--------- I did it. >> Crazy. >> I know. >> Well, we're recording. >> Yep. We're live. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, today's work session, we're going to talk about the North House lease.
>> All right. Back again. >> Yeah. Not because there's any new updates, but because there hasn't been a discussion about it for a while, and it's just kind of hanging out there, >> somewhat unfinished. And so, we thought we better just touch base with this
conversation one more time. plans today is just a quick review of the lease itself, a revisit to your last policy direction you gave on it, and then a quick summary of work that's happened since then, Ben
and I did with their board members >> and a review of the letter we received from them about a year ago. We'll go with that. You've seen the lease probably a number of times.
Um, I can put it on the screen if people want to look at it, but there's really no need to. There's some important facts about the lease that's worth revisiting. It was um started January 1st of 2004,
22 years into it. It's structured with two 25-year automatically renewing terms. So, the first of those 25-year terms is coming up in 2029.
The automatic renewing part is based on a set of criteria that were established that they've already met. If they haven't, they certainly will. There's no no question about that. And so although
it was 25-year term, it's really a 50-year lease starting in 2004. The payment for the lease was based on at at the time in 2004, a calculation about what the property taxes would have
been on that property had Northus been required to pay property taxes to the city. and then escalating on a fixed percentage every year and then every five years. We weren't going to revisit that value
using a methodology that doesn't work because we need to be able to assess the value based on what the county is doing. And frankly, that loses traction pretty quick after they start making improvements. We covered that a couple years ago in
depth, so I won't go into that in depth right now. The lease has a number of requirements for their own performance. They need to take good care of the property. Uh they're responsible for all the maintenance on the property. Um
there were some rules about it. We revisited a couple of them. We clarified a few things about what space they can use, but really it hasn't been a lot of changes and we haven't asked for a lot of changes for the first 15 years at least. I don't think there was any real
no need to talk about it. There were a number of conversations, however, in the past 10 years about do we want to extend the term. North House thinking about future capital projects and wondering about
whether it would make sense for them to own the property instead of leasing it from us, whether a 99-year lease was possible or a longer just longer than the remaining 30 or so that was left at the time. and we had our own list of thoughts about it as well.
If anybody did spend some time looking at the document, I want to give you a moment to ask some questions if you had any about the lease itself. I was just recalling that I think in there there was an idea that we get to the 25 and then
there would be and if nothing has happened they automatically get five years was that or there's a five-year extension right at that point >> and I was trying to understand but it auto renews so
>> the term of this lease shall commence on January 1st 2004 four shall continue to and include December 31st, 2029 unless extended or sooner terminated as hereafter provided. Okay. >> The lease shall be renewed automatically on the same terms and conditions for an
additional 25-year term provided North House shall meet the criteria and performance standards set forth in exhibit B. >> I see. So the five years would cover any sort of negotiation or dispute around that. No, there's no five years. It
renewed automatically on the same terms for an additional 25-y year term. Okay. >> Oh, so just go back to the rent for a second. >> Okay. I realize what you said about
hard to figure out how to make those changes, but the end is have there really been any changes on a regular basis. What is really happened with the rent? It's been escalated on uh 2% per year
and I think we adjusted the value two times that that um tax payment was based on but it certainly hasn't kept up with uh market rate if we but
that was never the intention or even what our levy rate has been in the past 22 years. So a 2% is automatically put on there every year. Two different times they
somebody looked at the value. >> We did have the county assessor. Um so here's what the language says. The premise shall be appraised by the office of the Cook County assessor who
shall determine the tax capacity for the parcel. The city's tax rate for commercial property shall be applied to the appraised value of the land. And then that was the original methodology and we would revisit that same re-evaluation
every 5 years. The Cook County assessor w was willing to do that originally. Um, and after the first five years, we did it once and after that it got messy and for quite some time they haven't. They can
reassess the property, but what they're reassessing is the property with all of the improvements that North House added to it, which isn't really what this was about. The additional rent conversation on here talks about that those are their responsibilities, but it wasn't that we
were gonna also then charge them rent for the buildings that they built with money that they brought that we own. So, this is one of the issues we covered and we'll get back to this when we talk about the policy conversation you all had as a council a couple years ago
because this is the tricky one. And then there was also which you'd said in there that they have to come every year and show that they've met the terms which we figured they always pretty much have. And we informally had kind of I
believe said you don't really need to do this anymore but he comes pretty much. >> Is that sort of how you guys took it or what? Just double checking. >> Yeah, that certainly is is baked into
the lease as part of the if not written, it certainly is implied that those are the prerequisites. There's a growth, you know, model as well. Uh my my concern is you know so many of these features the accountability the
access the things that we are wanting in this lease northhouse is willing to do because they wanted the extension of the lease right well once they get the extension of the lease what's what assurances do we have that those that's going to maintain
Okay. >> So, back to your annual report. That's the second that's article two where we agree to send a city counselor to serve as a liaison to Northouse and they agree to present an annual report to the city council.
And it says the first regular scheduled meeting after February 1st, but we've mutually agreed that doesn't have to be that. And then more recently, we've mutually agreed that that doesn't have to be an in-person presentation. They can present an an written report that we'll just include in a meeting.
