VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING

Transcription

1 Residents and visitors are welcome to all meetings of the Village of Riverside Board of Trustees. Public comments are welcome on any topic related to the business of the Public Body at Regular and Special Meetings. Comments may be made at any time. Individuals who wish to comment must be recognized by the Village President and then speak at the podium, beginning by identifying themselves by name and address. Any individual with a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact Village Manager Jessica Frances at least five working days in advance of the next scheduled meeting at (708) ext VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING Thursday, March 7, :00 p.m. Room 4, Riverside Township Hall, 27 Riverside Road, Riverside, IL I. Call to Order Agenda II. III. IV. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Presentations / Public Comment A. Public Comment V. Reports of Village Offices A. Village President s Report 1. Motion to appoint Bridget Doherty to the Economic Development Commission to fill a vacancy, term to expire 2020 B. Village Manager s Report VI. Approval of Consent Agenda A. Approve Voucher List of Bills March 7, 2019 B. Approve Village Board of Trustees Regular Meeting Minutes February 21, 2019 C. File and Review Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2018 D. Motion to approve a Hardscape Permit Application for the Removal, Relocation and Installation of Plaques at Guthrie Park

2 VII. VIII. IX. Reports of Departments, Commissions and Trustee Liaisons Ordinances and Resolutions A. A Resolution of the Village of Riverside, Illinois, authorizing the Village Manager to issue a purchase order to BS&A for ERP and Community Development Software Purchase and Implementation in the amount of $171,625 B. A Resolution authorizing a $76,358 Inter-Fund Transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund to fund Future Capital Expenditures Considerations A. Discussion regarding Pursuing Code Modifications and Zoning Text Amendments relative to Driveway Aprons, Driveway Width, Garage Design Standards and Incentives B. Continued Discussion of Term Limits for Elected Officials X. New Business XI. XII. Adjournment Executive Session

3 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Agenda Item V.A.1. Motion to appoint Bridget Doherty to the Economic Development Commission, to fill a vacancy, term to expire 2020 Meeting Date: March 7, 2019 Submitted By: Department: Ordinance Resolution Bid Authorization/Award Information Other PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION ACTIVITY From time to time, volunteers on various village boards and commissions retire or resign and a new volunteer must be appointed to fill the vacancy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Jessica Frances Administration The Economic Development Commission is composed of seven (7) residents with an interest and background in economic development or business. The Village President designates the chairperson of the commission. There is currently a vacancy on the Economic Development Commission due to a resignation. Pursuant to the municipal code, the Village President makes commission appointments with the advice and consent of the Board of Trustees. President Sells recommends the appointment of Bridget Doherty to the Economic Development Commission to fill a vacancy with a term that will expire in RECOMMENDATION Approve the appointment of Bridget Doherty to the Economic Development Commission to fill a vacancy. ACTION PROPOSED Action Requested: Approval Discussion Information Motion to approve the appointment of Bridget Doherty to the Economic Development Commission to fill a vacancy, term to expire 2020 Bridget Doherty Commission Application ATTACHMENTS

4 Board and Commission Volunteer Application Name City State Bridget Doherty Riverside IL Zip Code Commission(s) Applying For: Occupation Employer Economic Development Commission Agency Executive Recruiter Access Search Inc. Please specify your knowledge, expertise and/or demonstrated interest in the Commission(s) you are interested in serving: Hello! I am a sixth-generation Riverside resident; my ancestor Patrick Ronan proudly signed the original Riverside town charter. Every generation of my family has served in village positions and on village commissions/board, and I would like to give the same commitment through the Economic Development Commission. This committee aligns well with my background and skillset, but even at a more basic level: I have a deep and sincere love of this village, and as an eternal optimist, I want it to be the best that it can be - so that this town may flourish for generations beyond me. I bring formal business education in general management (marketing/operations/business law/hr) as well as focused in Accounting and Finance, paired with experience in public accounting at PricewaterhouseCoopers where I worked with small private companies throughout the country. My educational foundation and years in audit for PwC gave me understanding of, and exposure to, and empathy for, many different business owners, and many different industries. I also have experience starting two small businesses myself, as well as experience working in Forest Park Madison Avenue retail. I understand the challenges (and rewards) of sustaining and growing businesses in our immediate area. Finally, I have been an agency recruiter for the past 6 years at a boutique firm; the nature of this work has strongly developed my professional communication and relationship building skills - as well as my ability to understand the objectives of various parties, and how to develop connections and find solutions that work for all parties. I am a hardworking, energetic, positive and dedicated team member. I possess exceptional relationship building skills, and I have refined interpersonal communication/negotiating skills. I am analytical and I am skilled in identifying efficiencies. I work well on a team to problem solve and to meet goals, and I am quick to volunteer. I am creative and love a challenge. I excel in bringing people together to understand the objective or benefits of an initiative/project. I am not a very strong public speaker, but I do extremely well in group and in one-on-one exchanges. I have a skill in listening to what people have to say, and offering compromises/solutions. I am also skilled in building on others ideas to develop a concrete, organized plan. I am a very good writer (thanks to the nuns at St. Mary s and Nazareth), I also have a lot of social media experience (my own businesses/riverside Junior Women s Charity), and I am fearless with cold calling! I am very excited about the possibility of joining the EDC!

5 Volunteer Experience: Educational Background (including degree or major): Community Involvement: References: Riverside Junior Women's Charity (Chair of several fundraising and community events and lead on various efforts) Indivisible West Suburban Action League (Co- Founder/leader) Boston College - Bachelor of Management, Accounting and Finance Majors Boston College - Master of Science, Accounting Riverside Junior Women's Charity Riverside Community Garden effort Field not completed. Initial date of Residency 5/15/2014 Electronic Signature Agreement Electronic Signature I agree. Bridget K. Doherty Date 11/29/2018

6 VI.A. Village Board Voucher Report Village of Riverside MARCH 8, 2019 Payable To the President and the Board of Trustees: The following sumary by fund and attached listing of bills have been examined and approved for payment. Individual vouchers, invoices and bills are available for examination. Summary: 01 General Fund $ 164, Harlem Business District $ so Water & Sewer Fund $ 17, Parking Lot Fund $ 2.35 Grand Total $ 182, Village Manager Finance Director

7 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 1 VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION AIR ONE EQUIPMENT, INC. I FD CARINS HEIMET TOTAL VENDOR: AQUA CHILL #22 I FD WATER COOLERS/FILTERS TOTAL VENDOR: ARCHER ELECTRICAL C CREIDT ON FIRE STATION 2 BULBS I FIRE STATION 2 BULBS TOTAL VENDOR: ARCHER, JANE I ARCHER ARCHER, JANE: REC REFUND ARCHER, JANE: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: ASSOCIATED TIRE & BATTERY I BATTERY FOR R6 PW PICKUP TOTAL VENDOR: BARTLETT PARK DISTRICT I-2019 TRIP DEPOSIT CAMP FIELD TRIP DEPOSIT TOTAL VENDOR: BRADLEY-HARDESTY I BRADLEY-HAR BRADLEY-HARDESTY: REC REFUND BRADLEY-HARDESTY: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: BRUESEWITZ I BRUESEWITZ BRUESEWITZ: REC REFUND BRUESEWITZ: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: BRYANT, KIM I BRYANT BRYANT, KIM: REC REFUND BRYANT, KIM: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: ZACK BURRIS I INSTRUCTOR FEES TOTAL VENDOR: CALEDONIA SENIOR LIVING I PRISONER MEALS TOTAL VENDOR: CALL ONE ( ) I-2019 FEB/MAR PHONE SERVICE PHONE SERVICE PHONE SERVICE , PHONE SERVICE

8 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 PAGE: 2 VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION PHONE SERVICE PHONE SERVICE PHONE SERVICE PHONE SERVICE TOTAL VENDOR: 3, CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA I REC COPIER MAINTENANCE TOTAL VENDOR: CARGILL INC. SALT DIVISION I I I , STREET SALT 1, STREET SALT 6, STREET SALT TOTAL VENDOR: 14, CAROLAN, LAURA I CAROLAN ,00 CAROLAN, LAURA: REC REFUND CAROLAN, LAURA: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: CINTAS #769 I I PD KITCHEN/BATH SUPPLY PD BATHROOM CLEANING TOTAL VENDOR: CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY I I I FD STATION 1 FIRST AID CABINET PD FIRST AID CABINET STATION 2 FIRST AID CABINET TOTAL VENDOR: CLASSIC EMBROIDERY INC I KNIT CAPS FOR FIRE DEPT TOTAL VENDOR: CLIENTFIRST CONSULTING GROU I , IT SUPPORT 1, IT SUPPORT TOTAL VENDOR: 5, COMCAST CABLE I-FSl FEB-MAR I-NET6 FEB-MAR I-NET6 TV FEB-MAR I-OFFICE FEB-MAR I-PD FEB-MAR I-PW FEB-MAR I-WATER FEB-MAR TOTAL VENDOR: FSl CABLE INTERNET IN CABLE STUDIO HDTV SERVICE IN CABLE STUDIO OFFICE INTERNET PD CABLE INTERNET AT PW W 26TH ST PUMP HOUSE

9 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 3 VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION CONSTELLATION NEW ENERGY, I I , PINE PUMPING STATION TOTAL VENDOR: 1, CORE & MAIN LP I-Kl , WATER ITEMS I-Kl WATER DEPT ITEMS TOTAL VENDOR: 1, CROWN TROPHY I BOARD RECOGNITION PLAQUE TOTAL VENDOR: W. S. DARLEY & COMPANY I BRACKET/ FIRE LADDER TOTAL VENDOR: DATA MANAGEMENT INC I TIMECLOCK FEES , TIMECLOCK FEES , TIMECLOCK FEES I TIMECLOCK FEES TIMECLOCK FEES TOTAL VENDOR: 6, DEIGAN & ASSOCIATES LLC I HARLEM PROPERTY EPA REPORT TOTAL VENDOR: DOUGLAS, SUSAN I DOUGLAS DOUGLAS, SUSAN: REC REFUND DOUGLAS, SUSAN: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: ECKERT ENTERPRISES I DOOR RAIL AND SWITCH- FD 1621 TOTAL VENDOR: l EDDY, KIM I EDDY EDDY, KIM: REC REFUND EDDY, KIM: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: ELMHURST OCCUPATIONAL HEALT I BLAYLOCK PRE-EMPLOY TOTAL VENDOR: EMERGENCY MEDICAL I EMS SUPPLIES TOTAL VENDOR: EVANS, ALLISON I EVANS EVANS, ALLISON: REC REFUND EVANS, ALLISON: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: 45.00

10 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 4 VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 01 1 FISCH, KARI I FISCH FISCH, KARI: REC REFUND FISCH, KARI: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: GORDON FLESCH CO., INC. I-IN MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT MONTHLY COPIER MAINT TOTAL VENDOR: FLOOD BROTHERS DISPOSAL CO. I ELECTRONICS RECYCLING TOTAL VENDOR: FOX VALLEY FIRE I-IN RADIO MAINT TOTAL VENDOR: FOX VALLEY PARK DISTRICT I-2019 TRIP DEPOSIT FIELD TRIP DEPOSIT TOTAL VENDOR: FREEWAY FORD, INC. I PW R6 MAINT (BRAKES) I PW R6 MAINT TOTAL VENDOR: 1, FULLMER LOCKSMITH SERVICE I-Nl PD/FD REAR DOOR LOCK TOTAL VENDOR: GALL'S, INC. I DANNER BOOTS I POLYTAC LED FOR FD TOTAL VENDOR: GARVEY'S OFFICE PRODUCTS I-PINV OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES I-PINV FD OFFICE SUPPLIES I-PINV REC OFFICE SUPPLIES

11 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 5 VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION I-PINV OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES I-PINV PD OFFICE SUPPLIES I-PINV OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES I-PINV USB DRIVES FOR FD TOTAL VENDOR: GBJ SALES LLC I FD ICE MELT, SOAP/CLEANSER TOTAL VENDOR: GEORGE, JASON I GEORGE GEORGE, JASON: REC REFUND GEORGE, JASON: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: GRUNOW, KATIE I GRUNOW GRUNOW, KATIE: REC REFUND GRUNOW, KATIE: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: HARBECK, LELANI I HARBECK HARBECK, LELANI: REC REFUND HARBECK, LELANI: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: HERITAGE LOGISTICS LLC I , EMERGENCY ROAD SALT PURCHASE TOTAL VENDOR: 1, HU, SOPHIE I HU HU, SOPHIE: REC REFUND HU, SOPHIE: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: HUFFMAN, KARI I HUFFMAN HUFFMAN, KARI: REC REFUND HUFFMAN, KARI: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: IL DEPT TRANSPORTATION I , TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT TOTAL VENDOR: 1, IVY, REID I IVY IVY, REID: REC REFUND IVY, REID: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: 29.00

12 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 6 VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT!\MOUNT DESCRIPTION JACK'S I FD MOTOMIX ( 4 GALLONS) TOTAL VENDOR: JISA, VALERIE I JISA JISA, VALERIE: REC REFUND JISA, VALERIE: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: K-FIVE CONSTRUCTION CORP. I COLD PATCH FOR STREET REPAIR I COLD PATCH/ STREET REPAIR TOTAL VENDOR: DANIEL KELLEY I BLDG HEARING OFFICER TOTAL VENDOR: l KOWAL, KATHERINE I KOWAL KOWAL, KATHERINE: REC REFUND KOWAL, KATHERINE: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: LAKESHORE ATHLETIC SERV. I-2019 DEPOSIT , RACE TIMING (7/4, 8/10) TOTAL VENDOR: 2, LIPINKSI, KATHLEEN I LIPINSKI LIPINKSI, KATHLEEN: REC REFUND LIPINKSI, KATHLEEN: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: LO, SUSAN I LO LO, SUSAN: REC REFUND LO, SUSAN: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: MARTENS, NIDA I MARTENS MARTENS, NIDA: REC REFUND MARTENS, NIDA: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: MARTIN IMPLEMENT SALES I-P GRASSHOPPER BROOM TOTAL VENDOR: MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. I PW SHOP STOCK I GRASSHOPPER BROOM MAINT TOTAL VENDOR: MENARDS I so WATER DEPT SUPPLIES TOTAL VENDOR: 58.69

