Committee of the Whole Meeting 09/28/2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J0U_d7hO-s
Automatic captions; not audio-verified.

[4:40] Um, could we hold the meeting? Will the clerk please call the role? Council member.

[4:46] Council member Brockman here.

[4:47] Council member Ross here. Council member Papia. Council member Lart here.

[4:51] Council member Bloomberg here. Mayor Ro here. We have a quorum. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the committee the whole that was held September 14, 2026?

[5:00] So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Those are approved. Thank you. Welcome back.

[5:08] Um we will start with our scheduled business, the energy stretch code pathway consideration. Looking forward to hearing this conversation.

[5:16] Great. Thank you, mayor. Um we have three items of business on this committee. The whole agenda. Um the first one as indicated is um

[5:24] presentation of four different pathways that we have considered um for policy feedback this evening. There's a detailed staff report that's included in

[5:33] the packet. Um and we're pleased to introduce our consultants um with Thornton Thomas. We have Prudence Ferrer that is with us, Ken Griffith, and then

[5:42] also part of the presentation is going to be our team uh assistant city manager Aaron Jason and Austin Knight, our sustainability manager. So, we have a

[5:50] short PowerPoint that we're going to go through, take about um 10 minutes, and then open it up for your policy considerations on two recommended pathways.

[6:06] All right. Hello everybody. I'm Stanley manager Austin Knight. Um just going over a quick uh timeline of the stretch code and kind of when it was introduced.

[6:15] So the work to consider code adoption began in February of 2025. We got the grant in September of 2025 and then we hired a consultant in February of 26.

[6:28] And tonight Thornton City will present an overview of the four different pathways for consideration related to the energy stretch code policy. And at

[6:37] the conclusion of the presentation, staff will seek feedback from council, city council, as to next steps on consideration of adoption of the stretch

[6:44] energy codes. This just a little bit of a overview of the community outreach that's been done. So, five events were

[6:52] held from June through August. Um, and then we also had the one of one was for the

[6:59] sustainability advisory group and that uh feedback is in your agenda packet. So you can get some the ideas of what SAG had to say about it. Uh we also had

[7:08] inperson feedback and an online survey to collect a variety of viewpoints that was distributed in the Highlander e-news

[7:17] um on the website. So it was put in a variety of places on all of our um communication modalities and we also held um these events both in

[7:27] person and virtual to maximize attendance.

[7:31] So some of the feedback requested. So these are the four pathways under consideration. First one is just the IEC

[7:39] inter Illinois energy conservation code ICC 2024. Pathways two and three are the 2023 and 2026 stretch code respectively.

[7:49] And then pathway four is the adoption of targeted appendices um local options.

[7:57] So stack recommendation staff recommends two of these options.

[8:02] Pathway one would be staying in the status quo which is the 2024 IEC code.

[8:09] Um and then pathway four is the adoption of the IEC appendices. So that would be some of the local options and um this is the approach that was favored by SAG.

[8:21] And so I will introduce our consultants for Tom City. So prud and saying Kenneth off to you.

[8:35] Thank you Austin. Okay so I'm going to get through this pretty quickly here. Um

[8:42] as [clears throat] was said before we looked at four different options and if we compare them to each other um path one is the most familiar. It's the

[8:51] existing code framework. Path four allows us to build modularly. We can choose and pick the options that make

[9:00] sense that are potentially aligned with incentives that are cost-ffective and uh

[9:06] move in a period of time that the community and staff and all of you are comfortable with. Path two is a stronger

[9:15] stretch code path. um this brings more requirements and also um more progressive take at lowering emissions

[9:23] and then path three is the most ambitious.

[9:26] So if we take a look at the residential implications of all of this um path four is the next most stringent uh when we

[9:35] compare it to path one which we're on now and there are higher performance optional upgrades for both envelope of

[9:42] the building and systems. When we move to path two, there's more co coordination required here. Uh, one of the things that's challenging in path

[9:50] two is that it's limiting east and west glazing. Um, [clears throat] also requiring lower uh, solar heat gain

[9:58] coefficients on glazing and there are more controls that are required. Um, path three requires electrification. It

[10:06] has definite verification requirements in terms of on-site testing that are added to the mix.

[10:13] When we look at the non-residential pathways, we see a similar trajectory happening here. Um, path four would

[10:20] allow us for optional upgrades in a time of your choosing. Um, path 2 has

[10:26] stronger, more uh prescriptive requirements. Again, the east and west glazing limitations, which are not

[10:34] popular since we have U-sheds um looking to the lake. And then in terms of the most stringent path,

[10:42] pathway three, again requiring electrification, we're moving to heat pumps here. We're moving to energy recovery ventilation systems.

[10:51] So when we look at what we heard from the people that we engaged with, we got pretty consistent feedback across the

[10:59] events. Um most people were concerned about the upfront costs. Uh we also heard that people really want

[11:07] predictable timing and they want simple comparisons to help them understand what their options are. Um the cost of

[11:15] construction or renovation mattered the most for folks and in addition ease of compliance was a priority as well as uh

[11:24] maintenance concerns and not putting too many requirements on small businesses.

[11:30] Um there are a few more um

[11:32] [clears throat]

[11:33] pieces of feedback that are here in the slides, but I'm going to keep moving. As far as path [clears throat] one, which

[11:40] is staff's recommendation, you can see here on the slide that the Illinois energy uh code is moving in a trajectory

[11:48] that is reducing emissions over time and also reducing building energy use. So that's going to keep occurring. That

[11:56] will continue to happen. And we can see when we reframe uh from 2035, which the city had a goal of getting to zero

[12:05] emissions by 2035, when we reframe that to 2050, we see it's simply not possible to get to net zero in that time period.

[12:14] And that's okay. Um there are definitely jurisdictions that have tried to do this. It's an ambitious goal. It's a

[12:21] worthy goal. Um but where the buildings are today and where the technology is, it's it's not possible. Um, so this

[12:30] gives you more of a a realistic look at what the trajectory will take you to following uh the IACC code cycles

[12:39] through 2050. Now, if we zoom in, the dotted lines are where we're headed in the future. These are the paths that we

[12:48] studied. Path four, the modular path, which the sustainability advisory group was recommending, gives you the

[12:55] flexibility to be more progressive and adopt measures that are going to lower emissions and lower energy use in a time

[13:03] that makes sense for your community. So, there's a range there of what could happen. Um the other paths, the stretch

[13:13] code pass 2023 and 2026, these are the lower curves that we see here. These are the ones that people were a bit

[13:21] concerned about. Higher first costs, more burden, more requirements.

[13:28] Um in terms of commercial, we see that the pathways tighten up a little bit and we're not getting quite as low.

[13:34] Commercial buildings just use more energy in general than residential buildings do. But the trajectory is

[13:41] following the general IECC trajectory you saw on the first slide. The stretch code pathways are just lower. So the

[13:49] staff recommendation um was either sticking with path one, which is the same as path 4, but potentially segueing

[13:58] to path 4, which allows you to add those options, which makes sense for you locally. Um, we talked a lot about

[14:06] aligning those with incentives that are available. Um, that's practical now. It means we're not having a lot of change.

[14:13] Um, and it lets the city get more awareness in the community about the direction that you're heading. Um, and

[14:21] let people get comfortable with it, see how the financial climate changes, and

[14:26] move according to what makes sense. Um, in terms of pathway 4, the options that you have are uh different appendices.

[14:37] The ones that are of most interest are these stronger additional efficiency overlays. We see [clears throat] RG

[14:43] [snorts]

[14:44] and CF. Um, all of the ones that are in green, these are more infrastructure related and they do not increase

[14:52] efficiency. They build infrastructure for electrification.

[14:56] So they add cost but they don't reduce emissions right away. Um one path for

[15:03] discussion that we've had is potentially starting with path one where we're right now and then adding some optional

[15:12] potentially incentivized [snorts] um voluntary options for folks to adopt electrification readiness infrastructure means it's not required.

[15:23] It's an option that folks can do and maybe get some kind of preferential permitting. Um, and then step one of

[15:31] this path or modular path could be to start with practical efficiencies first.

[15:37] The things that make sense that are cost effective and then when you're ready to move further, go to a step two, which is

[15:44] some deeper envelope and system efficiency measures. And then ultimately path three much deeper performance that is getting buildings closer to net zero.

[15:55] So of the efficiency credit options that are available there are many. You can see them listed here. I'm not going to read through each one of them. Staff is

[16:04] familiar with all of these but they're things like more insulation, better lighting, smarter controls, more efficient water heaters, more efficient

[16:13] ventilation systems and heating and cooling systems.

[16:17] And so you can see we've organized them into this step one, step two, and step three category. So you can see which

[16:24] ones are the the easier measures, the deeper measures, and then the close to net zero measures

[16:32] terms of making this modular path predictable for applicants and staff.

[16:36] There's a few things to consider. U making sure that before adopting anything, you're checking with the state code to see how you're aligning with

[16:44] that. that there's no uh friction happening between them. Um making sure the definition of project types and scopes is really clear so that the

[16:52] community understands and staff understands going into it. um prioritizing um resilience and

[16:59] identifying incentives before adoption and then requiring any infrastructure

[17:06] related measures um to take a look at load service utility you know what's the hosting capacity if you're going to

[17:13] require PV does the utility have enough hosting capacity um and then also uh making sure that the verification

[17:21] measures are really clear and that there's no unnecessary verification that is not matched with a measure. Um

[17:30] and then in general uh using defined implementation period to track how it's going because if you try something

[17:40] it doesn't need to be perfect. You can roll it back and say okay that was good.

[17:44] We tried that. We saw how it went. Now we're going to think about it process and then we're going to go again. Um

[17:51] okay. So, what we have left to do is we're going to do some staff training.

[17:56] Um, and we're going to be focusing on one of these two paths that you've all selected. The great thing is that they have the same core. Um, and so we'll be

[18:06] working with staff to to help them customize their recommendations moving forward.

[18:16] So, where does that bring us? [laughter] Mhm.

[18:19] That brings us back to um again there's four pathways for your consideration.

[18:23] We're asking you really to look at these two um pathways. We feel strongly that both are the best interest for Highland

[18:32] Park at this time. They don't discourage reinvestment and new investment um in our community. Brian, we always want to promote um our business community, our

[18:40] residents, our um attract development for new TODS and things of that nature.

[18:45] And so this really took into account everything that we heard. Staff was at every one of the um community engagement

[18:53] um processes. We heard one of my favorite lines. I won't attribute it to anyone in particular. I'll have to tell you off camera later. Um we had someone who was very involved in the community

[19:01] both on the commercial and residential side say Highland Park is very forward thinking about sustainability and whatnot, but we're also aware of what it

[19:08] costs. And um we really took that to heart. But there is a cost. If there is a point where we don't want to discourage people from maintaining their

[19:16] properties, we don't want people to think I can't do this because XYZ it's going to cost me four times more. Um certainly sustainability advisory group

[19:25] has looked at this very seriously. You know this has been a passion project for uh chair Jay Futterman since 2023 looking at the stretch codes. So, um, I

[19:34] take it seriously and Austin and I have met with him separately too to talk about this as well. When Chair Futterman says I think pathway 4 is a way for us

[19:42] to go and, um, that's what that's what SAG approved. We we talked to SAG just two weeks ago again to say this is what our recommendation would be to stay on

[19:50] path one as we adopt modular pieces of pathway 4. And I think the important thing to stress about pathway 4 is that

[19:58] there is a rhyme and a reason to which ones you do win. And um timelinewise um like we were talking with Thornton

[20:06] Thomas they talked about you know the phases could be three years they could be five years. What it allows us to do in that time is to bring back to council

[20:14] here's smart legislation that it aligns with both what's happening in the state what's happening federally that we see when incentives come online. It allows

[20:23] us to make smart choices that make sense and propel us forward without taking steps backwards. And so with that, mayor, I turn it over to you for

[20:32] discussion on if you were supportive of pathway one or four or one of the others. Appreciate it. Thank you. And I

[20:38] do appreciate um Chair Futterman's um passion for this along with former council member Kim Stone who really was

[20:46] like, "Let's go, let's go, let's go." So, thank you for bringing us this analysis. Um, I had a couple of questions and and I so appreciated the

[20:55] quote that you shared because I think for all of us there's a desire to do as much as possible to mitigate the issue

[21:04] and the impact on greenhouse gas all everything all the good stuff but recognizing that balance and later tonight we're talking about affordable

[21:12] housing and again anything that's going to impact the cost of housing is going to be a sensitive spot for all of us but um this is this is such great work. A

[21:21] couple of my questions. One, have we talked to worked with I'm sure Austin, you may have Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus, Edith Mackra, they're doing all

[21:30] kinds of work in this space. Is there any sort of coordination that can go on in terms of our learning from our peer

[21:38] communities? Any thoughts along those lines?

