Residents urge council to reject police chief benefits and caution against expanded staff spending authority

Public commenters on July 10 urged the Freeport City Council to reject proposed retirement benefits for the city’s police chief and to delay expanding staff purchasing authority until budget monitoring improves.

The council’s clerk read a written statement from Shane Orlow (6th Ward), who asked members to “vote no on this item” — referring to item 17, the improved retirement plan for the police chief — arguing the chief had served less than a year and that the city lacked public communication showing improvements in crime or department performance. Another written commenter, Josh Atkinson, urged the council to oppose Ordinance 2026-34 after the city’s 2025 independent audit found “multiple city funds exceeded the budgets approved by this council,” and recommended stronger budget monitoring before broadening purchasing authority.

Why it matters: Commenters tied the pension and the ordinance to fiscal oversight and public trust. Atkinson warned that expanding staff spending authority without demonstrated budget discipline would weaken elected oversight; Orlow and several in-person speakers said any additional benefits for the chief should await evidence of departmental results and improved communication with residents.

Several residents who spoke in person repeated that theme. Steve Carroll identified himself at the meeting and said he was “totally against” granting the chief additional benefits, calling the hiring decision problematic. Wendy Pearson said she was “totally against paying anything towards a pension for the chief of police after six months,” and said the council should require the chief to demonstrate community engagement and measurable results before approving added compensation or benefits. Makiya Sanders criticized the council’s communication with residents and urged greater transparency around spending and contracts.

Council process and next steps: The public comment period concluded before the council took up a consent agenda that included routine minutes, reports and finance bills (the meeting record lists finance bills totaling $4,046,469.27 and payroll items). Commenters did not receive substantive responses on the record during the public comment period. Several speakers asked the council to delay or reject action on the items mentioned; the transcript records that some of those agenda items remained set for council consideration rather than being voted down immediately.

Quotes that capture the public concern: • “Vote no on added benefits for the police chief position until the people see actual evidence of improvement in our police department,” wrote Shane Orlow (read into the record by the clerk). • “Multiple city funds exceeded the budgets approved by this council,” the independent audit said, a point raised in the written comment read from Josh Atkinson.

What’s next: No formal council vote on item 17 or Ordinance 2026-34 is recorded in the public-comment segment. Council members will decide whether to act on those agenda items later in the meeting or at a future meeting; commenters asked the council to require demonstrated accountability and clearer communication before approving benefits or broader spending authority.