Village Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the Village Board of Arlington Heights for the date of July 20th, 2026. And our first order of business is a Pledge of Allegiance. So if you all could please rise and join the board.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everybody. Maggie, if you could call the roll, please.

Trustee Bertucci?

Here.

Trustee Zick?

Here.

Trustee Schwengbeck?

Here.

Trustee Santa Maria? Here. Trustee Manganiello? Here. Trustee Dunnington? Here. Trustee Gilbert?

Here.

Trustee LeBetz? Here. President Tenaglia?

Here. Thanks, Maggie. And we do have a set of minutes to review. and this would be from July 6th of this year, 2026. Are there any corrections or changes from anyone on the board? Is there anyone on the board who has to pass from that meeting for voting? Is there anyone in the audience that has questions or comments on the minutes from that meeting? If not, is there a motion to approve?

I move approval of the minutes from July 6th, 2026. Second.

Motion made by Trustee LeBenz, second by Trustee Dunnington. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. And then we have the approval of accounts payable, and I'll call on Trustee Bertucci.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll move approval of the warrant register for the check date July 15, 2026, in the amount of $3,595,000. I'm sorry, $3,595,273.07. Second.

Motion made by Trustee Bertucci, seconded by Trustee Schwingbeck. Are there any comments or questions from anyone on the board? Is there anyone in the audience that has questions or comments on this accounts payable report? Seeing none, this is a roll call vote.

Trustee Bertucci? Yes. Trustee Schwingbeck? Yes. Trustee LeBetz? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. Trustee Gilbert? Yes. Trustee Zick? Yes. Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee Manganero? Aye. President Tenaglia?

Yes. Very good. Okay, that is done. Now we're into a little bit of a fun section of our meeting tonight. We have a couple of awards and recognitions to make. And the first is for someone that we call Mrs. Illinois. And Mrs. Illinois happens to live here in Ireland tonight. She's been representing Illinois the entire past 12 months. And we're going to read a proclamation for her. But in doing so, I'm going to come out front. Tracy, could you join me up front?

Do you want to read it? No.

So if you don't know Tracy and her family, the Dros, they live here in town, been here for a long, long time, and Tracy was nominated and won and became Miss Illinois for the past 12 months, right? Yes, sir. And it just ended?

Yes. Is that right? Yep.

All right. Well, here we go. In recognition of Tracy Heisler Dros for Mrs. Illinois of America, whereas the The title of Mrs. Illinois America recognizes married women who demonstrate leadership, confidence, service, grace, integrity, and a strong commitment to their families and communities. And whereas Tracy Heisler-Droz was crowned Mrs. Illinois, America 2025 after taking a leap of faith to pursue a new challenge and has represented women across the state of Illinois through her advocacy, character and dedication to making a meaningful difference in the lives of others. And whereas throughout her year of service, Tracy has exemplified the values of philanthropy, compassion and civic engagement while encouraging those around her to actively support and uplift their communities. and whereas during her reign as Mrs. Illinois, America 2025, she has dedicated her time to representing and supporting community events and charitable causes throughout Illinois that work to strengthen families, serve those in need, and improve the lives of others. I can say I know that to be true. Tracy has been at every function I've ever been at. And I was running to be mayor, and she was at everything.

Watch out. Laughter

Whereas, as a devoted wife and mother of three, Tracy made it her mission to teach children the importance of empathy, generosity, and community involvement, believing that raising compassionate young people and modeling service can create lasting positive change. And whereas Tracy has used her platform to support Arlingtonites organizations and groups by attending and promoting charitable fundraisers, community celebrations, local events, and civic programs, having become a familiar face throughout the Arlingtonites, throughout Arlingtonites during her reign. And whereas, through her leadership and dedication to service, she has demonstrated the importance of giving back, leading by example, and using one's voice and platform to positively impact others. And whereas, as a first-time pageant competitor, first time ever?

Absolutely.

Tracy demonstrated courage and determination by stepping outside her comfort zone and pursuing a new challenge, inspiring others to embrace opportunities for personal growth and service. And whereas Tracy Heisler-Droz continues to reflect the values of leadership, compassion, and community pride that strengthen the Village of Arlington Heights and serve as an example to residents throughout the community. So now, therefore, I, James J. Tenaglia, Mayor of the Village of Arlington Heights, along with the entire Arlington Heights Village Board of Trustees, do hereby recognize and commend Tracy Heisler-Droz for her outstanding contributions to the community and congratulate her on her accomplishments as Mrs. Illinois America 2025. Congratulations. I'm going to hand over the mic to Tracy, and you get to say whatever you'd like.

MY GOODNESS, I WAS NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK. HOWEVER, I AM SO TAKEN ABACK BY THIS. I WAS JUST EXPECTING A QUICK PHOTO AND WE WOULD BE OUT OF HERE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE VILLAGE. EVERY ONE OF YOU I'VE BEEN SO LUCKY TO RUN INTO OVER THE PAST YEAR. REALLY, I'VE JUST BEEN BLESSED TO HAVE THIS EXPERIENCE AND INTERACT WITH SO MANY GOOD PEOPLE DOING GOOD THINGS IN OUR AMAZING COMMUNITY. Thank you all for doing your fair share and welcoming me into this position, and I will hopefully see you around our wonderful village.

You guys step aside for just a minute. Hold up.

Hold up. Come in too quick.

Boys, come on over here. Girls.

All right. There we go. One, two, and three.

One, two, and three. Thank you. All right.

Thank you, everybody.

All right, and before I go back to my chair, The next item of business is surprisingly similar, and it's amazing that we here in RLE's Knights have both of these ladies here to be blessed with. Item B is a recognition of Scarlett McElrath, Miss Teen Illinois USA 2026. Scarlett, come on up. So just a little bit about Scarlett is I just learned that you just graduated from Hersey. Yes. Very good. And you're going on to what school?

ASU, Arizona State. Arizona State.

Who else went to Arizona State? This is amazing. So Scarlett, in order to earn this title, you had to win a three-day competition and against other girls from around the state. The competition included fitness, interviewing, evening gown, fun fashion competition, and the girls were all judged on these elements, but also on their work ethic and treatment of others around them. Scarlett won the best interview award in addition to winning the overall title. Scarlett will compete on August 26th for the title of Miss Teen USA. In this competition, she'll wear a costume that will represent the state of Illinois and the pageant will be live on CW. How about that? You can be thinking I'm going to give you the mic in a minute here. You'll say whatever you want. For now, I'm going to read a very long proclamation just for you. All right. So whereas, The title of Miss Illinois Teen USA recognizes young women who exemplify confidence, leadership, character, and community service while serving as positive role models for youth throughout the state. And whereas on May 24th, 2026, Scarlett McElrath, is that how you say it, McElrath? McElrath earned the distinguished title of Miss Illinois Teen USA 2026 and will proudly represent both the village of Arlingtonites and the state of Illinois at the upcoming Miss Teen USA 2026 competition. And whereas Scarlett achieved this remarkable accomplishment as a first-time local pageant competitor, advancing directly to win the state title through her poise, determination, and dedication. And whereas throughout the competition process, Scarlett demonstrated exceptional confidence, professionalism, and persuasiveness, inspiring others to pursue ambitious goals and embrace opportunities outside their comfort zones. And whereas during her reign as Miss Illinois Teen USA, Scarlett will serve as an ambassador for Arlington Heights and the state of Illinois by participating in civic events parades, cultural celebrations, philanthropic initiatives, and community service activities. And whereas Scarlet's advocacy initiative, Safe Choices, is dedicated to empowering young people with the awareness, resources, and confidence needed to navigate peer pressure, personal safety, everyday decision making, and challenges of an increasingly digital world. And whereas throughout her leadership, academic commitment, and dedication to service, Scarlett reflects the values of integrity, compassion, and community pride that are celebrated throughout the village of Arlington Heights. So now therefore, I, James J. Tenali, Mayor of the Village of Arlington Heights along with the entire Village Board of Trustees do hereby recognize and congratulate Scarlett McElrath on her achievement as Miss Illinois Teen USA 2026 and commend her for representing the Arlington Heights community with distinction, grace, and leadership. Congratulations.

I just want to thank everyone, and I'm so happy to have been born and raised in Arlington Heights. It really is an amazing community and an amazing village, and I'm just so excited for this journey and this new chapter in my life. Thank you.

Mom, dad, family, if you want to come up and take a quick picture, we'll do one together here first.

One, two, and three. Great, thank you. Okay, one, two, and three. Let me do one more. Great, thank you.

Before you go, Tracy, come on back up here. This is an unusual occasion. I want to take a picture with both of these lovely ladies. I don't know that this will ever happen again in Arlington Heights, so.

Only while you're mayor.

Great idea. Okay, ready? One, two, and three. One, two, and three. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right. I'm going to go back to my chair. All right. Thank you, everybody, for being patient while we get through some of this fun stuff. Next item on the agenda. I have it, is the Historic Preservation Task Force introductions. And while I'll say a couple of brief words on this, I'm going to hand it off afterwards to our village staff because they're the ones really doing the lion's share of work on this. But this was a promise that I made during the campaigns to try very hard to find a way to work on potential ideas and how we can work together for the preservation of the historic neighborhoods or historic buildings, whether they're homes or office buildings in Arlington Heights. So the first goal is to put together a group of folks who are interested in this subject to go and find out information. What does it mean to have a historic preservation commission? What does it mean to live in an area that that exists? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Is it helpful? Is it difficult? And over the next many months, that's my hope is that this task force will achieve those goals and then report back to this village board with information that we can all discuss together. So for now, I'll hand it off to Manager Reklaus to go a little bit further in detail on this and carry away.

Yes. So, you know, this work group will be, let me just pull this up one second here. will be subject to the Open Meetings Act, will be transparent, be open to the public and so on and so forth. And so we do want to announce the members of that group. Just give me one second to pull that up.

You've got...

Director Rodman will read off the names, and he beat me to the draw on this one. Very good, go ahead.

All right, so the Historic Preservation Task Force will be chaired by our trustees, Robin Libetz and Wendy Dunnington, and the other members include Kirsten Kingsley, who is a member of our design commission, Bruce Green, who is a member of our plan commission, Tom Gaynor, Lori Turpin-Soderholm, David Jaffe, Jeff Anderson, Jack Oldham, and Kevin Davis. And then we will also have village staff that will be assisting the commission with their work as well.

Very good. So what our hope is, it's a decent swath of different individuals with different perspectives, not just homeowners, not just elected officials. It's a group of different folks that all have something to say and some interest in this subject. So, Trustee LeBenz, would you like to share some thoughts?

Sure, I would.

Go right ahead.

I came prepared whether or not, I wasn't sure if I... would be called upon. But I do want to say, as Mayor Tenaglia said, this was something that not only came up during his campaign, but in addition during last year's priority setting workshop, we did identify this as our strategic priority number five, which is to engage stakeholders regarding the resources regarding the historic preservation of residential areas to determine what further regulations and resources should be implemented. And that's why we gathered together a group of individuals that come from different perspectives in this, homeowners who live in various parts of the community, as well as a builder, plan and design commissioners, and so forth. And it's not like this really comes out of the blue because we've identified historic preservation really back as far as the early 2000s when the School of the Art Institute did their report on historic areas of Arlington Heights and they did a survey of homes at the time. And then in 2015, when we did the comprehensive plan, we also identified historic preservation as something that was important in the village. And what this goal is, as the mayor said, determine what the options are and then present them to the board. Because there are a variety of options. Different communities do different things. Some have very strict zoning and building requirements. Some just have plaques identifying historic properties. And so there's a big range. And so the idea will be to bring it back to the village board to then discuss what possibilities are best for the Village of Arlington Heights. And we are planning at this point to meet once a month. The meetings are open. They'll be posted. Right now we're planning on having them the second Thursday of the month at 4.30, which is hopefully for people who have jobs during the day, they'll be able to come, but yet it won't be another night meeting because a lot of us have a lot of night meetings, so we don't always want to meet in the evening. And we'll have speakers that have information that they can provide to us from different organizations. So I'm very excited about this work group. I think that Trustee Dunnington is also very excited about it. And we are really looking forward to getting going on it. I know that at least one of the members is here in the audience, Tom Gaynor. I'm not sure if anybody else is here. I don't recognize anybody, so thank you, Tom, for coming. But we'll be starting with our first meeting in April. I mean April. August. That also starts with an A. So that's when we'll get going. It'll be posted, and everyone is welcome to attend. Thank you.

