[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.