City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Elmer City Council for Monday, April 6, 2026. And I'd ask if you'd please rise and join in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Clerk Tamer, please call the role. Here. Virgil here. Here. Absent. Irby here. Brennan here. Brimis here.

Bellinger here. Shenko here. Hill here. Bram here. Jensen here. Toudo here. Baker here. 13 present, one absent. 13 present, one absent. We have a quorum. Moving on to item three on the agenda, which is the receipt of written communications from the public. Clerk Tamer, we had some posted, I believe. Is that correct? Correct. Is there anyone in the audience that has a written communication that he or she would like to deliver to the council? If so, please raise your hand. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to public forum. Kirk Tamer, has anyone signed in for public forum this evening? Yes, mayor. Uh, we have Mark Dulli.

All right, before you start, let me just tell you how public forum works. If you use the microphone right next to where you are, uh, state your name. Address is optional. just helps us uh follow up with you if we uh need to or if you want us to. You have three minutes to speak on any topic. I I want to start mentioning that uh we do not respond to public forum. This is your opportunity to talk to us and tell us what's on your mind. Uh so I think sometimes people are waiting a response and don't want to feel like it's rude when we don't say anything back. But with that, please state your name, address, and proceed. And you have three minutes.

Hi, I'm Mark. Hi, I'm Mark Dulli. I live at 393 uh West Van Beern right at the creek. Uh I live in Ward 7. I call myself a 50-year lifer and lover of Elmherst. The beautiful pond at Eldridge Park has been my home picture on Facebook for the last 10 years. I love living there. I'd like to raise for your awareness tonight of a proposed development that is going through the zoning and planning commission right now. It's not yet at the development planning and zoning committee or the city council yet, but I am part of a group of concerned residents and we call ourselves team southwest Elmherst and we are respecting the process. A full 31 of the 67 documents on board docks regarding this development have come from us. Some 70 to 90 of us showed up at the last ZPC meeting to make our voices heard. And afterward, Dr. Rose complimented us for our behavior. We've also collected 344 signatures on a petition to oppose this development. My intent just to bring your awareness to this tonight. The case is 26P03 and the PUD was submitted by Alliance, sometimes called Arco Murray or LPC and the plan is to purchase the two properties on which sit the Clarion Inn and the Conference Center and to build a warehouse, a 42 foot high warehouse with 32 docks. The warehouse itself floor space is the size of three football fields and it would be just north of the public works building off Route 83. The PUB application lists some five public benefits such as cleaning up the soil, paying real estate taxes, replacing an aging hotel, and reducing crime. Honestly,

we're not impressed. We see those items as table stakes, which any purchaser of the property would need to do anyway. Our concerns as neighbors and as an elementary school is that Alliance is seriously misrepresenting what they are building. They are uh significantly minimizing the amount of semi-truck traffic that will need to enter and exit through the fivelegged intersection that we call the bulb. Alliance is also seriously understating the dangerous hazards and unhealthy nuisance that they will cause during a seven-month construction phase. In short, we we believe and we have documented many zoning ordinances that will be violated during construction and operation. And if we communicate well, we think this will die in the ZPC. This is not in the best interest of the city or Ward 7. we can think of many more suitable options for that property. And I'm always available to answer your questions. And I've spoken very carefully with Rex and Mike, our ward alderman. Uh so you can talk to them. They're very knowledgeable about it, too. And so I thank you for your time and I do thank every one of you on this uh on on this council for all the work that you do for us because we do appreciate it and we know it's a lot of work. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Eliia Kawaja.

Good evening. Uh, members of the council and mayor. My name is Aliyia. I'm sorry. My name is Aliyia Kawaja and I'm a resident at 459 West Commonwealth Lane and I'm a neighbor of Marks and live right there at Eldridge Park. Um, I'm a resident who cares deeply about the long-term health, safety, and stability of our community. I want to be clear, I'm not opposed to development. I am opposed to development that puts residents at risk, diminishes our quality of life, or prioritizes outside uh interests over the people who live here. Unfortunately, the proposed warehouse project does all three. First, the noise and traffic burden. Warehouses bring heavy truck traffic, often early mornings, late nights, and weekends. That means constant noise, idling engines, and safety risks for the families, pedestrians, and school routes. Our roads were not designed for high volume freight traffic. The increased wear and tear becomes a taxpayer burden, not a developer burden. Noise pollution isn't just an inconvenience. It affects sleep, stress levels, and overall well-being. Second, the air quality and environmental impact. I have a background in public health. Okay. Diesel trucks are a major source of particulate pollution. Communities near warehouse corridors consistently experience higher rates of asthma and respiratory issues. We should not be trading our community's health for developers profit. But there's an additional environmental concern that has not been adequately addressed. the disturbance of hazardous or toxic materials during site preparation. When land is cleared, excavated, or regraded, especially land that has been previously used for industrial or commercial purposes, there's a real risk of releasing contaminants into the air, soil, and groundwater. These can include petroleum residues, solvents, heavy metals, or other hazardous substances. Without a

comprehensive environmental assessment, we have no assurance that construction won't expose residents to toxins or create long-term contamination issues that are expensive and difficult to remediate. If this project moves forward, what safeguards will be in place to identify, contain, and properly dispose of any hazardous materials? Who will be accountable if contamination is discovered after construction begins? These are not hypothetical questions. They are standard due diligence issues for responsible development. Third, the impact on property values and neighborhood stability. Large industrial facilities next to residential areas have a documented negative impact on property values. Homeowners who invested their life savings in this community should not be penalized by incompatible land use decisions. Once property values decline, the tax base declines and the entire community feels that impact. Finally, the issue of transparency and accountability. Where is the independent environmental and traffic impact study? Residents deserve the data, not assumptions. Has the city evaluated alternative sites already zoned for industrial use? What long-term commitments is the developer making to mitigate harm? And how will those uh commitments be enforced? I feel like this project is moving forward very quickly with a lot of unanswered questions and too much at stake. So, I'm asking the uh all of you here to pause this development until there's a full independent environmental traffic and economic impact assessment um until that's completed including a hazardous material. You're

about three and a half minutes. So, if you would wrap up. Yep. Thank you. Our community deserves thoughtful planning, not rush decisions with permanent consequences. Thank you for your time and for pro for prioritizing the health and safety of the residents you serve. Amy Wheeler.