[21:41] So, so far, um, in terms of learning opportunities, 15 we need you at the microphone.

[21:49] All right. So, so far in terms of MMC and the related communities, Evston's the only one that's adopted it right now, right?

[21:58] So, we're still waiting to see kind of the lessons learned from them. Okay.

[22:02] Um I do know that Oak Park is considering adopting stretch code as well.

[22:07] So, certainly when they um go about the process and they can kind of provide feedback to us as well.

[22:12] Um very familiar with their sustainability staff there. So, it's just a bit early for us to kind of have our peer communities provide um some feedback on their experience.

[22:23] Okay.

[22:23] We're the only one besides those two that we're aware of that have expressed to us that they're considering adoption of new stretch codes at this point in time.

[22:31] Okay. Go ahead. And then um another question that I had um you raised in terms of electrical hosting [clears throat] capacity and so as we

[22:40] shift from natural gas and what have you are there concerns in terms of keeping up with demand? Obviously there are and

[22:47] so where's that balance struck in terms of not going so far over our skis that we're now kind of living on fumes for

[22:56] lack of a better phrase? Yeah, it's a it's a very good point and it's something other jurisdictions are struggling with um in particular Boston because they they got out ahead of their

[23:05] skis, right?

[23:06] So my recommendation based on experience there is to start talks with utilities, very frank talks, and find out from

[23:13] [cough]

[23:14] okay, [clears throat] we want to eventually go down this pathway.

[23:18] What does the infrastructure look like if we bring on X amount of renewables?

[23:25] Where are we going to hit limits? where our new substations need to go in and how can we work together.

[23:32] Okay. And is it CG that is the new Illinois act? I get the acronym confused. The one about hardening the

[23:39] grid [snorts] and bringing in storage. I might have the wrong acronym, but in any case, we talked briefly about um sort of

[23:47] those electrical storage units and the zoning and the need for storing electricity overnight so that it could

[23:56] then be drawn during the day. I just shared with staff that might be a reopening of that question in terms of

[24:03] the large scale sort of batteries that we had talked about last year.

[24:08] CRGA, CRGA, thank you. Um, I think that's it for my questions. Um, I did get a chance

[24:16] to have a preview at the Betsy Lazar place and just seeing sort of all the sort of environmental pieces that were put in place just to really enhance it.

[24:25] It gave me just a thrill because it answered our affordable housing piece, but also was very forward thinking in

[24:32] terms of environmental protections and and being sustainable. So, thank you.

[24:37] Love what SAG has done. always great that we have these incredible experts on our commissions and advisory groups who

[24:44] really live and breathe this stuff. So, I'm heartened by what they said and I appreciate and support your recommendation. Uh, any other comments?

[24:52] Council member Tapia, can you bring up the slide with the trend lines? I just had a couple followup questions.

[24:59] The um Do you know which one we're looking for? Well, maybe the first one first. Yeah.

[25:05] So, that's the codes. This is the residential.

[25:07] Yeah. So where's the ECC current code is path one is which the top line top line all right and then for 2030

[25:15] which is the net zero goal is is there like a line somewhere that can tell us the gap uh between which where each of

[25:25] those lands and between that and net zero.

[25:28] So so net zero is going to be down on the bottom of the table off the table at zero. So the table ends at 20.

[25:39] Okay. Okay. Yeah.

[25:40] Yeah. So there's still quite a gap. And just to to couch this in very practical terms for residential housing, uh

[25:49] currently passive house is the most efficient method of of doing residential housing. There's a lot of affordable projects actually that do it. You end up

[25:57] around 24 on this table with passive house. And to get beyond that, you need to add renewables and energy storage. So

[26:06] got it. Okay. And then can you hear the next one?

[26:11] So here the uh the range is not that I mean how you know it's a chart but uh for the non-experts

[26:18] how level magnitude order magnitude difference between those gaps between each of the four.

[26:26] So for the stretch so for the stretch codes um the target for residential savings is against a baseline of like

[26:33] 2006 the year 2006. They're showing you following the stretch code eventually you would get to about a 75% reduction.

[26:41] So you have 25% left to offset with photovoltaics or renewable energy. Um for the commercial passes it's a little

[26:48] tougher to save so much energy. Here they're kind of the the dream scenario following the stretch code is about uh

[26:55] 61% reduction. So here you can see that bottom line is kind of in the around 2030 around 39. So then everything

[27:03] stretch code wise kind of stops at 2030 and these are predictions beyond it' be like a new set of years beyond there. So

[27:11] it's kind of seeing how far out can we get past. All right. And then one final question.

[27:15] Um I mean there's a obvious logic about the costs. No question. But do we know what those costs are like across all

[27:24] four? Like this one is this much more this much more. I mean like what's the order of magnitude on that cost? Um so it depends on the strategy you want to

[27:32] go by but there for residential and commercial uh we have and it'll be available in the documents you guys have but like a dollar per square foot

[27:39] increase for each of the pathways. Um the top of my head I think where it was residential you're looking at if you

[27:47] kind of went all in on the path three stretch code was like $2 uh additional dollars per square foot.

[27:55] Um I think for commercial it was much larger $8. Yeah, it was like eight dollars and there's a part of that and it's again it's in the data but it's

[28:02] it'll show you how much of that is for future electrification. So electrication ready and what part is for like envelope um HBAC. Yeah.

[28:11] So if if the recommended path is $2 more per square foot.

[28:15] Uh that would be the that would be the kind of best case scenario.

[28:19] Best case and then and then the one you're recommending is one the well well it'll go over time. So, I want to point out like where the dotted

[28:26] line is coming down like right there at 2024. That was our baseline. That's our most recent baseline for greenhouse gas numbers. So, that's where we are now.

[28:34] The good news is no matter what path, whether we do nothing and stay on pathway one, that top line, we're going to continue to to drop. We're going to continue to see efficiencies. Um, thank

[28:42] you. Not a good my glasses. But this line here, that shows kind of where we're at now. So, everything's going to move us down. um commercial just in

[28:51] general because they use so much electricity is always going to be higher. So their use is always going to be higher even with the most stringent

[28:58] codes. In terms of the residential, as Kenneth pointed out, with the more stringent codes, you can drop by 2033 to

[29:06] about that 20%. Which is fantastic, but [clears throat] that comes at a it does come at a cost. Not just with the outfront costs associated with it, but

[29:14] also like the work and the maintenance that you have to do beyond those initial costs. And so that was something that we heard too that I think is important to point out.

[29:23] One other thing. So the path for range you're seeing there that to us was an achievable range if you I mean it's

[29:31] always possible. You can adopt every single appendicy and you can go right down to zero immediately. But again that's a you can go from that top line

[29:39] all the way to the bottom off the page if you want. But it's kind of a what would we call it? A choose your own adventure. Yeah.

[29:45] It's a choose your own adventure. And that would be the exact adventure.

[29:48] Yeah. Yeah. that that's the trickier adventure. This we thought was kind of an easel path, right?

[29:55] Council member, thank you. So to council member Tabia's point, you're saying two $2 to $8 a

[30:02] square foot, but if you have a home and that home has 3,000 square ft,

[30:10] so what we're talking $6,000 of difference because of the implementation.

[30:18] And if you have a 3,000 square foot uh commercial business and you're talking

[30:26] $8 a square foot. So these are the upfront costs we're talking about. It's it's not $2. It's it's a lot of cost.

[30:34] And then those costs go to whom?

[30:38] What do you Well, that's that's putting in the new infrastructure within the building.

[30:44] So that means whether it's firing, whether it's right insulation, whatever. it's the homeowner or it is the business owner.

[30:51] So, and that's one of the questions about the upfront costs.

[30:56] So, I I just want it to be real costs, not I mean it sounds great. You know, we do our whole thing with the 500,000 and you know, there's a lot more involved.

[31:05] Okay. So, that helps me with that one.

[31:06] That's I just want to clarify to you, it compounds also. So, if you're doing multiple items all at once, that's compounding costs. So, you might be doing your envelope, you might be doing

[31:14] your glazing. Um, I think there's things besides cost to talk about. So, when Prudence was talking about like the glazing, east and west glazing, that

[31:22] means we don't require, we don't allow you to put windows on the east and west side of your home anymore. Um, I mean, you can, but without

[31:30] less significantly less windows, and that's whether you're commercial or residential. On a lakefront community, it's really hard to say no windows that

[31:38] face the lake. Um, if you're operating a business, it's really hard to say, you know, this is what your frontage is, but doesn't really matter because you only

[31:45] get this much window. Um, so those are considerations that we also fold in that don't necessarily have monetary value, but we want to make sure you're aware of.

[31:52] No, that's really helpful. Thank you very much. Cuz that those are the kinds of questions if we don't know to ask them and then we have to respond and say

[32:00] you can't put east facing windows and you're looking at the lake, it's a bit of a problem. But anyhow, okay, so that's one. Um, I I did two

[32:10] other questions. One had to do with the survey responses, and I couldn't get a handle on how many

[32:17] surveys. I just wasn't sure if it was a significant amount of the community. It was eight people.

[32:24] Eight people responded to the survey.

[32:26] And we put that survey out everywhere and for months. We kept boosting it. We kept we boosted the post. We put it on the Highlander. We put it in e-news. We

[32:34] had it on the website. We had it at even the presentations people were like, "No, I feel okay. I don't need to take the survey." Like even with SAG, I think of

[32:42] that eight, I'm gonna guess at least three of them are from SAG. Yeah.

[32:46] Okay. So, what it's telling us is it's good to have a commission and groups that are going to be activists because no one else is going to be. Okay. on

[32:53] that one. Then my last question um had to do with there was a statement in I

[33:00] think your report that had to do with the fact that we are significantly under our goals for 2026

[33:09] and I I just wanted to understand what that meant. Is that because we're in training now and we're moving toward

[33:17] goals? But I just um wanted some clarification on it. I'm sorry.

[33:24] It was uh why are we so far under the plan goals for 2026? It was on page 18 of the report.

[33:35] But I can say we're far away from the 2039 zero goals. Um just that's how it is. If

[33:42] you follow the code, you're not not quite there. Um okay. So that's why you're advising to maybe expedite it. So if we want to meet

[33:51] this 2035 or something. Okay.

[33:54] So if you follow the stretch code, it is taking the existing code and stretching it out so you can get to net zero sooner

[34:02] and it lays out requirements to help you get there. Um if you have your own path like we're talking about here, um you're kind of choosing different ways to do it

[34:11] on your own. Uh which maybe is easier to implement. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, great. Council member Bullberg.

[34:19] So my my general preference tends to be with the most aggressive choice and I I

[34:25] personally I like pathway three. Um I I feel that way because I think it's important to do everything we can to

[34:32] start having a a favorable impact on all of the environmental issues that are facing our modern world. U but

[34:41] realistically that's hard to do. I appreciate the way this has been approached. Um I I fully support uh

[34:49] proceeding with pathway 4 on a selective approach. Uh that does allow us to move

[34:55] forward. We can become more aggressive and that becomes more comfortable for us as a municipality. We can see what the

[35:03] state is doing and our neighbors are doing uh in our approach going forward and this allows for that flexibility. I

[35:10] I think it's a a rational, thoughtful approach that balances [clears throat] people's I don't know who those people are

[35:19] because they haven't responded

[35:20] [laughter]

[35:21] to our uh to our inquiries, but uh through the work of the commission and the general uh response to your report.

[35:30] I think that's an appropriate way to go.

[35:32] Great. Um Council Member Centra, thanks. Um,

[35:42] what does it really mean to be 50 versus 40 or 40 versus 30 or 30 versus 20

[35:51] in terms of the number on the left of that chart.

[35:53] Uh, so that is your [snorts] uh energy savings within the building.

[35:59] So how the code is set up is comparing against 2006. Why they picked that year?

[36:04] I don't actually not. That's our baseline. So, it's saying and now in 2024, so if you look at that that line

[36:11] right there, we're at about almost about a 40% savings um since then. So, you're at 60% of the 100. Mhm.

[36:19] Um under this situation, if you went to pathway 4, by 2050, you'd be closer to about an 80% reduction. So, 20% of that

[36:26] energy left. That's what those numbers mean. And so it's obviously is net zero is optimal in the goal, but it's sort of

[36:35] subjective in terms of where we want to get to, right?

