tiff dollar to the developer and
[6:41] 50 cents of every dollar to the
[6:44] taxpayers?
[6:48] What was the reason?
[6:51] The city council that I served on
[6:55] believed that the taxpayers were equal
[6:59] partners in Canara and should benefit
[7:05] along with the developers
[7:08] not 23 years later. We established a
[7:13] system where with this extra revenue for
[7:18] the taxpayers, we could pay funds to the
[7:23] fire district, the park district, the
[7:26] school district, and the library.
[7:31] A written financial contract was signed
[7:35] by both parties.
[7:37] With this contract, all expenditures,
[7:42] water towers,
[7:44] roads, excavating,
[7:47] building, everything was paid for by the
[7:51] developer.
[7:53] Yet the funds to repay the developer
[7:59] were only from the developers
[8:02] 50 cents.
[8:06] Also, the developer was required to
[8:10] spend $67 million
[8:15] before
[8:16] one dime
[8:18] of money would be returned.
[8:22] Also
[8:24] in the contract, if the developer for
[8:27] any reason
[8:29] ceased operations,
[8:33] all improvements
[8:35] would go to the city.
[8:41] We created a system where the taxpayers
[8:46] could only win.
[8:49] But recent city councils did not follow
[8:53] our lead
[8:55] with tiffs and the taxpayers
[8:58] have had increased risk and the revenue
[9:03] has been decreed decreased.
[9:07] On route 59 and 56, the developer
[9:12] requests $9 million for 180 apartments.
[9:20] 30 seconds. Okay. And he wishes 95%
[9:26] of the revenue.
[9:29] That is $450,000
[9:33] per acre. Whereas in Canara with the
[9:38] huge development, it was $112,000
[9:44] per acre.
[9:46] Again, I thank the four four aldermen.
[9:50] Time banding up. Thank you.
[9:54] >> Thank you, Bob. Uh Scott Albert and then
[9:57] Betsy Dudek is next. And then after
[9:59] Betsy, Mike Hogan.
[10:10] Hello, my name is Scott Albert. My wife
[10:13] and I are relatively new to Warrenville.
[10:15] Uh we love it. We found our neighbors to
[10:18] be fantastic and we've been very
[10:20] impressed with the leadership here. the events and the opportunities and the
[10:25] brush cleanup and being invited to
[10:27] council meetings is something you don't
[10:28] find in every city and you certainly
[10:30] don't find it uh everywhere in America.
[10:33] I'm also retired military. I spent a big
[10:36] chunk of my life defending our rights
[10:37] and making sure that we could keep them
[10:39] and that's why I'm here tonight. It
[10:42] seems lately that our rights have been
[10:44] being taken away or mitigated.
[10:48] Our right to assemble is answered with
[10:51] pepper spray. A woman's right to decide
[10:54] her own healthc care is answered with
[10:56] being tracked across state lines
[10:59] illegally by authorities.
[11:03] And now our right to privacy is at risk.
[11:07] Now those other rights were taken away
[11:09] by big government.
[11:12] There's nothing we can do about that.
[11:14] But this is local government. This is
[11:16] where we feel we have a little bit of
[11:18] opportunity to claw back one of our
[11:20] important rights. And and if we can,
[11:25] we'd like to we'd like to see the LPR
[11:28] cameras, the cameras that can work with
[11:31] Axon, work with Palunteer, work with
[11:34] police dash cams, follow you everywhere,
[11:37] keep track of everywhere you go. And
[11:39] when the FBI or the Department of
[11:41] Justice subpoenas that evidence, those films, that information, because
[11:47] you donated money to act blue and they
[11:49] put you on a watch list because
[11:53] you acted like an American and exercised
[11:57] your rights and they didn't get happy,
[11:58] so they put you on a watch list or
[12:00] demanded to know, were you at that
[12:01] meeting? Was your license plate
[12:03] photographed that night?
[12:06] It's not good and our city shouldn't
[12:08] participate in that. And I've seen our
[12:10] city do great things and this is another
[12:11] opportunity to do something great for
[12:13] the people by looking out for our
[12:14] rights. Thank you.
[12:16] >> Thank you, Scott. Betsy, you're next.
[12:18] And then after Betsy is Mike Hogan
[12:22] again, please hold on. Mike Hogan and
[12:26] Shannon Burns after Mike Hogan.
[12:33] » Good evening. My name is Betsy Dudak and
[12:36] I have lived here in Warrenville for 31
[12:38] years. In December of 2023, the council,
[12:42] this council voted unanimous unanimously
[12:45] to install flock cameras around our
[12:47] town. I believe you did this in the best
[12:50] interest of this community and had them
[12:52] at heart. At the time, almost nothing
[12:55] independent was known about this
[12:57] technology, only what the company sold
[13:00] us, and that was to find stolen cars and
[13:03] missing children.
[13:05] It's August of 2026 now. We know a lot
[13:09] more.
[13:11] And what we know should worry us all.
[13:14] These cameras don't just read license
[13:16] plates. They log the make, model, color,
[13:19] dents, bumper stickers, every
[13:23] identifying detail of the car that
[13:25] passes, and they feed it into a national
[13:28] database used by roughly
[13:32] 140,000 law enforcements,
[13:35] over 6,000 communities, and they keep it
[13:38] for 30 days.
[13:41] That database has been abused.
[13:44] Officers around the countries have used
[13:46] it to stalk exartners, neighbors, family
[13:49] members. A Wisconsin investigation this
[13:52] year found at least 50 documented cases
[13:54] of officers using the exact system to
[13:57] stalk women.
[13:59] One police chief searched his exartner's
[14:03] plate and her teenage daughter 600
[14:07] times. The deductive assigned to
[14:10] investigate him was later caught doing
[14:12] the same thing.
[14:14] I am not saying at all that our
[14:16] Warrenville police officers would do
[14:18] that. What I am saying is that once our
[14:20] neighbors movements are sitting in a
[14:22] national database, we have no control
[14:24] over who else searches it or why. In
[14:29] most places, a search doesn't even need
[14:31] a case number or a warrant. And the
[14:34] system isn't even accurate. Roseville,
[14:37] California owned police department found
[14:39] that 71%
[14:42] seven out of 10 of its flock stolen
[14:45] vehicle alerts were wrong. LAPD found
[14:49] nearly a third of its alert was false.
[14:53] Here's what that looks like in real
[14:55] life. In Aurora, Colorado, police
[14:58] surrounded a family's minivan with guns
[15:00] drawn and put four children as young as
[15:02] six face down. 30 seconds
[15:06] >> on hot pavement because a system had
[15:08] matched her plates to a stolen
[15:10] motorcycle.
[15:12] So I ask you today, knowing what you
[15:15] know in 2026 to maybe make a different
[15:19] decision
[15:21] already Orlando and Evans or Oak Park
[15:24] and Evston have stepped back. I wish the
[15:27] same for our town. You know more, please
[15:30] do more.
[15:31] >> Thank you, Betsy. Mike Hogan is next.
[15:34] And then Shannon Burns
[15:37] and then Phil Evson will be after
[15:39] Shannon.
[15:45] Hello, my name's Mike. I'm hard of
[15:48] hearing and that's why my speeches are
[15:49] weird. I never do these things, but this
[15:53] is our rights, our privacy being taken
[15:55] away by these freaking cameras. And it
[16:00] cops are using them to stalk women and
[16:04] find out where exactly they're going and
[16:06] be able to find out exactly where
[16:08] they're going. And they're using it for
[16:10] other things, too. Like somebody said,
[16:12] crossing state lines and stuff like
[16:13] that. We don't need that. The owner is
[16:17] the owner company is a terrorist
[16:20] organization, anti-American, anti-
[16:23] privacy,
[16:24] anti- fourth amendment.
[16:27] These are right being taken away.
[16:30] You know, you say, "Oh, yeah, it helped
[16:32] us find a kid." What? You found like
[16:35] three what? Three kids in the country.
[16:38] And how many cases do you have cops
[16:40] doing women through these things?
[16:45] Whatever. Have the cops do their jobs
[16:47] better. You know, don't be taking Don't
[16:51] be sitting there taking every single
[16:53] photograph and be stalking people,
[16:56] you know. This is just fun. These need
[16:59] to be taken down or we the people will
[17:02] take them down.
[17:05] And who watch the one thing? Yes, the
[17:09] watchmen watch this, but who watches the
[17:11] watchmen?
[17:13] these came.
[17:16] >> Shannon Burns, Phil Ebison, and then
[17:20] Anthony Spears.
[17:25] » Shannon Burns. I live on Fairfax Court
[17:27] in Warrenville. I'm neutral on the
[17:30] subjects of flock cameras, which might
[17:32] not be a popular opinion tonight, but I
[17:36] have a couple of points. One is that
[17:38] this afternoon I sat down to think about
[17:40] all the places I am surveiled in the
[17:42] world. And it took me less than 30
[17:45] seconds to write down seven places that
[17:48] were not flat cameras where I'm already
[17:50] being surveiled. The difference in my
[17:53] mind between all the other places that
[17:55] collect my data, keep an eye on me, and
[17:58] know way more about me than I want them
[18:00] to and flock cameras is that flock
[18:03] cameras have at least some kind of law
[18:06] enforcement gatekeeper. They're here for
[18:08] my safety. um the Comcast people who
[18:13] started sending me advertisements within
[18:15] 30 minutes of me changing the name on my uh uh Comcast account. 30 minutes is
[18:23] all it took them to catch on that I
[18:25] changed my name and they started sending
[18:27] advertisements. I don't trust them to
[18:30] have law enforcement in my best interest
[18:32] at heart. So I'm inclined to believe
[18:34] that flat cameras do surveil but no more
[18:37] than anything else in our society and
[18:40] that with a good intention at least in
[18:44] initial fact behind that. My other um
[18:48] comment about the flat cameras is that I
[18:51] am not a police officer and I don't want
[18:52] to be one. I'm not a city council person
[18:55] making decisions about what Warrenville
[18:57] should do. I don't want to be that. And
[18:59] because I don't want to take on those
[19:01] responsibilities, I have to trust the
[19:04] people who have been elected or hired to
[19:06] do that. And I do I think that at least
[19:09] in Warrenville, now they may be being
[19:11] abused elsewhere in the country, but at
[19:13] least in Warrenville, I trust our police
[19:15] and I trust our city council members to
[19:17] have our best interest at heart. And I I
[19:20] believe that we should let them do that.
[19:23] Couple of years ago, I attended the
[19:25] Citizens Police Academy. If any of you
[19:27] are worried about the police in
[19:29] Warrenville or want to know more about
[19:31] how they operate or why the flock
[19:33] cameras are here and why they're good,
[19:35] go attend the Citizens Police Academy. I
[19:37] learned so much and I came away feeling
[19:40] much safer and much more confident in
[19:42] what the city's decisions are. So, thank
[19:45] you.
[19:46] >> Thank you. So, Phil Evans,
[19:49] then Anthony Spears,
[19:51] and then
[19:53] shut the
[19:56] >> little guy.
[19:58] Philison. Yep.
[19:59] >> My name is Philip Ebson. I live on Menon
[20:01] Drive. Um, yeah, here to speak out
[20:04] against the flock cameras. Um, like the
[20:07] other lady mentioned, I think you know
[20:09] 2023 when this technology came to you
[20:12] guys and you approved it. Um, I don't
[20:14] think we really understood fully what we
[20:16] were approving, but now it's 2026 and my
[20:21] main worry is what is this country going
[20:23] to look like in 2036 when there's a
[20:25] camera on every street corner and facial
[20:27] recognition and all this technologies
[20:30] being ran through these huge data
[20:32] centers with AI, you know, profiling
[20:35] basically every human being in this
[20:36] country. Um, I just these draget mass
[20:40] surveillance programs just seem like a
[20:41] huge, you know, violation of our rights
[20:44] and it just seems like this country is
[20:46] going in the wrong direction if that's
[20:48] the direction we're going down. So, I
[20:50] think there's just two things we're kind
[20:51] of asking you guys to do. The easy thing
[20:53] would be end the Flock contract and get
[20:55] rid of the cameras. And then the second
[20:57] thing, because Flock is not the only
[21:00] company with this technology or trying
[21:02] to implement this technology. There's
[21:04] dozens of them out there. Um, so if we
[21:06] could come up with some type of law or
[21:08] ordinance that would basically just
[21:10] blanket somehow blanket ban, you know,
[21:13] future companies coming into Warrenville
[21:15] trying to set up these mass surveillance
[21:17] systems. Um, yeah, I think that's pretty
[21:19] much all we're asking for is just get
[21:20] rid of the flaw contract and prevent
[21:23] future companies from coming into here
[21:25] and uh making us feel insecure in our
[21:28] privacy. So that's it.
