HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 03/25/2003Meeting Location:
Mt. Prospect Community Center
1000 West Central Road
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Date and '1~me:
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
7:00 p.m.
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2003
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
OVERVIEW OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS~ OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Several Board members have requested that the Village Attorney Everette Hill conduct a
Workshop designed to "refresh" elected officials' memories regarding the requirements of
those rules and regulations that govern the conduct of business by the Village Board.
Specific emphasis will be placed on practical application of State and local Conflict of
Interest Laws as well as the basic requirements of the 0 pen Meetings Act and the Freedom
of Information Act. A number of colleagues from Mr. Hill's firm. Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins,
will be in attendance to discuss dilfenng aspects of these rules and regulations.
Of particular interest should be the use of hypothetical fact patterns in analyzing the
application of Conflict of Interest rules and regulations. It is one thing to review the static text
of these laws, and quite another to work through their application in real world situations.
This should be most informative and thought provoking.
Invitations have been extended to members of the various volunteer Boards and
Commissions to attend this important training session. Along with Mr. Hill and his
colleagues, appropriate staff will be on hand to participate in the discussion.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTIClPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE
MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000,
EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064.
II.
Ill.
IV.
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MARCH 11, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Assistant Village Manager David Strahl,
in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present
at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron,
Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting were: Mayor Gerald Farley
and Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Staff members present included: Assistant Village
Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Glen Andler
and Solid Waste Coordinator Lisa Angell.
Motion made by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to nominate Trustee
Hoefert as Mayor Pro Tem. Motion passed. Trustee Hoefert assumed responsibilities of
Mayor Pro Tern for the meeting.
APPROVALOF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from February 25, 2003. Motion was made by Trustee Wilks and
Seconded by Trustee Zadel. Minutes were approved.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
2003 ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker stated that the Village anticipates resurfacing 32
streets covering eight miles within the Village for construction season 2003. He also
stated bridge rehabilitation is scheduled for William Street bridge with structural repairs
and some minor repairs at several other bridges within the community. He also
highlighted the installation of streetlights on Central Road between Northwest Highway
and Emerson. He also stated there are street light improvements scheduled for the
AIgonquin/Busse/Dempster area which has been paid for through Federal grants. He
also highlighted the fact that there are streetscape corridor improvements and traffic
signal improvements scheduled for this season. One of the larger projects scheduled for
this season is the combined sewer evaluation which will start this year and take several
years for completion. He stated Cook County is scheduled to do some patching on
Euclid Avenue between Rand and River which would impact the Village. He stated that
of the four lanes, one lane in each direction would remain open during the patching
process. He also stated that the Route 83 railroad crossing is scheduled for
replacement sometime in August.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There were suggestions regarding signage providing warnings and detours regarding
some of the projects scheduled for this season. There was also discussion regarding
the curb replacement on streets where resurfacing occurs.
Assistant Village Manager Strahl provided information to the Board and the press
regarding the pending closure of Emerson Street between Central Road and Busse
Avenue. He stated the closing will occur approximately April 1 and continue through
November 30. He saict the closure is necessary to facilitate the construction process for
the Library. He stated the closure will occur just north of the southern entrance into the
Bank One parking lot whereby the Bank One parking lot will remain useable. He stated
the street will be passable for construction deliveries but not open for public traffic
through the construction zone. He also stated the street will be reopened during the
period that the Route 83 railroad crossing ~s to be reconstructed.
ABANDONED SHOPPING CART DISCUSSION
Solid Waste Coordinator Lisa Angell provided a summary of the program and the
evolutionary steps that the Village has undertaken to try to address the problem. She
stated the Village has expended approximately $70,000 over the five-year period that
Public Works crews have been picking up the shopping carts. He stated the Village has
also obtained approximately $4,000 fines during the same period. She stated there are
several options that are available including physical barriers to keep the carts on the
property, more aggressive enforcement and possibly increasing the fines to the stores
themselves.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a comment that Trustees felt businesses are shifting the problem to the
Village since they are refusing to sign complaints for enforcement. A suggestion was
made to consider contracting with a scrap collector to pick up the carts and sell them for
scrap since this might be a viable business opportunity for someone who has an interest.
It was commented that there are two behavior modification scenarios necessary; one is
the residents or people who use the shopping carts and the other is the businesses that
provide the shopping carts.
A question came up regarding the possible ownership and repurchase of any carts that
were retrieved.
Assistant Village Manager Strahl stated that he felt the Village had gone about as far
as it could with the behavior modification of the shopping cart users and should probably
focus efforts on the businesses that provide the shopping carts. It seems ironic that
businesses are aggressive in enforcing shoplifting but not shopping carts. Shopping
carts are $100-$200 a p~ece and if someone were to walk out of the business without
paying for merchandise that cost that amount, they would surely be arrested The
behavior modification of the businesses will probably only take place once the cost of
providing the shopping cart impacts the bottom line of the business.
I.
VII.
VIII.
Consensus of the Village Board was to consider a salvage contract for someone
to pick up and dispose of the carts throughout the community whereby the Village
is no longer in the shopping cart collection and retrieval business. If, after a short
test period with the scavenger, the situation does not improve, other options can
be considered including shortened timeframes and higher fines for businesses.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Trustee Skowron announced that the Welcome New Resident spring edition is
scheduled for April 26 from 9:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. at the Central Community Center.
Trustee Wilks stated that there is a Photo I.D. event for children on March 15, co-
sponsored by Kiwanis and the Police Department at the Mount Prospect Public Library,
from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., at the Library on Feehanville Drive.
ADJOURN MENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
DS/fcc
PROCEDURAL UPDATE
by the Law Firm of
KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1660
Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903
(312) 984-6400
FOR THE PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
March 25, 2003
LA W OFFICES
KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD.
Suite 1660
PaTick A. Lucansky 20 North Wacker Drive ~,mda Y, Allison
E. Kenneth Fdker Chicagn, Illinois 60606-2903 Lance C. Maim
Gerard E. Dempsey ...... K~thleen T.
Terrence M. Bamicle Telephone (312) 984.-6400 John R. Wik~r
Bruce A. Zolna Facsimile (312) 954-6444 George A. Wager
Jarr~s P. Banley (312) 606-7077 lames G. War~o
Michael .L Duggan ........ Suzanne M. Fish
Thomas P. Bayer Orland Park Office Michael A. Marv~
Dermis G. Walsh 15010 S. Ravinia Avenue. Suite 17 Shaw'n P.
Scott F. LThler Ofland Park, IL 60462-3 I62
Everette M. Hill. Ir Telephone ('/08) 349-3888 Of Coumel
Janet N. Pe~che Facsimile (708) 349-1506 Richard T. Wimmer
James V. Ferolo
Michael T. Jurus~
Thomas M. Melody
Writer=s Direct Dial ',312) 984-6420
Wfiter=s E-Mail emhfll(~,kqnet corn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mr. Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager
Village of Mount Prospect
FROM: Everette M. Hill, Jr.
DATE: March 18, 2003
RE:
Procedural Update - March 25, 2003 Board Meeting
Attached please find the handout materials for our Board update session with respect
to Conflicts, Incompatibility of Office, Open Meetings Act and FOIA and Email Issues
The presentation will be made by Mike Jurusik, Lance Malina, Kathy Henn, George
Wagner and myself, all of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd. At the Illinois Municipal League
Conference, we presented the Conflicts material in a Village Board meeting format. For our
session, the format will be changed such that each member of the panel will discuss at least
two of the "Fact Patterns" that are included in the material. We anticipate that there will be
significant "give and take" with the Board members. I will moderate the discussion. It is my
hope that our Board members will have read over the "Fact Patterns" and formulate some
opinions and questions pr~o r to the session. After the "Conflicts" discussion, Lance Ma lina will
speak for about ten minutes on the Open Meetings Act and Kathy Henn will lead a similar
discussion on FOIA and email issues.
I anticipate about ninety minutes for the session, but everyone from our office is
prepared to stay for as long as the Board wishes.
IDENTIFYING AND AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Summary of the Law
- Prepared and Presented by -
EVERETTE M. HILL JR.
MICHAEL T. JURUSIK
LANCE MALINA
KATHY HENN
GEORGE WAGNER
of the Law Firm
KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1660
Chicago, illinois 60606-2903
(312) 984-6400
FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
March 25,2003
CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROHIBITIONS
II.
A municipal officer shall not be:
A. financially interested directly in the officer's own name or indirectly in the
name of any other person, association, trust or corporation, ~n:
1. any contract, work or business of the municipality; or
2. the sale of any article;
whenever the expense, price or consideration of the contract, work, business
or sale is paid either from the treasury or by an assessment levied by statute
or ordinance.
B. interested directly or indirectly in the purchase of any property that:
1. belongs to the municipality;
2. is sold for taxes or assessments; or
3. is sold by virtue of legal process at the suit of the municipality.
No person holding any office, either by election or appointment under the laws or
constitution of Illinois, may:
A. be in any manner financially interested directly in his own name or indirectly
in the name of any other person, association, trust or corporation in any:
1. contract; or
2. the performance of any work;
in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or
vote.
B. represent, either as agent or otherwise, any person, association, trust or
corporation, with respect to any application or bid for any contract or work in
regard to which such officer may be called upon to vote.
C. take or receive, or offer to take or receive, either directly or indirectly, any
money or other thing of value as a gift or bribe or means of influencing his
vote or action in his official character.
GENERAL STATUTORY CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXCEPTIONS
Ill.
IV.
VI.
VII.
Publicly traded company (nationally recognized securities market) and the officer
is an employee or owns 1% or less of the stock:
B.
C.
D.
public disclosure of interest;
no involvement in the discussions;
abstain from voting; and
majority vote approves (of all holding office).
Interest in company is through investment in a mutual fund and the officer's share
of company, through fund, is 1% or less
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
less than 7 ¼ % ownership in company;
public disclosure of interest;
abstain from voting;
majority vote approves (of all holding office);
sealed bids to lowest bidder if contract exceeds $1,500; and
aggregate of all contracts doesn't exceed $25,000 for the fiscal year.
B.
C.
D.
i.
public disclosure of interest;
abstain from voting;
majority vote approves (of all holding office);
contract does not exceed $2,000; and
aggregate of all contracts doesn't exceed $4,000 in fiscal year.
(Note: Under the Commission form of government, the statute uses
$1,000 for D and $2,000 for E)
B.
C.
D.
less than 1% share of ownership;
abstain from voting
public disclosure of interest; and
majority vote approves (of all holding office).
7 ½ % or less interest in public utility, or any % interest if municipality is under
7,500 and public utility has rates approved by ICC.
Bo
C.
D.
E.
F.
officer, employee or holder of less than 7 ½ % interest in local bank or
savings and loan;
public disclosure of interest;
no participation in deliberations;
abstain from voting;
majority vote approves (of those holding office); and
contract award can only take place at a regular meeting.
COMMON LAW CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Generally, when we speak of a conflict of interest in local government, we are
referring to statutory conflicts covered by 65 ILCS 5/3.1-55-10, 65 ILCS 5/4-8-6 and 50
ILCS 105/3. These statutory conflicts of interest require a contractual relationship
between the municipality involved and some official of that municipality. Although, in a
particular situation, there may be no statutory conflict of interest, there may, nevertheless,
be a common law conflict of interest.
In Brown v. Kirk, 64 111.2d 144 (1976), the Illinois Supreme Court said at page 149:
"The opinion of the Connecticut Court makes it clear that a provision such as
our Section 5 is to be regarded as embodying the long-standing common law
doctrine that the faithful performance of official duties is best secured if a
governmental officer, like any other person holding a fiduciary position, is not
called upon to make decisions that may advance or injure his individual
interest." (emphasis added)
In Bd. of Ed. of Niles v. Reqional Board, 127 III.App.3d 210 (1984), the Court quoted
the following from In re Heirich, 10 111.2d 357:
"It is a classical principle of jurisprudence that no man who has a personal
interest in the subject matter of decision in a case may sit in judgment on
that case. The principle is as applicable to administrative agents
commissioners, referees, masters in chancery, or other arbiters of questions
of law or fact not holding judicial office as it is to those who are technically
judges in the full sense of the word."
Therefore, even when a public official does not have a statutory conflict of interest,
he/she must be certain that he/she does not have such a personal interest in a matter that
he/she can not render a fair and impartial decision.