>> Just Mike, what I was talking about before maybe this is just article 17 that's not quite understanding. So that's why I went to >> Yep. So that's expiration of the lease
and that's really not the first 25 year term isn't expiration. >> Okay. >> So that's we go because there's a renewal clause that's automatic. >> There we go. >> Yeah. So the expiration is after the 50 years and then it's automatically renewed. But
there there are there is language in there on how we would not continue the lease. It just isn't accessible until you get to that timing. So are you um meaning Ben like the current con the conditions that are in
there in the now that talk about um their success in their business or something just mean in general like managing the property or >> Yeah. I mean what I was talking about just now Yeah, I mean I I think that
that's largely been but I mean they want to do it. I suspect they want to do those things anyway. They want to keep it nice. They want to keep the buildings up. They want the public to feel comfortable there. >> Um so I don't anticipate anything changing, but I don't think the lease speaks to to that beyond
>> right like there's nothing we can really do about it if they don't comply with these terms beyond the lease renewing. >> I I don't know if I agree with that. Um there is
a requirement a minute there's default language for instance in here and I think there are circumstances if they didn't maintain the property that we could access the default language and it would just mean that we would tell them
that they need to remedy the situation and they'd have a certain amount of time to do it. So I and if they and eventually I think that could end the lease if there was just a complete failure. So I think we do have some ability to if there was ever a shift in
the way they operated and they weren't maintaining the property that we could >> compel it. >> Is that just under our normal? >> So that's the article >> when that's the default. Yeah. >> Okay. And we've got that in combination
with the um articles 8 and nine and 10 that talk about making improvements to the property, taking care and maintaining the property and assuming all managerial responsibilities
to the premises. So those responsibilities are north houses and if they ever did default on that then we would have an ability to go and talk to them about it. So, just to point that out, we haven't ever done that, >> right,
>> in the leases term. Any more questions about the lease itself? >> Not right at the moment. >> So, we are attached to this lease because it's the one that's in place and we'd have to mutually agree to change it. But because we thought there's some
things in here we'd like to see changed, we did have our city attorneys draft up a new lease a long time ago um before this two years ago conversation that the city council had.
Um this was not drafted by Flity Hood. This was drafted before they were our city attorneys. And I think just from a best practices standpoint, I mean, they change their template every year or an even more regular basis. And so there's
language in here that they would recommend we do some different things. That gets back to what you were talking about, Ben, that I think North House would be open to that, changing some of those things to get the language up to modern legal standards.
What would we have to give in order to get there? >> All right, if there's no more questions about the lease itself >> for now, >> let's go to the 2023 >> conversation that the city council had.
So, we decided, well, we've been talking about this for a while. This is after North House has come and requested the ability to purchase the property. Brought a whole bunch of people into city council meetings suggesting that that's what we should do. And the council deciding we're not going to do
that. And then sometime afterwards, we we said, "But we're it feels unsettled. We really need to continue this conversation. So, let's get our side straight. What are we asking for?" And that's what this document represents. We're looking at doing three things.
one, update the lease payment. Two, current market value and include a fair escalator. The reasoning behind that, what we identified at the time was that the rent payment was designed for a different
type of organization in a different place in its life than North House is today. And frankly, it's not possible for us to comply with our own side of the lease agreement because the county assessor isn't going to do what we want them to
do in the lease document. And then maybe this is the biggest tricky part, the low payment creates unnecessarily public conversation that really distracts from the goals. Not just our goals, but North House's goals. And I think we've all seen that
manifested that there's a real disconnect between what a lot of people think a fair payment would be versus what the payment actually is. And there's a real effect that that disconnect creates. So we want to see it updated. Of course, we had some questions about
how we might want to do that and we got into a little bit of those conversations that we'll talk about in a minute, but there is no answer to that question yet. Number two, the goals that were established in 2004 were prove it goals for a brand new school. We wanted to see
them grow. Uh more recently, I think growth has been a problem, a concern, particularly physical growth of the facility. And so there's a realization that there if they're just trying to do what we've asked them to do in the lease, that may not be what we want
anymore. and that we should just get rid of goals that are expansion related. I think the goals in the lease are all expansion related. So maybe there isn't any goals that we have. And if we're doing a renewed term and we don't have
any sort of point in time where we're checking in on a set of goals that automatically renews, there's no need for this anymore. Instead, the goals could be what we've got in article one of the lease, which is that North House has to maintain itself as a nonprofit, has to
that has to be its primary mission on the facility, and it also has to continue to teach traditional art crafts. Those things are in the lease. Then last, update the lease to current legal language standards. That's what we've asked for. So, we spent some time going over that as you as a council, you
decided this is we were willing to bring this and you asked Ben and I to go and meet with a group from North House. We did. We met with that. They had three board members and Greg Wright sit with us. We met I think >> a dozen times.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Four or five times. uh periodically in 2023 and 2024 where we presented this is what we want, this is what we're looking to do. Their
presentations to us were that's great. Um they don't necessarily have a problem with any of these things. What they want is security on the site, more of a long-term lease, uh potentially ownership of the
property. that's what they want. Uh when we were coming back to the city council and reporting on those things, there wasn't a lot of support for giving on the term of the lease. Uh there wasn't any support for the sale
of property to North House. And so it made it really difficult to continue a negotiation where there wasn't any crossover really and what they're asking for and what we're willing to give. So we attempted to uh coax them into
doing this because it's the right thing, not because they want to, because they can and they should. And because back to the number one goal with the lease payments, there's real effects to this not getting fixed that they're experiencing
and a lot of overpoliticalization of uh any zoning requests that they have. You know, lots and lots of public involvement in those conversations that seemed like it was at least fueled in part by this disconnect.
