HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. NEW BUSINESS 9/21/04
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION 1: Subparagraph 1, "Exceptions One" of Paragraph B, "Exceptions" to
Section 17.102 entitled "Licenses Required; Exceptions" of Article J, entitled "General
Provisions of Chapter 17 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting
subparagraph (8)(1) in its entirety and adding a new subparagraph (8)(1) to Section
17.102, entitled "Licenses Required; Exceptions" which shall be and read as follows:
1. Exceptión One: The vehicle has a registered owner
on active U.S. military duty stationed outside of Illinois; or
SECTION 2: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
A8SENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this - day of
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Velma Lowe, Village Clerk
¡Manage 133434vl
1
~
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO:
MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM:
VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 17,2004
MODIFICATIONS TO DANGEROUS ANIMAL REGULATIONS
SUBJECT:
Since 1999, there have been 120 reported incidents of dogs biting people. While the
number of bites per year has remained fairly constant, there have been suggestions that
the Village strengthen its Dangerous Animal Regulations. Recently, the City of Des
Plaines adopted a more robust Ordinance and same is presented here as modified for
use in Mount Prospect. The main addition is an expanded definition of "dangerous
animal" and the defining of what actions trigger the designation of an animal as
"dangerous or vicious." The Ordinance would also provide for warning signage to be
posted at the home as well as a prohibition from walking such a designated animal in
the public way.
This Ordinance was discussed at the September 14 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Per direction of the Village Board, slight adjustments were made to the description of
"Stray Animals" and Hearing process.
M EJ/rcc
D
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 20
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION 1: Section 20.101, entitled "STRAY ANIMALS PROHIBITED,"
of Article I, of Chapter 20, of the Mount Prospect Village Code, be amended by
deleted the existing Subparagraph 8 and inserting a new Subparagraph B, to be
and read as follows:
B.
Any stray domestic animal in the public way or within a public place
or upon private premises of any person other than the owner may
be immediately impounded by the Village and the impoundment
procedures set forth in Article II of this Chapter shall control.
SECTION 2: Section 20.101, entitled "STRAY ANIMALS PROHIBITED,"
of Article I, of Chapter 20, of the Mount Prospect Village Code, be amended to
insert a new Subparagraph D, to be and read as follows:
D.
An animal shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large unless under
control of the owner or keeper or a member of the owner's or
keeper's immediate family over ten (10) years of age by leash or
chain, or supervised by the owner or keeper in a fenced yard or
such other area as a kennel run. Any animal that is unlawfully at
large pursuant to this Paragraph D may be deemed to be a "stray
domestic animal" for purposes of this Article I.
Subparagraph D, now in effect, shall be relettered Subparagraph E.
SECTION 3:
Section 20.105, entitled "DANGEROUS ANIMALS," of
Article I, of Chapter 20, of the Mount Prospect Village Code, be deleted in its
entirety and a new Section 20.105 be inserted to be and read as follows:
iManage 135339 1
1
Section 20.105: Dangerous Animals
A. Keeping: No person shall own, keep or harbor within the village:
1. Any snake, lizard or other reptile whose species is physically
capable of injuring a person by poison, constriction or a disfiguring
bite.
2. Any lion, tiger, cougar, panther, bobcat, mountain lion, lynx, ocelot,
leopard, or any other similar feline animal; or any hybrid of any of
them.
3. Any wolf, coyote, jackal, fox, wild dog or any hybrid of any of them.
4. Any bear or bison.
5. Any rodent weighing more than one pound, with the exception of
guinea pigs.
6. Any other animal which, when full grown, normally attains a weight
in excess of two hundred (200) pounds.
7. Any monkey (not authorized by the State of Illinois as a sanctioned
pet), gorilla, chimpanzee or other similar ape-like primate.
8. Any vicious animal, the owner or keeper of which, has been found
guilty of violating Section 20.206 with respect to that animal.
This section shall not apply to properly zoned and constructed zoos,
animal shelters, veterinary hospitals, pounds, federally licensed
scientific or research laboratories or educational or other licensed
institutions.
B. Any member of the Police Department of the Village is authorized to
kill any dangerous animal, as defined in Article IV of this Chapter,
when necessary for the protection of any person or property. For
purpose of this subsection 8, a dangerous animal is not limited to
those specifically enumerated above in Subsection 20.1 05A.
1. I n all cases where such animal has been destroyed by a police
officer, and a period of less than fourteen (14) days has elapsed
since the day on which such animal or reptile may have bitten any
person, the police officer is authorized to immediately notify the
Health Officer.
¡Manage 135339 1
2
;;'1/
2. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal, when notified that
such animal has bitten, scratched or otherwise attacked any
person, to sell or give away such animal or to permit or allow such
animal to be taken beyond the limits of the Village without the
express approval of the Health Officer.
SECTION 4: A new Section 20.206, entitled "VICIOUS ANIMALS," be
inserted into Article II, of Chapter 20, of the Mount Prospect Village Code, to be
and read as follows:
A. Mandatory Restraint: It shall be unlawful for any person to have
custody of, own, possess or maintain a vicious animal, as defined in
Section 20.402, entitled "Vicious Animals", unless it is restrained,
securely confined on the premises of its keeper or owner, or muzzled
so that it cannot bite, attack or cause injury to any person or other
domestic animal. In addition to any other available penalties, failure to
comply with the requirements of this section may result in
impoundment, as set forth in Subsection 8 below. For purposes of this
Section 20.206, the following shall apply:
1. A vicious animal shall be deemed securely confined on the
premises of its keeper or owner only when confined in a five sided
enclosure (four sides and a roof) that is reasonably designed to
prevent escape. If the enclosure has no floor that is secured to the
sides, then the sides of the enclosure shall be embedded into the
ground no less than two feet deep to present escape by digging.
The enclosure must be humane and provide some protection from
the elements for the animal.
2. A dangerous or vicious animal may only leave the securely
confined premises for the purpose of obtaining grooming, veterinary
care or upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or to leave
the village limits. When beyond the premises for such reasons, the
animal must be securely muzzled and restrained by a chain or
leash and under the immediate and constant physical restraint of
the owner or keeper.
3. The owner of a vicious animal shall display a sign stating
"WARNING - VICIOUS ANIMAL - KEEP AWAY!" on the exterior of
any enclosure in which the animal is kept. The sign must be visible
and legible from ten feet (10') away from the animal's enclosure.
8. Impoundment: If a vicious animal, as defined under Section 20.402 of
this Article IV, is not kept in accordance with this Article II, or
¡Manage 135339 1
3
immediate impoundment is otherwise necessary for the protection of
the public health or safety, the Chief of Police or other person acting on
behalf of the Village may immediately order the animal impounded.
1. The keeper or custodian of an animal impounded pursuant to this
section, shall be notified of the impoundment by certified mail or by
personal service, in accordance with Section 20.301, of Article III,
of this Chapter, within two (2) working days of the impoundment.
2. The notice of impoundment, if by certified mail, shall inform the
owner or custodian of the animal that the owner may make a
written request for a hearing to contest the impoundment. Such a
request must be made within five (5) working days of the mailing of
the notice of impoundment. If notice of impoundment is given by
citation, a hearing date shall be assigned and indicated on the
citation. The hearing may be before the Circuit Court of Cook
County, the Village Manager, or his or her designee or any
administrative hearing officer. The forum shall be selected at the
Village's sole discretion.
3. Upon request by the owner or custodian of the animal for a hearing
pursuant to subsection B2 of this section, a hearing shall be held
within ten (10) working days of the request. A notice of the hearing
shall be mailed by certified mail to the owner or keeper of the
animal requesting the hearing. The animal shall not be destroyed
prior to the conclusion of the hearing.
4. If a determination not to destroy the animal is made pursuant to the
hearing, the Village may, to ensure the health and safety of the
public and the animal, impose reasonable restrictions and
conditions for the control and maintenance of the animal upon its
release to the owner. The conditions may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a. Posting a bond or other proof of ability to be responsible for
future damage or injury caused by the animal.
b. Specific requirements as to size, construction and design of an
enclosure in which to house the animal.
c. Establish the location for housing the animal, including the
removal of the animal from the Village.
d. Requirements as to type and method of restraint and/or
muzzling of the animal.
¡Manage 135339 1
4
.. ...-,."..
e. Payment of reasonable fees to recover the impoundment costs
incurred by the Village.
5. As provided under Section 15 of the Illinois Animal Control Act, 510
ILCS 5/15, the court has authority to enter a decree restraining the
owner of a vicious animal from maintaining such animal as a public
nuisance and may further decree that such animal be humanely
dispatched.
6. Impoundment shall be conducted in accordance with Section
20.207, Subsections (B), (C) and (D), of this Chapter to the extent
not in conflict with this Section.
SECTION 5: Section 20.206, of Article II, of Chapter 20, entitled
"IMPOUNDMENT PROCEDURES:" be renumbered Section 20.207, and
subsection A of renumbered Section 20.207 shall be amended to be and read as
follows:
A. In all cases of impoundment, other than those itemized in Section
20.205 and 20.206 of this Article, when the health officer or any police
officer takes possession of an animal for the purpose of impounding
same, the Village shall hold such impounded animal in an animal
control center for seven (7) days, during which time reasonable means
shall be used to facilitate its return to the rightful owner.
SECTION 6: Appendix A, Division III of the Village Code of the Village of
Mount Prospect shall be amended to insert the following at the end of Chapter
20, entitled "Animals," Section 20.302, subsection F:
Keeping Dangerous Animal and Reptiles: Not less than $200.00 nor more
than $1,000.00.