Thank you, Trustee LeBez. Trustee Dunnington, was there anything you'd like to add?

I think Robin covered it well. We're looking forward to getting started and getting community input on what would be best for our village.

Excellent. Okay. Well, Manager Reklaus, what more do you need from the board here on this subject?

Nothing at this point. The members have been announced. It was in your authority to form the task force, as we've talked about before. We just wanted to be transparent and share those names and backgrounds, and the group will be getting to work. The agendas and meeting schedule for the task force will be on the village's website along with all of the other public meetings. Very good.

Is there anyone on the board has questions for any one of us? No? Is there anyone in the audience? I have one blue card here that I believe is in regard to this particular item. Is there anybody else? I'll call on Keith Moons.

Bringing my PowerPoint presentation again, President Penalia. It gets plenty of views. Thank you, President Tenaglia, for this. In my opinion, once again, this Historic Preservation Special Committee Ad Hoc Workgroup Task Force, they're all the same thing, is not legitimate. It was set up in a undemocratic, non-transparent manner and is in violation of our municipal code, section 2-203D. It is a section in that code that is specifically designed for setting up special committees such as this one. It is no matter if Arlington Heights is a home rule authority, or not, the village must follow its own municipal code. If home rule authority allowed you to just willy-nilly accept or do things that are in the code, why even have a municipal code in the first place? So this was not properly formed here. It is unclear why the Board of Trustees would allow their right to set up these special committees to be usurped by the village president to unilaterally do so instead. What is so difficult about voting for this special committee and setting it up as it is designed in our municipal code? As a result of this non-transparent setup, Fairly or not, this committee is now tainted with some serious doubt about its objectivity on any final decisions. Is it laden with self-interest, conflicts of interest, low public input, special interest, and has a predetermined final recommendation? Only because it was set up undemocratically. This doubt would all go away if the trustees would have just exercised their right and had followed our municipal code in voting for this under Section 2-203D. So finally, I would ask the Board of Trustees to discharge this illegitimate special committee and assign this task to an existing village commission, which that is why they're there, or discharge this special committee and choose the transparent and democratic manner in which to set it up properly under our municipal code. Thank you, President Tenelle.

Thank you, Mr. Moons. Well, I will respectfully disagree with virtually everything that you just said. If anyone paid attention to anything that we all said a few moments ago, you would know that there are no closed doors, backdooring, any perspectives on this. And it was done all with the direct supervision of our legal counsel. who is Mr. Passman here. Mr. Passman, do you have any rebuttal that you want to make based on some of the allegations that were just made?

I'll just say, Mayor, you're correct. As a matter of law, the village board is fully empowered through its home rule authority to create this task force. You have done so. The task force, as I know the board knows, is advisory in nature. uh does not negate uh or otherwise replace provisions in our municipal code but that is but one way within our municipal code is but one way that this board can set up subsidiary advisory commissions on topics that the board would like advice from you can also do as you have done here set up task force i have zero concerns whatsoever uh with the legality of the task force itself or with the manner by which the task force members have been selected. So there's no legal issue.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Passman. I sure appreciate that.

Okay. We will not belabor this. I think the idea is clear and the goals are obvious. No actions are going to be taken for quite some time, but we're going to get educated the best we can in the coming months. Correct. So we'll move on to item D. Or was there anyone else on this topic? Before we move on, was there anyone else on this topic that did not fill out a blue card that wanted to address the board on this task force? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to the next item, which is item D, and that is a police sergeant promotion, which is fabulous and always wonderful in the village. Manager Redklaus or Chief Pecora, who wants to?

Chief Pecora, I think, is going to tee this one up.

All right, Chief, come on up.

Good evening, mayor, members of the board. The police department is excited this evening to promote one of its top performers to police sergeant. Allow me to provide you with a little bit of background. Detective Brandon Claybaugh graduated from Illinois State University with a bachelor's degree in business administration and minors in criminal justice and organizational leadership. Brandon's law enforcement career began in 2016 when he was hired by the Village of Arlington Heights Police Department as a police officer. Brandon's initial assignments were as a patrol officer on the afternoon shift, the midnight shift, and ultimately the power shift. And at the same time, he served an ancillary role as a field training officer and as a juvenile officer. In 2021, Brandon was reassigned to the Criminal Investigation Bureau, where he first served as a gang crimes detective and later transitioned to a general case assignment detective. Brandon has been the recipient of many departmental awards, commendations, and letters of appreciation from citizens and other law enforcement agencies. Brandon is a previous recipient of the Crime Stopper Officer of the Year Award. Brandon's been married to his wife, Amanda, since 2020, and they have two sons, Declan and Kayden. Brandon, come on up here, it's about to happen. Mayor, I present Brandon Claybaugh for promotion.

Here, I'm going to hold the mic so you can be recorded and well. All right. I, Brandon Clabo.

I, Brandon Clabo.

Having been appointed to the office of police sergeant.

Having been appointed to the office of police sergeant. 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.

Wow, there you go, it's tarnished.

Amanda, would you like to step forward and do the honors and pin Brandon? Amanda, stick around here. We've got some pictures to take in just a minute. Brandon, the board is all yours.

Yeah, I'm very excited to be standing up here for this promotion. My son's clearly excited, too. It's way past his bedtime, so I think he's doing okay. I first want to thank the chief, our supervisory staff at our police department for placing your trust and your confidence in me with this tremendous responsibility. I feel like I've been very blessed throughout my career at Arlington Heights. I've been given a lot of opportunities at the police department, and I would not have been able to accomplish my goals if it wasn't for the Many people who have supported me, mentored me, and helped me out along the way. First I want to thank Sergeant Orlando, who's in the back room in the Under Armour shirt. He's been my supervisor the last four years. He's really made me become a good detective. He helped prepare me to become a supervisor. He really set the example for the type of leader I want to be like. So I really appreciate your supervision the last few years. I also want to thank Commander Sefton. When I was a brand new detective, he was my sergeant. He taught me a lot that I know, helped prepare me to be a sergeant. My Aunt Joan's here today as well. She's a police officer, and part of the reason I wanted to be a police officer in the first place, I looked up to her as a kid, so I appreciate your guidance and the reason for me becoming a police officer. My mom's here as well, holding my newborn son, less than a month old. She's the best mother I could have asked for. She's done a lot for our family. As a detective, I oftentimes have to adjust my hours last minute, get called into work off duty, have to stay really late hours working on a case. She'll change her personal life, change what she's doing. just so she could take care of our kids and help out our family, which we are really grateful for you. Wife Amanda's best wife, best mother I could have asked for. Pretty much all my career, almost the last 10 years, I've been on afternoon shift, and we would really only see each other on the weekends due to our conflicting work hours. I know that's not easy being married to a police officer, but without your support, understanding, it enables me to do the job that I love. I want to thank my coworkers for showing up, supporting me. I'm really looking forward to being part of the team. I really hope that I could help mentor some of our new officers, help our officers achieve some of their goals, just like the previous supervisors have done for me. So thank you very much. Very good, thank you.

Okay.

I believe we're moving on now to a public hearing. And today's public hearing is for the 2026 through 2027 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG. And in doing so, there's some information I have to read. Opening hearing, I hereby call to order the second public hearing concerning the village's draft 2026 annual action plan and community development block grant budget. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Daily Herald on July 1st, 2026, in accordance with federal law. And so to open this, I have to ask the clerk to please call the roll, is that right?

HERE. TRUSTEE DUNNINGTON. TRUSTEE DUNNINGTON. HERE. HERE. TRUSTEE GILBERT. TRUSTEE GILBERT. HERE. HERE. TRUSTEE LABEDS. TRUSTEE LABEDS. HERE. HERE. TRUSTEE ZICK. TRUSTEE ZICK. HERE. TRUSTEE ZICK. HERE. TRUSTEE SANTA MARIA. TRUSTEE SANTA MARIA. HERE. HERE.

TRUSTEE BERTUCCI.

TRUSTEE BERTUCCI. HERE. TRUSTEE BERTUCCI.

HERE.

TRUSTEE SCHWINGBACK. TRUSTEE SCHWINGBACK.

HERE. Thank you, Maggie. I hereby declare this public hearing open. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the local governing body of a municipality to hold two public hearings prior to submission of the 2026 Annual Action Plan and prior to its later adoption and submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. On June 8th, 2026, the Village has conducted its first public hearing regarding the 2026 Annual Action Plan, and then Village staff presented the status report for the draft 2026 Annual Action Plan and Community Development Block Grant budget. At this time, I will entertain questions from the Village Trustees, and after that, we'll call on any member of the public that desires to be heard on this matter. So we'll open up discussion. Anyone on the Village Board, or should we hand it off to staff for a quick explanation of any sort? Manager Radcliffe? I think Director Rodman's gonna take this one as well.

All right.

So as you indicated, Mayor, this is the second public hearing for the Villages Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan. At the June 8th public hearing, staff did present all of the requests for funding through this year's upcoming CDBG program. Staff has included in the agenda packet our recommendations for funding across the different eligible categories. So those include funding recommendations related to public services and homeless services, infrastructure, public facilities, and administration. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

All right. Anyone on the board, questions on where we stand on this? Anyone? Anyone in the audience? Oh, I didn't see a hand. Thank you. I'm sorry, go right ahead. Thank you, Mayor.

Director Rodman, I was just asking if you could please explain just the different budgets that we have insofar as public services being capped at 15% and the different kind of limits of the funding.

I'd be happy to. So the CDBG program, which is a federal program, has some pretty strict requirements and limitations on how funding may be awarded. The program actually establishes limits on what percentage of the funding that we receive we can allocate to each funding category. So we are an entitlement community, which means we receive funding directly for the CDBG program, but we are limited in how we can spend those dollars. And so for public services, which includes general nonprofit public services as well as homeless services, that cap is 15% of what we are allocated. So for this upcoming program year, that amount is $50,353. So that is the maximum amount that we can award to subgrantees who engage in those services. We can always award a lesser amount, but we cannot go over that cap. For infrastructure projects, which for Arlington Heights is typically meant road resurfacing projects or sidewalk and ADA improvements in those eligible census tracts, there is not a project cap, but we have typically maximized the amount that we can allocate in other funding categories and then taken what is left over. AND ALLOCATED THAT TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THIS YEAR YOU SEE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING $100,000 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. I BELIEVE LAST YEAR WE HAD AROUND $150,000 THAT WE ALLOCATED IN THAT CATEGORY. FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, THERE ALSO IS NOT A PROJECT CAP, BUT THOSE PROJECTS ARE TYPICALLY GROUP HOME REHABILITATION PROJECTS, AND SO WE RECOMMEND FUNDING BASED ON THE PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBMITTED AND REQUESTING FUNDING. And then for administration, the amount that we can allocate to ourselves essentially for administering the program or to any consultants that help us administer the program is 20% of the amount that we are awarded each year. And so for the upcoming program year, that is $67,137. Thank you. Anyone else on those board questions?

anyone in the audience with questions on this topic. Manager Raklaus, is there further debate, discussion that needs to take place?

I think we have some hands up.

Oh, there is a hand. I am sorry. Come on up. Can you come up to the podium and please use the microphone? Tell us who you are.

Jen Stremling. I sit on the board of Family Forward, one of the nonprofits in Arlington Heights, and we're grateful for your support through this grant. Just a question. I think under the block grant, it said for housing and support and programs, too, could go towards the 65% of that grant. That was listed on the website. So nonprofits that work in the housing, and look to keep our low-income and middle-income families housed. that 65% doesn't count for those nonprofits that provide those housing services?

So Family Forward would be categorized as a public service or homeless services. It is the same funding allocation under the CDBG program. And so it falls within the dollar amount that is capped at 15% of our entitlement. So that cap is the 50,000 for all of those agencies that apply.

OK, great. And then one more question. The grant is not just being awarded to the village and the local community, correct? Because I saw, I mean, on the list, and all of these nonprofits do great work. But there are nonprofits in Palatine and Northbrook that are also receiving. So it doesn't just have to be in the village or in the community.

Correct. The entities don't have to be located in Arlington Heights, but they need to serve qualifying populations within Arlington Heights. And they are required to provide quarterly reports indicating how many Arlington Heights residents they have served. Perfect.

