Sorry, Gordon. Test, test, test. Test, test. All right. I'll mix the levels. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> I'd like to call the order of the Planning and Development Committee meeting for Monday, April 27th, 2026. Uh tonight's invocation will be given by Pastor Levi Farrar of Calvary Christian Church followed by the pledge of allegiance. I just ask that everyone could stand. Father in heaven, thank you for this opportunity to gather. I thank you for the opportunity to really focus on how you are guiding all of us to lead here in the Rockford area. I bless all the leaders here that are taking place in this meeting that they're able to listen to the needs of the community. They're able to build up the best way to serve the people here in Rockford. God bless us in only the ways that you can bless us and work in only the ways that you can work to build your kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven and more specifically in the Rockford area. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you. I'm going to kick it right over to Mayor McNamara for tonight's proclamation. Thank you, Chairwoman. This evening we are fortunate we have two proclamations. The first proclamation is for World Migratory Bird Day and we have Jennifer Croda with us. How are you all? Good to see you. Good to see you. It's our annual gathering. Whereas migratory birds are some of the most beautiful and easily observed wildlife that share our communities and whereas migratory birds and their habitats are declining throughout the Americas facing a growing number of threats to their migration routes in both their summer and winter homes and whereas public awareness and concern are crucial components of migratory bird conservation. And whereas, since 1993, the World Migratory Bird Day has become a primary vehicle for focusing public attention on nearly 350 species that travel between nesting habitats in our communities throughout North America and their wintering grounds in South and Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean, and the and Southern United States. And whereas, World Migratory Bird Day is not only a day to foster appreciation for wild birds and to celebrate and support migratory bird conservation, but also a call to action. Now, therefore, I, Thomas P. McNamara, as the mayor of the City of Rockford, do hereby proclaim May 9th, 2026, to be World Migratory Bird Day. Would you like to share a few words? >> Absolutely. Thank you so much. Um thank you to the mayor for continuing to recognize the importance of World Migratory Bird Day, a day that is celebrated each year um for as birds make their migratory journey between North and South America. Um this recognition is also part of the Bird City Illinois requirements. Rockford was one of the first communities to receive this recognition in 2022. And the mayor has entertained my regular advocacy requests on an annual basis since then, maybe even before then, when my daughter uh was advocating for an official city bird, our peregrine falcon. So, thank you for all of that and hearing me out. Um there are several events you can attend to celebrate World Migratory Bird Day in our area. On the 8th, there will be an ours uh public public event with the release of our third collaboration of bird songs with local musician Nick Turpedo. Both the Illinois Arts Council and Rockford Area Arts Council actually awarded us a grant for this collaboration for this album. And additionally, just north of Rockford, uh the in Rockton, also an up-and-coming Bird City Illinois, you can attend the Rockton Pelican Fest on May 16th. The Mississippi Audubon, of course, will be there at both events and we hope to see you there. Could you repeat the time for the partnership with Mickey Arden? Uh sure, that is on May 8th and it's at um wherever they hold our wherever ours Republican holds their events. It's at a gallery on State Street and I believe Perfect. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Appreciate you. GREAT TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PROCLAMATION is for Motorcycle Awareness Month and we have Susie Jones and Mike Brush with us, as well as others, if you'd like. If you're going to take a photo, you can come on in here so you get a better one. Hey, how are you? How are you? Going great. I'm going to give that to you. Whereas, safety is the highest priority for highways and streets of our city and state. And whereas, the great state of Illinois is proud to be a national leader in motorcycle safety education and awareness. And whereas, motorcycles are common economical means of transportation that reduces fuel consumption and road wear and contribute to in a significant way to the relief of traffic and parking congestion. And whereas, it is especially meaningful of of the citizens of our city and state to be aware of motorcycles on the roadways and recognize the importance of motorcycle safety. Whereas, the members of Illinois, Inc. continually promote motorcycle safety education and awareness programs to drivers and host educational programs to the general public with over 350,000 participants in Illinois in the past year. And whereas, the motorcycles of Illinois have contributed extensive volunteerism and money to national and community charitable organizations. Now, therefore, I, Thomas P. McNamara, as mayor of the city of Rockford, do by here proclaim May 2026 to be motorcycle awareness month. Would you like to share a few words? I just want to tell everybody to put their phones down and look out for us cuz we get ran over. And May 2nd, we'll be having our annual parade from Carlson's Ice Arena down to Kegel's to kick off motorcycle awareness month. Thank you. Appreciate it. THANK YOU. >> [applause] >> THANK YOU. UH WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO OUR PUBLIC SPEAKING. We do have five public speakers tonight. I just want to remind you that you will have 3 minutes to make your comments. There are two microphones located at the back end of this horseshoe. Um once you hear an alarm sound excuse me, if you hear my phone if it's working properly, um we just ask that you bring your comments to a close at that time. Our first public speaker tonight is Kelly Lewis of Davis Junction. Um all right, before I begin, I want to address the resolution proposal. Um the current draft does need work as it lacks sufficient protections for our community but is definitely a step forward. Until now, we've been told there is nothing to discuss. We have fought to change that. Tom Bell has opened the door for communication and I urge you to include the community members in the next draft. We are not against growth. We are a community that care deeply for this area and will fight hard for our water, land, air, homes, and our health. We want to grow. We want growth and we want to protect what already exists. By now, you're aware of the four requests that have brought into question how much planning has quietly gone into this data center by Rockford and Winnebago County officials. As a resident on Friday Road, these documents are shocking. They have directly contradicted repeated public statements from city and county leaders. They reveal questionable moral boundaries, misinformation, and manipulation, much of it coming directly from Charles Koontz, COO of Monarch. These communications go back to January 2025 when my family was living life we worked so hard to build. Decisions were being made behind closed doors to dismantle it. On April 28th, 2025, City Administrator Todd Cagnoni told Koontz, "We look forward to advancing the project." and requested the site plans. On May 15th, Cagnoni sent the inducement letter. On July 10th, Koontz requested a call to discuss the development agreements before, in his words, "firing up the lawyers." Inducement letters and development agreements are not exploratory conversations. They are planning. On June 23rd, 2025, Koontz wrote to Mayor McNamara and Chairman Shiralli urging them to pressure state legislators to fight regulatory standards on data centers and threatened that companies would leave Illinois if lawmakers did not comply. On December 18th of 2025, Scott Sanders of Public Works wrote to Koontz after a meeting with a traffic engineer. He offered, "We may be able to do you one better and are willing to consider removal of the southern half of Friday Road altogether." Replace with a cul-de-sac at the edge of the residential parcels. Those residential parcels are my neighbors. Those are residents who were part of a conversation they knew nothing about. A conversation erasing any concern the city, county, or Monarch may have shown for their neighbors. Since the day we learned of this project, we have asked for transparency. Instead, the planning continued behind closed doors. By the time a formal proposal arrives, it will be designed to to quickly and far too late for residents like myself uh to save our homes. Transparency is a practice of openness and honesty in communication and decision-making sharing clear complete information without hiding essential facts. This is not what transparency is. We are no longer asking for this transparency. We are demanding it. Mayor McNamara has said that he has not lost sleep over this project. The residents at risk of losing everything no longer have that luxury. Thank you. Our next public speaker is Peggy Kane of St. Charles. My name is Peggy Kane and I'm a property owner on Friday Road. I've heard that some of the city consider those organizing against the Monarch Energy Data Center to be misinformed. I want to speak to that label. Maybe we are misinformed, but what I'd like to ask this body tonight is how can the public be informed about a project when officials chose for a year not to share any information about it. A FOIA request shows a year of planning involving many people. The request produced over 100 documents, mostly emails exchanged between April 25 and March of 26 about the Monarch Rock Air project. More than 30 people representing 26 organizations participated in them. Monarch Energy among them Monarch Energy and its consultants, the city of Rockford, Winnebago County, R1 Planning, the Illinois Department of Commerce, the governor's office, ComEd and Nicor Gas, two lobbying firms, two building trade unions, and at least six members of the Illinois General Assembly across both parties. Of those emails, more than half are about coordinating meetings between Monarch public officials and paid lobbyists. One in 13 mentioned jobs or economic impact. What was the share of the emails that discussed public consult