Vicious Animals: Not less than $200.00 nor more than $1,000.00.
SECTION 7: Subparagraph B of Section 20.402 entitled "Construction" of
Article IV of Chapter 20 of the Village of Mount Prospect Code of Ordinances
shall be amended by deleting the definition of "Dangerous or Vicious Animal"
iManage 135339 1
5
completely and inserting a new definition of "Vicious Animals" to be alphabetically
inserted and to read as follows:
VICIOUS ANIMALS: Any animal which is known to have attacked a
person on a previous occasion without provocation whenever that person
was peacefully conducting himself or herself where he or she was lawfully
entitled to be.
SECTION 8: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided
by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this - day of
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Velma Lowe, Village Clerk
Published in Pamphlet form this
day of , 2004.
Velma Lowe, Village Clerk
iManage 135339 1
6
vwl
9/15/04
9/16/04
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5
ENTITLED "BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS"
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF
MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: Chapter 5, Article XV, entitled "Sister Cities Commission" of the
Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by inserting a new Section 5.1504.C,
entitled "Objective and Role", which shall be and read as follows:
"Sec. 5.1504: OBJECTIVE AND ROLE:
C.
The Sister Cities Commission shall have the power and authority to solicit
and/or accept contributions of cash and in-kind services or products in
furtherance of such programs and exchanges."
SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
ATTEST:
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
Velma W. Lowe
Village Clerk
H:ICLKOlfilesIWINIORDINANCICh 5, Sister Cities Comm,$$,Sept 2004.doc
E
MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
WILLIAM J. COONEY, JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
SUBJECT:
CDBG CONSOLIDATED PLAN & 2005 ACTION PLAN
BACKGROUND
As you are aware, the Village of Mount Prospect is an entitlement community which receives an
annual allocation from HUD for our Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. As
an entitlement community, the Village is required to develop a Consolidated Plan that provides an
outline for community development needs and strategies over a five-year period.
In preparing for 2005, the Village is required to adopt a new Consolidated Plan for 2005-2009
because the current Consolidated Plan will expire at the end of the year. In addition, the Village
must also adopt a 2005 Action Plan that will outline the specific use of CDBG funds for Fiscal Year
2005. The intent of the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan is to describe the general needs, resources,
priorities and proposed activities to be addressed under the CDBG Program within Mount Prospect,
while the Action Plan provides specific budget information for each year.
2005-2009 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
The Consolidated Plan consists of various components, one of which is the Strategic Plan. The
purpose of the Strategic Plan is to summarize the priorities and objectives that will be addressed
during the term of the Consolidated Plan. In addition, the Strategic Plan must outline the programs
the Village will undertake to address the priorities and objectives identified. The priorities and
objectives ultimately included within the Consolidated Plan then serve as a basis for determining
annual funding for the Village's CDBG program.
As part of preparing the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan, a survey was sent to local public service
agencies, school districts and other resources to determine the needs of the community. In
evaluating the survey responses, Staff forwarded a summary of the information to the Community
Relations Commission (CRC) for their review. The CRC reviewed the information provided by
Staff and made specific recommendations during their meeting on June 3rd, 2004. The list of
recommended priorities and objectives is attached for your review.
2005 ACTION PLAN
The last component of the Consolidated Plan is the 2005 Action Plan, which outlines the Village's
CDBG budget for the 2005 Fiscal Year. As in past years, the CRC has made CDBG budget
recommendations to the Village Board for their approval. Attached you will find a spreadsheet
outlining the CRC's funding recommendations for 2005. The 2005 Action Plan addresses
affordable housing and service needs within the Village of Mount Prospect that are consistent with
the proposed priorities ofthe 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
To assist in the CRC's review of the 2005 CDBG budget, Staff provided an applicant summary and
preliminary budget recommendations (see attached). On September 2, 2004, the CRC held a
Public Hearing regarding the 2005 CDBG budget, which allowed each of the public service
applicants to present their 2005 budget requests. On September 9,2004, the CRC held a meeting to
discuss the various funding requests and to make their final budget recommendation to the Board of
Trustees.
The specific recommendations of the CRC are indicated in the attached table. The following is a
summary ofthe substantial changes between the 2004 budget and the 2005 budget.
Public-Service Programs
. Alexian Brothers Mental Health Center. The CRC elected to fund a request by Alexian
Brothers Mental Health Center to provide mental health counseling to low- and moderate-
income residents. This is a new program that will serve an unmet need.
.
Club Rec Plex. The CRC recommended that the Village discontinue funding special events
for the Club Rec Plex program. This program provides supervised recreational activities
every Friday night at the Club Rec Plex facility that is located adjacent to low- and
moderate-income areas of Mount Prospect. Although the program will continue to exist,
CDBG funds paid for special activities for the Friday night event.
Low/Moderate- Income Proiects
.
Orchard Village. Orchard Village owns a group home in Mount Prospect that houses 5
disabled men. In 2004, funds were allocated to improve the home by replacing handicapped
ramps and flooring to increase the handicapped accessibility of the home. The agency has
requested funding for 2005 to construct an addition to the home that will consist of a
bedroom and bathroom. The CRC elected to fund this program. Due to funding limitations,
the CRC shifted funds from other low/moderate income projects such as the Single-Family
Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Smoke Detector Assistance Program and the Water Main
project to fund Orchard Village's 2005 request.
.
Smoke Detector Assistance Program. The CRC elected to fund the Smoke Detector
Assistance Program. This program will allow the owner-occupied housing units in the
Boxwood area to install smoke detectors. Firefighters ITom the Village will install the
smoke detectors in each approved unit. In addition, the Fire Department will have a stock of
smoke detectors for elderly or disabled individuals as needed.
. Ashley Cove Infrastructure Improvements. The CRC recommended funding for this project.
This program would provide infrastructure improvements at Ashley Cove, a low-income,
multi-family property. Improvements would include installing dumpster pads and
enclosures as well as increasing parking lot lighting.
.
Wall Street Water Main Project. The CRC has elected to fund this project. The Village has
experience numerous breaks in recent years in the Wall Street Water Main, which is located
in a low- and moderate-income area. The replacement of this project would provide better
water service to the Oak Terrace Apartments directly north of the water main and the office
buildings to the east.
CONCLUSION
As part of HUD's required Consolidated Plan process, the Village Board must adopt a new
Consolidated Plan as well as a 2005 Action Plan. To assist in your review of these issues, the
following items have been attached:
. 2005 -2009 Consolidated Plan Priorities and Objectives
. 2005 CRC Recommended Budget
. Funding Recommendations Memo sent to the CRC
. September 2nd draft CRC Public Hearing Meeting Minutes
. September 9th draft CRC Meeting Minutes
In order to meet HUD's timeline requirements, the Village Board must approve a Consolidated Plan
and 2005 Action Plan by October 5, 2004. This will allow for the required 30-day public review
period and timely submission to meet HUD's deadline.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and
consideration at their September 21 st meeting. Staff will be present at the meeting to answer any
questions regarding this matter.
~
/row
William J. coney, Jr., l\.ICP
Director of Community Development
2005-2009 Consolidated Plan Objectives
1. Affordable Housing
1. Maintain/Improve Existing Housing Stock
2. First-Time Homebuyer's Program
3. Affordable Housing Outreach & Education
2. Homeless/Continuum of Care
1. Emergency Housing
2. Transitional Living Program
3. Transitional Housing for Battered! Abused Persons
4. Assessment & Outreach
3. Other Special Housing/Non-Homeless Needs
1. Senior Housing
2. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
4. Youth Programs
1. Alternate Youth Programs (after school, weekends, summers)
2. Child Care Services (before, after, shift hours)
3. Abused & Neglected Children Services
4. Youth Mentoring
5. Public Service Needs
1. Health Care Assistance
2. Mental Health Counseling
3. Transportation
4. Handicapped Programs
5. Employment Training
6. Substance Abuse Programs
7. Senior Programs
8. Programs for Persons with HIV/AIDS
6. Infrastructure Improvements
1. Public Improvements
2. Neighborhood Improvements
7. Public Facility Improvements
1. Public Facility Improvements
8. Economic Development
1. Small Business Loan Program
2005 CDBG BUDGET
9/10/04
CRC FY 2005 FY 2004
Recommendations Applicant Budget Applicant Budget Budget
Projects FY 2005 Request FY 2004 Request FY 2003 FY 2002
Administration (VOMP) $72,000 $72,000 $65,000 $65,000 $50,000 $50,000
Public Service Programs
1. Access To Care 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 9,000
2. Alexian Brothers Mental Health 3,500 10,000 nfa nfa nfa nfa
3. Camp Fire - CAMPIN' KIDS 10,000 20,000 12,000 20,000 11,050 8,000
4. CEDA - Child Care 5,500 6,500 4,000 6,250 nfa nfa
5. CEDA - Emergency Housing 6,000 10,000 6,000 10,000 nfa nfa
6. CEDA - Transitional Housing 0 0 0 0 5,000 2,000
7. Children's Advocacy Center 4,500 5,000 4,500 4,500 3,000 3,000
8. Clayground Ceramics Program (Adults) 0 2,250 nfa nfa nfa nfa
9. Clayground Ceramics Program (Youth) 5,000 9,990 6,000 10,000 6,000 6,000
10. Club Rec Plex Program 0 2,500 2,000 3,000 2,500 3,000
11. Girl Scouts Program 2,500 6,000 4,000 5,000 2,500 2,500
12. Journey's from PADS to HOPE 5,000 7,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 2,500
13. Mentor Program 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
14. RCE - Senior Shared Housing Program 3,000 3,500 3,000 3,500 3,000 2,000
15. Resources for Community Living 5,750 7,000 6,000 7,000 5,000 2,500
16. Special Leisure Services Foundation 0 0 2,500 5,000 2,000 nfa
17. Summer Adventure Program 11,000 14,000 14,000 15,000 12,000 11,700
18. WINGS 2,250 5,000 3,000 5,000 nfa nfa
19. Workforce Development, Inc. 0 15,000 nfa nfa nfa nfa
LowfModerate Projects
20. Orchard Village Rehab 37,000 37,000 20,000 20,000 nfa nfa
21. FirstTime Homebuyer's Program 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 nfa
22. Single Family Rehab & Weatherization 240,000 250,000 276,091 188,500 236,950 160,036
23. Emergency Repair Program 15,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 nfa nfa
24. Smoke Detector Assistance Program 43,000 50,000 nfa nfa nfa nfa
25. Ashley Cove Infrastructure 50,000 50,000 nfa nfa nfa nfa
26. Sidewalk Ramp Project 52,500 52,500 55,000 55,000 50,000 92,111
27. Sidewalk Trip Hazard Elimination 0 0 65,000 65,000 65,000
28. Water Main Project 110,000 170,000 nfa nfa nfa nfa
,
Actual CDBG Allocation $449,000 $452,000 467,000 363,000
EstimatedfActual Program Income *60,000 *83,713 131,343 34,919
CDBG Carryover Funds *219,500 $317,121 110,506 423,674
Notes:
1. Mount Prospect's estimated CDBG allocation for FY 2005 is $449,000
2. Mount Prospect's estimated Program Income for FY 2005 is $60,000
3. The maximum allowed by HUD for administration is $89,800 (20%).
4. The maximum public service expenditure allowed by HUD is $79,906.95 (15% plus 15% of previous year's program income).
5. Program Income is generated from repayment of outstanding 0% Interest Loans
6. Numbers with' are subject to change.
MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION
LISA ANGELL, STAFF LIAISON
FROM:
MARISA A. WARNEKE, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNER
DATE:
AUGUST 6, 2004
SUBJECT:
2005 APPLICANT SUMMARY & PRELIMINARY BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
In reviewing the Village's 2005 CDBG budget, the total funds available will consist ofHUD's annual allocation, as
well as a portion of the Village's program income and any remaining carryover funds. Staff has received an initial
estimate from HUD that the Village's 2005 CDBG allocation will be $449,000 (as compared to the 2004 allocation
of $452,000). As we have previously noted, HUD allows only 15% of the annual allocation (plus 15% of the
previous year's program income) to be granted to public service programs. With this in mind, the projected
available 2005 funds for service programs will be $74,000. It should be noted that this estimated amount is
substantially less than the 2004 service program funding (which totaled $87,000). The reduction in funds available
for the 2005 service programs can be attributed to a lower 2005 HUD allocation and a limited amount of program
income obtained during 2004. With this in mind staff has prepared the following initial budget recommendations.
APPLICANT SUMMARY & PRELIMINARY BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
To assist in the CRC's review of the 2005 CDBG budget, the following applicant summary and preliminary budget
recommendations have been provided. In addition, the attached table entitled "2005 CDBG Budget" outlines
Staffs specific 2005 budget recommendations and provides some historical funding information:
1. Access To Care
2004 Budget: $12,000
2005 Request: $12,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $11,500
Applicant Summary: This program enables low-income uninsured resident of Mount Prospect to receive
primary health care services, including physician office visits, prescription drugs and laboratory and
radiology services.
Staff Comments: This program has continued to be a success. To date, they have enrolled 28 low-income,
uninsured Mount Prospect residents. Due to the amount of available funding, Staff recommends a slight
decrease for this program.
2. Alexian Brothers Mental Health Center
2004 Budget: n/a
2005 Request: $10,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $3,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides crisis intervention and follow-up services for low-income
mentally ill residents.
Staff Comments: The Village has never addressed mental health issues for 10w- and moderate-income
residents using CDBG resources. However, there is a large need for this type of program. Staff
recommends limited funding for this program on a probationary basis.
3. Camp Fire - Campin' Kids
2004 Budget: $12,000
2005 Request: $20,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $10,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides a 4 Yz week summer program for youth grades K-5 from the
Boxwood area. The summer program will teach youth leadership and decision-making skills.
Staff Comments: This program has continued to be a success. However, due to the limited amount of
funding, Staff recommends a decrease in funding.
4. CEDA Northwest -Child Care Broker Program
2004 Budget: $4,000
2005 Request: $6,500
2005 Staff Recommendation: $5,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides child care subsidies so working parents may transition into
full-time employment. The parents are allowed to choose a day care that accepts these subsidies.
Staff Comments: To date, the Child Care Broker Program has exceeded its estimated 2004 goal. There is a
great need for child care services for low- and moderate-income residents. Staff recommends an increase
in funding for this program.
5. CEDA Northwest - Emergency Housing Program
2004 Budget: $6,000
2005 Request: $10,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $5,000
Applicant Summary: This program will assist families who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless.
Staff Comments: This program serves two components: those individua1s/households at risk of becoming
homeless, and those individua1s/househo1d who need transitional housing. Due to the lack of available
funding, Staff recommends a decrease in funding for this program.
6. CEDA Northwest - Transitional Housing
This program is now combined with CEDA's Emergency Housing Program (See #5 above).
7. Children's Advocacy Center
2004 Budget: $4,500
2005 Request: $5,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $3,500
Applicant Summary: This program provides support and crisis intervention for child victims of sexual
abuse, severe physical abuse and other forms of family violence.
Staff Comments: Due to the lack of available funding, Staff recommends a slight decrease in funding.
8. Clayground Ceramics Program (Adults)
2004 Budget: n/a
2005 Request: $2,250
2005 Staff Recommendation: $0
Applicant Summary: This program teaches low-income adults (especially women) ceramics. This will
allow individuals to become involved outside their homes.
Staff Comments: C1ayground is now affiliated with the River Trails Park District. The purpose of this
program does not address a large public service need within the Village. Staff recommends denying
funding for this program.
9. Clayground Ceramic Program (Youth)
2004 Budget: $6,000
2005 Request: $9,990
2005 Staff Recommendation: $5,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides art classes to low- and moderate-income, at-risk children.
Staff Comments: In previous years, C1ayground had a high attendance from the Judith Ann youth because
of its old location. C1ayground is now affiliated with the River Trails Park District. Because of this new
affiliation, C1ayground has been moved to the Kensington Business Center, where the location is not as
convenient and not as many 10w- and moderate-income, at-risk youth can be assisted. Staff recommends a
decrease in funding for this program.
10. Club RecPlex
2004 Budget: $2,000
2005 Request: $2,500
2005 Staff Recommendation: $1,500
Applicant Summary: This program provides supervised recreational activities every Friday night at the
Club Rec P1ex facility adjacent to 10w- and moderate-income areas of Mount Prospect.
Staff Comments: This program serves approximately 4,000 youth per year. However, due to the lack of
available funding this year, Staff recommends a slight decrease for FY 2005.
11. Girl Scouts Program
2004 Budget: $4,000
2005 Request: $6,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $1,500
Applicant Summary: This program provides Girl Scouting activities to low- and moderate-income girls
with a concentration on girls from the Hispanic population.
Staff Comments: Due to a limited amount of funding, Staff recommends decreasing this program's funding
for 2005.
12. Journeysfrom PADS to HOPE
2004 Budget: $5,000
2005 Request: $7,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $5,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides case management and supportive services for homeless and
near homeless population.
Staff Comments: Journeys is the only facility of its kind in the area. ill addition, it is the only facility that
provides emergency shelter for the chronic homeless population. Staff recommends continued funding for
this program.
13. Mentor Program
2004 Budget: $3,000
2005 Request: $3,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $2,500
Applicant Summary: This program brings together volunteers with elementary and junior high school
children from 5 Mount Prospect schools in a positive, one-on-one relationship.
Staff Comments: This program has proved very successful in past years. Children receive more special
attention due to the one-on-one relationship with a particular mentor. Due to the lack of available funding
for FY 2005, Staff recommends a slight decrease in funding.
14. Resource Center for the Elderly - Senior Shared Housing Program
2004 Budget: $3,000
2005 Request: $3,500
2005 Staff Recommendation: $3,000
Applicant Summary: This program assists elderly Mount Prospect homeowners to stay in their homes
while providing safe, affordable housing to low-income individuals who need housing.
Staff Comments: This is the only program of its kind in the area. Staff recommends continued funding of
this program.
15. Resources for Community Living
2004 Budget: $6,000
2005 Request: $7,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $5,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides housing options and support services to individuals with
developmental and/or physical disabilities, allowing them to live independently.
Staff Comments: This program has proven successful in the past. However, due to the limited amount of
available funding, Staff recommends a decrease in funding.
16. Special Leisure Services
This program did not request 2005 funding.
17. Summer Adventure Program
2004 Budget: $14,000
2005 Request: $14,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $11,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides summer camp to 10w- and moderate-income youth within the
School District 59 boundaries.
Staff Comments: The Greater Wheeling Area Youth Outreach, Inc. was very successful in administering
the Summer Adventure Program for the first year. However, due to a lack of funding, Staff recommends a
decrease in funding for this program.
18. WINGS (Women In Need Growing Strong)
2004 Budget: $3,000
2005 Request: $5,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $1,500
Applicant Summary: This program provides housing and supportive services to women and children who
are homeless or living with issues of domestic violence.