Hi, I'm Amy Wheeler and um I live at 30 301 South Arlington. um right across from the lot of trees um 100-year-old elm trees that were torn down a couple years ago and still nothing remains. So, I'm I'm speaking for the trees today. As the world faces growing concerns about climate change, including rising temperatures and more frequent and extreme weather events, the enormous benefits provided by trees can help offset some of that damage. According to the Morton Arboritum, experts have determined that every dollar invested in tree planting and management returns up to 500%. Allocating resources for planting trees, maintenance, and education is more than just a fiscally sound decision. It's an investment in the very well-being of the people and planet. Trees are ex extremely valuable, and I'm sure you all know this. Besides the aesthetics, they reduce energy consumption by reducing surface temperatures and shading structures, shielding homes, buildings, and buildings from harsh winds and sun, cooling surrounding areas, and reducing the impacts of heat islands. They provide buffers against noise, light pollution, store carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, and remove pollutants from the air. They inter intercept storm water and help reduce flooding, stabilizing soils and reduce erosion. They increase property values, enhance our quality of life, lower crime rates, and improve mental health and physical health. They provide important habitat for wildlife and critical pollinator populations. According to the Chicago Region Trees Initiative, the highest percentage of tree canopy in Elmherst is found in

residential properties and natural areas. It is estimated Elmherst trees provide the municipality with over a million dollars worth of benefits annually. These trees also store carbon which is valued at an additional $6 million. The value of a mature tree ranges from a,000 to $10,000. The value cannot be replaced with a younger smaller tree as it takes uh can take decades for those trees to mature. We also know a mature tree can intercept or otherwise mitigate over 5,000 gallons of runoff every year. Our existing trees work hard for us with a relatively small investment. From Elmherst Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 6, trees are declared to be a natural public resource, and it is the intent of the city council to protect the trees as herein set out in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the present and future citizens of the city. Unfortunately, this code applies to parkway trees only and not private property trees. When we lose a parkway tree, the city replaces it. This is not true with private property trees and we believe Elmherst is past due in acknowledging and addressing private property tree canopy loss. Thank you for your time.

Barbara Leran My name is Barbara Lteran. I'm a W 2 resident and a member of Elmherst Cole Cities Coalition. The number of newly constructed homes and additions in Elmherst averages 100 projects annually. More often than not, new construction replaces smaller, older homes on lots with mature and often historic trees. Originally, Cool Cities was estimating at the minimum one tree being removed per project or 100 trees lost per year, 1,000 trees lost in the last decade. But then in a public works committee meeting, a builder openly stated that for new construction, it is easier to clear lots of all trees. What we thought was the worst case scenario at, for example, 292 Arlington may now be the norm in new construction where every tree is being removed. Research shows Elmer's tree canopy decreased from 29% to 28% between 2010 and 2017. While 1 1% sounds minor, this canopy loss could equate to as many as 3,000 trees lost in a decade. How many trees we are losing each year is anyone's guess because the city of Elmerst does not track private property tree loss. The email document you received last night from Cool Cities contains a small sampling of images demonstrating tree loss, both residential and commercial, in Elmerst. These before and after images are not meant as commentary on what is being built, but to acknowledge that our tree canopy is being lost, is not being tracked, and without planning and protections will not be easily replaced. A private property tree ordinance would bring Elmherst in line with other municipalities that value trees. In research provided by the city's forester forestry superintendent Mark Stevens, 20 of 31 nearby communities had ordinances that

protected trees on private property during new construction. And 15 of 31 communities had ordinances that protected trees on private properties when a resident wished to remove a tree on their private property for any reason. Let us be clear, a private property tree ordinance for new construction is not targeting builders as one comm community as one committee member suggested. Again, 20 of 31 communities surveyed by staff have this ordinance and yet builders are still constructing homes in these communities. These ordinances are meant to preserve, protect, replace, and maintain valuable urban forests while also providing opportunities to educate property owners on the importance and the benefits of trees. The annual number of applications for all building permits in Elmharst is in the range of 2,000 for projects such as pools, patios, outdoor kitchens, and more. And any of these projects could as well result in the removal of trees. City staff suggested each tree permit for new home construction would require one hour of staff time or 100 hours per year for a tree preservation ordinance for new construction. We realize funding and staff are a constraint this year, but protecting trees can and should be planned for in future budgets. Preventing further tree loss should be a baseline goal for our community. Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Lisa. Lisa Gerhalt Ghold Durks. What is it? Ghold. Ghold. Sorry about that.

Hello. I'm Elisa Ghold Dirks. Um, also part of the Elmherst Cool Cities Coalition. Also here to speak about trees. Elmherst is a proud tree city. We're trees are part of our identity. With an estimated 70% of Elmherst's tree canopy grown on private property, it is in our best interest to expand tree protections to maximize the collective benefits trees provide our community. We appreciate the committee's acknowledgement of trees as one tool in our stormwater mitigation arsenal and applaud offering stormwater incentive dollars to encourage residents to plant trees. The proposed $10,000 will fund approximately 20 to 40 trees annually, but we estimate this is only a small percentage of what we're losing each year. We also appreciate the commitment to educate the community on the benefits of trees. But as we've seen with the city's sustainability plan, which recommends a substantial amount of community education, recommendations often don't come to fruition. To the public works committee and staff, we've shared examples from communities doing a good job with tree education, and we hope that you consider using these in Elmharst as well. As committee discussions progressed, cool cities asked for the city to go beyond education and storm water incentives, incentive funds to also include the following. Tree removal permits as a means to track what how much how many trees we're losing. a fee and loo program to fund tree replacement on said property or elsewhere in the community. Protections to prevent damage of trees on properties adjacent to construction sites. And a commitment to developing a long-term urban forest management plan over the next two years that encompasses both public and private property tree preservation phases in layers of protection and incrementally builds in funding. We believe Elmherst can easily

replicate our community's tree preservation programs, requiring limited funds and staff to provide reasonable tree protections and help stop the bleeding, so to speak, of trees lost on private property. Starting with new construction would limit the scope and make the biggest impact in the short term. We'll return in June to ask you to include funds in your 2027 budget for tree purp preservation. And because the committee verbally committed to addressing tree protections again in one year, we'll continue to advocate for the above protections at that time. We ask you to recognize the value of our collective public and private urban forest and take steps to protect and replenish it for the long term. Thank you.

Thank you, Omar Haidan. You say it again. Umar Haidan. Umar Hayan. All right. Anyone else? Barry Hang.

Hello, my name is Barry Jang. I am a resident of Elmherst and I am extremely concerned about the purchase of the warehouse where the Claren Hotel currently resides as this warehouse development project has ties to Alliance which has sold a warehouse in Georgia that is being used for ICE detention. This means that the warehouse being purchased may be used as a concrete concentr concentration camp to house my neighbors. The conditions in centers like these one this one are absolutely abhorrent with people including children being forced to fight over food, families being denied medical care and people being crammed into tight spaces needing to share toilets and showers in an already unsanitary environment. These detention prisons, concentration camps are only meant to hold people for 2 days at most. But many are being held in these grueling conditions indefinitely, separated from family who are worried sick about their safety. As city council members, it is within your power to prevent this warehouse from being built in our neighborhood. And it is your responsibility to keep this community safe. With all of this said, if you have any respect for the safety and well-being of your constituents or cared about doing your job properly and serving the community, then you would be of horde against this at this warehouse sale. I am demanding that you put the safety of your community above your bottom line and refuse this development offer. Thank you.

Thank you. That's that's all that signed in me. Right. That is the end of the people the list of people who signed in to make uh public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would also like to make public comment that did not have the opportunity to sign in? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none. Thank you. We will close public forum at this time and move on to item five on our agenda which is public announcements. Are there any announcements from the DAS? Do you have one? Is that okay?

Clerk Tamer. Um the city's youth commission has a youth advisory committee and they are hosting their very first um bunny hop which is um their first run and they're inviting all public officials to attend. It'll be on Saturday the 19th um what did you say? I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Saturday the the 19th um from 12 to 2:00 at Baron's Park. So really proud of this group of kids that came up with this idea to raise money for the Ronald McDonald House. Um and um hopefully you all can attend. We'd love to have you and if you want to participate that'd be great. From 12 to 2. I you know I forgot how long the run is. So they nicknamed it. I think it is 5K. Yeah.