STANDARD FOR DETERMINING IF TWO OFFICES ARE INCOMPATIBLE
A. STATUTORY: The Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act (50 ILCS 105/1 -
105/2a) prohibits elected or appointed aldermen of cities and members of the board of
trustees of villages from being appointed, accepting an appointment, or holding any office
by the appointment of the mayor or village president, unless the alderman or board
member is granted a leave of absence from such office, or unless he or she first resigns
from the office of alderman or member of the board of trustees, except where the holding
of another office is authorized by law. The Act does allow an elected municipal official,
defined as an alderman or trustee, and apparently excluding mayors or presidents to hold
an elected office ~n another unit of local government as long as there is no contractual
relationship between the municipality and the other unit of local government.
The Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/3.1-15-15) prohibits a mayor, village
president, alderman, trustee, clerk or treasurer from holding any other office under the
municipal government during his or her term of office except when the officer is granted
a leave of absence from that office. This prohibition does not include aldermen or trustees
who may be appointed to fill a vacancy as mayor or village president and clerks who may
3
be appointed to a second position as municipal collectors under the appropriate statutes.
B. COMMON LAW: The general rule in Illinois on incompatible offices was set fo rth
in People ex rel. Meyer v. Haas, 145 II1.App. 283 (1908). The holding in this case was
summarized by the Illinois Attorney General in his June 30, 1980, opinion (File No. S-1494)
that the office of Village Mayor and School Board Member were incompatible. Referring
to the People ex. rel. Meyer case, the Attorney General, on page 1 of his opinion, stated:
" . incompatibility arises when the Constitution or a statute specifically
prohibits the occupant of either office from holding the other, or where the
duties of the office are such that the holder of one can not, in every instance,
properly, fully and faithfully perform all the duties of the other. Incompatibility
may arise from multiplicity of business in one office or the other,
considerations of public policy or otherwise. According to this standard,
incompatibility results when a conflict of duties may arise, not just when a
conflict of duties does in fact exist."
Notwithstanding the foregoing, 'n People v. Claar, 293 IlI.App.3d 211 (1997) the
court found the offices of mayor and director of the Illinois Toll Highway. Authority (the
"Authority") compatible, despite the fact that the municipality and the Authority were
involved in the negotiations for, and the execution of, an annexation agreement. As mayor,
the defendant participated in the negotiations for annexation of Authority property to the
village, signed the preannexation agreement and executed the ordinance annexing the
property. As an Authority director, the mayor refrained from voting on a resolution
authorizing annexation and took no part in the Authority's decision on the subject. The
court recognized that a conflict of interest existed in this particular situation, but held that
there was no conflict of duties between the two offices since the regular duties of a mayor
and the regular duties of an Authority director did not inherently conflict. The court noted
that the instances of interaction between the two entities were rare and held that the two
offices were compatible because one person could fully and faithfully perform the duties
of both offices.
The Claar decision appears to broaden the areas in which mayors or village
presidents can hold dual offices. Under the prior decisions of the Attorney General, as
noted above, occasional conflicts of interest between two offices appeared to carry weight
in a decision of ~ncompatibility. The Claar court's reliance on whether the conflict was
inherent in the duties of the two offices would appear to allow for occasional times when
the two bodies may enter into a contract. This leeway for mayors or village presidents is
in contrast to the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act (see above) which expressly states
that aldermen or trustees may not hold an office with another unit of government if that unit
of government has a contractual relationship with the municipality (50 ILCS 105/2).
4
KEY TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE STATE GIFT BAN ACT
A. THE DEFINITIONS:
1. "Em ployee" means all full-time, part-time, and contractual employees, appointed
and elected officials and directors of a Governmental Entity.
2. "Gift" means any gratuity, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance,
or other tangible or intangible item having monetary value including, but not limited to, cash,
food and drink, and honoraria for speaking engagements related to or attributable to
government employment or the official position of an Employee.
3. "Governmental Entity" means each office, board commission, agency,
department, authority, institution, university, body politic and corporate, administrative unit,
and corporate outgrowth of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of State
government, whether created by the Illinois Constitution, by or in accordance with statute,
or by executive order of the Governor.
bo
do
"Prohibited Source" means any person or entity who:
is seeking official action by an Employee or by the Governmental
Entity or other Em ployee directing the Employee;
does business or seeks to do business with the Employee or with the
Governmental Entity or other Employee directing the Employee;
conducts activities regulated by the Employee or by the Governmental
Entity or other Employee directing the Employee;
has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or non-
performance of the official duties of an Employee; or
is registered or required to be registered with the Secretary of State
under the Lobbyist Registration Act.
B. THE GIFT BAN: Except as otherwise provided in the Act, no Employee shall
solicit or accept any Gift from any Prohibited Source or in violation of any federal or State
statute, rule, or regulation. This ban applies to and includes spouses of and immediate
family living with the Employee. No Prohibited Source shall offer or make a Gift that
violates the Act.
C. THE PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS TO THE GIFT BAN:
The Gift Ban does not apply to the following:
1. Anything for which the Employee pays the market value.
2. A political contribution or attendance at a fund-raising event sponsored by a
political organization.
3. A Gift from a relative, (the Employee's father, mother, son, daughter, brother,
sister, uncle, aunt, great aunt, great uncles, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife,
grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-
law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson,
stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, the father, mother,
grandfather, or grandmother of the Employee's spouse and the Employee's fianc6 or
fiancee).
4. A Gift as a result of a personal friendship unless the Employee has reason to
believe that, under the circumstances, the Gift was provided because of the official position
or employment of the Employee, and not because of the personal friendship. In
determining whether a Gift is provided on the basis of personal friendship, the Employee
shall consider the circumstances under which the Gift was offered, such as:
the history of the relationship between the individual giwng the Gift and the
recipient of the Gift, including any previous exchange of Gifts between those
individuals;
whether to the actual knowledge of the Employee, the individual who gave
the Gift personally paid for the Gift or sought a tax deduction or business
reimbursement for the Gift; and
whether to the actual knowledge of the Employee, the individual who gave
tl~e Gift also at the same time gave the same or similar Gifts to other
Em ployees.
5. Commercially reasonable loans.
6. A legal defense fund contribution
7. Intra-office and inter-office Gifts. Forthe purposes of the Act, "intra-office Gifts"
relative to municipal Employees include:
Any Gift given to an Employee of the municipality from another Employee of
that municipality; or
any Gift given to an Employee of the municipality from a member or
Employee of the legislative branch, a judge or Employee of the judicial
branch, an officer or Employee of the executive branch, an officer or
Employee of a unit of local government, home rule unit, or school
district, or an officer or Employee of any other governmental entity.
8. Food, refreshments, lodging, transportation, and other benefits:
a. resulting from the outside business or employment activities (or outside
6
activities that are not connected to the duties of the Employee) of the
Employee or the spoUs~ ~Sf tt~ E~ployee. if the benefits have not been
offered or enhanced because of the official position or employment of the
Employee, and are customarily provided to others in similar circumstances;
customarily provided by a prospective employer in connection with bona fide
employment discussions; or
provided by a political organization in connection with a fund-raising or
campaign event sponsored by that organization.
9. Pension and other benefit plans.
10. Informational materials that are sent to the office of the Employee in the form
of books, articles, periodicals, other written materials, audiotapes, videotapes, or other
forms of communication.
11, Awards or prizes that are given to competitors in contest or events open to the
public, including random drawings.
12. Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food, refreshments, and entertainment
provided in the presentation of said degrees).
13. Training (including food and refreshments furnished to all attendees as an
integral part of the training) provided the training is 'n the interest of the municipality.
14. Educational missions, including meetings with government officials either foreign
or domestic, intended to educate public officials on matters of public policy, to which the
Employee may be invited to participate along with other federal, state or local public
officials and community leaders.
15. Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at death.
16. Anything that is paid for by the federal government, the State, or a governmental
entity, or secured by the government or governmental entity under a government contract.
17. A Gift of personal hospitality from an individual other than a registered lobbyist
or agent of a foreign principal, including hospitality extend ed for a nonbusiness purpose by
an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that individual
or the individual's family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or the
individual's family.
18. Free attendance at a widely attended event subject to the following restrictions:
An Employee may accept an offer of free attendance at a widely
attended convention, conference, symposium, forum, panel
discussion, dinner, viewing, reception, or similar event, provided by
the sponsor of the event, if:
(i) the Employee participates in the event as a speaker
or a panel participant, by presenting information related
to government, or by performing a ceremonial function
appropriate to the Employee's official position or
employment; or
(ii) attendance at the event is appropriate to the
performance of civic affairs in Illinois orthe official duties
or representative function of the Employee.
An Employee who attends an event described in subsection a. may
accept a sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at the event for
an accompanying individual.
Co
An Employee or the spouse or dependent thereof, may accept a
sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at a charity event,
except that reimbursement for transportation and lodging may not be
accepted in connection with the event.
d°
For purposes of this exception, the term "free attendance" may
include waiver of all or part of a conference or other fee, the provision
of transportation, or the provision of food, refreshments,
entertainment, and instructional materials furnished to all attendees
as an integral part of the event. The term does not include
entertainment collateral to the event, nor does it include food or
refreshments taken other than in a group setting with all or
substantially all other attendees, except as authorized under
exceptions 21,22, 23 or 24 below.
19. Opportunities and benefits that are:
So
available to the public or to a class consisting of all Employees,
whether or not restricted on the basis of geographic consideration;
bo
offered to members of a group or class in which membership is
unrelated to employment or official position;
Co
offered to members of an organization such as an Employee's
association or credit union, in which membership is related to
em ployment or official position and similar opportunities are available
to large segments of the public through organizations of similar size;
do
offered to any group or class that is not defined in a manner that
specifically discriminates among government Employees on the basis
of branch of government or type of responsibility or on a basis that
favors those of higher rank or rate of pay;
e. in the form of loans from banks and other financial institutions on
terms generally available to the public; or
in the form of reduced membership or other fees for participation in
organization activities offered to all government Employees by
professional organizations if the only restrictions on membership
relate to professional qualification.
20 A plaque, trophy, or other item that is substantially commemorative in nature
and that is extended for presentation.
21. Golf or tennis.
22. Food or refreshments of nominal value.
23. Catered food or refreshments.
24. Meals or beVerages consumed on the premises from which they were purchased.
25. Donations of products from an Illinois company that are intended primarily for
promotional purposes, such as display or free distribution, and are of minimal value to any
individual recipient.
26. An item of nominal value such as a greeting card, baseball cap, or T-shirt. It
should be noted that as of the preparation of this handout, H.B. 4680 was awaiting action by
the Governor. If signed into law, H.B. 4680 would revise this exception to read as gifts
received from one source during a calendar year which total less than $100.00.
D. HOW TO AVOID LIABILITY IF YOU RECEIVE A PROHIBITED GIFT:
Don't use the Gift and promptly return the item to the giver, or give the Gift, or an
amount equal to its value, to an appropriate charity.
E, ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION
The State's Attorneys from Macon, St. Clair and Winnebago Counties prior to the
Act's effective date for municipalities (July 1, 1999), requested opinions from the Illinois
Attorney General relative to clarifying the various provisions of the Act. In response, the
Illinois Attorney General issued Opinion No. 99-007, dated June 30, 1999, which, in
summary, found as follows relative to the Act's application to units of local government and
school districts:
1. units of local government and school districts are not required to appoint an ethics
officer, however the appointment of one is recommended;
2. units of local government and. school districts are not req uired to appoint an ethics
commission, provided they create a suitable alternative adjudicative system;
3. units of local government and school districts are not required to adopt the
complaint procedu res set forth in the Act, provided they develop other procedures that
are in substantial compliance with the Act;
4. a local ethics commission may impose a fine against a person whom it determines
has violated a local ethics ordinance or filed a frivolous complaint;
5. the "ultimate jurisdictional authority" for an employee of a unit of local government
or a school district is the public officer or corporate authority that is otherwise
authorized to discipline the public employee, and for a public officer it is the corporate
authorities of the unit of local government or school district which he or she serves;
6. a State's Attorney may enforce local ordinances which implement the provisions of
the Act, provided the county and the unit of local government adopting the ordinance
enter into an intergovernmental cooperation agreement authorizing such prosecutions
and the State's Attorney approves thereof;
7. local ethics commissions are not per se exempt from the provisions of the Open
Meetings Act;
8. local ethics commissions or local ultimate jurisdictional authorities are not per se
exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act; and
9. the Attorney General is not the legal advisor for local ethics commissions.
