HomeMy WebLinkAbout3103_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DECEMBER 10, 1996
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Present at the meeting were:
Trustees George Clowes, Paul Hoefert Arlene Juracek and Irvana Wilks. Trustee
Richard Hendricks arrived at 10:02 p.m. Absent from the meeting was Trustee
Timothy ,Corcoran. Staff present included Village Manager Michael E. Janonis,
Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Police Chief Ronald Pavlock, Fire Chief
Edward Cavello, Community Development Director William Cooney and Planning
Coordinator Daniel Ungerleider.'
11 MINUTES
Approval'" of Minutes of November 26,` 1996. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and
Seconded by Trustee Juracek to accept the minutes. Trustee Hoefert requested
some revision to page 4. Trustee Wilks requested some clarification language be
added to consensus of the Village Board items on page 6 and Trustee Clowes
requested a revision to his comments under Any Other Business on page 7.
Minutes were approved with revisions.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
Tom Davies, 203 South Owen, spoke. He felt that there exists a conflict of interest
with Trustee Juracek being a member of the Village Board and her employment by
Commonwealth Edison. He felt she should excuse herself from ComEd
discussions. He also asked what is,the status of the Citizens' Group which he had
requested be formed to meet with Commonwealth Edison representatives to discuss
power outages. He stated information previously presented by Trustee Juracek at
a Board meeting was not typically available to the general public, therefore, he feels
there is a conflict.
Mayor Farley responded to Mr. Davies by stating that staff is working with
Commonwealth Edison to gather the necessary information and stated there has
been no determination made as to when or if a Citizens' Group would be formed.
He also stated there is no conflict of interest because no vote or action was taken
concerning Commonwealth Edison and Trustee Juracek provided information only.
1
IV. DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE PROGRAM
Village Manager Janonis provided a general overview of the topic including some
background as to where the funding would come from for such a proposal. He
stated that the funds contemplated for this program would be TIF Funds and this
project is within the TIF District itself. He stated this is the Phase I of a multi -phase
project within the TIF area in the downtown itself.
Planning Coordinator Dan Ungerleider provided a general overview of the
Streetscape proposal as presented to the Village Board. He also reviewed the
input which was solicited' from the Business .District Development and
Redevelopment Commission (BDDRC). Phase I includes the point area east to
Pine Street and BDDRC has recommended the proposal be implemented as
presented to the Village Board this evening.
Dick Hayden, of Dames and Moore, provided the details of the proposal and how
the proposalwas formulated for presentation. He provided an overview of the
existing elements throughout the downtown area and a review of the open space
and parking which currently exists. He stated the proposal is to create more of an
entrance feature for the point ofNorthwest Highway and Central Road, an entrance
feature into the downtown as it were. He stated that there would be approximately
$400,000 for construction' of this project. This expense would include full sidewalk
replacement in the area bounded by Central, Northwest Highway and Pine and
installation of full paver -brick sidewalks which is a continuation of the pattern of
pavers currently in place throughout the downtown. The only difference would be;
additional trees and pedestrian lights along the sidewalks plus the paver bricks
would be angled instead of perpendicular to roadways as they currently exist. He:
stated there would be extensive use of recycled materials for pedestrian amenities
in addition to'single-pole bike racks.
He stated the report recommends continuation of the current light -post style already
in place. All proposals can be created to comply with ADA requirements. He stated
that only experienced contractors would be considered for brick installation and
stated that quality installation is the key for long-term results. He stated that they
also typically insist on a three, -year warranty period and if there is going to be a
failure, such a warranty period would cover any failure. He stated the textured
concrete is much more expensive than bricks and does not necessarily provide the
long-term durability that paver bricks have.
General comments by the Village Board members included the following items;
2
Trustees were concerned about the long-term durability of the paving bricks due to
isolated failures perceived throughout the downtown area. There was also some
discussion concerning pedestrian areas at roadway crossings and how the brick
pavers would be compatible with such crossings. Discussion took place as to the
base which the pavers would be installed over. Some discussion included whether
a concrete base would be more practical with paver bricks placed over the
concrete. There was also discussion as to the future redevelopment in the
downtown area if the paver brick area would be extended throughout. There was
also discussion as to the water penetrability of the paver bricks and how such water
would affect the long-term durability of the bricks and their base. Trustees also
expressed concern over the separation of sidewalks from traffic and opportunities
to soften the transition between traffic and pedestrians. Trustees also were
supportive of opportunities to encourage pedestrian traffic in the downtown area.
Don Hayden responded to a number of the comments of the Village Board
members. He stated that the bricks themselves are extremely dense products and
would repel water and stated that putting paver bricks over a concrete base is
extremely expensive, but would virtually assure no degradation of the sub-base.
He also pointed out that there was a need to create an entry identity in order to
acknowledge the entrance into the downtown. He stated that whenever possible,
green separation of parkways would be maintained or enhanced.
Consensus of the Village Board was to proceed with the proposal as
presented and request that staff put together a comprehensive package with
costs of improvements for the area between Pine/Central and Northwest
Highway to the point.
Trustee Wilks requested staff do additional research to find out the cost difference
between the pebble concrete compared to installation of brick pavers. She also
requested some information as to the durability and long-term use of paver bricks
compared to concrete and cited examples of paver brick failures in the downtown
area. She also requested an overall budget for the project elements of this phase.
Trustee Clowes requested an estimate of the work to determine if cost savings
could be realized if the project was part of a Public Works contract work for
concrete and tree replacement.
Manager Janonis stated that he would provide the information the Village Board
members requested. He also stated that this proposal would come back, to the
Board for final approval before any funds were expended, once the bids were
received, the Village Board would have the opportunity for additional input.
3
Manager Janonis stated that he recently attended an informational session in
Glenview describing the reuse of the Glenview Naval Air Station with
representatives from the Police and Fire Departments. ' At this point, he is
requesting general concurrence from the Village Board to enter into discussion with
other communities to take advantage of this reuse of this portion of the airport.
Fire Chief Cavello'provided a general overview of the facility as proposed by the
Village of Glenview representatives. He stated they would use approximately 26
acres and retrofit existing buildings for training purposes. He stated that the
uniqueness of this site will probably not become available in this area again. He
stated that the training site will allow for numerous fire activities such as live burns
which are extremely difficult to practice on today because of urban development.
He stated there is enough support from the various communities to move forward
with the funding of this project and the cost proposed by the Village of Glenview is
low compared to the opportunity available. Once a funding commitment is made by
the Village, the Village would have the opportunity to utilize the facility as the
schedule of the facility and Village personnel allow.
Manager Janonis stated that Glenview had initially set aside a three-year study
period to determine what options exist for the facility and to determine appropriate
costs. However, they also feel even though they had set a time frame of three
years, the facility would be operational in twelve to eighteen months and would be
able to provide long-term cost estimates to participating. Villages at that time. He
stated the primary attraction to this facility is its proximity to the Village and the
ability to trainusing real-life situations without impacting other areas.
Consensus of the Village Board was to support expending 'approximately
$16,000' as proposed in the prospectus provided by the Village of Glenview in
order to guarantee reuse of the Glenview Naval Air Station for training
purposes for Police and Fire personnel.
VI. MANAGER'S REPORT
Manager Janonis reminded viewers and the Board that Coffee with Council is
scheduled for December 14 and Coffee with Council on the road is scheduled for
January 11.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
ige staff review the southbound intersection of
Route 83 and the railroad crossing because the left -turn markings appear to have
been removed when the work on the crossing was completed.
Manager Janonis stated he would look into the situation and stated that IDOT is
looking at the interconnection of traffic signals at this intersection and has
previously recommended the elimination of the left -turn lane on to Prospect from
south bound Route 83.
Trustee Clowes recognized Rouse-Randhurst Corporation for a $10,000 Grant
provided to TAP Mount Prospect and provided a general overview of the other
funding received from other various sources for TAP activities.
