Committee of the Whole Meeting 05/27/2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiUkkQmZXKU
Automatic captions; not audio-verified.

[3:50] Council

[4:02] of Highland Park, Committee of the Whole, May 27th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role?

[4:08] Council member Center. Council member Buffman here. Council member Ross here. Council member Tapia present.

[4:13] Council member Lower here.

[4:14] Council member Bloomberg here.

[4:16] Mayor Ry here. We have a quorum. Uh, may I have a motion to approve the minutes of the regular rescheduled meeting of the committee of the whole that was held May

[4:23] 11th and the minutes of the special meeting of the committee of the whole held on May 18th, 2026. So moved.

[4:31] Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Thank you.

[4:35] All right. Scheduled business. We're going to start talking about planning and options for the redevelopment and renovation of the city's public services

[4:41] center and fire station 34. City manager Newkerk. Thank you.

[4:46] Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening everybody. Um we have a brief staff report in the packet this evening that's going to guide our conversation this

[4:53] evening. Um very briefly um we last presented to the city council at a committee the whole meeting on March

[5:00] 30th. Um and we provided an update on our work effort um on the possible redevelopment of the public service

[5:08] center which includes both public works and community development as well as fire station 34 um both located on half day road next to each other. Um so the

[5:18] purpose of this evening is just to follow up on those questions and uh comments that were discussed as part of

[5:25] that policy discussion on the 30th. um like to introduce Andy Dogen representing Williams architect. Um so we've been working with Andy and the

[5:33] Williams team as well as the engineering consultant which is Gowalt Hamilton and our construction manager Kimosi. Um as

[5:41] well as a number of staff members um that are working on this project team.

[5:47] Um, and so I do want to recognize Joel Fontaine, director of community development, Ron Bannon, director of public works, uh, fire chief Joe

[5:56] Shraggy, Chrissy Melu, our finance director, and then we have a number of other staff as well that are have been part of this project. Um, so we're going

[6:04] to go through the needs assessment. As a reminder, the council wanted to understand based on the total needs for this site. Um how much would it cost and

[6:13] what do [clears throat] what does that needs assessment say for those three departments? Um we have been working with the consultant team and we've

[6:21] looked at various options for that property as well as um taking in consideration other site opportunities

[6:28] as well. And then we've got associated costs. Um just a couple of assumptions.

[6:34] This slide should look familiar to you, but these are just very important bullet points that have really served as the foundation for us moving forward. So,

[6:42] um, at the top, fiscal stability is one of the city's top priorities. So, we are moving forward and really balancing the needs of our operations, understanding

[6:51] what those are with also the consideration of our total costs and how this project fits into our capital plan.

[6:59] We are a home rule unit of government.

[7:01] Um, so basically what that means that if we do need to um issue debt, we don't need to go to public referendum. We have

[7:08] the ability, we're not tax capped, we have the ability to issue debt and as the council knows, we've done that um for a number of different capital

[7:16] projects over the years. Most recently this year for our street program. Um but we do have planned as part of this

[7:23] project the intention to issue debt for some of these project costs. Um right now in the budget um for 26 we have

[7:33] funds for planning and engineering doing everything as part of the planning to tell us the needs assessment and um what

[7:40] we would be recommending as part of this project. And then in fiscal year 27 as a reminder we had budgeted as a

[7:47] placeholder 17.5 million um just as a placeholder not knowing what those total costs would be until we did all that planning work with our consultant team.

[7:57] Um we are a AAA bond rated community.

[8:00] This is very important for a number of different reasons. Um so one when we do issue debt we get um the best rate for

[8:07] the city of Highland Park. Um being triple aided is also a reflection of the city's sound financial planning um

[8:15] overall management of our organization which includes every single individual in this organization and it's also due in large credit to the mayor and city

[8:23] council for the sound policy that you set. Um, so that is important for us as we continue to move forward. Um, for public information, we do have a 10-year

[8:32] CIP and so, um, we are looking at planning projects over a 10-year basis.

[8:38] Um, and then every year though, we take a look at each year as part of our budget development process um, as we

[8:45] move forward for what is going to be in the proposed budget that we will submit to you for consideration. And when we review capital projects, the bulk of

[8:53] that um is the responsibility of the public works director. Um so special appreciation to the director Bannon and the team. Um we have 40 million in

[9:02] capital projects this year which is significant and it's certainly um an indication of the policy that the council has set which is a focus on

[9:09] infrastructure investment. Um, and our facilities is also part of that responsibility and part of that

[9:17] importance that we invest in our public facilities to make sure that our staff are operating most efficiently in order

[9:24] to best serve the public. Um, but we prioritize capital projects on three levels. Um, priority one projects are

[9:31] what are able to be included in the budget based on funding opportunities as well as project estimated costs. And then if we're not able to include

[9:40] projects in the budget, we have them reflected in the capital plan just really just so we don't lose sight of them. And again, they're reviewed on a

[9:47] uh year-to-year basis. Um we have talked quite a bit about the city's pension obligations um which are significant and

[9:56] that continues to be an important um area for us to make sure that our pension obligations are being met. The state statute is to be 90% funded by

[10:05] 2040. So, we are on that trajectory right now. Um, for public information, at a recent council workshop that we had, which is kind of a kickoff to our

[10:13] budget budget process, um, we did talk quite a bit about the overall um, uh, budget and financing plans in that

[10:21] regard. And in terms of use of reserves, we've done an excellent job as a city over the years um, building up reserves

[10:29] and so when we need them, they're available to us. And we have a policy in terms of what we can use reserves for.

[10:35] Capital is one of those approved uses.

[10:39] And we have been drawing down our fund balances over the years um to support the investment that we are making into

[10:47] the community. And so uh that's important as we move forward because over the years we've talked about let's use reserves, let's use reserves. We

[10:55] definitely have been. And so we are really at a point right now where we are um using reserves to the maximum

[11:02] ability, just making sure that we're still in line with our policies.

[11:06] Um and then Andy's going to walk us through the space needs assessment and at the last slide we do have a recommendation as well as the associated costs for each uh project consideration.

[11:17] Okay.

[11:18] Thank you so much, city manager. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm happy to be here tonight and I know that you have

[11:25] seen um some numbers and some prescriptive scopes around potential components of this project. So, I thought we'd take the chance this

[11:34] evening to really briefly back up for a second and say what's behind this all.

[11:38] Um what is what is driving these recommendations and and these different options? So, as um Manager Newkerk

[11:45] mentioned, we've been working for several months now with staff on understanding the the needs, understanding the existing conditions of

[11:53] the facilities over on half day. Um we've talked extensively with the fire department, with public works, with

[12:01] community development, um both with leadership and even into a level of communication and focus groups with

[12:09] divisions within public works. Um, we issued questionnaires to a number of staff members to really just make sure we were getting as much of a picture as

[12:18] we possibly can of the current state and what they would like to do. So, um, you see some of the common themes um that we

[12:26] heard um from staff um about their their current work environments. Um, to this

[12:32] we would add um our professional uh observations as architects and engineers. We also have um some areas um

[12:41] of of condi of physical conditions um both in the current fire station 34 and within the public works garage um of

[12:51] some of some needs to improve the building envelope. Um we see we see some cracking some um some areas um that we

[12:58] would expect to see in infrastructure that is pushing 50 years old. We also see some issues with um accessibility

[13:06] and code compliance. um nothing of major concern, just things that no longer comply with today's codes. So, um a lot

[13:14] of good information and I thought I'd just take a few moments to unpack what we what we found. So in going through

[13:21] the needs and of all of um the departments, our current um our assessment was that in total in a

[13:30] perfect world um between public works, fire station 34 and um community development, we would need just um

[13:39] almost 126,000 squaret of space. um that's divided up as you see um as you see there between public works community

[13:48] development and um fire station 34. One thing I want to point out because it kind of changes from slide to slide

[13:55] here. Um you'll see references to 26,000 square ft of vehicle storage that represents just the space that the

[14:04] vehicles take up. Um what we have to add to that is space inside needed to circulate and move the vehicles around.

