Village Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the Village Board of Arlingtonites for the date of July 6th, 2026. And as I call this meeting to order, the first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. So if you please all rise and join the board.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

So, for the sake of a certain soccer team, I'm going to try and move this meeting along as quickly as possible, just with the hope that we might be able to catch a few minutes of it, but maybe not. So, pardon me if I sound like I'm rushing. I'm just doing what I can to move through it. The first, well, I shouldn't say the first, second order of business is roll call.

Trustee Zick?

Here.

Trustee Manganiello?

Here.

Trustee Schwengbeck?

Here.

Trustee Gilbert?

Here.

Trustee LeBetz? Here. Trustee Santa Maria? Here. Trustee Bertucci?

Here.

Trustee Dunnington? Here. President Tenaglia?

Here. Thank you, Maggie. And after that, the approval of minutes, we have one set of minutes from June 15th, 2026. Are there any... ANY TRUSTEES THAT NEED TO PASS OR REFRAIN FROM VOTING ON THIS? IF NOT, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, CHANGES? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT HAS ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 15, 2026 MEETING.

MOTION BY TRUSTEE LABETTE, SECONDED BY TRUSTEE ZICK. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE AGAIN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. We'll move on to accounts payable. And for that, I'll call on Trustee Bertucci.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll move approval of the warrant register for the check date June 30th, 2026 in the amount of $5,486,826.25. Second.

Motion made by Trustee Bertucci, seconded by Trustee Schwingbeck. Are there any comments or questions from anyone on the board or anyone in the audience? Seeing none, this is a roll call vote. Maggie, please.

Trustee Bertucci?

Yes.

Trustee Schwengbeck?

Yes.

Trustee Gilbert?

Yes.

Trustee Manganiello? Aye. Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee LeBetz? Yes. Trustee Zick?

Yes.

Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. President Tenaglia?

Yes. Very good. Motion carries. There are no recognitions or communications, correct, Manager Reckless? Correct. And no public hearings. So we'll go right into citizens to be heard. And I do have two blue cards. This is for items that are not on the agenda tonight. I have two blue cards here for any topic. We'll call on them. If you are here and want to speak on a subject matter that's not on the agenda, raise your hand. I'll call on you after these two. So the first one is Devin Gray. Devin, come on up. I'm sorry.

Good evening, Mayor Tenaglia, Manager Recluse, managers of the board, and fellow residents here in the crowd. I want to begin by recognizing something that I believe everyone in this room agrees on. None of us want Arlington Heights to become a party town. None of us want crime to increase. None of us want residential neighborhoods to turn into strips of hotels. As a father, a homeowner, and a short-term rental host, I don't want those things either. In fact, responsible hosts have even more incentive than our neighbors to prevent parties, noise, and disruptive behavior because our businesses depend on good reviews and maintaining the trust of the community and our neighbors. We're aligned on the goal. Everyone here, we're aligned on the goal. the next resident who's gonna come up and speak has the same issues that I do here. We want the same thing. I respectfully ask the board to reconsider the rental ordinance that was passed earlier this year. Whether someone supports or opposes short-term rentals, I think we can agree on four basic principles of good government. Our laws should be clearly communicated, they should be effective, they should be fiscally responsible, and they should be willing to evolve when experience shows that they need to. On communication, as a short-term rental host here in town, I know about this ordinance. I also know that most of the other hosts do not. It has not been effectively communicated to me, to Airbnb until recently, from what I understand, or to the other hosts in town. Furthermore, if you go on the Village Code website, it is not codified. I've sent a message to the village manager asking when and how those things become codified. I did not receive a response on that topic. Second issue is effectiveness. Today, there are more Airbnbs and VRBOs listed in Arlington Heights than there were six months ago when we addressed this matter. The ordinance is not accomplishing the goal that it was set out to do. We need to acknowledge that. We need to. It's not solving the problem. This next resident is going to have an issue that she brings up, but she's going to acknowledge that the ordinance is not solving it. Most importantly, fiscal responsibility. We're now facing, for those who don't know in the room here and watching, the Village of Arlington Heights has not been transparent about this, but thanks to a FOIA request where half of this was revealed, I've now learned we are defending ourselves in two federal lawsuits. Two federal lawsuits against the Village of Arlington Heights on this ordinance. I've asked for months whether or not we were prepared for that. I've asked for months, Mr. Mayor, for you to request that the village manager figure out what it's going to cost the taxpayers to defend ourselves. And we have no answer. Effective government is not burying our head in the sand or digging our heels in and saying that we must puff our chest out and defend the ordinance we passed earlier this year. Effective government is reconsidering based on new information. We have new information. This ordinance isn't working. The board must reconsider.

Thank you. Thanks, Devin. Next, Cheryl. Cheryl Brown, come on up.

Good evening, and thank you so much for your work on the short-term rental ordinance. First of all, I think it's a great ordinance. As of July 1st, the hotel across the street from me that sleeps 14 people has had two violations. July 1st to 2nd, they told me they rented for a one-day party, and they had all the decorations out. And then July 3rd through 6th, that group moved out this morning. I sent a copy around with the pictures to document everything and the dates. I think it's a great ordinance. However, we need some more teeth in the ordinance. While these people are renting and collecting almost $500 per night, the fine needs to be significant to stop these rentals. And I think these houses need to be occupied by permanent families. I gave Jack the contact information for the manager or possibly owner of the house across the street from me. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Mayor, would it be possible to get staff to just make some comments about the communication and also the enforcement as of July 1st?

Why don't we do this? Manager Ratcliffe, I know you and I have had a number of conversations about this, the status of this and where it is and where it's going. Maybe it would be a good idea to give a quick update.

Sure. It would not be appropriate to comment on the village's strategy or involvement in any current lawsuits. I want to press that right from the beginning. The village does have a special section on our website on short-term rentals. We did reach out to all of the major short-term rental entities, VRBO, et cetera, to let them know of the presence of our ordinance. The way the ordinance is codified, it is a part of our village code. There's a lag for our codification consultant in terms of when things get in the village code online versus when they're actually part of our village code. They kind of do them in tranches a couple times a year, but the ordinance, is on our website. It's noted in the village code section as an ordinance that's just not indexed yet. So it is approved, and it's just not indexed in the system where you can search for keywords and so forth. But for that reason, we have a special section of our website for that. The enforcement date was just last week, where this actually went into effect. And as we've said before, we are going to be enforcing this just like we enforce any other ordinances. If we get a complaint, it will be investigated. If there's found to be a violation, the entity or property owner will get a notice of violation. If they don't get into compliance within a reasonable period of time, then they will get a citation. They'll have to appear before our administrative adjudication process, and they will face whatever penalty the hearing officer deems appropriate, a fine or whatever the case may be. So it's being dealt with the same as any other ordinance that we have on the books and will be dealt with any other ordinance on the books. And so if residents are witnessing these violations of the presence of a short-term rental in their neighborhood or any other violation, we always encourage them to call the village so we can follow up and investigate them.

Very well. Does that answer your question?

It does. Thank you. Anyone else on the board have a question on this?

If not, thank you, Manager Radcliffe. We're going to move on. The next section, well, let's continue with Citizens Be Heard. I mentioned it before. If there's someone in the audience that wants to raise their hand, it's okay. Come on up, introduce yourself. Go ahead.

Hello, Brenda Popovich.

Go ahead and speak right into that microphone so we can hear you clearly.

Okay, can you hear me now?

Yes. Okay.

Mayor Tenaglia and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm not going to lie, I get a little bit nervous when I have to stand up and speak, so if you don't mind, I'm just going to read what I've prepared so I don't leave anything out. Okay. I am here to urge you to hold forums regarding a potential Bears stadium development on the racetrack property. I am very saddened that residents' voices have not yet been heard. At a board meeting on May 18 of this year, two residents raised the same concerns. One of them, David Corney, said, quote, I'm concerned that the village hasn't sought more input from residents about the bear's potential move, end quote. He went on to express that you should know what risks residents are willing to take on or not take on. And he pointed out the promises of a public forum keep getting pushed back. I'd like to suggest, Jen, to at least take a poll so that you have some concrete feedback in front of you. Mayor, in response to Mr. Corny, you said, quote, it would be silly to do anything more than wait now and see what Springfield comes up with in the next two weeks, end quote. I have to say that I don't think it's ever silly to listen to your residents. I would also like to point out that it is now over a month since the end of the spring legislative session and still no forums are planned. I called the manager's office on June 24 to ask if any were upcoming. I spoke to a very nice woman who explained that we can't really have a forum because village officials aren't able to answer any questions since things are up in the air. And I do completely understand this. However, I have a different view on the purpose of a public forum. It's not so much that people want you to answer questions, they just want you to listen to their opinions about a Bears stadium development. We just want you to be willing to hear what we have to say. I tell my students that representative government only works if our representatives know what we want. So I am here speaking to you. Even though the spring legislative session ended without the General Assembly passing tax break legislation that the Bears were hoping for, a public forum is not a moot point. We also know that Governor Pritzker put the ball back in the Bears' court, and that an Arlington Heights stadium is still an option. Lastly, for what it's worth, I emailed you all on June 22nd about an alternative racetrack development. Thank you, Trustees Libetz and Donnington for your replies. I understand that the Bears still own the property and would have to sell it, but it's not a bad idea to have other plans in mind, and I do believe that an agri-hood has a lot of merit. Thank you for your time.

You're very welcome. And I think maybe I owe an apology for if it sounded like that I think would be silly to listen to a resident. That was not my intent. Of course, we, I think all nine of us up here, one of our main goals always is to be good listeners for the residents and the businesses in town. The way I would have hoped that would have been interpreted is that at this time, there's not a lot to discuss and share because right now they're focusing on Hammond, Indiana. And while some folks think that that's maybe not accurate or true or maybe it's just some sort of a smokescreen, it's all we have. And until Springfield and until the Bears decide that something's going to change on that focus, for us, the amount of time, the amount of energy to be talking about something that is really not aimed this direction right now is where I was talking about it might be wasteful. It is not wasteful listening to residents. Please, I apologize if that's what it sounded like. That's certainly not the goal of anybody up here. So when the time is right, I can promise anyone listening, watching, or in this room, when the time is right, if the time becomes right, let's start with that. We will have plenty, plenty of opportunity. And this is something that Village staff, myself, and others have shared with the organization again and again and again. This is not a slam dunk. This is not something that will happen behind closed doors. It's something that will happen openly, carefully, thoughtfully. and in a smart way for all to share. So I promise you that here tonight and anyone else who's interested, that's the goal. But thank you for taking the time and sharing tonight.