All right. Thank you.

Is that it? Thank you. Okay. Mr. Moots, come on up.

Thank you, President Tenaglia. Yeah, looking at this spreadsheet that came out with all the groups broken out, I look at public services, and their shortfall is $20,000 between what they ask for and what they're given. I would ask that the board consider filling that gap out of general fund, $20,000. That would make a lot of people really happy, and it would be a great investment for our community. And this idea that somehow if we can't help all the nonprofits, then we shouldn't help any. That's just a myth. Or that they're going to inflate their request next year to get more money out. I trust that they won't be that deceitful. So I would ask that the Board of Trustees set aside $20,000 to help this group meet their goals. And if you look at the homeless services, it's $6,500. Everyone here has $20,000 in their pockets right now. if you look at your credit cards. It's nothing. It really isn't. But it would go a very long way to help this group meet their goals. And they pick up a huge part of our local responsibility If they didn't do it, we would have to do it. So that $20,000 turns into pennies. So please consider setting aside that amount of money tonight for this group of public services.

Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Moon. I would suggest this, that if the board has an interest in doing something like that, we can bring that up on an agenda item. different night it can always be added money can be moved around and different things can be done but it's not a topic of on the agenda here tonight so that's something that staff can take a note of and if somebody wants to bring that up another time during committee the whole meeting we could certainly do that any other comments from the audience and I agree with you both that you spoke all those organizations are fabulous fantastic organization there's no question about it We're going to move on to, oh, I'm sorry, we have to close it. So I am looking for a motion now to move the Village Board to close the public hearing.

I move that we close the public hearing.

Motion made by Trustee LeBetz, seconded by Trustee Bertucci. Any further questions or comments from anyone in the room? Seeing none, is this a roll call vote? You can do voice vote if you'd like, Matt. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Okay, so there's a motion to form made, and we are now closed with the public hearing. So, now we can move on to Citizens to be Heard, correct? Citizens to be Heard, I have one blue card here, maybe two, but we'll start with one. And I have Susan Garcia. Susan, come on up. And for those who don't know, Citizens to be Heard is for items not on the agenda. These are items that are other topics that someone wants to talk about. So anyone in the audience who, if you would like to, you don't have to fill out a blue card right away. Just raise your hand. I'll call on you. The only thing we ask is that you pay attention to the three-minute clock and try to keep your comments within that window. It would be great.

I timed it, so hopefully I got it.

You've timed it. All right. We're ready.

All right. Bayshore Properties purchased Stonebridge of Arlington Heights in January 2023. Stonebridge applied for a permit on January 23rd. A permit was issued to excavate, seal, and stripe the parking lot between the tennis courts and the pool past inspection on August 8th. The first Stonebridge complaint for lighting was on September 5th. The lights at the tennis court at Stonebridge shine in her eyes in her neighbor's backyard. The lights are fluorescent light. She was told by Stonebridge that they were told by the village to install the lights and she could get, and then there's missing text. The village did not apply section 2810 off-street parking. All off-street parking areas with lighting shall limit spillage into the adjacent property. Maximum foot candles in zone R6 not to exceed .2 foot candles.

Can I stop you? Take your time. Take your time.

Literally three minutes?

I'll let you go past it. I'll let you go past it. Take your time and breathe.

Okay. So the village response on September 6th was they sent an email to the property manager. Crystal advising her of the complaint and suggesting that they change out the bulbs, provide shields, or put light on a timer or any other suggestions they may have to mitigate the issue. The village response on September 7th starts with a prop and then there's missing text. This is all based on a FOIA request. It was listed as resolved on 9-22-23, but there are no details about how the problem was solved. And today, this date in 2026, it is still the same problem. I filed a complaint regarding the tennis court lights at Stonebridge on March 12th of 2026. A FOIA request listed my complaint and one other. I know there are other three complaints made by phone or email that were not listed. Section 19202, unlawful to cause a nuisance. It is unlawful for any person to cause a nuisance or to permit a nuisance to continue under his or her control or on the property under his or her control or to fail to abate any nuisance after notification or recognition of its existence. Health and Human Services contacted Stonebridge on March 13th. They acknowledged their request on April 21st and failed to abate the nuisance. It is now an illegal act and the responsibility of code enforcement. Instead, a village attorney was assigned to determine if light is a nuisance. His or her decision was no, light is not a nuisance. It is light pollution and spillage. And at this point, the spillage, you can reference that in the off-street parking 2810. If this attorney had made a couple of FOIA requests here, she would have known in five days that, yes, light is a nuisance. Instead, it took two months. One FOIA request made light complaints in the last five years, provided four documents, all of which lighting complaints as a nuisance are illegal. Another FOIA request stated that only two ordinance exists in Village of Arlington Heights to protect residents from light nuisances, unlawful to cause a nuisance, and to off-street parking. However, code enforcement complaints listed illegal LED lighting around storefront windows six times. This is section 3120 prohibited signs. It shall be unlawful for any person to install or display around the perimeter window doors or similar buildings strings of LED lighting. Code enforcement has interpreted the use of unlawful in municipal code to mean illegal. Code enforcement also took a noise and lighting nuisance complaint specifically parking lot lights to adjudication. The business was assigned $750 and October 28th, 2025, we were denied our right to an adjudication hearing. There is no light ordinance in the Village of Arlington Heights. Light trespass is a nuisance and illegal, which requires code enforcement. I propose that the Village of Arlington Heights include a light ordinance in its municipal code.

Okay, you breathe now. Okay, so I'm going to ask our village manager if you have a comment that can help.

I do, and I'm familiar with this issue, and we're empathetic with the residents kind of enduring it. The short version is, Well, there are, she's correct, there are restrictions on the use of those colored lights around buildings in our zoning and sign code. The only provision in the village code regulating license is the off-street parking nuisance. And so we have prosecuted that on occasion where if there's off-street parking and the light is shining a certain way off the property, we can prosecute it. We do not have limitations in the code currently for non-parking lot lighting issues. And so we don't have any legal authority to prosecute for non-parking lot issues. And I know it doesn't make a lot of sense, a light is a light is a light, but our code is pretty clear on this. We actually have a meeting set, a multi-department meeting tomorrow to talk a little bit more about our options. The other thing that we do have is the zoning code does require that lighting be shielded, so as to direct glare downward, so as to not create a nuisance, but the code does not define what is considered a lighting-related nuisance. And so we've gone through this from a couple of different levels within the different departments on how we can address this. We are planning on proposing more specific lighting standards as part of a zoning code update that we're going to be initiating soon that's in the business plan to help address this. But currently, we don't have a standard. And if we were to throw something together, it's not clear whether it would even be applicable to this case because it's an existing condition. So we are working on this. We are trying to figure out some creative ways to do this without violating our code. The only other thing that I'll mention is, as we mentioned, we do generally in these types of cases when the code is inadequate to address a problem, reach out to the complainant and the property owner that's causing the issue to try to get them to resolve these things amicably. And we're continuing on that front as well. But there is an inadequacy in our code that was identified.

I would just like to say Trustee Greg Zick lives in my community and at my invitation he did come to my home and we have other people because everybody who lives north of Stonebridge We have power lines between our property and their property. The first complaint was made in 2023, right after they installed them in August. It's been three years. Nobody has addressed this problem. I am going to give each of the trustees a folder. I have lighting ordinances from surrounding communities. I have maps from myself and three other neighbors. My house is 700 feet from lights that are the tennis court lights. There is a pool light, parking lights and tennis lights. are on the same switch they are on all night. There are now roof lights that are not for the entrance. They appear to be parking lot lights. Nobody has come out to our house. I have asked multiple people from different departments to come to all of my area in Stonebridge and we have nobody come out. So I have a really hard time accepting the fact that because we don't have something, I don't wanna talk to Stonebridge. They were talked to in 2023. Health and Human Services has talked to them. They angle the lights. There are no shields. There is nothing. How long are we supposed to wait? I don't spend any time in my backyard. I have like two flashlight lights beaming right into my eyes. And Mr. Zed can attest to how bad it is in my yard. When you try to sit at a table and have dinner, you can't invite people over to your home. And it's also really inadequate in the sense, I don't understand this adjudication process, but I understand what's the point of adjudication if you don't even have a code to enforce. So to say that we have to work around this and not begin to put in place a light ordinance, because with the LED lighting, with all of the energy conservation, I've been doing a lot of reading of code. I've reached out to the state senator about getting a statute in the state of Illinois so that People are protected from all these bright lights because it has impacted people's lives, particularly sleeping. People have now doubled. They have blinds. They have curtains to block out this light.

Susan, let me interrupt you. Did I hear you correctly? They're on all night?

They're on all night because the... When they put in the parking lights, they attached it to the pole that had the tennis lights, and some parking has to stay on all night. Tennis lights are all night, but it's not even, that's not the biggest.

I heard you, I heard you, we all heard you.

Mayor, I was just gonna say, while there's been some iterations with this with staff in the past, I was first made aware of this just a few days ago, and so I'm happy to follow up with Ms. Garcia. We are talking about different options on this to move this forward. Yeah, that's where I'm expecting this would go.

It's a condo association, right? Stonebridge? It's an apartment. It's an apartment. So is it a single ownership? It's not condos where there's no condo board?

No, it's one owner for the apartment building.

So there has to be a way to negotiate this.

Like I said, I was recently made aware of it just the last few days. And so I know other staff members have been working on the complaint. in the past that kind of bubbled up to my radar the last few days and so we're we're convening a meeting on it tomorrow to talk about it and and there's a lot of different avenues we can go down but that's that's kind of the status as of today do you have mr red claus's business card um no but i will just tell you that despite whatever has been happening for years the village has been sending all lighting nuisances

to Health and Human Services, who has no code enforcement abilities, and I don't know what the point is if all we do is talk and people don't talk.

Well, you're here, and it's on TV right now, and I think what's good is that something is bound to cook up here a little bit.

Well, I hope for the sake of myself and all of my neighbors that something happens.

All right, well, thank you for coming tonight.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the board under citizens to be heard, which is items that are not on the agenda? Anyone raise a hand? I see none. Okay. Then I think what we're going to do is go on to the consent agenda. And... consent agenda lists items a through H which are a number of items that will be voted on moved motioned and voted on with one vote is there any trustee on the board here that would like to vote no or pass on any of these items a through H trustee the beds I would like to vote no on item H item H trustee the beds will be registered as a no anyone else on any items Trustee Manganiello.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I would also like to register a no vote on item H. Okay, so Trustee Manganiello and Trustee LeBeds will vote no on item H. Any other questions, comments, anything else? Does anyone need to have anything pulled off of this consent agenda? Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to have a trustee remove an item on the consent agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Mayor, excuse me. Mayor, I'll move approval of the consent agenda.

Second. Motion made by Trustee Bertucci, seconded by Trustee Schwingbeck. Any last discussion or comments from anyone in the room? Seeing none, this is a roll call vote.

Trustee Bertucci? Yes. Trustee Schwingback? Yes. Trustee Dunnington? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. Trustee Gilbert? Yes. Trustee Manganiello?

Aye, with the exception of item H. Trustee LeBetz?

Yes, with the exception of item H. Trustee Zik?

Yes.

President Tenaglia?

Yes. Okay, motion carries through the items. And that moves us to new business. We have two items to discuss tonight under new business. The first is a discussion of the Liquor Commissioner's proposed amendments to Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code regarding alcohol regulations and classifications. Now, just as a quick setup, I'm the Liquor Commissioner in Arlington Heights, as Tom Hayes was before, and Arlene before him. And liquor rules and programming gets set up by the liquor commissioner and then reviewed and approved by the village board. So tonight, there are a number of items that we're gonna discuss about potential changes to the liquor codes. Oh yeah, let me just finish this thought here. we're gonna be discussing potential changes to the ordinance as it is written right now, and staff is gonna prepare that. Before we go any further, the two liquor license applicants, you've been approved? through that consent agenda, so you do not have to stay and listen, although this topic is kind of interesting for you guys, so you might want to listen. So let me hand this over to Manager Reklaus, who I'm certain will hand this over to some of the team.

Yeah, but I think we're going to have Deputy Manager McCullough kick this one off. All right.

This is it, yeah.

Trying to get to the right.

One second.

Let me get on presentation mode.

Find the cursor.

Yeah. I'm finding the cursors on the other screen. Hold on.

It's right here.