[21:30] >> Thank you. Anthony Spears and then Neth
[21:33] and Seth Chupathy and then Steve Alish.
[21:46] Good evening. My name is Anthony Spears
[21:49] and I live here in Warrenville in
[21:50] Winchester. um obviously here to speak
[21:53] about the uh flock safety license plate
[21:55] readers that have been installed under
[21:56] resolutions R2022-49
[21:59] and R2023-69.
[22:02] I understand these cameras are intended
[22:04] to help resolve crimes, find missing
[22:06] persons, and I see why adding them
[22:09] seemed like a reasonable step in 2022
[22:11] and 2023.
[22:12] However, after seeing one installed near
[22:14] my front door and researching how these
[22:16] systems operate,
[22:18] I believe there is vital information the
[22:20] council and the public deserve to know
[22:22] before committing to another round of
[22:24] funding.
[22:26] Trust us is not a policy
[22:30] and Flock, Inc. is not the Warrenville
[22:32] PD, but they have all the data that
[22:34] Warrenville PD has.
[22:36] And while we have access to basic search
[22:38] data through Flux public portal,
[22:40] specific data linking camera usage to
[22:43] actual arrests is unavailable from the
[22:45] Warrenville Police Department. We simply
[22:47] have no way to evaluate the systems
[22:49] effectiveness, its cost per arrest, or
[22:52] how many innocent residents movements
[22:54] are logged relative to actual outcomes.
[22:57] Furthermore, our department's ALPR
[22:59] policy lacks an independent audit
[23:00] provision to review search inquiries or
[23:03] detect misuse. This is not a
[23:05] hypothetical concern as others have have
[23:08] spoken about over the uh past year.
[23:10] Officers across the country, including
[23:12] Illinois, have been disciplined or
[23:14] charged for using this technology for
[23:16] personal reasons.
[23:18] State records also revealed instances
[23:19] where Illinois camera data was
[23:21] improperly accessed by out of state
[23:22] entities in violation of state
[23:23] protections.
[23:26] And I raised this not to allege mis
[23:28] misconduct locally, but because we
[23:30] currently have no structural way to
[23:32] verify proper use.
[23:34] Uh to look at public search audit log
[23:38] suggests a potential pattern of
[23:39] selection fatigue when officers log
[23:42] search justifications.
[23:44] For example, alcohol offense non-DUI,
[23:47] which happens to be the very first
[23:48] option in a dropdown,
[23:51] accounts for every single search
[23:52] conducted during the early morning shift
[23:54] of July 17th.
[23:59] There were nine of those in a row, just
[24:01] hours apart.
[24:03] Section 11.16 of our contract with Flock
[24:06] contains a non-appropriation clause
[24:07] allowing us to terminate without penalty
[24:09] upon 30 days notice. I respectfully ask
[24:12] that an agenda be added to the next
[24:14] regular city council meeting to deflock
[24:17] Warrenville seconds
[24:18] >> by calling for the approval to not renew
[24:20] flock surveillance camera contracts when
[24:23] it comes up for renewal. Thank you for
[24:24] your time.
[24:26] >> Thank you. Uh New Bethan,
[24:31] then Steve Alish
[24:34] and Brendan Clever.
[24:42] Good evening everybody. My name is
[24:44] Nathan Zipathy. I've been living in
[24:47] Warrenville for about five years now.
[24:50] Um, and I also wanted to talk about the
[24:53] flock cameras. And as several of the
[24:56] people who have gone before me have uh
[24:58] brought up, I think there are maybe two
[25:00] angles here. The first one being how
[25:02] this feeds into a national mass
[25:05] surveillance network and the way the
[25:07] ways it's been abused or misused. Um I
[25:10] kind of wanted to focus on just my own
[25:13] findings in the Warrenville transparency
[25:15] portal just to keep this more
[25:17] Warrenville centric. Um there are a list
[25:20] of prohibited use cases on the
[25:22] transparency portal. One of which is
[25:25] traffic infractions. uh one of the audit
[25:28] um polls from a 30-day period from June
[25:31] through July listed uh several traffic
[25:34] infractions as the reason for the
[25:36] quering of the flock system. So in
[25:39] Warrenville's own portal, it is being
[25:41] stated that it will not be used for
[25:43] traffic infractions, but when you pull
[25:44] the audit records, it actually is being
[25:47] used for that. Um, I think this product,
[25:50] uh, from the the data drops I've seen
[25:53] from the FOIA request would be that this
[25:56] was sold as a way to identify missing
[25:58] persons, robberies, um, car theft.
[26:02] However, it does not appear to be used
[26:04] in that manner when pulling the audit
[26:08] records from the transparency portal. So
[26:11] again, one angle might be national mass
[26:14] surveillance, but I think a second angle
[26:16] would be how is this being used
[26:18] responsibly and accountably in
[26:20] Warrenville itself.
[26:22] So uh because of that, I would like to
[26:25] also request that an agenda item be
[26:27] added to the next Warrenville city
[26:29] council meeting to deflock Warrenville
[26:31] by calling for the approval to not renew
[26:32] the flock surveillance camera contract
[26:34] when it comes up for renewal. Thank you.
[26:37] >> Thank you, Steve Alish.
[26:40] Then Brandon Cleber
[26:43] and then Grace Baylor.
[26:55] Yeah, I'm Steve Alish into here. I'm
[26:58] Steve Alish and uh I live on Warrenville
[27:01] Road and it's great to see you all. We
[27:04] uh I've been before you a few times. Um,
[27:08] I want to start out by saying that,
[27:12] you know, the seven older person sitting
[27:14] here,
[27:16] um,
[27:18] they made a decision which to me was a
[27:21] wasteful decision. Uh, we spent $230,000
[27:25] of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to
[27:28] enter into a contract with Flock to pay
[27:31] them to spy on us and use an AI system
[27:36] that shares to a nationwide database our
[27:39] license plate numbers, our location, our
[27:41] date time, the date and time we were
[27:44] driving, our cars make, model, color,
[27:48] and identifying features as somebody
[27:50] else mentioned like dents and rrook.
[27:52] roof racks and bumper stickers. And
[27:55] they're doing this whenever
[27:58] and wherever we drive,
[28:01] not just in Warrenville, all over the
[28:02] country.
[28:04] Uh, this system is in 49 states. There's
[28:09] 131,000 LPRs. LPRs are license plate
[28:13] readers.
[28:14] Uh it's a hundred cities have canled
[28:19] or not renewed the flock contract. So
[28:22] you can do it. And
[28:26] um Evston and Oak Park locally here have
[28:34] canceled theirs.
[28:36] And I am troubled by the fact that on um
[28:40] December 23rd, 2023, seven council
[28:44] members here,
[28:46] uh they approved
[28:48] the final contract which
[28:51] uh added like got us up to about 14 of
[28:54] these cameras around the perimeter of
[28:56] the city. The idea is they want to know
[28:59] every time we come in and out of
[29:00] Warrenville.
[29:03] And um they they did that using the
[29:07] consent agenda.
[29:09] So I'll give you the benefit of the
[29:11] doubt if people don't know. And the
[29:13] consent agenda is only supposed to be
[29:15] for non-controversial
[29:16] administrative things, not for something
[29:18] important that the public needs to know
[29:21] about. Uh so I'll just give them the
[29:23] benefit of the doubt that they didn't
[29:25] realize how
[29:26] >> 30 seconds important this was.
[29:28] >> So um maybe you can uh correct that
[29:32] though.
[29:33] And I'll just finish by uh also saying I
[29:36] respectfully ask that an agenda item be
[29:38] added to the next regular Warrenville
[29:40] city council meeting to deflock Warville
[29:44] by calling for the approval to not renew
[29:46] the flock surveillance camera contract
[29:48] when it comes up for renewal. Don't
[29:52] cancelling and just turn them off. Put
[29:55] bags over them.
[29:56] >> Time.
[29:57] >> Thank you. Thank you Brendan Cleber.
[30:02] and Grace Baylor.
[30:04] Looks like Steve Pacheco. I apologize if
[30:06] I mispronounced anyone's names.
[30:11] » Hi, I'm Brandon Klyber. Um, and like
[30:15] many others, I'm here today because I'm
[30:16] mad at my local government for approving
[30:19] this Orwellian nightmare of these mass
[30:22] surveillance cameras. I don't think
[30:25] enough of us are being alarmist
[30:28] enough about this. These things are
[30:32] comically insidious.
[30:35] It's as though someone dreamed up the
[30:38] most nightmarish solution to security
[30:43] and force that on us. And I would ask
[30:45] this council
[30:47] to do everything within its power to get
[30:50] this out of our community. This is not
[30:53] what Warrenville is. This is not what
[30:55] America is. These cameras, the whole
[30:58] nature of mass surveillance goes very
[31:00] much against our small town community
[31:03] image that so many of us love about
[31:06] Warrenville. That is all I have to say.
[31:09] >> Thank you, Grace Baylor.
[31:14] Then Steve Pacheco and Ed, I'm sorry I
[31:17] can't read the last name. Ed M.
[31:22] >> Hello, my name is Grace Bales. Um, I'm
[31:25] actually not a resident of Warrenville.
[31:27] I live in Montgomery, Illinois. Um, but
[31:29] I do visit Warrenville almost daily. I
[31:32] work here in the Canara Industrial Park.
[31:34] Um, so the flock camera issue is one
[31:37] that does directly affect me every day.
[31:40] Um, so I would like to encourage the
[31:43] council to invoke the non-appropriation
[31:45] clause in its contract with Flock and to
[31:48] adopt policies that will um prevent the
[31:52] use of any ALPR cameras in the future
[31:54] moving forward. The ability for a flock
[31:58] to uh be accessed by any outofstate
[32:02] entity that has a contract with Flock is
[32:04] extremely concerning. Um, I think
[32:07] frankly it's a little bit terrifying. um
[32:10] the fact that they don't need any
[32:12] warrants to make these searches and the
[32:14] fact that law-abiding citizens are
[32:17] included in this database um that is
[32:21] collected um creates an unconstitutional
[32:24] drag net. Um
[32:28] as people have already been stated or
[32:30] stated here um there have already been
[32:33] many many instances of misuse um that
[32:36] have been reported through audits and I
[32:38] don't think there's enough transparency
[32:40] about what the cameras are really being
[32:41] used for. Um so again I please uh ask
[32:46] you to just reconsider uh the stance
[32:49] here and reconsider the contract with
[32:51] flock moving forward.
[32:54] Thank you and welcome to Warrenville, by
[32:56] the way. Steve Pacheo,
[32:59] then Ed M.
[33:02] And then Jamie Reed.
[33:07] Good [clears throat] evening, council.
[33:08] Although the current Supreme Court may
[33:10] not agree, in 1967 the case cats versus
[33:13] United States, the government argued
[33:15] that attaching a covert microphone to
[33:17] the outside of a telephone booth was
[33:19] considered a lawful search. The court
[33:21] disagreed with this assertion as hats
[33:23] exhibited an expectation of privacy when
[33:25] he walked into the booth and that the
[33:27] words he utters into the mouthpiece will
[33:29] not be broadcast to the world. The
[33:30] majority opinion of the Supreme Court
[33:32] concluded that Katz's expectation of
[33:34] privacy was sound and that the
[33:36] electronic capture of his voice counts
[33:37] as a search under the Fourth Amendment
[33:39] which necessitated a warrant. Later in
[33:42] Smith versus Maryland in 1979, a
[33:44] two-prong test came about which
[33:46] determines whether a search has occurred
[33:48] that is subject to the Fourth Amendment.
[33:50] One, a person has exhibited an actual
[33:52] subjective expectation of privacy,
[33:55] perhaps say in a glasswalled container
[33:57] called your car while you're driving to
[33:58] the grocery store. And two, society is
[34:01] prepared to recognize this expectation
[34:02] is objectively reasonable.
[34:05] If I'm if if I'm on a road, I don't need
[34:08] to know what what the other people in
[34:10] the other cars are going to. I don't
[34:11] need to know anything about them other
[34:13] than that they're driving safely. Should
[34:15] we have an expectation of privacy when
[34:17] driving around? Everyone can see us and
[34:19] identify as us by car and license plate
[34:20] number, but they don't get to know my
[34:22] name or my favorite color without
[34:24] asking. The flock system can put my
[34:26] info, including name and favorite color,
[34:28] into a neat little package for anyone
[34:30] with access to the system to look up.
