Committee of the Whole Meeting 4/27/2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQwGE8h5fgg
Automatic captions; not audio-verified.

[5:34] from the city council of Highland Park, Illinois, 27th of April, 2026. Bill Cook, please call the role.

[5:40] Council member center on the phone.

[5:44] Council member Buffman here. Council member Ross here. Council member Papia, present. Council member Lower

[5:51] here. Council member Goldberg here.

[5:53] Mayor Rory here. Uh we have a quorum. Um are we comfortable having council members center and little word participate by

[6:01] phone? I is that are there any objections to Are there any objections? No. Okay. All right. They will be joining us. Thank

[6:09] you. Um thank you.

[6:12] Thank you for joining us. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the committee of the whole held April 13, 2026?

[6:22] That's a simple second.

[6:26] All in favor say I. [snorts] Present.

[6:29] Okay. Thank you. The minutes are approved. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the closed session of the regular meeting of the committee of the whole held April 13, 2026.

[6:39] So moved. Second.

[6:41] All in favor? All in favor say I. I Okay, thank you. Um, we have two

[6:50] um items on tonight's scheduled business. The first one is incentivizing reduction and use of singleuse bags. I have to tell everybody before we even

[6:59] get started that in 2005 when I was on the environmental commission, I brought the city council reusable Chico bags and

[7:08] said you need to ban these, you know, the plastic bags and get people to reuse bags and here we are 21 years later

[7:15] having this conversation. I'm delighted that we are once again focusing on it. Thank you for bringing it.

[7:22] Thank you, mayor. Um, this initiative is on our city's work plan for this year to take a look at and as the mayor noted, it is a topic that has been raised over

[7:31] the years. Um, we have uh a PowerPoint that's going to guide the conversation this evening and then we are looking for

[7:39] your policy feedback if you want us to continue to explore this subject matter.

[7:44] Um, in past years, uh, the city council at the time was not interested in moving forward with this. We'll call this an

[7:52] incentive program. Um, others call it a plastic bag tax program. Um, wanting to see really what is the impact on

[8:00] businesses, what is the impact on the environment, and is there really is there a benefit to moving forward. So, we have been working closely with other

[8:08] municipalities, um, getting feedback about this initiative. We're going to provide you some preliminary information tonight. And if you're interested in

[8:15] taking the next step forward, we would follow back up with the uh city sustainability advisory group, do some public engagement with our business

[8:23] community and our residents, and then come back with a formal report and recommendation. Again, we're looking for your policy feedback this evening. Um Austin Knight is the city's

[8:32] sustainability manager. He's not able to be here this evening. Um, but Aaron Jason, assistant city manager, who's going to be presenting the PowerPoint and we're happy to answer any questions.

[8:43] Thank you. Uh, so first, you know, I'm very visual, so I brought them in um for my my journeys yesterday in Highland Park. So, what are we talking about?

[8:54] We're not just talking about the plastic bags that you were talking about in 2001, Mayor, right? We're also talking about the paper bags. So, these are both considered singleuse bags.

[9:04] So, we're recommending as uh the city manager mentioned, it's on the work plan that we consider a policy discussion pertaining to the implementation on a

[9:12] fee for those bags um when you check out at point of sale at any of our retail establishments. So, that why right that

[9:21] encourages the reduction of single-use bags in Highland Park, which is aligns with the sustainability plan and incentivizes you to utilize reusable bags.

[9:32] So, a little bit more about what we're considering tonight. Um, the mayor might have brought this up in 2001. Most recently, SAG talked about it in 2023.

[9:41] At that time, Northbrook was just about to launch their program starting January 1st, 2024. And the sustainability advisory group said, "Let's wait and see

[9:50] how this plays out in Northbrook, especially in consideration with our businesses and whatnot and the effects that might have on them." Uh, this program, as I mentioned, does align with sustainability plans, strategic goals.

[10:00] Um, we do currently have that plastic bag and wrap recycling ordinance and that's for retailers 10,000 square

[10:06] 10,0001 square feet or more. That's very difficult for our merchants to comply with. I know we've talked to both sustainability advisory group and this

[10:14] the city council over the past few years to discuss that and what that is it requires [clears throat] the recycling of plastic bags and racks. So if you have those bags in your business like a

[10:23] Target, Sunset Foods, Juul, you Walgreens, you also have to have receptacles to recycle those bags. And following the trail of where those bags

[10:30] go once recycled has been more difficult. Um, and we've been working with LRS and Swalco on that.

[10:38] Oh, you know, a couple more things on this. So bag feed programs that we are aware of in the Chicagoland region um

[10:45] see results. They see results in reducing consumption of single-use bags.

[10:48] For example, Northbrook, we talked to Sunset Foods recently. Um, Northbrook saw a [cough] decrease in plastic bag use from 3.18 million to 2.94 million.

[10:58] That's actually a very I know it's still in the millions. Significant number of plastic bags uh being reduced. And that's also then a reduction in cost to

[11:07] those businesses that are buying those plastic bags in bulk year-over-year. And then there's potential for this to be a sustainability fund revenue generator.

[11:15] So, similar size to municipalities, Betavio Park, Woodstock, they show potential bag tax revenues around 150,000 or more um year-over-year from their current programs.

[11:28] So, what are the pros and cons? Um basic pros, revenue generation, as we just talked about, behavior changes, that's one of the number one drivers of SAG.

[11:38] SAG that really pushes, we'll hear later on in the council meeting, pushes education, community education. And one of the things we want to do with that education is change people's behaviors.

[11:46] So this is um a great motivator for changing to re using reusable bags. It also aligns with sustainability goals

[11:54] and community expectations. When we say community expectations, we know that Highland Parkers know that this is a green community. When we were out at Arbor Day this past weekend, I can't

[12:03] tell you how many people came to stop at the advisory group table that was both KAG and SAG um sharing information out whether it was bird safe glass, climate

[12:11] coaches, etc. and a lot of people asking about um our sustainability plan. Some cons um tracking and compliance may be

[12:18] time consuming. So that's something that CMO and finance will have to work out if you want us to investigate this more.

[12:24] Approximately how much time is that really going to take for staff? What's the initial resident resistance? Because while we are a community that has great

[12:31] expectations, people don't always like change. Um so and change at a register is always tricky. And then worries that that residents might not shop within the

[12:40] municipality. Something that we did look at before bringing this to the city council, we surveyed our um partner communities in electric aggregation and

[12:48] some of our other surrounding communities to say who else wants to do this with us. Um we know that regional actions are usually preferred especially

[12:55] with these type of activities. Uh at this point in time none of the others were interested in moving forward. So that is something um we kept in mind.

[13:03] Also for our businesses again talking to the few that we've [clears throat] talked to just soft talk um as we have before this meeting we hear from Sunset

[13:12] Foods who I know um Steve and I talked about this when they first were in Northbrook was first putting this in

[13:20] place there was great concern by Sunset what is this going to be and are our customers going to go elsewhere and they are some of the biggest cheerleaders for this program now.

[13:29] So, I want to give you a little bit of an understanding of where people are who have these bad fees so far and what their parameters are. Um, and what

[13:37] you'll see first is the sense that someone's paying per bag and then what the split is between the municipality

[13:43] and the retailer. So, Betavia 10 cents, 4 cents to the retailer. Um, Chicago 15 cents, 1 cent to the retailer. Elgen 10

[13:52] cents, they give 100% to the retailer in Elgen. Evston, this um is a little bit different. In Evston, they have a full ban on plastic bags. You can't buy a

[14:00] plastic bag at the register, but you can buy a paper bag and that's 10 cents and 5 cents goes to the retailer. Then Northbrook 10 cents with a 5-cent split.

[14:08] Oak Park 10 cents with a 5-cent split and Woodstock is 10 cent with a uh 3 cents to the retailer.

[14:17] Northbrook is um our closest neighbor who has this program and someone that we feel is a good place to start for us in

[14:24] terms of a lot of the different variations and different things to consider. So I want to give some highlights of their program. The whole ordinance for Northbrook was in the

[14:32] packet. So again, it covers both plastic and paper bags. They do the 10-centent fee um levied. It's imposed on each customer for each carry out single-use

[14:40] bag covered um that a covered business provides to a customer. The business then collects that fee at time of sale and remits to the municipality. Very

[14:48] similar to like a food and beverage um sales tax, right? It's like a pass through. This is considered a pass through. The business retains a portion

[14:54] of the fee and North gets 5 cents from each of the 10 cents collected to cover the administrative expenses of collecting and remitting the fee to the

[15:02] community. Um you'll see our when we talk about it, our fee recommendation [clears throat] at least to start the conversation is a little bit different from the 50/50. And we'll tell you why.

[15:10] Um, businesses must indicate on the customer's receipt the number of carry out bags were provided and fees collected. So, that's you know, punch of the button. How many did we sell? That

[15:18] helps the audit for when they pay us back um for those pass through fees. And then every business is subject to the collection of carry out um single-use

[15:26] bags and display. Clear signage. So, when you walk into Sunset North, there is a very clear sign that says single-use bags are at a cost. Um, I

[15:35] think with the love of Trader Joe's in the Chicagoland market, people are used to some places you have to pay for bags.

[15:41] So, I I think it's important to note that this is a public education piece that would be part of this as well.