[14:11] So when you see a different number on the next slide um that explains the difference between those two. So this breaks out public works. Um of that

[14:20] 125,0006 um roughly um 100,000 of that is um dedicated to public works. And you can see the breakouts of the divisions here.

[14:29] And I think it's very clear that the need and the desire to put as many of the villages, excuse me, the city's

[14:38] assets inside um is what's really driving that. Um we know when we're able to get more of a fleet and more of your

[14:47] equipment inside that the lifespan of all of that um investment um is going to be extended and it's really predictable

[14:54] think taking things inside that are outside we usually see about a 20 to 30% extended lifespan. So there are real

[15:02] dollars here associated with being able to put that equipment inside. So, just to break out there of what's driving all

[15:09] that, and again, it's um probably not surprising that the majority of that program is attributable to um vehicle

[15:17] storage and then space required to maintain the fleet you have. Um so, this just goes into a little bit of that.

[15:23] Again, the 26,000 here, that's just the vehicle space itself. So, that square footage um that's dedicated to the

[15:31] garage is really that 58,000 um and change there. So, just wanted to show you a little bit more breakout um

[15:38] of of what's driving public works, community development. Um we found that um it's not so much quantity of space,

[15:47] it's quality of space. Um that um that we need their current um their current square footage that they're working out of over at PSC um is just under um 7500.

[16:00] But um we're really looking at spaces that serve the public better, spaces that staff are able to collaborate and um just have more space and um a better

[16:09] environment to um serve the residents of Highland Park in that regard. And then fire station 34. Um we know that um that fire station was built um in in the 70s.

[16:22] Um, an interesting fact, it's a very unique design having the apparatus bay and then just that really thin connector

[16:29] piece over to the um, living area. We think we know why that was done. Um, underneath that connecting piece is a

[16:37] 20-in water man that goes from the storage tank up to half day road. So, that's not something we want to put a lot of building over. So, we have a

[16:44] feeling that that's what drove that design and the um, just to really touch that as lightly as possible. And um it also kind of um drives what we can or can't do with that part of the property.

[16:56] You know, one of the considerations is is there something we can do with that current building? Um and I would say as temporary space, absolutely. um to

[17:04] facilitate the moving and the phasing of this. But um as a space that we could reuse or add on to again that water man

[17:12] there um we don't know the depth of that but even if we did um putting a brand new structure over a 20-in water man is

[17:19] not a good idea. So this breaks out some of the spaces um that that requires. It would become a three um three bay

[17:28] station um with extra deep bays to really significantly increase um the the capacity at that station. And then this this just gets into a comparison.

[17:39] Apologies for the title of [clears throat] the slide. This is a comparison between current state um so the gray repres represents the square

[17:46] footage that um staff are currently using and the green um represents um our space needs projection based on our

[17:54] process. So just wanted to make sure that we set the table for what we're talking about and what has gone into

[18:02] that before we move forward. Um so um now we'll transition into um some some

[18:09] of the um site and and layouts and some of the options here. I think some things that are really important to emphasize

[18:15] here are that this is a very constrained site. Um, as you can see, um, the, uh,

[18:23] city-owned property, um, to the east, um, to the right is where where what we would be anticipating, um, for, um, the

[18:31] new fire station simply because that footprint really, um, doesn't fit anywhere else. But you see the rest of

[18:38] the that current layout um, as it as it exists today. And one thing that's that

[18:45] makes this even more challenging um are the um flood hazard considerations around this overall site. Um I know this

[18:53] is an image you've seen before, but um just to refresh your memory, all the areas in orange um are a basically a

[19:02] 500year flood plane or a 0.2% chance of of a flood um event. It's not zero, but

[19:10] it is something. And um those will requ um those sorts of areas require um some

[19:16] compensatory storage and um a raising of the building floor elevation um up to a level of that's out of that um 500year.

[19:27] Fortunately, because it's 500year, it's not a lot that we have to do. We'd probably be raising it anyway um in any

[19:34] sort of construction. But what you do get into in the um in [clears throat] the teal and then the waterway are um

[19:41] some flood waves where you see more inundation and um that those are not impossible spaces to build in but um

[19:49] they are more expensive spaces to build in and um what essentially we need to do is

[19:57] prove that we can remap that and pull that area out of the flood plane. So that that is a timeconsuming process and

[20:04] also also a costly process. But I present this and I show this because it really puts some limitations on what we

[20:11] can and can't easily do um with the site. So we just wanted to share a few

[20:19] of the thoughts that we have been sharing with staff um as to what could happen um with this with the site

[20:27] overall. Um the the first thing that everybody asks us and what I think is important um if I were in your shoes,

[20:35] I'd want to understand is um if we waved a magic wand, if we made everything here brand new and um addressed the needs as

[20:42] fully as we possibly could, um what does that look like and um what does that cost? Now, one of the interesting things

[20:51] about this site because of its size and because of the constraints is that we can't actually get to that 100,000

[20:58] square ft of um of recommended space for public works. The site just simply won't accommodate that or I should say won't

[21:06] accommodate it easily. Um there are always possibilities. Um it is theoretically possible to have a multi-story garage but very expensive.

[21:16] Um so we started with um this as an overall concept to discuss how we can maximize the site. Um so we in this

[21:24] concept we would be replacing that two-story office block um where community development and public works um has their offices and shared spaces

[21:33] with a new larger purpose-built um two-story space. We would be again demolishing the entire um public service

[21:41] center as it exists, introducing new garage space which is shown in gray and new maintenance bays which are shown in

[21:48] that light red. And then to the east we're showing um the footprint for the new fire station. Um I should note um

[21:56] that the fire station square footage that we are showing in these concepts um is again slightly below needs assessment. we've been able to have um

[22:05] some good conversations um with Chief Shraggy and staff um to work on that and pull that square footage a little bit down. So, wanted to make sure I

[22:13] explained that discrepancy. So, this really shows it represents um kind of a maximum um buildout of the site in terms

[22:22] of getting as close as we possibly can um to our needs assessment. Uh, and then just one thing I would point out for

[22:30] reference, um, just immediately east, um, excuse me, west of the property that, um, that you don't own where that

[22:39] single family residences is, is where station 34 currently is. Eventually, we would foresee that becoming parking, but

[22:46] we certainly could use that fire station building um, as temporary space as this project were to happen, what in whatever

[22:55] form it may take. um it gives you another asset that we're able to use um um to your benefit without having to

[23:02] figure out a temporary home um or invest in um temporary space. So that's one

[23:09] option. Um again, mostly due to cost um concerns, we also wanted to look at what can we do to reuse as much of what is

[23:18] there as we possibly can with respect to public works. So, here we're saying um let's still build that um piece off of

[23:26] Half Day Road, that two-story piece, brand new, but here we want to use all of that existing garage space, make sure

[23:34] it's fixed up with new mechanicals. Um we'll take care of the building envelope. We would give the building an entirely new facade along Halfday Road.

[23:43] So, even though it would you'd be working with the existing garage, it would all appear to be a new building.

[23:49] Um, so you can see in the red dash line the footprint of the existing public works garages and how we use that space and then just have a series of additions

[23:58] onto that space um to get as much of that public works program and as much parking as um indoor parking as we

[24:06] possibly can there. And then the fire station um component of this particular concept um is of course the same. So,

[24:15] this is just intended not as a design, not as a direction, but just to show you some possibilities of what we can do on this site. Um, and I think it's really I

[24:24] always want to make sure I'm doing as much as I can um to educate you as elected officials on what the site can

[24:30] handle. Um, why we are going in the direction we're going and um to give you as many options as we can. So, that will

[24:39] come as part of this process. But I think these are good diagrams just to show you the constraints of the site and some of the things we're able to do with it.