Their response was a letter beginning in 2024 to the city council. And um
I think the letter was a good summary of our conversations with them, but then it really moved on to um sharing a bunch of articles that looked like they were written by
friends of Northouse connected to the campus. And this is great that they have people that are connected to them. It's one of the nice things. I mean, they're a real success story, right? >> But it wasn't a very useful um document in terms of us moving the conversation
forward. Didn't provide us with anything we didn't already know. Uh but what it one thing that it did say is uh they're prepared to increase their financial commitment and they're setting aside uh an additional $1,000 per month as a
symbolic statement of good faith. And it's not an increase lease payment or a payment in lie of tax. It's just a we're willing to keep talking. Um but I'm not sure we were. So
that was the end of our conversation. And so we want to come back to this and take a look at it one more time and maybe decide is that still where it lives or are we interested in revisiting our ask or are we interested in
reconsidering their ask? >> Anything you want to add to that? I think you nailed it. Like that was Yeah. >> Well, the density is still a huge issue and we can't look at it in the long term with
what we're seeing there now because they still have plans to continue to build and develop there. um everything they that they do there is correct, but it doesn't feel to to many
people like a nonprofit. They have real estate they rent out until just a year or so ago. They were landlords for another business. They still are landlords for another business. They just enlarged that one building and now they have quite a nice little retail
operation sitting in there. It doesn't feel like a traditional nonprofit when you're sitting there with all of that. And it was brought to our attention in another meeting we that Mike and I were at at North House. Um,
which is not everyone knows this. In fact, we talked to them about it when we were looking at the new yellow building. And that's the water runoff issues and um some of that that they are creating because of all
their density and because nothing can get you know like they paved that one section and we I know you guys worked on part of their roof line right on the lower side of the yellow building right they were supposed to do stuff that way. >> Oh right and then we had the drainage
thing. >> Yeah. So that's come your attention and then of course they put that other little building in there where they asked to have the variance which they were not granted. So now they have another small building sitting there and
of course the rest of it's going to get built up too. And part of what we asked for during those prior discussions was, you know, in a sense it's like not our business, but it is if you want a long-term lease, was to just say, "What are your plans?"
Which is individually, I know quite a few years ago, they brought just about every council person down, and you know, Greg spent a lot of time with me and showed me the whole thing. So I think that's a a big thing to consider
when we want to talk about a lease again. And we have made suggestions of other places and then it always circles around there's this unspoken you don't like us thing which to me interrupts the conversation too because that's not the
point. Everyone agrees they're successful, they do great things, the whole deal. But there isn't a business or entity that doesn't want to be on the lake. So, they aren't any different, but there's only how much we can hold there
and it's gotten to be too much and can you take some of it and develop it somewhere else, which they clearly don't want to do or have not made action for. And I think that's the spot that's also been a pause in this conversation, at least for me.
And I also feel that nonprofits have cycles. They're in one, too. And they're doing strategic planning, trying to figure out a vision for themselves. They know who their target market is and where they are in their lifespan. And they know how they've got to figure out
how they're going to build and continue to bring people in there. It's smart. It's the good right thing to do. But that's another thing about any business or nonprofit. They if we're giving them leases for a really long time, it's hard
to come and react to that on a defense later if something doesn't go well and if and for what they own then they can just sell it and and then where are we at with our harbor? Those are the things that still stick
with me. Um, and of course, parking is just an issue everywhere, but this is just one of those that kind of ramps it up. I'm very thankful they have their parking for their um, interns when they moved them all. Not all of them. I think some are still the street. I don't know.
But anyways, that's been very nice. I see they're all have their nice parking spots. So, that's very helpful. Yeah, this is a really good reminder of some of the things we've been talking about. I'm not hearing though that there's a difference now than there was when Ben
and I were talking with that board. Some of those issues are really tricky to handle, too, because the lease is only on this small part of their campus now, whereas it was their entire campus when it was written. Now, it's not. And yet, that's really the
only piece that the lease allows us to look at and consider the conversation about renewal. We can talk about whatever we want. And of course, you do have the ultimate authority when it comes to setting the rules about zoning on what's allowed to
be built there. >> Right. >> So, >> when's the last time anybody tore out a building? >> What do you mean? >> What do you mean? Like you mean changes? I mean, >> yeah. And and then I mean this is like a worst case scenario and they may be many years from now but things aren't going
well and then all these buildings are sitting there and somehow then it gets sold or whatever. Well, does anybody I mean it'll probably just be what was there, right? I mean nobody >> says, "Oh, we're going to take something away and change it."