[15:48] There is a lot of state legislation happening right now regarding carry out bags. Um, there is a chart in the packet, but just a couple different that

[15:56] are in discussion right now. Um HB5112 and HB1146 both have had first readings with no

[16:04] movement expected right now, but overall bag bills are continuing to be filed, including we understand there may also be state legislation in consideration of

[16:12] banning bag fees in their entirety. So that's something we will watch um what is happening at the state level. We'll continue to monitor and continue to

[16:20] suggest and recommend exemptions um as we will discuss shortly. So, one of the concerns we understand related to

[16:28] a push to maybe ban fees on carry out bags is the consideration of low-income families and and people in need. So,

[16:37] that is something you'll see in our exceptions. Um, we do include SNAP and other low-income programs as an exception that we would recommend.

[16:45] So, in terms of our consideration, what policy considerations are we asking as like a starting point for these discussions? Um, so the first would be

[16:53] the fee structure, but I do want to stress before I start going through the three different recommendations that all the recommendations shared are starting points to the conversation. Um, not

[17:02] definitive. This is the number we're sticking with, this is the um percentage, etc., etc. So, I just want to make sure that you understand that this will all be tweaked as we go

[17:10] through conversations, whether it's with BAG, sustainability, with our business partners. Um, so when we bring back a policy, if that's the intent of council,

[17:18] we'll have that more refined at that time. So, as a potential new revenue source, a single use bag fee could generate funds for the city at 7 cents a

[17:26] bag with the average revenues in comparable municipalities [clears throat] bags being around 150,000. As we mentioned, we saw some that are up to that. Um, we think in

[17:35] Highland Park, you could definitely hit 155 annually. Um, with this potential split at a 7 to three cents to the

[17:44] merchants, common practice, u fee amounts range from 10 to 15 cents as we went through. revenue share with the merchant goes from zero to 90% 100 um in

[17:53] Elgen as we saw and revenues are often diverted to environmental programs and we would recommend doing the same um we'd recommend starting the conversation

[18:00] at 10 cents per single-use bag paper or plastic the only really outlier there is Chicago with 15 cents so we feel that's in line people are used to paying the 10 cents um when they're in other

[18:09] communities we suggested the revenue share with the merchant be 7030 7 to the city three to the merchant very similar

[18:16] to Woodstock it kind of falls in line with Woodstock in terms of how their operations run. We felt they were closest to the city of Highland Park at

[18:24] a glance in terms of how their internal um measures and checks and balances were run. So we feel that this may be at least a good starting point for us um to

[18:32] start that conversation with finance on what is the actual volume of um activity needed for the city as well as consideration of most of the merchants

[18:41] who are putting these um bag fees into practice are saving on the back end with the number of bags that they are purchasing for their store. So there is

[18:50] a savings to them already built into the program in and of itself. And then we would suggest um that those revenues be diverted to the sustainability fund. We

[18:57] know that there's other programs that are on the horizon, especially as we talk about leaf blowers and things like that where there may be consideration of having um incentives and whatnot, but

[19:06] there needs to be funding sources for those. So, we wanted to at least um direct these revenues directly to sustainability. With that in mind,

[19:15] the next policy cons uh consideration is qualifiers for inclusion. Um, so there was a real um kind of hodgepodge of things that qualified in some other

[19:24] communities. Some based on the number of locations a business had, some based on number of full-time employees, a majority based on square footage of the

[19:32] establishment. So those establishment ranges go from 3,000 to 10,000 square feet. Staff recommends inclusion be

[19:40] based on square footage. Uh we feel like full-time employees and number of locations can really vary and be kind of strange outliers, especially the full-time employees.

[19:49] We wanted to begin the discussion at 10,0001 square feet because that's in line with our existing plastic bag on-site recycling policy.

[19:57] One of the other things I want to point out there though is as you go down and I think we would certainly go down as conversations continued. I want to point out some of the things that we already

[20:06] have happening in town. Um [snorts] obviously as you go down you hit more of the smaller retailers, right? And that and that's a in a good way that makes us

[20:13] more effective if we bring it in line in the city, right? to have more businesses included. However, we also want to balance but you while you have someone

[20:21] like Larry Hullman and all his businesses on central who hasn't used a central reusable bag. They already have reusable bags. That's what they're giving you. But we have a lot of

[20:28] boutiques that utilize small paper bags and whatnot as part of their free gift wrap, part of their catch for pulling

[20:35] you in. Part of the excitement of going is those of you who have been to the five, right? We're talking about the how do we excite, how do we engage, how do we extend. It's giving you free gift

[20:43] wrapping, right? And so we want to make sure we're having that discussion. Um, so at least as a starting point, we wanted to go on the high end to start

[20:50] the conversation. And then right now, our recycle bag policy requires merchants to provide an option for

[20:57] reusable bags for purchase that are at least 2.25 millimeters thick. We thought that might be something that we want to fold in to any policy discussion we

[21:05] have. so that if you are there and you do not have a bag, do they have something that you can purchase um to utilize.

[21:14] Another policy consideration was exemptions. Um staff recommends the following common exemptions. Restaurant takeout, prescriptions, dry cleaning,

[21:23] bulk bakery, loose items, fruit and veg, newspapers, those type of little clear bags. So I was while I was at sunset yesterday, I should have saved the bag

[21:30] for my bananas. uh you know, just that little clear bag that you pull um when you're in the the fruit section. And then bags at um point of sale at

[21:39] seasonal events. It's really hard for us to say, "Hey, farmers market, come in here, but you can't use plastic bags.

[21:44] You have to charge for plastic bags." It's hard for us to recoup that. So, that's a consideration we'd like to discuss further. And then, as we discussed, um exemptions for persons who

[21:53] are on SNAP or similar government food assistance programs.

[21:58] And then again, we'd refine this um as we finalize particular size parameters for affected businesses.

[22:07] So, city manager Newkerk kind of alluded to this already, like our consideration of our next steps. So, we'd have further discussion with local retailers affected by potential policy um reviewing and

[22:16] finalizing policy recommendations with sustainability. We'd review with business and economic development advisory group as well because we do recognize that this has an effect on our

[22:25] business community. we'd return to council for final consideration. And if a policy was enacted, we'd do a lot of public education uh leading into 2027.

[22:34] So, instituting a fee to incentivize the reduction of single-use bags does encourage, we've seen in other communities, reusable bags and reduce the amount of single-use plastic bags

[22:42] and paper bags being used in the community, which again is in line with the sustainability plan. So if there is interest in exploring a program to

[22:50] implement a program to address single-use bags, we would follow this chain of action. So mayor, with that, I

[22:58] turn it over to you if there's questions or I certainly have uh some questions and some thoughts. Um so as I mentioned, 21

[23:07] years ago, all in um and then over the weekend, I was talking to some people who said, "Oh, you know, there are some states that are now banning these." and

[23:15] I wanted to do some research to better understand why are they banning this approach and what was it that was the policy incentive. Um, and so I

[23:24] appreciated the conversation around the regressiveness of taxing especially on foods and so forth and and my hope is

[23:31] that you know exempting SNAP participants and I'm not quite sure how what other programs you're referencing that gives me a little bit of comfort.

[23:40] And then we looked at I looked at Chicago. Chicago first outright banned and then said it's not really doing very much. But they found that when they did

[23:47] put a tiny fee on people were like I don't want to spend that nickel I think it was at the beginning and they ended up seeing much greater of an impact. So

[23:56] in terms of changing behavior you know we always want to educate before we legislate but here we are. We've been talking about this now for a generation

[24:05] and we still have the issue. Um, and I seriously appreciate Sunset signing on because originally they were very much adamantly opposed and I was at their

[24:14] North Brook store and I was like, "Hang on a second. Now you guys are okay with this." So, um, I think it's important to note that there's no state legislation anytime soon, which is sort of

[24:23] disappointing because you would hope that if this is something that people believed in that we would all be doing it together. My last question pertains

[24:31] to the 10,000 square foot retail establishment impact and in particular looking at dinks. I was like this may be

[24:39] more than 10,000 square feet. Their retail is nowhere near 10,000 square feet. So I would urge us to change that if we go this way to retail space and

[24:48] not to you know if you look at some of these others um you know they Joe Vashoui and his rugs like you know he's

[24:56] he's not using single-use bags. I just think that's kind of an overreach and it makes us kind of look goofy. So my

[25:03] thought was it should be retail space that is using bad maybe versus too big

[25:11] of a net and capturing folks who just won't be impacted and it'll just look like we're being weird. So no absolutely we'll certainly hone that

[25:18] down. I was talking to the city manager earlier today about exactly that and discussed we wanted to show like illustratively show if it was at 10,000 and these are all people who do pay

[25:27] sales tax but to your point mayor you're not putting one of Yosh's rugs in a bag and and carrying it out. However, we wanted to show that how few there are

[25:34] that would hit even with those anomalies in there at 10,000. So it's it's really for this to be effective we would have to go down. Would we also consider

[25:43] possibly a pilot program to kind of see like how things work with what you're proposing? Do we need to refine it more

[25:50] in say a year or two years in terms of the impact and we would do that anyway feedback from the businesses and so

[25:58] forth. So okay that's our standard. So absolutely I would assume we would do that too.