Even though I chair this one a couple other people from the commission are um chairing this part. So um you can sign up. I think it's on the Is it on the city website? Sunday. Sunday. Sunday the 19th. I is it on the city website to sign up too if you guys want to bring your families participate. It should be on the city website. We just everyone got back from spring break and I know um Larry's been working really hard on this. So thank you Larry and everyone and staff for helping us with this as well and Jana and everyone. So that's it. That's all.

All right. Any other announcements? All right. Seeing none, we'll go on to the consent agenda. Tamer, if you would please read the consent agenda. Okay. 6.1 minutes of the regular meeting of the Elmer City Council on March 16, 2026. 6.2 Executive session minutes of the city council of Elmerst on March 16th, 2026. 6.3 accounts payable April 6, 2026. 2,229,71143. 6.4 4 proclamation national public safety telecommunication telecommunicators week 6.5 report Elmer's cycling classic and Elmer's twilight mile 6.6 report Elmer's city center rock the black party 6.7 report Elmer City center 2025 events 6.8 report software Inc three-year extension of service agreement 6.9 report 2026 tree purchase and planting program 6.10 10 report referral tree ordinance 6.11 report professional engineering services for 2026 wastewater flow monitoring 6.12 report professional engineering services agreement for the Berkeley and Adams pump station rehabilitation project 6.13 report general working permit for I do writeaways 6.14 report professional engineering services agreements for the 2026 to 2027 water system master plan 6.15 report concrete street light pole purchase 6.16 an ordinance granting an amended conditional use permit to the property commonly known as 20 or 217 East Butterfield Road Elmerst Illinois and 6 17 an ordinance to establish a voluntary no mow until Mother's Day program and to temporary suspend section 6.15 entitled excessive height of weeds plants and grasses declared a nuisance

of article two entitled weeds grasses ga gases and plants of chapter six entitled trees and plants of the municipal code of ordinance ordinances of the city of Elmerst, Illinois 6.18, a resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a professional services agreement between the city of Elmerst and Kenig Lingren O'Hara Abuda, Inc. for a neighborhood traffic study area number nine 6.19 a resolution authorizing Jupage County Gasoline and diesel procurement joint purchase. All right. Thank you, Clerk Tamer. Is there any item on the consent agenda that any alderman would like to remove either for further discussion or to vote against? Alen Herby 6.1

sorry once again 6.1 6.1 meeting agenda the minutes minutes sorry all right very good nuda 6.1 610 All right so uh I would like a motion to approve the consent agenda minus items 6.1 and 610 10. Alman Virgil with a motion. Alman with a second. Clerk Tamer, please call the role. Nuda. Hi. Virgil. Hi. Nerdini. Hi. Best. Absent. Herby. Hi. Brennan. Hi. Veris.

I Bellinger. I Hill. I Shenko. I Bram. I Jensen. Hi Tudo. I Baker. I 13 eyes, zero nays, one absent. 13 eyes, zero nays, one absent. The consent agenda minus 6.1 and 6.10 passes for tamer. Um, have a resol read 6.1 minutes of the regular meeting of the Elmer City Council on March 16th, 2026.

All right. Can I have a motion to put 6.1? Motion to approve 6.1. Brand with a motion. Alderman Herby with a second. Alderman Herby. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh wanted to clarify two points uh in the meeting notes in section 8 under ordinances uh 8.1 uh where it says Z-2-26 an ordinance reszoning map amendment and granting front rear yard setback variations etc etc. Second paragraph uh has one, two, third sentence says he further stated granting these would be like giving gifts and questioned the ethics. End of end of sentence. I would like to have that amended if uh agreed upon to say he of course has Alderman Herby further stated granting map amendment would be the the change there for like giving gifts. In other words, these implies all. So, I'd like to have that selectively being only the map amendment for that piece. And then the second part of that, there's an and and it said questioned the ethics. I'd like to have that changed to recommended ethical framework as the the record reflects. Thank you. Um Oh, they had one other item too, but should we debate on that or should I give you the second item? I don't I don't know if it's debatable. We can It's a motion before the council, but what my recommendation would be um so it's not an issue of I don't know what was said exactly cuz my memor is not that good. Um what was your name again?

Uh anyway, um but I think the the proper thing to do is to have the clerk go back and listen to the recorded version and see if it's accurate. So I'm saying is it if it's accurate then we have to leave it the way it is. We can't and if it's inaccurate then we should change it. But if your intention was to say something different um you can say that uh you can make that to the comment to the public but we can't change the minutes of what was said. Agreed. Okay. And the second item if that's okay mayor.

Sure. is uh there's a person who made public comments uh named Mr. Perch and his name is in incorrectly spelled. So I promised him I would uh recommend we correct the spelling of his name. So right now in the record it's P E R C H and the true spelling of his last name is P E A. So add an A R C right after the E missing a letter A.

All right. Well, so that I think is a ministerial correction, a scribner's error. I don't know if he had spelled at the time, but I think we can change that. Um, my recommendation um is that instead of putting this to a vote, if you would withdraw your motion and second and let us defer it till the next meeting so we can have clerk Tamer listen to the um recording. Okay. So, if if I understand the your proposition is if I withdraw my uh I'm not sure I made a motion, but uh let's pretend I did then. Uh and sorry, was Alderman Bran made a motion to approve and you seconded. So, if you would withdraw the motion and second. So, I I'll withdraw my second.

Well, we have to get the motion withdrawn first if you want. Alderman Bram. I move to withdraw my motion of approving the minutes as and Alderman Rubby will withdraw a second. So we will I would draw the second. So we'll take no action this evening on 6.1 and we will defer it till our next full city council meeting. Thank you both. Hillman Hill. Uh Mayor, would it be okay to point out another scrier's error on on the report though? As long as we brought it up or is it too late to do that? You may. Oh, just I would need my first name corrected on your first on the minutes. What did I spell it as? Jacob. It's it's just under a dimminitive there. So Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Sorry.

All right. Thank you. All right. Uh we're on to 610. Uh would you read the ordinance, please, Clerk Tamer? Yes. Hold on. I get where I'm at here.

It is the recommend Oh, no. Wait. 610's a referral tree ordinance. Correct. Is that right? A right the the report. Okay. All right. It is the recommendation of the public works and buildings committee that the educational materials be shared, private property tree planting be added to the city's storm water management incentive program, and that the city attorney be authorized to amend section 14.09 of the Elmharst Municipal Code signed. Alderman Emily Bastto, chair, Alderman Michael J. Bram, vice chair, and Alderman Mike Baker, and Alderman Rex Irby. Thank you. Can I have a motion to approve 610? Alderman Bram with a motion. Alderman Irby with a second. Alderman Bram, do you want to present? Yeah, I'll defer to the alderman who pulled the report. All right, Alderman Nuda.

Oh, thank you, Mayor. I have several questions before I decide to support this report. So, I just have some questions. Okay. First of all, has the storm water management incentive program ever spent $150,000 in a calendar year? Bram.