It's one of those invisible cursors. Hold on here.

Good evening, Village Board. So tonight we're going to be talking about four proposed amendments to Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code, which we typically refer to as the Liquor Code. So these amendments are intended to improve operational flexibility, support business development, and simplify regulations while maintaining appropriate safeguards. These amendments should not be viewed individually, but rather as part of a broader strategy to keep Arlington Heights competitive. The village has invested significant efforts into strengthening our downtown and supporting local businesses. These recommendations continue that momentum just as the recently approved downtown social district pilot program creates new opportunities to attract visitors and increase activity downtown. These amendments provide additional tools that help businesses succeed. So all recommendations are based on requests that we have heard from existing businesses and prospective license holders. Public safety and responsible alcohol service remains priorities throughout these amendments. So the four recommended amendments we're gonna be discussing tonight include food service requirement hours, alcohol sales on village property, new off-premise package license options and fee reduction, and single serve alcohol sales. So the first item, just to kind of give you a little bit about the background, is that these recommendations were developed collaboratively with Mayor Tenaglia, who serves as a local liquor commissioner. And the local commissioner has various powers, functions, and duties with respect to liquor licensing. So these recommendations were discussed after and developed after reviewing current practices and benchmarking neighboring communities, and evaluating requests from local businesses. And now we're presenting these items to you tonight for discussion and recommendation. So Amendment 1 is food service requirement hours. This item has been the most common request from restaurant operators. So we've been hearing about this request for years. So the current Liquor Code requires that restaurants serve food whenever alcohol is being served. So restaurants are permitted to have a light night menu after 11 p.m. The proposed change is that restaurants may close their kitchen service at 10 p.m. and continue serving alcohol until their licensed closing time. So the impact of the proposed change is food service after 10 p.m. becomes optional. Businesses may continue full or limited service if desired or no food service at all after 10 p.m. So this would benefit approximately 78 existing liquor license holders. So this amendment provides restaurants with greater operational flexibility while also allowing businesses to continue serving alcohol under their existing liquor license. So again, they can decide to keep their kitchens open if they choose. They can have a smaller menu or not have a menu after 10 p.m. And there are no changes proposed to alcohol service hours. So the recommended motion is before you, and if, Mayor, if you'd like, I can go through all of them, and then we can go back to these, or would you like to take each one individually?

Yeah, let's hit all four of them, and then come back one by one.

Very good. Okay. Item two, the amendment two here, is alcohol sale on village property. So this is an initiative that we've been discussing and collaborating with the Senior Center. So the Senior Center has recently began hosting events with a special event, like a one-day liquor license, and they've been approved for that when they've had this event. And they are offering, they would like an additional option to have liquor sales as part of expanded specialized programming for adults ages 55 and older. So a recent Senior Center event demonstrated success and interest in future events. So the event that was held was Vinyl and Vino. It was very popular. They had 30 available spots and it was sold out. So as a result, they've been looking at and interested in pursuing an annual liquor license to sell alcoholic beverages so they can create and market future events that support the village's age-friendly initiative and support healthy aging through increased community engagement. So another new event that is being programmed is called a Happy Hour Bingo. And the senior center indicated that expanding programming options demonstrates evolving community demand, broadens public awareness of the senior center facility, attracts new users, and strengthens longstanding sustainability of village investment into the senior center. Mayor Tenaglia did support amending the liquor code to provide the village with the opportunity to host events with alcohol on village property via an annual liquor license, like at the senior center, or something like Harmony Park. So this amendment provides flexibility for village sponsored programming while also allowing responsible alcohol service at approved village events. So the next item is new package liquor licensing options. So I'm just gonna kick this off and then I'll turn it over to Jack. So this proposal creates additional licensing options that better match today's business models while encouraging additional participation from businesses in a cost-effective manner. So we recognize that the current liquor licensing options do not fit every business model. We see some establishments only wanting to sell specialty spirits and others want limited wine sales as part of a wine club. So I'll turn it over to Assistant to the Village Manager, Jack Cascone, to present this topic.

Thank you, Deputy Manager McCullough. This topic is slightly different than the first two that were just discussed in that those were primarily about on-site consumption, a restaurant where you can buy alcohol and consume it. This proposal may affect on-site and off-site consumption, meaning retail package, liquor stores, grocery stores, as well as on-site consumption. consumption locations. So currently, the village offers a Class B and a Class BB liquor license. The Class B allows a business to sell beer, wine, and spirits, hard alcohol, for off-site consumption at an annual fee of $3,700. And then the village also offers a Class BB license, which is beer and wine only for off-site consumption at $2,700. And so with staff and Liquor Commissioner Tenaglia are proposing is the creation of a third class BBB license. And this would allow a business to sell hard alcohol only for offsite consumption at an annual fee of $1,500. And so the creation of this liquor license closes the loop here for the Class B license that we have a license that allows you to sell all different types of alcohol, a license that allows you to sell beer and wine only, and now a license that allows you to sell hard alcohol only. And this license would be available as well to on-site consumption liquor license holders that may have a specific type of alcohol, hard alcohol, that they are interested in selling at their restaurant as well as allowing the sale of a bottle to go from a patron, whether that be specialty bourbon or hard-to-find and rare tequila, etc., Additionally, when we're looking at the Class B, BB, and BBB as a whole, we also looked at the cost structure of those three liquor licenses. And since we're proposing that the Class BBB be priced at an annual cost of $1,500, we're also proposing that the BBB beer and wine only is reduced from $2,700 to $1,500. And again, we've had some interest from on-site consumption liquor license holders in the past that do wine clubs or wine and dinner pairings that want to serve food and pair it with wine and then also sell that bottle of wine at the end of the night. Staff at the time, even though it is currently permitted under the Class BB license, Staff was told at the time that it was cost prohibitive at that time. So we took that feedback into account and we're proposing lowering that cost to $1,500. And all in all, this provides greater flexibility for restaurants that match the business models that they want to pursue. It lowers that entry fee to create more appropriate licensing, potentially increasing the participation as well of those who are interested but may find it currently cost prohibitive. And even with reducing that cost of the double B license, STAFF EXPECTS REVENUE TO REMAIN STABLE BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE MORE PARTICIPATION DUE TO THIS CHANGE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND AMENDMENT 4 IS SPECIFIC TO OFF-PREMISE CONSUMPTION, LIQUOR STORES, GROCERY STORES, IN RELATION TO THE SINGLE SERVE, THE SALE OF THE SINGLE SERVE OF ALCOHOL. SO THIS WOULD BE YOUR ONE CAN OF BEER THAT YOU COULD BUY AT A LIQUOR STORE OR A GROCERY STORE OR Currently, the code has in place quite complex restrictions as they pertain to refrigeration, single sale of a certain type of liquor, as well as the volume of that liquor. All of those things play into effect for beer, wine, champagne, and hard alcohol. It is quite complex and difficult for business owners to implement. It's hard for consumers to understand, and it is cumbersome for staff to administer. So the proposed changes are to repeal those existing restrictions altogether, but also put in place new permissions in this area that are particular to volume and refrigeration. So this would permit your class B, potentially class BB liquor license holders to sell single serve cans and bottles of beer, wine, and champagne regardless of volume and regardless of refrigeration. They can refrigerate them or not. And this also allows mix and match options, especially for beer, as different types of beer and craft beer are always seeming to hit the market. Some customers may not be interested in buying a six pack or a 12 pack or what have you. This would allow them to buy one beer of this kind and one beer of that kind to mix and match them to see what they like. Additionally, when we're looking specifically at the mini bottles of spirits or hard alcohol, this is your like airplane size bottle of alcohol. Currently, there are restrictions in place about the sale of the single serve. You are permitted to buy those in a package of six or 10 or whatever number they're sold in. But with these new regulations that we're proposing, the sale of those single bottles would be allowed. However, because of their size, we're proposing that any bottle under 190 milliliters must remain behind the counter or in a lock display since they're so small and may walk away a bit easier. So a customer would need an employee's assistance in order to obtain those bottles. So staff anticipates benefits that it's simplifying outdated regulations while also maintaining safeguards for smaller bottles. It's consistent with many of our surrounding communities. It's improving both the business owner and the customer's experience, and it's benefiting approximately 30 current liquor license holders. So with that, I'll turn it back to Deputy Manager Mikula.

Thank you, Jack. So overall, you can see the benefits that we've highlighted here before you, modernizing village regulations, supporting local businesses increasing operational flexibility improve consistency with neighboring communities simplify administration for businesses in the village and maintain responsible alcohol service and public safety So we do believe that these amendments position Arlington Heights to remain one of the premier communities in the region to live work visit and to do business and And this chart is a summary of the four recommended motions that are being presented to you for consideration. And then the recommended motion is that the Village Board direct staff to draft an ordinance to be considered at a future Village Board meeting that concurs with Liquor Commissioner Tenaglia's recommendations regarding food service requirement hours, alcohol sales on Village property, new package liquor license options, and single-serve alcohol sales. So I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you, Ms. McCullough and Jack. So a couple of quick points that I want to make sure everybody knows, everybody in the room, anybody listening at home. This does not change anything about where these sales can take place. Currently, we do not allow alcoholic beverage to be sold at gas stations, right?

Correct. That restriction remains in place.

And this will stay exactly the same. What the goal here is to try to adjust some of the licenses to be a little bit more affordable, the timing to be a little bit more sympathetic. What I've heard again and again and again and again is that it is extremely expensive and sometimes fruitless to have a kitchen chef and all of their equipment operational past you know nine or ten o'clock and no one's ordering food just so that they can have their bar open to serve alcohol so instead of carrying it on on a limited menu after 11 This proposal is to reduce it so you can actually shut it down after 10. Now, it doesn't require anybody to shut it down after 10. We're not saying that. There are restaurants in town that will want to keep their kitchen open all night long, and that is perfect. Those are places that I want to go to. after a long meeting and it's fine. But if you don't have the desire to do that and your customers aren't there for that, this gives you an option. So, um, the last thing I'll say is there are a handful more, items like this that we plan to address in future weeks coming up here. These are just the first four. There are a few more that we want to consider, and they will also be impactful like this. So for starters, we'll talk about these four, see how everybody feels about these, and then we'll go from there. So I'll hand it off to the village board. for any questions or comments. Trustee Levitz.

Thank you, and thank you Mayor Tenaglia and staff for working on bringing, making things more modern, more like other communities and so on. I do appreciate that. I just have a couple questions. One is for recommendation number three, the single one If you can go back there. Okay, so when I look at that, I just wondered, was there any thought to making the Class B $3,000? Which is, you know, the BB plus the BBB, which is the same thing, and then it's $3,000 rather than 3,700. So I don't know if there's any thought for that?

Yeah. So we are going to be looking at the overall price structure and dynamic pricing as part of future initiatives. So we decided to leave that alone for right now. That's been in place for many, many, like, you know, over 20 plus years that I've been here. So we decided to leave that one alone, which allows for full package sales. And that's, you know, the primary business of many of the businesses that are standalone, liquor stores, grocery stores, and so forth. So we decided to leave that one alone and address the new requests that were coming before us and kind of work around and reducing some of the existing class double B, which seemed to make sense to us.

Well, that would be a suggestion that I would consider. I don't know if anyone else would agree, but that's kind of my thought. I have to admit, when I first got on the board, or ever since I've been on the board and had been approving liquor licenses, I always thought, wow, these things are expensive. And especially for these packaged liquor stores that... You know, our, you know, mom and pop businesses, well like our restaurants are pretty much, you know, mom and pop style things too. So that would be a thought that I had. Then for number four, when I first read the description of it with the single serve alcohol sales, I thought I heard that following this most recent session of the state legislature that a law was passed that would allow carry out of a single, like a mixed drink along with your meal, getting a margarita along with your taco plate to go. And that's what we did and was enacted during the pandemic and that this was then, I guess that must have been time limited and now this is allowed. And so I was just wondering if that was factored in to the amendment for single serve alcohol sales. I'm just curious about that.

I can answer that, Trustee LeBeds. You're correct. There was a COVID-era alcohol law that was then acted upon by the legislature just this past session. It's not so much to do with single-service or single-serve alcohol sales, as is the proposal before you, but just more generally about alcohol delivery. And the state has actually amended the Liquor Control Act to pretty greatly restrict local authority to regulate alcohol delivery. So it's a little bit different issue than the one in front of you. We still do retain the authority to restrict single serve sales, as we have done, as staff has outlined, proposed to relax these rules a little bit.