[34:32] Anyone with access to the system,
[34:33] includes the government itself. So, the
[34:35] government can know my name, location,
[34:37] direction, and can likely deduce origin
[34:39] and destination by the open source intel
[34:41] that that Flock AI can use. To me, that
[34:44] sounds like a search covered under the
[34:46] Fourth Amendment done without a warrant
[34:47] or even probable cause. I'm not a
[34:49] lawyer, and much of the above case comes
[34:51] from Wikipedia. But I feel it is
[34:53] essential to get these cameras out of
[34:55] our neighborhoods and lives. They are
[34:56] vectors of abuse for the worst people in
[34:58] society to use against us. I feel the
[35:00] objective should be to identify where
[35:03] these flock cameras are and work with
[35:06] local local councils to get them
[35:09] removed. We do this together, we win
[35:11] against the surveillance state. Thank
[35:13] you.
[35:14] Now Ed M and Jamie Riani
[35:18] James.
[35:28] » Hi, my name is Ed Marciniac. I'm a
[35:30] Warrenville resident. I live on Bear
[35:32] Circle with my wife. We picked
[35:34] Warrenville to start our family here. We
[35:35] have two children and uh we really love
[35:38] it here. There's a true sense of
[35:39] community. One thing that I feel really
[35:42] goes That is the presence of the flock
[35:45] cameras in our lives. I'm a cyber
[35:47] security engineer with over 20 years of
[35:49] experience. I have extensive experience
[35:51] and expertise in building secure
[35:53] auditable systems in highly regulated
[35:55] industries.
[35:57] Everything I'm citing comes from the
[35:58] city's own published materials. As of
[36:00] this afternoon, for every one search
[36:03] this department ran last month, it
[36:04] collected roughly, well, not even this
[36:06] department, the other agencies that have
[36:08] access to the data from Illinois by
[36:11] default.
[36:12] It collected roughly 4,450
[36:15] scans of people it never searched for.
[36:18] 712,000
[36:20] scans in 30 days for 160 searches
[36:24] straight from the transparency portal.
[36:26] Seems like a pretty disproportionate
[36:27] amount. And as I read the search log,
[36:30] the stated reasons are things like
[36:32] traffic, suspended, criminal, one word.
[36:35] What kind of an audit log is that? If
[36:37] you were actually putting the data, the
[36:40] controls that you state exist in your
[36:42] FAQs to an auditor, they would laugh you
[36:45] out of the room looking at that log. No
[36:47] one would ever certify that. That is
[36:49] like the biggest croc that those are
[36:51] valid reasons. Your FAQ says it access
[36:55] requires a legitimate law enforcement
[36:57] reason tied to a case. Your own log
[36:59] shows a text box someone typed into.
[37:01] That's the appearance of oversight, not
[37:03] actual oversight. Your FAQ calls this
[37:06] sharing narrow. Your portal lists over
[37:08] 300 agencies with standing access to
[37:11] Warville data right now. Both can't be
[37:13] true. No one asked me. I didn't consent.
[37:17] I can't opt out. and I can't see what's
[37:19] been collected on me unless I want to go
[37:21] through an arduous foyer process because
[37:23] there is no true transparency in this
[37:24] scenario.
[37:26] So, a few things
[37:29] of the 5,543
[37:32] hot list hits that are reported in the
[37:33] last 30 days, how many were verified
[37:35] accurate? How many were wrong? Since
[37:38] 2022, how many crimes against
[37:40] Warrenville residents were solved
[37:41] because of the system? Not assisted by,
[37:44] solved by. Where did it benefit the
[37:46] community?
[37:48] And in that same breath, I would ask
[37:50] each of you to publish your own travel
[37:51] records, where you go on official
[37:53] business, on our time, in our vehicles,
[37:55] our taxes pay for along with any hits
[37:58] your own plates have generated in the
[37:59] system. Not because I think
[38:01] >> 30 seconds
[38:02] >> wrong because you're spending public
[38:04] money and acting on our behalf. And that
[38:07] record belongs to the people you
[38:09] represent. You've decided residents
[38:11] movement should be collected without
[38:13] being asked. I'm asking you to publish
[38:16] yours voluntarily.
[38:19] Thank you, James Riiani.
[38:22] And then Christopher Vulpi.
[38:33] Hey everybody, my name is James Riani. A
[38:36] lot of you know me as Jamie.
[38:38] Uh,
[38:40] Mayor Johnson knows who I am and what I
[38:42] do. I own businesses, a few of them. One
[38:47] of them is a large printing business.
[38:50] It's in Chicago.
[38:52] Um I also own uh one of the corners of
[38:56] Belmont and Sheffield in Chicago which
[39:00] um I'm selling and I want to move my
[39:03] printing business. Want to move it
[39:05] closer to home. So I'm going to speak to
[39:08] you in a language that everybody here
[39:09] can understand. taxes.
[39:13] Last year, my businesses paid $200,000
[39:18] in taxes last year. I want to pay it
[39:21] here in Warrenville so I can walk to
[39:25] work, walk to my shop,
[39:28] have an easy day. That's worth it for
[39:31] me.
[39:32] I'm not doing it if those cameras are in
[39:37] this town. I need you to remove them. I
[39:41] go from Warrenville to Chicago every
[39:44] day. I see enough cameras. I go to
[39:47] Hermosa every day. Anybody know where
[39:49] that is? It's a neighborhood in the
[39:50] middle of Chicago. And then I go to Lake
[39:52] View. Every day.
[39:55] The last thing that I want is to be in
[39:58] my hometown,
[39:59] quaint little Warrenville, which is why
[40:01] I moved here 22 years ago, little farm
[40:04] town,
[40:05] and be watched
[40:07] by some government entity that is
[40:10] tracking me. It's tracking all of us
[40:13] with my money, my $200,000 in taxes.
[40:18] You ain't going to get it if those
[40:21] cameras are still here.
[40:24] And I'll take it a step further. If you
[40:26] vote for him again, I'll use everything
[40:29] in my power to make sure that you're
[40:33] voted out. And here's how I'm going to
[40:34] do it. I'm in a printing plant.
[40:38] I can go with anybody who opposes you
[40:42] and I can blanket this town with
[40:45] signage, banners, print.
[40:48] I can put it everywhere. I can make sure
[40:50] that you lose and you lo all the tax
[40:54] money as well.
[40:56] That can happen. I don't want to be
[40:59] watched and this is what's at risk.
[41:03] Have a good day.
[41:05] Chris,
[41:06] [applause]
[41:09] appreciate everybody's comments.
[41:10] Christopher Vulpi
[41:13] >> and then Jason
[41:27] Hello everyone. Thank you, Mayor
[41:29] Johnson. Thank you, city officials for
[41:31] holding this meeting.
[41:33] My name is Staff Sergeant Vulpi. I'm a
[41:35] three-time combat veteran with over 20
[41:37] years service in the United States Army.
[41:39] Was born and raised in West Chicago,
[41:41] Illinois. Currently work in the public
[41:43] sector in Warville. And I hope some of
[41:45] you or most of you recognize my face. I
[41:48] passed 10 flat cameras just to get to
[41:50] work. As much as I would like to stand
[41:52] in front of you today and state my
[41:53] opinion on those who choose safety over
[41:55] liberty, I will not. Just facts and
[41:57] truth. So, here's the honest truth.
[42:01] Inflation today is at near 7% for a
[42:03] 30-year mortgage on a shitty house at
[42:05] half a million dollars. Money is
[42:07] printed. Our savings are devalued. And
[42:09] because money is not backed by anything,
[42:11] there is no end in sight. The value of
[42:13] the dollar is falling faster than people
[42:16] are receiving raises and hardworking
[42:18] Warville families struggle every year.
[42:20] Today, the dollar is worth only 39 cents
[42:22] compared to a dollar in 1990. Inflation
[42:26] is taxation without legislation.
[42:28] We as Americans can feel this. Today, we
[42:32] are taxed on our income through federal,
[42:33] state, and city taxes, Medicare, Social
[42:35] Security, and if you work for yourself,
[42:37] you pay an additional tax.
[42:39] We are taxed on what we buy through
[42:41] sales tax, gas tax, road tax, car tax.
[42:44] But hey, maybe that's just small items.
[42:45] If you want to invest, buy land, pay
[42:47] property tax, followed by capital gains
[42:49] tax, inheritance tax, some states, death
[42:53] tax. Today, Americans pay 25 to 30% of
[42:57] their total income on taxes.
[43:00] These cameras are starting to sound a
[43:01] lot like a digital [snorts] slavery.
[43:04] Flock cameras, Axon, and other AI
[43:07] cameras cost approximately 3,500 per
[43:10] camera paid for by the taxpayers to
[43:13] screw the taxpayers.
[43:15] Orville currently has 14 of these
[43:17] cameras. These cameras have the ability
[43:20] to find drivers, issue moving
[43:22] violations, site insurance infractions,
[43:24] registration compliance, and track your
[43:26] every move.
[43:28] Facial and gate recognition as well.
[43:30] These 14 cameras cover every major
[43:33] entrance and exit in town. Even
[43:35] Blackwell Forest Preserve, a place where
[43:37] kids play, and people go to get away
[43:40] from technology. But hey, cameras catch
[43:42] bad guys, right? According to Google and
[43:45] Chad GBT, many untrusted public figures
[43:48] have already misused Flack data in
[43:49] Illinois.
[43:51] However, Flock will not disclose its
[43:53] metrics on how many lives it saved of a
[43:55] slightly faster police response.
[43:58] But innocent people have been caught in
[44:01] the crosshairs. And make no mistake, we
[44:02] have an incredible capable police force
[44:04] here in Warrenville.
[44:07] >> In 2025, Warrenville's violent crime
[44:09] stats are among the lowest in the state.
[44:12] At about 25 violent acts per year, and
[44:15] statistically, these crimes are done whether or not
[44:23] there are cameras. So, why must we, the
[44:25] law-abiding citizens, pay? Do you want
[44:28] your children rest of their lives?
[44:32] I want these cameras taken down.
[44:35] >> Thank you. And finally, uh, Jason
[44:38] Neville.
[44:49] Hi, everybody. Got a little different
[44:51] topic for you. Uh, my name is Jason Ael
[44:54] and I'm one of the two brothers of Two
[44:56] Brothers Brewing Company. Uh, about 31
[44:59] years ago, I reached out to the mayor of
[45:02] this awesome town and asked if we could
[45:04] open a small brewery and she said, "I
[45:07] don't know what that means, but let's
[45:09] talk about it." So, 30 years later,
[45:12] we've been uh making beer, coffee, all
[45:14] kinds of stuff. a active part of the
[45:17] community and we're looking to uh expand
[45:21] and and develop the corner of Route 59
[45:24] and Route 56 and just wanted to touch
[45:26] base on that a little bit. Um I think
[45:29] there's a little confusion about the
[45:31] TIFF. We heard a little earlier that
[45:33] there is a TIFF request and that's true.
[45:36] Um it is self-funded through the
[45:39] property. It does not go to to the 180
[45:43] town homes. There are town homes that
[45:46] are projected there, but there's also uh
[45:48] commercial and retail, including us
[45:52] moving a new restaurant and cafe there,
[45:55] which we're very excited about. We've
[45:57] been hidden in the industrial park for
[46:00] well 30 years and looking forward to get
[46:02] out front of it and um being on a ma
[46:06] major street. um that TIF money, the
[46:10] TIFF district was built for this project
[46:12] because there's so much infrastructure
[46:14] that has to happen on that property. Um
[46:17] so that's what that goes towards. It's
[46:19] going to be well over 50 cents on the
[46:22] dollar
[46:23] in generation that will go back to the
[46:26] tax payers. Um so much like Canara um
[46:31] which is brought up earlier. So it's
[46:34] actually a great project. We've been
[46:35] looking forward to doing this for years.
[46:37] Um, and we're quite excited about the
[46:40] opportunity to do it now. Um, we've come
[46:43] up with a bunch of different uh, ideas.
[46:46] This one has the most opportunity. Um,
[46:50] it's a real project and it's going to be
[46:54] about $82 million overall. Um, so
[46:57] there's a lot at stake. Um but it's
[47:00] going to develop into a beautiful space
[47:02] with a a communal
[47:05] park that we're putting in there. So um
[47:09] just continuing over our 30 years of
[47:11] being active part of the community and
[47:14] uh so we look forward to working with
[47:16] you. That's all I have to say. Thanks.
[47:18] Thank you. We appreciate you coming out
[47:20] tonight. Thanks very much. So that
[47:22] concludes uh the public comment portion
[47:24] of tonight's meeting. And as I noted
[47:26] before
[47:27] uh before the public comment section
[47:29] began, the council deeply and very much
[47:32] does appreciate all the comments
[47:34] everyone brought brought in this
[47:36] evening. And you should all be proud of
[47:38] that as a small community that we all uh
[47:41] love very much or else we wouldn't be
[47:43] sitting up here and you wouldn't have
[47:45] come out tonight. So kudos to everybody
[47:48] for bringing your comments to the table
[47:49] tonight. So with that in mind though I
[47:52] said that we generally do not uh comment
[47:54] from the dis unless it's an agenda item
[47:57] because we do like to research things.