So, the reason why that we elected for $10,000, city staff communicated to us that that is typically what is not spent every calendar year. And therefore, we were planning on, as this report states, to allocate $10,000 for this tree initiative. Okay, so here's what I'm getting at. If it has, if $150,000 have been spent on storm water program initiatives for residents, then what happens next? Alman Bram, I mean, this is possibly more procedural from a city staff perspective, but $10,000, what this report is stating that$10,000, even though I don't think it states the exact dollar amount, but what was discussed at committee was $10,000 would be allocated just like anytime um when things do go over budget, right? That is the decision of the city staff. um to either approve that or to deny the application. Um and that goes for any of the storm water management incentives. Okay. So, if it has, how do we provide for property uh private property tree planting program? And are we asking that the $10,000 be sectioned out of the storm water program and be placed in a subsection private property tree planting? So, the way this is, the way I'm reading it is that the $150,000, 10 of those $1,000 are a subsection of that program for tree planting.

Correct. So, that's already automatic. $10,000 is going to go for private property tree planting. That's what I'm hearing here. That is what is proposed in the draft or the uh recommendation report. Yes. Okay. So, so then if this is the case, why not reduce the stormwater program to $140,000 and include a $10,000 private property tree planting program? Alman Bram,

I mean, that's a whole in in my opinion that's a whole different discussion about reducing that. I mean we could have discussed that during budget time um or we could have discussed it during this discussion but due to the fact that we felt that uh trees are important and as you heard some of the residents speak tonight right it does mitigate storm water and helps with storm water management that it would be appropriate to allocate that $10,000 as a first step in the process of uh looking at a tree initiative private tree initiative. So, so then I guess what I'm hearing then is that uh the priority is placed on Okay. Is the priority placed still on storm water first before replacing private trees? It's placed on all of the above. 10,000 would be allocated for tree planting and the 140,000 is the other initiatives for storm weather management.

Okay. And then a couple couple other things here just so I can understand where I'm where I'm going with this. By creating this amendment, are we forcing any homeowners to pay half of the cost to plant trees? Is there a are we forcing residents to plant trees or still their option to go forward on planting trees?

In this case, it is their option. Okay. All right. And here's before anybody twists what I'm about to say. I'm in full support of trees. I planted 25 saplings pines 20 years ago along with two red buds, two peach trees, one oak tree, two maples, and I rack up over 35 bags of leaves every year. And I'm not complaining. I love the trees. But here's my issue. Are we using city tax dollars to help pay for purchase and planting of private property trees? And do we help pay for trees on property proper private property that have to be removed because it's a necessary removal such as a diseased tree? I'm just a little leerary about putting aside tax dollar money to plant trees. Okay? And that's that's where I'm concerned because this is storm water project. We've had issues with with that for years and I'd hate to see us come short of what need needs to take place if residents are going to follow through to help us mitigate storm water. Are we using some of that money that can be used for storm water for planting of trees?

Hey Alderman Bram, if you want to respond and then aldermanis.

Yes, thank you. Um so I guess it depends on how one looks at it. uh the committee came to con consensus that tree man planting trees private property trees is part of the puzzle part of the solution for storm water management. Um as staff has communicated during our discussions there's some years that yes we utilize we the city have you um utilize $150,000 for the storm water initiatives. Other years we don't. If it's a bad storm year, then you can guarantee that every dime is spent, right? Um, and I didn't remember I don't remember what years that occurred or not, but there are years that every dime has been spent or over spent even, but we we look at this or we have looked at this as this being one additional component to help with storm water management. And I will say I'm I'm sure that Alderman Nuda, you hold those bags of leaves for free leave day, leaf day. um every year. Just joking. Um but um I I think that overall this is beneficial from storm water management. It is not to just reimburse for you know people planting trees. Um because they how do I phrase this? Let me pull that back. It is not just giving 100% reimbursement for trees, right? It's a 50-50 reimbursement option, not to exceed $500. So, the committee did discuss this that there is some skin in the game in theory at least depending on the level and the size of the tree that you purchase um of the resident as well.

Right. Alderman Freeis, thank you. Um what is the criteria to apply? Do you have to like if I want to apply for it, is there any criteria? We're saying storm water management, but would that be anybody's house? Anybody that wants to do the 5050

Bram? So, this is something that we didn't really hammer out in the committee discussions, but it's part of the same it will be part of the same if this moves forward. I don't want to be presumptuous. Um, part of the storm water management initiatives, right? So, it's going to be the same application process, just another option in that application process. There were some question marks that I'm looking forward to seeing to get clarified and what that would look like, but it's part of that program and it's just another option to that program. So even if my house is not prone to flooding per se, I could still qualify to get a tree potentially.

That is correct. Okay. Well, good to know. Alderman Nuda.

Thank you, Mayor. So, in conclusion, this is what I was thinking. You're talking about spending money wisely. If in the year $150,000 are used for storm mitigation, it's used for that. But in the next year, let's say $139,000 are used for storm mitigation and there's $11,000. Couldn't that be put in a separate budget to accommodate this? I feel more comfortable with that because what I'm afraid of is we're taking $10,000 out of a program that could be necessary. Okay? And so at the year's end, if there is money left, put it in that fund and then let's go forward. That's kind of I think where it should be. That's my opinion and and that's why I wanted some clarification. So, I'm just trying to figure out is this something I I completely support trees. I don't if if people want to uh put trees in their yard, that's great. That's what we did. Okay. But taxpayers money if the money's not allocated and it's there available then put it aside for that. I'm all for it.

Graham, lot of questions. I wish I would have had a little bit of a heads up on this one. Um so in regards to that we had a lot of discussion um a lot of discussion in regards to should we do permits. A lot of communities as one of the residents have stated do uh require permits for private property tree removal. We talked about fee in lie of if you remove a tree and you can't place a tree on property for whatever reason um to offer that as an alternative. We talked about neighboring trees. If a neighboring tree is removed um damaged, right, um because of a new home construction or otherwise, right, addition, um what are the repercussions on that? We briefly talked about commercial properties. Um should this extend past residential? So we talked about a lot of stuff and in to come to a consensus or actually full majority here um we decided this is a good first step. One of the things that the committee did say and one of the residents who spoke tonight also mentioned was that the committee um said that we would revisit this in a year uh for exactly what Alderman Nuda and Alderman Verimis have stated you know fine-tune and possibly you know change things. we talked about a different account um but we only talked about a different account having a different account um in regards to having permit fees and all those permit fees then would be allocated in that account to be dedicated to you know new private uh tree plantings. So all of those have been discussed um but we thought that this would be the first incremental step and then revisit in a year. We even talked about putting that in the uh recommendation report uh here tonight to actually state that we will

be revisiting this in a year. Uh but some of the committee members weren't really in favor of that as others were. So we decided to leave that out. So I concur with a lot of the concerns. Um I don't want to use that fancy term that we like to use here that it's a pilot program. Um, but this was a first step in regards to uh what we think is needed to try to uh maintain as much of the tree canopy as we can and help with storm water management. Guys, want to talk? Alderman Tudo?

