HomeMy WebLinkAbout3042_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DECEMBER 12, 1995
# sr
REVISED 1/9/96
Mayor Gerald Farley called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present at the
meeting were: Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees George Clowes, Richard
Hendricks, Michaele Skowron, and Irvana Wilks. Absent from the meeting were:
Trustees Timothy Corcoran and Paul Hoefert. Also present were: Village
Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works
Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey and
Communications Administrator Cheryl Pasalic.
II. MINUTES
Acceptance of the Minutes of November 28, 1995. Motion made by Trustee
Clowes and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to approve the Minutes. Trustees
Clowes and Wilks requested some modifications to the Minutes and requested the
Minutes be resubmitted at the next meeting for approval.
None.
Public Works Director Glen Andler provided an overview of the RUST findings to
date. He stated that the majority of the contract had been completed except for
the hydraulic calculations needed to determine proper capacity and to determine
if the capacity would affect any proposed solutions. He stated there had been
three meetings with the Weller Creek Citizens' Ad Hoc Committee to date. Among
the activities of the Committee was a videotaped walk of the Creek from end to
end. This walk took place in the Creek bed. It was important to perform this type
of review to determine how badly the Creek banks really were because the most
effective way to view the problems is from the ground -up.
1
Paul Schwartz, Landscape Engineer for RUST Engineering, provided an overview
of the Creek status through the use of the video taken from the Creek bed. He
stated the Creek is approximately 2.2 miles in total length and the Creek had been
broken into four general regions. Generally, the problems with the Creek are a
result of severe erosion. In order to resolve some of these problems, accessibility
to the Creep itself has to be resolved. He stated the tree canopy is quite dense
and it does not allow for very much light to get to the Creek banks for grasses to
grow. gasses have a much better soil holding capacity than trees. The worst
section of the four is the School to Elmhurst section as depicted in the videotape.
He also provided a general overview of some possible solutions which could be
used on the various Creek sections based on the conditions unique to each
section.
Melcy Pond, Project Engineer for RUST, spoke. She felt that the
recommendations that RUST is putting forward will focus on the most severe
section and include estimated costs. Approximately $350,000 for reconstruction
of the Emerson Street bridge- $250,000 for the Main Street area and pedestrian
bridge; approximately $1 million for slope improvements and bio -engineering
amounting to approximately $750,000; for a total of approximately $2.5 million for
the School to Elmhurst section.
Grace DeVito, Chairperson for the Weller Creek Citizens' Ad Hoc Committee,
spoke. She read a letter to the Board providing a general overview of the
Committee discussions to date and the concerns about the proposed solutions.
Among the items of concern are the responsibility for maintenance and the fate of
the trees located in the Creek. She also stated that it was important that the
residents be provided some type of guidance in terms of which plantings they
should consider to ;assist in maintaining the repaired slope. Finally, the Committee
had requested a conceptual drawing of an overall solution in which they could
readily visualize what the improvements may entail. A need for a firm time frame
to begin solutiones was requested by the Committee once the final report is
prepared.
General comments of the Village Board members followed in which questions were
raised concerning how much the Emerson Street bridge may have to be raised to
accommodate the improved Creek flow. The different types of materials used to
anchor the Creek bank were also discussed.
2
Public Works Director Glen Andler stated that he hoped that the remaining contract
items would be concluded by the end of February. They are currently working on
some final determinations relative to ownership of the Creek and adjoining
properties.
Village Manager Michael Janonis indicated that this item was provided to the
Village Board for information purposes only. Once the final report is concluded,
it is expected that another update will take place and at that time the Village Board
will discuss possible financing options relative to cost estimates and proposed
solutions.
Communications Administrator Cheryl Pasalic provided a general overview of what
the history behind the development of the Model Telecommunications Ordinance
(MTO) and provided general information for the reasons that many other
communities also felt that such a model Ordinance would be beneficial to them.
Mount Prospect has encountered severe limitations of its right-of-way space due
to the numerous demands for the use of this space and the various conflicts
between different utilities for this space. The MTO provides a framework to deal
with the different providers within the right-of-way. Ms. Pasalic provided a general
overview of the process for review by staff at the time a permit request is
submitted. The MTO will provide a general framework for any future agreements
with providers or pass-through providers which will streamline the review process
itself.
General comments by the Village Board members included the following items:
Some discussion about the inter -relationship of IDOT permits for work in the right-
of-way compared to Village responsibility of controlling the right-of-way. As part
of the implementation of this Ordinance, the Village has contacted IDOT and both
IDOT and the Village have come to an agreement on enforcement of Village
Codes in IDOTs right-of-way. The proposed fees which would be included with
the Ordinance would be set at a level which would cover the Village expenses for
Plan review and inspections. There will still be a need for a separate Franchise
Agreement with each provider, however, the Franchise Agreement will be relatively
basic because the MTO will have addressed a majority of items which would
typically be contained in a Franchise Agreement. It was also discussed that a
Model Franchise Agreement is under development by representatives of the
Northwest Municipal Conference and once developed should assist communities
in drafting appropriate Franchise documents. Some Board members
recommended a coordination effort be undertaken so that a centralized agency
would be responsible for the provisions of the MTO; therefore, each community
would not be responsible for all components outlined in the Ordinance.
3
Jodi Caro, legal counsel for Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Chicago (MFS), spoke.
She stated that the MTO as drafted is very well organized and is probably
necessary for the community. She stated that she felt it was important that input
is solicited from the industry which this Ordinance is to regulate. She stated that
MFS has been Working with the Village since July of 1994 in order to get approval
for laying cable within the right-of-way along '"golf Road. She stated that any
further delay would adversely impact MFS' ability to complete their business
agreements. She requested this Ordinance be moved forward as quickly as
possible. She requested the Board consider drafting a temporary Agreement as
provided previously by MFS until the MTO is approved so that MFS has no further
delays.
Consensus of the Village Board was not to enter Into any temporary agreements
with any provider orpass-through provider including MFS at this time. Members
supported the Final drafting of the MTO for additional consideration at a Village
Board meeting. The Board also requested the Village Attorney provide an
overview of the Agreement The Board also requested additional information
concerning control of rights-of-way by government entities.
None.
VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Trustee Skowron requested Minutes from the previous Board meeting be reviewed
and approved at a subsequent meeting. She had concerns that previously
requested revisions by Board members had not actually been confirmed at a
subsequent meetings.
Consensus of the Village Board was to request the Safety Commission to review
safety Issues at railroad crossings throughout the Village and determine whether
additional education needs to take place to minimize the danger of the train
crossings.
Trustee Skowron also stated a concern with the location of the stop -bar at
Northwest Highway and Central Read; primarily the stop -'bar on the east bound
lanes of Central Road at the Northwest Highway intersection.
Mayor Farley stated that Trustee Corcoran had requested a deferment of the
scheduled vote on 12/19 on the proposed Gun Ordinance due to his travel
schedule on that date.
4
Trustees Clowes, Hendricks and Wilks were not supportive of deferring this item
until January 2.
Trustee Skowron and Mayor Farley supported the deferment.
There being no further business, the Committee of the Whole meeting was
adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
DS/rcc
Respectfully submitted,
%: �\) " siz;�A
DAVID STRAH L
Assistant Village Manager
5
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 23, 1996
Due to the absence of Mayor Farley, the meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m.,
by Village Manager Michael Janonis who began by requesting a Motion for
nomination for President Pro Tem for the evening. A Motion was made by Trustee
Hoefert nominating Trustee Corcoran to serve as President Pro Tem for this
meeting. The Motion was seconded by Trustee Wilks and Passed unanimously.
At this point, Trustee Corcoran took up the center chair and began the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Present at the meeting were: Trustees George Clowes, Timothy Corcoran,
Richard Hendricks, Paul Hoefert and Irvana Wilks. Approximately ten minutes
later, Trustee Michaele Skowron arrived. Absent from the meeting was: Mayor
Gerald Farley. Also present were: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Finance
Director David Jepson and Administrative Intern Curt Barrett.
II. MINUTES
Acceptance of the Minutes. There were two different sets of Minutes to be
accepted. These were December 12, 1995 and January 9, 1996. An initial Motion
was made by Trustee Clowes to accept the Minutes for December 12, however,
due to a lack of votes, this Motion was withdrawn by Trustee Clowes. Minutes for
the meeting of January 9, however, were accepted with the Motion to approve
coming from Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Clowes. Trustee Wilks did
abstain on this vote. All others voted Aye.
1
Richard A. Bachhuber, 625 South Edward Street, spoke. His complaint dealt with
some mailers that are put out around the street every Monday morning. These are
advertisement sections with just a few pages wrapped up in plastic that the
gentleman complained ended up strewn along the street and were actually not
typically read by neighbors but simply tended to clutter the area. He asked
whether there was anything the Board or Village was able to do about this.
Village Manager Michael Janonis responded that they knew who to contact; this
being the Chicago Tribune Company.
Trustee Corcoran asked the Village Manager to again contact the Chicago Tribune
since there had been correspondence already over this issue. Trustee Corcoran
also asked the Village Manager look into the Ordinance to see what strategy the
Village might take to address the issue.
IV. BUDGET EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
Village Manager Michael Janonis introduced the issue detailing the idea of cost
centers at each Department as a method and means of allowing a simple cost
benefit breakdown. He then introduced Finance Director Dave Jepson who was
to make the presentation.
Finance Director Dave Jepson began his presentation offering a simplified
approach to breaking down the main Village Budget into more understandable sub -
budgets which would help to illuminate the varying degrees of impact on overall
year-to-year budget fluctuations from sub -budget to sub -budget. It was hoped that
this would: (1) Further attempt to make the budget document more
understandable to interested citizens; and, (2) Continue the efforts to make a
clearer picture for those concerned with what it costs to run the Village. This took
approximately 20 minutes and was followed by an informal question and answer
session between the Trustees and Mr. Jepson. Trustees Wilks, Corcoran,
Skowron and Clowes expressed their appreciation for Mr. Jepson's efforts in
making the Budget more understandable and are supportive of efforts to better
illustrate Village finances to the general public.
Trustee Timothy Corcoran requested the Village Board to reconsider its policy on
assigning items to the Deferred Items list for a future Committee of the Whole
discussion.
Trustee Skowron was opposed to any change in procedure and recalled that the
issue had already been decided upon at an earlier date.
►,
Village Manager Janonis stated that he was planning to invite discussion on
Deferred List at the next Committee of the Whole meeting.
Trustee Clowes suggested that the Board also take into consideration looking past
the year 2000 as far as Goals and Visions are concerned for the Village.
Village Manager Janonis introduced the issue and then turned the stage over to
Dave Jepson who recommended renewing the contracts with the current Bond
Advisor and Counsel used by the municipality reasoning that their prices had not
changed since 1980, they were very competitive in the marketplace and previous
work had been of excellent quality.
Mr. Jepson then referred to his Interoffice Memorandum to Michael Janonis with
an attachment entitled, General Obligation Bonds Series 1996 sent from the firm
of R. V. Norene and Associates. This memorandum and the attached page were
referred to by Finance Director Jepson as he briefed the Board on desirability of
the proposed Bond Issue for 1996.
Trustee Clowes requested of Finance Director Jepson that the Bond prospectus,
once received, be forwarded to the Library.
VI. 1996 PARK RIDGE SURVEY RESIJLTS
The most recent edition of the Park Ridge Survey had been released and once
again, Mount Prospect found itself at the very bottom of the list. Mount Prospect
residents overall receive an excellent return on their tax dollars. The point was
happily made by Village Manager Janonis and warmly received by the Board and
those present.
VII. MANAGER'S REPORT
No report.
Village Manager Janonis did make mention of the Celestial Celebration
forthcoming on February 3 and stated that tickets were available.
3
VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Trustee Wilks wanted to clarify for members of the media that the Closed Session
the Board had gone into the night of the January 16, 1996 Board meeting had
been solely to deal with issues regarding the Pop Shop and no other properties.
There being no further business, the Committee of the Whole meeting was
adjourned at 843 p.m.
C B/rcc
Respectfully submitted,
CURT BARRETT
Administrative Intern
4
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
r\
FROM: WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 8,1996
SUBJECT: MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM
Attached is a white paper that provides an overview of the Village's Multi Family Housing Program.
This white paper is intended to provide the Village Board with a historical background of the
housing program and an understanding of the current issues that staff is attempting to address.
While our housing program has achieved many successes over the past years, staff continues to find
several dilapidated apartments throughout the Village. As the white paper demonstrates, staff
believes that the Village needs to increase its commitment to inspecting apartment units Village -
wide.
The Visions Housing Subcommittee recently met to discuss alternative means of addressing existing
problems with our housing stock. While no formal recommendation has been made by this
Committee, several suggestions were raised that are included in the white paper. Staff would like
the opportunity to address these alternatives with the Village Board and to discuss the current status
of our housing program.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and
consideration at the February 13th Committee -of -the -Whole meeting. Members from staff and the
Visions Housing Subcommittee will be present at this meeting to further discuss this issue.
WJC:hg
Attachment
w
INTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OF
MULTI -FAMILY Y HO'U ;ING
Written by the Department of Community Development Department of the Village of Mount Prospect
February 9, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Intent ......... ....................... .............................. i
II. Background......................................................... 1
III. Issue ........................................................... 2
IV. Possible Solutions .................................................... 4
V. Statistics............................................................ 5
VI. Staff Recommendation................................................. 7
VII. Addendum.......................................................... 9
I. Intent
The intent of this white paper is to provide the necessary background to understand the
most pressing multi -family housing issue that the Village of Mount Prospect is now
encountering. A recommendation is provided on how staff believes this issue can be best
addressed.
II. Background
Prior to 1983, the Village's efforts to address housing concerns were based upon a service
request (complaint) method. If an individual was concerned about the dwelling unit they
were living in or in a neighboring property, they were able to contact the Village. The
Village would then follow up the service request and attempt to resolve the issue.
In 1983 the Village recognized the importance of maintaining a strong housing base. At
that time the Village adopted an annual licensing requirement for rental properties. The
fee for that permit was $7.00 and was to be used to defray the cost of a property
maintenance inspector and a part time landlord/tenant mediator. The annual revenue that
was collected from this licensing fee was approximately $42,000 and the salary expenses
for the two positions were $40,000.
The intent of the licensing requirement was to provide an opportunity to inspect the exterior
and interior common areas of multi -family structures, and to assist in the mediation of
landlord/tenant lease disagreements. Interior inspections of multi -family dwelling units
were only conducted when a complaint was received.
In 1990, the individual responsible for the landlord/tenant mediation left Village
employment and those duties shifted to what is now the Environmental Health Division of
the Community Development Department. In 1992, a change in administration brought a
renewed emphasis on housing concerns that was considered part of a broader issue
termed "urban problems." Issues dealing with crime, gangs, property maintenance and
social needs required a prompt comprehensive Village response according to the Manager.
As a result, the "Visions" Committee was initiated to address the urban issues facing the
community. This committee included staff members from what are now the following
departments: Community Development, Police, Fire, Human Services, Communications,
Public Works and the Manager's Office. The Village Board endorsed the premise that
these urban problems and the need for special services in portions of the community
necessitated a comprehensive and multi -faceted approach to the larger issue. With the
support from the Village Board, the Visions Committee conducted a community meeting
to seek input from owners, residents, tenants and staff on these matters. The result was
the creation of three subcommittees to the Visions Committee. They include; Housing,
Family Issues and Crime. Each subcommittee was assigned a staff liaison to assist in
developing community-based strategies to address urban problems with an emphasis on
helping people to help themselves.
The Vision Committee mission statement is:
"To work with residents and businesses to improve the quality of life
and living conditions, in designated communities and neighborhoods,
utilizing the combined resources available to Mount Prospect, and
through enhanced understanding and cooperation among Village
departments."
The public's response to the community meeting helped to define the Vision Committee's
Agenda, and the Village Board began to act immediately on a number of fronts. The Board
authorized the hiring of three additional police officers and one housing inspector in the
1994 budget to address some of the Vision Committee's findings. Other changes included
updating the property maintenance code and adoption of a stricter Graffiti Removal
Ordinance.
In May of 1995 the Village Board approved an enforcement fee ordinance for multi -family
properties not in compliance with Village regulations. This ordinance allows the Village to
charge a monthly administrative fee for code deficiencies until they are corrected. As part
of the new ordinance, property owners were given a shorter time period to correct noted
deficiencies. Also, a Shopping Cart Ordinance and a Youth and Gang Related Offenses
Ordinance were adopted.
As a result of the Village's aggressive approach to housing through the additional inspector
and code changes, staff has received more service requests, identified more violations,
issued more tickets, collected more fines, beefed up the Village's presence on housing
issues and obtained more success in correcting violations than any time in the recent past.
However, the Village has also received an increasing number of service requests that have
revealed a greater severity of interior code deficiencies within multi -family dwellings than
previously thought existed. These interior code deficiencies represent a critical on-going
problem and have the real potential to negate much of the progress realized in this area
in the past three years.
III. Issue:
Mount Prospect consists of 20,280 housing units that comprise 66.2% of the land area in
the Village. Multi -family units represent 38% or 7,706 housing units and comprise 9.7 %
of the total land area in the Village. In 1995, the Village received 1,232 service requests.
Of that number 38% were directed at multi -family property. Those service requests
required Village staff to inspect the interior of multi -family units in 90% of the cases. The
staff time necessary to address these issues is overwhelming. It is conservatively
estimated that each multi -family interior service request consumes 2.5 hours of staff time
to address. The cumulative staff time spent addressing this issue is 1,057.5 hours or 28.5
weeks.
-2-
Other Village Departments experience a similar heavy demand of service requests by
multi -family properties. The Police Department indicates that 30% of all calls for service
originate with multi -family residences and 50% of all serious crime in the Village occurs
there. The Fire Department indicates that 29% of all calls are requested by multi -family
residences, 31.5% by single family residences and the remainder are other (to include
emergency response on the road).
The service request level of multi -family properties is disproportionate to the number of
multi -family properties in the Village. The 1990 Census data reveals that the socio-
economic levels are vastly different between residents of single family and multi -family
housing within the Village of Mount Prospect. Additionally, the urban setting and densities
associated with multi -family housing create a unique environment with different issues than
those of single family homes.
The impact of the multi -family service requests is taking a significant toll on the capabilities
of the Environmental Health Division. Since 1993, multi -family service requests have
increased from 260 to 470. The total number of service requests increased from 929 in
1993 to 1,232 in 1905. This increase has resulted in a greater burden and stretching of
department resources. The number of violations that have been identified has increased
as well. In 1993 there were 1,819 violations cited as compared to 1995 when 5,246
violations were recorded. The increase in number of violations results in additional time
spent on inspections, report preparation, and on reinspections. There continues to be an
upward trend in the severity and number of violations being cited as interior multi -family
violations.
It is the opinion of staff that Village resources will reap the greatest return by
developing a long range comprehensive approach to inspecting the interiors of
multi -family properties. However, this will not alleviate or diminish the immediate
need to address current service requests submitted to the department.
At present, staff conducts annual inspections of the common areas and exteriors of multi-
family dwellings. In 1995, 540 inspections were conducted. They averaged four hours of
staff time or 57.6 weeks. Staff conducted 456 reinspections required as part of the annual
inspection program that averaged 1.5 hours each or 18 weeks. Additionally, the Village
conducts semi-annual inspections of some 200 food handlers within the Village. These
inspections average five hours to include reinspections or 53 weeks. The remaining staff
time is utilized to address the other service requests submitted to the Village for action.
The Village has seen a steady increase in the severity and number of service requests for
interior inspections of multi -family property. The Village currently lacks a systematic
approach to address the problems on the interior of these units. At present, staff is
attempting to address the problem on a case by case basis, which places an unreasonable
burden on staff, property owners and tenants because prompt compliance is difficult due
to the severity of the violations present.
-3-
The Environmental Health Division is staffed with three full-time registered sanitarians, one
part-time registered sanitarian (12 hours weekly), one part-time code inspector handling
graffiti and other service requests (19 hours weekly) and a full-time secretary. Two of the
sanitarians handle the multi -family properties for annual inspections/reinspections and
service requests. The other full-time sanitarian operates the Village's food retail inspection
program. The part-time sanitarian assists in the food retail inspection program and frees
the full-time sanitarian to assist in multi -family service requests and inspections. The
secretary staffs the office daily, coordinates reports and schedules inspections.
IV. Possible Solutions:
The work of the Visions Committee has raised the awareness of other Village staff,
residents, tenants, and property managers that the Village can and must address the
problems on the interior of the multi -family units. In fact, in 1983 the original intent of the
Village ordinance was to require inspections of this type. However, a legal challenge was
made to this provision and the court ruled against its use. Since that time, other Villages
have adopted similar ordinances providing for the ability to inspect the interiors of units that
have withstood court challenges.