consultation? Zero. I'd like to read an email from 20 December 2025. Scott Sanders, a water and utilities official with Rockford, writes to Charles Koons, the chief operating officer of Monarch. We have no objections to the Friday Road vacation. In fact, we may be able to do one better and are willing to consider removal of the southern half of Friday altogether. If you would construct a cul-de-sac at the southern edge of the residential parcels. Mr. Koons forwarded that email to our one planning commission with a short supply. Like the sound of that. I'd like to ask, how can city officials be that casual about removing half of a public road when they hadn't consulted the public? I understand that the early stages of economic development sometime require confidentiality. But in May 2025, a year ago, Rockford's city administrator had already delivered a formal inducement letter to Monarch. From that point on, the FOIA records show that planning accelerated. In March of this year, Mayor McNamara told the Rock River Current, "I'm now on weekly phone calls and having weekly meetings about our ability to land this development." That same month, in an email to a constituent, the mayor wrote, "There is no deal now." And that he would make it a priority to share it with the public once he had information. So, my final question is this. At what point did this project move from an idea that you were exploring to something real? And at that moment, why was it not the right time to bring in the people who own the land you were planning around? Thank you to Mayor Bell for recognizing this is more than a business proposition. Guardrails must be established to protect people, resources, and the environment, too. Thank you. THANK YOU, DAVID. OUR NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER IS Amanda Becker of Rockford. Good evening. My name is Amanda Becker and I stand before you tonight as a city of Rockford local preservation commission president and Auburn High School history teacher. I wish to address the need to preserve Rockford historical structures and to thank the council for approving funding to save Rockford's historical identity for future generations to come. The loss of the Briggs mansion has spurred me, along with many other concerned historians, researchers, librarians, and architects, and community activists to take action to prevent future losses. Therefore, a new organization of active community members will, over the course of this summer, preserve pursue completing paperwork to designate at least 10 new historical structures to become new local landmarks. Why is this work important? Buildings such as the Briggs mansion provide a physical connection to the national movements. Mr. Briggs was an avant-garde abolitionist, a human equity activist, and a women's rights proponent in the Rockford community. Now that civic pride in knowing that Rockford vibrantly was a part of the abolitionist movement could be lost. Gary Anderson, a local architect in the Rockford area, lectured on the monetary value of saving historical structures. An empty lot does not pay taxes and nor does it gain new residents easily. As president of the HPC, I find it very difficult to look at a Haight-Ashbury resident in the eye who asks to put vinyl windows into their Victorian home. And yet, the UW-Madison can destroy an 1863 mansion without penalty. Why is that? The reason boils down to simply Rockfurdians in the past caring about the city. The people of Rockford silently on social media are demanding action now and those caring Rockfurdians of the 1980s have proven to me that preserving our history can be done. I thank them because without their efforts, local landmarks such as the Stewart Square, 1891 Madison YMCA, the Metropolitan Lofts, Woodboro Woodfire building of 1856, and the crown jewel of Rockford itself, the Coronado, would be nothing today but pictures in a dusty Sinnissippi Saga book from 1968. Rockford is a fighting city. It should not allow outside entities to dictate what should and should not be done with its history. I refuse to think that Rockford could be seen as a silent victim, simply telling its public to relax and take it. To conclude, I thank the council for investing in Rockford's past by funding projects such as Coleman Yards, where my grandfather worked as a grinder, the watch factory, and the Coronado Theater, in which many of our RPS children today are exposed to the arts. Public funding should indeed continue. I thank Scott Capavola and the mayor's office to allow a team of RPL librarians, Rockford historians, architects, and community partners to pursue making 10 new sites local landmarks over the summer. I hope to prove our case for these sites by beginning of July. And I would also suggest the council approve an inventory to be made of historical residential districts, as has been done with the Rockford industries, along with approving an ordinance to forbid historical demolition of buildings that are pre-1900 for 120 days to allow time for historical resource and community input before it is too late. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Our next speaker is Prophet Yusuf of Rockford. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. In the book of Sirach, the 40th chapter, 28th to the 29th verse, it says, "My son, live not the life of a beggar. Better to die than to beg. When one has to look to another's table, his life is not really a life." What I want to speak about tonight, ending homelessness, poverty, and want. Under this wise economic plan, we can use the collective power of our unity to build a future for ourselves. We do not believe that America will ever be able to furnish enough jobs for her own millions of unemployed in addition to job for the millions of black people. Pulling our resource to achieve a common goal is a universal concept that makes a lot of sense. Why? And now they say the wealthy elites and politically powerful HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT BLACK America and the poor in the United States. The blueprint calls on 16 million black wage earners to give just 35 cent a week to a national treasure. In 1 year, the fund would amass $291 million to so people can have a place to stay. Invest in business so our people can have a job so they won't be idle because idle man idle idle mind is the devil's workshop. Open our own schools, open 24 hours free daycare centers so mothers can go to school or work. Open up our own hospitals and clinics so we can help our people who are sick. And also give felons a second CHANCE LIKE GOD GAVE US WITH HIS GRACE AND MERCY. THIS economic plan will help reduce crime, HOMELESSNESS, POVERTY IN AMERICA because poverty and you can look at this up. POVERTY, HOPELESSNESS, and despair is a mother of crime. You can ask any criminologist, he'll tell you this. And keep putting money in this economic plan so our children will have a positive future. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Our next speaker is Denzel Wintour of Rockford. Good Good evening, city council. I'm coming here with a I got an assy attitude. Cuz things have been happening to me and and I worry for my family. I worry for my neighborhood. Uh the things that that happen shouldn't be happening. Uh My son's name was mentioned and it shouldn't have been because he don't even he's not even here. He don't even work He don't even work in this town. But his name was mentioned. You know, just like I said, I don't lost I don't lost a child here. He got ran over. The people came up on the sidewalk and ran him over. But do you know what they said? They said it must have been a drug deal or a a gang deal that went bad. Never heard no more from it. Now I got to worry about the rest of my kids. And I shouldn't have to and parents shouldn't have to. In our neighborhood, I know for a fact we got more pedophiles running around up in the neighborhood. Why do you Why you put them people in our neighborhood? You got a east side, you got you got you got a north side, you got a south side. Why you always packing people in our neighborhood? We need to be protected, too. Not after one of our kids go missing. Not after one of our kids children come up dead. But we need the protection that you give these people on the east side. We pay taxes, too. And that's something you guys better start realizing. Thank you. That concludes tonight's public speakers. Um we'll move right >> like to give public comment to find out The open meetings act is very clear. Are there written and recorded rules that prevent me from speaking I'm going to refer to our legal department. And to the ability of public to participate in our meetings, the chair has the discretion to direct an individual interrupting to remain seated. You're referring to city council rule 21, correct? For which this is not city council? Madam Chair, I'm not permitted to address the public. That would be I'm giving you information. You can address the public. At this time, sir, we're done with public speaking. If you will, please take your seat so we can get on with the rest of the the meeting. >> like to offer public comment. Is there And as chair, I'm telling you no. As chair, I'm telling you no. Is that a written and recorded rule? You have open meetings act, right? Correct? I actually I verified that you have open meetings act, right? >> [snorts] >> The chair can direct The chair can direct a a member to be removed. I'm sorry. The chair can direct a person be removed if they don't want to comply with the rules. Oh, come on, man. I literally had to stop you. Yes. Um at this time, officers, can >> you please escort the gentleman out, please? All right. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Here. Here. We have two items up for discussion tonight. Item one is an approval of the amendment. Clerk, did we get all the roll calls? Here. Here. Present. This this Thank you. Item one is an approval of the amendment to the AP 90 program specific requirements, all current and prior year annual action plans. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Are there any questions or discussion on the item? I'm seeing there's no discussion or questions. All those in favor, please state by indicating I. I. Any opposed say same sign. The item passes. Item two is an approval of the amendments to the fiscal year 2025 addition of projects and budget amendments. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing that there are none, all those in favor, please indicate by saying I. I. I. Any opposed, same sign. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Are there any questions or comments? All those in favor, please indicate by saying I. I. Any opposed, same sign. This meeting is adjourned. Welcome to the Finance and Personnel Committee meeting held tonight, April 27th, 2020. Mr. Clerk, could you please take the roll? Here. Thank you. Our Our first time is the information only item. Uh it is the fiscal or financial discussion for March 2020. Miss Harrington, I believe you're going to present that to us. Yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. Go ahead. Yes. Uh so, year-to-date revenue through March, um as you can see in the report, a couple of items to note. Uh the first is use tax, uh which is significantly overbudget year-to-date, uh by about $53,000. Income tax, overbudget as well, about 12% or $450,000. Um unfortunately, offset by a significant underperformance in replacement tax or PPRT of $922,000. Um if you recall, that was a revenue source that we reduced significantly for the 2020 budget, um based on estimates that we received from the state and IML, um, it looks like that reduction has not been sufficient. So, we'll continue to monitor PPRT performance as the year goes on. That we do receive that in eight disbursements and this is two of eight. Um, and they they do not come evenly throughout the year. So, there is a possibility that we could, uh, recover some of those losses. Uh, the remainder of our, uh, general fund revenue year-to-date, though, is, uh, overall positive, about a 7.6% over budget year-to-date. On the expense side, uh, similar story, about 8% under budget year-to-date on expenditures, which we would anticipate, uh, for the first part of the fiscal year as we're still paying as we've, uh, recently wrapped up paying 2025 invoices and, um, getting firmly into the work of 2026. Uh, on the CAP, we have a CAP sales tax, uh, first disbursement 16 and a half percent over budget, um, which is great news. On in the redevelopment fund, overall, about 4% underperformance and that's largely driven by package liquor and hotel motel tax. And casino revenue is, uh, over estimate by about 6% year-to-date. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has. Are there any other questions for Ms. Eyre? Alderman Salgado. Yeah, just real quick, um, the comment about the replacement tax, uh, can you, uh, re- re- say that because I I wasn't paying attention to it? >> Oh, sure. So, we, uh, we reduced that budget significantly for 2026 based on projections that we were receiving both from the state and the, um, IML puts together projections, uh, as this is a statewide revenue source. Um, obviously that has that wasn't a big enough reduction, it appears, based on the first two disbursements we've received so far. so we'll continue to monitor it. It is uh dispersed in eight installments throughout the year. This is two of eight, and it's not eight equal disbursements, so there's still a chance that we could have some recovery. So So, I'm sorry. So, um so, you're saying we reduced it, but most likely we'll get to that number that Well, we reduced it, so we're measuring performance against a budget that's already been reduced from historical numbers. So, it appears that potentially the projection or the the recommendations we received from IML and the state were not sufficient, um but it is still early in the fiscal year, 25% of the revenue in. Um I will obviously very closely monitor this and look for updates from the state or IML on um how they project the year to end as as we move forward. Okay, please listen. Thank you. Alderman Thank you, Chairman. Um I think I noticed that the uh Rockford Fire had I think it was 24% um over budgeted for overtime, and our PD was about 14% under budgeted, um which is uh good. Typically, I I feel like we see RPD and RFD are usually around like the 15 to 20% range of uh going over their budget for overtime right now. I was surprised to see RPD being like double digits under budget. I know the chief is dealing with other things right now, but um I was curious as to why that was. Do you know? Sure. So, as we So, they're they're not 14% under budget, they've only spent 14% of the total budget year-to-date, um which is under where we would expect them to be, but um you know, as our effort or as PD's efforts to um get up to full staffing have started to come to fruition, we have more officers on the street, overtime exposure reduces. >> So, I think some of the some of those hiring efforts are are showing themselves in that overtime numbers. >> Okay. Thank you. Alderman Tunerberg. Thank you, Chairman. Sorry, Director. I would have asked this question earlier in the week had I had time. Could you further elaborate on the utility tax? There seems to be that large increase. There is, and I do not have an answer for you on that, but I will get information put together and share that with all of City Council. Okay. And I do see that hotel, motel, and package liquor down double digits and uh but maybe those same people are just going out to eat because at least the restaurant tax is up, so. Thank you. All right. Um seeing no other questions, thank you very much for that information. Moving on to committee reports, item number one is the approval of vouchers in the amount of $9,022,558.28. Is there a motion to approve vouchers? Thank you. Any questions or comments on vouchers? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Resolutions, item number one is award of bid for demolition group 36 and Northern Illinois Service in the amount of $39,700 for properties located at 1151 North Main Street and 2818 Horton Street. The contract duration is through the completion of demolition project. The funding sources are the Community Development General Fund and the IDHA Strong Communities Grant. Is there a motion to approve? Any questions for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Item two is award of bid for a street repairs group number three to Rock Road companies in the amount of $3,494,396.19. The contract is through August 28th, 2026 and the funding source is the 1% infrastructure sales tax. Is there a motion to approve the repairs? So moved. Second. Any questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. Opposed? I'll have a minute to ask you a question. I'm an I on that, by the way. All right. Thank you. Matter passes. Item three is a war of a bid for Madison Street corridor improvements phase two to Entrac in the amount of $9,750,755.36. The contract duration is from June 1, 2026 through October 31, 2027. The funding sources are the 1% infrastructure sales tax, the WRIA, the Illinois Department of Commerce Economic Opportunity Funds, and the Ford River Sanitation Authority Funds. Is there a motion to approve? Thank you. Any questions or comments on Mass Street? All those in favor, indicate by Yeah, real quick. Thank you, Chair. The I noticed in the memo it said the repairs are going to take two years. I'm curious if that's like two seasons, so like summer of '26, summer of '27, or two years from this date, which would be like April of '28. It would be '26 and '27. >> Okay, good to know. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. Opposed? Matter passes. Moving on, number four is a war of an engineering agreement for the Madison Street improvements in the amount of $719,000 to Fair Graham. The contract is also from June 1, 2026 through October 31, 2027, and the funding sources are the 1% infrastructure sales tax and the WRIA. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Any questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Item five is an award of the engineering agreement for the Winnebago Street over Kent Creek and Railroad Bridge rehabilitation phase two engineering HR Green in the amount of $333,693. The contract is from April 2026 through June of 2027 and the funding source are MFT funds. Is there a motion to approve? Any questions on this project? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Item six is a is a resolution approving the appropriation of MFT funds for the improvement under the Illinois Highway Code for the Winnebago Street over Kent Creek and Railroad Bridge rehabilitation amount of $500,000. Is there a motion to approve? Any questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Item seven is an approval and acceptance of the ID HS Emergency Solutions Grant Award in the amount of $25,000. The grant does require a 100% cost match. The grant term is from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. It will be used to pay for street outreach, homeless management information data entry, and admin costs. Is there a motion to approve? Second. Any questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Item eight is an approval and acceptance of the IDHS Rapid Rehousing Grant Award in the amount of $374,169. This grant does not require a cost match. The grant term is from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. Is there a motion to approve? Second. Any questions for staff? Alderman Hoffmann. Thank you for letting me speak at your meeting. Um can someone please explain what this actually looks like? At one time we were able to take money and put people directly into motels and then things changed and I'm just wondering is this bringing back that program or does this mean something else? So I'm interested in both eight and how does that look as far as our homeless? >> Sure, Mr. Carter. Thank you, Alderman Huffman. No, these are just reoccurring grants. These grants especially when you look at item eight which is a re housing grant. That is in conjunction with the federal funds that we receive from HUD in order to rehouse those who are homeless or who are facing homeless imminent. When you look at the number nine which is our IDHS homeless prevention grant, that is part of the challenge to where we are able to use some of those monies for hotels if needed, but what you're thinking of I think in the past is through our community services block grant. Those are the funds that allow us much more flexibility to do that. The IDHS HP grant will allow that, but that has to receive permission directly from the state on that. Thank you. Any other questions? Alderman Trina. All right, seeing no further questions all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Item nine is the approval and acceptance of the Illinois Department of Human Services shelter diversion grant award in the amount of $113,534. This grant does not require a cost match and is through July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. Be used to pay for clients, landlord housing stabilization services, payroll and admin costs. Is there a motion