Brian Pugh and Gary Eisinger offered competing approaches to growth, affordability and public participation at the League of Women Voters’ mayoral forum on October 9, 2025. This report reconstructs the 2025 forum from the village’s recording and transcript. It describes the candidates’ positions at that time. Organizers acknowledged audio problems, and the available transcript does not preserve the community-center exchange clearly enough to report it. Pugh identified affordability as his first priority, proposing continued pursuit of grants, shared municipal services and a broader tax base to help keep village taxes within the state cap. Eisinger said he wanted to move village elections back to March so local issues would receive attention separately from national campaigns, and to stop cellphone use at trustee meetings. On housing, Eisinger favored developments combining 80 percent market-rate and 20 percent affordable homes, opposed five-story buildings and called for planning that considered growth’s combined effects over time. Pugh favored a mix of market-rate and affordable housing, condominiums and rentals. He described the village’s growth objective as an average over a decade, and said outside consultants helped review traffic and school impacts of large developments. Both candidates supported mixed-use buildings with homes and businesses. Pugh argued that placing residents near commercial districts could strengthen foot traffic. Eisinger said earlier development choices had missed opportunities to include mixed uses and that he would support them in future projects. Their differences extended to accessory apartments. Pugh described the existing law as a positive experiment and favored waiting for recommendations from Habitat’s accessory-dwelling program before deciding on further changes. Eisinger wanted changes for smaller Harmon lots, arguing that the permitted structures and setbacks could intrude on neighbors’ privacy. For public participation, Eisinger proposed broadening representation on village committees to include more divergent viewpoints. Pugh acknowledged a need to improve communications and said the village was moving toward hiring a communications consultant. Both supported continuing the IDEA Advisory Committee, with different emphases. Eisinger wanted a broader range of views within the committee. Pugh supported its inclusion work and continued funding as resources allowed. They disagreed about revisiting the village’s adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Pugh said he did not see value in reopening that decision and favored programs addressing intolerance. Eisinger said the village had missed an opportunity for faith leaders and residents with differing views to seek an agreement. Asked about savings, Pugh proposed exploring a shared vehicle with another municipality for curbside food-scrap collection. Eisinger instead pointed to Gouveia Park, criticizing its costs and unrealized revenue expectations and calling for a different approach. Those were his campaign assertions, not findings established by this forum. On parking, Eisinger emphasized reviewing development proposals carefully and consulting residents before pursuing additional parking locations. Pugh pointed to existing parking requirements and proposed exploring more use of the local shuttle and e-bike program to support businesses. The candidates also differed on cellular infrastructure. Pugh would not rule out additional towers if needed for public safety, while also considering smaller repeaters. Eisinger emphasized the effects of a large tower on nearby homes and preferred exploring smaller-cell alternatives, while acknowledging their cost. The forum was a campaign discussion, with no policy votes or project approvals. The full recording remains the primary record of the candidates’ exchanges. Watch the October 9 mayoral forum.