Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 09/28/2004 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael lade! II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2004 ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14,2004 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. COMBINED SEWER EVALUATION STUDY AND MAPPING PROJECT FINAL REPORT For the past two (2) years, staff and selected consultants have been cleaning, televising, and evaluating approximately 260,000 linear feet of Village-owned combination sewer mains ranging in size from 8" to 72" diameters. This effort was the result of a Village initiative to assess the structural condition of combination sewers - sewers that serve the oldest sections of our community. In addition to the sewer main assessments, crews working on this project also mapped the combined sewer system using Global Position System (GPS) equipment and collected attribute information relating to all components of the sewer system (mains, manholes, catch basins, inlets, etc.). All of this information was formatted and delivered to the Village in electronic databases that can be used with existing Village-owned Geographic Information System (GIS) and asset management computer software. This report details the scope of this work and suggests a hierarchical prioritization of repairs necessary to correct identified defects. The total estimated cost to repair all identified defects is approximately $14,145,120. Staff will make a short presentation on this subject. Following the presentation, appropriate staff and representatives from Baxter & Woodman, the Village's engineering consultant for this project, will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 8471392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA) WHISTLE BLOWING RULE UPDATE On December 18, 2004 the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rule will go into effect concerning the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings. Since the March 23 presentation to the Village Board, staff has attended a number of meetings concerning this issue. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update on the subject and to inform the public that Mount Prospect is committed to maintaining the quiet zone once the rule goes into effect. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL PROGRAM Traffic continues to be one of the "hot button" topics throughout all sections of the Village. As a community ages, traffic generated within the Village and traffic passing through the Village become increasingly more difficult to manage. In the past, staff generally reacted to traffic issues as they arose, but in recent years, certain proactive measures have been implemented for better traffic management and safety. Staff has prepared this presentation to introduce the five elements of a proactive approach to traffic management, Residential Speed Limit Program, Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program, Village Code Review, Education Program and Traffic Calming Program. The Speed Limit Program will be presented in detail and staff will seek the Board's concurrence on the approach to establishing speed limits within neighborhoods prior to proceeding further with the program throughout the Village. The remaining four elements will be outlined with the intent that a joint workshop be set for the future with the Safety Commission to provide for a venue to further the understanding and development of the programs. This information will be supplemented with a Power Point presentation and appropriate staff will be available to lead the discussion and answer questions. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT ANY OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION PROPERTY ACQUISITION :1 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). 'The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body." MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 10, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., in the Board Room of the Central Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Village Manager Janonis. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael lade!. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Finance Director Dave Erb, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer, Community Development Director William Cooney, Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, Police Chief Richard Eddington, Deputy Police Chief of Administration Michael Semkiu and Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey. A Motion was made by Trustee Michael lade! and Seconded by Trustee Michaele Skowron to nominate Trustee Timothy Corcoran as Mayor Pro Tem for the meeting. Motion passed. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from July 13, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Hoofer and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. PURCHASING POLICYITRAVEL POLICY MANUALS 1. Travel Policy Village Manager Michael Janonis provided background information regarding the Policy. Finance Director David Erb explained the Travel Policy revisions that are proposed to the Village Board. Among the items suggested is a daily per diem rate for meals and other expenses versus an expense established for each meal during the day. These costs would also include other personal expenses. He stated that the Northwest Municipal Conference has also provided a survey highlighting Travel Policies of other communities and these recommendations are in concurrence with the typical procedures of other communities. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: 1 v. VI. There was a question regarding defining an unusual circumstance when determining how Village Board members' travel expenses would be considered. Also discussed was how such notification and consideration would be undertaken to determine what expenses would be covered by the Village. There was a question regarding how the determination was made regarding expenses related to in-State or out-of-State and how metropolitan region expenses are determined. Village Manager Janonis stated that he would expect that the Board could consider prior authorization through verbal discussion prior to any Board member being authorized to expend funds for travel or conference attendance. He also stated that he will incorporate these comments into the final draft Policy for Village Board approval. 2. Purchasinq Policy Finance Director David Erb stated that the Policy has been revised to incorporate a Code of Ethics and the option for two bidders under extenuating circumstances. He also stated that prior approval is still necessary in all cases except for emergency. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was noted that there was some concern regarding Village Board members possibly binding the Village to a contract for purchase without full Board approval. There was some discussion regarding how that could be minimized. The general purchasing procedures were discussed regarding determination of valid purchases and how such purchases would be processed. REVIEW OF SELF-INSURANCE PROGRAM Finance Director David Erb stated the Village has in place a multi-tier level of coverage. He stated the first level of insurance is up to $250,000 and staff has reviewed the option of creating a reserve for that level whereby the Village could make decisions regarding settlement on various cases without being controlled by an insurance provider. He also stated that the auto liability recommendation would need to be increased to include additional coverage as recommended by the Actuarial Consultant. He stated that it would be possible to fund the program through existing Budget contributions for insurance coverage. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that the cost be monitored along with the claims experience on an annual basis for a regular report to the Village Board. PENSION CONTRIBUTION UPDATE Finance Director David Erb stated that the actuarial contribution rates account for 8.4% of the General Fund. He also stated that the net Police and Fire savings of pension contributions for 2004 are estimated at $81 ,220 less than the previously budgeted amount. He stated the IMRF contribution rate of 8.5% includes a savings of $54,915 less than the 2005 Budget estimate. 2 VII. 2004 MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT AND 2005 PRE-BUDGET FORECAST 1. 