Staff Comments: To date, WINGS has not assisted any Mount Prospect residents through the 2004 CDBG
Program. Staff recommends a decrease in funding.
19. Workforce Development, Inc.
2004 Budget: n/a
2005 Request: $15,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $0
Applicant Summary: This program provides English as a Second Language courses specifically addressing
job-training purposes.
Staff Comments: Although there is a need for job training in the Village, this program is only looking to
assist 10 people with $15,000. Due to the cost/benefit ratio of the program (approximately $1,500 per
person), Staff recommends denying funding for this program.
20. Orchard Village Rehab
2004 Budget: $20,000
2005 Request: $37,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $0
Applicant Summary: This organization is requesting funds for the addition of a bathroom and bedroom to a
group home located in Mount Prospect. This would increase the maximum occupancy of the home from 5
individual to 7 individuals
Staff Comments: This organization is cun-ently receiving 2004 CDBG funding for the rehabilitation of the
same group home. Due to the limited funding available in 2005, Staff recommends their request be
denied.
21. First-Time Homebuyer's Program
2004 Budget: $20,000
2005 Request: $30,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $30,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides down payment and closing cost assistance to eligible
applicants who wish to purchase a home in Mount Prospect.
Staff Comments: Staff has made some increased contacts with local realtors and lending institutions. Staff
recommends an increase in funding for this program due to the need for a homebuyer's program in the
Village.
22. Single-Family Rehab Loan & Home Weatherization Grant Programs
2004 Budget: $276,091
2005 Request: $250,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $250,000
Applicant Summary: This program assists eligible applicants with home repairs to mcrease energy
efficiency, replace faulty items or bring the property up to cun-ent Village Code.
Staff Comments: There is cun-ent1y a waiting list for these two programs. Due to the age of housing stock
in the Village and the number of interested residents, Staff recommends continued funding for this
program.
23. Emergency Repair Program
2004 Budget: $30,000
2005 Request: $15,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $15,000
Applicant Summary: This program provides assistance to repair homes with conditions that present an
immediate threat to health or safety.
Staff Comments: This program is reserved for issues that present an immediate threat to the health or safety
of a home or its occupants. Staff recommends continued funding of this program for Mount Prospect
residents that have emergency repair situations but lack the funding to resolve those situations.
24. Smoke Detector Assistance Program
2004 Budget: nIa
2005 Request: $50,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $50,000
Applicant Summary: This program will provide the installation of smoke detectors to all owner-occupied
units primarily located in the Boxwood area.
Staff Comments: This program will allow all of the owner-occupied housing units in the Boxwood area to
meet current Village Building and Fire Code through the installation of smoke detectors. Firefighters from
the Village will install the smoke detectors in each approved unit. In addition, the Fire Department will
have a stock of smoke detectors for elderly or disabled individuals as needed. Staff recommends funding
this program.
25. Ashley Cove Infrastructure Improvements
2004 Budget: nIa
2005 Request: $50,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $50,000
Applicant Summary: This program would provide infrastructure improvements at Ashley Cove, a 10w-
income, multi-family property. Improvements include installing dumpster padding and enclosures as well
as increased parking lot lighting.
Staff Comments: The low- and moderate-income area would greatly benefit from this project. Additional
waste container areas, enclosure of these areas and increased lighting would heighten the health and safety
of the residents. Staff recommends funding this program.
26. Sidewalk Ramp Project
2004 Budget: $55,000
2005 Request: $52,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $52,000
Applicant Summary: This project includes the installation of sidewalk ramps at curbed streets to improve
handicapped accessibility.
Staff Comments: This program has proved successful in previous years. Funding this program increases
the handicapped accessibility for Mount Prospect residents. Staff recommends funding this program.
27. Sidewalk Trip Hazard Elimination
The Village's Public Works Department did not request funding for this program.
28. Wall Street Water Main Project
2004 Budget: n/a
2005 Request: $170,000
2005 Staff Recommendation: $0
Applicant Summary: This project will replace the leaking water main on Wall Street, near La Salle Street.
Staff Comments: This area is currently zoned OR (Office Research). Although this project is located in a
low- and moderate-income census tract, Staff feels that funding could better be used to assist actual
residents of the 10w- and moderate-income areas. Staff recommends denying funding for this program.
CONCLUSION
The Village's estimated 2005 CDBG allocation is $449,000 (a slight decrease from FY 2004). Based on this
amount, the estimated Public Service Program funding available is $74,000. Because this amount is significantly
less than 2004's Public Service allocation, many public service agencies may experience a decrease in CDBG
funding. Staff will be present at the August 12th meeting to review the recommendations and answer any questions
you may have.
If you have any questions before the meeting, please feel free to contact me at (847) 818-5313.
I concur:
William J. Cooney, Jf.
Director of Community Development
H:\PLAN\CDBG\2005IAction PlanlApplications\Memos\CDBG Funding Memo to CRC.doc
D '( Q~-\-
MINUTES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Village of Mount Prospect Public Works Facility
Thursday, September 2, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The meeting of the Community Relations Commission (CRC) of the Village of Mount Prospect was held Thursday,
September 2, 2004 in the Public Works Facility, 1700 West Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Brennan called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner Schultz
Commissioner Tolbert
Commissioner Muench
Commissioner Parikh
Absent
Marisa Warneke, Neighborhood Planner
Lisa Angell, Staff Liaison
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the August 12h ,2004 meeting minutes was moved and seconded. The minutes were
unanimously approved as written.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no discussion of Old Business
NEW BUSINESS
. 2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding
2005 CDBG applicants presented their funding requests to the Commission.
Minutes for the Public Hearing were taken by Ms. Marisa Warneke, Community Planner.
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, September 9, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Works Facility. The
special meeting is to discuss and formalize CDBG recommendations to the Mayor and Village Board. There being
no further business a motion to adjourn was moved and seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Lisa Angell
Staff Liaison
X: \ USE RS\LAN G ELL \communi tyre la ti onscommiss i oulO 04 \s ept 2 meetin gmin utes. doc
'-DY- Q ++-
MINUTES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION
Mount Prospect Public Works Building - 1700 W. Central Road
Thursday, September 2, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The meeting of the Community Relations Commission (CRC) ofthe Village of Mount Prospect was held on
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, at the Mount Prospect Public Works Building, 1700 W. Central Road, Mount
Prospect, Illinois.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Brennan called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. Commissioners Rosario Schulz and Anthony
Tolbert were present. The Village staff present were Marisa Warneke, Neighborhood Planner, and Lisa
Angell, Staff Liaison.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business to discuss.
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearin2 for FY 2005CDBG reQuests
Chairman Brennan briefly summarized the intent of the public hearing and the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program. He noted that the meeting was intended solely as an opportunity for the applicants to
review their various programs and related funding requests, and that no final funding recommendations would
occur at the conclusion of the hearing.
Chairman Brennan outlined to those in the audience how the Public Hearing would proceed with regards to
reviewing the 2005 Budget for the CDBG program. He asked that all applicants for the CDBG program sign
in and noted that he would call on them in the order they had signed in to make their presentation. He
requested that their presentation be no longer than five minutes, which would then be followed by a question
and answer period by the Commission. He advised them that the Commission would take all the comments
and questions into consideration and then meet on September 9th to prepare their final budget recommendations
to the Village's Board of Trustees.
Chairman Brennan then asked that representative from CEDA Northwest Self-Help Center to come forward
and make a presentation. CEDA provides supportive services for homeless and those at-risk of becoming
homeless. Their request actually contained two components: one was the Emergency Housing Program with a
funding request of $1 0,000; and the second was $6,500 for the Child Care Subsidy Program. The Emergency
Housing Program provides both homeless prevention and transitional housing. The Child Care Subsidy
Program provides subsidies to parents who need to place their children in day care so they can work full-time.
The next presentation was regarding Camp Fire - Campin' Kids. This program provides a summer day camp
for children from the Boxwood area 5 days per week. The United Way has cut 10% of their total budget, and
their budget request for this year was $20,000.
Representatives from Alexian Brothers Mental Health Center made the next presentation. This program
provides mental health counseling for 10w- and moderate-income persons of Wheeling Township who are
residents of Mount Prospect. This program would also provide much needed medication prescribed by a
Community Relations Commission
September 2, 2004 Minutes
Page 2
psychiatrist. Alexian Brothers requested $10,000 for FY 2005.
The fourth presentation was for the Access to Care Program, which provides hea1thcare to the low-income
residents of Mount Prospect. There are enough physician slots to assist 27,000 individuals, however there is
not enough funding available to the agency. Access To Care requested $12,000 to assist Mount Prospect
residents.
The next presentation was for Resources for Community Living. Resources For Community Living provides
alternative living arrangements and supportive services to adults with developmental and/or physical
disabilities. These services include everything from balancing a checkbook, to participating in social groups, to
finding affordable housing. This program requested $7,000 for the 2005 fiscal year.
The next presentation was for the C1ayground Professional Art Studio, a Division of the River Trails Park
District. Their request actually contained two components: one was the C1ayground Youth Program at a
funding request of$9,990, and the other was a Clayground Adult Program at a funding request of$2,250. The
Clayground Youth program would provide art classes to 10w- and moderate-income youth, especially from the
Boxwood area. The C1ayground Adult Program would provide teaches low-income adults (especially women)
ceramics. This will allow individuals to become involved outside their homes.