Trustee Hoefert thanked First Chicago, Special Events Commission and Randhurst
for the successful Sounds of the Season event which took place on December 7.
CLOSED SESSION:
Motion made to move into Closed Session at 10:03 p.m. to discuss Litigation and
Personnel. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Wilks. A
unanimous roll call vote occurred.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was reconvened into open session at 10:43 p.m. There being no further
business, meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
DS/rcc
Respectfully submitted,
-!aw
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
5
raureean
w
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TREE CMUSA
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY/GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT C�
DATE: JANUARY 8,1997
SUBJECT: TREE ORDINANCES/POLICY/MANUAL/BROCHURE PROJECT
At the Committee of the Whole Meeting scheduled for January 14, 1997, the Village
Board will review a four-part project now underway in the Public Works Forestry
Division. This project involves the following components: 1) revision of existing tree -
related ordinances, 2) preparation of a technical standards manual, 3) preparation of a
tree removal policy and 4) preparation of an informational brochure for citizens. Public
Works Director Glen Andler and I will attend the meeting along with Mr. R.J. Laverne,
the consultant we are working with on this project. Mr. Laverne is the Vice President of
Urban Forestry at ACRT Inc., the arboricultural consulting firm which prepared our 1993
Urban Forest Management Plan. At this meeting we hope to review progress made thus
far, and seek input from the Village Board regarding the direction we are taking.
BACKGROUND
The need for all four components was identified during development of the 1993
management plan. In many ways our existing ordinances have not kept pace with the
way we actually do things today. For example, some of the tree species approved for
parkway planting in the ordinance are not suitable, and many others that we currently
plant are not listed. There is only limited mention of measures meant to protect trees
from construction damage, which is becoming increasingly important as our tree
population ages. The existing ordinance also contains a number of technical points
detailing how forestry work should be done, such as the width and depth of the hole when
new trees are planted. The current trend in tree ordinance writing is to take such technical
standards out of the ordinance itself and place them in a separate standards manual, which
is then referred to in the ordinance. The idea is to make the ordinance less cumbersome.
The standards manual is generally easier to update as needed to reflect the latest
developments based on tree research.
The need to formalize our tree removal policy has become more critical as we receive
more and more requests to remove trees that are not dead or unsound. The reasons for
such requests are varied, ranging from roots in sewers to falling leaves to plans for a
Page 2
Tree Ordinance/Policy/Manual/Brochure Project
January 9, 1997
wider driveway. We have tried to maintain consistency in our responses to such requests,
but it is difficult to do so over a long period of time without a written policy.
A policy which outlines the various factors to be taken into consideration when making
such a decision, and establishes whether the Village or the requesting party should bear
the costs of tree removal and/or planting of a replacement tree, will help assure that sound
decisions are made and all citizens are treated fairly.
Finally, development of an easy to understand brochure containing information about the
Village's forestry program and the value of our community's trees has been a long-term
goal. I believe that such a brochure will help educate and inform our citizens, and
increase their appreciation for the Village's efforts to maintain the trees that so greatly
impact the quality of life in Mount Prospect.
We felt it prudent to bring this project before the Board at this time because we have been
working on it long enough to know the major direction we would like to proceed in, but
we are not so far along that we will have to start over from scratch if the Board has a
different vision of how we should be proceeding. The following summarizes progress
made thus far.
FUNDING
In order to help offset costs associated with this project, we applied for and received an
Urban and Community Forestry Grant to hire a consultant to help us with these tasks.
Once the project is completed we will be reimbursed for $4500.00 by the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources. After that grant was announced, I was approached by
the Garden Club of Mount Prospect. They informed me about the "PETALS" grant
program administered by the National Council of State Garden Clubs and Shell Oil
Company. They expressed an interest in applying for a grant for a joint Garden
Club/Village project. We subsequently decided to develop a "neighborhood tree walk"
route featuring a variety of interesting trees, and to seek grant funds enabling us to
incorporate this into the above mentioned citizen brochure. We were awarded a $250.00
grant which will be matched by an additional $250.00 donation from the Garden Club.
CITIZEN BROCHURE
Attached to this memo you will find a very preliminary version of the brochure. Please
note that much of the text is only an outline of topics we wish to address and the graphics
are simply meant to give a rough idea of how the brochure might eventually look. The
"Tree Walk" is currently being tested by the Garden Club volunteers for accuracy and
ease of use, and we are still seeking permission to feature some of the private property
trees listed. We are excited that we have identified a great deal of interest in the
Page 3
Tree Ordinance/Policy/Manual/Brochure Project
January 9, 1997
brochure from a wide variety of community organizations, including scouting groups, the
Chamber of Commerce, the Park Districts and the Historical Society.
ORDINANCES/STANDARDS MANUAL/REMOVAL POLICY
Most parkway tree -related issues are currently located in Article Five of Chapter Nine of
the Village Code. Chapter Sixteen, the Development Code, contains some specific
references to tree planting in new developments, but mostly refers to Chapter Nine. It
should be noted that Article XXIII of Chapter Fourteen, the Zoning Ordinance, covers
private property landscaping requirements and tree removal restrictions for certain
properties governed by the Development Code. This Chapter falls under the
responsibility of the Director of Community Development and we are not proposing
changes to this Chapter. At this time we propose minor revisions to Chapter Sixteen so it
will not conflict with Chapter Nine, and major revisions to Chapter Nine summarized as
follows:
A. Addition of the "Statement of Purpose" shown on Attachment A.
B. Addition of sections entitled "Definitions" and "Home Rule Authority and
Severability".
C. Addition of an "Authority and Responsibility" section establishing that primary
responsibility for public tree care resides with the Public Works Director, who shall
appoint a Forestry/Grounds Superintendent with authority to interpret and enforce the
ordinance and maintain a "Village Standards Manual for Arboriculture".
D. Addition of an "Appeals" section whereby decisions of the Forestry Grounds
Superintendent may be appealed first to the Public Works Director, and further to the
Village Manager for a final decision.
E. Removal of specifications regarding how parkway trees shall be planted (these
standards will be edited and moved to the newly -created Standards Manual.)
F. Addition of a "Pruning" section which establishes the need for a permit to prune a
public tree. Also requires contractors to have insurance and proof of arborist
certification, plus adhere to national safety standards.
G. Modified section on "Removals", which refers to removal standards in Standards
Manual.
H. Revision to penalties/fees for ordinance violations, written to reduce the need to go to
court to gain compliance.
Page 4
Tree Ordinance/Policy/Manual/Brochure Project
January 9, 1997
Modification to "Excavations" section to expand list of types of construction that may
affect trees, and increased authority for Public Works Director to set construction
limits and require modified construction methods to protect trees. Includes reference
to tree protection measures to be included in standards manual.
As explained previously, in addition to the above changes to Chapter Nine, we also plan
to propose the creation of a separate "Village Arboricultural Standards Manual". Thus
far we envision the manual to include the following sections.
A. "Goals" as seen on Attachment A
B. Plaritin e S )ecifications
1. Revisions to planting techniques to reflect current practices (e.g.
width and depth of hole)
2. Revised spacing requirements, as explained in greater detail later
in this memo.
3. Updated, expanded species list grouped by tree size (Large, Medium,
Small)
4. List of prohibited species
C. Tree Ti-hn:rning - Adopts standards contained in Standard Practices for
Tree Care Operations (ANSI A300) published by the American National
Standards Institute.
D. Tree Protection - Discusses when tree protection measures must be taken
to protect trees from construction damage. Contains requirements for
specific tree protection techniques in certain cases including augering
near trees as opposed to open trenching, snow fence installation, pre -
construction root pruning, hand regrading near trees, etc. -
E. Removal Policy - Although originally envisioned as a separate document,
it now seems appropriate to include this in the standards manual. This
section identifies factors to be considered in tree removal decisions
including desirability of tree species, structural soundness, suitability of
tree for its location, potential for tree to damage hardscape, nuisance or
hardship caused by tree, availability/cost effectiveness of alternatives other
than removal, etc. (Note that not all listed factors would be weighed
equally). This section also discusses situations in which a petition from
surrounding property owners is required, and who will bear the costs of
removal/replacement in various situations.
