[0:02] Okay, welcome everyone. I want to call the uh East Dundee regular board meeting

[0:07] August 17th, 2026 to order. Roll call, please.

[0:11] » Trusty Oakland is absent. Trusty Guma >> here.

[0:14] » Trusty Solder >> here.

[0:16] » Trusty Saviano >> here.

[0:18] » Trusty Kunzie >> present.

[0:19] » Trusty Mahoney is absent. And President Pearson

[0:22] » here. To the pledge of allegiance.

[0:27] I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[0:33] for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:39] justice for all. >> All right. Do we have anyone for public

[0:44] comment?

[0:48] All right. There not being anything, we don't have a public hearing, do we?

[0:53] » We do not. >> We do not. And then uh I will entertain

[0:57] a motion for uh the consent agenda. >> And I wanted to pull item D out.

[1:02] » Pull D out. Okay. Okay. I will move to approve a regular V

[1:08] village board meeting minutes dated August 3rd, 2026. I will also move to

[1:12] accept the warrants list in the amount of $211,286.54.

[1:19] I will move to approve a resolution accepting a documentary film proposal

[1:24] from David A. Hudson and approving professional services agreement for the

[1:29] creation of a featurelength film documentary in the amount not to exceed

[1:34] $24,100. Uh I will move to approve a resolution

[1:40] accepting a proposal from Bbach and Aean LLP for professional auditing services.

[1:46] And I will move to approve a resolution approving the minutes of certain closed

[1:51] minutes meetings of the village board. >> Any discussion? We get a second.

[1:57] » Get a second. >> I will second that.

[2:00] » Any discussion? >> No. All right.

[2:03] » Roll. >> Trusty Guma.

[2:06] » Yes. >> Trusty Solder.

[2:08] » Yes. >> Trusty Saviano.

[2:11] » Yes. >> Trusty Kunzie.

[2:13] » Yes. And that takes us to agenda items A. Oh,

[2:18] I'm sorry. We got to go back to D. >> I'll make a motion to approve a

[2:21] resolution approving a donation and license agreement with Mary Kay. Harvey

[2:25] and family for the loan and display of the Embrace the Earth with wisdom art

[2:31] sculpture at the depot park. >> Second.

[2:34] » Okay. >> And then just uh wanted to put on the

[2:37] record a thank you to Mary Kay. Harvey. puts tons of work into volunteering and

[2:43] putting on art events and donating artwork. So, just wanted to throw an

[2:49] official thank you to her on there. second.

[2:51] » And and then as a side note, uh since we have a few other artists we're talking

[2:56] to that would like to see their artwork show up and donate into the community on

[3:01] the Fox River or other places, um just like shoring up some of the language

[3:05] because it's uh it mentions three different things in the title of a

[3:10] donation, a license agreement, and a loan. And it's kind of one of the three.

[3:15] I think this is a donation, but we just want to clean up because we could

[3:18] sometimes have a licensed artwork agreement where they own it and they're

[3:23] licensing it to us or they're putting it on loan without paying for it. Um, but I

[3:27] think this is a donation. So, just cleaning up the language in this as we

[3:32] finalize it. But I'm okay with proceeding if that's fine. I think

[3:37] that's the only concern. >> Makes sense.

[3:40] » Okay. Any other? So, do you feel like we could uh approve

[3:44] this uh with the caveat that we clean up the license verse loan verse donation?

[3:50] » Yes. >> Yes. That's And it sounds like the

[3:53] intent is for this to be a donation. >> Yes.

[3:58] » Great. >> Go ahead, take a hold.

[4:00] » Trusty Guma. >> Yes.

[4:03] » Trusty Solder. >> Yes.

[4:06] » Trusty Saviano. >> Yes.

[4:08] » Trusty Kunzie. >> Yes.

[4:12] And uh let's move on to other agenda agenda items. A

[4:18] » I will move to approve resolution rejecting all proposals received in

[4:22] response to the villages request for proposals for the 2026 lead service line

[4:28] replacement project.

[4:32] » Second. >> Okay. Any discussion?

[4:35] » It's a heavy sigh. any background uh to share on that in

[4:42] the path forward just to put on the record for

[4:45] » people here >> those watching. Yeah, we have Phil our

[4:48] public works director could speak on this and we also have a representative

[4:51] from back. >> Yes. Good evening. So we village

[4:55] budgeted for a rel relatively small project lead service line replacement

[4:59] project in 2026 to replace approximately 12 lead services. Uh we received one

[5:05] bid. Unfortunately, it was just one bid that was substantially higher than what

[5:08] we budgeted for, nearly twice the project, the budgeted amount. Um

[5:15] as a result, we've been preparing to reject bids um

[5:20] as a new funding opportunity has recently presented itself to us. Um, we

[5:25] felt we staff felt that the approximate cost to replace the 12

[5:31] lead service lines at roughly $32,000 per service

[5:37] was substantially almost double what we're seeing in the region for replacing

[5:41] lead service lines. So, we didn't feel that that was a a responsible

[5:45] expenditure. >> But I just I guess my question is is

[5:50] this because I mean the Okay, that could be one reason, but it's

[5:56] is it maybe because we're getting this backlog of

[6:01] municipalities changing their lead lines and so the work is backing up and this

[6:07] is just going to be a higher rate because of that

[6:10] » certainly could be the case. Yes. >> Do we know? Do you know I guess is the

[6:14] question. >> Caitlyn Wright is here from back

[6:18] » join us again this evening. Go ahead. >> Thank you Phil. Um, so to speak on that

[6:22] directly, I it's a combination of things. A, you are correct that I expect

[6:27] to see pricing naturally go up. Um, the state has already identified that

[6:32] there's not enough contractors to do this type of work presently um, in terms

[6:36] of a labor force. So, yes, I do expect pricing to go up. Do I expect pricing to

[6:41] double like what we saw in this bid right now in the market? No.

[6:46] um likely what happened and we did talk there were multiple plan holders. We

[6:52] called those plano holders and inquired as to why they didn't submit a bid. The

[6:57] other plan holders were smaller local plumbing firms. They were not.

[7:03] This project was too big for the local plumbers to get bonded for and so small

[7:10] that the big contractors who are already booked out for the rest of the year

[7:15] threw a number at it. So that's why we saw such a high number. Um again, I do

[7:21] expect us to naturally see an increase in pricing. We had other projects bid

[7:25] this year and we were not seeing 32,000 per service line. you're seeing like

[7:30] 18,000 per service line. So >> that's what I want.