[24:49] Um so um so what does this cost? Um I have to preface all of this with saying that

[24:57] all that the team has done to this point um are those diagrams. We've worked with Camozi Construction who's built a lot of

[25:05] public works and a lot of fire station projects and a lot of village hall projects. We're actually working with them right now on two very large

[25:13] projects in Shamberg, their new village hall and police station. So, they are really dialed into um being able to say

[25:21] at this point we can confidently predict that an all-in cost for these kinds of projects is at X a square foot. Um so I

[25:31] want to emphasize that these are budget numbers. These are not based on a specific design but rather just on square footage. And again, these are

[25:39] total project costs. So these include storm water management. They include furniture, fixtures, and equipment. They

[25:46] include professional services. Um, as we go down through these, the only thing that would be excluded is I go through

[25:53] these options. Um, in the second option you see were if you were to look at an offsite option for community

[26:01] development, that would represent remodeling costs for a space large enough. um to to house them and other

[26:08] related functions. It would not include the costs of acquiring or leasing um such a space. Um but the new fire

[26:16] station total project budget given the size we're projecting at around 13.5 million right now. I should say that the

[26:24] next the the just the new fire station and the new off-site space for community development and then the next option um

[26:33] that is the new fire station and just remodeled. Um we don't love these options because they don't address the space needs for public works at all, but

[26:42] we want to give you as much information as we can um about these different permutations and what is possible. From

[26:49] there, we get into um a new fire station that taking down that existing office

[26:56] block, replacing that with new spaces you saw, but then remodeling the garage and shops is around a $30 million

[27:04] project. I understand there was a question from one of you um about what would it look like um if um we did that but didn't remodel the garage and shops.

[27:14] We just did the new fire station. We just did the new twotory space. that would take about um $4.5 million out to $5 million out of that number. So just

[27:23] around 25 million. Then we have um the conceptual estimates for essentially the two concepts you just saw on the screen.

[27:32] The second one um the remodeling concept being the new fire station, the new administrative space up close to half

[27:39] day. Um the additions and remodeling needed to um make that space as good as it can be. that represents a $38 million

[27:48] total project budget. And then finally, the the price tag um it for entirely new

[27:57] um is tracking around 44 million. Again, these are preliminary numbers, but I know this is information that you need um to make decisions about the scope of

[28:05] the go to the next slide. If you could just go back and maybe if we could just pause right here. So, our our recommendation um this evening is this. And so, if we

[28:13] could have your feedback on that and then any questions that you have. So, um, based on the work that we've done thus far, based on the preliminary

[28:20] conversations that we've had, um, with the mayor and city council, our recommendation is that we move forward

[28:27] um, with fire station 34. So, that's a price tag of, you know, 135. Um, and then we have 3 million that we know we

[28:37] have some engineering estimates right now for the uh, pedestrian bridge. And so those two projects were recommending

[28:45] that we move forward right away with planning and engineering and kind of diving more into the details because that would take place this year with

[28:52] construction then to take place um you know as early as next year, the bulk of next year. And then we will come back yet this summer um because we are still

[29:02] working as a staff and so we have some additional questions for the consultant team. Um and then we'll come back this summer with further information about a

[29:11] finance strategy plan to do the balance of um what we want to do, how much that

[29:19] would cost if we postpone it so many years. We also have been looking at different funding streams as well. We talked about that at the workshop. So

[29:27] we'll come back later this summer with a financing strategy plan for the balance of it. But right now we're just hopefully we'll get your green light today. move forward with the fire

[29:35] station and then three millions for the bridge. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, manager. Yes.

[29:42] Um unrelated to that, sorry. Um when you were talking about the public works building and the heated garage, I know

[29:50] at one point when we were walking through, we talked about how not all vehicles necessarily need to be in a heated garage. they maybe need to be

[29:58] covered, but there are plenty of whatever airplane hangers, whatever that are not heated.

[30:05] Is there a delta that you can give us in terms of the square footage that absolutely should be in heated? And I understand that may be a little

[30:14] I think I to to to be honest, I want to give you a more confident number based on exactly which fleet should be in heated space and what isn't, which which

[30:22] I need to have discussions with Ron and his crew about. So, um I don't want to give you an answer that um may not hold up at this point.

[30:30] Sounds good because I think that obviously will impact the number if it's a shell versus versus a full heated

[30:36] garage. Thanks. Um and with the proposed remap of where fire station 34 would be cited.

[30:44] Is there an issue with the traffic signal at that intersection with Summit?

[30:51] It's something we certainly need to look into because um the what you see to the left um which is kind which would kind

[30:59] of now be the entrance in the middle that is the signalized intersection. So um we would we would need to look into

[31:06] what um what that means. What I can say is that this fire station is set back enough um from half day. the proposed

[31:15] new station is set back enough where an [clears throat] apparatus is able to completely come out see um see what's um going on before they turn onto the road.

[31:25] So because it's set back further, it's not as much of an issue as it currently is. Chief, if you have anything else, too.

[31:34] Yeah, I mean I can add that also station 33 would not be unlike this design, right?

[31:39] It's not right at the light, but the light is just a little bit west of station. We'll see the lights and hopefully they'll they do and then we also have the

[31:46] opticom control to be able to stop that light to to move traffic in the right directions.

[31:52] Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to um say thank you for looking at this in this manner because I know when

[31:59] we were walking through it was sort of how can we do things in a prioritized manner and I think this really is

[32:06] responsive to what at least I was hearing from the council. Andre, I just clarity. I I just want to sure I understood you where you have the parking lot there to the left of that house.

[32:15] Mhm. That's where the fire station is now. That is correct. Yes.

[32:18] And what you were saying is we can still use that while the new one is being built on the right hand side.

[32:23] Yes. Um we would we'd have to get more into the details of phasing, but yeah, we would expect the fire station to be used the entire

[32:31] time that um that the new station is under construction. Once that is complete, um there's nothing that says you need to build that parking right

[32:40] away. Um if the if some project were to happen with community development or public works, we'd have the ability to use that building or space as temporary space if needed.

[32:49] Great. Thank you. Do you know how long from obviously, you know, it can take a while, but for engineering, like if we

[32:56] say go, [laughter] how quickly can this new fire station be built? the um so the

[33:05] the time from where we are today to be bid ready for a fire station um will will take us um through the end of this year possibly into January or February.

[33:16] Okay, which is actually a really great timeline to be on because we'll be able to bid things in the winter for a spring construction start

[33:25] um which is the best possible timeline for right now and it's a good time to bid the project as well. Um, contractors tend to be hungriest for work to fill

[33:32] out their schedules in January and February.

[33:35] And then is it a nine-month project, a 16-month?

[33:38] I'd I'd expect the construction of the station conserv conservatively to be about a year to 14 months.

[33:44] Okay. Thanks, Annette. So, could we um go back to [snorts] the slide where we can see more of the the list of the numbers? Sorry.

[33:53] Sure.

[33:54] Um, so I asked about what it would be in terms of price. Um if we didn't include any of the garage or heated garage or anything. So you said that's 25,000.

[34:05] 25 million. Yes.

[34:06] 20 [laughter] I wish. I wish I wish.

[34:11] So do you have either picture where you could see that um where we don't have an

[34:17] actual garage space or I'm just trying to visualize what that would mean in terms of like the

[34:25] buildings are in front. two-story building, fire stations obviously all the way east, further east.

[34:32] And then is the rest of that just open space because it's basically parking or the Yeah, the garage the garage space is

[34:40] really just open space much like the eastern half of the um of the garage is right now.

[34:46] Would we keep the current garage I guess is my question.

[34:50] Um in in that con in that concept, yes, we would for now. Yes. Okay.

[34:56] Right. Because it could then have a different phase, right?

[35:00] And but it's set back so it's not we would plan the sighting so that you would have future space to do whatever you needed to do.

[35:07] Yeah. Great. And I did want to just throw out when we're and I know it's kind of mixing apples and oranges, but because we know there are some other

[35:16] prices that are going up or went up that 3 million the bridge is the 2.5,

[35:23] but we know the costs are higher. for example, for the sidewalk on Sheridan Road. So, this just when we're talking that three million, that three million

[35:31] is all spent, right?

