Pickleball lights priced, a TIF extension floated, and an audit waiting on four answers. The only votes were on minutes.

Before the vote, a member asked to correct page two, general discussion, second paragraph. As read aloud, the draft said the mayor ⚠ "discussed the recent resignation of the code enforcement officer stating that he had resigned because he believed he would be appointed at the previous meeting, the previous evening's board meeting." The member said that was not correct, and that ⚠ "he resigned from his previous position" to ⚠ "come and help us in Manteno."

The minutes were approved with the correction: moved by Boudreau, seconded by Zimbelman, voice vote, no opposition heard.

Context. The recording does not identify who asked for the correction. The candidate, Jim Paicz, was turned down 2–3 on September 8, appointed by the mayor on September 21 and confirmed 6–0 on October 5. What the mayor said at the September 9 meeting is quoted on our September 9 page. The corrected minutes are not posted (see card w15), so we cannot yet compare the final wording.

Sources: recording, 10:30–11:30; posted agenda.

The chair said many people had asked for lights, that he had talked to neighbors, and that he had asked Public Works Superintendent Jim Hanley to get prices. Mr. Hanley said conduit is already staged around the park. The system he priced mounts on the 10-foot fence sections and points down at the courts, and he said it does not throw much light beyond them. The plan covers only the newer six-court area, where the infrastructure is in place; the older courts have none and are closer to houses.

The figures, from the handout as read aloud: a "tweener" system at $13,250 to light two courts, for the lights only, not installed. The chair said four courts would be ⚠ "about 26 250"; two sets at $13,250 is $26,500. Mr. Hanley said the likely choice is three systems, ⚠ "$40,000 or so when it's all said and done." For comparison, he said an engineer he named as Bruce estimated about $68,000 to $70,000 for athletic pole lighting when the park was built, and parking lot lighting came back at $115,000 to $140,000, though that included running new conduit.

Lead time, his best guess: three to six months. The vendor's notes put installation at one to two days, but the Village has no electrician on staff, so the conduit work and connections would be hired out.

Context. The courts are in their third year. A member said they close at 10 p.m., and that only Legacy Park, for the hockey rink, stays open later. Asked whether this is a top priority, the chair said no, but that the Village should improve its parks each year. Another member noted that the finance chair, ⚠ "Mike," was not there and asked whether the board was ready ⚠ "to spend more money on things that we don't have to do." The outcome: Mr. Hanley will get an exact design and hard numbers, the item goes back on next month's committee agenda and then to finance, and the chair said he wants a yes or no by January so lights could be in by next fall. He also suggested sponsors might offset the cost. The handout is not posted with the agenda.

Sources: recording, 11:30–23:30; posted agenda, "Thies Park Pickleball Court Lights."

The chair said the man who runs the Village's pickleball league told him players had signed a petition. The chair said he had not yet seen it and did not know how many had signed. He also said a neighbor, Andy Lee, who lives two or three houses from the courts, thought lights were a good idea and had no problem with noise; his bigger complaint was a squeaking swing. Asked whether anyone had heard complaints, members said they had not. One member asked that the Village poll all the neighbors in the immediate area.

Why Open. We have not seen the petition, and the neighbor's view was relayed by the chair, not given by the neighbor. On September 9 the committee heard that the league had moved its start time earlier because of darkness and that players were gathering petitions; see our September 9 page.

Sources: recording, 12:00, 16:30–17:00, 19:00–20:30, 21:30.

The committee planned to revisit the lights in November. Instead, "Lights for pickleball courts at Thies Park" was on the October 27 Public Works committee agenda, and the November 2 board agenda listed under new business: "Proposal from KPI Electric to provide lighting at pickleball courts at Thies Park at a cost of $7,727.40. The total cost to the Village will be $6,327.40, due to a donation from Paddle Together for $1,400.00."

What we don't know. Whether the KPI Electric proposal covers fixtures, installation or both; how many courts it lights; and how it compares with the $13,250-per-two-courts fixture price discussed October 14. The gap is large, and nothing we have explains it. We have not yet reviewed the October 27 or November 2 recordings, so we do not know what the board did. Paddle Together is the volunteer pickleball group whose director spoke to this committee on July 8.

Sources: October 27 committee agenda; November 2 board agenda, item 10a.

Under general discussion, a member said the baseball program is putting another fence around ⚠ "I think field four," paid for through sponsorship, replacing temporary fencing that stays up almost all year. Asked about soccer, members said soccer had given its blessing and the fence is nowhere near its fields. The committee then adjourned: moved by Boudreau, seconded by Zimbelman, voice vote.

Context. The recording does not name the park. No Village money was mentioned.

Sources: recording, 23:30–24:30.

No corrections were offered. Moved by Zimbelman, seconded by Gesky (captioned "Gatsky"), voice vote, no opposition heard. The minutes are now on the Village's meetings index; the posted file was created October 15. They record that Trustee Boudreau had emailed proposed community survey questions to the board and Plan Commission that morning (see card w12).

Sources: recording, 24:30–25:00; September 9 minutes.

The chair said he put "Possible TIF Redevelopment" on the agenda because of an email received October 5 from a woman whose surname he spelled aloud; the captions garble it, so we are not printing it until we can confirm it. He said the email was about ⚠ "possible redevelopment or I guess lengthening of the TIF" for property on a road captioned as ⚠ "7,000 North 10,000 East Road." Another voice identified it as TIF 3. The chair said the district expires in 2038 and the request is to extend it ⚠ "extra 10 years or so."

A member suggested talking to the planning department first. Asked whether an extension would cost the Village anything, a member answered ⚠ "not unless something goes in there." A member said 2038 seems a long way off; the chair agreed and said he was surprised, but that extending may take a long process. Asked ⚠ "That's where the next development wants to go?", the answer was ⚠ "Correct." The chair said he may put it before the Plan Commission. No action was taken.

Context. On October 5, Trustee Boudreau told the board the email came from 319 Industrial Park LLC (October 5, card o20). On October 14 nobody connected the named sender to that company or said what development is planned. Our October 5 page asked whether "extending" meant more time or more territory; the chair's answer is more time.

Sources: recording, 25:00–28:30; posted agenda.

A member said the decision ⚠ "wouldn't just be just our board to decide because all the taxing bodies have to approve that TIF extension," and another added the county.

What the law says. The TIF Act sets the default life of a district: the project must be finished and its obligations retired by December 31 of the year in which taxes levied in the 23rd calendar year after the creating ordinance are paid (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3.5(a)). Longer lives, usually 35 years, are granted district by district in a list in subsection (c) that the General Assembly amends. That list already names one Manteno district: "If the ordinance was adopted on December 30, 1986 by the Village of Manteno." Where the section lets a municipality opt into a longer life, the text we read requires written notice to the taxing bodies, for example "after at least 14 but not more than 30 days' written notice to the taxing bodies, that would otherwise constitute the joint review board." We did not find a requirement that every taxing body approve.

Why Mixed. The member is right that the Village board cannot do this alone. But in the statute as we read it, the decision rests with the General Assembly, and the taxing bodies get notice, not a veto. Whether legislators look for the taxing bodies' support in practice we have not checked. We also have not confirmed when TIF 3 was created or how its 2038 end date was set.

Sources: recording, 26:30–27:00; 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-3.5.

A member said of TIF 3: ⚠ "Well, it has not cost us anything thus far." Another said TIF has been ⚠ "a great thing for us in the past," that it paid for the redevelopment of Main Street, and that ⚠ "every business on Main Street took advantage of facade redevelopments."

Why Open. We have not reviewed Manteno's annual TIF reports or the TIF 3 fund's history. Whether a TIF district "costs" anything depends on how one counts the property tax growth it sets aside for the district. The bills approved October 19 included $0 from TIF #3 (October 19, card q1). The facade claim would need the program's grant records.

Sources: recording, 26:30–27:30.

The chair asked Treasurer Sheila Martin, by name, what was still needed for the audit, which he understood was due by October 31. The answer listed four items the auditor was waiting for: the mayor's response to the audit inquiries; the attorney's response to the legal letter; the mayor's response to final inquiries in an email from the auditor; and the mayor's signature on a management representation letter. Another voice said ⚠ "working on it. We are working on it."

The treasurer said October 31 is when the Village files with the state; before then the auditor needs the information, finishes the audit, and it goes on a board agenda to be accepted before it can be submitted. Asked what happens if it is not done, the answer was ⚠ "I don't know, we've never had a problem before." A member said the board might need a special meeting.