There are five solutions which have been suggested either by staff or participants of the
recent Visions Housing Subcommittee meeting. All five solutions will be presented
followed by an explanation of each and the merits of the program. The five are:
1. Inspect with Change in Ownership
2. Service Request Inspections Augmented with Additional Education
3. Inspect with Tenant Authorization Only
4. Inspect 15% Annually
5. Inspect with Change of Occupant
Inspect with Change in Ownership - this solution would require that multi -family property
be inspected both on the interior and exterior with all code deficiencies being corrected
prior to the issuance of a tax transfer stamp by the Village to a new owner. There are 260
multi -family property owners and the turnover of these properties is less than 5% annually.
The benefit of the program is that new buyers would be certain that the property is in code
compliance at time of purchase. The negatives of this program are that they do not
systematically address the problem properties because there is no assurance that all
properties will be sold in a given period.
Service Request Inspections Augmented with Additional Education - this solution
suggests that the Village continue to address problems as they are presented. As part of
this program, additional education of the community is suggested. This outreach would
require an additional staff person to assist not only in educating residents but also in
addressing the new complaints received. The benefit of this alternative is that it would
-4-
provide for greater education of the community and would ensure that the concerns of
tenants would be addressed. The negative of this program is that it relies on tenants who
may be fearful of getting the Village involved. This solution is not a timely and systematic
approach to upgrading properties and unduly interferes with scheduled work by placing
crisis situations first.
Inspect with Tenant Authorization Only - this solution would allow the Village to inspect
the interior of a property only if the tenant signed a request. The benefit of the program
is that it allows the tenant to grant permission and would ensure that the concerns of
tenants would be addressed. The negative is that residents are sometimes fearful of
involving the Village into their housing problems. There is no guarantee that the Village
will have access to all units in the Village over a given period. Efforts to involve tenants
by mail in the past have been unsuccessful. Staff previously has sent mailings with no
results. They have then followed up in person and have been able to gain access into
units. This process is extremely time consuming.
Inspect 15% Annually - this solution would allow the Village to enter 15% of the multi-
family units annually., Property owners would be allowed to set the scheduling of the 15%
themselves provided all units within the complex are inspected within 6 to 7 years. The
benefits of this program are that they allow owners to identify the first units to be inspected
and give them time to develop a management plan to address all their problems over a
period of years. The negative of the program is that it is an intensive program and
requires a controlled system to gain entrance into units.
Inspect with Change of Occupant - this solution would require that each unit would be
required to have an inspection and all deficiencies corrected prior to occupancy. The
benefit of the program is that within 2 to 3 years most properties will turn over. The
negatives include the seasonal nature of people moving creates scheduling difficulties that
are extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that 40% of all units turn over annually.
V. Statistics:
Inspections:
In
Proaram
1995
1994
1993
Inspections
540
655
644
Reinspects
456
1444
1406
Violations Cited
5246
3178
1819
Citations
1995 1994 1993
Issued 101 253 107
Judgments* $9,3000 $15,100 $4,600
*Note- Over $20,000 in Village expenses were recovered form 1165 Boxwood condemnation.
-5-
Enforcement Fees
Established May IM
Billed $11,450
Collected* $ 2,250
*Note - Collection rate has not been determined on annual basis. Licenses for properties with outstanding
fees will be not be renewed until payment is made.
1996
Units 7706
Fees Collected $50,750
am
1995
Judgements $9,300
License Fees $50,750
Enforcement Fees $11,450
Total $71,450
Retail Food License Fees
1995
License Fees $26,355
Food & Beverage Sales Tax $440,000*
*Projected 1996 Revenue Amount
Of all the multi -family units, 1,701 or 22%, are classified as six flat or less. This statistic
is important because of how properties are assessed. Single family and multi -family with
less than six units are assessed at 16%. Whereas, multi -family units containing more than
six dwelling units are assessed at 33%. Commercial and industrial properties are
assessed between 36 and 38%.
Expenditures and Revenues:
1996 Expenditures 1995 Revenues
Housing Inspections $184,460 $71,450
Health Inspections $89,505 $26,355
Total $273,965 $97,805
The budget expenditures include all personnel services, employee benefits, employee
costs, contractual services, utilities, and commodities. The 1996 budget year is used as
it encompasses a full calendar year. The collection rate for the revenues listed in 1995 will
rely on the success of the Village at collecting judgements and enforcement fees. Every
effort will be made to collect those fees through the withholding of transfer stamps; and
licenses for outstanding fees owed to the Village.
It is readily apparent by reviewing the revenues collected in the calendar year 1995 to the
1996 budget that property taxes augment a large percentage of the cost of the food and
multi -family inspection programs. The license fees collected for the multi -family rental
license program would need to be increased to $24.00 to be self-supporting. The national
average licensing fee is $25 per unit. The retail food license fees would have to be
increased by 340% to be self-supporting. However, some $440,000 is raised annually
through food and beverage taxes.
When the multi -family licensing program was developed in 1983, it was intended to be a
self-financing program. Since that time (13 years), the Village has not increased its
licensing fee. The Village is presently underwriting its multi -family housing initiatives with
property taxes. Likewise, the food handling program is not self supporting.
VI. Staff Recommendation:
The real issue behind the severity and number of interior service requests of multi-
family properties is the deterioration of this housing stock. The problems that staff
are encountering are'a result of a lack of proper maintenance and care. The multi -family
housing stock average age is 30 years old. Forty percent of the multi -family units were
built prior to 1969 and ninety percent prior to 1979. Nearly 90 % of all multi -family
properties were annexed into the Village and built without the benefit of Mount Prospect
building codes or inspections. The continual deterioration of our multi -family housing stock
will require constant and increased amount of staff time to address the problem. The
Village has two real alternatives. The Village can either address the problem head on with
a systematic approach or deal with the issue on a "piece meal" basis.
Staff recommends that the Village Board adopt an approach which will address the
problem in an aggressive manner. Such a program should provide the following
mechanism:
(1) A systematic inspection of apartment interiors in a manner that provides reasonable
protections for tenant rights.
(2) Gives clear guidance to landlords and property managers as to their responsibilities
to maintain apartment interiors.
(3) Is administratively workable.
Several program alternatives have been suggested, each with their own benefits and
negatives. Yet, due to the nature of the problem it is imperative that a comprehensive
approach be taken to address the interior maintenance of multi -family dwelling units.
Village staff is observing serious deficiencies within apartment units that they are called
upon to inspect. Staff is of the opinion that it will be in a position to inspect 15% of all multi-
family units over the next year if an additional housing inspector is hired. The Village could
-7-
increase the licensing fee by $7.00 per unit to fund this position. Further, the Village
should continue to ensure that this program operate as self-sustaining as possible.
The Village's housing stock is one of its strongest assets. The Village has a responsibility
to ensure that these units are maintained in working order, proper, safe and environmen-
tally correct condition. While 60% of the total multi -family units are in a good condition,
25% are suspected of being substandard, and the remaining 15% are believed to be in a
significant state of disrepair. It is for these reasons that staff recommends that the Village
embark on an aggressive program to address these conditions.
The communities of Oak Park, Palatine, Elgin and Aurora have all recognized this same
need and have adopted inspection procedures of interior multi -family dwellings. A common
concern is that the density of multi -family units and the extraordinary wear and tear on
structures require additional attention by the host community.
By implementing such a program, the Village will inspect the entire multi -family housing
stock over the next six to seven years. As the housing stock is continually upgraded and
maintained it will become easier to inspect and the frequency of interior service requests
will diminish. As this, occurs it will provide an opportunity to increase the number of units
to be inspected annually or to address other community needs.
In using a systematic approach the owners and managers of multi -family housing will have
ample opportunity to develop management plans to address the problems at their
properties. Tenants will also benefit in that problems they were reluctant to bring to the
attention of the owner or Village will be addressed. The advantage for staff will be that the
workload will be defined. This will allow staff to manage and adjust to changing demands
with a minimum of interference with scheduled appointments with the public.
WJC/DAH/RR/hg
VIII. Addendum
List all. Place as an attachment.
1. Summary of 1995 Activities
2. Population and Housing Characteristics for Mount Prospect.
3. Written suggestions and comments from Meeting on January 29.
4. Minutes of the meeting on January 29.
5. Attendance list from Meeting on January 29.
6. Correspondence received from owners regarding proposed changes.
7. Property Maintenance Survey of 38 communities provided by intern for the Village
Managers Office.
8. Housing Comparison of Similar Communities
9. Job Description
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL L HEALTH DIVISION
JANUARY 24, 1996
SUMMARY OF 1995 HOUSING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Multi -Family Inspection
ProaraM
458
260
Resolved
1995
1994
1993
Inspections
540
655
644
Reinspects
456
1444
1406
Violations Cited
5246
3178
1819
Multi -Family Service Re nests
1995 1994 1993
Received
470
458
260
Resolved
427
425
248
Reinspects
386
572
363
Craffiiti Service Re
uests
1995
1994
1993
Received
124
82
Not available
Resolved
126
70
Reinspects
159
75
Citations
1995
1994
1993
Issued
101
253
107
Judgments
$9,3000
$15,100
$4,600
Enforcement Fees
Established May 1995
1995
Billed $11,450
Collected $2,250
Note - Collection rate has not been determined on annual basis. Licenses for
ro erties with outstanding fees will be not be renewed until payment is made.
License Fees
W01010
Units 7706
Fees Collected $50,750
Housing Program Highlights For 1995
CHANGES TO THE LANDLORD TENANT ORDINANCE
a. Occupancy code must be distributed to tenants when lease is signed.
b. Village may recover costs of emergency repairs to restore essential services.
c. Tenants may deduct costs to repair cited violations if the owner does not respond.
d. Owners are now permitted to give "reasonable notice" to enter apartments for
repairs.
e. A penalty of 50% of the license fee was established for late payment of license
fees.
ENFORCEMENT FEES - What are they?
The property maintenance code has been updated to include enforcement fees. The fees
are intended to pass the cost of enforcement onto persons who fail to comply with our
notice of violation of the Property Maintenance Code. Those who fail to comply with the
notice within 30 days of service will be billed monthly until all violations are corrected.
DEPARTMENT EDUCATION AND INTERACTION
Routine housing inspection procedures and violation notices have changed. A housing
inspection program was developed by staff. Reports are now generated by a computer and
mailed out. Reports are more consistent and professional.
Health Division staff assisted in the Police Program to certify multi -family properties for
maintaining crime -free housing. A slide program on property maintenance was presented.
Attended an association meeting of the Pharaohs Apartments to clarify owner and
association responsibilities for repairs. Concerns were addressed by the Division regarding
numerous violations and overcrowding. Code changes and enforcement fees were
discussed. A new association board has recently been elected by the owners. More
aggressive efforts regarding inspection of the common areas are planned for 1996.
Attended a Visions Housing Subcommittee meeting to update members on the progress of
the housing program and code changes. Staff received positive reviews and continued
interest from community members.
Two brochures have been developed which describe property maintenance requirements.
One brochure describes interior requirements and the other exterior requirements.
Door hangers have been developed as a technique to notify residents of property
maintenance deficiencies.
A sticker indicating "This vehicle is subject to immediate towing" is available for purchase by
commercial and multi -family property owners. Towing remains the responsibility of the owner
or association. To date more than twenty vehicles have been towed.
IMPROVEMENTS
Building at 1165 Boxwood was declared "unfit for human habitation" due to a sewage
backup. Extensive renovation of the building has been completed. A certificate of
occupancy was issued. All Village costs were recovered.
Prospect Commons Association voluntarily cleaned -up vacant lot west of the complex.
Prospect Commons corrected over 700 property maintenance violations cited in 1994. Six
roofs were replaced in 1995.
Victoria Hills Apartments Association is taking an active roll to improve the common areas.
Parking lot areas have been replaced. Continued maintenance of landscaping and grounds.
Removal of inoperable and unlicensed vehicles. Sidewalk and concrete stoop repairs in
progress throughout.
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS
While conducting the annual routine inspection, Mount Prospect Place Apartments was cited
for more than 900 violations. A hearing was held to discuss time limits to correct the
violations. Improvements are steadily progressing.
Victoria Hills Apartments, formerly Jamestown Estates, was inspected and cited for 831
violations. Pharaohs Apartments was also inspected and cited for a total of 782 violations.
Both complexes have a total of 26 buildings each, all of which are individually owned.
Reinspections are in progress.
At the request of the owner of 355-359 Hawthorne, a task force inspection was conducted of
the common areas and apartment interiors with Police, Fire Prevention, and the Building
Division. Owner was cited and responsible to repair over 300 violations at an estimated cost
of $180,000. Tenants were living in substandard conditions with roof leaks, heat problems,
cockroaches, and no security. Owner has avoided condemnation by making repairs to the
building. Progress has been slower than desired. Efforts to obtain compliance are continuing.
An inspection was conducted of the apartment interiors of 1706 Victoria Drive to determine
occupancy due to suspected overcrowding as indicated on mailboxes. While conducting the
inspection, staff verified overcrowding and observed extensive water damage to walls and
ceilings, cockroaches, deteriorated carpeting and general neglected maintenance. The
owner is currently working with a property management company to address the problems.
Numerous complaints have been received from residents at the Timberlake Apartments.
Complaints include cockroach problems, sewer backups, leaking roofs, inoperable air
conditioners and general maintenance. Timberlake is currently in receivership and a
management office is located on site. An increasing number of vacant apartments are
present throughout the complex. A routine inspection of the complex is to be scheduled.
A single family home was cited for a total of 43 property maintenance code violations.
Violations include an accumulation of junk, debris and garbage throughout property,
excessive weeds and grass, inoperable and unlicensed vehicles. The interior and exterior of
the home is in poor repair. Violations are currently being addressed in court. Removal of
debris and automobiles is progressing.
A rented single family home was inspected in response to a complaint. The owner was
required to repair or replace the roof, chimney, soffit, fascia, gutters, windows, screens,
plumbing and electrical. Removal of debris and landscaping waste in the yard was also
required. All violations have been corrected.
HEALTH AND SANITATION COMPLAINTS
A town home at was condemned as "Unfit for Human Habitation" due to poor sanitation and
inoperable plumbing. All violations have been corrected.
A single family home was declared "Unfit for Human Habitation" due to a lack of sewer or
water service and poor sanitation. Over 60 yards of garbage was removed and the home
has been restored to habitable condition. The owner has received a low- interest loan from
the Village to correct the remaining code violations.
A rental town home was inspected at the request of the Police Department. Poor interior
sanitation and an infestation of cockroaches was observed throughout. Citations were issued
to tenant and owner. Violations are currently being addressed in court.
OVERCROWDING COMPLAINTS
Two town homes were inspected at the request of the Fire Department. A total of 12 and
13 occupants were verified in each town house. Village code would permit a total occupancy
of 6 people in each town home. These properties have reduced the occupancy and are in
compliance.
Two town homes were inspected in response to complaints. A total of 10 occupants were
verified in each town house. Monthly enforcement fee billing has been initiated for each
owner.
A two bedroom apartment was inspected in response to a complaint. A total of 11
occupants was verified. Village Code would permit a total occupancy of 4 people within the
apartment. The owner has received a notice of violation.
Overcrowding of multi -family properties is being addressed as part of the routine inspections.
Confirmed or suspected overcrowding, often indicated by numerous names on mailboxes,
requires an inspection be conducted of the interior of the unit to determine the total
occupancy.
SEWAGE COMPLAINTS
An unattended sewer backup occurred at the Prospect Commons Apartments. Raw sewage
spread throughout the common areas, playground and 2 apartment building basements. The
sewer was repaired, and the common areas as well as the basements were cleaned and
disinfected.
A sewer backup occurred at the 1420 S. Busse building of the Timberlake Apartments during
the early morning. Sewage filled the basement and overflowed into the first floor apartments.
Apartments are currently posted "Unfit for Human Habitation". Repairs and remodeling are
currently in progress.
COCKROACH COMPLAINTS
In response to a complaint, a severe infestation of cockroaches was observed within an
apartment at 1410 S. Busse. Numerous cockroaches were found throughout the apartment
in the food, furniture, drawers, closets and kitchen cabinets. A citation was issued to the
management. This matter is currently being addressed in court.
Numerous complaints were recieved from Mount Prospect Place Apartments residents in
regards to cockroaches. The management is currently taking an active role towards
extermination. A form letter from our department was provided to management to encourage
tenant cooperation. Tenant complaints have decreased.
ENFORCEMENT - LICENSES
Multi -family rental licenses were withheld and buildings were posted for all owners with
outstanding violations for the calendar year of 1995, or any outstanding judgements. Over
$2,000 in outstanding judgements were collected.
Table 1. Selected Population and Housing Characteristics: 1")
Mount Prospect Village, Illinois
The population counts set ort erem are su sect to posse Ic correction or undercount or overcount. T e United States
Department of Commerce is considering whether to correct these counts and will publish corrected counts, if any, not
later than July 15, 1991. The user should note that there are limitations to many of these data. Please, refer to the
technical documentation rcwided with Summwy Tape File 1A for a further a lavation on the limitations of the data.
TOTAL POPULATION
53,168
TOTAL HOUSING UMTS
20,948
SEX
OCCUPANCY AND TENURE
Male
26,433
Occupied housing units
20,280
Female
26,735
Owner occupied
14,008
Percent owner occupied
69,1
AGE
Renter occupied
6,272
Under 5 years
3,510
Vacant housing units
668
5 to 17 years
7,812
For seasonal, recreational,
18 to 20 years
1,874
or occasional use
36
21 to 24 years
3,595
Homeowner vacancy rate (percent)
08
25 to 44 years
17,590
Rental vacancy rate (percent)
5.7
45 to 54 years
6,430
55 to 59 years
2,976
Persons per owner -occupied unit
2.82
60 to 64 years
3,028
Persons per renter -occupied unit
2.18
65 to 74 years
4,147
Units with over 1 person per room
624
75 to 84 years
1,792
85 years and over
414
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Median age
34.7
1 -unit, detached
12,244
1 -unit, attached
988
Under 18 years
11,322
2 to 4 units
490
Percent of total population
213
5 to 9 units
1,810
65 years and over
6,353
10 or more units
5,303
Percent of total population
11.9
Mobile home, trailer, other
113
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
VALUE
Total Households
20,281
Specified owner -occupied units
12,018
Family households (families)
14,570
Less than $50,000
45
Married -couple families
12,561
$50,000 to $99,999
1,070
Percent of total households
61.9
$100,000 to $149,999
4,318
Other family, male householder
623
$150,000 to $199,999
4,587
Other family, female householder
1,386
5200,000 to $5299,999
1,778
Nonfamily households
5,711
$300,000 or more
120
Percent of total households
28.2
Median (dollars)
155,100
Householder living alone
4,514
Householder 65 years and over
1,574
CONTRACT RENT
Specified renter -occupied units
Persons living in households
53,155
paying cash rent
6,171
Persons per household
2.62
Less than $250
361
$250 to $499
912
GROUP QUARTERS
$500 to $749
4,533
Persons living in group quarters
13
$750 to $999
296
Institutionalized persons
-
$1,000 or more
69
Other persons in group quarters
13
Median (dollars)
564
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
White
47,951
OF HOUSEHOLDER
Black
606
Occupied housing units
20,280
Percent of total population
1.1
White
18,740
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
73
Black
248
Percent of total population
0.1
Percent of occupied units
12
Asian or Pacific Islander
3,417
American Indian, Eskiomo, or Aleut
20
Percent of total population
6.4
Percent of occupied units
0.1
Other race
1,121
Asian or Pacific Islander
9?3
Hispanic origin (of any race)
3,411
Percent of occupied units
4.8
Percent of total population
6.4
Other race
295
Hispanic origin (of any race)
878
Percent of occupied units
4.3
LANDLORD AND TENANT REGULATIONS
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS MEETING
JANUARY 29, 1996
— Charge no fee unless building is in noncompliance — then charge the fee.
Raise Fee for reinspection that do not comply, or for delayed repairs. Keep basic
inspection fee low (Say $10.00).
-- You can increase the fee.
-- Keep inspection on an even keel.
Apartment inspections without request of tenant has been proven illegal in several
situations (Molina).
— Why a license at all. Other villages have no fees... inspection fees already considered
part of tax base.
--- Do not waive any fees. Possibility of "perception" of favoritism.
-- Combine inspections with fire safety!
-- Round about way to impose special ta)ang district.
-- I strongly oppose the Village inspectors have the leeway to do annual apartment
inspections. That is a function of Management and should remain that way. Deal
with management and enter only if a problem is reported by a resident. The present
system is not adequate to deal with long term problems. More time should be allowed
to correct violations. I also oppose the increase in fees — that amount is enough to
totally redo a unit — which is where the dollar should be spent — not on inspections.
Work closer with management on over -occupancy or tenants who don't cooperate
when Managements wants to make repairs.
-- Take a poll from rental properties, tenants as to haw they would feel about the Village
coming into their apartments. Is there any comments on building upkeep or
management.
WQ\WP5.Zdafakbarblquescorn
MINUTES OF VISIONS MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 29, 1996
Staff Present: Trustee Irvana Wilks; Dave Hulseberg, Deputy Director of Community Development; Robert
Roels, Environmental Health Coordinator; Diane Gartner, Environmental Health Inspector; Lisa Angel, Solid
Waste Coordinator, and John Wagner, Crime Prevention Officer.