[7:33] » Yep. >> So do you feel like the solution might

[7:38] be uh we're bidding out for a bigger batch that you know we're phasing so

[7:44] that they feel like it's worth bidding on the larger scope over time and then

[7:48] is it normal about the required bonds for the project is the reasons is that

[7:53] just smaller companies aren't comfortable with those bonds? Yeah, I'm

[7:57] not I am by no means an expert on getting bonding for this type of work as

[8:02] a contractor, but my understanding was it was just too large of a scope of

[8:06] project for them to secure that bond. Um, I don't want to speak on all of

[8:11] their behalf, but that was the information that I was given. Um, in

[8:15] terms of what I think we can do better for next time, yes, a larger size

[8:19] program will naturally entice more larger contractors to do this. We're

[8:24] seeing contractors going after 100, 200, 300, 500 plus-siz sized lead service on

[8:29] replacement projects. I also feel that the timing of advertising for bids will

[8:34] be really critical. Um, contractors have booked out their summer. So, we we

[8:40] advertised this kind of late in the year. Um, just trying to get the project

[8:43] going. We thought a small project people would be able to fit that in. we were

[8:48] they can fit it in, but obviously it set a price that we didn't necessarily want

[8:52] to recommend. Um, my recommendation is that we would advertise this larger

[8:58] scale program either in November or December so that contractors are

[9:04] planning to do the work for next year. Um, and we're getting in advance of

[9:08] other projects going out for bid for 2027.

[9:12] So, >> okay.

[9:15] How many >> suggesting we take a $2.1 million loan

[9:19] to do this project? >> So

[9:22] » that's on the next motion. >> Yep. I'm happy to speak on that. Um

[9:27] » go ahead. >> Do you want me to speak on that?

[9:28] » You may as well. While you're up there, go ahead and do it.

[9:30] » Right. So the village um two three years ago had put in a project plan requesting

[9:37] loan funding for a variety of different projects. Lead service line replacements

[9:41] was part of that request for funding. Um, we have been requesting funds

[9:47] through IEPA for lead service lines for I think the past two years or maybe this

[9:52] was our first year. In any case, IEPA has created a secondary subset of funds

[10:00] through their lead service line replacement funding bucket. Without a

[10:05] description, I'm going to end up talking with my hands, so I apologize. But this

[10:10] subset of funding is first come, first serve. So it's the village is eligible

[10:15] to receive the funding. The village has done everything that you guys can do to

[10:19] score appropriately, but your score is tucked into your census track data.

[10:24] There is nothing we can do to alter your score. So funds were exhausted for

[10:28] projects um requested at a score of 255. The villages scored at

[10:39] » 254. I wish um the villages score

[10:46] is 155. So IPA allocates funds from the highest scored project down to the

[10:53] lowest scored project until they exhaust funds. They exhausted at a score of 255.

[10:58] Again, Village didn't do anything wrong in terms of trying to secure that

[11:02] funding. But now that they have now that IEPA has a an additional bucket of

[11:08] funds, they're basically saying all of these communities who did everything

[11:12] right, um you can chase this funding. Uh they don't recommend us taking a project

[11:19] out to bid until we get a letter of commitment from my EPA. So the next step

[11:24] would be going through a loan application process. There's a borrowing

[11:27] ordinance. There's a legal opinion. There's steps that the board is going to

[11:31] have to take in order to say, "Hey, we are ready to go after this funding." Um,

[11:36] we would submit that to IEPA assuming it checks all the boxes. They would issue a

[11:41] letter of commitment. There are I didn't count how many, but the total

[11:48] sum amount that's being asked for in this separate pool of funds is 282

[11:55] million worth of projects. IEPA has said that they don't have 282 million to give

[12:01] out this year, but they have not told me what the magic number is that they do

[12:06] have. Um, they said it's sizable. I I presume that's well over a hundred

[12:11] million. Is it 200 million? I I don't know what that number is. They might not

[12:16] know what that number is also because it might be contingent on bid pricing

[12:20] coming in on other projects. So, um, if the village wanted to go forward with a

[12:25] longer or a larger sized program, we were looking to allocate or go after

[12:30] this loan funding anyway. And it looks like it's something that the village can

[12:34] pursue presently. Um, should the village want to do so.

[12:39] » Okay. >> Bill, how many lead service lines do we

[12:41] still have left to replace? >> 110 is it?

[12:45] » We're estimating around 370, give or take. We have yet to finalize our actual

[12:50] inventory. I want to say there'sund over a hundred services out there that

[12:56] are unknown at this point. So, we're still working with homeowners and to

[13:01] determine what those material types are. >> Okay.

[13:04] » Do you recommend trying to find one contractor to do all 300 to get the best

[13:10] pricing or splitting it between a few to not overwhelm one or have you seen in

[13:15] other communities a pattern that works better? I think for the size program

[13:19] that the village has presently 100 or 300 you're going to get the same sort of

[13:24] interest level um we're seeing some communities have to do 500 to 800 to a

[13:30] thousand a year that's going to be an entirely different scope of work and you

[13:34] would probably actually reduce it or split it out to like a 300 per

[13:40] contractor range. So, um, could we do a 300 lead service lines in one year? Can

[13:48] a contractor handle that scope of work? Yes, that is feasible. Um, I I think the

[13:53] 110, uh, which is what that 2.1 million is estimated to be for is a really good

[14:01] size program. We're not tearing up all of town. Um, but we are going to do a

[14:06] considerable amount for that first year. and we can potentially do it in three

[14:10] years time if we phase the program um that direction. So,

[14:16] » okay. >> Does it make sense to go after more of

[14:18] the funding? >> We So, the village is in line to chase

[14:23] future fiscal years for funding. Um we had sized the project based off of kind

[14:29] of staff recommendations for that 2.1 feeling reasonable. Um, but I will say

[14:37] we've had success with IEPA. Say like bid if we took this forward, we bid the

[14:42] project after we got a letter of commitment from IEPA and bids came in

[14:45] higher than expected. IEPA has so far been open to increasing that loan

[14:51] amount. I don't know that I can go back to them and say we actually want to do a

[14:55] 300 lead service line program this year when they're expecting 110.

[15:01] But um to your question, yes, we are planning to pursue loans for future

[15:06] years as well. >> All right.

[15:12] » So, I have a question, Phil. I remember when we first started talking about this

[15:17] years ago, >> the first obligation we had was to

[15:21] submit a plan to Illinois for what we were going to do. Have we done that?

[15:29] » We have. So that's the project plan which is this document here.

[15:34] And it does propose replacing approximately 110 lead led

[15:39] service lines in 27, another 110 in 2028 and then another 110 in 2029.

[15:48] » Okay. >> So it's a three-year program.

[15:50] » So that's in line with what we're asking for.

[15:53] » Yes. And as Caitlyn mentioned, that's exactly what

[15:57] we're eligible for for this round of loan funding if we're successful is year

[16:02] one of this three-year program >> that was proposed in the project plan

[16:08] because we think we're going to have more than the 330 over the 110 over the

[16:12] next three years. We may have to expand one of the years or have a fourth year

[16:18] just to kind of get us to the to the finish line.

[16:21] » And my understanding is some of these loans have been forgiven actually. Is

[16:27] that not true?

[16:31] » Yes. Um I wouldn't say forgiven per se. So there is a principal forgiveness

[16:36] component um that is directly linked to funds allocated from USPA the federal

[16:42] side. So Illinois state revolving fund um has money that is from Illinois and

[16:51] whatever revenue sources that the state is creating for that. And then we also

[16:55] are allocated funds every year from the federal government. Those funds have a

[17:01] requirement dictated by US EPA on a set percentage is for principal forgiveness.

[17:07] A set percentage is for loan. So what they did this past year was 49% or the

[17:13] past five years technically um 49% of those funds have to be

[17:18] principal forgiveness funds. 51% have to be given out as loan funding. It was at

[17:23] the discretion of IEPA on how they decided what was principal forgiveness

[17:28] or who got principal forgiveness and who didn't.

[17:32] uh the communities that were formerly allocated funds that 255 project number

[17:37] and higher most all of them received some portion of principal forgiveness

[17:42] and some portion of loan. Everyone below that 255

[17:47] the principal forgiveness was exhausted on what was kind of assumed for this

[17:52] year. What ended up happening last year? Same exact thing happened last year. So

[17:57] many communities got principal, forgiveness, and loan funding. And a lot

[18:01] of communities last year said, "We'll take the principal, forgiveness money,

[18:05] you take the loan. We're not going to we're not going to take the loan portion

[18:09] of that." And so all of this loan money was left over that IEPA still is

[18:14] required to give out as loan money. I think that is part of the pool of

[18:19] funding that we are now pursuing right now.

[18:22] » So almost certainly would not be eligible. There is this current 2.1 get

[18:28] to call it million that we are pursuing I can 99.9% say with confidence that

[18:34] there is no principal forgiveness associated with it. It is a 0% loan for

[18:38] 30 years >> yes and there's no um

[18:46] issue with paying that back or penalty for paying that back early. So,

[18:51] » okay.

[18:54] » Thank you.

[18:59] » Okay. So, we have to vote on rejecting the bids first.

[19:04] » Yeah, we got to uh we got to vote on A first.

[19:11] » So, do we have any more discussion on A? >> Okay, let's go ahead and do a roll call.

[19:16] » Trusty Guma. >> Yes.

[19:19] Trusty Solder. >> Yes.

[19:21] » Trusty Saviano. >> Yes.

[19:24] » Trusty Kunzie. >> Yes.

[19:27] » Okay. And then that takes us to B. And we're going to need a motion for that.

[19:35] I'll make a motion to approve a resolution approving a contract for

[19:39] design engineering services for the 2027 lead service line

[19:46] replacement project from Baxter and Woodman, Inc.

[19:52] » A second. >> Second.

[19:53] » Second. >> Any more discussion on that?

[19:56] » So this this motion that we're approving

[20:00] now

[20:05] design engineering services. But is this not then the process of applying for

[20:13] this loan? It is for that.

[20:16] » It's essentially for both. >> Yes.

[20:23] » Part of the loan application process is we have to show to IEPA that you are

[20:29] shovel ready for a project. So, we will design this project up to what I would

[20:34] technically call 60% or permit ready design. Um, basically so that IEPA has

[20:41] specifications and an exhibit to review as well as the loan application

[20:46] documents. They'll want to review those. We don't

[20:49] have to secure a permit for this work, but in order to secure the loan, they

[20:54] want to see that we are ready to go. Once that's reviewed, assuming it's

[20:59] approved and assuming that there's still funds available because again they're

[21:03] operating this as first come first serve, then we would um receive a letter

[21:08] of commitment from EPA after which we we can take this out to bid in January. We

[21:14] could take this out to bid in November. We could hold it until April. I would

[21:18] not advise doing that. um should we not get a letter of commitment that design

[21:24] work is not like thrown out the door. We would just pause until the village wants

[21:28] to move it forward. So >> could conceivably have it next year.

[21:33] » Correct. Yep. >> Okay.

[21:39] And I'll add too if I could highlight one one sentence in my memo is we are

[21:44] building our 2027 street improvement program after

[21:51] with the hopeful replacement of these 110 lead service

[21:55] lines. We're going to improve the streets following this project next

[22:01] summer. So it'll be lead service lines first portion of the year and then

[22:07] closer to towards the end of the year we'll have our complete our street

[22:10] improvement project ideally on these streets.

[22:13] » Yeah. >> How much I mean how much do you have to

[22:19] tear up the road to get the line replaced?

[22:23] You cannot get it from the side or you can or

[22:28] » um so we we have to gain access to where the water man is to make that connection

[22:33] point. So if your water manes in the road which the majority of the villages

[22:37] water manes are in the road. Um there's going to be like a 4 foot by six foot

[22:42] pit give or take. Um we incentivize the contractor is not going to want to

[22:48] dig up more than they absolutely have to. Right. So, um, that's kind of the

[22:54] average, I would say, size, but it will be a patchwork quilt because you're

[22:59] going to have that in front of every single home.

[23:02] » Correct. Um, unless they encounter a problem, that should be the only

[23:08] location in the roadway that's getting dug up. Um, unless they're having to do

[23:12] something where they have to follow the service line up into like the parkway.

[23:16] That is very rare. I wouldn't plan for that being an issue. So, it's really

[23:21] where the water man is, you're going to see that pit across down the road in

[23:26] front of each home. So, >> So, if Phil, if that's the case, if

[23:33] you're saying that after that we would improve the road,

[23:38] are you saying we would just fill that pit in with gravel and then tear up the

[23:43] entire surface and resurface? >> Correct. Yes.

[23:48] So, for example, we're looking at First Street from the from Bington to the

[23:52] north to the corporate limit that entire stretch. We're looking at replacing all

[23:56] lead services potentially on Wenholes from water to first Lincoln from Water

[24:02] to Wenholes. Um, and then other streets in that area. So,

[24:06] » is that the area that had the higher levels of lead too?

[24:09] » Correct. Yes.

[24:13] » So, those are bad too. It'll be a busy construction season in this part of the

[24:18] community, but certainly they'll need it.

[24:22] And the interesting thing about last year's project with the contractor that

[24:26] performed the work is they essentially pulled the service out. So they, as

[24:30] Caitlyn mentioned, they opened up created an opening in the street and

[24:35] they pulled the service, they connected the existing lead service to the copper

[24:41] service. He ran a section of copper pipe in the basement copper line and just

[24:46] pulled it all the way out. Was a fascinating process.

[24:53] » Good tape. >> We got good tape to tie together.

[24:58] » Any other discussion? >> Let's take a vote.

[25:02] » Trusty Guma, >> yes.

[25:04] » Trusty Solder, >> yes.

[25:06] » Trusty Saviano, >> yes.

[25:08] » Trusty Kunzie, >> yes.

[25:11] Okay. And then uh let's take that takes us to

[25:15] C. I'll entertain a motion for that.

[25:20] I move to approve an ordinance amending section 151.008

[25:25] of chapter 151 title 15 of the code pertaining to

[25:32] temporary structures.

[25:37] » Any second? >> A second.

[25:38] » You got a second. Okay. Uh any discussion? It looks like it was pretty

[25:43] pretty well basic of what we all discussed last time.

[25:48] » Well, >> does this say that you can only extend

[25:50] it two times and that's it? >> Reading that right.

[25:54] » Right. >> I didn't see that. Where's that at?

[25:59] » Oh,

[26:02] so limits the total extension to two.