[47:58] We do like to find out the answers to
[48:00] questions you brought forward. We don't
[48:02] do anything
[48:04] necessarily the night somebody brings it
[48:06] to us in a public comment. So it's not
[48:08] an agenda item. Somebody mentioned it
[48:09] earlier. Well if I knew about it was I
[48:11] said well it wasn't on the agenda. It's
[48:13] being brought to us as a concern and a
[48:16] comment from members of the community.
[48:18] So, uh, that's not an answer to the
[48:20] folks who say, "Well, just take a vote
[48:22] right up here right now and cancel it."
[48:24] That's all I want and you'll make me
[48:26] happy. That's not how the council works
[48:29] and not how generally governance works.
[48:31] It takes a little while. So, with this
[48:33] in mind, I ask those who post questions
[48:35] about the license plate reader tool, the
[48:38] flock tool, uh, if you have a particular
[48:41] question that you didn't speak on
[48:44] tonight, that you put it in writing to
[48:45] us or that you get it to Chief Bonia.
[48:48] Chief will wave to everyone. And he's
[48:51] very approachable and you've heard some
[48:52] great compliments about the police force
[48:54] in town. We are a safe community. We
[48:56] have great officers working on our
[48:58] behalf every single day keeping us that
[49:00] way. So we can all be very proud of that
[49:03] and I know chief would love to sit down
[49:05] and chat with you or answer any of your
[49:06] particular questions about how it's used
[49:08] here and particular maybe to some of the
[49:11] questions that were raised about the
[49:13] audit trail and some of the data that's
[49:14] there that seems to be just one
[49:17] perspective ever changing you know the audit factors and those things that
[49:20] have been brought to us. So regardless,
[49:23] um, get information, get us particular
[49:26] questions, get questions asked to Chief
[49:28] Bonia. And I know staff will update the
[49:31] FAQs and the website to address the
[49:34] comments and questions concerned and
[49:36] brought to us this evening. And I'm sure
[49:37] the council will be considering it at a
[49:39] future date as the contract does come up
[49:42] for renewal, which I know a number of
[49:43] you are requesting simply just stop it
[49:46] going forward. So that will be reviewed
[49:48] in the future. And again, um, I thank
[49:51] you all for very much for attending and
[49:53] the respectful way you all treated one
[49:54] another as well as your city government.
[49:56] So, thank you very much for coming out
[49:58] this evening. We're now going to proceed
[50:00] on to the rest of our agenda this
[50:01] evening. So, with that, um, you are
[50:05] welcome to stay and see the rest of the
[50:07] meeting. We do have consent agenda items
[50:09] and we do have some other discussions on
[50:11] things before us, but we all also
[50:13] understand that you are busy people and
[50:15] have a lot going on in your lives as
[50:16] well. But please stay say stay if you
[50:18] wish. So under mayor's comments um
[50:23] in addition to our comments and
[50:25] discussions tonight from public comment
[50:28] national night out again kudos to the ch
[50:30] the police and everybody involved in
[50:32] setting up the national night out.
[50:34] Fantastic attendance great feedback from
[50:37] the public that came out that evening.
[50:39] Uh and fortunately it was one of the
[50:40] nice weather days we had in in the last
[50:42] few weeks. Summer days finished up.
[50:45] Kudos to the park district, everybody
[50:47] that was involved in that as well. Uh,
[50:49] and remember, kids are back to school,
[50:51] so be careful when you're out there
[50:53] driving around in the day-to-day basis.
[50:55] Um, also, while there's a lot of
[50:58] community members ushering out, kudos to
[51:00] everybody here as to how you treated one
[51:02] another the last few days with the
[51:04] storms that came through town. Between
[51:06] the cicas and the chainsaws, that's
[51:08] pretty much all I heard. But I saw a lot
[51:11] of friends out helping each other clear
[51:13] their brush and bring things to the
[51:14] curb. And to the staff and the city uh
[51:17] workers who have been working on it and
[51:19] who have reached out to neighboring
[51:21] communities to help as well. I know
[51:23] there are a number of uh workers out
[51:26] there from Bartlett and maybe Hanover
[51:28] Park and a number of communities around
[51:29] us that have come to help us because
[51:31] that was quite a storm that came through
[51:33] last Tuesday as we were all muddled
[51:35] downstairs here in the in city hall as
[51:38] hopefully you were taking shelter as
[51:39] well. So with that, uh alderman, any
[51:42] comments?
[51:43] Alderman Winer?
[51:45] Yeah, I just wanted to mention that um
[51:49] I'd like to clarify procedures relevant
[51:52] to pulling agenda items and changing
[51:55] them. I found it curious that an
[51:58] alderman contacted me today to ask me
[52:01] about my vote on a certain agenda item
[52:04] for this meeting and we had a brief but
[52:07] healthy discussion. The alderman
[52:09] [clears throat] mentioned the alderman
[52:12] preferred to attend a different event
[52:14] tonight would be absent at this council
[52:17] meeting. The alderman then told me that
[52:20] if I was to vote a certain way that the
[52:22] alderman would contact city staff and
[52:26] advise them that the petitioner should
[52:28] withdraw the agenda item related to the
[52:32] uh petition and [clears throat] have it
[52:34] be postponed
[52:36] uh until the alderman could be present
[52:39] for the vote.
[52:41] >> [clears throat]
[52:41] >> at 3:18.
[52:43] Uh, the agenda item was referred to and
[52:48] dropped out of the tonight's agenda at
[52:51] the request of the developer. And I just
[52:54] find this
[52:56] um
[52:58] something that we should consider going
[53:00] forward if uh we're going to remove
[53:02] agenda items. I think there ought to be
[53:05] um a fair process. Thank you,
[53:09] [clears throat]
[53:09] >> other alderman. Hold on.
[53:14] » Well, that was a lot and a surprise. I
[53:17] guess my question would be for the city
[53:19] attorney.
[53:21] Um,
[53:24] we have procedures, correct? When it
[53:26] comes to our agenda items and our omnous
[53:30] votes, uh, we have to post 48 days
[53:33] prior. I guess what would the pro and I
[53:35] know the procedure as an elected
[53:37] official the mayor or the alderman can
[53:40] take something off the agenda. My
[53:42] question would be
[53:44] what is that procedure in regards to
[53:49] either a petitioner or someone from the
[53:51] public requesting to take something off
[53:53] of our agenda?
[53:56] Um, as as far as a a resident uh just a
[54:02] any resident requesting an item to be
[54:04] removed from agenda, they would have no standing to do so. At the request of
[54:07] the petitioner, um whether that was to
[54:10] provide the council with additional
[54:12] information. Um that's that's their
[54:15] right to ask for that that's their
[54:18] specific right to ask for that item to
[54:20] be deferred. Um assuming that is they're
[54:25] again gathering additional information.
[54:27] Um I know that this item has been up
[54:30] previously. So it could have been to
[54:32] address certain matters. Um but that's
[54:35] if it was a request made to the city. So
[54:38] if the if the petitioner requested it
[54:40] and city staff found it um amendable to
[54:44] it, it it could be pulled. But I that's
[54:46] I mean I'd have to look at the if there
[54:49] is a specific written procedure for that
[54:52] but a a person like a just any person
[54:55] could not ask for that item to be
[54:57] removed from.
[54:58] >> So I guess my question would then go to
[55:00] staff and ask what the reasoning was
[55:03] what the reason was given in order for
[55:05] them to
[55:07] suspend this or to defer it to the next
[55:10] meeting.
[55:11] >> So we received an email requesting that
[55:13] the item be continued. There wasn't a
[55:15] specific uh notation listing the reason.
[55:17] My assumption was that they had
[55:19] additional research or information they
[55:20] were pulling.
[55:22] >> And just as clarity do, then they they
[55:25] called me and they asked me if I had any
[55:26] problem removing from the agenda. And I
[55:28] said no. And out of respect for the the
[55:30] petitioner who's been a a longtime uh
[55:34] company and employer in town, I said
[55:36] sure, why not? So again, first time for
[55:38] me doing this, but uh having something
[55:40] pulled off an agenda.
[55:42] >> Yeah. Yeah, I just wasn't sure because I
[55:43] thought that I know we have to give
[55:45] notice. I thought they had to Did they
[55:47] give writ They did send you an email a
[55:49] written
[55:50] >> so they gave 3 hours 3 hours 15 minutes
[55:55] notice.
[55:55] >> It was received this afternoon. I I
[55:57] don't have the time stamp in front of me
[55:58] >> but it was it was this afternoon. My
[56:00] only thing is we have procedures for
[56:02] this. So, it's just me looking at that,
[56:05] you know, and and saying exactly what
[56:08] those are in regards to removing stuff
[56:11] from agendas, how it needs to be
[56:13] notified, how much time there is, and
[56:16] whether or not I guess if they're asking
[56:20] to give us or asking for more time for
[56:23] more information, then then would they
[56:26] in turn have to go back through the same
[56:28] process, meaning that they just give
[56:31] additional information and And then it
[56:32] goes on the next meeting's consent
[56:34] agenda
[56:36] or if they would have to go through the
[56:38] process again because we are now getting
[56:40] new information. So now that starts
[56:42] again. Again, the correspondence I
[56:45] received asked to continue the agenda
[56:47] item. There wasn't a specific reason
[56:49] given beyond that. So I I assumed again
[56:51] that they were doing additional research
[56:53] or had additional things they wanted to
[56:54] pull together. Um that is not what was
[56:57] provided in the writing. in writing was
[56:59] a request to continue the item until
[57:00] September 8th. Um, our intention is this
[57:03] was received or presented before the
[57:06] city council at the last city council
[57:08] meeting as a presentation item and it
[57:11] was previously on this agenda as a
[57:14] consent item. If we're moving it to the
[57:16] September 8th meeting, it would appear
[57:18] again on the consent agenda with the
[57:20] opportunity for council members to
[57:22] remove it from the consent during that
[57:24] agenda, during which time there could be
[57:26] additional testimony or presentation.
[57:28] The item can be acted on or continued
[57:30] with any other regular agenda item.
[57:32] >> Would it be possible to get them to
[57:34] explain to us what additional
[57:36] information they're looking to provide
[57:37] us? Because I, as we look at this, I'm
[57:41] just, you know, I think they're here.
[57:43] Would it be possible to get them to
[57:46] speak to what additional items they're
[57:48] looking to provide us or different
[57:51] >> different information?
[57:52] >> Sorry, the agenda has already been re
[57:54] revised to to alert the public that the
[57:57] item has been deferred to September 8th.
[57:59] out of the fairness for due process for
[58:01] the applicant as well as any other folks
[58:03] that may have wanted to speak about the
[58:04] item um that we could no long I would
[58:08] hate to have the applicant come in and talk about that without any other
[58:12] resident being able to comment on that
[58:14] because the agenda has been revised
[58:16] which which statutory is is legal. Uh
[58:19] there's no I just want to for the record
[58:21] we we can we're not taking action on an the agenda so on an item um we
[58:27] couldn't add something within that 48
[58:29] hours notice but an agenda can be
[58:30] revised to remove items
[58:32] >> which I totally understand and none of
[58:34] this would be a question had there not
[58:36] been a conversation previously
[58:39] if you understand what I'm saying with
[58:42] regards to why this was removed and then
[58:45] there's no answers it's just more
[58:47] information So, I'm just trying to get,
[58:50] you know, some kind of bearing with
[58:52] regards to why this was removed. And I
[58:56] guess we'll see when they come back,
[58:58] they resubmit, we see what it is. But
[59:01] that's why I'm asking question.
[59:02] >> Thank you.
[59:03] >> Reasonable question,
[59:04] >> Alman Hashau.
[59:08] » Just trying to understand the um not the
[59:12] it's not the alderman that wants the
[59:14] item removed. It's
[59:17] another party.
[59:19] It's the developer.
[59:21] >> The applicant requested that the item be
[59:23] continued until September 8th.
[59:29] » I don't know. I'm just having a hard
[59:30] time with this. If this is how it's
[59:32] going to work, it's a whole change in
[59:34] the way we've done business. When we've
[59:36] had something postponed, we've taken a
[59:37] vote of the council to have it postponed
[59:40] to a date certain or not. Um, if we
[59:44] don't have a memo or we don't have
[59:46] something that tells us why this is
[59:48] suddenly an emergency because one
[59:49] alderman's gone, um, I don't think it's
[59:53] the right way to do business. Otherwise,
[59:55] we're going to have alderman going on
[59:57] vacation and calling in and saying,
[59:59] "Hey, I think we need this switched
[1:00:01] because I won't be there to vote on it."