Thank you. Um, just a follow- on question. Um, hypothetically speaking, if a homeowner wants to come and get a check valve through the storm water program that we have because their basement floods and there's no money left. Does the priority of that, you know, say there'sund 140,000 has been spent, but 10,000 has been allocated for trees, but then someone else comes in and needs a check valve so they don't flood. Is that going to get denied so that we hold that money for trees to be planted even if there's not enough applications? Like I just don't want I don't want to see someone whose actual home is flooding get denied funding because we're withholding it for this new program. That's a big concern for me. Alman Bram,

I'm I I wasn't 100% sure if that was a question or a statement, but I'll treat it as a question. Um, just like in previous years, right, we've over spent in the budget line item in the past when there was a need, and that's always been to city staff's um discretion. So, I can't speak to if that will or will not happen. One of the things that I did not mention is that this is a one time only per address. So if it happens at 700 Van Ain, Michael Bram decides that he wants the part of this program. Um I plant a tree, I do 50/50 up to $500, you know, if Michael Bram sells and moves to Florida um and someone else lives there, they have no opportunity to reclaim or uh claim additional funds. So that is one thing um that I wanted to highlight as well. Um, but it's my understanding that it's per staff's discretion just like other years because we've over spent in this line item in the past.

All right. Alderman Baker then, sorry, Alderman Baker, then Alderman Hill.

Just to follow up on Alderman Bram's comments, this was meant to be a positive incentive program as compared to a punitive program of having to pay to take trees down and so forth. So, um, even though it's we shouldn't call it a pilot program, uh, I believe that valve would still be replaced. Uh, it was staff that approached us and said there should be $10,000 available in that uh, budget line item to use. We could definitely consider um, including something in the budget in the future separated out relative to tree preservation. I'm sure that would be uh, in uh, line with what we have heard as a committee. Uh there's a lot of different ways to go as Alderman Bram said, but we mainly wanted to get something out there and get started and I thought staff came up with a very good creative idea. This is only 20 trees maximum. Um if everyone takes $500 towards their tree if we it could be more if it's a $250, etc. But um this will put a very minor dent in what we need to do to replace the canopy that we've lost over the years. But we felt it was a positive first step and without mitigating or stopping any storm water work from being done. So I hope that helps.

Hill. Thank you, Mayor. Having gone through both the uh check valve process and the storm water um management incentive program process for permeable pavers, I have faith that staff are going to do due diligence during the application process. I'd also like to mention these are two different programs. uh check valve is sanitary, sewer uh and uh storm water management is I think rain gardens, permeable pavers, swailes, things like that. So there are more than one line dedicated to, you know, assisting with flooding issues on properties. But um I do have faith that it's, you know, staff will be the ones as as they picked apart my application as I went through it. I I have faith they're going to do it for other homeowners that apply for trees to address potentially flooding issues on their property.

All right. Additional discussion. All right. All right. So, uh if no additional discussion, Clerk Tamer, if you would call the role on 610, please. Nera, I. Virgil, I. Nardini, I. Best absent. Herby. Hi Brennan. Hi Bamis. Hi Bellinger. Hi Hill. I Shenko I Bram I Jensen I Tudo I Baker I 13 I's zero nays one absent.

13 I's zero nays one absent. 610 passes. We're on to committee reports. Um, clerk, please read 7.1.

The majority report compensation and classification study. It is therefore the recommendation of the finance council affairs and administrative services committee that the city council accept the findings of the classification compensation study sub submitted by MGT for the continued administration of the city the city's incompass compensation plan. signed. Alderman Noel P too, chair. Alderman James Nadera, vice chair. Alderman Jacob Hill, not signed. And Alderman Dan Virgil. Oh, not I'm sorry. Alderman Jacob Hill, not signed. Alderman Dan Virgil, not signed. Alderman Virgil. And a motion to approve 71, please. Alderman Tudo with a motion. Alderman Nuda with a second. Alderman Tudo.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um it has been a number of meetings for the finance committee and staff uh looking at this compensation and classification study. Um I uh want to thank everybody for their participation in the process and um the amount of time that we spent and the um due diligence that we gave this topic. Um just a little background for um everybody including members of the public. Uh the city of Elmherst traditionally reviews its compensation and classification study every three years or so. Um and that is primarily to um ensure that Elmherst is remaining competitive with the market um in terms of our non-UN salary ranges so that we can attract and retain high quality employees um to serve the city of Elmherst. Uh the the general process for the compensation and classification study um that was used is there is a job questionnaire given to all employees. Um they rate their job. They they describe the uh level of responsibility um managerial responsibilities um etc. Um and then the consultant also does a market analysis of um comparable communities. In this case, they went out um to 20 comparable communities to Elmherst and um got market data back from those communities on 44 different unique positions um and used that information, both of those pieces of information to put together their updated um job groupings and um recommended salary ranges for those different job groupings. Um the majority of the committee uh recommends approving the new compensation study and making it

effective starting January 1st of 2026, which is consistent with past practices um when we've done these compensation studies in the past to go back to the beginning of the calendar year. Um, I'd also like to just take this opportunity um before we get into the majority and minority report. Recognizing that the minority report is on the agenda, um I did want to take a brief moment to update all of my colleagues, all of you on where the committee is in regard to reviewing the general fund. Um everyone is aware that the finance committee is in the process of um going through in great detail the current state of the general fund with the um uh job um of trying and the goal of trying to balance the general fund moving forward. And I it is relevant to the discussion in front of us tonight. Um because I understand and appreciate that people are yearning for ways to uh reduce costs um in you know in an attempt to help us meet that goal of balancing the general fund. So I just wanted to give um the rest of the folks that are not on our committee a little update on where we're at. We started the process of reviewing the general fund in midFebruaryish. Um we reviewed very high level numbers across the entire general fund and then we um embarked upon a department by department presentation and review um of each department and their key responsibilities, their key um budget components. uh a as well as um ideas from each department on where they could uh potentially save money or increase revenue within their department. So far

we have gone through the finance department, the administration department, the HR department, communications, building and planning and economic development. Um as the committee goes through that review process with each department um what we have been doing is when uh our conversation with the department uh or an idea from the department is we we feel is worthy of further pursuit um in terms of an idea to pursue. We are putting it on a list um kind of like our circle back list sort of that we do during the budget season. Um but right now we have 20 different ideas on that um list, that parking lot list if you will, and staff from each department are going and doing more research on those ideas to really flesh those ideas out um and bring them back to us as part of this process. And I just wanted everyone to understand that we do have ideas that we are pursuing that are coming out of this process. If I were to conservatively estimate those 20 ideas, right now we're in the $300,000 range of annual savings. So, um, and we still haven't done all of the departments and we still haven't looked at all of the different types of ideas that are maybe not specific to a department. So, I just wanted to put that out there. Um, I thought it was a good opportunity every update everybody. Um, I do think, um, I will ask the mayor if I can kind of give everybody a periodic update since this is a multimonth process that we're going through. Um, and sometimes the minutes from our committee meetings are not as um, transparent, I guess, or as easily understood as a just a an update here. So, I wanted to give everybody that um background. Um, at this time I will uh seed my comments and turn it back to you.

All right. And the the comments by uh Chair Tuludo with respect to the deep dive as we call it are we're not going to debate that tonight. It's just uh that she felt it was relevant to the discussion we would have on this topic. Um all right. So we do have a minority report. Um, do you want to make your motion at this time, Alderman Virgil? Sure. Um, yeah. I'd like to move to substitute the minority report in place of the majority report. All right. And we each have on our dis including the the amended portion.

Right. So the motion is to substitute the minority report with the uh last therefore clause amended uh as on the piece of papers in front of your dis. For those in in who aren't here, it said is it is therefore the recommendation of the finance council affairs and administrative services committee that the city council accept the findings of the classification and compensation study submitted by MGT using the 65th percentile ranges for the continued administration of the city's compensation plan which contrasts with the majority report that would be at the 75th percentile. So, we have a motion. Is there a second? Alderman Nardini. Second. All right. On the minority report.

