[0:00] Good evening. The meeting will please come to order. This is a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees in the

[0:05] village of Wal-Met. I want to welcome everybody this year tonight. Well, everyone, please stand for the

[0:11] pledge of allegiance

[0:14] to the flag of the United States, the America, and to the Republic for which

[0:21] it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[0:31] Thank you again for joining us tonight.

[0:33] We will call the matter. The matter is in the order in which they appear on the printed agenda.

[0:38] There are copies of the agenda on the table by the door. You may want to have one so you can follow along to see when your matter will be called.

[0:46] If you plan to address us tonight, we ask that you please come up to the podium. Please speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and where you live as that may be relevant to the matter at hand.

[0:56] Everything you say and everything we say is recorded and from those recordings minutes of the meeting are prepared.

[1:01] These minutes are available at Village Hall and on our website it will met.gov.

[1:07] Also, our Village Board meetings are televised on Local Access Channel 6 and on the Internet.

[1:12] By televised in our meetings, we make it easy for our neighbors in the community to follow the proceedings of the Village Board.

[1:18] See the types of manners to come before us.

[1:21] The questions we ask and the policies we create.

[1:24] You can find archive videos of Village Board and other local government meetings on our website.

[1:29] Before each meeting the Board receives a packet of agenda materials, these materials are also posted on our website on the Friday before our meeting, so residents and other interested parties can review the same materials that the Board members receive.

[1:43] Finally, we are a community of neighbors and as such we want our meetings to be as simple and courteous as possible.

[1:49] I know that we, the Board, as well as our residents and those speaking today, will promote

[1:53] civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we are all striving

[1:59] to support and improve our community and understanding that we may each have different ideas

[2:04] for achieving that objective.

[2:06] As one courtesy to those around you, please take this time to turn off your cell phones and

[2:10] other devices and while we're doing that, Mr. Halgren, would you please call the roll?

[2:13] trustee letter here trustee shepherd here trustee steam is absence trustee labor here trustee

[2:21] Smith is absent trustee Kennedy here in President Plunkett here we have a

[2:26] quorum the next item on the agenda is item two public comment during public

[2:31] comments individuals are allotted up to three minutes to address the board on an

[2:35] item which is not already on the agenda members of the audience may address the

[2:39] board on matters which are on tonight's agenda when the particular matter is

[2:43] This is certainly a member of the audience who would like to address the Board on the item which is not on the agenda.

[2:50] This is hard?

[2:55] Good evening everybody and thank you so much for serving.

[2:57] My name is Betsy Hart and I live in Womatt.

[3:00] Last week I had the privilege of attending the Village of Womatt's Human Relations Commission meeting.

[3:05] As you may know by now, the HRC is recommending, officially, that the Village of Womatt Board and all commissions start meetings

[3:13] with what is commonly known today as a land acknowledgement, at least during Native American Heritage

[3:18] Month.

[3:19] There was a quick offering of this idea and agreement, seconding of the motion by all commissioners

[3:25] present at the meeting.

[3:26] I am here to encourage you to not adopt this request of the HRC.

[3:31] Typical land acknowledgments, as we know them today, started rapidly to move from elite universities

[3:35] in the 2010s to mainstream institutions starting around 2020.

[3:39] acknowledgments conveyory from those like the University of Wisconsin and referred to the cultural and physical genocide committed against indigenous peoples and argue for reparations, which at least is morally consistent.

[3:51] To those with strict acknowledge that the lands we sit on previously belong to indigenous peoples with references to the land being taken from them by Europeans left a little more opaque.

[4:01] Interestingly, while the Potto wannabe people were referenced by the commissioners at that meeting,

[4:06] there was no question or desire to ask what Potto wannabe representatives and other indigenous peoples of this area,

[4:14] might think about land acknowledgments.

[4:16] It appeared there was a presumption that all indigenous peoples favor them because current affluent owners of the land do.

[4:22] In fact, it is easy to discern that there are a wide range of the very diverse views,

[4:27] which alone suggests the village of Wal-Match

[4:29] should not needlessly offend by adopting the HRC's recommendation.

[4:34] For example, Charlotte Thompson of the Forest Compute

[4:37] Potemon, and we stated that she thinks

[4:38] that without action and land acknowledgments,

[4:40] like an honor tax, financial support, et cetera,

[4:43] that they are meaningless.

[4:44] John Low is a leader from the Pocacon Band

[4:46] of the Potemon and he publicly agrees.

[4:49] Michael Lambert from the University of North Carolina,

[4:52] who is part of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,

[4:55] their name is a professor at the University of North Carolina. He says that land

[4:59] acknowledgments have become highly performative, feel good, empty gestures. Many

[5:04] tribal leaders express concerns about incorrect acknowledgments over disputed

[5:09] tribal historic ownership. And really think about it. If Martians came in

[5:14] from outer space, took our land, put us on reservations, but then pronounced a

[5:18] land acknowledgment before Martian council meetings, wouldn't we find that a

[5:22] from the sending. In less the village of Walmart, it's going to give land back or promote reparations

[5:28] for the people who once lived on these lands. And I suppose, as encouraged them to do so,

[5:34] for the people before them, and the people who's landed was before them, please don't fall

[5:38] into the trap of empty, performative land acknowledgments for our village. Please reject this

[5:43] recommendation to you from the Human Relations Commission. Thank you very much.

[5:59] Good evening. I'm starting my clock, my three minutes. My name is Mark Wiremiller.

[6:07] I speak at a lot of public meetings, part districts, townships, village boards,

[6:12] sometimes city hole in Chicago,

[6:15] and basically I'm a taxpayer advocate. I want less taxes,

[6:19] and that might mean less spending and less borrowing. So, what makes a good example of things

[6:25] that maybe we could cut some spending here

[6:28] and there, cut some taxes.

[6:29] You can follow me on Facebook on what MetConnection.

[6:32] We've actually got 16,500 followers now,

[6:35] which is amazing.

[6:36] Some people even think I'm the mayor of the village president

[6:39] for our romance.

[6:41] So, if you've got to go from board here,

[6:44] you can also follow me on Twitter and other platforms.

[6:46] But basically, we post a lot about promoting events.

[6:49] A couple of big events coming up this week,

[6:51] by the way, Thursday, there's free music

[6:53] at the Walls Bowl.

[6:54] I expect everybody in the room to be there.

[6:56] Friday night, same thing, downtown Wilmet.

[6:59] So we have three more outdoor music events this summer in Wilmet.

[7:02] This has been great all summer.

[7:04] This is a great thing the village is doing.

[7:07] So a couple of issues I have.

[7:10] I'm in a minute, 10 by the way.

[7:14] About a month ago they voted.

[7:16] This board voted to spend $92,000 on fixing a fountain out front.

[7:22] It was built 54 years ago.

[7:23] I'm not sure why he hasn't had routine maintenance, it needs some basic tuck point in my opinion. I do have some

[7:32] I'm not sure why they're spending 92,000 was never explained. A couple of people said I didn't understand the scope of the project, but basically, they're spending 92,000 on this one item.

[7:42] We spent in too much money on other items. They voted on a month ago, the project, and they even started yet. It just seems like the project should be about $5,000.

[7:53] Last year they voted, this board voted to spend $13,000 on a weather app to tell them

[7:58] when it's snowing, which a lot of people have on their phones that you can watch TV weather

[8:03] at 10.

[8:04] You can look out the window, it's stuff like this sort of looking at.

[8:08] Later in the meeting, they're going to vote to borrow $40 million to build the police station.

[8:13] $40 million is actually going to be $49 million, it might be $41, it might be $60 million,

[8:17] we're not sure.

[8:18] A couple other issues on the agenda, I'm concerned about the housing commission.

[8:23] We have 16 commissions and we'll map with 68 people.

[8:26] We have meetings about the meetings, about the meetings.

[8:29] The housing commission is not really about housing for me or other seniors.

[8:33] It's about public housing.

[8:35] 30 seconds.

[8:36] 30 seconds.

[8:37] You always say that, which is a little thing that held up in 30 seconds.

[8:41] I always say, I'm going to take six more seconds, but I'm concerned about the housing

[8:45] commission.

[8:48] So they're basically meeting to get no inner developers to build more section

[8:53] needs, subsidized housing will met. I'm at six seconds, Mark Wildmore. Thank you for letting

[8:58] me speak. And that's all I got. Thank you. Anyone else wish to make a public comment?

[9:05] Okay, seeing none will close public comment and we'll move on to the consent agenda. Item

[9:09] three is the consent agenda. It's described on the printed agenda items which are either

[9:14] routine business or normally not debated by the Billage Board or placed on the consent agenda.

[9:19] All items beginning with a three are on the consent agenda tonight.

[9:23] The consent agenda consists of the items on page one, beginning with item 3.1, through

[9:27] page three and ending with item 3.19, items on the consent agenda are up for approval tonight.

[9:33] If an item is not removed by a member of the audience and is not removed by one of the trustees,

[9:38] the item will be approved and will not be discussed.

[9:40] Are there any items to trust these with life to remove from the consent agenda?

[9:47] Seeing none, is there any member of the audience who would like to remove an item from the consent agenda?

[9:52] So what do you want to do?

[9:53] Mark Wormler again, can we remove 3.10 about the hanging baskets?

[9:58] I believe I have the right number.

[10:01] For three-year contract for hanging baskets?

[10:04] 3.10?

[10:06] Okay, and then item 5.

[10:08] No, I'm sorry, 3.19, the Intergovernment Cooperation on the Police Department, using the Northfield Police Department, is that the right one?

[10:18] That is.

[10:19] And then on 5.21, that's not on the consent agenda, right?

[10:22] No, it is not.

[10:23] So that will have public comment or.

[10:26] Yes, that will.

[10:27] Perfect.

[10:27] Thank you.

[10:32] So

[10:35] any other items, members of the audience would like to move from the consent agenda.

[10:38] So may I have a motion to adopt the consent agenda with the exception of item 3.11 and 3.19?

[10:49] I'm sorry.

[10:50] I'm sorry about that.

[10:52] Okay, there we go.

[10:53] 3.10 and 3.19.

[10:55] So moved.

[10:56] Is there a second?

[10:57] Second.

[10:59] Okay.

[10:59] It's a moved and second in Mr. Halver.

[11:00] Could you please call the roll?

[11:02] Trustee Latter.

[11:03] All right.

[11:04] Trustee Sheppard.

[11:05] Trustee Weaver.

[11:06] Aye.

[11:07] Trustee Kennedy.

[11:07] Yeah, and President Implacate.

[11:10] Hi, motion carries the consent agenda has been adopted with the exceptions of items 3.10 and 3.19, which will be reviewed during the municipal services committee agenda in the public safety committee agenda.

[11:27] All the other items have been adopted, so if you are here for one of those items on the consent agenda, it has been approved.

[11:33] And to clarify for people who are here, all of the items beginning with the three have been approved,

[11:39] there will be no further discussion that any of those items on the consent agenda,

[11:43] so you are free to leave.

[11:44] But of course you are more than welcome to stay for part or all of our meeting.

[11:51] The next thing I have in my agenda, I am so excited to have a state senator Laura Fein here,

[11:56] and we want to recognize her for once again pulling through for the village of Wilmet

[12:02] And in the last year's capital budget, obtaining $400,000 in capital grants for grant funding for

[12:09] Wal-Met, tonight we're not only recognizing and celebrating State Senator Laura fine for that

[12:18] capital grant, but her 13 years of service because of 14 years, 14 years of service to our

[12:27] community and residents throughout Illinois in the Illinois General Assembly.

[12:32] As an older community, the village of Womatt has many capital needs to address.

[12:37] Last year, Senator Fein, we thank you so much for your $500,000 grant to help the

[12:44] sustainability efforts for our police station construction, which is underway if you have seen.

[12:51] And it's moving along smoothly and we definitely want to have you back.

[12:55] when we have our ribbon cutting for that.

[12:59] This year, this $400,000 grant will support our many capital needs such a significant water treatment facility upgrades,

[13:09] water main and lead service line replacements, and our active transportation enhancements.

[13:15] We thank you sincerely for this funding, which will support our aggressive capital investment schedule.

[13:22] It's tough in an aging community and this funding makes a big impact.

[13:28] Senator Fine will be retiring in January and will be remembered for her support for our

[13:34] local communities along with a legacy of consumer protections in health care and with insurance

[13:40] companies as chair of the mental health committee, Laura Fine is fought for the most

[13:50] service is more important than ever.

[13:53] And you have embodied that work for the last 14 years.

[13:58] And we so appreciate your partnership.

[14:07] Of certificate for you.

[14:09] But you might want to say a couple words first.

[14:18] Thank you so much.

[14:20] First of all, I have to say what an honor and privilege

[14:23] it has been to represent the village of Womatch

[14:27] for the past 14 years.

[14:29] I feel like I kind of grew up here

[14:32] in my legislative career, knocking on doors before I was first elected, learning about the issues

[14:38] that are faced in this community, and seeing how this board gets together to make sure

[14:44] that these issues are addressed. We saw that, as you said, in our rebuild Illinois Capitol plan.

[14:52] Because that is a program that is designed to meet the needs of diverse communities throughout the

[14:58] and I know

[15:00] So that the $400,000 that we were able to get in the budget this year are going to be used in such a responsible way in the villageable mat.

[15:09] The ways that you had mentioned that are so necessary and take the burden off the local taxpayers, because the state is able to chip in and help you.

[15:20] I'm also very proud of that $500,000 we were able to get for the police station, because

[15:25] that is something that is integral, not only for the safety of the people of Will Met, but

[15:32] throughout the entire region, how that's going to come together, and will be a shining star

[15:38] for safety within our communities, and I heard that at the last meeting you got an update

[15:43] on that, and your full steam ahead, and things are really looking well.

[15:48] I look forward to seeing from the other side what will Matt is going to do next because when

[15:56] you talk to people and will Matt, everybody is proud to live in this community and they

[16:02] are just so pleased with what the community has to offer, be it the village board, the

[16:09] park district, the schools, the first responders, it is just such a special place not only

[16:16] within your own community but within the entire State of Illinois.

[16:19] So thank you all for what you do.

[16:27] I said that I want to ask the bill to come down to we'd love a photo with you.

[17:31] My

[17:57] next item under officer's notes is Proclamation designating September 15th to October 15th,

[18:06] 2025, as National Hispanic Heritage Month in the village of Wometh.

[18:10] The observation of National Hispanic Heritage Month started in 1968 as a Hispanic Heritage

[18:16] week under President Lyndon Johnson, and the

[18:19] observation was expanded by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 to cover a 30 day period,

[18:25] starting on September 15th and ending on October 15th.

[18:29] It was enacted into law on August 17th, 1988.

[18:36] I cited this year that we have an event to

[18:41] that our Human Relations Commission is organizing.

[18:45] on Celebration of the Hispanic Heritage Month.

[18:49] The HRC is sponsoring Fiesta Lentina,

[18:54] a complimentary Latin dance class,

[18:56] co-hosted by the Park District

[18:58] at the Community Recreation Center

[19:00] on Thursday, October 8th at 7 p.m.

[19:04] The class will be talked

[19:05] by Will Met resident Lorraine Crespo,

[19:08] who is a professional dancer,

[19:10] choreography, and founder of ShowBiz Fit,

[19:13] a very popular workout program

[19:14] with foundations in Latin dance, spaces limited and registration will be available soon.

[19:21] The library is also hosting a variety of programs and offers recommended reads for all

[19:27] ages, curated to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, State Tune to the Villages eWeb site

[19:35] for more possible offerings on Hispanic Heritage Month.

[19:39] And with that, I am honored to read the proclamation.