Page 5
Tree Ordinance/Policy/Manual/Brochure Project
January 9, 1997
PR:).iE( I'TIMELINE
Attachment B shows a proposed time line which we feel will allow thorough review by
all affected Village Departments, and formal presentation of our final recommendations
to the Village Board at the April 8, 1997 Committee of the Whole Meeting.
BOARD INPUT RE 1.11 �S'E.Q
At the January 14, 1997 COW meeting, we would welcome the Village Board's questions
or comments about any of the above listed items, as well as suggestions on any perceived
omissions. I would also like to specifically ask for the Board's input on the following
items:
A. Pro osed :''han es Reaa ing Parkway Tree Spacing
The current ordinance requires 40 feet between trees for new plantings, but
any spacing is allowed for trees planted to replace those removed the prior
year. This provision was a compromise adopted in 1982 as a result of
citizen discontent with the previous practice of requiring at least 50 foot
spacing between all plantings. The compromise satisfied the
complainants, but was not based on tree growth requirements. At that
time I was opposed to the concept of varying spacing requirements
depending on the mature size of each tree species, although that alternative
probably would have both satisfied the complainants, and met tree growth
requirements. I was concerned then that that concept would be too hard to
incorporate into our cost -share planting program, but I have since changed
my opinion and I now believe this is the best approach. Thus we will be
proposing 40' spacing between large species, 30' between medium trees
and 20' between small trees.
Also, in regards to tree spacing, tree plantings are commonly spaced more
closely in downtown areas than in residential areas, and indeed they are
shown this way in the Community Development Department's proposed
Streetscape Plan. There is some sound rationale for varying the standards
in a downtown area, including 1) relatively few suitable planting sites are
available and thus there is usually sparse tree cover 2) urban stresses such
as soil compaction, salt, pollution, vandalism, vehicle accidents, fairly
frequent redevelopment and little available rooting space frequently result
in few trees ever reaching full mature size, and 3) there is an opportunity
to install "cluster plantings" where more than one tree shares the same soil
in a planter, thus providing more soil per tree than those planted in
individual sidewalk pits.
Page 6
Tree Ordinance/Policy/Manual/Brochure Project
January 9, 1997
B. Shrub PI
antin on Right-of-Wgy
Although not listed above, this is an appropriate time to question
whether the Village Board wants to revisit the issue of planting shrubbery
in the public right-of-way. At the time of the 1992 sight obstruction
discussions the Board chose to continue a long-standing ban on these
plantings. Since then we have actively enforced removal of new shrub
plantings as we have become aware of them. However, the above-
mentioned Streetscape Plan proposes such plantings in the downtown to
screen parking lots, in places where there is insufficient room to install
these plantings on private property. If the Board is in favor of this
concept, then I believe we should make this change to the ordinance at this
time, but for the downtown only.
Sandy Clark
SC/eh
cc: Director of Public Works Glen Andler
Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey
x:files\frontof \forestry\cowtreeo.rds
ATTACHMENT A
Pro osed "STATEMENT OF PURPOSE" for Ordinance
The primary objective of the Village Government is to provide the citizens of Mount
Prospect a safe, prosperous, and healthy community in which to live and work. To
consistently meet this objective requires the coordinated efforts of many individuals and
municipal departments including those responsible for maintaining the infrastructure of
the Village. Components of this infrastructure include streets, sidewalks, sewers,
buildings and trees. Healthy trees are unique in that they appreciate in value as they
mature, unlike other components of the infrastructure that continually depreciate over
time.
Trees provide a wide range of benefits to the Village of Mount Prospect. Healthy trees
reduce air and noise pollution, slow storm water runoff, contribute to energy conservation
through shade and protection from the wind, and significantly increase property values.
Trees need sufficient soil, water, and air to survive. Protecting existing natural resources
and planning for the establishment and care of new trees will enhance the economic and
environmental health of the Village.
The purpose of this ordinance is to promote and protect public health and safety by
providing for the proper establishment of new trees, the protection and maintenance of
existing trees and the timely removal of hazardous or undesirable trees.
Proposed "GOALS" to be Listed in Standards Manual
The provisions contained in The Village of Mount Prospect's Urban Forest Protection
and Planning Ordinance are designed to yield specific goals when properly implemented.
These goals include:
Maintain a healthy urban forest. The urban forest of Mount Prospect is a dynamic
ecosystem comprised of trees, soil, water, air, wildlife and humans. Proper stewardship
of the ecosystem is the most efficient and economical method of insuring a safe and
relatively hazard -free environment for the citizens of Mount Prospect.
Promote age and species diversity of the tree population. The long-term health of Mount
Prospect's urban forest depends on a proper distribution of young, middle-aged and
mature trees. Adequate stocking of various aged trees insures that as mature trees decline
and are removed, younger trees are available to fill in the canopy. Species diversity is
also important to guard against substantial losses to a species-specific pest or disease,
such as Dutch Elm Disease.
Improve species and site selection for new tree plantings. Increasing species diversity
will only improve the urban forest if the species are matched with the site in which they
are growing. Large trees provide the greatest benefits relative to energy conservation, air
quality and storm watier retention, but require sufficient space to reach their full size at
maturity. Large -growing trees shall not be planted directly under existing power liners.
Small trees can be used in a variety of places that are size restricted, however if a space
will accommodate a tree that achieves a larger size at maturity, the larger -growing species
should be considered. The proper tree should be located according to the conditions of
the site with consideration given to increasing canopy closure, maximizing environmental
benefits and achieving consistency in the landscape design.
Establish optimum canopy closure. Trees help to conserve energy by providing shade to
buildings during the summer. Additional cooling can be realized by shading roads and
parking lots that would otherwise absorb sunlight and radiate heat. Since Mount Prospect
is located in a heating dominated climate, consideration must also be given to the effect
of shade on heating costs in the winter. Careful consideration of the establishment of new
trees will result in the optimum canopy closure relative to energy conservation.
Resolution and prevention of tree/hardscape conflicts through coordinated planning.
Trees require space for roots, trunk, and branches. Frequently the space occupied by
portions of trees is needed for other elements of the infrastructure such as roads, sewers,
utility lines and buildings. Conflicts between trees and other infrastructure components
can be minimized through cooperation of the various Village departments, local utility
companies and citizens. The provisions of this ordinance are intended to facilitate
communication and cooperation between those individuals and agencies charged with
maintaining Mount Prospect's infrastructure.
Promote public education and support. The primary reason to care for trees and natural
resources in Mount Prospect is to improve the community for its citizens. The urban
forest management program must be based on the informed support of the citizens. A.
goal of this ordinance is to provide proper tree care through informed professional
management based on knowledge. Those Village employees responsible for the
management of natural resources in Mount Prospect are also responsible for sharing their
knowledge and sources of information with the public.
Facilitate the resolution of tree -related conflicts. A goal of the Village Urban Forest
Protection and Planning Ordinance is to make available reasonable and fair guidelines for
maintaining healthy, structurally sound and safe trees, and providing a comprehensive;
standards manual for planting, pruning and removing trees. By providing these
guidelines in a clear and understandable format, equal and fair treatment is guaranteed for
all residents.
x: files\frontoff\forestry\cowattac.hmt
ATTACHMENT B
REVISED TIMELINE - 1/8/97
TREE ORDINANCES/POLICY/MANUAL/BROCHURE PROJECT
1/14/97 Presentation at Committee of Whole Meeting explaining project
direction.