DAVE HULSEBERG... I appreciate you all taking the time to come out on this very cold wintery night. The
purpose of tonights meeting is to discuss multi -family dwellings within the Village and possible interior
inspections of those dwellings. At this time I would like to introduce some of my staff who are here present.
This is Bob Roels the Coordinator of the Environmental Health Division within the Community Development
Department, and also Diane Gartner of his staff. Also here from the Village is Trustee Wilks. Trustee Wilks
is here to listen to your concerns and hear some of the comments that are raised this evening. From our Public
Works Department we have Lisa Angel and from our Police Department, John Wagner. I think many of you
know John. Thanks for coming all of you. I think in order to set a little bit of the groundwork for this evenings
meeting I would like to takelhis opportunity to show you a five minute video in which we take a look at one of
the problem properties that is within the Village, what our staff faced in trying to correct the situations that
existed there and what the net result was. As you know, right now the Village does not conduct interior
inspections. We only inspect the interiors on a complaint basis system and this is a result of one of the
complaints we received. These service requests that come in or complaints you may call them, are very time
consuming for our staff, and require a lot of effort and energy. Such energy that we the staff do not have to
commit to such a project. So with that as it is, Bob, role the tape as they say in Hollywood.
VIEWING OF THE 1165 BOXWOOD DRIVE VIDEO
DAVE HULSEBERG... That particular video provides some highlights as to why we are here this evening. What
I would like to do is ask Bob to ran through the proposal that was presented and that you, so to speak, a copy
of within the letter you received. Bob.
ROBERT ROELS... To address the problems we are seeing in the apartments we have three (3) amendments
we are considering. The first one is to include a provision to inspect 10% to 20% of the apartments on an
annual basis. The idea would be that over a certain period we would have the opportunity to see that it is
maintained. To help fund this program we are proposing increasing the license fee to $14.00. This would
provide one additional staff person to try to meet the increased workload. The third proposal is an incentive
to try and reward those properties that are able to maintain their properties in a good condition and that would
be to reduce or waive the license fees for properties that are in compliance with the Village Code. At this time
we are hear to get your comments and your input into these ideas and to accept any other ideas you may have.
So, I would like to open the floor and gather your comments.
AUDIENCE... All of us certainly didn't like the 1165 Boxwood situation. However, adverse press from the Daily
Herald, Chicago Tribune that was partly generated by Village staff, put all the landlords in Mount Prospect in
a very bad light. It made me embarrassed that I am a landlord and property owner and manager in the Village.
1165 Boxwood is an extraordinary piece probably the worst you guys have ever faced in this Village and it really
kinda reflected bad against all of us. My real question is our need for further inspection. Certainly in the area
of fees, proposing a 100% increase in fees from $7.00 to $14.00, an additional tax on building owners is
something all of us really dread . We just took increases in our scavenger services, large water rate increases
in the Citizens Utility area, all of us suffered increased assessments from the real estate tax people. All of us
have taken a big increase in the Commonwealth Edison electric rate and now a proposal to increase by 100%
a tax for licensing our buildings, we really question it. I wonder, I was thinking on the way over here, I said I
have been property management of small apartment buildings for twenty-seven years. To my knowledge there
are only two or three Villages in the whole metropolitan area that have any licensing fee at all on apartment
buildings. I question why we have to have any fee in the Village of Mount Prospect. I am concern about the
privacy of my residents. I think that having an inspection of a rental unit, is that my correct understanding, Bob,
it would be rented units that you would inspect.
ROBERT ROELS... Yes.
AUDIENCE... You would go into someone's house and inspect their house?
ROBERT ROELS... Yes.
AUDIENCE... Can I concur with that?
AUDIENCE... Would you allow someone to come into your...
DAVE HULSEBERG... Waif,'excuse me, hold on. We are not going to call on anyone until, I mean please do
not speak until your called on. We want to keep some decorum, and give everyone a chance to speak so we
can write down the comments and move forward on this.
ROBERT ROELS... Are you talking about their house or their apartment.
AUDIENCE... Their house. Their house, their home, is their apartment.
ROBERT ROELS... We have been in many people's homes.
AUDIENCE... At their request based on a complaint, maybe that's proper. But just arbitrarily picking 10 or 20%
of the people's residence or their apartments to inspect, I think that is wrong. I think the same thing should
apply to the single family homes in Mt. Prospect then, if we are going to talk about it in multiple family units.
DAVE HULSEBERG... I appreciate your comments.
AUDIENCE... Can I say something here, I have to concur with him on that. As an owner of a building and also
manager and representing Windsor Courts here, we as owners cannot go into apartments without giving them
twenty-four hour notice or unless there is an emergency such as gas smell or water flowing out of the
apartment. And again, if we could educate the owners to inspect those apartments, you know, and if we have
a problem, to call the Village like I have done in the past to say why I wanted to evict a person, but I think you
would find that people would be calling me up and telling me they don't approve of this to inspect the apartment.
If there is a problem, yes, I would call the Village and say, this is this building and I know there is a problem
and as representative, and President of the Association we delegate you to go in there and inspect it. Because
we know there is a problem. And I know of several buildings that are problems. But this is, I think, you are
going to find big problems with this because we, as owners, can't just walk into an apartment.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Well, certainly there is a legal issue and our Village Council is taking a look at it. This
is to throw ideas and I think we have heard that comment echoed now. Lois.
AUDIENCE... What is your plan. How are you going to handle this? Maybe if we hear your ideas. Your
presentation. How are you going to put this in effect?
ROBERT ROELS... There are many other communities that do this. Typically, what they do is, they tell owner
of the apartment buildings or the managers what percentage of the apartments they want to see and let the
management choose which apartments. Then let the management notify the tenants and when they will be
there and then they go ahead and do the inspection.
AUDIENCE... Like at the same time we are setting up our building inspection with you.
ROBERT ROELS... Yes, typically it is all done at once.
AUDIENCE... And we would take care of it with our tenants and get their approval before you come out to
inspect the whole property, and at the time you are inspecting the apartments.
ROBERT ROELS... That's correct.
AUDIENCE... Yeah, will you bring a search warrant?
DAVE HULSEBERG... If required we have obtained administrative search warrants in the past.
AUDIENCE... Going into a tenants apartment, I think it is the same situation your dealing with here.
ROBERT ROELS... If a tenant refuses access, we would have to get a warrant, that is correct.
AUDIENCE... One thing, I have not said anything yet, I want to listen first, but Bob said many other Villages
do this. So that I can be specific and do some research afterward, can you tell me of any other Village that
do.
ROBERT ROELS... Yes, in the immediate area, Oak Park and Palatine.
AUDIENCE... Yeah, Palatine I know.
AUDIENCE... Palatine does not and neither does Oak Park.
AUDIENCE... Oak Park may.
AUDIENCE... They have a law that says they can, but they haven't tried to do it yet.
AUDIENCE... Lets be specific, I want to be specific.
AUDIENCE... Several of them, Schiller Park.
AUDIENCE... The question I would have regarding your video is that, when was the last time you have an
inspector out at 1165 Boxwood? That is one question I would ask, and the second is that I think that anytime
an inspector is out there and they take a look at the common areas which they have the capability of doing,
you would have noticed problems in this one way, before without even going through any of the apartments,
and I would ask you when was your inspector at 1165 Boxwood? And was there any problems?
DAVE HULSEBERG... Prior to this complaint?
AUDIENCE... Yes.
ROBERT ROELS... We were in court ongoing with 1165 Boxwood for almost two years.
AUDIENCE... So you already knew there was a problem, and I'm willing to say that after talking to one of your
inspectors, they know the problem buildings by walking through common areas without even going any further
because most of the time, the problem is going to be throughout the buildings. If the common areas are not
being taken care, you can bet the rest of it is going to be in poor shape, Okay. And what I'm saying is your
trying to correct a problem but your not correcting one you have already and that is, if you have an inspector
going out and he has a problem and your already in court, you already know there's a problem, you have the
capability of going further with that particular landlord.
ROBERT ROELS... What's happened in the last two years is that we have gone a lot further. We have taken
a very aggressive, pro -active approach, trying to prevent these problems from occurring again. And we are
going into more and more apartments where we see these problems. And sometime we are finding there is
a direct relationship between the common areas and the apartments, I would like to tell you this is an isolated
incident, but many times, we are running into apartments that the only difference is between these apartments
and this one is that it wasn't a sewer backup that the owner refused to do nothing about. I would like to believe
there is a direct correlation all the time, we are not seeing a direct correlation all the time and we are not
making all of these problems public.
AUDIENCE... Can I say something, excuse my english, I am not that good, but in this hallway where everyone
can see written things, broken things, these things don't come in one or two days, or in a week. It takes time
for a building to look that bad, and when we started we were cited for scratches on the wall, for new painting,
which was fine, it is suppose to be clean and nice. You know, how can you give license in this building when
you go through and see all of these horrible things?
ROBERT ROELS... I know it is very frustrating for people who are doing a very good job trying to maintain there
buildings and they see us pick out one item.
AUDIENCE... Okay, it just an example, it's not that I say you didn't try your best, I think an inspector walking
through in an apartment building, they can kinda of tell what kind of condition is the building. Especially if it is
a good inspector.
ROBERT ROELS... Right, what I was leading we have to write up everything, basically that is broken or in poor
repair. If you have one item, then you only have one item. But, in a building like 1165 Boxwood I don't know
the total number of violations I don't want to guess off the top of my head.
AUDIENCE... I understand, it was just an example but my point is that an inspector can see just from the
common areas you know. We can see if the building is in good condition. Just from outside, the windows, from
around the building I think you can see what kind of condition the building has.
DAVE HULSEBERG... But doesn't give us an opportunity to write a code deficiency. I mean we have to be able
to physically see.
AUDIENCE... Because I see it to be a little bit strange you know, for someone to come into my own home and
say they have to inspect my home. You know if those owners have their own homes, you can't go to them,
how come can you go to these people who live in an apartment. They have the dignity and privacy you can't
go in an say yes we want to inspect their apartment. This is their home, they might not have the money to buy
a private home, but this is their home, this is their whole life.
ROBERT ROELS... And in the communities that this works, the management and owners notify the tenants
when they will be through. The idea would not be that we would say that we want to inspect your building
tomorrow. You would have enough time to notify the tenants.
AUDIENCE... I understand that, but it is little bit hard for me if I rent an apartment and then I have the Village
come and inspect my apartment. I mean it is a little bit...
ROBERT ROELS... Yes, I understand, I just wanted to explain.
AUDIENCE... I am an owner and in the city of Park Forest there is a federal lawsuit outstanding by the
residents, against the city, are you going to wait until this law suit is over.
DAVE HULSEBERG... The question was raised, if their is an outstanding court case, he indicates in Park Forest
and would the Village move forward without that case being resolved? I am unaware of that situation right now.
I certainly will ask our attorneys to take a look that particular issue.
AUDIENCE... Do you feel that the Boxwood situation could have been eliminated if you could have gone
through the apartments?
ROBERT ROELS... Yes, it would have been much easier to bring up all the problems that were occurring in
the apartment and the case would have appeared much more serious to the judges. It would have effected
the tenants directly. We could have shown direct relationships between their health and safety being
jeopardized because of the conditions of the apartments.
AUDIENCE... But, now going through the buildings, you can kind of see if there is problems. Graffiti on the
walls, security doors broken, you know what I'm saying. Railings broke, windows broke, different things. By
going into the apartments, that's not going to tell that you much. As soon as you walk into the buildings, you
will see it right it right away. Mailboxes broken, doors broke, smoke detectors ripped down, its a different
situation.
DAVE HULSEBERG... But, again, those are not life safety issues that effects that particular apartment that
would make it uninhabitable.
AUDIENCE... That effects the whole building, security doors.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Correct, we certainly have been in Housing Court enough times that we recognize the
way the courts are viewing things and unless we have absolute information about what's inside that apartment
the judge isn't taking the action. Ms. Gomez.
AUDIENCE... Its a disgrace. Ok the inspectors come through, they give you like a one month notice to come
through and inspect the apartments. And now the thing is that they've been doing this since probably when the
buildings were built, and your talking about going into a building that is 20, 30 years old and all of a sudden
your going to come through and start to inspect everything, now the thing is that when you go through for an
inspection, your not supposed to go through for a face lift on the building but your supposed to make sure that
the apartments are safe for the tenants to live. So anyway, when you go through, you don't look at the walls
and say the walls are in poor repair, your supposed to go through and then tell them if there is a hole in the
wall, if the paint is paint chipping. You know, make it right to the point. Not like window in poor repair, is it
broken, is it falling out.
DAVE HULSEBERG... So you are asking for greater clarity in the inspections
AUDIENCE... Exactly. It makes it easier on the landlord. And also another thing is what happens with an
association. Your apartment building has an association. How do you go about when a landlord gets written
up, okay for the common area, or for the landscaping, or for anything on the common area for which the
association is suppose to be responsible for.
ROBERT ROELS... What we have asked for is the documents. You have documents that explain where the
associations responsibilities begins and ends. And so in those situations we have asked for copies of those
documents to determine whose responsible.
AUDIENCE... (unable to understand) Landscaping is never cleaned up. Broken windows, no one takes care
of those.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Well it seems from hearing what the other folks say, your property may be in a unique
situation. We would be happy to spend some time after the meeting and address that with you.
AUDIENCE... Okay. Now item #3 for properties that are in compliance with the Village code and how do we
know everything was done right. How do we know if everything has been taken care of.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Okay, we will take that point.
AUDIENCE... Two comments; one in regard to increasing the license fee and increasing one staff person.
think that we would need to see some detailed specific information about the expenses and income and all
these other factors for the department before we could make any useful judgements on that point, including
what effect you would have before, after the increase, how you are going to use the money. I would certainly
want to see that before I made any, before I had an opinion for or against the proposal. And I would go along
with the comment of Ms. Gomez about waiving a license fee if they are in compliance. I would assume that's
before an inspection but if you go to the expense of inspecting the property, you have spent the money, and
if it is okay what's the justification for waving the fee? It's very much open to abuse or the appearance of
abuse.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Okay, fine it's a great point. I want make sure I give everyone an opportunity to speak
before I call on people twice.
AUDIENCE... Item #3 you state that the properties are in compliance of Village Code at the time of annual
inspection. When those buildings were built, about fifteen years ago, the codes were a little bit different than
they are today. What codes are we talking about? Are we talking about the codes they were originally built
under or are talking about today's BOCA codes?
ROBERT ROELS... We are talking about the BOCA Property Maintenance Code.
AUDIENCE... It does have two sets for existing and for new, maybe he doesn't quite understand it.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Well, we are using the BOCA Property Maintenance Code.
ROBERT ROELS... For existing buildings.
AUDIENCE.... Would it be possible to look at an altemative and that is that, for the safety of the tenants and
well being of the residents of Mt. Prospect, so that when you find a non compliant, bad landlord, bad situation,
just on your inspection of a situation with common area, that you can go in and fine them and go after them,
I think this would give you the revenue if your looking for that. I think you would be able to find the bad
landlords or the bad situations or the health and safety violations by looking at common area and having a
probable cause to go further when you see that, and when you find it you fine somebody, okay, rather than try
to blanket and go after let's say, the landlord that's trying to keep a good building, instead of making it look like
Mt. Prospect is a gestapo type of thing. I'm trying think if you go back after the bad ones, I don't think you
would have anybody have the feeling, because you're trying to straighten it out. Bob just mentioned that you
were after this one bad landlord for two years. I mean there's got to be a problem here.
DAVE HULSEBERG... The problem is the way the courts are set up, quite honestly, it is a very laborious
process to go through and its certainly not the Village's effort to raise, so to speak revenues through fines. We
would rather see property owners take what would have been fines and invest it in their property and correct
the deficiencies. That's our goal is to have quality Grade A buildings within our community, its not to make
fines.
AUDIENCE... But, but maybe there's a problem, your trying to after a bad guy here or bad landlord and your
running into problems in the courts. But your solution to go after, not go after, but to try and look at everybody
to see if you can uncover problems when I think you already know where there might be problems. I mean if
I walked around, I've been in building management for a long enough, if I walked around Mount Prospect
without even going in to an Apartment I could tell you where there are some bad landlords. And then, if I had
probable cause, I think if there was a situation that I could Health, and Fire and Safety, I would get a court order
to be able to go in and take a look. Then if we found something in non-compliance then you could force the
landlord to do it. And you could fine him. Now I'm not sure what the legality of that is to go in, but your
already going to find something rather than say I want to go in all of them, you know what I'm saying. I'm trying
to go after the bad ones. It's just a different approach.
AUDIENCE... I think that the problem right now is that there is enough deficiencies and landlords and buildings
is that a 10% or 20% inspection rate is going to say you find those one or two apartments that are bad in a six
flat and the building inspector would decide they would go into the rest of the apartments.
ROBERT ROELS... If it was thought that there was reason that would jeopardize someone's health and safety,
yes we would request to go into the additional apartments.
AUDIENCE... I think the people are bashing the owners when they should be bashing management. If the
owners don't make sure that they have the proper person in management, if the manager doesn't get off her
chair to do anything, the owners are not going to know what is going on in their buildings. It's up to
management to make sure that they know what their tenants are doing. And if its the managers job to go in
and look at the apartment, make any kind of visit they can. I go in and say I'm here to see how everything is.
AUDIENCE... Also it is a benefit to many owners. Many owners don't look at their own apartments. They
haven't seen them for years. The ceilings could be flooded out by the people upstairs. I'm just saying it could
benefit both sides.
AUDIENCE.... I have four points. 1) The apartment inspection, we always do the common areas. I have no
problem with that, if that's the way it's going to be, it going to be. However, there are several, not many two,
that I've read in the paper, I'll be glad to bring in. The Village is going to end up spending my tax dollars to
defend a suit that we already have a lot of cases going on for the invasion of privacy in apartment inspections.
I'm against apartment inspections. 2)1 have no problem with the common area inspections. Because I manage
in other areas, I have to ask why we have to have a license fee at all? Now that you want to raise it I can only
believe after we pressed to go through- this special taxing district, this is sort of a back door attempt to raise
taxes on multi -family units. To raise revenues we didn't receive from the special tax district. 3) Instead of
taking out the fines you can't collect in the courts from owners by increased fees. Your talking about laborious
hours to enforce it which I understand, why don't we work the other way to change the system. To make sure
that when owners have a problem that it is brought up, instead of taken care of through the courts, and
everything is not waived through the judges who don't understand what the problems are. Why should I have
to pay twice for someone's misunderstanding or'a legal loophole. Why don't we tighten that up instead. Is it
easier to take my $7.00 a unit to fight the courts to make it understand and make it work. Its a business. 4)
Bob has said and I think this is something the Village should do, that the people don't understand what's
available. The lead laws that just came in which was before we passed a brochure to tenants. You can make
it part of Article 18, every tenant moving into Mount Prospect must get the little information booklet. Do like the
Chicago lease, make an attachment up from the Village, charge us for them, let us give it to them. I would be
glad to give it to them. I really would. Yes we give them the ordinance. But what I'm saying is they don't read
it. I'm talking about a folder with big numbers on it. As an option, because they won't read the article, we know
that. But give them something they see, a little pamphlet. Have you seen the "lead free " pamphlet, they are
really easy to understand, state law . Those are the four things.
AUDIENCE... I have a question? Are your going to let the owners decide what units you will go inside of.
Aren't you afraid that you will only see the best units.
ROBERT ROELS... That's a'good point. I didn't finish with that, the other thing we would do is keep track what
units we inspected the prior year. So the idea would be that we don't inspect the same units year after year,
and over five or six years we would see all the apartments.
AUDIENCE... Are you going to fine the tenants.
ROBERT ROELS... I have cited the tenant on common area inspections for storage in the hallway. We have
done that on a complaint basis where we have gone in and mailed a notice to the tenant and the owner. One
point I do want to make is, the reason for the five or six years is really to give people some time to address
some of the problems they have. One of the things that has happened is they have apartments that have
gotten into bad shape over a long period of time and they are going to need some time to correct all of the
problems. The idea of doing 10% to 20% is to give someone time to run their business and get all the problem
corrected in an entire building. Sure we would like to see it done much sooner. There are some communities
who try doing 100% inspection. Des Plaines was one and they had to back off. They weren't able to keep up
with it. That's part of the reason for inspecting a certain representative sample of each of the buildings in the
area.
AUDIENCE.... Let me ask something. When you're in the apartment, what are you going to inspect, what are
you looking for.
ROBERT ROELS... The Property Maintenance Code, existing structures code, you are looking to see that
everything is maintained. Basically, anything that is broken needs to be fixed. Your looking to see if the floors
are in good repair. In the kitchen, if their floor water is tight, looking for damaged walls, floors and ceiling,
making sure that the cabinets and counter tops are something that can be cleaned. So that the tenants have
a clean and sanitary place to keep their food, if their able to prepare food safely so pest control can be
effective. It's not going to work unless things can be kept clean. You want to make sure that the plumbing
works. You can check on the electrical, probably check on the outlets to see that they have been wired
properly. Over thirty years there is some maintenance and someone may have made some mistakes putting
things back together. You are looking for anything that is broken is what it boils down to.