[26:04] Okay. Um Bissa did you have something you wanted to say?

[26:06] Oh yes thank you. Um, [clears throat] so I, um, I worry that looking at this and looking at the how few surrounding

[26:15] suburbs are doing this right now, um, just had some concerns about, um, how it's going to affect a resident. Are they going to be going elsewhere to go

[26:24] to shop? And then I guess looking at another picture of bringing in other businesses to Highland Park, would this would they look at this like we don't

[26:33] want to come to Highland Park cuz like what you know, we're going to go elsewhere. So that's kind of where my head was at. Um I think um you know I

[26:42] see how Northbrook is doing it and they seem successful with it thus far, but at this point that those are my concerns with um with this program.

[26:51] That was certainly a concern for us as well and that's was a concern of SAGs when we first started talking about it in 2023 with intent. And what we've

[26:58] heard from staff anecdotally from Northbrook is that their sales tax is still growing um in those same stores that they are not seeing a reduction in

[27:07] sales tax from those stores. But if council wanted us to continue looking into this further, we would do some placer data reports to see like where

[27:15] the leakage is from Northbrook to see if truly people are leaving. It's one of the reasons why we also have BAG as part

[27:22] of the review process to talk about that further with them. Okay, thank you Andre.

[27:28] Yeah, a few comments. Um, at a bigger level, you know, we've made a big commitment to sustainability. Mhm.

[27:35] Big and over the years. And I think it's a shame that after x 20 years, we haven't got there. I mean, that's a contradiction.

[27:44] Now, we could debate whether we should be such sustainable champions, but that debate is done.

[27:49] We've said it. We declared it. We It's one of the bubbles.

[27:51] It's one of the bubbles. [laughter] So at that with that then we should stand firm and proud and say and we pride ourselves in being a leader. So to

[28:00] me it's unacceptable that we haven't really gotten there yet and we have a chance to get there now. So I'm kind of going all in on this. Mhm.

[28:08] And in that spirit um you know the particulars um you know I support the exceptions.

[28:14] They make sense. The square footage I don't have an opinion on that but you seem to make a good argument. It sounds good to me. Um, and uh, I don't like the 7030. That sounds kind of greedy to me.

[28:27] I mean, let's split the difference with let's, you know, it's just a collaborative thing, you know, between the stores and us. So, I and um, I'm

[28:35] really not worried about leakage of residents going elsewhere or there's a lot of non-residents come to our stores.

[28:41] I mean, sure, some people will leave, but economically, I think it's dimminimous.

[28:46] And um, and you know, people have their habits. They love sunset. They love wherever they go, they go. And for them to then say, I'm voting with my feet.

[28:55] I'm going elsewhere. It might last one or two times and then likely they're going to come back. And the ones that we lose, well, I don't think that's going to have a impact on on our economics.

[29:05] The the final thing I would say is um I want to actually be more aggressive on the cost or the whatever fee fee

[29:14] and I should we should go 15 like Chicago 15 cents. And here's why. North. Good for North. I applaud them. Great.

[29:22] They've reduced it 7%.

[29:25] Not that impressive. I mean, and maybe there'll be um over the years more people get used to it and that number

[29:32] will hopefully go up. Good for them. But I think we should go for 15 cents. And I

[29:39] would encourage staff to just there must be some metrics out there because you know in economics right we're always

[29:46] looking at the X and the Y supply and demand or cost and who buys doesn't buy all that I have to believe there's some

[29:54] metric out there we can go to benchmarking or just um algorithms to say what happens in terms of 5 cents how

[30:01] many how many people say are willing to pay the 5 cents and where is it that 10 cents becomes a detriment Mhm.

[30:08] And and right now we know it's 7% over in Northreg. But what happens when it's 15 cents? Suddenly people go, "Oo, I

[30:16] don't want to spend 15 cents or even a nickel they don't want to spend." No, but no, but the number of people is Oh, I see. Because I'm going to 7%.

[30:25] Sure, 7% reduction, but don't we want more reduction faster?

[30:30] So, I would and obviously just for argument sake, what happens at 50 cents?

[30:35] I would not argue for that, but obviously at that point you get political revolt and stuff like that.

[30:41] But I think we're being a little too cautious.

[30:44] And what is the sweet spot? Is it 20 cents? I don't know. But my hunch is that 15 cents might yield

[30:52] should yield more than 7%. I think that's a good hypothesis. How much more?

[30:55] I don't know. But and is it you want to model out what the right number is to have the the sweet spot

[31:02] which will get us the biggest reduction in single-use bags without political revolt.

[31:12] Well, I can answer that. Um Annette, um can you hear me? I just want to make sure this

[31:20] Okay, great. So, a couple of things. Um, first of all, I love the exceptions. I think it's key. Um, it's crucial rather.

[31:29] Um, I think retail, um, there I think that's a wonderful point because it it just gets too difficult. I while I I'm

[31:39] looking this with two of our bubbles at the bottom. From a sustainability perspective, I completely agree. Um,

[31:47] both mayor and that it's it's just been too long. only need to do this. I'm in a place where you can't even guess how bad

[31:55] when you go to the store and it kind of I started to change my habits because of that and I think that that's good. And

[32:03] so from a sustainability perspective, it's long overdue and I'm thrilled we're doing it from an economic development

[32:10] standpoint and competition to council member um backwards point, excuse me. I

[32:17] I think um I I don't want to be viewed as punishing people. I want to change habits and I want our businesses to work

[32:26] with us. And I also want to ease into this again, mayor, to your point about how we've changed behaviors and looking

[32:35] at this new year or two, which indeed I understand we do anyhow, but that's great. So with all that having been

[32:42] said, um I like the idea of the exemption, the retail. I want to move into it slowly. I would like to see it

[32:52] as a 5050 between um the retailers and us as far as split. I would not go over

[33:01] 10 cents. If anything, what I would like to do is what Evston did, which is two years from now if we evaluate and we see

[33:10] progress has been made, I'd like to get rid of plastic period. But in the meantime, I'd like to ease into it. or

[33:17] if in fact over the next two years we see other jurisdictions moving to this so we're not just the bad guys

[33:24] penalizing people or sending people away from our stores then maybe we do increase it if that's what the markets

[33:32] are there but for now to ease into it I really would not want to go over the 10 cents I do like the idea of looking at a

[33:40] pilot where again we can revisit you know if we find our costs are much higher we have to hire staff something else comes up or we have a

[33:48] program that doesn't cover it, maybe we move to 7030. But at this point, I I really feel it's important to stay with

[33:56] the 50/50, the 10 cents and um with the eventuality hopefully of of literally

[34:03] having a ban on the plastics. Um and I think I oh one more point which is the square footage. Forgive me if I don't

[34:11] understand it as well in terms of who would be affected, but frankly I I think that the way this works in other places

[34:19] where I've seen it being successful is everybody does it. And because of that, there's an expectation by the public.

[34:27] And so I would not do the 10,000 square foot. I would rather see a 5,000 square foot. And that means that we get every

[34:35] business into the mindset and again we don't deliberate as much. And those are my thoughts. So thank you corporation council.

[34:46] I just just to add North Brook had the debate about square footage uh when we d you know I drafted the North one and they landed at 3,000.

[34:53] Oh wow. Okay.

[34:55] And I'm even happier with that but you Thank you.

[35:00] Thank you. Uh [clears throat] I am all in on charging for the bags as

[35:06] well, plastic and paper. Um and I uh I was already thinking as well I agree

[35:15] with the logic of giving half to the retailer. I think that's appropriate.

[35:20] Um and you know it it it it just says it for so many reasons. um generosity also

[35:30] shouldering this together with the retailer. Um I like that optic. Uh and I

[35:37] will speak anecdotally uh that the bag fee never stops me from buying in a store. Um and I do tend to forget which

[35:46] municipalities charge. Um and I am a I will admit this a good consumer. Uh too

[35:53] good. my family [laughter] tells me, but it never stops me. Um, and

[36:01] wondering about an idea that just occurred to me when Larry Hillman's uh block of stores was brought up, his

[36:08] reusable bags that are branded with all of the stores. Um, and I uh I always

[36:16] appreciate that he does uh give those out. Um, and I know I'm going over my skis here. It was just uh uh really

[36:25] inspired by that. I wondered if any other city has a program where they helped retailers with the cost of

[36:31] reusable bags but are branded with their city so it becomes a marketing opportunity for the city where uh people are carrying the city of Highland Park.

[36:42] We did those last year when we had the ribbon cutting for second street. We all got our little Highland Park bags for special events. We've done that. Not not regular.

[36:51] I don't know. Maybe a big and I'm just How many people have used them since is the question?

[36:59] So I would say it is something the staff has considered that we would budget for potentially just similar to like when we did curbside composting how we budgeted out to have um the kitchen compost bins.

[37:08] So we were doing giveaways at special events and things like that to do something very similar like hefty renew.

[37:13] We budgeted to buy orange bags to give people that opportunity to try that out that we would buy some Joy HP bags or

[37:20] other well-branded um city bags um to pass out at city events and whatnot in that first year. And every new resident gets a bag. Yes.

[37:28] Well, you know, and again, it's about habits. So, I you know, if if uh we did do that and people got in the habit, it'd be nice marketing.

[37:36] Yeah.