2/1/97 Financial statement due to PETALS chairman
2/5/97 Tentative - Plan Commission Review of Chapter 16 tree spacing/shrub
references re downtown
2/10/97 Consultant to submit revised drafts as per recommendations of
Forestry Superintendent, Public Works Director and Village Board
2/11/97 Revised draft distributed to Forestry Superintendent,
Public Works Director, Village Engineer, Village Attorney,
Community Development Director "requesting review by 2/21/97
2/28/97 Consolidated comments from above returned to consultant
3/14/97 Consultant submits final draft of recommendations
3/26/97 Final draft to Manager, Village Board, and Village Clerk
4/8/97 Formal presentation at Village Board Committee of Whole meeting
4/15/97 First reading of ordinance
5/6/97 Second reading of ordinance (if required by Board)
5/7/97 Brochure to printer
6/1/97 Deadline for completion of PETALS grant project
6/15/97 Deadline for submission of end products and grant reimbursement
request to IDNR.
x: fi les\frontoff\fore stry\cowtreor. d2
Village of Fount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois �„ A..�
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: MAYOR GERALD L. "SKIP" FARLEY
SUBJECT: O'HARE/PALWAUKEE AIRPORT NOISE ISSUES-
BACKGROUND/STATUS REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1997
In recent years, airport -related noise issues have become an item of growing concern for
Mount Prospect residents. Among the region's communities, Mount Prospect has a
somewhat unique situation in that our southern border is in close proximity to O'Hare
International Airport while our northern border is in close proximity to the Palwaukee
Municipal Airport. White the scope and nature of the noise -related issues generated by
the two airports is in some respects different, there are certain common issues which are
applicable to both geographic situations. The most basic of these is the policy question
of determining the appropriate balance between the economic vitality that these two
facilities bring to the region generally, and Mount Prospect specifically, and the near
sacrosanct need to protect and nurture our residents' right to enjoy the highest quality of
community life possible.
Achieving the appropriate balance is a difficult, if not impossible, task. A variety of
competing interests all weigh in with legitimate views and needs, not the least of which are
those residents most heavily impacted by airport noise. In weighing the various impacts
of noise, pollution, commerce, jobs and economic development opportunities, it quickly
becomes clear that an extreme position with regard to either unbridled airport expansion
or strict moratoriums or other restrictions on airport operations cavi have long-term
deleterious impacts on not only the region but also Mount Prospect. That is why efforts
to strike a reasonable balance are so important.
While Mount Prospect has historically not been the most vocal protagonist or antagonist
in the airport noise debate, that does not mean that it has not actively monitored the
situation and sought to develop lines of communication with the various parties involved
in the debate. Based on recent events such as the proposal to extend the main runway
at Palwaukee Airport and the attempt by the Republican -controlled legislature to wrest
control of O'Hare operations from the City of Chicago, renewed interest has been focused
on the whole issue of airport noise.
As part of that renewed interest, the Village Board has felt the need to take a more:visible
and active role in helping to shape whatever policy and/or legal developments that may
take place in this arena. I concur, and as a result asked staff to bring forward preliminary
Wormation that would serve as the basis for development of a village policy position
regarding airport -related activities which may impact on Mount Prospect.
This memorandum and attached material will provide: 1) A comprehensive overview of
past and present Noise Commissions; 2) Historical background on Mount Prospect actions
and positions and 3) other resource information relative to O'Hare/Palwaukee Airports.
Finally, there is a general discussion of policy issues and potential action steps the Board
may wish to consider.
In the early 1980s, Mount Prospect joined with DesPlaines, Niles, Park Ridge, Bensenville,
and Schiller Park in the case State of Illinois v. Butterfield. This case was brought by the
state against the administrator of the FAA to require the FAA and O'Hare to conduct
environmental impact studies to ascertain methods, procedures, or equipment to lessen
the noise, air and water pollution caused by O'Hare. The case was concluded with a
consent decree in 1982 which required a noise contour report be created to determine the
various noise levels affecting surrounding communities. The decree also stipulated the
surrounding communities be afforded the opportunity to provide input. Mount Prospect's
involvement with the other communities involved in the case diminished after the consent
decree and the other communities formed the backbone of the Suburban O'Hare
Commission (SOC). At the conclusion of this case SOC was formed to follow up on the
decree and further their issues, specifically no new runways.
Since the case was concluded Mount Prospect has monitored the activities of various
noise commissions. Below is a sampling of other noise commissions and Mount Prospect's
involvement with the commissions.
GENERAL BACKGROUND - Existing and Previous Noise Commissions
The following is a short background on a number of noise commissions which are currently
in existence or have passed from existence and a summary of their achievements. There
is also information providing what the benefits and drawbacks might be by joining each
respective noise commission.
Arlin ton Hei hts Noise Commissigh: (Active)
The Arlington Heights Noise Commission has been in operation for approximately 5 years.
The Arlington Heights Commission was originally started to address community noise
concerns and the village board decided that the views of Suburban O'Hare Commission
(SOC) were not representative of Arlington Heights views. The commission provides
recommendations to the village board relating to O'Hare noise issues.
The Arlington Heights Commission has been reviewing the impact of noise over Arlington
Heights and attempting to tnitigate such noise. The focus of the commission is not to
address noise on a regional basis, but only within Arlington Heights. Unfortunately, there
has been limited success in achieving the desired results. However, the commission has
been successful in gathering extensive information as to the complexities of dealing with
O'Hare noise. Any possible noise solutions are further complicated by the fact that no
entity will take responsibility for generating the noise over the community.
Therefore, any opportunities to define penalties for individuals who continue to generate
excessive noise over the community is virtually impossible.
The Village of Mount Prospect has not joined this commission, but Village staff has had
the benefit of the information available and discussed by the commission. Village staff,
and at times I have, attended the Arlington Heights Noise Commission meetings
periodically for a number of years and regularly receives minutes of the meetings.
Suburban O'Hare Commission SOC (Active)
Another noise commission which is actively involved in monitoring O'Hare noise is the
Suburban O'Hare Commission (SOC). This commission is made up of the communities
of: Addison, Bensenville, DesPlaines, DuPage County, Elk Grove, Elmhurst, Harwood
Heights, Itasca, Niles, Park Ridge, and Wood Dale. SOC has been in existence since the
early 1980s. The SOC objectives included the following items as listed in the resolutions
approved by various participating communities:
• Study the effect of aircraft overflights over the corporate limits of the parties on the
quality of life within their territory.
• Study and recommend solutions to problems created by O'Hare affecting the lives
of the citizens of the participants.
• Consult with other communities that are not members of the Commission on
common objectives in improving the quality of life of all suburban communities
adversely affected by O'Hare and its overflight operations.
• Retain counsel and expert consultants for purposes of studying the legal rights of
the parties and their citizens in relation to O'Hare; provided, however, no litigation
shall be filed by the Commission in the name of any Party without the Party's prior
written consent.
• Represent the Parties in administrative proceedings before the FAA, or any other
governmental body having jurisdiction in the affairs of O'Hare insofar as they might
affect the Parties.
• Conduct an Information and Education Program for the citizens of the Parties on the
operations of O'Hare, and contemplated expansion thereof and the effects of noise
pollution and aircraft -caused pollutants in the atmosphere.
Conduct a public relations campaign acquainting the general public of the adverse
effects of O'Hare operations or any expansion thereof on the citizens of the Parties.
0 Report to the Parties on a regular continuing basis on the performance of the
Commission's duties and new developments in the operations of O'Hare.
The successes of the SOC efforts have been difficult to attribute directly to SOC activities.
However, there has been a commitment from the state of Illinois that no new runways will
be constructed at O'Hare until a solution to the projected growth of O'Hare as been
resolved. The city of Chicago has been installing permanent noise monitoring devices
throughout the suburbs to measure noise levels. The data produced by the noise level
monitors will be used as part of a determination as to which homes, schools, and churches
might be eligible for soundproofing.