[35:33] I just want to make sure we all understand that.

[35:36] Yeah. And if I may, um to that point, um these budget numbers do include escalation to next year for the entire

[35:44] project. Um if anything were to be delayed or any portion of the project would be delayed to the future, we'd need to look at what that would mean

[35:51] based on that timing. That's part of our follow-up that we'll [snorts] come back with. So, for example, if we just want to be consistent with what's in the budget right now for our 10-year CIP.

[36:01] So, um that delta in terms of basically the cost for the public service center, how much would that be estimated if we

[36:10] were to do it in five years? What revenue source would we use then to basically build up a capital fund? Um and then so what would that cost be in

[36:19] five years? will also take a look in terms of if we did issue that, you know, pursue it now, what does that look like

[36:28] from a tax rate perspective and from a financial perspective right now impacting other projects? Okay, thank you. Other questions?

[36:36] Um I uh you know with the chief here um for

[36:43] me as uh one member of the council um the priority is the fire department

[36:50] getting everything it it wants and those seemed like you know really really key needs getting the tour um from your

[36:59] staff. Uh, and so is is this plan with the fire station just the fire station

[37:05] piece? Um, are you getting everything you you need?

[37:10] Yeah, that current that current design we worked with Williams to make sure that they had all of our needs and they made the assessment

[37:16] and and and sort of figuring out to, you know, projecting forward 5 10 years as well. What? Yeah.

[37:24] Yeah. That's part of the reason the bays have grown too um in comparison to what we had before. So moving to that three

[37:31] bay concept and then and then being deeper for storage as well for other equipment um that that is to meet our our future needs.

[37:39] We are being responsible as well. So we should [clears throat] just caution to say getting everything you want [laughter] not necessarily. So let's just I think everything that they need

[37:47] to do their job most efficiently and to best serve the public. Yes. And and wasn't it four bays? It's three bays.

[37:55] We talked about four bays. Initially, three bays will suffice. They'll will suffice. Yeah. Yes. And if they're extra deep, that helps.

[38:03] We one of one of the things that drove where we currently are with the fire station um is simply that a four bay

[38:11] wide station um doesn't really fit on that site with everything else that we need to do as part of the fire station

[38:18] program. Um, and then I I would also ask and I um what if the situation with

[38:28] certain property changes or I I know we don't anticipate it changing, but um

[38:34] there's there's a cutout on the site plan, right? We've been in touch with that family and they have no interest in selling and we don't anticipate that changing.

[38:43] If that does change, we don't anticipate that changing. it would make it an efficient use of the space. But we have been absolutely in

[38:51] touch and we need to respect their response. And and I I lastly just want to share that

[38:58] my my approach sort of in my mind's eye is again what can we get for 25 million what can we get for 30 million

[39:06] and and and I th those for me are the upper rate upper numbers of what

[39:14] in terms of next year and debt and okay thank you appreciate that. Anybody else questions, comments? Marissa,

[39:22] a comment. I just wanted to say thank you. Um, and I I guess I'll say I'm I'm in favor of moving forward with fire

[39:28] station. Um, and then I bridge seeing in the bridge and I'm looking forward to seeing what you come back with um to discuss later this summer.

[39:36] Great. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, John.

[39:39] Yeah. Um, I mean, getting to see the spaces was, you know, tremendously important.

[39:47] There's no doubt that, you know, both the fire station and public service building are critical spaces for first

[39:56] responders, right? And they're all super important to making the city run safely and effectively. Um,

[40:05] I'll, you know, go back to comments I made at the, uh, forum the other day or whatever you

[40:13] want to call it, uh, with, which is, you know, and I know Gary, you've just pointed this out that I think having a

[40:22] big picture review of the CIP plan is needed, right? We've talked about a couple of other projects that we need to

[40:29] understand how the the decisions that we're making today uh impact that um from a phasing perspective, right? We

[40:37] got a lot of things we want to get done and a limited pool of resources and dollars to get them done. But I think as a council we really need to think about

[40:45] what is critical and and how we phase these decisions to get the most return on investment and what's the most

[40:53] critical to address today, next year, two years or 5 years or 10 years from now. Um and along with that financing

[41:01] mechanisms, right, which you already pointed out, right? I think it all kind of needs to be a holistic conversation so that we're not pulling these

[41:08] decisions without kind of a full picture of what it does to the pool of dollars that we have allocated to CIP.

[41:16] So, um, just to make it really clear, we are proud to have a 10-year CIP plan, and every single year we are reviewing

[41:25] that 10-year capital improvement plan in an effort to make sure that we are being efficient with our dollars and also not

[41:33] creating waves for our taxpayers. We're trying to keep things as smooth as possible. So, I think it's important to note that that is absolutely coming. I'm

[41:42] looking at Christie, the finance director, because once again, we are starting the budget process and that is part of that holistic approach to the 450 page budget that we put together

[41:51] every year is a thoughtful approach to capital improvement. Um, and we knew and that's that's part of where these

[41:59] questions came up was we had in that budget from how many years ago? 17.5 million as a placeholder. And then when

[42:06] we got this bottom line of way more, it was like, oo, all right, we don't want to have any kind of disruption to our careful planning. Um, how can we meet

[42:16] this critical need? And and I appreciate you raising the field trip that we took to take a look at the two facilities.

[42:21] Um, I thought that really kind of drove the point home of, okay, we need to do something with both. We can't do it all.

[42:28] How do we do this in a way that's responsible and still effective? So, thanks for raising that point. I really appreciate it and I look forward to

[42:35] having a good conversation moving forward with for sure. Let me just add one thing in response to that which is the staff does an incredible job with

[42:44] the budget process and I think I fully appreciate sort of what has been done in the past from a CIP perspective. I I just challenge us to be a little more

[42:53] strategic and have the tough discussion around some of these projects and not just do it in the guise of okay this is

[43:01] part of the budget process where we're checking off things that we do every year but rather a meaningful discussion.

[43:07] What is the bottom line? The bottom bottom line absolutely under the two lines and make sure that you know like the bridge came up out of nowhere and so

[43:15] people are like hm what do we do? Where does this fall into all these other things that we've now been talking about for over 10 years in some instances? So, yeah. Thanks.

[43:24] Appreciate you raising that point. Um, I'm Tony, anything? Nope, you're good.

[43:28] Annette, um, just a quick thing and I'm going to take the kind of opposite perspective of you and I hope I don't freak you out over here, John.

[43:36] um if the face of our Northern Fire Department changed somewhat in the next few years [clears throat] and we had a

[43:46] fewer calls because of that. Um, is there any way we could do this with two long bays?

[43:55] Um, because a lot of our calls come from a contract we have right now, which we've just given notice to terminate.

[44:03] And so, while you're looking at growth, which I think is wonderful and it's much better for strategic planning, [music] but if our overall numbers are going to

[44:10] really significantly for that station come down, what would be the cost? and could we do

[44:17] it with two bays so that we could more rapidly move to some of these other phases and crucial departments too. Um

[44:26] because I'm looking at the small tax we looked at and a a way of perhaps over these next few years getting enough income to let's say take the 25 million.

[44:37] But if instead of spending 13.5 million on the fire station it was more like 11

[44:44] that's you know money we could use in the other areas too. So I I don't mean do you want to answer or do you want one of us to talk about the Highwood versus

[44:53] Fort Sheridan and um happy to answer that. Okay.

[44:56] So, so the three bays, do you want me to go out there, please? Just for the microphone, whatever is good for you. I just

[45:06] the uh three bays versus the two bays really is not dependent on call volume.

[45:11] It it has to do with also addressing another issue. we can't expand station 33, but as we've had to to build a

[45:19] larger reserve fleet because of breakdowns, because [cough] of long apparatus uh uh manufacturing delays,

[45:26] we've we've been in the situation where we have to store more vehicles.

[45:31] So, the three bays at station 34 actually answers a shortage of space at station 33. Um call volumewise, that

[45:40] station responds to 2 to 3,000 calls a year. uh when if we were no longer serving highwood, that's 7 to 800 calls.