[37:38] Thanks, Tony. So, I I support uh what Andre was talking about and also the spirit of your comments. Uh I agree with

[37:48] entirely. I'm comfortable going up to uh 15 cents or perhaps higher trying to find out what the as you say the sweet

[37:56] spot is or the tipping point uh where it can become really effective. And I think one thing to do with that would be to

[38:04] take some of the money that is generated and as an incentive to any retailer who

[38:12] ceases making plastic bags available that we give them a higher percentage of what we take in from them. Um I mean

[38:21] obviously we don't want people to use one bags and and in our family we've started accommodating that. We have a

[38:28] hook in the garage where we keep all of our our uh re reusable bags and so you're able to grab it when you hop in

[38:36] your car to go. Um and that's I think what we're shooting for is to get people to do that as much as possible. But at

[38:43] the other end, if we can encourage um retailers to just stop offering plastic bags, and I think plastic bags for me

[38:51] are particular scourge because they're petroleum based because they get they pose a greater environmental hazard when

[39:00] they get into the environment. And you see them in trees, in the woods, in bushes, and worse yet, in the lake. Um

[39:06] and they they pose a real danger for uh plants and and animals. in addition to the fact that they're using petroleum

[39:14] just to be made. So that's perhaps an argument for why we could charge a little bit more money than some of the

[39:21] surrounding suburbs and started a 50/50 program. But those who say, you know what, we're not going to make plastic

[39:29] bags available at all to our customers, we give them a greater percentage of what they take in on the use of single use paper bags.

[39:39] Great.

[39:42] How does that feel in terms of coming to sort of a sense of where everybody's good this is it I general consensus is what I'm hearing mayor is yes keep

[39:50] exploring that team so that's what we'll keep doing understanding the different start points looking at we find a metric that helps us to find that sweet spot um

[39:58] as council members Bloomberg and Tapia brought up as well as understanding that general consensus is start at 50/50 pilot grow from there and incorporate

[40:06] more um more businesses by lowering the square footage Wonderful. Thanks everybody. Thank you.

[40:14] Um our next point of conversation at this meeting is about historic preservation incentives.

[40:20] Um just want to thank the historic preservation commission for all of the work, all of the thought and the incredible staff um work that's gone into these conversations.

[40:31] Thank you, mayor. Um similarly we have a staff report in the packet and then uh we are looking for your policy feedback on a number of different considerations.

[40:40] Um really this is a highle overview this this evening. We're looking for your policy feedback and then um what we will do is continue to work with our staff

[40:49] historic preservation commission um as we develop any policy considerations. So director Fontaine will take us through the background and the policy questions.

[41:00] Thank you. And so, uh, this presentation is no surprise. Um, we did provide it, um, on March 9th. Um, and so I will

[41:09] quickly, uh, get to the main, uh, policy matters in it. Um, and staff, like the city manager indicated, uh, we're

[41:17] seeking feedback regarding, uh, the recommendations of the historic preservation commission and the portfolio of incentives uh, aimed at

[41:24] encouraging uh, historic preservation in our community.

[41:28] [clears throat]

[41:29] Um I mentioned ma uh March 9th there was a joint public meeting uh city council and historic preservation commission and

[41:35] we did uh provide this presentation and um had some brief discussion but uh the council consensus was to uh take it back

[41:44] and think about it a bit and come back uh again at committee to whole and here we are this evening. Mhm.

[41:50] Um in terms of the commission recommendation, uh the commission really was looking at um a layered portfolio of

[41:58] incentives as well as select disincentives to recognize the public good of private preservation, increase

[42:05] voluntary landmark designations, prevent loss of historic resources due to demolition, and fund preservation initiatives. [clears throat and cough]

[42:14] So in terms of the portfolio of incentives there were three um main categories and each had several components. Um so first encouraging

[42:24] preservations through financial tools preservation encouraging through regulatory tools and discouraging loss through penalty tools. And so we can go

[42:33] through each one of these in terms of the financial tools. We had property tax abatements, um, city portion only, uh,

[42:41] rehabilitation grants, permit fee waiverss. In terms of other regulatory tools, we talked about the, uh, reducing

[42:49] or eliminating the number the minimum number of properties needed to constitute a local historic district. As you may recall, there's non-ontiguous districts are recognized in our code.

[42:59] However, you need about you need 10 uh, properties to to do that. We also talked briefly about zoning relief um to allow

[43:08] for greater floor area ratio, reduce setbacks requirements, etc. for historic properties or properties that are historic resources as designated as

[43:17] such. And lastly, um discouraging lost and penalty tools. We discussed longer demolition delays, historic resource

[43:25] demolition tax, and prohibiting variances for properties with loss of a historic resource, meaning a demolished home in some generally.

[43:35] Okay. So, with that, um I I'd like to ask mayor, how would you like to do you want me to go through the rest of the presentation again? That's fine. But

[43:44] however you want to um have this discussion, I'm going to presume that everybody read the packet and read through all the

[43:53] different components and maybe have just a quick straw poll at each of the different pieces and if people have

[44:00] questions they can ask because there's great content here and I think it's important for us to kind of get a sense of where everybody's at but not to the whole.

[44:09] Does that make sense? Thank you.

[44:11] You're looking. We can answer questions certainly, but I I have more than the those points. So, I

[44:19] just I'd like an opportunity just to speak generally as well as your poll.

[44:24] No, no, that's my point is for each of them, we're taking a poll and if there's more to be said about each of the points, that would be the time. So,

[44:33] instead of going through the whole presentation and then I' like let's talk about encouraging preservation through financial tools. These are the three

[44:41] tools. Do you have comments? Where are you on this? And then the next item and the next item. Does that make sense?

[44:49] Yeah. Okay.

[44:51] And like I said, I I do have just sort of a and this is that great opportunity to share the insight. So I appreciate the

[44:58] the thoughts that you have. So Joel had what is just so we're looking for direction from

[45:05] council on on what you'd like staff to do more research and development on so that these ideas can be formally considered. So right now this is very

[45:13] informal. We have not done all the research and gotten into all the weeds associated with each one of these. We provided the commission and the council

[45:21] an overview of presentation and we worked with the commission as as you know and facilitated um their recommendation on these matters.

[45:30] So that's where we're at. Okay. We could just open up each one.

[45:34] So that's fine. You want to go to the financial tools? Okay. [clears throat] So in terms of the financial tools, it's

[45:43] important to to note that we're limiting those tools to designated regulated structures. Okay, this is currently 133.

[45:51] That number is changing um as we have another landmark this evening. Um essentially we're looking at regulated

[46:00] structures and those found to meet sufficient criteria during demolition review consideration. Okay. um

[46:09] eligibility for financial incentives in general will so would need to be either that regulated structure or will become

[46:16] a regulated structure voluntary landmark prior to receiving any incentive. So there are folks that you know to

[46:23] encourage preservation. It's it's this both recognizes those properties that are regulated but

[46:32] then also says if somebody is looking seeking to uh landmark a property or uh

[46:39] wants to preserve a property, this this could be a tool to uh encourage voluntary landmarking.

[46:46] um would need to constitute a renovation rehabilitation of a salient architectural feature or element of the

[46:53] historic resource. So it has to be relevant to maintaining that integrity criteria for these historic resources

[47:01] and of course it would include and require a certificate of appropriateness. Um so that means be adjudicated by the historic preservation.

[47:09] Correct. Correct. So it's not just you know hey here's an incentive do what you'd like. It's like what are you doing? And then you know you can talk you know there's an incentive program

[47:17] appropriate for your house versus right so that we're we're focusing on the right place. Exactly.

[47:23] We're focusing on on those those in this case and again this is very preliminary.

[47:28] This is just the the general ideas that that had come forth through our work with the commission.

[47:33] Any any questions comments on that slide?

[47:37] No actually but okay. Can I just do this one slide though mayor if you don't mind? Okay. So that's kind of that broad

[47:44] scope kind of of like are we talking about all the [clears throat] houses in the community? It's 700. How many houses are we talking what are we talking about? So that's what at least this

[47:52] presentation is talking about and what the commission was talking about.

[47:55] Okay. So portfolio incentives. So the financial tools as I had mentioned property tax abatement city portion only

[48:04] regulated structures. Now, in terms of the property tax abatement, so do consultation with corporation council,

[48:12] um it would it would need to be a rebate program. Um the state does have a program and and is recognized about the

[48:21] assessed value. This would be rebating property taxes collected. And so that means from a budgetary point of view,

[48:28] one would need to budget for this. It's not just merely um spreading to others.

[48:32] it would be everyone's getting taxed and then there would be a rebate. So that's an important distinction there. We both have a question of that.

[48:40] Sure.

[48:42] Yeah. Um so going back a long ways uh a number of decades there were property tax uh

[48:50] incentives that were uh rendered in the form of a freeze. And that was property tax across the board city school

[48:58] districts all the districts. um there was a freeze. One of the advantages of

[49:05] that was that the slight reduction of the assessment of taxes in Highland Park

[49:13] was made up for in all the other taxable properties. Much as when a new property

[49:20] comes online that's been developed, we sort of erroneously talk about how that's going to reduce everybody's

[49:26] taxes. In fact, it does very marginally, but the city decides how much we need to

[49:33] gather in taxes every year and that is assessed against all the taxable properties in Highland Park. If you do a

[49:41] rebate, am I correct that you sort of lose that value?