The Village of Mount Prospect has not been officially invited to join SOC, but in unofficial
discussions with various SOC representatives, SOC would welcome the Village's
participation. The cost of becoming a member of SOC is $1 per capita annually.
Therefore, the village would pay approximately $53,000 annually for active SOC
participation.
SOC is sponsoring a noise commission to counter the city of Chicago sponsored noise
commission. The SOC sponsored commission, O'Hare Commission, is open to any
community who is interested in joining. Therefore, non-member SOC communities may
join the O'Hare Commission without incurring the annual SOC dues. The O'Hare
Commission requirements for membership are as follows:
► Parties to the agreement recognize that continued expansion of O'Hare will result
in increased frequency of noise and increased air pollution being inflicted on the
citizens of the member communities and that such continued expansion is
damaging and destructive to the health and quality of life of their communities.
Therefore, each Participant to this agreement agrees that no municipality or county
may join the Commission without first agreeing to oppose further expansion of
O'Hare including but not limited to opposing construction of new runways.
► Each Participant must also certify in writing as a condition of joining the O'Hare
Commission that a significant number of its residents are adversely affected by
noise and air pollution generated by O'Hare operations.
The O'Hare Commission is also intended to establish a reasonable noise contour instead
of the Chicago definition of noise affected area as an average 24 hour or six month
average above a specific level. The O'Hare Commission shall seek independent funding
to manage an independent noise monitoring system and share noise data among
members.
Unofficial discussions with SOC representatives have verified the fact that the Village of
Mount Prospect is eligible to join if the Village Board is interested. SOC representatives
have also stated unofficially that communities will not be barred from membership in the
O'Hare Commission if the community also maintains membership in another noise
commission, such as the Chicago sponsored, O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission.
Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (ARCO): (Active)
ARCO is a grassroots organization opposed to runway expansion at O'Hare and has been
a vocal critic of O'Hare due to the perceived pollutants generated by O'Hare operations.
ARCO utilizes much of the same environmental information SOC has obtained over the
years to promote its case.
No community has been invited to support ARCO's objectives or provide funding. Funding
and staff support remains among the officers of the organization.
• - .s #Basl 61 2—
OHAC was a noise Commission sponsored by the city of Chicago as a response to the
consent decree in the State of Illinois v. Butterfield case. Most of participants became
disenchanted with this commission and withdrew their support. The commission
disbanded due to lack of participation of members and the friction between Chicago and
the suburban members. This commission is no longer in existence.
O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission:
The City of Chicago recently created the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission and
invited a number of area communities to join including Mount Prospect. The commission
is generally intended to do the following:
• Determine certain noise compatibility projects to be implemented in the O'Hare
affected area.
• Oversee an effective and impartial noise monitoring system.
• Advise the city of Chicago concerning O'Hare related noise issues.
The city of Chicago has sponsored a number of meetings since October to discuss the
proposed intergovernmental agreement and the commission bylaws with the affected
communities. Many of the proposed member communities voiced concern over some of
the language in the agreement. The city of Chicago has revised many of the areas of
concern voiced by member communities, but there still exists items within the agreement
which are not ideal. However, the objective of the commission to advise the City of
Chicago as to how noise remediation funds will be expended is a unique opportunity for
a participating community.
Below is a summary of pros and cons for consideration in determining membership in the
O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission:
Pros:
• Participate in discussions defining the use of noise remediation funds in affected
communities.
• Participate in discussions defining the unacceptable noise level that would
constitute the threshold noise level for possible soundproofing.
• The village would not have to expend any funds to participate as a member of the
Commission.
• Village representatives shall have access to extensive noise data provided by
O'Hare and the FAA.
• Participate in subcommittees which will establish criteria and selection for annual
home sound installation.
• Participate in subcommittees which will review and analyze noise monitoring
information and work with independent consultants to verify data.
• Participation does not suggest either officially or unofficially Village of Mount
Prospect support for any new runways or a third airport.
• Recommendations relating to reducing noise of aircraft operators will have a larger
voice than from each participant individually.
• Cannot use any data obtained through participation in the commission for legal
proceedings against the FAA or city of Chicago.
• Commission recommendations are forwarded to the Chicago City Council for final
action.
• Chicago representatives would not stipulate a no new runways stance for the
duration of the agreement.
Village of Mount Prospect Noise Issues:
The village's issues relating to O'Hare noise are not all that unique from other communities
whether the communities participate in SOC or the O'Hare Noise Compatibility
Commission. Unfortunately, there exists few alternatives available to foster a resolution
to Village of Mount Prospect issues among a single Commission.
It is impossible to eliminate all aircraft noise over the community, but working to limit the
level and amount of noise to as narrow an area as possible would be a reasonable! goal
to achieve through participation in a noise Commission. Participation will provide the
information to the community to identify excessive noise generators and apply pressure
to reduce noise impact. Adherence to flight path rules, phasing out of old technology jet
engines and better flight volume management are all areas where improvements could
result in a narrowing of the noise footprint over the community. As the noise foot print is
reduced to the lowest possible level the actual noise impact could further be mitigated
through sound proofing affected residences and other structures. Participation in a noise
Commission will allow the village to enter discussions as to the appropriate level noise to
determine eligibility for sound proofing.
The placement of noise monitors within the community will provide invaluable data
identifying the excessively noisy aircraft and the actual noise level generated bey the
aircraft. The Village of Mount Prospect has been provided with two noise monitors
(Lavergne/Pheasant and School/Berkshire) and a third monitor in the area generally north
of Kensington is slated for installation within the next few months. Robert Frost (design
1997, construction 1997/98) and John Jay (design 1997, construction 1998) Schools on
the southside of the community have been soundproofed recently or are in the process of
being soundproofed.
Palwaukee Noise Issues:
The City of Chicago has extra noise monitors which were not installed in suburban
communities and has offered to install an additional noise monitor in Mount Prospect.
Village staff has directed the installation to be placed in the northside of the village (north
of Kensington) to measure noise events generated by Palwaukee. The Village Board went
on record in 1981 by approving a resolution which highlighted Mount Prospect issues with
Palwaukee:
• Village of Mount Prospect opposes any expansion of the Palwaukee facility,
including the extension of any runway of any other physical improvement that would
permit flight capacity for any type of aircraft larger than present operations.
• Village of Mount Prospect recommends that Palwaukee Airport, its owners, and any
supervising agency implement effective and enforceable noise control measures;
including the immediate prohibition of additional turbo jet operations; the
requirement that existing turbo jet owner retrofit their aircraft by 1984 to utilize the
more fuel efficient and quieter turbo -fan engines; and that an operations curfew be
established between the hours of 11:30 pm and 6:30 am.
• Village of Mount Prospect urges the FAA to establish and enforce air control
activities prohibiting flight patterns near schools and other population
concentrations so as to reduce the risk of a catastrophic incident.
Since this resolution the village staff has been monitoring Palwaukee activities by
reviewing operational meeting minutes. The Village has advised the current owners,
Prospect Heights and Wheeling, of our concerns. The elected representatives of the two
communities have acknowledged the village's concerns and will include the Mount
Prospect representatives in any discussion on expansion of the runways.
The installation of the noise monitor in the northern end of the village would greatly assist
in obtaining measures of noise events and will afford the village the opportunity to match
the noise event information to actual time of day. The ability to match noise events to
specific aircraft will probably be a bit more difficult because of the general aviation nature
of the airport compared to the radar information which will be furnished by O'Hare is
primarily commercial aircraft.
Conclusion:
The issue of airport noise, whether it is generated by O'Hare or Palwaukee, will remain a
situation which will require the Village to work with other communities, the State and
Federal agencies to address Mount Prospect issues on a regional basis. The key to
success is, in my mind, taking a reasonable approach to achieving a reasonable balance
between quality of life issues and the economic reality that these Airports do provide
benefits to the region and Mount Prospect. By taking extreme positions, I believe that
progress toward achieving that balance has been thwarted. I, for one, am willing to sit
down at the table with representatives from both Airports, regardless of past ill -feelings,
in an effort to achieve a mutually workable solution.
At this time, I believe that there is merit in Mount Prospect joining the O'Hare Boise
Compatibility Commission, even with its shortcomings, as a first step toward opening a
meaningful dialogue. Membership commits the Village to nothing but gives us a voice at
the table. With regard to Palwaukee, I would suggest that we seek to establish a similar,
reasoned dialogue with all relevant parties. I believe that this approach will best serve the
Village of Mount Prospect into the future.
Gerald L. "Skip" Farley
cc: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager
David Strahl, Assistant Village Manager
X:\USERS\DAVES\WIN\OFFICE\OHARMEM.WPD
trlllti Al r',.0 rr rrl Ili rl r f111t�r11 irl rriltl', Illml, tl t .11l r b� t {Ilr a Irril, lIn r„I rr,i
--, 0 y
ite as cold
cloudiness and not
Lry, with a high in
•lir upper teens.
v tonight, with the
-r Snow likely
rv, with the high in
!0s,.
ox, widow of
-o Lt. John Fox,
his award.
honored
Ick American he-
orld War II
long-delayed
>n Monday when
1. Clinton presented
i Medals of Honor
'
Lottery/1-3
k-Im
Movies/3-5
s s.......t .........
Obituaries/5-2
r
Police/5-2
d, 2 7
Stocks/4-2
1 F, ...........
.elevision/3-4
,10,2-7
Weather/1-8
° , .r,r .1.., ,, F ,k!J, + fid,
�7iunway expansion
w
Palwaukee Municipal Airport's main runway won't see an expansion anytime soon after
Wheeling, officials Mrofnd �nlghhtrarje+cts fl plan.,,,,, . , w
. w ,..: �.. '� ,
Wffl*ting the mngs
DuPage airport hopes
to lure business after
Wheeling quashes
Palwaukee's plans
BY DAN CULLOTON
AND Bos McKEE
Dailv Herald Staff Writers
Corporate jet operators are not expected to aban-
don Palwaukee Municipal Airport even though a
proposal to lengthen its main runway has been
rejected.
But at least one of Palwaukee's competitors,
DuPage County Airport, thinks it could benefit from
the Northwest suburban airfield's loss.
Palwaukee sought from its two owners — Wheel-
ing and Prospect Heights — permission to expand
its 5,000 -foot runway by 400 feet for an emergency
stopping area. Aside from safety, the extra room
could have allowed some new, heavier jets to use
the airfield.
Prospect Heights never considered the plan.
And Monday night, Wheeling officials unanimously
rejected the proposal, which attracted community-
wide opposition after the Oct. 30 crash of a corporate
jet that killed four people just north of the airport.
"This really brought out fear in people and ... you
really can't ignore something like this; you have to
respond,” said Trustee Jeanne Selander. "We cer-
tainly don't want to be a negative force to business,
but we have to look out for our residents."
But officials said that they didn't really see extend.
Fightinlg for corporate0 i
fallout from Iva
#r of
flights ;1" -fun
Palwaukee iilllulnlif 1p of Airport, y,1heellntg
180,76i, 3 ,,.5,000feet 412 -acres
DuPage County Airport, West Chi o
190,000 '4 6,700 feet 1,500 acres
Schaumburg Regional Airport
80,000 1 3,800 feet 81 acres
Waukegan Regional
93,395 2 6,000 feet 535 acres
Lake -In -the -Hills
N.A.* 1 3,804 feet 25 acres
Meigs Field, Chicago
51,058'* 1 4,000 feet 90 acres
Note: Number of flights is an annual figure.
*Airport does not keep this statistic, they get an estimate
from IDOT.
— 1995, last full year of operation
Source: A rports Deily Herald Graphic
ing the runway as bringing that much of a benefit.
The airport is already safe and riot expanding the
See RUNWAY on Page 4
the school will be
parents with a
iinist.rative staff
,assistant Superin-
�ert Bortnick called
owledge curricu-
csirable" and simi-
already taught in
hough he added
test is not its con-
nat is done with it to
►ningful."
e board members
ed, to the disap-
if charter school
that the group
able to use the for -
Junior High for
:hoo. '
ng would cast sev-
dollars to renovate;
t 59 officials, and
had the money, the
I never be ready by
)oard member Den -
said.
files his petitions
Clerk Renie
dential candidate,
]reds across the
r the April 1 elec-
Herald Photo/Mark Black
.rtes line up
Ihroe-%vav race in
-d ou the City s caaat
Yick Chirop6los is
iwn after 16 years on
ncil.
ct Heights, some
m nr�rina in tho leh
*W Ir *
nL?*4WA Y . ViRage prevents
rree from exp,and*
Continued from Page 1
runway shouldn't hurt its economic
viability, said Village Manager Craig
Anderson.
"(There is) no compelling reason
to make that runway any longer
than it is," Anderson said.
But the DuPage County Airport
"absolutely" expects to reap more
business now that Palwaukee's
extension plans have been thwarted,
said its spokesman, Brian Kulpin.
Even if it can't lure pilots from Pal-
waukee, the West Chicago airport
thinks it has the edge over Palwau-
kee in the competition for new cor-
porate tenants thanks to a newly
extended take off and landing strip
of its own and more room for expan-
sion.
"Palwaukee is in a completely dif-
ferent -situation," Kulpin said. "They
are landlocked"
DuPage reopened a 6,700 -foot run-
way on Chnstmas day r rid-
ing it from 5,100 feet to attract more
corporate planes looking for a place
to take off fully fueled for coast-to-
coast or international flights.
"We can't wait to see how much
our business increases this year
because of this new runway," Kulpin
said.
Palwaukee manager Fred E. Stew-
art Jr. admitted the loss of the run-
way extension could have some
affect on his airport's operation.
At least one competing airport thinks it may benefit from new
corporations looking for a runway longer than that at
Palwaukee Municipal Airport, above. Daily Herald Photo/Mark Black
But talk of Palwaukee — the
state's third busiest airport — losing
tenants and business is "all supposi-
tion," Stewart said
"I don't know how it will be per-
ceived," he said. "It could be
extremely detrimental to business
or it could have no effect at all."
Stewart said the project's chief
goal was safety but added that sev-
eral
emeral corporate and private users
said in a recent survey that they
would prefer a longer runway.
About three or four tenants have
left Palwaukee in recent years in
search of longer runways, but all of
them have been replaced by other
operators„ Stewart saK
It's possible others could follow,
said Lich Bogoff, vice president of
the Palwaukee Airplane Pilots Asso-
ciation. Bogoff said he has not heard
anyone say they would shun the air-
port without the extension.
"I would imagine them would be
some businesses ]hat wouldn't come
or would vacate. I don't know,"
Bogoff said. "From the business side
of it, if you've got more options you
get more response."
1M 'I . 7
The Palwaukee Area Fire Protec-
tion District is expected to seat two
members at tonight's meeting.
The district will hold its meeting at
7:30m. at the Prospect Heights
Fire tection District office, 10 E.
Camp McDonald Road The district
had planned to meet at the Palwau-
kee Municipal Airport, but changed
the location.
The board is expected to seat its
new members at the meeting, but
also will decide which of two people,
who were appointed to the same
seat, will serve in the position.
Tina Dean, a resident of unincor-
porated Wheeling, was
appointed to the position bay Cook
County Board President John
Stroger.
But saying he did not know the
appointment had been made,
Prosppect Heights Mayor EdwardP.
Rotel ford last week nominated
successfully got appointed Prospect
Heights resident Joe Viso to the post
by Wheeling Township trustees.
District trustees will decide
which nomination is valid. On Jan.
1, the authority to appoint people
to fire district boards was
switched from the county board to
townships.