[36:39] A lower number is better, but it's not a decision made in a black box, right?

[36:46] And and to get to net zero, I mean, you would need renewable energy eventually to offset it because not going to building has to operate.

[36:55] Yeah. Okay. And I just want to remind everybody our goals in our strategic plan are very aspirational. Um I remember the very passionate

[37:04] conversation about it on the dis when we talked about the strategic plan and minded it and saying if we're not aiming for zero what are we aiming for? So we

[37:11] really made that as an aspirational goal with [clears throat] the understanding even the cap was goal of 2050 and they don't think they're going to make it there either. I mean but we're going to

[37:20] do our best for sure make smart choices along the way to move us and move the needle for Highland Park. Totally. And I and I think it's a great goal and I think we should all do

[37:28] our part to work towards that in consideration of the other factors as well. Um do we have a an appreciation I think

[37:37] there were some uh one of the cons right that was brought out was the ultimate cost to end users particularly on the

[37:44] commercial side right whether that's tenants it's tenants or sort of post you know development projects do we have a sense

[37:53] for what $8 a square foot impact does to prospective construction and development velment in the community.

[38:04] So at our meetings with both small businesses and with development developers, we had individual meetings with both those groups. It came up very

[38:11] strongly in both of those and included in the business uh meeting there were developers who work with our small businesses who are doing the work in Highland Park now and all were very

[38:20] concerned about it because that adds a significant upfront cost that while over time your utilities may go down, that's a long time to wait for some of

[38:29] them. Y um so there was definitely um a lot of consideration on that and one of the items that staff thought about as we

[38:35] thought about pathway 4 was as we bring modular pieces to you in the future we're able to give you kind of like this is what the impact will be significant

[38:44] to this particular item because right now just as the appendices are choose your own adventure so are all the different pieces of the code as they

[38:52] exist. So understanding what someone's actually doing work on um because unless they're building a brand new building, it's really hard to quantify this is

[39:00] exactly how much more it will cost because for some it'll be way more than $8 and some it might be seven but they're not going to go down. They're only have the only room they have is to go up in terms of cost.

[39:10] Yeah. So that's I mean admittedly that's my biggest concern as we think about this as a council is making sure there's not an unintended consequence of

[39:17] particularly in a in a time where we are seeing momentum in the continued development of our community through many different local developers that are

[39:26] adding different you know h adding housing um and different types of housing stock to our community that are

[39:34] you know trying to bring restaurants and retail and other things that are vibrant to us that if we are uh choosing

[39:41] something that is overly restrictive that that momentum ceases and we lose that momentum and we are making it very

[39:49] difficult to continue to to grow. So that's the push pull of trying to figure out how we can make this the priority

[39:58] that it deserves and continue to invest in it but not result in uh turning off future development and growth in the

[40:05] community. So I just want us to all think about that. Uh that was the the point that Aaron had made at the beginning was the the balance you know sort of the costbenefit

[40:13] analysis of how are you achieving returns in terms of diminishing greenhouse gases but also not making it such an ownorous process for property owners. Yeah.

[40:23] Right. So, I think it's our job to figure out how to make that economically work and whether that's through incentives or some type of public

[40:32] private partnership or some other way so that we can continue our eyes on the goal, but also [clears throat] continue

[40:40] to make sure that we are supporting the growth and development that we need in the community. Like that's I just I don't think that's something

[40:47] that we should ignore. Um, do we feel like these investments enhance building value?

[40:54] I think yes. Future future proofing.

[40:56] Yes. That's my my opinion, but I see everyone else shaking their heads, too. So, feels like a good opinion.

[41:01] Follow question to that. Is there legality to make this retroactive or not?

[41:08] Um, good question.

[41:10] We may be able to [clears throat] public safety argument make it retroactive, but I'd be very careful. I I wouldn't I

[41:18] can't promise against lawsuits playing investor rights.

[41:20] Okay. Followup question to that. Can we tie this concept in with the vacancy

[41:27] challenges we have and and you know with the it's going to be difficult to I hear

[41:35] where you're going and I appreciate it but it we we've got to be able to justify why energy efficiency is more or less

[41:42] important in vacant buildings than it is in occupied buildings. You may have a credibility argument.

[41:49] Well, say you could tie it into as people are moving forward with leases, they need to

[41:56] prospective prospective talk about retro, right? So, prospectively, you could say, okay, you've now been vacant 10 years.

[42:04] As you move forward, we expect this, this, and this. I'm not quite sure the economics are there because if they're already having trouble renting these

[42:12] spaces to add to their costs might be even more difficult hill to climb. But I I appreciate what you're saying. We all

[42:20] want to fill these spots. Are there penalty like penalties and fines for non-compliance that would require maybe land owners to say, you

[42:28] know what, I'm done. Get new land owners in. Just change the mix a little bit.

[42:32] I'm just trying to like follow the economic logic of where this could go. I I I hear you and I'm but I'm still thinking a concept like this really

[42:41] needs to be applied equally regardless of what or how it's being used.

[42:47] And I think education goes a long way and it shouldn't be punitive to do the right thing. You know, as you explain why this is a positive thing when we've

[42:56] looked at our residences, for example, having EV chargers be part of the moving forward, which is why I like the

[43:03] modularity of pathway 4. you can say, you know, we're expecting [clears throat] this, we're expecting, you know, energy efficient, whatever. I think that really gives us an

[43:11] opportunity. And then as technology moves forward and maybe costs come down, we're able to add more layers in in a

[43:18] way that continues the trend in the way we want it to go. That makes sense. Um, Council Member Brooklyn and Council Member Ross,

[43:26] thank you. Um, [clears throat] so I'm going to also say pathway four makes sense to me. um based on what we've

[43:33] heard from the residents and businesses um that they want the easiest compliance and obviously the cost associated with

[43:41] it um and the modular approach makes sense. Um, with that [clears throat] said, thinking about, you know, being the BDAG liaison, I wanted to make sure

[43:50] that BDAG will have more of an opportunity to continue to weigh in on this as we move along. And [clears throat] our the small business

[43:57] owners and contractors have a, you know, laid out on one page on exactly what's going on. Um, so I just wanted to make sure we do continue to include BAG in

[44:07] these conversations, um, as we move forward. But thank you. and I thought that this was a well-run process with

[44:12] the in person and virtual um um process and it's all obviously um available online too. So yeah, thanks C Ross.

[44:23] Um thank you. Um I want to say that I greatly appreciate the heavy lifting

[44:30] work by uh the sustainability advisory group and um city staff's work on this

[44:37] as well. Uh, and I agree that in an ideal world, we take a a more aggressive

[44:44] approach, but uh, I like the rest of us concerned about the cost for homeowners and businesses. And, um, I appreciate the measured approach of of phasing in.

[44:56] Um, and I I have two questions. is I guess to the point about um you know

[45:04] discouraging development through throughout this process have we been in conversations with neighboring municipalities

[45:12] okay and it'd be nice if we were all doing this at the same time uh there will be um uh you know there will be

[45:22] cost savings from energy savings to homeowners and businesses um and I I

[45:28] wonder uh What about um you know incentivizing other you know

[45:35] architectural features uh like you know attractive shading devices that on you know exterior buildings that limit solar

[45:42] heating um and and uh and I I so that's a question I hope that that this is an

[45:49] evolving project as new technologies are developed. I'm going to go to the answer you want to go back to this slide that

[45:56] prudence covered. So with pathway 4, we're talking about an intentional order and the first like kind of call phase

[46:04] zero. Um one of the things that Prudence mentioned was maybe the first thing for us is to incentivize those who

[46:11] voluntarily um submit to do some of these stricter codes. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean monetarily, but is

[46:19] there a pathway where if you're submitting a permit that has XYZ amount of sustainable options that

[46:26] are stretch code options that that gets a faster review, it's an expedited without the cost for expedited permit review, things of that nature that we

[46:34] can talk about and review as a staff and present to you as options in like that pathway one section that we're in now.

[46:42] um as we look at other options to modularly add in as phase one. So I think that um not only taking that type

[46:49] of approach to incentivizing but also looking at we're not an island. Um stretch codes are happening throughout the state, you know, throughout the

[46:57] country. We talk about Boston and whatnot. We anticipate that Kameed will eventually have incentives for for doing stretch code work. There are some

[47:06] incentives and you'll see a little bit in the exact summary larger in the full report when it's finished and finalized by Thor Thomasi. There are some incentives out there. They're just not

[47:14] great incentives right now. And we know that things have changed federally in the last few years on what type of sustainable incentives are out there. So

[47:22] that is something why we also like the modular approach. It gives us time to also align with what's happening um on a bigger scale for incentivizing and

[47:30] helping people to make these good decisions u moving forward.

[47:35] Um are you council Ross? I I am I I guess another actually one other uh

[47:43] point um uh you know uh at some point as I mean this

[47:51] is about energy conservation but um you know in incentives maybe it could be

[47:59] expanded where how you landscape your your home is is part of [clears throat] you know the sustainable

[48:08] work and you know incentivizing um better better more thoughtfulness

[48:15] about what you're you're planting as well. Um I'm [snorts] just trying to think of uh you know I don't know you

[48:25] know uh trees or you know uh landscaping elements that that could

[48:32] uh you know possibly contribute to energy savings eventually. Yeah. Thanks, Councilman Lafia.

[48:39] Well, I after my questions, I uh share my position. I am supportive of this plan for all the good reasons for it. Uh

[48:48] one thing for you uh one thing to consider just because this is going to be something look at for for decades,

[48:57] right? It's I kind of I like the conversation where the conversation went to we're trying to make the numbers more

[49:04] understandable, you know. So this whole thing about square of a foot was a real good one because then you can start comparing something rather than the 20

[49:12] 30 40 50%. and then translating it to a house of an of this square footage will run these kinds of cost or commercial

[49:21] this square footage and then it'd be nice to come up with maybe a standard metric for homes in Highland Park and so that way we can kind of look at the

[49:29] actual cost indications at least so that's as a benchmark right to say oh because that it'd be interesting to see how that trend line goes down per

[49:37] household over time as opposed to this mega number that's really hard to grasp you might want striated it based on when

[49:44] the house was built, just based on retrofitting versus more current construction.

[49:51] So that those of us with single pane windows were that were built in the 1920s can then say, "Well, but look at the savings in cost in light of the fact

[50:00] that you are increasing the price and because of that with so few towns having accepted this yet, maybe that's a nice

[50:08] offset once we have better data on it." So, I'm in favor of four also.

[50:13] Okay. Yes. Yes. You like three, but you go with both. Okay.

[50:20] Okay. Great. Really appreciate the comprehensive study that you guys provided. [clears throat] Super helpful.

[50:26] Sorry it took us three years to get here.

[50:29] Thank you, LJ. Good job. Um, our next item is follow-up policy discussion concerning affordable housing.

[50:37] Great. Thank you, Mayor. Um, included in the packet is a very detailed staff report um and a summary of our last

[50:45] committee the whole meeting on this topic. Um, I'm going to recognize director Fontaine. Um, we have a very short PowerPoint presentation that just

[50:53] provides background to get us to this point. And really the purpose of this committee, the whole com um uh meeting

[51:00] is to seek your feedback on any elements that you would like us to further evaluate as it pertains to our

[51:07] affordable housing policies. Um and then from there we'll certainly engage with um all the varied stakeholders that we

[51:14] have in the community. I know um with us this evening we have um representatives from SEIPA property owners association

[51:22] um governments our housing commission um and so we're grateful for everyone being here and so based on your policy feedback we'll certainly follow up with

[51:30] all of them as well as the general community.

[51:37] [clears throat]

[51:38] Okay. So so this meeting's purpose is for council discussions. This is very brief. Um, and

[51:46] the council discussion um desires to focus on if any affordable housing policy matters should be re-evaluated for potential future changes and if so,

[51:55] as city manager new indicated, um, public engagement would include uh, various stakeholders including the housing commission of course and plan

[52:04] and design commission, property owners, developers and stakeholders in general.

[52:09] Okay. So, back in December of 25, um the property owners association released the policy position paper and council

[52:17] supported adding that that paper's review to major projects uh for 2026.

[52:23] Staff did review that paper. Um that paper's stated goal is to increase affordable housing in the community

[52:31] without stifling development. It identifies a shortage of Highland Park's affordable housing supply as the primary concern and cites zoning requirements

[52:39] and inclusionary housing policy as contributing factors to the housing shortage. Staff provided overview and review uh at the May 27th, 2026

[52:48] committee of the whole. Um and the matter was scheduled for future uh committee the whole meeting for policy feedback.