[45:48] It's not a significant decrease from in that station. [snorts] That answers my question. So then yes, I'm a 13 and a half.

[45:56] I mean, I'm fire station.

[45:57] You're good with the bridge. Thank is a good question.

[46:00] Yeah. How about you support the 135 and the bridge? I I am on both.

[46:06] Okay. Do you mean uh I I I do support this as as well.

[46:10] Okay. And I but I guess I wanted to mention just for the record, the pedestrian bridge didn't actually come out of nowhere. We've we've known it

[46:18] needed fixing and there was Oh, absolutely. It just wasn't on the CIP. So, right. But you had you knew it was

[46:26] unfunded, but we knew that this was um coming for [clears throat] a long time. And um in and to reiterate, we uh what the

[46:35] mayor has already said that we were we had a placeholder number of 17.5 million and the number came back, you know,

[46:44] significantly higher than that. And and so council asked for, you know, different targets. Um you know, what

[46:52] what can we get for X amount, Amount, B amount, C amount? Um and uh I just

[46:59] wanted to sort of explain that to anyone watching who hadn't kept up with with our process.

[47:06] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we just hired Williams, you know, this year is our planning year. So, we had always we put money in the budget for um actually last

[47:15] year and this year to do the planning with the anticipated construction that it would take place in 27. So yeah, we didn't know what the estimated cost,

[47:23] but this was this was a response because the number was really high and we reacted to that. Yeah.

[47:29] John, are you a yes or a no on the recommendation? Your yes, I'm okay with the recommendation. Thank you, Annette. Yes. Okay, Tony.

[47:37] Yes.

[47:38] Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for coming up with this really wise solution and we will move forward. and

[47:45] Ron, we will get to you next year, but thank you for your patience and please tell the crew we appreciate all the input that's been provided and get things figured out.

[47:53] Yeah. Yeah. And Joel, thanks. Thank you. Thank you everybody.

[48:00] All right. Our next item is um a conversation around the property owner association of

[48:09] Highland Park housing policy position paper. Uh Gita, are you doing this Joel?

[48:14] Um Joel is going to present. We do have um a PowerPoint that's going to guide the policy conversation. Um I just do want to recognize a number of our property owners are here this evening.

[48:25] Um there's a for public information, there's a property owners association for downtown or if you're a longtime Highland Parker, uptown Highland Park.

[48:33] Um and so the city participates in those what we call POA, property owners association meetings. Um we meet each

[48:40] month to talk about a variety of different projects and initiatives um in order to best serve our downtown

[48:46] business community um the businesses as well as serve as an attraction to bring people into Highland Park. Um and so um

[48:56] uh actually it's been over a year ago um that the POA [clears throat] compiled a position paper which is included in the

[49:03] packet asking for some policy considerations on the topic of our affordable housing program. Um and so staff did an analysis. We have

[49:11] information in the packet and then we're going to um go through the presentation this evening. We're looking for your policy feedback in terms of next steps

[49:20] um and any questions or feedback you'd like to provide.

[49:23] Thanks. I think we also want to um acknowledge executive director of committee partners for affordable housing conf.

[49:30] Thanks for joining us. Thank you mayor. Thank you, Keto.

[49:39] [clears throat]

[49:42] Okay, so tonight's conversation is a discussion about the property owners

[49:49] association policy position paper regarding housing policy.

[49:54] Um staff seeks feedback regarding housing policy matters within the uh position paper and we'll go through just

[50:02] some of the uh items there that are uh expressed in the position paper and some of staff's comments with regard to them.

[50:10] Now staff's comments um represent um a preliminary review of these matters.

[50:16] It's not an in-depth analysis on each one of the items, but rather an overview type of analysis in the same spirit and

[50:24] depth of the position paper itself. Um, so throughout the uh

[50:34] memo and packet, we refer to the property owners association of Highland Parks position paper as the paper. Um

[50:43] this was uh released in its form that was attached uh December of 2025. Um the

[50:50] paper's uh stated goal is to increase affordable housing in the community without stifling development. It's an

[50:57] important balancing act. Um the it identifies a shortage of of uh Highland

[51:03] Park's affordable housing supply um as the primary concern and cites zoning requirements and inclusionary housing

[51:11] policy uh as contributing to the housing shortage here in Park. Um the paper

[51:18] lists unintended consequences associated with the city's inclusionary housing policy and offers some recommendations for consideration.

[51:27] [clears throat]

[51:28] Um so the paper kind of characterizes challenges with the current um housing policies of the city um related to

[51:37] affordable housing. It contends that um there are unintended consequences otherwise known as challenges um created

[51:45] from this policy um and they are reduced housing supply, rising [clears throat] rents and displacement, economic

[51:53] disequilibrium, inefficient implementation and social and economic impacts. So that's how they

[52:00] characterize the um fine uh five major uh challenges of the current housing policy.

[52:08] Um the paper lists the following policy recommendations um for consideration of one increase

[52:17] overall housing supply to preserve and enhance what are referred to in the paper as naturally occurring affordable

[52:25] housing. And I just want to take a a second to just draw everyone's attention that there are many ways to refer to

[52:32] this. So Noah is one of them. Um there's also below market rate housing. and you'll see that in some of the uh

[52:39] research papers that were uh cited. Um and then staff uh refer to these as market rate affordable housing units. So there's those are all the same thing.

[52:50] Um, three, they they talk about recommendations to introduce flexible compliance options. And uh, four, optimize inclusionary zoning thresholds.

[53:02] And uh, five, support downtown vitality through density. So those are the papers policy recommendations just as an

[53:10] overall title if you will, capturing those uh, the collection of ideas represented.

[53:16] Okay. So staff's comments um are provided uh within inline in the

[53:23] position paper as well as the position paper being included as its own in attachments to the uh memo for this item

[53:32] tonight. And so I will go through um what staff's comments are in the uh most summarized form here in this presentation and be glad to talk about

[53:41] them further. Um staff respectfully disagree with the paper's assertion that the housing supply will increase by one

[53:48] decreasing on-site affordable requirements required by the city's inclusionary housing ordinance and two expanding buy payment in lie of affordable housing on site.

[54:00] um the you know the the credible sources cited in the paper are are um not applicable uh to Highland Park scale and

[54:08] housing policy requirements and we can explain more on that in a moment.

[54:13] Um so there were two main studies um one was the Pew Charitable Trust and the other was the UCLA study. Um so the the

[54:22] Pew study uh examined metropolitan area housing markets. So the scale was a is a region, a metropolitan area like the

[54:30] Chicagoland area for instance. Um USCLA study analyzes the city of Los Angeles's

[54:37] inclusionary housing policy, extremely low income housing requirements. And what we mean by extremely low um and

[54:45] that's a term and a phrase that's coined by HUD uh the the department of housing and urban development at the

[54:54] federal level is uh extremely low income is characterized by uh those households earning 30% of area median income or less and that's AMI area median income.

[55:07] Um [clears throat] so this study focused um closely on that aspect of the Los Angeles policy.

[55:17] Um this is a level of affordability that the city does not require in its policy.

[55:22] So we just want to make sure that we understand that. And so that's why we we think that while these are credible sources, um they don't really pertain or

[55:31] are not on point with City of Highland Parks uh policies specifically.

[55:37] Um so some overall uh comments on the paper. Um

[55:44] staff believe that the challenges to the city's uh the changes rather to the city's inclusionary uh housing requirements related to the proportion

[55:52] of affordable and payment and L eligibility represent fundamental policy changes that would one reduce the number

[56:01] of affordable units provided in otherwise market rate developments. Two shift affordable housing production to the city and its government and

[56:09] nonprofit partners. three will likely result in a darth of certain types of units more development and yield more

[56:17] developments of entirely affordable units and at all at a higher cost per unit.