Aparfinent mmagergivesshelter to Hoffmn«
BY CHRISTINE TATUM
Daily Herald Staff Writer
A Hoffman Estates family who
has lived without heat this winter
has found generosity and a tempo-
rary shelter from managers of one
of the village's apartment com-
their Maricopa Dane home Monday.
"We're doing this for peopleto
are in need," said the apartment
r.m-lnv mnnanor mhn rorrnractnre
attention and would prefer that our
name be left out of things."
The Gonzalezes have struggled for
months to get Aurora -based Illinois
Farmers Insurance Co. to pay for
repairs they say are covered by their
homeowner's policy.
Water under the house that has
seened into heating ducts and walls
grouted water — which is not cov-
ered by the policy — has caused the
problems.
Tho (_nnonlo7ac cnv thn- naarl n
before: they can lake their case to
court.
Village President Michael O'Mal-
ley asked trustees Monday s to
approve a resolution urging the
state's department of insurance to
take another look at the insurance
dispute. The villagr's finance com-
mittee also decided to send vldag
mine its cause.
Previous tests have shown the
water contains human excrement —
whieh is not nnrmnlly fnllnd in
01/13/97 13:13 V8472969207 NWXC 001
NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE
1818 E. GOLF ROAD
DES PLAINES, IL 80018
(847) 296-9200 • FAX: 29e-9207
Arlington Heights
Barrington
Bartlett
Buffalo Grove
Des Plaines
ElkGrove Village
Evanston
Glencoe
Glenview
Hanover Park
Highland Park
Hoffman Estates
Inverness
Lake Forest
Lake Zurich
Libertyville
Lincolnshire
Lincolnwood
Morton Grove
Mount Prospect
Niles
Northbrook
Northfield
Palatine
Park Ridge
Prospect Heights
Rolling Meadows
Roselle
Schaumburg
Skolde
Streamwood
Vemon Hills
Wheeling
Wilmette
Wiinne"
Elk Grove Twp.
Maine7wp.
New Trier Twp:
Noro"dTwp.
Wheeling Twp.
OFFICERS
Presidam
Sidney H. Mathias
Buffalo Grove
Viica-President
Gerald L.'SW Farley
Mount Prospect
Secretary
Mark Thompson
Maine Towhship
Treaswer
David Umardi
Highland Park
Ezecutiva Dir
Rita R. Athas
A RE
M
REPRESENTING A POPl1LATAW OFOVER ONE A&UJON
FOUNDED IN 19M
ATTORNM CO EE MINUTES
January 9, 1997, 2:30 P.
Members Attending: David Wiltse, Des Plaines; Tim Rhodes, g; Buzz
Hill, Mount Prospect; and Bob Kenney, Palatine (for Tom Burney).
Staff Attending: Rita Athos, Beth Bunge, Nick Greifer, and Mark Fowler.
The committee reviewed two intergovernmental agreements (see agenda). The
agreements concern the reduction of OUare Airport -related noise and other issues.
The committee first did a side-by-side comparison of the two agreements, and
then noted certain legal issues.
Agree. scope
00 A
"1" 10 0
Noise
Noise and
environmental pollution
Purpose of agreement
To (1) determine noise
(1) Implement
"compatibility"' projects.
soundproofing, (2)
(2) oversee noise
implement suburban
monitor. system, (3)
noise monitoring
advise City
system, (3) reduce air
pollution "generated by
OWwe," and (4) advise
City and state leaders
Membership
- Based on geography
- Based on opposition
- limited
t0 O'Hare expansion
`Yen
- Each member must set
up its own advisory
board
01/13/97 13:14 '08472989207 NWMC 1002
Funding
- $200,000 from City for
- Agreement to seek
staf ring
funds for soundproofing
- $150,000 for noise
and noise monitoring
monitoting experts (may
- Members may lack
or may not be in
standing to get federal
addition to $200,000)
funding
- Federal fiords for noise
projects,
- City allocates money
for projects
Powers and duties of
- Advise City
- Advise City,
Commission
- Advice on noise not
Governor, & Legislature
binding
- Seek fimds for noise
- Commission must
monitoring and
cooperate w/ City on
soundproofing
'jawboning" airlines to
- Seek air pollution
reduce noise
reductions
- City's "150" plans
- All documents are
must be reviewed by
available to members
Commission
- All publicly available
documents are available
to Commies., consistent
with FAA agreement
Members that vote
Members in "affected"
Participants and
areas
Supporting Members
Term
-2005
- 2005, but members
- City can terminate
can withdraw at
agree. in 2002
anytime
- Members withdrawing
must stay silent until
2005. on O'Hare issues
Ability to hire staff
Needs 2/3 majority of
Simple majority
staff '3
Taking action (besides
Simple majority
Same
Wig)
Ability to call meetings
City alone or 2 members
2 members
Ability to amend agree.
i 2/3 plus City
- 100% of members
- Agreement terminated
with 2/3 of members
01/13/97 13:15 '08472969207 NWMC 14 003
The committee identified four legal issues.
(1) Access to data
(See Northbrook letter in agenda and page 3 of Chicago agreement.) There are
probably limitations on data access for a member that signs the Chicago
agreement. For example, if there is ever a lawsuit in which data is needed, a
former member may have to litigate just to gain access to the data (e.g., for data
which is currently available through the Freedom of Information Act).
(2) Definition of Excessive Noise.
There are two ways of measuring noise: decibels or Ldn. The city uses a
definition that is compatible with Federal Aviation Administration standards. The
definition could be narrow, resulting in fewer residents that qualify for noise
relief.
(3) Municipalities should recognize that the City maintains control of Commission,
in the City agreement. 2/3 of members AND the City must approve any
amendment to the agreement.
(4) Liability.
It is questionable whether liability can be limited, despite language in section S(c)
of the Chicago agreement to the contrary.
The members noted that neither agreement is exclusive.
The members noted that Appendices to the Chicago agreement contained several
technical issues beyond the scope of the committee
From: Jack Saporito To: Hon Gerald Farley Date: 1113M7 Time: 10:19:17 Page I o1`4
A T, LIA XCE 0 F REND E NTV CONCE RNfNC# OWA RE
Proud Recipient df-
- 1996 Environmental Merit Award -Arlington Heights
- 1996 Illinois State Senate Recognition - Protecting PAGE
health & safety of millions of O'Hare area citizens.
IT0. I-Joh"Gerald Farley For Information Call- 847.606-0670
At.- ARCO
•M.- MINI#
January 13,1997
Dear Counnunity leader:
Please share the fall "CU response to the Village ofAr1WAmMt1g�_VdW_j �Ull n!tmbersMp.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Saporito
Directur
From: Jack Saporito To: Non Gerald Farley Date: 1113!7 Time: 10:19:40 Paye Z of 4
AIDCOTm
>1
imim
ALLIANCE OF RESIDENTS CONCERNING O'HARE, Inc. "a grass roots organization"
Y.U. Box 1702 O Arlington Heights, 1L 60006-1702 O Fax: 847/506-0202 O Tcl: 847/506-0670
Regarding the Village of Arlington Ilcights' decision to join the Chicago Noisc
Compatibility Commission.
ARQP respectfully disagrees with the Village of Arlington Ilcights' decision to join the
Chicago Noise Compatability Commission. Actually the Village's decision to join
Chicago was surprising, since Arlington Heights always stated that one of the main
reasons they did not want to join the Suburban O'llarc Commission (SOC), their
neighbors, is because they wanted to remain independent. SOC is composed of
communities that border the airport and are most affected.
At first glance joining the Chicago Noise Compatibility Commission, in order to get
soundproofing dollars, sounds like a good thing to do. But, by law, if the Village qualifies
for the dollars, they arc already entitled to them. Joining Chicago should make NO
difference.