Sure. If I may, in the email that I sent, like I gave a link to a report by the Urban Land Institute about agri-hoods. May I leave it with someone?

Share it with our village clerk and we'll make sure we get it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience under citizens to be heard for a topic not on the agenda? I don't see any additional hands, so we're gonna move on. And the next item is the consent agenda. Consent agenda consists of items A through R, and these are items that will be voted on with one vote. Is there anyone on the board that wishes to vote no on a certain item or pass on a certain item?

YES, MR. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER A NO VOTE ON ITEM C, RESOLUTION FURTHER EXTENDING THE TERM OF SIGN VARIATIONS FOR AN ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD SIGN AT 2200 WEST EUCLID AVENUE.

OKAY. TRUSTEE MANGINERO IS GOING TO REGISTER A VOTE NO ON ITEM C. ANYONE ELSE VOTING NO OR PASSING ON ANY OF THE ITEMS A THROUGH R?

Randy's I I was gonna you might have gotten this but I did want to make a point of clarification on item K at the appropriate time Item K. All right.

We'll give you that in a second Sure, is there anyone on the board that wishes to remove an item on this agenda for a specific? Conversation about it and voting separately. Is there anyone in the audience who would ask for a trustee to remove an item between a and R?

Thank you. So on this item, it relates to noise regulations, and this is a correction that would reflect the intent on noise regulations that were put into effect a couple of years ago. The ordinance that was originally posted online had some incorrect language that didn't reflect the current draft, and I just wanted to point out that revision for the sake of the public and the sake of the board. If you go to, it would be section three, and it would be K, item K. Originally, that section related to, for mixed use areas that those developments can emit noise during permitted hours until midnight. That has been revised based on discussions with individual trustees that those noises would be allowed be admitted during the hours of normal hours of operation of the business and this would reflect the status quo of what we've been doing with this ordinance from an enforcement perspective since the ordinance was created so it's a clarification and it's a an adjustment yes for proper explanation correct all right very good anyone else have any questions on that

Okay, I didn't get any hands or any questions from anybody further, so I guess it's a roll call vote here.

I think we need a motion. I would move approval of the consent agenda.

Second. All right, motion made by Trustee LeBed, second by Trustee Zik. Now the roll call vote.

Trustee LeBed? Yes. Trustee Zik? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. I'm sorry, that was yes? Yes. Oh, sounded like pass. Trustee Schwengbeck? Yes. Trustee Bertucci?

Yes.

Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee Manganiello?

Nay on C, aye on the rest.

Trustee Gilbert?

Yes.

President Tenaglia?

YES. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. SO THAT IS CONCLUDED. AND NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. AND WE HAVE ITEMS A THROUGH F ON HERE. WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH A COUPLE OF APPOINTMENTS RIGHT OFF THE BAT. HENRY, WHERE ARE YOU? COME ON UP. THERE WAS A MOTION EARLIER TODAY AND I DIDN'T BRING MY NOTE HERE WITH ME. WHO MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION?

I WILL MOVE AS I DID EARLIER. THERE YOU GO. to concur in the Mayor's appointment of Henry Beardsley to the Arts Commission with a term ending April 30th, 2027. Second.

Motion made by Trustee Manganiello, seconded by Trustee LeBes. Is there any further discussion or comment from anyone on the board? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. None opposed? None. You are it. Henry, I'm gonna read you your oath and all you have to do is repeat after me.

I, Henry Beardsley. I, Henry Beardsley. Having been appointed to the office. Having been appointed to the office. Of Arts Commission. Of Arts Commission. In the Village of Arlington Heights. In the Village of Arlington Heights.

In the County of Cook. In the County of Cook. Do solemnly swear and affirm.

Do solemnly swear and affirm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States. That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution of the State of Illinois.

And the Constitution of the State of Illinois.

And that I will faithfully discharge the duties.

And that I will faithfully discharge the duties.

Of the office according to the best of my ability.

Of the office according to the best of my ability. Congratulations, I know you will. Come on up.

Take this over to Maggie and sign it in front of her. And then this is your pen to wear proudly with the rest of us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is David Jaffe. David, come on up. And I'd like to call on Trustee Gilbert.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to make a motion to concur with the appointment of David Jaffe to the Arlington Economic Alliance, term ending April 30th, 2027. Second.

Motion made by Trustee Gilbert, second by Trustee Bertucci. Any further comments or questions from anyone on the board? Anyone in the audience? We have a motion made and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Surprisingly, you've been approved. All right. You get to do the same drill here, David. Excellent. Repeat after me. Aye, David Jaffe. Aye, David Jaffe. Having been appointed to the office of Arlington Economic Alliance.

Having been appointed to the Arlington Economic Alliance. I screwed that up for you. I should have broken it in half like I did for Dave.

It is the Arlington Economic Alliance in the village of Arlington Heights. In the village of Arlington Heights. In the county of Cook.

In the county of Cook. Do solemnly swear and affirm. Do solemnly swear and affirm.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States. That I will. Support the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of Illinois.

And the Constitution of the State of Illinois. And that I will faithfully discharge the duties. And I will faithfully discharge the duties. Of the office according to the best of my ability. Of the office for the best of my abilities. So you got it, all right, congratulations. And David, first of all, congratulations. Thank you very much.

And if you take this over to Maggie and sign that in front of her, and there's your pen to wear, appreciate it.

Thank you. Congratulations. Good job. Congratulations.

That's really like the hardest thing all these guys have to do is repeat after the mayor. It's craziness. All right, we're on to item C. And I think we're gonna call on our village manager, Reklaus, to explain what is up for item C. Thank you, Mayor.

There are a lot of things that this board has to do and there's a lot of things you have to do repetitively. And one thing you haven't had to do for the past 48 years was appoint a new village prosecutor. How many years? 48. 48 years. And so Ernie Bloomquist is stepping down. We were originally going to recognize him at the meeting today, but he ended up not being able to make it, so we're going to be recognizing him formally. at an upcoming meeting when the schedules match. However, we do need to appoint a successor. And so since for the last, I think, 19 years, right, Elizabeth Hansos has served as the associate prosecutor and We would like to recommend that the village formally appoint her as village prosecutor at this time to kind of continue the services that she and Ernie have been providing for all these years.

And just for the sake of everyone's edification, can you share real briefly the difference between what Attorney Passman does versus what Attorney Boomklist used to do?

So the village attorney generally advises the village board and staff on legal matters. The village prosecutor in court is responsible for prosecuting violations of state law and the village code that were raised by the police department and other village departments.

And for the past 48 years, Mr. Blomquist had been doing that?

Yes.

All right. Very good. So that's your recommendation tonight. Yes. And we need a motion from the village board to accept that? Yes. All right. Is there such a motion from someone?

Mayor, I would gladly make a motion to approve Elizabeth Hatzman as the next village prosecutor. Second. Second.

All right, motion is made by Trustee Bertucci, seconded by Trustee Schwingbeck.

Mayor, if I may clarify and just the manager describe what's happening, but it's not his recommendation you're accepting. It is your appointment of Ms. Hansos that is being consented to by the boards. I want to make sure that's reflected properly.

All right, so you're concurring in my appointment. I'm concurring in your appointment, Mayor.

And seconded? Same. Very good.

Okay, any other dialogue? The only other thing I would like to say is I've known Liz for decades, and I think she has been making a wonderful prosecutor, often in Ernie's absence, and have all the faith in the world in her to continue that.

Very good. That's tough to, that's pretty good. Tough to beat. All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further dialogue from anyone? Anyone in the audience? If not, is this a roll call vote? It could be either way, Mayor. Let's do a roll call vote, if you don't mind.

Trustee Bertucci?

Yes.

Trustee Schwingbeck?

Yes.

Trustee Gilbert? Yes. Trustee Manganiello? Aye. Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee LeBeds? Yes. Trustee Zick? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. President Tenaglia?

Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. We hope it all goes swimmingly from this point forward for you.

Appreciate everybody's confidence.

We're going to move on to item D and that is chapter 30 sign code amendments. And again, this is some work that staff has done to update our ordinances to a degree. So we'll let staff explain this one for us.