DAVE HULSEBERG... We have some sample brochures in fact that highlight the various items to those
inspections and if you give me your name right after the meeting, I will make sure we send them right off to you.
Teresa, we will start from the back this time.
AUDIENCE... There's two points that are not clear. One point is about the (unable to understand).
DAVE HULSEBERG... Ms. Gomez, as you know we and you are both in litigation on this matter, so its not
appropriate that we comment at this time. If you would like to again have a discussion in the same regard,
behind closed doors, we would be more than happy to do that, but this is not the time or appropriate venue to
"so to speak" bring out our laundry. Certainly the Village is willing and ready to work with responsible property
owners in bringing up their buildings to code.
AUDIENCE... I have a suggestion and I don't know if it will be considered or not. What if the inspectors inspect
an apartment prior to being rented
DAVE HULSEBERG... Okay, that's a great idea.
AUDIENCE... Now, then you know how that particular landlord turns over an apartment. It looks like new or
it looks like crap.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Now the one problem we would have on that is we find very often that the very poor
apartments don't seem to tum over. Maybe if there was a way.
AUDIENCE... I have people in my building that have been there for seventeen years. I have people that have
been there since the day it was opened. In fact a fellow called me tonight that has problems with his
dishwasher and his father who lives there might have to go into a home because he has alzheimers so I have
my tenants staying four, five, six, seven years. The only reason they move is because it is time to buy a house
or something like that, but its not because they want to move, they like the building.
DAVE HULSEBERG... I think you brought up a good idea there though that we can take a look at. Thank you.
AUDIENCE... We would be more than glad to show you a unit we were turning over.
AUDIENCE... The question that I have is if you had a bad landlord or a slum landlord and you passed this cost
along of increasing the cost, they are going to look at that as doing business and its not going to bother them.
And if you go and inspect it and it doesn't comply that's part of doing business. It will take you two years to
comply or whatever, just like Bob was saying before. But what it does is penalizes, you still have not addressed
the problem, it penalizes the good landlords that are taking care of their buildings. You've added a cost on to
them , you still haven't addressed the bad landlord. Nothing has changed. If I was a bad landlord, this is not
going to effect me at all. Your going to be in court with me for two years. I'm going to pay the $14.00, you're
going to come and inspect, you're going to find it wrong and I'm still not going to correct it. You're not
addressing the problem.
ROBERT ROELS... The court may be very frustrating but its not totally ineffective. We have gone out and
collected fines and put liens on properties and gotten people's attention, and because of that we have many
owners coming into court . Makes the job a little bit tougher when the judge has to face someone to get them
to make a decision. They tend to be a little bit nicer. Because the Village has been aggressive about collecting
the fines and getting a Judgement, people are now coming to court and doing what the judge says. We see
fines as high $2,500 for one particular problem. What's also happening now is we are seeing owners, when
we go into apartments, having to spend $2,000 to $5,000 to fix up a unit that has been left in bad shape.
Those kind of costs do affect an owner, but these are also the problems they have to be addressed inside the
unit. So, the problem owners are not getting through this without any problems.
AUDIENCE... No, what I really was tying to say, if you're trying to hone in on them and you find out it doesn't
really change them, then you put the burden back on.
DAVE HULSEBERG... No, actually they won't be able to be licensed the following year.
AUDIENCE... A lot of them probably don't care.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Actually you find, based off our records, that since we adopted the licensing requirement,
everyone is licensed in the Village and there is no one that is ignoring the licensing requirement and the Village
would actively pursue anyone who did not meet that standard.
AUDIENCE... I guess that's what I would be interested in. To find out the compliance on those that you have
gone after and if you do have some teeth in what you say you're going to do rather than, your know, going after,
if you are able to come back and say we are getting rid of the problems in the Village and we have teeth in our
compliance laws and we are going to court and we are really getting rid of these people. Instead of coming
out and saying, you know, in order to try and do this, it gives the appearance of going after all the people to
try and correct the problem of a few, and it looks like you guys are not doing your job. I mean somewhere
down the line, maybe the courts aren't giving you enough support. That's the problem I have.
ROBERT ROELS... We do have a court watch which really helped improve the court system. It has been
beneficial. Just to let you know that there are public and owners here who have helped try to improve the court
system. As far as documentation in our success rate, our success rate has improved almost 100%. People
are complying almost 100% quicker than they were three, four years ago. I can't give you the exact rate. We
do get 100% compliance with everything we write up eventually . There is maybe 1, 2, 3% that might hang out
there for a year or two years, but they are extreme, And for the most part people do take care of what we are
asking , and it does take longer. What we are running into now and finding more of is that we getting into
apartments with extreme conditions, a lot more than we ever expected , and we are looking for a way to
address those problems inside of apartments. The tenants are not complaining. We have passed out business
cards, we have sent out form letters to buildings, we even distributed flyers to every single apartment in Mount
Prospect to try to get people to participate in this process from the tenants and this all started about three
years ago. Our success in getting the tenants to report these problems has been a failure. And unfortunately
what we are finding out is the best way we are addressing the problems is to actually go into those apartments,
whether its from us seeing a problem in the hallway and asking to go inside of an apartment, or from the Police
Dept. giving us a call, or Public Works when they are changing a meter, letting us know. And we are looking
for a way to try and make sure these tenants have safe, clean, maintained housing.
AUDIENCE... When you go into an apartment and find really filthy conditions, now this has nothing to do with
the owner, everything is working the way it should be working, will the tenants be written up in violation or
what's going to happen here?
ROBERT ROELS... Yes, in fact Diane Gartner has, I don't want to talk about something specifically that is in
court, but we have cited both parties. The owner does have some responsibility to let the tenant know they are
not keeping the unit clean and we have cited both parties to let them know that the unit must be maintained,
clean and in sanitary condition.
AUDIENCE... Can I make a comment in regard to that matter. Just recently, I had to call an owner to show
an apartment that I though was in a terrible condition. The man had spent $6,000 renovating this apartment and
both owners walked in and knocked on their door, and looked at everything and he said I want this cleaned up
now, and if you do not clean it up now, you will be out the door. Then again, this is because I took the incentive
to look at the blinds that were broken. Why were the blinds broken? Had to be a reason. Walked in there for
the reason that I had to inspect something and the problem that it was, and I found that condition in that
apartment. And this was not the fault of the owner.
AUDIENCE... Would it help to go into the vacant apartments and inspect it before tenants are given occupancy.
This way you would know that the apartment is in satisfactory condition. Then when you came back a year
later you would know who was responsible?
DAVE HULSEBERG... It certainly addresses part of the issue, put it does not address the entire issue. Yes
sir.
AUDIENCE... It seems like it is a Pandora's box to inspect an already occupied apartment, I would like to take
a straw poll of good property owners at the end of this year to see how many people are totally in favor of
inspecting an apartment that is occupied or that you are not in favor. If your not in favor, I would like you to
raise your hand.
AUDIENCE... We did something different. We have been in this for a number of years. In Melrose Park, Shiller
Park, Palatine, they all have these rules that say they can come in with reasonable notice and inspect
apartments, but the Federal Court says you can't. So we sent out what I would say , a little questionnaire that
said the Village would like to come in and make an inspection on such and such date, check the box if you want
us to let them in, or I will be home for the inspection, or I don't want to take part in the inspection and sign it.
Now, we are off the hook, if they say let us in.
AUDIENCE... But, would your enforced ordinance allow that?
DAVE HULSEBERG... Right now we haven't developed an ordinance per se. We came here to hear your
ideas and suggestions.
AUDIENCE... Who would not like to see their apartments entered that are occupied by residents by those
officials from Inspection Services. Personally, I would not, if I was an apartment resident I would not like
someone to come in, unless I called them and asked them to inspect.
AUDIENCE... You have to do that anyway, before you do anything you have to call your tenants.
DAVE HULSEBERG... I don't want to, sort of speak, put a quash on this but right now we are in an investigative
stage, trying to come up with ideas. We are not coming up with any particular ordinance to say exactly what
you are suggesting . We are here to get ideas. We already have one deviation, we've got a second one over
there and a third one back there.
AUDIENCE... This letter from Bob kind of indicates this is going to further committee, a copy to the Mayor and
the Board of Trustees have been copied, this sounds pretty serious.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Well, I can tell you that right now, and Trustee Wilks is here, we have come here to
solicit ideas from you so that we can develop some type of ordinance and propose some sort of language
AUDIENCE... From this letter you have indicated that many owners who were in favor, and I suggest that just
a very limited number in favor and I'm talking about good owners are not in agreement with this.
DAVE HULSEBERG... I'm not saying anyone's a good or a ... I don't think there is any need to go through a
straw poll vote. I think certainly when this issue eventually reaches the Village Board for some sort of action,
rest assured there will probably be a room much more crowded than this one is with all of you soliciting your
ideas and comments. And I have written everyone's comments. We certainly have the opportunity to share
all the ideas and thoughts that are here. And we are not making any assertion that everyone is in favor or 50%
in favor, and 50% against. There will be no comments on that, we are here to get your constructive ideas and
suggestions. And that's really what we want so we can create a workable document. Yes sir....
AUDIENCE... I would like to make the comment that I think we need to be very careful to make sure that
whatever you come up with as far as a proposal, has to be very simple and workable. The idea of giving the
tenants a choose, that's good. A lot better than making it mandatory and getting involved with privacy issues.
That's a lot simpler and you need to make sure, it's going to be controversial, so you need to make very sure
that there's not going to be too much second guessing about to waive this and report it and require that . The
rules need to be very clear and simple.
AUDIENCE... What about the Village getting notices from the tenants as a whole what their opinion would be?
Let the tenants decide why or why not.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Okay, Yes sir.
AUDIENCE... On February 13 are you going to have a meeting to make up a poll source, is it going to be a
study or.
DAVE HULSEBERG... There will be, let's call it a white paper. Excuse me, I want to repeat the question. The
question was What is going to occur at the February 13 Board Meeting with the Committee of the Whole
believe it is with the Village Board.
AUDIENCE..: What is that?
DAVE HULSEBERG... Committee of the Whole, Trustee Wilks would you like to stand and give us..Here in the
Village we don't have standing committees. The Village Board takes it upon itself basically to work out all the
issues of the Village. So every other week is the Committee of the Whole where they role up their sleeves and
look at the problems facing the community and try to find solutions to those problems. At the February 13
Meeting we will be with the Committee of the Whole in which it is a working committee of the Board. What staff
will behaving prepared for the Village Board is a 'White paper'. Basically what a 'White paper" is government
being those of us up at the table taking a look at the issue, providing the comments we have heard today
indicating some background of what the problem is as we see it, some possible solutions to that problem, and
different proposals as to how the Board could address the issue and letting them grapple with the very same
comments that we heard this evening in a lengthy discussion. There may be some recommendations from staff,
or there may not be, that has not been ascertained yet because it hasn't because it hasn't been fully presented
before the Village Manager for his action. So right now we are on a fact finding mode and we are trying to
develop our "white paper' in order to present to the Board on February 13.
AUDIENCE... Is the public allowed to comment at this meeting.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Yes, in fact once we develop the 'White paper' and its out to the Board on February 13,
its not going to be the end all, be all , I'm sure at that meeting. It will have to come back to the Board for some
sort of action and the 'White paper' would become a public document for you to take a look at, scrutinize, make
any comment that you feel that we might have left out. You know, we keep in a very open process and we
want you to take a look at it and provide your own insights. I think this is a good example of very open process
and one in which we are trying to draft a need for the community. We are trying to make a better Mount
Prospect.
AUDIENCE... Is it possible to make a proposal that you don't charge any fee unless someone is in
noncompliance.
DAVE HULSEBERG... We have provided pieces of paper in front of each of you as well as a piece of paper
and a pencil. Write down on there any other ideas you may have that we can utilize in the 'white paper,. I
assure you that if you write it down there, it will be included in the 'White paper' as well as with any comments
that were made here tonight. Other comments folks.
AUDIENCE... I know you don't like the idea of a straw pole but I did hear one comment back here that any
good, sane, manager or owner would be all in favor of this and would be overwhelming support. I would feel
some curiosity because some of us do not feel that is exactly so.
DAVE HULSEBERG.... I'm getting that sense that there is no one way or another and rather than having sides
come out of this meeting whose where, I would rather believe that this is a working meeting and that we are
trying to get some solutions, and leave on a very friendly basis with everybody.
AUDIENCE... We have to be strong on this so that we are on an even keel. That every building gets inspected
and I know that in the past I voiced my opinion loud and clear about this. If we are going to do one, we are
going to do the other ones. We have to get in all the building and not only that, we have to keep the inspection
on an even keel. If your going to tell this person this is wrong, then you better get the one that doesn't. I'm
going to have a discussion with Diane later on, some people have painted and the other ones were let go, now
this is where we are going to get problems, you have to be consistent.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Sure there has to be consistency. Thank you all for coming.
AUDIENCE... If the tenants are responsible for repairs are you going to allow for something like this.
ROBERT ROELS... It is already currently in the Code. If there is a written agreement between the landlord and
the tenant whose responsible for repairs then it is permitted in the Village code.
AUDIENCE... I would like to make one point that I talked about when I was talking to Lil, you guys are health
and safety, the associations are instrumental in appearances as well as health and safety. Especially when
we are talking about balconies. Like at Windsor Court, the association develops these rules and regulations to
make the complexes look good. Cars that have flat tires in the parking lots, especially things on balconies. I
know you guys are trying to write these up, but when you see some tire sitting on a balcony, as a health and
safety violation, which is a little shaky. But what can you do about bicycles, nothing. Associations can do all
of that stuff. Associations should take it upon themselves to do a monthly inspection and write up violations
of their rules, which the Village can't do. Some of the associations in Mount Prospect are not doing that. In fact,
I think the majority are not doing anything. Associations should take the responsibility for the appearance and
do those monthly inspections, and enforce them according to the rules and regulations. That would take a big
load off of you guys. Number one and second they are able to do a lot of things legally that the Village can't
do. You guys have to work together here.
DAVE HULSEBERG... Thank you very much, thank you all for coming. If you have written down any comments,
if you would be so kind as to drop them off up front so we are sure to get them. Also if you have not signed
in, please sign in so we can get you copies of anything we reproduce.
LANDLORD AND TENANT REGULATIONS
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS MEETING
JANUARY 29, 1996
ATTENDANCE
Lois McMichael
547 Ida Ct.
593-7453
Isla Court
Vft. McMichael
547 Ida Ct.
593-7453
Ida Court
Jane Stallone
536 Ida Ct.
439-7588
Ida Court
Saladin Ayoub
1175 Boxwood
213-7462
Boxwood Apts.
Jack Barringer
P.O. Box 7235
259-6650
Diver West
Prospect Heights 60070
Jerry Mulick
1510 River West Ct.
995-9634
River West
Pattie Touhey
1706 Forest Cove
439-7477
Forest Cove
Jan Wroblewski
543 Ida Ct.
437-2014
Picicwick Commons
Tony/Concetta Dialvestro
8122 W. 83rd Place
430-2706
Countryside
John Wegner
MPPD
870-5650
Lisa Angell
MPPW
870-5640
Eugene Oswald
1107 W. Prospect
259-6503
Irminger Apts.
Ann Bruce
1450 S. Busse
439100
Timberlake
Nina Persino
MP Human Services
870-5680
Conrad May
410 S. Condota
259-6467
Jim Mihlbauer
1280 Westridge PI.
250-7745
Windsor Courts
Page 2
Attendance
Teresa Gomez
Oak Terrace
Dan Chalifoux
475 Enterprise Dr.
439-5010
The Colony
Jay Patel
Pharoahs
Al Katz
1730 Sable
952-3843
Sable & Brownstone
Bob Edmiston
P.O. Box 163
253-7618
Lillian Perham
501 W. Dempster
956-633
Windsor
Maria Hansen
511 W. Dempster
593-8168
Windsor
Anna Tsourounis
527 W. Dempster
428-3283
Windsor
John Mowry
560 Ida Ct.
427-8464
Ida Court
Mathew Panicker
9802 N. Carmen
966-0553
Pickwick
Niles, IL
John Zywicld
4038 N. Mango
312-202-8224
Pharoahs
Chicago, IL
Keith Nyborg
1295 Rand Road
824078
Mansard/Invesco
Des Plaines, IL
Ed/Joyce Van Gee"
2032 W. Algonquin, 3A
437-9456
Prospect Commons
Art Zerby
2006 W. Algonquin, 2C
439-7427
Prospect Commons
Dennis Eash
1470 Sanders Rd.
480-0593
HawthomelOaks
Northbrook, IL
Mansard/Pickwick
Vincent Fore
1709 W. Victoria
823-0838
Victoria Hills
Irvana Wilks
Village Trustee
Ramachandran
2006 W. Algonquin
640-6240
Prospect Commons
Majat Dinhu
Come see our Apartments — A Distinctive Lifestyle
Mr. Robert J. Roels
Village of Mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
1295 Rand Road . Des Plaines, Illinois 60016
Phone: (847) 824-4078
Fax: (847) 824-7470
January 25, 1996
Re: Proposed amendments to the
Residential Landlord and
Tenant Regulations
Dear Mr. Roels:
Thank you for your quick preview of the three proposed
amendments to the Landlord -Tenant regulations. We have
reservations with regard to each proposal:
1) Mandatory inspections of inhabited apartments without
the prior written consent of the resident have
consistently been ruled unconstitutional and against
our national search -and -seizure statutes. Landlords
and municipalities have paid large sums in recent
years as compensation for violation of personal rights
to privacy.
2) Do we really need to double the license fee to add one
more inspector?
3) Do you feel your first line inspector (such as Diane
Gartner or the person you wish to add) should have the
authority to waive your annual license fee? If this
were ever done on other than an honest and objective
basis, and someone was injured as a result of an
"overlooked violation", would Mount Prospect be open
to liability?
Page 2
We are very much in favor of inspections and enforcement of
reasonable housing rules, and will vote for additional money,
if needed, to help make the Village a better place for all of
us. However, we feel you could accomplish a lot more by
concentrating your existing manpower on violations that
affect the health and safety of Mount Prospect residents
rather than to try to enforce what you consider to be "the
letter of the law".
MJG:sg
Sincerely,
Daniel H. Carter
General Partner -CRF Ltd. Partnership
850 Sheridan Road
Wilmette, Illinois 60091
January 27, 1996
Robert J. Roels
Village of Mt. Prospect JFii� .�L 1996
Community Development Department
100 South Emerson Street
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
Dear Mr. Roels:
I am going to try and attend the meeting Monday night with regard to the adoption of the new
ordinance allowing for inspection of rental units, but if I miss the meeting I wish to go on the
record to express my objections to this ordinance.
Inspection of rental units, other than common areas, is an invasion of my residents rights. If there
is knowledge of on ongoing code violation within a particular apartment, I feel the inspection of
that particular unit would be warranted. However, I feel the forced inspection of 10 to 20 percent
of the units in a building is a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Since several communities in the Chicago area are currently in Federal Court litigating this exact
subject, I think it would be prudent if Mt. Prospect waited until these other communities resolved
this difficult legal issue.
If Mt. Prospect proceeds in adopting this type of local regulation, I will do my best to stop its
implementation.