But anyways, >> probably rhetorical, but the theater building, maybe the last obvious one in downtown that we tore down. >> Yeah. Well, it condemned. >> Could have been. >> Yeah. I mean, we didn't, but
>> could >> probably could have been. Uh >> the uh the the density has certainly been the the the the theme and and the problem and the growth and I understand the lease encourages it. That was a
problem for us. We smartly said we want that revised and looked at. Um, from their perspective, I don't I just don't see that, you know, there's any real real reason for for them to want to make any changes without, you know, getting
something off of out of it for them. I mean, they want pathway to ownership andor security and or both. um we want to protect and preserve which is our job and there's there just
isn't an obvious path forward and so this it lies in this murky area and Mike and I talk about this a little bit like the murky seems to be the only way that we could do this and there isn't a clean
the north house is is wanting a more relationship, right? They want they want more relationship with the city and the city council and which is sort of why we we said, "Well, let's look at the payment because that people look at that payment and say it's insufficient. It's
not partnering up in a in a meaningful financial way and we have real financial needs and it' be nice to have the largest nonprofit in maybe the entire Northland uh contribute
and they didn't say no. But I think that there's ways to to look at leases and and you know if you if you you know to to look at the entire property that the North House has and get first right of refusal if something
were to go backwards for them and they had to offramp out of the area. I mean there's no why that the city couldn't participate in something like that as a as a horse trade in that. Not saying that you'd want to, but you could
>> Yeah. And I don't know if it was you, one of the things I remember talking about a bit at the time that they were um interest when we talked about purchasing more closely was, you know, is it time
to take that property and let other nonprofits also have that same benefit? like we take it and then they can have their certain events there, but so could other nonprofits and things and and I don't know if they've picked up on that
or not, but they've certainly brought um in the last few years brought in and included uh more nonprofits in our community into their space. And that was another thing I was hearing from other nonprofits who wanted to partner and do
things with them, a real reluctance to want to do that. with different initiatives too. Um so I felt like there's been a change that way in the last few years >> for the positive. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And I think there at least I have heard from staff that there's a recognition that that that that's not their mission statement
to be a tourist driver or whatever for our community, an economic driver. I mean, that's not why they're here to drop people to fill hotel rooms. They do by the nature of what they're here, but it felt like that was a statement that
was getting spread and mishandled for quite a while as well. They have a mission and that's as you said to teach lifelong crafts, >> traditional northern crafts I believe we say in the lease. Yeah. And that they would say in their mission statement. >> Yeah.
>> Well, they did produce that report that tried to actually identify their financial impact on the community. So, well, they do that. Excuse me. They do that report every year and it's they're successful and it's a
brag statement basically is what I see it as because they are successful and they feel that they do drive tourism in Grand Ray. >> Oh, they do. >> Yeah, they definitely. >> So whether they think they don't or not or don't want feel that they do, they
do. Well, I mean, they do, but it was to me that was not a statement of of why they have value here. I mean, that's that's a misplaced >> statement of why they exist. Let's put it that way. But yeah, they they do. and the growth of the whole place. We had a
lease on a specific piece of property and had different things in that lease that they had to, you know, do each year. But with all the time that has gone by, let's be realistic, that lease should have been altered a long time ago. You
know, like you said, they have to grow, grow, grow, grow, grow. Well, that piece of land that they're leasing from us as far as their campus, whole campus layout is just a now basically a fraction of their
project, you know, >> pretty big fraction still. >> Well, it's a big fraction, but it's it's it's not the majority. You know what I'm saying? >> I think it is their classroom. >> They've grown all around. >> The majority of their classrooms are in all the buildings that they own. There's
very little they do in those other buildings anymore. All the all the classes I had took. Yeah. >> But I'm just saying it's it's a piece of the whole campus. So removing some of that language,
I don't have a problem with that. Um, but I don't I'm I don't think that because that language is in there is why they've grown so big because we force them to grow. I think they just
grew because, you know, they're doing things right and they're doing things, you know, successful in their niche and that's what they're doing. But you know, like I I worry about certain things like maybe other people in the
community worry about is, you know, when you run out of land to do anything on down there, then what is your what's your long-term goals? Because they cannot grow the way they've grown in the last 20 years into the next 20
years staying at that same place. You know, if they want to grow, build more buildings and do the things that they're doing, they've got to go somewhere else or reach out or move or expand. You know,
can't put all your buildings on the lake unless you own more lakes shore. So, I mean, that's I think that's the thing that people think about. And also when you see taxes do what they do to
the people who have lakes shore and the valuations that people are seeing each year and what they pay. You know, I think um that was a negative things that we were seeing in some of this conversation of what their rent is each month or each year or whatever the
number is. I don't even know what it is right now, tell you the truth. But I think that was a thing that the some of the community people were questioning. So, and I did have a talk with the assessor. I think that was a couple
years ago about if if he's ever I brought the lease up to him and I had him read it and I said, "Have you ever done this?" He said, you know, I don't think anybody in the assessor's office has really done,
you know, uh documented upgrade on values that 2% or whether we're valuating property just property with improvements
or just property without improvements or how Did this original lease want to be constructed to establish a a monthly payment? That's the one of the questions I had.