Okay, and by delivery, you mean like your Grubhub delivery and that sort?

Grubhub, I think what a packaged liquor store might do, whether it's a large or small, entities like Drizzly, I think, was a company that is or was in business. Oh, yeah, yeah. So those... Those businesses had some authorizations from the state. They were set to sunset this year. Those allowances have now been made permanent with a, as I said, a restriction on our ability to regulate delivery services.

Okay. All right. Thank you for the clarification. I didn't know how that fit into all this. So thank you. That's it. That's my questions.

Very good. Trustee Gilbert.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Liquor Commissioner. I mean, I'm so excited and I just can't hide it. What can I say? As a former liquor license holder, I think that these changes are going to be very welcome. They're If it were seven years ago, I'd have been out in the audience championing for these as a business owner and liquor license holder. And going through some of these things, some of the things that jump out at me that are great is we're catching up. These are things that are happening in the towns around us, and we're trying to help our business owners. We're giving them more opportunity, which is great, which I think we should be doing. My two points that I would look at this at glance to the audience and all the ships at sea, I think 9 p.m. for food might do it. I think 10 o'clock might be even a little bit too late. And I say that with an eye to the employees. When you are trying to retain kitchen employees and get kitchen employees, which are often hard to get, if you stop food service at 10, it usually will take an hour and a half to shut down and get people out the door. They can maybe be out by midnight. But if you can tell your staff that if you work here, you'll be out the door by 10, 10, 15, that can be a huge help in retention of employees. staff and labor. So that would just be one thing to note. In terms of the package liquor license options, I would like to see some numbers in terms of, I know it's, you know, reducing the annual cost of existing class BB to 1500. would it be possible just to have all three of those items for sale at 1500? Like, do we really need to charge 1500 for spirits and then an additional 1500 for beer or wine? You know, when I ran my shop, we had beer and wine. It, You know, and if one day we decided that we wanted to sell spirits to an additional fifteen hundred seems overly burdensome. You know, all we're doing is clearing a little more shelf space to put some liquor bottles up on the on the shelf. You know, so if we're going to bring it down to fifteen hundred, I'm not sure what I like doing that. I agree with Trustee Labette. Some of these liquor license fees are very high and they can start to add up, you know, when you're trying to expand your business. And what we're trying to do is give flexibility to the business owners to be able to adapt to a market. And if all of a sudden their beer and wine sales are down but spirits are up, is it equitable to go to them and ask them to pony up another $1,500 to continue to sell liquor just of a different style when really all they're doing is adding in some more shelf space? And why? Because the beer and the wine isn't selling. Well, I've got to put something there that sells. This is for my business. So it doesn't require a different level of classification in terms of Bassett training or anything like that. Alcohol is alcohol. So just something to think about. And in terms of the single service alcohol sales, I wanted to make it clear to people that they know that the way that beer and wine and spirits are packaged now have changed a lot. This is not simply cracking open a case of Miller Lite and selling them one at a time. A lot of times these craft breweries and these places that sell alcohol package them to be sold as individual bottles. So it makes it very difficult for new products that come out for our businesses to be able to purchase them and sell them with these existing rules. So this is also us being able to adapt to an industry that is continuing to adapt and does so, it seems to be on a weekly basis. So just for everyone out there who is unaware of how beer and wine sales work, particularly craft beer, a lot of times these packages show up at the restaurant or at the liquor store, not prepackaged in six packs or 12 packs or 24 packs. They come as individual bottles. That's how they're meant to be sold. And so, you know, with the way that the current regulation sits, it makes it really difficult for some of our bottle shops to be able to bring those in and sell them as they're intended to be sold at the retail level. So that's the change that this brings to the table. And I think it's fantastic. I can't wait to see the other ones. That's it.

Very good. Trustee Zik? Thank you, Mayor. Okay. So I'm going to go through all four of these real quick here. I'm going to start at the end here. So item four, single-serve alcohol sales. I just want to make sure that on the same page here, this is not saying, let's say we decide not to do this today. And restaurants already right now, you can just get one beer. You know, while you're sitting there, this is intended for somebody that was actually removing a alcoholic beverage from the premises? Or are we saying that what all the restaurants were doing, have been doing, was against the rules?

This is for package sales. Specifically for off-premises licensees, your liquor stores, not restaurants. Restaurants can, of course, sell one serving of alcohol, but you can't buy a single can of beer or a single serving of wine from a package store.

Okay, so with the new sip and stroll regulations that we have going out here, if they go into one of the restaurants that are there in that area and they want to buy, this allows them to buy one beer and take it and walk around?

State law already allows that. The only thing this relates to is liquor stores.

Okay. And that includes grocery stores also that sell liquor, that they would be able to do that also?

Correct. Walgreens, Mariano's, Juul, all of that. Okay. And your standalone stores.

Okay, all right. I just want to make sure that, that's what I thought it was. I just want to make sure that that was out there. As far as number three, the license, I like the idea of having another license. I'm not quite sure on the reducing the cost, but I'll go along with that one. The alcohol sale on village property, I just want to make sure we're also talking about this too. This is talking about just village property. Because I know what's going to happen, somebody's going to say, okay, Park District Library, they still have to come to us for approval if they want to have an event on one of their properties.

Correct. So, right now, the Park District has a liquor license at their establishments, right? And then the library, if they're having a special event, the Historical Society is hosting an event, they get a one-day special event liquor license.

Okay, all right, so that stays the same.

Correct.

All right, now the last one about the food service requirement hours. This is the one that my insides are kind of jumping up and down about because I keep thinking to myself, you know, Establishments that are open until 1, 2 in the morning and they're continuing to serve alcohol, food is good, you know, because it absorbs the alcohol, it helps the person, you know, not to be over the limit. I'm sure there's a lot of people that want to throw some scientific things at me or some studies or something on that, but that's what my instincts are telling me, and it seems like we're getting away from that, and could this potentially cause a safety issue? Now, I understand somebody can come into a restaurant that's already under these current rules, and they come in and they get a beer at midnight or something like that. They don't have to buy food. This is just offering it, but it seems like we're getting away from something that could actually be something that's safer for people that are actually there to have that option, make it mandatory that that option has to be there. And I'm just curious on anybody's thoughts on that.

You know, I think it's just weighing the different values, I think, is the bottom line. You know, I think one could make either argument. You can say that it's a marketplace. If there's a market for food, someone is going to sell food. They just will. And, you know, you made the earlier point that providing the food doesn't necessarily mean that the folks that should be eating it are going to. And, you know, from our perspective, we're looking at this as, you know, letting the market do its work. We're hearing pushback from the business community that people aren't buying it, and it's putting a burden on them to have this requirement up to that time period, and so this is reflective of that. But again, there's no right or wrong answer on this. This is just kind of looking at this from a different perspective than we've traditionally looked at in a little bit more pro-business perspective.

And I get the pro-business part of it, and I understand completely why some of these facilities want to do that and don't want to have the cost in there. I totally get that. It's the right way for them to be thinking. I just want to make sure that we're not putting something out there that could actually reduce public safety by allowing this type of thing to go through. And that's the main concern that I'm having right now. Thank you. Trustee Manganiello?

Thank you. I would just like to rephrase one of Trustee Gilbert's comments as a question. Why is 10 o'clock the magic number? What was the decision-making thought behind that?

Sure. So right now they have to have food at all hours. So we've heard from the businesses that the requests seem to die down around 10 p.m. So if they can let their kitchen close and reduce their staffing, that benefits them. So their staff can go home early. So that was just something that we had heard from different businesses that really the requests seemed to die down around that time.

So that was definitely a business consensus rather than a... I'm not sure if compromise is quite the right word, but trying to balance what Trustee Zik was saying with letting businesses close their kitchens when their business slows down.

Yeah, correct. We heard 10 p.m. from a couple different businesses, so that's the proposal before you. It could be something different, but that's the proposal before you.

Is that it? Thank you. Okay. Trustee Bertucci.

Thank you. Whoever has control of the slides, can we have number three again, please? Okay, I had written a note also, so Robin, I am on the same page you are, Trustee LeBetz, on this. So, Diana, does triple B and double B equal B? I'm not talking about dollars, but what I can do, if I have a triple B license and I have a double B license, do I basically have all the authority of a B?

You do. You have the beer, wine, and full.

Okay.

And spirits, I should say.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, it almost doesn't make sense. I mean, I don't know if it's possible to get two licenses, but, I mean, in effect, they could say save $700 by saying give me a triple B and give me a double B. So I'm for everything that's here, but I mean, I would almost throw in a, you know, I would approve everything and then almost say with an amendment to reduce B also to 3,000. Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to do that?

Yeah, I can address that. So we were going to look at all the fees that are in place with the many classifications that we have in totality to look at all the fees that are being charged and to make sure, you know, they're where they should be and check the marketplace and so forth. So with the Class B, the ones that typically have that are, you know, full liquor stores. They want to have the beer, wine, and spirits. The new class, Triple B, was intended to address a couple restaurants reached out and said they'd like to just sell bottles of wine as part of wine dinners. And then we've had a couple businesses that reached out saying they're really interested in tequila sales only, not beer and wine, they just wanna do tequila and they wanna do a carve out of bourbon. So that was the intent of how we were drafting this, knowing that we were gonna come back to you all with a review of all the fee structures for all of the classifications. So there's room for improvement, definitely, and this was just something that we drafted for your review and for discussion tonight.

Okay, which I understand. But I think by putting this out there, it almost makes us look foolish. So that's why I say, I mean, I know you've got more to do, but I would almost say let's fix this now while we're here and focusing on this and reduce that to $3,000. if we're looking to approve the two, you know, the triple B and the double B as is. Collin, am I missing anything from a previous liquor store owner?

I don't think so.

Okay.

I agree, it seems kind of foolish to have it set up like that.

Okay, so Mayor, but I'll let everything, you know, I'm for everything and then whether it's Trustee LaBette or Gilbert or myself, I think we, you know, either that or whoever makes the motion just makes it with the $3,000, so.

Okay, Trustee Donington.

Thank you, Mayor. I think a lot of these changes make a good sense for the community. I've heard from several businesses requesting many of these items. I know that there's a local restaurant that would really like to sell some of their specialized bourbon, but they're not able to do that right now. I know that a lot of residents are interested in the single service option. So I think this is a good move. I do think that we should look at the fees in totality to make sure that they make sense overall. So I would prefer to wait. And so I would make a motion for this ordinance as it is.

Are we saying for number three or for all of them, like this recommendation?

So it looks like there's a recommendation for everything.

Okay, that's correct.

I would do that, okay. So staff recommends that the Village Board direct staff to draft an ordinance to be considered at a future Village Board meeting that concurs with Liquor Commissioner Tenaglia's recommendations regarding food service requirement hours, alcohol sales on village property, new package liquor license options, and single service alcohol sales.

Second. Okay. We have a motion by Trustee Dunnington and a second by, I heard the first over there, Trustee Schwingbeck, is that right?

Mayor before we vote on that and I know you're gonna want to hear from everybody for the rest of them But at some point in time, I'd like to make an amendment to that and see if it flies.

Sure All right And just it could you go back to that slide again really quick before we continue dialogue The same slide that we had a minute ago with the $1,500 So this one difference between I think what trustee Bertucci was imagining here is that class B for $3,700 is is a liquor store that's gonna sell everything right correct but these two ideas here are for a restaurant so that they don't have to spend another $3,700 or $2,700 just to sell some specialty bourbons or specialty tequilas or something in a bottle that they're doing that a liquor store down the road maybe doesn't carry because these came in right from Guatemala or whatever, right? That was the whole idea on this one. Correct. Is that correct? Okay. Okay.

So just to get clarification of that, then, so what I was asking you initially, though, are you saying that triple B plus double B does not equal B?

It's not for a package store.

Okay, so there is difference. If I put double B and triple B together, there is a difference. Yes.

So if you look at it, a Class B is intended for somebody who wants to sell all three and will pay the annual full amount, right, of $3,700. There's some that just only wanted beer and wine. We had couples that had that classification, and now we're adding another one. for $1,500, they just want to carve out one's spirits, whether, we don't care what kind of spirits. Yeah.

Okay, so can a liquor store say, I want a triple B and a double B, Instead of a B.

