Village Board of Trustees

1200 Wilmette Ave Wilmette, IL 60091 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES Village Board Council Chambers Thursday, March 19, 2026 7:00 PM 1.0 Roll Call 2.0 Public Comment* 3.0 Consent Agenda Matters listed for consideration on the Consent Agenda are items of routine business that ordinarily are not debated by the Village Board. Routine business may include adoption of ordinances, introduction of ordinances, land use cases with positive recommendations from a public body, minutes, reports, appointments, and contracts. Matters referred to a Village Board committee will not be acted upon until the assigned committee submits its report and recommendation to the full Village Board. Village Board rules (unless waived by majority vote) require that Ordinances not related to land use cases be “introduced” at one meeting and not considered for “adoption” until a subsequent meeting, at which time they may be discussed. The Village President will inquire if a member of the Board or member of the public wishes to discuss any item on the Consent Agenda. If such a request is made, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and taken up by the Village Board in the order shown. Thereafter, the Village President will request a motion and second for passage of all remaining items listed. The resulting roll call vote on the Consent Agenda will be applicable to each remaining agenda item. Any item removed from the Consent Agenda is subject to a five-minute time limit. Any agenda item beginning with a 3 is on the Consent Agenda. 3.1 Approval of minutes from the Regular Village Board meeting held on February 10, 2026. Land Use Committee Consent Agenda 3.2 Zoning Board of Appeals Report, Case #2026-Z-03X, 521 10th Street, regarding a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, *Members of the public that attend the above noticed meeting may address this public body during Public Comment. Members of the public that will not be attending the above noticed meeting may submit a comment in advance of the meeting by emailing their comment to publiccomment@wilmette.com. All emailed comments received two hours prior to the start of a meeting will be provided, unredacted, to the public body. Emails received at any time within two hours of the beginning of the meeting until its adjournment will be included in the draft minutes of the meeting. Page 1 of 89  274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home in accordance with the plans submitted; adoption of Ordinance #2026-O-14. Administration Committee Consent Agenda Municipal Services Committee Consent Agenda 3.3 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-33 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract in the amount not-to-exceed $47,733 with Mid-American Water, Wauconda, Illinois, for the purchase of fire hydrants.. Public Safety Committe Consent Agenda Judiciary Committee Consent Agenda 4.0 Reports of Officers 5.0 Standing Committee Reports 5.1. Land Use Standing Committee Report 5.2. Finance Standing Committee Report 5.3. Administration Standing Committee Report 5.4. Municipal Services Standing Committee Report 5.4.1 State of the Roads presentation. 5.5. Public Safety Standing Committee Report All items listed on the Consent Agenda. 5.6. Judiciary Standing Committee Report 5.7. Reports From Special Committees 6.0 New Business 7.0 Adjournment If you are a person with a disability and need special accommodations to participate in and/or attend a Village of Wilmette public meeting, please notify the Village Manager’s Office at (847) 853-7509 or TDD 7-1-1 as soon as possible. Page 2 of 89 For additional information, please call (847) 853-7511, the Village Clerk’s Office. Page 3 of 89  AGENDA ITEM: 3.1 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved 1200 WILMETTE AVENUE WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF WILMETTE, ILLINOIS HELD IN THE COUNCIL ROOM OF SAID VILLAGE HALL, 1200 WILMETTE AVENUE, WILMETTE, ILLINOIS ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026. President Plunkett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.0 ROLL CALL President: Senta Plunkett Trustees: Gina Kennedy Stephen Leonard Michael Lieber Justin Sheperd Gerald Smith Mark Steen Staff Present: Mike Braiman, Village Manager Erik Hallgren, Assistant Village Manager Jeffrey Stein, Corporation Counsel Melinda Molloy, Finance Director Brigitte Berger-Raish, Engineering and Public Works Director Dan Manis, Village Engineer Sara Phyfer, Assistant to the Village Manager Lucy Mellen, Sustainability Coordinator Guests Present: Marc Rogers, CCS International, Inc. Calvin Rink, Henry Brothers Mike Elliott, FGM Architects, Inc. 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT Mark Weyermuller, 208 Lawndale Avenue, said he feels all the commission and committee meetings should be videotaped for full transparency. He commended the Wilmette Fire Department for putting out a fire on Kenilworth Avenue and said the WinterFest was a great event. He said he is concerned about spending $5 million to install bike lanes on Lake Avenue and asked if there was a matching Page 4 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved grant for the project. He said he does not believe Lake Avenue needs any work. He also gave a list of other projects he felt were not necessary and said that the city of Geneva, Illinois, is looking to build a $60 million police station but that it is on the ballot as a referendum. He said he wishes the Village would address the homeless man sleeping at the old Jaguar dealership and the people panhandling with children. He asked why the Optima building is not being built and what the status is of the Jaguar dealership. He also said he is in favor of removing the grocery tax. There was no further public comment. 3.0 CONSENT AGENDA Mark Weyermuller requested the removal of Item 3.14 from the Consent Agenda. Trustee Smith made a motion to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approval of minutes from the Regular Village Board meeting held on January 27, 2026. LAND USE COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA 3.2 Presentation of minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held on December 3, 2025. 3.3 Presentation of minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held on December 17, 2025. FINANCE COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA 3.4 Approval of the January 2026 Disbursement Report. MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA 3.5 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-19 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount not-to-exceed $61,000 with Murphy Construction Services, LLC, Burr Ridge, Illinois, for sidewalk grinding. 3.6 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-20 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount not-to-exceed $370,000 with Schroeder & Schroeder, Inc., Skokie, Illinois, for sidewalk and curb replacement and utility repair patching. 3.7 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-21 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract amendment per the unit rate schedule with Schaefer Greenhouses, Inc., Montgomery, Illinois, for the planting and delivery of spring hanging baskets. 2 Page 5 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved 3.8 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-22 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract in the amount not-to-exceed $198,702 with Staalsen Construction Company, Chicago, Illinois, for truss garage reconstruction. 3.9 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-23 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount not-to-exceed $78,863 with Langton Snow Solutions, Inc., dba Langton Group, Woodstock, Illinois, for landscape maintenance, grass cutting and planting. 3.10 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-24 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract extension per the unit rate schedule with National Power Rodding Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, for catch basin cleaning services. 3.11 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-26 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract per the unit rate schedule with Belec Electrical, Inc., Elk Grove Village, Illinois, for lead service line replacement (LSLR) program – electrical work. 3.12 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-25 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract per the unit rate schedule with Wilshore Electric, LLC, Lake Bluff, Illinois, for lead service line replacement (LSLR) program – electrical work. 3.13 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-27 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount not-to-exceed $23,912 with Morton Salt, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, for the purchase of up to 350 tons of bulk rock salt (2025-26 winter season). PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA 3.15 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-30 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract in the amount not-to-exceed $32,500 with Larsen Marine, Waukegan, Illinois, for repairs and servicing to the Fire Boat (FD- 222). JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA 3.16 Introduction of Ordinance #2026-O-12 amending valet parking regulations. Trustee Lieber seconded the motion. Voting yes: Trustees Leonard, Sheperd, Steen, Lieber, Smith, Kennedy and President Plunkett. Voting no: none. The motion carried. 4.0 REPORTS OF OFFICERS 4.1 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-29 commemorating the contributions of Engineering and Public Works Director Brigitte Berger-Raish. 3 Page 6 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved President Plunkett read the resolution recognizing the contributions of Engineering and Public Works Director Brigitte Berger-Raish. Former Village Trustee Kathy Dodd said she worked with Ms. Berger-Raish for 10 years and relied heavily on her knowledge to help navigate her first few years as a Trustee. She said she appreciates Ms. Berger-Raish’s honesty and her constant willingness to listen and learn from Board members, residents and staff. She said she is an incredible leader because of her ability to lead the department while maintaining focus on individual employees and their career growth. She said Ms. Berger-Raish has also been a loyal public servant, listening to residents and adjusting plans to meet the needs of the community. She thanked Ms. Berger-Raish and said she would be missed tremendously. She said she should be extremely proud of what she has accomplished in Wilmette and the community would not be where it is without her. Trustee Leonard said he first worked with Ms. Berger-Raish during the stormwater project where her expertise, dedication and professionalism were on display. He said he also worked closely with her on the police station project and her involvement was vital. He said they could not have gotten where they are today on the project without her leadership and guidance. He said her dedication to her job is apparent from the small tasks to the big projects. He said Ms. Berger-Raish is a consummate professional and believes she will carry these traits into retirement. Trustee Sheperd said he has spent the last few days reviewing all the projects Ms. Berger-Raish has accomplished on time and on budget. He said he was also thinking about the wonderful team she has built and the confidence the Board is able to put into her successor Dan Manis. He said he believes the pride and joy Ms. Berger-Raish has brought to everything she does is remarkable and the rewards that have been bestowed upon her are reflective of that. He said Ms. Berger-Raish has been extremely patient in answering all his questions, and he believes the joy she has brought to all projects, big and small, is one of the reasons she has been so successful. He said she leaves a great legacy here in the Village and everyone can learn from her positive attitude. Trustee Kennedy