to approve? Any questions or comments for staff? Seeing none all those in favor indicate by I. I. Opposed? Matter passes. Item 10 is the approval and acceptance of the Illinois Department of Human Services homeless prevention grant award in the amount of $1,110,414. $110,414. This grant does not require a cost match. The grant term is from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. They use the paid for approved clients rent, electric, and or heating bills, budget education, staff training, payroll, admin costs. Is there a motion to approve? Any questions for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by eye. Aye. Opposed? Matter passes. Item 11 is an acceptance and approval of the Illinois Department of Human Services Community Convener Grant Award in the amount of $188,000. This grant does not require a cost match. The award will be issued in two separate agreements covering a 12-month period. Um with $47,000 for the period from April 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026. And part B provides $141,000 for the period from June July 1, 2026 through March 31, 2027. Uh the grant will be used for the purpose of convening to convene a group of community members um and Reimagine Public Safety Act Grant recipients to facilitate community-based violence prevention strategies, outreach, and service delivery costs. Is there a motion to approve? Any questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by eye. Aye. Opposed? Matter passes. Item 12 is an award of professional service agreement for architectural design of fire stations 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10, and fire department headquarters and the fire academy to Larson Darby in the amount of $192,950. The contract duration is 2 years. The funding source is the fire station 10 reallocation funds from the 2022 budget surplus funds. Is there a motion to approve the award? Are there any questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by eye, Aye. Opposed? Matter passes. Item 13 is the award of bid for the Coronado decorative plaster repairs to Evergreen Architectural Arts in the amount of $596,048. The contract duration is through December 31, 2027. The funding source is the redevelopment fund. Is there a motion to approve the bid? Questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, all those in favor of the keep a eye, eye. Opposed? Matter passes. Is there a motion to adjourn? All those in favor of adjourning to keep a eye, eye. Thank you. This means adjourned. Welcome to the Code and Regulation Committee meeting for Monday, April 27th. Um we have eight 20 items on the agenda. So, uh clerk, would you please call the roll? Here. Here. Present. Thank you. Under committee reports, item one is North Court Street and Whitman Street. Traffic Commission recommends approval to establish a no parking anytime except paratransit restriction on the west side of North Court Street from 318 ft north of Whitman Street to 348 ft north of Whitman Street. Is there a motion to approve? Any questions or comments on item one? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item two is the final plat of Bell School Crossing Subdivision located at 73XX East Riverside Boulevard. Is there a motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments on item two? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item three is 2530 2720 South Main Street. Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a special use permit for planned unit development for an RV and fifth wheel only community in an R1 single-family residential zoning district at 2530 2710 and 2720 South Main Street. Is there a motion to approve? So. I'll second. Any comments or questions on item three? Alderwoman Tarver. Yes. Um this this does reside in my ward. Um I would like to make a motion to lay this item over, please. Um I have I have a lot of concerns uh with this one, especially after listening to uh public comments at zoning. So, I just want to make sure that I do thorough due diligence before making any decisions on this one. So. Thank you. Second. Um so, So, have a motion to lay over and a second. Um I agree the testimony at um at um ZBA um was compelling, but I do want to just note for the record that um on everybody on all of the aldermen's desks is um a uh copy of the voluntary relocation assistance program um that was uh sent to me by the attorney for the property owner today and um it was uh I believe there were no specifics given at ZBA on what that would look like. And so, now you have that to consider um um assuming this gets laid over. Are there any other questions or comments on the motion to lay over? Uh seeing none, uh Clerk, will you call the roll? I. I. I. Okay. So, item three is laid over. Item four, 20 uh 37 at the 3207 North Main Street. Zoning Board of Appeals recommends denial for a variation to decrease the minimum side yard setback for a covered entrance from 6 ft to 1 ft in a C-2 limited commercial zoning district at 3207 North Main Street. Is there motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments on item four? So, voting to just remind everybody, voting yes means you are supporting the recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals for denial. Um all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item five, 3321 Integrity Drive. Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for zoning map amendment from C-3 general commercial zoning district and I-1 light industrial zoning district to I-3 airport industrial zoning district at 3321 Integrity Drive. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Are there any questions or comments on item five? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. >> Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item six, 515 South Alpine Road. Zoning Board of Appeals recommends denial for a special use permit for a planned unit development consisting of four four-unit buildings and two eight-unit buildings in an R-1 single-family residential zoning district at 515 South Alpine Road. Is there a motion to approve? Second. Are there any questions or comments on item six? Alderwoman Trina. Thank you. Um I am going to be voting uh to not sustain the denial. Um I did not agree with the zoning decision. This This particular item did come through as a city staff recommendation. Um so I'm just letting you know I will be voting no on this one. However, Mr. Capelluti, can you tell me what the vote was? I don't I was there, but I don't remember what the the tally was. It There was uh four people that voted against it and two that voted for it. Okay. There was no abstentions on that one. No. Okay. Well, believe there was one ZBA member absent, correct? >> Correct. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Alderman Beach. Uh thank you for letting me speak on your committee. Um I know there's been a lot of discussion, at least emails and so forth, um against this project. Um but I sense there might be some way uh for some compromise here. And I before we completely throw it away, I'd like to at least discuss some of those possibilities or if not, to allow to layover so we can meet with uh the developer, uh meet with engineers and other thing to see whether there is a way uh to come up with a compromise. So, that would be my thoughts, Mr. Chairman, if that's at all possible. Thank you, Alderman Beach. Any other questions or comments? Um I am going to be voting in favor of the zoning board recommendation uh for denial. I uh spoke against this at the ZBA. Um it borders the 14th Ward. It's the 14th Ward on the opposite side of Alpine, and I don't want to um belabor most of the points that I made there, but I think that um the neighbors, some of whom are in 14th Ward and most of whom are in Alderman Beach's ward in the 10th Ward, um have valid concerns about the um possible uh detriment to their investments in their homes if a multi-family is allowed to be constructed on a parcel of land that is essentially sur- on three sides by parkland and in that parkland and the remaining side of this parcel by single-family housing. The property owner that when whenever it purchased this property knew or should have known that it was zoned for single-family construction for single-family homes and there's no automatic right to instead develop it as multi-family. That's why it is before us and that's why, you know, presumably the ZBA recommendation is what it is and I just um really in defense of the property owners who spoke against it, really take exception with the ZBA chairman NIMBY shaming them and talking about how they don't have the right for their neighborhood to remain under glass and that because the city needs more housing that they should just have to accept that. And I think that is the wrong way to go about addressing our housing shortage. And so I am going to be voting in favor of the ZBA recommendation. Alderman Tunberg. Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak in your committee. Has there been any talk of a modification of this proposal in the meantime since the ZBA's recommendation for denial? I I just know that sometimes that our there are cases where developers will come back with a modification. I'm not aware of any, but I think that that's what Alderman Beach is alluding to. and so maybe if Alderman Beach wants to address that and then maybe staff. I had Thank you, Chairman. Alderman Toomer, I had placed a call to one of the engineers in response to his call to me, and we've not been able to um connect. Um but um I sense there was a willingness to perhaps look at some other alternatives there, and I thought before it just went away, we should do that. Now, if it's not going to go away, then I would be supporting the denial as the way it sits right now. But on the other hand, you and I been around here long enough to know that sometimes, when you get a denial like this, there are other modifications that come up for people to look at. Rightly or wrongly, I'm just saying that uh in fairness to the developer, I'd like to give them a chance to have that discussion. Okay. Thank you. Can Mr. Capdeville address that and then I'll go back to you, Alderman Toomer, and then to Alderwoman Tarina. Okay, Mr. Chair. So, there there was an a an email that I did receive saying that there was going to be consideration to possibly change it. It was recommended by one of the um board members that he might be in favor of it if the 28 families became four families like the other four that were proposed. And um so, they were considering that. Now, if they've reached out to you, Alderman Beach, then I think that's a step in the right direction. Thank you. Alderman Toomer. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, I know it's kind of a balancing act. We obviously want to see more development, housing development in our city, but we want to see it done smartly, of of course. Um just would it be would it be an easier process to have something like this laid over for I'm not on the committee, but would it be a easier to have it laid over for them to the developer to possibly propose something in the meantime or just continue ahead as So I would I would recommend that Alderman Beach have those conversations between now and next week when this comes to council and then if if it looks like there's more work to be done to lay it over when it gets to council next week versus to lay it over now. But but but that's just me. Alderwoman Trina, did you Yes. Uh I would like for Mr. Capuano to explain why staff felt like this was a smart decision and ZBA did not. >> [clears throat] >> Please. >> So this this land has been sitting there with just one single family home on like a 6-acre site. Um I don't want to say it seems like a waste of land, but it's all surrounded by park um to the west, north, and to the east, and to the south we have a commercial area and single family. Uh we looked at it as um a a good infill site um that could develop and provide housing which is desperately needed in the city and and it would create that middle housing that we keep talking about that's missing in the city. Uh also as a part of our future land use plan, we did designate this area for medium-density residential. Now that does not I'm going to say right now it does not show up on the staff's recommendation cuz that was really written a couple months ago before we adopted that, so we have it listed as to what it was actually listed under before which was uh quasi-public at the time. I think it was they were there was a possibility that people were thinking that with this might be acquired by the city or the park district in sometime. But it was not. So, um but we were happy with the designs of the buildings, uh the layout. Uh they're building a a private road, but it would be built to public standards. And they were providing necessary pedestrian access north and south so that people can use the sidewalk to get down to Larson and provide sidewalks on Larson as well. Um so, overall, we thought it was a good fit, uh that especially with the townhomes that that were being proposed for that area. Whoop. I actually would ask uh Mr. Gabler one other question too that I don't believe came up at ZBA. So, I assume as a neighb- as a neighboring contiguous property owner that the park district was notified of this. Has Has the park district indicated any support or opposition to this or communicated with us at all? Uh no, they Usually, they don't object to anything like this or take any stances. So. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments on item six? So, in this case again, uh a yes vote is to is to oppose the development. And a no vote is to support it. Clerk, would you please call the roll? Yes. So, the motion fails. Legal, I know that I knew this was coming. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Um in in this situation, um because there was findings of fact associated with CBA's recommendation, I would recommend uh reversing ZBA's decisions and adopting um findings of fact associated with approving this application. Sure. And but to clarify, that does not reverse the requirement at council of a 2/3 majority vote because of the ZBA recommendation, correct? >> That's correct. So, when this gets to council, it would need 10 votes to pass. The ordinance would. That's correct. >> would. >> Yes. Okay. Does someone want to make that motion to reverse the ZBA recommendation? I'll make the motion to reverse the ZBA recommendation. Second. Motion and a second uh to reverse the ZBA recommendation. Can you call the roll, clerk, please? Bonnie? No. Carina? Aye. Frante? Aye. Wilkins? Aye. Bell? Aye. Motion passes. Okay, item seven is 1320 21st Avenue Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a variation to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 ft to 9 ft in an R2 single and an R2 two-family residential zoning district at 1320 21st Avenue. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Are there any questions or comments on item seven? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item eight. 730 and 7 XX Lincoln Park Boulevard. Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a special use permit for a planned unit development consisting of a working farm and education center with pole barns for community meeting place and equipment storage. 230 by 90 ft foot passive solar greenhouses, a storage shed, a gazebo, and a gravel parking area and gravel driveway in an R1 single family residential zoning district at 7:30 and 7XX Lincoln Park Boulevard. Is our motion to approve. Are there any questions or comments on item eight? Alderwoman Trina. >> [clears throat] >> I just have a comment. I I really reading this before meeting the plaintiffs, you get a very different viewpoint of what this actually is going to be, but they're conservationists that are taking land that ultimately would just probably be dumped on and nothing happened to and making it like this prairie and just promoting the love of nature and they just I don't know. I can't even use the terms the right terminology, but I love the use of this, so I'm happy to support this item. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on item eight? Uh seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item nine. 215, 325, and 423 South Madison Street. Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval for a zoning map amendment from I1 light industrial zoning district to C4 urban mixed mixed use zoning district at 2015 through 25 and 423 South Madison Street. Is there a motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments on item nine? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 10, 818 6th Street. Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products and the sale of packaged liquor in conjunction with a gas station and convenience store in a C3 general commercial zoning district at 818 6th Street. Is there a motion to approve? Second. Are there any questions or comments on item 10? Alderwoman Tarver. Uh no shocker here. Uh there are a lot of liquor approvals this week and so many of these are in highly highly vulnerable areas. So, I'm not going to be voting yes for this one and if you hear me say no for any other ones, it's probably because because because of where it is. Um but this one in particular um Mhm, it's definitely going to be a no. Um but again, it's just because I feel like they're in highly vulnerable areas where we don't do not absolutely need to be adding more liquor or tobacco um to further diminish the quality of life for the people in the area. So. That's all. Thank you. Um May I Can I ask if this is your ward or is this the 11th ward? 11th ward? Yeah. I care about the whole city, not just my Um Alderman Bell. Thank you, Chairman. I've had I had agree with the fifth ward alderwoman's statement about uh how we we need to figure out a way to uh take a liquor away from our communities especially those and that are vulnerable. There's an item on the agenda later on today in my ward for a liquor and tobacco approval. I have a question for this specific one though to to Mr. Capdeville. Is this an ownership change or is this a new business? It's an ownership change of an existing business and to Alderman Tunney's comment or I would like to point out that the last time this came through we saw the police calls and they just skyrocketed from midnight to 2:00 in the morning and it was really bad and so we had recommended a closing of midnight. The owner did not like that but he agreed to it. The same thing was brought up this past Tuesday where the owner said no I want to be open until 2:00 a.m. and we said no we're going to stick with the 12:00 a.m. closing time for liquor sales because it's proven that it had reduced the number of police calls. So I just want to point that out. Thank you. I'd love to know kind of a map of and this is big project we can work on this off line of course but at least in my ward well I'd like to know what businesses that sell liquor are required to close at midnight and or at 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. compared you know from west side to maybe east side. So we'll we'll work on that. We'd love to get that list just to compare how the city has limited the time in which a business can sell liquor and and for what reasons. I will We'll on that, though, Mr. Capivilla. Thank you. Um May I ask if the alderman for the ward has an opinion on on this? So, uh from my opinion at this point in time, it is an establishment already there. I I'm continue to go and support this on this direction. Um however, there are some um underlying issues there within that area. We got Carpenter's Place, which is right around the corner. Um so, yes, there is a lot there where there is some you know, congregation um from that perspective, which you know, kind of lures from from that particular site. However, uh from that perspective, I've have talked to the the owners on that, and they're are trying really hard to clean their act, and they understand that some of the um patrons that go there are have some potential issues with alcohol abuse from that perspective. So, um from my standpoint, it is an existing business that's just renewing and getting the the license to continue to operate. Um causing potentially closure for this to happen potentially huge revenue losses, a building vacant building there. Just going to add more to to that site. So, from my perspective at this point in time, and I do encourage uh Mr. Capivilla's uh comments um restricting them on certain time limits in order to reduce some of the calls that occur there. So, that is that is my opinion, my comment. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments on item nine or 10, rather? Seeing uh Seeing none, uh clerk, could we have a roll call vote on this one? I. I. Motion carries. Item 11, 2975 North Perryville Road. Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products in conjunction with a gas station and convenience store in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2975 North Perryville Road. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Are there any questions or comments on item 11? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 12, 2914 West State Street Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of package liquor, class PKG, and the sale sale of tobacco products in conjunction with a gas station and convenience store in an I1 light industrial zoning district at 2914 West State Street. Is there a motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments on item 12? Alderman Bell. Thank you, Chairman. Um Mr. Capuano, can you confirm that this is an ownership change, please? It is an ownership change, yes. So, this this uh property, whale gas station in the 13th Ward, um if you go from Johnston to Pierpont, there's there are three three four different liquor or tobacco shops all in a five-block radius. Um This has been here for a while. I have uh great relationship with the current owner. I know that they are selling it. Um I I'd like to and I've made comments about this uh many, many times regarding access to fresh food, specifically in an area that uh is a food desert, to say the least. Um would love to uh know kind of the process in which to go forth with a condition to um ensure that they have access to to fresh produce uh at least in their grocery section. I don't know uh if that has been done in the past, but would love to figure out a way to uh put that uh condition on this establishment. Is that possible? That's an interesting uh proposal, and I would I think any condition would be possible. I'm going to have to actually look I'm looking I'm getting a yes from from legal director, so I think we could draft a condition that would meet your concerns. Would that require us to lay over so that we can look at the verbage that you present, or can we push this forward with a condition and then in that council will vote on it? How would it work? Either option would be available. Sure. I I'd like to make a motion to lay this over. I'll talk with the owner. Um I'm sure he'll buy into this. Um they seem to want to give back to the community in some capacity, so I'll make a motion to lay over, and I'll have a conversation with the owner on this. Okay, there's a second. Um can we have a roll call vote on this on the motion to lay over? Or is there any question or comment on the motion to lay over? Sure. It's uh Thanks. There seemed to be a hesitation. Um I wouldn't use the word extreme, but I think it was uh very Anyways, um so I think we have to look at, right? You have individuals in that corridor who have to walk um just say from uh Rockford Ridge down to Save-A-Lot to get their groceries. Um they often times stop into Waillo gas station halfway uh to get quick items that that they may need. Um in going in there, I think that they can do a much better job at providing some type of uh or a better option of fresh food. Um and so in light of that, I'd like to have a conversation. So, I'd hope that I get you guys' support on this committee to lay it over uh so that I can have the conversation with the owner. Thank you. So, I would just I guess express the same thing that I did with Alderman Beach's suggestion on the previous layover, which is that you could work on these things with the owner over the course of the week and then lay it over at council instead. So, I am not going to support the layover. Alderman Bell. Thank you. Um with respect to what happened uh believe it was in a uh well it was in this committee, but I think those are two completely different things. We're putting a condition on a business in this regard, and so I'd I'd push back a little bit on your comparison there. So, I'd hope that I can get uh enough support to lay this over, and we can come back in 2 weeks and talk about it. Thank you. Which you could do at council and get 2 weeks on the two alderman rule. Alderman Beach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I just want to make a comment that often times layovers are are needed to clarify. And I asked this evening earlier to layover so that I could speak to our people to see if we could come up with a better deal and denied that privilege. So, I just want to put that on record, okay? Are there any other questions or comments on the motion to layover? Alderman Bell. Thanks. I I think just to put it back on the table, we we are voting for uh me as the alderman of the ward to have conversations with the owner to for them to provide access to fresh food in an area that has very little. Thank you. Is that actually part of your motion that the committee is directing you to do that or are we simply laying it over? Chairman, we're laying it over. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Any other questions or comments on the motion to layover? Seeing none, can we have a roll call vote, please? No. Motion carries. Item 12 is laid over. Item 13, 3523 Auburn Street, Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board of Appeals recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products and the sale of packaged liquor, class PKG, and the sale of liquor by the drink, class L50, in conjunction with the liquor store, tavern, and video gaming terminals in a C3 general commercial zoning district at 3523 Auburn Street. Is there a motion to approve item 13? Are there any questions or comments on item 13? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 14, 4225 Charles Street. Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of beer and wine by the drink class WB50 in conjunction with the restaurant and video gaming terminals in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 4225 Charles Street. Is there a motion to approve item 14? Second. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 15, 2842 and 28XX 11th Street and 2845 Kinzie Street. Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for a modification of an existing liquor license for a 100% stock purchase in a C3 general commercial zoning district and R1 single family zoning district at 2842, 28XX 11th Street, and 2845 Kinzie Street. Is there a motion to approve? Are there any questions or comments on item 15? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 16, 6565 Lexus Drive. Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of liquor by the drink class NGL in conjunction with the restaurant in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 6565 Lexus Drive. Is there a motion to approve? I'll second. Are there any questions or comments on item 16? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 17. 2645 20th Street Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of tobacco products in conjunction with a convenience store in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 2645 20th Street. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Are there any questions or comments on item 17? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? No. One no. Motion carries. Item 18. 901 West Riverside Boulevard Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of liquor by the drink class L50 in conjunction with a tavern and restaurant and video gaming terminals in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 908 West Riverside Boulevard. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Are there any questions or comments on item 19? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 19. 6275 East State Street Liquor and Tobacco Advisory Board recommends approval for the sale of liquor by the drink class L50 in conjunction with a restaurant and outdoor seating area in a C2 limited commercial zoning district at 6275 East State Street. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Are there any questions or comments on item 19? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Under our resolution, we have one item, proposed resolution establishing minimum standards, performance requirements, and community community benefit obligations for the data center. So, it's my understanding that this proposed resolution is riddled with legal pitfalls, and so before we um um discuss this, I'm going to ask staff to um Actually, I need a motion to a motion to approve first. Is there a motion to approve? I'll second. Can't speak without a second. I'll second that resolution. Thank you. With that, I I will um I want to uh ask uh Administrator Cagnoni to address these um legal concerns with the resolution as well as um walk us through it generally. Thank you, Chairman. Um thank you to the aldermen, you know, that reached out to myself, Director Hammer, or Mr. Capuano over the last week just to talk about the legalities of the resolution and some of the existing status related to proposed development you know understanding that the proposed resolution changes a number of the city of Rockford regulations including our zoning ordinance our our building code we cannot circumvent the public process related to the adoption the resolution as it's currently drafted understanding that anytime that there's a text amendment to the zoning ordinance it would go through the zoning Board of Appeals the public hearing process and then come before codes and regulations committee and then city council for consideration certainly Council has the the authority to give staff direction to file text amendments and should that be the case we certainly could advance that additionally the the building code you know isn't is adopted by ordinance so it couldn't be circumvented by resolution in the capital development Board of the state of Illinois would require us to have a public notice for 30 days so that I could be reviewed and commented on and that certainly has been our our practice additionally as a non-home rule community we do not have the authority to go into a community benefits agreement without specific statutory authority from the state that is being discussed as I understand it and it is in some proposed legislation but as it currently stands it's not authority that we would have you know understanding that the resolution targets specific developer Monarch I thought it was important to probably provide a little bit of you know backstory as it relates to to Monarch and our discussions with them and certainly willing to answer any questions related to those ongoing discussions you know we we began our communication with Monarch um at least going back to 2023. Um and it's called Monarch Air for a reason. At the time, Monarch was looking to do a waste-to-fuel waste-to-aviation fuel um development um you know, south of the airport. The hope was to have some synergies with the landfill as well as have the airport as a purchaser of this more more environmentally friendly um aviation fuel. Um you know, so we are heavily involved in those conversations and we certainly