[49:45] Well, what you've just articulated is another way to provide an incentive.

[49:50] Okay. I would prefer that because one of the concerns, but I just if I can intercede here,

[49:57] we as a city cannot um proscribe that um program. The program you're thinking of as a county program, okay?

[50:05] And Cook County does it all the time.

[50:07] You may have heard of 6B um or 7B. they they they have programs in Cook County where they don't freeze the assessed

[50:15] value at a certain level across the board. Um because it's the collector uh that's a a program of the collector is

[50:23] even as a home rule unit. We can't freeze the assessment for other taxing bodies.

[50:29] That's what that's where I was going with this. Um, so at the [clears throat] time that this was done,

[50:36] a property who qualified for this tax incentive, all of their taxes were reduced, the school district taxes and

[50:43] so forth. How that was done, I I'm not sure if it was a either a state or county, a state or a county program.

[50:51] Okay. Because my concern was one of the [clears throat] reasons as I understood it that that program eventually fell

[50:59] largely by the wayside was that the school districts were concerned that they would lose tax dollars through that program. And as it was originally

[51:08] administered, they didn't actually lose tax dollars because essentially the burden was borne by

[51:16] every other property in Highland Park for that period. county land a tiff would work but yeah a little bit yeah but it's a state or county program I

[51:24] just want we we couldn't do that I I understand that but I guess that would be my concern the city currently occupies such a small

[51:33] part [clears throat] by percentage of everybody's tax bill that to make this a meaningful percentage or a meaningful

[51:40] tax freeze or a tax incentive I I would like to figure out a way to make that affect the entire tax for a given

[51:49] property that applies to become a regulated structure. You want more of an impact.

[51:55] That would be about $480,000 in tax revenue in aggregate total. Correct.

[52:02] That's if you did the entirety of the taxes that are Highland Park, Highland Park. Well, for for a single

[52:10] property to give to quote freeze their taxes for say three years,

[52:16] uh if they agree to become a a landmark and their their taxes are frozen for

[52:24] three years, um that's a loss of tax revenue from that

[52:30] property of I don't know how many thousands of dollars, but it isn't hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[52:38] That would be a very modest incentive, I would I would argue. So if we're just talking about the Highland Park portion of the tax bill,

[52:46] you were to abate, right, the entire entirety of it, you're talking about $480,000

[52:55] or so dollars. If you capped it at a certain level, uh, like $3,000 or, you know, it would be less, right? And so

[53:04] there are some properties, the distribution of properties by a value is quite varied. There are some really high value properties that are regulated

[53:12] structures and others that are much less valued on on about a median of 1.1 million, but some are multiple millions.

[53:20] And so the tax the number, you know, the amount of tax they're paying is a lot higher in terms of the total dollars than the others. So,

[53:28] right. And and of course I'm not I'm not suggesting in terms of a tax incentive that they pay no taxes n for a year or

[53:35] two. It's just that the taxes that they are at when they agree to become a landmark are frozen at whatever their

[53:44] current tax is for a year or two years or however long they decide.

[53:49] So then they would just be sheltered from the rate of increase of the property taxes. That's as opposed to the portion of the property tax that is

[53:57] Highland Parks. What I was talking about is the latter, not the the former.

[54:01] Right. And I'm wondering whether we can do that for the entire tax code. You have to have the cooperation of the county.

[54:07] Right. Well, yes. and and the other taxi bodies and the other taxi bodies. And not to uh complicate it or maybe too to try and

[54:14] get you to your where you're you're going, there are creative ways to to get there, including using the Illinois

[54:21] Intergovernmental Agreement Act to if we can get all of the uh uh other taxing bodies to cooperate, and I've done this

[54:29] in other towns. we get an intergovernmental agreement and each if each buys into the concept, each agrees

[54:36] to um rebate or update their their particular portion.

[54:41] And so I I bring this up mostly just to focus on what a tax incentive may look like that may be effective or may not be

[54:50] effective as we go forward with what we're going to support.

[54:54] So my question was the freeze was for eight years.

[54:57] Would this be one, right? Would this be in perpetuity? Would this be for a period certain? How would you have has

[55:06] there been an analysis in terms of the likelihood to be an incentive versus I mean obviously perpetuity people be like

[55:13] absolutely eight years may not be sufficient given that it's a dimminimous amount of you know so that's why it was to be you know to run

[55:22] with the property. So whatever amount was chosen wasn't going to expire at least initially. But there was that's part of the conversation in perpetuity.

[55:30] Correct. A portion of that that tax that is Highland Parks tax. So the entirety of it is 480, but some portion of it.

[55:38] You could cap it at 2,000 a year, 1,000 a year. There was talk about, well, that's not very much money in any given

[55:46] year. Sure. But if it is a ongoing benefit that can yield uh well it was it it seemed to be one of

[55:55] the major motivating factors in its day for people seeking landmark status to do that right

[56:03] that was the state freeze you mean yes yes and as you know and you recall you you helped advocate with the school districts to to make sure they signed on

[56:12] to that they were not at one point and then they did well actually I know it from before I was involved in politics, when my parents entered the program, there was a

[56:20] motivating factor for them to have their house landmarked.

[56:26] So, how we want to structure ours and there's there's lots of different ways to approach it. And so, we're here just to, you know, get the feedback and then

[56:33] the analysis can follow on the [clears throat] paths you'd like us to look at and to go deep dive on. Okay.

[56:38] Um, Annette has a comment and Yumi has a comment.

[56:43] So, um, first of all, Tony, I was thinking about the phrase because, um, at the school boards, I remember that

[56:51] that had been a discussion at 1.2, and I completely agree with you. I like the optionality of that. Um, I don't think

[57:00] any of these things should be done in perpetuity. It It's one thing to offer an abatement, to offer a freeze. The

[57:09] thing that I like about the freeze is because every year when your taxes go off, it goes up based on what your

[57:16] current tax level is. So if a freeze is put in place for three years, what does go on in perpetuity is the fact that you

[57:25] didn't increase over those three years and therefore wherever you start on year four, you have that savings forever. So

[57:34] I would I really like the idea if it's possible to do it. I just feel that whether it's an abatement or whether

[57:41] it's a freeze or whether it's some combination of both, I do think there should be a limit on it. Um because

[57:48] there is limited stock of these homes and I do [snorts] think it will be an incentive and I completely agree with

[57:56] you both that people do um consider this when they're doing it um in terms of a financial increase to them or benefit.

[58:07] So, I love the idea of it, but I do think that it should be over a certain time period and maybe those time periods

[58:14] should match and we should look at, you know, whether it's 3,000 a year in the abatement or whatever that property tax

[58:21] is in terms of the freezing. I think those time frames should run parallel.

[58:27] Um, and and that's really giving people something to say based how much we value it for your homes, but there is limited stock. So that's why we want to see it go further.

[58:38] I love the idea.

[58:39] You mean it's it's interesting uh you know hearing uh council member Lero's

[58:47] comments because in general the words in perpetuity make me a little nervous. Um and that

[58:55] was true at uh last time we met when we were discussing a different issue. Um, that's how I raised it.

[59:01] And and uh but I think that um you know this

[59:08] a financial incentive is is so critical to preservation and people opting into

[59:14] it voluntarily. Um we have to make it meaningful um financially meaningful for

[59:21] them. And I would say that while I I can see the point of not saying in perpetuity, I think at a minimum, you

[59:29] know, if you're doing and I would hope for I I like the what what you were describing um the tax freeze for uh you

[59:36] know, a minimum of of 15 years. I think it should be something really significant. Uh and um I mean we as as

[59:46] as a city value historic preservation, right? we that that's something we we all value at this on council and in the

[59:55] city and I think it it needs to have um teeth and uh um yeah I I just think that even the 8year freeze was was too small.

[1:00:08] Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

[1:00:12] In terms of just just two other things and just terms of that that perpetuating notion why that was landmarks aren't perpetuated, right?

[1:00:20] The obligation to maintain that's the logic behind that. And then just one other aspect just to think about

[1:00:28] policywise. So what do we do perpetuity for? Um we did change a few years back our um inclusionary housing code to

[1:00:36] require units be provided in perpetuity as well. I I have to follow that up, please. Just to say that I agree with

[1:00:43] that about uh landmarks. Yes, they should be in perpetuity. I mean, there are some things. It's it's just the the

[1:00:50] notion of a financial tool, a tool being in like that being in perpetuity. I could question. Um but as a as a

[1:00:59] landmark, I want to for the record say I totally agree that it should be in perpetuity. Yeah.

[1:01:06] I I don't think I had actually said however many years I thought it should exist. I was mostly concerned about the program. But I do want to comment on

[1:01:15] that and I I guess um I understand the reluctance of making this in perpetuity.

[1:01:20] But there is a consideration that I think suggests that really ought to be what it is because the landmark status is in perpetuity.

[1:01:31] um and very difficult appropriately to undo.