[19:46] Whereas the villageable man supports the rights of every individual to experience equality

[19:51] of treatment and values our diverse population of residents, businesses and visitors recognizing

[19:56] that this diversity is one of this community's greatest strengths.

[20:00] And whereas September 15th to October 15th is annually celebrated as National Hispanic Heritage

[20:06] month to commemorate various Latin American independence days in honor of the Hispanic

[20:12] communities long-term presence and effort for equality across our nation. And we're

[20:17] as the 2026 theme of Hispanic Heritage Month is, together we are more, which emphasizes

[20:24] celebrating family, resilience, creativity, faith and service by honoring the diverse

[20:30] stories that strengthen our nation, investing in the future and building a stronger

[20:34] America for all, and whereas individuals are encouraged to learn about the Hispanic community

[20:40] and celebrate this month to recognize the contributions that Hispanic individuals have made

[20:45] to our society. Resources can be found on the village's website. Now, therefore, I sent a

[20:51] Plunket Village President of Will Matt Illinois proclaim September 15th to October 15th,

[20:57] 2026 as National Hispanic Heritage Month and call upon all people of Will Matt Illinois to learn

[21:03] more about various Hispanic communities

[21:06] and to celebrate this month.

[21:09] Thank you.

[21:10] And then I guess I have one last announcement,

[21:15] but someone might need to help me confirm the date.

[21:19] Also, from my Human Rights and Commission,

[21:21] the race for our place,

[21:22] I believe is going to be Sunday October 4th.

[21:32] I could look it up on my phone.

[21:34] Sunday October 4th.

[21:35] Oh, I got it right.

[21:36] So, encourage the community to come out to the race for our place.

[21:40] It is a wonderful event, hold in the community,

[21:43] held in the community play fields, and it helps support our place,

[21:47] which is a wonderful resource we have in our community.

[21:52] So, with that, that's all the announcements I have, Mr. Greenman.

[21:55] Just that, upcoming is our annual fire department open house on Saturday, October 3,

[21:59] from 9 a.m. to noon at Fire Station 26,

[22:02] which is at 13.04 Lake Avenue.

[22:03] We'll have apparatus displays firefighter demonstrations, vehicle extrications, teddy bird checkups, and a visit with Sparky the Fire Doves.

[22:11] So we hope to see families out there for the fun day.

[22:14] Thank you.

[22:15] Is our, please start coming?

[22:17] Is Gizmo going to be there?

[22:18] I know it's like crossing over by several.

[22:21] Okay.

[22:22] All right.

[22:23] Well, we have the new ladder truck there.

[22:25] Maybe.

[22:26] Okay.

[22:30] Great. Thank you. So now we move on to our standing committee reports. First up is the land use standing committee, trustee Leonard.

[22:37] Well, items on the consent agenda.

[22:39] Okay. Next, we have the Finance Committee standing report, trustee Shepherd.

[22:43] Sure. I am going to move to adopt ordinance 20206-year-5.

[22:48] Two months of not to exceed 40 million, four hundred and seventy five thousand dollars in general obligation bonds

[22:55] Series twenty twenty six

[22:58] and I see Miss Malloy

[23:00] I'm a Jason from PMA

[23:03] Heading to the podium to discuss

[23:05] It's been moved is there a second

[23:07] Second

[23:08] Okay

[23:08] Thank you

[23:12] Welcome Mr. Roy

[23:14] Good evening trustees

[23:16] So

[23:17] As it's already been laid out, I'm going to start the introduction of this presentation.

[23:23] We have Jason Pinkerton with us, who is with PMA, there are the Village's Municipal

[23:29] Advisor.

[23:30] So as we've talked about the bond issuance that we plan to do for the police station, what

[23:34] we hope that you're going to get out tonight's presentation is number one.

[23:38] We're going to give you a historical context again in terms of what's happening with interest

[23:42] rates and why because we need to be sensitive to that as we think about selling these

[23:47] Next, Jason is going to go through a variety of different ways that we might think about issuing these bonds.

[23:54] And some of the rationale is to why, and you'll see what it means for what it could be in terms of the cost,

[24:00] as we think about the overall impact of issuing these bonds to fund the police station.

[24:05] And then he also prepared some information to address trustee Leonard's question that you raised

[24:10] When we last week at our committee the whole, when we talked about what might happen to our

[24:17] rating as we think about the water needs and the capital requirements we have with that.

[24:22] So, we've given that some thought and we have some slides around that to help answer that question.

[24:28] And then next, Eric is going to remind us again about where we're at with reserve, so it's something that we've seen before

[24:33] because we want to talk about that as we've talked about the police station.

[24:37] And one of the components is whether or not we're going to use reserves and if so, how much.

[24:42] And then lastly, I'll finish up with what are the next steps in the timeline.

[24:46] So with that being said, I'm going to turn it over to Jason.

[24:52] Thank you, Ms. Maloya, and thank you to the board for having me this evening.

[24:59] To begin tonight's presentation, a brief update on what is transpired in the market.

[25:05] So the last time, PMA or PTMA was in front of the board,

[25:10] was an early February and we looked at a number of financing scenarios and that was a

[25:18] different period for interest rates. We've provided several market updates over the

[25:25] course of the last year and the messaging in November and January and February is the

[25:32] expectation is interest rates are going down. Interest rates were CPI was 2.7%

[25:40] for calendar year 2025, the Fed's mandated target for inflation or their goal is 2.5%

[25:48] that's the closest we had been to that target or the market had been to that target since

[25:54] the onset of COVID and there was a lot of positive momentum in the markets towards the Fed

[26:03] achieving that goal. In March, there was an event that changed a lot of that and that was

[26:11] the onset of the war with Iran. And what has transpired since in the markets and in particular

[26:18] the bond market or the debt markets is interest rates of increase. The war with Iran was

[26:27] naturally inflationary. I drove up the cost of oil, which had an impact on CPI,

[26:35] year over your CPI is currently trending at 3.4% which is elevated over last year's

[26:41] inflation of 2.7%. And we've seen a number of other factors that have kind of further

[26:50] created momentum towards interest rates rising. The US deficit this year hit 40 trillion,

[26:56] That's a new high, a new milestone in terms of debt, and that's not only U.S. that there's a debt crisis of sorts with kind of international debt as well.

[27:09] So the U.S. debt hit 40 trillion, but the U.S. is not a loan hit in that situation.

[27:15] So we had a new fed chair in May, Kevin Warren was named the new fed chair, Jerome Powell believed in forward guidance, Kevin Warren does not.

[27:30] What that has done to the bond market is it's just create additional volatility.

[27:34] Investors aren't as certain as to what to expect.

[27:38] So there's been more volatility, more changes, interest rates, increase or decrease, more rapidly,

[27:45] and decrease by more than they ever had before.

[27:49] And what interest rates have done particularly in the bond market is we've highlighted since February 4th,

[27:56] short-term interest rates have increased by as much as 56 basis points.

[27:59] This was as of the time that this presentation was submitted.

[28:03] The one year and the D's actually 82 basis points higher, so today, the five years, 109 basis points are 1.09%.

[28:12] The 10 years at 1.13, so not as drastic of movement, and the 20 years increased by 58 basis points.

[28:21] So it's relatively unchanged since the time that this presentation was put together.

[28:24] And the reason for that is on September 16th, the Federal Reserve took action to address

[28:33] inflationary pressure in the U.S. economy. It increased the Fed funds rate by a quarter

[28:37] percent. And in doing so, the market responded. On the short side, the market received

[28:46] that information as well as the Chairman's post meeting address, suggesting that additional

[28:52] rates are likely in 2026, as of today, the odds of an interest rate hike according to

[29:00] Bloomberg or 53% knocked over.

[29:03] The odds of an additional interest rate hike are two interest rate hikes, are 75% by

[29:10] gene in your A of 2027.

[29:12] So we're looking at potentially one additional interest rate increase on the federal funds rate,

[29:18] potentially two in the next four months.

[29:22] What that ultimately means the long-term rates versus short-term rates are completely different.

[29:27] So what we've seen on the short side is we're seeing interest rates increase.

[29:31] And that's because they're responding to the Fed chairman's announcement.

[29:38] We're seeing that price in the current market.

[29:41] Long-term interest rates actually came back a little bit.

[29:44] So the 30 year treasury was 5.4% on September 15th, 5.3% on September 10th, currently the 30 year

[29:52] treasuries at 5.29%.

[29:54] So we did see and some improvement on the long end, and that's because the 30 year treasuries are long.

[30:00] Hunger, interest rates, response to things that are more perceptive. It's an overall feeling in the economy. So, you're

[30:08] looking at the conflict in Iran, that's going to have a negative effect not only on the short end, but

[30:13] the long end of the yields curve. The Fed taking action on something like inflation had a positive

[30:19] reaction on the long end of the yield curve. So, you're seeing a flattening of the yield curve for short-term

[30:24] interest rates are increasing, and long-term interest rates came back modestly.

[30:33] Any questions

[30:33] on the market, otherwise I'll get into the numbers in the scenarios.

[30:39] You've touched on it, but the spread between the 2020, really inverting, is that where you

[30:45] were sitting? You know, that's kind of the bid to the long. Do you have any specific commentary

[30:49] on that, or is that captured in what you were saying?

[30:52] Yes, so we've seen the yield curve was relatively steep at the beginning of this year and oftentimes in more volatile markets what we see is an increase in short-term interest rates or a flattening of the yield curve.

[31:06] So what we've observed in particular is the war with Iran created a lot of pressure between the five and the tenured treachery.

[31:15] And that's been the point of the yield curve that's sold off the most.

[31:18] Recently, because of the Fed's action and the anticipation of potentially one or two more Fed bonds rate interest rate,

[31:26] I experienced seeing the largest increases on the one and the two year treasuries,

[31:30] because they're anticipating those additional 25 to 50 basis points of increases.

[31:36] Does that answer your question?

[31:40] The 20 year response to the more long-term environment.

[31:44] So the biggest sell-off on the 30-year treasury in the 20-year M&D would be included in that was the announcement that the national debt hit $40 million.

[31:55] Because that has a long-term ramification towards the way that we as investors look at the United States debt as a credit.

[32:05] In the 20 years, the 20 years, the most important to us in terms of what we're doing.

[32:10] Exactly. So when the village is considering financing bonds over a course of 30 years,

[32:15] you really want to be keeping an eye on those long-term interest rates because that's going to dictate

[32:20] what you're borrowing.

[32:29] So this evening we've put together four scenarios. The first two scenarios

[32:32] are considering, or has the village considering issuing all the bonds here one issuance.

[32:40] The third and fourth scenarios are what we consider to be phase. So there's two issuances.

[32:46] This first summary is comparing a 30 or financing for the total amount of the project.

[32:51] So the way that this summary is created, the total cost of the project is 41.5 million dollars.

[33:01] In the green section, I don't know if the colors necessarily pop as well on the screen.

[33:05] I think you can kind of see them. There's two green sections. Those are built into the assumptions.

[33:11] So the village approved earlier this year, a reappropriation ordinance of proceeds from the 2021 bonds just over a million dollars.

[33:20] That's being included in the police station financing. So that's net off the bonds that are being issued.

[33:26] Additionally, we heard earlier about the $500,000 grant. So that's also being included.

[33:32] So 1.5 million is being contributed from other sources to this 41.5 million.

[33:38] What that leaves is for scenario one, a bond issuance of just under 40 million.

[33:43] So, 39.975 million dollars.

[33:47] scenario two is looking at the same scenario,

[33:50] scenario one, which will call the baseline,

[33:54] is considering a cash contribution from the village's reserves of $8 million.

[34:00] And so the only difference between scenario one and scenario two,

[34:03] they're both amortized over 30 years,

[34:05] is that 8 million dollar contribution for service.

[34:14] Senators 1 and 2, there's more detail on the next couple slides, so I won't go into all the statistics in the summary just yet because those are on the ensuing slides as well.

[34:22] But what I will say is, as part of all of our analysis, one of the things that we consider are different kind of sensitivity metrics.

[34:30] So because the village is considering contributing 8 million dollars from reserves and estimated reduction in total of 1 million dollars.

[34:38] So for every $1 million that the village contributes to the police station project or estimating

[34:43] that on an annual basis that reduces the amount of interest paid back by $65,000.

[34:51] From an interest rate perspective, if interest rates were to decrease by 0.1% of market

[34:58] movement, so 10 basis points, that would have a $30,000 impact on the village's levier

[35:06] Again, that is an annual basis that is not total debt service.

[35:16] So the way that the slides are laid out, there's kind of three different sections.

[35:21] So first we'll start with the summary, so up at the top right.

[35:26] Again, so the village in this scenario would be issuing $39.9 million bonds,

[35:32] just under $40 million. The total cost of this financing is just under $83 million.

[35:38] So that's principal and interest to pay back.

[35:42] The average annual debt service study.

[35:45] So the way that these bonds are being structured

[35:46] is it's creating 30 years of level total debt service payments.

[35:51] So you'll be keeping that payments

[35:53] in more just like a mortgage essentially,

[35:56] a flat payment for the next 30 years.

[35:58] That average annual debt service study

[36:00] is just over three million.

[36:03] It's about three million, $67,000.

[36:06] And the last two bullets, the second-to-last bullet is referenced in the image.

[36:12] So you can see how the, the villages in the dark blue shaded columns, those are the village's current outstanding bond payments that are paid back from property taxes.

[36:25] The light blue shaded column are the new bonds. So that's how the new bonds, the police station bonds are being amortized.

[36:33] the dotted line is what we're considering to be the target

[36:39] levy. So that's 3.75 million and that was a target levy that was

[36:44] put in place through conversations with the village's administration. So

[36:50] in looking at that, that was considered to be the ceiling. We did not want

[36:55] to advertise bonds higher than that point and below that any amount below that

[37:02] would allow the village to be able to utilize that additional space in the

[37:08] levy for potential operating needs. So what the second-to-last bullet point in

[37:15] the summary is summarizing is how much interest rates would have to increase for

[37:20] the payments on the new bonds to reach an annual levy of $3.75 million.

[37:25] Thanks.

[37:28] Just hear us about.

[37:30] How that loving number was generated? What was the thinking?

[37:35] That's the highest point in the last couple of years of our debt service levy on the property tax.

[37:40] So that's how we set our goal of not increasing property taxes to fund the police station.

[37:44] As long as we don't go above 3.75 million as a round number, that's, we've already levy to that point.

[37:51] Anything under that, we could then reallocate to our real program.

[37:54] It goes above that, we have to talk about new taxes.

[37:57] So then we'd have to love the additional property tax and let's get to it.

[38:03] So again, that would require a increase of 2% on the interest rate of the bonds for the

[38:11] village's bonds to reach that target.

[38:14] And then the last bullet point is the estimated true interest cost on the bonds.

[38:19] And so you can see the estimated true interest cost are ticked as we call it.

[38:23] It's a weighted average of the interest rates over the 30 years of maturity's, that's 5.1%.

[38:31] So that's kind of similar to your mortgage rate, so it's for a bond issuance.

[38:37] So the all-in borrowing costs for the village is 5.1%.

[38:42] One thing that I did want to point out is there is a maximum true interest cost in the perimeters.

[38:48] It's five in a quarter, so if for whatever reason the market did continue to increase,

[38:56] board action would have to be taken.

[38:58] We would have to bring the parameters back in front of the board to be able to approve the

[39:04] bonds.

[39:06] That clear.

[39:09] The last section is quantifying the impact of that additional levy capacity.

[39:17] So the scenario assumes a payment that $680,000,000 below the $3.75 million target, what that looks like from a bonding or a present value perspective is about 10.1 million dollars of proceeds.