Thank you. So before the Village Board this evening are three proposed amendments to our sign code. The first relates to restaurant menu signage, the second is restaurant wall signage, and the third is the notification requirements for sign variations. So the drive-through restaurant menu signage, this is actually an amendment that the Village Board requested. You may recall back in October, a variation came forward for Dunkin' Donuts to allow for an electronic menu board. The board is familiar with seeing these types of variations and did ask staff to look at AMENDING THE CODE TO ALLOW THIS TYPE OF SIGNAGE OUTRIGHT. SO THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD IN RESPONSE TO THE VILLAGE BOARD'S REQUEST. CURRENTLY UNDER THE CODE, WE ONLY ALLOW FIXED PRINTED SIGNS, AND THEN WE ALLOW ONE SMALL DIGITAL SIGN JUST TO CONFIRM AN ORDER. SO AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF REQUESTS TO ALLOW FOR THESE ELECTRONIC SIGNS THAT ARE MORE EFFICIENT for a number of businesses and allow them to change their menus at a much quicker pace than the traditional printed menu boards. So this is a list of some of the variations we've seen since 2019 related to these electronic menu boards, both the full-size menu boards as well as the pre-sale menu boards, which are the smaller menu boards that typically appear in the drive-through line before you get up to the actual menu board in which you place your order. And you will note that the size of these boards tends to be pretty similar. They tend to be between 20 and 23 square feet. These are a couple examples. I'm sure you're all very familiar with what these menu boards look like. On the left is a traditional menu board. This particular one is about 40 square feet. The code allows them to be up to 49. And then the image on the right is the electronic menu board. This one is 20 square feet. Staff is proposing to amend the code to allow up to 23 square feet. That just provides a little bit of wiggle room to adjust for differing frame sizes and things like that. So the recommendation would be to modify the code to allow these electronic menu boards at 23 square feet and the pre-sale menu boards not exceeding 10 square feet. With some conditions, of course, the displays would need to be static only. They could not be video displays that scrolled or flashed or had any type of automation to them. They must use the auto-dimming technology that we require for all other electronic signs in the village. They would not be allowed to advertise any items that are not being sold on the site and they may only be illuminated during the operating hours of the business. This was considered by the design commission and they did recommend approval of this particular amendment to the code subject to those conditions. The next amendment is for drive-through restaurant wall signage. Staff is bringing this particular amendment forward based on our experience with a number of drive-through restaurants. So right now, businesses are allowed one wall sign per street frontage. That requirement is the same for all businesses regardless of the type of use. What we are seeing with drive-through restaurants is that they are typically requesting more than one wall sign because of the way the building is structured. They often want the building that is, the sign, excuse me, that is facing the street frontage, but also additional signage on the side of the building as patrons drive around the building to utilize the drive-through. So, we have also granted over the years a number of variations for wall signs. You can see anywhere between two and four wall signs that are being requested by a number of businesses. We also have a number of drive-through restaurants that are currently going through the entitlement process that have also submitted for variations for wall signs. So we don't expect these requests to diminish in the near future. And this is just an example of a wall sign, as you can see with Taco Bell, where they've got the sign there on the brick portion of the facade that is facing the street frontage, and then the sign that's over their entrance to the east. So staff's recommendation would be to allow our existing sign code to allow one additional wall sign on a restaurant, a drive-through restaurant, in addition to the sign that's allowed on the street frontage. As you saw, restaurants often request more than two, so if they would like more than two, they would still need to go through the variation process. The Design Commission did consider this proposed amendment and also recommended approval of allowing the additional wall sign. So the last amendment before you this evening is in relation to our sign variation notification requirements. I will not read this whole slide to you, but in essence, the issue is that under the current sign code, we require that notice be provided seven days in advance via certified mail. For other zoning matters that come before the plan commission, so rezoning, PUD amendments, other types of variations, we do not require that those notices be sent via certified mail. They are allowed to be sent via first class mail, but we do require that they be sent 15 days in advance. And that's to ensure that there's adequate time for the post office to deliver the notice and for residents to plan to attend the meeting. So staff is recommending that we modify the sign code, the notification requirements to mirror those requirements that we already have in place for other zoning related matters. So that recommendation would be to allow for notifications to be sent via first class mail rather than the certified mail and to lengthen the notice time to 15 days rather than the seven days. The design commission considered this recommendation as well and also recommended approval of this particular sign code amendment. So before the board this evening, is a suggested motion to direct staff and the village attorney to prepare final documents to adopt the proposed Chapter 13 sign code amendments as set forth in your agenda materials this evening.

Very good. Thanks, Ms. Rodman. This is all very well presented. Does anyone on the board have any questions on any of these three topics? Trustee Levitz.

Thank you. I think this is wonderful, and I think it will help us. It will help the petitioners. It will help the design commission. and it'll just speed up the process for our businesses who, our restaurants who are requesting this. I do have a question, Ms. Rodman, and that is you mentioned that some are going through the process now. Would this be, I mean, if we... direct staff tonight, then it would come before us in two weeks for the final ordinance. So would that mean those people will still wind up having to go through the whole process or will they be fortunate enough to be affected by the change?

It will depend on their total sign package, but we are working with several drive-through restaurants that haven't submitted their full sign package for consideration yet. So if this were to be approved by the Village Board, we would let them know that they would be permitted to have two wall signs, and it would be up to them to determine whether or not they felt that was sufficient.

Okay, all right, thank you. I might be prepared to make the motion. I would move to direct staff and the village attorney to prepare final documents to adopt the chapter 30 sign code amendments. All is set forth in the agenda materials for tonight's board meeting.

Second.

Motion made by Trustee LeBed, seconded by Trustee Santamaria. Question, Trustee Zik.

Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Chairman, yeah, thank you very much. This is exactly the type of thing that we've been talking about for a while, trying to make it much easier for businesses and their community to be able to move forward a lot quicker with certain things. And this is right along that line. And also, I'm sure for, I'm guessing for your team, too, it makes it a lot easier. We don't have to keep going back and forth also. So I think this is one of those. proverbial win-wins for a lot of people. Two questions that I do ask, and one of them is picky, I get it. But the first one, all the items that you showed up here, the past issues that we've had, other than the ones where it said they wanted more than two signs on the building, the other items, do you think this would have probably handled all of them or 90% of those that they wouldn't have even had to come to our level?

For those that were only requesting two signs provided the sign met the allowable sign area, it would not have needed to come to the board. And I believe all of those on the list did. So they do still have to meet the maximum sign size requirement, even though they would be allowed a second sign.

Okay. But then as far as the menu signs and the lighting and all that kind of stuff going to the message signs, that they don't have to come as long as they're meeting those?

They would not need to come back.

A lot of those probably didn't even need to come here. It wouldn't have to come here.

If these regulations had been in place, they would not have needed to come to the board. That's correct.

Okay, good. It's great to hear. And then the last one. When I saw the formula, you know, for the operational standards for wanting to know the lumens, the foot candles, you know, and everything I saw on that. I'm guessing, though, and that's the concern that I think probably somebody would have is saying, oh, my gosh, are we going to be allowing, like, all these signs, all these bright signs in here? That seems like a really good formula, but this is probably something that... that the only time that we're probably going to have to even challenge this is somebody's going to have to make a complaint. I'm guessing we're not going out and looking at them all, or is this going to happen like at the design commission level?

So we have not received any complaints on the electronic message boards that have been installed in the community thus far. If we did receive a complaint, of course, we would go out and take a look at that. But the technology is such that this technology is built into these signs to auto dim, to adjust to the ambient light. So most of the time, unless for some reason the technology is not working, this happens automatically.

But I'm guessing this is the type of information when it comes to the design commission. when they look at it to your team, or it actually wouldn't go to the design commission, to your team, they would look at it and say, okay, it's within this range. It's within the correct measurements.

It's a condition of the approval as well as the permit, yes.

Yes, okay. I didn't word that right, but that's where I was getting to. Thank you. Anyone else?

All right, seeing none, so we have a motion and a second. Anyone in the audience have any questions or comments on this? If not, I think, is a roll call vote again for this new business?

This could be a voice vote if you want, Mayor. Ultimately, it's a motion to direct staff.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. So staff will go forward with that. And then next on the agenda is item E, and that is 660 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Ridge Center, which is a PUD amendment and variation. And the petitioner is here, I see. Come on up, introduce yourself, please, and give us a brief description of why you're here.

Thank you, Mayor. John Kramer with the Park District. As you recall, our trustees, we came before you for the addition for the Arlington Ridge Center some months ago. In completing that addition, we have received some comments from residents wishing that we added more swings to the project. We did remove several swings as part of the renovation project. Unfortunately, they were used in the space where we added on to the Arlington Ridge Center and the multipurpose room. So, we went back to the drawing board and looked to see if we could add some swings tangential to the project, and we found an area adjacent to Safety Town, or just north of the existing playground. We does back up to Fernandez where Fernandez has the terminus. We did speak with several residents who live off Fernandez and address some of their concerns for safety and security in relationship to that. But what tonight's here for is basically to come and ask for an amendment to the PUD and a variance for the installation of those swing sets at the Arlington Ridge Center. All right.

Very good. Staff, is there a report that you want to share with us as well?

Yes, I'll just move through that quickly. So as Mr. Kramer indicated, this is for the Arlington Ridge Center at 660 North Ridge Avenue. I think you're all fairly familiar with this property, having considered the recent improvements to the property. It is zoned a public lands district and is approximately 10 acres in size. This was the proposed, or excuse me, the approved amendment that the Park District received last year and has constructed most of these improvements at this point. So the area that you can see in orange are the new basketball courts. The area in the purple-blue, I believe, is the new playground area. And then the area to the red is where they're looking to add the proposed swing sets. So the relief they're requesting, as Mr. Kramer indicated, is an amendment to that existing PUD approval, as well as a variation to waive the requirement for a detailed parking analysis, which is required with any PUD amendment typically. So here again you can see where they're looking to relocate the swings. So from the area in yellow on the left under the April 2025 to the area in blue on the right under the March 2026. The plan commission did consider this request, did recommend unanimously to approve the request for the amendment to the PUD as well as for the variation to waive the parking analysis requirement. I did want to note that there are two conditions attached to this. One is our standard condition requiring they comply with federal, state, and local regulations. The second is in relation to the planting of five additional shade trees. So there is a very large tree. It's about 20 inches in diameter. that they're going to be removing. It's kind of right in the center of where they would like to relocate these swings. And the village code does require that that tree be replaced with the equivalent of five shade trees. The Park District has agreed to do this and has agreed to work with staff on identifying an appropriate location for those shade trees. So just wanted to note that that was a condition of the plan commission's recommendation. So what's before the board this evening is a motion to direct staff and the village attorney to prepare final documents granting the zoning relief for consideration at a future board meeting for plan commission case 26-011, subject to the recommended conditions and the materials in your packet this evening.

Thank you, Ms. Rodman. As a petitioner, do you accept these requirements, conditions of approval?

Yes, we do.

All right, very good. I think you can have a seat for a minute here. We have two blue cards. I want to get right away out to the audience here, and then we'll come back to the board. The first is Carmela. Carmela, is it Carmela Dapper? After Carmela will be Susan Emery.

Hello, thank you for your time this evening. I wanted to say that I do not feel comfortable with the new swings being put where they are. I live right off of the cul-de-sac, so I'm facing the park. And one of the reasons we bought the house 30 years ago was because of the park there, and it's a great location. But it was further enough away from my house that it's I could still be with the children, and I could see families playing, but they're not up against our home. Now what they're proposing is literally about 35, 40 feet from my windows, and my concern is safety. In the past, we've had high school kids, young, you know, kids playing in the playground late at night, making noise. I've had my house vandalized by kids climbing on the safety town and throwing shingles at my window and breaking my windows. My fiance's car, a brick was thrown at it. Always calling the police. The police did come. you know, said help take care of it. They couldn't catch anybody. But they came. My concern is I'm been living here and I love the area. They redid the park because we wanted updates. That's great. But they took away things that were working now because some families are saying where the swings we want them back. We're trying to figure out a new place now to put them where they were already established and they were fine. where I'm afraid it might be causing some issues with safety again. One, for the children that are playing there, because you're a parent, you're already at the playground that they have established. I want to go on the swings now, and you have one child that doesn't want to go on the swings. You know, you're breaking yourself up. It's not very, you can't visibly see it from where the swings are going to be because of trees, and more trees are going to be added. and also the safety of just after hours when it gets dusk. Are kids gonna be playing there, making noise? I know the park's open till 11. We've been hearing kids. In the parking lot, they're taking their cars and riding bikes and doing a variety of things. I'm just concerned of the safety for our neighborhood and for also the children that are playing because they have to cross the street to go now to this new swing designated area. I know that they're talking about putting some road blockers to see, you know, maybe a half fence. But I'm just concerned that it's so close to our homes. And because the families that want them now, they don't seem, and I've spoken to John many times, they're not bringing up concerns of how it's going to affect the neighbors that are living right next to the swing sets. They just want the swings. As a parent, as a teacher, I understand that. Kids need a place to play. I wish they hadn't taken the swings out. But they're just so close to our house. And I'm not sure if they can move them a little bit further. We've been told not for a variety of different reasons. From watching how you're conducting yourself and everything, I respect that. I did not feel that from the plan commission from the last meeting. They were laughing at all of us. saying we can't get everything that we want. We're not asking for everything that we want. If I got that, I wouldn't have it there. I'm not even saying that don't put new swings, but maybe reconsider how close they are to our homes because a variety of different things.