said every interaction she has ever had with Ms. Berger- Raish has been inspiring and educational. She said she is so proud to be honoring a woman in a field that is typically predominantly male. She said Ms. Berger-Raish is inspirational and not only gets things done on time and on budget, but the Board usually gets more than what it asked for. She said her great skills are her imagination, creativity, knowledge and joyous approach to problem solving. She wished Ms. Berger-Raish well in her retirement. Trustee Smith said he has learned during his professional years to always seek the assets of an organization because they will lead you to a solution. He said no matter when he would call Ms. Berger-Raish, she was always 4 Page 7 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved poised, personable and professional. He said she has delivered those qualities in every conversation, and he always felt like he was in good hands when he worked with Ms. Berger-Raish. He congratulated Ms. Berger- Raish on a well-deserved retirement. President Plunkett reflected on all the students from the Student Government program in the audience and said Ms. Berger-Raish has been so supportive of students, including girls in STEM. She said she appreciates the time Ms. Berger-Raish has devoted to them and so many other things she has found the time to help with. Trustee Lieber said he first met Ms. Berger-Raish in his professional life as a lawyer when he was representing a case regarding flooding on Park Avenue. He said he took Ms. Berger-Raish’s deposition about the flooding, and she was extremely knowledgeable, professional and courteous. He said his experience on the Board has been no different and the Village will benefit from Ms. Berger-Raish’s accomplishments for years to come. He congratulated Ms. Berger-Raish on her retirement and wished her well. Trustee Steen said while he has not worked with Ms. Berger-Raish very long as a Board member, he does echo his fellow Trustees’ comments. He said as a school board member he did interact with Ms. Berger-Raish for the stormwater project and was impressed with her engineering skills. He said community members have much to appreciate from Ms. Berger- Raish’s 25 years of service. Former Village President and resident Chris Canning gave some statistics on Ms. Berger-Raish’s work, including 23,000 engineering permits issued, 65 miles of sidewalks replaced, nearly 100 miles of curbs replaced, 75 miles of roads rehabilitated and 325 inches of snow removed. He discussed an incident that occurred before the Thornwood stormwater project began, stating while he was walking his dog, he was stopped by a resident, who expressed his apprehension about the work that was about to begin. However, this resident said he called Ms. Berger-Raish and within 30 seconds, his anxiety was alleviated. He said the resident told him that it is a tough job to alleviate the anxiety of “an old goat attorney,” but that he trusted Ms. Berger-Raish. Mr. Canning said Ms. Berger-Raish is a graduate of Marquette University and lives the values and mission of the university. He said one of the values is to create bold, ambitious plans enacted with agility, authentic accountability and commitment to the greater good, which he feels sums up what Ms. Berger-Raish has done in her time here in Wilmette. He thanked Ms. Berger-Raish for her service and wished her well in retirement. Village Manager Mike Braiman said Ms. Berger-Raish is the Village’s rock star and has been responsible for our most complex projects. He said as the Manager, he has never once had a worry or felt the need to micromanage. He said we originally crossed paths 20 years ago at a Northwest Municipal Conference Technical Committee meeting regarding 5 Page 8 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved grant funding for projects. He said he felt like he did not know what he was doing, but Ms. Berger-Raish was patient, thoughtful and made sure the community received the funding they should. He said her commitment to her profession and good governance is evident in her accomplishments. He said her kindness, work ethic and communication skills have made her invaluable in problem solving, and she has been the “go to” person in the organization, taking on all kinds of big projects. He said she is an inspirational leader and turned the Public Works Department into a happy department with solid succession in place. He expressed his sadness at losing his “go to” person but wished her well. President Plunkett said she struggled to find the right words to say because of the great impact Ms. Berger-Raish has had on employees and the Village as a whole. She said she is in awe of Ms. Berger-Raish, stating she has always felt she has been one of the coolest things about Wilmette. She said it has been fantastic having a woman in this role, and Ms. Berger-Raish has addressed all issues with grace and style, which has been wonderful to see. President Plunkett said she will miss the attention to detail, care and example of kindness and care set by Ms. Berger-Raish. She thanked her for the legacy and wished her well in her retirement. There was no further discussion on the resolution. Voting yes: Trustees Leonard, Sheperd, Steen, Lieber, Smith, Kennedy and President Plunkett. Voting no: none. The motion carried. Ms. Berger-Raish said she has had 25 years in Wilmette and 33 total in the profession to prepare, but tonight she is speechless because there are no words to describe how grateful she is to have been here. She said she is thankful to those that have guided her along this journey and thanked Village Manager Mike Braiman, Corporation Counsel Jeff Stein and Assistant Village Manager Erik Hallgren. She thanked all the department heads and the Boards and Commissions she has worked with. She said when she thinks about her body of work, she is most gratified by the stormwater project because she believes it has improved the lives of all community members. She thanked her husband for his understanding of the nature of her job and its 24/7, 365-day commitment. She thanked all the employees of the Engineering & Public Works Department, stating they are hardworking and dedicated people committed to serving the community on holidays or during the middle of the night any day of the year, regardless of their personal commitments. She concluded by stating she never felt like she was going to work because of the people she has worked with and the opportunity to do what she loves. 4.2 Proclamation designating the month of February 2026 as National Black History Month in the Village of Wilmette. President Plunkett reminded the community about the Black History Month contest. She announced that this year she will be participating in a 6 Page 9 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved discussion about being a more welcoming community on February 21, 2026, at the Baha’i Temple. President Plunkett then read the proclamation designating the month of February 2026 as National Black History Month in the Village of Wilmette. There was no further discussion on this matter. 4.3 Request for Executive Session pursuant to Section 2 (c)(1) of the Open Meetings Act regarding employee hiring, firing, compensation, discipline and performance. 4.4 Request for Executive Session pursuant to Section 2 (c)(21) of the Open Meetings Act for discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act. 5.0 STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 LAND USE STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT All items listed on the Consent Agenda. 5.2 FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT All items listed on the Consent Agenda. 5.3 ADMINISTRATION STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT No report. 5.4 MUNICIPAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT All items listed on the Consent Agenda. 5.5 PUBLIC SAFETY STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT 3.14 Adoption of Resolution #2026-R-28 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract in the amount not-to-exceed $41,040 with Armstrong Relocation Company, Chicago, Illinois, for moving services associated with the Police Department temporary relocation to Beth Hillel. Trustee Smith made a motion to adopt Resolution #2026-R-28 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract in the amount not-to-exceed $41,040 with Armstrong Relocation Company, Chicago, Illinois, for moving services associated with the Police Department temporary relocation to Beth Hillel. The motion was seconded by Trustee Lieber. Village Manager Mike Braiman said there are renovations being made to the Beth Hillel site to accommodate the temporary operation of our police department while the new station is being built. He said this Armstrong Relocation Company was the lowest bidder and the 7 Page 10 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved contract will cover the moving of 300 boxes and the breakdown/setup of cubicle workstations as well as the workout equipment and lockers. He said the overall budget for the move is $80,000 and this contract is for a heavier portion of the work, as there will be new furniture in the new station. He said the project is tracking at or below budget. President Plunkett said this is part of the overall police station project budget. Mark Weyermulller, 208 Lawndale Avenue, said there is no tape of the Public Safety Committee meeting, so the public does not know what is involved in this contract. He said he is happy to hear that the contract was part of a competitive bid process but questioned if the cost is part of the $439,000 that was voted on a while back. He also asked if these costs are part of the overall budget for the new police station. He said he wants more transparency on the project, as there was no referendum. Trustee Sheperd said the public can read the memo for the item in the Village Board packet. There was no further discussion on this matter. Voting yes: Trustees Leonard, Sheperd, Steen, Lieber, Smith, Kennedy and President Plunkett. Voting no: none. The motion carried. 5.51 Review of Police Station bids and alternate bid items (PowerPoint attached). Mr. Braiman said staff will soon present the bid for the construction of the police station and that there were a few decision points for the Board tonight. He began with a project history and overview of the police station components. He said we are on target with the timeline and have completed the general contractor selection process. He discussed bid results, stating we received 3 bids with Henry Brothers being the lowest. He said the bids came in lower than projected which will decrease the overall project cost to approximately $41 million down from $51 million. Owner’s Representative, Marc Rogers of CCS International, discussed the bid differentials, stating there is approximately $6 million in construction costs alone. He said there will also be additional savings to the overall project cost that follow suit from the $6 million. 