2004 Mid-Year Budqet Report Finance Director Erb provided an outline of expenditures to date and the projections through the end of the year. He stated the original 2004 deficit of $437,276 has been adjusted to a predicted deficit of $351,857 with the shortfall made up by Fund balances previously directed by the Village Board. He stated that revenue projections of Sales Tax remain within estimates with a few other revisions to revenue of any significance at this time. He also provided an overview of the various revenue categories and their trend to date. 2. 2005 Pre-Budqet Forecast Finance Director David Erb stated the original projection for the 2005 Budget included a $1.6 million deficit, however, the revised forecast projects a surplus of $126,833. He stated this difference from deficit to surplus is based on revenue enhancements previously approved showing positive impact on the overall revenue stream. He stated that among the stronger revenue sources is the Real Estate Transfer Tax and the sale of Village Hall property proceeds directed to cover the cost of the new Village Hall which will reduce the General Fund transfer to cover part of the debt cost. He also stated that there are pension contribution reductions which will assist in controlling the Budget for 2005. He also stated that based on current projections, the Fund balance for 2005 should be in the neighborhood of 24.5% of the General Fund. He stated the 2005 Budget process is currently underway with Department worksheets already out and being formulated. Village Manager Janonis stated the Budget projections do look better, but he does not intend to recommend reinstatement of all of the items that had previously been cut. He intends to illustrate the pent-up demands for services part of the Budget so that the Board has a handle on items that still need to be addressed in some manner. He also stated there still is no capital improvement project transfer established in the 2005 Budget. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was noted that the Sales Tax increase for 2005 was exclusive of minimal Costco proceeds with minor modifications to Sales Tax. It was noted that the energy costs that people are currently experiencing will impact the Village because there will be less income available in the market place due to the increase in energy costs. It was noted that there is some concern about utilizing Sales Tax revenue for fixed expenses and services. John Korn, Chairman of the Finance Commission, spoke. He stated that staff has been balancing the Budget by cutting and using reserves and the deferred $1.2 million in capital improvements is significant and should be addressed. The Commission is concerned about providing the Departments with the necessary tools to perform their tasks. He would suggest the Village Board balance the Budget by raising Taxes instead of cutting services in 2005. He also suggested utilizing $6.00 of the Vehicle Sticker revenue from each vehicle sticker for General Fund expenses and increase the Gas Tax per gallon by an additional one cent. 3 VIII. IX. x. DS/rcc He also suggested that the Utility Tax increase 1 % on electric and gas and charge for ambulance service similar to what other towns charge. He is also suggesting the Business License fee be increased by 10% so that additional revenue can be realized. Village Manager Janonis noted that there is a form in the Board's packet regarding any new service or initiative that should be considered as part of the 2005 budgeting process that he is requesting to be completed and returned to his attention. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that the August 14 Coffee with Council will be the first Coffee with Council in the new Village Hall. It will take place in the Community Center from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. He stated staff has moved into the new Village Hall. The move actually was completed early and the staff is currently gathering comments from patrons and staff for any modifications. Trustee Hoefert stated the Village Hall looks very good and the block improvements are really starting to come together. He requested a status report regarding the purchase of the remote Bank One parking lot. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitte~,/ / fl ~ ~ 54il' DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 4 MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran and Richard Lohrstorfer. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis and Assistant Village Manager David Strahl. II. APPROVL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from August 10, 2004. Minutes were deferred. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. CHARITABLE FOUNDATION - UPDATE Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that the Board had directed staff to look into creating a Foundation in order to take advantage of any Tax deductibility for donations by citizens for various community events or projects. He stated that the legal research to create this Foundation has yielded a recommendation that such a Foundation is unnecessary as long as donations are clearly earmarked for a public purpose and there is a separation of the funds for a previously defined public purpose within the Budget itself. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a question raised regarding how such a bequest to the Village could be handled and still obtain the tax exemption in addition to how the Village might solicit funds for specific community purposes. A comment was made that any donor should note the purpose of the donation on any correspondence provided to the Village. There was also a discussion regarding possible business donations of any vendors that may normally do business with the Village. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that any policy should include the procedure to turn down a donation that the Village may deem unnecessary or unacceptable. Village Manager Janonis stated that based on this legal research, there will be a need to alter some of the enabling ordinances for a couple of the specific community groups in addition to amending the Sister Cities Ordinance. He stated that he would have the Sister Cities Ordinance revised and presented at the next Village Board meeting for consideration. 1 V. MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSED VILLAGE CODE AMENDMENTS A. Military Service Exemption for Vehicle Sticker Village Manager Janonis is recommending the Village remove the two exceptions that are currently in the Code regarding the requirement for vehicle sticker purchase for military personnel. He stated those two exceptions include the vehicle being in the possession or full-time storage of the individual that is in the military and the need to provide Orders for the Village to confirm actual posting of the individual for service. Consensus of the Village Board was to support the modifications allowing military personnel to obtain a waiver for vehicle sticker purchase. B. Modifications to Motorized Scooter Ban Village Manager Janonis stated these scooters were banned in 2003 on streets and the right-of-way and felt there should be some discussion regarding regulation of the new pocket bikes and allow Segways to utilize the sidewalks. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a concern regarding the exemption of the Segway based on its expense to purchase but the cheaper alternatives would continue to be banned. Consensus of the Village Board was to ban the pocket bikes as the Village currently does for motorized scooters and continue the prohibition of Segways. C. Modifications to Danqerous Animal Requlations Village Manager Janonis stated that staff is recommending a broader definition of "dangerous animals" so that this definition and any dangerous actions that such an animal may undertake can be the determination to consider removal of that animal. He also highlighted the fact the Ordinance is written to utilize an administrative hearing process in the near future. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a concern that a definition would have to be created to define a vicious animal. A question was raised regarding what opportunities had to remove such animals without incurring substantial expense by hiring a private removal service. Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village no longer provides traps for residents to use due to issues raised by the Forest Preserve where the animals were typically relocated. He also stated the Village is currently not in a position to deal with nuisance animals. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider additional discussion at the next meeting so that there could be some public input and clarify the hearing procedure. It was also noted that a reporting procedure should be in place to track repeat offenders. 2 VI. VIII. x. DS/rcc VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that the annual Family Bike Ride is scheduled for September 18 at Melas Park with 8:30 a.m. registration and the ride starting at 9:00 a.m. He also stated that the Village Hall Open House/Dedication is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on October 2. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Wilks stated that the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring an International Festival at RecPlex on September 25. She also stated that the Kiwanis Peanut Day is coming up in the last week of September. Mayor Farley stated there is a Diversity Walk scheduled to start at the Arlington Heights Village Hall and continue to the CEDA Northwest building on September 19 starting at 1 :30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~--6..t2 DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 3 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM @ TREE Cl1Y USA Mount Prospect Public Works Department TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 SUBJ: COMBINED SEWER EVALUATION STUDY (CSES) AND MAPPING PROJECT FINAL REPORT This memorandum transmits a copy of the Combined Sewer Evaluation Study and Mapping Project Final Report as prepared by the Village's engineering consultant, Baxter and Woodman Consulting Engineers of Crystal Lake, Illinois. This report culminates almost two (2) years of sewer inspection, analysis, and mapping work performed by Village staff and contractors. It presents a compendious appraisal on the structural condition of almost 260,000 linear feet of Village-owned combination sewers. Background On December 3, 2002, the Village Board awarded a contract to Baxter and Woodman to provide specified data collection, data analysis, and other support services necessary to develop a comprehensive assessment of the Village's combined sewer system. Specifically, Baxter and Woodman was asked to inventory and map all sewer mains, manholes, inlets, catch basins, and other structures in the combined sewer service area. Additionally, they were also asked to review and evaluate recorded closed circuit television observations of main sewer interiors obtained by a third-party contractor. Baxter and Woodman's initial contract award was $245,000 and was based on a estimated main line sewer quantity of 217,000 linear feet. This award also included a 15% contingency that would raise the contract value to $281,000. This contingency was requested in recognition of the fact that the project was solely based on estimated quantities of sewer mains. To date, Baxter and Woodman has inventoried and evaluated almost 260,000 linear feet of sewer. Consequently, staff expects to exceed the initial contract award by almost $36,000 bringing the total cost for Baxter and Woodman's services to approximately $281,000 (app. $1.08 per foot). Subsequently, on May 7, 2003, the Village Board awarded a contract to National Power Rodding Corporation of Chicago, Illinois to clean and televise all Village-owned combined sewers. National Power Rodding has completed all identified combined sewer segments (260,000 LF) and submitted DVD recordings of all observations. Staff expects the final cost for National Power Rodding's work to be at, or very near, the initial contract award of $302,074.60 (app. $1.16 per foot). In addition to the attached report, staff has received a computerized database containing all combined sewer positional and attribute information collected during this study. This database also includes a record of all sewer main inspections and evaluation ratings. In addition, a GIS Page 2 of 3 Combined Sewer Evaluation Study (CSES) and Mapping Project Final Report September 21, 2004 geodatabase featuring a network map of the entire combined sewer system was also created. Finally, as mentioned above, staff has received DVD recordings of all sewer main inspections performed during this study. Results This study revealed that the Village-owned combined sewer system is comprised of approximately 3,200 structures (manholes, catch basins, inlets, etc.) connected by almost 260,000 linear feet of sewer mains ranging in size from 8" diameter to 72" diameter. Following is a summary of the condition assessment of these sewers: . Approximately 8% are in severe structural condition (Category 5) and should be repaired within one (1) to two (2) years. The estimated cost to repair sewers in this classification is $2,481,600. . 10% are in poor structural condition (Category 4) and should be repaired within the next three (3) to four (4) years. The estimated repair cost for sewers in this classification is $2,547,600. . 20% have moderate structural defects (Category 3) requiring rehabilitation within the next five (5) to ten (10) years. The estimated repair cost for sewers in this classification is $4,957,920. . 34% have minor structural defects (Category 2) that do not require repairs at this time but should be periodically re-examined to assure that noted defects do not worsen. The estimated cost to repair these defects is $4,158,000. . 24% are in very good condition (Category 1). No discernable defects were observed. No repairs are recommended. . The total cost to repair all observed defects is $14,145,120. This cost includes a 20% contingency and 10% estimate for design engineering and construction inspection. '0 Discussion It is the opinion of staff that sufficient capacity does not presently exist in the water fund to facilitate needed repairs to the combined sewer system. As such, serious consideration of this report and its findings inevitably will broach the issue of financing options. To this end, staff suggests that the following alternatives might be worthy of deliberation: Increase water/sewer rates. The current water/sewer rate structure provides little capacity to address long-term capital improvements to the Village-owned water distribution or wastewater collection systems. Historically, our water/sewer rates have demonstrated the capability to fund only operational costs and satisfy Northwest Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency (NWSMJAWA) commitments. Utilize available cacacitv on the auarter-cent sales tax. In the past, a number of flood relief and sewer improvement projects have been funded utilizing this mechanism. However, all of the Page 3 of 3 Combined Sewer Evaluation Study (CSES) and Mapping Project Final Report September 21, 2004 revenue generated from this tax is currently being utilized to service existing debt. The Finance Department forecasts that no capacity will be available from this revenue source until 2009. Create a special service area. The combined sewer area serves an exclusive and defined geographic area. As such, the option of creating a special service is viable and might be considered equitable. Recommendation With your concurrence, staff asks that this matter be presented for the Village Board's consideration at the September 28, 2004 Committee of the Whole meeting. ~,J Sean P. Dorsey I concur. Glen R. Andler Director of Public Works .~ C:\SEWERS\CSSES\BAXWOOD FINAL REPOR1ìMEMO TO BOARD FOR FINAL REPORT.doe Ene: (1) SPD/spd INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM (i) TRI!E CITY USA Mount Prospect Public Works Department TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANON1S FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 SUBJECT: FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATIOIN "TRAIN HORN" RULE Back in March 2004, the Engineering Staff provided background information and made a presentation to the Village Board of Trustees on the Interim Final Rule developed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) that will require the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings effective December 18,2004. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Village Board of Trustees an update on this important issue. As you may recall, the Interim Final Rule fulfills the requirement set by the United States Congress that locomotive horns be sounded at all public highway-rail crossings to improve safety. The rule, however, provides exceptions to that requirement by allowing communities to create "quiet zones". The FRA allowed for public comment up until April 19, 2004 before issuing the Final Rule. Mount Prospect, along with many other communities across the country including the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC), sent in comments. The NWMC, with support ITom the Northeast Illinois Congressional Delegation and Illinois House of Representatives, sent in a formal request that the Final Rule not affect the Chicago area and allow our area to continue to be regulated by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). There has been no response to this request. The FRA is not expected to release the Final Rule until October 2004. In the event the FRA will require the Chicago area to follow the Final Rule similar to the rest of the country, it will only give communities a small time ITame to react before it goes into effect on December 18, 2004. The NWMC, therefore, has hosted various meetings over the summer informing communities of what would need to be done prior to December 18, 2004 in order to maintain their quiet zone status should the Interim Final Rule not chahge. If this is to be the case, Mount Prospect will be required to provide notification to the FRA prior to December 18, 2004 letting them know our desire to maintain our quiet zone status on both the Union Pacific and Canadian National rail lines. This notification process will take some time as it requires coordination with other agencies such as the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), Cook County Highway Department (CCHD), City of Des Plaines, ICC and both rail lines. By notifying the FRA of the Village's intent to maintain our quiet zone, train horns will not begin to sound once the Final Rule goes into effect on December 18,2004. The next step following the notification process will be to evaluate different measures that will need to be installed in order to maintain our quiet zone status. As the rule is written now, Mount Prospect would have to consider installing a four-quadrant gate system at the Main Street crossing and a barrier median at the Euclid Avenue crossing to compensate for the sound of a train horn. However, engineering drawings or actual construction are not required to be done by December 18,2004. We would have until December 18,2006 to complete plans and December 18, 2009 to complete construction. Page 2 of2 September 23, 2004 FRA "Train Horn" Rule The Engineering Staff has begun to organize the things that are to be done as part of the notification process. The NWMC, however, has directed communities to withhold sending in the notification materials under the Final Rule has been released. We will keep you informed as we learn more from the FRA. One final note is that the NWMC has held separate meetings with communities along the Union Pacific line and Canadian National line. The purpose of the meetings was to generate interest in creating a corridor approach in meeting the requirements of the rule rather than communities acting independently. This could possibly have a cost savings for each of the communities. For example, there are a total of95 crossings along the Union Pacific Northwest Line from Chicago to Harvard. If each community acted independently and only considered their own crossings, the ICC has estimated a total of $2.7 million could be spent in upgrades to compensate for the train horns. If all the communities worked together and considered the entire line as a single corridor (which the FRA would allow), the ICC estimated $1.6 million would be spent in upgrades. While it's an interesting idea that should be explored more, questions about liability (If an accident were to occur in another community what exposure would there be for Mount Prospect?) and cost (Would we be responsible for construction and maintenance costs for upgrades in other communities?) have come up. Also, Mount Prospect has been asked by the NWMC to consider being the lead agency on this corridor approach along the Union Pacific line. Additional meetings will be held in the future on this corridor approach. As Staff understands, this issue does not have to be resolved before the December 18,2004 notification deadline. The Engineering Staff will be in attendance at the September 28th Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting to make a brief presentation and will be available to answer questions. Matthew P. Lawrie Attachments Summary of Interim Final Rule Mount Prospect Railroad Crossing Map x: \files \engineer\traffic \railroad\fTa \update _board - memo. doc THE "TRAIN HORN" RULE Summary of the Interim Final Rule 1. Overview: . Announcing publication December 18,2003, of the Interim Final Rule on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Purposes: ~ Ensure a high level of public safety; ~ Respond to the many communities that have continued to press for relief from unwanted horn noise; and ~ Take into consideration the interests of localities with existing whistle bans. . Currently use of the horn at highway-rail crossings is governed by state law and railroad operating rules. When this rule is effective, it will determine when the horn is sounded at public crossings (and private crossings within "quiet zones"). . This Interim Final Rule was mandated by lawl, and was issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) after review of almost 3,000 public comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (65 FR 2230) and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement published January 13, 2000. . The rule requires that the locomotive horn be sounded at public highway-rail crossings, but provides several exceptions to that requirement. . Local public authorities may establish, or request the approval of, quiet zones in which train horns may not be routinely sounded. The details for establishment of quiet zones differ depending on the type of quiet zone to be created (Pre-Rule or New) and the type of safety improvements implemented (if required). . Horns may continue to be silenced at Pre-Rule Quiet Zones, provided certain actions are taken. . By law, the rule may not go into effect until December 18,2004. . Because FRA has made numerous important changes in response to public input, FRA will receive additional comments on this interim [mal rule. That process should not delay implementation of the rule. 2. Requirement to sound the locomotive horn: 149 US.C. 20153. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final rule for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 2 . Outside of quiet zones, railroads must sound the horn 15-20 seconds prior to arrival at the crossing, but not more than 1/4 mile in advance of the crossing. Note: Most State laws and railroad rules currently require that the horn be sounded for 1/4 mile in advance of the crossing. Under the rule, for trains running at less than 45 mph, this will reduce the time and distance over which the horn is sounded. This will reduce noise impacts on the local community. . The pattern for sounding the horn will remain as it currently exists today (two long, one short, one long repeated or prolonged until the locomotive traverses the crossing). . Locomotive engineers will retain the latitude to vary this pattern where crossings are closely spaced; and they will also be empowered to sound the horn in the case of an emergency, even in a quiet zone. . The rule addresses use of the horn only with respect to highway-rail crossings. Railroads remain free to use the horn for other purposes as prescribed in railroad operating rules on file with FRA, and railroads must use the horn as specified in other FRA regulations (in support of roadway worker safety and in the case of malfunctions of highway-rail warning devices). . The rule prescribes both a minimum and maximum sound level for the train horn. The minimum level is retained at 96db(A), and the new maximum will be 110 db(A). This range will permit railroads to address safety needs in their operating territory (see discussion in the preamble). . The protocol for testing the horn will be altered to place the sound-level meter at a height of 15 feet above top of rail, rather than the current 4 feet above the roadbed. Note: The effect of this change will be to permit center-mounted horns to be "turned down" in some cases. The previous test method was influenced by the "shadow effect" created by the body of the locomotive to indicate a lower sound level than would otherwise be expected several hundred feet in front of the locomotive (where the crossing and approaching motorists are located or found). . The effect of these changes will be to reduce horn noise for 3.4 million ofthe 9.3 million people currently affected by train horn noise. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final rule for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 3 3. Creation of quiet zones: . The rule provides significant flexibility to create quiet zones, both where there are existing whistle bans and in other communities, as well. . The Interim Final Rule adds a new concept that pennits implementation of quiet zones in low-risk situations without the necessity to add safety improvements. ./ This concept utilizes a risk index approach that estimates expected safety outcomes (that is, the likelihood of a fatal or non-fatal casualty at a crossing). ./ Risk may be averaged over crossings in a proposed quiet zone. ./ Average risk within the proposed quiet zone is then compared with the average risk at gated train horn crossings nationally (the "National Significant Risk Threshold" or "NSR T"). FRA will compute the NSR T annually. The effect of this approach is that horns can remain silenced in over half of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones without significant expense; and many New Quiet Zones can be created without significant expense where flashing lights and gates are already in place at the crossmgs. If the risk index for a proposed New Quiet Zone exceeds the NSRT, then supplementary or alternative safety measures must be used to reduce that risk (to fully compensate for the absence of the train horn or to reduce risk below the NSR T). . . The interim final rule- ./ Retains engineering solutions known as "supplementary safety measures" for use without FRA approval. './ Adds explicit flexibility for adaptation of "supplementary safety measures" to receive credit as "alternative safety measures." For instance, shorter channelization arrangements can be used with reasonable effectiveness estimates. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final rule for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 4 ./ Continues education and enforcement options, including photo enforcement, subject to verification of effectiveness? . The public authority responsible for safety and maintenance of the roadway that crosses the railroad tracks is the only entity that can designate or apply for quiet zone status. . FRA will provide a web-based tool for communities to use in performing "what if' calculations and preparing submissions. The tool may be found at http://www.fra.dotgov. . In order to ensure proper application of the risk index, the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory must be updated by States and railroads. In the absence of timely filings by those parties, local authorities may file updated inventory information, and railroads must cooperate in providing railroad-specific data. . FRA regional personnel will be available to participate in diagnostic teams evaluating options for quiet zones. . Once a quiet zone is established (including the continuation of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones pending any required improvements), the railroad is barred from routine sounding of the horn as a warning at the affected crossings. . See below for discussion of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and New Quiet Zones. 2The rule neither approves nor excludes the possibility of relying upon regional education and enforcement programs with alternative verification strategies. FRA is providing funding in support of an Illinois Commerce Commission-sponsored regional program. The law provides authority for use of new techniques when they have been demonstrated to be effective. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final rule for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 5 Horns may continue to be silenced at Pre-Rule Quiet Zones if- ... The average risk at the crossings is less than the NSRT; or ... The average risk is less than twice the NSRT and no relevant collisions have occurred within the past 5 years; or ... The community undertakes actions to compensate for lack of the train horn as a warning device (or at least to reduce average risk to below the NSRT). Train horns will not sound in existing whistle ban areas if authorities state their intention to maintain "Pre-Rule Quiet Zones" and do whatever is required (see above) within 5 years of publication (8 years if the State agency provides at least some assistance to communities in that State). A "Pre-Rule Quiet Zone" is a quiet zone that contains one or more consecutive grade crossings subject to a whistle ban that has been actively enforced or observed as of October 9, 1996 and December 18, 2003. To secure Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status, communities must file a notice with FRA within 1 year of publication and a plan within 3 years of publication (if improvements are required). New Quiet Zones may be created if- ... All public crossings are equipped with flashing lights and gates; and either- After adjusting for excess risk created by silencing the train horn, the average risk at the crossings is less than the NSRT; or Safety improvements are made that will compensate for loss of the train horn as a warning device (or at least to reduce average risk to below the NSRT). Detailed instructions for establishing or requesting recognition of a quiet zone are provided in the regulation. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final rule for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on December] 8, 2003. 6 4. Length of quiet zones: . Generally, a quiet zone must be at least Y:z mile in length and may include one or more crossmgs. Pre-Rule Quiet Zones may be retained at their present length as of the date of publication of the rule, even ifless than Y:z mile. A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone that is greater than Y:z mile may be reduced in length to no less than Y:z mile and retain its pre-rule status. However, if its length is increased from pre-rule length, pre-rule status will not be retained. . 5. Supplementary and alternative safety measures: Supplementary safety measures are engineering improvements that clearly compensate for the absence of the train horn. If employed at every crossing in the quiet zone, they automatically qualify the quiet zone (subject to reporting requirements). . ./ Temporary closure used with a nighttime-only zone; ./ Four-quadrant gates; ./ Channelization arrangements (i.e., non-mountable curb or mountable curb with delineators) at least 100 feet in length on each side (60 f1. where there is an intersecting roadway); ./ One-way street with gate across the roadway. Alternative safety measures may be applied such that the combination of measures at one or more crossings reduces the average risk by the required amount across the quiet zone (so-called "corridor approach"). . ./ Any supplementary safety measure or reasonable variation of a supplementary safety measure (e.g., barrier gate and median with higher estimate of effectivenes; shorter channelization with reduced estimate of effectiveness); ./ Education and/or enforcement programs (including photo enforcement) with verification of effectiveness; or ./ Combination of the above. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final rule for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 7 6. Recognition of the automated wayside horn: . The rule authorizes use of the automated wayside horn at any crossing with flashing lights and gates (inside or outside a quiet zone) as a one-to-one substitute for the train horn. . Certain technical requirements apply, consistent with the successful demonstrations of this technology. . The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may treat wayside horns as traffic control devices. Communities interested in employing this option should contact FHW A to determine the need for an experimental designation. 7. Special circumstances: . A community or railroad that views the provisions of the rule inapplicable to local circumstances may request a waiver from the rule. . A railroad or community seeking a waiver must fITst consult with the other party and seek agreement qn the form of relief, but if agreement cannot be achieved the party may still request the relief. . FRA grants waivers if in the public interest and consistent with the safety of highway and railroad users of the crossings. 