[1:00:03] Um,
[1:00:05] it stinks.
[1:00:07] Well, put put it on me because I when I
[1:00:09] got the call saying they were
[1:00:10] requesting, I didn't ask think to ask
[1:00:12] why, but we'll move move it on. Uh,
[1:00:15] Alderman Davalos.
[1:00:17] >> Yeah. I just wanted to share just a
[1:00:20] couple of experiences. We we have had
[1:00:22] issues in the time I've been here where
[1:00:25] a developer has requested
[1:00:28] more time. Something has come up, new
[1:00:30] information they found, whatever. And
[1:00:32] we've also postponed things when we
[1:00:35] didn't have a full council because they
[1:00:37] were certain things, not every little
[1:00:38] thing, but there were some things that
[1:00:40] were deemed um I guess by staff or
[1:00:46] it like in in the middle of the week or
[1:00:48] something so that alderman couldn't vote
[1:00:50] on it, but have deemed that it was worth
[1:00:52] waiting till we had all the elder here.
[1:00:55] That doesn't happen very often. And I'm
[1:00:57] not saying that's happened here, but
[1:00:58] it's just
[1:01:02] I'm just sharing that experience that
[1:01:04] this isn't a new thing to have a a
[1:01:06] developer ask for an extension.
[1:01:11] » Other Home Almer Wider.
[1:01:13] >> Yeah, I just wanted to go back to remind
[1:01:15] everyone that this was a extremely close
[1:01:17] vote. it was a tie vote in that there
[1:01:20] would be an advantage [clears throat] if
[1:01:23] an alderman was absent to having the
[1:01:27] item deferred to December
[1:01:30] 8 or September 8th to the prevailing
[1:01:33] side. And I think that um there were
[1:01:39] people on the council and people at
[1:01:42] staff who realized the prevailing vote
[1:01:44] might change. And I hope this isn't
[1:01:47] true, but I wonder if it would have been
[1:01:50] possible for the petitioner to be
[1:01:52] alerted to that fact. And that's my
[1:01:55] concern.
[1:01:57] Other
[1:02:00] alman questions, comments.
[1:02:05] Uh, clerk,
[1:02:07] treasure,
[1:02:09] I have two things. Um, briefly,
[1:02:13] um, do I remember correctly that it was
[1:02:16] agreed that something with an
[1:02:18] extraordinary vote wouldn't be on the
[1:02:20] consent agenda?
[1:02:30] Uh I don't recall that there's something
[1:02:32] with an extraordinary vote. There is uh
[1:02:34] we do have certain um policy provisions
[1:02:38] with how plan commission votes. If it's
[1:02:40] not uh unanimous on something, then that
[1:02:42] might not go right to consent agenda.
[1:02:44] But if it's a council vote, um,
[1:02:48] that does not have a a specific policy
[1:02:51] around regular unless the council votes
[1:02:53] to direct it to a different section of
[1:02:54] the agenda.
[1:02:55] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:02:56] >> And I'm recalling from memory, but we
[1:02:58] can check to make sure.
[1:03:00] >> Thank you.
[1:03:01] >> Not a not a bad idea when it's something
[1:03:03] that's significant.
[1:03:05] >> Is that because you have a budget
[1:03:06] amendment on that? That would be that would be a policy decision of the
[1:03:11] council if you wanted to move forward
[1:03:13] with something like that statutory.
[1:03:15] There's there's nothing.
[1:03:16] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:03:18] >> Um the other thing was uh two weeks ago
[1:03:20] we discussed uh the PGO system for the
[1:03:24] TIFF and I thought that was interesting
[1:03:26] but uh it was new to me two weeks ago. I
[1:03:29] didn't know about that system before and
[1:03:33] I realized that that anou is is not an
[1:03:36] agreement and that any agreement would come later. Um, but I was curious
[1:03:42] about the tiff note and whether that uh
[1:03:45] represented the amount that was in it or
[1:03:47] whether the reimbursement would also
[1:03:49] include interest. and I was given an
[1:03:52] example of one that had been used and
[1:03:55] the reimbursement is the tiff note plus
[1:03:58] the acred interest. Thanks.
[1:04:02] >> Thank you. Um
[1:04:05] administer
[1:04:07] city attorney.
[1:04:09] So the consent agenda absent item B
[1:04:13] before us. Any other items on the
[1:04:15] consent agenda council would like to
[1:04:18] have removed
[1:04:19] to the regular agenda?
[1:04:23] Okay, then let me read through these.
[1:04:25] Ordinance 02026-39
[1:04:27] approving an amendment to the fiscal
[1:04:29] year 2026 budget. Item B, resolution,
[1:04:33] sorry. Item C, resolution R2026-50,
[1:04:37] approving a professional services
[1:04:39] agreement with Baxter and Woodman for
[1:04:42] phase 2 final engineering of the
[1:04:44] Illinois Route 59 path and sidewalk
[1:04:46] project. Item D, resolution R2026-51,
[1:04:52] approving an agreement with Illinois
[1:04:54] Department of Transportation for phase 2
[1:04:57] final engineering of the Illinois Route
[1:04:59] 59 path and sidewalk project.
[1:05:02] Item E, resolution R2026-53,
[1:05:06] approving a contract with Geneva
[1:05:08] Construction Company for the 2026 road
[1:05:11] program in the amount of 1,862,658.15.
[1:05:18] Item F, resolution R2026-54,
[1:05:22] approving a professional services
[1:05:24] agreement with engineering resources
[1:05:26] associates for construction engineering
[1:05:29] services related to the 2026 road
[1:05:32] program. Item G, Resolution R206-55,
[1:05:37] appropriating motor fuel tax funds for
[1:05:39] the 2026 road program. Item H,
[1:05:43] appointment of Laura Schmidz to the
[1:05:45] Tourism and Arts Commission for a term
[1:05:47] expiring on April 30, 2029.
[1:05:51] Item I, appointment of Brinsley Lewis to
[1:05:54] the Board of Fire and Police
[1:05:56] Commissioners for a term expiring on
[1:05:58] April 30, 2029.
[1:06:01] Item J, expenditures for Fifth Third
[1:06:03] Bank PCARD purchases made in June 2026
[1:06:07] in the amount of $10,228.84.
[1:06:10] 84.
[1:06:12] Item K, expenditures for invoices paid
[1:06:14] up to August 5th, 2026 in the amount of
[1:06:18] $34,481.17.
[1:06:22] Item L, expenditures for invoices due or
[1:06:25] before August 18, 2026 in the amount of
[1:06:28] 28258,68723.
[1:06:33] And item M, minutes of the regular city
[1:06:36] council meeting held on August 3rd,
[1:06:38] 2026. This is our motion. Alder Wider.
[1:06:42] >> Yes. Thank you. I move to approve the
[1:06:44] items on the consent agenda as presented
[1:06:46] by Mayor Andrew Johnson.
[1:06:51] » Second.
[1:06:52] >> Moved by Alderman Widner, second by
[1:06:54] Alderman Wilkkey. Any discussion,
[1:06:56] questions?
[1:06:58] Clerk, could you call the role, please?
[1:07:01] >> Alderman Ashau.
[1:07:02] >> I.
[1:07:03] >> Alderman August.
[1:07:04] >> I.
[1:07:04] >> Alderman Davalos.
[1:07:06] >> I.
[1:07:06] >> Alderman Kenberg.
[1:07:07] >> Hi.
[1:07:08] >> Alderman Lockett. I,
[1:07:09] >> Alderman Widner,
[1:07:10] >> I,
[1:07:10] >> Alderman Wilki,
[1:07:11] >> I.
[1:07:12] >> The motion carries. Next up,
[1:07:14] >> I apologize for interrupting, but
[1:07:16] doesn't the mayor need to vote on item
[1:07:18] A?
[1:07:20] >> Good question.
[1:07:23] Somebody tell me if I need to vote on
[1:07:25] that.
[1:07:26] They said new
[1:07:30] budget amendment.
[1:07:34] I'll be happy to cast a vote in favor of
[1:07:35] it. So,
[1:07:38] I mayor votes eye. We'll find out if
[1:07:41] that's the case.
[1:07:43] And if not, we're covered.
[1:07:46] So, the regular agenda has one item on
[1:07:48] it. Resolution R2026-56
[1:07:52] would be approving a first amendment to
[1:07:54] the license agreement with the
[1:07:55] historical society for an art
[1:07:57] installation. So, I'm going to turn
[1:07:58] things over to Director Emery for brief
[1:08:01] discussion.
[1:08:03] Earlier this year, the city council
[1:08:05] approved an art installation through a
[1:08:07] license um agreement. Uh that
[1:08:10] installation is currently in place and
[1:08:13] the museum would like to keep the art
[1:08:16] installation in place through September
[1:08:18] 30th. Sarah Failen, the director of the
[1:08:21] museum, is here this evening and she can
[1:08:22] answer questions about the exhibit and
[1:08:24] um the duration that she's requesting.
[1:08:30] Director Failen, always nice to see you.
[1:08:32] Thanks for coming out tonight.
[1:08:40] Yes, thank you. Uh, our request really
[1:08:42] centers around the opening of the
[1:08:44] Merkantile and we would love to keep uh
[1:08:46] the birds on display through the
[1:08:48] Merkantile opening and through September
[1:08:51] because we do anticipate and hope for
[1:08:53] all of us that we get a lot more uh
[1:08:55] viewers of them. And we're also planning
[1:08:57] to do a special art exhibit for those
[1:08:59] specific artists during that time as
[1:09:00] well.
[1:09:02] >> Any questions for Director Failen or
[1:09:04] staff?
[1:09:07] >> All right. Would somebody care to make a
[1:09:08] motion?
[1:09:10] >> Alderman Lockett. I'd like to make a
[1:09:12] motion to pass resolution R2026-56
[1:09:16] approving a first amendment to the
[1:09:18] license agreement with the Warrenville
[1:09:19] Historical Society for an artist
[1:09:22] installation at 3S5302nd
[1:09:25] Street.
[1:09:25] >> I I mean second
[1:09:28] >> move by Alderman Lockett and and we'll
[1:09:30] give it to Alderman Wilkkey for a second
[1:09:32] there. Any further discussion?
[1:09:36] Um all those in favor say I. I. Any
[1:09:40] opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very
[1:09:42] much. Thanks again for being here. And
[1:09:44] now I will turn things over to Alderman
[1:09:46] Augustovich who will take us through the
[1:09:48] presentations and discussion items.
[1:09:50] >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor Johnson.
[1:09:53] >> Okay. The first item under presentations
[1:09:57] and discussion items is a presentation
[1:09:59] and consideration of citywide space
[1:10:02] needs assessment. Uh public works
[1:10:04] director Coochler, would you like to
[1:10:06] make a presentation about this item?
[1:10:08] >> Sure. Thank you and good evening. Uh you
[1:10:10] may recall city council approved a
[1:10:12] contract blueber last November to
[1:10:14] evaluate the three main city buildings,
[1:10:17] city hall, police department and public
[1:10:18] works and that was to be done in the
[1:10:20] context of the existing and anticipated
[1:10:22] future staffing operations and uses.
[1:10:25] Clooper worked with city staff and
[1:10:26] elected officials during this process.
[1:10:28] There are some large costs to implement
[1:10:30] the various improvements that are
[1:10:31] included in the assessment which the
[1:10:33] city does not currently have uh funding
[1:10:35] to pay for. staff does intend to work
[1:10:37] with the long range financial planning
[1:10:39] group moving forward to evaluate and
[1:10:41] assess the uh development and develop
[1:10:45] recommendations for improvements,
[1:10:46] priorities, and funding for future city
[1:10:48] council consideration. Um after Clubber
[1:10:50] finishes with her presentation tonight,
[1:10:51] both staff and clubber will entertain
[1:10:53] any questions the council might have. Um
[1:10:55] and Samantha Frantic and Charlie John
[1:10:57] Soser here from Clueber to present the
[1:10:58] results of the assessment.
[1:11:03] » Thank you. My name is Samantha Frantic
[1:11:05] with Clubber Architects and Engineer.
[1:11:06] I'm the project architect for this job.
[1:11:09] >> I'm Charlie Johnson with Clubber project
[1:11:12] manager and we've all met before came
[1:11:14] [clears throat] out uh initially. Um the
[1:11:17] agenda is pretty quick although there
[1:11:18] seems to be a lot of slides when you're
[1:11:20] in here. It will go very fast once we
[1:11:22] get going. Um but there are I just
[1:11:24] wanted to remind the council that there
[1:11:26] are two parts to this project. There was
[1:11:28] the physical assessment which is a
[1:11:30] review of bricks and mortar and paint
[1:11:32] and uh uh the physical uh attributes of
[1:11:35] your facilities including mechanical
[1:11:37] systems and then there's the space needs
[1:11:39] analysis which is the more fun part
[1:11:41] where we envision what you have and and
[1:11:43] ways to improve it. Um the part that I'm
[1:11:46] going to touch on really quickly is the
[1:11:49] [clears throat] bricks and mortar
[1:11:50] assessment parts of it. This document uh
[1:11:54] is a summary of all three of the
[1:11:55] buildings that we were asked to review.