[1:01:37] One of the considerations that homeowners take into account in deciding whether to uh ask to be landmarked or

[1:01:46] not is their ability to sell the property at a later time. Um in in many

[1:01:52] markets, a house that cannot be torn down or altered on the exterior can have a lower resale value. And that's

[1:02:00] certainly a reasonable consideration for anybody entering into this process. So being able to have a financial incentive

[1:02:09] to some degree to set off that um potentially reduced value of the

[1:02:17] property I think would be appropriate because I know that people do consider that and it is in a sense the

[1:02:25] the community sharing in that exactly we're asking somebody to do something uh

[1:02:33] for the community Uh it's important historically uh as as a community to know where we

[1:02:41] come from to have important structures preserved and that's what we're trying to encourage. And so I think to further

[1:02:50] encourage somebody to do that even though it's going to be somewhat of an economic burden to that degree that we can minimize the burden or encourage

[1:02:58] them financially. I I think I I would be in favor of making any tax incentive to run with the house.

[1:03:11] Joel's taking Okay. Should we go to the next item? Yes.

[1:03:17] Okay. Uh rehabilitation grants, eligible exterior improvements. Um, of course, as I had mentioned earlier, would be

[1:03:25] regulated structures, properties, uh, with a certificate of appropriateness for the work so that folks would understand that it's related to the

[1:03:33] salient features that are the historic resource in the home and um that would help contribute to integrity.

[1:03:42] So of course funding for the grant program would need to come from somewhere and so yes we have not identified sources of funds although

[1:03:51] later in the presentation we do have some disincentives that might be a source of the funds the demolition tax for historic resource demolition tax.

[1:03:58] However, you know, the amount of money that would generate, you know, um, right, it's it's going to be very uneven

[1:04:06] and, um, the the the volume may not be u sufficient, but we have not fully analyzed that and we know this from our

[1:04:15] demolition tax with regard to the housing affordable housing demolition tax. So, you know, as as we've evolved

[1:04:23] with that program, um the payment in L is is a much more with the adjustments that council made is a much more reliable source at this point.

[1:04:31] Well, and I was just going to say, you know, obviously when you're having a tax, you're you're doing it because of a policy purpose. And so with the

[1:04:38] demolition tax, previously it was you are losing affordable housing. Hence, the money goes into addressing that loss. Now, you're kind of splitting the

[1:04:48] baby, I guess, if you're putting some of it into affordable housing, some of it into rehab.

[1:04:52] I just there's not a lot to begin with, and there are concerns about the sustainability of the housing trust

[1:04:59] fund. So, I think we got to pick a lane to be honest.

[1:05:02] The proposal for that, I can I could jump to that right now, is actually an additional tax, not using the demolition tax.

[1:05:09] So, you would be diluting the taxes going forward. They would both be charged in the case of a historically significant home or a loss of a

[1:05:16] resource. It would be the demolition tax and then and in addition to that, it would be the historic resource tax that that's at least the proposal

[1:05:24] and and I appreciate that because then it's indicating the value of the historic loss and also the

[1:05:31] it also helps the deterrent effect of the the penalty incentive. Okay? because you know there was questions about well

[1:05:39] what should the number be if it's additive then both of those two taxes would serve to further you know it kind

[1:05:47] of reinforces one another if you will thank you yeah okay so that that's the the re rehabilitation grants I mean uh you know

[1:05:56] how much that that could generate in terms of resources would depend on how much would be budgeted and where the revenue would come from of course permit

[1:06:04] fee waiverss this is something that you know um you know, we could we could do that. Um there are places that do. We don't charge application fees for

[1:06:13] nominations and such, but beyond that, if somebody has a regulated property and you know, uh does work on it, um perhaps

[1:06:21] we wave the building permit fees and related items that are associated with that work. So that would exclude things

[1:06:29] like tap fees for water service and other things like that potentially or not. I mean, you know, it depends on how inclusive you wanted to be on on that.

[1:06:39] We could we could certainly uh slice and dice it, but with every slice, it becomes more of an administrative burden

[1:06:47] to determine, right? And so there's things to just consider. Annette would like to say something.

[1:06:54] Um, this is one that I am not in favor of. I feel that the city, whatever the

[1:07:01] property is that we've um changed, renovated, rehab, um it costs us money

[1:07:09] and there are incentives I'd really love to give to um homeowners to maintain the

[1:07:17] landmark home. But if they're going to improve upon it, which they have an obligation to do, every every homeowner

[1:07:25] has to improve upon it. It's a great cost to the city. I don't think it's a significant enough amount of money that

[1:07:32] um the city um has to give out on this one. And so this is one I would not be in favor of doing.

[1:07:42] Okay.

[1:07:45] Okay. So, um that was about the rehabilitation grants, mayor. That threw you to That was about fee waver.

[1:07:54] About fee waver. Okay. About fee. I feel like, you know, it we're not huge in our fees. We're doing it to cover the

[1:08:01] administrative costs of what we're trying to achieve for building safety and whatnot. I don't know that this is really the only area that we do that is uh with regard to affordable uh housing.

[1:08:14] Um so just in terms of this, I think the takeaway unless we're mistaken, so we'll follow up on the first bullet point, the

[1:08:22] property tax abatement. Um and just consider 15 years or something comparable but not perpetuity and legal authority

[1:08:29] and of course the legal authority on that but [clears throat] of this slide that would be the research on that beauty. Um

[1:08:36] yeah, thank you for reading that

[1:08:39] [laughter]

[1:08:40] the uh my question the uh for the in the packet it said there would still be a question of the rehabilitation grant of

[1:08:48] whether it's granted uh before the project or at the end of the project. Yeah. Whether you which way you do it.

[1:08:56] Yeah. I I guess my I I would I I I mean I'd have to give it more thought but be more in favor after the work is done

[1:09:05] because what if it isn't done appropriately and you've you've already given the money. I'd like to you know to

[1:09:12] be able to judge there needs to be some accountability.

[1:09:15] Yeah. Well, I guess what what we're looking for and I appreciate that. I guess what we're looking for at this time is are there any of these

[1:09:23] initiatives that you want us to go do more research on? Like so for example, if there was a rehab grant program that would be baking a full program and then bringing it back for your consideration.

[1:09:34] Yes. So that that's what we're looking for. Oh, so that form. Yes. Okay.

[1:09:41] Okay. So yes to the grant. All right. Yes to the grant.

[1:09:45] Okay. Um so one thing with and then yes also to taking a look at the tax abatements with

[1:09:52] corp counsel the legal authority but then also what that might be a 15-year um but not perpetuity type of arrangement potentially.

[1:10:01] One question on that should regulated properties be eligible for the property tax abatement without a renovation or

[1:10:09] rehabilitation project? So we were talking initially of you know hey there's 130 so many 130

[1:10:18] odd regulated properties out there and I just want to be clear that's that that those tax abatements would apply to those in generally would not need to be

[1:10:27] triggered by any renovation or rehabilitation. This was just a question that that staff had just for further refinement on that and thought for the the council.

[1:10:37] Okay. Okay. And that just goes to the scope in terms of the dollar value that's involved. Okay.

[1:10:43] All right. Um, so encouraging preservation through May I go to the next slide, mayor. And next category of things. Okay. Preservation through

[1:10:51] regulatory tools. So we have reduced the number of properties needed to constitute a district. Um, the code currently requires a minimum of 10

[1:10:58] properties. I do recall from last uh last time we discussed this briefly there was some concern about uh reducing that number but I I do put that to the

[1:11:07] council in terms of feedback here this evening. Just a quick question. Sure.

[1:11:12] Are we talking about both types of districts contiguous and non-ontiguous?

[1:11:17] It could be primarily non-ontiguous but we should make a clear point on whether or not it's the non-ontiguous not I say

[1:11:25] that you know we already have our rules for contiguous. So, this really was prompted by a non-ontiguous consideration, but it's up to the council what it applies to.

[1:11:34] I mean, my my personal preference would be fewer properties. Uh, one of the things I think that got lost in in the

[1:11:41] discussion over a particular uh, event and a particular property was

[1:11:49] there's a value in the process in the contacting of homeowners who may be affected either with a potentially uh,

[1:11:57] included structure or in the neighborhood or in the in the district.

[1:12:03] Um the discussion of what constitutes a regulated structure, what it means to be

[1:12:10] a historic district, and the detailed discussions about the contributing properties is an important part of the

[1:12:18] process even if there aren't enough agreed properties to go forward. So I guess I I would be comfortable either

[1:12:26] with a [clears throat] lower minimum or that ultimately it does not have to be unanimous.

[1:12:36] Um, but I think it's important that we have an opportunity to [clears throat] have this discussion about various parts of the city of Highland Park. Whether in

[1:12:45] the end the district is granted, whether it passes or not, the process is extremely important to encourage

[1:12:53] individual homeowners who may have a property that they are considering landmarking.

[1:12:59] Are there do other communities have non-ontiguous landmarking districts?

[1:13:05] Yes. Yes, it's there are not a lot.

[1:13:08] Not a lot. I mean, I think you know the last thing you want to be doing, we got rid of landmarking without consent, right?

[1:13:16] So, I don't think we want to return to that. Um, Annette, um, mayor, you took the words right out of my mouth. There is so much zoning

[1:13:24] relief I would like to do. I love what is going to be considered at our city council um, meeting in a little bit. And

[1:13:33] that to me is the ideal where someone wants to come forward voluntarily and landmark and that's why I think we should give them all sorts of relief.