The Greater Wheeling Area Youth Outreach, Inc. administers the Summer Adventure, which was run by the
Village's Human Services Department in previous years. Summer Adventure provides a summer day camp to
children that live on the south side of Mount Prospect in conjunction with School District 59. Summer
Adventure requested $14,000 for FY 2005.
The Village of Mount Prospect's Human Services Department came forward to make a presentation for the
Mentor Program. This program requested $3,000 for the program, which pairs youth and adults in a one-on-
one basis to provide a positive role model for the youth. This program has been in existence since 1993.
The next presentation was for the Girl Scouts Program and the funding request is targeted towards assisting
Hispanic girls. They indicated that their research shows that Hispanic girls are the most underserved. The
program's funding request for FY 2005 was $6,000.
The next presentation was from the Mt. Prospect Park District's Club RecP1ex facility. Their request for
$2,500 is used for the Friday night Youth Program that they offer at the RecP1ex. The Park District primarily
funds this program, while CDBG funds supply extra activities.
A representative of WINGS made the next presentation. This program provides assistance to women who are
homeless and/or victims of domestic violence. WINGS plans to open a domestic violence shelter at the end of
2004. This program requested $5,000 in funding.
The next presentation was from the Children's Advocacy Center. Their request was for $5,000. The Center
provides crisis intervention following a report of child abuse, counseling, child interviews, court advocacy and
other supportive services to sexually abused children and their families. In addition they plan to implement a
program that provides counseling to children under the age of 5 who have witnessed domestic violence.
The next presentation was from a representative of Resource Center for the Elderly. Resource Center for the
Elderly provides the Senior-Shared Housing Program, which matches up an elderly person with a low-income
person who can't afford to live on his/her own. Their funding request for 2005 was $3,500.
Community Relations Commission
September 2, 2004 Minutes
Page 3
Representatives of Journeys from PADS to HOPE made the next presentation. Journeys provides showers,
washing facilities, a food pantry, a clothing pantry, and emergency shelters for the homeless. Their funding
request for 2005 was $7,000.
The next presentation was from Workforce Development Inc. This program would provide English as a
Second Language technical courses to 10 non-English speaking persons. This program requested $15,000 for
FY 2005.
The final presentation was from Orchard Village who requested funds for the rehabilitation of a single-family
group home in Mount Prospect. Funds would be used to add an addition on to the current house, which would
increase the home's capacity from 5 to 7 handicapped persons. The program requested $37,000 in funding.
It was noted that this request for funding is a separate line item from the Public Service Programs' funding.
Chairman Brennan closed the public hearing after all members in the audience had the opportunity to comment
on the subject.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was closed at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marisa Warneke
Neighborhood Planner
H:\PLAN\CDBG\2005\Action Plan\Applications\Minutes\CRC September 2, 2004 Public Hearing Minutes.doc
Dx Q-\+
MINUTES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION
2ND Floor Conference Room, Public Safety Building
Thursday, September 9, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The Community Relations Commission (CRG) of the Village of Mount Prospect held a special meeting Thursday,
September 9, 2004 in the Public Works Facility, 1700 West Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Brennan called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner Parikh
Commissioner Muench
Commissioner Schultz
Commissioner Tolbert
Absent:
Also in attendance:
John Winke, Orchard Village [CDBG applicant]
Rita Zambon, Workforce Development [CDBG applicant]
Marisa Warneke, Neighborhood Planner
Lisa Angell, Staff Liaison
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the September 2, 2004 Public Hearing will be presented for approval at the regular October 7, 2004
Commission meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
.
Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Funding Discussion and Recommendations
[Ms. Warneke informed the Commission that since the September 2nd, Public Hearing $38,000 in
program income from the 2004 budget was received. The additional funds were added to the 2005
CDBG Public Service Program Budget; the revised budget is $79,000.]
The final phase of the recommendation process for 2005 CDBG funds was conducted. Following a general
overview of each funding applicant, the Commission members discussed and made their respective
recommendations for allocating funds to the 2005 CDBG applicants. As all applicants were recognized for
their respective service, the Commission focused on the following criteria in making their recommendations.
(1) Service provided
(2) Applicant's funding source(s)
(3) Number of Mount Prospect residents served
The Commission discussed each applicants request until a consensus for funding was reached. [Written
comments and recommendations submitted by Commissioner Tolbert prior to the meeting were included in
the discussion.]comments and recommendations The attached 2005 Budget document details the final
recommendations of the Community Relations Commission.
Ms. Warneke thanked the Commission for the care and effort they took in making the 2005 CDBG funding
recommendations.
NEW BUSINESS
No new business was presented for discussion.
OTHER
Chairman Brennan requested a document drafted by Commissioner Schultz regarding recommendations on
Affordable Housing be distributed to the members for discussion at the October 9, 2004 meeting. A copy will
be mailed to Commissioner Tolbert.
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting was scheduled for Thursday, October 9, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the community room of the
new Village Hall, 50 South Emerson. There being no further business a motion to adjourn was moved and
seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Lisa Angell
Staff Liaison
X: \ USERS \LAN G E LL \co mmun i tyre la ti onscommis s i onsep t92 004 meetin gmin utes. d oc
mw
9/16/04
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2005-2009 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
INCLUDING THE 2005 ACTION PLAN
FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has prepared a five-year Consolidated Plan, which includes a
community development strategic plan and an application for Community Development Block Grant
funding; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is entering its twenty-sixth year as an entitlement community
under the federal Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, in the past twenty-five years the Village has used its Community Development Block Grant
entitlement to implement various projects to address the community development and housing needs of
low and moderate-income and elderly residents, to reduce and prevent the occurrence of deterioration in
the Village, to increase accessibility for the handicapped, and to address other community needs in
conformance with the objectives of the Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has been allocated $449,000 for fiscal year 2004 from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, expects to generate $60,000 in annual program
income, and anticipates carryover funds in the amount of $219,500; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees have determined that the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan
and the use of CDBG funds can be of benefit in providing for residents' health, safety and welfare and in
meeting the community and housing needs of its citizens:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect hereby approve
the attached 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan, which includes the 2005 Action Plan. The Action Plan
anticipates spending Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $728,500.
Youth Service Programs
Health Care
Elderly/Community Services Program
Disabilities Programs
Transitional Living Program and Resource Center
Homeless Programs
Home Improvement Programs
1 sl Time Homebuyers Program
Smoke Detector Assistance Program
Neighborhood Sidewalk Ramp ADA Program
Neighborhood Improvements
General Administration
$41,500
15,500
3,000
42,750
8,250
5,000
255,000
30,000
43,000
52,500
160,000
72.000
FY 2005 CDBG FUNDS
$728,500
F
Page 2/2
CDBG Allocations
SECTION TWO: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect hereby authorize
the Village Manager to prepare and forward to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Mount Prospect's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan in accordance with Federal guidelines. The 2005-2009
Consolidated Plan includes the 2005 Action Plan, an application for FY 2005 Federal Community
Development Block Grant funds.
SECTION THREE: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
approval in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley
Mayor
ATTEST:
Velma W. Lowe
Village Clerk
HICLKOIfileslWINIRESIConsoJidated Plan,CDBG, 2005-2009.doc
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
~
TREE c:;rry USA
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM:
PROJECT ENGINEER
SUBJECT:
mGHLAND STREET & RAND ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION STUDY
The Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to
approve access restrictions at the intersection of Highland Street and Rand Road.
Highland Street :trom Route 83 to Rand Road is culTently classified as a collector street. Between Elm
Street and Rand Road it is 16' wide. It is one-way eastbound for this block and right turns at Rand Road
are only allowed per Village Code. West of Elm Street, Highland Street is 29' wide to its intersection
with Route 83. Two-way traffic is allowed for this section of the street. Over the years, the full 66' of
right-of-way along Highland Street was never dedicated along the closest 150' to Rand Road. With only
33' of right-of-way, only a half-road could be constructed.
A new town home development is currently under construction at the southwest comer of Highland Street
and Rand Road. This development has permitted the Village to obtain the additional 33' of right-of-way
allowing for a full-width roadway to be constructed that will match the other section of the street. The
road improvement work is scheduled to be completed this autumn. Two-way traffic on Highland Street at
Rand Road will now be provided for as approved by the Village Board earlier this year. The Planning &
Zoning Commission recommended the intersection access issue be discussed at a future Safety
Commission meeting before the street is widened.
This issue was discussed at the September 13, 2004 Safety Commission Meeting. In Staffs presentation
to the Commission, the potential advantages and disadvantages of each of the possible turning movements
(right-in, right-out, left-in and left-out) were discussed as well as the potential issues surrounding
Highland Street traffic crossing Rand Road to Highland Avenue in the Little Brickman Subdivision and
vice-versa. Staffs evaluation is detailed in the attached Safety Commission Minutes.
Approximately 12 residents :trom the Little Brickman Subdivision attended the meeting. Most of the
comments were concerning the potential for more cut through traffic in their neighborhood as a result of
Highland Street becoming a two-way street. One of the suggestions :trom the residents was to cul-de-sac
Highland Avenue in the Little Brickman Subdivision thereby cutting off access to Rand Road, and then
extend Holly Avenue to Wheeling Road. After much discussion, the Safety Commission agreed that a
decision needed to be made with respect to access at the intersection of Highland Street and Rand Road in
anticipation of the upcoming street improvements allowing for two-way traffic as directed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. They further agreed, however, that a follow-up study should be done
after implementation of their recommendations to determine the layout's effectiveness and whether
additional changes needed to be made. The Safety Commission understood the residents' concerns but
said that drastic changes to their neighborhood would not be considered until further study and further
input :trom their entire neighborhood at a separate Safety Commission Meeting in the future.