[1:11:58] Uh we looked at them in con in context
[1:12:01] of three priorities um with the um time
[1:12:05] window of a 10-year u time frame. Uh the
[1:12:09] first priority would be items that we
[1:12:10] would consider eminent or need to be
[1:12:13] addressed within the first year. Um and
[1:12:16] the second priority would be those items
[1:12:18] between the first and the fifth. And
[1:12:20] then third priority would be items
[1:12:22] between sixth and the 10th. Um the
[1:12:24] values the cost values are taken into
[1:12:27] account at cost escalation annually. Um
[1:12:30] and the values represented there are the
[1:12:33] last year of that uh priority. So uh the
[1:12:36] values that could be done in the third
[1:12:38] year would cost slightly less because
[1:12:40] they these values include all the way up
[1:12:42] to the fifth year. Um the last piece I
[1:12:44] want to mention is the [clears throat]
[1:12:46] last two columns that we added on your
[1:12:48] behalf to align it to um your current um
[1:12:53] capital maintenance and and uh project
[1:12:56] report. Um I don't even have it written
[1:12:58] right here.
[1:12:59] >> The Thank you. the capital maintenance
[1:13:01] and replacement plan that you already
[1:13:03] have. We looked at items in that plan
[1:13:06] and items that we had also in our
[1:13:09] assessment that they were duplicated and
[1:13:11] that represents about 63% of these total
[1:13:14] costs you had already had accounted for
[1:13:16] in your uh budgeting process and the uh
[1:13:18] maintenance planning that you have done.
[1:13:20] Um the big difference between our um
[1:13:23] assessment and what you had already done
[1:13:25] is your assessment looked very further
[1:13:27] ahead on large capital projects
[1:13:30] including roofs um and mechanical
[1:13:32] systems and in addition to that we
[1:13:35] probably looked at really small things
[1:13:37] you know very very small things. So that
[1:13:39] was probably the biggest difference
[1:13:40] between the two things.
[1:13:45] So this continues in the existing
[1:13:47] conditions, but this is going to be a
[1:13:49] summary of the survey information that
[1:13:51] we gathered throughout the existing
[1:13:53] conditions information and the space
[1:13:55] needs assessment portion of the project.
[1:13:59] So we reached out to all the staff that
[1:14:01] work in these three buildings and asked
[1:14:03] them what kind of improvements that they
[1:14:05] would like to see in their workspace or
[1:14:07] what they feel that their day-to-day is
[1:14:09] lacking um or just the building in
[1:14:12] general. um as well as we surveyed all
[1:14:15] of you and thank you to those that
[1:14:16] participated as to what you saw as
[1:14:19] priorities for each of these buildings
[1:14:21] and um what your priorities were for the
[1:14:24] city in general regarding your
[1:14:26] buildings. And so this is a general
[1:14:28] summary of uh the police department.
[1:14:32] There are unfortunately many
[1:14:33] deficiencies in your police department
[1:14:35] right now and there were many to list.
[1:14:37] But we also wanted to note that as the
[1:14:40] elected officials on all of these
[1:14:42] slides, you'll see that all of you
[1:14:43] pretty much unanimously voted that being
[1:14:46] fiscally responsible and having space
[1:14:48] for your staff to complete their
[1:14:52] operations and being sustainable and
[1:14:54] energy efficient were some high goals of
[1:14:57] all of yours. Um, the police department
[1:15:01] has a lot of challenges that I'm sure
[1:15:03] many of you are aware of, but especially
[1:15:06] just the site in general, the shape of
[1:15:08] it, the way they're dug into the ground,
[1:15:11] and the parking arrangements make their
[1:15:13] jobs very challenging. Um, how they have
[1:15:16] to bring individuals into the building
[1:15:18] is a day-to-day challenge anytime they
[1:15:20] do have to um, arrest and book somebody.
[1:15:23] Um, I'm just going to keep this very
[1:15:25] high level on each one. On the city
[1:15:28] hall,
[1:15:30] many people requested more what we call
[1:15:32] employee support spaces. So, a better
[1:15:35] break area, someplace that people can
[1:15:37] sit that's not their own desk. Um,
[1:15:41] general aesthetic improvements were
[1:15:43] listed as desires as well as um people
[1:15:49] want to work with their co-workers.
[1:15:52] there was a goal to have all the
[1:15:54] departments on one level. So you'll see
[1:15:56] as we get into the concepts how that
[1:15:59] influenced um what we looked at as far
[1:16:02] as space planning.
[1:16:04] And then the public works.
[1:16:06] has a lot of space right
[1:16:09] now and they have their own challenges.
[1:16:12] But some of those challenges are they
[1:16:14] have spaces that they no longer use for
[1:16:17] the purpose they were built for and that
[1:16:19] creates a new and different challenge
[1:16:20] for them where there's equipment that
[1:16:22] they don't need, but it's almost
[1:16:23] impossible to move. And so we looked at
[1:16:26] what might happen if we get rid of some
[1:16:28] of that equipment and what they can do
[1:16:30] with that space.
[1:16:32] All right. So, this is unfortunately the
[1:16:34] boring part where we talk about what we
[1:16:37] talked about in our meetings and what
[1:16:39] kind of space was desired for each
[1:16:41] building um and how many square feet
[1:16:43] that came out to compared to what they
[1:16:45] currently have. So, you can see the
[1:16:47] disparity of about 6,000 square feet
[1:16:50] here on the city hall. a disparity of
[1:16:55] about
[1:17:00] these backwards?
[1:17:04] I think they're just still flopped. Um,
[1:17:06] but the disparity of about 9,000 square
[1:17:09] feet on the PD. Oh, that's why because
[1:17:12] city hall has more gross square footage
[1:17:14] than what they need programmed because
[1:17:16] of how much extra storage space is in
[1:17:18] this building that's not being used for
[1:17:20] staff use right now. Sorry, refreshing
[1:17:23] myself. Um, and then police has the
[1:17:26] opposite problem. They don't have enough
[1:17:27] storage for anything. They don't have
[1:17:29] enough space for their personnel. Um,
[1:17:32] new propo proposed program. Uh, there's
[1:17:36] an additional about 9,000 ft of need.
[1:17:39] And then
[1:17:41] on the public works building, there's a
[1:17:44] disparity of about 11,000 square feet.
[1:17:47] But this is if we were to say that Phil
[1:17:50] would start parking. absolutely every
[1:17:52] piece of his fleet indoors and he
[1:17:55] doesn't feel that that's a need that
[1:17:57] needs to be met at this moment. They're
[1:18:00] happy to continue parking things as they
[1:18:02] currently are. Uh so getting into the
[1:18:05] space plans, we're going to start with
[1:18:06] the city hall. And here you'll see kind
[1:18:09] of what I was mentioning was one of the
[1:18:11] goals of the group as we were going
[1:18:14] through the process was to get all of
[1:18:16] the people who work here every day on
[1:18:17] one floor. So pink will be the
[1:18:20] administration department, green is
[1:18:22] community development, and purple is
[1:18:24] finance. This option looks at moving
[1:18:26] everybody downstairs to the lower level,
[1:18:29] maintaining the lobby where it is, but
[1:18:32] in a different way. Everyone would still
[1:18:34] enter through that door, but we c would
[1:18:36] reconfigure it so that there's a small
[1:18:38] conference room off the lobby and a
[1:18:41] restroom off the lobby where staff could
[1:18:43] meet with individuals who come in
[1:18:45] without having to bring that individual
[1:18:47] all the way into the building. Um, and
[1:18:50] then stairs and restrooms would all
[1:18:53] remain in place. building services would
[1:18:55] remain in place in the downstairs
[1:18:57] storage room could still be used for
[1:19:00] other purposes that as the city needed
[1:19:03] fit um as we would move forward in the
[1:19:06] process. Council chambers in this
[1:19:08] concept would remain up here but receive
[1:19:11] a
[1:19:12] full reconfiguring as well as
[1:19:16] reconfiguring of the storage and IT and
[1:19:18] AV components. Uh council chambers would
[1:19:21] be enlarged. lobby will remain in place
[1:19:24] up here as well. Um and then upstairs
[1:19:28] where currently administration is will
[1:19:30] be reconfigured for some shared office
[1:19:34] and meeting space. Um some meeting space
[1:19:37] for staff from downstairs and some space
[1:19:40] for the alderman. And then we would also
[1:19:45] construct a new break area up here,
[1:19:49] mainly because there's nice windows up
[1:19:51] here versus downstairs in the other
[1:19:53] storage area would not have any windows.
[1:19:57] And so this is the second option where
[1:20:00] everybody who works in city hall moves
[1:20:03] upstairs. And once again, finance is in
[1:20:06] purple, community development is in
[1:20:08] green, and administration is in the
[1:20:10] pink. And then blue is that employee
[1:20:13] support space where there could be lunch
[1:20:15] break upstairs with them or depending on
[1:20:18] how people chose to priorities
[1:20:20] prioritize the space it could go
[1:20:22] downstairs. Um and then council chambers
[1:20:26] would move into the open office space
[1:20:29] where community development is currently
[1:20:31] and take over the other part portion of
[1:20:35] the building downstairs. And the thought
[1:20:37] behind this was that the main lobby
[1:20:40] upstairs would continue to be the main
[1:20:41] lobby for everything. And so when the
[1:20:44] public would come to meetings, the
[1:20:46] accessible route would be um through the
[1:20:49] elevator to go downstairs or you would
[1:20:51] take the stairs.
[1:20:55] And then we also looked at a low impact
[1:20:57] option where most apartments stayed in
[1:20:59] place. Uh, this option just has the
[1:21:03] finance and community development shaded
[1:21:05] because we wouldn't necessarily move any
[1:21:07] of their spaces around. It would receive
[1:21:09] a facelift, new paint, new carpet, um,
[1:21:11] and a reconfigured lobby downstairs
[1:21:13] still because that was seen as a
[1:21:15] priority from the staff. And then
[1:21:18] administration would be reconfigured to
[1:21:21] fit their growing staff and their needs
[1:21:25] for um appropriate spaces for their
[1:21:30] individual staff members. And then the
[1:21:32] break space would remain upstairs but be
[1:21:35] enlarged into that storage space again
[1:21:36] with the windows and council chambers in
[1:21:39] all three receives a full upgrade so
[1:21:43] that all of the hardships that you guys
[1:21:46] have considering IT items and where you
[1:21:49] can view content um can be addressed.
[1:21:55] So moving on to the police. This is
[1:21:57] going to be the
[1:21:59] renovation option that we explored where
[1:22:03] we add an addition to the upper level so
[1:22:06] that we can essentially make a large
[1:22:07] carport area underneath so that the
[1:22:10] police can have protected parking
[1:22:11] downstairs. Um,
[1:22:14] this proposes that all of the office
[1:22:16] space is upstairs and most of the secure
[1:22:19] space is downstairs. There would still
[1:22:21] be control points at the blue lines. Um,
[1:22:24] and another one in the hallway, but
[1:22:30] we would have roll call upstairs and all
[1:22:32] of the interview rooms upstairs as well
[1:22:34] as the investigators
[1:22:36] and an additional mat room and fitness
[1:22:39] space which was desired by the
[1:22:41] department and break would get moved
[1:22:44] upstairs as well. So that most of
[1:22:46] downstairs is evidence, locker room and
[1:22:48] booking and holding. So all your truly
[1:22:50] hardened spaces and the locker room is
[1:22:53] really
[1:22:55] um
[1:22:57] still kind of a ancillary space there
[1:23:00] and the armory is also downstairs. And
[1:23:02] once again this kind of illustrates in
[1:23:04] the dashed line where that addition
[1:23:06] would be upstairs so that you could have
[1:23:08] covered parking below.