[39:36] Scenario 2 is the same as scenario 1 is stated before, but with the addition of the $8,000,000,000 from reserves, so you're subtracting $8,000 from the total amount of bond proceeds, you're issuing about $32,000 of bonds.

[39:51] The estimated debt to service costs decreases in the scenario by about $15,000, so you're essentially taking off about the same amount of interest as you are principle by contributing those cash dollars to the bond proceeds.

[40:06] The average annual payment in this case is 2.54 million.

[40:11] The estimated change in interest rates is 4.17%.

[40:15] So it's very, very unlikely.

[40:18] You would also be above this statutory limit

[40:20] for what you could borrow in a taxing basis.

[40:24] So in this sense, the interest rate sensitivity

[40:28] in order to reach the target level is an incredibly high number

[40:32] that isn't realistic at this point.

[40:35] And the estimated two interest costs is again about 5.1%.

[40:40] Then this scenario, you're $1.21 million below your target levy and what that equates

[40:46] through is about $17.95 million in additional overseas.

[40:53] And as we've said many times, the 8 million survive from getting us to our target.

[40:57] Correct.

[41:02] One of the considerations that we'll talk about in a little bit,

[41:05] I'm going to go through the second set of scenarios,

[41:08] but one of the considerations in the rating analysis

[41:12] that we'll share later is what it looks like

[41:15] with the $8 million of cash reserves as well.

[41:19] How that impacts the Moody Score card.

[41:26] So the second set of scenarios are issued in two phases.

[41:30] This is a very preliminary draw schedule

[41:33] for the police station bonds.

[41:36] At the time, I believe this is at this point a little bit behind schedule even, but based off of the analysis, it was assumed that about 26 million would be spent through the spring of 2027, which would allow the village to issue about 23 million dollars in 2026, saving the balance to be issued in the fall of 2027, along with potentially some other projects of the village.

[42:02] And one of the benefits potentially of phasing would be to allow the village more time to be able to determine whether or not it wants to contribute or the village with like the contribute date million dollars from reserves.

[42:15] you could issue the $23 million now, and the reserves conversation can be delayed until the second

[42:22] issuance, where you would either decide to sell $17 or $18 million versus $9 or $10 million

[42:29] for the police station bonds. Now with a second issuance of bonds, one of the benefits of that is it

[42:38] that was shortened the repayment period by a year.

[42:42] One of the scenarios is assuming a 30 or 30 year total payback.

[42:46] So the second scenario is issued over 29 years.

[42:49] That does reduce the amount of interest.

[42:50] It's one last year of compounding interest.

[42:52] So there are a little bit of savings there.

[42:54] But there's also a cost that there's an interest rate risk

[42:58] component to it, because it interest rates continued rise.

[43:01] Then you could potentially incur additional cost on the second one.

[43:08] and we quantify what that is in a couple of slides.

[43:13] So the summary of two issues scenarios.

[43:15] So we're comparing scenarios three and four to scenario two,

[43:18] because both scenarios three and four also carry

[43:21] the villages contribution from reserves.

[43:24] So we're assuming the $8 million across all of this scenarios.

[43:28] Same net proceeds, just the only difference is scenario three,

[43:32] assumes a 30-year payback total.

[43:34] So it's the same as scenarios one and two.

[43:36] scenario for is a little bit unique. What we did was we shortened the 20-27 financing to 20 years

[43:46] and the reason for doing that is it lowers the the overall cost of borrowing on the second

[43:51] issuance, but it does create a higher payment in those initial 20 years. So the trade-off is

[43:59] lower borrowing costs, lower amount of debt service, but less capacity on the operating

[44:07] side to be able to let you those dollars, because the payments will be about $65,000

[44:12] higher for those first 20 years.

[44:18] Why is the, sorry, but why is the tax slightly higher for a certain area with 3 and 4 on

[44:23] the 26-pondage?

[44:26] Yeah, so I think it might be actually easier to explain in this slide, because what it is,

[44:35] it's the lower borrowing that the lower amount of the borrowing, the cost of issuance

[44:42] are a little bit higher on a per bond basis, as well as how the bonds are being amortized.

[44:49] So the 20s, 26 bonds, because you are not, you're leaving capacity for that second scenario.

[44:58] The average life is a little bit longer.

[45:00] We're on the 26 financing. It's not by much. It's about 0.04%. But that slight difference is creating just a slightly higher

[45:10] true interest cost.

[45:15] So again, focusing on the graph for the two issues scenario. So that the 2026 financing in this case is the light blue bars, the green bars are the 2027 scenario.

[45:29] So in this case, the 2027 bonds are repaid over 29 years,

[45:33] and the payment is maintained completely level.

[45:36] The average payments about 2.5 million,

[45:39] so the average levy for the village on an annual basis

[45:42] would be 2.5 million for 30 years.

[45:44] And what that equates to is about 18 and a half

[45:47] million on proceeds.

[45:51] Your total debt service is also about $1.5 million less

[45:55] than scenario two.

[45:57] In the upper left hand column, we provided a break

[46:00] even analysis. So again, the phasing reduces interest cost, but it does allow for interest rate

[46:06] risk. Interest rates would have to increase by 65 basis points on the 2027 scenario for

[46:12] the village to be worse off doing the two issuances versus the one. Keeping in mind what

[46:18] interest rates have done in 2026, that may not be a tradeoff that the village is interested

[46:23] in.

[46:27] Any questions on scenario three? Yeah.

[46:29] So the recent bid increase was a quarter point, right?

[46:33] The recent increases since February, depending on which maturity you looked at, it could

[46:41] be a lot higher.

[46:43] The Fed funds rate went up a quarter point.

[46:48] And you mentioned the beginning of your presentation that there was a 50-something percent

[46:54] chance of another one still this year, and 70-something next year.

[46:58] 75% chance for a second fed rate increase by January of 27 years.

[47:06] Is that reasonable to think each of those might be a quarter point as well?

[47:12] Not necessarily because there's two different ends to the yields curve.

[47:17] And what the fed rate controls is ultimately the short end to the yield curve.

[47:21] So you're looking at the one in the two-year treachery.

[47:23] are most impacted and one or two year M&Ds, which is the municipal market data index.

[47:31] And that's what tax exempt bonds price, too.

[47:33] So those are going to be most impacted by changes in the fed rate.

[47:38] What the long-term yields are actually going to react to is how the market perceives the feds'

[47:46] But my question was, if there were two additional fed funds rate increases in all likelihood

[47:53] be a quarter point, and then the question mark would be, how is a long term market react to

[47:58] that? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

[48:02] And so my short answer to that is long-term interest rates may not move at all. And we might

[48:07] just see the yield curve continue to flatten and long-term interest rates would remain where

[48:11] they are. It's more difficult to predict what will happen on the longer end of the yield

[48:18] curve because things can change so dynamically so quickly. But I would just go back to the

[48:24] fact that when the Fed took action last week, the 30 year treasury was 5.4%. It's currently

[48:32] at 5.29%. So the markets actually perceived the Fed's action as positive step to combating

[48:39] inflation. The long-term prognosis of that is interest rates actually come down a little bit.

[48:45] So you can see interest rates move up on the short end of the occur, but actually come back down on the long end.

[48:52] So then this 0.65 breakeven number on the long side of the long side, which require a heck of a lot of short term increases probably above and beyond what is clearly being expected.

[49:04] Well, that would be a 65 basis point increase from where we are current.

[49:07] So, it would require additional, additional inflation, perception that the Fed isn't necessarily taking an action.

[49:17] If they cut, it could cause it.

[49:19] Correct.

[49:20] If the Fed takes incorrect action as the market perceives,

[49:23] if that could have an impact, escalation and war additional debt taken on as far as the deficit goes.

[49:34] tariffs can have an impact on long-term interest rates as well as short-term interest rates.

[49:39] There's a number of factors that impact long-term interest rates, but I think the big key is the short-term interest rates are impacted by inflation now in the Fed's actions.

[49:50] Long-term interest rates are impacted by perception and how the economy is perceived.

[50:03] So the final scenario for the village's consideration this evening is the two-phase scenario

[50:12] where the 2027 bonds are amortized over 20 years.

[50:18] And this scenario was included for consideration because it mitigates interest costs, so it

[50:27] reduces interest costs further by shortening the borrowing and also further mitigates interest rate risk

[50:33] because you're looking at a shorter time span for which the bonds are paid back. So it's less sensitive

[50:39] to market movement. The upside scenario is the lower interest cost, the downside scenario is

[50:46] it's about $65,000 per year more in those first 20 years. So those are dollars that the village

[50:52] that it's $65,000 closer to the target level of 3.75.

[50:57] So it's $65,000 a year less for the road home project.

[51:03] As far as what that means though for bonding capacity,

[51:08] it's relatively unchanged.

[51:10] It's slightly improved to 18.8 versus 18.5.

[51:15] There's less interest in the short term,

[51:17] but if the village were to borrow again in the future,

[51:21] you're back and loading those bonds as well.

[51:23] So you're paying a slightly higher interest cost than a sort of future debt, above the current

[51:29] 2.55 million dollar threshold.

[51:40] Any questions on the bonds?

[51:42] Otherwise, we're going to look at how the bonds and the reserve funding impact.

[51:48] What's a great question?

[51:49] What is that pre-pity provisions of the bonds?

[51:53] So most municipal bonds are sold with an eight to a 10-year call option.

[51:57] currently the bonds are assuming a nine-year call option, one aspect of the bond

[52:06] issue is that we could consider is adding or pushing the call option back a

[52:11] year to the lower the interest rate. It wouldn't have a significant impact

[52:17] at the overall interest rate. It would be a very modest change, but a later call

[52:23] would give you a slightly lower pickup front as far as what

[52:30] What is standard in the market? Eight to ten years is pretty standard.

[52:37] I have one question before we go to the moody's issues. The $8 million in our reserve fund is presumably

[52:44] not laying follow. We're investing it, right? And so if we use $8 million for the bonds, we are

[52:53] saving interest on the bonds, but we're giving up the investment earnings on what is now

[52:59] in the Reserve Fund and it is vested presumably at a rate much higher than the bond rate

[53:05] because we would invest in taxables as opposed to tax exempt.

[53:12] It would be close. So we're looking at a 30 year tax exempt interest rate

[53:16] of about 5.1%, the one year U.S. Treasury is hovering just north of 4%.

[53:24] But correct, especially if the Fed continues to increase short-term interest rates,

[53:29] It's going to increase your liquid rate that you could invest that.

[53:34] So there is an opportunity cost to that.

[53:36] So is that factored into your decision about whether the $8 million saves us?

[53:44] It's not factored into the current analysis now.

[53:49] I have a question then.

[53:51] Is arguably very foolish as somebody who is not a bond person, which is why I'm glad that

[53:56] we have you, somebody who is.

[53:59] I mean, I think it's fair to say that we're in a relatively high interest rate environment

[54:04] at least compared to the last 10 or 12 years, right, correct?

[54:09] Is there a mechanism where 10 years into this, as opposed to, you know, just paying everything

[54:16] off, essentially refinancing these, is that something that can be done, you know, if interest

[54:23] rates are at 2% 10 years from now or 5 years from now, is that an option for us to

[54:28] to then lower this total amount that we would have to pay back.

[54:35] So I believe it was trustee Shepherd that asked the question earlier about a redemption or pre-payment option to this.

[54:42] And so municipal bonds are unlike your mortgage where you can refinance them any year in which interest rates decrease.

[54:50] There's investment investor protections that are built into bond issuances.

[54:54] and so those investor protections are typically 8 to 10 years, meaning that the bonds have

[54:59] to be outstanding at their current interest rate for a period of at least 8 to 10 years.

[55:04] A longer call option, some more investor protection typically lowers the interest rate

[55:11] a little bit shorter, you're going to increase that interest rate, because the investor requires

[55:15] that call protection.

[55:17] From the villages standpoint, though, that means that after 9 or 10 years, we would

[55:22] able to refinance these bonds at tax exempt interest rates if the interest rate and

[55:28] environment at that time cooperates and their savings.

[55:33] Okay, thanks.

[55:37] Other questions?

[55:38] Before we talk about the rating score current?

[55:42] All right.

[55:42] Perfect.

[55:43] So recently in August, Moody's underwent what is considered to be a basically a credit metric update

[55:52] for the village. And what they did was they input into their proprietary scorecard, the

[55:59] village's metrics, measuring the village's credit rating on four different criteria,

[56:05] the economy, financial performance, leverage, and fixed costs. And so the scorecard was not

[56:13] a surveillance. It wasn't an update to the village's credit rating. Although the village has part

[56:20] the bonds would have to go undergo a formal credit rating process, so that would be updated in a couple

[56:27] months here next month, actually. When we go to price these bonds,

[56:35] but what Moody's did do is

[56:37] provide an update to the scorecard. They didn't assign a rating, they didn't provide what the output

[56:43] of their scorecard would provide if they had to indicate a rating for the village.

[56:50] So this was just an update of the metrics, but what they did provide was the medians for

[56:56] other AAA rated issuers nationally that that moody's considers to be worthy of the

[57:15] economic scores are incredibly high.

[57:20] So the economic score is really the strength of the village's credit score card.

[57:26] Conversely, what we're going to look at in a couple slides is the financial performance.

[57:31] So we're going to look at the fund balance ratios as well as leverage to see how the debt

[57:38] and the contribution of cash reserves may change these cards.

[57:44] We at PMA have kind of recreated moody scorecard.

[57:47] We feel like it's pretty accurate and compares well

[57:51] to how moody's evaluates the village.

[57:56] So what we did was we took the moody score

[57:59] and we actually input it into the credit rating scorecard.

[58:02] So the way that this scorecard works is if you're reading it

[58:05] left to right. You can see the four financial performance of valuation metrics. And then at the top,

[58:12] you'll observe that there is four different credit rating categories. There's actually more

[58:17] than four, but I cut off the bottom too because there's no reason to share those with the village.

[58:23] You're more focused on the left side. So the economy scores are based off of residential income,

[58:29] full value per capita, which is your income as well as a normalizing factor for Cook County.

[58:35] as well as economic growth, which is a proprietary calculation that Moody's does, that we copy, is part of this analysis, so we're holding that flat.

[58:47] Your financial performance is based off of your available fund balance ratio, which is looking at your fund balance in your governmental, your business, and you're not operating funds divided by your total available revenues.

[58:58] The liquidity ratio is a very similar calculation, but it's just looking at cash and investments.

[59:04] The institutional framework, we don't need to necessarily talk about because it's not going

[59:08] to change, but you're assigned a score of one if you are a home rule, municipal unit

[59:15] of government, three if you're non-homeral.

[59:17] The reason that they assign a score for that, as you're aware, home rule units of government

[59:21] have the ability to increase revenues, increase taxes, manage rates in a way that non-homal units

[59:28] of government do not.

[59:29] So the goal ultimately of this scorecard is the score of the lowest amount of points I suppose possible.

[59:38] And so being assigned a one for your institutional framework, which is 10% of your overall score, is ideal.

[59:46] And then your last credit reading criteria is leverage.

[59:49] And that's what's looking at your long-term liabilities in your fixed cost ratio.

[59:53] So what's built into the long-term liabilities ratio is debt and opath liability.

[1:00:00] Those are the two main categories, so your bonds, your IPA loans, your notes, that's factored

[1:00:07] in, plus your liability on your pension. The fixed cost ratio below that, factors in

[1:00:14] a implied debt service, which is a moody's calculation that normalizes your bonds outstanding

[1:00:20] over a 20 year average payment, as well as your contributions, though. So it's not looking at your

[1:00:32] And what the result of the calculation spit out is a overall score of 1.47, which if you're

[1:00:41] looking at the bottom bar puts you at the very end of the triple A category.