8. Further proceedings on the rule: . Because FRA has made numerous changes from the proposed rule in order to respond to public comments, FRA is providing an additional, brief opportunity for comment . Comments will be accepted through February 17, 2004, (first business day following the Federal holiday on Monday). . FRA anticipates that the rule will be effective, with any warranted adjustments, on December 18,2004. Additional information, including the full text of the Interim Final Rule, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and background documents, are available at http://www.fra.dotgov. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final rule for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS +, s UNION PACIFIC r- ~ I CENTRAL INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM @ TREE CITY USA Mount Prospect Public Works Department TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC TALK Traffic. To bring up this one word in a conversation can certainly spark emotion in people just like religion and politics can. Ask a long-time Chicago resident to talk about traffic and he/she might use words like gridlock, congestion and a host of expletives that shouldn't be mentioned in a public document. Each year the Texas Transportation Institute issues its Annual Mobility Report that analyses traffic congestion in cities across the United States. In its most recent report, the Chicago area was ranked eighth in terms of annual delay per traveler and, as expected, traffic congestion is on the rise in most cities. While agencies like the U.S. Department of Transportation and mOT look to reverse this trend on highways and arterials by repaving and widening roads, improving traffic signal coordination and promoting mass transit, communities such as Mount Prospect must deal with the repercussions on local streets. And like religion and politics, there are not always easy answers or solutions. Ask a long-time Mount Prospect resident to talk about local traffic concerns and he/she might discuss issues like speeding, cut through traffic, parking and disobedience to stop signs. Some of the problems are a result of motorists using local roads rather than arterial roads or highways because of congestion on the main roads but many are generated by residents themselves. The Police Department and Engineering Staff receives approximately 325 requests per year to address traffic-related issues in neighborhoods. This statistic seems to support the obvious belief that whether the issues are real or perceived, traffic is an important subject to our community. ... The Three E's To tackle traffic safety issues, engineers often refer to the threeE's: education, enforcement and engineering. Education alerts residents to ways they can ease traffic problems such as slowing down when driving in a neighborhood and using other modes of transportation such as a bus or bicycle. Enforcement enlists the assistance of the Police Department and their resources such as the radar trailer, drone car and radar enforcement to be a presence in the neighborhoods and enforce the traffic laws. Engineering tools include installation of signs and striping as well as implementation of traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed or volume on a particular street and improve pedestrian safety. While Village Staff has done an excellent job in addressing traffic safety issues in our neighborhoods using the three E's, the Engineering Staff has evaluated our efforts and begun to look for ways to improve. In reflection of how the Engineering Staff addresses traffic safety issues, we've determined the processes we've established to do so can be separated into two groups: a reactive approach and a proactive approach. Page 2 of 4 September 23, 2004 Traffic Talk Two Approaches Many traffic safety issues come to us from residents. Requests for stop signs, lower speed limits, parking restrictions, turn restrictions, etc. are made by residents to address various traffic-related problems. Each request is given a cursory review to determine the appropriate course of action. Some requests require a detailed study followed by a decision from the Safety Commission and Village Board (engineering). Other requests are referred to the Police Department (enforcement). And some requests are resolved through a conversation with the resident (education). Whatever the case, the Engineering Staff reacts to the issue brought before us by someone else. While we would like to reduce the number of issues we must react to, we understand it will never go away. We know that we will always have to react to issues raised by others and will continue to address them as best we can. In contrast, the proactive approach is an area where the Engineering Staff has more control over and thus caused us to give much thought as to how we can improve. From Staff discussions a Traffic Proposal was created that outlines five new programs that are a proactive approach in addressing traffic safety issues. The remainder of this memorandum will briefly touch on each of the programs and next steps recommended by Staff. The Fourth E Over the years, Staff has applied the three E's: education, enforcement and engineering to address traffic safety issues in the Village. With the idea of the five new programs, we have considered a fourth E: expectation. Even though there are differences from neighborhood to neighborhood, street to street, and block to block, there are often similarities that cause motorists to expect consistent traffic regulations. For example, one street may have a posted 20mph speed limit and the adjacent street with similar characteristics may have a posted 25mph speed limit. Without a certain level of standardization, the expectation of a motorist may not be met which can, in this case, reduce a sign's effectiveness over time and lead to a high rate of disobedience. One primary goal, therefore, is to provide a higher level of standardization (when appropriate) in order to achieve greater obedience by motorists. This concept has been incorporated into some of the new programs as well as recently completed programs. Recent Accomplishments Even before the five proposed programs were conceived, the Engineering Staff developed and implemented three traffic safety programs in recent years that provided this higher level of standardization. The Weight Limit Ordinance passed in 2001 is a comprehensive ordinance that provides a consistent weight limit on our local streets. In addition, the School Crossing Sign Program had Staff identify key street crossing points of school children. After developing a sign location plan for each school, it was systematically implemented between 2000 and 2003. Not only is there standardization now at each of the schools with the locations of the signs but they have all been replaced with the new standard fluorescent green color as well. Finally, the Crosswalk Program had Staff develop a master layout plan for the entire Village that considered both the design and appropriate locations of crosswalks. This plan was implemented in 2003 and 2004. Page 3 of 4 September 23, 2004 Traffic Ta1k Proposed Pro2rams In an effort to further our proactive approach in addressing traffic safety issues, below are five new programs that the Engineering Staff wishes to present to the Village Board for their consideration: . Residential Speed Limit Program Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program Village Code Review Education Program Traffic Calming Program . . . . As part of the Residential Speed Limit Program, Staff would review existing speed limits neighborhood by neighborhood using today's engineering principles in an effort to provide an expected pattern of speed limits on our local streets thus creating a higher level of standardization and safety. As part of the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program, Staff would review each intersection under the Village's jurisdiction neighborhood by neighborhood using today's engineering principles to determine the appropriate traffic control (stop signs, yield signs, uncontrolled). As part of the Village Code Review, Staff would update Chapter 18 (Traffic) as well as its Appendix that contains all the traffic regulations (speed limits, stop signs, yield signs, turn restrictions, parking restrictions, etc.) to make sure it is consistent with actual signage in the field. As part of the Education Program, the Engineering Staff would partner with other departments such as Police, Fire and Community Development to come up with creative ways in getting the public involved in addressing traffic safety issues in neighborhoods and providing information to ease traffic concerns and enhance safety. As part of the Traffic Calming Program, Staff would determine the appropriate criteria to warrant and process to follow when considering traffic calming measures as a means of addressing traffic safety issues. Staff has done a significant amount of research in the past on traffic calming and made a presentation to the Village Board on the issue in 2000. We have also experimented with temporary measures and have implemented a couple of permanent measures in neighborhoods. Before considering additional projects, however, Staff believes a detailed program is necessary so that the players (Staff, residents, business owners, motorists, Village Board) have the same understanding as to how traffic calming will be dealt with in Mount Prospect. .