Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2002 COW minutesII. III, IV. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Farley in the board room of the Central Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director Bill Cooney, Police Chief Richard Eddington and Village Attorney Everette Hill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from August 13, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and seconded by Trustee Wilks. Trustee Zadel requested a correction for a typo. Minutes were approved with the revision. Trustee Lohrstorfer abstained. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR VOLUNTEER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Trustee Corcoran opened the discussion stating that he wanted to confirm that there is a trust relationship between the members of the Boards and Commissions to the Village Board and he wanted to make sure there was acknowledgment of any possible conflict of interest. He stated this idea came to him through the creation of the Community Relations Commission and thought that maybe the review should be extended to all advisory groups. He stated there is an informal process that has been utilized in the past but wanted to undertake confirmation of due-diligence for these individuals. He stated this is not targeted toward any individuals that are currently serving on any advisory boards or commissions but wanted to focus on the process in determining the necessary people for these purposes. He stated there are different levels of checks and they are dependent on the type of board or commission. Trustee Skowron stated that she supported the opportunity to at least discuss this and pointed out that many of the Boards are autonomous in their decision-making and there is impact upon all residents. She stated she has no reason to doubt the integrity of any person serving on any Board or Commission but thought it would be worthwhile to have a discussion regarding the process of appointment. Trustee Corcoran suggested the authorization for a background check be provided as part of the application process. The background check would be done by an outside firm and all information would be forwarded to the Village Manager. He would compare the information found through the background check to the criteria stipulated for the individual position the person is applying for and if there is a question regarding the background information and the criteria, the Village Manager and Mayor would discuss and, if necessary, bring to the Village Board for further clarification in a confidential setting. Mayor Farley described how the current process works since he has been Mayor. He stated he receives recommendations from other Trustees and various citizens that have expressed interest in serving. He is concerned that background checks may not find the information that it is intended to find and there still may be exposure, which Trustee Corcoran appears to be trying to avoid. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some discussion regarding a more formal background check for adult advisors to the Youth Commission. There was some concern raised about background and credit checks for all volunteers. There was also a comment regarding what personal gain would be at risk by volunteers serving on various boards and commissions since the Village Board is the final decision point on many issues discussed by these boards and commissions. It was also suggested that consideration be made for including a local ethics statement and economic interest statement for board and commission volunteers. There was a concern raised regarding how far back background checks should reach and what kind of liability the Village can be exposed to for incorrect information. There was also a concern raised about whether the information would remain confidential if something were to be found out. George Luteri, Chairman of the Solid Waste Commission, spoke. He stated the background checks do not pick up bad stuff regularly and he stated he will not volunteer in the future if background checks are mandated by the Village Board. George Busse, 111 South Maple, spoke. He is a member of the Finance Commission. He stated that he is opposed to background checks since all items forwarded to the Village Board are recommendations with the final decisions by the Village Board. On those Commissions which are the final decision groups, he felt maybe boards or commissions should be considered to be elected. He stated it is critical to encourage participation not discourage participation in the community. Reverend Tony Tolbert, 112 South Waverly, member of the Community Relations Commission, spoke. He stated that he has no objection to background checks as long as the Village Board and the Mayor are held to the same standard as the volunteers. He stated he cannot see any fiduciary responsibility of the various Board and Commission members and feels that the Mayor has the prerogative to dismiss these individuals if he is unhappy or the Board is unhappy with their performance. He suggested that the application form be revised to obtain additional information that would assist the Village Board in their decision-making process for volunteer appointments. 2 John Brennan, 520 South Prospect Manor, member of the Community Relations Commission, spoke. He expressed concern about the need to determine how extensive the background check is intended to be. Chris Lenz, 214 North Louis, Chairman of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, spoke. He stated that he does background checks for a living and there are many records that are considered public records. He stated a basic criminal background check and confirmation of credentials would not slow the process and would likely be adequate. He stated that he would support an ethics statement and a conflict of interest statement by members. He also stated that any background checks regarding Police and Fire applicants only include the background check going back ten years, General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that a possible ad hoc group be convened to develop standards for each Board and Commission and there is a need to have a signature confirming the data as submitted as correct, Other current volunteers have submitted comments via email for Village Board consideration and many of them have suggested revising the application to confirm that the information is true and correct. There has been a previous Board request for a conflict of interest seminar for all Board and Commission members which is yet to take place. Consensus of the Village Board was to review the application process and consider drafting an ethics statement and conflict of interest statement for review and possible inclusion in the application packet for future volunteers. DISCUSSION OF REGULATION