8 Page 11 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Trustee Leonard asked what risks the Village would be undertaking if it accepts this low bid and there are surprises or mistakes. He asked who would bear the risks in this proposal. Mr. Rogers said it would depend on the risk, but if it is something that was missed in the bidding, that would fall on the contractor. If the Village changes its mind and wants to do something different than what was in the specifications, that would be the Village’s responsibility. He said the biggest risk remaining is the Subtitle D Soil resulting from an underground storage tank that was taken care of by the Village previously. Construction will cause the site to be reopened and that will expose a risk; however, he said there is a contingency in the project budget to cover that. Trustee Leonard asked for an explanation of how the contractor’s bonding versus balance sheet would be addressed if there was a major unanticipated cost. Mr. Rogers said there is a 100% payment and performance bond in place, which is a fund amount set aside for payments for subcontractors in the event the general contractor defaults. He said it also covers the completion of the project for the projected dollar amount. He said the bond is a safety net for the Village. Trustee Leonard asked if the bond is provided by an insurance company. Mr. Rogers said it would be provided by the surety company of the contractor, which will be provided to the Village. Mr. Rogers said the lowest responsible bidder, Henry Brothers, has extensive experience in the construction of institutional buildings, including other police stations. He said in 2024 they built the Mokena Police Department’s station, and the reference checks were very favorable. He said Henry Brothers have committed to a schedule that has the building being closed up in the winter months, so there are contingencies in place to deal with weather conditions. He said they will work to ensure change orders are closely monitored and will work with Village staff in this process. He said there will be a dedicated safety superintendent and once the construction fencing goes up, they will be responsible for the site. He concluded by stating he has had good interaction with Henry Brothers to date and feels confident about selecting them as the general contractor. Calvin Rink, Project Manager from Henry Brothers, said he will serve as a primary point of contact and will ensure the project stays on schedule and on budget as well as ensure safety and quality control. 9 Page 12 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved He gave some history on Henry Brothers, stating they have 100 years of experience, including several municipal buildings. He said his team is committed to completing this project with a strong focus on quality, transparency and collaboration. They are excited to get started and will deliver a building that meets or exceeds expectations. Trustee Steen asked about Mr. Rink’s personal experience as a Project Manager. Mr. Rink said he has been in the business for 20 years and recently worked on Mokena’s police station. He invited the Board to call Mokena to get an evaluation of his work. Trustee Sheperd asked if there are any Henry family members still with the firm. Mr. Rink said there is a relative of one of the original Henrys that is still working at the company. Trustee Lieber asked if there is anything in the plans or budget that gives Mr. Rink pause. Mr. Rink said no, the plans that were drawn are very clear and straightforward. He said they stand behind their bid and feel they have everything in place. Trustee Leonard asked about tariffs and the unpredictability of securing products. Mr. Rink said it is unpredictable, but some things are rising, others are idling and some are falling. He said timing of the bid was good, but they are seeing some subcontractors putting a disclaimer for possible price escalation due to tariffs. He said this is largely due to the cost of materials and some equipment. Trustee Leonard asked if that means subcontractors are concerned about tariffs. Mr. Rink said some are, but Henry Brothers stands by their bid and will absorb any overage. Trustee Sheperd asked if they are preordering or taking other measures to get ahead of possible cost increases due to tariffs. Mr. Rink said they have been in contact with some of their contractors to ensure they are properly preparing and that the quotes will hold for when they get the okay to begin. 10 Page 13 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Trustee Leonard asked how it went in Mokena regarding budget. Mr. Rink said Henry Brothers was not involved in pre-construction but for their part, they did go slightly over. However, he said Mokena did things slightly different than how Wilmette is doing things. He said the project turned out well and the municipality is quite happy with how it turned out. Mr. Braiman said staff had a conversation with Mokena and understands what happened, and it was not the general contractor that caused the overage. Mr. Rogers clarified that the project budget is comprised of several parts to which the general contractor is a line item and not privy to the entire budget. He asked Mr. Rink if Henry Brothers would hold to their bid from start to finish outside of scope changes. Mr. Rink said yes, absolutely. He said in Mokena they did everything in their contract, but Mokena added line items to the budget which increased the cost. Trustee Sheperd asked what would lead to scope changes at this point. Mr. Rogers said we have a fully detailed drawing set, but something could happen a year from now when we are installing door hardware, for example. He said it is possible the selections we made may not be available at that time, which could result in a change order that may increase costs. He said changing the location of outlets or plumbing fixtures is another example of something that could produce a change order or increase in cost. He said the bigger risk up front would be in the digging phase where something in the soil may be uncovered that was not anticipated. President Plunkett said there are hefty contingencies built into the budget. She asked if Mr. Rogers was comfortable with the level of contingencies currently in the budget. Mr. Rogers said yes, even with the change in project budget, we will have a suitable level of contingencies at this point in the project. Sustainability Coordinator Lucy Mellen reviewed the sustainability bid alternates: Green Roof - $79,000 for Installation and $10,968 Annual Maintenance She said primary benefits include stormwater management, a reduction to the urban heat island effect, increased biodiversity, aesthetic improvement and an extension of the roof life. She said 11 Page 14 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved some secondary benefits include electricity efficiency and emissions reduction. President Plunkett asked for clarification on what the green roof would entail. Mike Elliott of FGM Architects, Inc., said for the green roof they based their design on a tray system which consists of trays that contain green matter that are installed according to the design layout. He said in the base bid, there is a smaller area that we were maintaining a green roof and pavers and an outdoor patio space off the second floor. He said we had to adjust when we started looking at the solar array and the mechanical equipment layout. He added that some of these green roof areas are visible from the building, which adds to the aesthetic. Trustee Lieber asked if Alternates 1 and 2 are chosen, would the building have the green roof and solar panels. Mr. Elliott said there is a component to integrate the solar panels and green roof. President Plunkett asked if the larger green roof system that is visible from inside the building is visible to any of the neighbors. Mr. Elliott said you would not see that from the ground. Trustee Kennedy asked if it could be seen from the second-floor windows of neighboring homes. Mr. Elliott said possibly depending on the height of the garages. President Plunkett said the green roof and solar panels are two separate alternates. She asked what type of plant material is in the trays. Mr. Elliott said some type of sedum which is very resilient. President Plunkett asked how often they need to be maintained and what the annual maintenance covers. Mr. Elliott said weather plays a part in how often the system needs maintenance, but the annual fee covers inspections and replacement of trays that are not thriving. He said there is an access door designed in the building to allow the maintenance team to gain entry to the green roof. Trustee Leonard asked if there are leaking issues with these types of roofs due to the water retention. 12 Page 15 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Mr. Elliott said there are a few layers of protection laid before the trays are installed so there have not been any issues that he is aware of. He said the design of the tray system acts as a natural barrier because the green material does not rest on the membrane layers. Trustee Leonard asked if the weight of the system requires a sturdier structure below it. Mr. Elliott said the area where the green roof will be has already been enhanced to allow for a second-floor area in the future. President Plunkett asked about replacing the roof in the future. Mr. Elliott said it could be a challenge, but essentially, the membrane layer would be peeled back to get at the roof for replacement, but he said roofing technology has improved over time and they are lasting longer. Trustee Kennedy asked if Mr. Elliott agreed that the green roof extends the life of the roof by 2 to 3 times. Mr. Elliott said he believes the extra layer of green material does shield the original roofing material from UV rays, which could extend its life. President Plunkett asked if a green roof could be added at any time. Mr. Elliott said the way the building has been structured, he thinks it could be added at any time. Trustee Sheperd said the water drains straight from the trays to a designated area and not through to the roof. Mr. Elliott said if the green roof is not chosen, the base bid includes rock in the visible green roof areas for aesthetics. Solar Panels - $308,000 The primary benefits include the generation of renewable energy, modeling best practices for the community and the reduction of grid dependency. Ms. Mellen showed a diagram of the roof and the proposed installation locations. Mr. Braiman said FGMA would work with the police department to identify the high priority areas that the solar could power in the event of a blackout or if our generator fails. President Plunkett asked if there were solar panels, would it mean the generator would not run as much. 13 Page 16 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Mr. Braiman said yes. Ms. Mellen touched on the franchise fee for residents. She said it is difficult to quantify, however, after conversations with ComEd, it appears to be approximately $2.50, which we can expect to go down slightly. Trustee Sheperd said the new station, with or without solar, is $6,000 that should be passed along. Ms. Mellen said ComEd estimated it to be $6,400. President Plunkett said without solar, ComEd is paying for the air conditioning of the building which is then passed down to the residents of Wilmette. Ms. Mellen agreed but said this is a bigger building with a larger draw. President Plunkett agreed but said it is a more energy efficient building than our current station. Mr. Braiman said the current station is heated with electricity and the new one will be heated with natural gas. He said with that and the solar, we could likely see a small reduction. However, he cautioned that these numbers are estimates. Trustee Kennedy said we will also be paying for gas for the first time. Mr. Braiman concurred and said it would be an approximate $38,000- $40,000 line item in the operating budget. Trustee Sheperd said he thought there would be a more defined payback or tangible benefit. Ms. Mellen said the size of the building and its roof combined with the fact that it is a two-story, 24-hour building makes it a much higher drawing building, so we are seeing less of an increased payback period. Mr. Elliott said single story buildings with larger roof space for a bigger solar panel array yield higher payback. Trustee Sheperd asked if it scales based on the size of the roof. He also asked if there is a large upfront fixed charge that makes it not work on a roof of smaller size. Mr. Elliott said infrastructure plays a part. 14 Page 17 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Charging Stations - $15,000 The bid was for 4 total stations, 2 on the upper level and 2 on the lower and the primary benefits include support for staff electric vehicle adoption and aiding in future fleet electrification efforts. Trustee Leonard asked if we had any electric vehicles in the police fleet. Ms. Mellen said the police fleet has hybrid vehicles, but none are fully electric. She said she believed there were a few fully electric