had a lot of conversations um with our federal delegation related to some of the rules related to tax credits on the establishment of such a development. Unfortunately, that did not come to fruition um and that ultimately had um Monarch um pivot to other industrial um developments and we've you know, certainly had lots of conversations with them um related to data centers, related to railyards, related to multiple industrial uses um on the property south of the airport. And there's approximately 1,100 acres that is south of the airport. Um all that property is zoned general industrial I2. Um it was annexed into the city of Rockford between 2008 and 2011. Um at that point in time, it would have gone through the the public hearing process um to identify whether I2 was the appropriate land use um for this property. At the time, it was consistent with the then comprehensive plan of the city of Rockford, the 2020 plan, as well as the county's 2030 plan. Um we had worked directly um with the Rockford Area Economic Development Council, uh now the Greater Rockford Chamber, in regards to whether this was uh of the appropriate size, um of the appropriate land use for our ultimate efforts to drive additional investment into the city of of Rockford, um you know, both as it relates to growing the tax base, but as well as um you know, creating job opportunities. Um since then, we've been aligned with the Illinois Economic Development Council that has identified this as a mega site. Uh we've worked with DCEO. Uh we've done studies with Fairground as well as um studies uh related to to market analysis for this property being industrial. Now, the reason I I stated all that information is that when the city of Rockford was annexed annexed this property in 2008 and 2011, we did it by means of an annexation agreement. So, an annexation agreement is good for up to 20 years, and the annexation agreements governing these properties are for the full 20 years. So, they are still active and existing annexation agreements. And because the these are in existence prior to um changes related to our zoning ordinance that are being discussed, um changes in the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted uses would not be applicable to this property. Um if it's the intent to look at uses on this property, I want to make sure that it's understood that those were decided in 2008 and 2011 when it was zoned um I2. However, um we recognize the concerns that have been brought forth by the community more recently. These are very similar to concerns that were brought forward in 2008 and 2011 in regards to how industrial development could impact um the surrounding property. So, within those annexation agreements, there are, you know, certain development standards such as a 50-ft landscaping buffer adjacent to resident residential uses and other development standards that would have to be satisfied. Even with all that said, you know, Mayor McNamara has continued to articulate his willingness to have a public meeting in advance any data center advancing forward. At this point in time, we don't we don't have an actual data center or at least it has not been relayed to Monarch that they have a data center or a data center developer under contract to advance that project. But once there is one in place, we'd be happy to have that public meeting. You know, myself, our zoning team, we've been evaluating best practices related to data centers, watching what has been taking place in other communities in regards to you know, the type of concerns that we'd want to make sure are addressed and certainly understand how the community could be fully informed in regards to what would be proposing should there be data center at at that time. You know, I guess I'd mention just one other thing. You know, you know, previous councils, you know, certainly including you know, Alderman Beach, former Alderman Bill Rose had been advocates of us going after tech industry. You know, specifically talking about you know, microchip manufacturing understanding that there was an and continues to be an a national shortage in that as a potential opportunity. We have also had those conversations on this particular property. You know, whether any of those opportunities are going to advance, it is unclear um, this point in time. Um, certainly I will defer to Angela in regards the the appropriate statutes and legal processes, uh, related to, um, any amendments to our ordinances, but that would be, in a nutshell, just a a brief explanation of our review of the resolution. Thank you, Administrator Cagnoni. Um, would the legal director like to add to that at all? Just briefly, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did have an opportunity to speak with Alderman Balay late last week, um, about the um, limitations on our statutory authority as a non-home rule community. And so, we have engaged in in, um, the beginnings of those discussions and and discussed how the resolution would need to be revised to stay within those parameters. And, um, as Administrator Cagnoni mentioned, the the statutory procedure outlined for changes to our our building code and our our zoning code. Thank you. Alderwoman Wilkins, did you have Um, yeah, thank you, Your Honor. Um, in lieu of this information, I almost feel like it's appropriate for us to maybe ask city staff, um, along with the mayor and and city council, especially with, um, uh, public input for maybe staff to come up with, um, a a proclamation, um, that one that's legal that, um, we can start with, um, like I said, that captures everyone's voices in this, cuz I know there've been a lot of discussions, um, behind the scenes and and even with, um, constituents. And I know the mayor has committed to, you know, holding those public sessions to get that input before anything is even written down. So, um, I'd like to see something come back, um, like I said, a legal document from, uh, city staff. Is that Is that a motion, Alderwoman Wilkins? I guess that is a motion. Is Is a motion that get a proclamation going from city staff. Is that appropriate? I don't know if that's appropriate where we are in this juncture in the conversation, but I believe it is. Director or administrator Keggereis. I mean, I don't know if it needs to be a motion, but we're happy to take that direction. Yeah, I'd like to I'd like to put a motion on the floor for staff to come up with a legal document for the proclamation for this that will help protect the city. For clarity, resolution. Resolution, I'm sorry. I said proclamation. So, I would second that based on, you know, that we I mean, I think it's important that we if we're going to have any resolution at all that tries to um guide um data center development that it it at least comport with our lack of home rule and that it not conflict with existing development agreements. So, I'll second that motion. Are there Is there any question or comment on the motion to ask staff to develop a proposal? Alderwoman Turina. I guess I'd like to know what So, the resolution that was presented, is it is it just null and void? Are there pieces that could be pulled from it to be incorporated into this new proposed resolution? I'm trying to understand. It's almost like we're trying to we're jumping to a new thing and I'm I'm trying to settle the old one. So, where where are we at with the status of the current resolution? Legal director, do we need to take a vote on the what's on the agenda? So, it it was I started the conversation with Alderman Bell late last week and as I was going through the process, it became clear that it was difficult to redline it just because of the number of provisions that were geared towards a home rule community versus us as a non-home rule community. So, um I reached out to Alderman Bell today to discuss um starting from scratch and um you know, uh putting forward one that is within our statutory authority. I thought that was a a more productive use of the time. Is it it does If Alderwoman Wilkins were to make her motion in the form of an amendment to the motion that Alderman Bell made, it would then supersede the motion to approve Alderman Bell's proposal, correct? Yes. However, I don't know that that they're mutually exclusive. And it's possible to work with Alderman Bell to move forward on his vision for what the resolution looks like within our statutory authority, and then staff could well have a recommendation as well pursuant to Alderwoman Wilkins' recommendation. >> So, either both are possible, but we we essentially have two motions on the floor at the same time right now. >> Yes. Okay. Um and so we can either Alderman Alderwoman Wilkins can either change her motion to become a motion an amend motion to amend Alderman Bell's, or we can vote on them individually. Correct. I would recommend voting on them individually. Um I let's then have conversation on the most recent motion on the floor first, which is the motion to ask staff to develop a policy. If we can have any questions or comments on that first. Alderman Bell. Man. Thank you. My arm's starting to get tired. Uh thank you, Chairman. Um let me just say this. Uh Mr. Cignoni, I appreciate the lengthy explanation. I would have to say that's probably the longest and and most detailed that that at least I've received regarding the data center and now publicly here in the meeting shared with the community. So, thank you for that. I think the proposal resolution, the draft resolution that was proposed is doing its job. We are learning more about all of the details with this situation, the piece of land, what's in front of us, what's not in front of us. So, thank you for that. Um I'm just going to I mean, I'm just going to call it what it is. I I think that political theater theater well done. We've had several conversations, Mayor, legal director, Mr. Cignoni, I'm sure it was passed up to you that there was a desire for this to be laid over and have more conversations and we've had several back and forth, legal director, on what we are going to amend so that it is um quote legal or taken out the provisions from for home rule community. So, looking forward to that. I mean, at the beginning of this again, it was a draft proposal, wanted to start the conversation. I'm glad that it's happening. So, again, it's working. I'd also like to comment on the motion that's before us to create a new resolution. I think that is kind of what we're doing. Sent a proposal for a lot, of course, and we're going to make sure that we refine it to ensure that there is a proper standard when it comes to data center development in this