The deadline in law. The Illinois Municipal Code says the audit "shall be completed and the report submitted within 180 days after the close of such fiscal year, unless an extension of time shall be granted by the Comptroller in writing" (65 ILCS 5/8-8-3(b)). Manteno's fiscal year ends April 30, so 180 days is October 27, four days before the date used in the room. The same subsection has the auditor submit "not less than 2 copies of the audit report to the corporate authorities"; we did not find a requirement in that section that the board vote to accept the audit before it is filed. The recording does not say which attorney's letter was outstanding. Who represents the Village is itself in court; see the lawsuit page.

Sources: recording, 28:30–30:00; 65 ILCS 5/8-8-3.

On October 19 the auditor told the finance committee the audit could not be issued until she received the attorney's response letter and finished ⚠ "final inquiries and final review of the mayor" (October 19, card q11). The Village's meetings index, checked November 3, lists no special meeting after September 16, and the November 2 board agenda has no audit item.

Why Open. We have not confirmed whether the Village filed by October 27, received a written extension from the Comptroller, or has not yet filed. We will check the Comptroller's records and report what they show.

Sources: Village meetings index, November 3, 2026; November 2 board agenda.

The chair said he had sent the survey around before and heard nothing back. It has about 20 basic questions on where residents want the village to go, for example what they would want to see if Manteno grows and whether they favor more businesses. He wants data going into next year, and said ⚠ "If the town's all against it though I don't want to be pushing something the town's not wanting."

A member, addressing him as ⚠ "CJ," doubted the average person would fill it out or would trust it, and said ⚠ "I think that's kind of why they elect seven of us to make decisions for them." Another said residents who come to meetings give the board a clear view. Another suggested posting it on the Village website and the police department's page. Trustee Boudreau said he would use it for ideas, not as a mandate: even 1,000 responses would not be the whole town. No action was needed or taken.

Sources: recording, 30:30–34:00; September 9 minutes.

The chair read from the previous day's staff meeting notes that a former Village employee would soon start as a volunteer in the building department, and asked what that meant. The answer: she will help train whoever is hired as assistant to Building Director Jim Paicz (captioned "Jim Pace"), filling a position left open when an employee left; she called to volunteer because she ⚠ "knows the job inside and out." Interviews are under way; 21 people applied. A member invited Trustee Zimbelman (addressed as "Annette") to sit in on interviews; she said she works days. Another voice said ⚠ "so far we've got two good hires."

Context. We are not naming the volunteer; the captions render her name unclearly. Nothing was said about how the volunteer arrangement is authorized or how long it will last. The November 2 board agenda announces a new Village Hall clerical worker, Trina Myrick; we have not confirmed whether that is this position.

Sources: recording, 34:00–35:30; November 2 board agenda, item 8A5.

The chair said the last item was to go into executive session ⚠ "now that we have some numbers to work with for union contract discussion," with immediate adjournment afterward. Moved by Gesky, seconded by Zimbelman. The chair asked "All in favor?" and heard ayes. The caption then reads ⚠ "I oppose," which may be the chair asking for opposition; we cannot tell from the captions whether any member voted no. The recording ends shortly after. Which union, and what numbers, were not said.

What the law requires. Committees are public bodies under the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.02). A public body may close a meeting for "Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives" (2(c)(2)). The vote to close must be taken in the open meeting, and "the vote of each member on the question of holding a meeting closed to the public and a citation to the specific exception" must be "publicly disclosed at the time of the vote" and entered in the minutes (2a). The closed session itself must be recorded (2.06(a)). The agenda listed "Executive Session: - Union Contract Discussion" without a citation, and none was read aloud. The minutes, not yet posted, will show what was recorded.

Sources: recording, 35:30–36:30; posted agenda; 5 ILCS 120/1.02, 2(c)(2), 2a, 2.06(a).

On the Village's 2026 meetings index, the September 9 Planning & Zoning row links its minutes. The September 9 Properties & Recreation row links only an agenda and the video. Both sets were approved on October 14. Minutes for this October 14 meeting are not posted either; they would normally come up for approval at the next meeting, November 11.

What the law requires. The Open Meetings Act says "The minutes of meetings open to the public shall be available for public inspection within 10 days after the approval of such minutes by the public body" (5 ILCS 120/2.06(b)). For the September 9 minutes that was October 24. The duty to post minutes on the website within 10 days applies to "the minutes of a regular meeting of its governing body," meaning the Village Board, not its committees. So a missing website copy of committee minutes is not by itself a violation. We have not asked to inspect them in person.

Sources: Village meetings index, November 3, 2026; recording, 10:30–11:30 and 24:30–25:00; 5 ILCS 120/2.06(b).