-""~
Page 2 of2
September 16, 2004
September Safety Commission Meeting
By a vote of 6-2, the Safety Commission recommends the following at the Highland
Street and Rand Road intersection:
$ allow right-in turning movements from southeastbound Rand Road to westbound
Highland Street
$ allow right-out turning movements from eastbound Highland Street to
southeastbound Rand Road
$ allow left-in turning movements from northwestbound Rand Road to westbound
Highland Street
$ prohibit left-out turning movements from eastbound Highland Street to
northwestbound Rand Road
$ prohibit westbound traffic on Highland Avenue from crossing Rand Road to
Highland Street
$ prohibit eastbound traffic on Highland Street from crossing Rand Road to Highland
Avenue
Specific Village Code changes include:
$ removing the one-way eastbound street designation along Highland Street between
Elm Street and Rand Road (Section 18.2003)
$ adding the prohibition of crossing Rand Road from westbound Highland Avenue to
westbound Highland Street in the Village Code (Section 18.2017)
Please include this item on the September 21 st Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed are the Safety
Commission Minutes from the meeting as well as a location map for your reference.
~.
Matthew P. Lawrie
cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe
x.. \files \ engin eer \trajJì e \s afeeo mm \rees &min \s eptO4 ree2. doc
)...
Q
Q ï::? ~
Q¿C') ~
Q ð g¡
:::it: i::: ~
~~ §
,;e: oc
'- ~ ~
C')!:ß Q
~ Q¿ ¡
~~ ~
~o ~
:t ~ ~
vwl
9/16/04
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED
'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2003 of "SCHEDULE III-ONE WAY STREETS" of
Chapter 18 of the Mount Prospect Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended
by deleting the following, "Highland Street - Eastbound - Between Elm Street and Rand
Road."
SECTION TWO: That Section 18.2017 of "SCHEDULE XVII-RESTRICTED
INTERSECTION MOVEMENTS" of Chapter 18 of the Mount Prospect Village Code, as
amended, is hereby further amended by inserting in proper alphabetical sequence the
following, so that hereafter said Section 18.2017 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall
include the following:
"Intersection and Direction
Westbound Highland Avenue
Restriction
Crossing Rand Road from westbound
Highland Avenue onto westbound
Highland Street."
SECTION THREE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Velma W. Lowe
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\CH 18,Sec-2003, See 2017,Highland,Sept,2004.doc
G
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
@)
TREE CITY USA
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM:
PROJECT ENGINEER
SUBJECT:
PARKING RESTRICTIONS AROUND PROSPECT IDGH SCHOO
The Engineering Staff transmits their recommendation to
approve parking restrictions on a Gregory Street, a public street in the vicinity of
Prospect High School.
As you're aware, the Village has had to address parking problems around Prospect High School over the
past few years as a result of students parking on Village streets rather than in the school parking lot. As
opposed to continuing to send the issue back to the Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees
before installing parking restriction signs, the Village Board granted authority to you and Staff in 2003 to
take immediate action if necessary should new problems arise. Formal approval by the Village Board of
Trustees would then be done at the next available Board meeting after the signs were installed.
Since the start of a new school year, the Engineering Staff has been monitoring student parking around
the high school. During the first week of school, approximately 10 cars were consistently parking on
Mount Prospect streets and 40 cars on Arlington Heights streets that did not have parking restrictions.
The primary area in Mount Prospect was along the south side of Gregory Street west of Dale Avenue.
This was the first year students had been parking at this location. The primary area in Arlington Heights
where students were and continue to park is along Donald Avenue north of Kensington Road.
In a conversation with the resident at the southwest comer of Gregory Street and Dale Avenue, he was in
favor of parking restrictions along Gregory Street. Littering and noise were the primary complaints. Per
your direction, additional parking restrictions were approved for the south side of Gregory Street between
Dale Avenue and Evanston Avenue. Signs were installed the fITSt week of September. The north side of
the street is under the jurisdiction of Arlington Heights and already prohibits parking. As one travels
further west on Gregory Street, Meadows Park begins. Staff decided to not continue the parking
restrictions further west at this time so as to not cause an inconvenience to those who may be visiting the
park.
Staff has and will continue to monitor Mount Prospect streets for any additional streets that may
experience problems associated with student parking. Cars have not been parking in the vicinity of the
new parking restrictions and there are no other streets in Mount Prospect that appear to be experiencing
parking problems at this time.
Page 2 of2
September 16,2004
September Safety Commission Meeting
So that the recent parking restrictions are included in the Village Code, Staff recommends to approve:
<$ No Parking lOam-Ham & 1pm-2pm School Days signs for the south side of Gregory Street
from Dale Avenue to Evanston Avenue (Section 18.2009 of the Village Code)
Please include this item on the September 21st Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed are the Safety
Commission Minutes :trom the meeting as well as a location map for your reference.
~~
Matthew P. Lawrie
cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe
x: \files \engineerltraffic Isafecomm Irecs&min IseptO4rec I.doc
PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL
~ ~
IX
0 ~
~ z ~
~ ~
~ ::E 0 I-
t> 0 (I)
!:!:! 0 IX
> ¡,, ~ ~
!!: 0.. :J:
~ (I) (I) ::E
0 ~ ...J
IX ¡,, ¡,,
0..
~ ~ ~
z
~ 0 IX
::E ...J ¡,,
IX ~ ::E
¡,, Z ::E
!;( 0 ~
~ 0 IX
NO PARKING ANY TIlliE
NEW
¡,, -
.; '11'777:1 NO PARKING 10-IIAIII. 1-2PIII
a rLLLJ SCHOOL OAYS
DRY ~T
FAIRVIEW
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
~ W ISABELLA ST
IX
0
~ z ~ ~
~ ~
::E
~ I- 0 l-
I- 0 (I)
(I) !:!:! u 0 IX
..... ~ ¡,, ~ ~
IX 0.. :J:
0 ~ (I) (I) ::E
0
¡.., IX ~ ...J
0.. ..... ¡,,
VWL
9/16/04
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED
'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2009.B. of "SCHEDULE IX -PARKING DURING SCHOOL
HOURS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding thereto in proper alphabetical sequence, "Gregory Street - South - Between
Dale Avenue and Evanston Avenue" so that hereafter said Section 18.2009.B of the Mount
Prospect Village Code shall including the following:
"Name of Street
Gregory Street
Side of Street
South
Description
Between Dale Avenue and Evanston Avenue."
SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
ATTEST:
Velma W. Lowe
Village Clerk
H:ICLKOIfilesIWINIORDINANC\CH 18,Sec-2009,School parking. doc
H
Director
Glen R. Andler
Deputy Director
Sean P. Dorsey
Village Engineer
Jeffrey A. Wulbecker
Solid Waste Coordinator
M. Lisa Angell
Water/Sewer Superintendent
Roderick T. O'Donovan
Streets/Buildings Superintendent
Paul C. Bures
Forestry/Grounds Superintendent
Sandr¡¡ M. Clark
Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent
James E. Guenther
MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1700 W. CENTRAL RClAD, MCIUNT PRClSPECT, ILLINCIIS 60056-2229
PH CINE 847/870-5640 FAX 847/253-9377 TOO 847/392-1235
MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT
SAFETY COMMISSION
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting ofthe Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
September 13, 2004.
ROLL CALL
Present upon roll call:
Chuck Bencic
John Keane
Susan Arndt
Mark Miller
Carol Tortorello
Ted Adamczyk
Buz Livingston
Jeff Wulbecker
Matt Lawrie
Absent:
Kevin Grouwinkel
Others in Attendance:
See attached list.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Police Department Representative
Fire Department Representative
Public Works Representative
Traffic Engineer - Staff Liaison
Commissioner
Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commissioner Tortorello, moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of the Safety Commission held on June 14,2004. The minutes were approved by a vote of8-0.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
No citizens came forth to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
A)
UPDATE ON PARKING SITUATION AROUND PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL
1)
Background Information
The Village has had to address parking problems around Prospect High School over the past few years
as a result of students parking on Vil1age streets rather than in the school parking lot. As opposed to
continuing to send the issue back to the Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees before
installing parking restriction signs, the ViHage Board granted authority to the Vi1lage Manager in 2003
to take immediate action if necessary should new problems arise. Fonnal approval by the Vil1age
Board of Trustees would then be done at the next available Board meeting after the signs were
installed.
2)
Staff Study
With the start of a new school year, the Engineering Staffhas been monitoring student parking around
the high school. Approximately 10 cars have consistently been parking on Mount Prospect streets and
40 cars on Arlington Heights streets that do not have parking restrictions. One area in Mount Prospect
is along the east side of Oak Avenue south of Gregory Street. There is a dedicated parking lane and is
adjacent to a park. This has not been a nuisance over the years to the neighborhood and, therefore,
Staff has not recommended parking restrictions at this location. The other area in Mount Prospect
where students are parking is along the south side of Gregory Street west of Dale A venue. This is the
first year students have been parking at this location. The primary area in Arlington Heights where
students are parking is along Donald A venue north of Kensington Road.
In a conversation with the resident at the southwest comer of Gregory Street and Dale A venue, he is in
favor of parking restrictions along Gregory Street. Littering and noise are the primary complaints. Per
the direction ofthe ViHage Manager, additional parking restrictions have been approved for the south
side of Gregory Street between Dale Avenue and Evanston Avenue. Signs were installed the first
week of September. The north side of the street is under the jurisdiction of Arlington Heights and
already prohibits parking. As one travels further west on Gregory Street, Meadows Park begins. Staff
decided to not continue the parking restrictions further west at this time so as to not cause an
inconvenience to those who may be visiting the park.