[52:55] Um [clears throat] so the paper contends the the following unintended consequences or what we refer to as challenges created from the city's

[53:02] inclusionary housing policy. Um reduced housing supply, rising rents and displacement, economic disequilibrium,

[53:10] and uh inefficient implementation and social and economic impacts.

[53:15] The paper lists the following policy recommendations for the city's inclusionary housing ordinance and housing program in general. increase the

[53:23] overall housing supply, preserve and enhance naturally occurring affordable housing. Um, so this is referred to by

[53:30] an acronym Noah. Um, it's also below rate market rate housing and market rate affordable housing. These are terms that

[53:37] are all interchangeable when talking about this type of housing that occurs in the uh general market uh that is happens to be affordable.

[53:48] Um number three they talked about introducing flexible compliance options for optimizing inclusionary zoning

[53:56] thresholds and uh five supporting uh downtown vitality through density.

[54:04] So in terms of staff's recommendation uh staff recommend council discussion and if any affordable housing policy matter

[54:12] should be reevaluated for potential future changes. Thank you madam mayor and council.

[54:17] Thank you. Um, I called a new first last time, so maybe I should call on somebody else first. I Who wants to Sorry, not not to no disrespect, just to be fair.

[54:28] Cumber, I'll lead it on. Um, so um the actual experience with inclusionary

[54:38] zoning in Highland Park has been extremely positive and and very successful.

[54:44] Um and this has been going on and increasing for a while. The actual evidence is that there are a number of developers who have developed both

[54:53] luxury major multifamily units smaller group groups of units all of which have

[55:01] complied completely with our inclusionary zoning code. Many years ago, uh I think about eight years ago,

[55:09] uh I attended one of the uh municipal law seminars that our corporation council hosts and it was a panel of four

[55:17] uh national and statewide developers, some of whom have developed in Highland Park, one of whom actually lives in

[55:23] Highland Park. and they all were uniform in their support for inclusionary zoning that is uh very similar to what we have.

[55:34] Their concern was that our inclusionary zoning be stable uh that it be predictable

[55:40] um that it be uh clear and uniform in its application and consistent and predictable which ours clearly is. And I

[55:49] say which ours clearly is because we have several developments. For instance, my Fulton developer, he also lives in

[55:57] our community, uh, luxury units that have all complied with our code. And when I say comply, for the most part,

[56:05] they've actually built the units. There have been very few requests even to pay the fee in L. There have been a few. Uh, those tend to come with larger

[56:14] developments such as, uh, the two Alvian developments. Um, and I think solo cup also made a substantial payment uh in

[56:22] loot, but that's within the code. So, our code allows predictability and flexibility, and I I think that's terrific. So, the actual experience in

[56:31] Highland Park is that it is not an impediment to development. uh whether it is an impediment to an individual developer at one point. Uh I'm sorry,

[56:41] but that is not convincing to me as a reason to reopen this entire uh ordinance and and to try to rejigger it.

[56:49] Um the only letters or or writing that

[56:57] we've seen in support of such a change was uh from essentially the property

[57:03] owners as I understand it which we had reviewed um and for the reasons that have previously been discussed.

[57:11] it isn't really consistent with the size and type of community that we live in and it addresses problems that we haven't really faced. Uh there was also

[57:20] a resident who wrote more recently and resubmitted a letter that doesn't actually have any data um and uh suggest

[57:28] that there is some sort of a uh difficulty that is being faced by development and I don't see that we we have all these wonderful developments.

[57:38] There are developments I'm aware of in the hopper that have not sought any kind of exclusion or variance from the

[57:45] inclusionary zoning code. Um the issue of whether the percentage of

[57:53] affordable housing to um commercial rate housing is sort of a non sector. Um,

[58:04] as we enforce our inclusionary zoning code, um, a developer is required to either

[58:12] provide by femaloo or actual units a certain percentage of what that developer is developing, but the

[58:19] majority of the development is going to be commercial rate units. So, with any development, there are going to be more commercial rate units developed than

[58:28] inclusionary units. There's always unfortunately going to be a lag, but overall the main

[58:35] and important issue in this community is have we significantly included increased the inclusionary zoning stock and we

[58:44] have um and I and I think that's important and that increase uh has also

[58:53] seen an increase in uh the density of uh multif family housing particularly

[59:00] around the downtown, which is important to support our commercial district. As you have more units immediately around

[59:07] the downtown at various economic rates, you have more feet on the street. You have an opportunity to improve the

[59:15] overall economics of our of our business district.

[59:19] So, I'm not eager to reopen this and I wouldn't support it.

[59:23] Thank you, Council Member Brooklyn. Thank you. Um, first I want to thank the property owners association. Um, they put real

[59:31] work into this paper. Um, and they made some really good questions. Um, even though I don't agree with all the conclusions. Um, where I land is that

[59:40] our own data tells the story. We've approved more units in the last six years than the six before and a higher share of them were affordable. If the

[59:48] 20% requirement was choking that development, I think we see that in the numbers and and we don't. Um, I'd also just like to note that the UCLA author

[59:57] himself said, which is that his study should be read as identifying an optimal inclusionary percentage, and I think we should be careful about importing Los

[1:00:06] Angeles finding into a city of 12,000 housing units. Um, so with that, I

[1:00:13] really think that we have a program that's working and I've heard it over and over again from residents, from people in other towns that we have a leading program here in Highland Park.

[1:00:24] So, I am not in a hurry at all to reopen or revisit this um policy at all. Great. Thank you. Anybody else?

[1:00:32] Sure. Um, so I have first of all I I'm very grateful because I've seen it firsthand to the property owners

[1:00:41] association for the work that they put in and they raised questions and to me we as a body even when we have a

[1:00:48] wonderful policy and a wonderful law and it's working to some extent I think we can always make something better. So to

[1:00:57] have a group do what we've asked our advisory groups and our commissions to

[1:01:03] do which is to raise questions and to maybe ask us to improve if there's room for that. Um I think it's exactly in

[1:01:13] line with what we want from our groups and our leadership in our community. And so as a liaison I have seen that work that they've put in.

[1:01:22] So on the one hand, I think it's great and one of the things I would advocate for is perhaps um a meeting of this

[1:01:30] group with them if we decide to move forward in discussing [clears throat] this further. I would love to have input

[1:01:37] from the housing commission, input from POA directly so that we could discuss some of the things that they raised. And

[1:01:46] I'm not saying that it's and look, it's not their charge to do a white paper that gives us all the answers. I'm glad

[1:01:54] staff reviewed it, but I also think they raised a couple of questions that I'd really love to see the answers to. I I

[1:02:02] don't think there's no one is saying here that we're going to get rid of our wonderful inclusionary and affordable

[1:02:11] housing policies, but I do think we could look at other sources for doing it. So to be specific, we have a fee in

[1:02:20] loop for the percentage. We end up using our fee and loo from developers, but we

[1:02:27] never use a fee in L. And we how often has the city taken a fee in loop instead

[1:02:35] of having, you know, an apartment in a very very uh expensive building for lack of a better

[1:02:43] way of putting it where that money could be put toward instead of building new construction. Um maybe older homes that

[1:02:53] I know we're always seeking out. And so I'm not sure how frequent we believe we've used our fee and loo other than on

[1:03:02] a percentage basis where we're trying to make it whole and I think it has worked on a percentage basis wonderfully but that's one qu question I would raise not

[1:03:11] actually the amount of the fee in Lu at this question although I think if we're looking at it in general I would but we

[1:03:18] did look at that recently council member Bloomberg to your point but the way it's actually implemented how frequently Have

[1:03:26] we done that? Uh, a second question that was raised by one of the POA members had

[1:03:32] to do with what's our ultimate goal and I know by state law there's a certain percentage we aspire to but um we do see

[1:03:42] some progression and you know when I see the kind of development we just did with Solo Cup I really see progress.

[1:03:50] What other properties are available?

[1:03:52] Where is there is there any potential of anything like that in terms of development that's that large was my understanding one of the reasons that

[1:04:00] solo cup was such a big deal was this was the last big property that was open and mayor to your frequent point about

[1:04:09] infill you know there's just not that much space to go we've got water on one side you know but it would be

[1:04:16] interesting to me to know as far as development sizes go um you know How much room is there in terms of wiggle

[1:04:24] room? And how many houses is the housing is CPA are we targeting that we would like to improve or purchase and maybe

[1:04:32] that money could be used toward more families rather than one unit in the building that where it's it's just

[1:04:41] spreading the cost but it's really at a very high level even with it. So those are two of my three. I had one more

[1:04:49] point, but it leads me to believe and while I'm grateful that people are happy with our policy, I I don't see any

[1:04:57] reason not to open this up to ask some questions and to actually I'm glad that

[1:05:04] staff responded to the POA, but frankly, I I think I would have wanted to ask staff to look at it more in depth

[1:05:13] because you're right, when you're comparing LA to Highland Park, there's no comparison.

[1:05:17] But if you're going to compare it and how it's been used or what are the dollars involved to go into smaller buildings and improving houses, that's

[1:05:25] something I'd want to hear directly from the housing commission, too, cuz I think they could bear on to add some information to that. So, in any event,

[1:05:33] um I'm in favor of opening this up, looking at some of the options, getting some answers to a couple of the questions. There was one more question

[1:05:41] that I had that I'm not listing, but it comes to the same point, which is that I would like to

[1:05:47] [cough]

[1:05:47] Okay. Thanks.

[1:05:48] Others, Council Member Ross and then Tapia.

[1:05:52] Um, first I want to say uh I certainly care about the property owners uh in our city. I hope they know that and I too

[1:06:00] see the hard work they put into the position paper. But I want to make a few points here. it it I think we're already

[1:06:09] at the percentage that they're asking for roughly [snorts] I mean 20% but then

[1:06:14] you know with with um uh uh you know uh it it comes down to an effective rate of

[1:06:23] 15% or even 10% for witham uh as an example 734 central um 10% of that uh is

[1:06:32] affordable um we do see one development movement after another happening in Highland Park and their plans include

[1:06:40] the inclusionary units. Um I don't think we are discouraging development. We seem to be an increasingly popular city for

[1:06:47] developers um with the success one success after another you know selling kind of Indian development selling out.

[1:06:54] Um, and I uh did ask um uh the city

[1:07:01] manager uh what percentage of housing was affordable 10 years ago versus now.

[1:07:09] Um and you were going to get that answer to me.

[1:07:13] Yeah, it was it was an email to the council an email. That's okay. That's okay.

[1:07:18] We can share. So in 2023 um 6.3% affordable

[1:07:25] 2018 9.3% affordable in 2014 6.7% affordable.

[1:07:31] We went from 9.3 and 18 to 6.3 to 25.

[1:07:35] Different numbers of housing units were available. So we were adding more

[1:07:39] [clears throat]

[1:07:41] housing units which changed the fraction. We went from a thousand. Yeah. Exactly.

[1:07:46] Uh, and do we feel that we're on track to make it to 10%, are we gaining ground on this goal, losing ground, treading

[1:07:56] water? Um, and if we're falling behind, uh, [clears throat] you know, why would we reduce it? Uh, that's one question.

[1:08:06] Um, and I uh the um it it the state is not just

[1:08:14] encouraging it. It it's requiring it, right? It that's a goal that we're supposed to meet. Yeah.

[1:08:22] Not not only that, but there's new legislation that will either be brought back in the veto session or in the lame duck session that will give state more control over all of this.

[1:08:33] Okay. So this may kind of be a exercise in discussion but not necessarily changing policy if the state preeemption

[1:08:42] comes to play and we can't have as much local control as we do right now.

[1:08:46] Um I and if I could just add we we just also submitted a multi-year plan to the state as well our affordable housing. Oh, that's good.

[1:08:54] The the naturally occurring affordable housing Noah um seems to be taken up by

[1:09:01] developers of who we've seen with you know recent um uh develop high-end developers who we appreciate um but it

[1:09:09] it is um uh they're they are using uh the the Noah um the Noah housing and um

[1:09:18] I too agree with the comments uh comparison in you to in studies to major

[1:09:26] metropolitan areas don't seem relevant to small city like Highland Park. Um, and did maybe I might have missed this.