All right. Thank you, Carmela. Appreciate your input. And Susan.

Mayor, while Susan's coming up, Ms. Rodman, would you mind putting that map back up? Thanks.

Susan, go ahead.

Hi, I'm Susan Emery. I live right across the street from Carmela Dapper. The swing set that is being proposed is right outside of her window. I think it's very evasive. Sorry, I'm a little nervous talking in front of everybody here.

There's only 1,000 people watching you.

Don't worry about it. So I agree that more swings would be a great idea. I just really believe that this location is not an ideal location. The planning board meeting that did agree unanimously that they should be placed there did not visit the area to even look at it. We were there, we were looking at the space and just removing that one tree is not enough room to put a swing set right there. The Park District has agreed to put up bushes to block the lights from the parking lot into our houses and into the street. All of these bushes are so high that the children at the park would not be able to see their parents, or the children at the swing set would not even be able to see their parents if they are at the park. It is not a very good place. The safety of the kids having to cross the street to run back and forth is not safe at all. People coming in and out of that parking lot do not stop at the stop sign. They do not watch. They come flying down that road, and especially after hours, it's closed. It's even more, and if the children are playing at the swing set and going across the street, I think the safety of it, it's not an ideal place. There is other places that the swing set could be. I just feel that this place is not ideal, and the planning commission that agreed unanimously that this would be a great place addition, did not even visit this area to see the situation. So that's it. Thank you.

All right. Well, I think what I'd like to do is turn it over to the board here now, unless there's someone else. I don't have any other blue cards from the audience on this particular topic. So we'll turn it back over to the board. But before we do that, I think it should be noted that the Park District has its own elected group of officials that make decisions for all the park properties. And in my opinion, more than a dozen years of being an elected trustee and now the mayor, I don't think I've ever, maybe Robin you can help me, there's never been a time where we've weighed in on the location of a specific item in a park.

Yeah, I can't remember either.

You know, it's really these things are left up to the park board and the park district staff to do. This is kind of an unusual, you know, anomaly that we're talking about swings here on this project. Staff, can you give us a brief, Randy, maybe an explanation of why this is before us tonight in this particular environment?

I mean, the short version of it is because there was an approved plan for a PUD that had these different elements that changed. You know, I think is so this would this requires an amendment to the PUD from staff's perspective. I mean, I think there is a recognition that the Park District is a unique entity and that they're accountable to the public as well, unlike most of the applicants that we have. And Theoretically, if the swing set were to become a nuisance for the neighborhood, aside from, instead of coming to us, the neighbors can go to the park board and say, this isn't working out, and the park board would have to consider that, unlike if this was a McDonald's or something else. But into the specifics of why it had to be revisited, I don't know if Ms. Rodman wants to comment on that.

Sure. I mean, you're correct. The fact that it is a change from the recently approved PUD is the initial trigger. Staff also did have concerns about the proximity to the neighbors as well as the need for children to be crossing the access drive in the parking lot to access the swings. And so we felt it was appropriate for the Park District to go through the public process. so they could vet the impact on the adjacent neighbors and concerns related to managing access between the play areas. And my understanding is they have been very thoughtful about trying to reduce the speed of traffic. They can certainly speak to this better than I can, but are considering installing some speed bumps and things like that. have talked about installing some additional screening to mitigate impacts and have had multiple conversations with neighbors in the area as well as looked at other locations. That's the reason for bringing them through the process.

And that's all with goodwill. I appreciate that very much. I would hate to get into the business of us telling the park district how to do their parks. Just like we don't tell the library how to do the library. They have their own board, their own elected officials, their own staff. So to me, their swings, I would prefer, in my opinion, to leave it up to them to decide where to put it. And again, if it's going to be a nuisance, then they'll work that out with their neighbors and the people who come in and complain. it's really not something that I feel like we should be weighing in on too terribly but having said that it's here in front of us tonight we're listening we're paying attention and anyone on the board have thoughts on this feel free it's it's it's our turn to talk so anyone on this side I'll see you the best mayor I wonder if perhaps staff could explain to the residents what a PUD is what a plan unit development is and why

that requires the park board to come to us when there's a change, because this is a zoning issue, it's not. playground issue or anything like that, not to diminish any of the concerns that people have, but just by way of explanation.

Sure. So a planned unit development, which we call PUD for short, is a land use zoning mechanism by which we can regulate property in the village and do. We typically require planned unit developments for for structures or uses that are unusual either in size or potentially an impact and may be laid out in a fashion on the property that doesn't strictly adhere to our zoning code. And so the planned unit development process allows for some flexibility in site layout and use layout. So when we have a use like the arc structure, which is a large structure and has a variety of uses located within it, the planned unit development mechanism is an effective way to regulate this use. So we can evaluate the impacts of the different types of uses from a traffic standpoint, a parking standpoint, and a neighborhood impact standpoint. and it allows us to look at the uses comprehensively. So the park district, each time they make a significant change to the site, comes through the village process to amend that existing approval to modify it so we can evaluate the impact of those changes on the site and the neighborhood. They recently did that last year with their changes to add the building addition, which you see in red on the right, and then to reconfigure the basketball courts and the playground as part of that. At that time, my understanding is they didn't contemplate that they were going to need to move the swings or reinstall swings. And so that wasn't included in that initial PUD amendment. But that is why they're here this evening, because they want to modify the existing site plan.

Thank you. Thank you. Because it's important to understand what the process is and why we have to have to consider the request because there is a change involved. And it's unlike when a single family house is built, that isn't a PUD, it's a house, it's maybe a detached garage, attached garage, whatever, but it's one thing on one piece of property. This is multiple uses. So thank you very much, Ms. Rodman.

THANK YOU. I CONCUR WITH WHAT THE MAYOR I CONCUR WITH WHAT THE MAYOR INDICATED EARLIER THAT THE INDICATED EARLIER THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THESE THINGS ON THE PLACEMENT OF THESE THINGS ON THE PARKS IS NOT NECESSARILY IN MY PARKS IS NOT NECESSARILY IN MY OPINION FOR US TO DECIDE. OPINION FOR US TO DECIDE. I DO APPLAUD THE PARK DISTRICT I DO APPLAUD THE PARK DISTRICT FOR CLEARLY THESE SWINGS WERE FOR CLEARLY THESE SWINGS WERE MEANT TO BE REMOVED IN THE MEANT TO BE REMOVED IN THE INITIAL PLAN BUT THEY LISTENED INITIAL PLAN BUT THEY LISTENED AND THEY HEARD THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THEY HEARD THEIR CONSTITUENTS THAT THEY WANT Thank you for doing that. I think that's great. I'm prepared to make a motion on this.

Do so.

Can you have the screen, please? Because that was a long one. Yes. I'll make a motion to direct staff and the village attorney to prepare final documents granting the zoning relief for consideration at a future board meeting for PC number 26-011, subject to the recommended condition. All is set forth in the agenda for tonight's board meeting. Motion made by Trustee Gilbert.

Is there a second? Second. Second by Trustee Schwingbeck. Mayor, I do have just a comment I'd like to make.

Go right ahead. So I know as we've said, The Park District Board certainly makes these decisions. You had just a comment, and I guess I'm not looking for an answer, but you've had a couple of residents that have taken the time to come and speak to us this evening. I don't know if they've... come to the Park District board meeting to make those similar requests. I'm looking at that map. It looks like these are about as far away from Park District activities as you can get. And I know, John, you made a comment earlier that you had heard from some residents that wanted the swings. I don't know if that was a few or 10 or 50, but I would certainly hope that hearing from a couple of folks that maybe you give some thought to their comments and see if there's another place to put them. That would be my only My only comments, thank you. Thank you, Trustee Schwingbeck.

Others, Trustee Zik. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Could you go to the recommendations slide? Okay, so all we're really, and I agree with everything that's been said here, only thing we're really voting out of this change is the POD is really the variation to waive the requirement for parking analysis. That's ultimately what it's coming down to. The other items, like the five shade trees, I think you said that that was already in our code, that when we remove the one tree, we have to go up to the, they have to be replaced with five. Is that correct?

That is correct, but in addition to the requested variation, they are proposing an amendment to the PUD, so the relocation of the swings is something that the board is being asked to consider this evening. That is part of the approval.

So we're ultimately, we're ultimately not, they're asking to put more swings in, and we're, deciding whether or not to allow that to put more swings in?

It's really the location. So it's the change in the site plan to allow them to put the recreational equipment in the rear yard where there currently isn't anything.

So we are making a decision based on where the exact location of where those swings are going to be. Not that there's going to be additional swings. We are making a decision on where it goes.

If the board directs staff to do so, yes, you would be authorizing the location. You would be authorizing the installation of the swings in that location, correct?

So that's where it becomes, I think, a bit of an issue then. Because if it was just a case of us saying, sure, you know, waiving the requirement for the detailed parking analysis, fine. You know, that's one thing. And if it just said something that we're saying, sure, they can put more swings on, but they have to figure out the location. That's also another thing, but that's not what we're doing. So to the comments that we just heard here tonight, we are making a decision on where the location of where those swings go. So for better or for worse, we are making a decision on what the Park District is accomplishing tonight.