[1:23:12] This is the option we looked at for
[1:23:13] police where it's low impact. These
[1:23:15] outlines just kind of illustrate the
[1:23:17] different levels of improvement we would
[1:23:19] make to these areas. This option doesn't
[1:23:21] really look at reconfiguring much of the
[1:23:23] police department in any major way. We'd
[1:23:25] maybe take down some walls in order to
[1:23:28] make um more logical procession through
[1:23:32] some of the open office areas. I know
[1:23:33] right now there are some strange
[1:23:35] deadends and wandering portions where
[1:23:38] their offices are. Um, and
[1:23:42] like I said, this is intended to be a
[1:23:43] low impact option in order to try and
[1:23:46] improve things for them without costing
[1:23:49] as much as an addition option. And then
[1:23:51] downstairs would be still reconfigured
[1:23:54] in a similar way, but this option looks
[1:23:57] at getting rid of the evidence functions
[1:24:01] within this building. They would be
[1:24:02] outsourced either to city hall or to
[1:24:05] another area. And that's why when we're
[1:24:07] looking at the downstairs of city hall,
[1:24:09] if that could be reused for evidence, um
[1:24:12] that would not be by preferred by most,
[1:24:14] but we felt we needed to look into it
[1:24:16] based on the comments from the council
[1:24:19] in the survey about moving elements out
[1:24:23] of the police department if we can.
[1:24:27] Moving into public works, public works
[1:24:30] has very minor renovation. A lot of the
[1:24:32] dash lines are kind of what I was
[1:24:34] talking about at the beginning where
[1:24:35] they currently have equipment in the
[1:24:36] fleet maintenance area. They no longer
[1:24:38] do their own fleet maintenance in that
[1:24:39] area. So, they can park some equipment
[1:24:42] there, but they're limited as to what
[1:24:44] they can park because of the
[1:24:46] obstructions um in that area. As well as
[1:24:50] EMA currently has space and the kennel
[1:24:53] on the other side of the building. and
[1:24:55] we would need to continue to have EMA
[1:24:57] space somewhere, but the kennel we
[1:24:59] understand is not truly being used very
[1:25:02] often. So, um hopefully in the future
[1:25:07] that could be programmed better to be
[1:25:09] used for public works. And then this is
[1:25:12] the proposed renovation to the office
[1:25:15] area specifically because um the staff
[1:25:19] there are many shared offices at public
[1:25:21] works right now and with some minor
[1:25:23] renovations and reconfiguring of where
[1:25:26] the walls are are currently and actually
[1:25:28] keeping most of the walls where they are
[1:25:29] currently maybe taking down one and
[1:25:33] moving some doors. They could easily
[1:25:35] have all the office space that they need
[1:25:38] moving forward.
[1:25:41] Now, this is where we talk about the
[1:25:43] money, the cost, and so the city hall
[1:25:46] renovation, the low impact option where
[1:25:48] we just kind of give a facelift
[1:25:50] downstairs and uh redo the council
[1:25:53] chambers and reconfigure administration.
[1:25:55] We have three half to$4.5 million. And
[1:25:59] then the other two options that we
[1:26:01] proposed basically touch every square
[1:26:03] inch of the building and therefore are
[1:26:06] simil similarly costing about four and a
[1:26:09] half to 5.5 million.
[1:26:12] And then we also listed here some of the
[1:26:14] items that could potentially be covered
[1:26:16] by the CMRP.
[1:26:20] And then on the police station, the low
[1:26:21] impact option is around $3 million. The
[1:26:25] addition we had it between eight and $10
[1:26:29] million. And then the new police
[1:26:32] station, which we didn't draw for you
[1:26:33] guys, it would be sight specific and
[1:26:37] still based on many of the similar
[1:26:39] spaces that we programmed through the
[1:26:40] space planning, which if you look at
[1:26:41] your full report, you'll see every room
[1:26:43] that they requested and why um a new
[1:26:47] building would be between 12 and $16
[1:26:49] million.
[1:26:51] Moving on to the public works
[1:26:52] renovation, that minimal renovation that
[1:26:55] they're generally looking for would be
[1:26:57] around really 300 to $400,000.
[1:27:01] And then um the larger renovations are
[1:27:07] if you did all of the items from the
[1:27:10] assessment for the 10 years. And so
[1:27:12] that's where it goes up to the three to
[1:27:13] three and a half million dollars. And
[1:27:15] then the last one is if we were to move
[1:27:18] all of the elements of the PD out. if
[1:27:21] you were to build a new PD and what it
[1:27:23] would cost to change the public works as
[1:27:26] it is. And so it's a little under $4
[1:27:29] million.
[1:27:32] I think this is the last slide. Yes.
[1:27:35] Questions, comments.
[1:27:40] » Uh so do we have any questions from the
[1:27:42] council?
[1:27:42] >> I believe Lockett does.
[1:27:45] >> I see.
[1:27:46] >> Locket.
[1:27:46] >> Thank you for recognizing me. [laughter]
[1:27:49] Quick question for you on the public
[1:27:52] works renovation. If the police
[1:27:55] department items move,
[1:27:58] what does that do to the options at the
[1:28:00] police station with the new building not
[1:28:03] being concerned? So, if we just did the
[1:28:06] low impact or the renovation addition,
[1:28:09] could both of those I I'm assuming not
[1:28:12] both can handle the PD moving over?
[1:28:15] Correct. Does that make sense? Maybe
[1:28:17] that's why it doesn't recognize me.
[1:28:18] Sometimes I'm confusing.
[1:28:21] >> I'm trying to understand which part of
[1:28:23] the PDU you are not.
[1:28:24] >> So I think what you're asking is if we had an addition to the police
[1:28:30] department, could it accommodate the EMA
[1:28:32] and animal functions that are currently
[1:28:34] at public works?
[1:28:35] >> Yeah. How do we put police department
[1:28:37] all together?
[1:28:38] >> So the only way to do that uh is at this
[1:28:41] point essentially a new police building
[1:28:44] altogether.
[1:28:45] So the only option be new building.
[1:28:47] >> Correct. The addition the addition
[1:28:49] addresses the lack of space uh currently
[1:28:53] for evidence and some of the other
[1:28:55] operations that are in the police
[1:28:57] department. But it does not there's not
[1:28:59] enough space even with an addition on
[1:29:00] the current footprint of the building to
[1:29:03] add enough space to take over EMA
[1:29:06] functions because there's it's not just
[1:29:07] the people that make up emergency
[1:29:09] management, it's also all the vehicles
[1:29:10] and all of the equipment that goes with
[1:29:12] that. Um, so that's why it says PD items
[1:29:16] move only if there is a um or I'm sorry,
[1:29:19] the public works renovation without the
[1:29:21] EMA is only if there's a a new police
[1:29:24] department building.
[1:29:25] >> Okay.
[1:29:25] >> Which we are not consider. That's not
[1:29:27] one of the concepts that's being
[1:29:28] proposed as an option.
[1:29:30] >> Gotcha.
[1:29:31] >> Thank you.
[1:29:34] » Any other questions?
[1:29:38] Okay. Uh, seeing as no further comments
[1:29:40] or questions, uh, would someone like to
[1:29:42] make a motion regarding this item?
[1:29:49] » I don't I don't think there's a motion
[1:29:51] to be made, is there?
[1:29:53] >> Yeah.
[1:29:53] >> Yes.
[1:29:54] >> Is there Okay. Direct staff to work
[1:29:55] >> the market.
[1:29:58] >> I'd like to make a motion to direct
[1:29:59] staff to work with the long range
[1:30:00] financial planning work group to
[1:30:02] evaluate the citywide space needs
[1:30:04] assessment and develop recommendations
[1:30:07] for improvements. priorities and funding
[1:30:09] for future city council consideration.
[1:30:12] >> Second.
[1:30:14] >> Motion is made and seconded. Uh all in
[1:30:16] favor say I.
[1:30:18] >> I.
[1:30:19] >> All opposed.
[1:30:21] >> Uh the motion passes. This item will be
[1:30:23] placed on an upcoming agenda for further
[1:30:25] action. Uh item B. Uh we're moving to
[1:30:29] Thank you very much. Uh so
[1:30:33] it item B, consideration of water and
[1:30:35] sewer rate study agreement. Uh public
[1:30:38] works director Coochler, would you like
[1:30:40] to make a presentation about this item?
[1:30:42] >> Sure. Uh for background, the city has
[1:30:45] not performed a water and sewer rate
[1:30:46] study in over 20 years. Staff originally
[1:30:49] presented an agreement with Stantech on
[1:30:51] April 20th and received direction from
[1:30:53] council to work with the consulting team
[1:30:56] and the enterprise maintenance and
[1:30:57] replacement plan workg group to reduce
[1:31:00] the scope of work and hopefully reduce
[1:31:01] the costs. The updated agreement that's
[1:31:04] included in the agenda backup reflects a
[1:31:06] reduced scope and that lowered the cost
[1:31:08] from $110,637
[1:31:10] to $84,923.
[1:31:14] Uh scope reductions are detailed in my
[1:31:15] memo which is in the agenda backup. But
[1:31:17] basically they assumed uh additional
[1:31:20] effic efficiency in using the city's
[1:31:22] current financial model. uh the consist
[1:31:26] consideration of fewer alternatives
[1:31:28] reducing the number of meetings and that
[1:31:29] the finance department would perform the
[1:31:31] fund balance separation in house. The
[1:31:34] EMRP work group also considered options
[1:31:36] to try to stretch the project over two
[1:31:38] years to delay it by a couple of years
[1:31:40] and those would have resulted in costs
[1:31:42] cost increases of 7 to 15,000 for those
[1:31:44] options. So, the staff and the MRP work
[1:31:48] group are recommending approval of the
[1:31:50] contract that's included with the agenda
[1:31:51] backup materials for just under $85,000.
[1:31:53] With that, I'd be happy to entertain
[1:31:54] questions.
[1:31:56] >> Okay, there are any questions from the
[1:31:58] council.
[1:32:02] » Oh, Mayor Johnson,
[1:32:03] >> I think it's not the right spot, but
[1:32:04] I'll ask the question anyway. Uh, the
[1:32:07] question we get oftentimes is why don't
[1:32:09] we tap into Lake Michigan water? Could a
[1:32:11] very high level answer to that question
[1:32:14] be included in this analysis?
[1:32:16] >> Not without increasing the scope of the
[1:32:18] project and the costs.
[1:32:19] >> Okay.
[1:32:20] >> So where would that question then be
[1:32:22] answered?
[1:32:24] Again at kind of a high level. I know we
[1:32:26] all know it would be millions of
[1:32:28] dollars, but that question hasn't been
[1:32:31] answered for a long time.
[1:32:34] >> Administrator.
[1:32:35] >> Thank you. Um I at this point would
[1:32:38] suggest because this study specifically
[1:32:41] the council's direction was to look at
[1:32:44] reducing the scope and reducing the cost
[1:32:45] of the project um that type of an
[1:32:48] assessment on switching over from
[1:32:50] wellwater to Lake Michigan water. It
[1:32:53] would very likely be its own study um
[1:32:56] and would be undertaken independently of
[1:32:58] this study. Uh and that is something
[1:33:01] that the council could direct at some
[1:33:03] point in time. We have some information that we've
[1:33:08] gathered based on other communities that
[1:33:10] have recently turned over and you are
[1:33:11] correct. It is a you're talking in the
[1:33:14] tens of millions of dollars in just
[1:33:16] infrastructure changes to uh tap into
[1:33:19] the DUP page water commission which then
[1:33:20] taps into Lake Michigan water. Um
[1:33:23] besides that, the rate increases
[1:33:26] um are significant between what we pay
[1:33:29] currently for wellwater versus going to
[1:33:31] Lake Michigan water. So that is a
[1:33:33] separate study if the council would like
[1:33:34] us to undertake that. Um I think getting
[1:33:37] this study accomplished and identifying
[1:33:39] um the updates that we need to make to
[1:33:41] our current structure is the first step
[1:33:43] and then that could be aial future phase
[1:33:46] of the project if that is what's
[1:33:47] desired.
[1:33:51] Alderman whiter.
[1:33:53] >> Yeah. To that point, would there be a
[1:33:54] way of developing a frequently asked
[1:33:57] questioned um survey to put on the
[1:34:01] website knowing what we know about the
[1:34:04] costs and also maybe inputting some of
[1:34:07] the information [clears throat] we could
[1:34:09] pirate from some of the other
[1:34:11] communities that have uh studied uh this
[1:34:16] dilemma and popular topic.
[1:34:20] me again. Uh we have been working
[1:34:23] towards that. The apples for apples
[1:34:27] comparison between what other
[1:34:28] communities have um experienced with
[1:34:31] their switch to Lake Michigan water is
[1:34:34] uh challenging because some of it is
[1:34:36] miles of water man that would have to be
[1:34:39] replaced and changed over and
[1:34:40] infrastructure that would have to be
[1:34:41] installed which is very specific and
[1:34:43] unique to the community and to the
[1:34:45] location of connection points to the
[1:34:47] DuPage Water Commission closest option.