[1:09:35] How do we compare to other Northshore communities in terms of building affordable housing? Were they at percentage-wise? and uh have a question

[1:09:45] if could we research I mean I I support the the the inclusionary housing um

[1:09:53] ordinance as as we have it now but I think uh the paper raised some interesting questions like could we

[1:10:00] research impact if you change the rule to six or seven units where uh inclusionary housing you know ordinance

[1:10:09] kicked in right now If if you are um five or or less, you're not required. Um

[1:10:19] we we might get a lot more five to six unit developments and with a smaller site, you wouldn't have to aggregate

[1:10:27] properties, which would be a cost savings to the developer. Um makes the development cheaper to do. Uh,

[1:10:37] and I do want to make the comments that it doesn't feel like the caption right now is enough to replace the unit that

[1:10:43] would otherwise be bu be built. Um, and here's a

[1:10:51] interesting issue, the the taxes. I I wonder if we could consider a

[1:11:01] a task force or or some way of studying what for example Cook County has done.

[1:11:08] Uh there there other Cook County has a incentive program, a special incentive tax break for affordable housing uh

[1:11:16] called the affordable housing special assessment program and it it partially offsets the inclusionary requirement. Uh

[1:11:23] so that's just I I think it raised interesting questions. Um those are the two that come to mind for me but

[1:11:30] otherwise I support the policy as it is. Matt. Yeah. Thank you Cathia.

[1:11:36] Yeah. So uh I just want to preface my comments by saying that I got my start in municipal government by being appointed by the mayor to be a housing

[1:11:43] commissioner. So and you know that is partly in recognition to my almost 25 years in diversity equity and inclusion.

[1:11:51] uh and and [snorts] now I am uh the leazison to the housing commission and I also am the prime member of the CPA board uh and it's one of the

[1:11:59] requirements of SEA board because I'm the leazison to SEA board and and therefore I have to be on the board. So, so I just want you to hear my questions

[1:12:08] not as a challenge to inclusionary housing um philosophy and approach and

[1:12:14] and and not as a as a a demarcation of saying, well, it's it's not good, right?

[1:12:21] I'm not indicating that. I just believe it can be better. Now, how can it be better? I don't necessarily know. I have

[1:12:28] some things to put on the table, but I'm going to put something on the table to make the case that I think we it does

[1:12:35] looking at a very successful but still showing some age um inclusionary housing because how long has it been in place?

[1:12:46] 1968 was when we started and then when was inclusionary how I'm looking at the architect 2003 2003

[1:12:54] so 20 years and sometime so you know the 20 year era you know as a as a strategist you you you look at you know

[1:13:03] a 20 year period is a good amount of time like a generation to say hm things have changed how they changed what are the unintended consequences of things

[1:13:10] that were not conditions back then so we designed the conditions there but now 20 years later which conditions still hold which conditions have changed and

[1:13:19] therefore does it [clears throat] raise questions about whether we are not uh optimizing this great so my hypothesis

[1:13:28] and it's only hypothesis I believe that we actually could have more inclusionary housing if we looked at some things for

[1:13:36] example um we love uh the developer that's built these beautiful condos uh around here they're wonderful they they

[1:13:43] elevate the look field Highland Park but our inclusionary housing demands and requests requires um affordable housing

[1:13:53] on the basis of the number of units in the building. So if the units in the building are now three times the size of what a normal building uh you know condo

[1:14:02] or rental unit would be then that means that that 15 to 20% wherever you you you know get your credits and all that is

[1:14:09] going to lead to fewer units and therefore and if it's a cash and l combination even the cash and loo will be diminished because it's based on the

[1:14:17] number of units that they are required to provide and they can't provide the physical units to give the cash and loo but now the the the condos are three

[1:14:25] times the size. So maybe tying it to the number of units is not the best thing.

[1:14:30] Maybe tying it to the square footage or the footprint that the developer has taken to build took down those houses there, build the condos, build the

[1:14:38] rental units. But they there is no premium or no cost to them for bumping up the size. So then diminishes the

[1:14:46] accountability have for the number of units or cash and loop combination that they have. That's one example uh of things that we did not anticipate 20

[1:14:54] years that they would be condos of that size that kind of have an unintended consequence.

[1:14:58] Although I think currently the code is based off of like 2019. I think it's been amended over time. I'm looking at you director Fontaine.

[1:15:06] Yes. The last time we we looked the code in the in the teens, the late teens, it was amended. Um we we made some

[1:15:13] important changes that have proven to be very useful.

[1:15:17] I just want us to be accurate in our conversation. Fair enough.

[1:15:19] But but you've got more to say. I can see from your face.

[1:15:21] Yeah. So, but that's an example of a place where I think it bears um looking into what are the trends in and

[1:15:30] condominium building in a in a in a mixed income community as high park that is now can

[1:15:39] can be bringing in more high-end condos that may have a cascading effect in one.

[1:15:45] Obviously, we're happy about what happened to the solar cup development, but there's more high-end condos in the works, and I just worry about how that

[1:15:54] might possibly be diminishing the number of inclusionary housing, especially if we're making the argument that there's

[1:16:01] more development coming in. Okay? And we can kind of make that a case. But there might be an an unexpected thing that more development with bigger uh square

[1:16:10] footage uh condos is actually not leading to the number of inclusionary housing that we should have based on the greater development that we're having.

[1:16:18] So it's a little bit of a paradox there, but I think that's the kind of thing that requires some exploration. So I um

[1:16:25] and then the other thing is more of a process thing. I mean and I and that's the only example I will put uh because then we you know we have limited time

[1:16:34] but I think if we start pulling the thread and with the help of SEA and the help of the advocates of inclusionary housing and everybody here where in the

[1:16:41] staff we all want more inclusionary housing and the context of this my statement is also gentrification is

[1:16:49] happening in Highland Park and Highwood in ways that is reducing the number of lowincome families that can even afford to be there. We have over a thousand

[1:16:58] families on the waiting list in for the inclusionary housing who are there for years. So there's something about the

[1:17:05] system here. We the list keeps growing and we we we actually see the diminishment of low-income families in

[1:17:12] our area and we see it by the census of the schools. This is very real. So what help help me understand that the

[1:17:19] basis of the census of the schools the the number of Latino families and non-Latino low-income families decreasing in our schools.

[1:17:28] Yeah. Okay.

[1:17:29] It's going down because those families are being forced to move out. More and more families like our longtime Highland Park families have had to move out

[1:17:38] because now they cannot hold down to their homes because they're being gentrified.

[1:17:42] And I know inclusionary housing was done as an offset to the gentrification. And we're trying to that's why hey developer provide some inclusionary housing

[1:17:50] because you've gotten rid of some affordable housing and try to offset that.

[1:17:54] Right. That's the but but right now it's like I think we're that the ratio is not right. the math is not right because we're we're

[1:18:02] kind of I feel we're falling behind because the fact that these families are moving out and we have evidence of moving out by the census at the schools

[1:18:09] and also the the personal stories that we know about families that have been here for for generations cannot afford park anymore. So I'm looking at that

[1:18:18] symptom. I don't know what implications that has for inclusionary housing singularity, but it calls the question

[1:18:27] that we better look at our inclusionary housing and maybe new creative ways to maybe see if we can do something to stem

[1:18:35] the erosion and the departure of low-income and Latino families from Highland Park area. I'm just very worried about that. So one place where

[1:18:43] we do have control, we don't have control over what immigration does. We don't have control over what maybe some of the economics of construction or

[1:18:52] other things went around us. Where we have control is our inclusionary housing policy and and and we did a really good thing 20 years ago, 12 years ago, 6

[1:19:01] years ago, whatever to try to kind of protect this. I think there's some erosion of the the the pillars of this

[1:19:11] policy uninhibited outside forces that I think call us to say how do we shore it up by thinking about this in new

[1:19:19] creative ways while still maintaining it. So my argument is based on I fear that we are going to end we're ending up

[1:19:28] with fewer inclusionary housing that we could have uh given the um the unintended consequences that I just

[1:19:34] outlined. So uh the final thing I say is um regarding process you know the POA

[1:19:42] gave a letter and there's a lot of points there that should be are de debatable there's a vested interest

[1:19:49] there no question but I was really disappointed with staff's position in its representation of that letter where

[1:19:59] if I remember correctly everything was said that's not true that's not right that won't work that's

[1:20:06] it was like a list of notes and I don't know in any [clears throat] debate if there is a presentation of you know

[1:20:15] things like [clears throat] different stakeholders and one group says we believe this or we this or we recommend this and the other side says no to

[1:20:23] everything I don't I didn't see a dialogue I just saw a reputation and and I think we have stakeholders here we

[1:20:30] have people that are looking for affordable housing we have the residents housing park for This is a value and it's really important to us. We want to

[1:20:38] see more affordable housing. We have the developers on whom we depend to provide the housing of all income levels including housing. So we and then we

[1:20:46] have our staff and we have city council and we have the housing commission. We have wonderful stakeholders and we have se other partners like that. I feel this

[1:20:55] is a great moment to really bring the stakeholders around the table, outline some of these major forces that I think are impinging on our ability to provide

[1:21:03] more affordable housing and see if we can after 20 years, 12 years, 6 years, 3 years since the last update, uh, really

[1:21:11] look at this strategically and say where is it that we have to keep up with the times and the trends in ways that were not relevant, you know, 20 years ago.

[1:21:20] Thank you, Council Member S. Any comments?

[1:21:22] Yeah, thanks. I mean, I think my thoughts are pretty similar to what council member Topia said. I I really think as a council, [snorts] we'd be

[1:21:31] doing a disservice to the community and this program to not revisit this. Um, Councilwoman Bloomberg asked, you know,

[1:21:40] sort of the fundamental question whether we've increased our inclusionary stock.

[1:21:45] Yes, we have. But to council member Topy's point, like could we have done better? Is it as good as it can be? And and I don't think anybody in this room

[1:21:53] with the data that's provided can make that determination. You know, if we look at sort of the history

[1:22:01] of buildings that have, you know, been approved recently, 734 central approved this year, 11 unit building, we had one

[1:22:08] affordable unit on site. The Bowery produced 34. [cough] Okay. Like so what? Like what does that mean? Like yesterday we followed the

[1:22:16] rule. Yes, we followed 15%. But is that ultimately getting to the objective of the bigger picture uh goals of what

[1:22:23] we're trying to do, which is provide more stock and to allow more families

[1:22:29] the opportunity to get into affordable affordable units. What if we had taken the fee and loo for all of the 108

[1:22:37] affordable units that we've approved over the past decade instead of requiring the 15%? That would have created over $20 million.

[1:22:45] Maybe that would have been deployed in a way that would have created more affordable units than what the program did in the first place. Maybe it

[1:22:53] wouldn't have. But again, like we we we're at this table with what we have in front of us without the critical knowledge

[1:23:01] uh of the the POA and other uh individuals and parties that have been identified by by members of this group.

[1:23:09] Um we we we are illquipped to make that decision and it requires uh further discussion and deliberation. Um we

[1:23:18] cannot say that the data in the presentation is working. It's it's incomplete. Um and that's not at all to say that the staff hasn't given us a

[1:23:26] good analysis. I appreciate all the work that the staff done did, but it requires more input. And this is a a really

[1:23:33] complicated matter that communities around the country and the globe face that have a lot of different economic

[1:23:41] considerations and there's a reason why it's a hard problem to solve. Um and so we need more people in the room to help

[1:23:49] think through the right solution to this problem. Thanks.

[1:23:54] I want to just clarify a couple of things. First of all, Council Member Tapia, I I agree with you. Uh and we've

[1:24:02] talked about it before today. Uh the very thing that you brought up is the the reality is that the um number of

[1:24:12] units that a developer has to be responsible for, the number of inclusionary units is governed not by the number of units

[1:24:21] that can be built, but by the number of units that are built. and and we've talked about where we are potentially

[1:24:28] losing units as a result of that. But the reason that I expressed my position uh being opposed to opening this

[1:24:36] conversation up at this time is the motus for this is the paper that we were

[1:24:44] presented by the POA. And while I agree that some of the questions are interesting, the purpose of that paper was to encourage us to find a way to

[1:24:53] require less to require fewer units and less of a burden on developers. And I do

[1:25:00] not favor that. Um, we can do and have done what we have been doing. That's what the evidence is and that's that's

[1:25:08] what I support. And I don't like the idea of opening this up and rejiggering everything when I know that the thing

[1:25:17] that developers look for is uh consistency and uh predictability. That's that's my

[1:25:25] concern and and I would hate to do it at this particular moment. We've just discussed in terms of the stretch code the importance of not changing the

[1:25:33] burdens on development. Um we added to it. I also want to say that

[1:25:40] the staff's analysis of the report was a factual analysis. I don't I don't recall staff giving any opinion as to whether

[1:25:48] we could or should either open the discussion up or whether this can or cannot be done, whether our ordinance

[1:25:56] can or cannot be improved upon. their analysis in terms of the basis of the representations that were made in that

[1:26:04] report are based on an analysis, a factual analysis and were not opinions.