We are. And my commentary before was typically we don't. typically we're not in that business. It's an unusual situation tonight because this is a change to the PUD, and correct me if I'm stating this inaccurately, but the PUD amendment that was done when the additions were done didn't include the swings, but now, because the Park District is listening, they want to include them again, so it's kind of a very specific add for tonight. But typically, We don't weigh in on location of the slides or the monkey bars or the swings or anything like that. I have not personally in my time on this board.

Okay. I guess I'm a little then confused to why it's come up to this point at one point. Because I agree with what you said before. We should be making decisions on what the park district or the library or the school districts, you know, what they're doing with their specific things as long as they're doing it within our codes. So is it, and I would be okay voting if it just said, just as it says here, because right now, As I'm looking at this, it's not talking about, in this recommendation, it's not talking about the location of where those swings are going. The only variation that I am seeing on here has to do with the parking analysis.

If I could, Trustee Zick, on a couple of fronts. There's the proposed amendment that includes the map, correct? And that's also what you're voting on, is the map with the location of those items. Generally speaking, a planned unit development is done very often because either A, that type of development requires a planned unit development where You look at the overall context of the different items and not just checking a box of it hitting all the codes. or if an applicant is not meeting all the codes, but they're saying, well, we're not meeting this code, but we're compensating it by this. We're not meeting this code, but we're compensating by this. And so a planned unit development is, by its nature, you know, somewhat of a different animal where you get a little bit more into the weeds. You know, if they were to reorient different items in the playground area that they've, you know, that they had, that wouldn't be a violation of, or wouldn't require an amendment to the PUD, correct? Correct. It's because they're opening up a whole other area that this triggered a review. But I think there's a legal issue, and there's also a philosophical issue, just from my perspective. The legal issue is, is there an amendment of the PUD triggered? And from a staff perspective, we're saying, yes, this requires a review. There's a philosophical issue of to what extent does this village board want to defer to the will of the Park District on these issues going through the process? And I think that's the other, you can decide whether you want the swing sets to be turned this way or that way be that way or you can say okay you've done your process you've made your you you went through the process to justify to our residents why the swing sets have been approved and we're going to just generally you know defer to that decision as a matter of partnership um there are some folks in this room that want another bite at the apple on this issue because they're unhappy with what the park district did but ultimately that's a philosophical issue for the village board to weigh as individuals i don't know if that helps

It does. I think in the context of getting back to the whole issue of, you know, us not deciding what these other governing bodies are doing, Right now the Park District is basically asking us to say this is our will, this is what we've decided, and there has to be a change in the POD in order to accomplish what we want to do. So what we'd be voting for is we're saying yes, Park District, if we voted yes, saying yes, you have made your decision, and we are granting the variance for you to go ahead and make that decision.

Yes. That's a way of looking at it. Other folks can say, I really like this location for the swings, and I think this is great. Everyone, I mean, like any other issue, you all vote for yes and no based on different factors. This is no different.

Okay, thank you. Is there someone else down here? Trustee LaBette, you had your hand up.

I did, but I think Manager Ratcliffe's kind of addressed that, and that is the Park District did make their decision, they made the decision of where the swings were going to go, they could have decided they would go in another location, but since this is a PUD, we'd still be going through the same process no matter where that other location was. Let's say they wanted to put them all the way across next to the sign. I mean, we'd still be going through this process, but they ultimately made the decision and we're just, if you will, concurring with what they decided. Should we vote yes? That's how I view it.

Trustee Bertucci has.

Yeah, and I know we're all trying to get to the same place, but I would also want to piggyback with what Manager Reklaus and Trustee Libetz is trying to say is when you have a PUD and you're going to make an amendment, so yes, Miss Rodman is right, and it's on you know unfortunately. Yes, we have to dive in to this pod and say is it still Proper is it still proper for for you know the property so on and so forth However, we're not park people specialists. Just like if we had the police chief or the fire chief or any other department come up here and say, or even the library come up and say, we looked at this. And we understand, you know, that there are homes and that type of thing. And we looked at this. We did our research, that type of thing. There has to be a certain amount of mutual respect between government agencies, you know, local municipality government agencies to say, Okay, you know, what they're showing us here, and yes, there is some residents here that want, you know, that are concerned, but we get that any time we get into PUDs and developments and get too close to the edge. Grace Terrace was a perfect example of, and Grace Terrace was still built, but there were some adjustments. Here, is an adjustment really needed? I mean, this is not a lighted ball field, for example. This is a swing set I would have, I would imagine maybe a teenager or two might go on a swing set, but I would think that you're primarily looking at the younger kids, so to speak. So with that all in mind, it seems to me like, okay, Based on what we have to do, yes, we have to do our deep dive and make sure it fits, but I also am relying on the park experts, and they deal with plenty of neighbors. There's a lot of parks in town. There's a lot of... swing sets, and they've had, when pickleball became popular, I remember something being done, and I remember there was concerns about nobody who would have known that pickleball makes so much noise, and now all of a sudden we've got to put noise things up, because it was, you know, the So I'm trusting in them that, you know, just like I would trust in something, a police matter or a, you know, a fire matter, you know, and getting expertise from, you know, from our chiefs or whatever, so... I don't know. Again, I'm just trying to help you, you know, help the whole board get to where they want to be. I know that's kind of basically the same thing Randy said, but so thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. I see Trustee Santa Maria's hand up.

John, do you have any data on how many residents reached out specifically asking for swings?

Specifically three residents asked for additional swings. Okay.

And Randy, or maybe Attorney Passman, this might be for you, is there a way toward the motion to say that we would allow the Park District, that we would agree with this and we give the Park District the ability to choose where the location of the swings is?

Sure. I presume as long as they're otherwise in compliance with any applicable setbacks or locational rules in our code, but that's the will of the board. I'll look to Director Rodman to make sure there's no reason we couldn't do that, give him that discretion.

Right now, it's drafted for them to be located in the rear yard. So I guess that depends on if the board is willing to grant them broad authority to place them in any yard anywhere on the site or want to restrict them to certain portions of the site. But yes, in essence, you could craft that however you'd like.

I mean, we have attorneys on this board.

You know you could craft whatever you want, right?

to make it work. That's your job. So I'm throwing that out there in case that's something that we would consider having a motion where we allow this to happen. We say yes, but the motion gives the ability to the Park District to select where they put the swings and that takes us out of it since it's their own taxing body.

Makes sense to me. MR. PASSMAN, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE, NOT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD HERE, BUT WHAT WOULD NEED TO CHANGE IN THE MOTION TO ALLOW THE PARK DISTRICT TO CARRY ON WITH THEIR GOALS HERE AND ADJUST THE LOCATION IF THEY FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE?

I THINK JUST ADDING WHATEVER APPROPRIATE CLAUSES TO THAT EFFECT, AS YOU OR TRUSTEE SANTAMARIA JUST SAID IT, TO GIVE THE PARK DISTRICT DISCRETION TO LOCATE THE SWINGS. SOME ARE SPECIFIC ON THE SITE THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE RULES AND WE'LL BOARD SMITH IT FROM THERE BUT THERE'S NO MAGIC.

TONIGHT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE DIRECTING STAFF AND THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY WHICH IS YOU TO CREATE THIS. IF I WAS TO DO A STRAW POLL OF THIS BOARD THAT THIS IS LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO INCLUDE IN IT. you would do so.

Yeah, it's in our job to take that direction and put it into proper prose and ordinance form. There's no magic language for emotion, I think. That's what I'm getting at. Yeah, there's no magic language. I think, as I said, the way you said it just a moment ago, the way Trustee Santamaria said it a moment before that, WITH THE EXPLANATION AND CLARIFICATION FROM DIRECTOR ROBIN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION IF THIS PARTICULAR IDEA DOES, YOU KNOW, GAIN SUPPORT FROM MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.

SO WHAT WE COULD DO IS CARRY ON WITH THE MOTION IN THE SECOND THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND THEN ASK THE QUESTION THAT SAYS, ALL RIGHT, IS THIS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD TO TURN IT INTO THIS? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES.

Can we not have to either vote on or amend the motion on the table?

That was going to be my question, too.

Certainly. Formally, sure. I don't want to play footsie with this. The ultimate meet that you're going to perhaps adopt is not tonight, but at a future meeting with the ordinance. Right. Is it better to formally have an amendment to the motion? Yes, it is.

If I could, I think the motion is to direct staff and village attorney to prefer final documents.

Right.

What final documents are is... a subjective thing, and I think we need to hear from a majority of the board that they want to go the direction. That's what I'm trying to achieve. But I think other than that, there's some leeway there. If the board is willing to grant staff leeway, it's going to come back to you for a vote.

Is it appropriate to ask the motion maker to add an additional sentence in his motion and ask to see if it gets seconded by the? I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

IT'S A LITTLE MORE INFORMAL THAN AMENDING IT BUT ULTIMATELY IF THE MOTION PASSES WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A FINAL ORDINANCE THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR MY PURPOSES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PETITIONER. WOULD ANY ACTION EITHER WAY CHANGE OR GIVE YOU FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE THE LOCATION?

We have looked at multiple locations on the site to put it. Based on existing utilities, it could not go to the west. Their safety town is adjacent to it to the east. So we wouldn't obviously remove safety town to put swings there. There is no other logical location close to the playground that unless we went all the way over closer to Northwest Highway, which we would never consider, staff would not make that recommendation to the park board.

Okay. So I guess I don't, see what adding the flexibility would change ultimately. Because if I'm hearing correctly, in two weeks or whenever it is, we'd wind up looking at the same map.

Or we don't have to look at a map because it's not our responsibility to, right? Because it's a different governing body.

it's let's do this is that yeah i don't i don't think that we're necessarily saying that this is where they go we're just approving the modification of the pud yeah and but as as ms rodman said it does include this map that shows the location in the blue up here up at the top corner there in the north and that's where you might expect them to be then and all i'm getting at is that's what the motion is right now and that's what the second is i think the board here TO SOME DEGREE WANTS TO STAY OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF LOCATING CERTAIN SPECIFIC JUNGLE GYMS AND SWINGS AND SLIDES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IS A PARK DISTRICT MATTER. WHETHER OR NOT THE ENTIRE BOARD FEELS THAT WAY OR NOT IS NOT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. The folks who are not happy with this always have the option to go and sit in front of the park board and plead their case, yay or nay, on anything the park district does, just like everything we do here. And I'm just trying to suggest that we stay out of that business here. So the motion that's made, maybe the thing to do is to just carry on with the motion and the second, have that vote, and then if there's more discussion afterwards, I'm open to have further discussion. So, is there, yes.