[1:34:50] Um the rates are also dependent on a
[1:34:53] variety of factors like um without
[1:34:57] getting into the really very detailed
[1:35:00] specifics there is essentially a buyin
[1:35:02] that has to occur for an a city to have
[1:35:06] um an a portion of um Lake Michigan
[1:35:09] water. We have to buy in and pay kind of
[1:35:12] back into some of the infrastructure
[1:35:14] that has already existed and been
[1:35:16] installed through the du page water
[1:35:17] commission in the area. So, uh, we would
[1:35:19] need to get an approval, an
[1:35:21] appropriation. There's a fee associated
[1:35:22] with that. There's additional structure.
[1:35:24] So, um, it's not as simple to come up
[1:35:27] with that comparison. We have been
[1:35:28] trying for several months between public
[1:35:31] works and finance to gather some basic
[1:35:33] information from the DUP page water
[1:35:35] commission and some of those other
[1:35:36] communities to start to compile that
[1:35:38] comparison on a very high level. Um,
[1:35:40] because we do get this question
[1:35:42] regularly from the community. Um, it's
[1:35:44] just it's not that simple. and then
[1:35:46] trying to boil down very complicated
[1:35:48] information into a consumable simple
[1:35:50] format is also proving to be challenging
[1:35:52] but it is something we are working
[1:35:54] towards.
[1:35:56] >> Thank you.
[1:35:59] And are there any other questions?
[1:36:03] Uh seeing as no further comments or
[1:36:06] questions, would someone like to make a
[1:36:07] motion regarding this item?
[1:36:10] Alderman Kenberg.
[1:36:13] I'd like to make a motion to direct
[1:36:15] staff to present a resolution approving
[1:36:17] an agreement with Stantech Consulting
[1:36:19] Services, Inc. for a water and sewer
[1:36:21] rate study.
[1:36:23] >> Second.
[1:36:25] >> Okay, a motion is made and seconded. Uh
[1:36:27] so all in favor say I.
[1:36:29] >> I.
[1:36:30] >> Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes.
[1:36:34] This item will be placed on an upcoming
[1:36:35] agenda for further action. Uh item C uh
[1:36:39] consideration of staff recommendation or
[1:36:42] recommended updates to the enterprise
[1:36:45] maintenance and replacement plan EMRP.
[1:36:48] Uh ut utility maintenance superintendent
[1:36:51] Jardine. Would you like to make the
[1:36:52] staff presentation?
[1:36:54] >> Good evening. Thank you. Uh the EM uh
[1:36:58] enterprise maintenance replacement plan,
[1:36:59] the EMRP, um covers the city's water and
[1:37:02] sanitary sewer systems and is required
[1:37:04] to be updated annually. One of the
[1:37:07] commitments of the EMRP is to review and
[1:37:09] update the plan each year to reflect
[1:37:11] current needs, priorities, and protect
[1:37:13] projected expenditures. As part of this
[1:37:16] year's annual update, the new Duke's
[1:37:19] Parkway water tower was added to the
[1:37:21] EMRP.
[1:37:23] Um, included in the agenda backup
[1:37:25] materials and is a staff memorandum
[1:37:28] detailing the recommended adjustments to
[1:37:30] the EMRP.
[1:37:32] If the recommended adjustments are
[1:37:33] approved, the total average annual EMRP
[1:37:36] expenditures will increase by just under
[1:37:38] $310,000
[1:37:40] or approximately 5.9%.
[1:37:43] Resulting in a new average annual
[1:37:45] expenditure of roughly 5.6 million. I'd
[1:37:49] be happy to entertain any questions.
[1:37:51] >> Okay. Uh thank you. Are there any
[1:37:53] questions? Alderman Lockett.
[1:37:56] So the water system inventory operating
[1:37:59] that's why that increased by 23% was
[1:38:02] because the water tower going online.
[1:38:04] >> Yeah, that was the big increase.
[1:38:06] >> Okay. And I guess the next question
[1:38:07] would be for Kevin with regards to like
[1:38:09] the model waterford model that we use.
[1:38:13] Do we put these escalators in there? Do
[1:38:16] you know every year? anytime we do get
[1:38:18] updates uh that public works works on
[1:38:21] they ultimately do get pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl plugged in our
[1:38:24] plugged into our model so that we use
[1:38:26] that when we look forward as to what's
[1:38:27] happening in the coming years.
[1:38:29] >> So when we're looking at that projected
[1:38:30] out three years, four years, five years,
[1:38:32] we have like a 3% or I don't want to say
[1:38:34] cost of living, but but but an increase,
[1:38:37] right, that's already kind of built in
[1:38:38] there per year.
[1:38:39] >> We we use an escalator in there um every
[1:38:42] year. It's the same escal later that we
[1:38:45] use for our our water and sewers search
[1:38:48] charge loan program that we calculate
[1:38:51] annual annually at the beginning of a
[1:38:54] calendar year.
[1:38:55] >> Okay, great. Thank you.
[1:38:59] Are there any other questions?
[1:39:03] Okay. Uh seeing as no further comments
[1:39:04] or questions, would someone like to make
[1:39:06] a motion regarding this item?
[1:39:09] Alman Witner.
[1:39:10] >> Yes. Thank you. Do I move to direct
[1:39:12] staff to incorporate recommended
[1:39:14] adjustments into the enterprise
[1:39:16] maintenance and replacement plan
[1:39:18] document?
[1:39:19] >> Second.
[1:39:21] >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Uh
[1:39:23] all in favor say I.
[1:39:26] >> I.
[1:39:27] >> All opposed.
[1:39:29] >> Okay. The motion passes. This item will
[1:39:31] be placed on an upcoming agenda for
[1:39:34] further action. Uh thank you very much.
[1:39:36] Uh item D, consideration of staff
[1:39:40] recommend recommended updates to the
[1:39:42] capital maintenance and replacement plan
[1:39:44] CMRP. Uh capital maintenance
[1:39:46] superintendent Clark, would you like to
[1:39:48] make the stat presentation? Sure. One of
[1:39:51] the similar to the EMRP, one of the
[1:39:53] commitments in the capital maintenance
[1:39:55] replacement plan is that the plan is
[1:39:57] updated annually. Just a refresher for
[1:39:59] everybody, the CMRP items are the
[1:40:03] roadway and storm sewers, street lights,
[1:40:05] curb and gutters and sidewalks, vehicles
[1:40:07] and equipment, building content, tents,
[1:40:10] exterior surfaces, and some
[1:40:12] miscellaneous streetscapes.
[1:40:14] The increases to the the assets in CMRP
[1:40:17] this year, all items are just the
[1:40:20] escalator at 3.6%
[1:40:23] other than the street lights, which came
[1:40:25] in at 14.3%.
[1:40:27] The explanation for that is we have an
[1:40:30] increase of 80 street lights in the CMRP
[1:40:32] this year. We did not add 80 street
[1:40:35] lights. We found and have 80 more street
[1:40:38] lights in our GIS. So as as we update
[1:40:41] our inventory and become more accurate
[1:40:44] with our reporting, we found that
[1:40:46] there's there was 80 street lightss
[1:40:47] missing in the previous reports. So that
[1:40:51] the average increase is 3.9%
[1:40:54] or $138,83
[1:40:56] per year. With that, I'd be happy to
[1:40:58] answer any questions.
[1:41:01] >> Are there any questions from the
[1:41:03] council?
[1:41:08] » Alderman Lockett,
[1:41:10] if we didn't have GIS, we wouldn't know
[1:41:12] about them.
[1:41:15] Wouldn't increased 14%. Anyway, uh I'd
[1:41:19] like to make a motion to direct staff to
[1:41:20] incorporate recommended adjustments into
[1:41:23] the capital maintenance and replacement
[1:41:25] plan document.
[1:41:26] >> Second.
[1:41:27] >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. All
[1:41:29] in favor say I.
[1:41:31] >> I.
[1:41:32] All opposed. The motion passes. This
[1:41:35] item will be placed on an upcoming
[1:41:37] agenda for further action. And item E,
[1:41:41] uh request for all for alderman
[1:41:43] volunteer representatives for the
[1:41:45] complete streets workg groupoup. Uh,
[1:41:47] Director Kler, would you like to make
[1:41:49] this staff presentation?
[1:41:50] >> Sure. Uh, the work group originally
[1:41:52] included Alderman Widner and Alderman
[1:41:54] Krishell. Uh, we last met in 2019 and,
[1:41:58] you know, since 2019, we had the the
[1:41:59] pandemic and everything. So, she kind of
[1:42:02] got put on hold. um as one of the fiscal
[1:42:04] year 27 work plan uh strategic plan
[1:42:08] action items is for this work group to
[1:42:09] meet quarterly to explore potential
[1:42:12] funding mechanisms for path and sidewalk
[1:42:14] improvements in town and um prioritize
[1:42:17] those staff is seeking two willing
[1:42:19] volunteers from city council to
[1:42:21] participate in the work group and we
[1:42:23] would uh come forward on September 8th
[1:42:25] to have those volunteers finalized or
[1:42:28] directed by city council or to
[1:42:29] participate in the work group. So with
[1:42:31] that, I'd be happy to entertain any
[1:42:32] questions.
[1:42:34] >> Any questions from the council?
[1:42:38] Okay. Uh, so this item was offered
[1:42:40] forformational purposes only. Thank you.
[1:42:42] Uh,
[1:42:44] >> oh, sorry, I did not see you there.
[1:42:47] >> So we need to name two aldermen for
[1:42:50] this. We need to recommend two aldermen.
[1:42:51] Correct.
[1:42:54] >> Ideally,
[1:42:54] >> yeah, we're looking for if there's two
[1:42:56] willing volunteers, it' be great to have
[1:42:58] them.
[1:43:07] I would be glad to continue my service
[1:43:10] in this regard for another eight years
[1:43:14] [laughter]
[1:43:16] » or less.
[1:43:20] » I guess are there any other Listen, I've
[1:43:23] never met a work group I don't like. So
[1:43:25] I'm but I'm leaving it open. I'm not
[1:43:27] saying anything to anybody else. if
[1:43:28] they're interested. If not, then I would
[1:43:30] be I would be honored to work alongside
[1:43:32] Alderman Wer, but not for eight years.
[1:43:36] >> Okay. So, for 12 years, but uh Alderman
[1:43:39] Locket, you
[1:43:41] okay? So I guess we have two volunteers
[1:43:43] for this
[1:43:46] and uh
[1:43:49] do we have to
[1:43:50] >> if there's any other interest since we
[1:43:52] have now September 8th it'll be on the
[1:43:55] September 8th agenda to actually appoint
[1:43:57] two alderman to the uh work group I
[1:43:59] assume then just contact Mayor Johnson
[1:44:01] if you also have interest but for now
[1:44:03] we've got two listed
[1:44:06] >> make it a competition
[1:44:09] >> okay so drinking.
[1:44:13] >> So, this item was offered forformational
[1:44:15] purpose only and Mayor Johnson, I
[1:44:17] relinquish the chair duties back to you
[1:44:18] for the remainder of the meeting.
[1:44:20] >> Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
[1:44:22] Nicely done. Um, so threeformational
[1:44:25] reports,
[1:44:26] the wire transfer, bicyclist pedestrian
[1:44:29] advisory commission report, meeting
[1:44:31] minutes and plan commission ZBA minutes.
[1:44:34] Uh we have no need for a closed session,
[1:44:36] but just as a point of reference, I ask
[1:44:39] council members to get in touch with me
[1:44:42] as to the subject matter of most of the
[1:44:44] public comment this evening and how to
[1:44:47] proceed because I'm not aware of this
[1:44:50] having come before council in the past
[1:44:53] of of a large number of the public
[1:44:55] asking for something to be done and then
[1:44:57] what do you do? Okay. So, I think we
[1:45:00] need to do something to address those
[1:45:01] concerns that have been voiced and uh we
[1:45:04] know we all know that there was a
[1:45:05] contract approved that's still in place
[1:45:07] for two more years, but there are those
[1:45:09] conditions within the contract that were
[1:45:12] we all know about. So, it needs to be
[1:45:14] addressed, I think, in a formal way,
[1:45:16] some way, shape, or form. So, let me
[1:45:17] know your thoughts and I'll work with
[1:45:19] administrator White on that as well, um
[1:45:22] to try to figure out what to do with it.
[1:45:25] Does that sound fair? Okay.
[1:45:29] In that case, thank you very much for
[1:45:31] everybody's attendance this evening and
[1:45:33] all the staff and the folks who are
[1:45:34] involved. Uh, no need for close session.
[1:45:36] So, a motion to adjurnn.
[1:45:38] >> Motion to adjurnn.
[1:45:39] >> Alderman locket. Second by alderman
[1:45:41] Davalos. All in favor say I.
[1:45:44] >> Any opposed?
[1:45:46] Then we are adjourned. Thank you very
[1:45:47] much.