Yeah. So, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so as uh Chair Tudo uh mentioned, the the process that we went through, um everything in terms of the minority report is the same as the majority report except for those ranges. Uh the minority report does uh uh request using the 65th percentile ranges uh rather than the 75th percentile ranges. Um I do want to provide a little bit more context. Um Chair Tuludo did provide you know some context of what we're doing um you know going through the the deep dive but I think it's also important for uh you know folks particularly the public uh to understand sort of the larger context that we're in right now. Um, you know, a lot of folks have heard that we're, you know, we've got sort of a tough budget situation right now. Um, you know, several months ago, the, uh, city's finance department put together a 5-year projection of the city's general fund. Um, this is essentially the city's day-to-day operating fund. you know, covers things like police and fire uh street ma maintenance activities like snow plowing, salting, street sweeping, covers, uh things like uh community development, planning, uh the building department as well as city administration. Uh the city generally targets a reserve to keep a reserve in that fund uh of about 3 to four months or about 25 to 33% of its annual expenditures. uh this is sort of to maintain uh the cash flow as the timing of revenues uh coming in and expenditures going out don't always align. Um the projection uh that the finance committee put together showed that in 2027 there is expected to be a gap of about 3 to 5 million uh between the bottom of that reserve uh and the available funds here at the uh uh the end of uh 2026. Uh this is because the city's revenues are growing. Uh but unfortunately the

city's expenses are also growing faster and these are driven mainly by uh higher labor and benefits costs. Uh the projection showed that uh even in subsequent years uh this gap you know continues to grow. Um I will also say that this is not necessarily uh you know a new trend. uh it has been kind of going on for the last few years, but because of some of the COVID relief funds that the city received uh that's sort of mitigated our issue a bit. Um I also want to kind of express a little bit of my thinking on, you know, kind of why I'm looking at this and why I wanted to go with the 65th percentile. Um you know, when I ran for council, I ran in a contested race. This means I had to go out and I had to talk to, you know, a lot of the residents in order to earn their votes. And I talked to a lot of folks. Um, you know, the the most common concern I heard um after residents complaining about, you know, cars speeding down the street was about affordability. Um, and this may be related to water bills, might be property taxes or housing costs or just general cost of living.

Um, now I know the city is not necessarily involved or in taking up all of those, but the, you know, a lot of the concern I heard was that, you know, it is getting more expensive to live here. Um, and I'm sensitive to this, right? So, I want to make sure that, you know, what we're doing as far as the city, when we're looking at the city's budget and expenditures, uh, and so forth, that we're being as fiscally responsible as we can. All right. Um, now, when looking at the the compensation study, the 65th percentile, the the consultant had put together a set of tables with ranges looking at both the or looking at the 75th, the 65th, and the 55th percentile uh, ranges. Uh it seemed to me that going with the 65th was uh produced a little bit of savings, $35,000 over three years. Uh which seemed to be a reasonable balance between uh you know continuing to be competitive in the market uh as well as um you know providing a little bit of savings so that we're being responsible to our uh residents and to our taxpayers. Um with that I'll I'll stop there. Thank you.

Okay. Um, Alderman Tuludo. Uh, thank you. Um, so I just wanted to, uh, you know, I didn't advocate for the majority report in sharing the majority report. I just presented what the majority report was. May, if I may interrupt for a second, uh, the way we have done this and the way we'll do tonight is we're basically have a report that says 75 and one that says 65. So I will allow debate in favor of one or the other as opposed to doing one voting on the minority report and having to do it. So proceed.

Thank you. Um yeah. So just um you know representing the majority opinion um uh and the report the majority report in front of you regarding specifically the only difference between the two reports which is the difference in the percentile ranges that our policy um is set to uh to uh attract and retain um employees. That's the only difference in in the reports as um Alderman Virgil said. Um what I will say is it was the the feeling of the majority that the first off the 75th percentile policy has been in place for at least since I've served as an alderman. So at least 15 years almost um if not longer than that. Um it's a long-standing policy that has served the community well. Um secondly, the risks of moving and changing that policy and going to the 65th percentile um far outweigh in our majority opinion the small amount of financial benefit. Um $35,000 over three years, you could say, you know, $11,000ish dollars every year. Um, and the risks that are harder to enumerate in dollar amounts, but can certainly become real dollar amounts include um the increased cost and turnover. Um, so if we're not compensating folks as well as we are um currently striving to, we're going to have more frequent turnover than we do now. and increased turnover results in increased cost to train to um hire um and to to go out to the marketplace to find someone new in that position. Um the second concern that the committee

had was the concern about the increased um risk the the definite increased risk to our um compression and that refers to the pay level between a unionized and a non-unized employee within the chain of command. Um that applies to various departments including fire, police, and public works. Um and then um with that the the last concern that we had was for such a small amount of savings just kind of the signal that we give we would be giving to our employees with the city of Elmherst. Um I think employees understand that the city is in a difficult financial situation. Um and uh but at the same time moving from a 75th percentile long-standing policy to a 65th percentile does um even within that context send a signal that uh you know we potentially value those employees less and I don't think that that's a good signal to send. we actually might be asking these employees to do more um to be more efficient and so I I think it's um the opposite of the type of signal that we would want to be giving to the employees. Thank you.

All right, others I'll come back to you. Uh but Alderman Brandon,

thank you mayor. Um I agree with everything that Alderman Tuduto uh just stated uh was much of my talking point. So, I'm not going to be too redundant, but I do want to share just a perspective. Ike Elmherst has been a well-run city, you know, for a number of years, if not decades. And um you I think that uh the city manager and and his team have done a brilliant job hiring the right talent um investing in them uh motivating them uh with the focus of retaining them and providing the best quality services to their to our residents. And I think that the the tradeoff of saving whether it's $35,000 or $50,000 that this city runs like a business and that message alone is a demotivator for any any there's no way to to smooth that out. I don't care if we we went to AI and said how do I position this with these employees? There's no way to do it. So therefore, Alderman Tudo alluded to, you know, potentially turnover, lower morale be because of just the the signal that that is sent. So therefore, I I do not want to be part of for something that with such small payback to disrupt the mo the motivation of the the team here at city hall. uh they do great work and and I think we should continue the the the the mode that we've been in the framework that we've uh conducted ourselves in to attract that best talent. That's what we want and I think that's what our residents you demand of us. So I'll be in support of the majority report. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Bram. Thank you. Um I don't

know if this is for the committee chair or for city staff. Um, Alderman Slud already mentioned on how long um, we've had the policy of 75th percentile and I concur. It's been that way as long as I've been around and as Mr. Mayor you've said in the past that's a long time. Um, but my question is is that an official written policy or just an unwritten policy that we have just followed? I know it's been talked about, but I've never seen it in writing. So, I'm just curious if that's something that's written or unofficial.