[56:26] Okay. So, reduced housing supply. Um, so the position paper went through several

[56:33] challenges and so um, one that was highlighted was reduced housing supply and staff does not agree that there's

[56:40] been a noticeable or sharp decline in the housing production in housing in Highland Park. The number of units in approved land developments in these two

[56:50] time periods 2014 to 2019 and 2021 to 2026 are shown as follows. So 351 units with

[56:58] 44 inclusionary units. Those units are within the 351. So 351 total units and

[57:05] then more recently 486 units with 64 inclusionary units uh in that number as well. Now, we know that 2020 is not over

[57:14] yet. Um, and we are currently um considering a plan development at the at the PDC that may yield additional units

[57:22] being added by the end of 2026 should council approve that request. Um, this

[57:29] does not show a a market decline or uh certainly a sharp decline. um market rate affordable supply as we talked

[57:38] about before Noah or BMR units um it fluctuates based on conditions in the broader housing market. So uh every 5

[57:47] years the uh state of Illinois uh housing development agency um provides a calculation of the number of units that

[57:56] communities have that are affordable per the [clears throat] affordable housing planning and appeals act.

[58:03] Um so that's referred to as the act um for the purposes of this presentation.

[58:09] Um and so the act, you know, has this requirement that that communities um that communities that have below 10%

[58:18] of their units uh affordable by a calculation and method that the the state of Illinois Housing Development

[58:24] Agency applies um that they need to report into the state on it their plans

[58:32] for increasing affordable housing and we have done that consistently with the back um [clears throat] and most

[58:41] recently last year. And so in that report or plan, if you will, um that

[58:51] that document is a singlepurpose document to comply with this uh state act. It isn't essentially our complete

[58:59] uh policy, if you will, on affordable housing, which is really captured through our programmatic efforts and our inclusionary housing zoning code. And we

[59:07] do cite all that in that plan. But I just want to keep that in everyone's mind's eye because the state sets us as

[59:14] a goal 10%. Ours is a higher proportion uh 15% um

[59:23] so as to actually make headway on the 10%. So let me explain. You have, you know, thousands of dwelling units that

[59:30] are currently in in Highland Park. And if you want to increase uh your affordable number of housing units, if

[59:37] you only do so by 10% um given the fact that Thailand Park is the vast majority is already built out,

[59:45] you would not make much progress to toward getting there. Um so, you know, it's useful just to look at what the

[59:54] what IDA or the Illinois Housing Development Agency said over time. Um in 2014 they said Highland Park by their

[1:00:02] calculation and note we did write back about 10 years ago to them about u some disagreement we had with the way they talk about affordable housing and they

[1:00:11] they totally discount and do not include explicitly the type of affordable housing our programs create. They have a

[1:00:20] method to calculate that they can use across all communities in the state and that's more important to them than the

[1:00:27] particulars of a of a certain community like ourselves.

[1:00:31] We respectfully disagree that these represent everything that's going on and do feel like our affordable units are not fully necessarily captured here. But

[1:00:40] holding that aside, I just provide that background because I know Mayor and Councilman Bloomberg are aware of our descent on that from about 10 years ago.

[1:00:50] Um, having said that, they they identified 773 through their calculations. Um, in 2014 and 2018 it

[1:00:59] was,56 and in 2023 it was 766.

[1:01:04] Um and so what this shows is that market rate affordable units or Noah or BMRs, however you want to refer to them, um

[1:01:13] are are you know created and destroyed on on a very um d in a very dynamic way

[1:01:20] quite variable. Okay. And it it depends on a lot of things. Some are very idiosyncratic things. Other things are marketbased structural things such as mortgage rates changes affordability.

[1:01:31] And that's not just for Highland Park.

[1:01:33] that's been throughout the whole nation as the nation is reeling from an affordability high crisis in housing to

[1:01:40] a greater or lesser extent depending on what jurisdictions you're in and what states you're in. Um there's also

[1:01:47] idiosyncratic reasons. So what do I mean by that? Well, you know, folks own units.

[1:01:53] uh they may be renting them or uh some other some other um

[1:02:00] some other means such as wanting to sell a particular home ownership product.

[1:02:05] [clears throat] And so the idiosyncratic nature of these types of affordable units is that depending on their quality

[1:02:12] and what the property owner wants to do, they position their units differently.

[1:02:18] So there are buildings that are now market rate affordable and they might be 50 years old and as we

[1:02:27] know our buildings are 50 and more and we're looking at doing what? Either renovating significantly or replacing

[1:02:34] them. Well, this is what I mean by the idiosyncratic nature is that we all know that as things get older, they're going to need repair and other things like

[1:02:43] that. But where they reset themselves in the market is very important. A lot of times older units may be repositioned,

[1:02:50] meaning they'll do a gut renovation and position them at a much higher uh rent or for sale price. And so that's what I

[1:02:58] mean that the predictability of that is is really highly dependent on individuals and organizations uh means

[1:03:05] and desires and strategic u housing uh pricing choices. So, you know, that bounces around. So, you can all of a

[1:03:12] sudden lose a lot of quote market rate affordable units just by the turnover of several buildings that happen to be more

[1:03:19] affordable because they're aged or priced at a different price point and a new owner wants to change that. Or an existing owner says, "Hey, I think I should do this. I have the means to do

[1:03:27] it and I think it's a good investment." So, you can see here the quite the variability there in that what are referred to as market rate affordable

[1:03:36] units. Um so another one of the challenges the paper

[1:03:43] points out is rising rents and displacement.

[1:03:47] The Pew study finds that metro areas with 10% increase in housing supply experienced a marginal decline in rents.

[1:03:57] Um so per the Pew study um the Pew studies uh the Highland Park would need

[1:04:04] to would need over 1,200 units developed over the 7-year period to achieve a decline in rents that they're saying that they saw at the metro area levels.

[1:04:15] That's if you assume that their metro area level marginal decline in rents is

[1:04:22] applicable to a smaller market like ourselves. So just assuming that you need 1,200 units. So where's Highland Park in about the last 6, seven years?

[1:04:31] 647.

[1:04:33] Okay. Um, so it's quite a a big difference there if you will say that that analysis is applicable to Highland

[1:04:41] Park, even though that's a metro area analysis, not a uh individual municipal municipality analysis. Um, I do just

[1:04:49] remind council that in 2015, the city council adopted zoning policy changes increasing density and height in and

[1:04:56] around downtown that has led in part to 791 units approved since then. Those are

[1:05:03] significant policy changes in and around downtown and they have spurred development. That number 791 isn't all just downtown in and around downtown.

[1:05:12] However, a good portion of that is okay. Economic disequilibrium

[1:05:21] was another uh challenge cited in the paper. Um staff contend that the city's policy is already at the P that the paper suggested.

[1:05:31] Um, in 2019, council may remember that um there was

[1:05:38] a a really in-depth look in at various aspects of the housing policy that led to some policy changes that were

[1:05:46] adopted. One of which was allowing buy payment and LO for fractional units required. This was a really key change

[1:05:55] in in the program. It generated revenue for the program, but that wasn't the principal reason for doing it. What led

[1:06:04] this change was the understanding that smaller developments had a higher burden and this helped relieve some of that

[1:06:12] burden for smaller developments. So instead of having to round up for that extra unit or that partial unit requirement, you could do a payment in

[1:06:21] loo. Payment of Loo is desirable and preferred by developers because they look at each affordable unit represents

[1:06:29] a cost to the development that has some partial offsets through what we have what are called cost offsets in our

[1:06:38] policy. However, they nonetheless represent an opportunity cost. Meaning, if it's an affordable unit, you have to

[1:06:45] rent it within a certain range and you could rent it for a lot more in this market. So that's an opportunity cost that persists no matter what the other

[1:06:54] cost offsets are. And so we have seen that everybody who's had the opportunity to take advantage of a partial uh unit

[1:07:02] requirement payment and loop has taken it. And so it's good in terms of revenue, but it also provides that relief valve in terms of the smaller developments and it's applicable to all

[1:07:10] size developments. It's just more important to the smaller developments.