[1:26:11] Um, and lastly, I want to explain what a fee and loo represents because we had this discussion. I wanted a fee and loo

[1:26:20] to be equal to the value of an unrealized unit. The way the code was written was that a fee in L was

[1:26:28] literally supposed to be a fee in lie of getting the unit.

[1:26:33] But the units the the cost of constructing a unit is several hundred,000. The cost of acquiring a

[1:26:40] unit that is not built is even greater.

[1:26:44] Right? So that to require a fee in Loo to literally be the monetary equivalent

[1:26:52] on a onetoone basis of an unrealized unit is economically almost impossible.

[1:26:58] And I recall that Rob Anthony had a discussion with this council, not necessarily all the current members in a

[1:27:07] in a meeting with the public and also in front of the housing commission that the expectation of SEPA of a fee loo is that

[1:27:15] it'd be an adequate amount of money to essentially springboard the development

[1:27:22] of a unit. Most inclusionary units realize the money that is necessary to

[1:27:28] either buy or otherwise establish the unit as drawing money from a lot of different sources. Some private, some uh

[1:27:38] federal, probably not so much in the current world, um some state and and from other sources. The fee and loo is

[1:27:47] supposed to be a seat for that. The housing commission has appropriately increased that amount every year based

[1:27:54] on economic pressures uh based on um the current economy and they've done a good

[1:28:01] job of that. I I I would love to see a fee move that is equal to the actual cost of buying a unit, but that would be

[1:28:08] prohibitive. Um it's better to get the actual units built. I love the idea of requiring, for instance, a luxury

[1:28:16] development that's building maybe 10 units where it could have built 20 units as having to be responsible for

[1:28:24] inclusionary units as if 20 units were built. That's a discussion we should have, but I don't want to have it in the

[1:28:31] shadow of our being asked to water down or reduce what we have. And that fundamentally is the reason for the

[1:28:38] remarks that I previously made. Um, I'm going to go to you and then I have some things I'd like to share.

[1:28:44] Yeah. And I I understand the how this kind of landed here and it it feels problematic to you. I I respect that.

[1:28:53] But we should not let that be the deciding factor whether this is the time to talk about it or not. Okay.

[1:28:58] Right. So it I think okay brought up well okay there's a vested interest there fine but is it important to the city of Harland Park for the reasons of

[1:29:07] why we want to do housing to look at the things that may possibly be preventing us from having more inclusion in our housing that's that's the issue of the table

[1:29:15] appreciate it thank you um and thank you for this thoughtful dialogue because I know we all share this mission of trying

[1:29:24] to make sure that there are more opportunities along the spectrum of housing in in our community. I think there's been a little bit of confusion

[1:29:31] between inclusionary and affordable and I think that's probably something that people need to do their homework on so that you better understand what

[1:29:38] specifically we're discussing. I want to bring up that we in was it I don't remember was it 2013 when did we change

[1:29:45] the zoning in the central business district?

[1:29:50] Yeah. [clears throat] and and that was to increase the density of domestic units significantly for this very purpose so that a we were

[1:29:57] stimulating business in the downtown but also to help people age in place and to provide more units and more opportunities for more units to come on.

[1:30:06] Um, one [clears throat] of the things and and I appreciate and planning and Bassie your your email and all the work that you've done both in terms of Marine

[1:30:14] Township Supervisor but also Lake County affordable housing and all the groundwork many moons ago. Sorry. Uh,

[1:30:22] I'm not saying you're old. Um but um you raised I'm still on the housing commission,

[1:30:27] [laughter]

[1:30:28] but you raised the important point that uncertainty is detrimental to development. Whether it's affordable housing or any housing if you

[1:30:36] continually change and swing around your policies, you're going to have a problem attracting developers. Um and we know that there's no requirement for smaller

[1:30:45] than five units. So smaller developments, there should be no direct impact um with this conversation.

[1:30:53] Um, I do think we need to come back to the fianloo conversation again. Was it 2003, 2008? It was a much higher number

[1:31:02] and then it got shrunk. Joel, I'm looking at you again. Uh, significantly, and I'm not quite sure what happened.

[1:31:08] And then it sort of slowly has crept up, but I think we're still not even close to where we were. I think it was 20 years ago at least. So, I think that's

[1:31:15] something. And I know when we were talking about the budget, that was a question that came up. We were like, put a pin in it. We'll see you next meeting.

[1:31:21] But I do think we need to revisit that piece of the question. Um, the Build Act is coming as I mentioned. It's either

[1:31:29] going to be brought back in veto or in the lame duck session. And this is a state mandate on housing that could

[1:31:37] essentially moot most of these most of the conversation that we're having. So, um, as much as I do appreciate [clears throat] and we are always happy

[1:31:44] to hear from all of our stakeholders, I do think it bears watching and seeing.

[1:31:49] Um, is Steve is that October or November? And it's November.

[1:31:54] November. Not too far off. So, I think we want to see what happens there. There have been dialogues between the governor's office and our community

[1:32:02] development team, dialogues between the governor's office and the Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus. Uh, there will be absolute impacts in terms of what can

[1:32:10] and can't be done and it'll have a different impact on local control. We're trying to maintain as much as we can, but at the end of the day, if it's put

[1:32:17] into law, it's put into law. And that's where we are. I think it's important to note um that these policy discussions

[1:32:24] are not static. We have experts. We have people who are our professionals who do this day in and day out. And as much as

[1:32:32] I appreciate the input of the POA because they are our stakeholders, I do think we need to respect the input of

[1:32:40] our professional staff and our housing commission.

[1:32:43] Um, as far as the fee and loop piece and the whole scooping all that money together, that was intentional to only have it be based on a fraction because

[1:32:52] we wanted to do inclusionary housing. We wanted affordable housing included throughout and scattered throughout the

[1:32:59] community. As far as um the older homes being made affordable, thank you SEPHA for what you've done. you you know with

[1:33:07] the land trust with the monies that come from demolitions that too is a very complex piece of this whole equation. So

[1:33:14] um I agree I'm not interested in in throwing the whole baby out with the bathwater. I think there's room that we can work in terms of um incentives in

[1:33:24] terms of um what the fee and loo is. I don't want to be inappropriate, but I kind of feel like um Amy Kaufman of SEIPA now that we've referenced SEIPA

[1:33:32] like 7,000 times, maybe you have a few answers to some of the questions that people were raising um and if you have a minute and can just jump up and answer

[1:33:41] them because I think that will help us in the path forward in terms of what we need to be doing next. Sure.

[1:33:48] Thanks. Um do you want to frame the question specifically that you want answered or you just want me to? you've

[1:33:55] been in this room listening. So, if there's certain things that you feel maybe need to be answered from SEIPA standpoint, we appreciate the partnership and council member Tapia, I

[1:34:03] appreciate your ongoing work with SEIPA because like I said, we as a community are viewed by our peers as a model. When

[1:34:12] they had a whole Lake County housing thing last what spring, Highland Park was the presenter.

[1:34:19] Highland Park was the model that was presented as sort of this is what you all should be striving to achieve. So now I've talked about that.

[1:34:26] I saw that firsthand. That was absolutely the case. Um so first just to sort of lay the groundwork. Um there's

[1:34:33] the scattered site work that is done which are grants which are uh I can only speak for SEPHA but are typically uh we

[1:34:41] make a grant request to do a certain number of rehabs of scattered site housing throughout the community. And we go out and we purchase a lot of old

[1:34:49] homes, some not so old homes. that's getting more difficult because there's just a reduction in the housing stock that is obviously has to fit our

[1:34:58] economic model. Um but so we are that the basis of those grants is the affordable housing trust fund and the money in that affordable housing trust fund is coming from demolition taxes.

[1:35:09] It's also coming from fees and loo. So the fees and loo are being implemented um in the community every year. We do

[1:35:17] three to four a year scattered site homes. I don't remember the last time we did not do three to four scattered site rehab resale homes. And then at the same

[1:35:26] time, uh there is the inclusionary housing ordinance which is developing a different kind of unit that we really can't develop for the same time and the

[1:35:35] same money. Even if we took those fees in LW to do it, we could not develop those kinds of units for the same costs and in the same time frame that a

[1:35:43] private developer can. So they work exceptionally well together these two programs in providing a variety of housing stock. You also have the variety

[1:35:52] of what people want. Some, you know, a certain portion of our community wants to live in town. They're done with their house or they're can't yet afford a

[1:36:00] house and they need the rental near town. They want to be able to walk to the train. Other people are starting young families. Maybe they want a

[1:36:08] council member years ago said three bedrooms, a yard, and a dog. I mean, so it it really runs the gamut. And those two things together, the scattered site

[1:36:16] housing and the inclusionary housing work extremely well in creating a diverse affordable housing stock in the

[1:36:24] community. The fees and loo are absolutely implemented. We used fees inlue as part of the funding for Betsy Lazar Place. So that was an example of a tremendously good use of a fee and Lou.

[1:36:36] I will tell you I've been doing this a long time, but that was an example. That example really taught me something because I really do believe most of the

[1:36:44] time you want the units on site because we cannot develop a nonprofit developer cannot develop the way a for-profit developer can. We have all kinds of

[1:36:52] compliance rules. We have to secure a site, apply for the grants, close on the tax credits. It takes years. So we can't really replicate that. In the case of

[1:37:00] Betsy Lazar, there was um the Albian development which had come along and there were a lot of affordable units

[1:37:08] which statutoily should have been on site and the developer made a a proposal to do a lot most of the affordable units

[1:37:16] on site but some not and director Fontaine said you know we really could use the fees in L because the balance of

[1:37:24] our trust fund was low. This is a case where maybe that makes sense. So that's how the city proceeded and those fees in loo became a huge part of the funding of

[1:37:32] these eight affordable community land trust homes which we're selling to low and moderate income households right now on Deerfield Road. So that is a great

[1:37:41] example of how the two programs really work exceptionally well together. And I I really do believe the fees and lure are implemented extremely effectively.

[1:37:50] They are not just sitting in a trust fund. They are out there in the community creating housing. So they both work. Great.

[1:37:58] Thank you. Appreciate your input. Any anybody mayor just Sure.

[1:38:03] Thank you first of all too late. I didn't mean to cut it off but um just to council member Bloomberg and to all our points we set the agenda and I mean we

[1:38:12] can have a wonderful discussion like we have tonight on different aspects of it and we may say there are certain things

[1:38:19] that and it doesn't matter where it was raised from. I I don't really I I don't feel it's fair to say, well, it came

[1:38:27] from here, so maybe we don't want to do it. Maybe we don't want to look at certain parts of it, and we've asked for

[1:38:34] specificity in terms of what we should study. But I think it it bears noting that we got a lot of information tonight

[1:38:42] that maybe we could put together and congeal and maybe everybody could be a little bit better educated and brainstorm and still come up with some

[1:38:51] things. Maybe we do need to raise the fees. I don't know what it is, but I do think it bears merit that we set the

[1:38:58] agenda. We keep what we like and we talk about things that might help it. That's all. I don't think anybody any group was

[1:39:06] suggesting when they brought this up throwing up the baby with death. You really don't. So, so council member,

[1:39:15] so I I appreciate that and as I've expressed, I I've been in conversation with council member Tapia and I agree

[1:39:24] those are some opportunities to expand our inclusionary zoning code and yes, we set the agenda, but we don't do that in

[1:39:33] a vacuum. And I am concerned about the message we send when we say we we got this request to examine this for a

[1:39:41] particular purpose and we suddenly put it on the agenda and open it up. It it makes me uncomfortable.

[1:39:48] I appreciate you acknowledging that. I also very deeply appreciate your perspective and support that. So I want to be very clear about that.

[1:39:58] customer tap on the customer.

[1:40:00] Yeah. And I, you know, throwing out the baby at the bathwater, I think I just want to go after that again because that can be misunderstood.

[1:40:11] That's, you know, and and when we, you know, I when I read the emails that came that were very concerned about this even being on the agenda, there was a fear

[1:40:20] that, oh my gosh, you know, this thing that we really value could be dismantled. I mean, that was the kind of the the fear that I felt, right? And I and I read that carefully.