13 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 7 VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 VENDOR NUMBER & N.1\ME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 01 1 MONDANE, LISA I MONDANE MONDANE, LISA: REC REFUND MONDANE, LISA: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: MONDESIR, LEGIA I MONDESIR MONDESIR, LEGIA: REC REFUND MONDESIR, LEGIA: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: RAY O'HERRON CO., INC. I IN UNIFORM ITEMS JOHNSON PD I IN FD UNIFORM ITEMS MUNGUIA I IN FD UNIFORM ITEMS MORENKO I IN PD UNIFORMS BLAYLOCK I IN UNIFORM ALTERATIONS VAZQUEZ TOTAL VENDOR: OFFICE TEAM I FEB 2019 BLDG TEMP I FEB 2019 BLDG TEMP TOTAL VENDOR: 1, PISANO, JENNIFER I PISANO PISANO, JENNIFER: REC REFUND PISANO, JENNIFER: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: PITNEY BOWES, INC. I POSTAGE METER LEASE POSTAGE METER LEASE TOTAL VENDOR: RANN, EILEEN I RANN RANN, EILEEN: REC REFUND RANN, EILEEN: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: RCM DATA CORP I-IN MONTHLY PRINTER MAINT MONTHLY PRINTER MAINT MONTHLY PRINTER MAINT MONTHLY PRINTER MAINT MONTHLY PRINTER MAINT TOTAL VENDOR: RIVERA, ARMANDO I /21 PARKING HEARING OFFICER TOTAL VENDOR: RIVERSIDE GARAGE I FD EXPEDITION MAINT TOTAL VENDOR:

14 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 PAGE: VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION RIVERSIDE PUBLIC LIBRARY I-2019 JAN PPRT , JANUARY PROPERTY REPL. TAX TOTAL VENDOR: 1, RIVERSIDE UNITED METHODIST I-2019 FEBRUARY ROOM RENTAL TOTAL VENDOR: SCHEIDLER, GINA I SCHEIDLER SCHEIDLER, GINA: REC REFUND SCHEIDLER, GINA: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: SHAMROCK GARDEN FLORIST I / JURCZEWSKI FLOWERS TOTAL VENDOR: SICKEL, KRISTIN I SICKEL SICKEL, KRISTIN: REC REFUND SICKEL, KRISTIN: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: SMOLAREK, BETHANY I SMOLAREK SMOLAREK, BETHANY: REC REFUND SMOLAREK, BETHANY: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: STRAHM AUTOMATION AND MAILI I UTILITY BILLS/NEWSLETTERS UTILITY BILLS/NEWSLETTERS UTILITY BILLS/NEWSLETTERS I WATER BILLING INSERT WATER BILLING INSERT TOTAL VENDOR: 1, TOOL STORE I PW SHOP TOOLS TOTAL VENDOR: TRI-TECH FORENSICS INC I DUI KITS TOTAL VENDOR: TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC (INC I , TYLER ANNUAL MAINT , TYLER ANNUAL MAINT , TYLER ANNUAL MAINT TOTAL VENDOR: 27, VACCA, ANNA I VACCA VACCA, ANNA: REC REFUND VACCA, ANNA: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: 99.00

15 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PAGE: 9 VOUCHER LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ON 3/07/2019 VENDOR NUMBER & NAME INVOICE NUMBER G/L ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION VERIZON WIRELESS I FIRE DEPARTMENT CELL PHONES CELL PHONES- PD CELL PHONES- REC I K KURATKO CELL PHONE SERVICE K KURATKO CELL PHONE SERVICE K KURATKO CELL PHONE SERVICE I , POLICE DEPT CELL PHONES I CHIEF WEITZEL CELL PHONE I PUBLIC WORKS CELL PHONE SERV PUBLIC WORKS CELL PHONE SERV PUBLIC WORKS CELL PHONE SERV PUBLIC WORKS CELL PHONE SERV. I REC CELL PHONE SERVICE REC CELL PHONE SERVICE TOTAL VENDOR: 3, VULCAN MATERIALS I , BEDDING STONE TOTAL VENDOR: 1, WANG, JING I WANG WANG, JING: REC REFUND WANG, JING: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: WEST CENTRAL CONSOLIDATED C I-2019 MARCH , MARCH MEMBERSHIP FEE TOTAL VENDOR: 52, WEST CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT I-2019 WATERPARK DEP DEPOSIT FOR WATER PARK TRIP TOTAL VENDOR: WILLIAMS, SUZANNE I WILLIAMS WILLIAMS, SUZANNE: REC REFUND WILLIAMS, SUZANNE: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: WOZNIAK, APRIL I WOZNIAK WOZNIAK, APRIL: REC REFUND WOZNIAK, APRIL: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: YANG, GERMAINE I YANG YANG, GERMAINE: REC REFUND YANG, GERMAINE: REC REFUND TOTAL VENDOR: 9.00

16 2/26/2019 2:52 PM PACKET: Regular Payments VENDOR SET: 01 BANK AP ACCOUNTS PA ABLE A/ P CHECK REGISTER PAGE: 1 VENDOR NJ\ME / I.D. DESC CHECK fipe CHECK DATE DISCOUNT AMOUNT CHECK NO# CHECK AMOUNT RIVERSIDE GARAGE I-7728 FIRE TAHOE REPAIRS R 2/26/ CR SOCCER 2000 I SOCCER BAGS R 2/26/ CR TOTALS REGULAR CHECKS: HANDWRITTEN CHECKS: PRE-WRITE CHECKS: DRAFTS: VOID CHECKS: NON CHECKS: CORRECTIONS: NO# DISCOUNTS 0.00 o.oo CHECK AMT o.oo o.oo TOTAL APPLIED o.oo REGISTER TOTALS: TOTAL ERRORS: 0 TOTAL WARNINGS: 0

17 2/21/2019 5:32 PM A/ P CHECK REGISTER PACKET: Regular Payments VENDOR SET: 01 BANK AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAGE: 1 VENDOR NAME I I.D. DESC CHECK TYPE CHECK DATE CHECK CHECK DISCOUNT AMOUNT NO# AMOUNT FRUIT PUDDING GROUP INC I-2018 TAX REBATE 2018 TAX REBATE SAWMILLY ILLINOIS PUBLIC EMPLOYER I-2019 LAW SEMINAR 2019 LAW SEMINAR PETTY CASH I PETTY CASH PD PIZZA BAR RIVERSIDE LLC I-2018 TAX REBATE 2018 TAX REBATE TRAFFIC CONTROL & PROTECTION I STREET SIGNS WEST CENTRAL MUNICIPAL I IN DUES TREE CONSORTIUM R 2/22/2019 R 2/22/2019 R 2/22/2019 R 2/22/2019 R 2/22/2019 R 2/22/2019 3,284.46CR , CR llCR ,208.00CR , lOCR CR * * TOTALS * * NO# REGULAR CHECKS: 6 HANDWRITTEN CHECKS: 0 PRE-WRITE CHECKS: 0 DRAFTS: 0 VOID CHECKS: 0 NON CHECKS: 0 CORRECTIONS: 0 REGISTER TOTALS: 6 TOTAL ERRORS: 0 TOTAL WARNINGS: 0 DISCOUNTS CHECK AMT TOTAL APPLIED 37, , o.oo , ,990.67

18 VI.B. VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING Minutes I. Call to Order: The Regular Meeting of the Village of Riverside Board of Trustees was held on Thursday, February 21, 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 4 of the Township Hall, 27 Riverside Road, Riverside, IL. President Sells called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call: Present: President Sells Trustee Sedivy Trustee Peters Trustee Pollock Trustee Ballerine Trustee Jisa Absent: Also Present: Trustee Lumsden Village Manager Frances Village Attorney Malina Village Clerk Haley III. IV. Pledge of Allegiance Presentations / Public Comment A. Public Comment John Mach, President of the Hofmann Dam River Rats, stated that the group typically organizes two Des Plaines River cleanup days per year on the Riverside Lawn side of the river. He asked if the group would need Village Board approval or a permit from the Village to conduct a cleanup day on the Riverside side of the river. President Sells, Manager Frances and Public Works Director Bailey concurred that no permit would be required; however, participating volunteers would need to sign a liability waiver the day of each event. President Sells stated that the River Rats have the unanimous approval and thanks of the Village Board for their ongoing efforts to remove debris from the river and improve the ecosystem. V. Reports of Village Offices A. Village President s Report 1. Motion to appoint Jennifer Dvorak to the Parks & Recreation Board to fill a vacancy, term to expire 2020 President Sells stated that Ms. Dvorak will be an excellent addition to the Parks & Recreation Board and asked for a motion and second to confirm her appointment. Trustee Ballerine made a motion to approve. Trustee Peters seconded. 1

19 AYES: Trustees Sedivy, Peters, Pollock, Ballerine and Jisa. NAYS: None. Motion passed. Clerk Haley swore in Ms. Dvorak as the newest member of the Parks & Recreation Board. B. Village Manager s Report None. VI. Approval of Consent Agenda A. Approve Voucher List of Bills February 21, 2019 B. Approve Village Board of Trustees Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2019 C. File and review Board of Fire & Police Commissioners Meeting Minutes November 13, 2018 D. File and review Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 2018 E. File and review Landscape Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes October 9, 2018 and January 8, 2019 F. File and review Police Pension Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2018 G. File and review Riverside TV Commission Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 H. File and Review Community Development Department Monthly Report for January 2019 I. File and Review Finance Department Monthly Reports for December 2018 & January 2019 J. File and Review Fire Department Monthly Report for January 2019 K. File and Review Police Department Monthly Report for January 2019 L. Acceptance of 2019 Budget Document M. A Resolution authorizing the expenditure of an additional $157,000 of Motor Fuel Tax funds for the Barrypoint Road, Forest Avenue and Herrick Road 2019 Street Improvement Program N. A Resolution authorizing the expenditure of motor fuel tax funds in the amount of $100,000 for the Bloomingbank Road/Riverside Road Metra Pedestrian Access Improvement Project O. A Resolution authorizing the Village Manager to create a Purchase Order in the amount of $20,000 for 2019 Tree Planting P. A Resolution awarding a bid in the amount of $739,900 to Chicagoland Paving Contractors, Inc., for the Metra Commuter Lot #1 Green Parking Lot Project, Contingent Upon MWRD Approval, and Authorizing the Village Manager to execute a Construction Agreement President Sells read the Consent Agenda aloud and asked if any of the Trustees required an item to be removed from the Agenda for discussion. Trustee Ballerine asked that Item VI.P. be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. President Sells then called for a motion and second to approve Consent Agenda Items A. O. Trustee Ballerine made a motion to approve. Trustee Jisa seconded. AYES: Trustees Sedivy, Peters, Pollock, Ballerine and Jisa. NAYS: None. Motion passed. Discussion of Item P. A Resolution awarding a bid in the amount of $739,900 to Chicagoland Paving Contractors, Inc., for the Metra Commuter Lot #1 Green Parking Lot Project, Contingent Upon MWRD Approval, and Authorizing the Village Manager to execute a Construction Agreement Trustee Ballerine asked why Chicagoland Paving s bid was so much lower than the other bidders 2

20 and why a waiver was requested. Director Bailey stated that the village entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the MWRD last year to fund the parking lot project. The agreement includes affirmative action goals which must be met in order for MWRD to provide the funding. Bidders were required to submit plans to meet these affirmative action goals and Chicagoland Paving s initial plans did not meet the goals. Because they were the qualified low bidder, MWRD gave them an opportunity to revise their plans to achieve compliance with the affirmative action goals without increasing their price. Attorney Marrs noted that the original plans requested a partial waiver, not a full waiver, but the revised plans have been approved by MWRD. With no further discussion, President Sells called for a motion and second to approve the Resolution awarding the bid to Chicagoland Paving Contractors. Trustee Ballerine made a motion to approve. Trustee Pollock seconded. AYES: Trustees Sedivy, Peters, Pollock, Ballerine and Jisa. NAYS: None. Motion passed. VII. Reports of Departments, Commissions and Trustee Liaisons A. Update by Chief Weitzel regarding New Legislation in Illinois pertaining to Law Enforcement Chief Weitzel informed the board that there are 23 new pieces of state legislation related to law enforcement that went into effect on January 1, 2019, and all of them are unfunded mandates. He noted that there is more required training for officers and he supports that; however, he would like the state to provide at least partial funding for the new mandatory training. He noted that the only police officer training funded by the state is the Police Academy, and the state only provides 50% funding for the academy. He and several other Police Chiefs will meet with Gov. Pritzker later this year and plan to request funds for training. President Sells asked if Weitzel or the other chiefs had approached their respective Councils of Governments to seek lobbying or funding support. He noted that he is currently the Vice President of the West Central Municipal Conference and he would like to strategize with Weitzel on how they can work together on this issue. B. Update by Chief Weitzel regarding 2018 Crime Statistics Chief Weitzel stated that based on preliminary figures, overall crime in Riverside was down 5.5% in These figures do not include drug or traffic offences which are not part of the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). He acknowledged that the first two months of 2019 have been very busy for the department, but he hopes that trend will not continue for the rest of the year. DUI arrests are down 20% and the department believes ride sharing has led to the reduction in DUIs. Weitzel stated that is not uncommon to see people standing outside local restaurants at closing time waiting for Lyft or Uber drivers. Trustee Ballerine noted that the crime rate may drop off due to changes in the reportable crime criteria. Weitzel concurred, but noted that there has been no change in the UCR criteria for the last two years. He noted that drug crimes are not included in the UCR because the FBI does not consider possession of drugs a crime against a person. President Sells queried Chief Weitzel regarding the implementation of the video surveillance camera program. He noted that the Board had approved the program with the understanding that phase one of the program would be the installation of cameras at peripheral locations like Harlem Avenue, Ogden Avenue and First Avenue; however, interior installations appear to be on the fast track. Chief Weitzel stated that the installations within village boundaries could be accomplished 3

21 quickly and with limited expense because they do not require IDOT approval. Weitzel noted that Harlem, Ogden and First Avenue are all state routes under IDOT s jurisdiction and IDOT must approve installations in their Right of Way. It was also noted that nothing can be installed within 150 feet of the BNSF train tracks. President Sells asked if it would be feasible to install cameras along Harlem Avenue on privately owned buildings. Weitzel stated that it was and he intends to partner with any private property owner who is willing to work with the department. It was also noted that District 96 has agreed to the installation of the repeater at Hauser/Central School which is needed to relay the signal from peripheral cameras to the Police Department. Trustee Pollock stated that he would like staff to prepare a master plan that will show how long it will take to get surveillance cameras installed throughout the village. He also recommended moving the cameras along the periphery out of the IDOT right of way, thus eliminating the need for IDOT approval. President Sells concurred and asked that staff have a master plan ready in time for the 2020 Budget discussion. VIII. IX. Ordinances and Resolutions None. Considerations A. Discussion of Term Limits for Village Officials Manager Frances noted that the board discussed this issue at their prior meeting and directed the village attorney to research recent action on term limits in other communities. President Sells asked Attorney Marrs to explain the firm s findings. Attorney Marrs noted that he reviewed information on the Illinois State Board of Elections website, in newspaper articles and other sources and gathered data from communities primarily in Cook and DuPage Counties that had placed referendum questions regarding term limits on the ballot in the past ten years. Most of the communities who recently approved term limits implemented them on a going forward basis, while two communities approved term limits that applied retroactively. President Sells noted that if the board decides to move forward with a resolution directing placement of a referendum question on the ballot of an upcoming election, the only option for this board is the 2020 Presidential Primary Election. Trustee Ballerine stated that he is termed out, but he supports term limits. He reminded everyone that the board cannot institute term limits. It will be up to voters to decide whether or not the village should have term limits for elected officials. Ballerine would like the board to approve a resolution authorizing placement of a referendum question on the ballot. He has spoken to many people about this issue and they overwhelmingly support term limits. Trustee Sedivy concurred with Trustee Ballerine. He also believes the board should consider placing a referendum question regarding term limits on the next available ballot. He believes there are three things the board must decide: 1. Should term limits be prospective or retroactive? 2. Should term limits apply to the Board of Trustees only or should they also apply to village commissions? 3. What will the limit be? How long will someone be able to serve? 4

22 Sedivy stated that he does not think the board should approve a resolution that does not apply to current board members. He supports a referendum question calling for a limit of two consecutive terms that would apply retroactively to elected officials only, not volunteer commissioners appointed by the village president. Trustee Jisa stated that he supports a limit of two consecutive four year terms for trustees and two consecutive four year terms for the president. He does not have a problem with a trustee serving 8 years and then running for president and serving for 8 more years if elected. Trustee Peters stated that she thinks there could come a time when residents might want the ability to allow a trustee to serve more than two consecutive terms. If the board is intent on drafting a referendum question, she would support prospective, not retroactive, term limits. She also expressed concern that the new trustees who will be sworn in shortly did not go through the Caucus process and she questioned whether it was fair to impose term limits on them. She noted that in reviewing the village attorney s research, it appears that most of the term limits referendum questions which were approved were prospective and set a limit of 3 or 4 terms in office. She also noted that the communities where term limits were approved by voters have consistently had contested elections and Riverside has seldom had a contested election. Trustee Pollock questioned why his fellow trustees have developed such an interest in term limits. He asked how term limits would be beneficial to the community. He stated that term limits will result in a loss of institutional knowledge. He sees no merit in imposing term limits. Trustee Ballerine stated that he is concerned about a loss of institutional knowledge also, but noted that 80% of the items the board approves are on the Consent Agenda. This is because they are routine decisions regarding sewers and streets for example. He believes the new trustees will be able to learn as they go, just as prior trustees have. Ballerine stated that he is proud of this board s decision to join WSSRA. He noted that prior boards had contemplated the issue of special recreation for a decade. He attributed the board s ability to achieve consensus to Trustee Jisa s stewardship of the matter which was brought to the board by a group of concerned residents. Ballerine stated that incumbents are hard to beat. He questioned why anyone would even try to complete against an incumbent who has been in office for many years. He supports term limits. President Sells stated that there are 1,299 municipalities in Illinois. Only 17 have term limits. Of those, 12 municipalities have set the limit at 3 or more consecutive terms. Only 6 municipalities applied term limits retroactively and 5 of the communities that approved term limits were highly partisan environments. He stated that the only community that has proposed something similar to what the board is considering is Homer Glen. He asked if the trustees were proposing term limits because the Caucus has been disbanded. He noted that the Caucus bylaws stated that it was the intent of the Caucus not to endorse a candidate for more than 2 consecutive terms; however, there has never been a two term limit. Sells recounted a discussion that took place at a Caucus meeting last year where the group specifically discussed whether it would be possible to endorse Trustee Ballerine for a third term if he chose to run for re-election and the group was unanimous that it had the ability to do so if they felt he was the best candidate after the interview process. 5

23 Sells reminded everyone that village trustees serve without compensation or benefits. He doubts that any of the trustees have aspirations of becoming career politicians. He also stated that there is no reason to rush to enact term limits. He expressed confidence that the Caucus will be reconstituted in time for the 2021 election cycle. He also noted that it has always been difficult to get people to run for village trustee. He does not believe it is appropriate for the current board to take up the issue of term limits with just six weeks to go until three new trustees will be sworn in. He noted that the village has functioned without term limits for 144 years and questioned why some trustees now feel it is imperative to consider imposing term limits. He suggested that if those trustees truly feel that term limits is an important matter for voters to weigh in on, a referendum question should not be on the presidential primary ballot, when voter turnout is historically low and typically excludes voters who do not want to declare a party affiliation. Sells would prefer that the question appear on the ballot for the 2020 Presidential General Election in November or the next Municipal Election in He does not want the current board to take any action on term limits. He would prefer that the successor board discuss the topic. He also favors making any referendum question prospective, not retroactive. Trustee Sedivy confirmed that he attended the Caucus meeting President Sells referenced where the group discussed Trustee Ballerine; however, his recollection of what transpired differs from President Sells recollection. Sedivy stated that the group did not make any changes to the bylaws to allow Trustee Ballerine to run again. They agreed to leave the existing language in place. He stated that the village has operated under the auspices of the Caucus for 90 years and although the Caucus did not impose term limits in their bylaws, they discouraged people from serving for more than two consecutive terms and in doing so encouraged new people to participate in the governing process at regular intervals. He believes this is the reason the village has been able to avoid partisanship and the electoral strife that seems to occur in neighboring communities. Trustee Pollock asked if it would be possible to draft a referendum question that would allow voters to decide if term limits should be prospective or retroactive. Attorney Marrs stated that it would not be possible. The question must be drafted so voters can respond with either a yes or no. President Sells again stated that the Caucus does not prohibit third terms, but the bar for endorsing a candidate for a third term would be much higher than it is for endorsing a candidate for a first or second term. Sells further stated that he is certain that residents will support term limits because when they think of politics, they think of state and federal elected officials. He believes local government officials are a different type of public servant. Trustee Jisa stated that he still supports imposing term limits of 2 consecutive four year terms in each office. He believes it is appropriate for the current board to approve a resolution directing placement of a referendum question on the next available ballot. He noted that if the next board does not agree with this decision, they will have the opportunity to pass a resolution rescinding or amending it. Attorney Marrs concurred and noted that changes can be made to the ballot up to 79 days prior to the election. He is still researching the details of the time limitations for placing a referendum question on the ballot. He advised the board to wait until after March 17, 2019, to approve a resolution. 6

24 Trustee Ballerine stated that he is still undecided as to what he thinks the limit should be, but he supports having some sort of limit. He feels having term limits is in the best interest of the village. Trustee Sedivy asked about the process. Attorney Marrs noted that the board would need to approve a resolution directing a referendum question be placed on the ballot. The resolution would need to include the exact language of the proposed ballot question. President Sells asked Trustee Jisa why he supports term limits. Jisa stated that he believes having term limits is in the best interest of the village. President Sells stated that there is already a turnover problem on the village board. It has been difficult to find people to serve as trustees. He believes term limits has the potential to exacerbate this problem. He noted that in the history of the village, there has only been one village president who served three consecutive terms, and he was endorsed by the Caucus, and the village did not become a dictatorship. Trustee Sedivy reiterated his opinion that the village has functioned successfully for 90 years because of the guidance provided by the Caucus which strongly discouraged people from serving more than two consecutive terms and encouraged others to get involved. He believes it was a good system and part of what made Riverside different from neighboring communities. He expressed concern that two sitting board members now seem intent on becoming the 2 nd and 3 rd people in the history of the community to serve 3 consecutive terms. Trustee Pollock disputed Trustee Sedivy s statement that there has been turnover on the board because the Caucus discouraged third terms. He stated that there are many other communities that have not operated under the Caucus system and they also have a problem with turnover. He does not believe there is a correlation. Trustee Sedivy again noted that in the absence of Caucus guidance, there seem to be two sitting board members who intend to run for a third consecutive term. Both President Sells and Trustee Pollock denied that they have ever stated they intend to run for a third term. Trustee Jisa stated that after every board meeting, he follows up with various residents to get feedback on issues the board is discussing. He stated that he was surprised there had been opposition to discussing term limits by certain sitting board members. When he followed up with residents after the meeting, there was unanimous support for term limits among those he spoke to. Trustee Peters stated that she believes there are really two different questions at play in the community. She has no doubt that residents would support term limits for state and federal officials, but she thinks they might feel differently about term limits for local elected officials. Manager Frances asked for direction from the board. Trustees Sedivy, Jisa and Ballerine would like the village attorney to draft a resolution for discussion at the next meeting. 7

25 President Sells noted that he will not be in attendance at the 2 nd meeting in March or the 1 st meeting in April and he would like to participate in this discussion. A discussion ensued regarding the language of the draft resolution. Trustee Pollock made a motion to direct the attorney to prepare a draft resolution for consideration that calls for a limit of 3 consecutive terms per office and would be prospective. Trustee Peters seconded the motion. AYES: Trustees Sedivy, Peters, Pollock, Ballerine and Jisa. NAYS: None. Motion passed. President Sells stated that the community is fortunate that three residents stepped up to run for Village Trustee in the upcoming election. If there had not been three candidates, President Sells would have had to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. He does not believe this is what residents would want. X. New Business None. XI. Adjournment With no New Business, nothing further to discuss and no need for an Executive Session, President Sells called for a motion and second to adjourn the Regular Meeting. Trustee Ballerine made a motion to adjourn. Trustee Peters seconded the motion. AYES: Trustees Sedivy, Peters, Pollock, Ballerine and Jisa. NAYS: None. Motion passed. President Sells declared the Regular Meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Village Clerk Cathy Haley Date Approved XII. Executive Session None. 8

26 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Thursday, December 13, 2018, 7:00 pm Riverside Township Hall Room 22 VI.C. MEETING MINUTES 1. Called to Order: 7:03 pm 2. Roll Call Present: Absent: CHAIRPERSON CHARLES PIPAL VICE-CHAIRPERSON RICHARD RAY COMMISSIONER ABERDEEN MARSH OZGA COMMISSIONER PATRICIA BAUM COMMISSIONER THOMAS WALSH COMMISSIONER SANDER KAPLAN COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEARY Also Present: CD Director Abt PW Director Bailey Trustee Scott Lumsden Jeff Zuercher, Army Corps of Engineers (via telephone) Residents of Maplewood Rd. 3. Approval of the Preservation Meeting Minutes: 3.1. Minutes of the October 11, 2018 Preservation Commission Meeting COMMISSIONER BAUM noted a spelling error on page 2. COMMISSIONER WALSH motioned, seconded by COMMISSIONER KAPLAN to approve the minutes with the edits. Voice Vote. 5 Ayes. 1 Abstain Motion Passes Minutes of the November 14, 2018 Preservation Commission Special Meeting COMMISSIONER OZGA motioned, seconded by COMMISSIONER WALSH to approve the minutes. Voice Vote. 5 Ayes. 1 Abstain. Motion Passes. 4. Public Comment: Residents of Maplewood stated they would make their comments during the discussion of the floodwalls (Item 7.1). 5. Demolitions: None.

27 Preservation Commission Minutes December 13, Certificate of Appropriateness: None. 7. New Business: 7.1. Discussion and Comment to Staff and Village Board regarding proposed floodwalls along the Groveland Levee and West Ave. and their impact on the village s local landmark designation. Director Abt introduced Jeff Zuercher of the Army Corps of Engineers who joined the meeting telephonically. He stated he had another meeting to attend at 7:30 and would need to leave by then. CHAIRPERSON PIPAL introduced the topic stating the Commission would be looking at some examples of what a proposed floodwall along West Avenue and the Groveland Levee would look like and provide Staff and the Board with feedback on the impact of the proposed wall on the village s national landmark designation. Mr. Zuercher explained that the Army Corps was looking at extending the Groveland Levee south to better protect the area from flooding. The project has not been designed yet, therefore the exact locations of the floodwall have not been determined yet. He noted that the proposal includes adding a small floodwall to the top of the existing levee north of Forest Ave and then extending a floodwall south of Forest Ave to the railroad embankment to the south. He explained that a floodwall would start at Forest Ave meeting the grades and extend south. He estimated the floodwall would be approximately 6 ft. high from the current ground level and would drop down to approximately 4 ft. high as it continued south. He explained that as it approaches the embankment by the railroad the wall would drop to 2 ft. in height. Mr. Zuercher went over the different examples of what a floodwall could look like that he provided the Commission. He stated there are different form liners that can be used for the concrete to create patterns that look like brick or stone or other decorative features. The examples provided were a cobblestone finish and a fractured finish. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN asked if alternatives besides a wall had been looked at. Mr. Zuercher stated that they had looked at different alternatives, such as the railroad bridge but the only real solution to the flooding problem is a floodwall. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN also asked if a buyout had been considered. Mr. Zuercher stated that option was much more costly. CHAIRPERSON PIPAL clarified that the Commission s role is not on the merits or the necessity of the project or the wall, but the impact of a floodwall on the village s landmark district. He noted that this area was excluded in the General Plan. He also noted that ultimately this will require a Section 106 evaluation for adverse effect by the State Preservation Officer who will have the final say. pg. 2

28 Preservation Commission Minutes December 13, 2018 However he noted that they typically will ask for the Preservation Commission s recommendations. The Commissioners had several questions: How tall would the wall be by Forest Avenue? Why are they not proposing grass and plantings? Why a concrete wall rather than a more natural approach along the river? How much trees and vegetation would need to be removed? Would riprap be feasible rather than a concrete wall? Mr. Zuercher tried to answer their questions stating that there is specific elevation they need to get to and he estimates the wall would be 2-3 ft. high by the bridge and 4-6 ft. by the embankment. He also stated that vegetation within 15 ft. of the wall would need to be removed, however they would not know exactly how many trees would be removed until a final location is determined. He also noted that another levee would require more land to be acquired. He also stated that grass and dirt is not an issue for a floodwall or levee, however trees and bushes are problematic because of their larger root structures. The Maplewood neighbors raised some of their concerns including the need for the wall and discrepancy in data being utilized in models. Mr. Zuercher stated that the modeling was not what he was there to discuss and that they would have to agree to disagree for the time being. The Maplewood residents brought up concerns about a concrete wall, stating that a wall looks bad and sends a bad message, that the wall itself would be 10 ft. tall and would look terrible. They expressed concerns about the number of trees that would need to be removed to put in the wall. Some residents also brought up that there are additional structures besides a wall that would need to be installed such as pump manholes and expressed concern about how large and how visible these would be. At 7:40 PM Jeff Zuercher left the meeting. Trustee Lumsden noted that as part of the design process a topographic survey would need to be done and the Village could require a tree survey to be done as part of that so the number of trees that would be impacted would be a known quantity. He noted the importance of the design process and the surveying data it will compile. This information he felt will be critical for the Village to work with the Army Corps and the residents to address concerns and possible alternatives. He also noted that if the Village chooses to do nothing, the landbank could come in and purchase the properties and tear down the houses, similar to what is happening in Riverside Lawn. He questioned what that would look like and what impact that could have on the landmark designation. He also noted that there is a locally landmarked home in the floodplain in this area. Trustee Lumsden also brought up some interesting alternatives that are being utilized in Europe, hoping in the future the United States might adopt some of them as approved methods. pg. 3

29 Preservation Commission Minutes December 13, 2018 The Commission as a whole was concerned about the lack of clarity or detail on the wall they were supposed to be commenting on. Director Abt reiterated that at this point this is an advisory comment to Staff and the Village Board on the potential impact, if any, a floodwall would have on the village s landmark district. The Village can then share these comments and concerns with the Army Corps during the design process to see how they can be addressed or mitigated. COMMISSIONER OZGA had concerns about the impact on the landmark district. She noted the General Plan of Riverside focused on the river and utilizing topography and natural features. Infrastructure was depressed to preserve views of open spaces and natural features including the river. She believed a wall would have a definite impact on the topography of the area and the landmark district. COMMISSIONER WALSH stated that some impact on the landmark district was definite. He noted that typically they are not worried about private backyards, but in this case the backyards are visible as you cross the bridge. CHAIRPERSON PIPAL expressed concern about a 10 ft. tall wall and no vegetation and questioned when the commission would get more data. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN summarized that the Preservation Commission found that the proposed floodwalls could definitely have a negative impact on the village s national landmark district and would recommend that alternatives be explored in the design process. The other Commissioners were in agreement with this finding and asked that it be shared with the Village Board Hardscape Permit Guthrie Park Veterans Memorial Installation of a new World War I Centennial Memorial plaque. 8. Old Business: None. Director Bailey explained that the American Legion Post had achieved a World War I Memorial designation and had purchased a plaque to install at the memorial. The first choice for placing the plaque is on the side of the largest stone. The alternate choice is to place the plaque on a post in the ground at the memorial. COMMISSIONER OZGA noted that the preferred location sounded reasonable and should have no negative impact on the landmark designation. COMMISSIONER OZGA motioned to recommend approval of hardscape permit to place the plaque on the large stone monument. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN seconded the motion. AYES: WALSH, OZGA, KAPLAN, BAUM, RAY, PIPAL NAYS: NONE Motion Passes. 9. Informational Items: None. pg. 4

30 Preservation Commission Minutes December 13, Presentations of Petitions, Communications and Citizen Requests: None. 11. Adjourn COMMISSIONER BAUM made a motion to adjourn the meeting. COMMISSIONER OZGA seconded the motion. Voice vote: All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. pg. 5

31 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Agenda Item VI.D. A Motion to Approve a Hardscape Permit Application for the Removal, Relocation and Installation of Plaques at Guthrie Park Meeting Date: March 7, 2019 Submitted By: Department: Edward Bailey, Director Public Works Ordinance Resolution Bid Authorization/Award Information Other Motion PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION ACTIVITY During its January 17, 2019, regular meeting the Village Board of Trustees discussed a Hardscape Permit application for the installation of a brass World War I memorial plaque on the large granite stone that is part of the Veterans Memorial at Guthrie Park. During discussion, the Board of Trustees expressed a preference to relocate the S. Ashley Guthrie plaque from a stone on the north side of the Veterans Memorial to the Edward A. Driver memorial on the east end of Guthrie Park and install the World War I memorial plaque on the stone that formerly hosted the S. Ashley Guthrie plaque. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Department staff initiated a new Hardscape Permit application to facilitate removal and relocation of the Guthrie Park plaques as described above, as well as the installation of the World War I plaque. Since the Edward A. Driver memorial has a plaque installed on its east side, Department staff proposes installation of the S. Ashley Guthrie plaque on the west side of the Edward A. Driver memorial. In accordance with the Municipal Code, the Hardscape Permit was presented to the Landscape Advisory Commission on February 12, The Commission adopted a motion finding that the removal and relocation and installation of the plaques, as proposed, would not negatively affect the Village landscape. The Hardscape Permit application was then presented to the Preservation Commission on February 20, The Preservation Commission adopted a motion finding that the proposed removal and relocation and installation of the plaques described in the Hardscape Permit application should not have a negative impact on the Village s landmark designation. Section (D) (3) Hardscape in Public Areas states that if the Board of Trustees finds that the proposed hardscape complies with the Hardscape section and is in the public interest, the Board shall approve the application and the permit shall be issued.

32 ACTION PROPOSED Action Requested: Approval Discussion Information Motion to approve the Hardscape Permit application. Hardscape Permit Application Photographs of affected memorials and plaques ATTACHMENTS 2 P age

33

34

35

36

37 ,.,-,.. East Side Driver Memorial

38 --, , '"'... ' - West Side Driver Memorial -

39 WWl 100 CITIES MEMORIAL PLAQUE, West Creek Parkway, Suite G Richmond, VA I I All 9r:e1ph1c 1m,11J. loqo!..,hid crn,ccpturji de 1t1,1!. cont.-11m_ d within tlw, do( urnent <1'l' th(' proper t y or C. c:cjrb,, IIH. tmlt,.., 01h rw1 c not Pd.\.JDl IC, f url>t""t; Inc. 141

40 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Agenda Item VIII.A. Resolution to Approve a Purchase Order for BS&A for ERP and Community Development Software in the amount of $171,625 Meeting Date: March 7, 2019 Submitted By: Karin Johns, Director Sonya Abt, Director Department: Finance and Community Development Ordinance Resolution Bid Authorization/Award Information Other PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION ACTIVITY The purchase of new software was approved as part of the 2018 and the 2019 Capital Budgets. In 2018, the budget included new parks and recreation software, timekeeping and building permit software. The quotes for the Building Permit Software came in over the budgeted amount of $30,000; therefore, the purchase of the building software was deferred to As part of the 2019 Capital Budgeting Process, Staff proposed # purchasing both a new ERP system as well as Building Software Systems. The Board approved a budget of $77,110 for this Other Items under this line item: Peripheral software in the Capital Fund and $75,000 in the Water Sewer Equipment needed will be determined through the Fund. implementation process not to exceed $3,000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff reviewed and demoed several software systems and chose BS&A for both the ERP system and Building software system. Finance Department Budgeted Item: N/A Budgeted Amount: $152,110 Actual Cost: $171,625 Other Costs: # Yes No Account Number: # The ERP portion of the software include eight (8) modules including: General Ledger, Accounts Payable, Cash Receipting, Miscellaneous Receivables, Fixed Assets, Purchase Orders, and Utility Billing. Our current financial software is very data entry heavy relying on many items to be entered multiple times instead of having the various modules interface. Currently, the Village offers online payments for utility billing through a payment portal however this portal does not interface with the financial software therefore these payments must be manually entered into the ERP software. This payment portal offers very limited information for residents to see online. The new system will allow residents to see previous bills, usage

41 history, detailed billing information as well as the ability to pay online. The online payment feature of the new software will also automatically update other online payment types such as vehicle stickers, business licenses and other miscellaneous receivables. This is estimated to save approximately $7,000 of staff time annually. This ERP system will also help reduce the amount of paper passed throughout departments. The Accounts Payable operation will allow Finance Department staff to scan invoices into the system which each department will then be able to approve and apply to the proper GL code. This will also eliminate the need for Finance Department staff to enter that information to process that payment. Since this information will be saved digitally, it will also reduce the amount of physical storage needed for the required record retention period of 7 years. This is estimated to save approximately $4,500 of staff time annually. This updated ERP system will also change the way that the annual budget and financial forecast is handled. Staff would have the ability to enter budget requests directly into the financial software instead of large amount of shared excel documents. This software upgrade will be a substantial change in how Staff processes information and leverage the department to function more efficiently in the future. There will be substantial changes in process management to enhance these efficiencies. Currently much of the data analysis has to first be manually entered into a database that can assist; the ability to download data seamlessly will have endless benefits in leveraging staff to be more data driven and to reduce process duplication. Community Development Department The Software for the Community Development Department includes three (3) modules; Building Dept., Field Inspect and AccessMyGov. Currently the Village s permit and code enforcement systems are very paper dependent and have a number of redundancies and duplications. The Village s current building permit tracking system is an older access database. The database does not interface with the village s ERP system or with our outlook calendars to coordinate payments and inspections. The database also does not allow for field mobility. The new system will eliminate a number of the redundancies and with the incorporation of the AccessMyGov module will over time eliminate a lot of the paper used in the permit process. The Building Dept module will interface with the ERP system making payments easier to manage and track, it will also sync with Outlook so that permit system will know when an inspector is not available and allow Staff to more efficiently manage inspection schedules. This software also allows for automatic workflows and notifications which will reduce the amount of time needed to calculate fees, assign inspections, and make copies to share information within the department. All of this will reduce the amount of time it takes for Staff to process a permit. Staff estimates that this will save the Department approximately 200 Staff Hours in a year. This module s workflows will also help streamline the code enforcement process by automatically creating violation notices, creating a digital case file that can be easily ed to the Village Prosecutor and Adjudication Hearing Officer for hearing dates, and automatically scheduling re-inspections. Staff estimates this will save the Department approximately another 100 Staff hours in a year. The Field Inspect module will allow the inspectors to access their schedules on their mobile devices, enter inspection results directly into the permit system and check on permit status in the field. They will also be able to add property maintenance 2 P age

42 violations they find in the field directly into the system along with any associated photos. Staff estimates that this will save the Department approximately 100 Staff Hours in a year. AccessMyGov will allow property owners and contractors to apply for licenses and permits, to check permit status and schedule inspections online. It will also allow for online payments. As customers become more comfortable using the new system over time, this will reduce the number of phone calls the department receives regarding permit status and scheduling inspections. It will also reduce the amount of time spent entering and processing permits. Staff estimates this will save the Department an additional 200 Staff Hours in a year. The new software system will significantly improve the department s processes improving its efficiency and leveraging the department to function more efficiently in the future and better serve the community. BS&A Recommended Solution: These saved hours will allow the departments to focus on other Village priorities to better serve the Board and the community. Staff is estimating that the new software would save the village approximately $30,000/year. The annual costs associated with the software modules are $14,610. While the Village has paid for a year of support from the current ERP vendor, staff will submit for a prorated rebate when that software is no longer being used. The Village will receive a discount on the permit software modules for purchasing the ERP system as well. This brings down the cost of the software by $10,000. The costs for the upgrades have been distributed between the Capital Fund and Water Fund based upon the specific modules. ACTION PROPOSED Action Requested: Approval Discussion Information Motion to approve a Resolution Authorizing the Village Manger to Purchase Order for $171,625 for New Software from BS&A. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Authorizing the Village Manger to Purchase Order for $171,625 for New Software from BS&A BS&A Proposal 3 P age

43 RESOLUTION NO R A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS, AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE MANAGER TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO BS&A FOR ERP AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,625 WHEREAS, the Village of Riverside has a need for upgraded ERP and Community Development Software; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees deem it to be in the best interest of the Village for its Treasurer to, from time to time, perform due diligence regarding technology upgrades; and WHEREAS, the Treasurer and Community Development Director reviewed and had various software packages demonstrated, have reviewed those proposals, and made a recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees desire to authorize the Village Manager to enter into an agreement for new ERP and Community Development Software and implementation services; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, that the Village of Riverside hereby authorizes the Village Manager to issue a purchase order to BS&A for software and implementation services in the amount of $171,625. PASSED this 7 th day of March, Trustee Ballerine Trustee Jisa Trustee Lumsden Trustee Peters Trustee Pollock Trustee Sedivy APPROVED this 7 th day of March, ATTEST: Village President Benjamin Sells Village Clerk Filed in the office of the Village Clerk and published in pamphlet form by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Riverside, Cook County, Illinois this 7 th day of March, Village Clerk

44 Proposal for Software and Services, Presented to... Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Quoted by: Kevin Schafer Thank you for the opportunity to quote our software and services. At BS&A, we are focused on delivering unparalleled service, solutions, support, and customer satisfaction. You ll see this in our literature, but it s not just a marketing strategy... it s a mindset deeply embedded in our DNA. Our goal is to provide such remarkable customer service that our customers feel compelled to remark about it. We are extremely proud of the many long-term customer relationships we have built. Our success is directly correlated with putting the customer first and consistently choosing to listen. Delivering unparalleled customer service is the foundation of our company. BS&A Software Abbey Lane Bath MI (855) BSA-SOFT / fax (517) bsasoftware.com

45 Cost Summary Applications and Annual Service Fee prices based on an approximate population of 8,748 and 2,500 utility customers. Software is licensed for use only by municipality identified on the cover page. If used for additional entities or agencies, please contact BS&A for appropriate pricing. Prices subject to change if the actual count is significantly different than the estimated count. Applications Financial Management General Ledger.NET $4,475 Accounts Payable.NET $3,795 Cash Receipting.NET $3,795 Miscellaneous Receivables.NET $3,795 Fixed Assets.NET $3,795 Purchase Order.NET $3,795 Utility Billing.NET $4,000 Personnel Management Payroll.NET $4,915 Community Development Building Department.NET $5,590 Field Inspection.NET $2,350 Business License.NET $3,130 BS&A Online Community Development $3,020 Employee Self-Service $2,950 Financials $2,950 Public Records Search + Online Bill Pay With use of integrated Credit Card Processor $2,000 Subtotal $54,355 Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

46 Data Conversions/Database Setup Convert existing Tyler Incode data to BS&A format: General Ledger (COA, Balances, Budget, Up to 10 Years Journal Transaction history) $2,800 Accounts Payable (Vendors, Up to 10 years invoices and check history) $2,375 Payroll (Database Setup, Employee detail and YTD, Up to 10 years check history) $4,610 Utility Billing $4,750 Business License (Per database) $3,330 Convert existing Bob s Code MS Access to BS&A format: Building Department (Per database) $5,940 Database Setup: Fixed Assets (Setup of Assets, Entry of Value, Accumulated Depreciation) $2,375 Cash Receipting (Setup of Receipt Items/Tender Types) $1,500 Miscellaneous Receivables (Setup of Billing Items, Penalties) $1,500 No conversion or database setup to be performed for: Subtotal $29,180 Purchase Orders Field Inspection Custom Import Custom import from third-party software to populate Building Department database with parcels, properties, and current owners. $1,500 Project Management and Implementation Planning Services include: Analyzing customer processes to ensure all critical components are addressed. Creating and managing the project schedule in accordance with the customer's existing processes and needs. Planning and scheduling training around any planned process changes included in the project plan. Modifying the project schedule as needed to accommodate any changes to the scope and requirements of the project that are discovered. Providing a central contact between the customer s project leaders, developers, trainers, IT staff, conversion staff, and other resources required throughout the transition period. Installing the software and providing IT consultation for network, server, and workstation configuration and requirements. Reviewing and addressing the specifications for needed customizations to meet customer needs (when applicable). $20,500 Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 3 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

47 Implementation and Training $1,000/day Days quoted are estimates; you are billed for actual days used Services include: Setting up users and user security rights for each application Performing final process and procedure review Configuring custom settings in each application to fit the needs of the customer Setting up application integration and workflow methods Onsite verification of converted data for balancing and auditing purposes Training and Go-Live Software Setup Days: 3 $3,000 Financial Management Applications Days: 18 $18,000 Personnel Management Applications Days: 13 $13,000 Community Development Applications Days: 16 $16,000 Total: 50 Subtotal $50,000 Connection Requirements BS&A Online requires a high-speed internet connection (cable modem or DSL). Payment Processing Requirements Acceptance of online payments requires a contract with one of BS&A s approved Online Credit Card Processing companies. Please visit for information. Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 4 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

48 Cost Totals Not including Annual Service Fees Applications $54,355 Data Conversions $29,180 Custom Import $1,500 Project Management and Implementation Planning $20,500 Implementation and Training $50,000 Total Proposed $155,535 Travel Expenses $16,090 Payment Schedule 1 st Payment: $49,680 to be invoiced upon execution of this agreement. 2 nd Payment: $54,355 to be invoiced at start of training. 3 rd Payment: $67,590 to be invoiced upon completion of training. Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 5 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

49 Annual Service Fees Unlimited service and support during your first year with the program are included in your purchase price. Thereafter, Service Fees are billed annually. BS&A Software reserves the right to increase the Annual Service Fee by no more than the yearly Consumers Price Index (CPI). Financial Management General Ledger.NET $1,120 Accounts Payable.NET $950 Cash Receipting.NET $950 Purchase Order.NET $950 Fixed Assets.NET $950 Miscellaneous Receivables.NET $950 Utility Billing.NET $1,000 Personnel Management Payroll.NET $1,230 Community Development Building Department.NET $1,400 Field Inspection.NET $590 Business License.NET $785 BS&A Online Community Development $755 Employee Self-Service $740 Financials $740 Public Records Search $1,500 Total Annual Service Fees $14,610 Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 6 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

50 Optional Item(s) Program Customization BS&A strives to provide a flexible solution that can be tailored to each municipality's needs. However, in some cases, custom work may be required. Typical examples include: ` ` ` ` custom payment import/lock box import custom OCR scan-line custom journal export to an outside accounting system custom reports If you require any custom work, please let us know so that we can better understand the scope of your request and include that in a separate proposal. Cash Receipting Hardware Quantity Cost Epson Series Receipt Printer* $750 x = $ APG Cash Drawer** $250 x = $ Honeywell Hyperion 1300g Linear-Imaging Scanner $250 x = $ Credit Card Reader $75 x = $ This will add $ to the Total Proposed. *IMPORTANT. The receipt printer must be plugged into the USB port on one workstation (not your server). This printer is not to be shared with other workstations. If more than one workstation will be used for receipting, please consider purchasing more than one receipt printer. Ithaca receipt printers are not compatible with Vista or Windows 7. The Epson Series replaces the Ithaca brand and is fully compatible with those operating systems. **If using a previously-purchased receipt printer with the APG Cash Drawer, which brand will be used with the drawer? Epson Ithaca Other (please specify) Please provide the number of cash drawers that will be hooked up to the printer Additional Training - Building Department Report Designer Most of our Building Department customers heavily use our Report Designer, which is included free with the program. Report Designer Training is not included in the training quoted on this proposal and is highly recommended. You may attend a class at our office in Bath Township, or we can train at your location. Report Designer Training is typically completed in one day. Please check the option you are interested in. Report Designer Training will be scheduled after successful implementation and training of your Building Department software. Classroom training, $205/person/day On-site training (unlimited attendees), $1,000/day, travel not included Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 7 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

51 Acceptance Signature constitutes An order for products and services as quoted Quoted prices do not include Program Customization, training beyond the estimated number of days, or recommended Bank Reconciliation Consultation 2. Agreement with the proposed Annual Service Fees 3. Acceptance of BS&A's hardware recommendations required to efficiently run the.net applications Signature Date BS&A PLEDGE. We offer a one-year, risk-reversal pledge on our software. If, up to a year after installation, you are not happy with our software and service, you can return our software for a full refund. Returning Accepted Proposal to BS&A Please return the entire proposal, with signature/date (this page) and contact information (next page) filled out, by any of these methods: Mail: BS&A Software Abbey Lane Bath, MI Fax: (517) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Once your proposal is received, a BS&A representative will contact you to begin the scheduling process. Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 8 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

52 Contact Information If any mailing addresses are PO Boxes, please also provide a Street Address for UPS/Overnight mail. If additional contacts need to be submitted, please make a copy of this page. Key Contact for Implementation and Project Management Name Title Phone/Fax Mailing Address City, State, Zip IT Contact Name Title Phone/Fax Mailing Address City, State, Zip Village of Riverside, Cook County IL January 23, 2019 Page 9 of 9 Kevin Schafer, Account Executive (855) kschafer@bsasoftware.com Prices good for a period of 90 days from date on proposal

53 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Agenda Item VIII.B. A Resolution authorizing a $76,358 Inter-Fund Transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund to Fund Future Capital Expenditures Meeting Date: March 7, 2019 Submitted By: Karin Johns, Finance Director Department: Finance Department Ordinance Resolution Bid Authorization/Award Information Other PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION ACTIVITY Historically, the Village Board has funded the majority of the following years capital improvement projects with unassigned fund balance derived from the General Fund. However due to low unreserved fund balances in the General Fund projected in the 2019 Budget, the board elected to transfer over funds on a project by project basis. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with past practice, capital items lacking a revenue source are to be funded from available unassigned fund balance in the General Fund. The proposed transfer totals $76,358 for the Capital Funds portion of the ERP software and Community Development Software. This transfer will reduce the prepaid balance held by IRMA which totaled $607,348 at December 10, RECOMMENDATION Approve a Resolution Authorizing a $76,358 Inter-Fund Transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund to fund ERP and Community Development Software. ACTION PROPOSED Action Requested: Approval Discussion Information Approve a Resolution Authorizing a $76,358 Inter-Fund Transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects fund to fund specific capital expenditures. ATTACHMENTS A Resolution Authorizing a $76,358 Inter-Fund Transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund to fund capital expenditures.

54 RESOLUTION NO R A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A $76,358 INTER-FUND TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO FUND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES WHEREAS, the General Fund has unassigned funds available for corporate purposes; and WHEREAS, the Village Board would like these funds to be designated for capital purposes in the Capital Projects Fund; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, that the Village authorizes an inter-fund transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund in the amount of $76,358, not to be repaid. PASSED this 7 th day of March, Trustee Ballerine Trustee Jisa Trustee Lumsden Trustee Peters Trustee Pollock Trustee Sedivy APPROVED this 7 th day of March, ATTEST: Village Clerk Cathy Haley Village President Benjamin Sells Filed in the office of the Village Clerk and published in pamphlet form by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Riverside, Cook County, Illinois this 7 th day of March, Village Clerk

55 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Agenda Item IX.A. DISCUSSION REGARDING PURSUING CODE MODIFICATIONS AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO DRIVEWAY APRONS, DRIVEWAY WIDTH, GARAGE DESIGN STANDARDS AND INCENTIVES Meeting Date: March 7, 2019 Ordinance Submitted By: Departments: Sonya Abt, AICP, Director & Ed Bailey, Director Community Development & Public Works Resolution Bid Authorization/Award Information Other Discussion item only PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION ACTIVITY In 2018, the Village Board reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission s recommendation on zoning and other code amendments related to driveways and garages and had several concerns. The Village Board s concerns included: Nonconformities The Trustees expressed concern about creating new nonconformities on existing houses and how many properties in the Village the proposed amendments would impact. Feasibility/Restrictiveness Are the proposed text amendments feasible/buildable? Trustees wanted to ensure that vehicles could actually maneuver in the garages and driveways built to the proposed specifications. Trustees also wanted to ensure the zoning ordinance encourages reuse rather than teardowns. Driveway aprons Are the driveway apron restrictions conducive to the Village s streets? At the December 6, 2018 Village Board meeting, the Board did not approve the proposed text amendments due to these concerns. The Board asked Staff to look into the matter further and provide an update at a future date of what could or should be updated. For additional background information, the Agenda History Sheet from the December 6, 2018 agenda packet is attached for your reference. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In reviewing the Code, the consultants reports and the Commissions and Trustees feedback, Staff has outlined the following priorities that should be addressed in the Code related to driveways and garages. Conflicts between the Zoning Code and Title 8 (Public Ways and Property) regarding driveway widths and setback requirements Conflicts within the driveway apron regulations in Title 8 related to flares vs. radii.

56 Clarification on how front elevations are measured. Maximum driveway widths for attached front loaded garages. Nonconformities related to existing attached garages. Staff also suggests the Board consider adding a bonus or incentive for preferred choices for garages. (Further details will be provided below.) Driveway Aprons 1. Currently Section 8-4 of the Municipal Code restricts the width of private driveways, however the Zoning Ordinance also restricts the width of private driveways and the two codes conflict. Section 8-4 (Public Ways) restricts private driveways to a maximum 10 ft. in width, except that for attached 2-car garages a maximum 16 ft. width is allowed. Section (Zoning Code) restricts driveway widths to a maximum 10 ft. in width, except that attached front loaded garages may have driveways that may not exceed the width of the garage. Staff believes the Public Ways section should only regulate the portion of the driveway that is located in the public rightof-way (i.e. the driveway apron). Therefore Staff recommends amending this section of the code to clarify that it only pertains to the driveway apron and to add the definition of driveway apron. (This was addressed in the previous text amendment that was not adopted.) Private driveway width would be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Flares vs. Radii. The consulting architect brought up possible conflicts between the maximum 3 ft. flare requirement and the 4 ft. radius requirement in the Village Code for driveway aprons. The 3 ft. flare primarily addresses the width of the curbcut at the street; it creates a triangular additional pavement area on either side of the driveway. The 4-ft. radius requirement helps limit how far off the street the apron can be wider than the maximum driveway width. The curbcut width for a 10 ft. wide driveway with a 4 ft. radius apron is 18 ft. The curbcut width for a 10 ft. wide driveway with a 3 ft. flare is 16 ft. Using the radius vs. the flare however will actually preserve approximately 34 sq.ft. of greenspace in the parkway. Since preserving public green space is a priority for the Village, Staff recommends switching to the radius requirement and a maximum width at the curb rather than a flare requirement. The Village Engineer has provided a diagram showing the difference between the flare vs. the radius. 3. Setbacks and Encroachments. Section 8-4 of the Municipal Code also states that driveway aprons may not encroach into the neighboring property s frontage (i.e. it cannot cross the property line as extended to the street). This requirement means that driveways need to be setback at least 3-4 ft. from the side property line in order to not encroach on the neighbor s frontage. The Zoning Ordinance only requires a 1 ft. setback for driveways. Staff recommends that this restriction be removed from the driveway apron regulations. 2 P age

57 4. Shared/Abutting Driveways. The driveway apron regulations also do not address shared driveway aprons. There are a number of shared or abutting driveways throughout the village that have one common driveway apron. Staff believes the code should be amended to address these types of aprons specifically and limit the maximum curbcut width. Staff estimates it would be approximately 28 feet but this will depend on the size radius the Village chooses to utilize. 5. Curbcut Width. The Village Engineer reviewed the driveway apron regulations and utilized a model to verify whether a vehicle could turn in or pull out given the restrictions without going off the pavement. The Village Engineer s models utilized a 20 ft. wide street (which is typical in Riverside) and a 10 ft. wide driveway with the 3-ft. flares at the curb. These models show that a car can pull in or pull out without going off the pavement. The Village Engineer notes that the caveat is that no one can be parked directly across from the driveway. The Village Engineer has provided a diagram showing how wide a driveway apron would be needed to allow a vehicle to back out without having to utilize the opposite lane. The width at the street would need to be 39 ft.; obviously this is not feasible. Staff believes it would be beneficial to increase the radius from 4 ft. to 5 ft. to allow for easier movement into the driveway however it is not feasible to accommodate the unobstructed traffic movement without severely impacting the Village s parkway and landmark designation. The 5 ft. radius would still preserve greenspace in comparison to the 3 ft. flare currently allowed in the code. Additionally Staff would recommend that there be a process created for homeowners to request a wider driveway apron in cases where the angle of the driveway, the narrowness of the parkway or the curve of the road might necessitate a wider curbcut or radius. This process would require Village Board approval and a recommendation by the Village Engineer. The Preservation Commission previously discussed this scenario and was in favor of allowing a wider curbcut and/or apron in instances where the Village Engineer and/or Public Works Director deemed it necessary. Front Façade Measurements Residential Garage Design Requirements. The Zoning Ordinance currently states that an attached front loaded garage shall not exceed 50% of the width of the front façade of the house as measured along any building line that faces the street. One concern of the Planning and Zoning Commission in regards to this restriction was consistency in how that width is measured. They recommended that this be clarified by specifying what cannot be included in that width (i.e. chimneys and bay windows) and clarifying where the garage width is measured from. (This was addressed in the previous text amendment that was not adopted.) Staff recommends adding this clarification to the Zoning Code. Driveway Width Attached Garage Driveway Widths. Currently the Zoning Ordinance allows driveways associated with attached front loaded garages to be as wide as the garage they serve. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Preservation Commission both had concerns about the amount of pavement this was placing in the front yard as well as the parkways. In order to address this issue it was proposed to restrict the widths to 10 ft. in the front yard and only allow the driveway to widen to meet the garage at a certain point. 3 P age

58 Previously the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended the driveway only be allowed to be as wide as the garage for 15 ft. and then require it to taper down to 10 ft. within 25 ft. of the face of the garage. The Board had some concerns about this being too restrictive. Based on the engineer s diagram showing that a vehicle on the tapered side would not be able to back out of the driveway if someone is parked on the opposite side of the driveway Staff is recommending the following: Allow driveways to be the width of the garage for 20 ft. from the face of the garage and then require them to taper back to 10 ft. in width within 30 ft. of the face of the garage (or by the front property line whichever occurs first). A standard parking space is 18 ft. deep, by increasing the depth of the wider driveway from 15ft. to 20 ft. this would treat this area like two additional parking parking stalls and would allow a vehicle in the garage to be able to maneuver around a vehicle parked on the opposite side of the driveway in order to back out of the driveway. Nonconformities The existing Zoning Code has specific regulations on nonconforming driveways. Section (D) Existing residential driveways that are wider than permitted by this zoning ordinance may be reconstructed. Therefore any existing driveway that exceeds the maximum width requirement or does not have the newly required taper may keep their driveway at its current dimensions and may replace it to its current dimensions; even if they change building materials. Staff does not believe any changes need to be made regarding nonconforming driveways. The Village Board had concerns about both creating nonconformities on properties as well as addressing current nonconformities when the proposed text amendment adopted new guidelines for attached front loaded garages. In order to address existing non-conformities and any non-conformity that might be created by the proposed clarifications Staff proposes creating a grandfathering clause for the attached garage regulations. The grandfather clause would exempt existing structures that are in compliance with the existing zoning code from the new regulations and puts the new code (or clarifications) into effect for any new construction (including new garage additions to existing structures) after the date of adoption of the ordinance. Incentives/Bonuses - Garages Preferred or Encouraged Design Standards. Currently the Zoning Code has preferred design standards for garages, however these standards are not mandatory and there are no incentives or bonuses in the code to encourage their use. These preferred design standards are not typically used by builders. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Preservation Commission stated they would like to see attached front garages deemphasized or for builders to choose a detached garage rather than an attached front loaded garage. Therefore Staff believes that a bonus or incentive should be added to the code to encourage architects and builders to make these preferred choices. Bonuses and incentives have been effective tools used by other communities. The consulting architect brought up the following considerations: A credit system for garages where a cafeteria of options is possible rather than a blanket building coverage bonus. A person would receive credits for positive measures and give back credits for negative measures. Positive 4 P age

59 example: Narrower driveway than 10 ft. Negative example: Projection of attached garage from the front of the house rather than set back from the front of house. Could people be encouraged to use 9 ft. or even 8 ft. wide driveways in lieu of 10 ft.? A Yukon SUV is only 6-8 ½ wide. When numbers are written as maximums in codes, people often simply design to the maximum. Could greater use of pervious paving be factored into the driveway width limits? If the private driveway is classified as pervious perhaps the limit to where the driveway must begin to narrow could be eased? The consulting architect also brought up more transit oriented development considerations as well. Could the Village encourage homes within easy walking distance to established transit stops or designated bike routes to limit garage size to one car even where two would otherwise be allowed? The floor area of the foregone second car garage space could be added to the allowed size of the house, perhaps by reducing the required rear yard setback? Staff recommends considering a cafeteria plan for bonuses or bulk forgiveness to incentivize more desired or preferred choices: o Example: A maximum 400 sq.ft. building coverage bonus if the project does one or more of the following: Driveway less than 10 ft. wide: 100 sq.ft. Front load garage setback 5-18 ft. from the front façade: 50 sq.ft. Front load garage setback 18 ft. or more from front façade: 100 sq.ft. Open front porch: 50 sq.ft. Plant new tree(s) in street yard: 50 sq.ft. Detached garage (and no other garage): 200 sq.ft. Brick paver driveway or permeable driveway: 50 sq.ft. o Example: Driveways to attached front loaded garages allow to have a less restrictive taper requirement if: Build a brick paver or permeable paver driveway. Plant new tree(s) in the street yard. Staff is looking for direction from the Village Board whether to pursue these code modifications and text amendments. ACTION PROPOSED Action Requested: Approval Discussion Information Discussion and direction to Staff on pursuing code modifications and text amendments related to driveway aprons, driveway width, garage design standards and building coverage bonuses or bulk forgiveness for new construction. December 7, 2018 Agenda History Sheet ATTACHMENTS Driveway aprons (flare vs. radii) and Vehicle Movement diagrams 5 P age

60 Prior Agenda History Sheet from December 6, 2018 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Agenda Item VIII.A. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE VILLAGE CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS Meeting Date: December 6, 2018 Submitted By: Sonya Abt, AICP, Director Department: Community Development PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION ACTIVITY Ordinance Resolution Bid Authorization/Award Information Other December 2017 Village Board Discussion The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and National Park Service had expressed some concern about demolitions and the impact new construction is having on the National Landmark Designation of the Village. The primary concern is the use of front facing attached garages. The Preservation Commission discussed the matter at their August 10, 2017 Regular Meeting. The Preservation Commissioners expressed their concern that although the Zoning Ordinance encourages rear loading garages, it does not prohibit front loaded garages and although it has standards meant to minimize the negative architectural impacts of front loaded garages, they are still being built and having a negative impact on the Village s character and therefore its landmark designation. They explained their concern that all of the new houses being built are being built with attached front loaded garages and that if that trend continues it will have a significant negative impact on the Village s National Landmark Designation. The Preservation Commission noted in their discussion that the impact of front loaded garages is not on an individual basis, but in the aggregate. As more front loaded garages are built on a block, the character of the block and the neighborhood is changed. The Commission noted that Olmsted s plan talks about the life of a street and it inviting strolling and conversation; by changing the focus to vehicles by placing the garages in the front, it changes the purpose and character of the street. Their objection/concern focuses on the preservation of the General Plan. The original design by Olmsted was to minimize the view of pavement, and maximize the view of the green space. The streets were depressed; the sidewalks were depressed and winding. The introduction of front loaded attached garages switches the focus to the vehicles and the pavement and the streetscape becomes vehicle centric. It changes the intentional bucolic character of the Village. The landmark designation prioritizes the general plan which includes the green space, parks and triangles and the parkways, and minimizes pavement in the parkway system. By contrast, attached front load garages add significant amounts of pavement to the front yard which are visible from the street and public space. The Village Board discussed the topic at their December Village Board meeting. A majority of the Board concurred that new development with the front loading garages does have an impact on the character of a neighborhood, especially when there are more than one. The Board directed Staff to research the matter and work with the Planning and Zoning 211

61 Commission to propose options for regulating front loaded attached garages. They also asked that the sustainability component of attached vs. detached garages be looked into as well. May 3, 2018 Village Board Discussion The Planning and Zoning Commission has discussed this topic thoroughly over several months. They have discussed driveway width limitations, determining that the driveways to attached front loaded garages are a major contributor to their overall impact on the character of the neighborhood and the Village s landmark designation, garage setbacks from the main façade, whether to prohibit 3-car front loaded attached garages, how to incentivize detached garages or rear/side loaded attached garages with new construction without compromising on impervious surface and how to overcome some of the negatives of a detached garage. The Planning and Zoning Commission created a draft text amendment with the following changes to the code to minimize the impact of attached front loaded garages and incentivize detached garages that was presented to the Village Board in May: Requiring attached front loaded garages to be setback 5 ft. from the main façade Requiring maximum 10 ft. wide driveways, except that driveways to attached front loaded garages may widen to either 6 beyond the garage doors or the walls of the garage, whichever is less. The additional width will be restricted to a maximum depth of 15 ft. from the face of the garage and then must taper to 10 ft. by the property line. Reducing the building separation requirement from 10 ft. to 3 ft. to follow the Building Code and allow detached garages to be placed closer to the house. Provide a building coverage bonus for new residential construction that builds a detached garage. Detached garages in the side yard must follow the same design guidelines and driveway restrictions as attached front loaded garages. The Village Board reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission s recommendations and draft text amendment. The Board in general was comfortable with the direction the Commission was headed with the text amendment and recommended that the commission proceed with a public hearing on the text amendment. They did however have some comments: The design guidelines needed a bit more clarification, especially if an elevation has multiple setbacks in its front elevation. Trustee Pollock recommended that the required 5 ft. setback should be measured from the farthest setback of the front façade. The Trustees were in agreement on this recommendation. The driveway taper rate needed to be defined. Trustee Pollock suggested that the tapering must meet the maximum 10 ft. width within 25 ft. of the garage façade or at the property line whichever occurs first. This he believed would provide flexibility for those properties with shallower street yards, while still adequately restricting the amount of impervious surface in the street yard for those properties with deeper street yards. The Trustees were also in agreement on this suggestion. The Board also suggested that the building code be amended so that any separation less than 10 ft. will require fire-rated construction. 2 Page 212

62 Concern about the setback restriction for attached garages as they pertain to additions/remodels onto existing homes. Trustee Lumsden expressed concern that it was too restrictive and ultimately would encourage people to tear down a house rather than remodel it. He also thought the restriction would cause more impervious surface on a property rather than less for existing houses. It was suggested that the new rules not apply to additions/remodels of existing homes and continue using the existing rules (i.e. max 5 ft. projection) in those instances. June 14, 2018 Preservation Commission Meeting The Preservation Commission reviews all zoning text amendments to comment on the effect of the proposed amendment on the historic landmark designation of the Village or on the general plan of Riverside. The Preservation Commission s comment on this proposed amendment is that although it is helpful, the Commission does not believe that the changes go far enough to protect the landmark designation. The Commission went further to state that their opinion is that front loaded garages should be banned in almost every instance with few exceptions which could be handled through the variance process based on irregular lot size or shape. The Preservation Commission stated that they believed detached garages should be encouraged or promoted and that they would generally not recommend the code be further amended to accommodate or encourage incorporating or adding attached front loaded garages into/onto existing houses. (A copy of the minutes on this discussion is attached for your consideration.) June 27, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing At the public hearing Staff explained that proposed amendment was the culmination of many months of discussion by the Commission on garages and driveways and protecting the village s landmark designation. The proposed amendments add: Additional design guidelines for attached front loaded garages Additional restrictions on the width of driveways serving front loaded attached garages Building Coverage Bonuses for new construction of detached garages Reduced required separation between detached garages and principal structures Design guidelines for detached garages located in the side yard Additional restrictions on the width of driveways serving detached garages located in the side yard. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after some discussion, decided to extend the bonus to attached rear loaded garages as well as to existing homes that choose to build a detached garage if they do not already have one including those with attached garages that are either demolished or remodeled into living space or port-coheres. Extending the bonus to existing homes would further encourage garages in the rear yards and help protect the landmark designation. The Planning and Zoning Commission also discussed the various other design guidelines for attached garages and suggested that there should be some consistency to them. The Commission recommended revising them to convey that the point of the guidelines is to choose window, door and roof treatments of the garage wall facing the street that are consistent with the architecture and design of the principle building and that deemphasize the garage. Commissioners also discussed how 3 Page 213

63 to determine or measure the frontage of the home. There was concern about bay windows or long eaves or gutters being used to extend the frontage in order to accommodate a front loaded garage. The Commission recommended utilizing the same language as used in the garage setback requirement where architectural elements such as porches or bay windows are excluded from the measurement. The Commission was not in favor of separate garage design regulations for existing homes and recommended that the guidelines apply to all homes, existing or new. The Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with the Preservation Commission that the emphasis of the code and any accommodations should be on placing garages in the rear yard. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended on a unanimous vote of 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment with their proposed changes. July 19, 2018 Village Board Action At the July 19, 2018 Village Board meeting, the Trustees tabled the vote on the Ordinance to the September 6, 2018 meeting to allow Trustees additional time to review the proposed amendments and review the Commissions discussion. Before the discussion was tabled, the Trustees asked about existing driveways and how the changes would affect them. At that time Staff stated they would be considered a non-conforming structure and would be allowed to repaired and maintained, however if they were replaced they would be required to be brought into conformance with the new code. Upon further review with the Village Attorney, there is a specific subsection for nonconforming driveways that do not meet the width requirements: (D) Existing residential driveways that are wider than permitted by this zoning ordinance may be reconstructed. Based on this section, existing driveways that serve existing attached garages would be able to be replaced within their existing footprint. For example, a homeowner would also be able to replace their existing 18 ft. wide asphalt driveway with a concrete or paver driveway within that existing footprint. September 6, 2018 Village Board Action At the September 6, 2018 Village Board meeting, the Trustees tabled the vote on the Ordinance to the December 6, 2018 meeting to allow Staff to work with engineering and architectural consultants to review the proposed code changes and provide additional documentation for the Board to review. The Village Board s concerns included: Nonconformities The Trustees expressed concern about creating new nonconformities on existing houses and how many properties in the Village the proposed amendments would impact. Feasibility/Restrictiveness Are the proposed text amendments feasible/buildable? Trustees wanted to ensure that vehicles could actually maneuver in the garages and driveways built to the proposed specifications. Trustees also wanted to ensure the zoning ordinance encourages reuse rather than teardowns. Driveway aprons Are the driveway apron restrictions conducive to the Village s streets? 4 Page 214

64 At the request of the Board, Staff asked the Village Engineer, Christopher Burke Engineering to review the proposed regulations and create models showing vehicle maneuvering. Staff also requested review by a consulting architect, Wauters Design, Inc. Barnaby Wauters has worked with the Village on previous projects including the analysis of the Water Tower paint and brick and the tuckpointing project for the Village Offices. Since the Village already had an established relationship with Mr. Wauters, Staff asked him to review the proposed amendments. Staff also utilized our GIS consultant to utilize our GIS data to determine how many attached garages are in town. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The consultants have provided reports which are attached for the Board s reference. Based on those reports below is a summary of how they address the Board s issues: Nonconformities Using our GIS system, Staff is estimating that < 30% of the Village s housing stock has attached garages. (Approximately 950 of the 3,345 parcels have attached garages.) The proposed amendment includes a grandfather clause for attached garage regulations that exempts existing structures that are in compliance with the existing zoning code from the new regulations and puts the new code into effect for any new construction (including new garage additions to existing structures) after the date of adoption of the ordinance. The existing Zoning Code has specific regulations on nonconforming driveways. Section (D) Existing residential driveways that are wider than permitted by this zoning ordinance may be reconstructed. Therefore any existing driveway that exceeds the maximum width requirement or does not have the newly required taper may keep their driveway at its current dimensions and may replace it to its current dimensions; even if they change building materials. Feasibility/Restrictiveness The Village Engineer created models based on the new ordinance to verify that a car or SUV could maneuver on a driveway built to the code requirements. They used a large SUV wheelbase (Suburban) for both a front load attached garage and the side load attached garage. A copy of the vehicle turning movements exhibits is attached for your reference. According to these models a large SUV can maneuver out of the garage for the front loaded garage without going over the pavement edge. A large SUV parked in the first bay (closest to the street) of a side-load garage will go over the pavement edge approximately 1 ft. There is no issue if the SUV is parked in the 2 nd bay of the garage. The consulting architect, Wauters Design, had the following comments/feedback: Potential conflict between allowed 3 ft. flare and maximum 4 ft. radius requirements for driveway aprons. 5 Page 215

65 Minimum separation between house and detached garage. Concerned that separation of 5 ft. or less are too narrow to properly garden and can become dens for rodents or other wild animals that can burrow under foundations/slabs. Consider requiring gaps 5 ft. or less be paved. Breezeways. Should provide clarification on fire break and fire rating requirements where roofs extend between the principal residence and the detached garage. Garage door width limits seems reasonable in helping maintain the scale and character of the streetscape. Limits on garage frontage and clarifications on measurements seem prudent as proposed. Front setback for front loaded garages seems prudent as proposed. As the community did not include front load garages for generations, they seem out of character with the community so any means of deemphasizing them should help maintain or restore the character of the streetscape and community. Limits on driveway aprons are a good idea. They help to limit hazards to pedestrians and cyclists and encourage reductions in the amount of paving. Limits on driveway widths between the apron and the garage doors seem prudent as proposed. Excessive paving contributes to storm water runoff, limits infusion of water back into the soil, heat island issues and the overall character of the streetscapes. Concern about 400 sq.ft. building coverage bonus. This is a considerable concession; it is not clear what the receiver of this benefit gives in exchange. Why is the 5 ft. setback from the main façade only applicable to front load attached garages? Requiring side load garages to be set back similar to front load garages would help to maintain the dominance of the principal residence along the streetscape rather than the garage. Reducing the dominance of garages on the streetscape seems to be one target for the changes overall so would seem fitting here as well. Driveway Aprons The Village Engineer reviewed the driveway apron regulations and utilized the model to verify whether a vehicle could turn in or pull out given the restrictions. The Village Engineer s models utilized a 20 ft. wide street (which is typical in Riverside) and a 10 ft. wide driveway with the 3-ft. flares at the curb. These models show that a car can pull in or pull out without going off the pavement. The Village Engineer notes that the caveat is that no one can be parked directly across from the driveway. The Village Engineer has provided a diagram showing how wide a driveway apron would be needed to allow a vehicle to back out without having to utilize the opposite lane. The width at the street would need to be 39 ft. The consulting architect also brought up possible conflicts between the maximum 3 ft. flare requirement and the 4 ft. radius requirement in the Village Code for driveway aprons. The Village Engineer has provided a diagram showing the difference between the 3 ft. flare vs. the 4 ft. radius. The 3 ft. flare primarily addresses the width of the curbcut at the street; it creates a triangular additional pavement area on either side of the driveway. The 4-ft. radius requirement helps limit how far off the street the apron can be wider than 10 ft. The curbcut width for a 10 ft. wide driveway with a 4 ft. radius apron is 18 ft. however using the radius vs. the flare preserves approximately 34 sq.ft. of greenspace. The code also states that driveway aprons may not encroach into the neighboring property s frontage (i.e. it cannot cross the property line as extended to the street). This requirement means that driveways need to be setback at least 3-4 ft. from the 6 Page 216

66 side property line in order to not encroach on the neighbor s frontage, however the Zoning Ordinance only requires a 1 ft. setback for driveways. Other Considerations Other considerations brought up by the consulting architect include: Could people be encouraged to use 9 ft. or even 8 ft. wide driveways in lieu of 10 ft.? A Yukon SUV is only 6-8 ½ wide. When numbers are written as maximums in codes, people often simply design to the maximum. Could greater use of pervious paving be factored into the driveway width limits? If the private driveway is classified as pervious perhaps the limit to where the driveway must begin to narrow could be eased? To help prevent excessive garage use, has consideration been given to: o Limit garages to single car in the R1-A and double cars in the R1-AA? o Limit the height of garage doors or roof spring lines? People may add unusual height to the interior of garages for storage lofts or vehicle lifts inside the garage, the appearance of such garages can detract from pleasing streetscape patterns. o A credit system for garage use where a cafeteria of options is possible rather than a blanket building coverage bonus? A person would receive credits for positive measures and give back credits for negative measures. Positive example: Narrower driveway than 10 ft. Negative example: Projection of attached garage from the front of the house rather than set back from the front of house. o Encouraging homes within easy walking distance to established transit stops or designated bike routes to limit garage size to one car even where two would otherwise be allowed. The floor area of the foregone second car garage space could be added to the allowed size of the house? Perhaps by reducing the required rear yard setback? New Urbanism principles include designing for the person and the car; design streets that people and cars can share. This can be done with narrow streets and sidewalks and by minimizing the visual impact of the garage. Narrow streets are safer to walk because they calm traffic. Creating (or maintaining) a streetscape that can be shared by people and cars includes a variety of factors not just street width and sidewalks, it includes parkway trees and landscaping, it includes pedestrian scale architecture. Pedestrian scale architecture in a residential neighborhood includes minimizing the view of front loaded garages by making them a secondary feature rather than a primary feature. It also includes homes with simple volumes scaled for a person. Other Communities Staff has also spoken with other communities that have dealt with teardowns and attached garages. Western Springs and Hinsdale both have Floor Area Ratio and Building Coverage Bonuses built into their zoning codes to encourage detached garages and better design. Both communities directors have stated that over the past decade or more the builders/ homeowners have more often chosen a detached garage in order to have more living space and a more pleasing front facade. These communities both regulate Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in addition to building coverage and impervious 7 Page 217

67 surface. Both communities provide a Floor Area Ratio Bonus as well as a Building Coverage Bonus for detached garages. (Western Spring s ordinance allows the bonuses for all garages.) Staff Responses/Comments: Driveway aprons: o The restriction that driveway aprons cannot encroach on the neighbors frontage should be removed as it is in conflict with the Zoning Code 1 ft. setback requirement for driveways. o Staff would recommend switching to a radius rather than a flare for driveway aprons to minimize pavement in the parkway. o Code should be revised to address shared/abutting driveway aprons. o Village Board should consider if driveway aprons should be widened to allow a vehicle to make the required movement without crossing into the opposite side of the street. Factors to consider Increase pavement in the parkway Reduce parkway damage (i.e. damaged/no grass, rocks/pavers along apron, etc.) On-street parking (less space between driveway = less parking) Parkway trees (parkway trees are required to be planted a minimum of 3 ft. from a driveway and 10 ft. from any street lamp or other public utility structure) Driveway widths. o Side load Garages: Since the existing 20 ft. restriction only impacts a large SUV parked in the bay closest to the street, Staff does not believe the impact is enough to require the driveway width of 20 ft. needs to be increased. o Front load Garages: The proposed maximum 15 ft. with the taper is feasible however if a car is parked on one half of the wider driveway, a car parked in the garage on the other half will not be able to back out. Factors to consider: Most families have more than 2 cars although this trend is changing. Possible increase in on-street parking Increasing the amount of wider driveway increases the amount of pavement in the street yard Possible shifts in car ownership due to new technologies, changing demographics and availability/proximity to reliable transit. (See links to articles below.) Census survey data shows that the number of vehicles per U.S. household was 2.05 in It fell to 1.93 in 2012 and in 2016 had risen again to Garage setback from front elevation: o Side load garages. Staff agrees with the consulting architect that having the side load garage setback from the front elevation would be preferable to help further deemphasize the garage. Staff is neutral on this change. Factors to consider: The side of a side load garage facing the street does not have an overhead door The design standards state windows, door and roof treatments of the garage wall facing the street it should incorporate architecture detail expressive of a residence. 8 Page 218

68 o The design standards require the garages to be consistent with the architecture and design of the principal building which includes use of the same or compatible siding, roofing, roof pitch trim and colors. Is the impact of a side load garage the same as the impact of the front loaded garage with the 5 ft. projection? Front load garages. Staff believes that new front facing attached garages should be setback from the main façade of the house rather projecting in front of it to further deemphasize the garage. Factors to consider: Existing houses. It may be difficult to accommodate a garage addition to an existing home if it must be setback from the main façade. This may have the unintended consequence of encouraging teardowns rather than adaptive reuse. Current Development Trends in Riverside. Of the several hundred homes that have been purchased over the past 3-4 years, only 14 homes have been teardowns, while over 60 permits for additions and over 200 permits for remodels were issued. Building Separation. o Staff agrees that small separations between principal and accessory buildings can be difficult to maintain and can become nuisances. o Staff recommends changing the minimum separation from the proposed 3 ft. to 5 ft. to allow the garage to be closer to the house without creating a maintenance and nuisance issue. Garage door height: o Should the Village consider restricting garage door height for front load attached garages? o Sidewall height is restricted for detached garages to limit the height of overhead doors and reduce the ability to create living space above the garage. The maximum sidewall height is 12 ft. o Factors to consider: 8 ft. high garage doors is industry standards for residential garages Possibility of parking an RV in a garage. The Zoning Code allows one RV to be parked in the open in the rear yard (with certain size restrictions) otherwise they must be parked within a totally enclosed garage or other building. Car lifts are becoming more popular to store additional vehicles. Building Coverage Bonus: o Providing bonuses and other incentives has been an effective tool used by other communities. o Consider a cafeteria plan for bonuses or bulk forgiveness to incentivize more desired or preferred choices: A maximum 400 sq.ft. building coverage bonus if do one or more of the following: Detached garage (and no other garage): 200 sq.ft. Driveway less than 10 ft. wide: 100 sq.ft. Front load garage setback 18 ft. or more from front façade: 100 sq.ft. Open front porch: 50 sq.ft. Plant new tree(s) in street yard: 50 sq.ft. Brick paver driveway or permeable driveway: 100 sq.ft. 9 Page 219

69 Here are some links articles/reports regarding Car Ownership and Travel Trends: Governing Magazine Car Ownership Article CMAP Report: Travel Trends Standards for Text Amendments According to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation and Village Board decision on any zoning amendment, is a matter of legislative discretion that is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making their recommendation and decision, the Planning & Zoning Commission and Village Board shall consider the following standards for text amendments: A. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the village. B. The relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant. C. The consistency of the proposed amendment with village plans. D. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the intent and general regulations of this zoning ordinance. E. Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or omission, adds clarification to existing requirements, or reflects a change in policy. F. That the proposed amendment will benefit the residents of the village as a whole, and not just the applicant, property owner(s), neighbors of any property under consideration, or other special interest groups, and the extent to which the proposed use would be in the public interest and would not serve solely the interest of the applicant. G. Whether the proposed amendment provides a more workable way to achieve the intent and purposes of this zoning ordinance and the village plans. H. The extent to which the proposed amendment creates nonconformities. I. The extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall structure and organization of this zoning ordinance. Here are links to the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting videos: January Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting (begins at 1:22:08) February Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting (begins at 0:4:55 ) April Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting (begins at 0:2:22) May Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting (begins at 1:44:58) June Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing (begins at 0:6:44) ACTION PROPOSED 10 Page 220

70 Action Requested: Approval Discussion Information Motion to approve an Ordinance Amending the Village of Riverside Village Code and Zoning Ordinance Relative to Garages and Driveways. Vehicle Movement Diagrams Wauter s Design review of proposed amendment. Driveway and Driveway Apron Regulations Survey ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Amending the Village of Riverside Village Code and Zoning Ordinance Relative to Garages and Driveways Planning and Zoning Commission s Findings of Fact and background material. Preservation Commission Minutes. 11 Page 221

71 (c) 2018 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. (c) 2018 Transoft Solutions, Inc. Al rights reserved. (c) 2018 Transoft Solutions, Inc. Al rights reserved. (c) 2018 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. 39' 16' 10' P AASHTO 2001 (US) 15' 25' 20' P AASHTO 2001 (US) 9' 5' KEY P AASHTO 2001 (US) 20' LARGE SUV (SUBURBAN) 19' P AASHTO 2001 (US) 7' 20' TURING RADIUS LINES VEHICLE CENTER LINE VEHICLE TIRE PATH CLIENT: DSGN. DWN. TITLE: PROJ. NO. CHKD. DATE: 10/24/18 NO. DATE NATURE OF REVISION FILE NAME N:\RIVERSIDE\Driveway Revisions\Civil\Ref\Turning Exhibit SCALE: PLOT DATE: CAD USER: CHKD. MODEL: 1" = 20' 10/24/18 MHM RIGHT TURN OBSTRUCTED SHEET 4 OF 5 DRAWING NO. 5

72 (c) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. Al rights reserved. (c) 2019 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. (c) 2018 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. 20' 10' 20' P AASHTO 2001 (US) 5.0R' 9' P AASHTO 2001 (US) KEY 19' 20' LARGE SUV (SUBURBAN) P AASHTO 2001 (US) 7' TURING RADIUS LINES VEHICLE CENTER LINE VEHICLE TIRE PATH CLIENT: DSGN. TITLE: PROJ. NO. DWN. CHKD. DATE: 10/24/18 SCALE: PLOT DATE: 1" = 20' 10/24/18 CURB CUT ENTRY 5FT RADIUS SHEET 2 OF DRAWING NO. 5 NO. DATE NATURE OF REVISION FILE NAME N:\RIVERSIDE\Driveway Revisions\Civil\Ref\Turning Exhibit CAD USER: CHKD. MODEL: MHM 2

73 RADIUS SAVES ADDITIONAL 30SF OF GREEN SPACE 16.0' 20.0' 10.0' 10.0' 3.0' 20.0' 5.0R'R' 5.0' 13.5' CLIENT: DSGN. DWN. TITLE: PROJ. NO. CHKD. DATE: 10/24/18 NO. DATE NATURE OF REVISION FILE NAME N:\RIVERSIDE\Driveway Revisions\Civil\Ref\Turning Exhibit SCALE: PLOT DATE: CAD USER: CHKD. MODEL: 1" = 20' 3/1/19 MHM 3FT FLARE VS 5FT RADIUS SHEET 5 OF 5 DRAWING NO. 5

74 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Agenda Item IX.B. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR AND REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION OF A BINDING PUBLIC QUESTION LIMITING THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT OF THE ELECTORS OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE AT THE GENERAL PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MARCH 17, 2020 Meeting Date: March 7, 2019 Submitted By: Jessica Frances, Village Manager Department: Administration Ordinance Resolution Bid Authorization/Award Information Other Discussion Item Only PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION ACTIVITY On February 7, 2019, the Village Board discussed term limits. At that meeting, the Board directed the Village Attorney to research the law and provide options and timeframes. This matter was discussed again on February 21, Staff requested guidance from the Board regarding the question that they would like to discuss at the next meeting and also confirm the date when the Board would like to take a vote on this matter. President Sells requested that the vote take place on April 18 th. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For the Village to impose term limits, a referendum would be required. Under the Illinois Constitution all municipalities (home rule and non-home rule) have the authority "by referendum, to adopt, alter or repeal their forms of government provided by law" and "to provide by referendum for their officers, manner of selection and terms of office." Ill. Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 7. ACTION PROPOSED Action Requested: Approval Discussion Information This matter is for discussion only. ATTACHMENTS Memorandums from the Village Attorney regarding Term Limits Draft Resolution providing for and requiring the submission of a Binding Public Question