OF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS Village Manager Janonis stated that the modifications submitted this evening in the Ordinance are arising out of a previous Committee of the Whole meeting. He also wanted to point out that there is no opportunity to distinguish between licensed versus non-licensed operators but wheelchairs and motorized wheelchairs have been exempted along with the segway device and motorized scooters during parades. He stated the discussion this evening should clarify what the direction the Board wants regarding possible enforcement. Village Attorney Hill stated that motorized vehicles are banned from all sidewalks under State Code already and these scooters do not meet the threshold definition for vehicles that can be operated on streets. He stated the discussion could focus on whether tickets would be written under the State Code and possibly impact future driver's license records or be written under a local Ordinance whereby the adjudication could generally be addressed through a fine. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some concern regarding distinguishing between licensed drivers operating scooters versus non-licensed operators. There was some concern about writing tickets under the State Code and the impact on obtaining a future driver's license. There was also a comment made regarding possible insurance impact on either the parents or the operator of these scooters if damage or injury occurs, who would be responsible, 3 Police Chief Eddington spoke. He stated that there is some concern about the operation of these vehicles by young people and he would focus on enforcement on a complaint only basis. Arin Koon, 419 Oriole Lane, spoke. He stated that he rides a scooter that goes about eight miles an hour. He is a licensed driver and he utilizes the scooter to get to the train station and to go between his job downtown and the train station. He has never experienced a problem and would ask that the scooters not be banned in Mount Prospect. Jason Royster, 310 North Elm, spoke. He stated the issue seems to be the safe operation of the vehicle and maybe a driving course would affirm the ability of the operator similar to a motorcycle license course. Kevin Bolger, 510 North Prospect Avenue, spoke. He stated the purpose is to protect the users and other people that could be impacted by the operator and felt that enforcement and a possible impact upon driver's license was necessary. David Schein, 5'12 Na-Wa-Ta, spoke. He suggested that there should be some kind of parental responsibility to expressly accept liability for the operator so that the parent is fully aware of the responsibility. Brent Busse, 111 South Maple, spoke. He stated that scooter operation is the same as bicycle operations and the rules should be based on education and safe operation of each. Sal Valconi, 112 North Eastwood, spoke. He is concerned about the outright ban and the impact on whether the parent has any decision regarding the operation. Chris Young, 509 North Fairview, spoke. He stated that he has used scooters for three years and is not aware of any safety statistics nationwide which makes them more dangerous than other vehicles. He stated they do make noise and feels that noise is the issue since there does not seem to be any complaints from other drivers who share the read with the vehicles. He suggested the Village consider registering the vehicles and let the operators prove themselves that they are able to operate the scooters in a safe manner. Julie Prumpus, 420 North Fairview, spoke. She stated there are regular drive-bys by groups of scooter operators and they are very noisy. She is concerned about possible conflicts between vehicle operators who conflict with scooter operators. She also mentioned there is some concern regarding the message that parents are sending to their kids regarding safe operation of the scooters. John Korn, 30'1 North William, spoke. He stated that he is concerned about the speed of the operators and not the safety protection. He has not seen any adults operating these vehicles in his experience. He stated there is some need for regulation otherwise more and more will continue to appear in the neighborhood. 4 VI. Andy Darien, 618 North Pine, spoke. He stated you could retrofit the scooters with seats and turn signals and require everyone to wear helmets and operate at night to make them street legal. He stated that he operates his scooter under the restrictions outlined by his parents and does not have a problem. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a suggestion that since the scooters are already illegal according to State law, then it is the State Legislature's burden to try to address how they are defined in terms of operation. It was also stated that it is impractical for the Village to get into the business of registering and certifying the operators through some kind of regulation. Consensus of the Village Board was to utilize the existing State law for Police enforcement and monitor the enforcement situation and advise the Board if there are any changes. REVIEW OF SHED REGULATIONS Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the last discussion regarding the regulations. He stated that staff needed some direction on the suggestion of an appearance review and the penalty. He stated as the revisions have been promulgated a shed is considered part of the calculation for the 2% property lot coverage with a maximum shed size of 200 square feet. Consensus of the Village Board was to complete the Ordinance as directed but leave the penalty discussion for another time and utilize the Planning and Zoning Commission for input. VII. USE OF DRYVlT MATERIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION Village Manager Janonis stated the Board had previously suggested an outright prohibition on the use of the material and staff has drafted an Ordinance allowing for limited commercial application if it is installed properly. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an Ordinance for complete prohibition on the use of dryvit within the community. VIII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT IX. Village Manager Janonis reminded everyone of the September 11 Remembrance Ceremony and the Coffee with Council scheduled for September 14. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None, X. DS/rcc CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Zadel to move into Closed Session to discuss Land Acquisition. Meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. into Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT Reconvened into open session at 10:39 p.m. There was no further business and the Committee of the Whole meeting immediately adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, / DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 6