East Central Reporter

City of Olney City Council met March 24.

Here is the agenda provided by the council:

AGENDA #1 “CALL TO ORDER” The March 24, 2025, meeting of the Olney City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Olney City Hall located at 300 S. Whittle Avenue, Olney, Illinois, with Mayor Mark Lambird presiding.

AGENDA #2 “PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG-PRAYER” Council members and visitors joined in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Steve Wingert led the group in prayer.

AGENDA #3 “ROLL CALL” The following Council members were present: Mark Lambird, John McLaughlin, Morgan Fehrenbacher, Julia Eichhorst, and Jack Eyer. Also present were City Manager Allen Barker, City Treasurer Jane Guinn, City Attorney Bart Zuber, City Engineer Mike Bridges, and City Clerk Kelsie Sterchi.

AGENDA #4 “PUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS”

4-A “Rylan Thomas” Mr. Thomas was not present.

AGENDA #5 “PRESENTATION OF CONSENT AGENDA”

5-A “Approve Minutes of the Council Meeting on March 10, 2025”

5-B “Approve and Authorize Payment of Accounts Payable March 25, 2025” Pooled Cash $132,473.27, Manual Pooled Cash $8,180.62, Unposting $152,649.73, Sanitary Sewer Reline Grant $469,476.74, Walnut/Main Storm Sewer $10,000.00, Sewer Capital Improvement $41,518.37, Police Pension $35,674.63, MFT $2,632.45, Tourism $11,907.02, Route 130 TIF $82.50, Utility Refunds $533.14

5-C “Payment Request: Sanitary Sewer CIPP Lining Rehabilitation”

5-D “Application for Permit to Sell Merchandise in City Park – Farmers Market”

AGENDA #6 “REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA” No items were requested for removal from the consent agenda.

AGENDA #7 “CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA” Councilwoman Eichhorst moved to approve the items on the consent agenda, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

AGENDA #8 “CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA” No items were requested for removal from the consent agenda.

AGENDA #9 “PRESENTATION OF ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ETC.”

9-A “Lake Structure Variance: 5439 N. Lakewood Road” The Council was provided with a lake structure variance application for 5439 N. Lakewood Road on behalf of Kevin and Megan Brinkley, Cody Gayer, Nicole Miller, Travis and Ashley Paddock, and Tyler and Holly O’Brien. The Council was also provided with a letter from Water Plant Supervisor Cortney Runyon and Code Enforcement Officer Dallas Colwell, meeting minutes from November 14, 2022, and November 28, 2022, a satellite image of the property, and a copy of Section 12.16.150 (Boat ramps, piers, platforms, boathouses, and docks.) of the City of Olney Municipal Code.

These same applicants had submitted an application for this same variance in 2022. They would either need a variance to allow for more than 1 lake structure, or to allow a width of 56-feet rather than the 36-feet if the lifts were to be attached to the dock. The request for variance was denied on November 28, 2022.

Mrs. Paddock approached the Council. She and the other applicants wished to again apply for this variance as Councilwoman Fehrenbacher was not at the November 28, 2022, meeting, and new Councilwoman Julia Eichhorst was now seated on the Council.

Mrs. Paddock stated that the lifts, including the docks, would be 20-feet away from the south property line and 40-feet away from the northern line. She noted that the lifts would also not stick out farther into the lake than the dock.

Councilman Eyer noted that the application stated that the applicants felt that verbiage for boat lifts was not included in the ordinance. He did not believe that to be true and felt that a boat lift was a structure. Mrs. Paddock disagreed because the lifts would not be attached to the dock. Even so, Councilman Eyer felt that the lifts were separate structures, even if they were their own entity.

Mrs. Paddock said that when they had originally applied for a permit, she had asked Mr. Colwell if lifts would need to be part of the permit application. She stated that Mr. Colwell told her that he had not ever needed to permit a lift. Therefore, Mrs. Paddock did not believe that the lifts needed to be included on the permit application.

As this request came with a lengthy backstory back in 2022, she felt that the Council created new rules after their request had been submitted. Councilman Eyer recalled amending the ordinance to become less restrictive due to their 2022 requests. From his point of view, the unique issue was that the property was zoned and considered for single families, but here, the property was struggling to accommodate 4 families.

Mr. Colwell confirmed that the property was zoned R-S (Single-Family Residence District). Mrs. Paddock noted that some single families owned multiple boats.