community. That's been um my guiding compass all along. Residents have voiced their opinion for months now here at City Council. It was time for the conversation to be had around the horseshoe. And so again, it's a step in the right direction. So, I'll just say this regardless of whose name is on the on the proposal. Personally, I don't care as long as the minimum standards are set uh and that this community benefits from uh any data center that should come before us if we don't have to take an actual vote here on City Council. So, uh however you all need to feel better about moving this forward. Again, my my whole thing is I think we need to have the conversation and we're having it now. Thank you. Alderman Bell. So, again, we are talking about Alderwoman Wilkins motion to ask staff to develop a resolution. Alderwoman Wilkins and then Alderman Salgado. I apologize and I don't want it to go down this road. So, I would like to withdraw my motion for us to amend it. I'm ready to vote on uh what's in front of us tonight. So, thank you. I'll withdraw. So, does the second also need to be withdrawn? It it It would not need to be withdrawn. It would just happen as a matter of right. >> Okay. All right. So, then we are back to Alderman Bell's proposed resolution which is on the agenda. Um Alderman Salgado and Alderman Bell. Uh thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak in your committee. Um Um this resolution, I think uh from my perspective, I've had conversations with Mr. Bell on this. Um and I'm a procedural guy. So, um I've asked a couple questions. Um I spoke to Mr. Capuano. Uh text amendments the way to go with this. And so, um I think laying it over, sending it, um or sending it back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, um just like we did with your storage uh um chairman, our storage units trying to establish, you know, that change within commercial zones and so forth. I think that's the proper way of doing this and I can speak from county board perspective. That's how we used to update our UDO code as we call it. In this case our ordinances regarding this. Now, there's there's a lot of talk about well, you know, tech and this and that. We had a similar situation with our solar farms, right? The county, you know, experienced that. We experienced those popping up here and there. I doubt we're going to have 30, you know, data centers within the city of Rockford limits. I understand that, but there are concerns, you know, like with solar farms, decommissioning. Is there bonding for that? Who's going to pay for that if they go belly up? Those are concerns that we have and we need to address those. Just like the water consumption, the electrical rates, you name it, the whole list that goes with that. And I think that's where it should start is with the Zoning Board of Appeals, text amendment look at the different structures that we need to set those standards in order for us to protect our city, our residents and whatever we want to. And then ultimately City Council is the one that makes that decision whether it's a business viable, whether it makes sense for the city to collect 14 million, 13 million, 10 million, whatever it is. If it makes sense, then we move forward on that direction, but I honestly think that it needs to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, whether it's a text amendment, whatever it is. Administration can can hold those meetings, debate it day in day out. That's what they're there for to make that recommendation up to your committee and then we take a vote on that as a city council. So, that's my recommendation. Ultimately, I was hoping Ms. Wilkins would we would add to that to say, "Hey, send it back to the zoning board of appeals as a text amendment so we can, you know, hash these questions out." And then it funnels through as we have our process. So, that's that's the only commentary I wanted to make on that. And I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Alderman Salgado. Um so to clarify, we're not this isn't getting sent back to ZBA because it didn't come from ZBA. But I'm wondering if either the legal director or the city administrator can explain the difference between this resolution, I think it's I think I know the answer, it's because it's a resolution, versus a proposed text amendment to begin with, which would get referred automatically to ZBA before it comes back to codes and regs. Is that correct? I don't know who wants to take Legal Director? If if you want to take that. Thank you, Chairman. The way a text amendment begins is council adopts a resolution authorizing the zoning officer to apply for that modification with the zoning board of appeals. So, if this were to pass council, it would it would then that would be the path. It would then go to ZBA. >> All right. As it relates to modifications to the zoning. >> But it but it's not being sent back to ZBA. Correct. Okay. That's one second. If it's if it's the intent of the committee and council to direct staff to file text amendment to the zoning ordinance, Dr. Hammer would be correct. It would be a resolution directing us to do that. This resolution as it it doesn't do that. Correct. Um right now, so I think that's would that would that would be some of the amendments that would be needed to take place, but it certainly would, you know, as Alderman Salgado stated, that would be the proper play proper way to advance forward a text amendment to the zoning ordinance. I would note that there's a number of other if the intent is to fully adopt that there's a a bunch of a number of other proposals in here that are outside the zoning ordinance. Correct. Good point. Um Alderman Bell and then Alderman Durkin. Thank you and some of those statements obviously have been made I Mr. Cignoni and that that is why we need more time uh or the legal team needs more time to make those amendments so that this body can adopt something that we can move forward with. But I just want to say thank you to the residents and the advocacy groups, community stakeholders, and community and council members who have reached out over the past weeks regarding our votes our voice our future data center resolution. The response from the community has made one thing clear. People care deeply about the future of our city and they want to be a part of the decision that will shape Rockford for generations to come. I also want to acknowledge the advocates and individuals who have spent time reviewing this proposal, sharing ideas, raising concerns, and helping strengthen the document. This has been a collaborative effort and I appreciate every person who has engaged in good faith. Over the past few days I've worked to incorporate information, best practices, and lessons learned from communities such as Aurora and other municipalities across the country that are navigating similar conversations around large-scale data center development. This resolution is not about being for or against any one project. It's about being proactive. Right now, cities across America are being approached with transformational developments tied to technology, infrastructure, and data. Some have moved forward without clear standards, public public engagement, and measurable community benefits. Others have taken time to build a framework first. I believe that Rockford should be among the cities that lead with a framework. This resolution is intended to establish safeguards and guardrails around future data center development in the city of Rockford. It calls for transparency, accountability, community input, and a serious review of what benefits these projects brings to our residents. That means asking important questions. How will these developments impact utilities, water usage, land use, and infrastructure? What protections are in place for neighborhoods? What opportunities will exist for local hiring, apprenticeships, and workforce development? What tax benefits or incentives can be requested? And what is the return for our people? How do we ensure that the public has a voice before major decisions are made? Those are responsible questions, and those are the questions this this resolution, this draft proposal, seeks to begin answering. And I also want to be clear. This is the beginning of the conversation, as I stated earlier, around data center development in this horseshoe. As leaders, it's our responsibility to be proactive and thoughtful on this issue. Right now, we often have more regulations on how a homeowner builds a fence in their backyard or how a small business must follow strict code requirements than we do for developments of this scale. As technology advances and our communities evolve, this is the moment for this council to come together and ensure that these projects are guided by responsibility, accountability, and the best interests of our residents. I've heard from many of you on ideas on how to improve this proposal, suggestions on what to take out, and also real concerns on whether or not we can implement each proposed item. Again, this was meant to get the conversation started and I'm pleased with the progress this far. Our legal team has been working on amendments that as stated earlier that were suggested by many of you. And with with respect to time and to ensure a productive conversation around this item, I make a motion to lay over this item so that our legal department is able to complete the necessary revisions. If you have any suggestions or ideas on how to enhance the quality of this resolution, please reach out to me or our legal department. Thank you. Is there a second on the motion to lay over? Seeing none, I would instead of make a motion to table this. While we I think Alderwoman Wilkins was on the right track, this uh nine-page proposal is riddled with legal pitfalls. By Alderman Bell's own admission, it needs more work, but I think that work needs to be done by our professional staff. And so I would make a motion to table and to direct staff to come up with an alternate uh resolution that um passes legal muster and bring that back to our committee. Question. Is this the same thing? Is that Is this the Is this the same thing? No. A A motion to table it tables it in would table it indefinitely until staff comes back. Is there a second? Second. Okay. I believe that is a non-debatable motion, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. So we now have a roll call vote on the motion to table and to ask staff to develop a alternate resolution. Clerk. Aye. No. Motion carries. Is there a motion to adjourn? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Meeting is adjourned.