What kind of liquor are they intending to sell?

Well, they're intending to sell spirits. All three? All three.

Then they would have to be the class B. Okay.

So they couldn't say, okay. You know what I mean?

Look at these as like amendments. If I could, Trustee Bertucci, I think our intention would be to write this code such that you wouldn't be able to do the... Right. the end run. The intention is to help out those on-promise stores by having this addendum. But if you intended to be a full liquor store, you just got to go for the liquor store. And I think, again, we're going to look at these liquor fees as part of an overall review. But the intention is not to create an end run. It's a different optionality for those existing businesses.

Okay. And then, so if, how soon do you think this will come about? I mean, I don't want, you know, three years from now, this still hanging out on the books. Yes.

Yes. I do have an answer for you. So it's part of our business plan and we plan to introduce this at the end of this year. So those that have a liquor license, the liquor license is May 1 to April 30th. So the intent is to bring this back to you all in December, the beginning of January to get your feedback and approval. We would roll this out then as part of the renewals with the existing liquor license holders. So we are anticipating there'll be some reductions and they would see that as part of their renewal.

Okay. Okay. All right. Well, then I'll just, why don't we just go with this and then I'll just let it roll. And Trustee LaBette is shaking her head. No, I'm fine with that.

I was thinking that I would, you know, because Diana says that this is going to be looked at and reviewed and that I'm fine with doing that. And it makes sense because we're in the middle of the liquor licenses issue. And we wouldn't want to change things in the middle of, in midstream, if you will. But I guess one thing that was coming up that I, someone said this has to do with restaurants, but this is just packaged liquor stores. Because when I look at the list of, and the Jewel and the Marianos and things like that, when I look at the list that was provided to us online of Class B, it's not restaurants. It's other things. The standalone packaged liquor, it's the Juul, the Walgreens, et cetera, et cetera. And I thought somebody said...

So some restaurants have added this on. They have. Okay. So they choose to have an additional license. They have on-premise consumption.

But Diana, that second license, they're paying the full $2,700 to do it. Yeah, they sure are. So that was the goal here.

So we're reducing that right away with this.

Right.

And then we're offering a new carve-out for the spirits.

They're paying $6,400.

Yes, correct.

For the two licenses right now.

We have a couple that were doing that for quite some time and still are doing that.

Yep.

Okay.

Make sense?

I guess so.

Okay, we were going down this direction. Anybody else down here? No, no one?

Okay, yes, Trustee Gilbert. Just to talk about the food service aspect of this. I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, staff, but we have, A bar in town that has no food service requirement, correct? They are allowed to bring food in, but they don't even have a kitchen.

A restaurant that exists on the second floor in the downtown business doesn't have to serve food. Correct. According to our code. Correct.

So I don't believe that when we granted them that liquor license, we created some sort of a public safety moral hazard. And I don't believe that, you know, scaling back the hours that food has to be available at some of the other restaurants is creating any sort of a hazard. If anything, we're just allowing them to be operational within the constraints of what their customers are asking for and what their, you know, potential budgets for, for staff allow. Um, and, and that's how I look at this. You know, we, we, we're looking at something, if we scaled this back to nine or to eight, you know, to your point, uh, if the market dictated that people were coming in there for food, let them stay open until 10. What we're simply allowing people to do is to let their staff go home at a reasonable hour, shut down the food service portion, and allow the business to remain open. It's a lot easier to do that. And sometimes as a business owner, you're standing there and you're asking yourself, do I stay open and be consistent for my customers? Or if it's raining or if it's snowing, weather has a huge impact on this industry. And if you're standing there saying, do I do I shut it down where people are asking questions tomorrow? Am I still open or am I allowed to remain open myself as the business owner and let my staff go home? Be kind to them, not make them stand there for two hours plus. Get them home early for a good night's sleep. You know, it will have an impact. It will make a big difference. So when we talk about, you know, the hours of operation, 10 o'clock still seems late to me. I know some of them have said that that's about when service dies off.

fine if we scaled it back to eight or to nine then if the demand was still there they could stay open but if not they've got that option to to close up so that's all i have fair enough and i would concur that an added perspective there is there are business owners right now that are choosing to ignore the 11 o'clock uh requirement and they're just shutting down at nine o'clock or ten o'clock and um they're taking their chances and so that's why we decided to discuss this it's either we're going to start working hard on compliance for an old existing code or we're going to change the code to do something that's more in line with what most operations would prefer so I my notes on mine little of paper here is that there is a discussion or a desire to possibly change some pricing, which we'll consider doing at another date, but that this 10 o'clock versus 9 o'clock is something that could certainly be discussed here tonight. That was everybody on the board. And I have one blue card related to this topic. And if there's anyone else in the audience that wishes to weigh in as well, please raise your hand. But I'm going to call on Chip Brooks to get us started from the audience.

Sorry I didn't bring a sash today like the pageant queens, but thank you all. First of all, I want to commend you Liquor Commissioner Tenaglia and the staff for getting a start on this. It's been long overdue to change the liquor code, so thank you for doing that. I want to address two aspects of the food requirement and then one aspect that I don't quite understand about the BBB license. We're trying to expand our music offerings at Hainani, and as part of that, we'll be hoping to add more school concerts on Saturday afternoons and chamber music concerts on Sunday afternoons. For those kinds of things, it is essential that we have a bartender there, but we can't have food service. Economically, we can't sell enough to do that. I've made a, because that's kind of a unique situation to a cultural place like us, I've made a proposal to the staff and to, I think to you Mayor Tenaglia, to create an exception to the food service requirement for the holders of cabaret licenses. You said there's other things coming that haven't been addressed yet. Is that something that will be coming in the future? Yes. And I don't need to say anymore about it. As to the 10 o'clock rule, first of all, the part of that that says you don't have to have food service after the 10 o'clock cutoff is brilliant. And that's a really big help to the businesses. excuse me, what Trustee Gilbert was saying about 10 o'clock's not a magic time is 100% right. And I'm not sure who all the staff talked to about this. I put in a proposal to the staff that was the result of my survey of a lot of businesses that said eight o'clock would be the right time for a cutoff. And again, what we're talking about here is during what period of time do we want the businesses to operate unprofitably for their food service? Because if it's profitable, as Manager Reklaus was saying and as Colin was saying, If it's profitable, we're going to be there with the food. If there are people there to buy it, we're going to sell it as long as we can do it profitably. So the real question is what regulation is appropriate to force the businesses to operate unprofitably during a period of time. And so for us, 10 o'clock, you know, our business is generally closed down by 10 o'clock. It's not like we're open until 1 o'clock. So 8 o'clock would be good for us. And a number of other businesses, as I communicated to the staff, said 8 o'clock would be a great time. And after that, what everybody has said is right. What is really, if we want to have more places serving more food after 8 o'clock at night and late at night, then we need to get more business in our downtown. So there are more people out there to make it happen, as Manager Recklaus said. The marketplace will dictate that. The last question, or I guess my comment on the BBB license. So if I understand it, that license is intended exclusively for holders of on-premise, existing on-premise liquor licenses?

No, yes, not, yes. I mean, an on-premise liquor license holder can, they can buy the double B now, they can get the B now, or they can get the new proposed triple B. We do have some that already pay for the full B, in addition to being on-prem, and pay for the double B, in addition to being on-prem.

Okay, but a liquor store couldn't get the BBB license or the BB license? No.

It depends what kind of liquor you're selling. So if it's full package sales, you need to be a B. Yeah, the idea, Chip,

There's a couple of places, and yours is one of them, that we've discussed in the past that maybe there are times when a certain bottle of wine or types of wine or certain types of tequila or bourbon or whatever, and at these restaurants that have the regular alcohol sales, what is that one called, Diana, the main one? Full package?

Yeah. B. B.

No, I mean for a restaurant.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Either an A, a double A, or an E. Okay, so if you have that in your restaurant now and you just want to be able to sell some very specific special items, wines, beers, or tequilas, whatever, instead of paying $2,700 a year to do that, we're suggesting that it's $1,500. Okay.

And so, and this is just our weird case, it doesn't necessarily dictate policy for the village. But for us, what we do is we have wine dinners four times a year and a couple of wine tastings. So if we could sell it, right now when we, people taste things at Hainani and they want to buy it, they end up having to go to Garfield's in Palatine to buy it. Mm-hmm. If we could sell it, that would be great for us. It would generate some things for the village. But there's no way we're going to generate $1,500 in profit from selling the wine just based on our schedule. So, I mean, to me, we're already paying over $4,000 a year for our existing.

So then let me ask you, because we're just talking here and all of us are learning. What should the number be in your opinion? I think $100.

No, I mean, because we already paid, what is it, $4,300 for our AA license. And how much wine we're going to sell, $100 would be a great thing, or $200. But $1,500 would be all of our profit from selling the wine. So we would get nothing.

Understood. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. You bet. I have no other blue cards in regard to this, but if there's someone in the audience that wants to weigh in, please raise your hand, I'll call on you. Seeing none, we'll come back to the board. Trustee Santa Maria?

Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so listening to Chip, I was thinking since every restaurant or establishment closes at different times, could we say the kitchen could close within, I'm just making this up, but two hours before so that every restaurant or establishment could decide what that time is for them based off of their hours of operation? So, um,

Give us an example.

So if Chip says that they close at 10, they could, and we decide you can stop selling food two hours before, but maybe Big Shots is open until midnight so they can stop selling at 10 so that every establishment can make up what's right for them based off of the food sales.

You could look at it that way. I can tell you that places like Cortland's who are open until, what are they, 1 o'clock or past 1?

They have a 2 a.m. 2 a.m. license, but they could be open, closed earlier than that.

Yeah, they would like to stop selling food at 9.

Okay.

So that would be, you know, five hours. Sure.

Just trying to be flexible for the business owners and see what makes the most sense. Yeah, no, I understand.

I'll be honest with you. When we talked about this, Diane and I struggled with this number, this 10 p.m., because I know that there are some folks who would like to stop at 9. We have been so strong with our position that you have to have a full menu until 11. And then after that, it still has to be a limited menu to the time you close the door at the end of the night. So shutting everything down at some specific time was like, okay, well, 10 is kind of like in the middle there. But if this board says 9 o'clock is the right time, then that is fine with me. Mayor?

There we go.

I think I heard something.

You opened up the window.

Pardon me, sir. It's liquor commissioner to you, sir.

Mr.

Liquor Commissioner, I'd like to make an amendment. All right.

There's a motion on the floor right now from Trustee Dunnington and seconded by Trustee Schwingbeck to accept all four of these as they are. And if I have that correct, now you're suggesting that you make an amendment to that motion. Correct. I would like to make an amendment that food service stop at 8 p.m. At 8 p.m. Okay, is there a second on the APS? Yes, second. Second from Trustee Manganiello. So I'm going to amendment Gilbert and Manganiello. All right, let's have discussion on that. for the eight o'clock change from 10 o'clock. It's just affecting the one category that allows kitchens to then close at eight o'clock, if they choose to. No one's forcing anybody to close a kitchen, and anyone can stay open until two in the morning if they want to. But the kitchen can close according to this amendment at eight o'clock. Trustee Donington.

Just a question. in the past our rule has been that there's a late night menu. And so would it make sense for like eight to 10 be kind of a late night menu and then 10 is the end?

I think part of the problem is administration of all of this. I think if you talk to staff, it's really hard. I mean, even right now, if you go downtown Arlington Heights Thursday night, Friday night, whatever, you're going to find restaurateurs that are just not following the ordinance. And how do you... Are you gonna take them all to adjudication hearings and force them to start doing things the way we want them to do it? So I would say my initial thought is let's make this as simple as we can so that it can be administered as easily as it can. And that doesn't mean we can't ever change it. Thoughts, Trustee Bertucci?

I think that it also has to do with the staffing and needing, you know, you take that, I know it's only a couple hours maybe, but a couple hours each day, each weekend or whatever off the payroll can make a difference. I was thinking Trustee Gilbert would throw out 9 o'clock, and then he went for all of it. He just 8 o'clock. I'm going to support 8 o'clock just because of two things. Number one, I think it's being asked for not only by current restaurant owners, but previous and now a trustee, Trustee Gilbert. But also what I heard Randy say, and I agree, and he said the market will do what it needs to do. And all we're saying is you can. I'm not saying you have to, but you can. And if there's a market there, they'll stay open after 8 o'clock.