Councilman McLaughlin did not believe that these boat lifts would be separate structures.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher clarified that most boat lifts were located on the inside of a dock area and not the outside.

Mrs. Paddock added that the lifts would be utilizing the same imprint as their parked boats

Councilman McLaughlin moved to approve a lake dock variance for 5439 N. Lakewood Road that would allow for a width of 56-feet, including the boat lifts.

Mayor Lambird agreed that if a boat was going to be utilizing the same footprint, then the same amount of space would be taken up in the area regardless.

Mrs. Paddock added that the addition of these lifts would reduce risk of their boats sinking. If sunk, then gas and/or oil would feed into the lake. She felt it was a good solution to be sure the boats were out of the water.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked Mr. Colwell for his thoughts, but Mr. Zuber pointed out that Mr. Colwell’s letter stated that he could not recommend approval of the request as it did not conform to the ordinances.

If the ordinance needed adjusted, Councilman Eyer asked why the Council should not just change the ordinance rather than bending it to make this request work. Mr. Zuber pointed out that any request for variance was simply that and did not necessarily mean the entire ordinance should be changed.

Typical variance requests heard by the Board of Appeals were related to setback requirements. Councilman Eyer had spent several years as a member of that Board and knew that a big qualification for granting a variance was due to a shown hardship. If a variance request was submitted in order to replace a porch or add a wheelchair ramp, he could understand. In this instance, he did not recognize any sort of hardship and felt it was an inconvenience. Councilwoman Fehrenbacher agreed.

Mrs. Paddock reminded the Council that since they purchased the property and made improvements, they had gone about it in the correct manner. She felt that several other properties along the shorelines did not appear to have followed the same channels.

Mayor Lambird felt that this variance could be granted for the time being and that additional ordinance changes could come about in the future.

Thinking about the boat lifts being underwater, Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked how other boaters would be able to tell that something was under the water. From the audience, Mr. Brinkley indicated that that per ordinance guidelines, reflector sticks would be added.

Councilman Eyer asked about opinions of neighbors. Mrs. Sterchi indicated that when the Council changed the ordinances surrounding lake structure variance procedures, neighbor notification was not included.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher wondered if boat lifts could be installed without a dock. Mr. Colwell had never heard of such. He clarified that he had never needed to permit a boat lift before because they were included inside of the boat dock imprint. He had never seen a request for boat lifts to be placed on the outer/unprotected sides of docks.

Mrs. Paddock had seen some areas that had boat lifts with no docks. Mr. Brinkley agreed.

Councilman Eyer stated that his concerns were related to safety. Councilwoman Fehrenbacher agreed but also wanted to keep protections that would not allow for properties to have several lifts lined up along the shoreline. She wanted to be sure there was a stopping point. If this request was granted, others could come along.

Mayor Lambird seconded Councilman McLaughlin’s motion made above. Councilwomen Fehrenbacher, Eichhorst, and Councilman Eyer voted no. Councilman McLaughlin and Mayor Lambird voted yes. The motion failed.

Councilman Eyer told the applicants that the Council was interested in making some changes to the ordinance that may assist them. Mr. Colwell would hold their permit application until that time.

9-B “Discussion/Possible Action: Accept 614 N. Walnut Street & Release Demolition Lien” Last year, the City demolished the structures at 614 N. Walnut Street and assessed a demolition lien in the amount of $19,960.04. Interim Fire Chief Harmon explained that the Fire Department was running out of storage space and had been looking at some options. This property was a half block north of the Fire Department and would be a very convenient location. The property owner had told him that she would be willing to quitclaim the property to the City if the City would release the demolition lien.

Councilwoman Eichhorst asked for how big of a building the Fire Department needed. Interim Chief Harmon was not completely sure at this time, but noted that setback requirements would be considered. He was also going to extend the courtesy of speaking with neighbors about his plans.

The Olney Firefighters’ Association would be willing to help pay for the construction of the storage building, and the would also offer some labor.

Councilman Eyer moved to accept 614 N. Walnut Street and release the demolition lien, seconded by Councilwoman Eichhorst. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

Councilwoman Eichhorst was thankful that the structure had been demolished and felt that it greatly improved the appearance of the neighborhood.

9-C “Resolution: Accept Bid for Demolition of 1403 E. York Street” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution to accept a bid for the demolition of 1403 E. York Street. The Council was also provided with a history detail and photos of the property.

Mr. Colwell explained that this structure was in peril of collapsing. He had been working on remediation since May of 2024.