>> Yeah. I don't think there's anybody that's currently in the office that's been involved in that. >> Yeah, >> they did in 2004. and and they were when it was set up was it was just the the the rent was to reflect the city portion
of the taxes not the entire normal >> tax bill which pays the state and the county right >> the language is the city's tax rate for commercial properties and grammar should be applied to the appraised value of the land and buildings and improvements as they exist on the date of the inception
of this lease. So that means every 5 years the county assessor would have to go back and do that same thing re-evaluate the value of the land and buildings and improvement as they exist on the date of the inception
of the lease which >> can't do >> can't do. >> That's a really bizarre language. Yeah, >> you can see where the idea came from was we didn't want to discourage them making improvements to the property by saying
every time you make an improvement, you're increasing your own rent, but at the same time, this is pretty clear now. This is not possible. So, the the one thing that came out mostly when
I remember you were here, but when we had the conversation about the food trucks the other year and so it's not exactly the same, but some of the things I heard from business
owners that have brick and mortar was, you know, that's okay, but you know, I spend all this money between utilities and property taxes and building whatever and it's just you know
basically not a fair playing field then if you also give them public land right and it's like yeah I guess I get that and there this is not the same thing exactly but there is some lessening of tax
consequences for a nonprofit that actually is has a degree have a business operation to it. Isn't like they give their classes away, right? Some nonprofits, that's part of what you do. You teach somebody, whatever. They have
a cost. I know they don't cover all their costs with it, but then they have that retail store and then they're also landlords. So, that starts to feel uncomfortable, too, the larger you get in that. And once again, you know, they're they're doing what they're
allowed to do, right? That's just how our tax system works. But um I just think of our community and the first time I talked to Greg about this and I have a couple times is like two two 2015
or so something like that. I said you know our community Greg depends on all of us. It's all our quirky little businesses and you know it's the beaver house with the fish on it. It's everything that makes us who we are. No one is extra special that way. We all
matter and we have to all kind of be in it together. You're not a standout or it nobody is a standout. We don't make it alone here. And it's kind of like you got to play a little bit more team ball
to this. You know, not every business has huge success financially. But that's not really the point. It's the character and it's all of us together in on it that makes the place
that people want to come to. And I'm not sure that that message really got understood either. >> Yeah. Even from back then, I've always thought the way that we think about
their value and the way that they think about their value are really quite different. They don't have to be like I think if we dug into it a little bit more, you could apply cash value to many of the things that they do in the community
and if we had a lease payment that they could apply services they provide to other nonprofits or free classes for the school kids or all these things and
start to add a value to those and add it it would definitely be a lot more than the amount they're paying us in cash. Now, we still have a cash issue, so it's not the final solution, but I wish there was a way to bridge that gap a little bit more, and it would require a
different storytelling method on their part to do it. And then I guess we'd have to decide if it it's meaningful or not. that those conversations or have been on the table too and haven't really developed into a solution. So
>> yeah, there's definitely been an upswing in the amount of time and and offerings to students for sure. I don't want to not comment on that either because that's a huge change from what it used to be, >> right? Yeah. With what you're what I
think you're saying. So what would be helpful is to have a target number because then you can say like oh and then we offered these classes or we did whatever. >> Yeah. >> And that adds towards that drop number or whatever. >> Of course if you look at our policy
position statement that's one of our first questions we have and I'm sure it was one of their first questions too is okay you want more. >> How much? >> How much? >> We've never said >> right. Yeah. I think what we said is we'll know it when we see it and that's not very satisfying.
>> Yeah. I mean, >> of course, I don't know if that's a direct correlation because that's just their mission and and or you know, that's just what they're doing. I don't understand that really the same thing. I mean, they get their dollars to do that.
you know, the county community fund gave them dollars for some programming they had during um unf well a couple different years um for children's music. Well, so the one who should have gotten
credit for that really was the Cook County Community Fund for sponsoring that. Um but that's where you know that is where they get most their dollars or grants from someone else and then it's their job to disperse them out and benefit the
community. Sure. So to tie that back to the finances of a lease. >> Yeah. Not not all things are belong in that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I don't know that and to talk about complicated. >> Well, for sure. I mean, yeah, but I get what you're saying, Mike. I mean, it
would be nice to tie if we could get a number and say like, okay, >> but I don't think that that's the point of that. I mean, that's what they're supposed to do with the dollars that they raise is to benefit out whatever it is.
>> We've got about 10 minutes between now and when our next meeting that we're going to live stream starts, and we're going to need some transition time. So last call for comments before we >> move over. >> I mean I guess my one thought and I said
this in our other discussions we've had over the years is I I the idea that we might settle it to them is just a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. Like I would never consider that a possibility. So it's certainly not that
the idea that you know I mean obviously the lease is not great as it is but I'm also kind of like you know it's not great but I think we okay and I think they're the ones who
need to come to us with something they're the ones who are feeling pressure more than we are I feel and you know I'm willing to discuss it and see what they want to do would never end up with ownership even if we decided
to extend the lease somehow. But I still feel like, man, that's a long time. 50 years is pretty good. Yeah. I'm not sure how I would feel about extending beyond that. Like that feels pretty good. I mean, cleaning up the language
just seems like a smart thing to do. Like even if we did nothing more than clean up the language, that's just like let's just do that. The dollars. Yeah, probably raise it. >> It's not like I don't know. I mean, they said $1,000, but that was just a nothing
burger >> a month, >> right? That's um probably three times what they're paying right now. >> It's still not a market rate that right now. >> No, >> no, no. They just meant like you would. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's a meaningful gesture. >> That Thanks, Well, that's where this issue sits right now is in that place of I guess we're okay and unless we change
our ask or they change what they're asking for, that's where it's going to stay. >> I think um I would suggest a next step of just forgetting what is and just sit here and creatively think what if we could just do what we wanted to do. I
don't mean that in a whatever we want but without current restriction. You know what would be the ideal lease and and just write it up once and see what it look like and besides cleaning up language to be
>> you mean well we have that I mean we have the and I'm sure they'd want to look at it again but we do have the fix the language draft. >> Did they ever see that? many years ago. >> Okay. >> The Yeah. The what would we want? Is it different than what you said in 2023?