[1:00:47] And so again, the strength, economy, and tax base, your economic, your residential income

[1:00:52] scores 228%.

[1:00:55] That puts you double the minimum threshold for triple A of 120 percent assigned by mooties.

[1:01:04] That is the highest score in the state that I'm aware of.

[1:01:08] In terms of the mooties, triple A median average, the national average for a triple A

[1:01:14] issue is 168%. So the village is well above the residential income levels.

[1:01:20] Your economic growth score slightly below, but your full value per capital, which is a normalizing

[1:01:27] calculation again with Coup County, is still well above the median value.

[1:01:32] It speaks to the resident income because that's part of that calculation.

[1:01:37] Your fund balance ratios are within the triple A metric, and in fact, when you were

[1:01:43] last rated actually, your fund balance ratio was, I believe, 39%.

[1:01:48] So when we take a look at what changes to your calculation,

[1:01:52] your current fund balance ratio is 50 to 0.28%.

[1:01:55] When you were last rated you were 39%.

[1:01:57] You were still triple A.

[1:01:59] You were in the triple A category,

[1:02:00] but your fund balance position is actually

[1:02:02] a lot stronger than it was, even the last time

[1:02:05] that you had a full credit rating done by booties.

[1:02:11] Where the village differentiates from the other triple A

[1:02:14] issue is, is leveraged.

[1:02:16] So your long-term liability's ratio is 291%.

[1:02:19] that puts you in the moderate category. So that puts you in that single A underlying category, or leverage.

[1:02:29] And what Moody's looks at ultimately for any credit is do you have the ability to be able to

[1:02:38] repay your debt? Well, the answer for the villages is clearly yes because of your economy scores.

[1:02:44] So, from a qualitative perspective, the village is very strong.

[1:02:49] But what we're going to see in a few seconds

[1:02:52] is with additional debt and with a contribution

[1:02:56] of fund balance, the 1.47 score is going to come down

[1:03:00] and that's going to put you on the other side

[1:03:02] of that triple A to double A benchmark.

[1:03:05] And so, what the next slide has

[1:03:08] is a couple of different scenarios.

[1:03:10] and we've broken it down into three pools.

[1:03:14] The first is, what is the impact of the 8 million dollar drawdown

[1:03:18] on your cash reserves and your liquidity ratios?

[1:03:21] And so if we assume an 8 million dollar drawdown

[1:03:24] that decreases your fund balance without any sort of assumed changes

[1:03:28] they've revenues to a ratio of 41% and 47% respectively.

[1:03:33] That is still within the AAA metric.

[1:03:36] So it is still strong from a fund balance perspective.

[1:03:40] It does though impact the weighting of the score.

[1:03:44] So on the prior slide, the unweighted score was 0.5 and 0.61.

[1:03:50] Now your score, which is circled in green, is 1.08 and 1.13.

[1:03:56] I tried to color coordinate the boxes to the scores that were changing.

[1:04:01] The overall impact to your score is a change of 0.16,

[1:04:05] which increases your score from 1.47 to 1.63, putting you in that double A1 that

[1:04:12] high end of the double A1 category.

[1:04:17] Keep in mind that this is an estimate and that

[1:04:19] Moody's has a committee that is ultimately going to decide what your readings are.

[1:04:23] This is just their scorecard. So this is just the part of the analysis that doesn't

[1:04:28] indicate or mean that the village is going to be downgraded. And all likelihood where

[1:04:34] the village was in 2020 is similar to where the score is currently at 1.63, because the

[1:04:41] fun balance ratio was lower at that time. The liability may have also been lower because

[1:04:47] the storm water bonds had not been issued, so your long-term light abilities ratio was also

[1:04:54] likely lower, but keep in mind that oftentimes when we're analyzing score cards and we look at

[1:05:04] rating the issue or ultimately receives, the scorecard rating and the actual rating don't always match.

[1:05:14] So this is just the tool that it goes in front of the committee, but it is not what ultimately

[1:05:18] decides what your credit rating is. Just want to make sure that it's clear. In just a doubt, I think

[1:05:25] When we maybe 2009, 2010, I mean, when our reserve level was down to $3 million, like on a

[1:05:33] shoe string, we were still able to obtain that AAA rating. Do we, do we know what the

[1:05:40] scorecard was then? Okay. But I will say having one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest

[1:05:50] residents and comes in the state is going to make it a challenging conversation I think for the

[1:05:58] committee to ultimately downgrade the village.

[1:06:02] If it were to be downgrade a one, what would be the

[1:06:06] impact on our goal? I am glad you asked that because I wrote that down. So the impact per $1 million

[1:06:18] dollars of proceeds would be about $875, $875 on an annual

[1:06:24] levy basis.

[1:06:24] This is for $1 million of proceeds and about $27,000 in total

[1:06:29] debt service over 30 years.

[1:06:33] Pretty minimal.

[1:06:37] So that would be assuming that we did the two phase bond, correct?

[1:06:44] Because it doesn't, so this is what only be then on the second piece of it, right?

[1:06:51] You could issue $32 million this year, and that would be a one-phase issuance.

[1:06:57] So this is assuming that you can contribute $8 million of cash.

[1:07:02] So the only variable here is the 8 million, so I take in the 8 million from cash and

[1:07:08] in to reduce debt, it has having a negative net effect and causing a richest rates to go out.

[1:07:16] So then you'd have to look at that total cost against what Trustee Kennedy mentioned about the

[1:07:22] opportunity costs and look at the net of what how to make that decision on the thing.

[1:07:30] I just think before I think the biggest cautionary statement I can make, because I think Jason is doing a phenomenal job of really locking you through the nitty gritty of these scorecards.

[1:07:42] Is it just because it's showing us on the scorecard going from Triple A to Double A? It doesn't mean our rating has now been downgraded and that our interest rates are more.

[1:07:51] I just want to make sure that that isn't what you walk away with on this.

[1:07:56] You are correct.

[1:07:57] It's a $32 million response whether we do it in one part or two parts.

[1:08:01] That's not this.

[1:08:02] It's just trying to tell us what's the impact of using 8 million of reserves.

[1:08:07] But remember, this is saying, no other changes have happened.

[1:08:11] So everything else on the scorecard is the same as this last one we did.

[1:08:15] So it's just saying you took it from that last one.

[1:08:18] You took off $8 million and then you added $32 million worth of debt in one year or at one time.

[1:08:26] But it's not, I guess I really don't want you to think that because we issued $32 million,

[1:08:31] we're now going to get downgraded and really the cost of this is going to go up.

[1:08:38] It could, but what I think, what I'm hoping you walk away with,

[1:08:43] the scorecard is showing that we're actually in theory can move down. However, we're still close

[1:08:50] to the AAA. I don't have the scorecards from in years past, but I think President Plunkett

[1:08:57] was trying to remind us again, when the village issued in the 2008-2009, our fun balance was

[1:09:06] dismal to say the least. And the rating agencies talk to us again and again and again. Your fun balance

[1:09:12] is really low and that was probably the biggest issue they had with us being a AAA. We have built

[1:09:21] our fun balance up. It is not anything like it used to be before. So I'm going to bet that if we could

[1:09:28] look at those scorecards from the past we're going to see that we weren't on a scorecard basis

[1:09:32] a triple A, but they didn't have scorecards like this just, you know, we weren't to triple

[1:09:36] A. We would have fallen into a double A category, but because the wealth of the village

[1:09:42] and other things that we were doing, we were still considered a triple A. So this is just

[1:09:47] looking at a microcosm of that way that they assign our rating. It's one piece. This doesn't

[1:09:54] tell us what our rating is going to be.

[1:09:56] Would we know, would we have benefit of that information before we made the $8 million call?

[1:10:05] Here's what I can tell you. I can tell you what we were rated when we did that.

[1:10:09] And I can tell you what our fund balance numbers were at that time.

[1:10:14] Before we did this.

[1:10:16] Oh, the scorecard.

[1:10:19] So we'll get our bond rating before we issue the data.

[1:10:22] Oh, absolutely.

[1:10:22] So, if we were disappointed with our rating, we could then make the decision of whether to keep the $8 million cash or to put it close today.

[1:10:33] Yeah, absolutely.

[1:10:33] I would say there is Mr. having that absolute debt and depending on the short term interest rate to be in our benefit.

[1:10:42] It's a short-term interest rates fell to zero in three months that debt is out there for at least nine years.

[1:10:50] Just so, you know, there is an inherent to that that would factor in all of this, would you agree with that?

[1:10:56] Yes, I would.

[1:10:57] Let's go up to it.

[1:11:00] Well, it's really complicated to look backwards.

[1:11:02] Because I don't remember what I was doing on the board.

[1:11:05] I don't know what the liabilities were, but I don't think there's as much concern about pension liabilities in 2007.

[1:11:11] I think it's just a whole lot of variables, I think we're just up to base it on what's going on today and not what happened to the path.

[1:11:24] And our measures are, you know, I mean, thank we were at this 3.75 in interest cost.

[1:11:30] You know, not too long ago, you know, so we know where we were with all of that reserve gone offsets and then in interest rates of gone offsets, so that's a lot of factor.

[1:11:42] I'm going to phrase it this way.

[1:11:46] We're trying to help answer what is a complex question that she had and it really was being driven by the conversation that we were having in terms of the needs for the water fund.

[1:11:56] And as we layer on all that additional debt, what could it mean in the scorecard, which is really the next slide that Jason's going to get to.

[1:12:03] In this one, I'm going to tell you the walk away I had after Jason put this together, is that the police station isn't the one that would be a tipping point potentially for our ratings.

[1:12:15] It's not.

[1:12:16] Nor in my mind is the eight million.

[1:12:18] That's not what a tipping point is going to be for us.

[1:12:21] The next slide, I think, is where we can talk about what might be a tipping point.

[1:12:26] But if there is a tipping point, think of what the other question that was already answered.

[1:12:32] What does that mean if we went from a triple A to a double A?

[1:12:35] What does that mean for us?

[1:12:37] So we had that answer.

[1:12:38] It's on a 1 million, it's 27,000.

[1:12:42] It's a whole issue.

[1:12:44] Yes, over 30 years.

[1:12:45] Yes, over 30 years, she wins.

[1:12:46] It's just not that much.

[1:12:50] It's to minimize in some ways.

[1:12:51] I just, in terms of a game changer, in terms of how you might want to think about things.

[1:12:56] It reminds me whether and how much we are planning on issuing bonds for the water.

[1:13:09] Okay.

[1:13:12] So we, that's over a couple of different issuances.

[1:13:17] So it's roughly right now.

[1:13:19] I think the last time we looked at is around 50 million.

[1:13:21] So there's 22, 22, and I think a 3 million issuance.

[1:13:24] But that you actually teed us up for this next slide.

[1:13:28] I know I didn't know if I was jumping a hand.

[1:13:30] I didn't.

[1:13:31] Because I had Jason, he went through the deck.

[1:13:33] We watched the meeting again.

[1:13:35] So that's what informed now this next slide.

[1:13:37] So I'm going to let you get to that one.

[1:13:39] Thank you.

[1:13:42] So I'm going to jump to the next slide.

[1:13:45] But I did just want to briefly mention so that the right box,

[1:13:49] so that the dark blue, that is for just the police station financing.

[1:13:52] So increasing, based off a $32 million issue and keep in mind too, if you don't do the cash reserves that increases the borrowing amounts of $41 million or $40 million, I guess it would be $39.9, that would increase the borrowing amount by $8 million, so that does if you don't contribute on the cash side of things that does increase your long-term liabilities as well.

[1:14:16] But the ratio increases from about 294% to 334%.

[1:14:22] So you're maintaining where you've currently

[1:14:24] with the moderate debt burden on the long term liabilities.

[1:14:29] The last slide on the moody score cards that we've put together

[1:14:33] is incorporating, as Ms. Mulay said,

[1:14:37] the additional water-related projects.

[1:14:40] So from your capital improvement planning, you did last week,

[1:14:45] We estimated about 50 million additional bonds over the next three years that when I say bonds that also includes the IEPA loans so both are included as part of the calculation.

[1:14:58] I think that's important to note.

[1:15:00] Even though the IEPA loans may come at a zero-inter� rate or a low-inter� rate, there's still

[1:15:06] part of the debt calculation that Moody's analysts. And so the big difference here, and then

[1:15:15] we net off the anticipated bond payments that the village is estimated to make over the next

[1:15:20] three years. So we came to us about 75 million of additional debt over the next three years. And

[1:15:28] Ultimately, the biggest change between the two slides is that it pushes your long-term

[1:15:33] liability ratio up to about 394 percent, which pushes you out of the moderate category

[1:15:39] to the weekend, and that's what pushes you into that triple B, there would be double A category

[1:15:44] for duties.

[1:15:48] The just to note, when we, if we were to fund the water intake with an IEPA loan, our

[1:15:54] bond rating doesn't matter.

[1:15:55] The IEPA interests rates are set, irrespective of bond rating.

[1:15:58] So that has no impact on our debt service related to the water intake, assuming we get the

[1:16:03] low interest loan.

[1:16:03] So that would be then for the next capital debt issues we would make in however many years

[1:16:08] after we do the intake, this is where this could come through.

[1:16:12] So let's go ahead and ask the IPA loans would be partnered with increased revenues associated

[1:16:23] or at least we've discussed increasing revenues to match those additional costs from our

[1:16:31] water customers. Correct. Does Moody's take that into consideration? They do, so that's the

[1:16:38] denominator as part of the long term liabilities ratio. And that is something that we did

[1:16:42] not factor into this analysis, so I did want to point up that is conservative for that reason.

[1:16:47] revenues are not increased as part of the analysis, so we're not increasing that the

[1:16:52] nominator in the calculation. It's a big number. It is. Correct.

[1:16:58] Well, I'm just, the, that number isn't just, well, not revenues. It's mostly our wholesale customers.

[1:17:06] So, I mean, as we found out at the meeting two weeks ago, it's not the water intake that is going to cost us any money.

[1:17:14] You know, maybe the led service line certainly in our water mains, but the water intake at least,

[1:17:20] you know, 75% of our water customers come from outside of Womads.

[1:17:27] But this move is really care.

[1:17:28] I mean, this because we have the right to raise taxes unlimited.

[1:17:34] And we have an absolute community.

[1:17:36] I don't know that they really care about other sources of revenue as much as they do.

[1:17:40] Our ability to tax.

[1:17:42] But if we're already planning that we're going to tax, so we're matching the increased cost

[1:17:47] with increased revenue.

[1:17:48] It wouldn't be taxing to be increasing out of fees, but-

[1:17:52] It's an additional revenue, still off-set the additional cost.

[1:17:56] And it's really just the kind of concept that we've increased our geo-lending, but not

[1:18:03] in our costs.

[1:18:04] And our price revenues are business activity revenues.

[1:18:08] There's our considered revenues as part of the calculation.

[1:18:11] So that is in the analysis or it's not included in the analysis and the score curve provided, but it would be part of Moody's criteria.

[1:18:20] And this is pretty much an enterprise fund for you.

[1:18:25] As you're raising that question, I'm just going to caution again.

[1:18:30] This is really in the weeds.

[1:18:32] Well, if this is a great conversation, this is in the weeds.

[1:18:36] This scorecard is trying to give you some sense of what could it mean as moody takes a look at us.

[1:18:44] But remember when Jason started this, he told you that the economy piece, that's left.

[1:18:49] When we issue these water bonds, we take on additional debt.

[1:18:53] That didn't increase. We're not, we're not guessing what's going to happen over the next four years.

[1:18:57] Some of these other factors, we're not guessing what's going on over the next four years.