I was just gonna say, I mean, I think essentially though, what we're saying is the positive vote on the staff written recommendation does give the Park District what they're requesting.

It does. And they still have to answer to the residents as to how they do their business. And that's the way it should be, right? Let's do a roll call vote on this. We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion here or anywhere else? I don't think there is. Maggie, please. It was a motion that was made by Trustee Gilbert, seconded by Trustee Schwingbeck.

Trustee Gilbert?

Yes.

Trustee Schwingbeck?

Yes.

Trustee Manganaro?

Aye.

Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee LaBette? Yes. Trustee Zick? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. Trustee Bertucci? Yes. President Tenaglia?

Yes. So the motion carries. Your request has been approved. It's in your hands. Is there any further discussion that staff needs to hear from the board or anybody else wants to say anything else on this before we move on?

I'll make a comment. Just as a daily user of this facility, I do think that those speed bumps down that road might be a good thing to look into, regardless of the location of the swings, because I do see it quite a bit, people kind of just flying around that corner over there. So, again, just, you know, I'm not in the park business, but, again, just speaking as a resident who is dropping kids off and going there quite frequently, it could be, in my opinion, a little safer. Understood. Anyone else? All right.

Thank you. Good luck. We'll see an ordinance prepared in a couple of weeks. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. All right. And then the last item on the agenda is item F, and that is an approval of an ordinance amending the village code regarding alcohol regulations for a downtown social district pilot program. And I'll hand this one back off to staff.

Just briefly, before I turn things over to Assistant to the Village Manager, Jack Heskone, this is a topic we've been talking about, I think, informally for some time in terms of an option of allowing a social district, or as it's been called recently, a sip and stroll district in the Alfresco area. This was something that was discussed in some detail on May 18th and June 15th. And we have come up with an ordinance that would enable staff to implement a pilot program in the timeframe that we discussed. Some of the details of the pilot program are not completely developed yet, but this ordinance would give us the authority to proceed and work out those details as we go in the implementation phase. And with that, I'll turn things over to Mr. Cascone.

Thank you, Manager Raklaus and Mayor. The purpose of this presentation is to propose an ordinance that outlines a framework for the downtown social district pilot program. So as a recap, what is a social district? It's an open consumption area that would allow patrons to purchase alcoholic beverages from participating licensed establishments. That's our current downtown liquor license holders. and consume those beverages within the established Arlington alfresco boundaries where they can enjoy those beverages at Harmony Park or at the Fountain or anywhere within the outlined red with the hash marks up on the screen. For some background, as Manager Racklaus mentioned, this concept was first presented during the May 18th Village Board meeting, and a majority of the board supported continued evaluation and development. Staff refined that concept and presented during the June 15th Village Board meeting, where staff presented data from other communities that have a similar program such as this one, as well as feedback from eligible downtown Arlington Heights liquor license holders. A majority of the board again supported the creation of the social district pilot program for the remainder of the 2026 Arlington Alfresco season and directed staff to create the appropriate ordinance for final review and approval. And that's what we're here tonight to discuss. In our research, we looked at several communities in Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana that have similar programs. They all have common program goals of supporting local businesses, increase pedestrian activity, encourage outdoor dining and shopping, and enhance tourism and downtown vibrancy. As a note, the ordinance that was included in your agenda packet, there was a revision today to that ordinance. Staff and legal identified information that was missing from the original ordinance that was published on July 3rd for today's July 6th Village Board agenda packet. Staff revised the ordinance and republished it to the Village website today. So those revisions include to Section 5, there was a minor typo where the word of was missing. Thank you, Trustee LeBeds, for that one. section six the designation of a social district where staff added a description of where the social district boundaries are located and included the dates of operation for the social district. And so tonight we're talking about the revision to the ordinance that was published on the village website today. For the ordinances framework, it authorizes the social district to operate between July 30th and September 26th of 2026 on every Thursday through Saturday from 5 to 9 p.m. So July 30th is a Thursday. September 26th is a Saturday from 5 to 9 p.m. Eligible and participating businesses would be able to sell alcoholic beverages to patrons in the social district zone. Again, outlined on the screen here with the last alcoholic beverage sale occurring at 9 p.m. However, any patrons who still have an alcoholic beverage that was purchased before 9 p.m., but it is now after 9 p.m., are welcome to continue enjoying that beverage within the social district zone. The zone would be entirely located within the established Arlington Alfresco zone, which east to west is Campbell Street between Highland Avenue and Dunton Avenue, and north to south is Vail Avenue between the north entrance of the Vail Park and Garage and Wing and Davis Streets. And again, eligible downtown liquor license holders would be able to voluntarily participate in this program. And there are 15 liquor license holders that are currently eligible to participate. For those businesses that choose to participate, they will be required to do a number of things. They would be required to enter into a formal agreement with the village that would outline expectations, rules, regulations that they would agree to abide by for the duration of the social district pilot program. They would agree to use village approved cups for alcoholic beverages no larger than 16 ounces. They would apply a village designed social district label on each cup identifying the establishment and date of service. And an example of that could look something similar to what you see on the right here. They would also secure a village-approved wristband. After age verification occurs at the point of sale, they would affix a village-approved wristband to the patron's wrist. And then finally, they would comply with all social district regulations, liquor laws, and beverage selling handling safety requirements. So for a moment, I want to turn it back over to Manager Reklaus for a comment.

You know, I know one of the topics of discussion last time was the nature of these cups. And I think, you know, in full disclosure, in order to get this thing off the ground, I think we're anticipating they're going to be clear plastic cups for this year. Now, whether we're able to implement something better in the future, you know, that'll be something that we can talk about in the future. But for a couple of reasons, one, we're passing the cost of these on to the businesses. They're readily available. They're easy to use. The police department wants to have something that's transparent so you can see what's in the cup if it's full. They also, at this time, based on staffing that we have right now and we're anticipating during the pilot period, we really don't want people leaving the Alfresco District with any kind of cup. We want them to leave, you know, with something that, you know, if they're carrying their plastic cup with a label on it, you've got to toss that before you leave. And so there could be better ways or different ways to do this in the future with reusable cups or whatever, but just realistically, we aren't going to be able to do that in the time frame that we're talking about to get this off the ground. So I want to make that clear.

As part of the pilot program framework, we also have all businesses within the social district, whether they are liquor license holders or other shops, other businesses, any business that's located in that social district zone would retain the right to determine whether patrons carrying alcoholic beverages are permitted to enter their establishment. Here's a few examples of Stickers or small signs that could be placed in the doorway or at a podium outside the door stating whether social district alcoholic beverages are sold at that establishment, whether those beverages are welcomed at that establishment that you can carry your beverage into the establishment, or whether the business owner would not permit those alcoholic beverages in their establishment. Here are a few examples of cups, labels, and wristbands. The top two photos you've seen in previous presentations where this is what your social district approved cup and label could look like. The central theme here is that it is a branded label. It is one central label, so it's easily identifiable, but it also includes space for the establishment name and the date of service. on every label that is affixed to those cups. But you could see here that there's various sizing. I believe the ones on the left, the cups on the left there are about 16 ounces. The cups on the right are probably eight ounces or 12 ounces. And then the three photos below are different wristbands that these are the Village approved. Something similar to this would be the Village approved wristbands. where we would coordinate with those businesses that all businesses are using the same wristband, the same color on a certain night, but that color and that wristband design are not used again the next day, that it would be a different wristband. So you can easily identify whether someone has passed on their wristband or kept their wristband from the previous day. Again, these photos you've seen on the right here, this is the Arlington Alfresco entrance facing south on Vail Avenue at the Wing and Davis entrance. You could see a number of signs that are out there currently. And on the left are some examples from other communities where staff would work on signage designs that would be placed at every entrance and exit into the social district zone, welcoming individuals, asking them to please drink responsibly. And then as you're leaving, notifying them that you're now leaving the zone and to please dispose of your cup. As for budget considerations, staff does not anticipate a significant financial impact as a result of the Downtown Social District. There will of course be an initial investment primarily in signage, production, installation, materials similar to that. Potentially additional police staffing if it were warranted after the program is underway and an analysis is conducted. But overall there would be no significant financial impact. So finally, staff recommends that the village board approved the revised ordinance to amend the village code as outlined and direct staff to take the necessary steps to implement a downtown social district pilot program during the 2026 Arlington Alfresco season. With that, thank you, and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Jack. Nicely done. Thank you, Manager Radcliffe. Let's go ahead and turn it over to the board right away here, and then we'll certainly open it up to the audience as well. We'll start on this side this time. Trustee Dunnington.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about the ordinance under its item C and its sales and possession of village approved containers. And number three on that is that a licensee may permit a patron to carry only one open container of alcoholic liquor from its premises into the social district. and so my question is um so that means like you could not buy a drink for for someone else each individual person has to come into the establishment to buy the drink is that correct correct that's how it's currently written okay one social district drink per person at that moment of transaction okay and i'm guessing that the point of that is because of the wristbands But I would definitely consider allowing someone to get two drinks when they buy a drink because I think that that's just kind of what happens normally in real life where someone, you're with a friend or a partner, that one person is going to go into the establishment to buy one or two drinks. And so it just seems like it would be... Just more practical and realistic that you could buy more than one drink, especially like, you know, we talked a lot about how, you know, potentially a parent is getting ice cream with kids and maybe like another parent would go to a bar and get two drinks for them. So I think we should consider making that two drinks.

If I could make a comment on that, Trustee Dunting. You know, one of the issues is everyone has to get carded and everyone has to get a wristband. And so, you know, I think part of the philosophy of what we're looking at in developing this is it's easier to loosen things up and it's harder to tighten it up. And so, you know, we'll do ultimately what the board wants. But our thought on this was, you know, everyone gets a wristband. Anyone who's getting a drink kind of walks out of there. It's kind of the back and forth that in the exchange of those drinks that could be more problematic. And so our recommendation was to start a little bit stricter. And then in future years, if there's no issues, we can start. But certainly at the end of the day, this is up to the board and their comfort level. But that was our philosophy for drafting it.

OK. AND THEN COULD YOU ALSO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE OF DATING THE LABEL?