People will find the food if they... I can't tell you how many times I've tried to go eat something at 9.30 or 10 o'clock after an appointment, after a meeting, and there may be just one restaurant downtown that's still serving food.

I hear you.

Okay, further discussion from anyone else?

Trustee LaBette? I too thought Trustee Gilbert was going to say 9, but I am going to support the 8 o'clock. And I think part of the reason we're struggling is that every day of the week is different. We're trying to regulate from Monday through Sunday, and different days of the week are you know, we're trying to do a blanket thing for every day, whereas Tuesday night might not be so hopping downtown, or Monday night is as the mayor has experienced. But Thursday, when we were leaving sounds of summer the other night, last week, there were a lot of people eating at restaurants at 839 o'clock. And so But those restaurants have the choice to stay open and continue to serve. And they will if it serves them in terms of their income and their clientele. So I think, you know, I'm okay with this.

Anyone else? Trustee Zik. Thank you, Mayor. You know, based on what I said before, I'm still having some concerns. issues with all this. I don't agree with the premise that it couldn't potentially cause some type of other issues if we're taking away from them. But I'm going to vote for the amendment and I'm going to vote for it for this one particular reason. I trust our business owners. I'm going to say that they're going to make the right decision on what they need to do, because I want them to be as profitable as they are, because obviously if they're profitable for themselves, it's good for the village also. So that's the reason I'm going to go ahead and vote for it, but I will say, I do want us to keep an eye on this. I do want us to make sure that it doesn't go down a path where there are some potential issues down, because I think there is a potential possibility, but I'm throwing that back on the business owners right now to make sure that they're making the right decisions on what's going on within their own establishment and for their own causes. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else? All right, we have a motion, a second, an amendment, and a second. The amendment, as I understand it, is to change the 10 p.m. food service shutdown to 8 p.m. at the will of that restaurateur to decide. So that's the first vote. And is this a voice vote, or how do you understand it?

This is all just a direct staff, Mayor?

Let's do a roll call vote on the 8 p.m. first.

Okay, motion on the amendment.

Made by Trustee Gilbert, seconded by Trustee Manganiello.

Trustee Gilbert?

Yes.

Trustee Manganiello? Aye. Trustee Zik?

Yes.

Trustee Schwingbeck? Yes. Trustee LeBeds? Yes. Trustee Santa Maria? Yes. Trustee Bertucci? Yes. Trustee Dunnington? Yes. President Tenaglia?

Gosh, I can't say no to that. That's wonderful. All unanimous to make it eight o'clock. Okay, we're all on the same page with that. Now we'll go to the main motion. And the main motion was Trustee Dunnington and then seconded by Trustee Schwengbeck. And that is to accept all four of these as read on the page right now in front of you. And of course amended by the motion to eight o'clock. Yes, adjusted by the motion to eight o'clock.

TRUSTEE DUNNINGTON? YES. TRUSTEE SCHWINGBEK? YES. TRUSTEE GILBERT? YES. TRUSTEE MINGANERO? AYE. TRUSTEE LEBEDS? YES. TRUSTEE BERTUCCI? YES. TRUSTEE ZICK? YES. TRUSTEE SANTA MARIA? YES. PRESIDENT TANALIA?

YES. ALL RIGHT, WONDERFUL. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THAT WENT BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE HOPED IT COULD GO. I WAS VERY HAPPY TO SEE ALL THIS. I THINK WE ONLY HAVE ONE MORE ITEM ON THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S ITEM B FOR NEW BUSINESS AND ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION. AND I CAN TELL that we have the police force here ready to present.

Absolutely. So, I'll go through this information pretty quickly, give you a quick background, some legal considerations, a review we conducted over this project, and then kind of wrap it up with what we're trying to achieve with this ordinance. So, let me advance the slide. So, as you all know, the Village Pursuant Home Rule Authority maintains a local administrative adjudication program in which violations of the municipal code are heard and adjudicated. So currently the Village issues citations for violations across numerous departments. So it's not just the police department, but also building life safety, engineering, environmental health, code enforcement, and obviously the police department. The police department does maintain a larger portion of those citations, whether that's minor criminal violations such as retail theft, disorderly conduct, but also parking. That's the main adjudication tickets that we write. So the adjudication program has been very successful. It's undergone some minor expansions and modifications over the past decade. Approximately 60% of violations are voluntarily resolved prior to the hearing date. That means most respondents plead liable and voluntarily pay the penalty without contesting the citation. The other 40% advance to the adjudication hearing process. A large portion of those that advance, or about 88%, are upheld by default. What that means is basically the respondent failed to pay for the violation or even come to the hearing in the first place. This also does include a small percentage that may come to the hearing with the intent to enter a plea of liable, oftentimes admitting the liability but wanting to present some other circumstances or certain situations surrounding the violation, such as this is my first time offense, I'm asking for some relief to the fine, lower fine, something of that nature. Of the remaining 12% of cases heard at the hearing, 10% are found not liable. Either they met the burden of proof that the violation did not exist, or more often than not, they have demonstrated compliance for the violation. The remaining 2% contest but are ultimately found liable for the violation. So this is just a high-level overview of the current system, again, which has proven effective ensuring compliance with our municipal code. So leading into why we are here tonight, in recent years, the police department and village have been watching a few cases going through the judicial and legal system. And a majority of these cases we've been watching revolve around the highly regulated commercial motor vehicle infractions. So going back to 2011 in Canton versus the city of Chicago, the appellate court ruled Chicago did not have the jurisdiction to administratively adjudicate overweight truck violations, citing that such violations were considered moving violations and required processing through the circuit court. That remained the legal opinion, precluding any moving violations from administrative adjudication systems. So we're going to fast forward to 2022, where a similar case was brought up in the city of Joliet. Again, the appellate court ruled that Joliet lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate oversized overweight violations, and again, citing the case in cantum. The case was appealed and ultimately brought to the Illinois Supreme Court, who did a deeper dive into the facts and circumstances of the case. In 2024, the Supreme Court finally provided a ruling on the case, reversing the appellate decision in part and specifically rejecting the association to cantum, stating there are no statutes which preempt or restrict home rule authority from adjudicating moving violations, unless it explicitly references one of those subsections in Article 7, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution, which is not the case. The Supreme Court did rule against the city of Joliet, however, explicitly saying it was not because they did not have the ability to adjudicate moving violations, but rather Joliet's own ordinances required certain violations to be heard in the Willow County Circuit Court. So their ordinances required those to go to the Circuit Court. The decision is the basis for our recommended ordinance to expand our village administrative adjudication process to include moving violations. So currently our ordinance does have the entirety of the IVC adopted by reference. So as an example, speeding lane violations, disobeying traffic control devices are already part of village code. The current code also does not have any provision requiring certain violations to be heard in the circuit court, unlike Joliet, which did have such a provision. So ours does not. Chapter 7, Article 13, which outlines our adjudication process, already supports the adjudication of moving violations as they have been adopted by reference. So what our proposed adjudication expansion does require is an amendment to Chapter 18, the traffic section, 18-801, to reiterate and solidify violations in this chapter that they are eligible for adjudication, so even though that's already established in Chapter 7, so it's just solidifying that a little further under Chapter 18. Second, establish penalties for moving violations, unless there's any other penalties under the current ordinances. What we're proposing is a $75 penalty for moving violations, which the defendant can pay prior to the hearing to resolve the citation or conversely attend the hearing and contest the violation. Third, we're requesting a $50 penalty for the current occupant protection and distracted driving violations, which is a $10 increase from the current $40. This is again to further align with our enforcement objectives for compliance. Fourth, the $50 penalty that I just talked about would also apply to our compliance in lieu of citations or our fix-it tickets, which currently carry a $30 penalty if the defendant does not show proof the violation was corrected prior to the hearing. These are typically equipment violations such as a burned out headlight or a missing front license plate. Most defendants correct the deficiency, which does not lead to any type of fine. If you fix it, we'll take that note and get rid of the fine. Finally, we address violations of Chapter 15 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, which governs the size, weight, and load restrictions of commercial motor vehicles, the basis for many of these court cases that we talked about earlier. These violations would require a mandatory administrative hearing appearance where the fine or penalty would be assessed by the hearing officer should the driver be found liable. So why is the police department proposing this expansion of administrative adjudication? Simply, we currently lack an intermediate enforcement options. Right now we only have two options. Option one, warning citations, either verbal or written. These do not carry any penalty and are reserved for instances where education and request for future compliance might be most appropriate. Warnings are the most desired resolution for the driver is hoping for when they see the red and blue lights in the rear view mirror. However, also the warnings carry the least enforcement impact. Our second current option that we have is state citations. So in the current form, nothing that we're proposing today, this is the only avenue for written citations that carry a potential penalty for any of the moving violations. As an example, an officer decides to write a citation for a speeding violation. They will write a state citation that is processed through the circuit court. The fine for the citation is $120 for a 20 mile an hour or less moving violation, speeding violation, or 140 if it speeds greater. They can either pay for the citation, which would result in a conviction against their driving record and potentially adversely impact their insurance rates. The driver could also attend traffic safety school, a four-hour in-person or online course, which also includes additional costs on top of the fine already. The driver still pleads guilty for that violation even though they go to the school. It might appear on their record as supervision, but maybe not a technical conviction. Finally, the driver can contest the citation in circuit court, having to take time off of work and school to attend court. If they are found guilty, they are now responsible for any fine associated with the citation, in addition to mandatory court costs, which are now over $250. Funds from these mandatory court costs are distributed across local and state government funds, with the village receiving only a very, very small fraction of those costs. The impact of state citations, therefore, is extremely high with significant financial consequences. So what we were proposing is expanding the administrative process to allow for an intermediate middle option. This would still carry a penalty of $75, which the driver can pay and not have to attend a hearing. The violation would not be reported on their driving record. They can also contest the ticket in person or by mail. So whatever is convenient for them. allowing more flexible options. Should the driver contest the violation in administrative adjudication and be found liable, they can still appeal the decision to the circuit court, which then allows for an additional layer of judicial oversight and adjudication. So an administrative moving violation increases accountability from a simple warning ticket, but recognizes individual circumstances surrounding the violation and the counter. Each one of these options, these three options, have a place in our enforcement continuum, and all are absolutely valid. The expansion to moving violations increases our discretionary enforcement by allowing officers to be fair and equitable based on the circumstance of the violation. Somebody speeding 10 miles an hour over the limit is not the same as somebody doing 20 plus over the speed limit. Being fair in our enforcement decisions is a key component for us to maintain and build trust. If the driver believes the penalty is fair for their action, they are more trusting of the officers and their decisions. The police department is also recommending various other amendments in Chapter 18 as part of our comprehensive review. We are recommending amending Section 18-211 to clarify some locations where commercial motor vehicles may park in their associated fines. The police department continues to receive many complaints with regard to commercial motor vehicles, which more often than not, are semi-trucks parking in streets and in residential areas for convenience, just to avoid paying commercial vehicle parking in designated industrial lots designed for that purpose. The increase in the fine would further aim to achieve voluntary compliance, making it less economical to pay a parking citation rather than renting commercial vehicle parking off-site. We are also requesting an increase in fire lane violations to $150, which is commensurate with other local and regional fines. Often when officers encounter this violation in the field, the driver is sitting in the vehicle and they kindly ask them to relocate. When a citation is written, it's often those times an officer has been sitting behind the vehicle for a prolonged period of time and the owner has parked in the fire lane out of personal convenience, blocking public safety access in case of emergency. Finally, the police department is proposing general increases to the parking violations to be more in line with regional parking fines. The village's parking fines have not seen an increase in over two decades. Currently, surrounding communities have penalties double that of the current village fines. Again, we are looking to correct behavior for future compliance. Appropriate penalties are part of that equation. To provide some context, I've included some data with regards to some of the most common parking violations written by the police department in 2025. The listed citations account for approximately 90% of the total parking citations we've written. Overnight parking violations are the most common. Following these are a lot of the violations that encompass our downtown parking system, and that's commuter parking, time zone, permit parking. Also, commercial motor vehicle, as I discussed before, that's something that we continuously contend with and receive a lot of complaints. So that's one of our top penalties as well. And as I discussed, fire lane violations, we do write them, but they're not as frequent as one might think. So in summary, the police department feels these changes will provide an additional enforcement option for our officers, increase accountability for violations, and positively impact future compliance For safe driving habits and adherence to the village municipal code the police department will also like to acknowledge and thank our legal counsel Mr. Hart Passman for reviewing the associated case law and assistance drafting the ordinance. Mr. Passman did I cover everything? Did I miss anything? Keep going on that one, but no you did great. Okay, perfect So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions

If I could add one thing, Mayor. Sure. I just was going to say that a few years back, the only types of items we took at all at administrative adjudication were parking-related matters. And we expanded that to a whole variety of code enforcement items over the last several years. And, you know, at the time there was some debate. Is this going to work? Is this a good fit? And we've had nothing but a good experience with that process and everything that Deputy Chief Junacki said is 100% true. Not only is it more efficient for residents to attend a hearing here, but we really have many more options for fining, suspending, giving people time to work on the issue. It gets to be more of a problem-solving endeavor than just going to court. and a judge who's trying to get through a variety of these issues just kind of does things in a very heavy-handed way or skips over completely and moves on. So we think that this will make it a better, more effective enforcement tool as well as it has with our other enforcement.