~ Villa2e Board Presentation . Even though each of the programs are outlined in the Traffic Proposal, only the Residential Speed Limit Program has been developed in detail thus far. The Engineering Staff has spent a considerable amount of time developing this program and will be requesting the Village Board's concurrence at the September 28th Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting. With their concurrence, we will begin implementing the program. In addition, we will plan on touching on the other four programs in our presentation to the Village Board to further facilitate discussion. The Village Code Review and Education Program are long- term goals and have not been developed in detail yet. We have begun to develop the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program and Traffic Calming Program but many questions have surfaced during discussion among the Engineering Staff. We will be introducing these topics at the September 28th meeting but will request a workshop be set for a future Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting where the Safety Commission is invited to attend. The purpose of the workshop will be for Staff to present the programs in greater detail, raise questions regarding the development of the programs and receive input and direction from the Village Board. 4 . Page 4 of 4 September 23, 2004 Traffic Talk The Engineering Staff will be in attendance at the September 28th Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting to make a presentation and will be available to answer questions and facilitate discussion. ~~ Matthew Lawrie Attachments Traffic Proposal Recent Accomplishments Residential Speed Limit Program & Corresponding Attachments x:\engineering\traffic\summit\9 .23.04- board - memo.doc '" 0 BJE CTIVE Through the cooperative efforts of the Police Department, Fire Department, Community Development and Public Works, implement plans to create a higher level of standardization with Village traffic regulations and develop appropriate programs to provide a more pro-active approach in addressing traffic- related issues as communicated by residents and staff (whether perceived or real) through education, enforcement and engineering. CURRENT SITUATION Village Code Chapter 18 of the Village Code is titled Traffic and was adopted in 1976. The appendix to the chapter contains traffic regulations for specific locations within the Village. While there have been amendments to the chapter to account for new traffic regulations, it does not appear that a full review of the entire chapter has been done since its inception. With that said, there are many discrepancies between the wording in the Village Code and the actual traffic regulations in the field. Today, when ordinances are passed and signs erected, the Village Code includes these additions. However, in the past, when situations changed and signs were removed, the ordinances were not always repealed. ill addition, signs may have been changed to address new problems and the Village Code not updated. Vice-versa, ordinances may have been modified or added in the Village Code and the proper signs not installed. Traffic Regulations Affecting the Village Code ill addition to discrepancies in Chapter 18 of the Village Code, an issue has been raised regarding a desire to provide a higher level of standardization when it comes to traffic regulations. When studying a traffic- related issue, the Engineering Staff attempts to be as consistent as possible with decisions even though each situation is unique. While addressing a specific traffic complaint, however, residents on occasion question or challenge the validity of conditions on surrounding streets or intersections. For example, the Engineering Staff may determine an intersection does not warrant 4-way Stop signs while the adjacent intersection with similar characteristics has such signs. Over the years, decisions made by many different people for many different reasons have resulted in the traffic regulations we have today. A review of each traffic regulation to provide standardization based on current engineering practice has never been done. Not all decisions, however, involve specific criteria that can result in standardization. Issues such as turn restrictions, parking restrictions and one-way streets are dictated by current conditions and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Each of these regulations at specific locations are detailed in the Village Code. Each situation is unique and cannot necessarily be dictated by criteria. Logical decisions were made given the surroundings of the day. And as the surroundings change in the future, the Engineering Staff will continue to review these issues on a case-by-case basis. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), however, does provide some criteria in determining the appropriate traffic control devices at an intersection and the speed limit for a street through an engineering study. These regulations at specific locations are also detailed in the Village Code. Typically, the Engineering Staff will gather speed and volume data, review the accident history and identify sight obstructions when studying an intersection for traffic control signs. Gathering speed data, reviewing the accident history and considering the geometries of the roadway and adjacent development go into studying the speed limit for a residential street. The MUTCD is then used as a reference when determining the appropriate traffic control signs or speed limit. This process was not always followed in the past and, as a result, has lead to inconsistencies with traffic control signs and residential speed limits within a neighborhood and across the Village. As a result, there is a low level of standardization. The Traffic Study Setting aside the Village Code, the Engineering Staff on a regular basis must deal with traffic-related concerns often brought to our attention by residents. Unfortunately, limited resources sometimes do not bring about resolution from a resident's perspective. The most tfequent concerns communicated by residents today regarding traffic pertains to safety within neighborhoods on residential streets. Speeding, cut through traffic and disobedience to traffic control signs are typical complaints. Often, residents propose Stop signs, lower speed limits and turn restrictions as solutions to these concerns. As time permits, the Engineering Staff will gather speed and volume data in response to a resident complaint. Usually, however, the data will show speeds and volume to be reasonable for a residential street and there is not a warrant for additional signage. The Police Department is then asked to provide assistance through the use of the radar trailer, drone car and enforcement by officers. Their presence has a positive effect on residents as they see the Village looking to address their concerns. The measures used by the Police Department can also have a short-term positive effect on driver's behavior. Often times, however, only a limited number of tickets are issued because the percentage of speeders identified in the speed study is small. Many of the offenders are residents of the neighborhood who will return to old