[1:13:42] But um the complaints that we've heard and one of the reasons we got rid of the involuntary is putting prohibitions on people or

[1:13:51] making them feel um or pitting neighbor against neighbor. And I I just think that um we've had the discussion. We got

[1:14:01] it to 10 and I I think that that's reasonable and we would I I would love to see a campaign where we really look

[1:14:10] to individual homeowners who if they want to seek landmark status we can get with their without infringing on their neighbors.

[1:14:20] Thank you. Uh my uh question is um what does the district mean for

[1:14:30] homeowners? It does everyone get a benefit uh or is everyone penalized?

[1:14:35] What what is what does it mean? Um, and if there I I guess I had assumed it was

[1:14:42] a contiguous district and at that point I I was wondering you know what what is

[1:14:49] a dis you know district is it the entire city of High Park?

[1:14:53] No. So for example last year there was an effort to put all the Adler homes and all of the Shaw homes.

[1:15:01] Yeah. Okay. So those but they're scattered. So they but it was just like hey guess what you're in this fabulous home and now you're going

[1:15:08] to be limited in terms of what you can do and people were kind of like hang on a second right and and and um I I'm not in favor

[1:15:16] of uh a non uh involuntary I should say landmarking um I I and I guess I'm

[1:15:24] repeating a point just made that that um but you you know how I feel I think you know how I feel about it that we should make it as attractive uh as possible to

[1:15:33] to landmark um and I think the biggest way to make it attractive the most compelling way is financially um anyway

[1:15:42] so yeah so just one point of clarity so we're talking about non-ontiguous although notwithstanding the question at the

[1:15:49] outset and so the code as most recently amended to clarify

[1:15:56] does not there is no um nonvoluntary uh involuntary non-ontiguous. So this would be about people who want to do it.

[1:16:07] Unonymity about what that threshold number would be to do such a thing. So it's a theme

[1:16:14] best it's a theme-based non-ontiguous districts are essentially what they are.

[1:16:18] And like Steve said they're they're not a lot of them but they're out there in the historic preservation world. But it would be a theme-based one and it would

[1:16:25] be all voluntary. So um that's the the question was but but the the minimum number is 10 now. So if that's what we

[1:16:33] want to leave it at, that's fine. But there was that live question and the commission thought maybe reducing that.

[1:16:39] Bruce says then Tony um uh just my question is so with the minimum of 10, how did we originally come up with that

[1:16:47] or like do we think if we lowered it, we would have more um participation?

[1:16:53] In the case of the one item that came before council, there are five, I believe, that signed on voluntarily.

[1:17:01] Now, there's still an outlet to do this, right? And but it's different. It's just each one of those five, let's say it's five,

[1:17:09] um, could do a local landmark individually. The idea behind the non-ontiguous district is really a theme-based district and you build like

[1:17:17] a theme literature around it and then have the homes and it's kind of a portfolio. This is the idea behind a

[1:17:24] theme based district. So that's and non-ontiguous the okay contiguous ones clearly have

[1:17:31] so I I could not have said it better than you and I think the the important thing to remember here is this is a voluntary process and that's a good

[1:17:39] reason why we should reduce the number of properties in considering a non-ontiguous historic district where a

[1:17:47] small group of people have like-minded interests in preserving their home.

[1:17:53] there's a bigger value where you become part of a district. There's there are certain uh consistencies either in the architect or the architectural style.

[1:18:03] The reason behind the district becomes an important part of what we are preserving in Highland Park. And because this is voluntary, it seems that we want

[1:18:11] to make that easier. And by having fewer properties in a non-ontiguous district, understanding that the participants have

[1:18:19] to agree to it, that's a good reason to have fewer properties involved. Any other input?

[1:18:27] We're only talking about non-ontiguous. I just want to be clear. Yeah.

[1:18:30] Yeah. Um and how say it were five properties.

[1:18:37] um how large an area are are we could could it potentially be independent of geographic location

[1:18:44] independent so totally independ the entire uh park could be an Adler uh

[1:18:52] well anywhere like I don't live in an Adler house so yeah the district encompasses the houses though the house okay

[1:19:01] so if a bunch of people that live in in an adler house feel they would like to have it the Adler district. The houses are

[1:19:09] designated. The district includes those houses but not the houses around them.

[1:19:12] And we put a plaque so you know and then people like we do the tours so people can travel across the community and go to visit all the other homes for example.

[1:19:21] Would you want to attach some you know again financial incentive to do it or there was something something incentivizing it that that doesn't penalize but just incentivize?

[1:19:32] Nothing beyond what has been proposed.

[1:19:34] they too would be that would just be another type of um landmark. Um uh you know we could make sure to make that

[1:19:43] distinction. So it's it goes beyond just single home designations. So to make sure that the financial incentives do go

[1:19:49] past that and in the proposal we do that by saying it's got to be a regulated structure. So regulated structures can occur in geographic districts or

[1:19:58] non-geographic districts or the non-ontiguous districts or they could just be the local landmark. somewhere here, there, and everywhere. Yeah.

[1:20:06] Oh, I'm in favor of reducing it to I like five, too.

[1:20:10] I think that the number I would some more to be looked at. Okay.

[1:20:16] Okay. So, moving to the next item under these regulatory tools, it's zoning relief. So you have your regulated

[1:20:24] properties and you [clears throat] know they were obviously many of them are quite old and existed in a time when there were different land use

[1:20:33] regulations. And so does the council is the council interested in allowing for more flexibility from a zoning

[1:20:41] perspective or these uh these regulated structures properties um would would allow expansion of a home

[1:20:49] in addition or something appropriate, you know, having still would need to go for a certificate of appropriateness and all that, but they wouldn't need to go

[1:20:56] get a variance from the ZBA or some type of relief from any other court. I I support this. You mean uh I I support it as well.

[1:21:08] Annette has her hand up as well.

[1:21:11] And just to say I support this completely.

[1:21:16] Is shaking her hand. Andre is shaking his head. Tony is shaking his head. That was easy.

[1:21:22] Okay, [clears throat] that was moving right along. [laughter] Um okay. Um, so lastly, discouraging lawsuit penalties.

[1:21:33] Now, we we we started talking about this, but let's just go through these these points here. So, you can do this and the and the commission talked about

[1:21:41] this and staff, you know, institute longer demolition delays. Right now, the code allows for a maximum delay, the most significant properties of 365 days

[1:21:51] with the finding of four criteria, okay, being met, historic uh criteria. So um

[1:21:59] one could make those delays longer. You could establish a uh historic resource demolition tax. That's what I was

[1:22:06] discussing before. Um code requires, you know, a $15,000

[1:22:13] uh dollar demolition tax and and allocates monies to the affordable housing program. That's the affordable housing demolition tax. We could

[1:22:20] introduce an additional form of de demolition tax that is triggered by uh finding that a structure meets sufficient criteria structure or

[1:22:28] property and say okay this is going to be uh detrimental in terms of loss of historic resources and therefore there's

[1:22:35] demolition tax. Um and then lastly um and the commission several commissioners felt pretty strongly about this um but

[1:22:43] prohibiting variances with the loss of a historic resource. So, somebody does have a home and went through the

[1:22:49] demolition delay process and you know, uh, is now demolishing the home after a year and it's say, um, can they apply

[1:22:58] for relief for whatever new they're going to try to do there? So, this is kind of the opposite of allowing more

[1:23:05] flexibility to maintain the resource, but then allowing less flexibility or encouragement if you're going to demolish it. And

[1:23:14] so, let's start with the bottom one first. Okay. Are people in support of that one?

[1:23:19] I'm in support of it. It was something that I I think I had suggested. Um and and the reason is that often

[1:23:27] um somebody buys an historic property because it's a large lot, but the house is somehow not situated on the lot in a way that they want to keep the house.

[1:23:36] They want to build their dream house.

[1:23:38] And I I understand that. But what we've seen for instance is they want to move the house forward and they require a zoning variation because they want to

[1:23:46] put a pool behind it um rather than obviously not in front of it. So the

[1:23:53] idea of providing relief if you keep the house you can add on as long as you comply with the certificate of

[1:24:01] appropriateness which the commission has been pretty liberal about. Uh, but you're preserving the house and you're making the house one that you can live

[1:24:10] in within uh, modern conveniences. You can have a larger amount of space inside by being able to add on to the house.

[1:24:19] But if you're going to tear the whole house down, I think you got to live with the footprint and the zoning that

[1:24:27] exists. And we're not going to give you any additional benefits.

[1:24:31] [clears throat and cough] You're fairing the house down. We feel it's a good resource. we're we don't want you to do that, but if you're going to do it, we're not going to really go down the

[1:24:40] road with you in terms of allowing uh less setbacks, larger F things of that nature. That's that's sort of the

[1:24:49] rationale behind that. We're not taking away any rights that you have as a property owner. We're just saying we're not going to give you any additional

[1:24:57] additional regul Are you okay with that?