Well, it's certainly more personal, that's for sure. Are you convinced that the fees that you're proposing here are adequate or appropriate?

At this time, I think that $75 for a lot of moving violations is a good middle ground for that type of violation. It's part of this whole picture is officer discretion. You know, we're looking at those violations. This is not replacing state citations. That is always going to be for some of the more serious, egregious violations. That is something that based at the police department will have policy and oversight over that and accountability. So it's not just written under adjudication all the time. So this is more that middle ground where we could kind of fill that gap.

All right, very good. All right, we'll throw it to the board here. Questions for anybody on this side? Trustee Schwingbeck.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for that presentation, Deputy Chief. You know, I don't know if you remember, we talked a little bit about this a few years ago. So by moving in this direction, I know when, say, a speeding ticket or another moving violation was handed out, we had to go to court. There were court fees. And as you mentioned earlier, we didn't get a lot of that money. And on top of it, we had to send the officer to court. With this adjudication... Does the officer not have to go to the adjudication hearing?

No, so the officer doesn't have to go to the adjudication. They have to provide some more detailed information based on their citation, which we have a software program in place that the adjudicator uses. They can go through it. If there's any officer notes, they could add to officer notes. The adjudicating hearing officer can see those notes. So, no, this would not require an officer to appear. Can the hearing officer request an officer? Should they have additional questions or concerns? Absolutely.

Okay, because that's going to be a savings for us as well. I know you had mentioned at that time that in many of those cases, the officers were going off duty. We were paying them time and a half. So I think this is wonderful. I think it's good for our residents and equally as good for us. to be able to do this where we can clear these things up quickly, make it a little bit more convenient for folks, and save some money. Absolutely. Thank you. Sounds like a motion that might want to come out. I'd be happy to. I would move that the Village Board approve the ordinance amending Chapter 18, Traffic of the Village Code, expanding the types of violations which may be heard locally under the Village's administration judification programs, and amend certain traffic, parking, and compliance fines to align with public safety objectives.

Prevailing penalties of the surrounding communities second second okay motion made by a trustee showing back second by trustee Santa Maria Further discussion from the board trustee Bertucci I

Just for curiosity's sake, and first of all, I totally am going to support this, but adjudication officers, is that the proper word, adjudication?

Hearing officer, yes.

Hearing officer. Who are they?

So it's a third party that comes in. So they're essentially attorneys that are allowed or authorized to be hearing officers. So they come in and it's basically a third party. They will hear both the village's side, the defendant's side, and make a determination based on the information that they receive.

Okay. So a hearing officer needs to be an attorney? Is that a requirement? Yes.

Contemplated by the statute and in our code as well. Got it. So they're effectively, they're, They're not judges, as we know that, but they serve in a similar role. They will sit and adjudicate whether or not a violation occurred within the limited construct of a village code violation.

Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you.

O.C. Donington?

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with what Trustee Schwingbeck shared. I think that this is a good change for both residents and the police department. The only thing I wanted to ask about was the change in fees for overnight parking. I know that many communities allow overnight parking, and so I'm just wondering why Arlington Heights does not allow overnight parking. Personally, I would... I don't see an issue with overnight parking.

So the overnight parking issue is several fold. There's a lot of reasons. The increase, we took that under consideration. Number one, the fine increase for that. So that fine is not increasing to that $50. That was a small increase. I want to say that was like a $5 increase to overnight parking violations. So it's not a significant increase because we understand that that does sometimes happen. You leave your car out on the street inadvertently or anything like that. We understand that. But overnight, we want to make sure that we keep the streets cleared out of cars. When our officers patrol the neighborhoods, that's one of their focus for their patrols is the neighborhoods. When you have cars lining the side of the street, number one, we don't know if they're occupied. We don't know if there's somebody potentially considering a burglary that might be waiting inside the car, the more the streets are cleared, the better it is for us to observe suspicious behavior, especially during the overnight hours. I know that does, you know, sometimes during the winter season, that does help public works with overnight snow removal processes, where it's constantly, it's already ingrained as part of the village's culture that we won't park our cars overnight. So when PW comes out in the middle of the night, starts trying to clear the streets in the morning for The morning commute, it's already pretty much cleared and they're not leaving big piles of snow all over the place. Burglaries, motor vehicles, a car in the street is a more, it's a higher target. So it's also prevention of any type of potential of public safety issues.

Great, thank you.

Yep.

Anyone else down here? This way, anybody? Trustee Gilbert? No.

Sorry, so help me get my head around this a little bit. Again, I've danced around in some criminal courtrooms, you know, defending the high profile family member speeding ticket in my day because I was the only lawyer in the family. So I know just enough. So like if somebody gets a speeding ticket in town, right, we're saying they don't have to go to Rolling Meadows now. They can just come into here, correct?

Correct. Okay.

And so how involved is the Secretary of State or what would be the civil ramifications from a finding of guilty in an adjudication hearing versus a guilty finding over in Rolling Meadows?

So for our local adjudication, if you receive that citation, this is just an additional layer for us.

I mean for like speeding. For like speeding.

If you received a citation for speeding, it'd be a $75 penalty. This wouldn't go to the Secretary of State, be reported or anything like that. However, because you did receive a citation, within our system, our officers would be able to recognize that you did receive a citation, $75 ticket. Six months ago. At this point in time, you're a repeat violator. A state citation might be more appropriate, which at that point it would escalate to county, which they could report that to the Illinois Secretary of State. So again, it's just one little option above a warning ticket slap on the wrist during a traffic stop.

So it's above it, but you're not, so you're essentially, what we're doing is allowing our officers to have that little bit stiffer penalty before they get into court. Hart, maybe you can refresh my memory on this, but the way that I understand it is if you get three moving violations in a year, your license is subject to suspension by the Secretary of State.

Something like that.

Something like that, right? So what I'm thinking here is, are we trying to usurp something that has been in play for a reason. You know, theoretically, someone could get five moving by five speeding tickets and be given these administrative tickets versus an actual ticket and then sort of negate the penalties, the civil penalties that go along with that by the Secretary of State because they're not appearing over in Cook County. And to that effect, are we going to allow just a regular attorney to be able to make these decisions as opposed to the judges that have been elected or appointed and have kind of, you know, earned their right to be in that seat? You know, are we arbitrarily taking them out of the equation and the policing system that's been involved? You know, it... You get what I'm getting at?

I do. I'll put my own imprimatur on that. I'm not as concerned with the second concern being that, you know, an attorney who's a hearing officer versus a judge because, as Deputy Chief Trenicki noted, someone who was aggrieved by a decision of a hearing officer has the right under Illinois law to appeal to the Circuit Court of Hood County. So that person can avail themselves of the protections of a elected judge, ultimately. It may not be their first stop. In terms of your first concern, Trustee Gilbert, maybe I'm reading between the lines a little bit. I think we'd have to double check whether there are any reporting requirements or reporting opportunities for violations that we would adjudicate here before our hearing officer that otherwise would be counted towards someone perhaps having adverse impact on their license.

That would be my thing. So if we have somebody in an adjudication hearing and they've racked up three, you know, adjudication violations in a year, And all of a sudden that hits the secretary of state and their license gets suspended or some version of that. But we've essentially taken them out of a courtroom and we've, you know, basically given ourselves the right to take their license away for a year. You know, there's a lack of education out there in terms of people when they, when they come into a room is to be like, yeah, guilty, fine. Just get me out of here. You know, whereas I feel like in a, in a, in a courtroom, a judge is pretty good at explaining that to people saying, this is your third one. You might want to think about this kind of a thing.

So we can look, we can definitely look more into it. If this ordinance is approved by the board tonight, I will say, and I think that the introduction by the deputy chief laid it out well, the statutes, I mean, we're using our home rule authority to do this because of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Camacho versus Joliet case. The statutes have not caught up to that decision yet. Many municipalities, including many that I represent, haven't yet. gone through this step to the extent they need to cleaning up their code to make sure they can do this. Some may not want to, some may not have gotten to it. So it may be that future legislative sessions address this issue of should there be adverse impact on someone's driver's license if these are heard in a local administrative hearing. But in the meantime, we can certainly examine the vehicle code and double check between both rights and responsibilities of our police department to report to the Secretary of State.

Yeah. I mean, that's my only real concern with this. And I'm not saying that I would vote against it as a result of that, but there is a process here and there is due process. People allow their time in court. And I don't want people to be confused to think that this isn't court when it might have the same ramifications of court.

Anyone else down this way? Trustee Manganiello?

Thank you. D.C. Cernecki, thank you for the presentation and excuse me. making this all i think quite clear i have had the chance to go through a couple of the department's training courses over the last year one thing i really internalized is that for the department the point of enforcement is safety and i like that this gives the officers another tool to determine um i'll see the intent of the driver trustee gilbert's comments are well taken that was one of my questions about serial offenders and I think you have addressed that and I think when it comes to people like super speeders who are driving without a license it's a separate category I really think that it's great for us to put this tool in your bag as Trustee Bertucci and Schwingbeck mentioned this can save us over time it saves a lot of burden on everyone involved so I really appreciate you bringing it forward.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this particular topic? Yes, sir, stand up, introduce yourself.

Hello, my name is Norbert Piotrowski. I live here in Arlington Heights. Thank you for letting me the opportunity to talk about this. I'm just wondering about DUIs. Does that come under this thing or not? DUIs is a different story, isn't it?

It would not. No, these are lower level situations that we're talking about.

Okay, so that has nothing to do with DUIs. No. All right, thank you.

Anyone else in the audience? Okay, seeing none, we'll be back to the board. We have a motion from Trustee Schwingbeck, seconded by Trustee Santamaria. Any further discussion? And I think this is a roll call vote.

YES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WRAPS UP OUR GENERAL AGENDA WE DO HAVE A CLOSED SESSION PLAN I THINK ON THE AGENDA IT SAYS ADJOURNMENT FIRST BUT THAT'S NOT ACCURATE RIGHT CORRECT WE GOT TO FLIP THESE WE SHOULD FLIP THEM DID I CATCH THAT THAT WAS A GOOD CATCH I DID CATCH THAT DIDN'T I ALL RIGHT SO UM We're not going to adjourn right now. We're looking for a motion, right? Manager Recklaus, do you want to explain?

We would be respectfully asked that the board enter in a closed session for 5ILCS120-2C11. Litigation when an act against or affecting on behalf of the village has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal. or when the board finds that inaction is probable or imminent. Also, 5 ILCS 120 slash 2C21, discussion of minutes lawfully closed, whether for the purposes of approval of the minutes or the semiannual review of the minutes.

Okay, so do we have such a motion? So move. Motion made by Trustee LeBed, seconded by who? Trustee Zick. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is it a roll call vote? I blew it after all, didn't I? MAGGIE, PLEASE, HELP US OUT HERE.

TRUSTEE LOBEDZ? YES. TRUSTEE ZICK? YES. TRUSTEE SANTAMARIA? YES. TRUSTEE SCHWINGBEK? YES. TRUSTEE BERTUCCI? YES. TRUSTEE DUNNINGTON? YES. TRUSTEE MANGINERO? AYE. TRUSTEE GILBERT? YES. PRESIDENT TANALIA?

YES. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL BE MOVING INTO CLOSED SESSION AND NOT REPORTING OUT. THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR TUNING IN.