THE PURPOSE OF THE DATE IS TO ENSURE THAT A CUP IS NOT USED THE NEXT DAY AND A CUP IS NOT BROUGHT BACK TO THE SOCIAL DISTRICT ZONE. THE OTHER PURPOSE OF HAVING THE ESTABLISHMENT NAME IS A USED SOCIAL DISTRICT CUP IS NOT BROUGHT INTO ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT TO HAVE ANOTHER DRINK POURED IN THE SAME CUP.

Okay, that's my question so far. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else on this side? Nope. Nope. Go this direction. I see three hands.

Go that way first.

Go that way first. Trustee Zitt.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. A couple of things. The budget and the money, Manager Ratcliffe, you had made a comment about that, regarding the plastic cups, that the establishments that are part of this, they're going to be paying for that. Is that... that they're going to be buying the cups from us or they're just going to have to go out and get plastic cups themselves?

The idea is we would set the standard for a cup. And again, this is just for the pilot program. We may have something more elaborate in the future. And what we heard from talking anecdotally to some of the places is they have no idea how popular this is going to be. and they would rather purchase a cup that if they buy 1,000 of them and they only use 200, they can use them for non, you know, that was the thought that we got. And so we're trying to figure out a middle ground here. And the same thing with the labels. We would design a label, and, you know, we'd say you have to print these out. Whether it's, maybe they have to go to a printer and get, them print it out. But the idea was they're benefiting from the program. These would be relatively minimal costs. No one that we spoke to had any real heartburn about getting, paying for labels or paying for the plastic cups in the pilot program.

Okay, so you answered my second question about the cost of the labels. Okay. And I think I said I didn't realize my experience of 35 plus years had ever come with the board, but 35 years being in the adhesive world, I've got to say to any establishment that is involved in this, please, please, please put these stickers on when the cups are empty and there's nothing in them. Because if you pour something in there and you try to put the sticker on after that, CONDENSATION THAT'S ON THERE IS GOING TO CAUSE THEM NOT TO STICK GOING TO CAUSE THEM NOT TO STICK AND THEY'RE GOING TO FALL OFF AND AND THEY'RE GOING TO FALL OFF AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES WITH THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES WITH PEOPLE WALKING AROUND WITH CUPS OUT IN PEOPLE WALKING AROUND WITH CUPS OUT IN THAT AREA WITHOUT STICKERS ON THEM THAT AREA WITHOUT STICKERS ON THEM OR FALLING OFF ALL OVER THE PLACE.

OR FALLING OFF ALL OVER THE PLACE. SO PLEASE PUT THEM ON BEFORE YOU SO PLEASE PUT THEM ON BEFORE YOU PUT DRINKS IN.

PUT DRINKS IN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TRUSTEE GILBERT, I SAW YOUR TRUSTEE GILBERT, I SAW YOUR HAND. HAND. YES

Okay, well, I'm going to say some of the things I've said already before, and it's no surprise that as much as I appreciate all the work that staff has done and all the passion that's been put into this program, I still... Cannot vote in favor of moving along with this I've said this already and I'll say it again We people don't read the signs that are there now as far as walking their bikes or walking their wheels. It's on the ground It's on the sign people don't pay attention why should they pay attention to the fact they're leaving the alfresco zone or no liquor brought in from outside. I'm just really skeptical and I will say I hope I'm proven wrong because I have a feeling I'm in the minority here, but I am concerned that Things aren't controlled with the things we want to control now, which is specifically the e-bikes and the e-scooters and so on that people ride randomly, and the bicycles. I mean, I was in the middle of downtown this afternoon, and there was a woman, not a child, a woman who was riding her bicycle right through. She probably figured, ah, nobody's around. I can ride my bike. But obviously she didn't pay attention to the signs that are there that say walk your wheels. And when you try to say something to somebody, they basically give you the business if they say do anything at all. So that's a concern of mine. However, if we go forward with it, I would not certainly at this point be in favor of people being able to buy two drinks because I'm concerned about drinks being passed on to somebody who is underage. And I get it that... You know, there are other places where people are allowed to buy more than one alcoholic beverage and nobody, you know, and it's allowed, but what's to prevent somebody who is not somebody's parent, but they're with somebody who's 25 and they're 18 and then Suddenly, well, they don't have the, they're being given a beverage. Is somebody going to be walking around checking that this clear cup and the fact they have no wristband? I would want anyone purchasing to have to show their ID to prove that they are of age. I trust our establishments. I trust our restaurants. I know they do the right thing when people are in their establishments, at their bars, or at their tables, bars waiting for a table, or at their tables. I know that they card people. I'm not worried about our restaurants. I'm worried about what happens afterwards. And on Thursday nights when we have Sounds of Summer, I'm not naive enough to think that nobody brings in their own alcoholic beverages. Last Thursday, the Thursday for the last concert, there was a group with a lovely looking orange drink in lovely decorated wine glasses that they brought in, and I have a feeling they weren't just orange juice. So these are the things that concern me and why I'm opposed to it. I realize I may be the one person who feels this way. And again, should this be approved, I wish it every success and no problems. But that's why I'm voting against the process.

Trustee Mangano.

Thanks, Mary Tenaglia. I have to say, I spoke with some of our officers at the last Sounds of Summer, and they were, I would say, mildly at least enthusiastic about the process or the idea, and they got me rethinking it. But some of what I'm hearing, I mean, family-friendly public alcohol consumption, what could possibly go wrong when we get in the car with the kids? The closer for me though is this is from a sustainability standpoint. We're assuring that a lot of plastic, cups labeled are gonna go into the trash, best case, so just put more plastic in our landfills. A little bit worse case is they get put into recycling with those labels and they contaminate entire recycling loads that then wind up in landfills. So the sustainability concern alone will prevent me from supporting this. I really think we have to do better from a sustainability standpoint.

Okay. Trustee Bertucci. Thank you, Mayor. Just for clarification, so every, if you have a drink in your hand, you also have a wristband, correct? Correct. Okay. Okay. So if we allowed somebody to get two, I'm just concerned about that. So say I'm with my significant other and I want to be a gentleman and I say, you know, I'm going to run in and get a drink. How would you like one? So if she already has a wristband, I mean, I could see if we allow to, okay, that's not a problem. But if she doesn't, then you have a whole education thing where anybody, whether it's the male, whoever the partner is, they're going in or the friend or whatever, you would have to educate these people and say, just so you know, you know, and then how do you police that? So I kind of am, I shouldn't say kind of, I am leaning towards Randy's comment of let us think that through and see how that would work because I'm not exactly sure if I'm the bartender or whoever and you're asking for two, now what do I do? How do I know that other person has a wristband and has been already ID'd, so to speak? So I'm voting for it and I'm in favor of it as I've been all along. But I would probably avoid any amendment to raise it up to the level of two yet because I'm not clear on how we would get that done. So thank you.

Anyone else on the side? I see two hands. We'll start with Trustee Schoenbeck. Thank you, Mayor.

Well, I certainly respect what everyone had to say tonight, and thank you to staff, everybody, Deputy Manager Mikula, Manager Reklos. I mean, this is something that I've been thinking about for a long time, and I'm really happy that we're discussing this. I'm glad we've been a little conservative because what I've seen on a regular basis in other towns, they open it up Monday through Sunday for the entire liquor code. So I'm really happy that we're going to try the pilot program if it passes between 5 and 9. I certainly have seen where everybody has to come in and get the drink. You can't come in for somebody else because then it's up to the establishment to check that driver's license and make sure that every single person that's buying an alcoholic beverage is of age. So in the towns that I've seen on a regular basis, you can't buy multiple drinks. The establishment is checking it. I know that we've talked a lot about Michigan. We've had establishments that are moving a lot of those cups on a regular basis, and they were putting stickers on them, and they made the decision. to actually get them printed to save time. So that can certainly be up to the restaurant or the establishment if they want to do that. But I've seen cases where they actually get away from that sticker because it just, now they've got somebody in the establishment putting it on the glass and they want to free that person up from doing that. So they just go buy the glass themselves with it already printed on there. And I really like what you guys have done. I mean, I've spoke a couple of times on this and I'm very much in favor of it. I think it's going to, one, not only help the establishments that are able to serve alcohol, but I've seen it help foot traffic in other towns, and it's helped other stores that have permitted alcohol to come into their store. So it's done some good things. I agree with Trustee LeBeds that we're going to have to be really diligent on our enforcement. We're doing some things here in this proposed pilot program that isn't being done in other towns, where they just have a sticker on the ground, there's no barriers, there's really no police presence. I haven't seen any problems, so I'm glad we've tightened down on this, and I'm really hopeful that not only it passes, but that we improve it a little bit and we can keep doing it for years to come.

Thank you. Trustee Donington, you had your hand up as well.

Just a question about when we have Harmony Fest, do we allow people to buy more than one drink? I think that also requires a wristband.

We do. And the difference with Harmony Fest is Harmony Fest is the establishment. It's a different type of environment. The whole area is kind of locked down and so forth, whereas this... Because you're going into the establishment, we're trying to be a little bit more conservative, whereas that's much more of a festival-type atmosphere. But no, you can order more than one drink, but there's also a larger police footprint at Harmony Fest than there would be for a typical Thursday night. So again, from our standpoint, from a staff perspective, we wanted to lay this out from a conservative standpoint. That's the rationale. And we also kind of are trying to approach this with, we're going to start, we're going to walk before we can run with this. But at the end of the day, it's up to the board what you're comfortable with now and in the future.

Thank you.

Okay. Could you do me a favor, Jack, and pull up the slide that you made a comment about the reason for doing this, and it was the one just before the map. Go back one more. Right there, this one. The goals, the common program goals include... And I'm just going to read these really quick. Supporting the local businesses, increasing pedestrian activity, encouraging outdoor dining and shopping, and enhanced tourism. in the downtown and downtown vibrancy. There was question at our last meeting, why would we do such a thing? Why is this something that we should be doing? It might cost us a little bit of money. What is the reason to do it? And these to me make, all of that makes sense. If you go to the map again, next slide, I want to make sure that we all understand that it's not just the hatched-in cross area. It's also going to include Harmony Park. So it's not just on the streets. It's in the green area. It's at the fountain. It's all the way up to the stage, and it stops at those intersections at the end of the cross. Correct. Okay. Okay. The welcome signs, could you show that slide that shows these? That, right there, that. This is, I think, really clever and really important, and I don't know how big they're going to be, if they're just going to be stickers like the Chamber of Commerce stickers that go on the doors, or if they're going to be larger, or will people have an option to make them whatever size they want, but knowing that you could buy here or that you could walk in here with your drink, or that, guess what, don't come in here with that drink. These, I think, are critical pieces to the puzzle. So I'm really thankful and glad that you've got this as part of the program. You said it, Randy, a minute ago, walking before we run. And if everything goes well on the pilot, we can take little larger steps. I think being conservative in the beginning is a smart way to go. Trustee LeBeds is everything she said makes perfect sense, and it's important that we listen to all those concerns. And if it does go well, then hooray for all of us. It's a great thing. If it doesn't go well, hooray. Then we've got to rethink it all. But that's the whole goal for the pilot program. And the last thing I'll say is how far we've come. It was not that long ago. I was already on this board when we didn't really know what our downtown was going to be. It had a lot of stores, men's clothing, women's clothing, shoe stores. And we, as a community, decided this is going to be the heartbeat of our community, an entertainment district, restaurants, theater, music, all of these wonderful things that we have now. And this is just one more piece of the puzzle that will separate us even further from other communities who have seen what we've done and either applauded it or try to implement it themselves or just keep coming here because they do. I know all of us here on the board have spoken to people. who are visiting on Thursday nights and they say, gosh, we love your town. And they're from Barrington. They're from Park Ridge. They're from all up and down the railroad tracks. It's because we've been blessed with this downtown the way it is now. And I really believe this is just one more step that's going to make it even better and more enjoyable. And I think... It's going to help our businesses. I really do. I hope it does. I hope they take advantage of it, and I hope things go well. That's all I had that I wanted to say. I do want to open it up to the audience. I don't have any blue cards on this, but if you want to show me, raise your hands. I see one hand out there. If someone wants to speak on it, I see three. Again, what I try to do, and I've been lenient on this, is keep our comments under three minutes if we can. But I saw your hand up first, so come on up. Introduce yourself again, please, and share your thoughts.

Hello, everybody. My name is Devin Gray. I am a resident here in town. I actually grew up four miles from here. This is the community I've called home for my entire life. My kids will go to the same high school that I graduated from. I've known many of my neighbors since the mid-'80s. I consider this my home. We've had a lot of conversations tonight about listening. Had a lot of conversations about transparency. Had a lot of conversations about public forums. And here we are recommending a pilot program that I do remember some of the data from last time. We talked to some of the local businesses. I think less than half of them were in favor of this program. A large group didn't respond, but a few of them were certainly in favor. I haven't heard anything about talking to the residents about this program. And in fact, I ran into one of the residents this week from one of the buildings right there. To my knowledge, we certainly haven't conducted any conversations with the HOAs surrounding this community about how they feel about it. And they're our neighbors, too. They're a part of this village just as much as the 15 restaurants that want to serve more alcohol, or I think the six or seven who said they wanted to in this program. I was the one that asked, what are we doing here, right? Local government exists to solve problems. And from what I gather... from what I gather from my neighbors here in Arlington Heights and the same neighbors in Barrington and across the Northwest suburbs, the downtown part of our community is thriving. This is not an area where we need to spend hours upon hours upon hours in these village board meetings every other week discussing how do we save these 15 businesses? Guys, there are other businesses across town that need help. This is not the right use of our time and it's not the right use of our risk. I'm pretty concerned that the same group that, you know, again, after we said several times, hey, there's a good way to handle short-term rentals here, and instead we just flew by the seat of our pants, went all or nothing on it, and now we're facing two federal lawsuits that are going to be very expensive. I'm very concerned that that same methodology is the one that we're using to adapt this program. I'm hearing that some of the details are not developed yet, and yet we're ready to move forward with this. That makes no sense to me. There's huge risk here. I echo Zick's concerns about the environment here and about stickers and trash. I echo Labed's concerns about alcohol just being distributed to minors. I echo Mangonero's concerns about, and Dunnington's, about excess waste and sustainability. I'd also like to understand how we've looked into the impact of things like the Dram Shop Act and the Basset Regulations. And for servers and bartenders here in town, What is the liability for them? Should they serve somebody, they bring that one or two, however many drinks out and they hand it off to somebody else who's liable. We have an obligation to not just protect our residents from drunk drivers who are inevitably going to hit somebody. This is not an if, it's a when. So let's do the calculus around what we're comfortable with and how much risk and how many injuries we're comfortable with when we make this decision. But we also have an obligation to protect the businesses that will end up being sued as a result of this. And I've stood before this board before and warned us of lawsuits. I am not a legal scholar, but it does not take one to predict this type of thing. Please, please, please do not rush into this. We have the opportunity to think about this more and bring it live next year. Let's not rush this just for the sake of rushing it, guys. Thank you.

Thank you. There are other hands. We'll go with Mr. Jaffe in the second row, and then we'll call, we'll come on the front row next.

Hi, I'm Dave Jaffe. I'm a frequent downtown resident where we come down all the time to Alfresco, and I certainly believe that this pilot program is a wonderful, wonderful idea. And I like how you structured it in the sense that you did it from 5 to 9, only on certain days, from Thursday through Saturday. That allows... resident, you know, people to come down, enjoy it while they're waiting for a table to be able to walk around freely instead of within a certain part of establishments. I think you're doing it correctly by carding everybody from the beginning. You know, at which time later on we could potentially allow people to have more than, you know, carry more than one drink out after everybody's been carded. So kind of like how they do it at frontier days. You have somebody that has to apply the wristbands, you know, and then you have to go get the drink. However, you know, the individual establishments, it's a great idea to card everyone that establishes that liability. It also eliminates people from buying multiple times and handing it off to somebody else. But I think it's a wonderful idea. I like how we're doing it. As far as doing a pilot program, I think that's wonderful. I applaud all you guys. Thank you. Thanks. And in the front row here.

Introduce yourself, please.

Hello, my name is Norbert Piotrowski. I live in Arlington Heights. I see this, I don't think it's necessary to have to have people wandering around in the street with drinks to become more social. I mean, okay, drink inside the establishment and all that, that's fine. Sell them there, whatever, you know, the markup on drinks, there's big profits in there. Who's driving this? Is this the places that sell liquor and then you're going to buy more and walk out in the center there and drink more? And you're going to be more social or happy with people. And maybe you're going to have to have a couple of extra drinks. I might buy a t-shirt from one of the shops. I mean, I don't understand the purpose. If you want to drink and you eat, okay, you're within that establishment. But then you go wandering around. You know, this thing about the complexity of these plastic cups and stickers and bands and all that, I think that's going to be hard to enforce and understand. I don't know. Maybe you ought to rename this thing instead of the social district, name it the alcohol district. Ooh, you wouldn't want to say that, but that's what it really is. So I don't agree with it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? I see one more hand. Come on up.

I'm sorry, I wasn't going to say anything, but I feel compelled to. Henry Beardsley, downtown Arlington Heights resident. I am actually the president of our homeowners association for one of the high rises. I will say perhaps there could be more transparency. Recently the fire chief has reached out to the homeowners association about an issue that's interesting. I will say a lot of the residents in my building We're all very social. We love the idea. We walk the alfresco a lot. We stay inside the fence, but we see friends walking by outside, and we have to talk across the fence. It is absolutely very much a social thing for some of us. That is our community right there, and it's something that's very important to us. I get the issue with the two drinks and the one drink. If somebody is in the park and they have their blanket down or their chairs down, it's inconvenient for two people to swap. But it makes sense. The servers probably should see who they're serving. I get that. For those of us who live downtown, we're not driving, but it's very much a concern that I can see. But this is absolutely a social thing for us who live downtown. And that is our home. That is our backyard. Those are our neighbors that we see. Just wanted to add that. Thank you. Thank you, Henry.

last call anyone else in the audience all right seeing none we'll come back to the board final thoughts final comments I see trustee Santa Maria sure I think I appreciate what everyone has been saying I think there's been a little bit a different thought about what this means to some and it's it's just as if you were waiting for a reservation so what you're doing inside the restaurant you're just doing outside of the restaurant so I think the liability is still the same I think the training still happens that's still the same it's just being able to take your beverage and walk out to maybe go to the park while you're waiting for the reservation I don't think we're asking for a big party to be happening downtown and so I don't see it as an issue I think again we have the framework there we have guardrails and if we have if we think that it's not going to work out or if it wasn't good for the community then we have the ability to say but the pilot program didn't work and we'll step back from it well said anyone else okay I see no further discussion we have a motion made if I

Do we have a motion? No, not yet. Not yet. Is there someone who wants to make a motion to recommend staff to work forward on these, as mentioned here in this recommendation? I'd be happy to. How did I guess it? I think the rest of us would have backed off just so you could.

Thank you, Mayor. I would move that we approve the attach ordinance to amend the code as outlined and direct village staff to take the necessary steps to implement a downtown social district pilot program.

Second.

Motion made by Trustee Schwingbeck, seconded by Trustee Dunnington. Further discussion, comments from anyone on the board? SEEING NONE, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. SEEING NONE, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

TRUSTEE SCHWINGBEK? TRUSTEE SCHWINGBEK? YES. YES. TRUSTEE DUNNINGTON? TRUSTEE DUNNINGTON? YES. YES.

TRUSTEE ZICK?

TRUSTEE ZICK? YES.

YES.

TRUSTEE MINGINARO? TRUSTEE MINGINARO? NAY. NAY. TRUSTEE GILBERT? TRUSTEE GILBERT? YES.

YES.

TRUSTEE LEBEDS? TRUSTEE LEBEDS? NO. NO.

TRUSTEE SANTA MARIA? TRUSTEE SANTA MARIA? YES. YES. TRUSTEE BERTUCCI? TRUSTEE BERTUCCI? YES. YES. PRESIDENT TINAGLIA? PRESIDENT TINAGLIA? YES. YES. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. IF MY MATH education and everything necessary to get this off the ground. When was the window? You want to put that back up real quick? It was July 1st? July 30th to September 26th.

A Thursday through a Saturday.

Am I right? You're going to work very hard to make that deadline unless there are unforeseen challenges. But that is what we're working on.

There could be. And, of course, it's understandable. But that's the goal. We'll see if that happens. I think that's it on this topic. And according to the agenda, that's everything. Is there anything else from staff? Is there anyone in the audience that we're overlooking here that's something that they wanted to? I see nothing. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn?

I move that we adjourn. Second.

Motion made by Trustee LeBed, seconded by Trustee Santamaria. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone for joining us.