F. COURT ACTIONS CHALLENGING THE ACT
There have been three (3) Court actions to date challenging the Act:
1. The provisions of the Act, as they relate to the judiciary, have been held by a Tria
Court in Sangamon County to be void.
2. The provisions of the Act, as they relate to an automatic exemption from the Open
Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act, have been held by a Trial Court in Sangamon
County to be void. On appeal, the Appellate Court found that the Governor, who was the
only defendant, was not a proper party to the action.
3. A suit was filed in Will County, by a Village Trustee and a State Senator,
challenging the Act on various constitutional grounds. In addition to allegations relative to
the Act being void for vagueness, the suit alleged violations of:
the separation of powers doctrine;
the removal from office provisions of the constitution;
the election ballot eligibility provisions; and
the single subject rule.
In August, 2000, the Trial Court in Will County found the Act to be unconstitutionally vague,
with the fina written order in regard to said ruling being entered on Se ptember 8, 2000. Said
written order also indicated that the Act violated the separation of powers doctrine, the
removal from office provisions of the constitution and the election ballot eligibility provisions
10
of State law. A direct appeal of this decision, to the Illinois Supreme Court, was filed by the
Illinois Attorney General. On May 23, 2002, the Illinois Supreme Court released its decision,
but did not reach the issue of the constitutionality of the Act. In its ruling, the Illinois Supreme
Court avoided the substantive constitutional challenges to the Act, which prohibits
governmental officials and employees from accepting gifts from "prohibited sources," subject
to certain exceptions, by holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Act.
The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs were essentially seeking an advisory ruling relative to
' the Act and had not sustained, nor were they in danger of sustaining, any direct injury under
the Act, in that no proceedings had been brought against them, nor was there any threat of
proceedings being brought against them, for violating the Act. Based on the Court's decision,
the Will County Trial Court's decision has been reversed, meaning that the State Gift Ban Act
remains in effect and is enforceable.
11
STATUTES TO BE AWARE OF
The General Prohibited Interests in Contracts Provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code - 65 ILCS 5/3.1-
55-10 [PENALTY-Class 4 Felony plus the individual forfeits his/her office]
The Prohibited Interests in Contracts Provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code - Specific to the
Commission Form of Government - 65 ILCS 5/4-8-6 [PENALTY - Class 4 Felony plus the individual
forfeits his/her office]
The Misconduct Provisions of the Illinois Municipa~ Code - 65 ILCS 5/3.1-55-15 [PENALTY - Business
Offense]
The Official Misconduct Provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code - 720 iLCS 5/33-3 [PENALTY- Class
3 Felony plus the individual forfeits his/her office]
The Public Contracts Provisions of the illinois Criminal Code - 720 ILCS 5/33E-1 through 50/33E-13
[PENALTY- Depending on the action of the individual, a violation can be a Class A Misaemeanor, Class
2 Felony, Class 3 Felony or Class 4 Felony]
The Pu ~lic Officer Prohibited Activities Act - 50 ILCS 105/0.01 et seq.
a. Holding of Other Offices - 50 ILCS 105/2
b. Prohibited interests in Contracts - 50 ILCS 105/3
[PENALTY - Class 4 Felony plus the individual forfeits his/her office]
The Open Meetings Act - 5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. EPENALTY- Class C Misdemeanor]
The State Gift Ban Act - 5 ILCS 425/1 et seq. [PENALTY - Business Offense subject to a fine of up to
$5,000.00]
TYPE
Business Offense
Petty Offense
Class C Misdemeanor
Class B Misdemeanor
Class A Misdemeanor
Class 4 Felony
Class 3 Felony
Class 2 Felony
Class I Felony
96445-v2
ILLINOIS CRIMINAL PENALTIES
FINE
Amount specified in the statute defining the
offense
$1.000.00 or amount specified in the offense,
whichever is less
Not to exceed $1,500.00
Same as above
Not to exceed $2,500.00 or amount specified in
the offense, whichever is greater
Not to exceed $25 000 or amount specified in
the offense, whichever is greater
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
JAIL SENTENCE
NONE
NONE
Up to 30 days
Up to 6 months
Up to 364 days
1 to 3years
2 to 5 years
3 to 7 years
4 to 15 years
12
FACT PATTERNS AND QUESTIONS FOR
IDENTIFYING AND AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
AND COMPATIBILITY OF OFFICES
- Prepared and Presented by -
EVERETTE M. HILL, JR.
MICHAEL T. JURUSIK
LANCE MALINA
KATHY HENN
GEORGE WAGNER
of the Law Firm
KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1660
Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903
(312) 984-6400
FOR THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
March 25, 2003
STATE GIFT BAN ACT
Trustee wants gifts now that Will County Circuit Court has invalidated the Gift Ban
Act (Item II1.1)
Facts:
Trustee Bayer advises the Village Board on the status of the lawsuit filed in Will
County challenging the constitutionality of the State Gift Ban Act. Trustee Bayer goes on
and on about how he is glad the Act no longer applies to the Village Board, and inquires
as to whether the Village Manager has sent out a notice of the Court's decision to all
Village vendors (especially the Village Attorney) and developers, so that the vendors, and
all developers with pending applications, can once again begin recognizing Trustee Bayer
for the wonderful Board Member that he is by showering him with tokens of their
admiration. Trustee Bayer goes on to publicly state a few of the tokens of admiration that
he would find especially welcome at this time.
The Village President and other Trustees start to admonish Trustee Bayer for his
shameless behavior. One Trustee indicates that he/she does not think that Trustee Bayer
understands all the implications of the lawsuit. In addition another Trustee indicates that
he/she thinks that, even before the State Gift Ban Act, there were, and still are, provisions
of the State statutes addressing the Village Board's acceptance of certain items of value
or cash. One Trustee then asks the attorney to:
1. Update the Village Board on the status of the lawsuit in Will County
relative to the State Gift Ban Act; and
2. Advise the Village Board as to any other State statute provision
addressing gifts to Village Board members.
97359
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Trustee's Daughter Workinq Part-Time for Villaqe (Item 111.2)
Facts:
Trustee Bayer has a daughter, Lazy Susan, who is 18 years of age and in college
taking up space - no not Outer Space - just space. After deciding to take this fall semester
off, Lazy Susan has applied for a temporary part-time job with the Finance Department with
the Village of Anytown in which Lazy Susan's father serves as Trustee. Lazy Susan's
position pays $10.00 per hour, and totals 40 hours per week Monday through Friday.
Trustee Bayer advises that while Lazy Susan lives at home for free when she is not away
at college, the money she earns from the part-time job will be deposited directly into her
savings account that she will use solely for her college tuition expenses. Trustee Bayer
has no interest, entitlement or access to Lazy Susan's savings account, however, from time
to time he deposits money into the account unconditionally. What comments do you have
on this situation, Trustees?
QUESTIONS:
If Lazy Susan takes the position with the Village's Finance Department, is her
father in violation of Illinois law regarding conflict of interests?
What if Lazy Susan uses the money she earns from the Village to pay "rent"
to her parents while she is living at home?
Can the Trustee avoid any conflict by not voting on any matters related to his
daughter's employment with the Village?
96858
INCOMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE
New Business: Police Officer Allison Elected as Trustee (Item 111.3)
Facts:
Newly elected Trustee Allison has been a police officer for twenty (20) years with
the Village Police Department. Following qualification as a Trustee, the police officer
requests a leave of absence from the Police Department.
· One Trustee thinks that Allison's job as a police officer does not have to
conflict with her job as a Trustee because Allison can just order the Chief to
keep her off the night shift so she can attend all the board meetings.
· But another Trustee thinks that the offices of Trustee and police officer are
incompatible. As Trustee, Allison would be able to give orders to the Police
Chief, who is her commanding officer.
QUESTIONS:
1. Can the newly elected Trustee continue to be employed as a police officer
subsequent to the time that she qualified to hold the office of Village
Trustee?
o
What is the effect of the acceptance of the position of Trustee on Allison's
employment with the police department?
Can incompatibility be avoided by the Trustee by simply abstaining from all
matters involving the police department?
Would the newly elected Trustee be allowed to serve as Trustee and retain
her job as a police officer if she took a leave of absence from the police
department prior to her election?
97353
INCOMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE
Appointment of New Building
Inspector Position (Item 111.4)
Facts:
Inspector: Discussion of Nominee for Building
Eddie "Sharp Eyes" McCarthy, a member of the Village of Klentown's Zoning and
Planning Committee, has just been nominated for appointment as Village Building
Inspector by the Village President. If appointed, Sharp Eyes McCarthy will gladly accept
the position.
Trustees raise several questions about this appointment one thinking Eddie is
particularly qualified because he is a member of the Zoning and Planning Committee and
so is familiar with building issues. Another trustee feels that a conflict of interest must
exist; between the offices of Zoning and Planning Commissioner and the position of
Building Inspector, that it cannot be proper to hold both offices. She thinks this is called
incompatibility of office.
ISSUES PRESENTED:
1. Is there a conflict between the offices that would preclude the Inspector from
holding them simultaneously?
2. What if the Inspector were not the only Building Inspector, but worked only
part-time, and planned to recuse himself from the Zoning Board in every
case where he was the Inspector?
3. What if the Ins pector at the time of his appointment was not a member of the
Zoning and Planning Committee, but was a trustee of the Village?
96840
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Purchase of Materials by Village From Warqo Paving (Item 111.5)
Facts:
Trustee Wargo is half owner of a pavement contracting company. At the end of his
construction season, he had additional paving material available and suggested to the
other Trustees that the costs of the road repairs presently being bid by the Village could
be reduced by half since he has little use for the paving material and would be willing to sell
it at cost. The Village had already received price quotes from other suppliers and Trustee
Wargo's proposal would allow the Village to cut its costs by over fifty (50%) percent
reducing the contract to $40,000. Should the Village agree to purchase the paving material
from Trustee Wargo for cost? Trustee Wargo says he wil abstain from any vote on the
measure.
The Trustees have mixed feelings about the purchase of this paving material. One
Trustee thinks this would be no problem since asphalt is asphalt and the savings could be
used to throw a party. Another Trustee feels that it does not seem right for the Village to
make a contract, even a beneficial contract, with one of its own elected officials.
Questions:
If the Village nets substantial savings which are not available from any other
source, is it still a conflict for Trustee Wargo to supply the material?
If Trustee Wargo abstains from voting on the contract, does a conflict still
exist?
If Trustee Wargo clearly intended to save the Village money on its road
repairs and made no profit by selling the materials for cost, is he still in
violation of the Corrupt Practices Act?
97097
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Renewal of Franchise A,clreements: Commonwealth Edison (Item IV.l)
Facts:
The Village's franchise agreement with Commonwealth Edison is up for renewal.
Trustee Jurusik's wife works for Commonwealth Edison and the Trustee husband and
spouse jointly own 1,000 shares of stock. Several board members question whether a
conflict is created by either Mrs. Jurusik's job or the stock ownership, and whether a
different result is reached if the employer is the local Cable TV Company.
Questions:
1. Must the board member abstain from voting or absent himself from the meeting
because of his wife's job?
2. Because of his own stock co-ownership?
3. What if the spouse's employer was the local cable TV company up for re-franchising
and stock was owned in that company?
4. What if the board member himself were employed by Commonwealth Edison? The
Local Cable TV Company?
97382
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Class "XXX" Liquor License to The Beer Gut, Inc, (Item V.1)
Facts:
A Trustee moves to authorize the Village Attorney to prepare an Ordinance
amending the Village Code to increase the number of Class XXX liquor licenses so that a
license can be issued to The Beer Gut, Inc., a sophisticated restaurant and poetry reading
establishment that will se rye beer and wine only. Trustee Bayer, ever concerned about the
cultural environment of the Village of Kleintown, is the sole owner of The Beer Gut, Inc.,
along with his wife. Trustee Bayer advises the Village Board about his proposed
establishment, and requests that the Village Board authorize an additional Class XXX
liquor license so that the Local Liquor Control Commissioner can issue him a liquor license.
The Trustees discuss this scenario, with some questioning whether it is proper to
issue a liquor license to a current Trustee.
Questions:
1. Would the approval of an additional Class XXX liquor license and the issuance of
same to The Beer Gut, Inc. create a statutory conflict of interest for Trustee Bayer?
2. Would the approva of an additional Class XXX liquor license and the issuance of
same to The Beer Gut, Inc. create a common law conflict of interest for Trustee
Bayer?