[1:19:01] To your point, the revenue is in fact, or it's trying to say, let's take the last time they just did the surveillance.

[1:19:09] Let's make some tweaks in terms of using the reserves and in terms of adding debt.

[1:19:15] What would that have done to the scorecard at that point in time?

[1:19:20] It's to get you to sort of think about how it could impact the scorecard.

[1:19:25] But this is going to change during the course of the time that we're going to be layering on that additional data.

[1:19:31] So, as Jason phrase to conservative, you can call it conservative, you can call it, kind of a worst case scenario because really what I'm going to tell you what concerns me the most is the last bullet point in the box that Jason is going to tell you about.

[1:19:46] That's the one where I really think over the course of time it is out of our control.

[1:19:52] That's when it's going to be a big zinger if it happens, but I'll let Jason tell you.

[1:19:56] And so, because your long-term liabilities include a calculation of your pension liability,

[1:20:04] currently that the state's considering changes to the state or the tier 2 pension liability calculation.

[1:20:13] And if, because tier 2 pensions currently are lagging behind social security based off of the state's analysis.

[1:20:20] And if that were to go into effect, if the state were to make that change, what that would mean is it increased to your current pension liability, which is going to further drive up your long-term liabilities ratio.

[1:20:35] And that's something that's largely out of the village's control.

[1:20:38] I know Ms. Benoit has some figures that can quantify what that impact will be to the village.

[1:20:46] But keep in mind that that's also not something that's indicated in this scorecard and could potentially be coming in the near future.

[1:20:55] And obviously that's, you know, discussions that we've been having with Springfield, but just to clarify.

[1:21:02] I think the thing that you said, the Tier 2 Municipal Pensions are not below the Social Security.

[1:21:08] This is just that the tier two pensions for state teachers and state workers, but I think we've got the calculations that the municipal pensions do not go below the social security.

[1:21:26] Thank you.

[1:21:27] To say forever.

[1:21:28] They don't.

[1:21:29] To say forever.

[1:21:37] Be additional.

[1:21:40] Thoughts questions on the scorecards.

[1:21:42] Otherwise, we're going to jump to.

[1:21:45] Reserves.

[1:21:51] So just as we've had our conversation here over the reserve level,

[1:21:54] just to give a refresher to the board on where we are at for our general fund.

[1:22:00] Our water fund soon on the floor.

[1:22:02] focus me in the here on the general fund side is that in 2026 our starting balance is around

[1:22:08] $25 million. 55% which is about 25% above our target level of 30%. Looking at our projected

[1:22:19] urine balance we expect to be around $22 million. This still leaves our projected urine balance

[1:22:25] around 49%, which is still round.

[1:22:30] Roughly 20% above our target level and 25% above our minimum. So our minimum range is 25% in our target levels 30%.

[1:22:41] So just to give the board a sense of where we what we've discussed in the past about that comfort level of what reserve amount we wanted to utilize to potentially offset a portion of this issuance

[1:22:54] that amount above our target is around $8.5 million presently and about $10.8 million

[1:23:00] above what our minimum is of 25%. So I'm just wanted to provide that context as we've

[1:23:07] talked about where we're at comparatively to our researchers.

[1:23:11] It's a small grid that projected year in balance. Is that reflected? Is that what we said

[1:23:16] at the beginning of the year based on expectations or is that based on actual performance

[1:23:20] So that is based upon our expected performance.

[1:23:23] So that includes things like the purchase of the $2.1 million dollar ladder truck.

[1:23:28] It includes all of our additional revenue.

[1:23:30] So it factors in everything through our performance through eight months plus expectations

[1:23:37] through the remaining four months of the year.

[1:23:39] Okay, thank you.

[1:23:40] And it is we're looking at these numbers.

[1:23:42] Should we be focusing on that, you know, looking at the projected year and bounds,

[1:23:48] There's the 22.15 million for general fund, but there's also another eight and another five roughly for water and sewer.

[1:23:57] Should we be looking at all of those or really just the general fund as we are making this decision?

[1:24:03] For the purpose of this issue in this discussion, we'd be focusing on the general fund as we're talking about other future issuances or what we do for IEP loans.

[1:24:12] We would focus on the discussion a little bit more maybe on the water fund, but for the intent of this, it's mainly on the general fund.

[1:24:20] Are we allowed, you know, if we have whatever reason, an unusually high reserve in the water fund to transfer that to the general fund?

[1:24:32] Are we allowed to do that?

[1:24:33] Yes, it's done by ordinance by the board.

[1:24:35] We do it.

[1:24:36] We do it.

[1:24:36] Okay.

[1:24:38] But like a million dollars a year, we transferred from the water fund to the general.

[1:24:43] And there was, once upon a time our sewer fund was in the negative, so we transferred,

[1:24:47] I think it was from the water fund to the sewer fund, get it back to where it needed to be.

[1:24:58] Just laying out here, we were just looking at what these different scenarios do.

[1:25:03] If we were to utilize $8 million in reserves, or if we were to utilize $10 million of reserves,

[1:25:08] and what those, that impact would be on the general fund.

[1:25:11] So basically looking at the impact on our target reserve level and our minimum reserve level.

[1:25:17] So as we kind of just walk through, if we were to utilize $8 million in reserves, that

[1:25:22] would bring us down on our here at balance.

[1:25:26] We would still be over our target reserve level, and we would be about $2.8 million above

[1:25:32] our minimum reserve level.

[1:25:35] Additionally, if we were to utilize $10 million in reserves, we would follow our target

[1:25:41] reserve level about $1.4 million, but we would still be above our minimum reserve level,

[1:25:47] but by about $800,000. So it's just giving you that context of where depending on that range

[1:25:52] of $8 to $10 million of reserve usage, we would still fall within that minimum to target level

[1:26:00] range for in accordance with our reserve policy. And I think it's just helpful to kind of talk

[1:26:06] about what builds up our reserves and, you know, it's a lot of our larger development projects

[1:26:14] of which we have a couple in the hike.

[1:26:19] So, you know, those are, you know, we can't count on those, but that's when we do have those,

[1:26:23] that's when, you know, our reserve gets built up.

[1:26:26] That's part of it, and I think also a lot of our economic development has increased our sales

[1:26:30] tax performance throughout 20, especially within 2026, as we've seen,

[1:26:36] Plezzadellago and Ian's Plezzade businesses continue to come out of line

[1:26:40] and we've seen a lot of positive performance in those locations, and those

[1:26:45] exceeded our 2026 budget expectations.

[1:26:49] So those additional dollars are going into that reserve.

[1:26:53] So I think it's a combination of those large one-time cash infusions from

[1:26:58] projects, but also some of our ongoing study projects that we're doing a better job of budgeting

[1:27:04] for in 2027, but we are seeing a very positive impact in 2026.

[1:27:20] So I'm going to take a moment to sort of wrap up some of what we've talked about with this

[1:27:25] presentation and I'll go through the timeline. So here's some of again the things that I'm hoping

[1:27:29] you take away. First off, let's think about again what how we started the presentation which was

[1:27:36] talk about the market. So the market is moving away from us for the reasons that Jason was talking

[1:27:42] about. Why is that important to us? Well, it's important because you want to know what kind of

[1:27:46] a market that we're walking into. And remember, we're not about timing the market because we don't

[1:27:51] have a crystal ball. We want to be aware of it, though, because it might inform how we go about issuing

[1:27:58] the debt. That was then the next part of the presentation. So Jason showed you what does it look like

[1:28:04] if we do one issuance and we don't do any reserves.

[1:28:07] That's what we call the baseline.

[1:28:10] What happened, though, in the baseline, is that since we started looking at this project

[1:28:16] and thinking about how we could finance it, we didn't know we were going to get a 500,000

[1:28:21] grant that we did from the state, which was great.

[1:28:25] We didn't know we were going to have some proceeds left over from an older issuance that

[1:28:30] we were going to be able to reallocate.

[1:28:32] So that then helped reduce the amount that we were going to need to issue.

[1:28:37] So that baseline number and the finance committee members are going to know about this.

[1:28:41] It's changed over time as some other financing opportunities have presented themselves.

[1:28:46] So it kind of then left the question still, what would the village potentially want to do

[1:28:52] with reserves in terms of utilizing that?

[1:28:54] The eight million dollar number, I think you kind of know why we keep looking at that because

[1:28:59] is Eric just walked through that reserve number.

[1:29:01] that's above our target numbers, but it wasn't just from that, that kind of started helping the committee look at that number.

[1:29:09] One of the other reasons why we did is that trusty Shepherd had asked PMA to do an analysis for us,

[1:29:15] gets back to that scorecard, which is complex to say, given the best that we can kind of think about in terms of how moodies would look at us.

[1:29:24] What might be the break even point?

[1:29:26] I'm just a fun balance shift in terms of what it might mean.

[1:29:31] So we did that homework with PMA and we kind of came to the $8 million.

[1:29:37] So we've looked at it a couple different ways but that's why we keep looking at $8 million

[1:29:42] and reserves that we might want to use.

[1:29:45] The other piece in trustee Leonard you helped today to remind us why are we talking about 3.7 million

[1:29:51] when we look at that as that dotted line that's on the charts.

[1:29:54] That goes back to the trustees who were on the board when we started talking about the road program.

[1:30:00] And how are we going to afford that? We looked at our debt service schedule. We knew we had the police station that was going to happen at some point in time. The highest debt service that we had at one particular point in time was roughly 3.7 million. So we said, we knew debt was going to be rolling off. We could take that capacity that's left over on the debt service portion of the tax levy, and maybe utilize that on the operating site, just to accomplish the road program.

[1:30:30] policies that we have put in place, and we had assumed at that point in time what the

[1:30:35] debt service might be for the police station. There was a number that we came up with,

[1:30:40] I think it was about 1.2 million, that we thought on an annual basis, we would be able to roll that

[1:30:45] into the road program to, again, accomplish what we wanted to do there and still be able to afford

[1:30:52] the police station and not increase property taxes given we already had a portion of our property

[1:30:59] that was 3.7 million. That's where it came from. So when we keep looking at this analysis right now,

[1:31:05] and we say, as now we look at how we will layer in the police station, what capacity might be left over in the

[1:31:13] debt service that we can again still use, either for other projects that we need to use. So you could,

[1:31:20] that's why those bullet points are always telling you, of this capacity that's left,

[1:31:24] how much debt service can you issue, but what we've talked about before in the past is that

[1:31:29] access capacity, whatever it is, we're going to roll it into the road program.

[1:31:33] That was why we came up with that 3.75.

[1:31:37] I think one of the things that you walk away from tonight's presentation is we're still

[1:31:41] going to have capacity, even though the market is moving away, we're still going to have capacity

[1:31:46] to do what we've always said we've wanted to accomplish.

[1:31:50] Here's where now it starts to be a little bit more complex.

[1:31:53] We're talking about the water.

[1:31:55] The water fund and its needs, that was what Wednesday night's meeting was about, and to your point trusty Leonard, we were saying to ourselves, okay, that's going to add a lot of debt.

[1:32:04] If it does, what could it mean to our rating?

[1:32:07] Because if a rating does affect what the cost of our issuance will be, that's one part, and today Jason told you what that could be if we shifted from a triple A to a double A, I don't think I saw anyone be offended by what that could possibly mean.

[1:32:23] I think the bigger thing is really what's going to happen with the markets and what the market might be.

[1:32:29] There was a time when we always said an issuance was going to be at least 6%.

[1:32:34] We have been fortunate, not just us, but the market itself changed in the mid-2000s, 2020-2000s.

[1:32:42] When we issued the stormwater projects to think that we issued 30-year debt for about 2%.

[1:32:49] at one point was that that could never happen.

[1:32:54] The market is starting to move more towards where it used to be at one time when I first started getting into this.

[1:33:00] The fact that we're still talking about a 5% actually is an offensive to me.

[1:33:04] It's still is actually really good.

[1:33:07] I think my hope is that you're going to walk away from this and you're going to say,

[1:33:11] Are the rating agencies going to look at us?

[1:33:13] Because we're issuing additional debt,

[1:33:15] Could it move our rating? It might, if it does, is it going to stop us from doing it because it's going to be so

[1:33:21] onerous in terms of what it might mean for additional debt? I leave that up to you, but it doesn't seem to need to be something that would stop us from doing that.

[1:33:30] I don't think it's an issue for us with the police station definitely right now. I am concerned what might happen with

[1:33:36] tensions in the future, but that's in the future. We're just letting you know it's something you need to think about.

[1:33:41] So, getting back now to what's happening in terms of this issuance, what we think we're going

[1:33:47] to do next, what we're planning to get done, is hopefully tonight you're going to improve

[1:33:50] this ordinance so we can keep moving forward.

[1:33:53] The one cautionary note I'm going to throw out there is Jason let us know when we put

[1:33:57] this ordinance together and I think a trustee might remember a conversation we had about this,

[1:34:03] five and a quarter tick on this issuance was something that I thought I'm not going to

[1:34:07] see when we do this.

[1:34:09] The market is moving in that direction. So Jason was saying, hey, when we actually go to

[1:34:13] sell these bonds, if it's the ticket's going to be more than five and a quarter,

[1:34:17] we might not be able to pull the trigger we're going to have to come back and redo the ordinance.

[1:34:22] I'm not telling you it's happening right now, but it's moving in that direction. Just it's a cautionary note.

[1:34:29] Hopefully you approve the ordinance tonight. If you do the next step that we're going to take,

[1:34:33] mid-October, we're still going to be talking to the finance committee about some of these scenarios

[1:34:38] and to, again, look at where the market is at to say, do we want to do this in one?

[1:34:43] Or does it make sense to break it apart? So that issue still needs to be answered,

[1:34:48] but I think you can see there's nuances to this. After that, the third week of October, we're going

[1:34:54] to have a ratings call with moodies and we're going to know how they think about it after that.

[1:34:58] In the first week of October, we need to publish what's called the preliminary official statement.

[1:35:04] That's what the investors are going to look at for them to make their determinations of how they view us and whether or not they are going to offer for our bonds.

[1:35:15] Because we plan to sell the bonds the second week of November and then close on this in the first week of December.

[1:35:22] Are there any questions?

[1:35:24] One small question and probably doesn't, maybe not a good question, but we have a budget for the police station that has a hefty contingency in it.

[1:35:36] And so, you know, the final number, we don't really know what that's going to be.

[1:35:41] We might have gotten some good news recently with the MWRD storage.

[1:35:45] Maybe not have to use part of the contingency for that.

[1:35:48] What does this mean we're authorizing a number we're going out to bid, but we don't have, you know, until this

[1:35:55] police station is built and they're moved in, we don't know, you know, the final number.

[1:36:00] And, you know, if there's some savings, hopefully there is.

[1:36:03] Does that matter at all in terms of like what we borrow?

[1:36:07] How much reserves we use for that?

[1:36:10] It's a great question.

[1:36:11] And that is one of the reasons why normally we even start entertaining the conversation

[1:36:18] And when we're thinking about funding these capital projects, do you want to do one issue in

[1:36:22] sort of two?

[1:36:23] Because you're trying to match, the reason why you would do two, you're really trying to

[1:36:26] match your cash flow because you have a better idea than about what the final cost we're

[1:36:31] going to be.

[1:36:32] That would go when I'm thinking about the columns of the pros and cons that would go into

[1:36:36] the column of a pro of why you would do two issuances.

[1:36:39] And that second issuance would be in the fall of 2027 because we have every reason to believe

[1:36:45] not only then if we if we did have some remaining amount of this that we wanted to do

[1:36:50] if we did it in two issuances, we'd also probably have some water projects that we're

[1:36:55] going to find.

[1:36:56] So your total issuance that the that the investor would look at is the total pot.