Speaking for almost 1,000 Arlington Heights citizens regarding the O'llarc Airport issue,
barn extremely disappointed, as many Village residents are, with the Board's decision to
join the Chicago Noise group. 'lhc Alliance of Residents Concerning O'llarc (ARCO)
has supplied Village officials with compelling evidence as why NUT to join. 'lhc
Chicago Master Plan Strategy shows how Chicago is deceivingly trying to get around
environmental impact studies, public meetings, competitive bidding and federal approval
to build the new runway.
ARCO is associated with hundreds of sister organizations across the nation; as a result, we
are in tune with what is going on elsewhere. 'lhc I-edcral Aviation Administration (FAA)
has had an adversary role, since their mandate is to promote the economic interests of the
aviation industry, not our health or environment. Thus, they represent "Big Business".
'the 1�AA plans to expand existing airports and airspace capability to accommodate their
prediction that air transportation needs arc going to double within the near future. One of
thdir plans to achieve this goal is "Ibc wood Neighbor Policy"; it is Wight in Part 150
schcHil One of the results of this strategy is to "Pit neighbor against nei r". '!hc states
of Now Jersey and Now York arc suing the 1 AA as a result of one of these plans. Part of
the "divide and concur plan" is to make "special deals" with comma nitics, like promising
"preferential flight tracks" away from one's community, shifting the burden to another.
Preferential flight tracks such as the Nighttime Tower orders arc supposed to limit
nighttime take -offs to over the Ned Brown forest Prescrvc and along the Northwest
Tollway. The orders have been in effect for many years, but as all who live on the south
end of the Village know they arc mainly ignored by Chicago.
From: Jack Saporito To: Hon Gerald Farley Ode: 1113/97 Time: 10:20:08 Faye 3 of 4
Another example of "pilling neighbor against another", one ol'the main reasons that
Schaumburg joined Chicago's noise group was because ol'Nighttime Tower Orders'
problems. Avoiding Arlington Heights, it shills night flights over Schaumburg. Shilling
one's burden to one's neighbor, is not the answer. As at other airports, nighttime curfew
is.
Now, i see another "pilling neighbor against another" trend developing, since Cook and
DuPage communities are seemingly aligning with one another, respectively, over the
O'Hare issue.
The Village's O'Hare expertise has been limited to dealing with only noise metrics and
their main goal has been aimed at gelling O'Hare to adhere to the "Nighttime Tower
Orders". The Village's Iix;us has been on nighttime noise "because that is what People
notice_" It has been their position at a number of Village O'Hare Noise meetings that "it
does not matter how many flights they put over us, as long as they are quiet." The Village
claims that they have not been able to study the other important issues such as health and
environmental problems caused by O'Hare noise, air, ground and water pollution "because
of'limited resources."
As mentioned before, another benefit ol'ARCO being associated with other sister
organizations across the iJ_S_ is that we were able to also inquire about Mary Rose
I.oney's, Chicago's new Aviation Commissioner, history at the other airports. What she is
doing here has a very familiar ring to what she has done elsewhere. Her expertise is
ait'port lexpansion.
. 4.Jl )All
Concerning legal matters, with all due respect to the Village attorney, I asked the Village
to run the Chicago Noise group contract by an attorney skilled in the specifics of'aviation-
environmental law because aviation law has a lot ol'hidden quirks. This attorney, who
also is very skilled and among the nation's most respected on this specific issue, among
other items also states that as a result of'lhe Village joining Chicago, citizen's rights and
funding are in jeopardy.
As il'a relief valve to ARCO's concerns, Village oflicials mentioned that they can pull out
at any time. But the tact is, they must give a notice and a lot can happen in 60 days.
If Arlington Heights had done their homework they would have (i)und that the $234
milli6h allocated to the program is mostly already committed. There is NO more money
beclau, se part of the agreement of joining the group is that it limits Chicago's and the
FAA's liability to two specific funds. By the way, the $234 million should he considered
a slap in the lace from Chicago. Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport, one of the smallest, has
allocated $200 million lifr soundproofing out to the 60DNI, noise contour.
With the Village _joining Chicago's group, at the very least they jeopardized millions of
dollars of future funding for our children's health and education. Also, ARCO was
working towards other goals since the FAA has stated that noise from the airport will be
getting worse. Among the projects, we were working to obtain residential soundproofing
From: Jack Saporito To: Hon Gerald Farley Date: 1113M7 Time: 10:20:34 Paye 4 of 4
fbr a majority of the homes in the Village (and other communities), instead of the 10
houses that might now duality. We were in the process ol'lrying to obtain property value
loss compensation and compensation lbr loss ol'use ol'property. With Arlington Heights
joining Chicago and accepting their noise base line these projects are now in jeopardy.
At worst, Arlington Heights ollicials signed away citizen's rights and have just sealed the
tate of Arlington Heights, by joining with a pro -O'Hare expansion group where their vole
ol'No New Runway is watered down. This could give certain legislators the "suburban
consensus" they need to put the new runway in, lacing towards Arlington Heights.
Regarding the reason the Village gave to join, "Creating a dialog with the City," aftcr
trying to got the City to become `good neighbors' for the last 18 years and the City
running roughshod over its neighbors since 1973, the Village should have learned by now
that City interests are just self serving. flow responsive has Chicago been when it came to
answering pertinent questions, supplying requested documents or making commitments?
Any one of these issues should have raised red flags. All this is just more "Chicago
Politics".
Caught in a number ol'lles over the years, Chicago has been very evasive with the O'Hare
issue. This month, Aviation Commissioner i.oney admitted on television that Chicago
must utilize O'Hare to its fullest capability_ This is their "code" meaning they are
planning to build at least one more runway. Most who have been involved with this issue
lbr a number of years knows that any "Olive Branch" that the City ofli:rs is attached to at
least one more runway and hundreds of thousands of new flights over us. All the signs
iTomAhe FAA and state down point to more flights, including the fact that Chicago will
ridt4dMa over to the public the over 14,000 pages of O'Hare Master Plans, even though
court ordered.
ARCO made Arlington Heights officials aware that they had two other, better choices.
One would have given them an important voice in the matter and the protection of standing
together with suburban neighbors, by joining the new 20 member suburban community
organization, the O'Hare Commission. It also would have cost them nothing. Il will deal
with important issues including noise and air pollution, health, environment, property
values and other duality ol'life issues that affixts Village residents. That organization
would have protected our best interests, not "Big 13usincss77. '111c second option was to da
hothing, stay independent, at least that option did not put Arlington Heights citizens in
jeopardy.
By J'6imng Chicago, Arlington Heights has become part of the problem, instead of part of
the$solution.
Thank you.
Jack Saporito
Director
Village of fount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager
FROM: Assistant Village Manager
SUBJECT: Airport Noise Commission
DATE: January 13, 1997
As part of the research for the January 14, 1997, Committee of the Whole meeting I had
the occasion to discuss O'Hare Noise related issues with the village staff of Arlington
Heights to determine what direction Arlington Heights was considering in terms of noise
commission membership. As you may know the Arlington Heights Village Board approved
joining the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (sponsored by Chicago) at its January
6, 1997 meeting. Arlington Heights representatives are reviewing the possibility of joining
both the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission and the SOC sponsored, O'Hare Noise
Commission. Much of the thought among village staff in Arlington Heights is to protect
their options regarding new runways and possible additional noise while at the same time
being at the table with the City of Chicago to discuss noise issues.
Arlington Heights village staff have informed me that a meeting is planned between SOC
representatives and Arlington Heights representatives in the next couple of weeks to
discuss the possibility of joining both noise commissions. The initial reaction of SOC
representatives to Arlington Heights joining both noise commissions was not favorable.
However, the SOC agreement in its current form does not preclude a community from
joining both commissions.
will keep you informed of the developments in Arlington Heights relative to noise
commission status as information becomes available.
DAVID STRAHL
X:\US ERS\DAVES\WIN\OFFICEW OSCOMI . W PD