Daughterty Excavating & Repair had bid $14,225.00 for the work, and Travis Excavating LLC. Had bid $9,215.00. Mr. Colwell recommended accepting the low bid. He also noted that there would be approximately $5,500.00 that would need to be spent on asbestos remediation.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher moved to approve 2025-R-12, seconded by Councilwoman Eichhorst. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

9-D “Resolution: Accept Chemical Bids for the Olney Wastewater Treatment Plant” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would accept chemical bids for the Olney Wastewater Treatment Plant (Sewer Plant).

Sewer Department Supervisor Jeff Lathrop told the Council that he recommending accepting the low bid from Hawkins in the amount of $0.2200/lb. for liquid aluminum sulfate 48-50%. Typically, he would accept the low bid for liquid caustic soda 50%, as submitted, from Brenntag Mid-South in the amount of $0.2800/lb., however he had received correspondence from Brenntag stating, “Our submission of a quotation in response to this bid should not be construed as acknowledgement of our acceptance of all contractual terms set forth in any subsequent purchase order contract, agreement, etc. to be presented at a later date to the successful bidder. Accordingly, Brenntag Mid-South reserves the right to request reasonable amendments to the contractual terms should it be the successful bidder.”

Essentially, Brenntag could increase the cost whenever they wished. Chemstream submitted a bid of $0.2850/lb. Because of the miniscule price difference, Mr. Lathrop recommended accepting the liquid caustic soda 50% bid from Chemstream in order to prevent any future headaches.

Councilman McLaughlin moved to approve 2025-R-13, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

9-E “Resolution: Accept Chemical Bids for the Water Plant” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would accept chemical bids from the Water Plant. The Council was also provided with a listing of recommendations from Water Plant Supervisor Cortney Runyon.

Mrs. Runyon told the Council that she recommended approving the low bids, as presented, for all chemicals except for her liquid caustic soda 50%. This chemical had the low bid from Brenntag Mid South in the amount of $0.2800/lb., however, due to the same issues with Brenntag and the Sewer Department as detailed earlier, Mrs. Runyon recommended to accept the next low bid for that chemical at $0.2850/lb. from Chemstream.

Councilwoman Eichhorst moved to approve 2025-R-14, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

9-F “Resolution: Accept Chemical Bids for the Musgrove Aquatic Center” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would accept chemical bids for the Musgrove Aquatic Center.

Mrs. Runyon recommended accepting the low bid for sodium hypochlorite from Hawkins in the amount of $2.580/gallon. The City was already in a contract with Airgas USA for carbon dioxide.

Councilwoman Eichhorst moved to approve 2025-R-15, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

9-G “Ordinance: School Zones” The Council was provided with a proposed ordinance regarding school zones. Street Department Supervisor Tyler Kocher and Police Chief Justin Bloomer had some recommendations.

Mr. Kocher had discovered that several school zones were posted, but did not have corresponding ordinances. He wanted to clear that up, but also add a school zone near the Early Learning Center, one near St. Joe, and delete the school zone on N. East Street, from E. York to E. Scott Streets.

Councilman McLaughlin moved to approve Ordinance 2025-06, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

9-H “Ordinance: Authorize the Disposal of Personal Property Owned by the City of Olney – Light Fixtures from the Park Department” The Council was provided with a proposed ordinance that would authorize the disposal of light fixtures from the Park Department.

Mr. Barker told the Council that the following the completion of the lighting project in Musgrove Park, it was time to dispose of the old fixtures. The Park Department Supervisor recommended attempting to sell the fixtures on GovDeals.com. If that proved unsuccessful, the Supervisor would then recommend recycling the fixtures at Scrap Daddy.

Councilwoman Eichhorst moved to approve Ordinance 2025-07, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

AGENDA #10 “REPORTS FROM ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS”

10-A “Status Report & Fairground Update - City Manager” Mr. Barker reported that the Main Street Storm Sewer Project continued to see some snags, but it was continuing to move forward. He was happy to speak with anyone who might have a concern.

Mr. Barker had also been working with the Fair Board on clean up of their infield at the fairgrounds. All items being removed were junk, and asked the Council to acknowledge that fact and let the Fair Board dispose of the items. The Council had no issue.

10-B “RCDC Report” There was no report.

10-C “Chamber of Commerce Report” Councilwoman Eichhorst said that the Ladies Night event had been successful. The Chamber’s Annual Social was coming up in April, and the city-wide garage sale dates were set for May 16 and 17, 2025.