[1:37:00] It would be the two pieces together, even though we know we would use so much for the police

[1:37:05] station and so much for water projects.

[1:37:08] It would be another reason why you would do two issuances to the reason they could

[1:37:12] But if we don't really know to President Plunkett's question, if we don't really know what the total project cost is by December 1st or probably by some kind of ever, we did find ourselves with an extra million bucks or just whatever a year.

[1:37:30] Could those funds be reallocated to other? Yes. Yes. Yes, because that's what we've done. But it's absolutely done that very unlikely, because if we're using 8 million of reserves, it would have to be above and beyond that savings before we're talking about the allocation of the bonds in my correct.

[1:37:48] It would. Well, it would have been a bit of reserves, but it wouldn't be, we didn't.

[1:37:54] spend it on what we have planned because

[1:37:57] Chris Wollie-Barring, 30 to your point.

[1:38:01] I think what you're saying is you would use all of the bond money,

[1:38:04] and you would simply say reserves would be 8 million,

[1:38:06] and it would have been 7 million that you used.

[1:38:08] It would be good resources as we go.

[1:38:10] Yes.

[1:38:11] Yeah.

[1:38:13] If we didn't use reserves, and we were borrowing every cent,

[1:38:16] then you'd have, we've had before,

[1:38:17] we'd have the allocator sort of amount of time,

[1:38:19] and it gets, gets an issue.

[1:38:21] Yeah, and even this issue has a million

[1:38:24] to in bond funds from another insurance in the past that we're transferring to this because we're

[1:38:29] allowed to do that at the bond documents. If we didn't have that ability, it would be more

[1:38:34] troublesome, but there's a time limit too, right? There's a time limit on that. We can use

[1:38:44] for anything. Capital.

[1:38:48] Yes. They have to have a line.

[1:38:51] They have to have a line. Again, that's good.

[1:38:54] I'm reading expenses. Get a little bit more nuanced and just. Yes, okay.

[1:39:00] And we do it all the time.

[1:39:02] So tonight, you really just need direction for the bigger pot up to a number and then as we refine

[1:39:12] this and decide how much for reserve set number will likely come down and so we are going

[1:39:19] to put forth some of our reserves for this project as we've discussed for a long time.

[1:39:27] Any more questions for?

[1:39:30] Great discussion.

[1:39:32] Great discussion.

[1:39:32] There's a great discussion and you made this so much clear that I really appreciate that.

[1:39:38] hopefully people, you know who we're watching this too, like, you know, this is a little bit

[1:39:43] clear, and I'm very complex. I'm very complex again. I give a lot of things to Jason and

[1:39:49] the way that he's done. And there's still work to be done.

[1:39:54] Thank you. Thanks. All right. Since this is something that we are voting on tonight, is there

[1:39:59] any member of the public wish to make a public comment on this?

[1:40:12] Good evening, Mark

[1:40:17] voting soon on 5.21 basically borrowing $40 million dollars. They're going to vote on it here.

[1:40:26] I'm the only member of the public here. Everybody else is elected official,

[1:40:30] a village staff, or people involved in the bond issue here. So they're going to vote

[1:40:35] here shortly to borrow $40 million. Most of it's going to the police station,

[1:40:40] I guess, which is costing between $40, 50, $60 million. The police station was approved.

[1:40:46] it's been working on for years. There was no voter referendum. A lot of these things happen with voter

[1:40:51] referendum. It's kind of in the weeds. They talk about home rule and they can do this and do that.

[1:40:57] But it would have been nice to maybe vote on this. So we just had about a 45-minute discussion

[1:41:02] about how bonds work. Bonds basically are borrowing money. It's like a home mortgage. You're borrowing

[1:41:07] money against future. Here it's going to be future tax money. So probably taxes are going to go up.

[1:41:14] So I'm concerned about it, you know, I was opposed doing a police station at this point.

[1:41:19] The old police station was built in 1968, it's actually relatively new.

[1:41:23] The building we're in right now was built in 1975.

[1:41:27] So is this one going to renew a new village hall for maybe 50 million in five years?

[1:41:32] So I'm just concerned about borrowing money, we have national debt, we have Illinois debt,

[1:41:38] we have the pension crisis, Illinois, and now we're borrowing $40 million in will met.

[1:41:44] So I'm just concerned about spending money cutting taxes. Again, Mark Wiron Miller, minute 39 seconds. That's all I've got. Thank you.

[1:41:54] Seeing no one else from the public care. I'll close public comment.

[1:41:58] Any further discussion from the trustees?

[1:42:02] No, I think we got our questions out. Okay. Great. Mr. Halvin, could you please call the roll on the ordinance?

[1:42:09] Trustee London. Oh, Trustee Sheppard?

[1:42:11] Aye. Trustee Labor? Aye. Trustee Kennedy? Aye. In President Plunkett? Aye.

[1:42:16] motion approved. Thank you for all your work on this.

[1:42:23] Trustee Shepherd, anything else from the Finance Committee?

[1:42:26] Everything else is on.

[1:42:27] Okay. Administration committee, Trustee Steen, and I will take that.

[1:42:33] We have the presentation of the final draft of the Historic Preservation Plan.

[1:42:40] And I guess I will turn this over at a second.

[1:42:56] Good evening, Emily Egan, Director of Community Development.

[1:43:00] I'm very pleased to join my colleagues tonight to present a final draft of the Historic Preservation

[1:43:06] Plan.

[1:43:07] Unfortunately, Chair Perriek from the Historic Preservation Commission unexpectedly couldn't

[1:43:12] join us tonight.

[1:43:14] So I'll provide a brief overview for her slide.

[1:43:17] Then I'll turn it over to Adam Beaver, the staff liaison for the Historic Preservation Commission.

[1:43:22] And then we'll hear from Doug Carrey, from the Lakota group, and he'll talk to us about the plans phases and goals.

[1:43:34] So this plan was recommended to be developed in the Comprehensive Plan, Ready Set Will Met.

[1:43:41] As a way to protect and celebrate Will Met's historic character, the Historic Preservation Commission has been working with staff,

[1:43:50] the consultants and community members for over a year, assisting with the development of this plan.

[1:43:57] And the dates shown on the slide here, they don't include all of the efforts that the commission

[1:44:03] has put forth, but just identify a few key milestones for the commission's work on this plan.

[1:44:12] We're very grateful for the commission's expertise and guidance on this plan development.

[1:44:17] And right now I'll invite Adam up to talk to us about the plan's process and the public engagement.

[1:44:30] Good evening. Adam Beaver, planner three with the community development department.

[1:44:35] For the last year we've been working with the Lakota group on the development of the historic preservation plan.

[1:44:40] For the development of the plan, a two phase approach to the process was adopted.

[1:44:43] The first phase of research and engagement span from August 25 through January of 2026 and focused on current conditions and regulations already in place as well as community engagement to understand what preservation topics and issues were important to the community.

[1:45:00] The findings of phase 1 culminated in the creation of the State of Preservation Report, which was used as the basis for phase 2, and which the findings were translated into the goals, strategies, and implementation steps, which make up the draft plan.

[1:45:15] Throughout phase 2, additional engagement opportunities were provided in order to ensure that the plan aligns with the community's priorities.

[1:45:24] Robots Community Engagement Opportunities were an important aspect of the planning process with the

[1:45:29] community engagement including listening sessions and focus groups with over 40 stakeholders,

[1:45:35] outreach opportunities at the Wilmet Block Party and the French Market, open houses in October

[1:45:40] 2025 and June of 2021 and a community wide survey with almost 200 responses.

[1:45:47] In addition to the community engagement, the historic preservation commission and administration committee

[1:45:51] provided extensive feedback on the content of the plan.

[1:45:55] And with the Historic Preservation Commission and Administration Committee, both unanimously

[1:45:59] recommending adoption of the plan this brings us to next steps, with the village board being

[1:46:03] asked to vote on the formal adoption of the plan at an upcoming meeting.

[1:46:08] Following the adoption of the plan, the Administration Committee and Historic Preservation Commission

[1:46:12] are anticipated to provide further feedback on the implementation priorities moving forward.

[1:46:17] And with that, I'll hand it over to Douglas Carrey from the Lakota Group to go into a bit more

[1:46:21] to help out the content of the plan itself.

[1:46:26] Thank you, Adam.

[1:46:27] I'll give you a bit of Doug Curry with the Lakota Group.

[1:46:32] And I wanted to first apologize.

[1:46:34] I had a time I had a bad cough tonight.

[1:46:37] I'm sorry.

[1:46:39] Been distracting, probably, all of you.

[1:46:41] We have of our team, including the Lakota Benjamin Historic

[1:46:46] Certifications.

[1:46:48] I'm here to give you a brief overview

[1:46:50] of the preservation plan itself, as Adam mentioned, after the community engagement sessions

[1:47:00] that we, where we talked to everyone, we identified some preservation issues and opportunities

[1:47:07] that we were hearing that the plan should address and that included additional surveys,

[1:47:17] more public awareness and outreach about the well-mets historic resources and its program

[1:47:26] and expanding the use of local districts and other preservation tools.

[1:47:34] As well as a way to balance the redevelopment pressures with demolition and preservation

[1:47:43] and looking at different ways such as incentives and other regulatory approaches, reducing

[1:47:51] unnecessary demolition, and reinforcing neighborhood character through district design review and

[1:48:02] strengthening the long-term preservation efforts by looking at new funding opportunities

[1:48:07] in strategic partnerships and so some of those issues and opportunities we created the preservation

[1:48:16] plan that's phase two of the project as Adam mentioned and the plan itself is organized through

[1:48:28] four major themes that focus on preservation efforts and then each team has corresponding goals

[1:48:36] and each goal has corresponding actions to implement those goals and themes.

[1:48:43] And then there's an implementation section that talks about the type of action.

[1:48:49] It is whether it's a policy program, project, or administrative practice.

[1:48:54] And the plan themes include theme one, which focuses on actual preservation of historic resources,

[1:49:07] like buildings and other things, and identifying the theme two talks about expanding education

[1:49:16] in awareness of preservation to village residents and property owners, theme 3 focuses on celebrating

[1:49:25] and preserving neighborhood character and theme 4 talks about strengthening the actual

[1:49:33] preservation program of the village.

[1:49:39] So C1 has three goals and goal 1.1 talks about

[1:49:51] identifying future historic resources through ongoing survey program and the

[1:49:58] action items for this school. They're talking about surveying areas that have

[1:50:05] not previously been surveyed. Reserving areas that are surveyed 30 years ago and

[1:50:12] surveying other character

[1:50:19] defining features like historic signage or streetscape elements

[1:50:26] that are in the public realm.

[1:50:33] Google 1.2 actually is talking about listing additional properties either in the National

[1:50:42] register or as local landmarks to expand the preservation of well met resources, as well as

[1:50:50] looking at historic districts as well. And then goal one point through you actually it was what

[1:50:57] I was just talking about as expanding survey opportunities for additional character features like

[1:51:03] in the public room.

[1:51:08] Theme 2 is all about education and awareness and goal 2.1 is talking

[1:51:18] about engaging with the residents as a village, not only just owners of designated properties

[1:51:29] but people who own older homes and providing educational workshops, seminars,

[1:51:40] making sure that

[1:51:41] all the educational information that the village has is accessible to everyone and expanding

[1:51:51] on the Historic Preservation Awards program and looking at other kind of unique home tours

[1:52:01] to show off projects that have been recently rehabbed to other, you know, the benefits

[1:52:10] and preservation.

[1:52:11] And then go to point two, it's talking about making it a historic heritage more accessible

[1:52:22] and interpreted for the village residents.

[1:52:27] So partnering with the History Museum.

[1:52:30] On an expanded marker program,

[1:52:34] maybe looking at heritage space to public out initiatives and maybe additional

[1:52:41] architecture and history tours or housewives.

[1:52:47] Team 3, preserving celebrating will my neighborhood.

[1:52:52] So 3.1 is talking about evassing and maintaining the support for long-term neighborhood stability

[1:53:00] and sustainability. And Action 3.1 which talks about is focused the actions focus on

[1:53:14] things like creating a historic preservation fund to help invest in home rehab,

[1:53:23] looking at maybe adjusting the demolition permit fee, maybe the establishment of a demolition

[1:53:29] impact fee, encourage aging in place and

[1:53:34] jump to density and historic neighborhoods.

[1:53:37] And goal 3.2 is looking at the character of the village.

[1:53:46] There's an action that suggests maybe a neighborhood

[1:53:49] conservation district program. And this is a way that

[1:53:55] it's not preventing demolition, but it's

[1:53:59] providing more regulation, or maybe even like an advisory design review of a new construction

[1:54:10] of signal family, so that we can ensure that a new construction is compatible and scale

[1:54:17] and character with existing neighborhoods, which is something we heard the beginning of the

[1:54:22] program.

[1:54:23] That's the beginning of the phase 1.

[1:54:24] And then goal 3.3 is talking about the preservation of older residential commercial buildings in terms of environmental sustainability and some of the actions include

[1:54:44] Aligning the preservation message with the village's current sustainability initiatives, developing guidance for property owners on ways to create energy, more energy efficiency in their older homes, and using the rehabilitation memories of residential commercial buildings as a climate strategy, not just preservation strategy.

[1:55:14] And then team four, strengthening formats of preservation program.

[1:55:20] So goal 4.1 is taking a look at ways to reorganize and update the villages, preservation

[1:55:34] ordinance using thus practices. And as well as revising the start

[1:55:44] preservation handbook. So it's more educational and supportive of

[1:55:48] the ordinance. And then developing a start preservation guidelines for

[1:55:56] the commission to use when reviewing designated properties that are more

[1:56:01] detail to the village instead of the standards these now, which are very broad and national.

[1:56:09] And then goal 4.2, this is compared in conjunction with Team 3, we're looking at various

[1:56:22] incentives and tools that can help prevent demolition and encourage rehabilitation.

[1:56:28] And so you're looking at possibilities including a stored zoning overlay, a rehabilitation

[1:56:39] grant program, permit few waivers, expedited processing of preservation reviews and permits.

[1:56:51] the possibility of zoning bonuses to encourage additions rather than demolition.

[1:56:57] Potential for a local property tax rebate and

[1:57:05] modification to the villages substantial demolition provisions.

[1:57:13] So that some properties are required to be demolished if certain amount is gone for whatever reason.

[1:57:21] that it can still be built.

[1:57:26] So there's a, from the Asian opportunities that we heard

[1:57:30] at the beginning, we tried to provide a number of actions

[1:57:34] that in combination maybe would help try to slow the

[1:57:40] demolition of historic properties while still allowing

[1:57:43] new construction to fit in with the character of existing

[1:57:47] neighborhoods. It's not an easy question to answer, but we hope that we think the plan

[1:57:55] provides a good combination of tools to try and address that.

[1:58:02] The last section of the plan is implementation,

[1:58:07] and so the implementation section is organized

[1:58:10] by the Connecticut category, whether it's an program or a minister of practice, etc.

[1:58:17] The time frame we use is either one to five years and then after five, it's got performance metrics that help to measure how if if the action has been completed and it looks at potential partners and potential funding sources.

[1:58:38] And this is how the implementation matrix looks in the document.

[1:58:44] This is an example from theme one.

[1:58:49] And you can see in the column the action item specifically.

[1:58:53] The type of project or the action type.

[1:58:56] And then whether we're looking at one to five years or five beyond.

[1:59:00] potential partners and potential funding source and then the performance metrics.

[1:59:08] And I should just mention, we've got another example here.

[1:59:13] At the beginning of the implementation section, we outline all of the potential partners and

[1:59:19] potential funding sources. So you know what those abbreviations mean.

