Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/2007 SC Minutes Director Glen R. Andler Mount Prospect Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Monday, March 12,2007. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Chuck Bencic John Keane Fred Pampel Marshall Petersen Buz Livingston Matt Lawrie Absent: Kevin Grouwinkel Carol Tortorello John Dahlberg Paul Bures Others in Attendance: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Fire Department Representative Traffic Engineer - Staff Liaison Commissioner Commissioner Police Department Representative Public Works Representative Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commissioner Pampel, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on December II, 2006. The minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There was no one in attendance that spoke on an issue not on the agenda. Phone 847/870-5640 Fax 847/253-9377 www.mountprospect.org OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS A) INTRODUCTION TO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM 1) Background Information Established in May 2006, the National Center for Safe Routes to School assists communities in enabling and encouraging children to safely walk and bike to school. The program is a federally funded initiative that is being administered by the State DOTs. Illinois is to be given $23 million between 2005 and 2009 specifically for this program. The primary goal of the program is to promote safe walking and biking for children to and from schools. Eligible schools are for grades K-8 only and can be either public or private. Funding will be divided among two project categories: infrastructure and non-infrastructure. lOOT will be required to allocate a minimum of 70% to infrastructure projects and 10% to non- infrastructure projects. The remaining 20% will be used at the discretion of lOOT. While the local project sponsor (e.g. Village, school district, etc.) must front the cost, this is a 100% reimbursable program. There is no local match. The i:lfrastructure category involves engineering projects. Th~ focus must be on improving walkways and crossings. Signage, pavement markings, sidewalks, traffic signals, street lighting, traffic calming measures and engineering design all qualify for fundi;~g. Any project must take place within two miles of an eligible school. The non-infrastructure category includes four strategies: education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation. Education projects can involve producing written materials, creating videos, and holding meetings and in-school events that targets children, parents, school staff and the neighborhood. Encouragement projects are creative ways to promote actually walking and biking to school such as Walk to School Day events. Enforcement projects can involve purchasing mobile speed trailers and fixed speed devices as well as officer training programs that target both educating pedestrians and motorists and enforcing the laws. And finally, evaluation is necessary to evaluate the needs ofa school and success of the project. To get started, two things are required: a School Travel Plan and a completed Application. Completing the School Travel Plan is a process that requires the stakeholders (schools, police, engineers, planners, residents, not-for-profit groups, etc.) to articulate the intended improvements at and around the school(s). It is internet based and the forms can be downloaded from a web site. A plan can be set up for a single school or multiple schools. As part of a plan, an engineering project is optional but the other four strategies are required. Before a plan is submitted to lOOT for review, it must be signed by both a school representative and school district representative. Once a School Travel Plan has been approved by lOOT, the local sponsor can then complete the Application process. You can include multiple projects per application and you can also submit multiple applications from a single School Travel Plan. The important thing to remember is that any project you request funding for must be outlined in the School Travel Plan. There is a minimum $10,000 funding request for the total combined projects per application and a single infrastructure project has a $400,000 cap. For FY 2007, the Call for Applications began March 1 st. School Travel Plans are due April 30th and Applications are due May 31 st. Unfortunately, this does not give communities a lot of time to coordinate the different stakeholders and develop a plan. If the Village chooses not to participate this year, the 2008 deadline for the School Travel Plan will be April 30, 2008 and the plan can be submitted anytime between now and then. The Application will not be available, however, until March 1,2008 and will be due May 31, 2008. 2) Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie attended a Safe Routes to School workshop held by IDOT in January. He provided a presentation on the program based on the workshop. Commissioner Petersen asked if the School Travel Plan had to be for the whole school. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said it did not. The School Travel Plan can be as small as one school or can be as large as an entire Village and even span multiple Villages if a school district crosses municipal boundaries and wants to participate as a whole. The key is that whatever project funds are being requested in the Application must be outlined in the School Travel Plan. Chairman Bencic asked if the deadlines for the School Travel Plan and Application are the same for 2008. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said they are. Chairman Bencic commented that this year's schedule may limit the number of applications and there may be many disappointed communities next year if everyone applies next year and not everyone receives funds. Chairman Bencic suggested the Village consider adding crossing guards where school districts believe they are necessary. Crossing guards were once funded and/or managed by the Police Department but there are limited numbers now. There was some general discussion about the benefits of developing a School Travel Plan for schools within Mount Prospect rather than a district-wide plan that would include other municipalities. Commissioner Keane suggested that the Village determine the interest level of the schools and school districts. This may help the Village figure out where to focus our efforts. Chairman Bencic asked if maintenance issues such as snow removal from sidewalks or trimming bushes that overhang sidewalks would qualify for funding. Traffic Engineer Lawrie did not believe these maintenance issues would qualify. There was some general discussion about barriers such as Central Road and Busse Road that make it difficult for children to cross the street. There was consensus that engineering projects could probably be found near every school. Traffic Engineer Lawrie stated that any engineering project needed to be within two miles of the target school. The project needed to promote biking/walking to school and increase safety. There were no more questions so Chairman Bencic closed the discussion. COMMISSION ISSUES Traffic Engineer Lawrie updated the Commission on the W~-Pella Avenue Traffic Study. He said that based on a small group meeting with a couple of Trustees and a few residents it was agreed that Staff would restudy the intersections in the spring. The additional data would help the Village Board of Trustees make a decision later this year. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 5-0 to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Pampel. Commissioner Petersen seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer h:\engineering\traffic\safety _ commission\recs&mins\march07min.doc