>> I don't know cuz we always keep talking about we have to stay with what we have. What if we just for a minute in a creative moment just said what if we did this now without all those other things percolating? What would we do? Sometimes
it's easier to think because otherwise you're always oh we can't do this and we can't do that just to what would be or what would attorneys recommend today whatever thought. Let's hold that thought then and if we're going to revisit this conversation, we'll do it
in that context. Or if you say we're ready to do something different with our ask, we'll do it in that context. But >> there's three other people as I'm sure. >> Well, I think we need to do something different.
>> Yeah. >> As far as the value of the lease or the what? I think I think doing nothing is is is a little bit I mean if you want to have an impact in the conversation
>> you have to do something right because this lease was written by a group of >> people that were completely okay with foggy language and no offramps and low leases and tied to right like >> and maybe they would have even sold the
property through right like >> how many boards in the last 25 years would have done that so you say I want to do that. I get it. I don't either. But if we don't do anything, the next board two years down the road, four years down the road, 10 years down the road,
>> we've been spending on this for a long time without any real >> and I didn't mean to say like it would >> No, no, no. I understand what you're saying. I feel I mean I feel the same way. Um I think that it's public land and and I'm a big fan of that.
>> Yeah. And we didn't even talk about some of the things I believe the the marine might be able to benefit to that. >> Well, we didn't because we started with this is what is the reality of the situation, right? This let's not spin
our wheels on that stuff because it's not happening. So >> I I I mean I think what I talked to Mike about and and you about wanting to have this on to on the agenda at some point for us was really to just let everybody know that this is happening and this
lease is renewing and that is that's the reality and so is it going to or if it's going to it is >> well >> based on I mean yeah >> but I I so
>> I think the thing we need though as a number. I mean, I think that's the biggest thing. Greg brought it up. Paul said it. >> It does seem like the, you know, cleaning up the language, changing the dollars.
I mean, those >> extending the term like those have to come together. We can't just get the things we want. >> Why not? >> Because we've asked and they said no. >> Okay. >> Well, so what? We'll >> Well, >> keep talking. just like don't answer.
I do like your idea of hey let's let's do a lease that that we like this that we pass like and it's like how different is it from our reality >> and run it by north >> and say this is it
>> this is what we've got this is what we like to see >> you can always do whatever you really want to do we just are trying to avoid doing that but it's not like we're absolutely locked into anything. But who
knows? If we just sit with a clear head, we might come up with some okay things. >> That's that could work for everyone. >> Anyways, >> I know we really need to >> we're going to undo this stream. Mia,
we're going to send you a new link to the next meeting. >> So, a few minutes. >> Sounds good. >> Great. Thank you. If you want to continue the conversation at the regular council meeting, you can. Part: 2
Hey, we're live. >> All right. Um, the time is 6:32. With us tonight is Mike Roth, Kim Van Beck, Michael Gary, myself, Bill Lois, Ben Peters, and Craig Schulty, and
attorney Mia Benson. >> Benson >> Benson, I know. >> Who knows? >> We might discover we are related. Um, and for open form, is anyone here for open form tonight?
>> Here, listen. Yes. >> Okay. Very good. So, with that, we'll close open forum and um next up is the consent agenda. Any amendments, additions, changes for that? Otherwise, a motion to approve the consent agenda.
>> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> All right. Any questions about any of the various permits or anything in there? All good. All right. Uh all in favor for the consent agenda.
>> I >> All right. Let's see. >> Solid list this time. >> Yeah. >> Robust. >> Very good. >> Graduation parties. >> Um all right. And with that with our
meter agenda tonight, we're going to move on to reports. Administrator reports. the uh state passed a bonding bill. I don't know if you all heard. >> Oh yeah. >> In that bonding bill is $1.9 million for the city of Grand Marray's wastewater treatment plant.
>> Y >> So how much did we ask for? >> We asked for five. Um I want to say thank you to all the folks that worked really hard on getting that bill yourself >> in place and also
for the folks that work for us at the legislature that passed it. Um, it's a good start, but we've got a ways to go. So, they'll be hearing from us again and uh not sure yet how we're going to be
able to move forward, what what the next step might be. >> Yeah. >> U, but we got some time to think about it now. >> Okay. >> So, >> next session is >> well, their next session isn't one where they would typically pass a bonding bill. And so if we were going to go back
for a second ask that'd be I mean we certainly would be talking to them now >> sure >> and next session but it wouldn't happen until necessarily till two years from now and then that money is not available for another year and a half maybe. So
we're looking at if we that's our strategy then it could be five more years before we start this project and I don't know if we can wait that long. So >> yeah, >> we got some work to do. >> So the 1.9 is what? Like can we just
hold on to it? Like does it sit there or is it like >> they're going to hold on to it? >> It's reserved for this project and then when it's time for us to do the project, there's a process we go through to get our hands on it. It, as a reminder, we also were granted a million dollars in a
similar way from the federal government from congressional directed spending their last session. Uh, thank you again to all of our our state representative and legis and senators that that helped with that. Um, so that brings us up to
$2.9 million. Um, we'd asked them for three. So, of the eight that we've requested so far, we got 2.9 of it. Uh, like I said, it's a good start. We got some work to do. >> Yeah. A lot of work to do because I
think our total bill is going to be closer to a minimum of nine at the time they presented in 2023, right? >> Well, it was it was about 8.8 when we did our initial and we did it inflated it a bit, right? When we asked for our