It's not written. It's a uh tradition, a policy. It's discussed every time we do the comp study, which we do every 3 years, I would say. Okay. So, follow up with that then. Um I understand the concern over turnover and I would concur with if there's an increased turnover that that does um increase cost and training new people etc. I don't see but that's to me I mean none of us here know right now that's speculation. Um couple aldermen that have spoken have already said it's such a small percentage. Well, if it's such a small percentage, then I find it hard to believe that there would really be any well, if any change at all, any substantial change in turnover if it's that small of a percentage. And it looks to be that 35,000 over 3 years in regards to the overall salaries. To lead into the other thing that was stated in regards to compression um salary compression between union and non-union, again, it's a very small percentage. I don't see that making any difference. and that being a concern for myself. Yeah, it's a small amount of savings overall, but it's also not only a message that we're sending to employees, but it's a message that we're sending to our residents. We've increased water rates. We've thankfully were able to reduce to a small degree uh refuge rates. Um we've done a property tax increase. Um I think this is a step and and one of um I know we had a small reduction in the trolley cost um this year going into this year but this is the first proposal that's come across the dis um in regards to reducing some of our expenditures. Alderman Tuludo in her intro has has stated um in regards

to what is proposed or I shouldn't say proposed a potential um on the table for the her committee to discuss and possibly move forward and bring to council. But right now this is what's before us and I think it sends a message that we're willing to make the cuts where we need to. I don't think we're going to lose anybody. I don't think in regards to recruiting that's going to impact us at all. In regards to employee morale, it's more than just dollars and cents. It's the environment that you come to work every day. It's the people that you're with. It's the job that you're in. There's so many components in regards to morale um that I don't think that's going to harm, you know, employee morale at all. Um I believe Alderman Tuludo already made mention in regards to uh employee morale. I I think or sorry in regards to employee morale alongside of employees know you know we're going through tough times well if they know we're going through tough times this can be reversed in two years four years next year whatever is needed but right now we need to do what we need to do and we need to send a message to our residents that we're willing to do it and do it now. So, I'm in support of the minority report.

Alderman Herby.

Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, both reports I think are excellent. Um, I dug in and read the MGT technical or the consultants report three times while I was uh out of state over the last two weeks. And when you argue the the case between the two and you look at the data that's in the MG MGT report and we talk about compression. So in there it clearly states in the MGD report that we'd like to have a policy of a 10% um differential between these grades say of the sergeant uh versus the next level up because we're talking about non-colctive bargain agreement. So when you look at the data that's in the report, it shows under the 75 percentile, it shows a 14% max in compression. And then as soon as you look at the number for 65%, it goes down to like 11 and 10, right in line to where we want the policy to be. So, I'm a little don't understand the logic of the 75 when you read the MGT report on compression because it shows excessive compression or meaning a lack of compression if you will because it's 14%. And when we go to 65, it's it's just over 10%. So, it seems to me like the 65 has a better argument in the MGD report. Did I say MGD? I meant MGT sorry. Um so that's the compression part and then turnover. Uh so when the in the MGT report there is the turnover ratio historically document in there under the two methods

under the 75 because that's what we lived under and that has varied between a 14% peak and something like a seven or it's a much lower like half that value on another year. And those could be totally coincidental or it could be related to um something in the, you know, that we don't know about. And I don't see that as part of the report as their arguments because they're saying it's compression and it's turnover as their primary arguments why we need to stay at the 75. And I'm not trying to say I'm against the 75. I just simply wanted to understand the logic of why 65 versus 75. And when you read the report, going to MGT's analysis, it seems to just lay it on the line that 65 is the way to go because the if we lived on the 75 like Alderman Tuludo said, then why did we go to 14? Why did we go to seven? Why did it jump? I don't have an answer for that. But the point is that's what the data says. And if we're going to say then in the report that that's what we're relying upon as a reason to stay 75, I think that's a fallacy. I just don't see it in the data. So those two points I think lean lend over to the minority report uh in the MGT analysis. It's it's right there when you read it. So, I I I don't really have a I think to Alderman Bram's point of trying to save money. And the third point that I I forgot to mention was on the 75% we have a when we backtrack to January one on the payroll I believe there's a $15,000 approxim approximate in the report or in the in the MGT report that says that'll

be the amount we will have to cut to bring them current to the 75 percentile payroll bands. And I'm going to guess that if we were to 65% payroll bands, that might be a number less than 15,000. So there's really two components. There's a the amount that's in the report in the minority of the 35,720, whatever that number is. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I think there's also another savings number, and it's the difference between the 15,000 initial cut to bring the payroll back to January 1 between the two uh the 75 and the 65. So, if I'm correct in what I've just enumerated, I don't see any issue and why not to go with the minority port. So, I will be supporting that unless someone can convince me otherwise while we're debating tonight. Thank you,

Alman Nardini.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I appreciate the time uh that we're taking on this. I think this is us doing the work. We are trying to provide services with as uh tight uh an attention to budget as possible. I appreciate uh Alderman Virgil seeing if there's a way that we can shave a little bit of money. I think that's uh him doing the job uh on a new committee and I think that's the right way to go. Uh I appreciate the time that I got both from Alderman Virgil and Alderman Tudo walking through the two sides. I find the compression argument compelling. uh to outweigh the savings that the minority report can provide. However valuable any savings can be, uh I'm supporting the majority report.

Thank you. I'm I'm going to let you close on the minority report and I'll let you the two proponents have the last word, so I'm going to see what others have to say first if that's acceptable. Anyone else want to speak that hasn't spoken? Well, I guess we're back to you anyway. I'm going to go to Alderman Virgil and or Alderman Toledo and then Alderman Virgil if that's right.

Um I'll just um I I don't think that I will change Alderman Herby's mind, but I'll just clarify um some of the uh points that he brought up um for everyone's edification. First off, um I will try to channel uh Director Palm here in her HR role. I will not do a very good job of it. But if she was sitting up here um attempting to answer the the your statements regarding the data regarding compression in the MGT report, um what um Director Palm would likely say is to remind us all that salaries are not static numbers. Um they this is a compensation study that needs to last us for three years until we do a new revision of that. And while um the current at the 75th percentile, the new approved ranges will be um having some of the positions in a 14%. I think you stated, Alderman Herby, I can't confirm if that number is correct or not, but I'll I'll trust that that it is um uh that it's a 14%. The point is is that as people continue to move up in their pay scale and uh have annual reviews, we will still be using the same ranges for the next three years. So when we first approve new ranges, we have to have some latitude um so that we don't run into compression by the third year. If we start with the 65th percentile now and we already are at the 10% compression range, we are already at risk of compression. Not to mention what happens in year two and year three. That's why um it's done that way, I guess, for lack of a better way of saying it. Um secondly um I will just

find it important to mention to everybody that um MGT as a consulting company um was not given the task of evaluating whether or not uh our policy of paying in the 75th percentile is correct or not. They were tasked with doing a market analysis, uh a job classification study, and providing us with information on how to uh change our salary ranges to stay within the 75th percentile policy that we gave them. Um they were not asked to take a make an opinion on a change of policy related to the percentiles. That was something that the committee um discussed. I think everyone on the committee um is interested and genuinely uh looking for ways to save money. Um and so we we discuss with open minds uh that policy change. Um three of us ended up in one spot and and one of us ended up in a different spot and that's where we're at tonight. So I just wanted to clarify um what we tked the consultant to do. Um, I think that that concludes my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Virgil.