vehicles in the water plant. Trustee Leonard asked if we would be installing the electrical components for future use or actually installing the chargers. Ms. Mellen said the bid includes the installation of infrastructure which would include the conduit and charging station. Mr. Braiman said as we turn over community service or command staff vehicles, we would look to go with all electric or a plug-in hybrid. These stations would allow us flexibility to move in that direction quicker. Mr. Elliott said the base bid includes the conduit, and so this alternate includes the station and the installation. President Plunkett asked if these chargers would be available to police department employees with electric vehicles. Mr. Braiman said yes, for the two units on the surface level. Trustee Lieber said there is nothing precluding us from doing all 3 of these alternates. Mr. Braiman said we are in the process of completing a grant application for funding for charging stations. He said this is the project we would put forward. He reviewed the project cost and overall budget, stating we have come down from $51 million to the current estimate of $41 million. He said the Board can decide to do any of these alternates or none at all. Whatever the Board decides not to do would be reduced from the total budget. He recommended leaving the contingencies where they are at given the potential risks for soil contamination and tariff instability. Board members discussed the alternates: 15 Page 18 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Alternate 3 - Charging Stations There was no further discussion on this alternate, and there was consensus to move forward with this alternate. Alternate 2 - Solar Panels President Plunkett said Ms. Mellen’s point regarding potential for a larger draw from the new building and information coming forward about the electricity use of data centers in the area are good arguments to have solar panels. Trustee Lieber said the solar panels generate 38% of the energy needed to power the facility. Ms. Mellen said yes, that is the estimate, but it is not live time generation because there is no battery storage, so overnight the building would be grid reliant. Trustee Kennedy said except we currently have an all-electric building and will be adding a gas line to heat the building and generate hot water, so the energy costs are actually the electricity and the gas. Trustee Leonard asked if the solar panels require a long lead time and if we need to move quickly. Mr. Elliott said we have time, as the base bid includes infrastructure to make the building solar ready. Trustee Leonard said we have a positive variance in our construction estimate, which is great news and helps when looking at the alternates. However, if we had the opposite issue with a negative variance, we may think differently. He suggested taking a wait and see approach to this alternate until we know what the soil testing says and what position we will be in once we get construction moving. Mr. Elliott said the infrastructure will be there, so this is an item that can be chosen later. Trustee Steen cautioned that the general solar supply and demand in the U.S. is volatile right now. He said while he understands Trustee Leonard’s point, he favors moving ahead with this alternate now. Trustee Sheperd said he feels the estimated $25,000 cost of this alternate against the 8 households worth of energy we are saving is a tradeoff. 16 Page 19 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Trustee Kennedy said there is more than money here. She said we talk about wanting to be green and have done some good things, but we have a chance to do something more impactful with these panels, and if we do not, we may be sending inconsistent messaging. She said we should be modeling behavior we want the community at large to do. She said if we are going to take a step backward and use natural gas for our heating, we owe it to the community to do something to offset that. She said she favors all 3 alternates. President Plunkett said an all-electric building was not practical in this instance. Mr. Elliott said some of the equipment is not quite there yet for a building of this size in this climate. Also, this building serves a vital purpose and needs to have a generator capable of running the operations, and a generator large enough to power an all-electric facility was not feasible. He added that most gas mechanicals have become very energy efficient. Trustee Kennedy asked if heat exchangers and heat pumps were considered. Mr. Elliott said our climate does not work well with those, particularly when the temperature drops below a certain number of degrees. Trustee Kennedy agreed but said those units do perform well up to a certain point, which would make reliance on the backup system must less. Mr. Elliott agreed but said they did not dig down into having multiple systems; they felt having a reliable workhorse type of mechanical for the environmental conditions of the building was a safer option. President Plunkett asked if there was consensus on going forward with this alternate. There was consensus to move ahead with this alternate. Alternate 1 – Green Roof Trustee Lieber said this is a building we are constructing to last 50+ years, so it is important to send a message that we are building something as environmentally conscious as it can be. He said he wished we could do more green roofing, but the building design prohibits that. He said the cost is minimal and the message is positive, so he feels it is important. President Plunkett said we have a green roof on the water plant and do not incur an annual maintenance cost. 17 Page 20 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved Mr. Braiman said the annual cost is minimal for a similar tray system. President Plunkett said the annual cost estimate is $11,000 but that could be less given our experience with the water plant. Mr. Braiman said yes, we have had no major issues or expenses. Trustee Sheperd said the extension of the roof material’s life is a plus. President Plunkett said we could search grant funding options for this alternate as well. She said we are also fortunate that the total project cost has decreased so we are able to fund these alternates. There was consensus to move forward with this alternate as well. Mr. Braiman then discussed project financing. He said the Finance Committee has met twice to review different funding scenarios, and our financial analyst, PMA, has said the Village can afford this project without raising taxes for the debt service. He said the Committee recommended proceeding with 2 different bond issuances to ensure we are matching our proceeds with our cash flow needs. He said we anticipate the first issuance in the fall of this year with the second issuance sometime in 2027 dependent on project progress. He said in the future, we will need to determine the total number of general fund reserves to use, the total amount to be borrowed, and what the final terms will be for bond issuance and the financing plan. He said with favorable bids and a reduction to the overall project budget, PMA re-ran the debt scenarios and if we used $6 million in reserves, there would be an approximate $1,000,000 in savings to the debt service, which could be dedicated to the road program. He said there will be a presentation on the state of our roads at a future Board meeting as well as good news regarding bids for the annual brick and road programs. Mr. Braiman said at the next Board meeting, the police station contracts will be on the agenda and will include construction, owner’s representative services, architectural services and the demolition asbestos oversight for the existing station. He concluded with the project schedule and discussed the next steps. There was no further discussion on this matter. 5.6 JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT All items listed on the Consent Agenda. 18 Page 21 of 89 02/10/2026 Not Yet Approved 5.7 REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES There were no reports. 6.0 NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 7.0 ADJOURNMENT At 9:16 p.m. President Plunkett made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session pursuant to Section 2 (c)(2) of the Open Meetings Act regarding collective negotiating matters and deliberations concerning salary schedules and Section 2 (c)(21) for discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act. The motion was seconded by Trustee Lieber. Voting yes: Trustees Leonard, Steen, Lieber, Smith, Kennedy and President Plunkett. Voting no: none. The motion carried. At 10:13 p.m. Trustee Smith made a motion to adjourn from Executive Session, seconded by Trustee Lieber. All voted aye. The motion carried. At 10:14 p.m. Trustee Smith made a motion to adjourn from the regular Village Board meeting, seconded by Trustee Lieber. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Karen Norwood Deputy Village Clerk 19 Page 22 of 89 REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM: 3.2 Community Development Department SUBJECT: Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street – Zoning Board of Appeals Request MEETING DATES: February 24, 2026 FROM: The Zoning Board of Appeals BUDGET IMPACT: None Recommended Motion Move to introduce and subsequently adopt Ordinance No. 2026-O-14 granting a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home at 521 10th Street, in accordance with the plans submitted. Background On February 4, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to recommend approval of a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home at 521 10th Street, in accordance with the plans submitted. Documents Attached 1. Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street ZBA Report 2. Ordinance No. 2026-O-14 Page 1 of 1 Page 23 of 89  3.2 REPORT TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 2-24-26 FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Recommendation: The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends granting a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home at 521 10thth Street, in accordance with the plans submitted. Case Number: 2026-Z-03 Property: 521 10th Street Zoning District: R1-H, Single-Family Detached Residence Applicant: Michael Dickstein Nature of Application: Request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home Applicable Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.4 Section 8.3 Section 8.3.D.2.a Section 8.3.D.2.b Section 8.3.E Section 13.4.J.2.e Section 13.4.Q Section 13.5.A Hearing Date: February 4, 2026 Date of Application: December 8, 2025 1.0 Page 24 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street Zoning Board Vote: Chair Maria Urban Yes Karl Camillucci Yes Brad Falkof Yes Didier Glattard Yes Christine Norrick Yes Ryrie Pellaton Yes Marcy Sullivan Yes Notices: Notice of public hearing to the applicant, January 13, 2026. Notice of public hearing published in the Wilmette Life, January 15, 2026. Posted on the property, January 13, 2026. Affidavit of compliance with notice requirements dated January 20, 2026. Report Prepared By: Lisa Roberts, AICP Senior Planner Minutes transcribed by Gale Cerabona Report Approved and Submitted By: Chair Maria Urban _________________________ 2/11/2026 Chair Maria Urban Date 2 Page 25 of 89 Page 26 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street STAFF INFORMATION AS PRESENTED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Description of Property The Subject Property is located on the west side of 10th Street, approximately 145’ south of Greenleaf Avenue. The property has 50.0’ of frontage on 10th Street and measures 96.0’ in depth. The property is 4,800.0 square feet in area. The property is improved with a two-story single- family home and detached two-car garage. The property is surrounded with properties zoned R1-H, Single-Family Detached Residence, and improved with single-family homes. Proposal The petitioner is proposing to rebuild and slightly expand an existing front porch, rebuild the screened porch to the west of the porch, rebuild a rear one-story mudroom and to substantially remodel the interior of the existing home. The extent of the project is such that it is being classified as a new home. The rebuilt screened porch is proposed with a front yard setback of 17.79’. Because the Zoning Ordinance requires an established front yard setback of 25.0’, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation is required. The rebuilt screened porch is proposed to maintain the existing north side yard setback of 5.0’ This north side yard setback in combination with the existing south side yard setback of 5.6’ at the closest point results in an existing and proposed combined side yard setback of 10.6’. Because the Zoning Ordinance requires a combined side yard setback of 12.5’, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation is required. The front porch is proposed with a 13.5’ front yard setback. Because the Zoning Ordinance requires a 19.0’ front yard porch setback, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation is required. The front porch stair is proposed with an 8.29’ front yard setback. Because the Zoning Ordinance requires a 16.0’ front yard porch stair setback, a 7.71’ front 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation is required. The existing house in combination with the expanded front porch results in the front yard impervious surface coverage of 519.12 square feet. Because the Zoning Ordinance limits front yard impervious surface coverage to 375.0 square feet (30%), a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation is required. With the existing and reconstructed first floor elements, the proposed lot coverage is 1,855.71 square feet. Because the Zoning Ordinance limits lot coverage to 1,530.43 square feet, a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation is required. Overall, the proposed total floor area is 2,790.63 square feet. Because the Zoning Ordinance limits total floor area to 2,516.04 square feet, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation is 3 Page 27 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street required. Because the project is being classified as a new home, in addition to the elements that are being replaced/reconstructed as described above, relief is also required for existing non-conforming conditions that are not proposed to be eliminated or made conforming with the construction project. The existing home is non-conforming with a front yard setback of 13.3’ at the closest point. Because the Zoning Ordinance requires an established front yard setback of 25.0’, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation is required. The existing detached garage has a rear (west) setback of 0.1’. Because the Zoning Ordinance requires a 3.0’ rear yard setback, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation is required. Requirement Maximum Existing Proposed Total Floor Area (sf) 2,516.04 2,726.47* 2,790.63* Lot Coverage Base Garage^ Maximum Calculations (sf) Formula Bonus Allowable Existing Proposed Existing 1,530.43 200 1,730.43 1,791.55* - Proposed 1,530.43 0 1,530.43 - 1,855.71* Requirement Minimum Existing Proposed Front Yard Setback – Existing 25.0’ 13.3’* 13.3’* Front Yard Setback – Sunroom 25.0’ 25.3’ 17.79’* Side Yard Setback 5.0’ 5.0’ 5.0’ Combined Side Yard Setback 12.5’ 10.6’* 10.6’* Front Yard – Porch 19.0’ 13.3’* 13.5’* Front Yard – Porch Stair 16.0’ est. 12.63’* 8.29’* Front Yard Impervious Surface Calculations Front Yard = 25.0’ x 50.0’ = 1,250.0 square feet 1,250.0 s.f. x .30 = 375.0 s.f. permitted front yard impervious surface coverage Proposed front yard impervious coverage = 519.12 s.f.* 519.12 – 375.0 = 144.12 s.f. front yard impervious surface coverage variation * Non-conforming ^ The garage lot coverage bonus changes with the new construction designation Other Zoning Requests at the Subject Property There is no record of a previous Zoning Board request at 521 10th Street. 4 Page 28 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street Other requests are provided for reference. Each request has unique circumstances and approval of the subject request should not be assumed based on its similarity to previous cases. Other New Single-Family Construction Requests 536 Lawler Avenue Case 2025-Z-56 ZBA: Deny VB: Pending Request for a 587.68 (8.53%) square foot total floor area variation to permit the retention of a new home 2438 Pomona Road Case 2025-Z-47 ZBA: Grant VB: Grant Request for a 2,104.29 square foot (15.49%) total floor area variation and a 0.93’ first floor height variation to permit the retention of a new home 1625 Elmwood Avenue Case 2024-Z-43 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 172.61 square foot (3.47%) lot coverage variation, a 2.39 square foot (0.05%) total floor area variation, a 92.1 square foot (9.27%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, and a 6.46’ side yard air conditioner setback variation to permit the construction of a new two-and-one-half-story home and detached two-car garage 3534 Forest Avenue Case 2022-Z-45 ZBA: Deny VB: Granted Request for a 542.83 square foot (5.97%) total floor area variation, a 0.06’ front yard setback variation, and a 0.57’ first floor height variation to permit the retention of a new home 1605 Elmwood Avenue Case 2021-Z-19 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 126.47 square foot (2.66%) lot coverage variation, 1.5’ side yard setback variation, a 2.58’ combined side yard setback variation, a 2.58’ combined side yard chimney setback variation, and a 2.58’ combined side yard window well setback variation, to permit the construction of a new home 3848 Lake Avenue Case 2020-Z-15 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 0.18’ side yard setback variation and 0.14’ combined side yard setback variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home 1627 Elmwood Avenue Case 2020-Z-14 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 452.3 s.f. (9.1%) lot coverage variation, a 57.21 s.f. (1.15%) total floor area variation, a 4.08’ front yard setback variation, a 1.55’ side yard setback variation, a 3.4’ combined side yard setback variation, a 0.55’ side yard eave setback variation, a 37.60 s.f. (3.78%) rear yard total impervious surface coverage variation, a 92.10 s.f. (9.27%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, a 0.92’ garage height variation, and a variation to expand windows in a non- conforming wall to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home 106 16th Street Case 2018-Z-49 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 0.5’ side yard window well setback variation, a 5.0’ side yard air conditioner setback variation, a 154.65 square foot (24.74%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, and a 141.75 square foot (22.68%) rear yard total impervious surface coverage variation to permit 5 Page 29 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street the construction of a new home 106 16th Street Case 2018-Z-26 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 24.5 square foot (0.78%) total floor area variation, 1.69’ combined side yard setback variation, a 0.41’ combined side yard eave setback variation, a 3.43 square foot (0.55%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, a 5.0’ side yard air conditioner condenser setback variation, a variation to allow the expansion and relocation of windows in a non-conforming wall, and a variation to the requirement that a new home provide two enclosed parking spaces to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home and the retention of an existing one-car detached garage 237 Greenleaf Avenue Case 2018-Z-10 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 0.76’ front yard setback variation, a 2.02’ minimum side yard setback variation, and a 0.51’ rear yard detached garage setback variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home 238 Kilpatrick Avenue Case 2017-Z-63 ZBA: Deny VB: Denied Revised request for a 587.21 square foot (7.43%) total floor area variation, a variation to exceed the first floor height limit, a 1.05’ side yard setback variation, and a 2.99’ combined side yard setback variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home 431 9th Street Case 2017-Z-62 ZBA: Deny VB: Withdrawn Request for a 1,268.22 square foot (31.71%) total floor area variation, a 248.14 square foot (6.2%) lot coverage variation, a variation to exceed the first floor height limit, a 17.79’ front yard setback variation, a 1.45’ side yard setback variation, an 11.51’ front yard porch setback variation, a 13.5’ front yard porch step setback variation, a 0.62’ combined side yard stoop and step setback variation, a 0.25’ accessory structure separation variation, a 0.42’ detached garage side yard setback variation, a 44.51 square foot (3.18%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation, and a variation to the requirement that a new home provide two enclosed parking spaces, to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home and the retention of an existing detached garage 1202 Chestnut Avenue Case 2017-Z-56 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for an 11.08’ front yard setback variation to permit the construction of a new home 2945 Central Avenue Case 2017-Z-46 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 0.96’ side yard setback variation, a 2.09’ combined side yard setback variation, and a variation to the requirement that an attached front-loaded garage must be located a minimum of five feet behind the main front façade of the house to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home 1635 Lake Avenue Case 2017-Z-43 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 996.08 square foot (7.42%) total floor area variation, a 9.12’ side yard adjoining a street setback variation, an 8.62’ side yard adjoining a street chimney setback variation, and a variation to exceed the first floor height limit to permit the construction of a substantial addition 6 Page 30 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street and remodel that is classified as a new home 123 Prairie Avenue Case 2016-Z-53 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 9.73’ front yard setback variation, a 2.94’ front yard setback variation, a 1.87’ front yard porch setback variation, and a 2.56’ front yard porch step setback variation to permit the construction of a substantial remodel that is classified as a new home 832 Greenwood Avenue Case 2016-Z-40 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 2.92’ side yard adjoining a street setback variation, a 2.92’ side yard adjoining a street porch setback variation, a 3.92’ side yard adjoining a street porch step setback variation, a 0.42’ side yard adjoining a street chimney setback variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home 221 10th Street Case 2016-Z-13 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 1.95’ front yard setback variation, a 0.95’ front porch step setback variation, and a variation to retain a non-conforming detached garage to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home 1819 Wilmette Avenue Case 2016-Z-09 ZBA: Deny VB: Granted Request for a 129.31 square foot (2.08%) lot coverage variation, a 129.4 square foot (2.1%) total floor area variation, a 5.61’ front yard setback variation, a 5.17’ front yard porch setback variation, a 1.0’ front yard porch step setback variation, a 7.0 square foot (0.5%) front yard porch coverage variation, a 4.5 square foot (0.36%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, and a 5.52’ side yard air conditioner setback variation to permit the construction of a new home and detached two-and one-half-car garage 2108 Washington Avenue Case 2015-Z-19 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 0.17’ combined side yard setback variation, a 4.55’ rear yard setback variation, a 1.33’ first floor height variation, a 0.05’ side yard window well setback variation, a 2.15’ side yard parking space setback variation, a variation from the requirement that a front-loaded