[1:59:24] And then, um, so that is the plan in a brief nutshell and we'll take questions.

[1:59:33] Thank you.

[1:59:35] I have a question.

[1:59:37] It seems like most of the things that are proposed in here have been around a while,

[1:59:41] and other people have tried them.

[1:59:43] What the plan doesn't tell me that was one of the work.

[1:59:46] And it would be nice to know whether delaying demolition permits, which they do in

[2:00:00] We board that looks at what they want to do in terms of tearing down something versus repairing

[2:00:07] what's in modernized looks there. Does it work? Do you have data on whether these things have been

[2:00:14] working when they're implemented by other communities?

[2:00:19] Well, the thing is that in every community they're going to use one item or maybe two items.

[2:00:30] And it might work in the situation.

[2:00:33] It depends on a number of statistics for each community.

[2:00:40] Being vague, I know.

[2:00:41] But I'm not saying I'm specific data.

[2:00:43] I can give you right the second.

[2:00:44] But is there data out there, I guess?

[2:00:48] I'm sure there are.

[2:00:49] There is some data.

[2:00:51] because I know, well, I know the historic commission here looked a lot at what the village of

[2:00:59] Hensdale is doing in terms, and so we have some of their ideas from the overlay zone and other

[2:01:06] tools there. We know that, I think, like a demolition delay, it can work, but it depends on how long, if it's 30 days,

[2:01:21] that's not likely to be very effective.

[2:01:24] If it's 100, if it's a year, it might be more effective.

[2:01:31] And that's why we've got in here a combination

[2:01:36] of different things that maybe if and after together

[2:01:41] would provide a more reasonable outcome.

[2:01:48] Because each one of these items in like theme three and theme four are in use elsewhere.

[2:01:58] But are they in use in combination with a lot of other tools and resources?

[2:02:04] I guess that's what we were looking for you to tell.

[2:02:06] Yeah.

[2:02:06] Or that I shouldn't say we.

[2:02:08] I was hoping to find something a little more definitive about what works versus what other people have tried

[2:02:15] with that any feedback as to whether it was effective or not?

[2:02:20] I have a related question to Trustee Kennedy's.

[2:02:23] I think, you know, there's a whole lot of actions in this presentation, and the step

[2:02:30] to now is to dive into whether or not these actions work for us, or is this we're going

[2:02:36] to do all these actions within this scope.

[2:02:40] Yeah, I think it's up to the village to determine if what should be prioritized and evaluate them as we go through them.

[2:02:48] And this is a sign off that these are all the appropriate actions.

[2:02:52] Yeah, there's it's a sign off on these are things to look further into.

[2:02:57] Right. Well, I mean, we know they're appropriate in terms of the fact that they're used elsewhere.

[2:03:02] But there may be specific things that doesn't want to address or implement, and, you know, we don't know that for sure.

[2:03:16] I'd like to try to see any questions.

[2:03:18] We would want more data before we actually move forward with a number of these things.

[2:03:23] Or at least whatever evaluation process we need to sign off.

[2:03:28] Yeah, I wouldn't, for example,

[2:03:30] the having a advisory committee to talk to them about design

[2:03:34] and reuse, that there's a cost to that.

[2:03:37] It's not free.

[2:03:38] And if it's not going to work, I wouldn't even want to try it.

[2:03:43] But if there's some information out there

[2:03:46] that says other communities have tried it,

[2:03:47] and it's work, that would be a whole different ballpark

[2:03:51] for me in terms of whether we consider doing it.

[2:03:55] But it didn't see that kind of thing here.

[2:03:59] And are there any new ideas, I mean, because I read this through twice and I didn't see anything

[2:04:05] I hadn't seen before, are there kind of new things that people are trying to, particularly

[2:04:11] in the area of preserving neighborhoods and keeping the character intact and keeping

[2:04:16] size intact?

[2:04:18] Well, I mean, we're not really, there's not really a lot of new things that I've seen, but

[2:04:24] I feel like things like character

[2:04:30] districts, neighborhood conservation districts.

[2:04:37] I mean those have been around for a long time, but they were never really focused on preservation.

[2:04:44] Before they were kind of just conserving specific aspects of a neighborhood and have to be historic.

[2:04:52] But we're seeing that use more in relation to historic neighborhoods and ways to maintain

[2:05:01] historic character, specifically,

[2:05:07] but I haven't seen a lot of new tools being used in preservation

[2:05:19] Because I understand that the hurdles that you have to get over to get actual landmark in our villages are pretty high.

[2:05:28] And once you have landmark status or you have national registration status, it does impose certain expenses and limitations on what the homeowner can do in the future.

[2:05:40] So a lot of people are reluctant to do it.

[2:05:41] It's not, we're not going to have 100 of those probably in the village for that reason.

[2:05:47] But is there some other kind of recognition or award or something else that we can do used

[2:05:54] to incentivize people to do preservation of existing works even if they are not historic

[2:06:03] and don't need to verify standards of the landmark?

[2:06:08] Um, do people do that? Well, first the the National Register doesn't add and cost. Yeah, I know. Um, so that is a way to

[2:06:20] mark recognize that that's an angel way to recognize the store properties or districts, but your question. I think, um,

[2:06:32] I mean, there could be ways to, I mean, rehabilitation grant programs, they can be used a certain percentage.

[2:06:43] They're used for certain percentage for landmark properties and maybe unless a lower percentage for properties over 50 years old that aren't designated.

[2:06:54] You see that kind of thing,

[2:07:00] there can be, of course, a marker program can work to identify

[2:07:08] historic buildings that are important, but aren't necessarily designated.

[2:07:12] Well, I guess my point is, for goal number three, we're not really even talking about whether there is

[2:07:18] But we're talking about preserving the character of a neighborhood.

[2:07:22] And that's where I think a lot of the work that needs to be done should be yet done

[2:07:28] because of the rate of tear down.

[2:07:31] Incompatibility is, I'm tear down with the character, the neighborhood in which they're built. That's the one where it'd be nice to have some new ideas about what to do about that.

[2:07:45] And the other thing I wanted to ask about is, our ordinance actually about landmark status has two different ways to get landmark status.

[2:07:52] one is the historic character of the architecture or the fact that it's unique or

[2:08:00] particularly fine example of a style of architecture. We also do it based on

[2:08:04] who lived in the house at one time I owned it and I didn't see any of that in

[2:08:09] this at all. Do what do we want to do about that? I don't we don't what do we

[2:08:16] do to make sure that we know what homes might be land-markable because of who

[2:08:21] of them at one time.

[2:08:24] I understand.

[2:08:24] That's in there.

[2:08:25] I mean, currently we have that, you know, when we have surveys and we learn about the

[2:08:30] house and we learn about the history of the house and we learn about there.

[2:08:34] Yeah, a lot of times it's in there.

[2:08:36] You know, who built the house and who did they build it for?

[2:08:39] And this was the first surgeon and will met that did ex and this person.

[2:08:45] So a lot of times we have that from the historical survey.

[2:08:49] But trusty Kennedy, to your point, I agree that there's a lot of tools here and I don't think these tools necessarily are weighed in terms of, you know, what's the most effective tool and what might be something to consider.

[2:09:08] I don't necessarily agree with all these tools and I'm certain that a lot of board members

[2:09:15] wouldn't necessarily agree with all these tools so I think I wanted to make clear

[2:09:21] in this plan that just because if we adopt a plan doesn't mean that we necessarily agree

[2:09:28] with all these.

[2:09:29] I mean putting limits on the type of new construction that people can build, that's a radical

[2:09:37] thought for Will Met, and I think a lot of people would have difficulty with, you know, limits

[2:09:43] on what they could build for new construction, or the, you know, changing the threshold from

[2:09:50] 75% for 50% for historic district, and, you know, limiting what people can do to their homes

[2:09:58] and that district if their home is contributing. You know, that's going to shock a lot of people,

[2:10:03] But that is a tool and other communities have done it,

[2:10:06] and it would be nice to kind of know what that is.

[2:10:11] What I read from here, and maybe I didn't quite get this,

[2:10:14] this advisory tier versus landmark tier,

[2:10:18] I think something that I've been bringing up for a while,

[2:10:22] we only have 38 landmark tones and will met soon to be 39,

[2:10:27] which is very exciting, and I think all of your efforts

[2:10:30] probably got a set 39th home and, you know, maybe some others are going to be excited about this.

[2:10:39] I didn't see too much of the benefits of landmarking your home in this plan even up front.

[2:10:46] You know, I would love, like, a little bit more on why you would do this and what the benefits are both in preserving the home and in, you know, the tax benefits and, you know, the state tax freeze and any other benefits.

[2:11:00] if you could get maybe up front, but in terms of what we can add to this, you know, there's

[2:11:06] so many tools here that I think are new for us, like the bonus. So, you know, two weeks ago

[2:11:15] on our consent agenda, we had a home built in 1908 that wanted a mud room and that was over the

[2:11:23] F-A-R, and the zoning board is kind of looking at that thinking,

[2:11:28] Gosh, I don't know if I can call that a hardship, but it seems like it's fine,

[2:11:32] and it's not that much extra.

[2:11:34] So, okay, why not?

[2:11:36] And we approve that on our consent agenda.

[2:11:40] And I think the bonus is exactly what we're talking about here.

[2:11:44] That home wasn't landmarked, but it's a home from 1908 that needs to fit

[2:11:48] into our world here.

[2:11:51] And so that was a tool, it wasn't a tool,

[2:11:55] but that is a tool that could more homes

[2:11:59] could benefit from in the future.

[2:12:01] But I read this and tell me if I'm wrong,

[2:12:04] that there is the landmark home,

[2:12:08] there are certain tax advantages of that.

[2:12:10] But if we kind of created this middle tier of significant

[2:12:13] properties, then maybe the village

[2:12:17] be willing to wave permit fees, create bonuses, you know, have some kind of a matching grant

[2:12:24] program for restoring old windows old to sides that can be very expensive when your home

[2:12:32] isn't, you know, of the 39 homes in Momat that are landmarks. So I think that's what you were

[2:12:38] going for. I just want to maybe you can clarify that a little bit more. Yeah,

[2:12:46] the program,

[2:12:50] So you put an overlay in a specific area, or a whole village, however you wanted to do it.

[2:12:58] And then you have one of the actions is creating a significant property inventory,

[2:13:06] which is where you have a list of properties that have been identified as potentially significant from the previous survey work.

[2:13:14] And that could be the start of how you identify properties that may be eligible for the top tier.

[2:13:24] And then you can have a lower tier that has a lesser criteria.

[2:13:32] But it's still older homes that should be preserved and then they could join the overlay in a lower tier.

[2:13:40] And so then you can determine which tiers get which incentives based on their tier level.

[2:13:47] And so the idea, if that is, so I mean, you know, some people worry about landmarking their

[2:13:52] home because it restricts what they can do to their homes and if they want to make changes,

[2:13:57] they have to go to the historic preservation commission, get a certificate of appropriateness.

[2:14:01] So is this idea that, you know, we're not restricting what you can do in your home,

[2:14:07] But if you want to preserve your home and the character of your home, it's a possible tool for having done without going to the landmark.

[2:14:17] Well, I guess you could look at it that way if you want to separate landmarks as a higher tier than zoning overlay.

[2:14:24] I think in my mind, I was seeing the higher tier as the landmarks.

[2:14:31] but you're adding additional tools so that you're hopefully people are going to want to

[2:14:39] landmark because they have all these additional tools incentives available to them if they're

[2:14:46] at that level in the zoning overlay. But you could make it three tiers if you wanted.

[2:14:53] I mean that's up to the village however they want to if you wanted to implement it.

[2:14:58] Let me see, can you use...

[2:15:04] So I just wanted to chime in that yes, that I forget which theme it is exactly, but that idea of really

[2:15:13] encouraging preservation and allowing the flexibility, regardless of being a local landmark or not, that is contemplated in one of the actions.

[2:15:22] and so, yes, encouraging preservation efforts, regardless of local landmarks that are not

[2:15:29] through a tiered system or through a designated geographic location, that is part of the

[2:15:36] plan suggested actions. Yes. I know him's down.

[2:15:41] Back to a couple of Trustee Kennedy's time. The question about success or how helpful these

[2:15:47] stuff will be, if the plan is approved or when it's approved, one of the next action I was

[2:15:51] to go to the administration committee and identify our priority action items and we look at that

[2:15:56] based on what actions we think can be most impactful and most successful and focus on those first

[2:16:01] and then moving down that list. So something like a demolition delay for example maybe way

[2:16:06] low on the list given how we think that may play out whereas what we're talking about here with

[2:16:11] zoning overlays or incentives could be more impact when we may move that up the list of recommended

[2:16:15] review. So I think that shakes out is the plan starts to get implemented but we'll go back and

[2:16:20] I don't want to just say we're going to approve this plan at our next meeting, I think there's some additional work to do.

[2:16:25] So we'll work with the staff and consultants to see if there is any empirical data we can identify that could help us with the priorities in putting this plan up for adoption, but also the question about our surveys and whether it accounts for who lived in the home.

[2:16:41] Yes, in certain circumstances.

[2:16:43] So most of our historical surveys are architectural based, but they do look at the original building permit.

[2:16:47] So if it's original, if it's original, if it's a, I don't know, somebody who becomes president because of it, we don't have a way to do that.

[2:16:59] So we do that on either on a case by case basis when there's a request for a landmark designation or is the historical museum is going through the archives and doing work or study and they identify, you know, somebody of historical significance, we may then add that as a notation.

[2:17:13] So we do not have that for everyone.

[2:17:16] Right.

[2:17:19] That's kind of too bad.

[2:17:20] I mean, that we don't have some better way to,

[2:17:22] but I don't know what you're doing.

[2:17:23] I've been searched for me.

[2:17:25] Cook County transfer records.

[2:17:28] Right.

[2:17:28] Or we won that person become famous.

[2:17:29] Where did they use to live?

[2:17:31] Well, no, I mean, we do have some famous people.

[2:17:34] Yeah, we do.

[2:17:35] And people let me just always tell them we know where Bill Murray lived.

[2:17:38] And I happen to know.

[2:17:39] But I know because their house is protected for being involved.

[2:17:43] But I'm sure if that house was part of a survey, that would definitely have been mentioned.

[2:17:49] Because it's known.

[2:17:51] It's only not to some people.

[2:17:53] I bet it's not known.

[2:17:58] Two questions.

[2:17:59] First of all, thank you for all the hard work.

[2:18:01] Your team is down.

[2:18:02] This is amazing, important.

[2:18:05] I'm sure that there's been hundreds of hours put into this between your work and the work of the various teams that have found this.

[2:18:12] So thank you for that.

[2:18:15] In reading through the very sections of the report, there were things that I thought were great.

[2:18:24] Now, the things that I wanted to ask questions about.

[2:18:26] I will say that the things that I thought were great were the things that helped people accomplish their goals

[2:18:33] and helped people to do things that they didn't think they could do, such as I have this beautiful 150-year-old home.

[2:18:42] I wish I could save it, but I can't afford to because these programs aren't in place yet.

[2:18:49] Or I'm not aware of the finance and alternatives and to the extent that this provides for that, you know, I think that's a big success.

[2:19:00] The things that gave me concern were the President of Placco was suggesting the things that

[2:19:11] may be viewed as an incumbents upon people's value and people's greatest asset.

[2:19:19] There was a section here that kind of I had a read a couple of times that said that homeowners

[2:19:26] didn't necessarily, there could be protections on people's homes, limitations on people's

[2:19:32] homes, contrary to the wishes of the homeowner.

[2:19:35] So the homeowners approvals were not necessary to be included in some of these protected

[2:19:44] lists.