3. Would Trustee Bayer's holding of a liquor license, as owner of The Beer Gut, Inc.,
violate State law?
69525
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Municipal Officer Leasing Village Property (Item VI.l)
Facts:
A current member of the Village's Zoning Board leases commercial office space in
a building owned by the Village to run her Off Track Betting Parlor. The lease was
approved by the Village Board while the individual was a member of the Village Zoning
Board. The Village had advertised the space for rent by placing ads in a local, general
circulation newspaper. The Zoning Board Member entered into a 2-year lease at a
competitive monthly rental rate. The lease contains a 30-day termination clause
exercisable by either party. The terms of the lease were identical to the terms included in
the lease with the prior tenant for the same space.
Municipal elections are scheduled to be held during the pendency of the 2-year
lease. The Zoning Board Member is actively campaigning as a candidate for the position
of a Trustee of the Village and is expected to win.
Anticipated improvements to the Village-owned commercial building include a
15,000 square foot addition of new commercial rental space and installation of a new air-
conditiomng system which will serve all of the tenants.
Questions:
Is a member of the Zoning Board a municipal officer?
Is there a conflict of interest in having a member of the Zoning Board enter
into a lease with the Village?
Was there a violation of any Illinois Statute when the Zoning Board Member
executed the lease?
If elected as a Trustee of the Village, does a conflict of interest exist?
If elected as a Trustee, can the lease be amended, extended or renewed?
If elected as a Trustee, can the Trustee or the Village terminate the lease
under the 30-day termination provision?
If elected as a Trustee, can the Trustee participate in the vote of the Village
Board to approve a Village-financed construction project that would add
15,000 square feet of space to the Village-owned office building?
If elected as a Trustee, can the Trustee partici pate in the vote of the Village
Board to approve the purchase and installation of a new air conditioning
system for the Village-owned office building?
97098
2
CHANGE ORDER
Change Order Procedure: Discussion of a Village President's oral change order
regarding size of his office at new Village Hall. (Item VII.l)
Facts:
The Village President reports that during the construction process for the new
Village Hall, he noticed that the plans called for his office to not include built-in cabinetry
ike the Village Manager's office. Because he had taken on the task of overseeing the
Contract, he issued an oral change order in the amount of $9,000.00 to include the
cabinets and added 5 days for completion of the Contract. One of the Trustees reports
that she discovered that the special light fixtures that were in the specifications were not
ordered and would delay opening the Hall by 2 months if ordered now. She says substitute
fixtures were available, at the same cost, and will result in a delay in completing the
Contract of only 25 days. Another Trustee wants the Village President to orally approve
this additional revision to the Contract. A third Trustee says that change orders should be
written and that he thinks the Criminal Code is involved in approving change orders over
a certain amount but is not sure about the amount.
Question:
Is there a problem with the oral change orders?
97087
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Contract with Law Enforcement Consultants (Item VII,2)
Facts:
The Village recently entered into a contract with Law Enforcement Consultants to
evaluate and review the Village's police sergeant promotional process. The contract was
approved by a 6-0 vote of the Board of Trustees at its August 12th meeting. On August
13th, the Village President learned, for the first time, that the Chief of Police is a part time
employee of Law. Enforcement Consultants in the police promotions department. The
Chief of Police was not at the Village Board meeting at which the contract with Law
Enforcement Consultants was approved. He was never consulted by any of the Trustees,
or the Village Manager about Law Enforcement Consultants. He had no input whatsoever
into the selection of Law Enforcement Consultants and was not even aware that the Village
was considering entering into a contract with that company. In addition, no one at Law
Enforcement Consultants ever talked to the Chief about the possibility of entering into a
contract with the Village. Finally, on the night of the Board vote on the contract, the Chief
was on a fishing trip in Canada with Trustee Hill.
Trustee Hill sees no problem here and says the Police Chief's familiarity with the
promotional process will be a benefit to his working as a consultant on the project. Hill
thinks that it might result in cost savings for the Village, too.
Other Trustees object, stating that the Police Chief cannot work as a consultant on
this project because he would be getting paid double for his efforts.
Questions:
Does the Chief have such an interest in the contract as to void it under Section 3(a)
of the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act?
Does it make a difference that the Chief is merely a part-time employee of Law
Enforcement Consultants? Attorney General's Opinion 96-011 dated January 31,
1996.
Suppose that the Chief, instead of being an employee was an independent
contractor with Law Enforcement Consultants and merely provided consulting
services on an as-needed basis?
4. Suppose the Chief resigns his positior with the Village prior to the vote?
What if the Chief, terminates his employment with Law Enforcement Consultants
prior to the vote of the Village Board approving the contract? Would it matter that
the day after the vote he was rehired by Law Enforcement Consultants?
Suppose that the evaluation and review was to be made by a department of the
County in which the Village is located and the Chief was a part-time employee of the
County Department?
97365
OPEN MEETINGS ACT
ISSUES
MOUNT PROSPECT
TRA]2qI2qG REGARDING THE OPEN MEETI2qGS ACT
MARCH 25, 2003
I. ILLINOIS OPEN MEETINGS ACT
The Open Meetings Act applies to all
meetings of public bodies including all
legislative, executive, administrative or
advisory bodies of the public body and any
subsidiary bodies including, but not limitedto,
committees and subcommittees which are
supported in whole or in part by tax revenue~
A meeting occurs, for purposes of invoking
the mandates of the Act, when a majority of a
quorum of the members of a public body meet
to discuss public business.
A. Providing Notice of Meetings
The Act prescribes different notice
requirements depending upon the type of
meeting involved:
Regular Meetings: At the beginning of
each calendar or fiscal year, the public body
must give public notice of and make available
its schedule of dates, times and places for
regular meetings. Special public notice is
required for any change in the regular meeting
schedule.
Notice of a regular meeting must include
an agenda. The agenda must be posted at least
48 hours in advance of the meeting, at both
the principal office of the public body and the
location where the meeting will be held. Final
action should not be taken on an item that is
Reconvened Meetings: A reconvened
meeting is often necessary when the public
body has too much business to finish at one
meeting. It takes a majority vote of the public
body members present and voting at any
not a part of the posted agenda. See
discussion of Rice v. Board of Trustees of
Adams County, under Section B.
Reseheduled Meetings: The public notice
and agenda of a rescheduled meeting must be
given at least 48 hours before the meeting. A
newspaper publication is not required.
Special Meetings: The notice and agenda
of a special meeting must be written and
presented to each member of the public body,
and this must be done at least 48 hours before
the meeting, if delivered by mail, or 24 hours
before the meeting, if delivered in person.
The public notice and agenda of the special
meeting must be given at least 48 hours before
the meeting. The public body may only
discuss items listed in the agenda or related
thereto, and actions taken by the public body
should be closely related to the items listed in
the agenda.
Emergency Meetings: Notice of an
emergency meeting must be given as soon as
practicable, and prior to the holding of the
meeting, to any news medium that has filed an
annual request for notice of such meetings.
Notice of the meeting should be given to the
public as soon as practicable.
regular or special meeting to adjourn and
schedule a reconvened meeting. At the
reconvened meeting, the public body may take
any action that could have been taken at the
original meeting. Public notice and an agenda
of the meeting must be given at least 48 hours
in advance of the meeting, unless the meeting
is scheduled to reconvene within 24 hours, or
if the date, time and place of the meeting are
announced at the original meeting and there is
no change in the agenda.
For special, emergency, rescheduled and
reconvened meetings, "public notice" is given
by posting a copy of the notice at principal
office of the public body holding the meeting,
or if no such office exists, at the building in
which the meeting is to be held. Copies of
notices of all meetings must be given to any
news medium that has filed an annual request
for such notice. If a news medium has
provided the public body with an address or
telephone number, the public body must give
the news medium the same notice of all
special, emergency, rescheduled and
reconvened meetings as is given to members
of the public body. Finally, if the public body
decides to make a permanent change in its
regular meeting dates, e.g. meet on Tuesdays
instead of Thursdays, notice of the change
must be given 10 days prior to the new
meetings. Notice must be accomplished by
publishing the notice in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Village, providing
coptes to news media which have filed annual
requests, and by posting the nonce at the
principal office of the Village or at the place
of the meetings.
B. Discussion/Action on Items in Agenda-
Rice v. Board of Trustees of Adams
County
The Open Meetings Act states that "It]he
requirement of a regular meeting agenda shall
not preclude the consideration of items not
specifically set forth in the agenda." 5 ri.CS
120/2.02 (emphasis added). The Fourth
District Appellate Court interpreted this
section of the Act in the case of Rice v. Board
of Trustees of Adams County, 762 N.E.2d
1205 (4th Dist. 2002). In that case, the Adams
County Board had an agenda for its regular
meeting and one item on the agenda was
"NEW BUSINESS." At the meeting and
under the "NEW BUSINESS" heading, a
trustee presented a resolution for an
alternative retirement benefit program for
elected county officers. After the resolution
was read aloud, the trustee moved for the
adoption of the resolution and the matter was
discussed, voted on and approved. The
plaintiff filed a lawsuit complaining that the
Adams County Board violated the Open
Meetings Act because the alternative
retirement benefit program was not
specifically described in the regular meeting
agenda. The defendants relied on the above-
quoted statutory language which permits
consideration by the public body even though
an item is not specifically set forth in the
agenda.
The Appellate Court held that "the
consideration off an item allows only
deliberations and discussion, and not the
taking of official action. The Court then
affirmed the trial court's order declaring null
and void the action of the Adams County
Board in adopting the resolution.
Because the Court's decision in Adams
County is controlling in Illinois, a public body
should examine each agenda at least 49 hours
prior to the meeting to make sure that any
*'action items" are specifically and clearly set
out in the agenda. If this examination takes
place early enough, any changes in the agenda
can be made so that the corrected agenda can
be timely posted at least 48 hours in advance
of the holding of the meeting.
Also, if "New Business," "Old Business" or
"Other Business" are used as agenda items,
and there is no further specification given in
the agenda, then the heading "New Business,"
"Old Business" or "Other Business" should be
followed by language such as the following:
"For announcement, deliberation and/or
discussion only; no official action will be
taken." On the other hand, if there are specific
items of "New Business," "Old Business" or
"Other Business" which are listed in the
agenda, then official action can be taken on
the specifically listed items. However, no
official action should be taken with respect to
any items of "New Business," "Old Business"
or "Other Business" which are not specifically
listed in the agenda.
While not specifically addressed in the
Adams County case, the logical extension of
the decision would appear to preclude taking
official action in regard to items listed on an
agenda under the heading "Items for
Discussion Only." In that scenario, if there is
any chance that a "discussion" item may result
in the taking of official action relative to said
item, the item might better be placed under an
agenda heading such as "Items for Separate
Action."
C. Closed Meetings
The Open Meetings Act contains
exceptions to the requirement that meetings be
conducted openly; and thus, the Act allows the
public body to conduct a closed meeting if
pursuant to one of the exceptions contained in
the Act. The exceptions authorize or
allow, but do not require, closed meetings
to discuss a subject covered by the
exception. No final action is allowed in
closed meetings.
The exceptions that generally apply to
public bodies are as follows:
l) meetings on collective negotiating
matters between the public body and its
employees or their representatives, or
deliberations concerning salary schedules
for one or more classes of employees;
:~) meetings where the purchase of real
property for the use of the public body is
being considered, including discussions of
whether a particular parcel of property
should be acquired;
3) meetings where the setting of the
price for sale or lease of real estate owned
by the public body is being considered;
4) meetings held to discuss litigation
"when an action against, affecting or on
behalf of the particular public body has
been filed and is pending before a court or
administrative tribunal, or when the
public body finds that an action is
probable or imminent, in which case the
basis for the finding shall be recorded and
entered into the minutes of the closed
meeting;"
5) meetings held to discuss the
appointment, employment and dismissal
of employees. Public bodies may also
discuss the compensation, discipline and
performance of specific employees in
closed sessions. The Act also permits
closed meetings to hear testimony on a
complaint lodged against an employee;
6)meetings held to discuss the
discipline, performance or removal of the
occupant of a public office, when the
public body has the power to remove the
occupant;
7) meetings to consider the
appointment of a member to fill a vacancy
8) meetings to establish reserves or
settle claims as provided in the Local
Governmental and Governmental
Employees Tort Immunity Act, if
otherwise the disposition of a claim or
potential claim might be prejudiced, or to
review or discuss claims, loss or risk
management information, records, data,
advice, or communications from or with
respect to any insurer of the local public
entity or any intergovernmental risk
management association or self insurance
pool of which the local government is a
member;
9) meetings to consider sale or
purchase of securities, investments or
investment contracts;
lo) meetings to consider emergency
security procedures to respond to actual
danger to safety of employees or public
property, provided 'that a description of
the actual danger must be made a part of
the motion to close the meeting;
11) meetings to consider informant
sources, hiring and assignment of
undercover personnel or equipment
related to criminal investigations;
12) meetings to hear evidence or
testimony presented to a
quasi-adjudicative body provided the
body prepares and makes available for
public inspection a written decision and
provided that the subject matter was
otherwise appropriate (e.g., an employee
dismissal) for the closed meeting; (A
quasi-adjudicative body is defined as
"meaning an administrative body charged
by law or ordinance with the
on any public body but only if the public
body which has the power to appoint;
responsibility to conduct hearings, receive
evidence or testimony and make
determinations based thereon," and
explicitly does not include an electoral
board that is considering petition
challenges.)