75 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR AND REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION OF A BINDING PUBLIC QUESTION LIMITING THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT OF THE ELECTORS OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE AT THE GENERAL PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MARCH 17, 2020 WHEREAS, the Village of Riverside is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is a non-home rule unit of local government; and WHEREAS, Section 28-7 of the Illinois Election Code (10 ILCS 5/28-7) provides that in any case in which Article VII of the Illinois Constitution authorizes any action to be taken by or with respect to any unit of local government, as defined in Section 1 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution, by or subject to approval by referendum, any such public question shall be initiated in accordance with such Section 28-7, either by the governing body of the unit of local government by resolution, or by the filing with the clerk of the governmental unit a petition, signed by a number of qualified electors equal to or greater than eight percent (8%) of the number of registered voters in the governmental unit, requesting the submission of the proposal for such action to the voters of the governmental unit at a regular election; and WHEREAS, Section 7 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution authorizes a municipality to provide, by referendum, for the municipality s officers, manner of selection and terms of office; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Riverside have determined that it is in the best interests of the Village of Riverside to submit to the qualified electors of the Village of Riverside a binding public question concerning whether to impose limitations on the terms of office of the Village s elected Village President and members of the Board of Trustees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Riverside find and determine that all of the recitals contained in the whereas paragraphs of this Resolution are full, true and correct and are incorporated by reference into Section 1 of this Resolution. SECTION 2: The proposition hereinafter set forth shall be submitted to the voters of the Village of Riverside (the Village ) at the General Primary Election to be held on Tuesday, the 17 th day of March, 2020, between the hours of 6:00 o'clock A.M. and 7:00 o'clock P.M. on said day (the "Election") _1

76 SECTION 3: The Election shall be held in the voting precincts and at the polling places established by the Cook County Board of Election Commissioners (the Election Board ) for voters of the Village at the Election. SECTION 4: The Village Clerk shall, not less than sixty-eight (68) days before the regularly scheduled General Primary Election to be held on March 17, 2020, certify and deliver to the County Clerk of Cook County, the proposition as hereinabove set forth to be submitted to the voters of this Village at said Election. Such certification shall include the form of the public question to be placed on the ballot, the date on which the public question was initiated by the adoption of this Resolution, and a certified copy of this Resolution. SECTION 5: Notice of said Election (the Notice ) and the referendum shall be given in accordance with the Election Code of the State of Illinois, 10 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq., (the "Election Code") by the County Clerk and by the Election Commission by (i) publishing a Notice not more than 60 nor less than 10 days prior to the date of the Election in a local, community newspaper, having general circulation in the Village, and (ii) posting a copy of the Notice at least 10 days before the date of the Election at the principal office of the County Clerk and the Election Commission, all in accordance with Article 12 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/12). SECTION 6: The Village shall also post a copy of the Notice at the principal office of the Village prior to the date of the Election in a timely manner in accordance with Section 12-5 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/12-5). SECTION 7: The Notice published by the Election Board and the County Clerk, in a community newspaper having general circulation in the Village of Riverside, shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, at the General Primary Election to be held on Tuesday, the 17 th day of March, 2020, the following proposition shall be submitted to the voters of the Village of Riverside, Cook County, Illinois: Shall the terms of office for those persons elected to the offices of Village President or Village Trustee in the Village of Riverside be limited such that no person so elected may serve more than three (3) consecutive full four (4) year terms in the office of Village Trustee, excluding terms of office served or commenced prior to April 6, 2021? The polls at said election will be open at 6:00 o'clock A.M. and will continue to be open until 7:00 o'clock P.M. of that day. Dated this day of, /s/ County Clerk, the County of Cook, Illinois _1 2

77 SECTION 8: That the ballot to be used at the Election, including the Spanish translation thereof, shall be in substantially the following form, with such necessary alterations, changes, deletions and insertions as may be required by Articles 24A, 24B or 24C of the Election Code if an electronic, mechanical or electric voting system is used at the Election: (Face of Ballot) OFFICIAL BALLOT PROPOSITION TO LIMIT THE TERMS OF OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE (INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: Mark a cross (X) in the space opposite the word indicating the way you desire to vote. Shall the terms of office for those persons elected to the offices of Village President or Village Trustee in the Village of Riverside be limited such that no person so elected may serve more than three (3) consecutive full four (4) year terms in the office of Village President, and no more than three (3) consecutive full four (4) year terms in the office of Village Trustee, excluding terms of office served or commenced prior to April 6, 2021? YES NO (Back of Paper Ballot) OFFICIAL BALLOT Official ballot for voting on the proposition to limit the terms of office of the village president and board of trustees of the village of riverside at the general primary election held on March 17, 2020 Precinct Number: _1 3

78 Polling Place: (Facsimile Signature) County Clerk, The County of Cook, Illinois SECTION 9: Where an electronic, mechanical, or electric voting system ( Electronic Voting System ) is used at the Election, a true and legible copy of the specimen ballot label to be used at the Election shall be published and made available for public distribution and shall be supplied to the judges of said Election for posting in the polling places on the date of the Election, as required by Section 24A-18 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/24A-18). SECTION 10: The Election shall be conducted by the election judges appointed by the Election Board to act in the voting precincts at which said proposition shall be submitted to the voters of the Village of Riverside. SECTION 11: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village find and determine that the Landmark and the Suburban Life are local, community newspapers having general circulation in the Village as required by Section 12-5 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/12-5); and SECTION 12: Said Election shall be held and conducted and the returns thereof duly canvassed, all in the manner and the time provided by state law. SECTION 13: All resolutions and parts thereof, in conflict herewith are repealed, and this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and upon its adoption. SECTION 14: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect after its adoption and approval as provided by law _1 4

79 ADOPTED this day of, 2019, pursuant to a roll call vote as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED by me this day of, 2019 and attested to by the Village Clerk this same day. ATTEST: CATHY HALEY, VILLAGE CLERK BENJAMIN SELLS, VILLAGE PRESIDENT _1 5

80 20 N. Wacker Drive, Ste S. Ravinia Avenue, Ste 10 Chicago, Illinois Orland Park, Illinois T F T F mamarrs@ktjlaw.com DD TO: President Benjamin Sells and Board of Trustees, Village of Riverside FROM: Michael A. Marrs DATE: February 15, 2019 RE: Term Limit Referendum Issues At the February 7, 2019 Regular Board of Trustees meeting, the Board had an initial discussion regarding a possible Village Board initiated referendum regarding term limits. KTJ was asked to provide certain information to the Board relative to a possible referendum imposing term limits. What follows is some initial information on referendums in general and a possible referendum on term limits in particular. LEGALLY BINDING REFERENDUMS: In order for a referendum question to be legally binding, the referendum must be one authorized by a particular statute (increase in limiting rate, disconnection or annexation questions, for example) or by the Illinois Constitution of Typically, the wording of a binding referendum question is dictated by the statute authorizing the referendum. Absent a statutory question tied to a particular issue per State law, the Village Board does not have the ability to place a binding referendum question on the ballot, unless there is specific authority for the Board to do so under the Illinois Constitution of In addition, non-binding referendums on questions relating to public policy, also called advisory referendums, are allowed in most cases under general authorization for such questions in the Election Code. VILLAGE AUTHORITY TO VOLUNTARILY ENACT MANDATORY TERM LIMITS: The current legal requirements for candidates for Village President and members of the Board of Trustees within the Village establish the term of office but do not create further limitations on the number of terms which can be served. See Riverside Village Code, There is no express or implied authority under the Illinois Municipal Code for municipalities to adopt or impose mandatory term limits for elected officials without a binding referendum. There are some municipalities that have voluntarily adopted such limits, but there was no legal enforcement mechanism regarding such limits. Rather, there was simply an understanding and voluntary commitment by candidates in such towns to abide by the rules or guidelines recommended or adopted by the boards in such municipalities. BINDING REFERENDUM REGARDING TERM LIMITS: There is no statutory provision in the Illinois Municipal Code or other State law that expressly authorizes municipalities to impose mandatory term limits on elected officials in a municipality or to initiate a binding referendum imposing mandatory term limits. However, under the Illinois Constitution of 1970, non-home rule municipalities have the authority by referendum, to adopt, alter or repeal their forms of government provided by law and to provide by referendum for their officers, manner of selection and terms of office. Illinois _2

81 Constitution of 1970, Art. VII, Sec. 7; see also, Pechous v Slawko, 64 Ill.2d 576 (1976). The imposition of term limits would be considered a change in the form of government and/or as providing for the manner of selection and terms of office of certain officers of the Village. The Illinois Constitution and the Election Code contain provisions authorizing a citizen petition to place such Constitutionally authorized questions on the ballot as a binding referendum. Section 7 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 further empowers a municipal government to adopt a resolution or ordinance to place such a Constitutionally authorized question on the ballot for approval as a binding referendum. The specific language of such a proposition is not set forth in the Constitution or any statute. The timing and related requirements of the adoption of such a question for placement on the ballot are instead governed by the provisions of the Election Code and certain case law which addresses the nature and form of referendum questions. NEXT OPPORTUNITY FOR A REFERENDUM: The next election at which a referendum question may be placed on the ballot is the March 17, 2020 Presidential Primary Election. After that, the next opportunity is the November 3, 2020 Presidential Election. HOW EARLY MAY A QUESTION BE APPROVED FOR PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT: The Illinois Election Code specifies that a resolution or ordinance initiating the submission of a public question may specify a regular election at which the question is to be submitted that is within one (1) year of the date on which the resolution or ordinance is adopted. See 10 ILCS 5/28-2(d). The Illinois Election Code also specifies that if a resolution or ordinance initiating the submission of a public question does not specify the regularly scheduled election at which it is to be heard, that it should be submitted to referendum at the next regular election occurring not less than 79 days after the adoption of the resolution or ordinance. 10 ILCS 5/28-2(e). We are currently researching whether the one (1) year limitation in subsection (d) applies to subsection (e) as well. If it does, the Board would not be able to approve a resolution specifying a binding term limits referendum question prior to March 17, ABILITY OF A SUBSEQUENT BOARD TO UNDO THE RESOLUTION: As discussed at the initial February 7, 2019 discussion on term limits, once membership on the Village Board changes in May, 2019, the new Board could undo or change the referendum question approved by the current Board, even if the previous question had been previously certified to the election authorities, so long as it took action more than 79 days prior to the March 17, 2020 Presidential Primary Election. RETROACTIVITY: Our initial research indicates that most term limit referendums in Illinois have been prospective only, meaning the limits apply to consecutive terms served after the referendum is approved. However, the term limits referendum at issue in the recent Illinois Supreme Court case of Johnson v. Ames, 76 N.E.3 rd 1283 (2016), was found to have been intended to apply to persons who had served consecutive terms prior to the referendum, and was upheld by the Court. The Court specifically noted in its holding that [a]ltering the eligibility requirements for candidates in future _2 2

82 elections has no retroactive impact. Therefore, a referendum question imposing term limits may be either prospective or retroactive. ADVISORY REFERENDUM: While the Board has the option of initiating an advisory referendum on term limits pursuant to its ability to put questions of public policy on the ballot, such a referendum would serve only a limited purpose as the Board has no independent authority to initiate term limits following an advisory referendum even if 100% of voters voted in favor of term limits. The Board would still need to initiate a subsequent binding referendum in order to implement term limits. WHO IS SUBJECT TO TERM LIMITS: In addition to the Board of Trustees, the Village has a number of committees, commission and boards with appointed members. Certain of those Boards are created pursuant to statute, and in those cases, a binding referendum would be necessary to impose term limits on those as well. Other than for Boards and Commissions that are statutorily required, the Board would not generally need a referendum to approve an ordinance imposing term limits for appointed officials. Should the Board desire to impose term limits on Landscape Advisory Commission members, for instance, the Board could simply do so through an amendment to the Village Code. If the Board desires to know which specific Boards and Commissions would need referendum approval in order to have term limits, we can review and compile a list upon direction. NEXT STEPS: We are compiling term limit questions posed by other Illinois municipalities for review by the Board at the next meeting, and will also provide final guidance prior at the next meeting on allowable timing for approval of the resolution authorizing the referendum question. In the meantime, the Board should further discuss and provide direction on whether it wants term limits only for the Village President and Board of Trustees, or for other Boards and Commissions requiring referendum approval as well. The Board should also determine whether it wants the referendum question to propose term limits that apply prospectively or retroactively. Once direction is provided on those points, we can draft an approving Resolution for Board discussion and action. Feel free to contact me with any questions. cc: Jessica Frances, Village Manager _2 3

83 20 N. Wacker Drive, Ste S. Ravinia Avenue, Ste 10 Chicago, Illinois Orland Park, Illinois T F T F mamarrs@ktjlaw.com DD TO: President Benjamin Sells and Board of Trustees, Village of Riverside FROM: Michael A. Marrs DATE: February 20, 2019 RE: Term Limit Referendum Questions The following is a collection of various municipal term limit referendum questions approved by voters in Illinois municipalities in recent years. The information was compiled using information from the Illinois State Board of Elections website, as well as other sources: A. COOK COUNTY: In Cook County, a number of municipalities have implemented some form of term limit legislation: 1. HARVEY: In the City of Harvey, voters decided in November 2016 that the mayor and aldermen should be limited to four consecutive four-year terms, effective April The referendum applied retroactively. The question was as follows: '"Shall the City of Harvey, Cook County, Illinois adopt the following term limits for the following Offices to be effective for and applicable to all persons who are candidates for those Offices being elected at the Consolidated Election to be held on April 2, 2019 and subsequent elections, and with all prior consecutive terms of a current officeholder counted in determining term limits for that officeholder: A) Mayor - No person may hold the office of Mayor for more than four (4) consecutive four (4) year terms; B) Alderman - No person may hold the office of Alderman for more than four (4) consecutive four (4) year terms; C) City Clerk - No person may hold the office of City Clerk for more than four (4) consecutive four (4) year terms; D) City Treasurer - No person may hold the office of City Treasurer for more than four (4) consecutive four (4) year terms?" 2. HAZEL CREST: In Hazel Crest, voters decided in April 2017 to limit the mayor, trustees and clerk to two consecutive four-year terms. The referendum was prospective. The question was as follows: Shall the Village of Hazel Crest, Cook County, Illinois, adopt Term Limits to be effective for and applicable to all persons who are candidates for those offices being elected at the Consolidated Election to be held April 4, 2017 and subsequent elections, so that no person may hold the office of Village President, Village Clerk, or Village Trustee for more than two consecutive four-year terms? 3. DOLTON: In 2018, voters in the Village of Dolton, approved limiting trustees (but not the mayor or village clerk), to no more than two consecutive terms. The question was as follows: _1