[26:09] Do we want that in there? >> Well, I feel like we didn't really work

[26:15] in most of the things we talked about. So, I

[26:19] I think we wanted to figure out a permanent way to have it, so we didn't

[26:22] need to have it be temporary if possible. But there were things we

[26:27] talked about with maybe having a structural engineer certify it uh to

[26:31] make sure that it's able to hold a snow load and it's not just an event tent

[26:36] rental specs, but beefier specs. Um, and that we'd have permanent grade anchoring

[26:43] footings inspected by the building department. Uh, an annual reinspection,

[26:48] not just each time they extend a request. Um, we did work in the fire

[26:53] marshall to inspect it. Um, but I'd like to see, you know, which things like the

[27:02] sign off on egress and fire retardant fa fabric, um, heat and venting safety.

[27:08] Those were some things we talked about. >> I think that's all covered though.

[27:11] Number two, an inspection by the building official and fire inspector

[27:15] inspector reveals that the temporary structure is being maintained per the

[27:19] manufacturers's installation requirements, including and without

[27:23] limitation, structural maintenance, anchorage, and fabric

[27:27] » or did you want it all >> itemized out?

[27:31] » Well, I feel like the the fire marshall section was a little more full. I think

[27:35] it seemed like mostly that, but some of these other things weren't uh as spelled

[27:41] out.

[27:47] And then there was a ADA section in the ordinance that we dropped the villages

[27:52] ADA codes for the states. Uh, and I didn't research what that implication

[27:58] is. So, just wanted to hear from staff before proceeding to make sure that was

[28:04] looked at and that was intentional and not just something that kind of got

[28:07] dropped and swapped because I'm not sure what the ramifications of that are.

[28:14] Um, but yeah, rather in the language where it says uh

[28:21] I should look exactly, but where it says the the village board's discretion on

[28:25] whether or not they want to extend it, I'd rather that be an objective standard

[28:29] instead of uh subjective, like depending on who the village board is and your

[28:35] relationship with them, uh you may or may not get this. I'd rather it be meet

[28:40] these objective standards and that's the only criteria or if there's uh an

[28:47] extension of doing something temporary because we're building a permanent

[28:51] structure that progress is shown. So, it's not just a promise that someday

[28:56] we're going to build something, but we haven't built anything or pulled any

[29:00] engineering drawings or drafting permits or done any work at all. So like to see

[29:06] it uh strengthened up a little bit more to

[29:10] make it a little more objective and make sure we cover u

[29:17] something that can move from temporary to permanent and have all the mechanisms

[29:21] to have yearly inspections.

[29:26] we could uh touch base with Chris and the attorney, but I think that was the

[29:31] hard part was drawing that fine line on what's temporary and everything you just

[29:37] described is permanent. So like how do you at what point do you cross over that

[29:44] we're not just looking at something that's temporary anymore but we're just

[29:47] requiring exactly what is required with permanent structures with footings and

[29:52] the load carrying and all that other type of permanent fixtures that you're

[29:58] going to need that eventually you want. I mean I if I remember correctly just

[30:02] talking with Chris, Mark, and Kelly about this is these were the standards

[30:06] for something temporary whereas everything else might just require a

[30:10] clear amendment to the building code if you want to just permit that going

[30:13] forward. But the building inspector's recommendation is to not codify that is

[30:18] to just keep it in line with the ICC's temporary definitions of these. So

[30:23] having, you know, the building inspector grant one or two extensions and then if

[30:28] he or she denies it, then it goes to the board for two extra extensions

[30:34] 180 days at a time. The theory is you're giving maybe three, four years of

[30:40] uh leeway for this business to come into a more permanent structure.

[30:47] » But it seems like they could just reapply and start over. Like there's not

[30:51] a cap defined in there that they could internally.

[30:55] » They sure can. >> Yep.

[30:58] » But yeah, I think we were trying to see if there was a middle ground. Like

[31:02] temporary structures don't really work for year round. uh permanent ones uh too

[31:08] expensive, but we were trying to figure out if there was a year round

[31:14] uh like soft covered like a tent that is sturdier than a cheap or flimsy one that

[31:19] we could reinspect and make sure that as it degrades it's being replaced. It does

[31:25] seem like a lot of the things that are being done uh Alanos is like the

[31:30] anchorings and footings are more burly and sturdy than like a tent before an

[31:35] event. So like there is an in between. So if we can't define it in a way we're

[31:41] comfortable with and I'd almost want to just strengthen you know making sure

[31:46] that it's not an eternally granted privilege if you have u the village

[31:52] board's favor but if not then you don't. So, I'd rather it be an objective hard

[31:57] cut off uh or if we can define it as something that is very structured but is

[32:02] encouraging outdoor dining for restaurants. Sure.

[32:05] » But it seems like we're kind of back to the original one with eternal granting

[32:10] uh exceptions because I think it was has it been five years that we've been

[32:16] extending or was >> something like that, right?

[32:18] » Because it could easily be another five or 10.

[32:21] And we also talked about having a certificate of insurance that claims the

[32:27] village is not liable for anything that happens if a tent does fail. Um there

[32:32] were a lot of concerns about just permitting something that's not safe and

[32:37] I feel like we're maybe still >> I'd be hesitant to list a lot of

[32:41] different criteria because this is covering not only

[32:45] but our tents that we put up for our events too. or temporary structures.

[32:52] » Well, I wouldn't change those, >> right? But if you're telling people that

[32:56] they have to pass all these rules that we're we're trying to make objective,

[33:00] then what structure is this? Is this for a th00and square foot structure or is

[33:05] this for a 100,000 square foot structure?

[33:07] » Once you go beyond temporary, >> I think that's what the the inspectors

[33:11] are trained to do is, hey, hey, it's it's sturdy enough for what it's going

[33:15] to be doing for this weekend or for the 180 days. It's good. And then we have to

[33:21] approve it. The board has to approve it. I see what you're saying. I

[33:25] And then once 180 days, what if Alianos takes it down today and then they put

[33:30] one up in two days because they want to put up a new one. Is that another 180

[33:33] days now? Because they took it down and they put it up.

[33:37] » They could trigger the extension bit for the building inspector.

[33:41] » It's costly, labor intensive to put that up.

[33:45] » Yeah. But if you're reinstalling and reattaching everything and some of the

[33:49] fabric is frayed, you're probably not going to go through the effort of

[33:52] installing bad fabric and you are checking all connections. So

[33:57] » I think that's why >> Sorry.

[33:59] » I think that's why temporary structures is treated as temporary because you take

[34:04] it down, put it up again, and it's kind of refreshed. But if you just make it

[34:07] permanent, it will degrade over time. So it is a new category. I wouldn't want to

[34:12] change temporary rules. I agree with that. I last time we talked

[34:18] thought we brought up seeing if we could get some manufacturer specs from where

[34:22] we built that thing and you know seeing >> if present did you have anything to add

[34:27] in the conversation when me you Chris and Kelly met about this

[34:31] » how we came up to this. >> So if I remember right this verbiage is

[34:34] in there because now it's going to allow him to reapply which then opens up the

[34:38] inspection for everything you're looking for. Okay. It's not just here's your one

[34:42] permit and then we're going to let it fly for six years. This gives us the leg

[34:46] up to get in there. Okay, here your 180 days are up. Reapply. Me and Chris are

[34:51] back in there. Visual inspection, but you're only allowed to do it so long.

[34:54] Temporary is temporary at the end of the day. So, if it does take it down for two

[34:57] days and put it back up, that's kind of what we're getting at. We don't want to

[35:01] leave it up for 10 years, but we also want to be able to get in there and

[35:04] check it. So, and that's something that Kelly and us went over is because the

[35:09] code's very strong. It's either temporary or you take it down and you

[35:13] build something. >> This is where I said to that gray area

[35:16] where now you're just going to make it a permanent structure and you're going to

[35:19] be amending the building code and it's not really best practices to

[35:23] » So, how can we get in there and verify it's safe? Permanent. You permanent

[35:28] reapply. Get an inspection and we go in there and hey, this is wrong. Your

[35:31] fabric's off. Your fabric's expired. Change your fabric. the permanent will

[35:35] approve them. So we can at least get in there every year and do something with

[35:38] it. >> So we're talking about allowing that

[35:40] structure to be permanent, >> not allowing them to reapply to extend

[35:45] it, not allowing it to be permanent. >> So up to to 180

[35:52] plus the building inspectors if >> he or she wants to grant to it con cons

[35:57] uh consecutively, that's their discretion and that that power of that

[36:01] authority. But when that person, whoever it is, denies it, then the appeal

[36:05] process is to the board for the two extent two times.

[36:09] » So it could be >> perpetual

[36:11] » perpetual but but if one of the inspectors flags

[36:19] it, then it then it becomes limited to two renewals

[36:25] » via the appeal process before the board. If they get the appeal and we grant it,

[36:32] does then it go back to perpetual as long as they

[36:38] approve it or does it say once you go back to the board, you've got it for 360

[36:46] more days and that's it. >> I think it's 180.

[36:48] » Well, 180* >> I would imagine that the final decision

[36:52] from the building inspector would stand firm after that six months. six months.

[36:59] I mean, if you want us to go back and look at a more

[37:04] » this is clear as mud. >> Yeah. And that is very difficult when

[37:08] dealing with building codes. You typically don't want to deviate from

[37:11] that. But if if the board's will is to create something like that and amend the

[37:16] building code, you sure can. Um just not recommend it.

[37:21] » Yeah. I'd like to get out of where we just have to answer whether or not we're

[37:27] going to make somebody tear down a tent based on our opinion every year for five

[37:31] years and then the next five years instead of having a process a process

[37:36] that doesn't allow that. That is just objective. You meet these or you don't.

[37:41] » Well, this this is that is it not because it's going to be them

[37:46] being the arbiter, not us. Uh but they can come to us to grant it

[37:55] anyway. Isn't that part of this >> for for 180 days and then that's it.

[38:01] » But then they could just reapply again. >> No.

[38:03] » Is there? >> No, that has to come down.

[38:05] » Then it has to come. >> That'll have to come down and then he

[38:07] can reapply and then he can reconstruct it. That's the I think what the goal

[38:11] Kelly was trying here was we'll get as much as we can, but at some point or

[38:17] another it's going to have to come down. So, so

[38:21] » you know there is another route we could look at. Maybe like we discussed this in

[38:25] the past that maybe there's just a a code amendment to our zoning that allows

[38:30] for seasonal type stuff but not year round but like seasonal temp tents for

[38:35] example awnings in the B1. Maybe that could be crafted into the zoning code as

[38:42] an option away from the building code. >> So that is another option to explore.

[38:46] Can you look into the Illinois code because it it says that the Illinois

[38:50] code differentiates between tents which are fabric membrane structures

[38:55] and rigid aluminum frame structures with hard or non-fabric ball panels.

[39:02] » The Illinois codes are the minimum standard. So we village IC and the fire

[39:08] district's ICC that have adopted or higher standard. So those are designed

[39:13] for areas that don't have adopted codes. So

[39:17] » you can't go from a more stringent to a less stringent.

[39:20] » So if someone went to build a brand new house right now, they can't go off the

[39:23] state code, they have to go off what the village eastund adopted.

[39:27] » Now the v there was no village. It was unincorporated or there was an area that

[39:30] didn't adopt the code. That is the absolute bare minimum that a contractor

[39:34] has to build that house to. That's how that's how that works.

[39:37] » Can we revert to state code when it comes to

[39:42] structures, temporary permanent structure?

[39:46] We've been doing some digging on how some people get around this. We really

[39:49] have. And what it comes down to, it's going to cost money. Um, you know,

[39:52] Elgrove Village has a permanent tent outside one of our hotels. I called them

[39:55] up directly. They permanently anchored it down. It's raided. They sprinkled it

[40:00] and they fired it. You don't have that option here. They turned it into a

[40:05] building. You can't do that with this one.

[40:07] » We're also trying to keep costs in mind when you're coming up with stuff like

[40:11] this. Everything's going to cost money to make in work.

[40:14] » Yeah. Yeah.

[40:17] Or we charge them for the inspections and all the things. We still are putting

[40:23] research into all these to set it up. But are you saying ongoing it costs us a

[40:28] lot or can those costs be put on >> fair cost to bring it up to a more

[40:34] satisfying safety >> cost? Yeah.

[40:36] » Yeah. I mean we can certainly bring it back

[40:41] with those other criterias uh for your consideration but you know this a

[40:46] situation like this we could also look at zoning as an alternative

[40:53] » in the meantime can we get some specifications from the manufacturer

[41:00] » I did I did acquire some not all but yeah I I could work on it but that's

[41:04] only going to answer the question for this one establishment not

[41:08] Because whatever gets written is going to have to hold water for everybody else

[41:10] that puts the tent up, >> right?

[41:12] » Just wondering the rating, weight rating, snow load rating,

[41:18] tired rating, >> if they have done any of that work or

[41:21] not, the manufacturer. >> Yeah, we can get some of that from them.

[41:25] » It comes down to what you want to do in the future because even if it comes back

[41:28] that it's still good, he's still on an expired permit right now.

[41:32] » So that's what I think this is trying to fix.

[41:36] So, if we're saying we really want them to eventually have to take it down and

[41:41] put it back up to reapply so that we can get in with the inspection, is there a

[41:45] route where we could just yearly inspect it and say these things don't meet uh a

[41:50] brand new tent specs, but if they do, you can continue one more year and we

[41:55] reinspect again next year. Kelly looked into that and I do believe

[41:59] that was where the option came from with the um coming to the board if there was

[42:05] a problem because she's very adamant that the book the codes the code.

[42:11] » Yeah, I'd like to I mean I'd be okay with every year you get inspected and if

[42:16] it meets inspection uh you continue but as soon as it doesn't it comes down

[42:20] immediately and there's no appeal to the board uh to see if we can

[42:26] uh just skirt around safety because I'd rather not let that be an option.

[42:31] » I think we I'd feel more comfortable getting that out of

[42:33] » Yeah, we would have to look over that option.

[42:37] » We got to watch that fine line of what you allow right now that's not written

[42:40] in an ordinance because if something were to happen, it's going to be on all

[42:43] of us. >> So, we got to make sure if we get an

[42:45] answer out of this. >> I think this right here is a good

[42:48] starting point. It at least gets our inspectors in there and they got a year.

[42:53] They're essentially up to a year now to figure things out.

[42:57] » Yeah. And I believe it gave the leg up on giving him the time or or the

[43:01] business, not the single way out, giving the business time to make a future plan

[43:05] for okay, we're going to allow it for now. What's your plan?

[43:11] » I think that was the last conversation when this all started at the board

[43:14] meeting was this was to a temporary relief to give him the adequate time

[43:18] frame to figure out a permanent solution.

[43:22] improve >> right now. That was the story.

[43:24] » That was the story. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[43:26] » This is a shortcut allowing just letting it be up. Okay.

[43:30] » And plus it gets our inspectors in there.

[43:32] » Yeah. And it gets us in there to get eyes on it to at least allow to be safe

[43:35] to standards for now. So Chris, myself, and and Kelly were in

[43:41] emails back and forth, and this is what we ended up coming up on. So when I go

[43:45] back, I feel more comfortable going with the attorneys who want to move any other

[43:48] verbage around. >> So it makes sense to put this through.

[43:51] so that you can get eyes on it and then we can still do research and tweak.

[43:56] » Yeah. And you can always strike this. >> Okay.

[43:58] » This just like any other ordinance you do, you can come back and strike if you

[44:02] come up with a better off. >> Yeah. That's always fair. At least you

[44:05] can get in there and make sure it's safe.

[44:07] » Mhm. >> So, as it's written, this does demand

[44:10] they get inspected now and then take it down if it doesn't meet inspections

[44:14] after so many days. >> Yeah. Or the appeal, actually. So

[44:17] they'll come to the appeal and then you guys will decide if you'll give them the

[44:20] extra. Was it 180? >> 180. And then at that point which gave

[44:24] them to the spring, right? Is that what the time frame it was?

[44:27] » Yeah. >> Which gave them to the spring.

[44:29] » So because I believe there was a mapped out plan of attack on this in June or

[44:34] Right. the June. >> And that's and it's and that's the

[44:37] scenario if the building inspector doesn't approve it.

[44:39] » Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean I hope it gets approved and

[44:42] it's fine. Yeah, >> but since

[44:45] I'd rather uh if it isn't approved that it does come down because it has been

[44:50] five years of extending it hoping that eventually we'll upgrade it. So,

[44:54] » right. I think that's the crux of this that it was always communicated to the

[44:57] board that we're working on a solution. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[45:00] » And in those situations, I'd like to see actual proof of money invested in a

[45:05] space and some building happening and engineering paid paid for or something

[45:10] » because uh it's one thing to say you're going to do it.

[45:17] » All right. >> Thank you.

[45:18] » Thanks, Mark. >> Thank you.

[45:20] » Let's go ahead and take a vote. >> Okay. Trusty Guma.

[45:25] » No. >> Trusty Solder.

[45:31] No.

[45:34] » Trusty Saviano. >> Yes.

[45:37] » Trusty Kunzie. >> No.

[45:42] » We'll come back and present another option for the board via the zoning.

[45:46] » Has applied again for their temporary.

[45:52] » I'll have to check >> since that meeting that we had last

[45:54] time. >> I didn't go after them because I'm

[45:58] trying not to seam out anyone on this one. So, I didn't catch up with them.

[46:02] » We have two in town. >> I would I don't think we do have two.

[46:08] » No, >> I I think there's a huge difference

[46:11] between one and the other like to say that what a yurt is the same as a giant

[46:18] aluminum structure is >> that's what we're trying to figure out.

[46:22] I mean, what what can we do to make it more of a permanent? What can they do to

[46:26] make it more of a permanent? Can they change the framework? What?

[46:29] » Well, that's what we should be asking. Everything will cost a lot more money

[46:33] and I think that's the hiccup. >> Understood.

[46:37] » We'll come to something. >> All right. How about uh D? We need

[46:41] direction and uh discussion direction regarding a potential ordinance amending

[46:46] section 70.11, 70.12, 70.13, and 70.14 on in repealing

[46:53] schedule 7 of chapter 71 charter. truck routes.

[46:59] » So, are we talking about

[47:04] banning trucks from the truck route that we made a couple years ago? Is that what

[47:09] this is saying? >> Yeah. In a nutshell, they would not

[47:12] designate Bington as the truck route. >> It would say they only can go on the

[47:17] highways unless they're making a delivery inside of the downtown.

[47:21] » Correct. >> I thought, so if that's possible, why

[47:24] didn't we do that two years ago? Yeah, I thought we had

[47:28] » I thought that I thought we were told we can't do that.

[47:31] » I don't know the answer to that. >> I thought there was a high dot

[47:34] designated truck. No. >> No.

[47:38] » Um >> we were told

[47:40] » we have to allow some way for these trucks to get through. And

[47:46] that's why we designated Bington because we wanted to limit it from all of these

[47:51] side streets and just say fine, if you have to come through, you have to go

[47:55] down Bington. That's why it was designated.

[47:59] But if we had the option to just say no, no trucks.

[48:04] » Yeah. >> Well, we have to allow trucks. We just

[48:06] not telling them they have to go on that one street. That's it.

[48:11] » They're you're going to get trucks. are going to get Josh like help us out here.

[48:17] » So, here's what I've I've found just in being in Village Hall, being around town

[48:21] for the last few years. I would guesstimate that 80 to 90% of our truck

[48:26] traffic is trucks trying to get over to Lion and Carpentersville.

[48:31] So, we had a discussion when uh Eric was still here as a village administrator.

[48:36] Uh we were talking about doing a a truck study and I pitched the idea, how about

[48:42] we save that money and just no trucks through East Dundee because they're all

[48:46] going over to uh Lion Eyes and uh I'm sorry, not Lion Eyes, but RevCore and

[48:51] Carpentersville. >> Um

[48:54] they can go through Carpentersville to get through RevCore. They don't need to

[48:57] come through Eastundi through RevCore. So that's what I pitched and that's kind

[49:01] of where we >> and then we had lengthy conversations

[49:03] with Kelly and Kelly went back and forth with the ID do engineers,

[49:06] » right? >> And after a discussion with ID do

[49:10] multiple times, they said basically you could just submit to us your update that

[49:14] you're going to designate to three rows 72, 25, and 68 is the state highways and

[49:20] that's it in Eastund. So that's where we're going to go with that.

[49:23] » Okay, >> great.

[49:27] That is the exemption. >> Yes.

[49:29] » With the and like President Pearson said, the exemption is for deliveries.

[49:33] They can make it >> obviously.

[49:35] » What about Lioniz? >> That would be considered part of the

[49:39] operation for deliveries. >> But what you're saying is you think this

[49:43] might cut down trucks by 80%. That's my

[49:46] » this this this would target the trucks that are making a delivery from out west

[49:51] and want to go to like Bington and they say, "Oh, well, East Bington's a a pass

[49:57] through, so we'll go through there." Whereas now those outside that have

[50:01] nothing to do with Lionizer RevCore can just say, "Oh, we got to stay on 72 to

[50:05] 60 25." >> Or they can take

[50:09] whatever. >> Sure.

[50:13] and Bronco, if I may, um the the ordinance presented uh does technically

[50:19] for the trucks going to Lion Eyes or Third Street, there's actually a

[50:22] designated route for them specifically in this ordinance. So, they're not

[50:25] » uh just grandfathered in as originally was discussed like uh like delivery

[50:30] trucks. They have a designated route for them.

[50:33] » Yeah. For them specifically. >> Yeah.

[50:37] » Third Street to Bington. down to 68 to 72.

[50:44] » So, is there does Carpentersville have a designated shakra?

[50:50] » Yeah, we're going to we're going to

[50:53] » they're going to they're going to warn they're going to warn their designation.

[50:56] » We're going to send those two businesses a courtesy update just so they know

[51:02] » after the board's decision. >> So, how how would a truck get to RevCore

[51:06] then? They have to go down

[51:09] » to 31 >> Main Street

[51:12] Carp. >> I wouldn't want to take a semi down that

[51:15] hill. >> What's that?

[51:15] » I wouldn't want to take a semi down that hill.

[51:18] » Oh, well, you can also take what is the road that goes um

[51:24] » Lake Marian. >> Lake Marian goes and then you could turn

[51:27] left on I mean, listen, this is their problem.

[51:31] » You don't have to worry about it. >> Like at Walmart, you could turn off 25

[51:34] and that goes there, too. Yeah, >> there's there's multiple ways they could

[51:38] do it. >> And there's a hill on either side of

[51:41] like >> I mean

[51:44] » they don't want to go past the river the hill. But

[51:46] » isn't RevCore doing deliveries? >> What does RevCore even do?

[51:52] » They make fans. >> Yeah. So, but aren't those trucks exempt

[51:56] if they're doing deliveries >> into downtown?

[51:58] » Yeah. They're not just passing through. >> Ref.

[52:03] Well, yes, if they are going to downtown East Indie, then yes, they would be

[52:08] exempted and allowed to do that. >> The beer semis can still go to

[52:12] » I think that RevCore probably they're not just doing business only with

[52:17] businesses in downtown is my guess. >> Maybe they're

[52:21] » I would wholeheartedly agree with that. >> This isn't for a vote.

[52:27] » It is. Yeah. So, I think we're on board. >> Yes.

[52:34] is the answer. >> Oh, we've never done a truck study

[52:37] either. >> We did do a truck study. We did one a

[52:39] few years back. Um don't have those results,

[52:43] » but this would have been a more comprehensive one that uh chief was uh

[52:48] referring to and it was great suggestion saying, you know, why can't we just ask

[52:52] the attorneys if we could just omit Bington from our truck route and save

[52:56] the headache? >> Yeah.

[52:57] » Yeah. And that truck route study showed that a lot of trucks were going down

[53:04] Water Street all the way about 72, which is why we looked at changing the park,

[53:11] » right? >> Changing the truck route and all that

[53:13] because that was a disaster. >> So,

[53:18] what what's the plan? we get rid of the truck route and then

[53:22] » come back with the ordinance and then uh >> update I do

[53:28] » I think clear signage to make sure trucks are very aware and the courtesy

[53:32] call I think is a great idea. Yeah, >> we'll definitely let the two businesses

[53:36] know with the letter that the board has XYZ accordance

[53:41] » and then um clarity on like the license class license plate classifications. Uh

[53:49] there were like four spots that they were all different in like for classes F

[53:53] through Z or B through V or H through Z there was and some didn't say. So, just

[54:00] when we write this up, make sure it's consistent. And I'm not sure what those

[54:04] classifications are, but make sure we're targeting the right classes.

[54:09] » And also, uh, navigation, right? Like I don't know

[54:16] what truckers use. Do they don't use Google Maps probably? Right. Do they

[54:19] » Chief knows that one pretty good. He's >> called and yelled at them quite some

[54:23] time. >> Yeah.

[54:25] » Right. Several different apps, right? And you're correct. Google Maps isn't

[54:29] one of them. They have have apps that are specific to truckers.

[54:32] » All right. >> I can't tell you for sure what there

[54:34] are. There's more. >> Contact those apps, right?

[54:36] » Well, so ID do once we once we advise ID do okay

[54:40] » and inform Google Maps that's supposed to go out. Now, what when we did this

[54:45] the first time, what some of the truckers would we would stop would say

[54:48] is that I, you know, I didn't know. I was just following my app.

[54:51] » Yeah. >> So, I don't think it's a perfect system

[54:54] is is the answer. It'll take a while, >> right?

[54:59] One of the things that we did to our ordinance before though is that we made

[55:02] trailer or truck length part of our ordinance and that that has helped us as

[55:06] far as being able to enforce them >> because then we don't have to bring them

[55:09] up the ploy to I'm sorry, PAL to have them weighed and etc.

[55:16] » Can our signs say local East Dundy deliveries only or something that makes

[55:21] it clear that they're like, "Oh, it is a local delivery. It's for carbon." Well,

[55:25] the the local delivery is part of the state statute. We have to allow it. What

[55:29] Phil put out on the signage was it just essentially says no trucks and there was

[55:33] the orange flags hanging, so it was very visible. Now, we've made stops on

[55:38] truckers that said yes, I saw the signs, but I had to go that way. So,

[55:43] » yes. Yes. When you start here, you have to go that way. You don't have to start

[55:47] there. >> Okay.

[55:50] » Thank you. >> Good.

[55:52] » All right. Good. Move on to E. Discussion direction regarding exterior

[55:57] and permanent signage for the downtown parking garage.

[56:00] » Who's talking about that? Anyone? >> I like the third one.

[56:05] » It's a very efficient discussion. >> There you go.

[56:08] » I mean, >> yeah. So, um, we had in the budget to

[56:11] have 11,000 for the um the counting uh app uh function. U I believe looked into

[56:20] it and it wasn't really exactly what we were looking for. Anything else would

[56:25] have been maybe 50 $60,000 to have a numeric count of how many open spaces

[56:30] are there. Uh but we do know that as part of the

[56:33] parking garage, we communicated that there was going to be signage at some

[56:36] point. We've had like the temporary banners out there for a while. So now we

[56:39] want to move into something more permanent. Uh staff presented an option

[56:44] at the PZHC meeting a few months back. PCHC basically said, "This is great, but

[56:49] how about something more historic looking that matches the downtown?" Um,

[56:54] one PCAC member was an architect mentioned a marquee style, like a

[56:58] theater style. So, we kind of went with that and we got some uh renders on uh

[57:04] options for the board to consider. One, two, or three, or none at all? Go back

[57:08] to the drawing board, however the board seats fit.

[57:11] » Now, are there are there going to be two of these or one?

[57:13] » Just the one. >> Okay.

[57:16] » All right. Yeah, the third one is my preference as well

[57:20] » with the curved arrow. >> Yes.

[57:23] more vintage and true to the second one is way too clunky. The third I mean the

[57:28] first one if if people hated arrow I would be okay with that. The second one

[57:35] » what is our resident designer >> I have a hard time figuring out what

[57:39] shirt and pants to wear. So I'll let I'll let you figure out what you want.

[57:45] Yeah, I I think uh the third one also, but if we could use our village branded

[57:51] font, Ignite, it's very condensed and bold. And this is like P with a big gap

[57:57] before A then R. This would just be like park as one unit.

[58:02] » I mean, I have to I have to assume that the park portion of this uh was not

[58:08] » I mean, they didn't dimension any of the lettering. There's no way that's what

[58:12] they would actually do, right? Like this isn't they're not even spaced evenly,

[58:16] » right? >> Well, you'd be surprised what a sign

[58:20] shop will do if they're not given any design specs. They will do whatever it's

[58:24] cheapest and easiest. So, >> I like the consistency of using our

[58:27] font. >> Yeah, that seems like a good idea.

[58:32] » All right. >> Yeah. for reference just like that's our

[58:34] font.

[58:38] » So filling in a bit more because it's taller letters, but that's our village

[58:42] font that could kind of fill the space a little better.

[58:47] But that would be it's Ignite. It's on all of our signs, so it also match and

[58:51] feel like that's a village's words. >> All right.

[58:57] Hopefully that won't be an extra $5,000.

[59:02] So your recommendation is change the font.

[59:05] » Yeah. To the village branded font. Ignite is the name of that font. Yes.

[59:10] » Village staff has sent that font. I I don't know if it's just not translating

[59:14] the concept, but we will make sure >> when we move forward to get a final

[59:18] proof and review that, but they do have those fonts that both the Factori or

[59:22] Factora and then Ignite as well. So >> yeah, I think Ignite will fit this the

[59:26] best. Okay. Um, and yeah, I wasn't sure if they just

[59:30] have some stock letters and they're showing this because it's a lower price,

[59:34] uh, but to do a custom letter, if it's a structural sign, might cost more. So,

[59:39] » yeah, >> we'll have to see because that might

[59:41] affect the the cost. >> Sure. When I last talked to them, um, I

[59:45] asked if if this cost and concept factored in our fonts, Ignite or Vector,

[59:51] and I was told it would be the same price regardless of the optional font.

[59:55] » Perfect. >> We find this company racing

[59:58] the sl. >> Well, we reached out to um a three

[1:00:04] different companies and then um this one is what staff depending on costs and

[1:00:11] just overall designs that we got. This is u we the staff wasn't directed to

[1:00:16] continue with this company and bring concepts to the

[1:00:20] » one of the more responsive ones.

[1:00:24] If I have a local company who would bend this, we take a look at that.

[1:00:30] » We could reach out to other more local companies if you'd like.

[1:00:36] » Always open to getting lower quotes and using local people. Yeah,

[1:00:41] » I do think this one is past the expiration date that they put in their

[1:00:45] proposal. So, >> we've been talking with them though.

[1:00:48] They just >> Okay.

[1:00:51] » All right. You guys got enough to go on then?

[1:00:55] » And another reason why this company reached out and we talked to them is

[1:00:58] because they were also the ones interested in bidding for uh the gateway

[1:01:01] signage, >> the welcome east ones. So that's how

[1:01:04] they kind of were always on our radar as a reputable company through um Gary Rber

[1:01:11] coming into town or the ones that historic

[1:01:14] » into town. Okay. Because we just talked about that.

[1:01:16] » Yes. Yes. >> It is kind of a niche kind of signage

[1:01:19] industry to do these structural lit signs. So, I'd want to make sure they're

[1:01:23] comfortable the other vendor with those same specs. But, yeah.

[1:01:27] » Okay. >> More more quotes better.

[1:01:30] » Okay. >> That takes us on to our report.

[1:01:37] » Trusty Goomba, >> no report.

[1:01:41] » All right. Trusty Ser. >> Uh, no report.

[1:01:46] » Trusty Sabiano, >> no report.

[1:01:48] » All right. And then last, >> I will just say that uh yesterday my

[1:01:55] wife and I were walking down the water street and

[1:02:01] three uh kayaks were rented out

[1:02:06] and the parking lot was full except for >> two empty spots and that was it. So

[1:02:14] » it's all getting used. That's cool. That's one.

[1:02:19] » Okay, Phil. Phil,

[1:02:24] » we went live today with the blue and they can be picked up in our lobby and

[1:02:30] then our office will be carrying them as well. What it is is it uh benefits

[1:02:34] autism awareness. So, if we pull over an autistic driver that has uh

[1:02:39] communication needs, doesn't communicate like like you and I would, they can hand

[1:02:43] the officer the blue envelope. They've got other information That just leads to

[1:02:47] safer stops. >> Good.

[1:02:49] » Awesome. >> Okay.

[1:02:53] » Just on Tristy Kunzy's uh report, uh we have had 35 rentals for the back.

[1:03:00] » How many? >> 35.

[1:03:03] » Um I can send that to you via email. It's uh

[1:03:06] » just depends on how long you're going to do it and stuff.

[1:03:09] » And uh

[1:03:13] that's awesome. Do we I mean, we're getting a cotton,

[1:03:17] aren't we? >> We will get a uh a payment later on the

[1:03:21] year for that. Yeah. Percentage. >> That's great.

[1:03:24] » How many weeks has it been up? >> Uh three weeks.

[1:03:28] » How many? >> Three weeks.

[1:03:30] » Three weeks. >> And we've had terrible weather,

[1:03:33] » right? >> Yeah.

[1:03:34] » And a lot of people online are saying there's no law. What? How? Why would I

[1:03:39] listen? That >> damn people people online are wrong.

[1:03:42] » It's controversial. Um, all right. Do we have anything?

[1:03:48] » No report. >> No report.

[1:03:50] » No report. >> All right. I do have one thing going off

[1:03:54] of online stuff. Um, I want to put it out on the video that none of us have

[1:04:00] signed any NDAs or anything regarding any sort of data centers or anything

[1:04:04] like that. And to think that I would take money from anybody is ridiculous

[1:04:09] and it's very insulting because if you knew how the government works, the

[1:04:14] trustees make the decisions, not the village president. So please educate

[1:04:19] yourself before you make comments online. That's all I got.

[1:04:24] » I had to say it. >> Trying to say we took money.

[1:04:28] » I don't know. East, we're Eastundee. I mean, how much money could they give

[1:04:31] you? >> I'll be down in South with my new

[1:04:33] friends. Um, okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the

[1:04:41] open forum and go to executive session for C6, sale of property. And we will

[1:04:46] not return back to open session. >> Right. I will make a motion to move to

[1:04:52] executive session close to the public and media under the provisions of the

[1:04:55] Illinois Open Meetings Act 5 ILCS 120/2 or C6 sale of property and will be

[1:05:04] leaving from close session and noting into open session.

[1:05:09] » Second. All

[1:05:11] » in favor? >> We need roll call.

[1:05:16] » Trusty Guma. >> Yes.

[1:05:19] Trusty Solder. >> Yes.

[1:05:21] » Trusty Saviano. >> Yes.

[1:05:22] » Trusty Kunzie. >> Yes.

[1:05:27] » All right. Thanks for coming in.

[1:05:32] » Yeah. If you got need a minute, go right ahead.

East Dundee, IL Regular Village Board Meeting - August 17, 2026

Transcript