attached garage must be a minimum of 5.0’ behind the main front façade of a house, a variation from the requirement to have two enclosed parking spaces, and a 30.0 square foot (4.48%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a new home 2728 Birchwood Avenue Case 2015-Z-07 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 2.6’ front yard setback variation, a 0.05’ combined side yard setback variation, a 177.51 square foot (10.04%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation, and a variation from the requirement that a front-loaded attached garage must be a minimum of 5.0’ behind the main front façade of a house to permit the construction of a new home 1916 Washington Avenue Case 2015-Z-04 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 2.59’ front yard setback variation, a 1.0’ front yard porch setback variation, and a 2.82’ side yard patio setback variation to permit the retention of a new home 433 8th Street Case 2014-Z-39 ZBA: Deny VB: Granted Request for a 252.64 square foot (4.59%) lot coverage variation, a 1,596.07 square foot (29.02%) 7 Page 31 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street total floor area variation, a 3.23’ minimum side yard setback variation, a 0.58’ combined side yard setback variation, a 6.01’ rear yard setback variation, a 3.23’ side yard eave setback variation, a 4.01’ rear yard eave setback variation, an 11.67’ rear yard deck setback variation, a 4.01’ rear yard stair setback variation, a 1.0’ first floor height variation, a 2.0’ rear yard detached garage setback variation, a 1.0’ rear yard garage eave setback variation, a 3.5’ accessory structure separation variation, a 208.06 square foot (15.13%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, and a variation from the requirement to provide two enclosed parking spaces to permit the construction of a new home and one-car detached garage 1000 Michigan Avenue Case 2014-Z-17 ZBA: Grant VB: Granted Request for a 26.04’ front yard setback variation, a variation to permit parking spaces in a required front yard, a 3.9’ height variation, a 3.4’ parapet height variation, a 5.4’ chimney height variation, a 7.5’ side yard air conditioner setback variation, a 12.5’ side yard generator setback variation, a 17.28 decibel sound variation, and a 1,006.05 square foot (18.45%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a new home with a permanently installed stand- by generator 400 8th Street Case 2012-Z-50 ZBA: Deny VB: Granted Request for a 31.64’ front yard setback variation, a 4.09’ minimum side yard setback variation, a 9.42’ combined side yard setback variation, a 17.5’ rear yard setback variation, a 29.08’ front yard eave setback variation, a 3.84’ side yard eave setback variation, an 11.34’ combined side yard eave setback variation, a 15.67’ rear yard eave setback variation, an 11.25’ front yard porch setback variation, a 16.04’ front yard stair setback variation, a 24.46’ front yard wall setback variation, a 4.75’ combined side yard window well setback variation, a 17.5’ rear yard chimney setback variation, a 1.33’ rear yard stoop setback variation, an 18.33’ rear yard stair setback variation, an 18.17’ rear yard window well setback variation, a 409.66 square foot (9.23%) lot coverage variation, a 319.32 square foot (12.33%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation, a 141.7 square foot (7.67%) rear yard total impervious surface coverage variation, a 478.57 square foot (25.87%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, and a 6.25’ side yard air conditioner condenser setback variation to permit the construction of a new home 400 8th Street Case 2012-Z-13 ZBA: Deny VB: Withdrawn Request for a 24.0’ front yard setback variation, a 21.0’ rear yard setback variation, a 21.0’ front yard eave setback variation, an 18.0’ rear yard eave setback variation, a 29.42’ front yard step setback variation, a 28.0’ front yard porch setback variation, a 119.25 square foot (2.8%) lot coverage variation, a 282.40 square foot (4.72%) total floor area variation, a 288.85 (9.52%) square foot front yard impervious surface coverage variation, a 100.4 square foot (7.14%) rear yard structure impervious surface coverage variation, and a 3.0’ rear yard air conditioner condenser setback variation to permit the construction of a new home Zoning Ordinance Provisions Involved Section 5.4 outlines the variation procedures. Section 8.3 references Table 8-2, which establishes a 25.0’ front yard setback and a 12.5’ combined side yard setback on the Subject Property. 8 Page 32 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street Section 8.3.D.2.a establishes a maximum lot coverage of 1,530.43 square feet on the Subject Property. Section 8.3.D.2.b establishes a maximum total floor area of 2,516.04 square feet on the Subject Property. Section 8.3.E. establishes a maximum front yard impervious surface coverage of 375.0 square feet (30%) on the Subject Property. Section 13.4.J.2.e states that detached garages are permitted in the rear yard and must be located a minimum of 3.0’ from any lot line. Section 13.4.Q states that open porches may encroach 6’ into any required front yard setback and steps attached to an open porch may encroach an additional 3’ into any required front yard setback. Section 13.5.A references Table 13-2, which establishes porches as a 6.0’ encroachment and porch steps as a 9.0’ encroachment into an established front yard setback. Action Required Move to recommend granting a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home at 521 10th Street, in accordance with the plans submitted. (After the vote on the request) Move to authorize the Chairman to prepare the report and recommendation for the Zoning Board of Appeals for case number 2026-Z-03. CASE FILE DOCUMENTS Doc. No. Documents Location Maps And Plans 1.0 Zoning Map 1.1 GIS Map 1.2 Sidwell Tax Map 1.3 Plat of Survey 1.4 Site Plan 1.5 Architectural Basement Plan 1.6 Architectural First Floor Plan 1.7 Architectural Second Floor Plan 9 Page 33 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street 1.8 Architectural Roof Plan 1.9 East Elevation 1.10 North Elevation 1.11 South Elevation 1.12 West Elevation Written Correspondence and Documentation 2.0 Completed application form 2.1 Letter of application 2.2 Proof of ownership 2.3 Notice of Public Hearing as prepared for the petitioner, dated January 13, 2026 2.4 Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Wilmette Life, January 15, 2026 2.5 Certificate of publication 2.6 Certificate of posting, dated January 13, 2026 2.7 Affidavit of compliance with notice requirements, filed by applicant, January 20, 2026 2.8 Lot Coverage and Floor Area Worksheets 2.9 Established Front Yard Worksheet for the 501 Block of 10th Street 2.10 Letter from Chanen and Matt Lively, 1001 Greenleaf Avenue, dated January 21, 2026 2.11 Email from Mike Boyer, 934 Linden Avenue, dated January 26, 2026 2.12 Letter from Chetan Ghai and Karin Peterson, 1006 Linden Avenue, dated February 1, 2026 3.0 COMMENTS AND ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 3.1 Persons appearing for the applicant 3.11 Mr. Michael Dickstein, applicant 521 10th Street 3.12 Mr. Radu Alexa, architect 3.2 Summary of presentations 3.21 Ms. Roberts said this is a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit to 10 Page 34 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home. The Village Board will hear this case on February 24, 2026. 3.22 Mr. Dickstein said he grew up in the area and went to New Trier High School. His and his wife’s dream is to raise their family (they’re expecting twins) in this community. They selected this 1920s Dutch Colonial house specifically because of its character. The home is legal non-conforming. The lot is undersized for today’s standards. They are seeking relief to build something not out-of-scale and rather sustainable; rehabilitate and preserve the historic structure. This is considered new home construction, so variances are being sought. The request is reasonable, as the hardship is structural, not self-created. The existing home already sits within the required setbacks and exceeds floor area limits. Following code would require teardown of exterior load-bearing walls, thus shrinking the home and destroying its architectural character and integrity. They wish to preserve the aesthetic (including the deep eaves and general Dutch Colonial charm). The proposed expansion is modest and designed to seamlessly blend in with the neighborhood. This would have minimal impact, as their side yard abuts a rear yard and an alley. The proposed second-floor addition/dormer would still maintain a 70’ distance from the neighbor to the south; not encroaching on anyone’s light, air, or privacy. They wish to receive the flexibility to bring this 100 year-old house to modern safety and living standards. 3.23 Mr. Falkof clarified the footprint wouldn’t change. Mr. Dickstein verified same. He said after they closed on the house in October, 2025, they learned the sunroom, likely an addition in the 1950s-1960s, is really a structure sitting on dirt. There are no footings or foundation. The intention is to replace that with a sound structure. 3.24 Mr. Falkof highlighted the impervious surface coverage variation to be a modest change. The area being added to the impervious surface seems to be that along the alley for a new parking space. He asked for the reasoning of needing a concrete pad in addition to the existing two-car garage. Mr. Dickstein concurred. He said the reason for the concrete pad is for functionality, the way they live. His current car is likely too big for the existing undersized garage. They will use it to pull up and empty groceries, etc. 3.25 Ms. Norrick clarified that the variation is for a front yard impervious surface, which wouldn’t be in the rear. She said perhaps it is due to the porch steps. 3.26 Ms. Roberts said the front yard setback is 25’, and the house is 13.5’ set back. 3.27 Mr. Dickstein said there’s a restricted steep roof line in the home’s style; inhibits second floor use. The intent is to dormer each side of the roof line to utilize existing square footage inside. 11 Page 35 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street 3.28 Ms. Norrick said, when comparing the Plat of Survey (Exhibit 1.3) with the Proposed Plan (Exhibit 1.4), it appears the north side of the porch (which is being converted to living space) is slightly larger; bigger on the north elevation than the existing footprint. Mr. Dickstein said it is slightly larger. The current front door faces south. They are bringing it to the front of the house to make it look more proportional. He verified it is larger on the east elevation. 3.29 Mr. Alexa said they did bump out the front, as they enclosed the existing front porch (that already had a column in the corner and was covered) to have a foyer on the first floor; already considered as square footage for the house, as it’s a roofed element. He said village staff encouraged the variation. 3.30 Mr. Pellaton said this is in addition to the mudroom. Mr. Dickstein concurred, and said it’s currently a covered screened-in porch not on a foundation and sitting on dirt; they are bringing it up to code. That use would be a mudroom. 3.31 Mr. Glattard said the dormers run the entire length of the building; a façade placed on dormers. Mr. Dickstein concurred. 3.32 Mr. Alexa said the existing dormer on the north side is already that, so they plan to add it to the south side/south elevation; adding symmetry to the front elevation. 3.33 Mr. Falkof asked if the reason this is considered new construction is due to the value of the renovation. Ms. Roberts said it’s the amount of structure that’s being removed; removing 50% of the structure. Mr. Alexa said they are past that number; taking linear feet of interior partitions. 3.34 Mr. Pellaton said the sun porch is not a rectangle as proposed. He asked why this isn’t being squared off. Mr. Dickstein said they didn’t want to go closer than the existing structure. They could shrink it down on the west face so that it is square. 