13) meetings to consider self
evaluation practices and procedures or
professional ethics when meeting with a
representative of a statewide association
of which the public body is a member; and
14) meetings for the discussion of
minutes of closed meetings - whether to
consider approval of closed meeting
minutes or to review them on a
semi-annual basis as required by the Act.
To conduct a closed meeting, a motion
must be passed at an open meeting to
hold a closed meeting, which may be held
either on the same day or sometime in the
future. A quorum is required at that open
meeting, and a majority of those members
present at the meeting must vote in favor
of the motion. The motion must specify
the specific exception which authorizes
the closed meeting. The vote of each
member and identification of the specific
exception must be disclosed at the time of
the vote and must be recorded and
entered into the minutes of the meeting.
No additional notice is required to close a
meeting where the vote to close is taken at
a public meeting for which proper notice
has been given. To schedule a series of
closed meetings, a single vote may be
taken providing for the entire series,
provided that (a) each meeting in such
series involves the same particular
matters and (b) the meetings are
scheduled to be held within no more than
three months of the day the vote is taken.
At a closed meeting, the only topics
allowed to be discussed are those which
are both (a) covered by one of the
exceptions and (b) specified in the vote to
hold the closed meeting. In other words,
topics not covered by an exception and
topics not specifically included in the
D. Minutes of Meetings
All public bodies, including committees
and commissions, must keep written minutes
of all their meetings, whether open or closed.
The Open Meetings Act prescribes the
following minimum requirements for such
minutes:
1) the date, time and place of the meeting;
2) the members recorded as either present
or absent; and
3) a summary of the discussion on all
matters proposed, deliberated or decided, and
a record of any votes taken.
In addition:
4) On a motion to go into a closed meeting,
the minutes must contain the vote of each
member and must identify the specific
exception allowing such closed meeting.
5) If there is a closed meeting on
"probable or imminent litigation," the basis
for the finding that the matter discussed was a
matter of probable or imminent litigation must
be specified in the minutes of the closed
meeting.
6) If the meeting is closed to consider
emergency security measures, a description of
exception(s) identified in the vote at the
open meeting may not be discussed, even
though the closed meeting is otherwise
proper. Further, in conducting a closed
meeting, the public body must comply
with the Act's additional requirements
regarding notice and the keeping of
minutes.
the actual danger must be made a part of the
motion to close the meeting and recorded in
the minutes~
In requiring a "summary of discussion on
all matters proposed, deliberated or decided,"
the Open Meetings Act appears to require that
the minutes reflect what discussion occurred
and not merely list the topics that were
discussed. However, because the Act requires
only a summary and not a verbatim account, it
appears that only general comments need be
included, not quotations. Note that a
summary is required only when a matter
is either proposed, deliberated (rather
than discussed) or decided. Accordingly, if
only the audience discusses an issue,
without any deliberation or decision by
the public body, it would appear that no
summary is required.
Closed Meeting Minutes - The
keeping of minutes of closed meetings is
required, but is potentially hazardous.
For example, if the public body holds a
closed meeting to discuss settlement
proposals relative to a matter of pending
litigation and records in the minutes the
amount it would like to settle for, along
with the highest amount it is willing to
pay, it would be damaging to the public
body if a copy of such minutes were to get
into the hands of the opposing attorney.
Therefore, a public body should take the
following steps to protect itself against
such a situation:
~) The public body should stress the
importance of the confidentiality of such
minutes to its members and persuade
them that under no circumstances are the
contents of the minutes or what was
discussed at the closed meeting to be
divulged to anyone.
Public Inspection - The minutes of
open meetings must be made available for
public inspection within seven days after
the public body has approved them,
usually at the next meeting of the public
body. Committee meeting minutes should
be kept separately and need only be
approved by the committee and not by the
full board. Minutes of closed meetings
need not be made available for public
inspection until after the public body
determines that it is no longer necessary
to keep them confidential in order to
protect the public interest or the privacy
of an individual. It is recommended that
the minutes of all closed meetings be kept
in a separate volume or filing place from
the minutes of the open meetings. Also,
minutes of closed meetings Can be
approved at a subSequent closed meeting
and need not be approved at an open
meeting.
Semi-Annual Review of Closed
Meeting Minutes - The Open Meetings
Act requires public bodies to periodically,
but no less than semi-annually, meet to
review minutes of all closed sessions. At
such meetings, a determination must be
made and reported in an open session
that: (~) the need for confidentiality still
exists as to all or parts of those minutes,
or ~2) the minutes or portions thereof no
longer require confidential treatment and
are available for public inspection.
2) Minutes of closed meetings should
contain a summary and not contain any
specific details of the discussion or of the
proposed settlement terms. The Act does
not require a verbatim or detailed record
of the closed meeting.
These semi-annual review meetings
should be conducted in closed session. It
would be advisable for the public body to
adopt a written resolution at the public
portion of the meeting, stating that the
review has been conducted and listing by
meeting date which, if any, of the dosed
meeting minutes are now available for
public inspection.
E. Enforcement
Meetings Act
of the Open
Individuals who violate the Open Meetings
Act may be tried in criminal court.
Conviction is a Class C misdemeanor,
punishable by a $500 fine and/or 30 days in
jail. When a public body fails to complywith
the Act, or if there is probable cause to believe
that it failed to comply, any person, including
the State's Attorney, may, within 60 days of
the alleged illegal meeting, institute a civil suit
in the proper circuit court. The Act also
extends this time limitation for the State's
Attorney by providing that, if facts conceming
the meeting are not discovered within the 60
day period, action may be taken "within 60
days of the discovery of a violation by the
State's Attorney."
The court has the power to declare null and
void final action improperly taken at an open
or closed meeting. For example, if a public
body were to adopt a general obligation bond
resolution at a meeting that was later declared
an illegal meeting, and the court declared the
adoption of the resolution null and void, the
public body could not issue any bonds under
that resolution. Public bodies, therefore,
should be careful to adopt all resolutions and
take final action on all important matters at
meetings which are clearly open to the public
and in full compliance with the Act. Note,
however, that the legislative history of the
Open Meetings Act suggests no intent to
invalidate final actions of a public body
simply because of some technical violation
(such as an improper notice) or because
related matters were previously deliberated in
a closed meeting.
Finally, the court may assess reasonable
attorney's fees and other costs against the
public body where the party who files the suit
"substantiallf' prevails. On the other hand,
the court may award attorney's fees and costs
to the public body against a private party filing
such a suit only if the court determines that the
action was brought with malice or was
frivolous.
109802v2
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
and
EMAIL ISSUES
MOUNT PROSPECT
TRAINING REGARDING FOIA AND EMAIL ISSUES
MARCH 25, 2003
I. LOCAL RECORDS ACT, 50 ILCS 205/1 et seq.
Governs retention, maintenance and destruction of public records and other non-record materials
not subject to requirements of Act but which may be subject to Freedom of Information Act.
A. Definition of "public record":
"Any book, paper, map, photograph, digitized electronic material, or other official
documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made, produced,
executed or received by any agency or officer pursuant to law or in connection with the
transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by such
agency or officer, or any successor thereof, as evidence of the organization, function.
policies, decisions, procedures, or other activities thereof, or because of the informational
data contained therein. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved
solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for
convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are
not included within the definition of public record." 50 ILCS 205/3.
Important component parts of definition:
Materials included within definition: books, papers, maps, photographs, digitized
electronic material or other documentary material, regardless of physical form
or characteristics,
Examples: plat of subdivision, videotape of Iockup in police station and email,
microfilm, magnetic tapes and punch cards.
Broad. not dependent on physical form.
· Made, produced, executed or received by agency or officer pursuant to law or in
connection with the transaction of public business.
Includes both those used, received and possessed by public body AND by officer
(any elected or appointed official of a court, county, municipal corporation or
ooiitical subdivision).
Example: email from official from home computer to municipal staff re:
transaction of business.
Email received by official on home corn puter re: public business.
NOT a public record: personal email.
Preserved or appropriate for preservation .... as evidence of the organization,
function, policies, decisions, procedures or other activities or because of
informational data.
Example: policy manual, statistical evaluation.
· Excludes: library and museum material acquired or preserved or reference or
exhibition; extra copies used for convenient reference; stocks of publications and
processed documents.
*°* If doubt regarding whether items are non record materials, agency should consider item to be
public record. ***
B. Reproduction of ori.qinal public record
An agency may reproduce any public record in a microfilm or digitized electronic format.
as long as:
i) the reproduction process forms a durable medium that accurately and eqibly
reproduces the original record in all details, that does not permit additions, deletions, or
chan.qes to the ori.qinal document images, and, if electronic., that are retained in a
trustworthy manner so that the records, and the information contained in the records, are
accessible and usable for subsequent reference at all times while the information must be
II.
retained;
(ii) the reproduction is retained for the prescribed retention period; and
(iii) the Commission is notified when the original record is disposed of and also when the
reproduced record is disposed of. 50 ILCS 205/7
Reproduction is deemed to be an original. 50 ILCS 205/8
Process for disposal of records
Before disposing of any public record, agency must receive written approval of
appropriate Local Records Commission.
Head of agency shall submit lists or schedules of public records in custody that
are not needed in transaction of current business and that ~:) not have sufficient
administrative, legal or fiscal value to warrant further preservation.
Head of agency shall submit lists or schedules proposing length of time to retain
types of public records.
Regulations:
Application to Local Records Commission:
· Contact Local Records Unit, Office of the
Secretary of State, Illinois State Archives, Springfield, Illinois 62756,
(217)782-7076.
Submit original and copy with samples of
records if Commission has not previously reviewed the type of record.
Open meeting after notice provided,
Once application is approved, ~s non-expiring.
Submit new application if informational contents
of record changes.
· At least 60 days before disposing of records.
agency head must fill out duplicate records disposal certificate, which
incluC es number of application approved by Commission.
Also include standards for reproducing records,
Recent Developments in Act
Secretary of State Guidelines (April 2001).
Promulgated after amendment to Act which was effective in ' 999,
Ability to replace original records with digitized electronic format, provided the following
re(; uirements are met:
Reproduced on durable medium that accurately and legibly reproduces the
original record in all details.
Medium does not permit additions deletions, or changes to the original
document images.
Retention in a trustworthy manner so that records and information contained in
them are accessible an(~ usable for subsequent reference at all times while the
information must be retained.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 ILCS '140/1 et seq...
Definition of "public record":
FOIAHANDOUT
"All records, reports, forms, writings, letters memoranda, books, papers, maps,
photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records,
recorded information and all other documentary materials regardless of physical form or
characteristics, having been prepared, or having been or being used, received,
possessed or under the control of any public body." 5 ILCS 140/2.
Important component parts of definition:
Materials are included within definition regardless of physical
form or characteristics.
Materials that are or have been prepared, used, received,
possessed or under the control of any public body,
"Public body" means "any legislative, executive,
administrative, or advisory bodies of the state, state universities and
colleges, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school
districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus
committees, or commissions of this state, and any subsidiary bodies of
those public bodies, including but not limited to committees and
subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue,
or which expend tax revenue." 5 ILCS 140/2(a),
Note: A public body that possesses records originating in another body should consult
with the originating body prior to producing records ~ursuant to a request.
Examples:
The term "public record" includes, but is not limited to:
(i) administrative manuals, procedural rules, and instructions to staff;
(i) fina! opinions and orders made in the
adjudication of cases;
(ii) substantive rules;
(iii) statements and interpretations of policy which
have been adopted by a public body;
(iv) final planning policies, recommendations, and
decisions;
(v) factual reports, inspection reports, and studies
whether prepared by or for the public body;
(vi) all information in any account, voucher, or
contract dealing with the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds of
public bodies;
(vii) the names, salaries, titles and dates of
employment of all employees and officers of public bodies;
(viii) materials containing opinions concerning the
rights of the state, the public, a subdivision of state or a local
government, or of any private persons;
(ix) the name of every official and the final records of
voting in all proceedings of public bodies;
(x) applications for any contract, permit, grant, or
agreement except as exempted from disclosure by subsection (g) of
Section 7 of the Act;
(xi) each report, document, study or publication
prepared by independent consultants or other independent contractors
for the public body;
(xii) all other information reouired by law to be made
FOIAHANDOUT
available for public inspection or copying;
(xiii) information relating to any grant or contract
made by or betweer~ a public body and another public body or private
organization;
(xiv) waiver documents filed with the State
Superintendent of Education;
(xv) complaints, results of complaints, and
Department of Children and Family Services staff findings of licensing violations
at day care facilities, provided that personal and identifying information is
not released; and
(xvi) records, reports, forms, writings, letters,
memoranda books, papers, ana other documentary information,
regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared, or
having been or being used, received, possesseo, or under the control of
the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority dealing with the receipt or
expenditure of public funds or other funds of the Authority in connection
with the reconstruction renovation, remodeling, extension, or
improvement of all or substantially all of an existing "facility" as that term
is defined in the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority Act.
5 ILCS 140/2.
Important to note is that FOIA does not mandate production of "preliminary drafts, notes,
recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or
policies or actions are formulated," except that a specific record or relevant portion of a
record shall not be exem pt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the ~ead of
the public body. Therefore, unless staff wishes to keep their preliminary drafts, notes,
etc., there is no FOIA requirement to retain such documents. Presumably they may be
destroyed if paper or deleted if email.
Federal Law
Electronic FOIA Amendments Pub. L. No. 104-231, as codified at 5 USC § 552.
FOIA requesters, generally, may choose the form/format of
disclosure with regard to records requested under §552(a)(3) of the Act.
Agencies are required to make "reasonable efforts" to search for and produce
records in various electronic forms or formats upon request. As long as the
process of providing the information in the requested format will not damage or
destroy the original document, agencies are obliged to the requester's
preference.
Agencies must maintain "electronic reading rooms" and make a growing variety of information
available to the public on the Web. Many agencies respond by developing a
FOIA Web site to fulfill these obligations.
State Law
Public bodies are not required to create records to respond to requests for information that the body does
not ordinarily maintain in record form. Kenyon v. Garrels, 184 IlI.App.3d 28, 32 (4t" Dist. 1989).
__C. Exemptions, 5 ILCS 140/7
FOIAHANrDOUT
Under FOIA. public records are presumed to be open and accessible,
and the Act's 23 exceptions to disclosure should be read narrowly.
Generally, information should be withheld from a FOIA requester only
when the public records fall into one or more of the statutory exemptions.
A public body has the discretion, however, decide to release public
records despite the applicability of an exemption. If the records involve
the rights of third parties, a release of such records otherwise covered by
an exemption(s) might lead to liability as a consequence of the
disclosure.
General Categories of Exemptions
(i)
(i)Le.qally Protected - Information that federal or state law
prohibits from disclosure.
(ii) Personal Privacy- Information that, if disclosed
to the public, would result in a clearly unwarranted ~nvasion of personal
privacy.
(iii) Law Enforcement - Information related to
investigations, administrative and criminal law enforcement and
corrections.
(iv) Education and Training - Certain information
related to education and testing.
(v) Leqal Proceedings - Certain records related to
litigation or other legal proceedings.
(vi) Internal Operations - Certain documents related
to the internal operations of public bodies, including certain preliminary
drafts, notes and memoranda.
(vii) Business and Finance - Information related to certain
business or financial interests of private persons and
public bodies, including trade secrets proprietary
information, insurance matters, and design and
engineering information
III. EMAIL
A. Overview
While email and the Internet may have ~ncrease¢ efficiency and productivity at work,
some employees have subjected their employers to potential liability for
sexual and other forms of harassment by transmitting offensive email or
circulating obscene materials downloaded from the Internet, Employers
face liability for failure to monitor their email systems and for not
removing inappropriate messages and materials, as well as for failure to
discipline the responsible employees. Monitoring of employee email
usage by employees is becoming more commonplace, however, to
minimize liability such monitoring needs to be done pursuant to a policy
drafted and distributed to the employees in accordance with federal and
state law.
Federal Law - Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
FOIAHANDOUT
In some circumstances, monitoring of communications can result
in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
(ECPA), which prohibits interception and disclosure of electronic
FOIAHANDOUT
communications in transit, as well as those found in electronic storage.
The ECPA amended the Federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to prohibit the unlawful intentional interception of
wire, oral and electronic communications, thereby adding email to
protected forms of communication. 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1998). Title II of
the ECOA prohibits the unlawful intentional access to such
communications while they are in electronic storage.
Employees who have their email monitored can bring claims
under the ECPA. There are, however, exceptions to the law that may be
of use to employers who engage in monitoring:
Consent exception: monitoring of an electronic
communication is lawful as long as one of the parties to the
communication has consented to be monitored. Consent may
be implied where an employer issues a clearly written monitoring
policy, and effectively communicates the policy to all its
employees. Even so, obtaining signed acknowleagments from
employees confirming receipt and understanding of the email
policy is a good practice since courts have been reluctant to rule
that an employee consents to monitoring when an employer
merely discloses its practice of monitoring.
Business extension exception: allows
monitoring of employee email if the employer establishes a
business-related reason for such monitoring. To date,
this provision has been relied upon in telephone
extension monitoring cases, but it may not pertain to email
monitoring, unless telephone equipment or facilities are
specifically involved. If the exception does apply, employers only
have a right to monitor an employee's transmission until they can
determine whether it is personal or business. If the transmission
is determined to be personal, monitoring must cease.
Service provider exception: an employer is not
liable under the ECPA if it qualifies as a "system provider" and
the monitoring is carried out in the ordinary course of business
necessary to the performance of the service or to protect the
rights or property of the service provider, r~ Bohach v. City of.
Reno, 932 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Nev. 1996), the court held that the
City was a service provider and was free to access stored
computer messages. The court's reasoning was that since the
definition of "electronic communications" in 18 U.S.C. § 2510
does not include stored messages, the access of these
messages by a system provider was not an "interception."
mproper monitoring of communications also can lead to an
unfair labor practice charge under federal and state labor laws as well
as a multitude of civil rights and state aw tort actions, including:
Invasion of Privacy
Unreasonable Intrusion Into the Seclusion of
Another
Defamation
Infliction of Emotional Distress
Wrongful Termination Claims
· Discrimination Claims
· Harassment Claims
State Law
Application of definitions of Local Records Act and Freedom of
Information Act to email.
How to tell if it is a "public record":
Substance of emails is a concern of a public body;
Was made, produced, executed or received pursuant to law; and
· Made in connection with transaction of public business and
appropriate for preservation and/or retention
Electronic storage - a policy covering the method and time schedule for
retention and deletion of emails should be established
Personal Emails
Personal emails may be public records; however, the "personal
information exemption" may apply to prevent disclosure. Tiberino v.
Spokane County, 13 P.3d 1104 (Court of Appeals, Wash. 2000).
FOIAHANDOUT
Policy Considerations
Employers should enforce their electronic communication policies and
discipline those who use their communications devices for
discriminatory, racist or harassing purposes. A clearly written monitoring
policy, communicated to employees and consistently enforced, provides
the employer with a strong defense to the legal actions noted above
when brought by employees or ex-employees.
Consistent with federal and state law, employers should:
Distribute written email policies telling
em ployees that they have no legitimate expectation of privacy in
email and other electronic communications.
Give notice to all employees that electronic
communications, such as email or phone mail, are the property
of the employer and should be used for business purposes.
Notify employees that by using the employer's
equipment, they are consenting to have such use monitored by
authorized personnel at the employer's discretion.
Instruct employees that they should not use a
code. access a file or retrieve any stored communications except
when expressly authorized.
Advise employees that any m~suse of the
employer's confidential information or trade secrets will lead to
discipline and possible criminal prosecution
Forbid the use of unprofessional, threatening,
harassing or discriminatory language or images in electronic
communications.
Inform employees that all computer pass codes
must be provided to their supervisors and that no pass code may
be used that is not provided to the employer.
Electronic A.qendas and Packets
Recent legislation, S.B. 1756 vetoed on August 2, 2002. by former
Governor George Ryan would have required posting of minutes
agendas, notices of meetings, minutes of executive session to be posted
on website, if a public body has a website. In the veto order, Governor
Ryan stated:
"Numerous focal officials an¢ units of local government
have expressed their concerns and questions regarding
this legislation. One concern is that enactment of this
legislation would cause an undue financial burden on
public bodies because they would have to invest
considerable time and additional resources to meet this
mandate. Another concern is some provisions of the bill
are vague. For example, the bill does not specify the
length of time which records must be kept on the
website.
While I believe that local governments
should provide this information of their
own volition, I do not believe that the
State should mandate it. For these
reasons, I hereby veto and return
Senate Bill 1756."
IV. PROS/CONS OF ELECTRONIC/DIGITAL STORAGE
A. Secretary of State Guidelines
Available on website.
Good resource if considering conversion to electronic/digital storage.
· Space.
Computer conversion-longevity of software and format. Text document created
12 years ago couldn't be read with current word processing -
therefore, need to keep microfilm or paper records for
documents with a retention value of more than 10 years.
· Expense/costs. including computer programs, training staff, preparation of materials,
scanning current and future records and conversion of old files
Budgeting for implementation and maintenance of system (up to 20% for conversation of
digital records).
Backup - maintain integrity and authenticity of records (including type of media, file
format, type of document management software used; and operational
procedure to import document into system; an¢ security procedures to
ensure that document not altered.
Ease of access/user-friendly.
FOIAHANDOUT
Broad and rapid access to records,
Possibility of losing records.
Lack of universal standards for records retention,
Best practices constantly changing.
FOIAHANDOUT
MAYOR
Gerald L. Fariey
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm Hoefert
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Michaele W. Skowron
Irvana K, Wilks
Michael A, Zadel
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
Velma W. Lowe
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Phone: (847) 392-6000
Fax: (847) 818-5336
TDD (847) 392-6064
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE COMMISSION
CANCELLATION NOTICE
THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 27, 2003
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
MAYOR
Gerald L. Farley
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefert
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Michaele Skow~-on
Irvana K. Wilks
Michael A. Zade]
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
Velma W. Lowe
Phone: 847/818-5328
Fax: 847/818-5329
TDD: 847/392-6064
MEETING LOCATION:
Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center
1000 W. Central Road
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
I. CALL TO ORDER
MEETING DATE & TIME:
Thursday
March 27, 2003
7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2003 MEETING
A. PZ-44-02 201-225 W. Rand Road / Fifth Third Bank / Conditional Use & Sign Variation.
B. PZ-01-03 1002 Meadow Lane / Tourlis Residence/'Conditional Use & Variation.
C. PZ-02-03 ' 904 Edgewood Lane / Panzarino Residence / Conditional Use.
D. PZ-03-03 / Village of Mount Prospect/Text Amendment --Outdoor Dining regulations
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. P&Z-48-02 / 1850 W. Golf Road
Frank Chilelli Rezone from RX to R-I; Resubdivide to
3-lots Development Code Exception (lot depth ratio). NOTE: This case is Village Board
Final
P&Z~05-03 121 N. Elmhurst Avenue / Knipple Residence / Conditional Use (Front porch).
NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
P&Z-06-03 1800 W. Central Road / Robert Bosch Tool Company Sign Variations (wall
sign, number and height of freestanding signs, size of sign face for existing freestanding sign).
NOTE: This case is P&Z Final.
VI.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
· PZ-44-O2/Fifth ThirdBank: VillageBoardwaived2"dreadingandapproved3/18/03
· PZ-OI-03 / 1002 Meadow Lane / Second reading scheduled 4/2/03
· PZ-02-03 / 904 Edgewood Lane /Second reading scheduled 4/2/03
· PZ-03-03 / Outdoor Dining / Village Board waived 2nd reading and approved 3/18/03
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should
contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-
392-6064.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-44-02
PETITIONER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
Heating Date: February 27, 2003
Lee Winter for
Fifth Third Bank
1701 Golf Rd., Tower 1, 8th Fir.
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
201-25 W. Rand Rd.
PROPERTY OWNER:
Rand Development, LLC
c/o Robert Fink, 7&7 Management, Inc.
707 Skokie Blvd.
Northbrook. IL 60062
PARCEL#:
03-27-301-013
PUBLICATION DATE:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
February 12, 2003
Conditional Use for a drive-thru bank and a sign Variation
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Keith Youngqmst
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
Steve Grabowski
Dennis Harder
Tom Longhi
Bill Perry
Bill Van Bruggen
Lee Winter
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the
minutes of the January 23 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. The January meeting minutes were approved 5-0,
with one abstention by Arlene Juracek and one minor change. At 7:40, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-44-02, a
request for Conditional Use approval for a drive-thru bank and a sign Variation. She said the drive-thru request would
be Village Board final but the sign request would be P&Z final
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner explained that the petitioner has requested conditional use approval ro amend the
planned unit development approval in order to construct a drive-thru bank on an outlot and variations to construct a
second freestanding sign for the proposed bank. The subject property is commonly referred to as Randhurst
Commons. She said that it is located on the west side of Rand Road, next ro the AutoBarn, and contmns a ret'ail
shopping center. The subject property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is a planned unit development. The
subject property is bordered by commercial and single family zoning districts.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-44-02
Page 2
Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner proposes to construct a 4,116 square foot one-story building that includes five
drive-thru lanes. She said that the proposed freestanding bank, located on an outlot at the north end of the property,
would be located slightly more than 36-feet from the north lot line, 72-feet from the east lot line, and approximately
44-feet from the existing shopping center, which would be the closest section of Bally's. The petitioner proposes
minor changes to the shopping center parking lot. Ms. Connolly said that access into the shopping center would
remain basically the same, but the existing northern driveway would be shifted slightly to better align with the
proposed bank site plan. Also, the modification will reduce potential traffic conflicts within the shopping center. She
said that the interior circulation pattern would not be significantly modified, but the parking lot will be restriped and
repaired as reqmred by Village Code regulations. The area to be developed for the proposed bank is currently used as
one of the primary parking areas for Bally's. Ms. Connolly said that the parking area will be eliminated if the
proposed bank building, drive-thru and related improvements are constructed. The petitioner's site plan includes
parking spaces intended for bank customers, while the remainder of the shopping center's parking lot will be
unaffected. The proposed drive-thru bank will result in a change of parking patterns, with Bally's primary parking
area shifting to the south, closer to Sportmart and OfficeMax.
Ms. Connolly said that although the parking spaces shown on the petitioner's site plan behind the shopping center wilt
most likely not be used, the plan does not create a parking deficiency for the overall shopping center. She said that the
site would continue to meet Village parking regulations.
Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow a second freestanding sign along the Rand Road
frontage. She said that the existing sign would not be modified and that it would continue to identify the stores in the
shopping center, while the second freestanding sign that would be used exclusively for the proposed bank. The sign
code allows one sign per street frontage to minimize visual clutter and eliminate traffic hazards that may result from
multiple fi'eestanding signs. She said that the distance between the two proposed signs is approximately 306~feet and
that the signs would be used to identify two separate uses.
Ms. Connolly explained that although the shopping center building will not be altered, the parking lot would be
slightly modified to include new landscape islands in the parking lot and new landscaping along the Rand Road
frontage. She said that some of the existing site conditions do not comply with current zoning regulations, but are
legal-nonconformities and are allowed to remain
Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for Conditional Uses and said that in order to approve the petitioner's request,
the Board must find that the project meets the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly pointed out that
the petitioner's request to construct a drive-thru bank on an outlot requires amending the shopping center's original
conditional use approval for a planned unit development. She said that the proposed bank has been designed so the
structure meets current building material regulations, and the new bank building will meet all building, fire. and
development code requirements. Access to the drive-thru lanes has been designed so the internal shopping center
traffic and Rand Road traffic are not adversely impacted. Locating the bank away from the shopping center building
will not have a detrimental impact on the stores within the center and the manner in which the center's parking lot will
be reconfigured will not impair the use or value of the other stores and adjacent uses. Also, the proposed bank is a use
that complies with the comprehensive plan and will be constructed according to Village codes. She said that the
petitioner's request to construct a drive-thru bank meets the standards for a conditional use.
Ms. Connolly said the required findings for sign variations are listed in the Sign Code. She said that in order to
approve the Variation, the Commission has to find that the sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably
identify the business: that the hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the
petitioner, and that the request is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; the
variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or ~mprovements in the
neighborhood; the variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems
or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character. She said that the petitioner researched the possibility of
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-44-02
Arlene Juracek. Chairperson Page 3
using one sign and found that combining the information from the two signs to one sign would not allow for the
reasonable identification of the businesses. Also, the two signs would be located more than 300-feet apart, which is
the distance comparable to 2 different businesses installing their own signs on each of their properties. She said that
the signs have been located according to Sign Code regulations and will not adversely impac! adjacent properties.
increase traffic problems or alter the character of the area. Therefore, the request to allow a second freestanding signs
on one lot of record meets the standards for a variation.
Ms. Connolly relayed staff recommendations that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the petitioner's request
for relief from sign regulations to allow two freestanding signs as shown on the petitioner's exhibits and that the P&Z
recommend that the Village Board approve amending Conditional Use approval for the Planned Unit Development to
allow for the construction of a drive-thru bank on an outlot bank as shown on the Petitioner's site plan and elevations
subject to the site plan being revised to reflect an interior parking lot landscape island for the northern most row of
parking as shown on Staff Exhibit 'A'. She said that the Village Board's decismn is final for the drive-thru bank, but
the request for a second sign was final at the P&Z level.
Ms. Juracek asked if the requested island change shown on Exhibit A had been incorporated in the packet the
Commissmn received because some exhibits showed the island. Ms. Connolly said there was a discrepancy between
the Fifth Third exhibits and the property owner's landscape plan, which shows the island.
Mr. Rogers asked if the bank was part of the overall development of the center or a separate subdivided lot. Ms.
Connolly said that the shopping center would remain one lot of record. Mr. Rogers asked for clarification on the
proposed landscape plantings because the text on the exhibit was too small to read. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner
was present with enlarged plans for the Commission to review.
Ms. Juracek asked if stacking for five cars, as inferred from the traffic report, was satisfactory. Ms. Connolly said the
stacking was based on actual need and that the petitioner observed stacking pattern during peak usage hours. Ms.
Juracek then asked the petitioner to come forward. Four speakers were sworn in simultaneously.
Lee Winter, of Fifth Third Bank, repeatedly complimented staff on the excellent PowerPoint presentation and asked if
Ms. Connolly would work on behalf of Fifth Third Bank. Mr. Winter then continued on to state that the other
gentlemen would present various aspects of the case. Ms. Juracek asked if someone would speak on storm water
detention. Mr. Winter said their civil engineer would be able to answer questions on storm water detention.
Tom Longhi, an architect with Design Organization, presented a board that contained photos of typical buildings
constructed by Fifth Third Bank. He also presented boards of the shopping center site plan. He pointed out the
requested signage on the building elevations board and said the gentlemen from the sign company would address
questions on the signs. He also reviewed the proposed landscape plan.
Bill Van Bruggen of Van Bruggen Signs, 13401 Southwest Highway in Orland Park, came forward. He identified the
requested second monument sign adjacent to the entrance area. He said the proposed sign did meet height, size, sight
triangle, and setback regulations. He said that the existing sign at the shopping center contains the names of the
existing businesses at the center and left no room.for the bank identification. He said there would be no moving letters
on the sign and estimated it was about 65% of the size of the existing sign.
Bill Perry, a civil engineer with Compass Consulting, was sworn in and discussed stomi water detention. He explained
the present system that drains to the Rand Road sewer and said that it was adequate for the site when it was built. He
said that the new ordinance requires additional detention for disturbed areas and said they are going to add grass to
slow down the water throughout the area in addition to providing detention as required by Village Codes. He said that
they would obtain a permit from MWRD. He noted that no new impervious surface would be added and said that
some existing pavement would be removed.
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-44~02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4
Dennis Harder, of Joseph Freed & Associates, addressed the group. He said they have worked with the Village for
many years to keep the shopping center viable and hoped to continue. Ms. Juracek asked if they were reconstructing
the parking lot and was told only paving necessary for the new construction would be done. Mr. Harder explained the
proposed site lighting and landscaping plan. Richard Rogers had suggestions for landscaping and wanted additional
shrubbery added to the shopping center as a condition of approval. Ms. Juracek asked whether improvements to the
shopping center £agade would be done so the existing building would be compatible with the new bank building. Mr.
Harder said there were no immediate plans to update the fagade, but that it would be within the next ten years. Ms.
Juracek noted that the bank building would be a significant aesthetic improvement to the shopping center, but that the
existing building needed to be improved because the fagade was dated and unattractive.
Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. There being none, she closed the public hearing at 8:19.
Richard Rogers moved to approve a request for a drive-thru bank facility for Case No. PZ-44-02, with the condition
that additional, sustainable landscaping is provided along Rand Road and the interior parking lot landscape islands.
Matt Sledz seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0, Ms. Juracek said the drive-thru request would be Village Board final.
Joseph Donnelly moved to approve a Variation to allow a second freestanding sign for Case No. PZ~44-02 based on
the Subject Property's significant Rand Road frontage and 300+ foot distance between the two signs. Matt Sledz
seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0 Ms. Juracek said the Variation for the sign request was P&Z final.
At 9:35 p.m., after hearing three more cases. Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The
motion was approved by a vmce vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
H:\GEN~PLANNING\Plannlng & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2003\Minutes\PZ-44-02 Sth 3rd Bank. doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-01-03
Hearing Date: February 27. 2003
PETITIONER:
AngeloTourlis
8053 Churchill
Niles, IL 60714
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1002 Meadow Lane
PARCEL#:
03-27-307-015
PUBLICATION DATE:
February 12, 2003
REQUEST:
Conditional Use ro allow a circular driveway and Variation to install an 8'
fence
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Keith Youngquis~
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael lacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
AngetoTourlis
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the
minutes of the lanuary 23 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. The January meeting minutes were approved 5-0,
with one abstention by Arlene Juracek and one minor change. At 8:20, after hearing another case, Ms. Juracek
introduced Case No. PZ~01-03, a request for Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway and a Variation to
install an 8' fence. She said the driveway request would be Village Board final but the fence request is P&Z final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, described the request. She explained that the petitioner has requested conditional use
approval to allow the construction of a new circular driveway and a variation for an 8-foot tall fence along the rear and
side lot line. The subjecl property is zoned P,_X Single Family Residence and is bordered by single-family zoning
districts and commercial zoning to the south. The subject property is located on the south side of Meadow Lane in the
Wedgewood Subdivision. The Wedgewood Subdivision was developed under county regulations and does not have
sidewalks or curb and gutter. Also, the street pavement width is 19-feet, which is 9-feet less than the current code
requirement.
Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner is in the process of constructing a new house. The house and other site
improvements meet Village Codes. However, the proposed circular driveway requires Conditional Use approval and
the 8-foot fence reqmres a Variation.
Ms. Connolly said the proposed circular driveway measures 12-feet wide and would connect to a 'standard' 12-foot
wide driveway. The standard driveway and circular driveway would cover less than 29% of the front yard. The street
has a substandard pavement width and contains an unenclosed ditch and culvert drainage system,
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-01-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
Ms. Connotly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said that the Board
has to find that the request meets the standards to approve a Conditional Use. She said that as with other requests for
circular driveways, staff evaluated traffic patterns in addition to the neighborhood character to determine whether the
circular driveway meets the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the street pavement width is
substandard and the proposed circular driveway would be located tess than 100-feet from Rt. 83/Elrnhurst Road. She
said that Staff determined that a circular driveway would help the petitioner access Meadow Lane in a safe manner.
Also, the subject property has an oversized front yard and expansive Meadow Lane frontage. The circular driveway
would not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood or exceed the 35% front yard lot coverage
guideline.
Ms. Connolly said that in addition to the Conditional Use, the petitioner is seeking a variation to construct an 8-foot
fence along the property lines that are adjacent to the existing commercial center. She Said that the current commercial
tenants include a mortgage company, an insurance company, and a real estate office. The commercial tenants park
along the shared lot line and the petitioner would like the taller fence to screen the subject property from the
commercial use. She reported that the Zoning Ordinance allows 6-foot fences to be installed between residential and
non-residential uses. The petitioner is permitted by right to install a 6-foot fence and screen the commercial use
without requiring a variation.
Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said that the P&Z must find
that the request meets these standards in order to approve the 8-foot fence. She said that although the proposed 8-foot
fence would not adversely affect the single-family neighborhood character or the adjacent commercial property, the
petitioner's request does not meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The size and shape
of the lot is similar to other lots in the Village; the petitioner is constructing a ne~v house adjacent to an existing
commercial use and essentially creating the need for a Variation.
Ms. Connolly said the proposed circular driveway meets the Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a
recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 1002
Meadow Lane. Case No. PZ-01-03 subject to the following conditions: 1.) the east driveway should be located 5-feet
west of the existing manhole; and 2) install a storm sewer to connect the culverts beneath the driveways.
Ms. Connolly said the proposed 8-foot fence may not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, but the request
fails to meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Petitioner has the option
of installing a 6-foot fence to screen their residence from the adjacent commercial use. Based on these findings, Staff
recommends that the P&Z deny the proposed Variation to permit an 8-foot fence for the residence a~ 1002 Meadow
Lane, Case No. PZ-01-03 The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for the fence request.
Ms. Juracek asked if the house had a side-loading garage and Ms. Connolly said yes. Ms. Juracek asked where 8'
fences were allowed by Code. Ms. Connolly said 8-foot fences were allowed in industrial areas and in residential
neighborhoods where the rear lot line is adjacent to railroad tracks.
Bill Pappas of PAP Construction was sworn in to represent the petitioner. He explained that the garage was on the side
of the house ~vhere most of the traffic was so it could act as a sound barrier. He said the owner is concerned with
backing out of his driveway when cars are cueing up on Meadow Lane as they wait to get onto Elmhurst Road. He
said the owner did want an 8' fence, but Mr. Pappas realized that was not possible because of the zoning not being
industrial.
Mr. Donnelly asked if a turnaround could be executed in the area of the driveway in front of the garage to eliminate the
need to back out of the driveway. Mr. Pappas said the original plans were submitted with a turnaround at the top of the
driveway, but this was not permitted by code and the petitioner decided to pursue a Conditional Use instead of a
Variation.
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-01-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3
Ms. Juracek and Mr. Floros said they thought the position of the house and garage was understandable due to the
neighboring industry.
Ms. Juracek asked for questions from the audience, No one came forward and Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at
8:48.
Richard Rogers said he felt the petitioner created his own hardship by locating his garage on the side closest to
Elmhurst Road and that he is not in favor of circular driveways in general because they take up too much of the front
yard. He also felt they could turn around at the wide part of the driveway. Mr. Donnelly agreed and said circular
driveways usually have five or six cars parked on the driveway overnight.
Mr. Floros felt that development of this lot was favorable to the Village and concessions should be made to make the
house more accessible.
Mr. Sledz felt the homeowner should have attended the meeting to answer questions that the contractor was unable ro
answer, but he also agreed with Mr. Floros' assessment of the proposal. Merrill Cotten felt there was a definite
hardship due to the 8' ditch at the base of the driveway. Ms. Juracek said it was necessary to prove a hardship for a
Variation, but not for a Conditional Use.
Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Sledz said they would like to put a condition that no cars could be parked overnight on the
driveway beyond the front yard setback. Mike Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development, said that
condition would then become an enforcement issue, necessitating nightly policing. Ms. Juracek said she would not be
able to vote yes to the request with such a condition imposed, but would support imposing a restriction on parking on
the circular portion of the driveway.
Leo Floros moved to approve the request for a circular driveway for 1002 Meadow Lane, Case No. PZ~01-03. Merrill
Cotten seconded the motion.
Joseph Donnelly moved to amend the motion to prohibit overnight parking in the shaded area. Richard Rogers
seconded the amended motion. Voting was conducted on the amended motion first.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek
NAYS:
Motion was approved 6-0.
Voting then followed on the request for a Conditional Use for a circular driveway subject to prohibiting overnight
parking on the circular portion of the driveway.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Floros. Sledz and Juracek
NAYS: Donnelly, Rogers
Motion was approved 4-2. Ms. Juracek said this constituted a positive recommendation to the Village Board.
Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for an 8' fence for 1002 Meadow Lane, Case No. PZ-01-03. Merrill
Cotten seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-01-03
Arlene Juracek. Chairperson Page 4
NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek
Motion was denied 5-1. Ms. Juracek said the request for a Variation for an 8' fence was final with P&Z.
At 9:35 p.m., after hearing two more cases, Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The
morion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
H'\GEN ~PL~NNING\Planning & Zoning, COMM\P&Z 2003\Minute~\PZ-01-03 1002 Meadow Lane.doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-02-03
Hearing Date: February 27, 2003
PETITIONER:
Frank & Anna Panzarino
2105 W. Prendergast
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
904 Edgewood Lane
PARCEL #:
08-14-106-006
PUBLICATION DATE:
February 12, 2003
REQUEST:
Conditional Use request to allow a circular driveway
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Keith Youngquist
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Frank & Anna Panzarino
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the
minutes of the January 23 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. The January meeting minutes were approved 5-0,
with one abstention by Arlene Juracek and one minor change. At 8:51, after hearing two other cases. Ms. Juracek
introduced Case No. PZ-02-03, a request for Conditional Use approval for a circular driveway. She said the driveway
request would be Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, described the request. She explained that the petitioner has requested conditional use
approval to allow the construction of a new circular driveway. The petitioner demolished the previous house and is in
the process of constructing a new single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property is located
on the west side of Edgewood Lane and is bordered by single-family zoning districts on all sides. She said that this
neighborhood does not have sidewalks or curb and gutter, and the street pavement width is 19-feet, which is a
substandard width. The new house and related site improvements meet Village Code requirements. However, the
proposed circular driveway requires special approval. The proposed circular driveway measures 12.5-feet wide and
would connect to a standard driveway. The Petitioner's site plan shows that the proposed driveway will be constructed
of decorative brick pavers and would cover 40% of the front yard.
Ms. Connolly read the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that in order for the
Board to approve the Conditional Use, they must find that the Conditional Use meets these standards. Ms. Connolly
said staff evaluated traffic patterns in the neighborhood of the subject property and found that the street has a
substandard pavement width and the subject proper ,ty is located close to Golf Road. She said that the residence south
of the subject property has a circular driveway and that several of the houses in the neighborhood have turning pads.
The petitioner's original submittal called for a 15-foot wide circular driveway, which resulted in 51% front yard lot
coverage. However. the width was reduced to 12.5-feet, which was the minimum ;vidth the petitioner's engineer could
arrive at and still have a safe design. She said that historically staff has used the 35% front yard coverage referenced ~n
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-02-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
the Zoning Ordinance as a guideline to determine the impact of the circular driveway 0n the neighborhood character.
In this case, the proposed 40% front yard coverage is not a concern because the overall site lot coverage is less than
12%, which is significantly less than the 35% permitted by code. Also, the proposed circular driveway would be
constructed of decorative materials, and the driveway will have only one curb cut. She said that although having txvo
curb cuts would reduce the amount of pavement in the front yard, a single curb-cut allows for more on-street parking,
reduces the amount of pavement in the parkway, and provides a larger planting area for parkway trees. Therefore, staff
finds that the benefits of a single curb-cut offset the 5% 'more' lot coverage in the front yard.
Ms. Connolly said the proposed circular driveway meets the Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance. Based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a
recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 904
Edgewood Lane, Case No. PZ-02,03. The Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Frank Panzarino, 2105 W. Prendergast, was sworn in. He said Edgewood is a dark, narrow street. He said his three
children will be driving soon and would like to have a circular drive to ensure they can turn cars around on their
property before entering the street. He said there ~vould not be enough room to maneuver vehicles in front of the
garage. He said they wanted a side-loading garage because he felt the design is more attractive than front-loading
garages. He said they did not want to remove any of the trees on the property.
Anna Panzarino, 2105 W. Prendergast, was sworn ~n. She said they want to remain in Mount Prospect. She said she
has a difficult time backing out the car to the street. The driveway will be brick pavers and be very attractive.
Commission members liked the fact that the lot was large enough to accommodate the circular driveway behind the
trees on the property and would have only one curb cut. They did state their preference to allo~v a turnaround by the
garage doors rather than the circular driveway.
Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:20.
Leo Floros moved to approve the request for a conditional use for a circular driveway for 904 Edgewood Lane, Case
No, PZ-02-03. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten. Floros. Sledz and Juracek
NAYS: Donnelly and Rogers,
Motion was approved 4-2. Ms. Juracek said the circular drive request would have a positive recommendation to the
Village Board, whose decision is final.
At 9:35 p.m., after hearing another case, Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The
motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
ludy Connolly, Senior Planner
H \G E N\P LAN"Iq IN G\P1 an ning & Zoning COMivI~p&z 2003\Minutes\PZ-02-03 904 Edge~vood Lane doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-03-03
Hearing Date: February 27, 2003
PETITIONER:
Village of Mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson Street
PUBLICATION DATE:
February 12, 2003
REQUEST:
Text Amendment (Outdoor Dining)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Keith Youngqmst
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the
minutes of the January 23 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. The January meeting minutes were approved 5-0,
with one abstention by Arlene Juracek and one minor change. At 9:20, after hearing three cases, Ms. Juracek
introduced Case No. PZ-03-03, a request for Text Amendments to the Village Code, and said the case would be
Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, described the requested Text Amendment. She explained that the Village of Mount
Prospect has current regulations regarding outdoor dining areas on both public and private property. The Village's
existing regulations are included in two separate sections of the Village Code and contain some conflicting restrictions
with regards to issues such as hours of operation and design/operation reqmrements. She said that the proposed text
amendment would consolidate outdoor dining regulations to one section and eliminate any conflicting information.
Ms. Connolly said that the Village's existing outdoor dining regulations are contained in two different sections of the
Village Code: Section 9.115 - Commercial Use of Sidewalk Space, Special Permit; and Section 14.311 - Outdoor Sales
and Storage. She said that staff proposes deleting Section 9.115 in its entirety and that some of these regulations be
included with regulations currently listed in Section 14.311, which would eliminate redundancy and conflicts within
the Village Code. The staff report lists specific changes to the code, but the majority of the proposed amendments are
general "housekeeping" issues with the only substantive change to the hours of operation. Each application would be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the proposed hours of operation ;vill be compatible with surrounding
uses. In no case. however, shall the hours start before 6:00 A.M. or go past 11:00 P.M.
Ms. Connolly said that staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the
Village Board to approve the text amendments as outlined in the staff report for case PZ-03-03. She said that the
Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Ms. Juracek asked about Section 9.115, which would be deleted, and would those items be handled elsewhere in the
code. She specifically cited 9.115.b, reading "tables and chairs could not be on the sidewalk bevond the business
borders"; 9.115.e, "beer & wine must be in plastic or non-breakable containers"; 9.115.g, "tables.and chairs must be
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-03-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
removed every night". Mike Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development said, with regard to removing
furniture on a daily basis, businesses like The Corner Bakery use wrought iron furniture and it is left out at night
without problems. For a business using plastic furniture that could be blo~ving around, they would be required to
remove their furniture daily. As to limitations to keeping furniture in the borders of the establishment, Mr. Jacobs said
that was a good point and staff would ensure that requirement remained. Any questions regarding liquor would need
to comply with Section 13, Liquor Licenses, and liquor would not need to be served in plastic.
Mr. Rogers said this requested amendment seemed to be a combination of the more liberal portions of the old sections,
which he could understand, given the new types of business in the Village. Mr. Jacobs also said licenses could be
revoked for violations within 14 days and would be renewed on an annual basis to ensure control over these matters.
Mr. Cotten asked that the language regarding hours be changed so it is clear that 6 a.m. ~s the earliest start time for
outdoor dining; staff agreed.
Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at. 9:34 p.m.
Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board of the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
Case No. PZ-03-03, with two conditions 1) clarify the hours of operation and 2) include sidewalk limits text from
Chapter 9. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros. Rogers, Sledz and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
At 9:35 p.m. Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice
vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
H \GEIX PLANNIZ/~G\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2003\Minutes\PZ-03-03 Text Amend Outcioor Dlmng.doc