10-D “Tourism Board Report” There was no report.

AGENDA #11 “2025/2026 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS”

11-A “General Corporate” The Council had been provided with budget spreadsheets in their mailboxes earlier in the week.

For 2025/2026, Mrs. Guinn expected General to take in $7,209,463.00 in revenue with $9,083,716.00 in expense. While that would leave this budget unfavorable by ($1,874,253.00), she reminded the Council that $408,000 of that would be from expenditures being carried over from the 2024/2025 fiscal year. She would also be contributing $967,000.00 out of reserves to help offset that balance, and she removed a road project line item in the amount of $500,000.00. That would actually leave the budget favorable.

Mrs. Guinn had also removed $500,000.00 from the Business District (BD) into the General Fund.

Councilman McLaughlin had strong opinions regarding funding for roads. He felt that the BD had been established for the sole purpose of having funds to spend on roads within the BD. BD funds could not be spent for on most residential roads. He felt that $500,000.00 should not be used from the General Fund to be used on resurfacing Main Street. Rather, General Fund money should fund residential roads only and none within the BD.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher pointed out that there was not enough money in the BD to pay for Main Street yet. Councilman McLaughlin felt that funds could be used out of the General Fund first, and then the BD could make a reimbursement.

Mayor Lambird indicated that the BD was generating approximately $1,200,000.00 each year.

Mrs. Guinn asked the Councilman’s thoughts on the Main Street storm sewer. He felt that the storm sewer work was different. When it came to road work alone, he felt that BD funds should be used instead of General.

It was discussed that borrowing of BD funds could take approximately seven to eight years to repay. Repayment could also include interest.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher recalled that funds had been set aside over several years to fund the Main Street resurfacing. Councilman McLaughlin was aware, but noted that was being done because there had been no BD revenue stream to fund such a project.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher pointed out that there were a lot of road miles included in the BD with those being the busiest roads. Additionally, the life of the BD was only 23 years. She wondered how Main Street resurfacing would be funded the next time it was needed.

Mayor Lambird asked how much money it would take to do a set amount of miles. Mr. Kocher replied that cost would depend on what was needing done and where. Recent work on a mile of N.

Ludlow Street cost approximately $250,000.00. N. Silver and E. Cherry Street road work was about $400,000.00 each.

Councilman McLaughlin stated that he would not vote yes for any budget that reflected General Corporate funds being used on roads within the BD.

Councilman Eyer did not wish to see Main Street work jeopardized. If reimbursement was an option, that could be considered.

Councilman McLaughlin believed that the City had the money to do so. Councilwoman Fehrenbacher disagreed. There was not money “yet” available to use. Moves like that were “not how she rolled.”

Councilman McLaughlin felt that the Councilwoman’s statement meant that she did not care to work on residential roads. Councilwoman Fehrenbacher strongly clarified that was not what she was saying, rather she reminded the Council that the end cost of the Main Street projects was still unknown. She preferred to have a plan in place that would take care of the current plans and any future surprises. She was not in favor of tying up funds for 9 more years and creating potential problems for future Councils.

Councilman McLaughlin again reminded the Council that General Funds were not restricted, but use of the BD funds was very restricted. He could not make sense of using non-restricted funds within the BD.

Mayor Lambird and Councilman McLaughlin felt that some residential roads would deteriorate next to nothing if more funds were not allocated before the next 6 to 10 years. All of the Main Street projects would not be complete for another approximate 5 years.

If $500,000.00 in General Funds was rescinded from allocation to Main Street resurfacing, Councilman Eyer asked if that would jeopardize the Main Street projects. Mrs. Guinn replied no.

Councilman McLaughlin felt that the $1,800,000.00 set aside in General for the storm sewer work could remain, but he felt that the remaining $1,000,000.00 should be re-allocated to residential roads. The current roadworks schedules based on what funding was available was not making enough headway. Again, if there was already a revenue source to pay for resurfacing Main Street, then he felt that should be used.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher reminded him that BD funds were not only dedicated to Main Street. Other roads such as Whittle and Butler should also be considered in plans. She also asked the City Engineer when Main Street would need resurfaced again after the upcoming project was complete. Mr. Bridges estimated that Main Street would need resurfaced again in about 18 years. Even so, Mayor Lambird felt that resurfacing in 18 years should not cost as much as it was now.

Mayor Lambird asked Councilwoman Eichhorst for her thoughts. She said that her thoughts fell in line with Councilman McLaughlin’s.

Councilman Eyer was agreeable to have BD funds go towards repair to main BD roads and to free up General Funds for residential.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher ultimately felt that if the reserved funds in General for the storm sewer were not being given up, then she would also be agreeable although she was still leaning more towards supporting current allocations.

Mrs. Guinn would make the requested changes.

Mrs. Guinn then reviewed upcoming projects for the next fiscal year. Some of those included $20,000.00 for a “school car,” $50,000.00 for contingencies, $15,000.00 to move the building at the East Fork Arena, and $15,000.00 for City Hall building improvements.

The Fire Department would use $9,000.00 for portable radios, $20,000.00 for bunker gear, $6,500.00 for improvements at their training grounds, $5,800.00 for mobile radios, $90,000.00 for a Fire Chief squad, and $5,000.00 to install a fire hydrant on their property.

The Police Department would use $95,000.00 on police vehicles, $25,000.00 for improvements at the firing range, $15,000.00 for vest, $12,000.00 from the Cannabis Fund for the license plate cameras, $15,000.00 of ISO funds for body cameras, $6,000.00 for in car computers, $20,000.00 for building improvements, and $100,000.00 to go towards a county-wide radio system.

Parks & Cemeteries would use $38,000.00 carried over from the current fiscal year for a half-ton pickup truck, $38,000.00 for rubber mulch, $11,000.00 for a riding mower, and $5,000.00 for replacement of interior lighting.

The Lake Department would use $14,000.00 for rubber mulch at Rotary Park and $9,500.00 for rubber mulch at the Boral Lake playground.

The Recreation Department would use $8,500.00 for some bleachers at the tennis courts.

The Street Department would use $400,000.00 on the Elliott Street Bridge, and $200,000.00 of that amount would be carried over from this fiscal year. They would also use $100,000.00 for the Eastgate/Scott storm sewer with $85,000.00 of that amount being carried over from this fiscal year. An amount of $78,000.00 would be used for half-ton pickup trucks with $38,000.00 of that amount being carried over from this fiscal year. A total of $9,000.00 would be used for a salt spreader, and $65,000.00 on a one-ton pickup truck with $50,000.00 of that being carried over from the current fiscal year. Lastly, $30,000.00 would be used for the Taylor Lakeside storm sewer replacement, and $500,000.00 for resurfacing Main Street.

The only library expense would be $7,000.00 for books.

Mrs. Guinn reminded the Council that a vacancy existed in both the Police and Fire Departments with an applicant set for hire in the Fire Department.

11-B “Miscellaneous Funds” In MFT, Mrs. Guinn projected $409,000.00 in revenue with expenses at $886,500.00 which would leave this budget ($477,500.00) unfavorable. To balance this, she would utilize $700,000.00 from reserves for the East Street bridge and $600,000.00 from Build Illinois funds.

The Christmas Light Display was expected to see revenue of $33,250.00 with expenses at $41,475.00. This budget would reflect an unfavorable amount of ($8,225.00), but she could easily balance this with reserves from the Christmas Light Display Fund.

The Route 130 TIF was projected to generate $360,000.00 in revenue with $1,059,600.00 in expenses. This budget would show to be unfavorable by ($699,600.00), but reserves in this TIF fund would be used to balance. Upcoming projects here would include $250,000.00 for tennis court repair, $150,000.00 for upgrades to the City Park entrance, the $25,000.00 TIF agreement with IECC/OCC, $150,000.00 to upgrade the fairgrounds, $270,000.00 for fencing along Route 130, $35,000.00 for interior fencing at the City Park, and $65,000.00 for rubber mulch at the City Park.

The South Olney TIF expected to generate $107,000.00 in revenue with $336,500.00 in expenses. This would leave the budget unfavorable by ($229,500). The amount of $300,000.00 was included as a placeholder in expenses for the addition of water and sewer services in the Whittle Avenue Industrial Park.

The Business District was expected to bring in $1,195,000.00 next fiscal year with $1,015,800.00 in expenses. An amount of $1,000,000.00 of those expenses was for the Main Street Storm Sewer Project. Following the meeting, she would add $500,000.00 for the resurfacing of Main Street.

Fire and Police Pension budgets were each approved by their respective Boards and were similar to prior years.