[1:40:27] Interesting.

[1:40:28] And I think we have to be careful that what we're suggesting here some of us is, you know, a time to look at this. Is it achieving the objectives that

[1:40:37] intended to achieve? And at the core, it's a great program. It's the best in the nation. It, you know, there's no question. It's this is not a let's look

[1:40:45] at it from the roots and maybe do an upheaval and a revolution on this. It's really looking at elements of the program that may be leading to

[1:40:52] unintended consequences. And I don't, you know, to your point about predictability, I get that. But I think we can manage this carefully and really

[1:41:01] look at the places where there may possibly be some adjustments to be made without the our constituents and our residents fearing that we're going to

[1:41:10] let go of something really precious and important to us. That's not the spirit of it. It's actually to strengthen it. That's right.

[1:41:16] Every building that is built needs some strengthening at the foundation once in a while or a pillar, replacement of the window. I mean just it's maintenance

[1:41:25] right policy has to be maintained and I think it's time to look at some places where there might be some inadvertent weaknesses. Do you have specifics?

[1:41:32] Well, I gave some I give some so I you know Okay.

[1:41:36] Yeah. I already gave some and I know we're late on time but but I think the spirit of it is to I think there's enough things I believe for us to have a

[1:41:45] working group or whatever you want to call it for us to look at some places where it could be strengthened. any interest in having housing start that

[1:41:53] conversation given that that's their purview.

[1:41:57] Um, can I suggest that we at least bring back the fee and loo conversation because that is part of the budgetary process and I think that's something

[1:42:04] that there's we just didn't want to do it in a vacuum last time. That was the problem. It just came out like that would have been truly

[1:42:11] in a vacuum. This is now part of our whole concept.

[1:42:15] Well, and the fees are part of the budget. So, I don't think that's really a vacuum, but I understand what you're saying. Housing versus finance.

[1:42:23] I guess you you've kind of landed where I was going. What I raised my hand, which was which was that um you know, I

[1:42:32] I wouldn't want an unintended consequence of of changes that we've weakened our our our you know,

[1:42:39] inclusionary housing approach. Um but but I don't think that's where we're going. Um I I think that we can support

[1:42:47] what we currently have and still work on, you know, have the housing commission um discuss this. These are

[1:42:54] really important issues that were brought to our attention. And I think that um incentives like I mentioned the

[1:43:01] you know poss uh possible uh you know incentive tax break for for uh uh

[1:43:08] affordable housing um or there there there tweaks that could be made and some of them aren't more than tweaks but I'm

[1:43:17] just saying that we have a really solid foundation. We've got a great program and we can still keep this conversation

[1:43:24] going about how to make it better. And I think we all agree with that, right?

[1:43:29] Amy Kauffman, you look like you're jumping out of your seat. [laughter] Come to the microphone.

[1:43:36] The special assessment housing program that uh Council Member Grass is talking about is actually a statewide initiative that counties can opt out of, but Lake

[1:43:45] County did not opt out of it. So, it is available to Lake County developers.

[1:43:48] It's the same statute as it is in Cook County. Cook County has had enormous success generating a lot more affordable

[1:43:55] units and I think it's been less successful in Lake County. I think the question is still open as to why. Um but

[1:44:02] it is it is an available tool to developers at municipalities. Great. Thank you. Last thing.

[1:44:09] Yeah. Last thing as a leaders onto the housing commission now I I really believe that the housing commissioners would really welcome you know this would

[1:44:17] I think this would put you know rightfully bring these kinds of questions in front of the right body to consider it and they're

[1:44:26] to look at this and I they feel some of these things they're trying to get their hands around it and if we said yeah look

[1:44:34] at it work with staff and and you know here's the questions here's the direction whatever I I think we would get some really good work from them and they're eager to look at it.

[1:44:42] Great. Thank you. Um, so where are people landing in terms of doing something, letting things stay where

[1:44:50] they are, status quo, maybe opening up a question here or there? Um, I certainly want housing and our community

[1:44:58] development staff to be the first to put the first impremature on it. Um, and also thank the architects, the

[1:45:06] historical architects who've worked on [snorts] this for many, many years, um, to bring your continued expertise uh, to that conversation.

[1:45:14] Who's going first?

[1:45:16] Well, I guess I just, if I, if I may, only because we've been taking notes based on um, what everybody said. And so, I believe that we have um, at least

[1:45:24] four elected officials that at least want to have a continued conversation.

[1:45:28] We have a number of your questions that have been raised. I would wait I don't hear for here I hear people interested in housing having a

[1:45:36] conversation I don't hear for for housing for housing for the housing commission to take up the question but to continue a conversation on

[1:45:43] affordable housing with the housing commission before we just wholesale take a a poll

[1:45:50] I would be comfortable if we identify some specifics that we want considered I don't want to open up the entire

[1:45:59] uh ordinance right I I I would not be in favor of even the housing commission just taking a look at the whole thing. There are some specific

[1:46:06] things that have been raised, but I would like us to determine precisely what it is that we want looked at.

[1:46:12] Well, that's just what I was saying. So, we've taken notes on your questions that have been raised at this committee, the whole meeting, and I would just ask if

[1:46:20] there's any others. We can document all that. We'll share it with the city council. So before it's on a public agenda, you'll have an opportunity to

[1:46:27] look at it and just make sure this is reflective of what you want the housing commission to review and then we can

[1:46:34] schedule that meeting. Um I would also ask that um our staff meet with the POA

[1:46:41] as well separately just because I do think you know our approach as council member Bloomberg noted in response to that paper was to make sure that the

[1:46:49] facts were right. there was a lot of erroneous information in there and we wanted to make sure that it reflected what our practice and policies are and

[1:46:58] so um but we haven't had a chance to dialogue with them so I think that would be worthwhile to do that. Okay.

[1:47:04] And then the we just need feedback on the fee and loo because that was reviewed by the housing commission. Um we've got a recommendation from them. It

[1:47:12] is part of our practice to regularly review our fees and so it's not really something that we're doing

[1:47:19] atypical and I guess the question is do we move that forward for for FY27 because that's part of the budget process right now or do you want to just

[1:47:28] put a hold on that as well that's what I just so if the staff meets with the POA then

[1:47:35] I would ask that the staff also meet with SEIPA and other affordable housing we would include SEPA [laughter]

[1:47:42] I just think if you're having that meeting, you need the full spectrum of perspectives to make it a worthwhile use of everybody's time. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:47:50] Um we partner hand in handinand with with Amy and Rob and the team. Absolutely.

[1:47:55] Great. Um, and then in terms of the fee and loo, uh, do you want us to be talking about that now or do you want us

[1:48:02] to talk about that like you need an answer for this budget?

[1:48:06] And it was was it increasing from 180 some 185 to 225 or what was the Christie?

[1:48:18] I I don't think we I'll just pull that up. Just just bear with me.

[1:48:26] And when was it last raised and what's the inflation application to

[1:48:34] I think that's what we specifically discussed last time and I didn't mean to make it frivolous when I said it's in a

[1:48:42] vacuum but I think the fee and loo goes handinhand with all the things from a housing perspective that we're trying to

[1:48:50] achieve and so I'm thrilled that you have our questions, but I don't feel Are you thinking of getting rid of the fe?

[1:48:58] No, not at all. Okay.

[1:49:00] But I don't feel I that I can make a decision whether to raise it 20% or 30% or 100%

[1:49:07] or 100%. I I I'm not for a moment suggesting we lower it. So, let's put people's minds at ease. But I think to

[1:49:15] consider it and I know you have a budget to do but I didn't think it was appropriate at the meeting where we said we don't want to talk about this [cough]

[1:49:23] and so from a finance perspective I understand where you're coming from but to me the fee and loo is part of how do

[1:49:29] we get the whole housing thing to work and and at least we can give you perhaps

[1:49:36] the uh stability or reliability of knowing no one here is saying we should lower it. So, in terms of planning for

[1:49:44] your budget for 2027 in the immediate, assuming other people agree with that, I don't mean put words in other people's mouths, but assuming we have that as a

[1:49:53] baseline, that gives you enough to go on, but to go up from this to that for no reason, not knowing why and and not

[1:50:00] to take into account the questions that we're going to have in general as to how much do we need to raise it. Maybe it needs to go up 100%. To your point, wait, hang on. Other people have their

[1:50:09] hands up. And it also was a recommendation of the housing commission. So that's where that number came from.

[1:50:15] Well, that's helpful. I didn't know that until now.

[1:50:17] No, no, you knew that from budget conversation. Yes.

[1:50:20] Yeah. I was going to say the housing commission reg has a regular schedule uh as to when they consider the fee and loo

[1:50:28] and there are standards that they consider that include inflation. It includes building starts and and a host of standards that they routinely employ.

[1:50:38] And then that's a recommendation to us.

[1:50:40] I would want them to go forward with that. They have the information. They're prepared to go forward with it. If we decide

[1:50:46] at some future date that there would be a different issue to include to make those fees larger, we can do that. But I

[1:50:55] think they need to go ahead with the process that they currently have in place, which is a pretty robust process

[1:51:02] with a lot of input and detail uh that they've done. A I mean, you're there. I used to be in your position as the liaison and I've watched that process.

[1:51:11] It's it's a very thorough process. I'd like that to go ahead and then if secondarily they decide, oh, the fee and

[1:51:20] loo should actually be on a on a or increased on a different model. It can always be changed.

[1:51:27] I think there's been work that has gone into the decision making that they now as a budget need to be making decisions on. I have Marissa, Yumi, then John.

[1:51:39] Um, so I was going to say I you have that PowerPoint. I know I know that it was with housing commission. I think the

[1:51:46] number was 220 increasing it to 227. But then I think there was also a number that said they discussed going even up

[1:51:52] to 250 and I had asked the question why how did they actually come down to the 227 if the 250 was mentioned at one

[1:52:00] point in the meeting? There are various options provided based on the analysis performed and this analysis was vetted by the council at the previous time that we uh changed the fee in Loo in 2022 23.

[1:52:13] Um so [clears throat] the recommendation is to reflect the subsidy needed to acquire bring online an affordable unit through the city scatter site program.

[1:52:23] So there's two broad methods. There's the um sales [clears throat] price method and then there's the programmatic experience methods. Both were outlined

[1:52:31] in great detail. Both have um the analysis and the numbers that would be yielded and the uh commission

[1:52:38] recommended 5 to do the uh 222500 which reflects this the programmatic essentially the programmatic experience in the last few years.

[1:52:48] Thank you and yeah I mean I I um [clears throat] appreciate the notion that it would be

[1:52:57] part of uh you know larger conversation, but I I

[1:53:03] you know, construction costs have gone way up. I I don't you know,

[1:53:12] it isn't even in my opinion probably enough, but we we landed at 222 and you

[1:53:20] know, then then, you know, a some kind of grant is is is leveraged uh you know, with that to hopefully build

[1:53:27] [clears throat] more housing. I just think that um a certain number is is needed and uh I I think that I don't

[1:53:36] know how long our discussions will go on for where you know I mean it it could go on for quite some time and I I I just think

[1:53:46] that we need to land at a definite number. [snorts] Let's pretend like we're a company for one second. And that company sells

[1:53:54] widgets, okay? And creates footballs, okay? And there's a person in

[1:54:02] charge of the widget making and there's a person in charge of the football making. And those groups did a lot of work and they come to the CFO and say,

[1:54:09] "This is our revenue number." And then the board of directors goes to the company and says, "Hold on, we're not going to make widgets anymore. we want to make or we want to make a different

[1:54:18] type of widgets and so the inputs into those widgets are going to produce a totally different revenue number. Is the

[1:54:25] CFO going to say, "No problem. Let's just use that widget number that we had before." Or they gonna say, "Let's go back to have the discussion to figure out to make sure that we understand the

[1:54:34] inputs that are going to drive the widget revenue number." That's what we're talking about right here is we're saying, "Let's just pick a number based

[1:54:42] on an old policy that might get changed because of of further discussion that's about to happen." Like, that's very

[1:54:49] backwards. We have we have we cannot vote on a number in and a budget without the business or in this case the housing

[1:54:58] commission and the other f stakeholders providing the input on whether our overall approach is going to change.

[1:55:08] I don't quite understand and frankly the housing commission after a pretty wholesome conversation and review and analysis came up with this number

[1:55:17] based on the ex current policy. Sorry to interrupt you. So we could apply that to everything and basically go home, watch the Bears game. I'll be honest, I hear

[1:55:26] four people supporting moving forward with this fee in Lu of 20 of 222500.