[1:25:02] No, I'm not. I actually have the exact opposite, surprise surprise, um, cake on it. Um, I think that if in, look, I want

[1:25:10] to preserve the houses. I want them to stay there. But if someone has decided they're taking the house down and they're buying a property in Highland

[1:25:18] Park, then I think they have the right like anybody else once the house is gone. Again, that's I really don't want

[1:25:27] to see that happen. But, um I I think if they're buying the property and that's

[1:25:34] the route they choose to take, I would not want to let's say it's on a weird hill and yes, they do want to have it and their only way to make it level is,

[1:25:43] you know, there's you just don't know what could come up. And so, if in fact they're going to buy it, yes, there's setbacks, but this is a new house. And

[1:25:52] at that point, I don't see the reason why they can't go for variances like any other new homeowner or property owner. Sorry, Annette. I I'm going to respond to that.

[1:26:02] I'm sorry. I I wanted to respond to that a little bit. What I'm suggesting wouldn't take anybody's rights away at all.

[1:26:10] Um, when you buy a piece of property, you have a right to build what you want to build within our existing zoning.

[1:26:17] What you would be prohibited from doing is seeking a variance either in front of the ZBA or the PDC. So you can build

[1:26:25] what you have a right to build if you tear the house down. I'm not suggesting restricting that. I'm simply saying you can't go beyond that.

[1:26:34] No, I understand Tony and I and I appreciate that and I think that's great. But I also, you and I both know

[1:26:41] how many uh variances we give out in this community for people who come up with some beautiful plans or not. And um

[1:26:50] and so I I do feel we are restricting them and I would not be in favor of taking away that right. It's not a right though.

[1:26:59] Right. Well, it's not a right.

[1:27:01] Come before us and act. No, you're right. It's not a right, but they do have the right to come and act in my estimation.

[1:27:10] And if it's not tasteful and it's not good, we wouldn't give it out in any case. But um at that point, there's no historic structure on the land. And if

[1:27:19] anything, it might be a stranger shaped property because it in theory it's older. And so I would just want to make

[1:27:27] sure that whatever is put up um appropriately. And I I trust PC or VBA

[1:27:35] to come up with that and that's why I would give them the ability to go for variance, not that it not that it should be granted to your point.

[1:27:44] Okay. Well, Andre, yeah, I I mean just uh philosophically um obviously we're trying to preserve it

[1:27:53] and then if we fail at that or whatever, you know, we couldn't stop it and it just they raise it. I It's kind of like

[1:28:00] a reset in my mind. It's like they they have the right to do whatever and then

[1:28:07] we allow for a request for a variance that could be approved or denied by PDC

[1:28:14] or CBA. So I wouldn't want to create a a second category of houses. Well, that used to be a historical one. So you can't ask for variance for the new thing.

[1:28:24] So the purpose is to discourage that, right?

[1:28:27] You're buying this house. You haven't torn it down yet. You're buying it. You have to know that because it's a contributing structure,

[1:28:35] if you seek to tear it down, you may not ask for a variance. It's to in it's to discourage the house from being torn

[1:28:43] down. I completely agree with you. Once the house is down, it's a lost cause. What we're trying to say is you're tearing down a an

[1:28:53] important resource in our community, something that tells us about our past, something that helps define Highland Park as what it is. If you're going to

[1:29:01] do that, we're not going to give you any benefit to doing that. And a variance is a benefit. You don't have a right to a variance.

[1:29:12] Amy, Versissa, um, yeah, I mean, I it's interesting hearing the discussion. Um it it really

[1:29:19] is. Um is there I I initially in in favor of this as a as a uh disincentive.

[1:29:29] Um and um is there any uh you know if if if something was a genuine hardship? Um,

[1:29:38] is there any recourse if if you prohibit variance? There is no ability to uh

[1:29:46] like can we legally say this property cannot receive a variance because it previously had a historic home? Well,

[1:29:52] well, I'm I'm asking if if uh in demolishing there was some kind of hardship in I don't know some, you know,

[1:30:02] really good reason why you you would know something that we can't think of now that we can't think of now.

[1:30:08] But if you know that in advance of buying the property, Yeah. then you don't buy the property. Yeah.

[1:30:14] You'd go somewhere else where you then still have that ability to request it. I think I will stick with my original um support for the prohib.

[1:30:30] So that's four people who are okay with what you proposed prohibiting variances with loss of historic resource and two who uh oppose it.

[1:30:39] Okay.

[1:30:40] You know interesting may I just add to this it what is the process at this point? If I I if I want to

[1:30:48] we're just not this is informal.

[1:30:50] We're committee of the whole there is no formal action. We're just some question but I overall support it at this moment. I this will come back for formal action.

[1:31:01] This is just in direct staff. Yeah.

[1:31:03] To continue to look at these incentives for historic preservation.

[1:31:08] Um so the second one establish a historic resource demolition tax. So, there's a current demolition tax that

[1:31:17] supports affordable housing when you're losing a unit of housing. Do you want to have an additional demolition tax that

[1:31:24] also then would feed into a fund that you previously had approved to provide grants for helping preserve historic homes?

[1:31:35] I do not dilute the uh affordable housing. What goes to affordable housing?

[1:31:39] I'm sorry. I would not want to be removed when it goes this would be on top. So you would have the fund. You would not change the

[1:31:46] affordable housing component. We would just be adding an additional cost if you're taking down a historic home.

[1:31:53] Right. I guess that's another way of agreeing with that.

[1:31:56] Okay. [laughter] I want to keep it.

[1:31:58] Keep it. And yes, I'm okay with adding a fund. Okay. Everybody else? Annette? Yes. Yes. Yes.

[1:32:07] Okay. And do it. growing.

[1:32:10] Okay, great. All right. And then the last one, institute longer demolition delays. So, right now, if you if you

[1:32:19] want to demolish a historic home, you can have up to 365 days of just pause.

[1:32:25] And the original goal behind that was let's market this house. Let's see if somebody else will come along and buy it and preserve it. So, right now, that's

[1:32:34] where we are. And then there are people who buy homes, wait the year, and then demolish them. Anyhow, do you want to have a longer delay?

[1:32:42] I I'm good with the delay that we The one year you think is sufficient.

[1:32:47] You think that's sufficient? I don't know. Okay, Annette has her hand up.

[1:32:52] I agree uh with Yi. um having um look, I think when people buy property and they

[1:33:01] spend a lot of money, I I love the idea that we're really making them take it somewhat slowly, but um I I think that

[1:33:11] after they know what they want to do after a year, and I I think again, I want us to be the friendly community and

[1:33:20] treasure these homes, but one year is long enough to think about it or delay Anybody want to expand it?

[1:33:28] I I would vote that they would raise me.

[1:33:30] I think to a year and a half to two years.

[1:33:33] I I would expand it to two years, but I would also say that we would create another category for that [clears throat] in terms of how many

[1:33:41] criteria would have to be met.

[1:33:45] It would have to be pretty significant property.

[1:33:49] But we have some of those in the community.

[1:33:51] We do. Yeah. Consider the War Willlets house, right?

[1:33:53] Yeah. Would a year be enough? Heaven forbid. So, Steve, is that at all considered a taking if it's two years

[1:34:01] versus one year? Do you No, we're already at whether it is or is not, we we determined that we have justification for it. I I would

[1:34:10] So, time doesn't create a different dimension in terms we're not preventing them from using the property.

[1:34:17] They still have the ability to use the property. There's a whole market out there of rentals of um historic delay properties. People rent them.

[1:34:27] Case in point. [laughter] I mean it's you're not to be a taking you have to take all economically viable

[1:34:34] use of the property. And I would there be an argument mayor maybe.

[1:34:38] Right. But you would say this but I think we have a good defense. Okay. The temporal aspect is not concerning.

[1:34:44] All right. So you would like a longer I would go up to you'd go long. up to three years. Oh yeah.

[1:34:50] Okay. What like what do our peer communities do?

[1:34:52] No one is I don't know of any that are past a year frankly.

[1:34:56] Yeah. A year is is industry standard. Um but we haven't really researched that particular question but it's just fine.

[1:35:04] But you're okay with Okay. What do you think?

[1:35:06] I'm just going to say it in in spirit. I I mean I understand that that impulse or not more than an impulse. understand the

[1:35:13] the philosophy of of of making it longer, but um I I'm I year I think. Yeah.

[1:35:21] All right. Andre, one year. Annette has her hand up. No, no, we end up finding one year.

[1:35:28] You're good with one year. Okay. So, the majority believe is good with one year.

[1:35:34] Okay. All right. Uh thanks. That's it, right? That's it.

[1:35:38] Yep. I so appreciate everybody's thoughtfulness on this topic and I know that the historic preservation commission will appreciate it as well because this has really been vexing them

[1:35:48] and I think living in a community with this type with these types of treasures we want to do what we can but also

[1:35:55] encourage people to move here. Yeah. I I so appreciated the opportunity to have that meeting with HPC.

[1:36:04] Me too. And I wondered if there might be more opportunities of that kind. Uh I

[1:36:12] don't know with HPC in particular because well you can always go to their meetings. Yeah.

[1:36:17] And they are a lovely crew. I I don't know. I I I think there's huge value to having city council

[1:36:25] understand and hear. Yeah. I agree. And that's why, frankly, we pulled tonight's item off of the omnibus because we have these great homes and we should be

[1:36:34] highlighting that and we should be valuing and and we say it again for the record that the this council and this city um deeply values historic homes.

[1:36:44] Absolutely. Absolutely. Um with that, I'm seeking a motion to adjourn this.

[1:36:48] Second. All in favor say I. I. Thank you. Right.