3.35 Chair Urban said the request is for 9 variations. She asked how many currently don’t conform. Mr. Alexa said the front yard for the porch and the front impervious surface. The 12 Page 36 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street existing conditions are the impervious surface in the back and the side setback on the north side. They are just replacing the sunroom, not going past it. 3.36 Chair Urban referenced the table on page 3 where it states the house is non- conforming via 7 different criteria. She noted any change to the house would require the applicant to present to the ZBA. The house is being brought to conformance by reducing the front-yard setback, holding steady on the front porch setback, and front yard porch stair. Mr. Dickstein concurred, and said the home is non-conforming in all of those areas currently (over on lot coverage/square footage). The only way to become a conforming structure is to build new construction; completely demolish and redundant to do so. That is not their goal, as they wish to savor what’s there, improve it, and ultimately make it safe for their two children. The current stair treads are 6” – like climbing Mt. Everest; is unsafe. The structure is not properly built, and they want to make it sound. He said neighboring homes are in line with the setback. The neighbor to the north wrote a letter in support. Most neighbors are supportive. 3.37 Mr. Glattard asked staff if the front yard setback has increased. Ms. Roberts said the main wall of the house is the same, but the new sunroom is at 17’. The house isn’t changing. The replacement sunroom is at 17’. 3.38 Chair Urban confirmed the front yard setback stays the same. Ms. Roberts said the existing front yard setback is missing from the table but is included in the request. 3.39 Chairman Urban asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this matter. There was no one in the audience to speak on this case. There was no additional communication on this case. 5.0 VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5.1 Mr. Falkof said he commends the applicant for preserving their home for architectural and aesthetic value in the neighborhood. It’s already non-conforming. Demolishing the house and building a new one doesn’t make sense at all. He is persuaded, as the footprint isn’t changing. The home is being brought into conformity and safety. Mr. Falkof said he is in full support of all variations. 5.2 Mr. Camillucci concurred. He said he believes the hardship is the size of the lot; smaller than a standard lot. There are modest changes to the footprint. This doesn’t impact neighboring property owners. Mr. Camillucci said he is happy the home is being restored rather than torn down. He will support this. 13 Page 37 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street 5.3 Mr. Glattard said what the applicant is doing is great. The hardship is the size of the lot. He will support it. 5.4 Ms. Norrick concurred and said she will support this. This hardship is the small lot. 5.5 Ms. Sullivan concurred and said she will support this. 5.6 Chair Urban added it’s a very good use of the space that was there. She wishes the family much happiness in the house and will support this. 6.0 DECISION 6.1 Mr. Falkof moved to recommend granting a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home at 521 10th Street, in accordance with the plans submitted. 6.11 Mr. Camillucci seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Chair Maria Urban Yes Brad Falkof Yes Didier Glattard Yes Karl Camillucci Yes Christine Norrick Yes Ryrie Pellaton Yes Marcy Sullivan Yes Motion carried. 6.2 Mr. Glattard moved to authorize the Chairman to prepare the report and recommendation for case number 2026-Z-03. 6.21 Ms. Norrick seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Chair Maria Urban Yes Brad Falkof Yes Didier Glattard Yes Karl Camillucci Yes Christine Norrick Yes Ryrie Pellaton Yes Marcy Sullivan Yes 14 Page 38 of 89  Case 2026-Z-03 521 10th Street Motion carried. 7.0 FINDINGS OF FACT UPON WHICH DECISION WAS BASED The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the request meets the variation standards of Section 5.4.F of the Zoning Ordinance. The physical conditions of the property, the lot size, lot dimensions, and siting of the existing house impose upon the owner a particular hardship. The plight of the owner was not created by the owner and is due to the unique circumstances of the lot and house. The hardship is peculiar to the property and is not generally shared by others. There are a limited number of lots of this general size and configuration. The hardship prevents the owner from making reasonable use of the property to replace with slight modification an existing screened porch and front porch and to make the home safer and more livable. The proposed variations will not impair an adequate supply of light and air or otherwise injure adjacent properties. The variations, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The variations will allow for the improvement of the home, enhancing the appearance of the neighborhood. 8.0 RECOMMENDATION The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends granting a request for a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation, and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation to permit to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel that is classified as a new home at 521 10th Street, in accordance with the plans submitted. 15 Page 39 of 89 Page 40 of 89 Page 41 of 89 Page 42 of 89 Page 43 of 89 Page 44 of 89 Page 45 of 89 Page 46 of 89 Page 47 of 89 Page 48 of 89 Page 49 of 89 Page 50 of 89 Page 51 of 89 Page 52 of 89 Page 53 of 89 Page 54 of 89 Page 55 of 89 Page 56 of 89 Page 57 of 89 Page 58 of 89 Page 59 of 89 Page 60 of 89 Page 61 of 89 Page 62 of 89 Page 63 of 89 Page 64 of 89  ORDINANCE NO. 2026-O-14 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING VARIATIONS PURSUANT TO THE WILMETTE ZONING ORDINANCE (521 10th Street) WHEREAS, Michael Dickstein (“Applicant”) has requested variations from Section 8.3, Section 8.3.D.2.a, Section 8.3.D.2.b, Section 8.3.E, Section 13.4.J.2.e, Section 13.4.Q and Section 13.5.A of the Village of Wilmette Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, Applicant requests a 325.28 square foot (6.78%) lot coverage variation, a 274.59 square foot (5.72%) total floor area variation, an 11.7’ front yard setback variation, a 7.21’ front yard setback variation, a 1.9’ combined side yard setback variation, a 5.5’ front yard porch setback variation, a 7.71’ front yard porch stair setback variation, a 2.99’ rear yard garage setback variation and a 144.12 square foot (11.53%) front yard impervious surface coverage variation (“Requested Variations”) to permit the construction of a substantial addition and remodel as a new home upon the subject property commonly known as 521 10th Street, Wilmette, Cook County, Illinois, and legally described as: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2 (EXCEPT THE WEST 4 FEET IN SAID LOT 2) IN BLOCK 16 IN GREENLEAF AND MORSES SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 AND 21 IN THE VILLAGE OF WILMETTE IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals, after giving due and proper notice as required by law, held a public hearing on February 4, 2026, on the foregoing application and the Requested Variations and thereafter filed with the President and Board of Trustees of the Village a report accompanied by findings of fact specifying the reasons for the report and recommending granting the requested relief, in accordance with the plans as submitted and discussed at the public hearing, and on the condition that all other requirements of the Zoning and Building Ordinances be complied with; 2.0 Page 65 of 89  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Wilmette, Cook County, Illinois: SECTION 1: The foregoing findings and recitals are hereby made a part of this Ordinance and are incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. SECTION 2: The aforementioned report and recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals of this Village is concurred with and approved, and the Requested Variations are granted. SECTION 3: The Director of Community Development of the Village of Wilmette, Illinois, hereby is authorized and directed to issue the necessary permits to allow the proposed construction, in accordance with the plans as submitted at the public hearing, and on the condition that all other requirements of the Zoning and Building Ordinances be complied with. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Wilmette, Illinois, on the 24th day of February 2026, according to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Clerk of the Village of Wilmette, IL APPROVED by the President of the Village of Wilmette, Illinois, this 24th day of February 2026. President of the Village of Wilmette, IL 2 Page 66 of 89 ATTEST: Clerk of the Village of Wilmette, IL 3 Page 67 of 89 REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM: 3.5 Engineering & Public Works Department SUBJECT: Fire Hydrant Purchase MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026 FROM: Dan Manis, P.E., Director of Engineering and Public Works Guy Lam, Deputy Director of Public Works Matt Overeem, Water/Sewer Superintendent BUDGET IMPACT: Budget Amount $49,000 Contract Cost $47,733 Over/(Under) Budget ($1,267) Recommended Motion Move to approve Resolution No. 2026-R-33 authorizing the Village Manager to execute a contract in the amount not-to-exceed $47,733 with Mid-American Water - Wauconda Inc., Wauconda, Illinois for the purchase of fire hydrants. Background This contract is for the purchase of ten (10) Pacer WB-67 fire hydrants, manufactured by Waterous. The Village has a total of 1,060 fire hydrants (1,018 public, 42 private) connected to its water distribution system. Each year, staff purchases hydrants to replace those damaged from vehicle accidents and to upgrade the system from swivel type to break-flange type hydrants. The swivel type hydrants are less desirable as damage from an accident usually extends below ground, requiring a larger excavation to facilitate repairs. Conversely, break-flange type hydrants are designed to break- off at ground level when struck by a vehicle, minimizing damage to the vehicle, and allowing repair of the hydrant without excavation. Staff estimates approximately 70% of the Village’s system is comprised of break-flange type hydrants. Hydrants are manufactured of cast iron and brass with different bury depths (5, 5.5, and 6-foot) to facilitate installation, coinciding with the depth from the ground surface to the watermain supply feed. The quantity of hydrants ordered varies from year to year depending on the actual hydrants replaced from the prior year and the planned replacement schedule. Therefore, an average unit cost is utilized for reporting and budget purposes. Page 1 of 3 Page 68 of 89 Denoted in the table below is a history of fire hydrants replaced each year and the respective average unit replacement cost. Between 2019 and 2025, there has been a sizable jump in the average unit cost attributed to a reported 61% increase in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for metals and metal products (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Since 2007, the average cost of a fire hydrant has increased from $1,407 to $4,765 (or 7% annualized). Hydrants Unit Cost Year Replaced (Average) 2025 10 $4,765 2024 10 $4,331 2023 7 $4,182 2022 10 $4,027 2021 13 $2,989 2020 8 $2,922 2019 8 $2,744 2018 10 $2,106 2017 10 $2,244 2016 10 $2,380 2015 10 $2,191 2014 10 $2,176 2013 12 $2,023 2012 15 $1,966 2011 8 $1,919 2010 11 $1,613 2009 13 $1,613 2008 4 $1,453 2007 17 $1,407 Discussion In February, staff requested written quotes from seven (7) area distributors of Waterous fire hydrants. Starting in 2018, the Village switched over from Eddy to Waterous fire hydrants due to limited availability from area distributors. Suppliers were asked to furnish pricing for ten (10) fire