money, we asked for eight of a $10 million project. If we have to wait five more years, it won't be a $10 million project. >> Uh maybe we won't ask for eight next time. Maybe we'll ask for 28. Yeah, those are interesting comments. What did we learn? That they like would
rather fund a larger project than a smaller project. >> One legislator looked at me and said when I made some comment about maybe not all or whatever. He said, "Well, don't come here till you've got everything you're asking for." That was not a real
happy feeling. But we were not the only ones doing it. Silver Bay, >> they did fund a big project somewhere, like 8 million. I saw that. Oh, they funded many very very large projects. >> A wastewater either water or a waste water. >> Both. They did both. They funded hundreds of projects and really hard to
say it. There wasn't just a strategy of everybody gets a little what they asked for. Some people got everything they asked for. Some people got even a little bit more and some people didn't get anything. And so it's really hard to pinpoint what the winning strategy would have been. particularly when uh the
chair Franen was talking about the bonding tour visit to Grammaray on her floor speech on the last day. So clearly we made an impression. Our story has some compelling uh features to it and it was successful in part but we're going
to need to modify it. Yeah, because I went and compared off the request list ones I could find when what was awarded and all of them that I saw their requests were significantly more than they were awarded. I didn't
find them all and some of them I couldn't even find on the original request list that they awarded. So I don't know how that works either exactly >> but um yeah. >> Yeah. So what is what is the strategy
>> more to come? >> We talking to the folks that were awarded projects in full. >> Yeah. >> Full plus. >> Yeah. There's not a strategy that works. >> So we're just going to have to figure
out what's going to work for us. >> Yeah. >> That's great. >> Yeah. It was moderately disappointing at the time and I've gotten through all that and now I'm at the this is good news. It's a good start. We're closer
than we were and we got some momentum. Let's keep it going. That's enough for me. >> All right. Okay. Find a meeting. >> Just any meeting. We'll just go get you a meeting.
>> We wouldn't do that to you. >> I'm good. >> Okay. >> No, nothing. >> Animal bingo. We got animal bingo. >> Animal bingo. >> You passed it already. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's good. Does that mean the cards have animals in
them? >> Should >> Yeah, we we had a meeting. Mike and I have talked about it where >> he's working on it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's it's the same concerns, you know, when when and how much is their building
project going to cost and will start. >> If there's a contractor watching this meeting that's interested in helping out, give me a call. There are a lot of new people in the town doing work. It's time to go find a few.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Oh. Um kind of uh parkboard meeting, but I see you guys already went through the awarding of the
purchase of the grinders and the uh >> Oh, right. Yeah. We took care of and we did go down and walk around the site a little bit to look at where Bath House 3 is going to >> be built. We were considering the possibility of maybe a different
location, which is by after looking at everything, we decided that that's not where we would like to put it anyway. So, we're sticking with the plan that was originally laid out. Oh, not that more center one
ret. >> Well, we're going to get we're going to Yeah, we're going to take out a few campsites to put it where it's going to go. But then when we take out the old bath house, we're going to gain some nice sightes in that area that are on
that second level looking at the harbor that'll be full hookups. We were considering on the the area on the other side of the road there >> kind of >> the group campsite. >> The group campsite, that big one on the corner right before you pull in the
parking lot. There's a big open space there. >> Oh. >> But then we started looking at that and thinking, well, I don't know. Kind of sits out in the middle of >> everywhere and blocks the view of a lot of stuff with the harbor and those kinds
of things. So, um, we kind of said, let's just stick with where we're going with it. Look at exactly how it's going to lay in there with those four six sites. Maybe four sightes. >> Yeah, probably six, I think.
>> Six on that corner. Yeah, that was about the end of that meeting. Then we did have a PUC meeting. We're doing some work to some water pumps that need some work done on them down in the water plant. Um,
we're going to get our water tank intake inspection, the water tank, both water tanks up in the hill and the expan the the intake line out in the lake and the tank. They have a drone that they can
run into all this stuff and just inspect everything with a drone. That'll be kind of interesting. And then Fourth Avenue wastewater. We're going to line that wastewater line. Um there's a company that'll line it for
considerably a lot less money than digging everything up. And I think we'll get some more years out of it before we have to really do anything more. >> 20. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Maybe quite a bit more than that. >> Pretty cool. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, that's is one of our lines
that it's old clay tile, which means just, you know, three-foot chunks of clay pipe that get stuck together. They're not glued or anything. That's pretty common way to do sewer back in the day and the roots can get into it and the ground settles and things move.
And so, we've had issues with roots and trees and blocks and it's been a nuisance. So the and we regularly inspect pipes like that every couple years. We'll send a camera down there and look at them. And this one's not long for this world before it's going to start failing a little more
dramatically. And so this is a great solution when you don't want to dig up the street, when you don't want to replace the water man at the same time and you don't need to replace the pavement. This is a way to go. Is that liner resilient to those same those same
perils like >> Yeah, it's basically they're putting a plastic pipe inside of the clay pipe >> just gets hardly >> so it gets cured in place and it's a new plastic pipe. >> Yeah. >> And it's really slick. >> Cool. >> That's great. >> Yeah.
>> Where does that begin and end? >> It's going to be just the top block between Fourth Street and Fifth Street, Fourth Avenue West. Um what else we talk about? Oh, we talked uh Shane presented
um some information studying and looking at demand demand rate pricing just to kind of look at where are electric rates when they're the peak demand.