driving habits after completion of an enforcement period. Unless enforcement is done on a regular basis (which is not always possible due to limited Police personnel), the Village will often receive similar complaints in the future and the cycle will repeat itself. PROPOSED SITUATION Standardization of Traffic Regulations As part of reviewing Chapter 18 of the Village Code, scrutiny of two sections of the appendix would be recommended: residential speed limit and intersection traffic control. It is my recommendation that a plan be developed that would provide a systematic approach toward determining the appropriate speed limit for Village streets. Each street would be evaluated using factors and criteria established by the Engineering Staff and MUTCD. Soliciting the opinions of other communities as well utilizing the Northwest Municipal Conference as resources could be done as part of the study of this issue. This would provide consistency for the entire Village and speed limits that provide reasonable expectations for a driver based on the roadway and surrounding conditions. Next Steps .. Joint meeting with Engineering Staff and Police Department .. Review speed limit regulations in surrounding communities .. NWMC survey .. Determine appropriate factors and criteria using available resources .. Perform field studies if necessary .. Develop draft for inclusion into Village Code .. Develop preliminary map .. Safety Commission review & approval .. Village Board review .. Perform additional field studies if necessary .. Village Board approval It would also be my recommendation that a plan be developed that would provide a systematic approach toward determining the appropriate traffic control at all intersections under the Village's jurisdiction. Each intersection would be evaluated using factors and criteria established by the Engineering Staff and MUTCD. In addition to evaluating an individual intersection, an area or neighborhood would be reviewed so that the appropriate network of traffic control would be provided to ensure traffic safety and progression. The expectation would be that the plan would provide a higher level of compliance by motorists and safety to the community as well as consistency using current standards. Next Steps 4. Joint meeting with Engineering Staff and Police Department 4. Determine appropriate factors and criteria using available resources ..¡.¡.. Perform field studies if necessary 4. Develop draft for inclusion into Village Code 4. Develop preliminary map 4. Safety Commission review & approval 4. Village Board review ..¡.¡.. Perform additional field studies if necessary 4. Village Board approval PROPOSED SITUATION Village Code Review Since it appears a complete review of Chapter 18 of the Village Code has never been done, it would by my recommendation that this be done through a joint effort of the Engineering Staff and Police Department. A full review would provide an opportunity for Village Staff to ensure that sections are still relevant and current traffic code standards are incorporated into the chapter. A full review would also allow Village Staff to create an appendix that is consistent with actual signage. While continual updates will have to be made in the future to reflect changing conditions, an overall review will help to eliminate continual incremental changes of old conditions. Next Steps ... Joint meeting with Engineering Staff and Police Department ... Review Traffic Code in surrounding communities .. Develop draft .. Safety Commission review & approval .. Village Board review & approval PROPOSED SITUATION Education Program The recommendations made thus far would certainly provide more consistency to traffic regulations in the Village. However, efforts with signage and enforcement may only go so far as to meet the expectations of residents who perceive traffic speed and volume problems on residential streets. As indicated in the CURRENT SITUATION section, the number of offenders (speeding, cut through, Stop sign disobedience, etc.) is often small compared to the overall traffic throughout the day. Therefore, engineering and enforcement efforts may not produce significant results. A more pro-active, effective approach may be through education. An education program targeted at residents of a neighborhood and motorists could have multiple benefits. First, through a joint effort with the Police Department and Engineering Staff, an education program would offer another approach in working with residents to address their concerns. It would allow Staff to provide information to residents about the realities of traffic and our decision- making processes. In addition, Staff could use different media (MPTV, brochures, banners, door hangers, open houses, etc.) to provide tips and recommendations to improve the negative perception of traffic in neighborhoods. An education program would also allow Staff an opportunity to dispel some of the myths about traffic and signage. Also, in some instances it could help to put into perspective the "severity" of the perceived problem (police/resident radar). An education program would allow neighborhoods to get involved and work together to be part of the solution (neighborhood banners, pace cars, on-street parking, block-party handouts, etc.). Finally, it would be an inexpensive approach to possibly change the behaviors of drivers and have a positive effect on residents and neighborhoods. Next Steps .... Survey departments (police, Fire, Community Development, Public Works) about neighborhood traffic problems .... Interview employees about neighborhood traffic problems .... Solicit opinions of a sample group of residents about neighborhood traffic problems .... NWMC survey about neighborhood traffic problems Purpose: Better define issues as communicated by Staff, residents and surrounding communities. Tool to define strategy to address issues and partner with other departments. 4 Prioritize issues to be addressed through education 4 Determine appropriate/necessary/creative tools to address issues 4. Through department partnership, develop a program to address issues Purpose: To organize the received input in order to develop a systematic program. approach to address resident concerns through education. Proactive 4. Staff review ,.. Department review ,.. Safety Commission review & approval 4. Village Board review & approval 4. Implementation Purpose: Allow for constructive feedback and modifications to achieve a unified resolution prior to implementation. ~ PROPOSED SITUATION Traffic Calming Program A final tool that could be developed to address the ongoing traffic issues within neighborhoods is a traffic calming program. In some situations, education, enforcement and signage may not be sufficient to address a significant, measurable problem. Traffic calming measures have been presented to the Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees in the past, however, a program has not been created. Through discussions of various Village Staff, viable measures would have to be decided on. In addition, warrants would have to be determined based on factors agreed upon by Village Staff. The process when evaluating a situation would also need to be determined as part of a traffic calming program. Consulting with other communities who have successful programs would be included in the development of a traffic calming program. Also, retaining the services of a consultant with expertise in this field may be necessary. Having a traffic calming program would provide the Village another tool in addressing traffic concerns in neighborhoods. While implementation of projects may be few and typically used as a last resort, traffic calming measures create a constant impact on motorists. In certain situations, applying traffic calming measures could have a significant, measurable impact on traffic speed, traffic volume and/or pedestrian safety that would be supported by residents after other alternatives have shown to be ineffective. Next Steps -- Joint meeting with Engineering Staff, Police Department & Fire Department -- Review traffic calming programs in other communities -- Determine acceptable measures -- Retain the services of a consultant if necessary -- Determine appropriate factors and criteria using available resources .. Determine process when studying an issue .. Staff review .. Department review .. Safety Commission review & approval -- Village Board review & approval -- Implementation