[1:07:16] Um so you know we did include in the attachments to this item in council's packet a table that that that does look

[1:07:24] at each [clears throat] of the um plan development residential plan developments over time and you can see a breakdown of the total units the number

[1:07:33] of affordable and the percent affordable and which which developments had a payment under etc. We'll talk more about

[1:07:40] that a little bit later. Um, a fourth challenge that the paper identified was inefficient implementation.

[1:07:50] The city's inclusionary and and here this the staff respectfully um believe that the city's inclusionary housing

[1:07:58] program is not subjectively enforced as was stated but does include a discretionary element related to payment

[1:08:05] and loop considerations. Okay. So, I think that's really what the the paper was trying to get at that discretionary element. C some council members may

[1:08:14] recall that during the 2019 um policy conversation, there was an issue about the um [clears throat] market rate unit

[1:08:23] bonuses that are built into the um inclusionary housing zoning code. Well, it used to be that some of that bonus

[1:08:32] was discretionary and discretionary consideration by council whether or not it would apply. As [clears throat] part

[1:08:39] of the 2019 changes, all of the market rate unit bonuses are by right. So, it eliminated that discretionary um consideration for that aspect of things.

[1:08:50] However, what does remain is for developments that do not

[1:08:58] u meet the requirements for onsite affordable holding aside the partial

[1:09:05] requirement partial unit requirements which are allowed to be paid in L by right for those that don't meet the

[1:09:13] affordable on-site requirement a request to pay in L instead for a whole unit this would be right? Not a partial one.

[1:09:21] Um is a discretionary consideration and remains a discretionary consideration in after the 2019 policy uh conversation

[1:09:29] about that matter. And so um that is what I believe is being referred to uh

[1:09:36] with regard to the position paper on that matter. the development community

[1:09:43] in general wants certainty and the more discretionary um elements of a policy there are the

[1:09:52] less certainty there is and so I I think that's that's the general overarching theme and so council in 2019 did make

[1:10:00] some aspects of of the code less discretionary and more by right and but did remain and kept that aside as a

[1:10:09] discretionary element. So um you know these payment in lie uh for emitting a whole inclusionary unit one

[1:10:17] or more it they aren't common and we do have them in the table they have been approved by council from time to time um

[1:10:25] and so there was a time the albian one and two uh there was approved uh payment

[1:10:31] in lie for some of the requirements um at that time uh from staff's perspective we did have a low fund balance and So

[1:10:40] that's been staff's contribution [clears throat] to those considerations.

[1:10:44] That's not um specific in the code, but nonetheless um was a situation that we did face at that time. There have been

[1:10:53] other payment in loo uh discretionary approvals since then um and have been approved as part of plan developments.

[1:11:02] Um so [clears throat] in general

[1:11:09] you should just know that the payment in L monies along with demo tax monies they go to an account called the housing

[1:11:16] trust fund as you're aware and we talk about during budget season each year. Um

[1:11:22] those those monies are are used to create grants and to provide grants for um scattered site housing production.

[1:11:34] What that means is scattered site housing production is a very general term but it really what it means is

[1:11:41] securing homes, buying homes, fixing them up and making them permanently affordable throughout the community.

[1:11:48] generally single f single family detached homes but from time to time infrequently the city has provided grant

[1:11:55] monies for um for instance the Betsy Lazar place 8 unit townhouse development currently under construction on

[1:12:02] Deerfield also Hyestin Place maybe 15 years ago or so that was don't quote me on that I think it was about that long ago um so from time to time there have

[1:12:11] been those uh types of developments too but but primarily they're they're purchasing and then making permanently um affordable single family detached

[1:12:20] homes. Now we do that work through SEA see my podium just I'm sorry. Yes, I apologize. Um they we do that work through SEAR through grants

[1:12:29] to see our housing um or land [clears throat] trust if you will. Um and we've done that for years and it's been very uh productive. We also use

[1:12:38] those monies for um grants for operating support for SEIPA and SEIPA does a host of things for the city um with regard to

[1:12:46] its affordable housing programs including the inclusionary housing program portion um weight list

[1:12:53] management um income verification each year as as as new leases are struck and and um leases are changed that those are

[1:13:03] reviewed to make sure there's compliance in the program.

[1:13:07] Um so the scattered site program should not however be solely relied upon for affordable unit production. I would

[1:13:15] argue I do think the way our programs are set up is is like a hand and glove.

[1:13:21] We have this grant making program and we have the inclusionary housing regulatory program and together they provide a

[1:13:29] portfolio of affordable units in the community um through grants and then also on-site production in developments.

[1:13:40] Okay. So challenge five social and economic impacts.

[1:13:46] um staff just point out that you know HOA fees in developments they frequently differ by unit

[1:13:54] and developments you know throughout developments and based on various characteristics of the units independently of any inclusionary

[1:14:01] requirements. So the notion that the HOA fees vary by unit is is something that that is true and and exists without our

[1:14:09] programs. Now might be to a a greater degree because of the affordability that we achieve through the program but nonetheless the differentials are there.

[1:14:20] Um the city's housing program strives to achieve affordability throughout the community through a combination of inclusionary housing and SC and

[1:14:27] scattered site affordable housing. As I said, they go together hand and glove.

[1:14:32] Um, the securing market rate affordable units know as instead of requiring

[1:14:39] inclusionary housing within developments would not add as effectively to the housing supply of affordable units.

[1:14:47] That's our contention.

[1:14:50] um developing when you get when you have a development and they include inclusionary units within that

[1:14:58] development, it is a newly constructed unit and it is permanently affordable per our program and per our zoning code.

[1:15:07] And so that is a unique opportunity and that is distinctly different from purchasing market rate affordable units

[1:15:14] out in the market. Now you're going to say, "But Joel, we do some of that too." Yes, we do, but not at the level what we look at is you have market rate

[1:15:23] affordable units that are performing well and then you have market rate affordable units or homes that might be in danger of demolition or tear down.

[1:15:32] So, what we do through our grant program is first it's scattered site. We're looking for through sea throughout the community. Sometimes just catches catch

[1:15:40] can. Um, but if you have performing market rate affordable units, it's probably best to allow them to continue

[1:15:48] on going. A lot of the the units that are identified and uh secured through our grant program

[1:15:55] require some upgrade and improvement before they're turned over for a permanent affordability. And so what it

[1:16:02] does is it helps save those units from tear down. Because if you have a properly maintained functioning market

[1:16:10] rate affordable unit, it's probably in a generally safe spot in the market because there's demand. But when you

[1:16:17] have harvested units, and what I mean by that is units that may have, you know, declined because of upkeep and over time

[1:16:25] people do less with their units, they become more vulnerable. And so we try to try to identify those as opposed to just going after the cheapest units on the

[1:16:33] market, which might be a condo in an existing older building that we could grab for cheaper than a single family detach home that we could pay to pick up

[1:16:41] fix up and save it maybe from being demolished at some point. Okay.

[1:16:48] So the position paper moved from challenges to um policy re recommendations and so

[1:16:56] there were several of those. So there were two here uh one and two um increase overall housing supply and preserve naturally occurring affordable housing.

[1:17:06] So in terms of increasing the overall housing supply um you know the city you know is going to evaluate zoning

[1:17:15] requirements like density and height as part of the comprehensive plan planning process. That's a standard um um item

[1:17:22] for any comp plan and so that certainly can be done and will be done. Um recent market rate developments that require

[1:17:30] inclusionary units are largely considered highincome developments. Um, the city of Highland Park has a place

[1:17:37] within the housing market. So too does the broader Northshore area and it it has a particular or is playing a particular role in that market, right?