[2:19:45] And that caught me a little bit off that we were going to be going against the wishes of

[2:19:52] at homeovers in certain circumstances.

[2:19:56] So, I have other questions, but maybe you could comment on that, please.

[2:20:02] Oh, I thought you were asking me to wait.

[2:20:06] I don't know what specific action you're referring to, but we would never, I mean, we

[2:20:12] wouldn't really put something in there like that.

[2:20:14] I think the historic district does that, because it lowers the threshold if you've

[2:20:20] a historic district of which don't have any. It really lowers the threshold from, right now we,

[2:20:28] you could, if 75% of property owners in a district voted to have this via historic district,

[2:20:39] then all the significant properties in that would not be able to make changes without a review.

[2:20:45] So this is, that exists now, but we've never gotten to 75% that would be a lot.

[2:20:51] So this is suggesting that you lower it to 50.

[2:20:54] So I think that kind of leans into, you know, your concerns and my concerns too, that,

[2:21:01] you know, you might find yourself in a home that you couldn't change without, you know, without

[2:21:08] your input on that.

[2:21:09] And you'd be very upset about that.

[2:21:10] Yeah, it's the same with the conservation program where you're mandating the character of a neighborhood and, you know, some people might want that, but a lot of people, you know,

[2:21:38] You've seen some of these smart homes demolished and maybe two homes put together in larger homes built that are absolutely beautiful and, you know, our asset to the community and the neighborhood that we need to make sure we're not going to limit.

[2:22:02] we're not going to suggest that that's inappropriate as we move forward because I mean

[2:22:08] there's a beautiful home throughout the community that clearly were the result of

[2:22:12] demolitions that I think that we all would apply. So I want I'm very sensitive to that

[2:22:18] because I think it's a big asset to our community.

[2:22:25] I think also no matter what we do we

[2:22:28] especially as a board we need to think.

[2:22:31] What happened on central to that home that we were all so strong, I don't remember the address of that home, but near the central school that was demolished and new homes under construction.

[2:22:41] And how we have this new plan may have assisted with that, or may not have, and I think we should just all be honest with ourselves about what our goal would have been.

[2:22:55] And if we would have been able to save that home, what would have been the implications to that home,

[2:23:00] who was able to sell their home at a much higher price,

[2:23:05] because they were able to demolish it.

[2:23:07] So if we were able to stop that demolition that would accomplish a great amount,

[2:23:12] you know, a lot of us would have been thrilled to see that home still exist today,

[2:23:17] but I can, you know, the homeowner would have been very sick because they would have lost great value.

[2:23:20] So I think that trade-off is really important.

[2:23:23] as we proceed as well.

[2:23:27] And lastly, I just wanted to say that we talk about

[2:23:30] obtaining the look and feel of these communities.

[2:23:37] And I think there are many neighborhoods in Walmart

[2:23:40] that are absolutely gorgeous.

[2:23:43] There are other neighborhoods that,

[2:23:44] you know, maybe there are some homes there that have

[2:23:47] live there, they're useful life, and would be candidates for new construction, and to be

[2:23:54] extent that this plan doesn't allow for that would also cause a concern. So that was kind

[2:24:00] of my reaction as I was reading this.

[2:24:02] Well, that's the balance that you're talking about that we heard beginning, and that's what

[2:24:08] we were trying to address with neighborhood conservation over the which is not preventing

[2:24:18] demolition. It's not about that. It's about ensuring that new construction is compatible

[2:24:24] with existing neighborhood because that's what we heard was concerned with houses that

[2:24:31] did not fit at all with their neighbors. We're going up that following the demolition. And so

[2:24:37] So, we provided some actions to try and address that issue in addition to providing other

[2:24:48] actions that would help actually preserve historic buildings rather than just regulating

[2:24:54] the new construction.

[2:24:59] So I mean, we're trying to strike a balance on, is that's what we were hearing, is we

[2:25:05] out both. And so it's not easy to have one easy answer or how to do it. So we were hoping that

[2:25:16] this package of various incentives and tools would work towards achieving that now.

[2:25:26] And I certainly, you know, I know people that, you know, feel strongly about the character

[2:25:33] their neighborhoods and, you know, I think we try and are zoning code to do the size and scale,

[2:25:40] you know, no matter what you build, you've got the size and the scale, and that's not changing,

[2:25:44] and that can always be reviewed. If your, you know, the new home is just actually, like,

[2:25:50] outside for the, the lot, I do fear that if you do something like that, you would never have

[2:25:57] the modern style. You would never have the prairie style. You would never have all of these

[2:26:03] styles of homes that we feel that we are now working to preserve, but when they were first

[2:26:11] put in, they were quite shocking in their neighborhood. So it's an interesting question.

[2:26:18] I think I just would want the plan to be clear that these tools may not be for everyone and that

[2:26:28] This is certainly up to the village to do this, and I just, I do love your point that

[2:26:36] you made in the beginning, like I would like to know, and you've talked to Hinstale.

[2:26:42] I mean, that was kind of what we were basing a lot of these anecdotes on, and I think

[2:26:48] just even offline.

[2:26:49] I'd love to kind of just hear how that's going.

[2:26:54] you know, what they think is, you know, the best tool the day of implemented and what they think may be, you know, isn't working as much, you know, and their other home, you know, there's certainly, you know, other communities out there.

[2:27:11] Every community is going to be a little bit different, but you know, I think that, you know, even those anecdotes, I think, would be helpful, you know, what have they noticed.

[2:27:21] they had a huge tear down epidemic and really concerned about that and I would love to kind

[2:27:28] of hear what they attribute to this plan.

[2:27:33] I think what I love about this a couple things that I want to say number one, there's been

[2:27:38] a long time coming.

[2:27:39] We've been talking about his door preservation plan for a really long time and it's been

[2:27:43] in our comprehensive plan and I'm really excited about the idea of a historic preservation

[2:27:50] and giving, you know, telling, you know, homeowners that we, you know, we understand, you

[2:27:57] know, we care, we know that, you know, when you need to re-clad your house and the exact

[2:28:03] same shingle that it was in from, you know, 1910, it's going to be more expensive and maybe,

[2:28:08] you know, there's something that we can do to help you with that. I love that we talk about

[2:28:15] sustainability and preservation, I think the catch word when I was on the historic preservation

[2:28:21] commission was oldest the new green and that was, you know, and in discussion. So I think

[2:28:26] that's really important to talk about, you know, the preservation is kind of the ultimate

[2:28:31] and sustainability. And I also love, you know, talking about preservation and keeping homes attainable.

[2:28:38] Because certainly the existing home is going to be a lot more attainable than a very expensive brand new construction home.

[2:28:50] And so if this is a way for us to preserve some of our older, more attainable homes, I think that's great.

[2:29:00] a couple things on this plan.

[2:29:05] I got a bunch of comments on the historical background and maybe

[2:29:10] the organization and the layout and just kind of clarifying, you know, things that we already

[2:29:17] do that I don't necessarily know that that was highlighted in here that maybe we want to enhance

[2:29:24] versus things that we don't do yet that we would want to bring in.

[2:29:29] So I feel like I would want a little more time with the nuts and bolts of this plan

[2:29:36] to just kind of, you know, we're talking about, you know, the history of Will Met, which is very

[2:29:40] complex.

[2:29:41] I think there's a couple neighborhoods that I kind of didn't see mentioned in here, a couple

[2:29:47] other areas that I would like a little bit more history on, and maybe kind of clarifying

[2:29:52] some of our more ancient history, once this document is adapted.

[2:30:00] This is, you know, this is, we're going to be looking at it in the future, and so I do think we can take, you know, just a little bit of extra time, just to, you know, the line by line.

[2:30:16] kind of else I'm missing from here is this new trend on the North Shore of consolidating lots

[2:30:22] destroying all the houses on them and so you could put up a monstrosity. We did, I think earlier

[2:30:29] actually, we stopped the aggregation more than is it three? I thought it was more than two.

[2:30:36] I think it's like, it's isn't it two point something based on like your, yeah, right, right.

[2:30:44] That ought to go into, I think people shouldn't forget that there's a reason for that, and in a lot of the reason for it is to preserve

[2:30:51] the scale of what goes up in a neighborhood because if you put three lots together or two gigantic lots together as we've seen already

[2:30:59] You can put a quite a quite a, quite a, oh, mansion. It's quite out of character and destroys

[2:31:05] But otherwise

[2:31:07] Oh, and always my plug because I always say this

[2:31:12] I would love to see Ridge Road be a national historic district, and I would also love to see Plaza de Lago designated as a historical,

[2:31:20] because it's a national landmark status, I mean, and I know neither one of those designations prevents any building changes, any of that, I just think that, you know,

[2:31:33] So, they are so important to will met, and I think that recognizing Ridge Road and Plaza

[2:31:40] Delaco, and, you know, and their own is important.

[2:31:44] I know, I think W.S. was on the way with the Plaza Delaco, so I think maybe they changed

[2:31:54] management, so we need to kind of keep pushing them on that.

[2:31:57] I think it would be good for everybody, and, you know, Ridge Road.

[2:32:02] I mean, start reading the plan.

[2:32:04] The history of Ridge Road is fascinating.

[2:32:07] And so many of those buildings are still there.

[2:32:09] And if they were designated as a national historic district,

[2:32:13] some of those buildings might even be able to get federal

[2:32:16] tax incentives for rehabbing those buildings.

[2:32:19] So I'm doing my plug for those, too.

[2:32:23] And I would add forth and linden to that, too,

[2:32:25] because there are a number of commercial buildings

[2:32:27] that forth and linden that are really extraordinary.

[2:32:29] And maybe not the best of shape.

[2:32:32] Some of those rental, like the, the being a part of the art, I think it's art vendor, whatever it is.

[2:32:39] I guess I'm not good at this tiles, but I know what you went exactly what you're talking about.

[2:32:43] On fifth.

[2:32:45] Building.

[2:32:46] Yes.

[2:32:47] And to do it to help, you know, to help save it, not, you know, this doesn't prevent anything.

[2:32:55] Honestly, it doesn't, you know, but it's some.

[2:32:58] I mean, if we don't already provide those recommendations, then we can certainly have them.

[2:33:04] Yeah, I know there's a little bit about Ridge Road and Plaza de Lago. I've made that pitch before, so I appreciate that.

[2:33:13] But, you know, I, I, to plan, I mean, we've got a lot of good stuff in there. I think, you know, this is just being introduced at the board level.

[2:33:22] I think, you know, it's going to be another, you know, a bit of a dive just to go over the details, but, you know,

[2:33:30] am I definitely excited and this will be, you know, soon.

[2:33:37] Thank you.

[2:33:38] Thank you.

[2:33:39] Thank you.

[2:33:44] Okay, trusty scene does not have anything else.

[2:33:47] Anything else is on consent?

[2:33:52] So now we go to the municipal services community, trusty Kennedy.

[2:34:00] Okay, well, I, we do have one thing that was not, that was taken off the content agenda that I believe the person who did so is left through.

[2:34:10] Okay, Mr. Rire Miller was.

[2:34:12] You just did a telephone call.

[2:34:13] Okay, so then I would move passage of 3.10 on our agenda, adoption of resolution number 2026-R-143, authorizing the village manager to execute a three-year contract for the unit rate schedule with farmers market, Chicago's Garden Center, Chicago Illinois, for the purchase of winter hanging basket day core.

[2:34:40] Second.

[2:34:45] Second.

[2:34:46] Since this is taken off, the consent agenda, Mr. Brayman, would you like to

[2:34:49] ensure that?

[2:34:50] This is a standard recurring contract that we've approved each of the last six years.

[2:34:54] It's decorative hanging baskets in our downtown,

[2:34:56] Lyndon Square, and Ridge Road Business Districts.

[2:34:59] The holiday season is an incredibly important time for our businesses,

[2:35:03] retail and restaurant for their bottom lines.

[2:35:06] And we want to do everything we can to help facilitate a successful

[2:35:09] December season for them, and it's an important economic development tool to make sure our business districts are welcoming and attractive to all of our visitors and residents.

[2:35:18] In Mr. Raymond, these are the same things that I mean, this is the same area where we have flowers hanging down right now, just with holiday days.

[2:35:27] And we, that's correct. And we receive a lot of compliments on both the flower baskets and the winter decor baskets as well.

[2:35:34] If it isn't that like one of our more like frequented

[2:35:37] like thank you's as far as our businesses

[2:35:41] I see a lot of those emails.

[2:35:43] And it's not just some weirdo thing we do.

[2:35:45] Go to Plaza Logo for example, look how beautifully they do.

[2:35:48] Pretty much the same thing.

[2:35:50] It works.

[2:35:52] Yeah, and they're very tasteful.

[2:35:54] Very, very tasteful.

[2:35:55] Very tasteful.

[2:35:57] And the good amount of it is that it says in the memo

[2:35:58] as we use from year to year, which is much more.

[2:36:04] Yeah.

[2:36:04] Other than the live plants, which are less in the winter ones?

[2:36:12] Yes.

[2:36:14] Seeing is that there is no one left in the audience to make a comment.

[2:36:20] Anything else from trustees?

[2:36:23] Okay.

[2:36:24] It's been moved in seconded.

[2:36:28] Do we have to do an individual role on this?

[2:36:29] Yeah.

[2:36:30] Mr. Alden, can you do an individual?

[2:36:31] Trustee Liner, Trustee Shepherd, Trustee Labor, Trustee Kennedy, and President Blockhead.

[2:36:40] I'm a priest.

[2:36:41] Anything else, Trustee Kennedy?

[2:36:43] No, everything else is I can say.

[2:36:48] Public Safety Committee, Trustee Smith.

[2:36:51] I will take that.

[2:36:53] And so we have Mr. Warren Miller took 3.1.9.

[2:37:01] off the consent agenda. He is not currently in the room, but I moved to adopt Resolution 2026

[2:37:09] R-142, amending an intergovernmental agreement between the village of Wilmet and the village of

[2:37:15] Northfield to permit the Wilmet Police Department to utilize the temporary holding facility in gun range

[2:37:21] located at the Northfield Police Department. Is there a second? Okay, it's been moved in

[2:37:28] Seconded.

[2:37:29] Mr. Brown, what if you can?

[2:37:30] This is part of our temporary facility situation with the police department being constructed now. We do not have our own firearms range at this time. So we have an agreement with the village of Kennaworth. This is an amendment with an agreement with the village of Northeal to provide our police officers additional flexibility, additional hours during the daytime to use their firearms range. So we want to thank our friends and our partners in Northeal for providing us this opportunity. We're already working with them in utilizing their holding facility for prisoners.

[2:38:00] This is just an expansion of that existing IGA.

[2:38:03] Thank you.

[2:38:04] Any questions?

[2:38:06] I have since there's no one here in the audience.

[2:38:09] I will ask Mr. Holdren to call the vote on this.

[2:38:12] Trustee Liner.

[2:38:13] Aye.

[2:38:13] Trustee Schouper?

[2:38:14] Trustee Weber?

[2:38:16] Trustee Kennedy?

[2:38:17] Aye.

[2:38:17] And President Blanco?

[2:38:19] Aye.

[2:38:21] Resolution proved.

[2:38:22] All other public safety committee items were on consent.

[2:38:26] Do you just hear a committee Trustee Lieber?

[2:38:28] No report this meeting.

[2:38:30] Okay. There are no reports from special committees and no new business. May I have a motion to adjourn.

[2:38:36] So moved?

[2:38:37] Is there a second?

[2:38:39] Is that good?

[2:38:40] All those in favor?

[2:38:42] Aye.

[2:38:43] We stand adjourned.

Village Board Meeting 9/22/26

Transcript