We the valleys and you know how electricity is. We have certain times of the day we're at peak rate and trying to recover some of the costs of having peak rates and providing
um infrastructure for those things, those types of scenarios dealing with peak rate. And so we're just looking at different ways. He had he had a bunch of charts that how it works, you know, and it
doesn't really affect a lot of our well, it won't affect any household customers. >> Wouldn't change anybody's other than maybe the top 50 electric users, >> but it's just to look at demand rate and what might come out of that if we did something like that. So it was just a
study to kind of look at that. Right now, all of our customers pay a fixed fee based on the type of service they have, whether it's three-phase or singlephase, and then they just pay the same price per kilowatt hour, unless they have one of our off- peak or dual
fuel programs. But most utilities have another way that they charge rates for larger customers as well, which is this demand rate. And so then there's three aspects to the bill. There's your fixed fee. There's your charge per kilowatt hour which is actually lower for the big
customer. But then there's a third charge that's added which is based on your peak demand. So the meter reads what how much was the most power that you used at any given time during the month and you get they get a third charge based on that. What it tries to
do is reward customers who have a relatively flat demand curve because it's more efficient for us to provide the infrastructure for that customer and they pay it back by buying electricity versus those that have big
peaks and then valleys. We have to build the infrastructure for that peak. they're not using it very often and so they don't pay enough through the kilowatt charge to cover the expense of it and for most of our customers the variance isn't very much to to go to
that rate. But if you start thinking about massive charging stations that aren't active very often but have a very large transformer and we would never get our money back if we just charged them in kilowatts. But if we also charge them on
the peak usage, then it would. So that's where larger industrial customers or other big commercial customers and other utilities typically would pay that type of rate. And we're just looking at whether it makes sense for us. And that that's it. That was the last
thing on that agenda. >> That's all I got. I went to the K County community leadership this and the everyone's taking turns hosting. So this time um
ISD 166 hosted Chris Lynholm um they have one major topic and it was child care. Um so Grace Kernager gave a report um and explained gave numbers and stats
you know how many daycare providers age you know like the pieces licenses um and uh Lacy Smith also added some of that because of early childhood education which is um the preschool
>> kids as well. So, we got kind of the the background on it and then um what to do, what are our needs. It sounds like that there's still some stats they're not super clear on and that are we
obviously know the kids in the daycare programs, but where what other kids are there and what are they doing? You know, are they informally being given care or they don't need care because they're with their families? What? So there's a few missing spots to that and then they
started brainstorming and Lucas Wakefield, our new EA director, brought up a meeting brought up to us when we had met with them initially and that was the possibility of um setting up an endowment that would allow for uh free
child care in the county. and he had written one of I believe his graduate paper on this and basically the economic benefits of that with more people working more growth and and that it pays
for itself in in many ways. M >> so um there was a lot of clamor on that in a very positive way and there's a subcommittee group. Did you already have was that a topic yet with your EDA HR meeting? >> We spoke today. >> Today. Okay. That was meeting number
one. I don't know if you have an update on that, but >> Lucas is going to do some more work. >> Okay. And then they wanted to potentially do a task force. >> I don't think so yet. >> Okay. So that that's where that meeting
landed. Um we have had some initial interviews for our manager assistant position and we have still um some initial interviews to go early next week. So that's positive.
Um Mike and I participated in an EDAH meeting around the potential housing development at the top of the hill in our um public works property. And um so
there is just so everyone is clear this should be an is really an H project, but the grant sits with the EDA. That's why you hear them involved in it. It is
their grant. And um there is a time limit to the grant which is January 31st, 2028. So basically the end of 2027 for all intents purposes, you better have your housing
in place. And um they this is just refresh everybody this $1.3 million grant. There'll be no more grants like that maybe ever again. And the state housing group wants us to utilize that
grant. Who we utilize to do that is our decision. And there's also possibly some other options about what can happen with that grant. But the ultimate goal is to make sure that housing is built. The 16 units and at least is it half of them or
just is it is it a percentage or it's >> I think they were all income qualified. >> Oh, I thought it was only a portion. Okay. >> Anyways, um the the ultimate goal though is just to make sure that they get built and that grant is utilized here in Cook
County. And so they are working on some potential changes in that to make sure this project happens and it may not be as we initially proposed to us. >> Okay. >> To make sure that is successfully have.
We had an EDA uh board meeting yesterday. Um went through some of the particulars to get Lucas in place. Um there's some other resolutions. Nothing
really big. Most of those. Yeah, just getting that update on the golf course is they're still working on the um irrigation might work better than they initially thought, but there's it's work in progress. And also potentially
that yeah the hookup was with the popular river whatever group at least is that it's not really is it loots and mountains really how they sure how they state that for >> I have to say I've asked that question
in a few different ways and I'm not sure I know the answer yet. Yeah. I don't Well, so that Oh, and the septic they're still, you know, working to see how they had some people out getting estimates on that. So, that's still work in progress.
There is still, I believe, 40 days left um for the first refusal. And it looks like it'll be more into summer before the golf course is um sale is complete, which in some ways is fine
because that takes away the need for that short-term home. That's how that lands. Uh, what else did we talk about? I don't think much else. And yeah, then we just had our HR committee
meeting this morning, too. So, things are moving along. It's kind of neat to watch a lot of things get done. Job descriptions getting updated. All our annual review processes are moving along. Um, Roina is starting to work
with department heads on the employee policy piece. So, >> handbook started. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, that's all good. >> I missed on that. >> Yeah.
All right. That's for me. >> Thanks everybody. >> Thanks. >> Thanks, Cousin Mia. I do have relatives on