[1:55:32] Am I accurate in in that assessment? Um and I think for budgetary purposes, look, we can always please stop making

[1:55:40] faces. We can always amend the budget, but at this point our team needs some sort of predictability as we move

[1:55:48] forward. [clears throat] So, um I think you can, no pun intended, bank on that. Um we have um asked now

[1:55:57] the housing commission something. I'm not still not quite sure what it is, but they will be back with us. But I think

[1:56:04] where we all agree is we are committed to improving accessibility to housing in Highland Park and we appreciate the

[1:56:11] people who have gone before us and whose shoulders we stand. And now we will continue the dialogue with all of the

[1:56:18] stakeholders present in a way that looks at this very complex topic. Then the state of Illinois is going to come in and tell us what we're really doing. But

[1:56:26] in the meantime, we will be dedicated to the mission. And so I appreciate everybody's passion and thoughtfulness in this conversation. Thank you. Um let's move on. Bags. No. Yes.

[1:56:38] Um we can hold it for right now. Okay.

[1:56:40] Okay. And then Well, we can we've got eight minutes to talk about bags. Okay.

[1:56:48] A subject, by the way, I want you to know I brought up in 2005. Nobody wanted to do it then. [laughter] But Northbrook is leading the way.

[1:56:57] Good news everybody. I talk fast. Thanks.

[1:57:05] Okay. So, what are we talking about? We last talked about this in April. Um, and we're recommending a policy consideration incentivizing reductions

[1:57:14] in use of single-use paper and plastic bags in line with the sustainability plan. I know there's a question on why we're including paper in our

[1:57:22] recommendation. um because production of paper is five times more uh uses five times more energy than plastic. So on

[1:57:29] the front end, paper bags are a net negative to the environment. So the plastic bags we all know they don't disintegrate. They don't um they take a

[1:57:37] really really long time. Uh paper bags, yes, you can reuse them several times. They're recyclable.

[1:57:43] There is though that still that negative impact. Um even though they decompose, they use a lot of fresh water to create it. So that's one of the reasons why um

[1:57:51] we were including them and this is a timeline of our consideration. So originally started this conversation with SAG in 2023. We decided to watch

[1:58:00] and see what Northberg was doing with their program. They've been very successful. They are seeing a good response since their roll out. As we discussed before in fall of 2025, we

[1:58:09] started doing some preliminary research as staff. Brought it back to committee the whole in April. Um took your considerations in in our new

[1:58:17] recommendations that we have. We also went and talked to BAG in May. We talked to SAG again in July. We also did another survey, this one. Uh more

[1:58:25] respondents, 373 for the one that was generally to residents and businesses.

[1:58:30] And then we did a specific survey um again a smaller count only four to the businesses that would be um required to follow this program as we have outlined

[1:58:38] it. And then tonight, as you know, we're here to consider advancing the policy um with your direction. So, I want to talk

[1:58:45] about survey results first. As I mentioned, there's 373 people responded um to the main survey which went out to any resident and general business again

[1:58:54] through all communication modalities including business, e-news, etc. Um one of the you know main questions of that would would you be in favor of piloting

[1:59:02] this effort in Highland Park? 161 respondents were in favor, 194 were opposed. 12 persons answered they would need more information. Five did not respond to this question on the survey.

[1:59:12] Um, proponents of the reusable bag incentive site environmental concerns, potential revenues for the city and businesses, and a decrease in litter as

[1:59:20] top motivators. Those opposed highlighted not wanting to pay a fee, um, reuse of plastic bags in their own homes, and not um, believing plastic

[1:59:28] bags are problematic. So, that was just kind of a snapshot. Um, all the survey questions were in the packet. as it

[1:59:35] relates directly to those um approximate 34 businesses that would meet the criteria that staff is recommending. We

[1:59:42] had four respondents. Um of those 34 other responding businesses, two occupy over 10,000 square feet um and two

[1:59:50] operating sites have ranged from 3,000 to 5,000 ft. Just for context, concerns stated by those businesses include the number of new fees added um to consumer

[1:59:59] transactions in recent years, and they mean that statewide. uh concern about charging for paper bags as well as plastic and current customer

[2:00:07] acknowledgement um that some of them feel that they receive that Highland Park doesn't charge for bags. They also cited concerns over the current state of operating business as well as the time

[2:00:16] it might take for already busy employees to manage the program. And while survey results are mixed, you can see these four are very three were strongly

[2:00:23] opposed, one was somewhat opposed. Um and while those are mixed results, they also are limited by those who responded.

[2:00:29] For example, staff has talked one-on-one to representatives from Target, Sunset Foods, etc. Uh, businesses that have these type of policies in place in other

[2:00:37] communities and they have seen no issues um in the rollouts in those areas. So, we wanted to um point out that those

[2:00:45] businesses report minimal consumer disruption as well. And we talked about a number already utilize these uh reusable shopping bags as part of their

[2:00:53] branding. Um we're seeing that Highland Park Target just started handing out reusable bags. just my Target doesn't do that closer to home, which is why I like the Highland Park Target better. Gita

[2:01:01] was like, "You can't believe you haven't been there yet." Um, so they are giving out red bags right now. Uh, Jewel, Target, Sunset Food, all of these are part of programs in other municipalities.

[2:01:12] So, staff is sensitive um to the concerns raised by our businesses and our residents. However, we're still in support of advancing a usable reusable,

[2:01:22] I'm sorry, bag incentive policy based on feedback provided by yourselves, advisory groups, and narrative feedback from peers and businesses and

[2:01:30] communities where similar programs are currently operational. We do recommend a policy that adopts um that incentivizes rather reduction in both the use of

[2:01:37] paper and plastic. as I mentioned and we further recommend using the parameters of the existing Northbrook program as a baseline with a more aggressive approach

[2:01:45] to the fee structure and advancement towards a singleuse plastic bag band similar to Oak Park's program and that is um our approach on both the fee and

[2:01:53] the total elimination of plastic um bags. It's based on the conversation we started in this room with all of you and continued with the advisory groups.

[2:02:03] So again here's some pros and cons of bag fementation.

[2:02:07] Um, you know, we've looked at different options. Obviously, a number one pro for us is it aligns with our sustainability

[2:02:15] goals and community expectations, which we talked about in an earlier presentation. It drives behavior change.

[2:02:20] It's a great um revenue generator for our sustainability fund, which um utilizes and offsets cost when we make sustainability purchases, whether it's

[2:02:29] vehicles or programming, and um also is a revenue generator for eligible businesses. perceived cons. Um, business

[2:02:36] impacts, administrative oversight, training and technology that does take some time, city staff impact, tracking and compliance, um, potential resident

[2:02:44] resistance. Um, I think everybody's always in fear of that when we have a new program, but we have seen in other communities that it's something that people easily adopt. I don't mean to

[2:02:52] call you out, council member Ross, but I remember you saying in the last meeting, I don't mind if I have to pay it. If I need a bag, I get I need a bag, but usually if I forget my other bags, so I

[2:03:00] more and more people feel that way, right? We have our reasonable bags. get them in the car, I'll pay the the x amount of cents per bag. And then concerns with customers shopping

[2:03:08] elsewhere. This was talked about a lot in BAG. Um as well as in SAG and certainly economic development being all of our job, it's something we all thought about as well internally. Um we

[2:03:17] have seen to that same point though, people will still shop local and support local and support their local and close by businesses

[2:03:26] even where these aren't in place. So some basic outlines of our recommended program structure. We're looking at um

[2:03:33] specifically today qualifies for qualifiers for inclusion, exemptions, fees, and revenue share beyond the overall direction from council on

[2:03:41] whether or not to bring reusable bag policy forward for adoption at a future meeting. So, what we're looking at, and I'm going to go through these um individually, so I'm going to snack

[2:03:49] through um qualifiers for inclusion. We talked about this a lot in April. Um at that time, uh we've talked about

[2:03:57] existing practices we've seen in other communities. There's eight other communities in the Chicagoland area that we've been following that have policies like this in place and council said we

[2:04:05] are in favor with 3,000 square feet or more. Um so we've been going with that. SAG and BAG agreed with that as well. Yes, mayor.

[2:04:11] Can that be retail? Like Dinks is big but has teeny retail and that was a big point that I had was Dinkx should be excluded, you know.

[2:04:21] Yeah. And I think we have them on this list. They are no longer on there.

[2:04:24] Great. Thank you. Um, so go back. One of the biggest pieces we'd like um right now with the different parameters and I'll show you what those businesses are.

[2:04:34] Again, I'll go back to that slide. The feedback here was consideration of requiring merchants to provide an option for reusable bags for purchase at their

[2:04:41] facilities. This is this could be an aggressive approach. It could be a future add-on. Um, it doesn't necessarily have to be part of the original policy, but it is something

[2:04:49] that some communities do where they require those businesses that are still selling plastic and paper or I'm sorry, utilizing paper and plastic bags to have

[2:04:58] a reusable bag option available for purchase on site. So, that's one of the considerations.

[2:05:05] Um, other considerations are the exemptions. Um, again, [clears throat] committee the whole discussed these and we're in favor of all of them. One I

[2:05:13] want to kind of point out that we've added in blue I have on bulk bakery loose items and like those little bags where you throw your apples and and

[2:05:20] whatnot. I added deli and butcher. Um that was part of the conversation, part of the feedback we received from businesses that responded who would be

[2:05:28] eligible. They were saying, "Well, what about um if I'm a butcher? What if I have a butcher cabinet? It's kind of

[2:05:35] foolish to charge for the plastic bag to go inside your reusable bag for meats and things like that." And we agreed.

[2:05:42] Okay. So, we'd like um council's feedback on that. And then this is that list of the

[2:05:49] retail establishments that we feel fit um the parameters of the business both by size and what their operations include.

[2:05:58] Give you a second on that one.

[2:06:00] And then the bigger um part of the conversation today is the fee consideration. Uh we are recommending um staff is recommending 15 cents per

[2:06:09] single-use bag uh paper or plastic and having that implementation begin July 1st of 2027. And how did we land on 15

[2:06:17] cents? I'm sure is a question many are asking because a lot of communities start at 10. Um we originally broached 10 in this room in April. The

[2:06:26] conversation became is that enough to push behavioral change? Uh we did look at other communities. We did some research. I say we really also did a lot

[2:06:34] of research. So, I want to give him credit for this. And we've seen where in communities like O Park where they're pushing people higher. Um I know at one

[2:06:41] point in time I think the number 25 cents came up in this room like if we really want people to change and so we're suggesting starting at 15 cents.

[2:06:50] Um that's where we're seeing other communities kind of moving towards O Park. Just made that decision this summer to elevate to 15 cents next year

[2:06:57] and then to do an annual increase of 5 cents to keep pushing that envelope year over year and then maxing that out. um

[2:07:04] so that we could to the point was in this room I think council member Bloomberg first brought it up and said why aren't we banning single-use plastic bags altogether as part of this and so

[2:07:13] that would be our recommendation to kind of move this towards a full ban of the use of single-use plastic in these facilities in 2030. Um, so that's our

[2:07:23] again fee structure based upon input from this group as well as both SAG and BDAG.

[2:07:30] And we would max that out at 30 cents in 2030. And that 2030 would carry on just for the paper bags. They'd still pay for

[2:07:36] the paper bags and that um we would fully man the single-use plastic bags by January 1st of 2030.

[2:07:44] Mayor what what Erin's describing there is exactly what we do to no park um in July of this year 5% increase each year and

[2:07:53] then we put a ban on plastic bags and how about North North does not have the ban on plastic bag North's at 10 10 cents and it has not raised it.

[2:08:03] So one of the conversation points we had in April Mayor was that hey it's great they went down a couple hundred thousand dollar couple hundred thousand bags of

[2:08:12] use in Northbrook almost a million but they haven't really moved from that so people who are still willing to pay the 10 cents are willing to pay the 10 cents

[2:08:20] and is our goal to just keep gaining 10 cents from each bag or is it to really drive that behavioral change which is

[2:08:28] why we suggested the Oak Park piece. Um why don't we grab dinner and if you want to come back we can talk about this

[2:08:36] after the meeting although [laughter] um but otherwise we can come back to another committee of the whole but

[2:08:44] great data so appreciate all the work that went into us all hail this was your meeting [laughter]

[2:08:51] um motion to [clears throat] motion second all in favor say I thank

[2:08:58] Come