hydrants (5.5 and 6-foot lengths), and two breakaway flange-type repair kits. The Village received responses from three of seven distributors, and a summary of pricing (including freight) is denoted in the table below. Supplier Final Quote Mid-American Water, Inc. $47,733 Core & Main $48,520 Water Products Co. $49,341 Joseph D. Foreman & Co. No Bid Ferguson Enterprises No Bid Underground Pipe & Valve Co. No Bid USA Bluebook No Bid Mid-American Water – Wauconda Inc. submitted the lowest pricing for the specified fire hydrants and accessories. This vendor has furnished hydrants and other water parts (brass fittings, repair sleeves, valve kits, etc.) to the Village in the past and remains a long-standing regional firm in the water industry. Staff contacted the principal distributors servicing the Chicagoland area for Waterous fire hydrants and seeking additional proposals from outside the Page 2 of 3 AGENDA ITEM: 3.5 Page 69 of 89 region was deemed cost prohibitive due to higher freight costs. Therefore, staff recommend awarding a contract to Mid-American Water – Wauconda Inc., Wauconda, Illinois. The lead time for product delivery is approximately six to eight weeks. Budget Impact The purchase of fire hydrants is allocated to the below account within the Water Fund. The 2026 Budget includes $49,000 for fire hydrants. The proposed contract will be $1,267 under budget. Description 2026 Budget This Contract Account Number Water Fund – Materials - Fire Hydrants $49,000 $47,733 41838090-430480 Documents Attached 1. Resolution No. 2026-R-33 Fire Hydrant Purchase (Contract attached as Exhibit A) Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM: 3.5 Page 70 of 89  RESOLUTION NO. 2026-R-33 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRE HYDRANTS BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF WILMETTE AND MID-AMERICAN WATER – WAUCONDA INC. WHEREAS, the Village of Wilmette, Cook County, Illinois (the “Village”) is a home rule municipal corporation as provided in Article VII, Section 6 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, and pursuant to said constitutional authority, may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs for the protection of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Village Board finds that it is necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the residents of the Village of Wilmette to enter into a Contract for the purchase of fire hydrants by and between the Village of Wilmette and Mid-American Water - Wauconda Inc.; a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Wilmette as follows: SECTION 1: The foregoing findings and recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution and are incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein. SECTION 2: The Contract for the purchase of fire hydrants attached as Exhibit A is hereby approved. SECTION 3: The Village Manager is authorized to execute the Contract. Prior to executing the Contract, the Village Manager is authorized to make changes to the form of the Contract at his discretion. SECTION 4: The Village Manager is authorized to take any action necessary to carry out the purpose of this Resolution. Page 71 of 89  SECTION 5: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. ADOPTED on February 24, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Village Clerk Approved on February 24, 2026. ____________________________________ Village President Attest: ____________________________________ Village Clerk 2 Page 72 of 89  EXHIBIT A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRE HYDRANTS 3 Page 73 of 89 Exhibit A - Agenda Item: 3.5 Page 74 of 89  AGENDA ITEM: 5.41 Engineering and Public Works Department SUBJECT: State of the Roads MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026 FROM: Dan Manis, P.E., Director of Engineering and Public Works Ron Milanesio, P.E., CFM, Village Engineer Ryan Kearney, P.E., Assistant Village Engineer Background The Village rehabilitates local streets in poor or worse condition through an annual Road Program. The typical scope of work consists of pavement surface removal and resurfacing, intermittent curb and sidewalk replacements, utility structure repairs, pavement patching, and parkway restoration. At the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 20, 2022, the Village Board reaffirmed the 2019 funding plan for the Road Program to increase the overall pavement condition of Village streets. From 2020-2025, the Road Program has been funded to maintain an overall roadway network rating of “fair” or better condition by rehabilitating about 3% (or 2.1 miles) of pavement per year. The budget starting in 2026, was anticipated to allocate additional funding towards the Road Program to maintain an overall “good” pavement condition rating and eliminate streets in “serious” condition by rehabilitating an estimated 4% (about 2.7 miles) of pavement area annually. Discussion Staff will present an update on the condition of local streets and potential funding scenarios to the Village Board at their meeting on February 24, 2026. The agenda includes the following: • Roadway Asset Summary • Pavement Maintenance Strategy • Pavement Condition Ratings • Historical Roadway Work and Pricing • 2026 Road Program Options and Future Road Program Scenarios • Next Steps Attachments 1. State of the Roads Presentation (Agenda item 5.41) Page 75 of 89 State of the Roads VILLAGE BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2026 Page 76 of 89  Wilmette Local Roads ROADWAY ASSETS NON-BRICK STREETS Village maintains several asset networks One of the Village’s largest, most valuable ◦ Non-Brick Streets – 70% assets. ◦ Brick Streets – 15% The Village maintains 65 miles of non-brick ◦ Alleys – 12% streets, categorized by pavement surface ◦ Parking Lots – 3% type ◦ Evaluation of one asset network annually ◦ 51 miles of Asphalt ◦ 2025 was Non-Brick Streets ◦ 4.5 miles of Asphalt Over Brick ◦ 2026 is Brick Streets/Parking Lots ◦ 6 miles of Asphalt Over Concrete ◦ 2027 is Alleys ◦ 3.5 miles of Concrete Page 77 of 89 Pavement Maintenance Strategy Rejuvenator applied to streets 1-2 years after paving Application restores flexibility in the asphalt lost to oxidation, Asphalt Patching constructed 5-15 which decreases surface deterioration rate years after paving Extends the service Crack Sealing applied to life of the pavement streets 3-5 years after paving surface and improves the rideability Seals cracks that have developed on the asphalt surface; prevents moisture from reaching base Page 78 of 89 Pavement Maintenance Strategy Resurfacing occurs 20- 25 years after paving asphalt Renews the service life of the pavement surface Reconstruction occurs after 3-4 resurfacings to rehabilitate stone base Restarts the service life of the full pavement section; not typical for the Road Program Page 79 of 89  Pavement Condition DETERMINING CONDITIONS RATING SCALE Utilizes PAVER software for evaluation ◦ Software developed by the Army Corps of Engineers ◦ Staff inspects each road segment every 3 years Current: 70 ◦ Field inspection data used to calculate pavement condition index (PCI) ratings ◦ Determines the overall network condition ◦ Identifies segment candidates for maintenance and rehabilitation Page 80 of 89  Overall Pavement Condition PRIOR ASSESSMENTS OVERALL PCI RATING OVER TIME 80 75 2019 Original 68 70  PCI Rating of 57 70 66 PCI Rating  Goal to maintain fair (56-70) PCI 60 57 67 Actual rating while improving overall 61 Projected condition through 2025 50 2022 Update 40 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025  PCI Rating of 66  Improved from projection of 61 2025 Update  PCI Rating of 70  Meeting 2019 plan goals  Improved from projection of 67  Accomplished 2019 plan goals Page 81 of 89  Condition Categories 39% 28% 2019 20% 21% 21% 20% 22% 19% 2022 16% 16% 13% 12% 12% 12% 11% 2025 11% 4% 3% Serious Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Page 82 of 89  Historical Work and Pricing  Additional Work Completed Pavement Asphalt &  2021 – Central Ave. & Neighborhood Storage Year Rehab Area Concrete ($)  2022 – Neighborhood Storage 2021 6.39 $6.58  2023 – Wilmette Ave. (federal funds) 2022 4.04 $8.31  2024 – Old Glenview Road (federal funds) 2023 2.65 $10.37  Asphalt & Concrete 2024 3.14 $11.75  Pricing is $10.02/sq. ft. 2025 2.53 $9.99  20% less than Engineer’s Estimate  0.3% greater than 2025 pricing 2026 2.54 $10.02 (Projected) Page 83 of 89  2026 Road Program Options AWARD OPTIONS COMPARISON – MILEAGE/ PCI  Option #1 – Award Base Bid Project Option #1 Option #2  16 asphalt road segments Road Program – Base Bid 1.92 1.92  Rehabilitates an estimated 3% of network Road Program – Alt. 1 Bid - 0.52  Rehabilitates 1.92 miles Asphalt Overlaid Brick 0.10 0.10  Cost of $2.72 million Total Equivalent Miles 2.02 2.54  Option #2 – Award Base + Alternate 1 Bid  19 asphalt road segments Option #2 will be recommended based  Rehabilitates an estimated 4% of network on favorable bid pricing  Rehabilitates 2.44 miles  Incremental cost of $593,097 Page 84 of 89 Infrastructure Investment Program RECURRING REVENUES EXPENSES Amount ◦ Average recurring expense of $7.6 million Anticipated Property Taxes 1,500,000 ◦ Expenses include road program (4%), alley Vehicle Licenses 1,550,000 reconstruction (6 alleys), active transportation, brick street programs, annual maintenance MFT Allotment 1,287,000 programs, and engineering services Home Rule Sales Tax 435,350 ◦ Structural deficit for annual program Hotel Tax 415,000 ◦ Dedicated revenues for program do not keep pace with the annual funding needs Sales Tax 300,000 ◦ Does not yet include new sales tax (PDL) Fuel Tax 224,500 ◦ Does not including one-time projects such as Lake Other Revenues 170,000 Ave. and Green Bay Road Revenues $5,881,850 Page 85 of 89  Scenario #1 Road Program ◦ Rehabilitate 3% pavement area annually Scenarios- ◦ 287,500 square feet or 2.1 miles ◦ $3.62 million average annual cost Future Decision ◦ Maintains 2% or less streets in serious condition through 2028 ◦ Maintains fair network rating Point ◦ Consistent with historical/current (2022-25) funding plan Scenario #2 ◦ Rehabilitate 4% pavement area annually ◦ 375,600 square feet or 2.7 miles ◦ $4.72 million average annual cost ◦ No streets in serious condition ◦ Achieves and maintains overall good network rating starting in 2027 ◦ Consistent with planned/anticipated (2026+) funding plan Scenario #3 ◦ Rehabilitate 3% through 2028 and 4% after next State of Roads ◦ $4.43 million average annual cost ◦ No streets in serious condition ◦ Achieves and maintains overall good network rating by 2030 ◦ Modified approach based upon current condition assessment Page 86 of 89  Scenario Examples EH1 PCI RATING OVER TIME 2031 CONDITION CATEGORIES 74 45% 73 73 73 73 73 73 40% 72 72 72 72 72 72 35% 71 71 71 71 71 71 30% 25% 70 70 70 70 70 20% 69 69 69 69 69 69 15% 10% 68 68 68 5% 67 0% Serious Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent 66 Current 3% 16% 19% 12% 11% 39% Scenario #1 (3%) 0% 18% 13% 11% 39% 19% 65 Scenario #2 (4%) 0% 13% 13% 11% 39% 24% 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Scenario #3 (Hybrid) 0% 16% 13% 11% 39% 21% Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Current Scenario #1 (3%) Scenario #2 (4%) Scenario #3 (Hybrid) Page 87 of 89 Slide 12 EH1 When does 3% go away? Is it 2027 or 2031? Estimated timing? How many segments is 3% Hallgren, Erik, 2026-02-18T16:37:10.341 RK1 0 2027 if 4% approach approved. 2028 if 3% Kearney, Ryan, 2026-02-18T21:48:22.195 Page 88 of 89  March 10, 2026 Next ◦ Approve 2026 Road Program Contract Steps ◦ Award Base Bid (~3%) or Full Bid (~4%) ◦ Full Bid is recommended based on favorable bid pricing Mid-2027 ◦ Determination of future rehabilitation strategy ◦ Factors include: ◦ Available funding which are impacted by Police Station debt service, reserve levels, sales tax proceeds from economic development (Plaza del Lago, etc.) ◦ Future federally funded projects (Illinois Road, Lake Ave.) ◦ Other capital needs (alley reconstruction program) Winter 2028 ◦ Next State of the Roads Page 89 of 89