[1:17:46] And so yes, these are largely considered highinccome developments that we see these newer newer developments. Um, so

[1:17:55] there aren't any market rate affordable units being created that are new. I could say that not in this community at

[1:18:02] least. um preserve and enhance naturally occurring affordable units. So, you know, one thing that we can say is that

[1:18:10] the private sector can build a unit at a lower cost per unit than the public sector can. And so, you're going to say, well, why is that? Well, there's so many

[1:18:18] layers of funding that that does create extra cost and inefficiency on the public side. The private side uh suffers

[1:18:26] from that less, although there are layered uh funding sources as well. Um you know SEPA does our our our

[1:18:35] development uh uh arm there does struggle to secure enough uh Noah's for

[1:18:42] annual scatter house pro standard site program. So, you know, we we provide a grant and generally it's uh for three

[1:18:49] units and, you know, they do the best they can to find, you know, homes that are are um suitable for what uh our

[1:18:58] programmatic efforts are trying to achieve and it does it is hard to find them. Now, again, we're not necessarily

[1:19:05] going after the cheapest, lowest cost units that are already performing.

[1:19:10] Okay. Um, another thing to note is the capacity to to do that, right? So, so we're talking

[1:19:18] about two to three units a year. We're talking about an 8-unit town home development that takes a couple of years. So, the production numbers, they

[1:19:26] they're they're lower than what the private sector could do in developments.

[1:19:30] the plan development portion of the program through the inclusionary zoning code is able to produce a larger number of units.

[1:19:42] So the policy uh paper also talked about a couple of other um policy

[1:19:50] recommendations introducing flexible compliance options and optimizing inclusionary um

[1:19:57] [clears throat] zoning thresholds. These are two very important um considerations.

[1:20:03] So in terms of flexible compliance options, looking at specifically expanding the fee and loo options to larger developments, it would reduce the

[1:20:12] number of inclusionary units in new developments is our opinion. Um the majority of multif family

[1:20:19] developments since 2014 are 5 to 30 units. So if you increase the number to 30 units and then say pay and loot,

[1:20:26] we're going to get a lot of cash and not have a lot of ability to to get units.

[1:20:32] Okay. Um optimize inclusionary zoning thresholds.

[1:20:37] This goes to the percent affordable and as we've talked about in the past, ours is about between 15 and 16%.

[1:20:45] However, as you can see in the table that's been provided because of the FRA payment for fractional units owed,

[1:20:53] things like that and also discretionary payment and LO that percentage has been lower. Um, we point out as I pointed out

[1:21:01] before that, you know, to get to the state acts 10%, you know, if you just go ahead and do just 10%, you know, you

[1:21:09] have an existing housing supply that's vastly greater than the new production.

[1:21:13] So, when we get there, uh, inclusionary developments in Highland Park, as shown in the table that's provided in

[1:21:21] the the, uh, attachments, they're within the range of 10 to 15% affordable on-site affordable units. Okay. The

[1:21:30] codes allowance for payment in L for partial unit requirements can be favorable for small developments in terms of the proportion affordable

[1:21:38] on-site requirement. I mean the example given is we just the council just approved 7:304 central

[1:21:46] uh end of last year early this year actually 2026 technically January um and that had a percent on-site affordable of 9.1%.

[1:21:58] Now there are some idiosyncratic uh when you get down into the small numbers of units that's an 11 unit building. When

[1:22:05] you get into the small numbers the percent affordable requirement bounces around due to rounding. So this gets when the numbers get small they start to

[1:22:13] mean a lot which way that that happens and importantly the

[1:22:21] payment in L for partial units becomes more important because that one part of that one unit is a higher percentage of

[1:22:28] the total units being created when you go down the scale to the smaller developments. [snorts] Okay. Um, number

[1:22:36] number five, support downtown vitality through density. Staff totally agree. I know the council does, too. And and we've been working on that for years.

[1:22:47] Um, the city's adoption of zoning and building code uh amendments to allow increased density and height in and around downtown address this

[1:22:56] recommendation per the city's 2013 central district plan. Um that central district plan took

[1:23:03] several years to um develop um was uh approved in 2013 and then the zoning

[1:23:10] aspect the regulatory implementation of that plan occurred May 2015.

[1:23:16] So we are about 11 years out from that now. Um this is this is something that was a significant policy change in and around downtown and um led to quite a

[1:23:26] bit of development that you see um in those intervening years. um you know it contributed

[1:23:33] importantly to the post205 development of mid-rise multif family residential buildings. What's a mid-rise building?

[1:23:39] So high-rise is at 75 ft. The building code sets that. Okay. Once you go above

[1:23:46] that threshold, there are different requirements for buildings that are taller than that in terms of materials used and other types

[1:23:55] of requirements that do drive up cost quite a bit because they're much bigger buildings and there's other concerns that need to be addressed.

[1:24:01] But below that 75 ft are mid-rise buildings. So, we do allow a fair share of what could be a midsize building. We don't allow all midsize buildings

[1:24:10] because we don't allow up to 75 ft. We allow to 63, right? 65 rather. Um staff acknowledges that height is a persistent restricting factor that limits density.

[1:24:22] You know, the comprehensive plan update effort will consider zoning policy and potential changes in detail um and and

[1:24:29] of course get and secure communitywide input on that, but that is a a limiting factor. We did increase density and

[1:24:37] height, but you know, depending on the number of parcels you can assemble, getting the density that the zoning code

[1:24:45] allows does require a certain volume of building. That volume could be a wider, deeper building or taller building. So that box matters in terms of your

[1:24:54] ability to achieve the density that's otherwise allowed. Moreover, the density bonus that our inclusionary zoning code

[1:25:02] includes further needs that box to be big enough to accommodate.

[1:25:10] This was the table I was referring to.

[1:25:12] It's an attachment. Um it's attachment B. Table I refer to here as table B, but it's attachment B.

[1:25:19] You can see here that um these are all of the residential plan developments and inclusionary affordable housing from

[1:25:28] 2014 to 2026. So here you have the uh affordable on-site units in the first

[1:25:35] column after the address total units number of units um via u payment in loo

[1:25:43] approved fee and l amount and the percent onsite units that are affordable. That's the percentage that column the last column on the right I

[1:25:52] draw your attention to you can see there that we are below 15%

[1:25:59] in many circumstances as a result of the decisions and approvals that council has made regarding inclusionary housing on

[1:26:06] site and that's the on-site uh number of units or percentage of units

[1:26:14] staff seek council's feedback regarding the housing policy matters we spoke about this evening and thank you for listening. I appreciate it.

[1:26:21] Thanks Joel. Those uh terrific and comprehensive presentation that we really appreciate and um thank your team

[1:26:29] as well because I know it's a major team effort. I also want to thank the POA and I want to thank SEPHA for your partnerships because we're all working

[1:26:38] together to move this local economy forward, but to also make sure that we have a diverse opportunity for members of the community to live in this city.

[1:26:48] Um, we didn't even talk Joel about the Build Act.

[1:26:55] No. and the new Senate amendments that were added yesterday and today I believe and the Senate hearing that occurred

[1:27:01] yesterday um and for the council members that's the state's legislation that's under consideration

[1:27:09] um right now because they are running through the 31st and so it is literally we are listening uh through the Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus and the

[1:27:17] Illinois Municipal League to hearings that are going on till midnight talking about this very issue and with a lot of the legislation that's being considered.

[1:27:26] All of this will be somewhat moot to some extent because of changes in who will have the say in terms of zoning, in

[1:27:34] terms of what's being built, where it can be built, how it can be built. Um, this is a really complex and important balance that we need to talk about and

[1:27:42] I'm proud that Highland Park since 1968 has been considered a model for other communities to look at. Uh, but we have

[1:27:50] a lot to talk about. We also need to eat dinner. So, I'm going to thank you all for coming tonight. We're going to continue this conversation to our next

[1:27:58] committee of the whole, do you think? Or do we have a different date? We'll we'll confirm.

[1:28:02] We'll confirm likely June 29th if we are. Uh, and I appreciate that you came this evening to contribute to the conversation, but we need time and we

[1:28:11] should give it time. So, um, if everybody's okay with that, I'm going to ask for a motion to adjurnn. So, move.

[1:28:18] Is there a second? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Nope. Okay. All right.

[1:28:23] We'll see you all in a few weeks. Thank you. Thanks, Joel. Thank you.