Yeah. Um, I just wanted to follow up on a point from Alderman Herby. He was um referencing the amount that would be needed to bring folks up to the new levels of the ranges. um with the 75th percentile uh it would it would cost um about 15,000 I think as you mentioned which is also written in the in the majority report to bring uh a few of the staff up to the bottom of the new ranges uh with the 65th percentile uh that amount um since the ranges are a little slightly lower uh it's 5,000 to bring the uh any staff that need to be brought up to the bottom of those ranges. Um, as I mentioned before, uh, you know, I think this is a reasonable step. You know, the chair Tuludo mentioned the, uh, the deep dive. Uh, this is separate from the deep dive. This is not part of that, you know, that uh that exercise. Uh, the deep dive itself, you know, I'm hopeful that we'll find um, you know, other items of of savings out of there, but you know, at this point, we haven't made any any decisions or you know, confirmed any of those items. So this is what is in front of us right now. Uh it seems like a a fairly reasonable step to me as I said before just because it is just a very modest amount. Nothing else changes. Uh you know folks uh current salaries um you know do not necessarily change. The ranges uh sorry the the ra the percent raises that are available to folks based on their rating doesn't change. um you know those things are are you know maintained even at the with the uh the minority report. So uh all that is to say is I think this is a a very reasonable step. We looked at the 55th percentile as well um you know I did not uh did not recommend that um just because I you know am sensitive to make sure that we are uh remaining in a

competitive position within the uh within the market. Uh, I recommend uh that you uh support the minority report. Thank you. Have a question. All right. Alderman Bram. No, Alderman. I'm sorry. Who were you pointing out? No, no, I had a question. Oh, yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. Thank you.

So, there was one item in in the the report for both report, minority and majority. it it uh references our current pay ranges are 12% below market. So So um as we look at these new ranges, I I mean that that seems pretty low to to me when our you know philosophy or aspiration is to to have ranges that allow us to to hire in a competitive fashion. So, in either of these scenarios, I mean, did we close the whole 12% gap or h how how do I think about that? I'm not quite sure what 12% uh means.

Um, I actually can't answer that question. Um, it's a good question. I believe I remember we talked about it, but I don't have that data in front of me right now, and I don't want to misspeak. Can we follow just follow up with that? Fine. I apologize. Or we could ask um one of our staff members if they could answer that. Director Pal or are you prepared to answer that question?

Follow. We'll follow up. Okay. All right. So, we've heard the debate. Um we're at the point where we're going to vote on the minority report. To be clear, uh if you vote for the minority report, uh you are uh asking to use the uh 65th percentile range instead of the 75th that is in the majority report. If it passes, then we will be substituting the minority report and we will vote on it at 65%. If it fails, we'll go back to the majority report, which is at 75 and we'll vote on that. Does anyone have any alderman Herby? Yeah, just a a point of clarity from uh Alderman Virgil's point of the 15 versus five uh is that $10,000 increment in the minority report so that we could actually can say hang our hat on a $10,000 number plus the 35720 if I got that number right. So if we add those together, is that really the number that the minority reports at tonight? Is a difference?

Virgil, I think it's in the 35K is inclusive if I recall correctly. No, I don't think so. I don't think it was. Okay. Okay. So I guess it would be additive. All right. All right. So any question on the procedure? All right. So call the role on the minority. Alderman Nardini. Question on the procedure. We're calling the role on the minority report. So we are voting yay or nay on the minority report. You're voting yes or no on 65% the minority report. Thanks to replace we're voting on the That's the effect. We're substituting the minority report. Then we have to vote on the minority report

if it passes. If it passes two votes. Yeah. So there'll be two votes either way. If the minority report passes then we'll vote. It's been substituted. We'll that becomes the majority report. We'll vote on it. If it doesn't, I guess there'll be one vote. We go to the majority report and we'd vote on that. Okay. All right. On the minority report to substitute from the majority report. Nera, no. Virgil, I Nardini, no. Estido, absent. Herby, I Brennan, no. Veris, no. Bellinger, no. Hill, no. Shenko, I Graham, I Jensen,

no. Toudo, no. Baker, no. Four eyes, nine nays. Four eyes's, nine nays. The minority report fails to pass. We're on back to the majority report. Is there any additional discussion on the majority report? All right. Seeing none, if you would call the role on the majority report. Nera, I Virgil, no. Nardini, I. Dustto, absent. Herby, no. Brennan, I Mimis, I. Bellinger, hi. Hill, I. Shenko, no. Bram,

no. Jensen. Oh, sorry. Jensen, hi. Toudo I Baker I. Nine I's four nays one absent.

Nine I's four nazs one absent. The majority report passes. All right on to uh reports of elected and appointed officials. Um I have three items. Um I want to uh encourage the alderman to uh respond or uh consider signing up for the tour of senior housing. that's available to the city council members on uh Saturday, April 25th, if you'd like to see what we have to offer in terms of senior housing within the community. It's not everyone, but uh it's a number of different facilities. Um Elmhurst item two is will be featured in the um McGivers.

John McGivers John McGyverns. All right. Main Street program this Thursday 700 p.m. on PBS Wisconsin. So, we'll have we'll have a bus driving up or uh it's on YouTube or PBS programming of Us app. Uh city staff worked with the film crew last fall on this Elmherst feature. So, it'll be interesting to see. Um I also want to uh on behalf of the city council express our condolences to one of the fine sons of Elmerst, James Gracie, who passed away and it's been highly publicized. But um I think it's worth expressing that sentiment. So I do that tonight. City manager.

Thank you, mayor. Uh just one update on refues. That yard waste resumed this week uh with your normal uh refuge day and that spring cleanup is coming uh April 18th for those who have a Thursday refuge pickup, April 25th for those with a Friday pickup, and May 2nd for those with a Wednesday pickup. and uh the public works staff and communications have been working with Republic on information campaign for the new contract pricing and sizing.

All right. Um I I want to supplement my report. I should have said it at the end of the vote, but um I was I don't debate um I uh on these reports, but I uh very I was very strongly in support of the majority report. When you ask what is our most valuable asset in any organization except for the police department, they would say the police station maybe. But otherwise, people would say it's your people. And um if we're talking about sending a message to our people, to our employees, um I want that message to be that we have the best um and we appreciate what they're doing. when we go out and recruit and people know how we treat our staff in Elmer's, this is the place they're going to want to be. And it's not just my personal opinion. It's when I talk to other mayors or city managers about what our reputation is for, and chief, I'll steal your line, providing the best. Um, that's what we do, not only in the police department, but across all of our departments. And uh for those who have been participating in the discussion about our process for a new city manager, other municipalities are also looking for a new city manager. And it's the reputation of this city that leads many to comment to me, mayors and city managers, that we will get the cream of the crop for all of them, but in particular, we will be the most desirable community because of how we run this community. So, personally to me, trading off $11,000 a year for that reputation and to uh uh reward our employees with knowing that they uh we stand with that policy to provide an environment where they're in the top 75% instead of the top 65% has long-standing significance. Uh thank you for letting me go back on that. Um is there any other business to

be brought before the council this evening? Ferman Nardini, very briefly, um the city sticker for your car uh is at a not premium price until the end of the month. So reminding everybody to get their city stickers or if they have high school age drivers, don't tell them anything and let them get a lowrisk uh realization of consequences of doing something too late. I hope they're not watching. All right. Uh, with that I'll ask for a motion to adjurnn. Alman Bram with a motion. Alman Bake with a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose say nay. We are journed. Thank you.