Staffhas been monitoring the signs' effectiveness and believes the new signs have addressed the latest
parking problem. Students have not moved further down the street. Also, there are not any others at
this time in Mount Prospect that appears to be a problem. The latest parking restrictions are scheduled
to be formally approved by the Vil1age Board of Trustees at their September 21 sl meeting.
No formal vote is necessary.
3)
Discussion
There was no one in the audience to speak on this issue.
Chainnan Bencic asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to present the report to the Safety Commission.
Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of Staffs study of the issue.
Chairman Bencic asked if the cars that were parking on Gregory Street near Dale A venue moved
further west outside the new parking restrictions. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said that Staff has been
monitoring the area and there have not been any cars parking further west.
Commissioner Tortorello asked if parking restrictions should be put up along the east side of Oak
A venue south of Gregory Street. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said that while there are about five student
Ii{
2)
cars that park in this location it has not presented a problem. There is a dedicated parking lane and
Village services have not been affected. The area is in front of a park and Staff has not wanted
parking restrictions to affect those who may be visiting the park.
There were no more questions from the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
A)
1)
HIGHLAND STREET & RAND ROAD TURN RESTRICTION STUDY
Background II1formation
The Village of Mount Prospect Planning & Zoning Commission requested that the Safety Commission
recommend the appropriate access restrictions at the intersection of Highland Street and Rand Road in
anticipation of upcoming improvements to Highland Street.
A new town home development is under construction at the southwest comer of Highland Street and
Rand Road. With this development, improvements to the Highland Street roadway will also be made.
Highland Street between Elm Street and Rand Road is currently 16' wide (back-of-curb to back-of-
curb). It is one way eastbound for this block and right turns at Rand Road are only allowed. West of
Elm Street, Highland Street is 29' wide (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) to its intersection with
Elmhurst Road. Two-way traffic is allowed for this section ofthe street. Rand Road is a five-lane
road under the jurisdiction ofIDOT. There are two northwestbound lanes, two southeastbound lanes
and one shared left turn lane.
The full 66' wide right-of-way along Highland Street was never dedicated along the property under
development. With only 33', only a half-road could be constructed. In 1979, the Village Board voted
to make the block one-way eastbound and restrict turns at Rand Road to right-turn only. It is uncertain
the reason for this restricted turning movement but it may have been done to prevent cut through
traffic into the neighborhood on the opposite side of Rand Road.
The developer of the town homes has dedicated another 33' of right-of-way allowing for a full road to
be constructed that will match the other section of the street. The road improvement work is
scheduled to take place this autumn. Two-way traffic on Highland Street at Rand Road will now be
provided for. The Planning & Zoning Commission at their December 11, 2003 meeting the
intersection access issue be discussed at a Safety Commission meeting.
Staff Study & Evaluation
With the widening ofthe roadway, there are four primary turning movements to be considered for the
intersection of Highland Street and Rand Road: right-in, right-out, lefi--in arid Ièft--()ut. When
considering each turning movement, some questions that need to be asked include:
Is this turning movement a benefit to the neighborhood?
Is this turning movement safe?
Will this turning movement promote a high level of cut through traffic?
Right-in
Allowing this turning movement would be safe and would appear to be a benefit to the neighborhood.
As it is now, residents traveling southeast on Rand Road who live in the neighborhood must travel to
Isabella Street or Henry Street and then head back north if they live at the north end of the
neighborhood. During the evening peak travel time, turn restrictions prohibit access onto Isabella
Street and Henry Street. These turn restrictions were enacted approximately eight years ago because
many vehicles turning from Business Center Drive onto southeastbound Rand Road were then cutting
through the neighborhood in order to get to westbound Central Road or southbound Route 83. As a
result, residents of the neighborhood must instead turn south onto Route 83 and.lefton.to. Highland
Street or any of the intersecting streets. Making this left turn from Route 83 can be difficult since it
does not have a shared left turn lane.
Right-out
This turning movement is currently allowed and, therefore, would not present a change. There is
adequate sight distance along Rand Road for motorists to safely make the right turn from Highland
Street.
Left-in
Allowing this turning movement would be safe as there is a dedicated shared l~fttu.rn lane along Rand
Road. It may also reduce the number ofleft turning vehicles from Rand Road onto Isabella Street or
Henry Street as those residents who live at the north end ofthe neighborhood and nonnal1y use these
streets may choose Highland Street instead.
One potential problem, however, may be cut through traffic. The Rand/Route 83/Kensington
intersection has up to a 3 minute 50 second traffic signal cycle length. Impatient motorists, therefore,
may look to Highland Street as an alternate route. A motorist coming from the Mount Prospect Plaza
or traveling Rand Road from Des Plaines may live in the neighborhood west of Route 83 or may be
looking to continue west on Kensington Road. If these motorists recognize the delay along Rand Road
as they get closer to the Rand/Route 83/Kensington intersection, they may make a last minute decision
to cut through the neighborhood via Highland Street.
Another concern Staffhas with cut through traffic on Highland Street would be the additional traffic
generated trom the Kensington Business Park. Many motorists turning trom Business Center Drive
onto Rand Road desire to head west on Central Road or northwest on Northwest Highway. Many
years ago, motorists turning left onto Rand Road trom Business Center Drive wol.lld. thsn turn right
onto Isabella Street or Henry Street and weave through the neighborhood to head west.
Approximately eight years ago, turn restriction signs were installed prohibiting right turns during the
evening peak travel time onto these local streets to prevent cut through traffic. By allowing the left-in
turning movement at Highland Street and Rand Road, motorists trom the business park may find it
convenient to turn right onto Rand Road from Business Center Drive and then use Highland Street as
a cut through route.
Left-out
Allowing this turning movement may not provide a significant benefit to the neighborhood. Residents
who wish to head north on Route 83, northwest on Rand Road or west on Kensington Road can safely
make a right turn onto Route 83 trom any of the intersecting streets. To head east on Kensington
Road, residents can either turn right onto Route 83 to Kensington Road or turn right onto Rand Road,
left onto Business Center Drive, left onto Wheeling Road and right onto Kensington Road. While
these series of turns may take time, they are safe and have been managed for 25 years.
Allowing the left turn onto Rand Road would still require a motorist to negotiate the Rand/Route
83/Kensington intersection unless their destination is before the intersection. Therefore, there may not
be a savings in time.
Given the existing conditions at the intersection, Staff would not recommend allowing left turns from
Highland Street onto Rand Road from a safety standpoint. There are three trees in the Rand Road
parkway and one private property evergreen tree whose branches overhang the right-of-way that are
sight obstructions and would m~.ke it <iifficult for"yehiçles t() ê¡iJely turn onto Rand Road. The
construction drawings for the town homes show the three parkway trees to be removed in order to
construct a sidewalk. Removal of these trees and trimming of the evergreen tree should provide
adequate sight distance should the left turn be allowed.
Even with adequate sight distance, the left turn onto Rand Road from Highland Street may still be a
difficult turn because the amount of traffic. According to 1001' data, Rand Road experiences
approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. Especially during peak travel times, motorists waiting to turn
onto Rand Road may experience significant delay as they wait for an acceptable gap in the traffic.
This issue may result in an increase of accidents at the intersection making this turning movement not
a benefit to the neighborhood.
Another reason that allowing the left-out turning movement may not be beneficial is the potential for
cut through traffic into the subdivision on the opposite side of Rand Road. It is believed because of
past cut through problems the right-turn only requirement was implemented many years ago. By
requiring only right turns from Highland Street onto Rand Road supplemented with signing, striping
andJorphysical barriers, the cut through traffic issue would continued to be addressed. ll1is is further
discussed in the following section.
Cross traffic
In addition to the four primary turning movements to be considered when evaluating any access
restrictions for the intersection, addressing the possibility of cross traffic should also be considered.
Highland Avenue on the opposite side of Rand Road is approximately 50' offset from Highland Street.
There are culTently no tum restrictions for Highland A venue at Rand Road.
Staff's concern is that a majority of traffic crossing Rand Road from Highland Street to Highland
A venue and vice-versa would be cut through traffic. Westbound Kensington Road traffic could turn
left onto Wilshire Drive to Highland A venue, cross over Rand Road and use Highland Street to get to
southbound Route 83 thus avoiding the RandJRoute 83/Kensington intersection. The opposite route
could also be used by northbound Route 83 traffic looking to head east on Kensington Road.
In addition to cut through traffic generated by arterial streets, residents along Highland A venue and
that subdivision (Little Brickman) could use Highland Street as a cut through route. On the other
hand, residents in the subdivision on the opposite side of Rand Road could use Highland Avenue as a
cut through route. Residents of Little Brickman Subdivision have expressed concern in the past over
cut through traffic traveling to Home Depot and Randhurst Mall. Generating any additional traffic in
the subdivision would not be supported by the residents.
4)
Recommendation
In reviewing each of the turning movement options for the Highland Street and Rand Road
intersection, it is the Village Traffic Engineer's recommendation that the right-in and right-out turning
movements be allowed and the left-out turning movement be prohibited.
With respect to the left-in turning movement, it is the Village Traffic Engineer's recommendation that
it be allowed with the condition that it be re-evaluated next summer by the Engineering Staff and
Safety Commission. If cut through traffic has become a problem and the residents would like the
Village to consider prohibiting the left-in turning movement, Staff may make this recommendation
upon further study.