General Partner -CRF Ltd. Partnership
cc: Everette Hill
Susan Connor
David Najarian
Rick Barreto
A
Interior Inspect at Inspect at
Inspection a Change of a Change of
Upon Complaint Occupant Owner
Y N N
N N
Y N N
Y N
N N
Y Y
N N
N N
Y Y N
Y N N
N N
N Y
N N
Y N
N N
N N
N N
Y Y
N N
Y Y
N N
Survey
of 38 Communities for
Property Maintenance Code
Enforcement
in Multi -Family Dwellings
Selected
information Provided
by Administrative
Intern
Curt Barrett
Number
Total
of
Systematic Rental
Interior
Municipality
Population
Housing
owned
Rental
Inspectors
Inspection Licensing
Inspections
ArlingtonHeights
75,460
30,428
20,914
------
7,896
----------
1.0
---------- ---------
y
y
-----------
---..____-Arlington
N
Aurora
99,581
35,621
20,715
12,995
9.0
Y
Y
Y
Bartlett
19,373
6,659
5,535
827
1.0
N
N
N
Bolingbrook
40,843
12,889
9,858
2,456
3.0
Y
Y
Y
Carpentersville
23,049
7,171
4,975
1,929
2.0
Y
N
Y
Chicago Heights
33,072
11,620
6,828
4,104
4.0
N
N
Y
Crete
6,773
2,505
2,160
275
0.0
N
N
N
Deerfield
17,327
6,052
5,266
626
0.0
N
N
N
Des Plaines
53,223
20,509
15,950
4,040
2.0
Y
Y
N
Elgin
77,010
27,936
16,736
10,129
10.0
Y
Y
Y
Evanston
73,233
29,164
14,272
13,682
6.0
Y
N
Y
Forest Park
14,918
7,817
3,126
4,328
4.0
N
N
Y
Fox River Grove
3,551
1,331
1,045
228
0.5
N
N
N
Geneva
12,617
4,802
3,741
843
1.0
N
N
Y
Huntley
2,453
954
615
315
2.0
N
N
N
LaGrange
15,362
5,635
4,277
1,214
1.0
Y
N
N
Lisle
19,512
8,338
4,178
3,655
2.0
Y
Y
N
Lyons
9,828
4,035
2,412
1,531
2.0
Y
Y
Y
Machesney Park
19,033
6,723
5,475
1,077
1.0
N
N
N
Maywood
27,139
8,547
5,031
3,005
8.0
N
Y
Y
McHenry
16,177
6,171
4,410
1,484
1.0
N
N
N
A
Interior Inspect at Inspect at
Inspection a Change of a Change of
Upon Complaint Occupant Owner
Y N N
N N
Y N N
Y N
N N
Y Y
N N
N N
Y Y N
Y N N
N N
N Y
N N
Y N
N N
N N
N N
Y Y
N N
Y Y
N N
Interior
Inspect at
Inspect at
Survey
of 38 Communities for
Property Maintenance Code
Enforcement
Occupant
Owner
Y
N
N
in Multi -Family Dwellings
N
N
N
Selected
information Provided
by Administrative Intern Curt Barrett
N
N
N
Number
Y
N
N
Total
Y
of
Systematic
Rental
Interior
Municipality
Population
Housing
Owned
Rental
Inspectors
Inspection
Licensing
Inspections
Mount Prospect a
53,170
20,949
14,009
6,272
2.0
Y
Y
N
Mundelein
21,215
7,397
5,224
1,896
1.0
N
N
Y
Oak Park
53,648
23,571
12,084
10,523
6.0
Y
Y
Y
Orland Park
35,720
12,484
10,275
1,821
1.0
N
N
N
Peoria
113,504
48,260
25,423
19,553
11.0
Y
Y
Y
Prospect Heights
15,239
6,270
4,038
2,000
2.0
Y
Y
Y
Rockford
139,426
58,146
32,698
22,141
1.0
N
Y
Y
Sauk Village
9,926
2,998
2,247
591
3.0
Y
N
Y
Schiller Park
11,189
4,315
2,224
1,959
2.0
Y
N
Y
Skokie
59,432
23,170
17,095
5,613
2.5
Y
N
N
Streamwood
30,987
10,324
8,593
1,338
2.0
Y
Y
N
Tinley Park
37,121
13,222
10,042
2,647
1.0
N
N
N
Villa Park
22,253
8,214
6,184
1,834
2.0
N
N
Y
Warrenville
11,333
4,126
3,394
634
1.0
N
N
N
West Chicago
14,796
4,877
2,601
2,051
2.0
Y
N
Y
West Dundee
3,728
1,526
947
528
4.0
Y
N
Y
Winthrop Harbor
6,240
2,140
1,667
390
0.0
N
N
Y
Interior
Inspect at
Inspect at
Inspection
a Change of
a Change of
Upon Complaint
Occupant
Owner
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
TOWN STAFF EFIE
Mount Prospect 2.5 inspectors $7.00 per unit
(pop. 53,170)
7,706 units
Elgin 8.0 inspectors + 2.0 flat $25.00 each unit (20% of
(pop. 77,010) fee and units are to be inspected)
12,000 units lead inspectors Following year pass on in -
(1.0 additional spection with no major
inspector added) violations
Elk Grove 1.0 inspectors No fee
(pop. 28,284)
2,551 units (only
large complexes
inspected
Niles
3.0 inspectors
$5.00 per unit. All interior
(pop. 28,284)
1.0 supervisor
units are inspected
3,010 units
$100
51-100
Palatine
1.0 inspectors
$11.65 for first 5 units and
(pop. 39,253)
(1.0 additional
$1.25 for each unit there-af-
4,979 units
inspector to be
ter. Non-compliance fee of
401-500
added soon)
$10.00 charged per dwelling
$300
unit after first reinspection,
25-30% of interior units in-
spected each year (policy)
Des Plaines
2.6 inspectors (2.0 addi-
$10.00 per unit
(pop. 53,223)
tional inspectors to be
5,000 units
aded 5/1/96
National Average* 7 inspectors $25.00 per unit
(25-75,00 pop.)
*Source: University of Wisconsin - Formal Survey of 100 Participants at the Housing Adminis-
tration Class
Schaumburg
(pop. 68,586)
8,000 units
** Apts with hallway only:
Reorganization under-
way by Community De-
velopment staff of 5
See Fee Schedule**
Condos & Apts with common hallways:
Units
Fee
Units
Fee
1-50
$50
51-100
$100
51-100
$100
101-200
$150
101-200
$150
301-400
$200
301-400
$200
401-500
$300
401-500
$300
Single family homes, rental condo units and townhome units: all $15.00 per unit
Class Title: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INSPECTOR
DEFINITION AND PURPOSE:
This is responsible administrative and investigative work in the inspection of all Village
residential (primarily multifamily dwellings) properties, in the enforcement of nuisance
and property maintenance codes and in the review of complaints lodged regarding
unhealthy environmental conditions in multi -family dwellings or ordinance violations
regarding sanitary conditions in local restaurants.
Work involves assisting in routine and special inspections of multi -family dwellings,
properties, grounds, to determine whether such are in conformance to Village codes
relating to exterior maintenance and the maintenance of shared interior areas.
Inspections may also include weeds, garbage, litter, and Junked or structural code
violations. Assist in settling landlord/tenant disputes and in counseling property owners
regarding methods of achieving code compliance. This incumbent is responsible for the
conduct of regular restaurant sanitation conditions or special Inspections to check Into
complaints received. An employee in this class exercises considerable discretion in the
conduct of routine enforcement activities. The employee also interacts with Human
Services Department staffs regarding potential home environment or health problems.
This employee reports to the Environmental Health Manager, from whom he/she receives
specific and detailed inspection assignments and general direction regarding
enforcement policies and philosophies.
CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONS & DUTIES:
The incumbent:
Inspects existing multi -family dwellings and premises for compliance with Village codes;
conducts regular inspections of all of the Village's multi -family buildings [over 6000
housing units]; investigates complaints regarding any Housing Code violations pertaining
to structural soundness, health, and safety standards; mediates or arbitrates disputes
between landlords and tenants relative to the Village's tenant/ landlord ordinance; may
participate in the condemnation of buildings and structures [with Director's
concurrence] as unsafe for human occupancy; maintains necessary records and reports
on inspections and on legal and related follow-up activities; receives and investigates
nuisance complaints (e.g., weeds, trash or garbage accumulation, vermin & insect
infestations, etc.); determines validity of complaints and advises owners/occupants of
actions necessary to correct conditions; and takes measures to enforce the applicable
codes (building, exterior & interior maintenance, etc.);
Conducts complaint based evaluations of existing housing stock in all areas of the
Village.; advises property owners on methods and approaches to upgrade and
rehabilitate their properties; prepares letters to violators or owners of property;
maintains records and reports regarding nuisance and housing code cases; submits
periodical status reports on progress of housing inspections and outstanding complaints
or violations to the Environmental Health Manager; and answers complaints and requests
for Housing Code information;
Documents code violations by issuing citations to assure property owners know what
they must do to comply with the code, giving reasonable deadlines to have the work
done or the condition corrected; produces periodic reports to document progress on
various citations; and receives training in other divisional inspections work from
structural or electrical inspectors.
Conducts regular inspection of food and drink establishments as part of the business
license renewal process; conducts special restaurant sanitation inspections to check into
complaints received; Inspects all temporary food and drink establishments during the
summer e.g., at lurk Fest and Home Town Daysj; forwards unsatisfactory reports on
to the Environmental Health Manager when closing down the establishment is necessary;
conducts inspections of public swimming pools during the summer, checking on the
chlorination status of pools in places such as apartment compelxes, hotels, etc.; and
inspects existing dwellings and premises for compliance with Village BOCA codes and
ordinances;
Collects and prepares data and documentary evidence on cases of non-compliance for
use in court; appears and testifies at legal proceedings (as needed); confers with other
inspectors and owners of property relative to the interpretation and application of
housing codes and related laws, ordinances and regulations, and with respect to the
correction of defects found; prepares periodic reports of activities and assessement of
program effectiveness; maintains an awareness of proper worker safety procedures and
guidelines and applies these In performing daily activities and tasks; and performs
other duties as required.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Work responsibilities call for nominal levels of physically demanding activities in the
visual and physical inspection of environmental code problems. Much of the work is
performed out -doors, at the property owner's site. The typical level of risk is such
that it requires some attention to detail to prevent accidents or injuries. All of these
conditions require that the incumbent of this position be reasonably ambulatory and
possess a normal range of hearing, vision and manual dexterity.
ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGES, SKILLS AND ABILITIES:
Successful candidates for this position must possess:
Good knowledge of housing and environmental health codes and their application;
knowledge of the methods, techniques, and procedures used in housing inspection;
knowledge of methods, techniques and procedures in building construction and
maintenance; some knowledge of building construction techniques, methods and materials
including plumbing, electrical, building, fire safety and heating work; working
knowledge of nuisance codes and ordinances and state laws as they apply to public
housing; and good knowledge of descent, safe and sanitary provisions of the state
public health code and of modern environmental sanitation practices.
Ability to read and perform basic mathematics; ability to read blueprints and
construction plans; ability to recognize hazardous conditions and to recommend proper
corrective action; ability to write and speak clearly; ability to carry out inspections and
enforcement actions with firmness, tact, thoroughness and impartiality; ability to
establish and maintain accurate records and to give accurate and effective testimony
at legal proceedings; ability to interpret and explain laws, ordinances and regulations;
ability to develop the interest and cooperation of residents for the improvement of
family life and home environment in the community; ability to establish and maintain
effective working relationships with landlords, tenants, property owners, fellow workers,
and the general public; and the ability to work with minimal or no supervision.
MINIMUM EXPERIENCE AND/OR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS:
Successful applicants for positions in this class must possess:
The knowledge equivalent of a High school diploma; two years of training and/or
experience in code enforce-ment, building construction, environmental health, or law
enforcement work; or an equivalent combination of knowledge, training and/or
experience.
NECESSARY SPECIAL REQUIREMENT:
Candidates for positions In this class must possess a current and valid Illinois Motor
Vehicle Operator's License.
APPLICATION:
This class specification is Intended to identify the class and Illustrate the kinds of
duties that may be assigned to its incumbents. It should not be interpreted as
describing all the dwties whose performance may ever be required of such an employee
or be used to limit the nature of assignments such an employee may be given.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 8,1996
SUBJECT: CENTRAL ROAD ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Attached is the Central Road Action Plan Matrix which has been revised to reflect the Village
Board's priority ranking of each action plan. The updated Matrix should provide a forum to further
discuss the issues related to the Central Road corridor.
It should be noted that the Village Board placed a higher priority on action plans that affect public
right-of-way and property. There was a much lower priority given to action steps that require the
involvement of private property owners.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and
discussion at the February 13th Committee -of -the -Whole meeting. During this meeting, staff will
be looking for direction from the Board as to how aggressively they wish us to pursue these issues.
WJC:hg
Attachment
CORRIDOR ACTION PLAN CTWJ'T T TABLE - CENTRAL ROAD January 31, 1996
LAND USE AND ZONING
No.
Problem(Issue Statement
Action Step
Responsible
Estimated
Additional Comments
Priority
Party
Constriction
Ranldng
Cost
1.
Even as manufacturing returns with U.S.
Detailed studies by U.S. Robotics should
U.S.
1
Left turn lanesrrraffic
A -5
Robotics adding a new vitality to the AM
include an analysis of vehicular movements
Robotics/
Signal on Central Rd.
Multigraphics site, there will be other
to and from work, public transit service
IDOT
from Arthur Ave. to
B
issues that will need to be addressed that
needs and the possible positive spin-off
Melas Park Dr.
are enumerated in other sections of this
effect for nearby businesses to satisfy the
C
report.
personal service needs of a large
employment base. Special consideration
The personal service needs of a large
should be given to adjacent businesses.
employment force of 2,000 also need to be
addressed.
2.
There are a few minor adjustments that
Change the I-1 Industrial classification
Property
None
Process by Planning
A -3
should be made to the existing zoning in
covering the former Pop Shop and current
Owners
S BANill Board
the Central Road corridor.
Mount Prospect Park District facility at the
B -2
edge of Melas Park to Conservation -
Recreation which is more in keeping with
C
the activity and function of the facility.
Change the Central Park Apartments on the
south side of Central Road west of
WaPella from single family special use to
multiple family consistent with the
character and type of housing. This is a
owner -occupied condominium complex for
seniors 50 years and older.
Change the current zoning from R-3
Multiple Family to B-1 for the small
professional office located at the southeast
comer of Central and WaPella.
Keys: Esti Com _ N1
1. Over $1 Mllion 4. $20,000 to $99,999
2. $500,000 to $999,999 5. $3,000 to $19,999
3. $100,000 to $499,999 6. Under $3,000
Priority .ng
A. IEgh Priority
R Low Priority
C- Eliminate or Modify
Page 1
TRANSPORTAITON
No.
PtoblenvUsue Statement
Action Step
Responsible
Estimated
Additional Continents
Priority
Party
Constniction
Ranldng
Cost
3.
Except for commuter bus service (Route
PACE should be asked to study the
PACE/ U.S.
None
Neigotiation PACE/
A - 3
694), regular bus service is not available on
expansion of bus service in the Central
Robotics
U.S. Robotics
Central Road.
Road corridor when U.S. Robotics, Illinois
B - 1
Range, and Trade Service Corporation
increase their labor force.
C - 1
Van pooling may be an appropriate
alternative for the large U.S. Robotics
A - 1
facility depending upon the size of the
labor force and the percent of those
B
workers seeking public transportation or
van pooling for their work trip.
C
4.
As employment increases with U.S.
Efforts should be made to work with the
Arlington
2
Cost Share - Arlington
A - 4
Robotics workforce in the future, traffic
Village of Arlington Heights and the
Hts./IDOT
Hts./IDOT
volumes on Arthur Avenue can be
Illinois Department of Transportation to
B - 1
expected to increase. The number of
seek a realignment of Arthur Avenue to
employees seeking to go north to
Northwest Highway instead of the present
C
Northwest Highway or arrive to work from
alignment.
Northwest Highway onto Arthur Avenue
are faced with two signalized intersections
and a grade crossing between home and the
work place.
5.
During rush hour periods, westbound
This unsafe traffic situation may wan -ant a
Safety
6
Signs
A - 3
Central Road traffic seeking to make left
posted no -left turn during rush hour
Comm/
turns south onto WaPella sometimes cause
periods. Further review by the Safety
Vill. Board
B - 2
severe backups from WaPella east to the
Commission is recommended
railroad.
C
Keys: FfifinjdW Cons tion Crpt
1. Over $1 AUlion 4. $20,000 to $99,999
2. $500,000 to $999,999 5. $3,000 to $19,999
3. $100,000 to $499,999 6. Under $3,000
bwvjwft
A. Mgh Priority
B. Low Priority
C 10ininate or N Mfy
Page 2
No.
PioblenvIssue Statement
Action Step
Responsible
Estimated
Additional Comments
Priority
Duty
Conshuction
Ranldng
Cost
6.
Nlt. Prospect Park District has converted
Close the west driveway and connect a
N1t.Prospect
4
Parking Lot and Drive
A
the former 'Pop Shop" for park
new drive to the main access drive for
Park
maintenance and recreation programming.
Melas Park. Provide a drop off area and
District/Vill
B - 5
Access to Central Road is awkward and
add off-street parking spaces west of
Board
parking inadequate.
facility. (See diagram)
C
T
It is important for the current operation of
Efforts should be made to investigate the
Property
Unknown
Property Owner
A - 1
the Edward Hines Lumber Company that
possibility of product consolidation on site
Owner
Initiative
the railroad siding continue to provide
and separate driveway access for lumber
B - 4
access for lumber product rail delivery. If
delivery on the west side of the building,
the rail siding were to be eliminated,
while maintaining the easterly drive
C
approximately 30% of their lumber
primarily for customer parking.
products would have to be delivered over
the road adding yet more turning
movements into a driveway that is shared
by customer traffic as well as lumber
delivery.
8.
Several residents on the north side of
By installing a raised concrete barrier, only
IDOT/
5
Raised Concrete
A - 3
Central indicated a concern for vehicular
right-hand turns from Central Road to
Engineering
Barrier
turning movements at Nfillers Lane and
Millers Lane could be made. This would
Division/
B - 1
Central Road.
prevent vehicular moveirmts out of Millers
Planning
Village Board
Lane reducing the potential for backups in
Division/
Approval needed
C - 1
either direction on Central Road. Cathy
Vill Board
Lane north of Central could still function
as a two-way access point.
Keys: �t Com tion t
1. Over $1 Mllion 4. $20,000 to $99,999
2. $500,000 to $999,999 5. $3,000 to $19,999
3. $100,000 to $499,999 6. Under $3,000
Nati R
A. IEgh Priority
B. Low Priority
G Eliminate or Modify
Page 3
No.
Pwblem7ssue Statement
Action Step
Responsible
Duty
Estimated
Constmetion
Cost
Additional Comments
Priority
Ranlung
9.
Trade Service Corporation presently has
A traffic study should be undertaken to
Mt.Prospect
5
More extensive traffic
A - 1
approximately 82 off-street parking spaces
estimate the anticipated trips to the
Park District
study needed
for employees and service delivery. At
proposed Park District facility. Such a
A/B-2
times, service delivery is difficult since the
study would help to detennine whether any
off-street loading spaces are sometimes
acceleration or deceleration or left -turn
B - 1
blocked with trucks unloading or loading
lanes are necessary for the proposed use.
products.
C - 1
Should the Mount Prospect Park District
purchase the property for an administrative
center and associated recreation activity
for the Park District, careful review should
be undertaken to ensure that adequate, off-
street parking is provided and that
anticipated movements to and from the
administrative office and recreation facility
activities can be safely accommodated
within the public right-of-way.
10.
Residents on the north side of Central
Encourage private property owners to
Property
6
Vehicle Tum -around
A - 1
Road between Kenilworth and Lancaster
install driveway turn-arounds (see
Owner
are confronted with heavy traffic during the
illustration) in order that vehicles leaving
Per Resident
B - 3
peak morning and evening hours. Many
private property face Central Road before
are faced with the problem of backing their
entering the public roadway. No additional
C - 1
vehicles onto Central Road presenting a
driveways should be added.
defmite hazard to safe highway conditions.
Keys: FA#nftd Cori tio[i Cost
1. Over $1 Mllion 4. $20,000 to $99,999
2. $500,000 to $999,999 5. $3,000 to $19,999
3. $100,000 to $499,999 6. Under $3,000
A. ligh Priority
B. Low Priority
C ENninabe or NIodify
Page 4
No.
Problern(Issue Statement
Action Step
Responsible
Fatima
Additional Comments
Priority
Party
Constmction
Ranldng
Cost
11.
Service delivery to the 500 West Central
Since no additional property can be added
Property
5
Short term parking
A - 1
Office building cannot be made with
to the current site, or no building alteration
Owner
area
vehicles that are more than 6 1/2 feet in
is feasible by either lowering the grade of
B - 3
height from grade. This eliminates a
the parking area or raising the height of the
majority of vehicles seeking to make
building, the creation of a small on-site
C - 1
deliveries (United Parcel, Step Vans and
area for short term delivery parking should
larger).
be investigated by the owner.
PUBLIC RIGHT -CF WAY DRROMINIS
12. A clearer delineation of driveways will Driveways need better delineation between
Property 3
did 11
A
help the traffic safety on Central Road. Edward Hines Lumber and Illinois Range.
Owner/
1 rovernents
An exhibit shows the locations for potential
Village
A/B-1
driveway closing and driveway delineations
Southside
in this portion of Central Road.
Busee Rd. to Cathy Ln
B - 4
The attached exhibit also identifies areas
Northside
C
for improved landscape in the public right-
Cathy Ln to Railroad
of -way in this same section of Central
Road. Efforts should be made to
encourage pedestrian safety and
landscaping within the public right-of-way.
Keys: ftfinjpkd.r do t
1. Over $1 Million 4. $20,000 to $99,999
2. $500,000 to $999,999 5. $3,000 to $19,999
3. $100,000 to $499,999 6. Under $3,000
rivi,
A. High Priority
B. Low Priority
C. Eliminate or Modify
Page 5
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: DANIEL UNGERLEIDER, PLANNING COORDINATO
DATE: FEBRUARY 6,1996
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CORRIDOR STUDY SCHEDULES
As requested, I have prepared a tentative corridor study schedule for 1996. There are currently a
total of seven studies proposed:
1. Central Road
2. Rand Road North
3. Rand Road South
4. Algonquin Road
5. Elmhurst Avenue
6. Northwest Highway - Downtown
7. An annexation feasibility study for the unincorporated area north of Kensington
Avenue, East of Wolf Road.
I have attached a map illustrating the proposed boundaries for each study and the tentative schedule
for completion of each.
Please feel free to provide me with your comments regarding these matters. I can be reached at 818-
5312. I look forward to discussing each of the studies with you in the near future.
DU:hg
Attachment
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE 1996
CORRIDOR & SECTOR STUDIES
Rand Road North
Complete - Spring's End
Central Road
Complete - Winter's End
FRI.
Annexation Feasibility Study
Fall
10*
Rand Road South
Complete - Spring's End
Northwest Highway
Spring/Summer
Elmhurst Avenue
Complete - Mid -Fall
Algonquin Road
Summer's End
Preps red hv, Village AA.4ount Prospect
Department of Community Development - Planning Division
January 1996
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
CONFERENCE ROOM B, PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
1700 WEST CENTRAL ROAD
7:00 P -N4
[PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN MEETING TIME TO 7:00 PNfl
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. COMMERCIAL RECYCLING PRESENTATION
Arlington Heights Commercial Reqchng Pilot Program
IV. CITIZEN FORUM
(each resident is limited to 5 minutes)
V. SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
VI. MONTHLY DATA
VH. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. NEXT MEETING
IX. ADJOURNMENT
ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF
A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE PLEASE
CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS AT 870-5640, TDD 392-1235.
: IOC V7' PIZOSPLC:7' .S1�1ID PA TE CO, MIISSION
AfF_'ET[AG .1IINUTES
J.4AT RY 18, 1996
PRESENT:
Dick: Bachhuber, Bill Donovan, Holly Johnson, George Luteri, RodMobus, Harold Rentschler,
Ken TI'estlake and.tfary Winkler.
Kelly Tlromer - Chicago Tribune
Lisa Angell - Public If orks Department
ABSENT:
Mary Rosen
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Mesilake called the meeting to order at 7.35 PAL
>! fl.VIITRS-
For clarification purposes Chairman Westlake requested the following information be added to
the January minutes under STFAAICC:
The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the Cook County Board ruling asserting SWAACC's
position in siting the balefill.
A motion to approve the minutes was made, seconded and unanimously approved..
CITIZENS FOR EAM.
,Ni'o citizens were present to address the Commission.
SOLID WASTE PROGR441S.
The Solid Waste Coordinator reported on leaf collection, clean-up week, and the Christmas tree
collection.
A motion to send a letter to the Public I orks Director commending the Public FF-orks staff for
their outstanding effort in completing the 1995 leaf collection program was seconded and
unanimously approved. The Solid Waste Coordinator was asked to draft the letter for the
Chairman's signature.
110NTHLY DA TA:
The Solid 13raste Coordinator infonned the Commission she was unable to provide a print out
from [Easte Calc as the program was unavailable due to equipment repairs. However, she
indicated there were no significant changes in the collection rates. An annual report for 1995
ti ,ill be distributed in February.
C0.A-AJERC1.4L RECY CLI_VG SUR T-7FY.-
.4 general concent was expressed over the lack of response to the survey from the business
community. Commissioner Holly Johnson reported on her efforts to contact a representative
from Randhurst Afall. As of this date she has yet to get a response from Randhurst. The Solid
Il'aste Coordinator will also attempt to make contact to see if a meeting can be set-up with a
representative from Randhurst to discuss business recycling.
It is still unclear Whether the business communin, s response to the survey is indicative of a lack
of interest m recycling. It was sruggested that the time ofyear the survey was distributed and,"or
the survey not getting to the right people may have had an impact oar the response. However,
the Commission believes assessing recycling serviceslopportunities in a centralized business
area may be a better approach rather tnJing to survey the entire business community again.
(Tile Solid IVasle Coordinator stated the Janurary Chmnber Nex'sletter included a reminder to
return the completed survey to Public I•Irorks)
Commission members expressed an interest in hearing more about the Arlington Heights
commercial recycling program. The Solid Ii'aste Coordinator will contact the staff liaison to
the Environmental Commission to set-up a time for a representative to make a presentation
about the pilot program.
OTHER BUSIXESS:
Chairman Westlake shared an invitation to a campaign breakfast he had received front 1i•1r. Bill
Blaine. Mr. Blaine is running for a seat in the state legislature and requested a member of the
Commission attend the breakfast to share his, Tier views on what the state should be addressing
in the solid waste field.
Although the invitation: did not arrive in time for someone to attend, Chairman Westlake stated
that in his opinion as a nonpartisan group it would not have been appropriate to attend the
breakfast as a Commission representative. He further stated that had it been a candidates
forum, representation by a member of the Commission: would have been acceptable. There
appeared to be general consensus with Chairman J estlake 's position.
The Solid Kaste Coordinator reported, Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) had invited the
Commission to tour their processing facility for used tires in Ford Heights. The Coordinator is
waiting to here back front BFI with a Saturday date. Chairman If 'estlake offered to contact a
representative fi-om the City of Chicago to see if a tour of the City's new materials recovery
facility (11RF) could be scheduled at file sante day once a date has been identified.
The Coordinator reported there has been interest expressed by one of the schools on the south
side of the i illage to participate in a clean-up project this spring. The project would be similar
to the one conducted on Make A Difference Dav in the Boxwood area.
It was also noted that at least one (1)- one (I) day household hazardous waste collection day
sponsored by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is likely to be held somewhere in the
Northwest suburbs this spring. An official listing will be available in earlvMarch.
XF-I TMEE77,VG:
The next Commission meeting was scheduled for Thursday; February 15, at 7:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT -
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
1lf Lisa Angell
Solid Waste Coordinator
Director
Glen R. Andler
Administrative Aide
Dawn L, Wucki
Solid Waste Coordinator
M., Lisa Angell
Water/Sewer Superintendent
Sean P. Dorsey
Forestry/Grounds Superintendent
Sandra M. Clark
Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent
James Ec Guenther
Village Engineer
Jeffrey A. Wulbecker
Mount Prospect public Works Department
1,700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229
Phone 708/870-5640 Fax 708/253-9377 TDD 70B/392-1235
AGENDA
SAFETY COMMISSION
MEETING LOCATION:
VILLAGE HALL
100 SOUTH EMERSON STREET
MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056
MEETING DATE AND TIME:
MONDAY
FEBRUARY 12, 1996
7;30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Iii. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. VILLAGE'S RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROGRAM
B. NOTIFICATION POLICY
C. CHAIRMAN & VICE CHAIRMAN ELECTION
VI1. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING
BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEED SOME ACCOMMODATION
TO PARTICIPATE SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER"S
OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, MOUNT PROSPECT,
708/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD 708/392-6064
******** TO ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS
******** IF YOU CAN NOT ATTEND THE SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING ******
******** PLEASE CALL SEAN WON 870-5640 IN ADVANCE ******
Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink
REVIEW OF THE VILLAGE'S RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The Village Board of Trustees requested that the Safety Commission
undertake, as a special project, a review of the Village's current Railroad
Safety Program and make recommendations.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review are:
1. To inventory current railroad crossing safety systems
2. To review enforcement of new railroad crossing law and additional
warning signage
3. To provide recommendations to improve railroad crossing safety
systems
CONTENTS
1. RAILROAD CROSSINGS WITHIN THE VILLAGE
2. CURRENT RAILROAD SAFETY SYSTEM
• AUTOMATIC GATE AND FLASHING RED LIGHTS
• WARNING SIGNAGE
• PAVEMENT MARKINGS
3. RAILROAD SAFETY SYSTEM OF THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES
4. NEW ILLINOIS RAILROAD CROSSING LAW
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
• WARNING SIGNAGE
• PUBLIC EDUCATION
• ENFORCEMENT
CONTENTS
RAILROAD CROSSINGS WITHIN THE VILLAGE
• Central Road & Union Pacific (Chicago Northwestern) Railroad
• Main Street (IL 83) & Union Pacific (Chicago Northwestern) Railroad
• Emerson Street & Union Pacific (Chicago Northwestern) Railroad
• Mt. Prospect Road & Union Pacific (Chicago Northwestern) Railroad
• Kensington Road & Wisconsin Central Railroad
• Euclid Avenue & Wisconsin Central Railroad
2. CURRENT RAILROAD SAFETY SYSTEM in compliance with the FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION'S MANUAL on UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES (MUTCD)
• AUTOMATIC GATE AND FLASHING RED LIGHTS
All- railroad crossings have automatic gates & flashing red lights.
Note that Pedestrian Railroad Crossing near Maple Street has flashing
red lights.
WARNING SIGNAGE
A. All railroad crossings have diagonal RAILROAD CROSSING
signs (Figure R15-1) and RAILROAD ADVANCE WARNING
signs (Figure W10-1).
(Figure R15-1)
(Figure W10-1)
2
R Four of the railroad crossings are adjacent to roadway
intersections controlled by traffic signals. Intersection traffic
control signals at these four railroad crossings are preempted by
the approach of a train. Existing turn restriction signs at these
four railroad crossings are as follows:
a.) Central Road & Northwest Highway/Prospect Avenue
1. Illuminated No -Right -Turn sign on Northwest
Highway at Central Road for turning traffic (from
southeast bound Northwest Highway to west bound
Central Road)
2. No -Right -Turn -On -Red sign on Prospect Ave at
Central Road for turning traffic (from northwest
bound Prospect Ave to east bound Central Road)
b.) Main Street (IL 83) & Northwest Highway/Prospect Avenue
1. Illuminated No -Right -Turn and No -Left -Turn signs
on Prospect Ave at Main Street for turning traffic
(from northwest bound Prospect Ave to north bound
Main Street and from southeast bound Prospect Ave
to north bound Main Street)
c.) Emerson Street & Northwest Highway/Prospect Avenue
1. No turn restriction signs are posted.
d.) Mt. Prospect Road & Northwest Highway/Prospect Avenue
1. Illuminated No -Right -Turn and No -Left -Turn signs
on Northwest Highway at Mt. Prospect Road for
turning traffic (from northwest bound Northwest
Highway to south bound Mt. Prospect Road and
from southeast bound Northwest Highway to south
bound Mt. Prospect Road)
C. DO NOT CROSS TRACK SIGN
The following signs are located on center fence of railroad at
Main Street, Emerson Street and Pedestrian Crossing near Maple
Street.
DANGER
DO NOT CROSS TRACKS
WHEN BELL IS RINGING
RED LIGHTS ARE FLASHING
DANGER
D. DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS SIGN
There are no Do -Not -Stop -On -Track signs at any of the railroad
crossings.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
All six railroad crossings have X's, with the letters RR and transverse
lines (Figure 8.2). All railroad crossings also have stop lines
approximately 8' from automatic gates.
.�......� (Figure 8.2)
3. RAILROAD SAFETY SYSTEM OF THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES
Based on inspection, It was found that railroad crossings in the Village of
Arlington Heights and the City of Des Plaines have 1) automatic gates &
flashing red lights, 2) crossbuck sign & railroad advance warning sign, 3)
4
pavement markings, and 4) turn restriction signs. Do -Not -Stop -On -Track signs
were not used in the Village of Arlington Heights and the City of Des Plaines.
As a result of recent inspection of the railroad crossings, IDOT reduced the
pedestrian crossing timing at some railroad crossings in the Village of Arlington
Heights and the City of Des Plaines and installed the following sign to warn
pedestrians and motorists:
CAUTION
WALK TIME
SHORTENED
WHEN TRAIN
APPROACHES
This warning sign is primarily to warn pedestrians who cross Northwest
Highway, not the commuter railroad tracks. Except for the above warnings, no
special signage was found at railroad crossings in the Village of Arlington
Heights and the City of Des Plaines. Note that this warning sign was not
installed in the Village of Mount Prospect because the pedestrian crossing time
was not shortened by IDOT.
4. NEW ILLINOIS RAILROAD CROSSING LAW
The Illinois Vehicle Code was amended on July 19, 1995, to include a
mandatory $500.00 fine for motorists and pedestrians who violate railroad
crossing laws (see Attachment B). The Village adopted the Illinois Vehicle
Code in its entirety, along with any and all subsequent amendments.
Therefore, this new railroad crossing law is now the law of the Village of Mount
Prospect since January 1, 1996.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
• WARNING SIGNAGE
A. TURNING RESTRICTION SIGNS AND DO -NOT -STOP -ON -
TRACK SIGNS
a.) Central Road & Northwest Highway/Prospect Avenue
1. Install illuminated No -Left -Turn sign on Northwest
Highway at Central Road for turning traffic (from
northwest bound Northwest Highway to west bound
Central Road)
2. Install Do -Not -Stop -On -Track sign on Central Road
for east bound and west bound traffic.
b.) Main Street (IL 83) & Northwest Highway/Prospect Avenue
1. Install illuminated No -Right -Turn and No -Left -Turn
signs on Northwest Highway at Main Street for
turning traffic (from northwest -bound Northwest
Highway to south bound Main Street and from
southeast bound Northwest Highway to south bound
Main Street)
2. Install Do -Not -Stop -On -Track sign on Main Street
for north bound and south bound traffic
c.) Emerson Street & Northwest Highway
1. Install illuminated No -Right -Turn and No -Left -Turn
signs on Northwest Highway at Emerson Street for
turning traffic (from northwest bound Northwest
Highway to south bound Emerson Street and from
southeast bound Northwest Highway) to south
bound Emerson Street)
2. Install illuminated No -Right -Turn and No -Left -Turn
signs on Prospect Ave at Emerson Street for turning
traffic (from northwest bound Prospect Ave to north
bound Emerson Street and from southeast bound
Prospect Ave to south bound Emerson Street).
Currently, this intersection Emerson Street and
Prospect Ave is not signalized,. If illuminated turn
restriction signs can not be installed, add No -Right -
Turn -When -Gate -Is -Down and No -Left -Turn -When -
Gate -Is -Down signs to existing stop signs.
3. Install Do -Not -Stop -On -Track sign on Emerson
Street for north bound and south bound traffic
d.) Mt. Prospect Road & Northwest Highway/Prospect Avenue
1. Install illuminated No -Left -Turn signs on Mt.
Prospect Road at Prospect Ave for turning traffic
(from southeast bound Prospect Ave to north bound
Mt. Prospect Road)
2. Install Do -Not -Stop -On -Track sign on Mt. Prospect
Ave for north bound and south bound traffic
B. NEW WARNING SIGN
Add the following signs to Do -Not -Stop -On -Track signs at all
railroad crossings:
MT.PROSPECT
ARRESTS
VIOLATORS
($500 FINE)
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Inform general public of the new railroad crossing law and railroad
crossing safety.
A. Village Cable TV
B. Village Newsletter
C. Press Release
POLICE ENFORCEMENT
A. Intensify enforcement of new ordinance
B. Consider foot patrol for easier access to violators, and increased
'PRESENCE'.
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1995
SUBJECT: RAILROAD SAFETY REVIEW
At the December 12 Committee of the Whole meeting, the Village Board considered
favorably asking that the Safety Commission undertake, as a special project, a review of
the Village's current Railroad Safety Program and make recommendations for
improvements to same.
The main focus of the Commission would be looking at public education programs,
enforcement of current or proposed laws and additional warning signage that might be
placed at or around railroad grade crossings. The actual scope of your review would be
left to the members of the Commission. The Board is not asking that you review and
verify the safety of individual crossing/signal configurations and timing. That is best left
to the technical expertise of such agencies as IDOT. We are looking at focusing more
on educating our population and taking reasonable preventative steps to warn commuters
and pedestrians who have occasion to pass through or utilize these points in the Village.
The time frame under which you can conduct --your review and formulate
recommendations is left to your prudent discretion.
If you would like any additional direction or clarification of the Board's request, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
GERALD L. "'SISI eFFARLEY
GLFlrcc
c: Board of Trustees
Police Chief Ronald Pavlock
Fire Chief Edward Cavello
Public Works Director Glen Andler
'Village of Mount Prospect vOLICt-
Mount Prospect, Illinois AMK
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUMI(I
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: RAILROAD CROSSING LEGISLATION
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1995
My staff and I would like feedback from your office on how we proceed with this
legislation. We suggest a P.R. campaign coupled with later enforcement for
pedestrians. The enforcement of vehicles is in place (if anyone is alive to ticket). The
officers witness very few violations that -they can actually get to, due to traffic or the
party is on the other side of the tracks. They will not follow, but do radio ahead.
Thanks.
RWP:jd
cc: D/C Daley
D/C Richardson
CPU
'0' Y�(xa)
Q NALD Vl� ` %� (. cin &
DEC, 4 103-
S
SE1078 Enrolled
1
2
3
4
m 5
x
0 6
7
U
U) 8
9
0
11
12
13-:
14
15
a
16
n
18
U
19
m
20
'd 21 .
m
22
a
23
24
N 25
fl0,
26
t
Q` 27
j 28
29
V
::30
SRS89S0115AKch
AN ACT to amend the Illinois Vehicle Code by changing
Sections 11-1011 and 11-1201.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly: _
Section S. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by
changing Sections 11-1011 and 11-1201 as follows:
(625 ILCS 5/11-1011) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1011)•
Sec. 11-1011. Bridge and railroad signals.
(a) No pedestrian shall enter or remain upon any bridge
or approach thereto beyond the bridge signal, gate, or
barrier after a bridge operation signal indication has been
given. :, - _ - - _ .
(b),;_ No pedestrian shall pass through, -around, over; or
under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad grade
crossing or bridge while such gate or barrier is closed or is
being opened or closed. _
(c) No pedestrian shall enter, remain upon or traverse
over a railroad grade crossing or pedestrian walkway crossing
a railroad track when an audible bell or clearly visible
electric or mechanical signal device is operational giving
warning of the- approach- of a railroad train.
(d) A violation of any part of this Section shall result
in a mandatory fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service.
(e) Local authorities shall impose fines as established
in subsection d for 2edestrians who fail to obey signals
indicating the aooroach or passage of a train.
(Source: P.A..-86-429;-,86-1028.).
2, par. ;. _.- _�•
11-1201)-`
(625 ZLCS-_..5/11-1201),, (fromµCh. 95 1/2, . „-�•, -1
Sec. 11-1201. obedience to signal indicating approach of
train.
49
50
54
55
58
59
62
64
68
69
71,
72
73
75
76
77
78
80
82
84
85
86
88
�• 91
93
SB1078 Enrolled
-2-
SRS89S0115P.Kch
1
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a
96
2
railroad grade crossing such person must exercise due care
97
3
and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a
98
4
highway is a warning of danger, and under any of the
99
5
circumstances stated in this Section, the driver shall stop
-6
within 50 feet but not less than 15 -feet from the nearest
100
7
rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until he can do so
101
8
safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when:
102
g
1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal
104
10
device gives' warning of the immediate approach of a
105
11
railroad train;
12
2. A crossing gate is lowered or a human flagman
107
13
gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or
108
14
passage of a railroad train;
15
3. A railroad train approaching a highway crossing
110
16
emits a warning signal and such -railroad train, by reason
111
17
of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an
112
18
immediate hazard;
19
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible
114
20
and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
115
21
5. A railroad train is approaching so closely that
117
22
an immediate hazard is created.
118
23
(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or
121
24
under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing
25
while such gate- or. barrier is closed or is being opened or
122
26
closed.
27
(c) The Department, and local authorities with the
124
28
approval of the Department, are hereby authorized to
125
29
designate particularly dangerous highway grade crossings of
126
30
railroads and to erect stop signs thereat. When such stop
127
31
signs are erected the driver cf any vehicle shall stop within
128
32
50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of
129
33
such railroad and shall proceed only upon exercising due
130
3 care.
SB1078 Enrolled -3- SRS89S0115ARch
1
(d) At any railroad grade _crossing provided with
133
2
railroad crossbuck signs, without automatic, electric, or
134
3
mechanical signal devices, crossing gates, or a human flagELan
135
4
giving a signal of the approach or passage of a train, the
5
driver of a vehicle shall in obedience to the railroad
136
6
crossbuck sign, yield the right-of-way and slow down to a
137
7
speed reasonable for the existing conditions and shall to ,
138
8
if reouired for safety, at a clearly marked stop ed line, or
9
if no stop lire, within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet
139
10
from the nearest rail of the railroad and -shall nct roe£d
140
11
until he or she can do so safely. If a driver is involved in
141
12
a collision at a railroad crossing or interferes with the
13
movement of a train after driving ast the railroad crossbuck
142
14
sign, the collision or interference is prima facie evidence
143
15
of the driver's failure to yield ri ht-of-wa .
144
16
(e) A violation of any 2art of this Section shall result
146
17
in a mandatory fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service.
148
18
(f) Local authorities shall impose fines as established
150
19
in subsection (e) for vehicles that fail to obe si nals
151
20
indicating the approach or 2assage of a train.
152
(Source: P.A. 79-1069.)
154
159
Pres nt 'o . thel Senate
lEl
164
S ea er, House ot Representatives
165
APPROVED
119a .
aav�;xoa
Page 14iSection 1
1 a-1 e -
w
R : STUART R. PADDOCK JR., Chairman and Publisher
ROBERT Y. PADDOCK, Vice Chairman
FOUNDED 17'2 DANIEL E. BAUMANN, President
DOUGLAS K RAY, Vice President/Editor
JOHN LAMPINEN; Asst. Vice President/Managing Editor
DAVID L BEERY, Asst. Managing Editor/Editorials
"Our aim: To fear God, teU the truth and make money." H.C. PADDOCK 1852-1935
opv
T�N'1''s me
If you are easily conned, you will
believe 1) that Nixon (in 1972). faced
a re-election challenge that Dade it
necessary to end the Vietnain War
on whatever terms; 2) that Hen»
Mssing r, ser ing as national s -
t er er sly `be-mci1,lde the
war primarily to win the, 'Nobel
Peace Prize; and 3) that oscillations
by the North Vietnamese resulted
in the betrayal of President Tbeu of
South Vietnam, the ascendancy of
Henry Kissinger in public dsteem,
and an indefensible bombing by the
United States of North "Vietnam,
done by Nixon after the election,
(he won 49 states),'explainabli only
in terms of Nixoniterandiosit:
What's Wrong �wit � the above is
that the terms Ninon gave the n.
emy, through Henry Kissin er,
were identical to those that t.ad
been confidentially stipulated -iii
May 1971,,and publicized by N-Li6la
in Janus 1972. They were. North.
Vietnam had to 1) cease er In.
filtration of the south, 2) return U.S.
prisoners, and 2) acknowledge' tla
de facto authority of the South'a,
naese governrnenb '
m
In October, lie Due Tho ba;�p*W
d
latedm President 'Thieu aske fair
more concrete guarantees th;
Nixon thoug'ht he could ve lig
the North Vietn ese did not "
continue support for the inffitrators
M,
n
,
"W *W T
11 v
rear�rmer�
� Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TRU cMUSA
To: Village Manager, Michael E. Janonis
Public Works Director, Glen Andler
Village Engineer, Jeffrey A. Wulbecker
From: Village Traffic Engineer
Date: December 6, 1995
Subject: Status of the [DOT Railroad Crossing Study
The following is a summary of my discussion with Mr. David Ziesemar of IDOT
about the status of the IDOT Railroad Crossing Study:
Mr. Ziesemar of IDOT (Traffic Signal Engineer for the District) called me on
December 4, 1995, and informed me that the IDOT Railroad Crossing Study
will be completed within approximately two months. A consultant is working
on this study. IDOT will send the report to the Village after the report is
completed.
IDOT inspected a total of 132 railroad crossings. IDOT corrected traffic
signals at 23 of those locations because they required immediate corrections.
None of the railroad crossings in the Village of Mount Prospect required any
immediate corrections.
This study will determine what if any further corrections are required and will
include recommendations for changes in IDOT Standards as necessary.
The IDOT Railroad Crossing Study is being reviewed by METRA and Mr.
John Jones of Pinner Electric to solicit a 2nd opinion about any
recommendations and determinations.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sean S.M. Won
flUn is Departrhent
of Thanspbrtaton
To:
Teleohone Number
Room Number:
From,
Telephone Number
LAS
Telefax Cover Letter
Date: --44�5:
Telefax No.: _.2:
Bureau / District
Room Number:
Number of Pages Including This Cover Sheet:
Subject:
Comments:
132-
It there are any problems upor: receipt of this transmission, please call the sender immediately.
Originals to be returred. Yes/No
Confirmation copy needed: Yes/No
Other instructions or requests:
Note to sender: Remove any staoles.
Do not use colored pencil or other !fight colored pens_
Documents must be single side copy.
Convert two sided crag:nals to single side before transmitting.
PartVIII. TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR
RAILROAD — HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSINGS
A. GENERAL
8A -l' Functions
Traffic control systems for railroad -highway grade crossings include
all signs, signals, markings, and illumination devices anti- their supports
along highways approaching anti at railroad crossings at grade. The
function of these systems is to permit safe and efficient operation of rail
and highway traffic over crossings. Traffic control devices shall be con-
sistent with the design and application of the standards containyd
herein. For the purpose of installation, operation, and maintenance of
devices constituting traffic control systems at railroad -highway grade
crossings, it is recognized that any crossing of a public road and a rail-
road is situated on right-of-way available for the use of both highway
traffic and railroad traffic on their respective roadways and tracks.
With due regard for surety and for the integrity of operations by
AM
highway and railroad users, the highway agency and the railroad com-
pany are entitled to jointly occupy the right-of-way in the conduct of
their assigned duties. This requires joint rgsponsibility in the traffic
control function between the public agency and the railroad. The (ICLTr-
initiation of need and selection of devices at � grade crossing is mads by
the public agency with jurisdictional authority. Subject to such determi-
nation and selection, the design, installation and operation shall be in
accordance, with the national standards contained herein.
8A-2 Use of Standard llevices
The. grade crossing traffic control devices, systems, and practices
described herein are intended for use both in new installations and at
locations where general replacement of present apparatus is made, con-
sistent with Federal and State laws and regulations. To stimulate effec-
tive reaction of vehicle operators and pedestrians, these devices, sys-
tems, and practices utilize the five basic considerations: design,
da Am
placement, operation, maintenance, and uniformity employed generally
devices described fully in lA-2.
for traffic control and section
8A-3 • Uniform Provisions
All signs used in grade crossing traffic control systems shall be reflec-
P
torized to show the same shape and color to an approaching motorist
both by day and by night. Reflectorization may be by one of the methods
described in section 2A -18. -
Normally, where the distance between tracks, measured along the
highway, exceeds 100 feet, additional signs or other appropriate traffic
control devices should be used.
No sign or signal shall be located in the center of an undivided road-
way except in an island with barrier curbs installed in accordance with
the general requirements of Part V with minimum clearance of 2 feet
from the face of each curb.
Where it is practical, equipment housing should provide a lateral
clearance of 30 feet from the roadway. Adequate clearance should also
be provided from tracks in order to reduce the obstruction to motorists
sight distance and to reduce the possibility of damage to the housed
equipment.
8A-9 Crossing Closure
Any highway grade crossing for which there is not a demonstrated
need should be closed.
8A-5 Traffic Controls During Construction and Alaintenance
Traffic controls for street and highway construction and maintenance
operations are discussed iii Pant VI of this manual. Similar traffic con-
trol methods should be used where highway traffic is affected by con-
struction and maintenance at grade crossings.
Public and private agencies should meet to plan appropriate detours
and necessary signing, marking, and flagging requirements for success-
ful operations during the closing. Pertinent considerations include
length of time for crossing to be closed, type of traffic affected, time of
day, materials and techniques of repair. Inconvenience, delay, and acci-
dent potential to affected} traffic. should be minimized to the extent
practical. Prior notice shopld be extended to affected public or private
agencies before blockage pr infringement on the free movement of ve-
hicles or trains.
Construction or maintenance techniques should not extensively pro-
long the closing of the crossing. The width and riding quality of the
roadway surface at a grade crossing should, as a minimum, be restored
to correspond with the approaches to the crossing.
B. SIGNS AND MARKINGS
8B-1 Purpose
I Aft, Passive traffic control systems, consisting of signs, pavement markings,
and grade crossing illumination, identify and direct attention to the
location of a grade crossing. They permit vehicle operators and
pedestrians to take appropriate action.
Where railroad tracks have been abandoned or their use discontinued,
all related signs and markings shall be removed. A sign, TRACKS OUT
OF SERVICE (R8-9) may be installed until the tracks are removed or Rely!
covered (see Section 813-10):
813-2 Railroad Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (1115-1, 2)
The railroad crossing sign, a regulatory sign, commonly identified as the
"crossbuck" sign, as a minimum shall be white rcflcctorizcd sheeting or
equal, with the wards RAILROAD CROSSING in black lettering. As a
minimum, one crossbuck sign shall be used on each roadway approach to
every grade crossing, alone or in combination with other traffic control
devices. If there are two or more tracks between the signs, the number of
tracks shall be indicated on an auxiliary sign of inverted T shape mounted
below the crossbuck in the manner and at thc�hcF_ its in t atcd in figure
8-1 except that use of this auxiliary sign i optiona at r2ssin s with
utornat'gales.
Where physically feasible and visible to approaching traffic the
crossbuck sign shall be installed on the right hand side of the roadway on
each approach to the crossing. Where an engineering study finds restricted
sight distance or unfavorable road gcometfy, crossbuck signs shall be
placed back to back or otherwise located so that two faces are displayed to
that approach.
Crossbuck signs should be located with 'respect to the roadway
pavement or shoulder in accordance with the criteria in sections 2A-21
through 2A-27 and figures 2-1 and 2-2 (pages 2A-9 and 2A-10) and
should be located with respect to the nearest track in accordance with
signal locations in figure 8-7, (page 8C-6). The normal lateral clearances
(sec. 2A-24), 6 feet from the edge of the highway shoulder or 12 feet from
the edge of the traveled way in rural areas and 2 feet from the face of the
curb in urban areas will usually be attainablF. Where unusual conditions
demand, variations determined by good judgment should provide the best
possible combination of view and safety clearances attainable,
occasionally utilizing a location on the left-hand side of the roadway.
Appropriate details of 1115-1 and R15-2 are available in Standard
Highway Signs. *
0 Available from GPO
R15-1
48" x 9n
(drilled for 90 -degree mounling)
I"
SLACK"
9FT.M
3
ITRACKS
R15-2
9" x 9"
27" x 9"
HEIGHT MAY BE VARIED
As REQUIRED BY LOCAL
CONDITIONS.
8B-3 Railroad Advance Warning Signs (W10-1, 2, 3, 4)
A Railroad Advance Warning (W10-1) sign shall be used on each road-
way in advance of every gra c -crossing except:
1. On low-volume, low -speed roadways crossing minor spurs or other
tracks that are infrequently used and which are flagged by train crews.
2. In the business districts of urban areas where active grade crossing
traffic control devices are in use.
3. Where physical conditions do not permit even a partially effective
display of the sign.
Placement of the sign shall be in accordance with Table II -1, Section
2C-3 and Sections 2A-21 to 2A-27, except in residential or business viii -1:
districts where low speeds are prevalent, the signs may' be placed a Rov. s
minimum distance of 100 feet from the crossing. On divided highways and
one-way roads, it is desirable to erect an additional sign on the left side of
the roadway.
Tl1c W 1 =and 4 si&ns may be installed on highways that are parallel
to railroads. The purpose of these signs is to warn a motorist making a
turn that a railroad crossing is ahead. Where there is 100 feet or more
between the railroad and the parallel highway, a W10-1 sign should be in-
stalled in advance of the railroad crossing and the W 10-2, 3, or 4 signs on
the parallel highway would not be necessary.
W10-1
36" Diameter
�-"�'"' W10-2 W10-3 W10-4
—ROADWAY LEVEL
30" x 30" 30" x 30" 30" x 30"
Figure 8-1. ' Railroad -highway crossing (crossbuck) sign.
VIII -2
Rev. 2
m C N
L O T) C
m
3 o Nuc in
T
C013 m YI
Y N m c n }i
a D m> L A
v O m L O N
EL �uD =v
mV m
m:2
D m > O8.T
O C d OO o ,
a tm o L "' E
T
N m N m f0 N L N
O a -
m N v DX
3 u v o E ane
S
'O m m > U
m
IO 3 O `O N m
cc L -DN
c c X m u Ol
C m m m Q O c _
N C O X. `a -Y
y— ad 7 U U m " O
m E:)•>L m�
C m O -D V V
Q u� 0
H.5ami omCm
D m �
in
m D O
T me
M yL m U.Y 2 w w
N * N C C
o., c
o % o °D,= Et"°
y E. _ N 10' E nN-1
N rn c 0cni;_>m O1Oa
CL O
m e E Nin
v� 'umNC m m
vi E sin E;>,.o$.
S c w T m E= u
E . a Do �•U ,
S>4)E maE>
►? m M a'.7 N N Q u w
> t
m
Lla >
E
T,
6
I R
w►a1
06
a
U.
811-4 Pavement Markings
Pavement markings in advance of a grade crossing shall consist of an X,
the letters RR, a no passing marking (2 -lane roads), and certain transverse
lines. Identical markings shall be placed in each approach lane on all
paved approaches to grade crossings where grade crossing signals or
automatic gates are located, and at all other grade crossings where the
prevailing speed of highway traffic is 40 mph or. grcatcr. When used, a
portion of the pavement marking symbol should be directly opposite the
advance warning sign. If needed, supplcmcntal pavement marking sym-
bol(s) may be placed between the advance warning sign and the crossing.
The markings shall also be placed at crossings where the engineering
studies indicate there is a significant potential conflict between vehicles
and trains. At minor crossings or in urban areas, these markings may be
omitted if engineering study indicates that other devices installed provide
suitable control.
.The design of railroad crossing pavement markings shall be essentially
as illustrated in figure 8-2. The symbols and letters are elongated to allow
for the low angle at which they arc viewed. All markings shall be
rcllcctorizcd white except for the no -passing markings which shall be
reflectorizcd yellow.
8875 1 Illumination at Grade Crossings
Aft At grade crossings where a substantial amount of railroad operation is
conducted at night, particularly where train speeds arc low, where cross-
ings are blocked for long periods, or Occident history indicates that
motorists experience difficulty in seeing trains or control devices during
the hours of darkness, illumination at and I►djacent to the crossing may be
installed to supplement other traffic contrgl devices where an engineering
analysis determines that better visibility of the train is needed. Regardless
of the presence of other control devices, illumination will aid the motorist
in observing the presence of railroad cars on a,crossing where the gradient
of the vehicular approaches is such that the headlights of an oncoming
vehicle shine under or over the cars.
Recommended types and location of luminaires for grade crossing
illumination are contained in the American National Standard Practice for
Roadway Lighting, RPB.* In any event, luminaires shall be so located and
light therefrom so directed as to not interfere with aspects of the railroad
signal system and not interfere with the field of view, of members of the
ANk locomotive crew.
811-6 Exempt Crossing Signs (1115-3, W1O-1a)
When authorized by law or regulation a supplemental sign (1115-3)
bearing the word EXEMPT may be used below the Crossbuck and Track
' Available from the Illuminnliog Fogincering Soddy, Ncw York, N.Y. 10017,
signs at the crossing, and supplemental sign (W10 -1a) may used below
the. railroad advance warning sign. These supplemental signs are to in-
form drivers of vehicles carrying passengers for hire, school buses carrying
children, or vehicles carrying flammable or hazardous materials that a
stop is not required at certain designated grade crossings, except when a
train, locomotive, or other railroad equipment is approaching or occupy-
ing the crossing or the driver's view of the sign is blocked.
R15-3 While background
W10 -1a Yellow background
811-7 Turn Restrictions
At a signalizcd highway intersection within 200 feet of a grade crossing,
where the i:ttcrscction tr (ffic control signals arc preempted by the
approach of a train, all ckisting turning movements toward the gradc
crossing should be prohlbItcd by proper placement of a NO RIGHT
TURN sign (R-1) or a Ng LEFT TURN sign (R3-) or both. In each
case, these signs shall be visible only when the restriction is to be effective.
A blank -out, internally illctrinatcd, or other similar type sign may be used
to accomplish this objective. The signs shall be red and black on white and
have a standard size of 24" x 24".
NO
TURN
ON
RED
R10-11
24" x 30"
D0 N 0
STOP -
0 N
TOPON
TRACKS
R8-8
24" x 30"
the road on the near or far side of the grade crossing, whichever provides
better visibility to the motorist to observe the sign and be able to comply
with its message. On multi -lane roads and one-way roadways a second sign
may be placed on the near or far left side to the grade crossing to further
improve visibility. Placement of the R8-8 sign(s) should be determined as vlll-'
part of the engineering study. Rev.
811-9 STOP Sil;tts al Grade Crossings (111-1, W3-1)
The use or the STOP signs at railroad -highway grade crossings shall be
limited to those grade crossings selected after need is established by a
detailed traffic engineering study. Such crossings should have the follow-
ing characteristics:
1. Highway should be secondary in character with low traffic counts.
2. Train traffic should be substantial.
3. Line of sight to an approaching train is restricted by physical
features such that approaching traffic is required to reduce speed to 10
miles per hour or less in order to stop safely.
4. At Ih,Q_aLap ha , there roust be suff'cicnt ht dislarlcc c10 11c
o afford atllplc 1i111c for .1 velticl cro the.
arrival trig}
The engineering study may determine other compelling reasons for the
All need to install a STOP sign,, however, this should only be an in4crim
measure until active traffic control signals can be installed. STOP signs
shall not bc-uscd on primary.through highways or at grade crossings with
active traffic control devices.
813-8 Do Not Stop on Tracks Sign (R8-8) VIII -11 (C
Whenever an engineering study determines that 'the potential for Rev.5
vehicles slopping on the tracks is high, a P ON TRACKS
S1� R8-8) should be used. The sign may be located on the right side of
Whenever a STOP sign is installed at a grade crossing, a Stop Ahead
sign shall be installed in advance of t1ie.STOP sign.
811-10, Tracks Out of Service Sign (118-9)
vlll-
Rev.
The TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE sign (R$-9) is intended for use at a
crossing in lieu of the Railroad Crossing si„n (R15-1, 2) when a railroad vl1l-1
track has been abandoned or its use discontinued. This sign (R8-9) shall be Rev.
removed when the tracks have been removed or covered.
TRACKS
OUT OF
SERVICE
R8-9
24” x 24"
C. SIGNALS AND GATES
8C-1 Purpose and Meaning
Active traffic control systems inform motorists and pedestrians of the
approach or presence of trains, locomotives, or railroad cars on grade
crossings. The meaning of flashing light signals and gates shall be as
defined in the Uniform Vehicle Code (secs. 11-701 & 11-703, Revised
1968). * ,
When tracks are not in service, the gate arms shall be removed. The
signal heads shall be hooded, turned or removed to clearly indicate that vui-ii
they are not in operation. Rev. s
8C-2 Flashing Light Signal—Post Mounted.
. When indicating tlic approach or presence of a train, the flashing light
signal, illustrated in figure 8-3, shall display toward approaching highway
traffic the aspect of two red lights in a horizontal line flashing alternately.
As shown in figure 8-3, the typical flashing light signal assembly on aside
of the roadway location includes a standard crossbuck sign and, where
there is more than one track, an auxiliary "number of tracks" sign, all of
which indicate to vehicle operators and pcdc4rians at all times the location
of a grade crossing. A bell may be included in the assembly and operated
in conjunction with the flashing lights. Bells are a particularly suitable
warning for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The flashing light signals should normally be placed to the right of
approaching highway traffic on all roadway approaches to a crossing.
They should be located laterally with respect to the highway in
conformance with figure 8-6, (page 8Cs-5) except where such location
would compromise signal display effectiveness.. As stated in section 8A-3,
if it is practical, equipment housings (controller cabinets) should have a
lateral clearance of 30 feet from the roadway and adequate clearance from
the tracks. Where conditions warrant, escape areas, attenuators, or
guardrails should be provided.
Additional pairs of lights may be mounted on the same supporting post
and directed toward vehicular traffic approaching the crossing from other
than the principal highway route. Such may well be the case where there
are approaching routes on roadways closely adjacent to and parallel to the
railroad. At crossings of a highway with traffic in both directions, back-
to-back pairs of lights shall be placed on each side of the tracks. On one
way streets and divided highways, signals shalt be placed on the approach
* Available from Northwestern University, P.O. Box 1409, Evanston, I L 60204.
side of the crossing normally on both sides of the,roadway and may be
equipped with back lights. Typical location plans for signals are.shown in
figure 8-7, (page 8C-6)..
K
OWN OF \ --GROUND LEVEL
ROADWAY
Figure 8-9. Typical /lashing light signal—post mounted.
8C-3 Flashing Light Signal—Cantilever Supported:
Where required for better visibility to approaching traffic, particularly
on multi -lane approaches, cantilevered flashing light signals are used in
the manner shown in figure 8-4. In addition to the flashing lights
cantilevered over the roadways, flashing lights should usually be placed on
the supporting post.
Although cantilever siggals are more commonly used on multi -lane
highways, they are also spitable for other locations where additional
emphasis is needed. These locations may include high speed rural
highways, high volume two-lane highways, or specific locations where
there arc distractions. If one pair of cantilever flashing lights would be
visible to drivers in all approaching lanes, except the right lane which has a
Aft
CANTILEVER ARM TYPE AND LENGTR IS, VARIABLE
3
POST MOUNTED LIGHT
z , i.- 7 UNITS MAY RE PROVIDED
i \= 1112_/ AS CONDITIONS REQUIRE
w_
` CROWN OF ROADWAY 1
A'MAR..
—GROUND LEVEL
TOP OF FOUNDATION TO DE AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE
StMU'AftOr Ttft TRAVELED WAY ANIS NO MORE THAN 4INCHES
ABOVE T SUR€*rE OF THE GROUND IFOR CURBED SECTIONS
SEE Ft%#RE 0.61
Figure 8-4. Typical /lashing light signal—cantilever supported.
view of the post mounted signals, other flashing lights are not required on
the cantilever arm. A pair of lights overhead for each approaching lane is
not required, inasmuch as the warning aspect is at all times identical for
Ah all.
Breakaway or frangible bases shall not be used for cantilever signal
supports. Where conditions warrant, escape arca, attenuators, or properly
designed guardrails should be provided.
8C-4 Automatic Gate
.&L automatic gate is a traffic control device used as -a jug to
flashlnj h'. 'TTI `ev a concis s or a five mechanism and a fully
reflectorized red and white striped gate arm with lights, and which in the
down position extends across the approaching lanes. of highway traffic
about 4 feet above the top of the pavement, flashing light signal ay
be supported on the same post with the ga�c mechanism or cparat�ly
mounted. A schematic view of the gate arm isl the down position is shown
in figure 8-. This view does not show any of the several mechanisms used
to raise and lower the arm.
In its normal upright position, when no train is approaching or
occupying the crossing, the gate arm should b,c either vertical or nearly so
(fig. 8-6). Typical minimum clearance is 2 feet from face of vertical curb
to closest part of signal or gate arm in its upright position for a distance of
17 feet above the crown of the roadway. Where there is no curb, a
minimum horizontal clearance of 2 feet from edge of a paved or surfaced
shoulder shall be provided with a minimum clearance of 6 feet from the
0
d
TOP OF FOUNDATION TO BE
>i
AT THE SAME ELEVATION
a
AS THE SURFACE OF THE
TRAVELED WAY AND NO
MORE THAN 4 INCHES
ABOVE THE SURFACE OF
THE GROUND. (FOR CURD
z
SECTIONS SEE FIGURE l -G}
OWN OF \ --GROUND LEVEL
ROADWAY
Figure 8-9. Typical /lashing light signal—post mounted.
8C-3 Flashing Light Signal—Cantilever Supported:
Where required for better visibility to approaching traffic, particularly
on multi -lane approaches, cantilevered flashing light signals are used in
the manner shown in figure 8-4. In addition to the flashing lights
cantilevered over the roadways, flashing lights should usually be placed on
the supporting post.
Although cantilever siggals are more commonly used on multi -lane
highways, they are also spitable for other locations where additional
emphasis is needed. These locations may include high speed rural
highways, high volume two-lane highways, or specific locations where
there arc distractions. If one pair of cantilever flashing lights would be
visible to drivers in all approaching lanes, except the right lane which has a
Aft
CANTILEVER ARM TYPE AND LENGTR IS, VARIABLE
3
POST MOUNTED LIGHT
z , i.- 7 UNITS MAY RE PROVIDED
i \= 1112_/ AS CONDITIONS REQUIRE
w_
` CROWN OF ROADWAY 1
A'MAR..
—GROUND LEVEL
TOP OF FOUNDATION TO DE AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE
StMU'AftOr Ttft TRAVELED WAY ANIS NO MORE THAN 4INCHES
ABOVE T SUR€*rE OF THE GROUND IFOR CURBED SECTIONS
SEE Ft%#RE 0.61
Figure 8-4. Typical /lashing light signal—cantilever supported.
view of the post mounted signals, other flashing lights are not required on
the cantilever arm. A pair of lights overhead for each approaching lane is
not required, inasmuch as the warning aspect is at all times identical for
Ah all.
Breakaway or frangible bases shall not be used for cantilever signal
supports. Where conditions warrant, escape arca, attenuators, or properly
designed guardrails should be provided.
8C-4 Automatic Gate
.&L automatic gate is a traffic control device used as -a jug to
flashlnj h'. 'TTI `ev a concis s or a five mechanism and a fully
reflectorized red and white striped gate arm with lights, and which in the
down position extends across the approaching lanes. of highway traffic
about 4 feet above the top of the pavement, flashing light signal ay
be supported on the same post with the ga�c mechanism or cparat�ly
mounted. A schematic view of the gate arm isl the down position is shown
in figure 8-. This view does not show any of the several mechanisms used
to raise and lower the arm.
In its normal upright position, when no train is approaching or
occupying the crossing, the gate arm should b,c either vertical or nearly so
(fig. 8-6). Typical minimum clearance is 2 feet from face of vertical curb
to closest part of signal or gate arm in its upright position for a distance of
17 feet above the crown of the roadway. Where there is no curb, a
minimum horizontal clearance of 2 feet from edge of a paved or surfaced
shoulder shall be provided with a minimum clearance of 6 feet from the
`
N01L Gal. ene ,.pp.,u
Typical minimum clearance is 2 feet 16" ALTERNATE
—d p-6.9 muFani�m
eel sFe.e
from face of vertical curb to closest REF LECTORIZED
p
part of signal or Yate arm in its RED AND WHITE
BOTH
upright position for a distance of I SIDES
17 feet above the crown of the
TOP OF FOUNDATION TO DE AT THE SAME
ELEVATION AS THE
roadway.
SURFACE OF THE
TRAVELED WAY AND NO MORE THAN 4
i -T^
Where there is no curb, a minimum
cj
INCHES ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND
(FOR CURBED SECTIONS SEE FIGURE 8-6I -
i
-
horizontal clearance of 2 feet from
edge of a paved or surfaced shoulder
IG INCH
ALTERNATE
shall be provided with a minimum
DIMENSIONS A -B -G AND LENGTH REFLCTORIZEO RED )4
AS APPROPRIATE FOR APPROACHING TRAFFIC AND WHITE
clearance of G feet from the edge of
� B 4`.—C-.
_.....
`<
BOTH SIDES
I
the traveled roadway Where there is
no curb or shoulder, the minimum
OF LIGHT --
' •r�
_
hUFIZOIItaI clearance shall be G feet
r
from the edge of the roadway.
I
"LENGTH
Where gates are located in the median,
4- "AAX,additional
4' MAX,
width may be required to
provide the minimum clearance for
CROWN OF ROADWAY
the counterweight supports.
' GROUND LEVEL
Figure 8-5. Schematic view of automatic gar,#.
i
4'-I
4"MAX.
edge of the traveled roadway. Where gates are located in the median,
VERTICAL CURB -1
additional width may be required to provide the minimum clearance for
the .counterweight supports. Where: conditions warrant, escape routes,
attenuators, or guardrails should be provided.
figure 8-6. Typical clearances for flashing fight signals and automatic gates.
In a normal sequence of operation the flashing light signals and the
lights on the gate arm in its normal upright position are activated
immediately upon detection of the approach of a train. The gate arm shall
8C-5 Train Detection
start its downward motion not less than 3 seconds after the signal lights
start to operate, shall reach its horizontal position before the arrival of any
To serve their purpose of advising motorists and pedestrians of the
train, and shall remain i1i that position as long as the train occupies the
.
approach or presence .of trains, locomotives, or railroad cars on grade
crossing. When the train clears the crossing, and no other train is
crossings, the devices employed in active traffic control systems shall be
approaching, the gate arm shall ascend to its upright position normally in
actuated by some form of train detection. Generally the method is
not more than 12 seconds, following which the flashing lights and the
automatic, requiring no personnel to operate it, although a small number
lights on the gate arm shall cease operation. In the design of individual
of such installations are still operated under manual control. The
installations, consideration should be given to timing the operation of the
automatic method currently uses the railroad circuit.
Railroad insofar
Late arm to accommodate slow moving trucks. Timing the operation of
circuits as practical shall be designed on the fail safe
the gate arm shall be coordinated with the pre-emption sequence of
principle, which uses closed circuits.
adjacent traffic control signals.
Typical location plans for automatic gates at crossings are shown in
e Definition: "Railroad Circuil—A control circuit which includes all train movement detection and logic
figure 8-7. Component details are described in section 8C-7.
components which are physically and/or electrically integrated with track structures or associated manual
control."
LU
J
Z
a
F -
x
t�
it
D
51
3W
On tracks where trains operate at speeds of 20 mph or higher, circuits
controlling automatic flashing light signals shall provide for a minimum
operation of 20 seconds before arrival of any train on such track. On other
tracks used for switc-I-iwg and assembling trains a means shall be provided
to warn approaching highway traffic. For automatic gate operation,
circuits'sliall provide for the operating sequence described in section 8C-4.
Where the speeds of different trains on a given track vary considerably
under normal operation, special devices or circuits should be installed to
provide reasonably uniform notice in advance of all train movements over
the crossing. Special control features should be used to eliminate the
effects of station stops and switching operations within approach control
circuits.
8C-6 Traffic Signals at or Near Grade Crossings
VIII -1
Rev. !
When highway intersection traffic control signals are within 200 feet of
a grade crossing, control of the traffic flaw should be designed to provide
the vehicle operators using the crossing a measure of safety at least equal
to that which existed prier to the installation 'of such signals. Accordingly,
design, installation, and operation should b based upon a total systems
approach in order that all relevant features may be considered.
When the grade crossing is equipped with an active traffic control
system, the normal sequence of highway intersection signal indications
should be preempted upon approach of trains to avoid entrapment of
vehicles on the crossing by conflicting aspects of the highway traffic
signals and the grade crossings signals. This preemption feature requires
an electrical circuit between the control relay of the grade crossing warning
system and the traffic controller. The circuit shall be of the closed circuit
vu! -I
principle, that is, the traffic signal controller 4 normally energized and the Rev. 5
.circuit is wired through a closed contact of the energized control relay of
.the grade crossing warning system. This is to establish and maintain the
preemption condition during the time that the grade crossing signals are in
operation. Where multiple or successive preemption may occur from
differing nodes, train actuation should cceivc first priority and
emergency vehicles second priority.
Where a signalized highway intcrscctipn is adjacent to a grade crossing
not provided with an active traffic control`syst m, the possibility of
vehicles being trapped on the crossing remains and preemption of the
signal controller is usually required. However, at sonic locations, the
characteristics of the crossing and intcrsctior area along, with favorabic
speeds of both vehicular and train traffic may permit alternate methods of
warning traffic. Where preemption of the traffic signal control is
determined to be desirable, consideration should be given to the
installation of active traffic 'control devices at the grade crossing,
inasmuch as the cost of the grade crossing devices would usually rcprescnt
k
ut SOOu313J31 ul p3U1rl000 On u13a3t1 tlIJOJ 13S IOU
3Jr goigm Sw3134S IOJIUOD OIJJr]I 2uISSO13 Ope12 JO Spulop 13glo Atte I
AllrlOUO2 St 02elleM dturl tunmtxuui Dill put, ()i Ol 32rIJOA 2u11u.1ad0
041 Silwil aninos a3Mod al ustid 3qI ut sollelno, 2utinp tioilendo alr2 pue
i u21s JoJ JoMod piupur)S Jo aa.tnos 413Ilrq agulols sol luoutaltnbai oil,L
slru21s JOIJU03 D!JJeal
uo1133Saa1u1 XEM112111 UT 3sn aoJ sosu3l gou!-Zl pue tioul-g aql uaaMlaq
5ulsoog3 JoJ g -U17 u011om ul palrls .s3ldl3u!ad aql of U3Al2 3q pinOilS
uollraapisuo3 's33U31 Jo soils OMl Dql uaaMlaq gulsoog3 ul •A1!I!q!S!A
J31ioq Ir11M3wos s3ptnoid §u3l 1321e1 Dill -shun !eu2is 111211 SU111SeiJ JoJ
3lgrp72Ar OIL' 'I3laweip y3u -ZI pur,tl!!p Hail= 'S3SUD1 JO Sms OML
•,Ar.Mppoi Dill Jo Sapp
IJ31 Pur Itl2ti Dill tllOg uo suotle3ol 3leg 311rwo1ne pue leu2ts Iti2ll 2ttlilseLl
of Ajddr pinogs soinlraJ SlaJrs 3ppproa Pur s33urtralo 1'enjui outus Dtlj
' igm3ssr Iru2ts otil IoJ uotpmjoid aplAold
01 p3llrlsut oq Arm I!eiplun2 odAl 2up ':)U jrll ?!ani) 2utuJn] q ageIwep of
3igr1aulnA Die sleU2tS OJ3gM pur :)U jell XrMt,2,tl p3ods=MolIUO 2U1AlOAu1
Wore iatilo 101ri11snpui ul •sliocidns 1rU21s 2upamid IoJ pasn ail o] IOU
Die s13IJJrg acid 2ulp13t -uO" p!111a '3lrtidoidde Jott Airsso33u p31ua3p IOU
s! IleipJrtt2 31311 •uotlonJisgo puna.12 a13tilO 10 Ilraparn2 JO aoiJ idol aq
pinotis owmap loiluo3 3!JJujl 2UlSSOja 3pei2 Dail JO 33ttrApr tit trMtl2til Dill
.10 11121.1 Dtil of DIooJ acu3Sa lrialri a 'i!w13d ll!M suotl!ptioa iraOl 3a311,
•Dtuil 2utlenclo onlu3 Dili Allumprid oil Neils
sdu.1rl luo3sOpueout Jo iled liaro to uOtiruitlinll! JO awtl iulol •;)wll Jo
lil2tial oturs all) xlaleutixoiddr polruitti ill ail llrtls dulrl t1ae3. `wntit!xriu
9 pur tuntutultu q 3g Ileus dtuel Itt33s3pueaul koro JOl aln' Utut
lad sat{sriJ Jo IDgwnu Dill 'Xl3juuIollr gsrll dulls shun ltl2tl 2ultisri;
•Sjru21s 1g211 2u111sull 3111
ql►M uosiun ui X13)ruJallr 11srU llrgs s11121i oMl 13il10 aq1 pur ,tlsnonultuo3
p3lrultuniil 3q 11eils d!1 3111 1sDJraU 111211 u1113 31722 Dill 'PD1rA11311 U31.Im
*(i;, -3g 32ed) g -g a.1nglJ ut p3leaipui sr sltl2il poi D3JLll 1se31
I72 anetl Ileils Pur �(Ile)UOZIaoil pDJlls723ui SlrA.131131 H1111-91 )e 311ilM Pur 1)3J
rC131ruaalie saduls Ieuoge!p 2111Arti p32uol3a1J3J Alin) 3q 117213 SLUM 31PO
sl!rlD(I luauodw03 L-:)8
•>IOOgpurH s331ADa
IoiluoD o1JJe1y Dill tit palralsnlll SIInJ On s33uonb3s uolldiunid proipul
9'ABU IeatdrCl ie13ADS •pasn os Dar sIEU2ts 3IJJe.1I ArMtlglq DJ3t!M 3leudoiddr
II of-n1A
sr algrogdde air uolleaado pur 'uollrllrlsul Iuvlsap Iru21s 31JJe.1l
of 2ujleioi lied still j0 SUOlslno.1d Dill •timil r Jo aauas3icl .10 ilatmiddr.
Dill Jo SJOle.13c10 al3lgaA UJUM 01 SIru2!s 1ilgll 2uli!SeU leuotlu3nuoa Jo
nail ut pasn aq Artu slrugls loiluoa wjail ArMi1214 '(suo!le.13do 2t !tlil!Ms
Ul se) MOTS AIDA Dir SlU3ui3AOw utral 3JDtlM mold .13glo pue sgu!ssoaa
j3rJ1 letalsnput lr '13ADMOH sirtigis Itl2!i 2ultisrU Jo n3ll ul s2utsso.1a
peo.1l!ra aullutew uo pasn aq IOU IIegS 91e1321S 10.111103 a!JJrJI SUMtl3!H
'ea.1e uotlaasnitij aql of SjOull Dill Jo ditlsuo11e13J lralsSild 3t11 uo
puadop II!M still ilslldulo33e of slru219DL11 Jo u611e301 3tll Pur Xrl(1S1P Dtll JO
3Jnlru pen;)gl 'alull 2UIl!rM 3ql 3Seai3U1 II!M still SOS723 autos UI 112nolil
MAD SJOW.1 aq1 uo dols of paalnbai jou 31� s3131gOA 1eg1 os palundo
DO pinoils s2ulssoa3 apra2 Jeau slru2is loiluda 3!JJral 131q!se3J D.1atlA\
S. o r I I
s Dill 2u!lalleard Aumproi r uo SIU3Ul3Aow 311JUJI AUM1.1214 JoJ SUO!lealpu!
u33a2 1!q!goJd lou S3op sltlL •SNOUJ) 31.j1 JOAO S1U3UIOAOi11 JOJ Uojlealpul
Mo.1.1e .10 u3312 .1rin3ala g2no.1gl r 3p!Ao.1d lou llrtls Inq 'syae.1l Dill
ssOJa IOU Op ]rill s1Uaul3AOUI 31a1113n IIu1.13d 01 palr.ixlo 311 pinolls sleu8!s
loillioD 31JJrJl uoilo3SJ3itu ArMtl2ttl Dill '3setid 3ourimia joull Dill JO1Jd
�2utsso.1a Dill puoSoq
slrugls 1no-ar3lo Sill U! S3SU3l 113312 P31annol Io p3u3a.13s Ajolenbope
gIIM 2UISSOJ3 Dill JOAO 1UattianOM 01JJUJ1 XEM112111 11.13no2 ila14M SlLU21S
aili ui s3suol paJ g3u!-Zi Jo 3sn Dill of U3Al2 3q pinoils uolleaopptioo 'u3a.12
Dar Slutift Ino -gala Dill 3unl Sill 2uunp uo!lel3.1d.131uisnu P!OAr O,L
31q!ssod se Almn se AL, dsip ammimla j:)PJI 3111 DP!Aoid of .13pio u1
PDlrinDJggr. aq Arm sa3ur..172.313 tiruls3p3d 'PanlOAut SPJrzril 3A111t13.1 .1111 .10
3snr33q'J3A3MOH •P3P!AOad oq lletis saaue.1rDlD.1rina!ipn Sjussoa3u lie pue
s3aur.1r3la Jrinatil3n l.1oils Cur 3snua lou lluils uo!lditmoid Dill •2ulsso.1a
Dill s3il3ral uiril Dill oiolaq slow! Dill baja of 3IJJeaI I►u1a3d il!M ilatilM
Aridsip leU2!s ArMilgnl a 133JJo Olin 2Ut.1q Douo Ir llrils 'I!nDa!a il3roiddr
31 S13 Ua SJi ulral 3l 113 M art !u! 3auanbas UOI dw33id o
h 1 1 j. 11 g p l 1 .1 LI.
• •gulsso.13
3peJ2 Dill 10 )D3J ppZ Ul1ll!M Slrugls at jell uo►133s.1olul � Lmtl2ltl Dill
1 01 p3l!ui!I aq pinoils uolldul33Jd 1s3ourlsulnan3 lensnun aopun Id3axU
•uo113unJ uolldui3DJd
Dip JoJ p3Jinb3a sl!n3Ji3 proa11ra 3y1 Jo 1so3 Dill of Uoil!ppr .1ou!w e
R
D. SYSTEMS AND DEVICES,
8D-1 Selection of Systems and Devices
The selection of traffic control devices at a grade crossing is determined
by public agencies having Jurisdictional responsibility at specific locations.
Active grade crossing traffic control systems range from
1. post mounted flashing light signals to
2. automatic gates combined with
(a) post mounted flashing light signals,
(b) cantilever flashing light signals, or
(c) combination of the above
Any of the foregoing may or may not incorporate a bell..
Due to the large number of significant variables which must be
considered there is no single standard system of active traffic control
devices universally applicable for grade crossings. Based on an engineering
and traffic investigation, a determination is made whether any active
traffic control system is required at a crossing and, if so, what type is
appropriate. Before a new or modified grade crossing traffic control
system is installed, approval is required from the appropriate agency
within a given State. ,
Introduction:
Objective:
Procedure:
The Village of Mount Prospect Safety Commission
Notification Policy
As discussed at the Safety Commission Meeting on December 11, 1995,
the Safety Commission does not have a Notification Policy for informing
affected residents concerning proposed traffic modifications and soliciting
their comments. Currently, notification and surveys are sent out to
affected residents only for parking restriction changes. A Notification
Policy needs to be established so that the Village Engineering Staff would
have definite guidelines to follow.
The objectives of the Notification Policy are as follows:
1. To define reasonable and consistent boundaries for notification of
proposed modifications.
2. To solicit comments from all affected residents.
3. To aid the Safety Commission and the Board of Trustees to make
well-informed recommendations and decisions.
4. To insure that the proposed modifications will improve the safety of
motorists and pedestrians
The Village Engineering Staff shall define the notification boundaries
concerning proposed modifications based on the following guidelines:
Intersection Modifications
(Stop/Yield Sign/Turn Restrictions)
Notify all residents within 200 ft of the intersection.
Parking Restrictions/Speed Limit Modifications
Notify all residents adjacent to the location of the modifications.
Other Regulatory and Special Modifications
Notify all residents within 200 ft of the proposed modifications or
limits as established by the Village Traffic Engineer.
Content:
The notification shall be in letter form and shall contain the following
information:
Explanation of modifications.
2. Sketch highlighting location and limits of modifications
(when appropriate).
3. A survey form soliciting residents comments about the proposed
modifications and date of when they will be discussed by the
Safety Commission so residents could attend. The results of the
survey shall be reported to the Safety Commission.
CHAIRMAN & VICE CHAIRMAN ELECTION
Chairman and Vice Chairman will serve two years as amended in November, 1995.