Referencing the City Park fencing along Route 130, Councilman Eyer did not recall that the Council had settled on that project. He recalled requests for more information. Mrs. Guinn replied that was just a placeholder put into the budget until or when the Council was ready to move forward. Those funds were no obligated.

Councilman Eyer asked for the condition of the bleachers at Musgrove Park. Mr. Bradley replied that they were in decent shape.

AGENDA #12 “CLOSED SESSION: SALE OR LEASE PRICE OF REAL PROPERTY; ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY; APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, COMPENSATION, AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES; AND COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATING MATTERS” Councilwoman Eichhorst moved to adjourn to closed session to discuss the sale or lease price of real property; acquisition of real property; appointment, employment, compensation, and performance of specific employees; and collective negotiating matters, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

The meeting adjourned to closed session at 6:57 p.m.

AGENDA #13 “RECONVENE OPEN SESSION” Councilman McLaughlin moved to enter back into open session, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received. Open session resumed at 7:30 p.m.

13-A “Approve Minutes of Closed Session on March 10, 2025” Councilman McLaughlin moved to approve the minutes of closed session from March 10, 2025, seconded by Councilwoman Eichhorst. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

13-B “Ordinance: Establish Wages for Non-Bargaining Employees of the City of Olney” Discussion had taken place in closed session regarding wage rates for each of the non-bargaining employees. Aside from any prior commitments, the Council decided on a 3% increase for these employees.

Councilman Eyer moved to approve Ordinance 2025-08, seconded by Councilwoman Eichhorst. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

13-C “Discussion/Possible Action: Electric Aggregation” Councilman McLaughlin asked if the City signed the upcoming contract for the next round of electric aggregation rates. Mr. Barker replied no. The Good Energy consulting representative had made a recent visit, and Mr. Barker advised that there was not interest in signing the upcoming contract. The City would still have the option on the next round of bids.

Councilman McLaughlin was no longer interested in the program. He felt that if the City could not offer the best rate at all times, then they should not be part of the program. He also felt that residents did not understand the program.

Councilman Eyer asked if Councilman McLaughin felt that residents did not feel they could opt out. Councilman McLaughlin believed that some residents may feel that way, especially the elderly.

Because the electric supply business had grown over the years with several suppliers now available, Councilman McLaughlin felt that residents should be the ones to choose their own suppliers. Councilwoman Eichhorst did not believe that many residents knew that they could choose their own supplier

Councilman McLaughlin had spoken with an Ameren employee that told him that Ameren’s prices tend to drop because they have to sell whatever supply they purchased.

Mr. Zuber reminded the Council that the entire reason that an electric aggregation program existed in the City of Olney was that it was initiated by referendum of the voters in 2012, and that was required to be an opt-out program. He had spoken with the City Attorney in Champaign and learned that an aggregation program was a much better option about 10 years ago because Ameren had very few competitors on supply, and they had no incentive to reduce their prices. The opt-out programs put pressure on Ameren to lower their rates and it served its purpose. Champaign kept its electric aggregation program on the books, but no longer signed a contract unless they believed it was a very good deal.

Mayor Lambird would be more in favor of the program if the supplier could always guarantee the lowest rate. Mr. Zuber indicated that price matching by suppliers was a thing of the past. That provision was a starting point for suppliers to established.

Back to the topic of roads, Councilman McLaughlin asked for Mrs. Guinn’s plans after this meeting. Mrs. Guinn indicated that $500,000.00 would be used out of the BD for Main Street resurfacing, but the other $500,000.00 would be moved to the road project account and clean up bank accounts.

Regarding item 9-A, Councilman Eyer felt that changes to the boat dock ordinances should be taken care of quickly. Councilwoman Fehrenbacher agreed and felt that Mr. Colwell should also be included.

Councilman McLaughlin stated that he would have rather granted that variance request instead of changing the ordinance.

The Council and City Attorney discussed some ideas for change. They wanted to be careful and consider safety as well as integrity of the shoreline. Councilwoman Fehrenbacher did not like the idea of looking out to see boats completely surrounding the lake.

Overall, the Council felt that the ordinance could be changed to allow for the addition of no more than 10-foot of boat lifts on either side of the dock.

Mr. Zuber would draft an ordinance change for presentation at the next meeting.

AGENDA #14 “ADJOURN” With no further business to discuss, Councilman McLaughlin moved to adjourn, seconded by Councilwoman Eichhorst. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

https://cms2.revize.com/revize/olneynew/cc%20Mar%2024%202025.pdf