Finally, it is the Village Traffic Engineer's recommendation that traffic on Highland Avenue be
prohibited from crossing Rand Road onto westbound Highland Street and vice-versa.
Specific field work and Village Code changes include:
.
removing the one-way eastbound street designation along Highland Street between Elm
Street and Rand Road in the Village Code (Section 18.2003) and the colTesponding
signage
requesting IDOl' to remove the No Left Turn signs for northwestbound Rand Road onto
westbound Highland Street - turn restriction culTently not in the Village Code
.
"~-"."~"~"" " " -""
-""~~~~
.
requesting mOT to remove the No Right Turn signs for southeastbound Rand Road onto
westbound Highland Street - turn restriction cuITently not in the Village Code
adding the prohibition of crossing Rand Road from westbound Highland A venue to
westbound Highland Street in the Village Code (Section 18.2017) and appropriate
signage and striping
maintaining the existing Right Turn Only sign for eastbound Highland Street at Rand
Road
.
.
5)
Discussion
Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience.
Mr. Mark Scarlato, 601 Eastman Dri ve, asked if a traffic impact analysis has been performed as part of
the study. Traffic Engineer Lawrie stated that Staff took into consideration the pros and cons of each
of the turning movements and the impact it may have on the neighborhoods on the either side of Rand
Road.
Mr. Scarlato had some additional questions about the need to widen Highland Street. Chairman
Bencic said that it's not Village policy to keep a street one-way if a full-width street can be built.
Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained that with only 33' of right-of-way a full-width street could never be
built. With the town home development, the full 66' of right-of-way has been dedicated and the street
will be brought up to Village standards.
Mr. Scarlato explained his concern with cut through traffic into the Little Brickman subdivision where
he lives. He believes allowing for two-way traffic will increase cut through traffic. Village Engineer
Wulbecker explained that with the town home development, Village Code requires that the road be
built to full-width. There was no discussion on the widening of Highland Street as the Village Code
was being applied to a substandard street.
Mr. Steve Pol it, 601 Wilshire Drive, is concerned with allowing right-turns from Rand Road onto
westbound Highland Street. He believes this will generate cut through traffic in his neighborhood as
cars will be able to cross Rand Road from his neighborhood and then make a quick right onto
westbound Highland Street. To address his concerns, he would like to see the streets in his
neighborhood have a 20mph speed limit. He also recommended making Highland A venue in Little
Brickman a cul-de-sac at Rand Road and extend Holly A venue to Wheeling Road. Chairman Bencic
indicated to Mr. Polit that these issues areseparate from the decision before the Commission tonight
and that they could be discussed at a future meeting.
Mr. Polit suggested Highland Street remain one-way eastbound even with the full-width street until
there could be further discussion on the issue.
Mr. John Michaels, 505 Highland A venue, expressed a concern about generating cut through traffic in
his neighborhood.
Ms. Ola Subomi-Laja, 600 Windsor Drive, also expressed a concern about generating cut through
traffic in her neighborhood.
Mr. Marty Krumske, 701 Windsor Drive, does not want to see more traffic in his neighborhood.
Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. He asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to
present the report to the Safety Commission. Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of Staff's
study of the issue and the recommendations to the Safety Commission.
Chairman Bencic asked if there were. any questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Tortorello supported building Highland Street to full-width and asked if there could he
time specific restrictions similar to Isabella Street and a "porkchop" built on Highland A venue to
prevent cut through traffic. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said that this could be a decision made by the
Commission but there may be some drawbacks. It is unknown the amount of cut through traffic that
will occur and it may be better to sfudythls before going forward with physical ban-iers. Also, a
"porkchop" design may still not prevent cut through traffic.
There was some general discussion among the Commission about cut through traffic and ways to
prevent it. Chairman Bencic reiterated his position that the measures the residents are requesting in
Little Brickman are a separate issue and should be discussed later. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has asked the Safety Commission to make a decision with respect to access restrictions at
Highland Street and Rand Road in front of the new development. He does support gathering before
and after data to try to measure the amount of cut through traffic. This data could then be used in
future studies.
There was additional discussion among the Commission and residents about the residents concern
with dealing with cut through traffic. Mr. Scarlato suggested not making a decision until a traffic
impact study could be completed. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said that a traffic impact study looks at the
potential direction of traffic to and from a development using primary routes and its impact on the
primary routes. The study would not take into account driver behavior in taking cut through routes.
Traffic Engineer Lawrie reiterated his position that the issue should be further studied and discussed in
the future once the street is opened to two-way to see the impact before making any drastic changes.
Officer Adamczyk supported implementing the recommendations as a first step to determine its impact
on the neighborhoods. The Police Department would be out there as much as possible to enforce the
restrictions. After some time, another study can be performed to determine if cut through traffic is a
significant problem and then consider measures like physical barriers.
Commissioner Miller asked if the street could remain one-way even with the widening. Village
Engineer Wulbecker believes it would encourage even more traffic to go the wrong way if the street
could handle two-way traffic but wasn't allowed. He suggested to the Commission that a decision be
made tonight so that it can be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration before the street
is widened.
There was some additional discussion among the Commission and residents about the turn restrictions
at Isabella Street and Henry Street and the potential cut through traffic on Highland Street because of
them.
Commissioner Arndt thought it would be valuable to find out if Highland Street could be widened and
remain one-way. Village Engineer Wulbecker said this could be the Commission's decision if that's
what they wanted to do.
Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Keane, move to approve the recommendations of
the Village Traffic Engineer which included:
.
allowing the right-in, right-out & left-in turning movements
prohibiting the left-out turning movement
prohibiting westbound traffic on Highland A venue from crossing Rand Road to Highland
Street
prohibiting eastbound traffic on Highland Street from crossing Rand Road to Highland
A venue
.
.
.
"",' ",,' ~~
The motion also included reviewing the issue after implementation of the recommendations to
determine the layout's effectiveness and whether modifications should be considere.d to address any
cut through traffic issues that may arise.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6-2. Commissioner Tortorello and Commissioner Arndt
opposed the motion.
The residents were informed thatthe.Safety Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to
the Village Board for a final decision at the September 2151 meeting. They were invited to attend.
COMMISSION ISSUES
Commissioner Tortorello pointed out the height of the grass on the old Butch McGuire's site and the fly
dumping are a problem. Village Engineer Wulbecker said he would bring the issue to the Forestry Division's
attention.
No other Safety Commission items were brought forth at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 8-0 to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. upon the motion
of Commissioner Tortorello. Commission Keane seconded the motion.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
x: \engineering\traffic \safecomm\recs&mín \septO4mín .doc
VILLAGE CF MOUNT PROSPECT
SAFETY CCMMISSICN MEETING
ATTENDANCE SHEET
September 13, 2004
7:00 P.M.
NAME
ADDRESS
~L '~CA{\~~
'\) l "'-S ~~"": ~ ~G\
(aO' ~1w7~ by,
G ~t> ~, vV \(\c:lr~( d rl \fe
~U-~
J~ ~~ç
t fetA.u1 Pø /¡ j
.
SO5/~~!~ ~< ~
5~.s: +t J~JA~d j1-ve..
~ðl ¡t/ Wr/[ji/~ /Jr,
¡1;J/l~r/1f/ /-r-¡(C/JI1s/t¿
70 / ,AI. tV,' "1 ð( S h( f) ,..~ 'Y~
7011-'\/ 5, T:!.t:: q-II;¿ 7Ð ~ uJ;A(þ~? ;j)~rt/e
---------
\. .' 7
.. I
. !
í
f
I
i
/
f
/
- I
M?'.'.'."',""'..
. . . .'~
. ,
. ,
,~, \\
PHONE NUMBER
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
"
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
FROM:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS. VILLAGE MANAGER ~. ,~~
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 - ~
AMEMDMENT TO APPENDIX A - DIVISION II OF THE VILLAGE CODE?
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PURPOSE:
To present the ordinance necessary to cancel the sunset provision on the Village's
Municipal Gas Use Tax.
BACKGROUND:
In July 2003, the Village Board passed a series of ordinances that were part of the long-
range financial plan to generate additional revenue for the Village. Some of these
ordinances were necessary to cancel sunset provisions on several tax and other
revenue sources. The ordinance canceling the sunset provision for the Municipal Gas
Use Tax had been inadvertently excluded from the group.
DISCUSSION:
The sunset provision on the Municipal Gas Use Tax is set to take effect on October 1,
2004. In order to cancel this provision as intended, an ordinance directing this change
needs to be filed with N ICOR no later than September 30, 2004. Attached is a copy of the
ordinance amending Appendix A-Division II of the Village Code. This ordinance, as
prepared, will maintain the Municipal Gas Use tax rate at its current level until further
notice. No other amendments to the Village Code are needed for this change to take
effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Village Board approve the ordinance amending Appendix A-
Division II of the Village Code.
žfh~J@. U-
DAVID O. ER8
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DOE/
1:\Taxes\Utility Taxes\Municipal Gas Use Tax Cover Memo.doc
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
APPENDIX A - DIVISION II OF
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PASSED AND APPROVED BY
THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
the - day of , 2004
Published in pamphlet fonn by
authority of the corporate authorities
of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
the - day of , 2004.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
APPENDIX A - DIVISION II OF
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSEPCT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION 1: Appendix A, Division II of the Village Code of the Village of Mount Prospect
shall be amended to delete Section 8.1903 in its entirety and a new Section 8.1903 is inserted to be
and read as follows:
8.1903: TAX IMPOSED:
Rate: $0.0147 per thenn (effective 11/19/2002)
SECTION 2: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication in pamphlet fonn in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2004.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk