On the agenda: Indianhead Park meeting — SURVEILLANCE CAMERA (Feb 12)
Past ⚠ Agenda Watch Indian Head Park, Illinois · Thursday, February 12, 2026 — 7 months ago
About this record
The published agenda for this February 12 meeting contains: "SURVEILLANCE CAMERA". The meeting has passed; the record and its outcome live here permanently.
Check the agenda document for the meeting time.
The agenda — from the public record
Government public record — the text of the published document (large document; partial archive — read the original for the complete record), archived August 2, 2026. Gold highlighting of key terms is ours, not the original’s. Read the original document ↗
Meeting of the President and Board of Trustees
Village of Indian Head Park
201 Acacia Drive
Indian Head Park, IL 60525
Notice and Agenda
Regular Board Meeting
Thursday, February 12, 2026, 7:00 PM
Public Comments may be submitted until 4:30 p.m. the day of the meeting via
[email protected]
Persons may view the meeting on Comcast Channel 6, Facebook, and YouTube (IHP TV).
I. Call to Order & Roll Call
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Village President’s Report
A. Swearing-in of Officer Max Engstrom
B. Presentation of Life Saving Award to Corporal Marty Milas
IV. Consent Agenda-Motion to Approve
All items are considered to be routine by the Village Board and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Board Member or
member of the public so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. The purpose of
this is to consolidate and approve several routine administrative items into one motion.
A. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2025
B. Approval of Payables for the Period Ending January 31, 2025
C. Approval of Preliminary Financial Report - Month ending January 31, 2025
D. Approval of Updated Financial Policies (Budget, Capital Assets, Investment, Purchasing)
E. Approval of Resolution 2026-02: Declaring: 2017 Ford Police Interceptor, 2019 Bobcat
Predator Pro 7000 Riding Mower, 2000 Bobcat walk-behind mower as surplus property
F. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-03: Ratifying the purchase of a 2025
Ford Bronco for the Public Works Department
201 Acacia Drive Indian Head Park, Illinois 60525 - Phone (708) 246-3080 Fax (218) 220-3643
www.indianheadpark-il.gov
V. New Business
G. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-04: Suspending the purchasing rules and
ratifying the purchase of a 2025 Ford Explorer for the Village of Indian Head Park Police
Department
H. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-05:Authorizing the Village President to
Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Vicarious Multimedia for Village
Communications Services
I. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-06: Authorizing the Village President to
Execute a Professional Services Agreement with SB Friedman to provide Development
Advisory Services
J. Consideration and Approval of Ordinance 2026-05: Increasing Class AAA Liquor
Licenses for Golden Century Cafe
K. Receiving and Filing the Zoning Commission Fence Regulation Report
VI.
Old Business
VII. Public Comments
VIII. Reports
A. Trustees
B. Village Clerk
C. Village Treasurer
D. Village Attorney
E. Village Administrator
F. Department Heads
IX.
Adjournment
201 Acacia Drive Indian Head Park, Illinois 60525 - Phone (708) 246-3080 Fax (218) 220-3643
www.indianheadpark-il.gov
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
January 8, 2026
“Pursuant to 5ILCS 120/2.06(3) minutes of the public meetings shall include, but need not be
limited to a general description of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided and a record of
the votes taken.”
CALL TO ORDER: President Amy Jo Wittenberg
D
R
AF
T
I.
The regular meeting of the Village of Indian Head Park Board of Trustees was held on Thursday,
January 8, 2025, at the Municipal Facility, 201 Acacia Drive, and was convened by President
Wittenberg at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Andrez Beltran, Assistant to the Village Administrator/Village Clerk
NAME
President Amy Jo Wittenberg
Trustee Anthony Iannacco
Trustee Cristina Saldana
Trustee Charles Eck
Trustee Eileen Donnersberger
Trustee Danielle Svestka
Trustee James Gazis
PRESENT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ABSENT
Members present constituted a Quorum.
Trustee Donnersberger arrived at 7:12pm at the point noted below
ALSO PRESENT
- Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
- Rick Veenstra, Village Attorney
- Matt Walsh, Police Chief
- Joe Coons, Public Works Director
- Andrez Beltran, Assistant to the Village Administrator
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
There were five members of the public present.
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by President Wittenberg.
Board of Trustees Minutes – January 8, 2026
1
III.
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
President Wittenberg wished everyone a happy new year. She thanked the volunteers and
staff who helped make Frosty Fest a success. She noted that approximately 150 people
attended the event, which included a visit from Santa and two live reindeer. She also
noted that a food drive was held for the Kelli J. O’Laughlin Memorial Foundation, with
the collected food donated to the St. Cletus Food Pantry. She expressed appreciation for
the many volunteers who helped make the event possible and thanked them for their
efforts.
IV.
CONSENT AGENDA
D
R
AF
T
A. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2025
B. Approval of Payables for the Period Ending December 31, 2025
C. Approval of Preliminary Financial Report - Month ending December 31, 2025
MOTION: Eck
SECONDED: Saldana
Mr. Morgan presented the Financial Report:
1. The Cash on Hand for November 30, 2025 included 2,194,986.54.
2. Payables for December 2025 amounted to $492,817.92.
3. Total Revenues for December 2025 amounted to $639,421.54.
4. Ending Bank Balance on December 31, 2025 was $ 2,341,590.16.
President Wittenberg asked if there were any questions.
Trustee Eck stated that he had a question on the matter. He asked if the County was
paying the Village all of the real estate taxes that were due as of the end of
mid-December, what the amount of 2,341 might have been. Mr. Morgan responded that
the amount of taxes the Village was anticipating in the first installment was a little over
$300,000 in total.
President Wittenberg stated that she assumed the Village would be receiving interest on
that payment when it came. Mr. Morgan stated that he was not certain of that. President
Wittenberg stated that the Village would need to inquire, and asked if that would be the
basis to do what they were previously discussing. Mr. Morgan stated that he could
inquire. Trustee Saldana stated that he should ask because she did not think there was a
law for that. President Wittenberg stated that they can charge the Village interest, but the
Village cannot charge them. She then stated that she was going off on a tangent and
apologized.
Hearing no further questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote on the
Consent Agenda.
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
2
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)
Aye
X
X
X
Nay
Abstain
Absent
X
X
X
The Motion PASSED unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
D. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-01: Approving an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Illinois Comptroller’s Office for the Local
Debt Recovery Program
D
R
AF
T
V.
MOTION: Gazis
SECONDED: Saldana
Mr. Morgan stated that the program would allow the Village to recover unpaid debts,
whether from water bills, tickets issued by the Police Department, parking tickets, or
code fines. He stated that there was no cost to the Village to participate in the program,
and that administrative fees were paid by the person who owed the funds. He explained
that the money would come out of any state payments the individual might be receiving;
for example, a tax return or lottery winnings. He stated that due process was honored, and
that the Village would have to go through its entire process of issuing letters notifying
people that they owed money and doing everything possible to collect the debt. He stated
that the Village could also submit debts to a collection agency, and that the last resort
would be submitting the debt to the Local Debt Recovery Program.
Trustee Eck stated that under the program, the debtor pays up to $20 for the State to
collect the debt. He asked if, if the debt was still not collected, the Village would then
have the alternative to turn it over to a collection agency. Mr. Morgan confirmed that was
correct.
Trustee Eck stated that collection agencies typically charge between 25 and 50 percent of
the debt they collect, and noted that this was a substantial amount. Mr. Morgan stated that
the collection agency would take that amount out of the debt that was collected, but that
the Village would still receive more than when nothing was collected.
President Wittenberg stated that the Village currently uses a debt collection agency. She
explained that the process was first attempting to collect through letters sent to the person
who owes the money. The second step was turning the debt over to a collection agency
approved by the Board about two years ago. She stated that this process would still be in
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
3
effect. She explained that the third option would now be sending the debt to the collection
program offered by the State. Collection would occur through methods mentioned in the
Board packet. She stated that the money would then come to the Village automatically
and that the individual owing the debt would pay for the process. She summarized that
the Village would have three methods to collect debts and stated that staff, including Eve
and Lucy, had been very proactive about collecting money owed to the Village.
D
R
AF
T
Trustee Iannacco asked for clarification and stated that the Village would still use a debt
collection agency and that this program would be an addition rather than a replacement.
Mr. Morgan confirmed that was correct and stated that the program could be more
efficient in some ways because a debt collection agency has to pursue individuals
directly, whereas this program would deduct money from payments the State was already
issuing.
Trustee Iannacco asked if there was any reason to continue using a debt collection agency
if the Village would be receiving its money through the State regardless. Mr. Morgan
stated that this would only apply if the individual was receiving some type of payment
from the State. He stated that otherwise, it would require everyone to win the lottery.
Trustee Eck asked, as of the end of the year, roughly what the Village’s total unpaid debts
were, stating that rough numbers were acceptable. Chief Walsh stated that the Police
Department alone had unpaid debts in excess of $50,000. He stated that he could not
speak for the Village as a whole, but that the Police Department had probably collected a
little over $2,000. He stated that this program would be an additional way to help ensure
collection of the money.
Mr. Morgan stated that some of that debt went back to 2022 and noted that approximately
$28,000 had already been collected. President Wittenberg stated that she believed Eve
had collected close to $28,000 to $30,000 already.
Chief Walsh stated that was correct and clarified that he was speaking specifically to the
ability to collect through income tax intercepts. He stated that there was still about
$50,000 or more outstanding.
Mr. Morgan stated that with regard to water billing, accounts that were behind 60 days
owed approximately $3,000, and accounts that were 90 days or older owed about $9,000,
for a total of approximately $12,000 in those two categories.
Trustee Eck stated that, when rolling everything together, the total unpaid debts were
somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 as a rough estimate, and he thanked staff.
Trustee Saldana asked whether the water accounts referenced were still receiving water
or if the water had been shut off. Mr. Morgan stated that in many cases, the Village had
started payment plans. He stated that if the Village were to take advantage of the program
immediately, there was really only one water account that would be eligible, and that it
owed a substantial amount. He stated that he did not recall the specific amount offhand.
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
4
He stated that most of the accounts were now on payment plans and that the Village was
not going to cut off water during the winter due to temperatures and the risk of frozen
pipes. He stated that staff were working on the program and that Lucy had been
successful in collecting approximately $23,000 over the past few months.
President Wittenberg stated that staff had been very effective at collecting money and that
this program would provide another tool to collect additional funds. She stated that the
Village would prefer that people simply pay their bills, but that this was not always the
case.
D
R
AF
T
Mr. Morgan then invited Mr. Coons to speak. Mr. Coons stated that door hanger notices
had been used and that this approach had inspired many people to come in and make
payments.
President Wittenberg asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, she called for a
roll call vote.
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)
Aye
X
X
X
Nay
Abstain
Absent
X
X
X
The Motion PASSED unanimously.
E. Consideration and approval of Ordinance 2026-01: Approving A Redevelopment
Plan And Project For The Triangle Area TIF District
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Gazis
Trustee Donnersberger arrived at 7:12pm at this point.
Mr. Morgan stated that the next three items would be addressed one at a time. He
clarified that there would be a motion and a vote for each item, resulting in a motion and
vote for all three. He stated that these items had been discussed at the last Board meeting,
at which time the public hearing for the TIF District was held. He stated that the plan had
been shared broadly and that the Joint Review Board meeting had concurred with the
recommendation to approve.
Mr. Morgan stated that the three ordinances before the Board would authorize the
Triangle Area TIF District located at Joliet Road, Wolf Road, and Interstate 294. He
stated that the establishment of the TIF District was based on the eligibility study and that
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
5
the area met the criteria as both a conservation area and a blighted area. He stated that the
TIF would enable the use of future property tax growth to reinvest in local infrastructure
and redevelopment.
Mr. Morgan stated that the TIF District would run for a 23-year term. He stated that the
estimated redevelopment budget was 37 million, noting that this figure was a statutory
cap and not necessarily a budget or spending commitment. He explained that based on
the types of expenditures eligible for funding and the estimates included in the study, the
cap was set at 37 million.
D
R
AF
T
Mr. Morgan stated that redevelopment plans could include infrastructure improvements,
façade upgrades, remediation, site preparation, and marketing. He stated that the overall
plan and all discussions related to the TIF District were aligned with the Village’s 2015
Comprehensive Plan.
Hearing no questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote.
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)
Aye
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nay
Abstain
Absent
The motion PASSED unanimously.
F. Consideration and approval of Ordinance 2026-02: Designating The Triangle Area
TIF Redevelopment Project Area
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Iannacco
President Wittenberg asked if there was anything else from Mr. Morgan or any questions
from the Board. Hearing no questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote.
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
Aye
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nay
Abstain
Absent
6
The motion PASSED unanimously.
G. Consideration and approval of Ordinance 2026-03: Adopting Tax Increment
Financing
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Svestka
President Wittenberg asked if there was anything else from Mr. Morgan or any questions
from the Board. Hearing no questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote.
Hearing no questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote.
Aye
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nay
Abstain
Absent
D
R
AF
T
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)
The motion PASSED unanimously.
President Wittenberg thanked everyone who had worked on the TIF District in helping
establish this economic development tool for the Village.
H. Consideration And Approval Of Ordinance 2026-04: Approving A Municipal
Waste, Recycling, and Landscape Waste Services Agreement With SBC Waste
Solutions
MOTION: Eck
SECONDED: Saldana
Mr. Morgan explained that the item under consideration was a five-year agreement with
SBC Waste Solutions for all residential waste services. He noted that the agreement
included unlimited trash, recycling, and yard waste services, all without stickers. He
indicated that staff were recommending continuation of the leaf vacuuming program and
noted that the cost for that service had decreased from prior years. He added that the
agreement included free, year-round e-waste pickup with advanced scheduling through
SBC. He stated that the agreement would result in cost savings for most residents and that
HOAs already in a contract would also benefit. He noted that the annual rate increase was
three percent in the proposed agreement.
Mr. Morgan further explained that multifamily and HOA communities would see overall
savings ranging from approximately 9 to 48 percent once integrated. He stated that the
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
7
franchise agreement would apply to all residences within the Village, including HOAs
that currently had independent contracts. He explained that, as written in the ordinance
and agreed upon by all parties, those existing contracts would transition into the Village’s
franchise agreement once they expired. He noted that Mr. Flood from SBC was present to
answer questions related to specific programming and that he was available to answer
questions regarding implementation.
Trustee Iannacco asked whether the five-year agreement meant pricing would be locked
in for the entire term or whether there would be annual escalation.
D
R
AF
T
Mr. Morgan responded that there would be an escalation. He explained that the ordinance
would authorize him to finalize and execute the agreement and that the finalized version
would be shared with the Board. He noted that he had received the latest draft version
that evening from the consultant working with SBC and staff. He explained that pricing
increased annually and was detailed in the fee schedule, with different rates for each year
of the five-year term. He provided an example, noting that the 35-gallon trash and
recycling cart for a single-family residence would start at approximately 20 in year one
and increase to approximately 22.52 by year five. He confirmed that the rates would be
locked in once the contract was executed.
Trustee Iannacco asked whether the increases were tied to CPI or another factor. Mr.
Morgan responded that the increases were based on a fixed rate rather than CPI.
Mr. Morgan clarified that the rates he referenced did not apply to townhome
communities. He explained that cart and bag service for townhomes, including Ashbrook,
Indian Woods, and Chestnut on the Green, would be 18 per month in year one, with a
three percent increase each year. He noted that Acacia Townhomes would continue with
bag service as they currently do, and that Indian Ridge Condominiums would be charged
18 per month. He explained that Acacia Townhomes would start at 12.85 per month.
Mr. Morgan reiterated that the leaf vacuuming cost would be lower than the current year,
with a year-one cost of $30,000 compared to approximately $33,000 paid previously. He
explained that going out to bid and working with SBC, which now had more than five
years of experience in the Village, allowed pricing to be reduced. He thanked the Board
for allowing him to engage a consultant through the Solid Waste Agency of Northern
Cook County and thanked Trustees Eck and Gazis for serving on the waste hauling
subcommittee.
Trustee Gazis commented that he felt that under the leadership of President Wittenberg
and Mr. Morgan, the Village had corrected issues that previously existed. He stated that,
as a long-term resident, the multiple carve-outs and contract differences had not made
economic sense. He commended Trustee Eck for his role in negotiations and thanked Mr.
Flood and SBC for meeting the Village partway and demonstrating that they valued the
contract. He acknowledged the work done by staff, the consultant, and the subcommittee,
noting that the process involved many meetings and negotiations. He stated that SBC
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
8
demonstrated its commitment to the Village and expressed appreciation for the leadership
shown throughout the process.
Trustee Eck concluded by stating that he agreed with the remarks regarding the quality of
work performed by Village staff and SBC and thanked those involved. He asked whether
one point to note was that fees would no longer require stickers. Mr. Morgan confirmed
that this was correct and noted that it was a significant positive change.
D
R
AF
T
President Wittenberg added an additional note regarding another opportunity the Village
took advantage of by joining the West Cook County Solid Waste Agency. She noted that
the Village had not previously been a member and that membership provided access to
consultant Phil Kowalski. She explained that participation also allowed the Village to
take part in the Regional Disposal Program. She stated that this program enabled the
Village to achieve lower disposal costs than what had been paid previously by working
within a consortium or cooperative structure through the Solid Waste Agency. She
explained that this approach provided better pricing for trash disposal at the transfer
stations.
President Wittenberg stated that these changes represented major differences from how
the Village had handled waste disposal in the past. She thanked everyone who dedicated
time and effort to completing the work and stated that the Village could now move
forward with other important initiatives.
Hearing no questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote.
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)
Aye
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nay
Abstain
Absent
The motion PASSED unanimously.
VI.
OLD BUSINESS: NONE
VII.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Shawn Flood, President of SBC Waste Solutions, addressed the Board during public
comment. He extended greetings and New Year wishes to the Mayor, Trustees, and staff,
including Mr. Morgan and Mr. Coons. He thanked the Board for renewing trust in his
company for the new term with the Village. He offered a compliment to Trustee Saldana
regarding her outfit, noting it stood out to him, and briefly expressed enthusiasm for the
upcoming Bears game.
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
9
Mr. Flood then provided an update on leaf vacuuming operations. He noted that the figures
had been shared with Mr. Morgan. He stated that in 2025, 118.36 tons of leaves were
collected, acknowledging that snow and ice impacted operations. He noted that crews were
recently able to return and collect additional material. He provided prior-year comparisons,
stating that 123.06 tons were collected in 2023 and 133.89 tons in 2024. He indicated that
some leaves remained and explained that under the new program, residents could place
remaining material at the curb, bag it, or place it in personal carts for removal.
D
R
AF
T
Mr. Flood highlighted the proposed composting program included in the new RFP. He
explained that residents would be able to opt into the program for five dollars, regardless of
cart size, to receive a compost cart for food scraps. He indicated that he would work with
staff to educate residents on reducing landfill waste and keeping costs down. He stated that
the program would be available to all Village residents, including multifamily properties,
which could also participate at the same price point.
He discussed the upcoming yard waste season beginning in April and noted that residents
with leftover leaves could bag them, place them in personal carts, or rent a cart from SBC
for removal. He expressed enthusiasm about the new association with the Village, stating
that participation helped lower costs and allowed SBC to submit a more competitive
proposal. He stated that Indian Head Park played a key role in the company’s growth in
residential services and emphasized the importance of maintaining the partnership. He
thanked the Board for the evening’s votes and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to
continue working with the Village for the next five years.
Mr. Flood outlined additional service enhancements, including yearly curbside collection of
e-waste, paint, and hazardous materials. He explained that residents would now be able to
schedule pickups year-round rather than waiting for a single event. He noted that the new
program addressed prior issues where residents missed scheduled events. He explained that
residents could now contact the call center to arrange pickups at their convenience. He
provided examples involving new homeowners inheriting leftover materials and explained
that the new system eliminated the need to wait for seasonal events.
He stated that white goods would now be collected without the need for stickers, removing
a prior cost burden. He explained that residents would only need to contact SBC with 24
hours’ notice to schedule removal. He emphasized the convenience and cost savings,
particularly for senior residents, noting that drivers could retrieve items from near garages
or doors when coordinated through the call center.
Mr. Flood noted that a new informational flyer outlining the updated programs had been
drafted and sent to Mr. Morgan for approval. He explained that once approved, the flyer
would be mailed to all residents to educate them on the new services.
He addressed questions related to e-waste recycling, explaining that SBC partnered with
E-otronics Recycling, located in Carol Stream. He described the process of collecting
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
10
hazardous materials and coordinating bin exchanges with the recycling partner. He noted
that the partnership helped divert materials from landfills.
Regarding paint recycling, Mr. Flood explained that some paint was recycled internally by
applying it to the interiors of SBC dumpsters and compactors to protect metal surfaces and
extend their lifespan. He noted that SBC also partnered with Earth Paint, which recycled
paint into new products for resale. He explained that these practices helped mitigate rust
and wear caused by weather conditions.
D
R
AF
T
Mr. Flood concluded by thanking the Board members and staff for their diligence and
support throughout the process. He expressed appreciation for the continued partnership,
excitement for the coming years, and interest in participating in community events and
donations. He closed by inviting any additional questions.
Jim Merrion expressed that he was pleased to hear about the composting component
included in the program. He noted that four of his five children live out of state, with one in
California and three in Colorado, and stated that composting is already commonly practiced
in those areas. He explained that his children had previously lived in Chicago and had
observed how composting significantly reduced the amount of trash that would otherwise
go to a landfill. He noted that composting was not only beneficial for the environment but
also represented a progressive approach toward the future, including the use of
compostable containers from restaurants and similar sources to reduce waste.
Mr. Merrion also noted that a community survey on refuse had been conducted in the
spring. He explained that the survey collected resident preferences related to garbage
services and that several ideas emerged from the feedback, including eliminating stickers.
He stated that approximately 35 to 40 percent of residents expressed interest in composting.
He noted that this trend data was used to help craft the new agreement. He thanked staff for
conducting the survey and for taking resident feedback into account during the contract
renegotiation.
VIII.
REPORTS
A. TRUSTEES
Trustee Iannacco
No Report
Trustee Saldana
No Report
Trustee Eck
Trustee Eck stated that he had two items to share. He announced that the next Finance
Committee meeting would be held the following Monday, the 12th, at 4:00 p.m., and
noted that it was an open meeting and that anyone interested was welcome to attend. He
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
11
then acknowledged Mr. Morgan and expressed appreciation for his leadership and the
work he was doing for the organization.
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Donnersberger expressed that she was happy and relieved that the TIF was
moving forward. She noted that Jim Merrion was on the committee along with several
others and that they had been working very hard over the past several months. She stated
that this progress was a relief and that she looked forward to positive developments in
that area. She also noted that the heritage site committee had taken a relatively long
sabbatical but expressed hope that work would resume later in the month.
D
R
AF
T
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Svetska provided an update from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
that occurred the previous Tuesday afternoon. She noted that there was continued
discussion regarding the potential approval of fences along what were initially referred to
as busy streets, which she then clarified as major roads, specifically non–Indian Head
Park roads. She indicated that the discussion would continue into the following month
and that there was hope to bring a recommendation to the Board in a future meeting,
possibly in March, depending on remaining details.
Mr. Beltran added that it could potentially come forward as early as February. He noted
that the Commission had generally landed on an aesthetic direction, specifically a black
wrought iron–style fence that is common in the area. He explained that there were still
details to be worked out, including screening considerations and whether the prior survey
addressed only the four major roads in the community. He noted that there was also
discussion about extending consideration to non–Indian Head Park roads, including 65th
Street, where several homes back up to the roadway and the area is more open. He
indicated that discussions were ongoing but could conclude soon, with an item potentially
ready for Board consideration either the following month or by March.
Trustee Gazis
No Report
B. VILLAGE CLERK
Mr. Beltran provided an update from the economic development perspective. He noted
that with both the business district and the TIF District now approved, staff would be
looking to engage a planning consultant. He explained that the consultant would assist
with evaluating the market viability of the site, identifying potential uses, conducting
research and outreach, and making connections with potential developers. He added that
the consultant would also help identify goals for the site based on the market analysis,
develop possible incentive mechanisms to achieve those goals, and evaluate those
incentives. He indicated that these were the next steps and that staff hoped to engage a
consultant as soon as possible.
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
12
From the community development perspective, Mr. Beltran noted that the zoning
ordinance and building code overhauls were approaching their first full public drafts. He
explained that the work had been completed incrementally over the past six to seven
months with the consultant SafeBuilt and that the drafts would be coming before both the
Plan Commission and the Board in the near future. He also noted that staff were
reviewing and overhauling the business licensing code, explaining that portions were
outdated, could be modernized for greater effectiveness, or had been impacted by recent
State changes that simplified certain requirements. He noted that Mr. Veenstra and Mr.
Coons had assisted with this effort and that the code would be reviewed further to ensure
it was updated and effective.
D
R
AF
T
Turning to building activity, Mr. Beltran noted that 2025 had concluded and final permit
numbers were available. He indicated that the Village received 122 building permit
applications during the year and that all had now been issued. He provided a comparison
to prior years, noting 117 permits in 2024, 165 in 2023, 137 in 2022, 116 in 2021, 113 in
2020, 101 in 2018, and 74 in 2017, which was the last year with reliable data available.
He explained that while permit activity was not as high as in 2022 and 2023, those years
were considered an anomaly, consistent with trends observed during the pandemic due to
increased investment in homes. He noted that current permit levels were closer to the
historical average and viewed that as a positive sign.
He concluded by noting that all gaming and liquor licenses had been issued and paid for
and that staff were now looking ahead to the June 1 renewal cycle.
Trustee Eck asked a question regarding the building permit process. He referenced prior
discussion about speeding up the process with the new system and asked whether it had
been effective.
Mr. Beltran responded that the process had become much more effective. He noted that
staff had ironed out some of the issues with the system. He explained that the next step
would be cross-training additional staff. He noted that with any new ERP updates, staff
may believe everything is set up correctly, but during cross-training efforts in December,
they discovered that some functions were locked out for safety reasons. He explained that
staff would need to revisit those settings. He indicated that cross-training was the next
step to further improve speed. He added that overall, the system had reduced processing
time by about half and had also improved recordkeeping.
C. VILLAGE TREASURER
No report.
D. VILLAGE ATTORNEY
No report.
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
13
E. VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Morgan stated that a Committee of the Whole meeting was being scheduled for
January 22. He explained that the meeting would focus on goals and planning for the
2026 or 2026–2027 fiscal year. He noted that budgets were being developed for each
department in coordination with the Finance Committee and that the meeting would
include discussion of new budget items and how the budget was being reorganized.
D
R
AF
T
He also noted that the Village had not yet received word on the OSLAD grant application
for Sacajawea Park and that a response was expected later in the month. He referenced
comments previously made by Trustee Donnersberger regarding the heritage site
committee and explained that once progress resumed on that effort, staff would meet with
the same consultant who assisted with Sacajawea Park to help develop ideas for the
Heritage site.
F. DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS
POLICE
Chief Walsh noted that the Police Department submitted a grant application for
body-worn cameras and in-car cameras, which was due December 31. He indicated that
staff were waiting to determine whether additional information would be required and
expected to receive a response in April. He explained that the request was for just under
60,000 and that a grant company assisted with the application, which was submitted on
time, and expressed hope for a response in April.
He then addressed fleet updates, indicating that a new squad vehicle was now in service.
He explained that outfitting the vehicle took a considerable amount of time, particularly
due to delays related to after market equipment, but that the vehicle had since been fully
outfitted and returned to service. He noted that the squad replaced the vehicle that was
totaled in a head-on collision involving Corporal Milas and that having the new squad
operational improved the Department’s ability to function beyond a temporary solution.
Chief Walsh next discussed the submission of an invoice related to ILEAS certification.
He explained that representatives would be contacting the Department and that he would
be working directly with them during the review process. He noted that the review would
involve all Department policies and procedures and that certification could potentially
reduce insurance costs, though he did not guarantee that outcome. He stated that the cost
was 1,500 and emphasized the importance of having an external review of the
Department’s policies.
Finally, Chief Walsh shared that Commander Gardner had been selected to attend the
Staff and Command program through the Northwestern Center for Public Safety. He
explained that the program would follow a schedule of two weeks on and two weeks off,
beginning the upcoming Monday. He described the program as prestigious and
challenging, noting that it would require research papers and proper citations. He added
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
14
that although Commander Gardner had not been in school for some time, he was looking
forward to the opportunity and was expected to perform well. Chief Walsh thanked the
Board for allowing Commander Gardner to attend and expressed his appreciation.
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Coons began by noting that the Village received its five-year water main plan from
Strand Engineering in December. He indicated that staff would work with this plan, along
with the previously completed road program, to coordinate projects and move them
forward. He also noted that he met with Strand Engineering earlier in the week to review
several ongoing projects.
D
R
AF
T
He explained that one of the projects discussed was the Pontiac water main and road
program. The plans were mostly complete and expected to be finalized by the end of the
month. He noted that the Village was targeting February or March to potentially go out to
bid and that the project would be brought before the Board once it was ready to proceed.
Mr. Coons reported that the chlorine system switchover from gas to liquid was
progressing. The project was currently out for bid, with Strand Engineering managing the
bid process. The bid opening would take place via Zoom on January 27, and he and Mr.
Beltran would participate in that process. Once completed, the item would be brought to
the Board for approval at the February 12 meeting, with the goal of completing the work
by the end of April.
He then addressed in-house work, noting that staff had performed storm sewer
maintenance due to recent rain and freezing conditions. He explained that a few areas
required attention and were jetted to ensure proper functionality.
Mr. Coons also noted that within Public Works, Brian was preparing a request for
proposals for lawn maintenance and working on an RFP to explore a new cleaning
service for Village buildings. A first draft had been completed and would be refined. The
intent was to consolidate cleaning services for Village Hall and the Public Works
building, which are currently serviced by separate providers, in order to obtain a better
price.
He further reported that he had held his quarterly meeting with the Morton Arboretum
and provided updates related to the grant process and next steps. He added that he was
awaiting design drawings for louvers at the Public Works building so quotes could be
obtained. He concluded by indicating that this was all he had to report for the evening.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Trustee Saldana made the MOTION to adjourn. Trustee Iannaco SECONDED. With no
objections, the regular meeting was adjourned at 8:19p.m. The next regular scheduled meeting
will be held on Thursday, February 12, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
15
D
R
AF
T
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrez Beltran
Assistant to the Village Administrator/Village Clerk
Board of Trustees Minutes - January 8, 2026
16
Village of Indian Head Park
Financial Summary
For the Month Ending January 2026
Cash on Hand
December 31, 2025
All Payments
January 2026
$454,101.28
Total Revenues
January 2026
$517,416.63
Ending Bank Balance
January 31, 2026
$
$
2,341,590.16
2,404,905.51
Current Bank Balances
January 2026
Countryside Bank Account
Dec-25
Interest %
Ending Balance
Jan-26
Interest %
Ending Balance
AP Operating Account
$
-
$
-
Payroll Account
$
-
$
-
Revenue Deposit Account
$
763.00
$
131.00
Water & Sewer
$
-
$
-
Money Market Account
$
857,017.94
4.02%
$
813,359.02
3.90%
PD Seizure Account
$
45,161.97
4.02%
$
45,308.76
3.89%
State Shared Revenues
$
768,575.89
4.03%
$
869,779.42
3.89%
MONTH END TOTAL
$ 1,671,518.80
$ 1,728,578.20
Illinois Funds Account
Savings 2160
$
558,404.41
3.945%
$
564,297.44
3.827%
Savings 1838
$
111,666.95
3.945%
$
112,029.87
3.827%
MONTH END TOTAL
$
670,071.36
$
676,327.31
GRAND TOTAL
$ 2,341,590.16
$ 2,404,905.51
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
01-00-4103 CORPORATE PURPOSE
01-00-4105 POLICE PROTECTION
01-00-4107 STREETS & BRIDGES
01-00-4109 IMRF
01-00-4111 LIABILITY INSURANCE
01-00-4113 AUDIT
01-00-4115 FICA
01-00-4202 ELECTRICITY TAXES
01-00-4203 GREEN ELECTRICITY CONTRIBUTION
01-00-4205 NATURAL GAS TAXES
01-00-4209 TELECOMMUNICATION
01-00-4305 CATV FRANCHISE
01-00-4306 PEG FEES
01-00-4402 STATE GAMING TAX
01-00-4403 STATE INCOME TAX
01-00-4405 STATE SALES TAX
01-00-4406 STATE LOCAL USE TAX
01-00-4407 PERSONAL PROPERTY REPL TAX
01-00-4408 NON HOME RULE TAX
01-00-4413 CANNABIS USE TAX
01-00-4503 BUILDING PERMITS
01-00-4505 BUSINESS LICENSES
01-00-4506 LIQUOR LICENSES
01-00-4509 MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES
01-00-4511 ALARM FEES
01-00-4602 COURT & TRAFFIC FINES
01-00-4603 LOCAL ADJUDICATION FINES
01-00-4700 SALE OF ASSETS
01-00-4710 VILLAGE VOICE ADVERTISING
01-00-4711 CELL TOWER REVENUE
01-00-4712 MISC. REIMBURSEMENTS
01-00-4713 HEALTH INSPECTIONS
01-00-4714 ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS
01-00-5102 INTEREST INCOME
01-00-5103 STATE GRANTS
01-00-5104 GRANTS-OTHER
01-00-5105 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
01-00-5108 CABLE STATION GRANT
01-00-5111 TREE GRANT
01-00-5112 MISC GRANTS
01-00-5113 NATIONAL NIGHT OUT DONATIONS
01-00-5114 NATIONAL NIGHT OUT DONATIONS
01-00-5116 HERITAGE CENTER DONATIONS
01-00-5118 MISC. DONATIONS
01-00-5121 CAR SHOW DONATIONS
01-00-5150 PROCEEDS FROM LOANS
01-00-5200 GAIN ON INVESTMENT
Total Dept 00
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
674,143.00
132,859.00
35,000.00
119,282.00
80,183.00
15,975.00
124,690.00
95,000.00
15,000.00
60,000.00
45,000.00
95,000.00
0.00
160,000.00
700,000.00
310,000.00
150,000.00
2,000.00
185,000.00
6,500.00
65,000.00
150,000.00
25,000.00
0.00
1,000.00
40,000.00
750.00
0.00
2,500.00
76,080.00
0.00
3,500.00
6,400.00
125,000.00
0.00
0.00
20,000.00
0.00
25,000.00
0.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7,959.75
1,550.10
352.29
1,391.70
935.50
186.38
1,453.81
72,047.86
0.00
43,086.12
32,016.21
24,782.35
2,076.14
126,275.46
565,264.15
276,316.03
28,265.16
1,592.08
160,305.53
4,588.53
19,912.93
197,995.00
24,600.00
45.00
0.00
42,859.01
0.00
14,800.00
1,815.00
58,002.59
8,365.67
500.00
0.00
41,367.17
0.00
13,855.84
186,277.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,647.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8,421.03
0.00
10,216.39
3,500.79
0.00
0.00
15,567.67
77,369.22
35,560.54
3,229.12
292.38
19,952.75
640.35
442.20
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,963.50
0.00
2,500.00
0.00
6,562.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14,250.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
666,183.25
131,308.90
34,647.71
117,890.30
79,247.50
15,788.62
123,236.19
22,952.14
15,000.00
16,913.88
12,983.79
70,217.65
(2,076.14)
33,724.54
134,735.85
33,683.97
121,734.84
407.92
24,694.47
1,911.47
45,087.07
(47,995.00)
400.00
(45.00)
1,000.00
(2,859.01)
750.00
(14,800.00)
685.00
18,077.41
(8,365.67)
3,000.00
6,400.00
83,632.83
0.00
(13,855.84)
(166,277.09)
0.00
25,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(1,647.00)
0.00
0.00
1.18
1.17
1.01
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
75.84
0.00
71.81
71.15
26.09
100.00
78.92
80.75
89.13
18.84
79.60
86.65
70.59
30.64
132.00
98.40
100.00
0.00
107.15
0.00
100.00
72.60
76.24
100.00
14.29
0.00
33.09
0.00
100.00
931.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
3,546,862.00
1,963,487.45
202,668.94
1,583,374.55
55.36
01/31/2026
Page:
1/16
% Bdgt
Used
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
3,546,862.00
1,963,487.45
202,668.94
1,583,374.55
55.36
0.00
1,384.10
0.00
(1,384.10)
100.00
0.00
1,384.10
0.00
(1,384.10)
100.00
2,000.00
12,000.00
500.00
1,000.00
2,070.56
2,500.00
0.00
481.34
0.00
1,500.00
0.00
0.00
(70.56)
9,500.00
500.00
518.66
103.53
20.83
0.00
48.13
15,500.00
5,051.90
1,500.00
10,448.10
32.59
343,408.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
25,720.00
39,570.00
28,662.00
25,000.00
18,000.00
14,000.00
3,200.00
15,000.00
3,000.00
10,000.00
3,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
2,500.00
0.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
124,800.00
18,910.00
6,000.00
0.00
5,000.00
3,500.00
183,445.43
3,461.55
148.21
13,521.65
12,509.08
27,516.66
36,075.92
11,452.37
60,523.11
0.00
19,332.66
0.00
1,287.86
18,867.94
1,954.61
7,800.00
5,329.57
0.00
995.18
580.12
79,100.00
10,992.80
6,284.18
249.80
12,556.84
4,353.11
270.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
699.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,300.00
119.97
0.00
0.00
63.97
10,800.00
1,789.60
192.15
0.00
0.00
21.50
159,962.57
2,538.45
5,851.79
12,198.35
27,060.92
1,145.34
(11,075.92)
6,547.63
(46,523.11)
3,200.00
(4,332.66)
3,000.00
8,712.14
(15,867.94)
8,045.39
2,200.00
(2,829.57)
0.00
4.82
1,419.88
45,700.00
7,917.20
(284.18)
(249.80)
(7,556.84)
(853.11)
53.42
57.69
2.47
52.57
31.61
96.00
144.30
63.62
432.31
0.00
128.88
0.00
12.88
628.93
19.55
78.00
213.18
0.00
99.52
29.01
63.38
58.13
104.74
100.00
251.14
124.37
Total Dept 21 - ADMINISTRATION
724,270.00
518,338.65
15,256.71
205,931.35
71.57
Department: 31 PUBLIC WORKS
01-31-6102 REGULAR SALARIES
01-31-6104 OVERTIME
01-31-6105 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE
01-31-6107 PENSION
01-31-6108 HEALTH BENEFITS
01-31-6200 PROF SERVICES-ENGINEERING
165,360.00
25,000.00
14,639.00
20,303.00
22,599.00
25,000.00
103,593.09
5,657.17
8,073.38
8,574.33
25,592.28
5,392.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
61,766.91
19,342.83
6,565.62
11,728.67
(2,993.28)
19,607.77
62.65
22.63
55.15
42.23
113.25
21.57
GL Number
Description
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Revenues
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 00
01-00-6351 PEG FEES
Total Dept 00
Department: 11 PRESIDENT AND VILLAGE BOARD
01-11-6243 MEETINGS/CONF/TRAINING
01-11-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
01-11-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
01-11-6426 OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE
Total Dept 11 - PRESIDENT AND VILLAGE
BOARD
Department: 21 ADMINISTRATION
01-21-6102 REGULAR SALARIES
01-21-6103 AUTO ALLOWANCE
01-21-6104 OVERTIME
01-21-6105 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE
01-21-6107 PENSION
01-21-6108 HEALTH BENEFITS
01-21-6202 PROF SERVICES/CONSULTANT
01-21-6204 PROF SERVICES- IT CONSULTING
01-21-6207 PROF SERVICES-DATA PROCESSING
01-21-6215 CODIFICATION SERVICES
01-21-6217 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE
01-21-6230 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
01-21-6243 MEETINGS/CONF/TRAINING
01-21-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
01-21-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
01-21-6248 GARBAGE STICKERS
01-21-6250 POSTAGE
01-21-6253 INSURANCE ALLOCATION
01-21-6254 PUBLICATIONS/LEGAL NOTICES
01-21-6273 TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATION
01-21-6300 ACCOUNTING SERVICES
01-21-6303 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
01-21-6338 OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-21-6342 PERIODICALS
01-21-6410 COMPUTER SOFTWARE
01-21-6426 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
2/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 31 PUBLIC WORKS
01-31-6201 ENGINEERING-DEVELOPER/PROP.OWNER
01-31-6202 PROF SERVICES/CONSULTANT
01-31-6219 LANDSCAPING/LEAF REM
01-31-6221 DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
01-31-6225 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE
01-31-6228 EQUIPMENT RENTAL
01-31-6230 EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
01-31-6243 MEETINGS/CONF/TRAINING
01-31-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
01-31-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
01-31-6261 TREE MAINTENANCE
01-31-6265 STREETS & PKWYS MAINTENANCE
01-31-6266 GIS MAPPING
01-31-6272 STORM SEWERS MAINTENANCE
01-31-6273 TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATION
01-31-6274 LIABILITY INSURANCE ALLOCATION
01-31-6276 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
01-31-6299 PROF SERVICES-TREE CONSULTANT
01-31-6308 CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
01-31-6316 GAS & OIL
01-31-6317 UTILITY EXPENSE
01-31-6320 OPERATING SUPPLIES
01-31-6322 MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE
01-31-6329 MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN STORM SEWER
01-31-6330 MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN STS/PKWY
01-31-6332 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
01-31-6338 OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-31-6345 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
01-31-6346 TOOLS & HARDWARE
01-31-6347 MISC EXPENSE
01-31-6348 TREE PROGRAM
01-31-6414 CONSTRUCTION-STORM SEWER
01-31-6426 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
01-31-6438 VEHICLES/OTHER EQUIPMENT
01-31-7001 TREE GRANT EXPENSES
Total Dept 31 - PUBLIC WORKS
Department: 41 POLICE
01-41-6100 GRANT REG/OT SALARY
01-41-6102 REGULAR SALARIES
01-41-6104 OVERTIME
01-41-6105 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE
01-41-6107 PENSION
01-41-6108 HEALTH BENEFITS
01-41-6110 PSEBA INSURANCE
01-41-6202 PROF SERVICES/CONSULTANT
01-41-6204 PROF SERVICES- IT CONSULTING
01-41-6205 PROF SERVICES-ANIMAL CONTROL
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
0.00
13,000.00
0.00
2,000.00
0.00
2,000.00
15,000.00
2,000.00
550.00
500.00
20,000.00
4,000.00
5,000.00
25,000.00
5,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,000.00
10,500.00
5,000.00
8,500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,500.00
2,500.00
5,000.00
2,500.00
0.00
27,500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,653.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,518.97
211.60
409.00
0.00
24,590.00
1,505.35
0.00
9,962.50
657.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,949.80
5,101.59
907.33
2,320.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,355.94
1,649.48
362.32
470.47
0.00
14,174.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
42.95
61.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
72.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
576.35
599.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57.49
63.56
0.00
145.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,346.25
0.00
2,000.00
0.00
2,000.00
8,481.03
1,788.40
141.00
500.00
(4,590.00)
2,494.65
5,000.00
15,037.50
4,342.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.20
5,398.41
4,092.67
6,179.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,144.06
850.52
4,637.68
2,029.53
0.00
13,325.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
89.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
43.46
10.58
74.36
0.00
122.95
37.63
0.00
39.85
13.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
97.49
48.59
18.15
27.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.65
65.98
7.25
18.82
0.00
51.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
435,951.00
240,683.34
1,619.89
195,267.66
55.21
0.00
1,352,094.00
100,000.00
124,695.00
172,943.00
123,543.00
8,648.00
2,500.00
20,000.00
0.00
0.00
757,491.69
88,836.13
63,069.96
57,373.82
102,246.31
0.00
7,358.09
14,665.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
679.52
0.00
0.00
594,602.31
11,163.87
61,625.04
115,569.18
21,296.69
8,648.00
(4,858.09)
5,334.88
0.00
0.00
56.02
88.84
50.58
33.17
82.76
0.00
294.32
73.33
0.00
01/31/2026
Page:
3/16
% Bdgt
Used
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 41 POLICE
01-41-6230 EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
01-41-6240 OPEB EXPENSE
01-41-6243 MEETINGS/CONF/TRAINING
01-41-6244 COMPUTER SOFTWARE
01-41-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
01-41-6246 LEXIPOL POLICY MANUAL
01-41-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
01-41-6249 PRINTING
01-41-6250 POSTAGE
01-41-6273 TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATION
01-41-6274 LIABILITY INSURANCE ALLOCATION
01-41-6308 CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
01-41-6316 GAS & OIL
01-41-6332 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
01-41-6338 OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-41-6345 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
01-41-6426 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
01-41-6427 REVIEW
01-41-6438 VEHICLES/OTHER EQUIPMENT
Total Dept 41 - POLICE
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
15,000.00
0.00
20,000.00
13,600.00
4,500.00
4,500.00
500.00
2,200.00
0.00
20,000.00
0.00
18,000.00
30,000.00
1,500.00
3,000.00
15,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,592.17
0.00
21,479.02
10,850.00
5,263.75
0.00
626.33
0.00
79.10
6,052.65
0.00
12,031.19
21,285.99
4,291.97
2,525.44
10,693.20
0.00
0.00
50,740.00
152.54
0.00
8.10
1,050.00
0.00
0.00
50.75
0.00
0.00
309.30
0.00
751.50
2,668.94
1,099.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,407.83
0.00
(1,479.02)
2,750.00
(763.75)
4,500.00
(126.33)
2,200.00
(79.10)
13,947.35
0.00
5,968.81
8,714.01
(2,791.97)
474.56
4,306.80
0.00
0.00
(50,740.00)
77.28
0.00
107.40
79.78
116.97
0.00
125.27
0.00
100.00
30.26
0.00
66.84
70.95
286.13
84.18
71.29
0.00
0.00
100.00
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
2,052,223.00
1,248,551.93
6,770.15
803,671.07
60.84
Department: 51 BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
01-51-6234 GARAGE MAINTENANCE
01-51-6239 MAINT/IMPROVEMENTS-HERITAGE CT
01-51-6249 VILLAGE HALL/POLICE MAINTENANCE
01-51-6251 CUSTODIAL SERVICES
01-51-6252 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
01-51-6314 GARAGE SUPPLIES
01-51-6318 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES
01-51-6336 MAINT SUPPLIES-VILL HALL/POLIC
01-51-6337 KELLI'S PLAYGROUND/SACAJAWEA
01-51-6339 ARROWHEAD MEMORIAL POINTE
01-51-6340 HERITAGE CENTER
01-51-6341 BLACKHAWK PARK
01-51-6448 BLACKHAWK PARK IMPROVEMENTS
20,000.00
0.00
25,000.00
17,000.00
35,000.00
12,000.00
3,200.00
5,000.00
4,500.00
500.00
8,000.00
1,000.00
0.00
6,939.18
0.00
10,673.21
12,096.00
21,875.00
5,607.57
111.40
2,245.69
4,307.31
0.00
0.00
107.98
0.00
146.39
0.00
2,682.58
0.00
0.00
169.39
0.00
405.00
518.00
0.00
0.00
107.98
0.00
13,060.82
0.00
14,326.79
4,904.00
13,125.00
6,392.43
3,088.60
2,754.31
192.69
500.00
8,000.00
892.02
0.00
34.70
0.00
42.69
71.15
62.50
46.73
3.48
44.91
95.72
0.00
0.00
10.80
0.00
Total Dept 51 - BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
131,200.00
63,963.34
4,029.34
67,236.66
48.75
Department: 55 BUILDING
01-55-6200 PROF SERVICES-ENGINEERING
01-55-6206 PROF SERVICES-BUILDING INSPECT
01-55-6208 PROF SERVICES-ELEVATOR INSP
01-55-6209 PROF SERVICES-HEALTH INSPECTION
01-55-6212 PROF SERVICES-PLAN REVIEW/PLAN
01-55-6252 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
01-55-6258 HYDRANT TESTING
01-55-6259 PLANNING SERVICES
1,500.00
20,000.00
2,000.00
1,600.00
15,000.00
0.00
0.00
50,000.00
0.00
5,400.00
665.00
935.00
35,319.79
0.00
0.00
86,452.11
0.00
350.00
0.00
255.00
65.00
0.00
0.00
15,325.13
1,500.00
14,600.00
1,335.00
665.00
(20,319.79)
0.00
0.00
(36,452.11)
0.00
27.00
33.25
58.44
235.47
0.00
0.00
172.90
90,100.00
128,771.90
15,995.13
(38,671.90)
142.92
Total Dept 55 - BUILDING
Department: 61 REVIEW
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
4/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
10,000.00
3,000.00
500.00
500.00
0.00
1,850.00
0.00
400.00
695.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
8,150.00
3,000.00
100.00
(195.00)
0.00
18.50
0.00
80.00
139.00
15,000.00
2,945.00
0.00
12,055.00
19.63
50,000.00
25,000.00
5,000.00
14,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
17,000.00
7,500.00
4,500.00
13,000.00
2,400.00
10,200.00
197,500.00
17,593.75
16,870.35
2,469.65
6,048.27
0.00
0.00
18,266.38
0.00
443.19
0.00
0.00
7,650.00
0.00
3,511.25
153.95
61.33
1,058.40
0.00
0.00
1,553.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
850.00
0.00
32,406.25
8,129.65
2,530.35
7,951.73
50,000.00
0.00
(1,266.38)
7,500.00
4,056.81
13,000.00
2,400.00
2,550.00
197,500.00
35.19
67.48
49.39
43.20
0.00
0.00
107.45
0.00
9.85
0.00
0.00
75.00
0.00
396,100.00
69,341.59
7,188.87
326,758.41
17.51
3,860,344.00
2,279,031.75
52,360.09
1,581,312.25
59.04
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
3,546,862.00
3,860,344.00
1,963,487.45
2,279,031.75
202,668.94
52,360.09
1,583,374.55
1,581,312.25
55.36
59.04
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
(313,482.00)
(315,544.30)
150,308.85
2,062.30
GL Number
Description
Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 61 REVIEW
01-61-6254 PUBLICATIONS/LEGAL NOTICES
Total Dept 61 - REVIEW
Department: 81 FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSION
01-81-6203 PROF SERVICES-LEGAL
01-81-6241 PROF SERVICES-TESTING
01-81-6243 MEETINGS/CONF/TRAINING
01-81-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
01-81-6254 PUBLICATIONS/LEGAL NOTICES
Total Dept 81 - FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSION
Department: 92 GENERAL
01-92-6203 PROF SERVICES-LEGAL
01-92-6216 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
01-92-6226 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
01-92-6267 VILLAGE VOICE
01-92-6270 INSURANCE PREMIUM
01-92-6271 STORM SEWER DRAINAGE STUDY
01-92-6273 TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATION
01-92-6275 IRMA DEDUCTIBLE
01-92-6276 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
01-92-6278 AUDIT EXPENSE
01-92-6297 ADJUDICATION
01-92-6298 PROF SERVICES-PROSECUTOR
01-92-6500 DEBT SERVICE
Total Dept 92 - GENERAL
Expenditures
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
Fund 01 - GENERAL FUND:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
5/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 02 WATER AND SEWER FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
02-00-4716 WATER USAGE
02-00-4718 FINANCE CHARGES-SEWER
02-00-4719 FINANCE CHARGES-WATER
02-00-4722 SEWER CHARGES
02-00-4723 WATER FLAT RATE
02-00-4725 SEWER FLAT RATE
02-00-5100 NSF
02-00-5102 INTEREST INCOME
02-00-5105 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
02-00-5141 BOND PROCEEDS
02-00-5200 GAIN ON INVESTMENT
Total Dept 00
Revenues
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 85 WATER
02-85-6102 REGULAR SALARIES
02-85-6104 OVERTIME
02-85-6105 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE
02-85-6107 PENSION
02-85-6108 HEALTH BENEFITS
02-85-6200 PROF SERVICES-ENGINEERING
02-85-6202 PROF SERVICES/CONSULTANT
02-85-6210 PROF SERVICES-LABORATORY
02-85-6213 PROF SERVICES-RESERVOIR INSPECT
02-85-6228 EQUIPMENT RENTAL
02-85-6230 EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
02-85-6243 MEETINGS/CONF/TRAINING
02-85-6244 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
02-85-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
02-85-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
02-85-6250 POSTAGE
02-85-6253 INSURANCE ALLOCATION
02-85-6254 PUBLICATIONS/LEGAL NOTICES
02-85-6256 PUMP HOUSE MAINTENANCE
02-85-6257 PUMP MAINTENANCE
02-85-6258 HYDRANT TESTING
02-85-6266 GIS MAPPING
02-85-6273 TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATION
02-85-6279 WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
02-85-6306 CHEMICALS/LAB EQUIPMENT
02-85-6308 CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
02-85-6309 OFFICE SUPPLIES
02-85-6316 GAS & OIL
02-85-6317 ELECTRICITY/GAS
02-85-6324 MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN PUMP HOUSE
02-85-6332 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
02-85-6334 MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN WATER SYSTEM
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
1,196,000.00
3,500.00
15,000.00
146,880.00
561,000.00
173,400.00
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
736,989.97
3,858.57
17,062.39
93,972.35
283,062.57
99,738.42
275.00
4,705.87
75.00
0.00
0.00
411.31
(42.28)
(53.05)
29.35
248.35
88.04
75.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
459,010.03
(358.57)
(2,062.39)
52,907.65
277,937.43
73,661.58
(275.00)
(4,705.87)
925.00
0.00
0.00
61.62
110.24
113.75
63.98
50.46
57.52
100.00
100.00
7.50
0.00
0.00
2,096,780.00
1,239,740.14
756.72
857,039.86
59.13
2,096,780.00
1,239,740.14
756.72
857,039.86
59.13
187,200.00
15,000.00
14,918.00
20,690.00
48,760.00
50,000.00
7,500.00
4,000.00
4,000.00
750.00
8,000.00
1,500.00
4,500.00
700.00
250.00
3,000.00
0.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
14,000.00
95,000.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
5,000.00
11,000.00
0.00
0.00
15,000.00
97,128.37
8,050.42
7,660.94
8,054.06
16,985.00
1,139.32
4,705.00
2,595.00
0.00
0.00
825.31
1,333.98
5,736.44
0.00
216.78
1,739.72
0.00
634.64
1,133.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
9,792.20
41,498.84
436.37
1,380.21
307.61
1,795.41
5,949.40
0.00
0.00
5,546.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
930.00
0.00
0.00
84.45
0.00
57.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,494.19
3,852.00
386.37
0.00
0.00
403.45
1,298.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
90,071.63
6,949.58
7,257.06
12,635.94
31,775.00
48,860.68
2,795.00
1,405.00
4,000.00
750.00
7,174.69
166.02
(1,236.44)
700.00
33.22
1,260.28
0.00
365.36
866.92
1,500.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
4,207.80
53,501.16
563.63
619.79
692.39
3,204.59
5,050.60
0.00
0.00
9,453.47
51.88
53.67
51.35
38.93
34.83
2.28
62.73
64.88
0.00
0.00
10.32
88.93
127.48
0.00
86.71
57.99
0.00
63.46
56.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
69.94
43.68
43.64
69.01
30.76
35.91
54.09
0.00
0.00
36.98
01/31/2026
Page:
6/16
% Bdgt
Used
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 02 WATER AND SEWER FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 85 WATER
02-85-6345 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
02-85-6346 TOOLS & HARDWARE
02-85-6352 WATER COST-COUNTRYSIDE
02-85-6418 CONSTRUCTION-WATER SYSTEM
02-85-6426 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
02-85-6438 VEHICLES/OTHER EQUIPMENT
02-85-6500 IEPA LOAN PRINCIPAL
02-85-6501 IEPA LOAN INTEREST
02-85-6700 PUMP HOUSE CAPITAL
02-85-6900 AMORTIZATION EXPENSE - ARO
Total Dept 85 - WATER
Department: 90 SEWER
02-90-6102 REGULAR SALARIES
02-90-6104 OVERTIME
02-90-6105 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE
02-90-6107 PENSION
02-90-6108 HEALTH BENEFITS
02-90-6200 PROF SERVICES-ENGINEERING
02-90-6202 PROF SERVICES/CONSULTANT
02-90-6211 PROF SERVICES-MWRD I&I PROGRAM
02-90-6214 PROF SERVICES-SEWER SYSTEM
02-90-6228 EQUIPMENT RENTAL
02-90-6230 EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
02-90-6242 ILLINOIS EPA NPDES FEES
02-90-6243 MEETINGS/CONF/TRAINING
02-90-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
02-90-6250 POSTAGE
02-90-6253 INSURANCE ALLOCATION
02-90-6254 PUBLICATIONS/LEGAL NOTICES
02-90-6266 GIS MAPPING
02-90-6309 OFFICE SUPPLIES
02-90-6316 GAS & OIL
02-90-6328 MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN SEWER SYSTEM
02-90-6332 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
02-90-6345 SAFETY EQUIPMENT
02-90-6346 TOOLS & HARDWARE
02-90-6422 MAINT. SANITARY SEWER
02-90-6438 VEHICLES/OTHER EQUIPMENT
Total Dept 90 - SEWER
Department: 92 GENERAL
02-92-6240 OPEB EXPENSE
02-92-6253 INSURANCE ALLOCATION
02-92-6275 IRMA DEDUCTIBLE
02-92-6276 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
02-92-6278 AUDIT EXPENSE
02-92-6500 DEBT SERVICE
02-92-6701 IMRF NPL EXPENSE
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
1,000.00
2,500.00
650,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23,761.00
2,361.00
0.00
0.00
35.00
0.00
413,393.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,923.20
1,139.59
0.00
0.00
35.00
0.00
48,156.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
965.00
2,500.00
236,606.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,837.80
1,221.41
0.00
0.00
3.50
0.00
63.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.18
48.27
0.00
0.00
1,213,890.00
651,135.93
56,698.51
562,754.07
53.64
114,400.00
10,000.00
9,180.00
12,732.00
26,500.00
35,000.00
45,000.00
16,000.00
0.00
500.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
250.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,000.00
200.00
300.00
1,000.00
100.00
300.00
2,500.00
50,000.00
0.00
58,985.39
327.52
4,604.56
4,847.63
9,787.93
2,810.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,004.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
769.43
107.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
172.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
55,414.61
9,672.48
4,575.44
7,884.37
16,712.07
32,189.21
45,000.00
16,000.00
0.00
500.00
3,000.00
(4.97)
1,000.00
250.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,000.00
200.00
(469.43)
892.09
100.00
300.00
2,500.00
50,000.00
0.00
51.56
3.28
50.16
38.07
36.94
8.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
256.48
10.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
333,962.00
83,246.13
172.90
250,715.87
24.93
0.00
25,000.00
0.00
2,800.00
15,000.00
1,455,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25,000.00
0.00
2,800.00
15,000.00
1,455,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
01/31/2026
Page:
7/16
% Bdgt
Used
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 02 WATER AND SEWER FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 92 GENERAL
02-92-6733 DEPRECIATION
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,497,800.00
0.00
0.00
1,497,800.00
0.00
3,045,652.00
734,382.06
56,871.41
2,311,269.94
24.11
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
2,096,780.00
3,045,652.00
1,239,740.14
734,382.06
756.72
56,871.41
857,039.86
2,311,269.94
59.13
24.11
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
(948,872.00)
505,358.08
(56,114.69)
(1,454,230.08)
Total Dept 92 - GENERAL
Expenditures
Fund 02 - WATER AND SEWER FUND:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
8/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
170,000.00
35,000.00
0.00
141,318.82
24,710.73
0.00
16,457.00
11,156.78
0.00
28,681.18
10,289.27
0.00
83.13
70.60
0.00
205,000.00
166,029.55
27,613.78
38,970.45
80.99
205,000.00
166,029.55
27,613.78
38,970.45
80.99
20,000.00
8,500.00
7,500.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
8,000.00
15,000.00
0.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
114,000.00
0.00
35,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17,856.05
9,049.10
8,546.00
0.00
0.00
3,108.27
0.00
500.00
32,447.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,193.60
0.00
8,546.00
0.00
0.00
80.27
0.00
500.00
0.00
20,000.00
8,500.00
7,500.00
20,000.00
7,143.95
(1,049.10)
6,454.00
0.00
20,000.00
26,891.73
114,000.00
(500.00)
2,552.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71.42
113.11
56.97
0.00
0.00
10.36
0.00
100.00
92.71
Total Dept 94 - MOTOR FUEL TAX
303,000.00
71,506.77
11,319.87
231,493.23
23.60
Department: 95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
10-95-6259 PLANNING SERVICES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
303,000.00
71,506.77
11,319.87
231,493.23
23.60
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
205,000.00
303,000.00
166,029.55
71,506.77
27,613.78
11,319.87
38,970.45
231,493.23
80.99
23.60
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
(98,000.00)
94,522.78
16,293.91
(192,522.78)
GL Number
Description
Fund: 10 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
10-00-4415 STATE ALLOTMENT
10-00-4417 LOCAL GAS TAX
10-00-5106 VEHICLE STICKERS SALES
Total Dept 00
Revenues
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 94 MOTOR FUEL TAX
10-94-6200 PROF SERVICES-ENGINEERING
10-94-6218 PARKWAY MAINTENANCE LABOR
10-94-6222 SNOW REMOVAL EQUIP RENTAL
10-94-6223 SNOW REMOVAL LABOR
10-94-6224 STREET LIGHT ELECTRICITY
10-94-6225 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE
10-94-6260 ROAD MAINTENANCE-CONTRACTUAL
10-94-6280 TR. TO GEN-PKWY MAINT EQUIP RENT
10-94-6344 SALT
10-94-6355 STREET SIGN REPLACEMENT
10-94-6500 DEBT SERVICE
10-94-6612 SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
10-94-6613 LEAF VACUUMING/BRUSH PICKUP/GA
Total Dept 95 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Expenditures
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
Fund 10 - MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
9/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 16 SPECIAL PARKS FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
16-00-4102 REAL ESTATE TAXES
Total Dept 00
Revenues
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
32,095.00
319.97
0.00
31,775.03
1.00
32,095.00
319.97
0.00
31,775.03
1.00
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
32,095.00
319.97
0.00
31,775.03
1.00
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 93 SPECIAL PARKS
16-93-6264 SEASPAR MEMBERSHIP FEE
32,095.00
16,047.50
16,047.50
16,047.50
50.00
Total Dept 93 - SPECIAL PARKS
32,095.00
16,047.50
16,047.50
16,047.50
50.00
32,095.00
16,047.50
16,047.50
16,047.50
50.00
32,095.00
32,095.00
319.97
16,047.50
0.00
16,047.50
31,775.03
16,047.50
1.00
50.00
0.00
(15,727.53)
(16,047.50)
15,727.53
Expenditures
Fund 16 - SPECIAL PARKS FUND:
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
10/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 40 DEBT SERVICE FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
40-00-4102 REAL ESTATE TAXES
Total Dept 00
Revenues
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
211,669.00
2,684.40
0.00
208,984.60
1.27
211,669.00
2,684.40
0.00
208,984.60
1.27
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
211,669.00
2,684.40
0.00
208,984.60
1.27
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 96 DEBT SERVICE
40-96-6506 BOND PRINCIPAL-2024 SERIES
40-96-6507 BOND INTEREST-2024 SERIES
40-96-6510 BOND PRINCIPAL-2014 SERIES
40-96-6511 BOND INTEREST-2014 SERIES
40-96-6512 FEES-ROAD BOND
275,000.00
59,500.00
180,000.00
31,669.00
0.00
275,000.00
29,750.00
180,000.00
62,368.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29,750.00
0.00
(30,699.76)
0.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
196.94
0.00
Total Dept 96 - DEBT SERVICE
546,169.00
547,118.76
0.00
(949.76)
100.17
546,169.00
547,118.76
0.00
(949.76)
100.17
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
211,669.00
546,169.00
2,684.40
547,118.76
0.00
0.00
208,984.60
(949.76)
1.27
100.17
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
(334,500.00)
(544,434.36)
0.00
209,934.36
Expenditures
Fund 40 - DEBT SERVICE FUND:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
11/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
0.00
0.00
0.00
197,500.00
1,455,000.00
114,000.00
0.00
0.00
175,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,676.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
640.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
197,500.00
1,455,000.00
114,000.00
0.00
0.00
169,323.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.24
0.00
1,941,500.00
5,676.54
640.05
1,935,823.46
0.29
1,941,500.00
5,676.54
640.05
1,935,823.46
0.29
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
50-95-6338 HERITAGE CENTER-CAPITAL
50-95-6601 VEHICLE STICKERS-ADMIN
50-95-6603 FACILITY STUDY
50-95-6605 POLICE BODY CAMERAS
50-95-6608 VEHICLE STICKERS-ROAD RELATED
50-95-6609 STREETS - CAPITAL
50-95-6610 ECONOMIC DEV/FACADE/TRAINGLE/BRO
50-95-6611 VILLAGE CAMERAS
50-95-6613 LEAF VACUUMING/BRUSH PICKUP/GA
50-95-6615 CRACK SEALING
50-95-6616 ACACIA DRIVE CONSTRUCTION
50-95-6617 ENGINEERING-ACACIA DRIVE PHASE
50-95-6618 WOLF ROAD PHASE 1
50-95-6619 DCEO JOLIET ROAD - PHASE 1
50-95-6620 REVIEW
50-95-6621 REVIEW
50-95-6622 EMERGENCY CAPITAL
50-95-6630 PW BUILDING ROLLAWAY LIFTS
50-95-6631 PW BUILDING LOUVRES
50-95-6640 POLICE CRUISER
50-95-6641 POLICE VIDEO CAMERAS
50-95-6681 PUMP-HOUSE ROOF
50-95-6685 PUMP-HOUSE CH0LORINE
50-95-7000 GRANT EXPENSES
50-95-8502 PONTIAC/KEOKUK WATER MAIN
0.00
2,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45,000.00
125,000.00
70,000.00
16,500.00
13,000.00
150,000.00
0.00
1,520,000.00
0.00
1,423.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
229,875.94
2,271.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,355.30
0.00
154,833.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14,403.09
220.38
59,762.00
12,320.00
8,130.00
37,750.00
0.00
85,178.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
204.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
59,762.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
576.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
(229,875.94)
(2,271.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
(6,355.30)
0.00
(154,833.64)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30,596.91
124,779.62
10,238.00
4,180.00
4,870.00
112,250.00
0.00
1,434,821.72
0.00
71.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.01
0.18
85.37
74.67
62.54
25.17
0.00
5.60
Total Dept 95 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1,941,500.00
612,522.81
59,966.88
1,328,977.19
31.55
1,941,500.00
612,522.81
59,966.88
1,328,977.19
31.55
1,941,500.00
1,941,500.00
5,676.54
612,522.81
640.05
59,966.88
1,935,823.46
1,328,977.19
0.29
31.55
GL Number
Description
Fund: 50 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
50-00-4409 PD BODY CAMERA GRANT
50-00-4415 STATE ALLOTMENT
50-00-4418 GRANT-ACACIA DRIVE PHASE 2 & 3
50-00-4500 TRANSFER IN - GENERAL
50-00-4501 TRANSFER IN - WATER AND SEWER
50-00-4502 TRANSFER IN - MFT
50-00-5103 STATE GRANTS
50-00-5105 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
50-00-5106 VEHICLE STICKERS SALES
50-00-5107 WOLF ROAD REIMBURSEMENT
Total Dept 00
Revenues
Expenditures
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
Fund 50 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS:
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
12/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
GL Number
Description
Fund: 50 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
0.00
(606,846.27)
(59,326.83)
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
606,846.27
Page:
13/16
% Bdgt
Used
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GL Number
Description
Fund: 53 BOND FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
53-00-5102 INTEREST INCOME
Total Dept 00
Revenues
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
Fund 53 - BOND FUND:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
14/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GL Number
Description
Fund: 98 GENERAL CAPITAL ASSET GROUP FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 00
98-00-1500 DEPRECIATION-GENERAL GOVERNMEN
98-00-1501 DEPRECIATION-PUBLIC SAFETY
98-00-1502 DEPRECIATION-CULTURE AND RECRE
98-00-1503 DEPRECIATION-CULTURE AND RECRE
Total Dept 00
Expenditures
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
Fund 98 - GENERAL CAPITAL ASSET GROUP FUND:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
15/16
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 01/31/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget
YTD Balance
Activity For
01/31/2026
01/31/2026
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL REVENUES - ALL FUNDS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
8,033,906.00
9,728,760.00
3,377,938.05
4,260,609.65
231,679.49
196,565.75
4,655,967.95
5,468,150.35
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:
(1,694,854.00)
(882,671.60)
35,113.74
(812,182.40)
GL Number
Description
Fund: 99 LONG TERM LIABILITY GROUP FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
99-00-5008 DO NOT USE-CHANGE IN OPEB ASSE
99-00-5009 DO NOT USE-CHANGE IN OPEB LIAB
Total Dept 00
Revenues
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 00
99-00-5000 PENSION EXPENSE-GG
99-00-5500 PENSION EXPENSE-POLICE
99-00-5600 PENSION EXPENSE-PW
Total Dept 00
Expenditures
Available
Balance
01/31/2026
% Bdgt
Used
Fund 99 - LONG TERM LIABILITY GROUP FUND:
Report Totals:
02/06/2026 12:36 PM
Page:
42.05
43.79
16/16
CHECK REGISTER FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
CHECK DATE 01/01/2026 - 01/31/2026
Check Date
Check
Bank AP ACCTS PAYABLE
01/14/2026
32094
01/14/2026
32095
01/14/2026
32096
01/14/2026
32097
01/14/2026
32098
01/14/2026
32099
01/14/2026
32100
01/14/2026
32101
01/14/2026
32102
01/14/2026
32103
01/14/2026
80000250(E)
01/14/2026
80000251(E)
01/14/2026
80000252(E)
01/14/2026
80000253(E)
01/14/2026
80000254(E)
01/14/2026
80000255(E)
01/14/2026
80000256(E)
01/15/2026
80000241(A)
01/15/2026
80000242(A)
01/15/2026
80000243(A)
01/15/2026
80000244(A)
01/15/2026
80000245(A)
01/15/2026
80000246(A)
01/15/2026
80000247(A)
01/15/2026
80000248(A)
01/15/2026
80000249(A)
01/23/2026
32104
01/23/2026
32105
01/23/2026
32106
01/23/2026
32107
01/23/2026
32108
01/23/2026
32109
01/23/2026
32110
01/23/2026
32111
01/23/2026
32112
01/23/2026
32113
01/23/2026
32114
01/23/2026
32115
01/23/2026
32116
01/23/2026
32117
01/23/2026
32118
01/23/2026
32119
01/23/2026
32120
01/23/2026
32121
01/23/2026
80000270(E)
01/23/2026
80000271(E)
01/23/2026
80000272(E)
01/26/2026
80000257(A)
01/26/2026
80000258(A)
01/26/2026
80000259(A)
01/26/2026
80000260(A)
01/26/2026
80000261(A)
01/26/2026
80000262(A)
01/26/2026
80000263(A)
01/26/2026
80000264(A)
01/26/2026
80000265(A)
01/26/2026
80000266(A)
01/26/2026
80000267(A)
01/26/2026
80000268(A)
01/26/2026
80000269(A)
Vendor Name
CHICAGO PARTS AND SOUND, LLC
DON MORRIS ARCHITECTS P.C.
ETP LABS, INC.
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE
SPRAGUE, JILL
LUCY SANDERS
NICOR
RAY O'HERRON CO., INC.
SEASPAR
TRUE NORTH INTEGRATED SOFTWAR
AT&T
COMCAST CABLE
COMED
NICOR
QUADIENT, INC
T-MOBILE
WEX BANK
BADGER METER
CINTAS
GRIZZ PEST MANAGEMENT, INC.
HAWKINS, INC.
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUT
LAUTERBACH & AMEN, LLP
O'REILLY
PEAK SIGNAL
THOMAS ENGINEERING GROUP
AT&T
HERNANDEZ, ROBERT
AMY ECKERT
CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FIRE PRE
CITY OF COUNTRYSIDE
DAVID KARAFFA
FULLER'S CAR WASH OF COUNTRYS
ILLINOIS TOLLWAY
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES
PETTY CASH
RAY O'HERRON CO., INC.
SBC WASTE SOLUTIONS INC
SHEILA HAYES
STRYPES PLUS MORE, INC.
THOMAS J. BRESCIA
WEST SUBURBAN CHAMBER OF
DOUGLAS MERRILL
FNBO
MENARD'S
WEX BANK
ACCURATE OFFICE SUPPLY CO
ALL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC
NEWLINE PAVING SERVICES
GASVODA & ASSOC, INC.
BS&A SOFTWARE
C+J PRINTING, INC
FAMILY TOWING AND AUTOMOTIVE
FLOCK GROUP INC
ODELSON, MURPHEY, FRAZIER & M
O'REILLY
SAFEBUILT ILLINOIS LLC
SB FRIEDMAN DEVELOPMENT ADVIS
SCHAIN BANKS KENNY & SCHWARTZ
Amount
59,762.00
415.00
100.00
50.75
21.34
54.52
599.93
230.33
16,047.50
1,050.00
1,235.36
923.74
2,280.58
1,242.70
119.97
426.46
1,152.70
57.48
109.55
130.00
386.37
51.04
10,800.00
24.48
405.00
204.88
68.34
61.35
33.75
200.25
48,156.68
270.00
42.00
8.10
1,789.60
830.00
20.69
521.17
5,152.00
255.00
1,042.00
850.00
1,500.00
150.16
1,579.83
2,195.96
2,668.94
82.60
1,379.04
8,546.00
840.00
21.50
1,058.40
59.50
500.00
761.25
114.99
7,175.00
8,150.13
2,750.00
AP TOTALS:
Total of 60 Checks:
Less 0 Void Checks:
Total of 60 Disbursements:
02/06/2026 12:23 PM
196,715.91
0.00
196,715.91
Page:
1/1
January 2026
NAME
DATE
ACH WITHDRAWALS
IPBC and DELTA DENTAL
IMRF
COUNTRYSIDE BANK FEES
MERCH BANKCARD FEE/HEARTLAND/POSTAGE
MERCH BANKCARD
AFLAC
ADP - PAYROLL FEES
TOTAL ACH DEBITS
AMOUNT
$39,344.29
$35,947.09
$882.59
$384.35
$623.40
$1,081.44
$78,263.16
MANUALLY ENTERED CHECKS
TOTAL MANUALLY ENTERED CHECKS
$0.00
CHECK RUNS (SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAIL)
$196,715.91
TOTAL CHECK RUNS
$196,715.91
TOTAL ALL NON-PAYROLL EXPENSES
$274,979.07
PAYROLL
1/7/2026
1/21/2026
TOTAL PAYROLL
TAXES
$62,475.36
$53,538.39
$116,013.75
1/7/2026
1/21/2026
$34,425.27
$28,683.19
TOTAL TAXES
$63,108.46
GRAND TOTAL ALL PAYMENTS
$454,101.28
To:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From: Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
Date:
February 6, 2026
Subject: Adoption of Financial Policies
Action Requested: Approve the adoption of four financial policies as recommended by the
Finance Committee.
Summary:
As recommended by the Village’s external auditors, staff developed and updated four core
financial policies to strengthen internal controls, promote transparency, and align Village
practices with applicable statutes and professional best practices. The Finance Committee
reviewed each policy in detail and recommended revisions to reflect current Village operations
and Board oversight expectations.
The policies included are:
● Budget Policy
● Capital Assets Policy
● Investment Policy
● Purchasing Policy
Collectively, these policies establish clear standards for budgeting, asset management, investing
public funds, and procurement, and are intended to support long-term fiscal sustainability and
consistent administrative practices.
Background:
The Finance Committee reviewed the draft policies and recommended approval following
revisions. The policies are consistent with the Illinois Municipal Code, the Illinois Public Funds
Investment Act, and generally accepted local government best practices.
Fiscal Impact:
None. Adoption of these policies formalizes existing practices and does not require additional
appropriations.
Recommendation:
Approve the adoption of the four financial policies as presented.
Village of Indian Head Park
Budget Policy
Purpose
This policy establishes principles for preparing, adopting, and maintaining a
structurally balanced budget for the Village of Indian Head Park. It ensures that
short-term decisions are aligned with the Village’s long-term financial stability and
that resources are used efficiently and transparently in support of community
priorities.
Legal Requirement
The Village of Indian Head Park is required by the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS
5/8-2-9.1) to adopt an annual budget that does not exceed the resources available.
This policy strengthens that statutory requirement by promoting structural balance.
Definition of a Structurally Balanced Budget
A structurally balanced budget meets both of the following criteria:
1. Ongoing revenues fund ongoing expenditures.
2. One-time revenues fund one-time costs.
General Principles
Sustainability: The Village will maintain budgetary practices that avoid short-term
fixes and focus on long-term fiscal health.
Transparency and Accountability: Budget decisions will be made in a manner that is
transparent to the public and consistent with the Village's strategic goals.
Reserve Management: The use of fund balances to support ongoing operations is
discouraged. Reserves may be used for emergencies or one-time needs, subject to
Board approval.
Capital Planning Alignment: Operating budgets will align with the Village’s capital
improvement plan to ensure future liabilities and maintenance are considered in
long-term financial planning.
Budget Development Process
The budget shall be prepared annually by the Village Administrator and Finance
Director, and reviewed by the Finance Committee before presentation to the full
Board.
DRAFT BUDGET POLICY 02-10-2026
1
Village of Indian Head Park
Budget Policy
The budget shall identify all sources and uses of funds, including revenue
projections and expenditure estimates by department and fund.
Public hearings shall be held in accordance with the Illinois Municipal Code.
The final budget must be adopted by the Village Board prior to the beginning of the
fiscal year.
Monitoring and Adjustments
Budget performance will be monitored regularly by staff and presented
monthly to the Village Board.
The Village Administrator may authorize budget adjustments for unforeseen
or unanticipated expenditures within an individual fund, provided that all of
the following conditions are met:
● The adjustment does not exceed one percent (1%) of the fund’s
adopted annual budget;
● No single adjustment exceeds $20,000; and
● The adjustment does not increase the total appropriation of the fund or
involve transfers between funds.
Any budget adjustment exceeding these thresholds shall require prior
approval of the Village Board.
The thresholds and approval requirements set forth in this policy apply solely
to budget amendments and the authorization of unanticipated or
unappropriated expenditures at the fund level. These provisions do not limit
the Village Administrator’s authority to execute purchases or contracts that
are already funded within an adopted budget, as provided in the Purchasing
Policy.
Approval to execute a purchase or contract does not constitute approval to
amend the budget. All administrative budget adjustments shall be reported to
the Village Board for transparency and oversight.
DRAFT BUDGET POLICY 02-10-2026
2
Village of Indian Head Park
Budget Policy
Use of One-Time Revenues
One-time revenues will not be used to fund ongoing services. Acceptable uses
include:
● Capital projects
● Debt prepayments
● Technology upgrades
● Emergency expenditures
● Strategic investments approved by the Board
Exceptions and Board Oversight
Any budgetary actions that would:
● Rely on fund balance for recurring operations,
● Use one-time revenues for recurring costs,
● Project deficits without identified solutions,
must be explicitly approved by the Board of Trustees, and documented with an
explanation of rationale and corrective action.
The Finance Committee shall review and provide a recommendation to the Board on any
budgetary actions that fall under this exception provision.
Policy Review
This policy shall be reviewed every two years by the Village Administrator and
Finance Committee, with any recommendations provided to the Board in writing.
Revisions require adoption by the Village Board.
DRAFT BUDGET POLICY 02-10-2026
3
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Capital Assets Policy
Purpose: This policy establishes consistent guidelines for identifying, valuing, depreciating,
and accounting for capital assets owned by the Village of Indian Head Park. It ensures
compliance with applicable accounting standards, promotes accurate financial reporting,
and supports long-term asset management and planning.
Capitalization Threshold: Assets with a value of $5,000 or more and a useful life exceeding
one year shall be capitalized.
• Equipment/machinery/vehicles: Capitalize items with a cost of $5,000 or more
and a useful life of more than two years.
• Infrastructure assets (roads, bridges, sidewalks, stormwater systems, large‑scale
site improvements): Capitalize items with a cost of $10,000 or more and useful life
exceeding two years.
Depreciation Method: All depreciable capital assets will be depreciated using the
straight-line method over their estimated useful lives.
Asset Categories and Useful Lives:
Asset Type
Vehicles
Office Equipment
Radios/Telecom
Road reconstruction
Road rehabilitation
Buildings
Water/Sewer infrastructure
Estimated Useful Life
(for depreciation)
5–12 years
3–10 years
6–30 years
40 years
20 years
20–50 years
30–50 years
Implementation: Depreciation will begin in the month the asset is placed into service and
will continue until the end of its useful life or until disposal. Depreciation will be calculated
and recorded annually as part of year-end financial reporting. The straight-line method will
assume no salvage value unless otherwise justified and approved by the Administration
Department.
Tracking and Tagging: All capital assets will be recorded in the Village's fixed asset system.
Disposals: Assets will be removed from records when sold, scrapped, or otherwise
disposed.
DRAFT CAPITAL ASSETS POLICY 02-06-2026
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Investment Policy
Purpose
This policy establishes the guidelines for the prudent investment of the Village’s
funds and outlines the objectives and standards for managing investments in
accordance with the Illinois Public Funds Investment Act (30 ILCS 235/1 et seq.),
the Village Code of Ordinances, and Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) best practices.
Scope
This policy applies to all financial assets held by the Village of Indian Head Park,
including but not limited to:
-
General Fund
Capital Project Funds
Enterprise Funds
Special Revenue Funds
Any other funds not required to be managed separately under specific
statutory or bond provisions
Objectives
The primary objectives of this investment policy, in order of priority, are:
1. Safety – Preservation of principal is the foremost objective.
2. Legality – All investments must conform to state law and local
ordinances.
3. Public Trust – Investments shall be made with judgment and care,
avoiding speculation.
4. Liquidity – Funds should remain sufficiently liquid to meet all
operating needs.
5. Return – The Village should seek the highest return available
consistent with the first two objectives.
Delegation of Authority
The Village Treasurer is designated as the chief investment officer and shall be
responsible for daily investment decisions and activities. The Treasurer may
delegate duties to other staff or consultants, but retains ultimate responsibility for
all transactions. All investment activities shall be reported to the Board of Trustees.
1
DRAFT INVESTMENT POLICY 02-02-2026
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Investment Policy
Prudence
Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances prevailing
at the time of the investment, considering the probable safety of capital and income
to be derived.
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
Officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business
activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program.
Employees and officials shall disclose any material financial interests in financial
institutions.
Authorized Financial Institutions and Dealers
The Village shall maintain a list of authorized depositories, brokers, and dealers
approved for investment purposes. All brokers and dealers must be registered and
in good standing with the FINRA and provide certification of understanding of the
Village’s policy.
Authorized Investments
All investments shall conform to the Illinois Public Funds Investment Act (30 ILCS
235/2) and may include, but are not limited to:
-
-
Certificates of Deposit (CDs)
U.S. Treasury obligations
U.S. Agency obligations
Money market mutual funds registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940, provided the fund’s portfolio consists solely of U.S.
government obligations or fully collateralized repurchase agreements, as
permitted under 30 ILCS 235/2
Illinois Funds and other state-approved investment pools
Prohibited investments include derivatives, margin trading, speculative
instruments, and any investment not permitted by law.
Diversification
To avoid overconcentration of funds in a single institution or investment type, the
Village shall diversify its investments by:
-
Limiting exposure to any one financial institution
Diversifying by maturity and instrument
Matching investments to anticipated cash flow needs
2
DRAFT INVESTMENT POLICY 02-02-2026
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Investment Policy
Maturity and Liquidity
Investments shall be structured to ensure liquidity for anticipated operating
requirements. The Village shall limit the weighted average maturity of the
investment portfolio to no more than three (3) years, unless expressly authorized by
the Village Board.
Safekeeping and Custody
All investment securities shall be held in the name of the Village and kept in
safekeeping by a third-party custodial institution approved by the Village Treasurer.
Internal Controls
The Treasurer shall establish a system of internal controls and annual review
procedures to ensure compliance with this policy, including separation of
transaction authority, accounting, and reporting functions.
Reporting
The Treasurer shall provide the Board of Trustees with a monthly investment
report summarizing:
-
Investment holdings
Market value
Interest Rate
Compliance with this policy
Policy Review
This policy shall be reviewed at least biennially by the Village Treasurer and the
Finance Committee, with recommendations submitted to the Board of Trustees in
writing. Any changes must be adopted by formal resolution of the Village Board.
Staff Discretion and Board Oversight
The Village Treasurer shall have authority to manage all investment activities within the
framework of this policy, including the selection of instruments and financial institutions
from the approved list, provided the primary objectives of safety, liquidity, and return are
maintained. All investment activities shall be reported to the Finance Committee and the
Board.
Changes to this policy, including maturity limits, eligible institutions, or the use of nonstandard instruments, must be authorized by the Board of Trustees by resolution. Prior to
Board consideration, proposed changes shall be reviewed by the Finance Committee and
included in its written recommendation to the Board.
3
DRAFT INVESTMENT POLICY 02-02-2026
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Purchasing Policy
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish consistent, lawful, and transparent
procedures for purchasing goods and services. The Village of Indian Head Park is
committed to efficient use of public funds, competitive procurement, and ethical
vendor relationships.
Applicability
This policy applies to all departments, employees, and officials making purchases
with Village funds, including purchases made by check, purchase order, or credit
card (P-Card).
Purchasing Authority and Limits
Purchase Authority Levels (subject to approved budget appropriations):
●
Up to $2,500 – Department Head: Direct purchase or P-Card allowed
●
$2,501–$10,000 – Village Administrator: 2 written quotes required
●
$10,001–$20,000 – Village Administrator: 3 written quotes or formal RFP
●
Over $20,000 – Village Board Approval: Formal bidding process required unless
exempt by statute
Relationship to Budget Authority
The purchasing authority granted under this policy authorizes the Village
Administrator, Department Heads, and other authorized staff to execute contracts
and approve purchases only when sufficient funds have been appropriated within
the adopted budget of the applicable fund, and only within the dollar limits and
procedures established by this policy.
Nothing in this policy shall be construed to authorize any employee or official to:
● Amend the annual budget;
● Increase fund-level appropriations; or
● Approve unbudgeted or unforeseen expenditures that require a budget
adjustment.
Budget amendments and the authorization of unanticipated or unappropriated
expenditures are governed by the Village’s Budget Policy and applicable law.
Emergency Purchases
An emergency purchase may be made when circumstances arise that pose an immediate
threat to public health, safety, welfare, or the continued operation of essential Village
DRAFT PURCHASING POLICY 02-10-2026
1
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Purchasing Policy
services, and when adherence to standard purchasing procedures would result in
unacceptable delay.
In such cases, the Village Administrator or other authorized staff may procure goods or
services without regard to standard purchasing procedures, provided that the purchase is
limited to the minimum necessary to address the emergency.
All emergency purchases remain subject to the availability of funds within an adopted
budget appropriation. Emergency purchasing authority does not authorize the amendment
of the annual budget or the approval of unbudgeted expenditures.
Emergency purchases shall be documented in writing, including the nature of the
emergency, the goods or services procured, and the justification for the emergency action,
and shall be reported to the Village Board at the next regular meeting.
Competitive Bidding
Purchases over $25,000 shall be made through a competitive sealed bidding process
as required by the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/8-9-1), unless exempt due to:
● Professional services (e.g., legal, engineering)
● Sole-source vendors
● Joint/Cooperative purchasing agreements (e.g., Omnia Partners, State of
Illinois CMS) that meet the competitive requirements in the state statute
● Emergencies declared by the Village Board or Administrator
Credit Card (P-Card) Usage
● The Village may issue purchasing cards (P-Cards) to designated employees,
subject to the following controls:
● Allowed Uses: Low-dollar, routine purchases under $2,500
● Prohibited Uses: Personal expenses, cash advances, fuel unless pre-approved,
splitting purchases to bypass limits
● Documentation: Receipts must be submitted for all purchases with
explanations; monthly reconciliations required
● Oversight: Finance Department will review usage monthly; any misuse will
result in revocation and disciplinary action
● Card Limits: Individual transaction and monthly limits will be set by the
Village Administrator
Vendor Selection and Fairness
Vendor selection must be based on price, quality, reliability, and service. Staff must
avoid favoritism, conflicts of interest, or the appearance of impropriety. All vendors
will be treated fairly and in accordance with applicable state and federal laws.
DRAFT PURCHASING POLICY 02-10-2026
2
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Purchasing Policy
Local and Sustainable Purchasing
The Village may give consideration to local businesses or environmentally
responsible products when price and quality are otherwise equal.
Cooperative Purchasing
The Village may participate in intergovernmental joint purchasing programs as
authorized under 30 ILCS 525/2, provided the competitive requirements are
satisfied.
Contract Requirements
Written contracts or purchase orders are required for:
● Purchases over $2,500
● Services exceeding 30 days
● Capital improvement projects
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
Purchasing activities must comply with the Illinois State Officials and Employees
Ethics Act and Village ethics ordinances. Employees must disclose any potential
conflicts and recuse themselves from related decisions.
Policy Review
This policy shall be reviewed every three years by the Village Administrator and
Finance Committee and updated by Board resolution as needed.
DRAFT PURCHASING POLICY 02-10-2026
3
To: President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From: Brandon Fleisher, Administrative Intern
Date: January 21, 2026
Subject: Surplus Property
Recommended Motion: Move to approve Resolution 2026-02 Declaring: 2017 Ford Police
Interceptor, 2019 Bobcat Predator Pro 7000 Riding Mower, 2000 Bobcat walk-behind
mower as surplus property
Background
The Village of Indian Head Park currently owns a Ford Police Interceptor that has been used by
the Police then the Public Works Department. After providing service for both departments, the
vehicle’s cost to repair has exceeded its utility.
Furthermore, Public Works currently owns a 2019 Bobcat Predator Pro 7000 Riding Mower and
a 2000 Bobcat walk-behind mower. Both are no longer needed for operations as Public Works
owns a sufficient amount of mowers. As permitted under Illinois law, the corporate authorities
have the authority to declare personal property as surplus and authorize its disposal.
Legal Authority
Pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-76-4, the Village may declare personal property as surplus if it is no
longer necessary or useful. The Board of Trustees, by a simple majority vote, may authorize the
sale of the vehicle in any manner they designate, provided that competitive bidding procedures
are followed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Village Board pass a resolution to declare the items as surplus and
authorize the sale, disposal, or trade-in of the items, as determined to be in the best interest of the
Village.
Next Steps
Upon Board approval, staff will proceed with the disposal of the items in compliance with all
applicable laws and ensure proper financial recording of the transaction, initially through
auction. Staff will ensure proper documentation and transparency in accordance with municipal
and state regulations.
RESOLUTION 2026-02
A RESOLUTION DECLARING A 2017 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR, A 2019
BOBCAT PREDATOR PRO 7000 RIDING MOWER, AND A 2000 BOBCAT
WALK-BEHIND MOWER AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING ITS
DISPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING ITS DISPOSAL
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
Published in pamphlet
form by Authority of the
Corporate Authorities
of the Village of Indian Head
Park, Illinois, the 12th day
of February 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02
DECLARING A 2017 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR, A 2019 BOBCAT PREDATOR
PRO 7000 RIDING MOWER, AND A 2000 BOBCAT WALK-BEHIND MOWER AS
SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING ITS DISPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING
ITS DISPOSAL
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park, Cook County,
Illinois, ("Village") is authorized under Illinois Municipal
Code (65 ILCS 5/11-76-4) to dispose of surplus property no
longer necessary or useful for the operation of the Village;
and,
WHEREAS, the Village owns a 2017 Ford Explorer that has
been used by the Police & Public Works Departments, which has
been reviewed and determined to be no longer necessary or useful
for Village operations; and,
WHEREAS, the Village owns a 2019 Bobcat Predator Pro 7000
Riding Mower that has been used by the Public Works Departments,
which has been reviewed and determined to be no longer necessary
or useful for Village operations; and,
WHEREAS, the Village owns a 2000 Bobcat Walk-behind Mower
that has been used by the Public Works Departments, which has
been reviewed and determined to be no longer necessary or useful
for Village operations; and,
WHEREAS, the Village Board desires to declare these items
as surplus and authorize its disposal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK, ILLINOIS, AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Surplus Property Declared
The items with the following information are hereby declared
surplus property.
YEAR: 2017
MAKE: FORD
MODEL: POLICE INTERCEPTOR
BODY: SPORT UTILITY 4-DR
VIN: 1FM5K8AR0HGC63289
YEAR: 2019
MAKE: BOBCAT
MODEL: PREDATOR
PRO 7000 RIDING
MOWER
1
YEAR: 2000
MAKE: BOBCAT
MODEL: WALK-BEHIND
MOWER
Section 2. Authorization for Disposal
The Village Administrator is authorized to dispose of the
surplus property by public auction, sale, donation, trade-in,
recycling, or disposal in accordance with applicable law.
Section 3. Effective Date:
This Resolution
adoption
shall
be
in
full
force
and effect upon its
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this day of
12th of February, 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote as follows on
this page:
Name
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svetska
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If
necessary)
Aye
Nay
Abstain
Absent
Amy Jo Wittenberg, President
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
Attest:
Andrez Beltran, Village Clerk
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
2
To: President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From: Brandon Fleisher, Administrative Intern
Date: January 29, 2026
Subject: Ratification of Vehicle Purchase
Motion: Move to approve Resolution 2026-03: Ratifying the purchase of a 2025 Ford Bronco
for the Public Works Department from Sutton Ford in the amount Of $29,850.63.
Background
Due to the failure of the vehicle that was used by Public Works staff, the department requires a
reliable vehicle to support daily operations, including travel between job sites, field inspections,
and prompt response to infrastructure maintenance needs throughout the Village.
To meet this operational need, staff adhered to best procurement practices by evaluating multiple
purchasing options to ensure competitive pricing. Utilizing the State of Illinois Joint Purchasing
Program (30 ILCS 525), staff secured the acquisition of a 2025 Ford Bronco at a favorable rate.
Due to ongoing high demand in the used vehicle market, delaying the purchase until the next
regular Board meeting posed a significant risk of losing both vehicle availability and favorable
pricing.
While the FY26 Budget includes $95,000 allocated for water system maintenance, the
operational efficiency of the department has created flexibility within that line item. As a result, a
portion of those funds can be reallocated to cover the cost of a Ford Bronco to meet current
departmental needs without requiring a budget amendment.
Authority and Approval
While the Village Administrator has authority to supervise and execute purchases, purchases
exceeding $20,000 require Board authorization under Section 2-75(e) of the Village Code.
Section 2-75(f) the Village Code authorizes the Village Administrator—upon approval of the
Village President or the Trustee in charge of Finance and Administration—to authorize
purchases/direct timely payment of obligations when doing so provides a financial advantage to
the Village. Consistent with that authority, President Wittenberg and Trustee Eck both approved
the purchase, allowing staff to act promptly and secure the vehicle at a competitive price.
Request
Staff respectfully request Board ratification of this purchase to ensure the Public Works
Department has the necessary resources while making the best use of budgeted funds.
RESOLUTION 2026-03
A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE PURCHASE OF A 2025 FORD BRONCO SPORT
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
Published in pamphlet
form by Authority of the
Corporate Authorities
of the Village of Indian Head
Park, Illinois, the 12th day
of February 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-03
RATIFYING THE PURCHASE OF A 2025 FORD BRONCO SPORT FOR THE
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park is committed to
providing its Public Works Department with safe, modern, and
reliable vehicles necessary to serve the community; and
WHEREAS, the FY26 Water & Sewer Fund has an excess of
Fifty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($57,000) that is under utilized
and may be partially reallocated.
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park strives to obtain
the best possible value in all purchases and intends to utilize
all appropriate procurement avenues including the Illinois
State Joint Purchasing Program, other government cooperatives,
and competitive quotes from vendors; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-75(f)of the Village Code of
Ordinances, the Village Administrator, with the approval of the
Village President or the Trustee in charge of Finance and
Administration, may authorize the payment of lawful obligations
that offer a financial advantage to the Village, such as
discounted or time-sensitive pricing; and
WHEREAS, the Village has already completed the purchase of
a vehicle for the Public Works Department to support daily
operations; and
WHEREAS, the Village Board desires to ratify that purchase
to confirm the Village Administrator’s action and ensure the
acquisition was completed efficiently and at the best available
price.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK, COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Ratification of Purchase
The Village Board hereby ratifies and approves the Village
Administrator’s purchase of one Ford Bronco Sport for the
Public Works Department, under the oversight of the Village
President
or
the
Trustee in charge of Finance and
Administration, in an amount not to exceed Twenty-Nine
Thousand, Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars and Sixty-Three
Cents($29,850.63).
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-03
RATIFYING THE PURCHASE OF A 2025 FORD BRONCO SPORT FOR THE
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Section 2: Procurement Methods
The Village Board acknowledges that the purchase was
completed using appropriate and lawful procurement methods to
obtain the best value for the Village, including but not
limited to:
● The State of Illinois Joint Purchasing Program pursuant
to the Governmental Joint Purchasing Act (30 ILCS 525);
● Other cooperative purchasing arrangements;
● Solicitation of written or verbal quotes from
qualified local and regional vendors.
Section 3: Vehicle Information
The vehicle with the following information is hereby
ratified.
YEAR: 2025
MAKE: FORD
MODEL: BRONCO
BODY: SPORT
VIN: 3FMCR9BN1SRF63055
Section 4: Effective Date
This Resolution
adoption.
shall
be
in
full
force
and
effect upon its
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this day of
12th of February, 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote as follows on
the next page:
2
Name
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svetska
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If
necessary)
Aye
Nay
Abstain
Absent
_____________________________
Amy Jo Wittenberg, President
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrez Beltran, Village Clerk
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
To:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From: Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
Date:
February 6, 2026
Subject: Resolution 2026-04: Ratifying the purchase of a Police Department vehicle
Recommended Motion: Move to approve Resolution No. 2026-04: Suspending the
purchasing rules and ratifying the purchase of a 2025 Ford Explorer for the Village of
Indian Head Park Police Department
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background, procurement justification, and fleet
context regarding the previously authorized purchase of a police vehicle and to request that the
Village Board suspend the purchasing rules and formally ratify the transaction.
Background
The Police Department identified an opportunity to acquire a used 2025 Ford Explorer Police
Package vehicle, already equipped with lights, sirens, and required police-specific components, for
use as the Police Chief’s take-home vehicle.
The vehicle was offered for sale by the Village’s current police vehicle outfitter, whose principal
replaces his police-package vehicle annually. The vehicle was low mileage, fully equipped, and
immediately available.
Based on the time-sensitive nature of the offer and the operational benefits to the Village, the
purchase was reviewed and approved in advance by the Village President and the Trustee responsible
for Finance and Administration, consistent with the authority granted under the Village’s purchasing
policy. The vehicle was subsequently purchased.
Upon acquisition:
● The purchased vehicle was assigned to the Police Chief; and
● The Chief’s former vehicle, which was already equipped with lights and sirens, was designated
to be converted into a fully operational patrol squad, increasing fleet availability.
Fleet Condition and Operational Need
At the time of purchase, the Police Department was experiencing documented fleet constraints:
● One police squad car had been totaled in an accident in April 2025;
● The Village’s most recent vehicle purchase occurred in July 2025 and had not yet been
delivered; that vehicle is now serving as the replacement for the totaled squad rather than as
part of a planned fleet rotation;
● No police vehicle was purchased in 2024; and
● Two existing squad cars were aging and becoming increasingly expensive to maintain.
● The purchase addressed an immediate operational need and improved fleet resiliency.
Cost Summary
● 2025 Ford Explorer Police Package (used, lights and sirens included): $47,800
● Cost to convert the Chief’s former vehicle to a patrol squad: $2,195
● Estimated cost of purchasing and fully outfitting a new police vehicle: Approximately $65,000
This approach resulted in significant cost savings and allowed for quicker deployment than a new
vehicle purchase.
Procurement and Source Selection
The vehicle was identified through a direct offer made during an active vehicle outfitting process with
the Village’s existing police vehicle outfitter.
Key procurement considerations included:
● The vehicle was used, fully equipped, and not a standard catalog item;
● The offer was time-sensitive and tied to the vendor’s annual replacement schedule;
● Comparable vehicles with identical police packages were not routinely available through state
contracts or traditional competitive bidding; and
● Staff evaluated the reasonableness of the price based on market familiarity with similar
police-package vehicles, including availability through secondary municipal sales platforms.
The purchase decision was based on availability, condition, total cost, and immediate operational
benefit, rather than vendor preference. Staff coordinated with the Village Attorney to ensure the
procurement approach and documentation complied with applicable statutes and ordinances,
including recognized exceptions to competitive bidding where appropriate.
Authority Under the Village Code
Pursuant to the Village Code, the Village Administrator may authorize the payment of lawful
obligations with the approval of either the Village President or the Trustee responsible for Finance
and Administration, particularly when doing so provides a financial or operational advantage to the
Village. That approval was obtained prior to the purchase.
However, because:
● The vehicle was not purchased through the State Joint Purchasing Program or another
cooperative purchasing agreement, and
● Formal competitive bidding was not utilized,
the Village Board must formally suspend the purchasing rules and ratify the purchase to ensure full
compliance, transparency, and accountability.
Justification for Suspension of Purchasing Rules
Suspension of the purchasing rules is appropriate and consistent with municipal best practices for the
following reasons:
● Public Safety Necessity: The purchase directly supported police fleet readiness and patrol
coverage.
● Cost Effectiveness: The Village avoided the higher cost of purchasing and outfitting a new
vehicle.
● Limited and Unique Availability: The vehicle’s configuration and condition were not readily
replicable through standard procurement channels.
● Executive Oversight: The transaction was approved in advance by executive leadership and is
now subject to full Board ratification.
● Transparency: The purchase is being documented by resolution and entered into the public
record.
Board Action Requested
Staff respectfully requests that the Village Board:
● Suspend the purchasing rules as applied to this transaction; and
● Adopt a resolution ratifying the purchase of the 2025 Ford Explorer Police Package vehicle
and associated conversion costs.
Conclusion
The purchase was completed in good faith, with appropriate executive authorization, and in a manner
intended to protect Village resources while addressing an immediate public safety need. Formal
ratification by the Board ensures transparency, accountability, and compliance with the Village’s
purchasing framework.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-04
A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE PURCHASING RULES AND RATIFYING
THE PURCHASE OF A 2025 FORD EXPLORER
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
Published in pamphlet
form by Authority of the
Corporate Authorities
of the Village of Indian Head
Park, Illinois, the 12th day
of February 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-04
SUSPENDING THE PURCHASING RULES AND RATIFYING
THE PURCHASE OF A 2025 FORD EXPLORER FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD
PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park is committed to providing
its Police Department with safe, reliable, and properly equipped vehicles
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department experienced fleet constraints due
to the loss of a squad vehicle as a result of an accident in April 2025,
the delayed delivery of a replacement vehicle ordered in July 2025, and
the aging condition of multiple existing squad cars; and
WHEREAS, the Village had an opportunity to purchase a used 2025
Ford Explorer Police Package vehicle, already outfitted with lights,
sirens, and police-specific equipment, that was immediately available
and suitable for Police Department operations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-75(f) of the Village Code of
Ordinances, the Village Administrator, with the approval of the Village
President or the Trustee responsible for Finance and Administration, is
authorized to approve payment of lawful obligations that offer a
financial or operational advantage to the Village, including timesensitive purchases; and
WHEREAS, prior to the purchase, the Village Administrator obtained
approval from the Village President and the Trustee responsible for
Finance and Administration, and the vehicle was subsequently purchased
in reliance on that authority; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the purchase was Forty-Seven Thousand
Eight Hundred Dollars ($47,800.00), resulting in significant cost
savings compared to the purchase and outfitting of a new vehicle; and
WHEREAS, the vehicle was not purchased through the State of
Illinois Joint Purchasing Program or another cooperative purchasing
agreement, and formal competitive bidding was not utilized due to the
used nature of the vehicle, its unique configuration, limited
availability, and time-sensitive circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees desire to suspend the
purchasing rules for this specific transaction and ratify the purchase
to confirm the prior authorization, ensure transparency, and place the
action fully on the public record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Suspension of Purchasing Rules
The President and Board of Trustees hereby suspend the Village’s
purchasing rules as applied to this transaction, finding that the
suspension was warranted due to the time-sensitive nature of the
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-04
SUSPENDING THE PURCHASING RULES AND RATIFYING
THE PURCHASE OF A 2025 FORD EXPLORER FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD
PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
purchase, the unique availability of the vehicle, and the operational
and financial benefit to the Village.
Section 2: Ratification of Purchase
The President and Board of Trustees hereby ratify and approve the Village
Administrator’s purchase of one 2025 Ford Explorer Police Package vehicle
for the Police Department, previously authorized by the Village President
and the Trustee responsible for Finance and Administration, in the amount
of Forty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($47,800.00).
Section 3: Procurement Findings
The President and Board of Trustees acknowledge and find that the
procurement was completed in a lawful and appropriate manner intended
to obtain the best value for the Village, based on:
•
•
•
•
The limited availability of comparable used police-package
vehicles;
The immediate operational readiness of the vehicle;
The avoidance of higher costs associated with purchasing and
outfitting a new vehicle; and
The advance executive approval obtained pursuant to the Village
Code.
Section 4: Vehicle Information
The vehicle subject to this Resolution is identified as follows:
Year: 2025
Make: Ford
Model: Explorer
Package: Police Package
VIN: SGA58047
Section 5: Effective Date
This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption.
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Indian
Head Park on this 12th day of February 2026, pursuant to a roll call
vote as follows on the next page:
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-04
SUSPENDING THE PURCHASING RULES AND RATIFYING
THE PURCHASE OF A 2025 FORD EXPLORER FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD
PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
Name
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svetska
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If
necessary)
Aye
Nay
Abstain
Absent
______________________________
Amy Jo Wittenberg, President
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
ATTEST:
______________________________
Andrez Beltran, Village Clerk
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
To:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From: Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
Date:
February 6, 2026
Subject: Resolution 2026-05: Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Vicarious
Multimedia for Communications Services
Recommended Motion: Move to approve Resolution 2026-05: Authorizing a Professional
Services Agreement with Vicarious Multimedia for Village Communications Services
This memorandum is to request formal approval to enter into a professional services agreement
with Vicarious Multimedia to provide comprehensive communications and public information
services for the Village of Indian Head Park.
Staff has determined that the Village requires a more coordinated, consistent, and proactive
communications approach to effectively inform residents, support Village departments, and
ensure timely dissemination of public information through both digital and traditional formats.
In making this determination, staff reviewed multiple communications firms with experience
serving municipal clients. Based on qualifications, municipal experience, service capacity, and
overall value, staff selected Vicarious Multimedia as the firm best suited to meet the Village’s
communications needs.
Vicarious Multimedia was selected for the following reasons:
● Demonstrated experience providing communications services to Illinois municipalities
and other public-sector organizations
● Ability to provide centralized, full-service communications support, effectively
functioning as an outsourced communications department
● Familiarity with local government operations, public accountability, and political
sensitivity
● Cost efficiency compared to establishing and staffing in-house communications capacity
The firm’s proposal reflects a clear understanding of the Village’s needs and a practical approach
to improving resident engagement and information sharing.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Under the professional services agreement, Vicarious Multimedia will provide ongoing
communications services to the Village, including the following service areas and estimated time
commitments:
● Weekly Content Coordination and Departmental Communication
Attendance at standing meetings (in person or virtual) and ongoing phone and email
correspondence with designated staff in each department to gather timely content for
Village communications.
Estimated time: 2–5 hours per month
● Content Calendar Development and Maintenance
Development of a comprehensive Village content calendar through meetings with all
departments to identify and schedule communications related to Village services,
programs, and initiatives.
Initial calendar development: Approximately 10 hours
Ongoing maintenance: 1–2 hours per month
● Social Media Management
Creation, scheduling, and publishing of social media content for Facebook, Instagram,
and Nextdoor, including graphic design, platform setup (as needed), and monitoring
engagement twice daily. Target posting frequency of up to three (3) posts per week.
Initial setup (Nextdoor and platform integration): 5–7 hours
Ongoing management: 20–30 hours per month
● E-Newsletter Development and Management
Establishment of a Village e-newsletter platform and template, followed by monthly
content creation, graphic design, formatting, and distribution.
Initial setup: 5–7 hours
Monthly production: 5–7 hours per month
● Monthly Blog Development (Senior-Focused Content)
Development and writing of a monthly blog targeted to senior residents, with publication
on the Village website, social media platforms, and inclusion in the e-newsletter.
Estimated time: 5–7 hours per month
● Website Content Updates and Maintenance
Routine website updates, including content revisions, creation of an e-newsletter archive,
graphic updates, and coordination of links to social media platforms.
Included in retainer: Up to 5 hours per month
Additional hours: Billed at $95 per hour if exceeded
● Printed Village Newsletter (Development and Coordination)
Vicarious Multimedia will work with Village staff to evaluate and plan a printed Village
newsletter intended to complement the Village’s digital communications and expand
outreach to residents who may not regularly engage online. This component is currently
under development, and the scope, format, timing, and any associated costs will be
refined collaboratively and addressed as part of the ongoing communications strategy.
Printed newsletter production will complement digital communications to ensure Village
information reaches residents who may not regularly engage online. Printing and
distribution costs, if any, will be managed separately from the professional services
retainer unless otherwise authorized.
An optional website refresh and content redevelopment project is identified separately in the
proposal and is not included in the base scope of services. Any recommendation to proceed with
this work would be brought forward separately for consideration and authorization.
COST AND CONTRACT TERMS
● One-time onboarding retainer: $2,000
● Monthly professional services retainer: $3,500 per month
The proposal also identifies an optional website refresh project, which would return to the Board
for separate consideration and authorization if recommended at a later date.
This item was presented to the Finance Committee as part of the Administration Department’s
budget and will be included in the preliminary FY 2027 budget to be brought before the Board in
March.
Staff recommends that the President and Board of Trustees authorize the Village President to
execute a professional services agreement with Vicarious Multimedia, consistent with the
proposal dated January 22, 2026.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
VICARIOUS MULTIMEDIA FOR VILLAGE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
Published in pamphlet form
by
Authority
of
the
Corporate Authorities
of the Village of Indian Head
Park, Illinois, the 12th day of
February 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
VICARIOUS MULTIMEDIA FOR VILLAGE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park has determined that
effective, consistent, and proactive communication with residents
and stakeholders is essential to the efficient operation of
municipal government; and
WHEREAS, Village staff reviewed multiple firms capable of
providing municipal communications and public information services
and evaluated them based on qualifications, public-sector
experience, service capacity, and value; and
WHEREAS, Vicarious Multimedia has demonstrated substantial
experience providing communications services to municipalities and
other public-sector organizations throughout Illinois; and
WHEREAS, Vicarious Multimedia submitted a proposal dated
January 22, 2026, outlining professional services including
digital and print communications, social media management, enewsletter
production,
website
updates,
and
departmental
coordination; and
WHEREAS, the proposed engagement constitutes a professional
services agreement, for which competitive bidding is not required;
and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees find that
entering into a professional services agreement with Vicarious
Multimedia is in the best interest of the Village and supports the
Village’s goals of transparency, efficiency, and effective public
engagement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Village of Indian Head Park hereby engages Vicarious Multimedia
to provide professional communications and public information
services.
Section 2.
The Village President is authorized and directed to execute a
professional
services
agreement
with
Vicarious
Multimedia
consistent with the proposal dated January 22, 2026, in an amount
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
VICARIOUS MULTIMEDIA FOR VILLAGE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
not to exceed $3,500 per month, plus a one-time retainer of $2,000,
subject to final review and approval by the Village Attorney.
Section 3.
Any optional or expanded services beyond the base agreement,
including but not limited to a website refresh project, shall
require separate authorization by the appropriate authority,
consistent with the Village Code and applicable approval
thresholds.
Section 4.
This Resolution
adoption.
shall
be
in
full
force
and
effect
upon
its
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Indian Head Park, Cook County, Illinois, on this 12th day of
February 2026, pursuant to a roll call vote as follows:
Name
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If
necessary)
Aye
Nay
Abstain
Absent
_____________________________
Amy Jo Wittenberg, President
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
ATTEST:
______________________________
Andrez Beltran, Village Clerk
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
President Wittenberg; Board of Trustees
Andrez Beltran, Assistant to the Village Administrator
February 9, 2026
SB Friedman for Triangle Area Development Advisory Services
Recommended Action: Move to approve Resolution 2026-06 authorizing the Village
Administrator to execute a contract with SB Friedman to provide Development Advisory
Services to evaluate market potential and prepare a redevelopment strategy for the Triangle Area
in the amount not to exceed $81,000.
Summary
At its February 2, 2026 meeting, the Economic Development Committee reviewed the proposal
from SB Friedman Development Advisors for Development Advisory Services to evaluate
market potential and prepare a redevelopment strategy for the Triangle Area with the proposed
services including assessment of the market opportunities for rental multifamily, hospitality,
entertainment, and supportive retail development, evaluation of the financial feasibility of
potential development and preparation of an implementation strategy. The total cost of the
contract would be $81,000.
The Committee recommended approving the contract, with removal of analysis for hospitality
and entertainment. Using the estimated costs provided, the removal of those items would make
the total cost $72,730. As studies, surveys, development of plans and specifications,
implementation and administration of the redevelopment plan are eligible costs for both TIF
District and Business District funds, the contract can be reimbursed to the General Fund once
those revenues are generated.
Background
Following the approval of the Business District and TIF District Public Hearing, staff
recommended engaging a consultant for development advisory services. The Village lacks the
internal capacity to conduct essential economic development analysis, such as market and
development feasibility, required to achieve the Village’s goals. After researching companies
providing this service, staff recommended engaging SB Friedman. This recommendation was
based not only on their familiarity with the project area but also on the comprehensive,
wrap-around services they provide, which other companies lack.
After discussions with SB Friedman, they provided the attached proposal, with a summary
below:
Purpose and Scope of Services
SB Friedman proposes to evaluate market potential and prepare a redevelopment strategy for the
Study Area. The proposed services include:
● Assessment of market opportunities for rental multifamily, hospitality, entertainment, and
supportive retail development.
● Evaluation of the financial feasibility of potential development.
● Preparation of an implementation strategy.
● Identification of two preferred development scenarios.
Project Phases
The scope of services is divided into four phases:
● Phase I: Conduct Market Assessment: Includes a kickoff meeting, evaluation of Study
Area conditions, market analysis, key informant outreach, and a report on findings.
● Phase II: Identify Preferred Development Scenarios: Involves coordinating with the
Village to define up to two development scenarios based on market assessment findings.
● Phase III: Evaluate Conceptual Feasibility: Includes preparing a conceptual stabilized
pro forma to assess development costs and revenues, and projecting incremental property
and Business District sales tax revenues.
● Phase IV: Prepare Implementation Strategy: Includes preparing an implementation
strategy outlining key action items, developing a consolidated briefing book, and
presenting findings to the Village Board.
Time Frame and Budget
● Time Frame: Estimated to take approximately 4-5 months from the date of engagement.
● Estimated Budget: The total estimated professional fees and expenses are $81,000. In
depth estimated expenses can be found on page 4 of the proposal. Using the estimates,
with the elimination of hospitality and entertainment, the total would be approximately
$72,730.
Economic Development Committee Action
At the February 2, 2026 Economic Development Committee meeting, the Committee reviewed
the proposal. After discussion, the Committee recommended approving the contract, with
removal of analysis for hospitality and entertainment. The Committee did not feel these options
would be viable in the area and, if they were, did not feel that they would fit what the community
wanted.
Using the estimated costs provided, the removal of analysis for hospitality and entertainment
would reduce the cost by $8,270, for a total cost $72,730. As studies, surveys, development of
plans and specifications, implementation and administration of the redevelopment plan are
eligible costs for both TIF District and Business District funds, the contract can be reimbursed to
the General Fund once those revenues are generated.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-06
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SB FRIEDMAN DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORS, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY SERVICES RELATED TO THE
TRIANGLE AREA
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park (“Village”) has
established a Business District and Tax Increment Financing
(“TIF”) District encompassing the Triangle Area to promote
redevelopment, reinvestment, and economic vitality; and
WHEREAS, the Village Board has determined that achieving
the Village’s redevelopment objectives for the Triangle Area
requires specialized market analysis, development feasibility
evaluation, and implementation planning that exceeds current
internal staff capacity; and
WHEREAS, SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC (“SB
Friedman”) has previously provided professional economic
development and advisory services to the Village and is familiar
with the Village, the Triangle Area, and applicable economic
development tools; and
WHEREAS, SB Friedman submitted a proposal dated December
17, 2025, to provide development advisory services to evaluate
market potential and prepare a redevelopment strategy for the
Triangle Area, including market assessment, identification of
preferred development scenarios, conceptual financial
feasibility analysis, and preparation of an implementation
strategy; and
WHEREAS, at its February 2, 2026 meeting, the Economic
Development Committee reviewed the SB Friedman proposal and
recommended approval of the engagement with the removal of
hospitality and entertainment market analysis components,
resulting in a revised contract amount not to exceed Eighty-One
Thousand Dollars ($81,000); and
WHEREAS, eligible costs associated with studies, surveys,
redevelopment planning, and implementation strategies may be
reimbursed to the General Fund from future Tax Increment
Financing District and Business District revenues, as permitted
by Illinois law; and
WHEREAS, the Village Board finds that entering into a
professional services agreement with SB Friedman Development
Advisors, LLC is in the best interests of the Village and will
advance the Village’s long-term economic development and
redevelopment goals.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-06
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SB FRIEDMAN DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORS, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY SERVICES RELATED TO THE
TRIANGLE AREA
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK, COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Village Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to
execute a professional services agreement with SB Friedman
Development Advisors, LLC to provide development advisory
services for the Triangle Area, substantially in accordance with
the proposal dated December 17, 2025.
Section 2.
The Village Administrator is further authorized to execute any
related documents and take any actions necessary to implement
the intent of this Resolution, subject to final review and
approval by the Village Attorney.
Section 3.
The costs associated with this professional services agreement
may be eligible for reimbursement from future Tax Increment
Financing District and/or Business District revenues, consistent
with applicable state law and Village policy.
Section 4.
This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately
upon its passage and approval as provided by law.
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this day of 12 th
of February, 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote as follows on this
page:
Name
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svetska
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If
necessary)
Aye
Nay
Abstain
Absent
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-06
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SB FRIEDMAN DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORS, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY SERVICES RELATED TO THE
TRIANGLE AREA
Amy Jo Wittenberg, President
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
Attest:
Andrez Beltran, Village Clerk
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
December 17, 2025
Mr. Gavin Morgan
Village Administrator
Village of Indian Head Park
201 Acacia Drive
Indian Head Park, IL 60525
Dear Mr. Morgan:
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC (“SB Friedman”) is pleased to submit this proposal to the Village of Indian
Head Park (the “Village”) to provide development advisory services to evaluate market potential and prepare a
redevelopment strategy for the Triangle Area (the “Study Area”). Our proposed services include assessment of the
market opportunities for rental multifamily, hospitality, entertainment, and supportive retail development, evaluation
of the financial feasibility of potential development and preparation of an implementation strategy.
Background and Understanding
A lack of private investment in the Study Area has resulted in the economic underutilization of one of the Village’s
primary commercial districts. SB Friedman has previously worked with the Village to adopt a Business District (BD) and
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district and we understand that the Village is considering the use of TIF and BD revenues
to support development in the Study Area.
In light of the Village’s desire to spur development, the Village has requested that SB Friedman conduct a market
assessment to identify opportunities for rental multifamily, hospitality, entertainment, and supportive retail
development within the Study Area. The Village also seeks to understand any challenges related to development
feasibility in the Study Area and has requested SB Friedman evaluate the financial feasibility of potential development
scenarios. Additionally, we propose preparing an implementation strategy to guide development within the Study Area.
The implementation strategy will identify regulatory options, guide the use of economic development tools and
prioritize next steps for Village staff and the Village board to consider in pursuit of achieving the Village’s
redevelopment vision and goals for the Study Area.
Based on conversations with Village staff, our proposed scope of services includes the following, as described in more
detail below:
•
•
•
•
Assess the market potential of the Study Area to attract rental multifamily, hospitality, entertainment, and
supportive retail development;
Identify two preferred development scenarios
Evaluate conceptual feasibility; and
Prepare a development implementation strategy.
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
70 W Madison St, Suite 3700 Chicago IL 60602
312 424 4250
sbfriedman.com
Village of Indian Head Park / PROPOSAL: Triangle Area Market Assessment and Conceptual Financial Feasibility
Scope of Services
PHASE I: CONDUCT MARKET ASSESSMENT
1.
Conduct Kickoff and Obtain Background Data. Upon authorization to proceed, we will conduct a virtual kickoff
meeting with Village staff to confirm the scope of service, work plan and timeline. At this time, we will also collect
any additional background information for the Site, including:
•
•
•
•
Previous developer proposals and inquiries;
Documentation regarding recent sale/asking prices for sites in the Study Area or similar sites in the Village;
Relevant Village codes and design requirements; and
Information on any proposed developments or new tenants in the Village or surrounding area/
2. Evaluate and Document Conditions of Study Area. We will prepare a context map for the Study Area.
Fragmented ownership often presents redevelopment challenges in areas like this. Understanding those conditions
initially is particularly important when working to develop a phasing and implementation strategy that is grounded
in reality. Additionally, we will assess adjacencies, access and visibility, site size, lot configuration, traffic and other
key factors influencing market potential to understand development constraints and opportunities.
3. Conduct Market Analysis. We will evaluate the market potential of rental multifamily, hospitality, entertainment,
and supportive retail development. The market assessment will focus on competitive supply and development
patterns, development prototypes (scales, densities, amenities) and demand vectors related to these land uses. We
use multiple subscription-based proprietary databases to quickly compile, analyze and synthesize demographic
and market data to provide meaningful insights regarding market dynamics.
4. Key Informant Outreach. We will reconcile supply and demand considerations with insights from local “key
informants” – brokers, developers, housing professionals, businesses and landowners. This initial outreach would
include interviews with 3-5 developers with relevant local experience to understand their perspective on
redevelopment opportunities within the Triangle Area. We will also support the Village with outreach to property
owners within the Triangle Area to understand their long-term goals for their properties.
5. Report on Market Analysis Findings. We will prepare a concise summary document outlining our analysis and
findings. We will virtually present our findings to the Village and incorporate one round of consolidated edits.
PHASE II: IDENTIFY PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
6. Coordinate with Village to Define Two Preferred Development Scenarios. We will synthesize the market
assessment and work with the Village to identify up to two development scenarios based on the anticipated
supportable units / retail square footage throughout the Study Area. We will conduct up to two virtual meetings
with the Village to discuss in more detail development constraints and any questions that arose during the Study
Area evaluation and market analysis.
If the Village desires renderings or visualizations of the two preferred development scenarios, we will work with the
Village to partner with a land use planner to develop renderings as an additional service.
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
2
Village of Indian Head Park / PROPOSAL: Triangle Area Market Assessment and Conceptual Financial Feasibility
PHASE III: EVALUATE CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY
7.
Prepare Conceptual Stabilized Pro Forma. We will develop a high-level conceptual static pro forma model to
evaluate order of magnitude private sector development costs and revenues associated with the two preferred
development scenarios. The model will incorporate acquisition costs, the specific development program depicted
in the scenarios, likely development costs, anticipated rents and typical market returns for similar developments.
The intent is to provide an understanding of whether (and how much) public assistance may be necessary to
facilitate development. The analysis will include:
•
•
•
•
Estimated net operating income (NOI) based on rents, occupancy and operating expenses (based on market
assessment)
Site infrastructure and utility costs (to be provided by Village or Village engineer)
Estimated hard and soft costs of construction, as well as financing costs (based on SB Friedman’s past
experience)
Estimate of value of development sites based on information from the Village and limited research into public
sources on recent sale or asking prices
8. Project Incremental Property Tax and Business District Sales Tax Revenues. We will project the incremental
property and BD sales tax revenues generated under both development scenarios. These revenue projections will
be used to evaluate the ability of TIF and BD to support the Village’s redevelopment goals within the Study Area.
We will virtually present our findings to the Village.
PHASE IV: PREPARE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
9. Prepare Implementation Strategy. We will prepare a strategy that outlines key action items to support
development in the Study Area. This will include refining the development vision for the Study Area, as needed,
through continued outreach to property owners, real estate brokers, developers, and other key stakeholders within
the Village. We will explore regulatory options that can facilitate development that aligns with the Village’s vision
and identify additional sources of funds to support placemaking efforts, public realm improvements, and private
development. The development strategy will include key considerations and priorities regarding the use of public
revenues for future projects seeking Village financial assistance.
10. Prepare Consolidated Briefing Book. We will incorporate the development scenarios and results of the feasibility
analysis into a combined market assessment, financial feasibility and implementation strategy briefing book. The
briefing book is intended to be concise. We will provide the draft briefing book to the Village and incorporate one
round of edits before finalizing the document.
11. Prepare Brief Presentation and Present Findings to the Village Board. We will prepare a concise presentation
outlining our market analysis, the development scenarios and the results of the conceptual development feasibility
analysis. Overall conclusions regarding feasibility and proposed next steps will be discussed. SB Friedman will attend
and present the findings at one Village Board meeting.
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
3
Village of Indian Head Park / PROPOSAL: Triangle Area Market Assessment and Conceptual Financial Feasibility
Time Frame
Based on the scope of work outlined herein and our experience with similar projects, we estimate that it will take
approximately 4-5 months to complete the scope of services from the date we are engaged. This timeline may be
extended if it takes longer than anticipated to speak to the landowners and local brokers/developers, the timing of
Village Board meetings, or if data is not available at the outset of the engagement. We will work closely with Village to
meet any deadlines for the Project.
Estimated Budget
Professional fees will be based on the time required at the then-current hourly billing rates of the staff involved. As
shown in greater detail in the budget estimate below, the estimated professional fees and expenses for the Scope of
Services described above total $81,000, as shown in greater detail in the Estimated Budget below. The estimate has
been prepared based on certain assumptions as to the time required based on our prior experience.
Estimated Budget
TASK
Phase I: Conduct Market Assessment
TOTAL
Senior
Vice
President
$375
Project
Manager
Associate
$255
$211
6
1 Conduct Kickoff and Obtain Background Data
$3,546
2
6
2 Evaluate and Document Conditions of Study Area
$3,458
2
4
8
3 Conduct Market Analysis
$25,478
12
26
68
Rental Multifamily
4
8
32
Retail
4
8
16
Entertainment
2
6
12
Hospitality
2
4
8
4 Key Informant Outreach
$6,400
6
8
10
5 Report on Market Analysis Findings
$3,458
2
4
8
Total Phase I
Phase II: Identify Preferred Development Scenarios
$42,340
24
48
100
6 Coordinate with Village to Define Two Preferred Development Scenarios
$4,296
4
6
6
$4,296
4
6
6
7 Prepare Conceptual Stabilized Pro Forma
$13,832
8
16
32
8 Project Incremental Property Tax and Business District Sales Tax Revenues
$3,458
2
4
8
Total Phase III
Phase IV: Prepare Implementation Strategy
$17,290
10
20
40
9 Prepare Implementation Strategy
10 Prepare Consolidated Briefing Book
$8,358
4
12
18
$3,036
2
4
6
11 Prepare Brief Presentation and Present Findings to Village Board
$3,364
4
4
4
Total Phase IV
Total Hours
$14,758
316
10
48
20
94
28
174
Total Professional Fees
$78,700
$18,000
$23,970
$36,714
Total Phase II
Phase III: Evaluate Conceptual Feasibility
Expense Estimate (CoStar, Real Capital Analytics, General Expenses)
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
$2,300
$81,000
4
Village of Indian Head Park / PROPOSAL: Triangle Area Market Assessment and Conceptual Financial Feasibility
The following current hourly rates apply to this engagement:
Partner/Senior Vice President
Vice President
Senior Project Manager
Project Manager
$375
$300
$276
$255
Senior Associate
Associate
Research Associate
Editor
$230
$211
$195
$145
These rates will be in effect until December 31, 2025, after which they are subject to adjustment.
Travel, publications, maps, outside data, use of owned or licensed databases, report production, and other out-ofpocket expenses are included in this estimate and will be billed in addition to professional fees as incurred (without
mark-up).
This fee estimate is intended to serve as a benchmark and is subject to upward revision if the engagement entails more
time than estimated due to problems that are encountered which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the
commencement of the engagement, or if the scope is changed. In this event, we will discuss the matter with you so
that a mutually acceptable revision may be made. Fees and expenses for our services will not exceed the total fee
amount without your further authorization.
In addition to the base scope of work presented above, we are available to provide additional analytical or negotiation
support services to the Village, including additional in-person testimony/meetings, calls, review of additional
information that may be generated by the landowner or potential developers after our initial analysis, developer
solicitation, negotiation and structuring of a term sheet and redevelopment agreement, etc. These services, or any
other additions to the base scope, would be treated as additional services to be performed as an extension to initial
engagement.
Invoices will be rendered not more frequently than monthly as our work progresses for services and costs incurred.
Invoices are payable within 30 days.
If at any time the decision is made to discontinue our services, our fee will be based upon the actual time expended
and out-of-pocket costs incurred to that date.
The attached Limitations of our Engagement apply to this engagement.
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
5
Village of Indian Head Park / PROPOSAL: Triangle Area Market Assessment and Conceptual Financial Feasibility
Acceptance Procedures
We look forward to this opportunity to continue to assist the Village of Indian Head Park.
To indicate your acceptance of any phase of this proposal, please sign in the indicated area for that phase and return
a copy of this letter as authorization for us to proceed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Caitlin Johnson, AICP
Senior Vice President
(312) 384-2403 | [email protected]
Phase 1 Accepted:
Andrew Glazener
Project Manager
(312) 424-4256 | [email protected]
_____________________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
_____________________________________________________________________
Name
Title
Phase 2 Accepted:
_____________________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
_____________________________________________________________________
Name
Title
Phase 3 Accepted:
_____________________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
_____________________________________________________________________
Name
Title
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
6
Village of Indian Head Park / PROPOSAL: Triangle Area Market Assessment and Conceptual Financial Feasibility
Phase 4 Accepted:
_____________________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
_____________________________________________________________________
Name
Title
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
7
Village of Indian Head Park / PROPOSAL: Triangle Area Market Assessment and Conceptual Financial Feasibility
Limitations of Our Engagement
Our deliverable will be based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from research of the market,
knowledge of the industry, and meetings with the Village and others during which we will obtain certain information.
The sources of information and bases of the estimates and assumptions will be stated in the deliverable. Some
assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual
results achieved during the period covered by our analysis will necessarily vary from those described in our deliverable,
and the variations may be material.
The terms of this engagement are such that we have no obligation to revise analyses or the deliverable to reflect events
or conditions which occur subsequent to the date of the deliverable. These events or conditions include, without
limitation, economic growth trends, governmental actions, changes in assessment practices, changes in applicable
statutes, additional competitive developments, interest rates and other market factors. However, we will be available to
discuss the necessity for revision in view of changes in the economic or market factors affecting the proposed project.
Our deliverable will be intended solely for your information for purposes of considering a redevelopment strategy for
the Site and will not be a recommendation to issue bonds or other securities. The deliverable should not be relied upon
by any other person, firm or corporation, or for any other purposes. Neither the deliverable nor its contents, nor any
reference to our Firm, may be included or quoted in any offering circular or registration statement, appraisal, sales
brochure, prospectus, loan or other agreement or document intended for use in obtaining funds from individual
investors without our prior written consent. Our deliverables are not intended to constitute advice for the client to issue
(or refrain from issuing) specific municipal securities.
We acknowledge that upon submission to the Village the deliverable may become a public document within the
meaning of the Freedom of Information Act. Nothing in these limitations is intended to block the disclosure of the
deliverable under such Act.
SB Friedman Development Advisors, LLC
8
To:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From: Andrez Beltran, Assistant to the Village Administrator
Date: February 12, 2026
Subject: Ordinance 2026-05 – Increasing Class AAA Liquor Licenses
Recommended Motion: Move to approve Ordinance 2026-05, increasing the number of
authorized Class AAA liquor licenses from one (1) to two (2) to accommodate Golden
Century Cafe
A new business, Golden Century Cafe, took over the former Willow Hills Restaurant and
has applied for a Class AAA liquor license, which authorizes the retail sale of alcoholic
beverages for consumption on the premises specified and where sold. Such licenses
are only issued to full service restaurants.. In order to issue a license to this new
establishment, the Village must first increase the number of authorized Class AAA liquor
licenses from one (1) to two (2).
This ordinance updates the Village Code to allow the Local Liquor Control
Commissioner to issue a license to the qualified applicant. The increase is directly
related to the business plan for Golden Century Cafe, and there is no intention to leave
an unissued license on the books after issuance.
Following Board approval, the Village President (as Liquor Commissioner) will issue the
license to the applicant upon satisfaction of all required conditions. Staff will also update
the license inventory and notify the Illinois Liquor Control Commission of the change.
ORDINANCE 2026-05
AMENDING SECTION 8-120 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CLASS A LIQUOR LICENSES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Illinois Liquor Control Act (235
ILCS 5/4-1 et seq.) and the Village Code of Indian Head Park,
the Village President serves as the Local Liquor Control
Commissioner and is empowered to issue liquor licenses as
authorized by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-120 of the Village Code requires the
number of licenses authorized in each classification to be
established by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Village desires to increase the number
authorized licenses in the Class AAA category by one
accommodate a qualified applicant.
of
to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK, COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Amendment to Section 8-120
Section 8-120 of the Village Code is hereby amended to increase
the number of authorized Class AAA liquor licenses from 1 to 2.
CLASS
NUMBER
AAA
2
AA
0
A
1
BB
3
B
0
C
0
D
Temporary
E
0
EE
4
SECTION 2: Authorization
The Local Liquor Control Commissioner is hereby authorized to
issue one additional Class AAA license consistent with the
requirements of the Illinois Liquor Control Act and the Village
Code.
SECTION 3: Severability
If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this
Ordinance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other
provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4: Effective Date
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
passage, approval, and publication as required by law.
upon
its
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this 12th day
of of February 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote as follows:
Name
Aye
Nay
Abstain Absent
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (if necessary)
Attest:
_____________________________
Andrez Beltran, Village Clerk
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
_____________________________
Amy Jo Wittenberg, President
Village of Indian Head Park
Cook County, Illinois
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
Andrez Beltran, Assistant to the Village Administrator
February 12, 2026
Planning and Zoning Commission Fence Regulation Report
Recommended Actions: 1) Move to receive and file the Planning and Zoning Commission’s
fence regulation report, and 2) Provide direction to staff regarding the preparation of a zoning
text amendment for future Village Board consideration.
Summary
At its February 3, 2026 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
Village Board amend fence regulations to allow for the installation of fences along Wolf Road,
Joliet Road, Willow Springs Road, Plainfield Road, and 65th Street with the following
specifications:
○ Height: Maximum of five (5) feet in height at walk grade level.
○ Materials: Wrought-iron or aluminum material or other corrosion-resistant
material approved by the building inspector.
○ Appearance: Being a wrought iron fence with vertical fencing sufficiently close
so as to prevent a child from passing through the verticals.
○ Openness: At least fifty (50) percent open
○ Design: Shall be flat topped. Shall not have spikes or pointed ends on the top of
the fence.
Background
By adoption of Resolution 2025-19, the Village Board formally referred the issue of fence
regulations to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. The
request made of the Planning and Zoning Commission was:
1. Examine the matter of whether the Village Ordinances regarding the installation of fences
in Residential Districts should be amended; and
2. Review previous input and recommendations collected by the Village’s committee on
sheds and fences; and
3. Conduct a public hearing pursuant to law and the Village’s zoning procedures on the
matter; and
4. Solicit and consider public input on this matter; and
5. Evaluate and provide a report and recommendation on:
a. Whether the fence ordinances should be amended; and if so,
b. Where in the Village fences should be an allowed use, or if the Village should
adopt standards for consideration of fences as a special use;
c. What types of fences should be permitted (including materials, height, and
transparency);
d. How such fences should be constructed and maintained.
Beginning in July 2025, the PZC and staff worked collaboratively to compile information in
response to this directive. Staff reviewed minutes from prior Village Board meetings, PZC
meetings, and the Fence & Shed Committee to establish historical context related to fencing
regulations. During this process, staff and the PZC developed a paper survey that was distributed
to all Village households. Survey responses were collected, analyzed, and organized into
percentages and recurring themes.
For purposes of evaluation, the fence issue was divided into two components: (1) the allowance
of residential fences on a village-wide basis, and (2) the allowance of fences for properties
located along major roadways. Survey results indicated approximately 50 percent support and 40
percent opposition for village-wide residential fences, while support for allowing fences along
major roadways was approximately 75 percent.
At its December 2025 meeting, the PZC determined not to advance a recommendation to amend
village-wide residential fence regulations. However, the Commission directed staff to proceed
with drafting proposed amendments related to fencing regulations for properties located along
major roadways.
Conclusion
At its February 3, 2026 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the
Village Board that the Village amend its fence regulations to allow for the installation of fences
along Wolf Road, Joliet Road, Willow Springs Road, Plainfield Road, and 65th Street with the
following specifications:
○ Height: Maximum of five (5) feet in height at walk grade level.
○ Materials: Wrought-iron or aluminum material or other corrosion-resistant
material approved by the building inspector.
○ Appearance: Being a wrought iron fence with vertical fencing sufficiently close
so as to prevent a child from passing through the verticals.
○ Openness: At least fifty (50) percent open
○ Design: Shall be flat topped. Shall not have spikes or pointed ends on the top of
the fence.
Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation, staff requests direction from
the Village Board regarding the preparation of a proposed zoning text amendment to the
Village’s fence regulations applicable to properties located along major roadways. Specifically,
staff seeks Board guidance on whether the amendment should be limited to the roadways
identified by the Commission; whether the recommended height, material, openness, and design
standards are acceptable as presented; and whether any additional standards, conditions, or
administrative review requirements should be included. Following Board direction, staff will
prepare a draft text amendment ordinance for Village Board consideration at a future meeting,
tentatively scheduled for March 12, 2026.
1
Final Fence Regulation Recommendation Report
Village of Indian Head Park, IL
Date: February 12, 2026
2
Mending Wall - By Robert Frost
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day, we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SECTION 1: Executive Summary
SECTION 2: Background & Existing Regulations
SECTION 3: Approach & Problem Statement
SECTION 4: Staff Analysis
SECTION 5: Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
SECTION 6: Attachments
Attachment A: Existing Fence Policy
Attachment B: Survey Quantitative Analysis
Attachment C: Comparative Fence Matrix
Attachment D: Village Board and Planning Commission
Minutes Fence Reference list
Attachment E: Fence Survey Responses
4
SECTION 1: Introduction
Executive Summary:
The Village Board tasked the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) with providing a
recommendation regarding fence regulations. Beginning in July 2025, the PZC and staff
worked collaboratively to compile information in response to this directive. Staff reviewed
minutes from prior Village Board meetings, PZC meetings, and the Fence & Shed Committee
to establish historical context related to fencing regulations. During this process, staff and the
PZC developed a paper survey that was distributed to all Village households. Survey responses
were collected, analyzed, and organized into percentages and recurring themes.
For purposes of evaluation, the fence issue was divided into two components: (1) the
allowance of residential fences on a village-wide basis, and (2) the allowance of fences for
properties located along major roadways. Survey results indicated approximately 50 percent
support and 40 percent opposition for village-wide residential fences, while support for
allowing fences along major roadways was approximately 75 percent.
At its December 2025 meeting, the PZC determined not to advance a recommendation to
amend village-wide residential fence regulations. However, the Commission directed staff to
proceed with drafting proposed amendments related to fencing regulations for properties
located along major roadways.
5
SECTION 2: Background & Existing Regulations
Background:
The Village of Indian Head Park had not permitted fences since its incorporation in 1959, with
limited exceptions related to special uses and variances. Discussion regarding fencing
regulations had occurred periodically over the years, with the most recent substantive review
taking place in 2021 through the formation of the Shed and Fence Committee. At the
conclusion of its review, the Committee elected not to forward a recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC).
In June 2025, a variation was requested to allow a residential backyard fence for the purpose
of containing dogs, as an electric fence was deemed insufficient by the petitioner. The PZC
issued a negative recommendation on the request, which was subsequently presented to the
Village Board at the petitioner’s request during the June 2025 Village Board meeting. During
that meeting, broader discussion occurred regarding the appropriateness of the Village’s
fence regulations, and the Village Board directed staff to prepare a resolution referring the
issue to the PZC for further consideration.
At the July 2025 Village Board meeting, Resolution No. 25-19 was adopted, formally referring
the matter to the PZC to evaluate whether, and in what manner, the Village should amend its
regulations concerning residential fences.
Existing Regulations:
At the time of review, the Village Code did not permit fences, with limited allowances provided
through special uses and variances. Section 42-14 of the Village Code stated, in relevant part:
(a) Fences are prohibited except as provided in this section.
(b) Existing decorative (split-rail) fences may remain if and only if they are
properly maintained. They can be sealed or stained in a natural color but not
painted. Upon transfer of ownership of the property, said fence shall be
removed immediately.
(g) Fences may be permitted if required as a reasonable accommodation for a
person with a disability, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 USC 12101 et seq., and the Fair Housing Amendments Act, 42 USC 3601 et seq.
Attachment A includes the full ordinance, outlining the restrictions and requirements.
6
SECTION 3: Approach & Problem Statement
Approach:
The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), in coordination with staff, initially developed an
approach and timeline to provide a comprehensive review of the issue. The preliminary
timeline was established as follows:
August: Introduction, Process Overview, Brainstorming, and Research Questions for Staff
September: Follow Up Items from August, Public Input Strategy
October: Public Hearing
November: Public Hearing Continuation (if needed) Village Board Recommendation
Report First Draft
December: Village Board Recommendation Report Finalization
In addition, the PZC determined that its recommendation would be structured in two parts.
The first addressed whether residential fences should be permitted on a village-wide basis,
subject to any prohibitions contained in existing Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) or
homeowners’ association bylaws. The second addressed whether residential fences should
be permitted for properties located along major roadways. This distinction was intended to
differentiate interior residential areas from properties adjacent to major roads, which
experienced higher traffic volumes and reduced privacy. Previous survey efforts also indicated
greater support for allowing fences along major roadways than for village-wide fencing.
To evaluate the second component, staff identified properties abutting major roadways.
Approximately 70 residential parcels were determined to fall within this category.
The initial timeline was subsequently extended due to scheduling and timing considerations.
The September and October meetings focused primarily on drafting the resident survey. The
November meeting provided a preview of the survey results and included a Community Input
session. In December, the PZC reviewed the final survey results, engaged in further discussion,
and reached consensus to proceed with changes to the regulations for properties located along
major roadways, while not advancing changes to village-wide residential fence regulations.
7
Problem Statement:
Through staff review and public input, several key issues were identified that prompted
discussion of the Village’s regulations related to fencing. These issues reflected recurring
concerns expressed by residents and collectively demonstrated a need for the Planning and
Zoning Board to consider the topic and provide a recommendation.
1. General Safety and Privacy
Residents expressed concerns regarding personal safety and privacy, particularly those whose
properties abutted or were located along major roadways. Comments frequently cited a lack
of privacy and apprehension regarding unauthorized access or trespassing. These concerns
reflected a desire for greater independence and separation from adjacent public areas.
2. Safety for Children and Pets
Another significant concern related to the safety of children and pets. Residents noted that
fencing would have allowed children to safely utilize backyard areas and would have provided
containment for pets, including dogs undergoing training. These comments emphasized
family safety and the ability to use private outdoor spaces without undue risk.
3. Property Rights
Many property owners raised concerns regarding the ability to exercise greater control over
their property. This issue was often discussed in conjunction with other zoning topics, such as
accessory structures, and reflected a broader interest in property autonomy within reasonable
regulatory limits.
4. Modernization of Village Policy
Residents also cited the need to modernize Village regulations to align with surrounding
communities. Staff noted that approximately fourteen neighboring municipalities permitted
fences under various standards. Updating the Village Code to reflect contemporary practices
was identified as an additional reason for review.
These issues, together with a Special Use request considered in June, initiated the discussion
regarding fencing regulations. Staff presented these concerns for Planning and Zoning Board
consideration so that the Board could evaluate the matter and forward a recommendation,
either in support of or opposed to potential code amendments, to the Village Board.
8
SECTION 4: Staff Analysis
Staff Analysis
From June 2025 through December 2025, staff assisted the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC) throughout its review of residential fence regulations. The initial phase of
staff research focused on reviewing historical documentation to establish context and
understand prior discussions related to fencing. Staff collected and analyzed Village Board
minutes, PZC minutes, and Village newsletter editions to compile a comprehensive history of
fence-related discussions dating from the 1960s to the present.
In October 2025, staff prepared a comparative fence matrix reviewing fence regulations from 14
neighboring municipalities. All surveyed communities permitted fences, which identified Indian
Head Park as an outlier. The comparison revealed variations among municipalities with respect
to setback requirements, permitted materials, and fence height limitations. In conjunction with
this effort, the Assistant to the Village Administrator prepared a Fence Discussion Summary, which
consolidated staff research and supporting materials for PZC review.
The Fence Discussion Summary included the following:
•
•
•
•
•
A table of pool and fence-related special uses
Relevant Village and comparative ordinances
A list of residential parcels abutting major roadways
Homeowners’ association (HOA) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) boundary maps
Draft survey questions
At the October 2025 meeting, the PZC and staff finalized the resident survey questions. The
survey consisted of five multiple-choice questions designed to gauge public opinion regarding
residential fences. The questions were as follows:
1. Do you believe the Village of Indian Head Park should allow fences in
residential districts?
2. Where should fences be allowed on residential properties? (Check all that apply.)
3. Regardless of how you answered Question 1, do you believe that properties bordering
Willow Springs Road, Joliet Road, Wolf Road, and Plainfield Road should be allowed to
have fences along the portions of their properties adjacent to those roadways?
4. In what general area of the Village do you live?
5. Any additional comments?
Staff mailed surveys to all 1,947 Village households. The original response deadline of October
30, 2025, was later extended to November 30, 2025. The survey was distributed exclusively in
paper format to ensure consistency and limit responses to a single submission method.
9
A total of 696 completed surveys were returned. An additional 19 surveys were returned due
to vacant properties or incorrect addresses. Staff analyzed the results and prepared two
memoranda: one summarizing quantitative data and the other summarizing qualitative
comments. For coding purposes, staff utilized a numerical system for responses
(e.g., Yes = 1, No = 2, I Don’t Know = 3, No Response = 0).
Quantitative results indicated that approximately 54 percent of respondents supported
allowing residential fences, while approximately 40 percent opposed them. For Question 3,
which addressed fences along major roadways, support was higher, with approximately 73
percent of respondents in favor and 23 percent opposed.
Survey results were further analyzed by geographic area based on responses to Question 4.
Of the 696 respondents, 240 resided west of Wolf Road, an area containing a majority of the
Village’s single-family residences. In this area, only 44 percent supported allowing fences,
while 52 percent opposed them, indicating that residents most likely to be affected by villagewide fence allowances generally opposed changes to the existing regulations.
East of Wolf Road, 332 of the 696 respondents indicated that they reside in an area that
includes a higher concentration of multi-family residences. Responses from this portion of the
Village trended more strongly toward revising the municipal code to permit fences.
Specifically, 62 percent of respondents supported allowing fences, while 32 percent opposed
the change, suggesting broader acceptance of fence allowances in neighborhoods where
multi-family housing is more prevalent.
South of Joliet Road accounted for 76 of the 696 survey responses and represents the
smallest respondent group by area. While the sample size in this segment is more limited,
results similarly showed a net preference for allowing fences. Approximately 55 percent of
respondents favored permitting fences, compared to 35 percent who were opposed,
indicating moderate support for code changes among residents in this portion of the Village.
When survey responses were analyzed by geographic area, the data demonstrated that
perspectives on fence policy varied by location within the Village. This analysis allowed staff
to identify the views of residents most directly affected by potential regulatory changes,
particularly when compared to areas with fewer single-family residential properties. While
these distinctions were informative, it was noted that any policy decision would apply on a
village-wide basis. Accordingly, the PZC considered input from all residential respondents, as
all were tax-paying members of the Village of Indian Head Park.
Qualitative Analysis of Survey
Question 5 of the survey provided an open-ended comment section, allowing residents to
share additional thoughts and concerns. Staff reviewed these responses and codified them
into thematic categories. This qualitative analysis provided context and narrative insight to
complement the quantitative survey data. In addition, staff separately analyzed comments
related to Question 3, which addressed fencing along major roadways, due to the PZC’s
decision to evaluate that issue independently. Responses to Question 3 reflected both distinct
themes and a higher level of support for fencing.
10
Pro-Change Themes
Residents supporting changes to the fence regulations primarily cited the following reasons:
•
•
•
Safety of Children and Pets: Respondents indicated that fences would allow children
to play safely in yards and enable pets to roam freely, thereby reducing concerns about
unsafe situations.
General Protection and Privacy: Many residents expressed concerns about
unauthorized access to private yards. Fences were viewed as a means of limiting
accessibility and enhancing privacy.
Property Rights: Some residents expressed the belief that property owners
should be permitted to construct fences on their own property as an exercise of
property rights.
Pro-Preservation Themes
Residents opposed to changes in fence policy, favoring preservation of existing regulations,
cited the following concerns:
•
•
•
Preservation of Village Character and Rural Aesthetic: Respondents noted that fences
had been prohibited since the Village’s founding and emphasized the importance of
maintaining the Village’s open, park-like character.
Fairness and Resident Expectations: Several residents stated that they had chosen to
live in the Village specifically because of its fence regulations and believed that new
residents should accept existing standards rather than seek changes.
Additional Considerations: Smaller themes included concerns related to wildlife and
environmental impacts, potential decreases in property values, ongoing maintenance
costs, and the availability of special-use approvals through the PZC to address unique
fencing needs.
Residents on both sides of the issue articulated a mix of practical and value-based concerns.
Proponents of regulatory change emphasized child and pet safety, general safety and privacy,
and property rights. Opponents emphasized preservation of Village character and the
importance of maintaining long-standing community expectations. Staff’s review indicated
that pro-change arguments were distributed across multiple themes, while pro-preservation
arguments were more concentrated around a narrower set of concerns.
11
Analysis of Fencing Along Major Roadways
Survey Question 3 specifically addressed fencing along major roadways, distinguishing this
issue from a village-wide fence policy. Responses demonstrated that a majority of residents
supported allowing fences for properties adjacent to major thoroughfares.
Key themes identified included:
•
•
•
•
Uniform Fencing: Many respondents expressed concern regarding fence consistency
and suggested that a single, continuous fence line along major roadways could
enhance aesthetics. Some residents referenced the Timber Trails subdivision in
Western Springs as an example and suggested that the Illinois Department of
Transportation or Cook County could construct such fencing.
Safety of Children and Pets: High traffic volumes along major roads were identified as
a safety concern, with respondents noting risks associated with vehicles leaving the
roadway or children and pets accessing traffic areas.
Aesthetic Concerns: A minority of respondents expressed concern that roadway
fencing could create a closed-off or “fortress-like” appearance for the Village.
Noise Reduction and Privacy: Residents adjacent to major roadways cited increased
traffic noise and reduced privacy compared to interior residential areas, and viewed
fencing as a potential mitigation measure.
Other Notable Comments
Some survey responses neither supported nor opposed changes to fence regulations and
were categorized as neutral. Additional themes included requests for clear design guidelines
should regulations be amended, including fence appearance and permitting requirements.
Several respondents also requested renewed consideration of shed regulations, which was
identified as a separate issue not addressed in this review.
Overall, comments related to fencing along major roadways generally favored regulatory
changes. Of the four primary themes identified for major road fencing, three supported
allowing fences, while one focused on potential aesthetic impacts. Across all survey
responses, staff identified 22 distinct thematic categories. The feedback reflected an ongoing
balance between concerns related to safety and property rights and those related to
preservation of Village character and aesthetics.
12
SECTION 6: Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation
At its February 3, 2026 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
Village Board amend fence regulations to allow for the installation of fences along Wolf Road,
Joliet Road, Willow Springs Road, Plainfield Road, and 65th Street with the following
specifications:
• Height: Maximum of five (5) feet in height at walk grade level.
• Materials: Wrought-iron or aluminum material or other corrosion-resistant material
approved by the building inspector.
• Appearance: Being a wrought iron fence with vertical fencing sufficiently close so as to
prevent a child from passing through the verticals.
• Openness: At least fifty (50) percent open.
• Design: Shall be flat topped. Shall not have spikes or pointed ends on the top of the fence.
13
SECTION 6: ATTACHMENTS
14
ATTACHMENT A
Existing Fence Policy
Sec. 42-14. - Fences.
(a) Fences are prohibited except as provided in this section.
(b) Existing decorative (split rail) fences may stay if and only when they are properly
maintained. They can be sealed or stained in a natural color but not painted. Upon transfer
of ownership of the property, said fence shall be removed immediately.
(c) Cyclone, stockade, or any other type of fence must be removed unless the owner has
received a variance from the village. If a variance has been received, the fence must always
be maintained and must be removed upon transfer of ownership of the property.
(d) This section shall not apply to that portion of a property adjoining a business zoning district.
(e) Regulations regarding swimming pool safety shall remain in effect.
(f) The village administrator shall cause to have notice filed with the Cook County Recorder
of Deeds of the properties subject to this section.
(g) Fences may be permitted if required as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a
disability, in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq., and
the Fair Housing Amendments Act, 42 USC 3601 et seq., on the following conditions:
(1) The fence shall be a minimum of five feet in height at walk grade level.
(2) The fence shall be constructed of a wrought-iron or aluminum material or other corrosionresistant material approved by the building inspector.
(3) The fence shall give the appearance of being a wrought iron fence with vertical fencing
sufficiently close so as to prevent a child from passing through the verticals.
(4) The fence shall not have spikes or pointed ends on the top of the fence.
(5) Heavy screening shall be provided in the form of landscaping consisting of a hedge
comprised of pines, evergreens, or such other shrubbery which does not lose its leaves in
winter. The evergreen bushes used in screening the fence will be spaced in such a manner
as to maintain the health and integrity of the bushes while effectively screening the fence
from view. The evergreen bushes shall be a minimum of five feet in height at the time of
installation, and shall have an expected height at maturity of at least ten feet. Such screening
shall be subject to the final approval of the village building inspector, and the screening shall
be maintained so long as the fence exists.
(Code 1998, § 17.12.120; Ord. No. 08-16, § 3, 11-13-2008; Ord. No. 08-17,
§ 3,11-13-2008; Ord. No. 2015-3, §§ 4, 25, 3-12-2015; Ord. No. 2021-03, § 1, 4-8-2021;
Ord. No. 2024-05, § 1, 2-8-2024)
15
ATTACHMENT B
Survey Quantitative Analysis
Q1: Allow Fences?
Number
Percentage
Yes
373
54%
No
278
40%
Don't Know
37
5%
No Answer
8
1%
Total
693
100%
Q2: Fence Location?
Number
Percentage
Front Yard
100
13%
Side Yard
266
35%
Rear Yard
366
49%
Don't Know
20
3%
Total Response
751
100%
Q3 Major Roads?
Number
Percentage
Yes
510
73%
No
163
23%
Don't Know
2
0%
No Answer
21
3%
Total
693
100%
Q4: Location?
Number
Percentage
West of Wolf Rd
240
35%
East of Wolf Rd
330
47%
South of Joliet Rd
76
11%
Prefer Not to Say
32
5%
No Answer
18
3%
Total
693
100%
ATTACHMENT C: COMPARATIVE FENCE MATRIX
MUNICIPALITY
FRONT YARD/SIDE YARD/REAR
YARD
Indian Head Park
Requires permits; setbacks vary by
Barbed wire and electrified fences
yard (front vs. rear). Visibility at
prohibited
intersections enforced for safety.
SPACING
MATERIALS
HEIGHT
LOT LINES
EASEMENT
SCREENING
No specific mention
Max. height: 6 ft rear, 4 ft front &
decorative allowed with approval
X
X
Heavy screening shall be provided
in the form of landscaping
consisting of a hedge comprised of
pines, evergreens, or such other
shrubbery which does not lose its
leaves in winter
Burr Ridge
Allowed in the rear lot and the rear
up to the front year area. Exception
for corner houses with corner side
yard setback
Open fence, with at least 50% or
more open
Black, metal, or wrought iron look
No more than five feet in height
measured from the ground level at
the lowest grade level within five
feet of either side of the fence
Along border lines is acceptable,
except for corner lots
X
X
Orland Hills
Front setbacks required; allowed in
side and rear
Only one fence per property border,
so if your neighhbor has a fence,
you can not build one
No specific mention
4 ft front, 6 ft rear
Fence must be 3 inches from
property lines
Allowed on utility easements but
village and companies are able to
remove said fence at will and
charge resident for said removal
X
Palos Park
No fences in the front, allowed in
side and rear
70% open space fence
Wood protected against decay,
steel, stone, wrought iron, or
wrought-iron-style aluminum
4.5 ft max for single family
residental
Must be 3 ft from front property
lines
Joint Fence Easement Contract
among Property Owners
X
La Grange Park
Allowed in all 3, front fences must
be behind front building line
Must be open (33%) fence in the
front, the back/rear can be solid
No specific mention
4 ft front, 6 ft rear
Along border lines is acceptable
X
X
Palos Hills
No fence in front past building
lines, allowed in side and rear
Solid, semi, or open allowed
No specific mention
6 ft max
Along border lines is acceptable
Allowed on utility easements but
village and companies are able to
remove said fence at will and
charge resident for said removal
Allowed without permit
Hinsdale
Setbacks tied to historic character;
front-yard fencing limited
No specific mention
wood, aluminum, wrought iron,
brick, stone, or polyvinyl chloride
(PVC
4 ft in front, 6 ft side/rear
X
X
Riverside
Allowed but many setback
requirements (Olmsted Plan
preservation).
No specific mention
Treated wood, cedar and redwood,
Simulated wood, Decorative brick
or stone, Wrought iron or aluminum
designed to simulate wrought iron,
coated chainlink, brown, black or
green in color
4 ft front, 6 ft side/rear.
Must be 3 ft from side and back
property lines if not already
constructed along property border
X
X
Willow Springs
The front yard fence cant be past
building line, allowed in side and
rear
No specifiic mention for residental
fences
Can be any, if wood/organic
material must be painted with
nonlead paint, and treated
chemically to preserve them
4 ft front, 6 ft rear
Along border lines is acceptable
X
Screening can replace solid fences
but must follow same guidelines
4 ft front, 6 ft rear
15 ft from rear corner lot line,
otherwise no mention
Allowed on utility easements if
given permission by authoritys who
use easement, they reserve the
right to take down said fence if
needed and are not responsible for
any damage or repairs.
X
Within ten feet of and parallel to a
lot line abutting the Illinois Tri-State
Toll Road, Route 83, 55th Street, or
Ogden Avenue rights of way: Eight
feet.
Countryside
Allowed in front, rear, and side
Regular pattern and 80%
permeable to light and air
No specific mention
Palos Heights
Not allosed past front building line,
allowed in side and back
No specific mention
Wire, wood, brick, invisible fences
or equivalent type, or metal
6 ft max
On lot lines
X
X
No specific mention
No specific rule
Can't be more than 48 inches tall
(4 ft) in the front, can be 6ft in the
rear
Along border lines is acceptable
X
X
70% open air
natural, nonmanmade materials
such as wood.
4 ft max
X
Conservancy/scenic corridor
easement committee
X
No specific mention
No electric
4-6 ft depending on distance from
street
X
X
X
No specific mention
Cedar, chain link, vinyl, & allows
other (does not specific list which)
3 ft maximum in the front, 6 ft in
the back and rear
3 ft setback when abutting a
residential zoning lot
X
Screening follows same guidelines
as fences
Western Springs
Long Grove
Hodgkins
Cook County
Allows fences in the front up to side
walk, allowed in side and backyard
Allowed in all 3, most HOA prohibit
though
Can not be less than 50 feet from
intersection, 6-10 feet from an
alley
Allowed in all 3
ATTACHMENT D: VILLAGE BOARD AND PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES REFERENCES
Board of Trustees Minutes
May 4, 1960
[Trustee] Mrs. Luck said that following distribution of the last news letter, she was in on
several conversations relative to the confinement of dogs. One point made is that our deed
specifies there shall be no fences in the Village, yet fenced areas would in many cases
solve the problem of how to prevent pets from wandering away.
It was agreed that consideration be given to the writing of an ordinance which would
require that rabies shots be given to dogs in the Village annually; further, that they carry a
tag as proof that this has been done.
November 7, 1962
Trustee Wassel reported that he stopped the erection of a fence now under construction
by Mr. Morand along the south side of his property. It was the consensus of the board
members that Mr. Wassel should instruct Mr. Morand that if he constructs the fence, it
would be in violation of
his deed restrictions and in violation of the village zoning ordinance now being prepared.
April 13, 1967
The subject of fences, which are prohibited by Village ordinance, was brought up for
discussion. Trustee Detrick volunteered to tour the Village and re- port to the next regular
meeting, following the question of "what-to-do?".
May 11, 1967
Mr. Scheele requested permission to put up a fence along Route 66. The fence would be on
private property and maintained by individual owners, and this would be put in their deed.
It was suggested Mr. Scheele put his request in writing to the Board.
Discussion then turned to existing fences in the Village. It was decided to put a notice in
Smoke Signals regarding the enforcement of the existing fence ordinance passed in March
1964. Any fences put up after that date must be taken down unless expressly approved by
the Board.
June 8, 1967
The Board received a letter from Mr. Gilkey regarding his fence, which was erected in
ignorance of the existing ordinance. After discussion, Mr. Gilkey's request for approval was
granted by a 3-2 vote. Trustee Kasbeer volunteered to have the fence ordinance checked
for its validity.
It was reiterated that no new fences were to be erected without express permission from
the Board. A special note would be sent to the Stapleton's calling attention to the existing
fence ordinance.
The Board had not yet received a formal letter from Mr. Scheele making a request for the
fence discussed at the last meeting.
July 13, 1967
The possibility of having a new fence ordinance was discussed, along with reviewing all
existing ordinances.
● The fence at the Plainfield entrance had been hit again, but the persons responsible
remained unknown. (February 8, 1968)
● Trustee Heatherly is also to contact Hadon Home Builders regarding including the
maintenance of the proposed fence along Route 66 in their deeds. (March 14,
1968)
● The Village Club needs assistance in the rehabilitation of the fence at the Plainfield
entrance. It was decided that volunteers should be sought through Smoke Signals.
(March 14, 1968)
● Trustee Bailey asked that a "Thank You" be put in Smoke Signals for the Villagers
who had assisted with the fence repair at the Plainfield entrance. (April 11, 1968)
● Mr. Fischer confirmed that the maintenance of the fence along Route 66 will be
included in the deed restrictions. (May 9, 1968)
● The retaining wall at the garage is done and the squad car can now be put in the
Public Works Garage. (August 8, 1968)
November 13, 1975
A proposed new ordinance was read regarding amending the building code of the Village of
Indian Head Park. The ordinance discussed deleting the definition of a "fence" in Zoning
Ordinance 64-1, which was defined as "an enclosure about a parcel of land, field or other
space or about any other object, any barrier such as a structure of wood, brick, stone, steel
or the like that is intended to prevent straying from within or intrusion therein". It also
included "any structure designed to mark or define an existing lot line or boundary" and
"any fence like structure including a trellis placed within the confines of a parcel of land
even for decorative purposes". The proposed new definition for a "fence" is "Any barrier
device constructed of metal, masonry, composition, wood or the like, or any combination
thereof, that is designed for exclusion, confinement, screening or indicating an existing lot
line or boundary". Section "M" of the General Provisions (Page 20) of Zoning Ordinance 641, which stated "FENCES - Fences of any type shall not be permitted excepting those
required for safety such as an enclosure surrounding a swimming pool," was to be deleted.
The substitute language for this section would be: "FENCES Fences shall not be permitted".
Fences required for safety, such as a swimming pool enclosure, would be allowed after
approval by the Board of Trustees. Fences requested for enclosing a recreational area for
personal use would be allowed after a zoning variance is granted and approved by the
Village Board.
July 10, 1980
Mr. W. Barrett of 6459 Indian Head Trail requested per- mission to erect a safety fence at
the back end of his property along Wolf Road. (ADDENDUM #1) --a letter to the VBT
explains his reasoning.
The Board indicated it would consider this request favorably if the owners of all 6 pieces of
property along that section of Wolf Road petitioned also for this request thus forming a
continual barrier. A natural barriér, such as (red) barberry bushes or rose bushes, might be
considered by the petitioners in the meantime.
Trustee Marta moved that the Board approve Mr. Barrett's request to erect a stockade
safety fence between his property and Wolf Road and Trustee Perthel Seconded. Motion
denied. (1/2/2)
December 11, 1980
Mrs. Cozzi: Requesting Retention of Safety Fence
Trustee Wiggins stated that Mrs. Cozzi had a 40° fence erected on the east side of her
home at 6496 Thunderbird and has been notified that fences are not allowed in the Village
except for safety purposes. Mrs. Cozzi appeared this evening to describe the dangerous
hazard (a dilapidated root cellar structure) especially to children on the property next door.
She also was fearful of a little neighbor boy who, when on his bicycle, always cut through
her bushes onto her driveway. There is not enough space between the driveway and
property line to grow bushes.
Tr. Wiggins moved to allow the Cozzi's to have a fence on the east border of their property
and be allowed to remain as a safety fence. Tr. Southerland seconded but motion was
voted down by 6 nay votes. (0/6/0)
Tr. Glasscock moved that the Cozzi's fence be taken down in 90 days while the Village
attempts to satisfactorily correct the un- safe conditions on the next door lot. Tr. Wiggins
seconded and motion was verbally passed with 6 aye votes. (6/0/0)
June 28, 1984
Trustee Bermier read a letter from Mrs. Sandra Adams of 1625 Acacia Lane who presently
has a fence on the east and on the west sides of her house. She would like to install a
fence on the back part (south) of her lot, running parallel to Joliet Road. This fence would
not be seen from the street due to the trees and shrubbery. She feels this fence is
necessary due to trespassers cutting across her property from DOMINICK's. It would
therefore ensure the safety of her baby and prevent the two large dogs from harming
trespassers. Trustee Bermier moved and Trustee McAfee seconded the motion that the
Board approve a safety fence, generally along the south side of the property, at 1625
Acacia Lane, pending submission of a detailed drawing: Carried by acclamation (6/0/0).
June 13, 1985
Mr. Feeheeley came before the Board to petition for a fence along the east side of his
property along Wolf Road. His purpose is for the protetion of his property and the safety of
his grandchildren. He said the traffic along Wolf Road has increased tremendously since
the ordinance against fences was passed in 1964.
A lengthy discussion ensued about the fences along Joliet Road, the types of fences
available etc, as well as the planting of evergreens for screen- ing noise.
Mr. Feeheeley decided to consider various alternatives, and the Board moved to table the
matter until further advice from Mr. Feeheeley, on motion of Tr. McAfee, seconded by Tr.
Schiffman and passed by voice vote: (6/0/0).
August 27, 1987
A. Discussion of Safety Fence, Mr. and Mrs. Stern, 11203 Arrowhead Trail.
Mr. and Mrs. Stern had previously approached the Village Board regarding the erection of a
safety fence at their property. Board requested further information as to the type of fence
and had asked for a Plat of Survey. Mr. Stern approached the Board with this requested
information. He presented a Plat of Survey of his property and stated they wished to erect
a 4' vinyl covered chain-link fence. This would be for a length of approximately 60' at the
rear of the lot line and then along Wolf Road to the rear of the house. This fence would be
screened and hidden from public view. Mr. Stern indicated he had discussed this matter
with his neighbors and there were no objections to a temporary safety force.
After further discussion, Trustee Royer moved and Trustee Bermier seconded that Mr. and
Mrs. Stern be permitted to erect a temporary safety fence, 4' in height, of green vinyl chainlink material along the east side of their property, from the back property line forward to
the rear line of the building, the fence will close to the building at that particular point. This
fence and its need will be reviewed again in five years. This fence is necessary due to the
disability of Mr. and Mrs. Stern' child.
The motion was put to a vote and carried by roll-call vote
(5/0/1). (M8.87-12)
AYE: Bermier, Feheeley, Royer, Schiffman, Susca
NAY: None
ABSENT: Moore
It was decided that Mr. and Mrs. Stern must apply for a permit for this fence; however, the
fee would be waived.
June 9, 1988
Request for Safety Fence 6363 Keokuk Road
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Budovec had recently installed an in-ground swimming pool and the
Building Code stipulates that the pool must be surrounded by a fence; however, the Zoning
Ordinance dictates that fences can only be approved by the Village Board of Trustees. The
brochure submitted showed a wrought-iron fence, 4 1/2' in height. Trustee Royer moved
and Trustee Feeheley seconded that the safety fence at 6363 Keokuk Road be approved
as presented: carried by roll-call vote.
(5/0/1)
November 10, 1988
Request for Safety Fence @ 6433 Big Bear
Mr. Jones reported that the Swin's have requested a safety fence to enclose their
swimming pool. The code required that pools be "completely enclosed" by a fence;
however, the proposed fence allows unobstructed access from the house. The building
inspectors and trustees charged with building and zoning interpret that according to code,
this fence does not meet those requirements since not all sides of the pool are enclosed
with a fence. Trustees Royer and Perthel felt that the purpose of a safety fence is to
prevent outsiders from entering the pool area however, it should not prevent free access to
the pool to the owners.
President McAfee stated that the problems seems to be the location of the fence. The code
requires that the fence be located along the periphery of the pool walk or terrace area. The
proposal is for the fence to be located some distance away from the pool walk. Since the
plans submitted did not indicate dimensions, it was difficult to ascertain the exact location.
Trustee Royer requested that the plans be resubmitted and that they indicate the
dimensions and scale of what was proposed. Trustee Perthel also requested that the
location and dimensions of the retention basin line be so indicated.
Mr. Jones indicated that due to a misunderstanding, the Swins had proceeded with the
construction of a deck which had been determined to encroach the non-buildable area.
Since no building permit had been issued, work had been stopped and the Swins have
thereby incurred an additional expense. A public hearing to consider a variance for this
deck is scheduled for November 22nd. Mr. Jones asked if the Board would want to waive
the filing fee for this variance. Trustee Perthel felt the applicant should pick up the cost for
a court reporter if this service is used. Trustee Moore moved and Trustee Feeheley
seconded that the Board waive the variation fee for this public hearing but not the actual
cost of the hearing itself: carried unanimously by voice vote.
Trustee Bermier was concerned that this pool had been filled last summer without a fence
having been erected. Mr. Jones was directed to document the chronology of events relating
to this matter to be reviewed by the Board at the next meeting.
August 22nd, 1991
11423 Hiawatha Lane
Mr. Pellegrini, owner of the property at 11423 Hiawatha Lane, appeared before the Board
to ask that his request to build a security gate, which was denied by the Board, be
reconsidered. Mr. Pellegrini clarified that it was not his intent to build a security gate on his
property but rather he is requesting that a safety gate be built. The reason for his request
relates to the amount of traffic that utilizes Hiawatha and the uniqueness of the street. Mr.
Pellegrini stated that he knows of no other street in Indian Head Park where the street
ends and private property begins.
Mr. Pellegrini is requesting a safety gate be built to keep motorists off his property who
come down Hiawatha, ignore posted dead end and private property signs and are unable to
turn around except to use his circular driveway at the end of Hiawatha. Mr. Pellegrini noted
that motorists have almost hit his house, have hit trees on his property and he is
concerned about the safety of his young children and the neighborhood children who play
in front of his house. Pellegrini noted that although a design drawing was submitted to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, he is willing to follow the desires of the Board in terms
of lighting and design. Mr. Pellegrini noted it is not his intent to build a security gate to
keep burglars out but rather to erect a safety gate to insure the safety of the children.
Trustee Feeheley noted that the drawing submitted to the Board for their consideration
was a rather impressive design. Mr. Pellegrini agreed but noted that the drawing was his
contractor's design and it was made to enhance the quality of the neighborhood. He is
more than willing to be flexible and modify his design accordingly. Trustee Jaeky inquired if
Mr. Pellegrini would be willing to plant shrubs and erect two simple posts 4-5 feet in height
with a gate attached. Pellegrini noted he would be willing to erect a security gate in that
type of design. Trustee Beauford noted that in terms of the uniqueness of Hiawatha to the
Village she pointed out that Sequoia is similar to Hiawatha. When Trustee Beauford
objected to Mr. Pellegrini's use of the words "immense traffic" in describing the traffic that
uses Hiawatha, Mr. Pellegrini read a daily log that he and his wife have kept since August
10 of the traffic utilizing Hiawatha. Mr. Pellegrini clarified that he and his wife were not
watching the street 18 hours a day. In the twelve days that he kept the log 12 vehicles
came down the street. Trustee Bermier stated that there are many split-rail fences in
Indian Head Park and because Mr. Pellegrini is willing to change his design to
accommodate the Board she has no problem with the gate being built. She believes safety
comes first. President Perthel clarified that the Board of Trustees can approve the building
of a safety gate without the matter going back before the Planning and Zoning
Commission. However, the Board must be presented with a drawing of such a gate.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Pellegrini and the Board as to what direction he should
pursue with respect to such a design. Although the Board cannot give him specific
instructions, it was noted the simpler the design the better.
Trustee Royer noted that at the last Board meeting he requested that a survey be
conducted of the residents, a traffic count be done of the street and suggestions made as
to what the Village can do to alleviate this safety problem. Police Chief Pott noted that no
traffic count was done due to the department's manpower shortage, however, residents
were surveyed and Chief Pott presented the report to the Board. Chief Pott noted the street
was measured and the width of the street is 17 1/2 feet. At the turnaround, the widest part
measures 39 feet. Chief Pott clarified that if two cars were parked across from each other
on the street another car travelling down the street would not be able to squeeze through.
Chief Pott then gave the residents' estimates of the number of cars and trucks that use the
street. It was also noted by about 75% of the residents surveyed, that a good number of
the cars and trucks turn around in private driveways on the street before reaching the
turnaround or or getting to the end of the street. The Police Department recommends that
additional signage be placed at the beginning of the street noting that the street dead ends
and also in front of Mr. Pellegrini's house noting that this is private property. Trustee
Beauford stressed that if the Board allows one resident to block off his driveway other
residents will appear before the Board and make the same request. Trustee Royer agreed
with Trustee Beauford but noted that there is a deficiency in the design of the street and
the Village definitely has a safety issue to consider. President Perthel noted the Board has
to be careful in giving Mr. Pellegrini general guidelines to follow because the Board will
ultimately be approving the safety gate. Mr. Pellegrini was directed to make the design as
unobtrusive as possible with two simple posts and a gate attached. Mr. Pellegrini inquired
if the Board would be able to consider the matter again at the next Board meeting if he
presents two or three drawings within the next five days? President Perthel assured him
that such a timeframe would be acceptable.
117 Indian Wood Lane
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Gorgol who live at 117 Indian Wood Lane appeared before the Board
to request approval to build a safety fence on their property. Mr. Gorgol noted that children
and some adults have been using their property as a pathway between Hiawatha and
Indian Wood Lane. The Gorgols have no problem with adults who use their property as a
pathway. The children, however, are riding their bicycles through the grass, down the
sidewalks, down the stonewall which they use as a jumping fence and down the driveway
to the other street. In an attempt to alleviate the damage being caused to their property,
the Gorgols planted 40 trees. Some children, however, took a saw and cut down one of the
trees. Mr. Gorgol estimated there are 15-20 children between the ages of 8-14 who live in
the neighborhood and are riding bicycles on his property. Mrs. Gorgol noted that these
children are not being vindictive, they are just children trying to get from one part of the
Village to the other but are using the Gorgols' property to do so. Besides the property
damage, the Gorgols are very concerned about their liability if a child is hurt on their
property, especially the degree of injury that can be caused by riding a bike over an
eighteen inch stonewall. The Gorgols feel the best solution to the problem, unless the
Village is willing to take some action to alleviate their problem, would be to install a
stockade fence. They are, therefore, requesting permission to build a privacy stockade
fence. Trustee Royer noted that this is a matter which needs to be looked into by the Police
Department. He also noted that allowing a fence to be placed on the Gorgols' property is
not solving the problem but rather displacing the children to someone else's property. The
best solution is to work with the neighborhood to solve this problem. Trustee Royer asked
Chief Pott if there has been an increase in the Village with vandalism or trouble with
children. Chief Pott noted there have been some instances but overall he would not say
there has been a Village- wide increase. Trustee Bermier noted that she is aware of an
increase of problems with teenagers in the Village but stated she would address these
problems later in the meeting. President Perthel asked Mr. Gorgol where the fence would
be placed? Gorgol noted the fence would go on his back property line distance of
approximately 237 feet. When questioned on whether building this fence would keep
people off of his property, Mr. Gorgol noted that they would be denied access to his
property because of an existing 233 feet chicken wire fence on his property. Mr. Gorgol
distributed pictures to the Board to show the Board the damage being done to his property
and to his property and to illustrate how the children are riding through the yard.
The Board feels that allowing the Gorgols to erect a fence will not solve the problem but
will simply cause the children to find another way to get from Indian Wood Lane to
Hiawatha by cutting through someone else's property. Discussion ensued by the Board as
to the possibility of building a path along the existing easement and then landscape it in
with shrubs or timbers to prevent the children from trespassing onto the residents'
property. President Perthel noted the Board needs to consider the vandalism problem and
the egress problem. The vandalism problem will be addressed by the Police Department. A
committee consisting of Trustees Bermier, Beauford and Scalise was appointed to look
into this look into this matter and then matter and then make their recommendations to
the Board. The Gorgols' request was tabled.
September 12, 1991
11423 Hiawatha Lane
Mr. Pellegrini appeared before the Board relative to the reconsideration of a safety gate at
11423 Hiawatha Lane. At the last Board meeting, Mr. Pellegrini was directed to provide
the Board with a sketch of the proposed safety gate. Mr. Pellegrini presented the Board
with two simple drawings but noted to the Board that he is willing to comply with any
changes to the gate's design. The first drawing showed two brick posts with a single gate
that would swing inward. The second drawing shows two brick posts with a gate split in the
middle. Both sides of the gate would swing inward and be operated by a garage type
opener. Mr. Pellegrini noted that according to his contractor, although there is some
flexibility in the height of the structure, the posts would have to be approximately 7′in
height and the gate 6′ in height to provide for maximum structural integrity and to allow for
clearance at the top and the bottom when snow accumulates. Mr. Pellegrini further noted
the width of the entrance will be wide enough to allow a car to pass through. Trustee Royer
inquired if there has been any improvement in the traffic problem since additional signage
has been erected. Mr. Pellegrini stated that to his knowledge no additional signs have been
erected but noted traffic has diminished somewhat due to the closing of Wolf Road. It was
clarified that although the Board had discussed additional signage being placed on
Hiawatha no formal action has been taken by the Board. Trustee Beauford stated she feels
the Village should erect a sign at the widest part of the street indicating "No Turnaround
Beyond This Point, Private Drives". Trustee Beauford feels that if the signs work Mr.
Pellegrini would not need to build a safety gate. By allowing Mr. Pellegrini to erect a safety
gate, motorists will simply use his neighbor's driveway as a turnaround and this will not
solve the problem. Mr. Pellegrini reiterated his previous concerns about his children's
safety and stated he does not believe signs alone will solve the problem. Trustee Royer
stated that the Board has discussed this matter on three different occasions and everyone
has agreed that additional signage is needed on Hiawatha. He would like the Board to take
the necessary action to have these signs installed and then allow time to see if the see if
the additional signage corrects the problem. Trustee Bermier expressed concern as to the
length of time it would take to measure the effectiveness of the signs due to the
construction currently being done on Wolf Road. Trustee Beauford requested the Board
authorize the preparation and installation of additional signage on Hiawatha. One sign
should read "No Turnaround Beyond This Point, Private Drives" and the sign should be
installed at the wide point of Hiawatha facing east. An additional "No Outlet" sign should
be placed prior to the turnaround alerting motorists to the fact that Hiawatha is not a
through street. Trustee Beauford moved and Trustee Royer seconded a motion approving
the preparation and installation of the signs as described: carried by roll-call vote (5/0/1)
M9.91–2.
AYE: Beauford, Bermier, Jaeky, Royer, Scalise
NAY: None
ABSENT: Feeheley
President Perthel informed Mr. Pellegrini that the Board has chosen the usage of signs as
an alternative to his request for a safety gate. Mr. Pellegrini requested the Board still
consider his request for a safety gate at this time. President Perthel requested Mr.
Pellegrini to give a precise description of the gate to be built so that the Board could
consider the matter. Mr. Pellegrini noted the gate would consist of two brick posts six feet
in height, the gate would be made of wrought iron and would be five feet in height, the
gate's entrance would be ten feet wide and the gate would be operated by an electronic
opener. Trustee Scalise moved and Trustee Bermier seconded a motion to permit a safety
gate at 11423 Hiawatha as previously described: motion denied by roll- call vote (2/3/1)
M9.91-3.
AYE: Bermier, Scalise
NAY: Beauford, Jaeky, Royer
ABSENT: Feeheley
Trustee Royer inquired if the petitioner can come back before the Board if he finds that the
additional signs to be installed are not effective in preventing motorists from using his
driveway as a turnaround. Mr. McDonnell noted the petitioner can come back before the
Board as long as he is requesting, as has been his contention, that a safety gate be
allowed. The Board suggested Mr. Pellegrini wait 4-6 weeks after construction is completed
on Wolf Road to measure the effectiveness of the signs.
1. Request for Safety Fence at 117 Indian Wood Lane
Trustee Bermier noted she and Trustee Beauford inspected the property at 117 Indian
Wood Lane and found that trees have been cut down and damage done to the Gorgols'
property by children riding their bikes through the property. Trustees Beauford and Bermier
agree that there is a definite problem. It is their feeling that if the Board allows the safety
fence to keep the children off of the Gorgols' property, the children will simply find an
alternate route through someone else's property. One suggestion made by Trustees
Bermier and Beauford was to put up some type of metal guards as found on roads which
would make it necessary for the children to get off of their bikes and walk them over the
barrier. They weren't positive, however, that this would solve the problem completely.
Police Chief Pott reviewed a police report on the matter stating that Youth Officer James
Clendening responded to the complaint and noted that five youths between the ages of 911 were identified as using the Gorgols' property as a short cut. The youths and the parents
of the youths were interviewed and advised of the damage being done to the Gorgols'
property. The children were instructed to stop using the short cut immediately. Officer
Clendening observed damage to the lawn and the trees. The parents of the youth were
cooperative with the police officer. There being enough evidence presented, President
Perthel requested the Board entertain a motion to consider the matter. Trustee Beauford
moved and Trustee Bermier seconded a motion to allow a 6' high wood stockade safety
fence at the rear of the property at 117 Indian Wood Lane: motion denied by roll-call vote
(0/5/1) M9.91-4.
Trustee Royer requested that the Police Department continue to monitor the situation.
November 10, 1994
Discussion to Consider Safety Gate - 11423 Hiawatha Lane - Richard
President Perthel stated that Ordinance 64-1 dealt with safety fences and structures, but
no reference could be found for safety gates. He noted that there are safety fences in high
traffic and commercial areas of Indian Head Park. Trustee Jaeky and Mrs. Radice further
noted that the Board of Trustees previously approved the addition of a safety fence for the
Stern Family, who live on Arrowhead and whose son has spinal bifida. Trustee Jaeky did
not feel the Board was given sufficient notice to prepare for re- discussion of this issue. He
further questioned whether the request should go through the Planning and Zoning
Commission before again being presented to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Pellegrino stated
that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the safety gate and
attendant entry way structure at the time of the original petition (characterized at that time
as a "security gate and security fence"). President Perthel indicated that the Board of
Trustees appeared to be the appropriate hearing board for Mr. Pellegrino's request. Mr.
Pellegrino reviewed that, at the time of the original petition, the Board recommended
additional signs be placed at the entrance to Hiawatha Lane in an attempt to discourage
casual traffic. Reading from the September 12, 1991, Village Board Minutes, Mr.
Pellegrino noted that Counselor McDonnell, the previous Village Counsel, indicated that, if
the additional signs were not effective, "... it was his contention that a safety gate be
allowed. The Board suggested that Mr. Pellegrino wait 4-6 weeks after construction was
completed on Wolf Road to measure the effectiveness of the signs." It was determined by
Counselor Tabis that the language of the Ordinance was broad enough to interpret the
requested addition as a safety fence. Mr. Pellegrino informed the Board that the signs are
not proving to be effective in protecting his property from casual, sometimes dangerous,
traffic. He presented photos of an automobile that went off his driveway and landed 3-1/2
inches from his front window. He also showed the Board pylons that he had placed at the
entrance to his driveway. They had been damaged by repeated hits from cars. Mr.
Pellegrino expressed concern that children playing in his yard will be injured by these
wayward automobiles, and interprets this as a potentially dangerous condition. He believes
that this property is uniquely situated and requires a safety gate to alleviate the situation.
He showed photos of residences that have safety gates similar to the one proposed by him,
and believes that these gates do not intrude on the atmosphere of the Village. Trustee
Beauford indicated that the gates in the photos existed prior to the Ordinance. Mr.
Pellegrino's neighbor, Mrs. Dolores Wetzel, also gave witness to the information presented
by Mr. Pellegrino. Trustee Coleman expressed concern that the gate would only move the
turnaround problem further down the street. Mr. Pellegrino believes that, once drivers see
the entry sign and the gate, they will use the turnaround provided and take an alternate
street. Trustee Beauford maintained that Hiawatha Lane is not a unique situation, and
does not require unique attention. Mr. Pellegrino proposed a wrought iron gate which
spanned 10' between two brick posts 5 1/2' in height with lights on top. A garage doortype opener would be used for the gates. Trustee Coleman questioned access possibilities
for pedestrians. Mr. Pellegrino indicated that he would provide for a defined walkway
around the posts. Trustee Andrews moved and Trustee Moore seconded a motion to
approve installation of the safety gate. It is to consist of two brick posts 5 1/2' in height,
10' apart, connected by a wrought iron gate. The gate is to have approximately 9" 12"
spacing between bars. It is the belief of Trustee Andrews that the issue of responsibility for
approval of safety gates and fences is a problem within the Ordinance. However, the Board
has considered safety fences in the past and, because of this precedence, the Board
should decide on the current issue. He indicated that, perhaps in the future, it should be
determined whether these petitions should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission prior to review by the Board of Trustees. It is his feeling that Mr. Pellegrino has
gone through the process and he recommended passage of the motion. Trustee Coleman
requested that emergency access to the property be approved by the Fire and Police
Departments before the final design is established. Trustee Moore indicated that a manual
release may be all that is required. He pointed out that this is not a security gate intended
to keep people from gaining entry to Mr. Pellegrino's property. Trustee Andrews withdrew
his previous motion and resubmitted it with the proviso requiring Fire and Police
Department approval of access possibilities. The motion was seconded by Trustee Moore.
The motion was carried by roll-call vote (4/1/2) M11.94-5.
AYE: Andrews, Coleman, Moore, President Perthel Beauford
NAY:
ABSTAIN: Jaeky
ABSENT: Bermier
MAY 23, 1996
Counsel Tabis stated that Mr. Charles Macke attended the last meeting to seek authority
for repairing his fence, which is part of a 1,300 foot long fence along Joliet Road. Counsel
Tabis has reviewed the zoning ordinance language prohibiting all fences except safety
fences, which require a variation. The Village has adopted a Maintenance Code for the
repair of safety fences. Trustee Beauford has received calls from several residents of the
12 households involved. She stated that the homeowners would like to join in a
cooperative effort to construct a higher fence -- from six feet to eight feet; the consensus of
all homeowners regarding height is essential.
Trustee Hoak suggested that the Village modify its ordinance to allow for the construction
of a fence or other esthetic visual barrier between residential and commercial property.
Trustee Beauford would go a step further and require future developers to erect a fence,
berm or natural screening per residents' wishes, and provide continued maintenance for
such structure. Trustee Lane suggested that action be taken tonight to expedite Mr.
Macke's request. Trustees have no objection to replace the fencing if the same height is
maintained. Counsel Tabis suggested that
that the Zoning Ordinance retain the present height structure and include the variation
process to comply with height consistency; if all residents collectively wish to raise the
fence height, that request should be documented by a written statement from the
principals.
September 9, 1999
11313 Arrowhead Trail - Report Regarding Terms and Conditions Hearing
Chairman Faron reported that a public hearing was held on Tuesday, August 24, 1999,
before the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by Section 17.12.120 (A) of the
Village of Indian Head Park Municipal Code, to set forth the terms and conditions to allow
for the construction of a safety fence to be installed in connection with an in-ground
swimming pool at 11313 Arrowhead Trail
Chairman Faron stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted Findings of
Fact and he noted the following applicable items: (1) the variation, if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the locality, providing it is landscaped; (2) the conditions upon
which the petition for variation is based would be applicable generally to other property
within the same zoning classifications; (3) the purpose of the variation is not based
exclusively upon the desire to make money out of the property; (4) the alleged difficulty or
hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property;
(5) the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; (6)
the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. A
safety fence 5' in height will be installed around the entire pool along with an electric cover
over the top of the pool; (7) heavy screening consisting of a combination of shrubbery, pine
trees and/or evergreens, no less than 5' in height, will be provided on both sides of the
pool to be placed from the end of the house building line to the easement along both the
east and west property lines; (8) screening of some type should be provided for the pool
equipment; (9) compliance with all recommendations of the Village Engineer regarding
drainage issues will be required; (9) the height of the slide will be 6' and; (10) the lock on
the fence gate should be placed at the top of the gate and said gate should be placed on
the north side for entrance to the pool. Chairman Faron stated that the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees is to grant Mr.
Figliulo's request for a variation to allow for the construction of a safety fence at 11313
Arrowhead Trail in connection with the installation of an existing in-ground swimming pool,
subject to the terms and conditions set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Trustee Harper recalled that the Board previously discussed the height of a slide for an inground swimming pool on Hiawatha and she asked if 6' is the minimum height for a slide.
President Pellegrino noted that the pool product manufacturer did not make a 6' slide for
the particular pool on Hiawatha. He further noted that the in-ground pool on Arrowhead
Trail is a completely different type of pool system and the recommended height of the slide
is appropriate. Trustee Andrews moved, seconded by Trustee Harper, to accept Chairman
Faron's report from the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the terms and
conditions hearing concerning 11313 Arrowhead Trail. Carried by unanimous roll call vote
(5/0/1).
June 13, 2002
Recommendation Regarding Terms and Conditions Regarding Installation of a Safety
Fence for an In-Ground Swimming Pool at 6539 Cochise Drive
Chairman Schermerhorn reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission met on
Tuesday, June 4, 2002, regarding a petition for a variation to allow for the construction of a
safety fence in connection with the installation of an in-ground swimming pool at 6539
Cochise Drive. He noted: (1) Mr. James Sedlar, the property owner's architect, provided a
rendering of the proposed fence; (2) the Village ordinance does not permit fences with the
exception of safety fences; and (3) the proposed ordinance presented to the Board for
consideration and approval accurately represents the findings of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Trustee Walsh noted that he and Trustee Andrews attended the meeting
regarding this zoning matter and they concur with the recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Pellegrino entertained a motion to accept the report and recommendation regarding
terms and conditions as it relates to the installation of a safety fence for an in-ground
swimming pool at 6539 Cochise Drive. Trustee Walsh moved, seconded by Trustee
Coleman, to accept the report and recommendation from Chairman Schermerhorn on
behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding terms and conditions in
connection with the installation of a safety fence for an in-ground swimming pool at 6539
Cochise Drive. Carried by unanimous roll call vote (4/0/2).
May 21, 2003
DISCUSSION REGARDING SAFETY FENCE ALONG BLACKHAWK PARK BOUNDARY
Trustee Coleman welcomed those in attendance to continue the discussions regarding the
installation of a safety fence along the Blackhawk Park boundary at 65th Place and
Howard Avenue and possibly a pathway along Blackhawk Park and a private street. There
were approximately fifteen residents (approximately eleven households) in attendance at
the workshop meeting. Trustee Coleman stated that at the last Board meeting a petition
was presented to the Board of Trustees signed by concerned residents who objected to the
recently constructed safety fence across the Howard Street access to Blackhawk Park.
Trustee Coleman noted that the referenced petition was sent to the Acacia Association
Board of Directors, Mr. McManigal and to all residents that signed the petition to inform
them of the workshop meeting this evening. Trustee Coleman inquired if anyone in the
audience would be tape recording the meeting other than the recording secretary to the
sub-committee of the Board. There were no members of the audience that responded that
they would be tape recording the workshop meeting.
Trustee Coleman stated that the purpose of the workshop meeting this evening is to
possibly reach a solution regarding suggestions for access to Blackhawk Park from the
areas of Acacia Lane, Howard Avenue, Laurel Avenue and 65th Place. Trustee Bermier
stated that Superintendent Santen and the Public Works Department staff placed stakes
in various locations in Acacia to visually determine where the Acacia property boundary
ends and where the Village's property begins.
Tom Kazda, who resides at 6548 Laurel Avenue, stated that he has been a resident of
Indian Head Park for thirty years. He inquired how far does Howard Avenue extend in front
of the two new homes that were constructed at 65th Place and Howard Avenue. Mr. Kazda
stated that many years ago the owner of the property at 65th Place and Howard Avenue
appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request an extension of Howard Avenue
all the way to both of the properties owned by Mr. McManigal. He added that the Village
Board approved that request at that time. Mr. Kazda inquired how the approval to extend
the street took place.
Counsel Niewiara stated that Village archive records were reviewed from the early 1980's,
and earlier, as it relates to the McManigal properties. Counsel Niewiara stated that the
minutes of the official Board meetings as well as Planning Commission meetings from that
time period confirms that a request was made by Mr. McManigal to subdivide his two lots
and to extend Howard Avenue as a public street to the southerly border of the northern lot,
with a ten-foot utility easement conveyed to the Village for the extension of the water main
through the northern lot.
Mr. Kazda stated that every lot on Howard Avenue is a two-hundred foot (200') lot. He
added that according to the tax rolls, one of the new homes on Howard Avenue is two
hundred and sixty feet (260'), not counting the street and the other lot is three hundred
and sixty six feet (366'). Mr. John McManigal stated that he pays taxes on both of the lots
he owns at 65th Place and Howard Avenue. Mr. Kazda stated that there were
approximately thirty-five homes in the section of the LaGrange Highlands that were
annexed to the Village of Indian Head Park many years ago. He added that owners of these
properties have used and transgressed access through the natural pathway area for over
fifty years, prior to the existence of the two homes that were recently constructed. Mr.
Kazda stated that he is not sure how eminent domain works; but when the safety fence
and pathway was considered, the path would have been just a continuation of the pathway
that has been used by residents of this area for over forty plus years. Counsel Niewiara
stated that from a legal standpoint he has never advised the Village to bring about a
lawsuit to attain prescriptive easement claims. He added prescriptive easements is
generally a matter brought about by private citizens as to another private citizen if they feel
they have a claim of property rights over someone else's property by use.
Tom Kazda stated that there are many residents in the area where the safety fence was
installed that are adversely affected because the pedestrian traffic is being diverted to
other residential areas. Trustee Bermier pointed out that the Board is only looking for
solutions and the purpose of the workshop meeting is to discuss the present situation.
Al Krisciunas, who resides at 59 Briarwood Square, inquired if Counsel could expound on
the dimensions of the utility easement that parallels on Howard Avenue and starts at 65th
Place and travels north past Mr. McManigal's properties into the Acacia Development area.
Counsel Niewiara stated that a ten-foot (10') wide utility easement exists at this location
for the installation and maintenance of a water main. Mr. Krisciunas asked how close the
utility easement is as it relates to the property on the east side of Howard Avenue. Counsel
Niewiara stated that he believes that there may be two ten-foot (10') utility easements, one
at the eastern most border of the property and one easement further into the property that
parallels the western border of Howard Avenue.
Bob Bersin, representative of the Acacia Association, stated that the Acacia Association
has no problem with the installation of a pathway along the fence at 65th Place and
Howard Avenue with a double safety fence area for pedestrians. Trustee Coleman stated
that the Acacia Board previously was not in favor of a pathway in this area. Mr. Bersin
stated that possibly Acacia property can be traded to create a pathway. He added that
Acacia many years ago swapped land next to the tennis courts; however, this cannot be
accomplished unless the property owner is willing to create an opening in the fence. Mr.
Bersin stated that he has been a resident of the
Village for thirty years and the pathway along the properties at 65th Place and Howard
Avenue has been used for many years. Mr. McManigal stated that the two properties at
65th Place and Howard Avenue have been in his family for seventy-seven (77) years. Dr.
Elfriede Bednar, who resides at 11 Briarwood Court, stated that the Acacia Association
Board has not asked the immediate Acacia property owners in this area if they have
objections to the installation of a pathway along the fence area. Dr. Bednar stated that a
pedestrian traffic increase in this area would reduce the safety of the homeowners who live
directly adjacent to the proposed pathway.
Trustee Bermier stated that Mr. King, a resident of Acacia, previously attended a Village
Board meeting and proposed a double safety fence with a pathway. Mr. Bersin stated that
Mr. King, an adjacent property owner in the area where the fence was installed, attended
an Acacia Board meeting previously and he had no objections to a double safety fence
area with a natural pathway. Mr. McManigal stated that many people are still crossing his
private property since the safety fence was installed. Michelle Walters, who resides at
1734 65th Place, stated that her property is located to the east of the two new homes at
the end of the street on Howard Avenue. Mrs. Walters stated that her property boundary
and Mr. McManigal's properties would be most affected by a proposed pathway with
increased pedestrian traffic. Mrs. Walters added that people have had access to this area
for over forty years; but these are private properties. Mr. Walters stated that if people from
Acacia want to visit the Walgreens or Dominicks, they can reach that area by way of Willow
Springs Road.
John Gronke, who resides at 1714 65th Place, stated that if the residents do not have
cooperation, there will be no solution. He asked if there is any solution where private
property owners will still be able to enjoy their property and privacy.
Mr. Gronke suggested that possibly the Village would be willing to waive the fence
requirements to allow for the installation of a double privacy fence through the Acacia
boundary area with landscaping. He asked that possibly a pedestrian pathway could be
created by utilizing the easement along Howard to channel pedestrian traffic through this
area by circumventing the McManigal properties. Mr. Gronke stated that many residents
along this area have been cut off from the rest of the Village. Mr. John McManigal stated
that he is concerned about liability issues with people on his private property and he added
that personally he feels that he is the only person giving up property. Mr. McManigal stated
that the petition objecting to the safety fence was a bad statement to make because he
never intended to hurt anyone, he was simply protecting his private property. Sue
Tranchida, Mr. McManigal's daughter and owner of one of the two new homes, stated that
between her property and the Walter's property, these areas are private properties and it
would not be possible to install a pathway on the top of easement or drainage ditch area.
Trustee Coleman stated that last summer the Village talked about an area that would be
an appropriate access for a pathway, but it would need to be worked out by agreement so
as not to affect drainage. Sue Tranchida inquired if there were any other property owners
that would be willing to give up a portion of their property to allow for a pathway.
Trustee Bermier stated that residents who live at Wilshire Green or in Acacia Development
can visit the park, but residents of 65th Place, Howard Avenue and Laurel have no access
to Blackhawk Park. Frank Tranchida, Mr. McManigal's son-in-law, stated that last June he
met with Mayor Pellegrino and Superintendent Santen and at that time the McManigal
family agreed to give up fifteen-feet (15') of their property for a pathway with the Village to
pay for the cost of a safety fence. He added the Village did not accept that offer and he
tried to get along with everyone in the community during the time the homes were being
built. Trustee Bermier stated that two residents of Acacia were opposed to the proposed
plan. Mr. Tranchida stated that he is not interested in giving up any property now that the
safety fence was installed at his expense. He added that it may be an inconvenience for
some people to get to the park by another route, but this area is private property. Mrs.
Walters inquired if there is any other solution if the pathway is not constructed. She added
that she is not in favor of increased traffic through her backyard. Trustee Coleman stated
that possibly other private property owners may be willing to work with the Village to
provide access to Blackhawk Park. Mr. John McManigal stated that he agrees with Mrs.
Walters because increased pedestrian traffic has been a problem in this area as well as
people tossing refuse on the lawn areas when they cross the properties in these areas.
Tom Kazda stated that almost every lot on 65th Place, Howard Avenue and Laurel are 100'
by 200' lots, but the two McManigal properties the street goes to only half of the one lot.
He stated that every house in Indian Head Park has a street in front of it.
Mr. John McManigal stated that the original lot was 150' by 266' and he paid to have
Howard Avenue extended.
Trustee Coleman stated that although the McManigal properties are unique, there may be
other property areas of the Village that are also different. Dr. Elfriede Bednar inquired if the
Board considered approaching access to the park from Laurel Avenue and 65th Place. Dr.
Bednar stated that by walking along 65th Street to Laurel Avenue on an asphalt road
surface, people could enter Blackhawk Park from this area. She added that this would be a
safer route for residents in this area who are seniors who walk to the park. Dr. Bednar
stated that there is plenty of easement area in the unincorporated sections of Indian Head
Park along Willow Springs Road to create a walkway away from the street. Trustee
Coleman stated that the Board is interested in creating a designated safe passage,
because this still does not change the fact that people will find the shortest distance
between two points for their route.
John Gronke inquired if the Village is interested in reimbursing the McManigal's for the cost
of the safety fence and possibly to consider the pathway. Mr. Gronke presented a proposed
pathway plan that would skirt the King property at the corner of Acacia, diverting
pedestrian traffic from the Walters property and the McManigal property, with an access
point possibly on Howard Avenue beyond the private properties. Trustee Coleman pointed
out that the proposed plan is the concept that was initially discussed with Mr. McManigal
except for the double fence area. Mr. McManigal stated that he originally agreed to that
plan; however, that proposal was not accepted by the Village at that time.
Sue Legan, who resides at 1604 65th Place, stated that the issue to install a safety fence
was because children were racing down the hill from Blackhawk Park onto Howard
Avenue. She asked why the fence needs to extend all the way to the Acacia property.
Trustee Coleman stated that people coming from the park were coming all the way down
the private property boundary crossing the driveways of the private property. The safety
fence was installed to discourage people from crossing in this area. Sue Legan stated that
in previous minutes of Board meetings in the Smoke Signals, a proposed pathway and
fence was discussed, then two weeks ago the fence was installed but no pathway was
created.
Trustee Coleman stated that Acacia will allow a pathway and discussions will continue with
the property owners to reach a solution. She thanked everyone for participating in the
workshop meeting discussions. Trustee Bermier stated that possibly the Board could
explore the option further to create an access coming out from Howard Avenue to Laurel
Avenue to Willow Springs Road to 65th then taking Acacia's pathway to the park. Bob
Bersin stated that many months ago a sidewalk along Willow Springs Road was discussed,
then the fence went up without any notice.
Mr. Kazda stated that while he understands why Mr. McManigal may be upset about the
situation, many of the residents in this area now feel isolated from the rest of the Village
since the fence was installed and he hoped that the Village could reach a solution.
Mr. Krisciunas stated that Mrs. Walters was concerned about people coming down along
her existing chain link fence on the west side of her property. He added that a pathway
would not be installed along this fence based on the proposed plan presented to the Board.
Mr. Krisciunas suggested that the Village Board could possibly encourage Mr. McManigal to
reconsider what he originally agreed to with the Village with regard to the proposed
pathway and fence. Trustee Coleman stated that no decisions will be made this evening
and the Board will try to work out a solution.
Mr. John McManigal stated that he is the only one being affected by giving up property. Sue
Tranchida inquired if anyone who signed the petition objecting to the safety fence might be
willing to allow access for a path. A resident of 6614 Howard Avenue stated that he would
be willing to allow for a pathway through his yard, but the pathway would need to connect
to Wilshire Green and there is a drainage ditch at the end of Howard. Tom Kazda stated
that the creation of a safety fence may be causing safety issues for other private property
owners by people trespassing in these areas. Sue Legan asked if Mr. McManigal obtained a
permit to construct the safety fence. Mr. McManigal stated that he discussed the safety
fence with the Village before installing the fence.
June 12, 2003
Discussion Concerning Safety Access Project between 65th Street and the Crossroads
Development Site -Trustee Carol Coleman
Trustee Coleman reported that she and Trustee Bermier hosted a workshop meeting on
May 21, 2003 to discuss the safety fence installed on the McManigal properties along the
Blackhawk Park boundary. She stated that after the workshop meeting, Mayor Pellegrino
also met with the McManigal family and they would not change their position to work with
the Village to provide an opening in the safety fence installed on their property. Trustee
Coleman stated that a memorandum was sent to all individuals that signed a petition
objecting to the installation of the safety fence informing them that the McManigal family
would not change their position to allow for access through their private property from the
Acacia Acres area of the Village to Blackhawk Park.
Trustee Coleman noted that the Village is analyzing the possibility of constructing a
sidewalk access on the west side of Willow Springs Road from 65th Street to the
Crossroads Development at the corner of Joliet and Willow Springs Roads. Trustee
Coleman added that there is a possibility that Motor Fuel Tax Funds may be used to fund
the project. Trustee Bermier stated that one resident on Howard Avenue, who attended the
workshop meeting, suggested that he would be willing to allow for a pathway at the edge
of his property. However, the pathway would need to connect to the Wilshire Green area
where a drainage ditch exists.
Trustee Bermier stated that she visited this particular property on Howard Avenue on
Monday and it would not be feasible to install a pathway in that area because of the trees
and foliage. Trustee Bermier further stated that some residents might object if trees and
foliage is removed to allow for a pathway. Trustee Coleman stated that she concurred with
Trustee Bermier that a pathway in this area would not be feasible because a substantial
change in grade would be needed to accommodate a pathway including possibly a small
bridge to be installed over the existing drainage ditch.
Trustee Coleman stated that the best solution is the possible installation of a sidewalk on
the west side of Willow Springs Road from 65th Street to the Crossroads Development at
the corner of Joliet and Willow Springs Roads. She added that once a cost estimate is
obtained for the proposed sidewalk an update will be provided to the Board.
May 13, 2004
Ix. Zoning Report, Board Consideration And Vote Regarding A Terms And Conditions
Ordinance For A Safety Fence In Connection With An In-Ground Pool At 6308 Wolf Road
Trustee Andrews
Trustee Andrews reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission held a terms and
conditions hearing in April to consider a petition for a safety fence, which is required, to be
installed in connection with an in-ground pool at 6308 Wolf Road. Trustee Andrews stated
that at the April Planning and Zoning hearing Mr. DeGeatano amended his petition by
adding a substantial paved area to his backyard and that created a question with drainage
and run-off. He added that the Board decided at the last meeting to continue the matter for
a final determination to the meeting this evening to allow Mr. DeGeatano time to review
his proposed plan and to reflect on some suggestions that were made to provide a
topographical survey for Village engineering review with regard to drainage issues.
Trustee Andrews stated that an ordinance was prepared by Counsel Niewiara pursuant to
the recommendations that were provided by the Planning and Zoning Commission with
regard to terms and conditions for a safety fence to be installed in connection with an inground pool at 6308 Wolf Road.
Trustee Andrews pointed out that since the last meeting, Mr. Degeatano significantly
redesigned his proposed pool. The hot tub that was previously on the west side of the lot
has been relocated closer to the pool and the house within the fenced in area. Trustee
Andrews added that the Village engineer reviewed the topography and the plan meets with
their approval. Trustee Andrews stated that notations were made on the plan on May 5,
2004 by Mr. DeGeatano reflecting the current proposed plans for the pool, fence and
safety gate. Trustee Andrews moved, seconded by Trustee Reda, to approve the ordinance
granting Mr. DeGeatano permission to install a safety fence in accordance with the terms
and conditions that are set forth on Page 2, Section 2, of the ordinance. Carried by
unanimous roll call vote (5/0/1) Ordinance #04-7
June 10, 2004
Zoning Report, Board Consideration and Vote Regarding a Terms and Conditions Hearing
for a Safety Fence to be Installed in Connection with an In-Ground Swimming Pool for the
Property at 6333 Keokuk.
Chairman Dennis Schermerhorn reported that a public hearing was hosted by the Planning
and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 (Petition #140) to consider a petition
submitted by Jan Hosek for a terms and conditions hearing for a safety fence to be
installed in connection with an in-ground swimming pool at 6333 Keokuk Road.
He noted: (1) Mr. Jan Hosek presented plans to the Commission, which complied in all
aspects with the ordinance; (2) the property owner volunteered to add additional
vegetation and plantings to provide screening of the pool to the adjacent owners; (3) one
neighbor questioned the style of fence that was planned, and upon seeing the proposal,
was satisfied; (4) given that the plans fully comply with the ordinances, and upon finding of
fact, the Commission voted six in favor, zero opposed and one absent; (5) the Commission
voted unanimously to recommend to the Village Board to accept the petition for the
proposed safety fence to surround an in-ground pool as follows: the construction will
proceed according to the plans as amended, the fence will comply in all aspects with the
building ordinance regarding safety fences for in-ground swimming pools and the pool
equipment will be appropriately screened with suitable vegetation. Trustee Andrews
moved, seconded by Trustee Coleman, to accept the report from the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding terms and conditions in connection with the installation of an inground swimming pool for the property located at 6333 Keokuk. Carried by unanimous roll
call vote (4/0/1/1). Trustee Reda abstained from voting on this matter due to just arriving
to the meeting.
February 13, 2006
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PLAINFIELD ROAD PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
Anne Bohne, of 101 Indian Wood Lane, stated that since curbing might be expensive and a
guardrail may be considered a hazard or obstruction, to consider possibly greller strips (as
installed when approaching a tollway plaza) to alert drivers they may be veering from the
roadway or to alert pedestrians a vehicle may be veering from the roadway. Mrs. Bohne
inquired if there are any variances from the fencing laws for the residents that will be next
to the sidewalks. Trustee Walsh stated that there are some fences on Wolf Road that are
grand-fathered in from thirty years ago. Trustee Coleman stated that the Dartmoor
development will not be a gated community although there will be some sort of decorative
fencing. Larry Brace stated that he recalled many years ago when the pathway was first
discussed and there was a lot of local opposition to the pathway at that time on Plainfield
Road.
September 13, 2007
Zoning Petition #162 -- A Public Hearing Regarding Terms and Conditions for a Fence at
6472 Apache Drive.
Motion to remand the request for a fence for the property at 6472 Apache Drive to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for the public hearing to be continued to the Tuesday,
October 2, 2007 meeting.
Mayor Andrews noted that everyone who is present in the audience regarding the zoning
matter concerning a proposed fence at 6472 Apache Drive, is welcome to join the
meeting. However, the matter will not be considered by the Board this evening. Mayor
Andrews stated that prior to the August Village Board meeting, the petitioners, through
their attorney, made a request that the matter be continued to the Board meeting this
evening with the intent to allow the petitioners time to modify their plan and later for their
request to be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the October
zoning meeting.
Mayor Andrews stated that on Wednesday, September 12th, a revised plan was received
by the Village from the petitioner's counsel requesting that the fence matter be remanded
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration at the October Planning/Zoning
meeting. Mayor Andrews informed the audience that upcoming agendas for both Board
meetings and zoning meetings are posted on the Village's Website according to the
requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Also, agendas for upcoming meetings are
available at the Village offices prior to meeting dates. Mayor Andrews noted that a public
hearing notice will also be published in the newspaper regarding the continuation of the
public hearing to be held on Tuesday, October 2nd concerning a proposed safety fence and
modifications to that plan for the property located at 6472 Apache Drive. Mayor Andrews
pointed out that the petitioner's counsel requested that a modified fence plan be
considered before the Planning and Zoning Commission before a recommendation is
made to the Board. Gene Callahan, of Apache Drive, inquired when the modified fence plan
that is being proposed for the property at 6472 Apache Drive would be available to those
residents who are adjacent property owners.
Denise Guardino, of Thunderbird Drive, stated that when she moved into the community
the Village was contacted to determine the regulations for fences and was informed at that
time by the Village that fences are not permitted in Indian Head Park and that variances
were not given to allow for fences. Mrs. Guardino stated if someone has tenacity and uses
forcefulness to get a safety fence for their child will the Village grant a variance now when
she was denied a fence in the past. Mrs. Guardino further stated that if a safety fence is
granted to Mr. & Mrs. Pall on Apache, there will be more requests from other property
owners in the future for fences. Mayor Andrews stated that safety fences are allowed under
certain circumstances through a zoning process and as defined in the Village's zoning code
with such terms and conditions that are required by the Village. He noted that any and all
comments regarding the proposed safety fence for the property on Apache Drive will be
received by the Planning and Zoning Commission during the public hearing process at the
October zoning meeting. Mrs. Guardino stated that a safety fence around an in-ground
swimming pool makes sense but a safety fence to screen an entire property boundary to
keep a child in the yard is not like a safety fence for a pool. Trustee Bermier stated that she
did not recall anyone in the past who formally applied for a zoning process to allow for a
safety fence for a child and was denied. Trustee Bermier stated that she recalled several
years ago a fence in the Village was granted for the safety of a child with special needs.
Mayor Andrews stated that the Village has an ordinance that states in part "no fences are
allowed- except safety fences under such terms and conditions as set forth required by the
Village Board". Mayor Andrews further stated that the Village Board is not entertaining
changing the ordinance that prohibits fences but considering one petition that was
submitted to the Village for formal review under the current zoning process concerning one
property. He noted that the facts regarding the petitioner's request for a safety fence will
be reviewed individually as it relates to their specific request for a fence and the Board will
consider that request when the zoning process is concluded. Gene Callahan, of Apache,
stated that he has been a resident of Indian Head Park for twenty- nine (29) years and he
as well as the adjacent neighbors in the community have raised their children in the
community without fences. Mr. Callahan stated that there are many children who live in
the community that have disabilities and they were raised without fences. He added that
the term "safety" fence is very broad and he asked if there is a definition in the Indian
Head Park code that defines a safety fence. Mayor Andrews stated that the term safety
fence was incorporated in the code when the Zoning Ordinance was first adopted many
years ago and that section of the code is in place to address requests that might come
before the Village as it relates to safety.
Mr. Callahan stated that the original petition to the Village by Mr. & Mrs. Pall was to allow
for a fenced in yard for their child with special needs and now the proposed fence is fivefeet in height around the entire property boundary and termed as a safety fence. Mr.
Callahan stated that most of the neighbors within two-hundred feet of the subject property
are here this evening and they are very much concerned about the proposed plans for a
fence in the community.
Mayor Andrews stated that it would be unfair for the Board at this time to address both
sides of this issue since the petitioner is not present and the matter is not being considered
by the Board this evening. He noted that this topic will be considered before the Planning
and Zoning Commission at the October meeting and a report will be provided to the Board
once the Zoning Commission concludes the public hearing process. Mr. Tom Davis, of
Apache Drive, stated that he and his wife built a home in Indian Head Park because the
Village did not allow fences. He added that a tremendous sense of community and family
has been developed primarily because there are no fences to create barricades between
people and children played and ran through the backyards because of the park-like
atmosphere. Mr. Davis stated that the open yards environment cannot be found in
neighboring towns such as Western Springs or LaGrange Highlands because they all have
fences that create barriers between people.
Mayor Andrews stated that the proposed plans for a fence at 6472 Apache Drive will be
available to the audience at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on Tuesday, October 2nd. He noted a possible vote may take place by the
Commission to provide a recommendation to the Board and the Village Board will consider
and possibly vote on a proposed safety fence for the property at 6472 Apache Drive at the
October Board meeting.
Mayor Andrews entertained a motion to remand the zoning matter with regard to a safety
fence at 6472 Apache Drive to the October Planning and Zoning Commission to continue a
public hearing regarding this matter. Trustee Coleman moved, seconded by Trustee
Anselmo, to remand the zoning matter with regard to a proposed fence at 6472 Apache
Drive, to the Tuesday, October 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Carried
by unanimous roll call vote. (6/0/0).
July 10, 2008
Mayor Andrews reported that the Doings Newspaper recently published an article reporting
that the Village has been served with a lawsuit by Indian Head Park residents Mr. & Mrs.
Pall with respect to the fence issue. He noted that Mr. & Mrs. Pall allege the Village
violated the Fair Housing Act by direct discrimination against a person with a disability and
by denial of a reasonable accommodation. Mayor Andrews noted that a hearing on this
matter is set for July 16th and the matter has been referred to Village counsel for a
resolution of this matter through the courts. Mayor Andrews stated that copies of the
lawsuit document are available if anyone needs a copy.
October 9, 2008
Discussion Concerning Amendments to Title 15, Buildings and Construction and Title 17,
Zoning of the Indian Head Park Municipal Code Regarding Fences (Discussion and a
possible vote may take place)
Mayor Andrews stated that based on the recommendation of Village counsel, proposed
changes to Title 15, Buildings and Construction as well as Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal
Code with regard to safety fences will be considered by the Board at a later date. Mayor
Andrews noted that the Village previously encountered a request for a safety fence for a
special need under the American with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Amendment Act.
He noted that based on that request and changes in the laws since the Zoning Code was
established, updates to the Village codes will be reviewed. Mayor Andrews stated the
intention of the proposed ordinances to be considered by the Board at a later date will be
to incorporate a new section of the code as it relates to safety fences for special needs as
well as setting forth standards and a process by which an individual may request a public
hearing for a special need before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Andrews stated that Title 15, Buildings and Construction, defines the requirements
for safety fences in the swimming pool section of the building code.
He also noted that Title 17, Zoning, states that safety fences are only permitted on such
terms and conditions that the Village requires based on the procedures for a variation
which requires a public hearing for a safety fence around an in-ground pool. Mayor
Andrews stated that a safety fence for an in-ground pool must be installed on all four sides
within a certain distance from the pool area, the back wall of the home cannot be used as
a side and shrubbery screening the fence from the neighbors is required. Mayor Andrews
stated that the purpose of the amendment to the swimming pool ordinance is to codify the
process that previously required a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Commission as it relates to fences for in-ground swimming pools.
Mayor Andrews entertained a motion from the Board to direct the Planning and Zoning
Commission to conduct a public hearing on November 6, 2008, with regard to
amendments to Title 17, Zoning. Counsel Richard Ramello stated that he would prepare
the notice of hearing to be conducted before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
November 6th regarding amendments to Title 17, Zoning. Mayor Andrews stated that a
recommendation will be received from the Planning and Zoning Commission for
amendments to Title 17, Zoning and the Board will also consider updates to Title 15,
Buildings and Construction at the next meeting.
Trustee Bermier moved, seconded by Trustee Anselmo, to direct the Planning and Zoning
Commission to conduct a public hearing on November 6, 2008, to consider amendments
to Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code in connection with Chapter 17.12. and Chapter
17.25 to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Carried by
unanimous voice vote (5/0/1). Trustee Bermier moved, seconded by Trustee Walsh, to
defer discussion and consideration of the ordinance amending Section 15.21 of the
Municipal Code with regard to safety fences for in-ground swimming pools. Carried by
unanimous voice vote (5/0/1).
November 13, 2008
Petition #171 - Text amendments to the Zoning Code of the Village of Indian Head Park
regarding general provisions and standards as it relates to fences as well as procedures by
which individuals with disabilities may request a reasonable accommodation in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Chairman Dennis Schermerhorn reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission
conducted a public hearing on November 6, 2008 to review Petition #171 with regard to
various amendments to Title 17, Zoning of the Indian Head Park Municipal Code as well as
general provisions and standards as it relates to fences and procedures by which
individuals with disabilities may request a reasonable accommodation. Chairman
Schermerhorn noted that Chapter 17.25 of the Municipal Code is a new chapter that was
created by counsel and proposed to address accommodations for individuals with
disabilities as well as modifications to Section 17.12 of the Municipal Code to address
other fence issues. Chairman Schermerhorn further noted that the proposed text
amendment documents prepared by counsel were presented to the Commission members
for review and two audience members in attendance at the public hearing provided
comments and suggested changes to the original documents presented as follows: (1) to
require the applicant to demonstrate a need for special accommodation as well as a
requirement to the extent of the requested accommodation; (2) to require the applicant to
periodically demonstrate the ongoing need to continue the accommodation; (3) to require
that the ordinance granting such accommodation be recorded against the property
effectively placing potential purchasers on notice of the requirement to remove structures
involved in the special accommodation.
Chairman Schermerhorn stated that the Commission also considered the existing fences in
the Village that are non-conforming that were constructed prior to the Zoning Code of
Indian Head Park that was established in 1964. He noted that it was the consensus of the
Commission members that boundary fences are not in keeping with the character of the
Village. He further noted that the Commission members voted in favor of recommending to
the Board that the appropriate language be incorporated in Section 17.12.120 of the
Indian Head Park Zoning Code with regard to an orderly removal of non-conforming fences
over a period of ten years. Chairman Schermerhorn noted four Commission members
voted in favor of providing the recommendations presented this evening to the Village
Board for consideration with three zoning members absent.
Chairman Schermerhorn stated that it was most helpful to have counsel present at the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to review the documents presented and to
provide input.
Mayor Andrews entertained a motion to receive the report from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Trustee Coleman moved, seconded by Trustee Bermier, to receive the report
from the Planning and Zoning Commission with regard to Petition #171. Carried by
unanimous voice vote (5/0/1).
AGENDA ITEMS (DISCUSSION AND A VOTE MAY TAKE PLACE)
Mayor Andrews stated that three ordinances are being presented this evening for the
Board's consideration. He noted that the language in Ordinance #08-18 amending the
swimming pool section of the building code states "all pools shall be completely enclosed
by a fence erected along the periphery of the pool walk or terrace". Mayor Andrews noted
that the fence language is currently listed in the swimming pool section of the code and
has been defined that a fence must be installed on all sides of the pool and a wall of a
residence or structure cannot be counted as one of those sides. Counsel Ramello stated
that he concurs that the definition in the code means that a swimming pool must be
completely enclosed on all sides by a fence including the point of entry to the pool area to
have a gate with a locking mechanism. He noted that a door from the residence does not
qualify for a point of entry to the pool area.
Mayor Andrews noted that Ordinance #08-16 would amend general provisions of Title 17,
Zoning, of the Municipal Code as it relates to boundary fences constructed prior to the
enactment of the Indian Head Park Zoning Code in 1964. He further noted that various
options were presented to the Commission as follows: (1) if non-conforming fences
become deteriorated then repair of up to 50% of the fence would be allowed; (2) to allow
existing non-conforming permitted fences to remain for a period not to exceed ten years
from the passage of the ordinance. After the ten year period, non-conforming existing
fences will need to be removed. Trustee Coleman stated that many of the non-conforming
fences constructed over forty years ago are either falling down or in disrepair. She noted
that ten years is a reasonable amount of time to allow someone to comply with current
codes.
Mayor Andrews stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission also reviewed Ordinance
#08-17 with regard to reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. He
noted that Section 17.25.030 entitled "Notice" of the proposed ordinance states "notice of
a hearing must be published at least once not more than thirty days or less than fifteen
days before the hearing in one or more newspapers of a general circulation in the Village".
Mayor Andrews noted that the referenced section of the ordinance also states that any
variation or amendment to Title 17, Zoning, would require notice complying with other
sections of the code. Counsel Ramello stated that if someone is requesting a variance or
amendment concerning zoning of a property, a sign would need to be posted on the
property and a notice would need to be published.
Mayor Andrews stated that Section 17.25.070, Restoration of Premises, requires that
when a reasonable accommodation is provided, the property owner will notify the Village
within thirty (30) days of occurrence of any one of the several events. Mayor Andrews
stated that item one of the referenced section states "the individual for whom the
requested accommodation was made, no longer resides on the premises". Mayor Andrews
stated that there may be a situation when an individual may occasionally come to a
residence but may not live there permanently due to a health condition. He suggested a
change to the referenced section to read as follows: "the individual for whom the
requested accommodation was made no longer permanently resides at the residence".
Counsel Ramello stated that the word "permanently" could be added to the referenced
section to distinguish between someone who temporarily comes to visit a residence from a
health care facility. Mayor Andrews stated there are other provisions of the ordinance that
also apply if someone is requesting a reasonable accommodation as defined under
Ordinance #08-17. Trustee Bailey stated that possibly there may be a situation when there
is shared custody and someone may spend half the time with one person living in the
Village and half the time with someone living elsewhere. He added that someone
requesting an accommodation under this section of the code, would have a particular need
and the facts of the matter would be discussed and a determination can be made by the
Board at that time. Mayor Andrews suggested that Counsel Ramello amend the ordinance
to add the word "permanently" under the notice requirements of Ordinance #08-17.
Trustee Bermier stated that she is not in favor of adding the word "permanently" to the
ordinance. Mayor Andrews stated that the change to the ordinance only deals with the
requirement for the notice provision to the Village of a situation. He suggested that
possibly language could be added to the notice section of the ordinance as follows: “the
individual for whom the requested accommodation was made no longer resides at the
residence at least 50% of the time". The consensus of the Board decided to amend
Ordinance #08-17, as stated.
Michael Pall, of 6472 Apache Drive, stated that he has no objections to the suggested
changes with regard to the ordinance concerning reasonable accommodations for
individuals with disabilities and the notice requirement section of the ordinance.
Superintendent Santen stated that there are several non-conforming fences throughout the
Village over fifty years old that are falling down and he asked if the time period for removal
of those fences could be addressed sooner. Trustee Bermier suggested that the building
inspector could provide a report on any fences that are in disrepair. She noted that if more
than 50% of the fence is in disrepair, the fence should be taken down and cannot be
rebuilt. Mayor Andrews stated that there are provisions of the code that allow the Village to
notify a homeowner of property maintenance issues.
Counsel Ramello stated that he would review the property maintenance provision section
of the code to determine how to address existing fences in disrepair that may pose a
hazard. Mayor Andrews stated that ten years is a generous amount of time to allow
someone to remove deteriorated non-conforming fences. Having discussed and reviewed
all three ordinances presented to the Board for consideration and approval, Mayor Andrews
entertained a motion to approve the ordinances as follows prepared by Village counsel.
Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 17.12, entitled "General Provisions" of Title
17 entitled, “Zoning” of the Indian Head Park Municipal Code (Ordinance #08- 16) Trustee
Coleman moved, seconded by Trustee Anselmo, to approve an ordinance amending
Chapter 17.12 entitled "General Provisions" of Title 17 entitled "Zoning" of the Indian Head
Park Municipal Code, as amended by counsel. Carried by unanimous roll call vote (5/0/1).
Ordinance #08-16.
Approval of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 17.25, entitled "Reasonable Accommodations
for Individuals with Disabilities” to Title 17 entitled “Zoning” of the Indian Head Park
Municipal Code (Ordinance #08-17). Trustee Bermier moved, seconded by Trustee
Anselmo, to approve an ordinance adding Chapter 17.25 entitled “Reasonable
Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities” to Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal
Code, as amended by counsel. Carried by unanimous roll call vote (5/0/1). Ordinance #0817.
Ayes: Trustees: Anselmo, Bailey, Bermier, Coleman, Schnaufer Nays: None
Absent: Walsh
Approval of an Ordinance Amending Section 15.21.060, entitled “Design and Construction
Standards of Chapter 15.21, entitled “Swimming Pools" of the Indian Head Park Municipal
Code (Ordinance #08-18).
Trustee Coleman moved, seconded by Trustee Schnaufer, to approve an ordinance
amending Section 15.21.060, entitled “Design and Construction Standards" of Chapter
15.21, entitled "Swimming Pools" of the Municipal Code, as amended by counsel.
August 13, 2009
Continuation of Discussion, Consideration and Possible Vote to Grant Zoning Relief
Requested for an In-Ground Pool, Safety Fence and Landscape Enhancements at 11145
Ashbrook Lane.
Mayor Andrews stated that late afternoon on Thursday, August 13, 2009, a letter was
received from Gregory Dose, Mr. Nix's attorney, requesting that the Board postpone
consideration and vote to the September Board meeting with regard to the in-ground
swimming pool at 11145 Ashbrook Lane. Mayor Andrews read the following letter into the
record from Gregory Dose, from the law firm of Goldstein, Skrodzki, Russian, Nemec and
Hoff, Ltd.:
"Dear Mayor Andrews: This firm has been retained by Jim & Gwen Nix to assist with
obtaining zoning and permit approvals for the accessory swimming pool and related
improvements for their residence at 11145 Ashbrook Lane. I, along with the Nix's
contractor and design consultants, have received and reviewed the August 10, 2009, Plan
Review Record prepared by Tim Halik with regard to the most recent plans submitted for
the pool improvements. The Nix's contractor and consultants want to revise their plans to
address comments made by Mr. Halik, with the expectation that all items of concern can
be successfully addressed. They expect that revised plans can be filed with the Village
within 10 days. Since new plans will be forthcoming, we ask that the Village Board
continue its consideration of the Nix zoning petition from tonight's meeting to its next
scheduled meeting on September 10. Sincerely, Gregory Dose." Mayor Andrews stated that
Mr. Jim Stortzum, the attorney for the Ashbrook Townhome Association, was present prior
to the start of the meeting this evening. He noted that Mr. Stortzum submitted a letter to
the Village and requested that the Nix pool matter be continued to a date other than the
September 10th Board meeting since he cannot be present for that meeting. Mayor
Andrews mentioned that Mr. Nix's attorney and Mr. Stortzum was contacted prior to the
meeting to inform them that the request for the continuation of this matter may be
granted to allow the property owner and their contractor time to review the plans and
provide comments to the plan review report. Mayor Andrews stated that Mr. Stortzum was
provided an opportunity to participate in the meetings and to call witnesses to provide
testimony and provide input on this zoning matter.
Mayor Andrews entertained a motion to continue the consideration, discussion and
possible vote regarding an in-ground swimming pool at 11145 Ashbrook Lane to the
Thursday, September 10th Board meeting to allow the petitioner an opportunity to address
plan review comments noted in the last report dated August 10th. Trustee Bailey moved,
seconded by Trustee Coleman, to grant a continuance with regard to consideration and
possible vote regarding an in-ground swimming pool at 11145 Ashbrook Lane, as
requested by Gregory Dose, Mr. & Mrs. Nix's counsel. Carried by unanimous voice vote
(6/0/0).
Donna Smith, a member of the Ashbrook Townhome Association Board, mentioned that
Jim Stortzum, counsel for the Ashbrook Townhome Association cannot be present at the
September 10th Board meeting due to a prior commitment. She asked if the zoning
matter with regard to 11145 Ashbrook Lane could be deferred to the October Board
meeting since Mr. Stortzum has been present for the past several meetings. Mayor
Andrews stated that the Board will decide at the September meeting whether the matter
needs to be continued to another meeting or the Board may decide to vote on the matter
at the September meeting. Mayor Andrews suggested that Mr. Stortzum could possibly
contact Mr. Nix's counsel to discuss any schedule conflicts as it relates to upcoming
meeting dates. He noted that the petitioner has requested additional time to address plan
review comments, that request was granted and the matter will be placed on the
September Board agenda for discussion, consideration and a possible vote.
September 10, 2009
Continuation of Discussion, Consideration and Possible Vote to Grant Zoning Relief
Requested for an In-Ground Pool, Safety Fence and Landscape Enhancements at 11145
Ashbrook Lane.
Mayor Andrews stated that the zoning matter with regard to 11145 Ashbrook Lane initially
was heard in a public hearing process before the Planning and Zoning Commission in April
and was continued to several meetings over the past few months to review plan revisions.
He noted that the Board will consider a final vote on the zoning petition to approve the
current plans before the Board this evening. Mayor Andrews stated that Mr. & Mrs. Nix or
their representative will discuss plan changes, questions or comments will be discussed by
the Board of Trustees and questions or comments will be received from members of the
audience. Mayor Andrews summarized the following current design plan changes for the
property located at 11145 Ashbrook Lane: (1) at the August meeting, Mr. Nix and his pool
contractor requested additional time to redesign the pool plan to address concerns pointed
out in a report from the Village's plan review consultant; (2) Barrington Pools revised the
plans and those plans were submitted to the Village and approved by the Village's plan
review consultant as well as the Village engineer; (3) all technical items identified by the
Village's plan review consultant were addressed by Barrington Pools and incorporated in
the current design plans; (4) a zoning process is required to grant an amendment to the
previously approved Ashbrook Planned Unit Development. He noted that the Board will
vote on that matter this evening; (5) an informal meeting was held last Wednesday to
discuss the current design plans for the proposed pool.
The following were in attendance: Mr. Eck from the Ashbrook Townhome Association Board
as well as Mr. Kim, Ashbrook Townhome Association attorney, Frank Alonzo, Mayor Rich
Andrews, Trustee Debbie Anselmo, as well as Mr. Nix and his attorney Mr. Dose; (6) the
purpose of the meeting was to review the current plans and to identify any issues of
concern; (7) the current drainage plans were approved by the Village engineer as well as
the current design plans that were reviewed and approved by the Village's plan review
consultant. Greg Dose, attorney for Jim & Gwen Nix, addressed the Board and stated that
he is present this evening on behalf of the property owners as it relates to the request for
an amendment to the Ashbrook Development Planned Unit Development for an in-ground
pool at 11145 Ashbrook Lane. He noted that Steve Hopkins from Barrington Pools is also
present. Mr. Dose thanked the Board for conducting the informal meeting that was hosted
by the Village to discuss the proposed plans. He noted that the property owner hopes to
move forward with a determination on the zoning matter this evening. Mr. Dose
summarized the following changes that have been made to the current pool design plans
reviewed and approved by Village consultants: (1) Barrington Pools has lowered the pool
deck area elevation to reduce the grade level by about two-feet; (2) there will be three or
four steps down to grade off the back of the house down to the pool deck area; (3) the
retaining wall on the east and west sides of the pool deck has been reduced so there is no
encroachment into the rear and side yard setbacks; (4) self-latching and locking gates are
provided as part of the fence structure at the points of entry to the pool areas; (5) the
grading plan was adjusted when the changes were made to the retaining wall area so the
grade will be maintained at the proper level; (6) current plan revisions were submitted for
review and have been approved by Village consultants.
Mayor Andrews asked if the retaining wall structures closest to the house are now within
the buildable area of the property and not encroaching any yards. Mr. Dose responded, yes.
Trustee Walsh stated that there were concerns previously from neighbors about possible
impact on an adjacent property if equipment is brought through the side yards. Mr. Dose
stated that construction access will be through the west side yard of the Nix's property,
construction fencing will be installed and the pool contractor will stay within the boundary
lines of the Nix's property when the equipment is brought into that area. Mayor Andrews
stated that the Ashbrook Townhome Association is not willing to allow access to the
easement swale area on the east side of the property for the equipment access. Mr. Dose
stated that the easement area on the east side of the property will not be used for
equipment access.
Mayor Andrews stated that there were several letters received since last week's informal
meeting regarding this zoning matter. He noted that all of the letters were distributed to
the Board and read. For the record, he noted there were approximately eighteen letters
from Ashbrook Townhome property owners who oppose the pool for various reasons.
Mayor Andrews summarized the following items of concern mentioned by the Ashbrook
Townhome Association Board and their members: (1) the size of the pool; (2) the no fence
policy in the Ashbrook area; (3) the height of the landscaping upon installation; (4) the
sight lines and visual impact that the pool would have upon the area; (5) safety concerns;
(6) ecological concerns; (7) concern about the swale area; (8) impact of ambience in
Ashbrook; (9) light pollution; (10) economic impact that the pool would have on other
property values within the development; (11) one townhome owner also mentioned in their
letter that traffic would also be increased in the area if the pool were constructed; (12) two
persons were opposed to the pool but did not state a reason; (13) the Ashbrook Townhome
Association Board opposes the installation of the pool and has circulated a letter to its
constituents encouraging property owners to write letters to the Village Board. Mayor
Andrews further noted that correspondence was also received from the Ashbrook Estate
Homes Single Family Association who stated that they are satisfied to rely on the Village
Board's process with respect to zoning matters and that they have never taken a position
in the past or present concerning a request for zoning relief by an Ashbrook single family
homeowner. Mayor Andrews noted that the Ashbrook Estate Homes Association Board
believes that the zoning process established by the Village provides everyone with an
opportunity to voice their concerns or support for a particular zoning petition.
Mayor Andrews stated that numerous letters were also received from single family
homeowners within the Ashbrook Development who unanimously support the pool project
as well as townhome owners who oppose the pool project. For the record, Mayor Andrews
stated that all of the letters received were copied and distributed to the Village Board prior
to the meeting this evening. A letter from a seven year resident of Ashbrook was read into
the record in part by Mayor Andrews as follows: "although the covenants for the Ashbrook
single family homes does permit construction of swimming pools and tennis courts, I
believe granting Mr. Nixs' request would not be in the best interest of Ashbrook residents
for the following reasons: noise especially late at night would carry across the south pond
and would be a nuisance to residents besides the proposed pool of 47' by 16' is too much
for the lot. It would potentially limit the area available for adequate landscaping. The deck
of a second floor unit in a townhome building, Building #25, adjacent to the Nix property
faces east and would look directly down upon the pool. No matter what type of landscaping
is installed it prevents the townhome unit owner from enjoyment of their deck. Many
Ashbrook residents strongly believe the situation will negatively affect the sale price of
their units. The only access for heavy equipment is across the swale from the east of the
property. Should it be built, it would be the only pool in Ashbrook and it would set a
precedent that would potentially change the entire ambience of the area. The landscaping
and fencing required by the Board of Trustees will interrupt the open yards and green
space that has attracted new residents to purchase townhomes and single family homes.
Despite, my opposition I fully recognize the Ashbrook covenants allow for the construction
of pools in the single family home area and the following suggestions are being offered to
protect Ashbrook residents: should the request be approved, Mr. Nix should be required to
escrow adequate funds to cover the purchase and installation of mature landscaping upon
completion of the pool.
The pool will obviously disrupt the quality of life enjoyed by residents near Mr. Nix.
Therefore a construction timeline for the project should be established. If it is not
completed within that period of time, then a fine should be imposed. Any and all damage
to the swale will be the sole responsibility of Mr. Nix and he should be required whatever
amount it takes to return the swale to its original condition. In addition, Mr. Nix should be
responsible for any water damage to the single family or townhome area that occurs as a
result of damage to piping”.
Mayor Andrews read a letter from a resident of the Ashbrook Single Family Estate Homes
section of Ashbrook as follows: "Dear Mayor Andrews, I am writing to express our support
for Jim and Gwen Nix's proposal to install an in-ground swimming pool in their backyard. It
has long been my experience with the Village, formerly as a planning and zoning
commissioner and currently as a police and fire commissioner, that the spirit of the Village
has always been to allow and support change, as long as that change is within legal
guidelines and covenants. In-ground pools and tennis courts are allowed in the Ashbrook
covenants. Jim and Gwen Nix have been cooperative and flexible in their plan and as I
understand, have come into full compliance with our zoning requirements for in-ground
pools. I find it inconceivable that their plan should be delayed any longer. As a Village, we
have sought to listen, understand and make sound legal judgement based on facts, not on
personal agendas. Again, the Nix's have our full support for this project”.
Mayor Andrews stated that a member of the Ashbrook Townhome Association Board
mentioned a no fence policy in the Village. Mayor Andrews further stated that a safety
fence is required by ordinance as it relates to the installation of an in-ground swimming
pool as well as landscaping that is required to be planted to screen the fence. Mayor
Andrews noted that Mr. Nix agreed to plant Arbor Vitae at least six-feet in height (6') at the
time of planting to screen the fence and in some locations the evergreens will be nine- feet
(9') in height at the time of planting. Mayor Andrews stated that a neighbor to the west
mentioned a concern about visual impact and their view would be impacted by the
installation of the pool, fence and landscaping. He noted that whether someone has a pool
or not in their backyard, the Village has no authority to prohibit someone from planting a
tree or bush in their backyard or a row of trees. Mayor Andrews stated that the Village code
requires landscaping to be installed around safety fences in connection with in- ground
swimming pools. Mayor Andrews asked Mr. Nix how the pool would be winterized as it
relates to concerns that were raised with run-off of chlorinated water into the pond or other
area. Steve Hopkins from Barrington Pools responded that the pool will have a salt water
generator so the chlorine level will be very low parts per million. He noted that when the
pool is winterized for the season any chlorine will be neutralized and there is an overflow
system that will be installed with the pool for any excess water to be drained into the
sanitary system, if needed.
Mayor Andrews asked Mr. Nix's attorney if any external lighting was proposed that would
shine outside of the property lines. Mr. Dose responded, no. Mayor Andrews stated Mr. Nix
mentioned that underwater speakers would be installed in the pool and he asked if
external audio speakers would also be installed around the pool area.
Mr. Nix stated that underwater speakers would be installed as part of the pool project.
Mayor Andrews stated that Mr. Eck, on behalf of the Ashbrook Townhome Association
Board, previously asked if a restriction could be placed on the sound level after certain
hours regarding noise from the pool or to restrict the hours of use of the pool. Mayor
Andrews stated that the Board could set requirements in the ordinance granting an
amendment to the Ashbrook P.U.D. for the Nix property. However, the ordinance would not
be to enforce a noise restriction because it might be difficult to determine if noise is
coming from a pool party or a neighbor who might be having a larger backyard party for a
birthday, anniversary, or other family gathering. Chief Alonzo stated that the Village has a
general nuisance ordinance in place. He noted that if someone calls the Village about a
noise disturbance, an officer would visit any property to determine if there is a violation.
Mayor Andrews stated that Mr. Nix has previously agreed that as a condition of approval
the following pool accessories would not be installed: a diving board, slide, hot tub, above
pool outdoor audio speakers or bubbler. Mr. Dose, Mr. Nix's attorney, stated that the
current plan does not reflect a diving board, a slide, in-pool spa or bubbler fountain feature.
He noted that with regard to the outside audio speakers there would be no more noise
than someone else who might be listening to music in their yards. Mr. Dose further stated
that he objects to a limitation on hours of use of the pool as suggested by the Townhome
Association Board. Mayor Andrews stated that if an ordinance is approved to grant the
zoning relief requested, it will set forth certain conditions and a specific pool design plan.
He noted that other pool options cannot be added later.
Mr. Eck, a member of the Ashbrook Townhome Association Board, thanked the Board of
Trustees for their time and consideration for the long and arduous task through the
summer in considering the request for an in-ground pool at 11145 Ashbrook Lane. Mr. Eck
stated that the items summarized by Mayor Andrews reflect the concerns of the Ashbrook
Townhome Association members. Mr. Eck stated the Ashbrook Townhome Association
land planner is present this evening. He asked if he could comment on the plans
submitted. Steve Lenet, of L.C.T. Design Group, stated that he is a landscape architect and
urban land planner. Mr. Lenet stated that upon review of the grading plan it appears that
the pool deck is encroaching into the side yard in the southeast corner of the property. He
noted that it appears the plan is drawn incorrectly with regard to the rear yard along the
east side. As a result, it appears the pool decking is encroaching into the side yard. Mr.
Lenet stated if that is the case, the Village ordinance requires that a zoning variation would
be required for an encroachment into the side yard. He added that no variation has been
requested at this time for the encroachment. Mr. Lenet stated that he is familiar with
Village codes and he was also retained by the Village attorney previously as a consultant
on another fence matter in the Village. Mr. Lenet further stated that the proposed fence for
the in-ground pool does not appear to meet code. He noted that the ordinance for safety
fences calls for a solid fence of cedar or redwood and the proposed fence is made of
wrought iron which would require a variance from the code. Mr. Lenet stated that the
landscaping plan calls for 6' to 9' Arbor Vitae along the south property line. He noted that
there is a substantial difference between six-foot and nine-foot Arbor Vitae and the Village
needs to know where those trees will be planted for screening.
Mr. Lenet stated that typically when trees are installed there is generally a one-year
guarantee. Mr. Lenet stated that it would be reasonable if a special use is granted by the
Board that there is a perpetual guarantee that any evergreens that do not survive would
immediately be replaced. Mr. Lenet stated that Arbor Vitae generally do well in a dry well
drained environment and the property is not a dry and well drained environment because
the property is graded down to the retention area. Mr. Lenet stated that the nature of a
special use is that certain conditions can be set forth under the ordinance on a case by
case basis. He added that although a special use may be permitted by ordinance the
granting of a special use may have some impact on adjacent residential properties. Mr.
Lenet stated that it appears there are two variations that are needed based on the plans
submitted to the Village and he is aware that the plans were reviewed by Village
consultants. He noted that the pool deck seems to be encroaching into the side yard
setback of the property and the property owner has not requested a variation for the
encroachment. Mayor Andrews stated that he understands the pool deck at grade, or patio,
is defined as a permitted encroachment into the yard because it is not a structure if it is
less than twelve inches (12") above grade. Mr. Lenet stated that Section 17.12.100 of Title
17 Zoning, Permitted Obstructions, states that in rear yards private in-ground pools are
permitted to encroach in the rear yard but obstructions into the side yard are not permitted
except by variation. Mayor Andrews stated that an amendment to a Planned Unit
Development grants a variation for a specific plan that includes many plan details and the
zoning relief granted would be in accordance with that plan. Mr. Lenet stated that he
believes that individual variations should be listed when someone requests a special use to
amend a Planned Unit Development and the property owner never requested a variation.
Rich Ramello, Village counsel, stated that at grade concrete work, sidewalks, patios,
driveways, and so forth are not considered obstructions. He noted that based on Mr.
Lenet's interpretation of the code, someone would not be able to construct a driveway from
the front of their house to the curb because that would encroach into a required yard.
Counsel Ramello stated that the Village's interpretation is that concrete flat work at grade
is not considered an obstruction that would require a variation. Mr. Lenet stated that
driveways are accepted as encroachments into front and side yards which is specifically
enumerated in the ordinance as a permitted obstruction. He added that the pool decking is
part of the pool and it is encroaching into the side yard. Mayor Andrews pointed out to Mr.
Lenet that in November of 2008, the Village amended the swimming pool section of the
Municipal Code as a result of a fence issue that took place at that time. He noted that the
safety fence requirements were also updated at that time and incorporated in the
swimming pool code. In response to Mr. Lenet's comments regarding the Village's fence
requirements, Mayor Andrews stated that the most recent amendment to the swimming
pool ordinance states: "fences and gates shall be a minimum of five-feet in height at walk
grade level and shall be constructed of wrought iron or aluminum material or other
corrosion resistant material approved by the building inspector. The fence shall give the
appearance of being a wrought iron fence with vertical fencing sufficiently close so that a
child cannot pass between the vertical fencing”.
In response to Mr. Lenet's comments regarding maintenance of the evergreens to be
installed around the safety fence, Mayor Andrews cited the following from the current
ordinance: “such screening shall be subject to the final approval of the Village building
inspector and the screening shall be maintained so long as the swimming pool and safety
fence exists". Mayor Andrews stated that Mr. Lenet raised a valid concern that any
evergreens that need to be replaced will be planted at a comparable size as originally
planted. Mayor Andrews stated that the Village's building inspector will inspect the
landscaping to insure it is completed according to the requirements of Village codes.
Donna Smith, a member of the Ashbrook Townhome Board, stated that a petition with over
one hundred signatures from Ashbrook Townhome owners was previously submitted to the
Village in opposition of the pool project. She noted at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting in June, 2009, one of the zoning commissioners commented that swimming pools
were allowed in the Ashbrook declarations and a response by another commissioner was
that although the Ashbrook covenants may list swimming pools, the Village's zoning code
also needs to be reviewed as it creates a unique problem within the development for
neighboring properties. Donna Smith stated that a single family home in Ashbrook is not
entirely surrounded by just estate homes and there are many neighboring townhome
properties within the development as well. She noted that the covenants still need to be
reviewed based upon the entire development area and changes that might affect other
property owners. Donna Smith stated that noise will be an issue when there is a body of
water close to residential areas.
Mervet Virzivolli, of 11155 Ashbrook Lane, stated that she is the property owner next to the
Nix property. She asked why access for heavy equipment would be allowed on one side of
the property but not on the other side when there is the same amount of space between
the properties on both sides. Mayor Andrews stated that the open swale area on the east
side of Mr. Nix's property is owned and maintained by the Ashbrook Townhome Association
and the property owner must stay within his own property boundary lines in the side yards
for equipment access. Greg Dose, Mr. Nix's attorney, stated that the east side of the private
property boundary will not be used for equipment access due to mature trees in that area,
existing landscaping and a retaining wall. Steve Hopkins stated that equipment to be used
for excavation for the pool is about 7' in width and will be brought in entirely on the Nix
private property boundaries, the soil will be removed by trucks and orange silt and
construction fencing will be installed on the site to keep any construction debris within the
property boundary until the project is completed.
Trustee Walsh inquired about the time period to complete the project from excavation,
installation of the pool and installing the safety fence and landscaping. Steve Hopkins
stated that if the Village approved for the project to proceed, most of the project could be
completed within four to six weeks from the issuance of the building permit.
Judy Edwards, of 11009 Edgebrook Lane, stated that the pool contractor stated he does
not want to use the east side of the property for equipment access so it does not disturb
the property owners trees or landscaping.
She added there is no problem using the west side of the property, the townhome
association would be affected and that is also not a concern. Mr. Nix stated that there is no
other option but to use the west side of the property for equipment access because the
Ashbrook Townhome Association will not allow access over the swale area. Mayor Andrews
mentioned that there is a dead tree on the west side of the Nix property that needs to be
removed and that is the area where the equipment will access the property. Donna Smith
stated that she has concerns that the pool will not be completed this year and there will be
many months with a view of a construction area that is not completed. She asked if the
project cannot be completed this year that the project not be started until next year so the
townhome owners are not affected by an on-going construction project. Steve Hopkins
stated that if a permit is issued, the work can start rather quickly and can be completed in
about six weeks if weather conditions are good.
Mark Phinick, of 11160 Glenbrook Lane, stated that there is precedent in Indian Head
Park for in-ground pools, for safety fences and common water is shared within the
development area where people enjoy the scenic surroundings. He noted that both
associations decided upon water in the development. Mark Phinick mentioned that he as
well as many of his neighbors have outdoor patio speakers in their yard for enjoyment. He
asked if the Board has intentions to discriminate against the Nix's because they have a
pool to not allow audio speakers outside of the pool area.
Mr. Verzivolli asked if this is the beginning of allowing fences in Indian Head Park. Mayor
Andrews pointed out that the zoning code was established in 1964 which sets forth
regulations that fences are not allowed except for safety. He further noted that the
swimming pool section of the code requires a safety fence to screen in-ground swimming
pools. Mayor Andrews stated that every in-ground swimming pool in Indian Head Park has
a safety fence and there are also landscaping requirements to screen the fence. Mayor
Andrews stated that the Village code regarding safety fences and landscape requirements
was updated last year. Kathie Mc Reynolds, of 11116 Edgebrook Lane, stated that she
purchased a townhome in Ashbrook Development in the spring because of the open
setting, the ponds, the fountain and ambience of the development. She stated that there
will be a direct view of the swimming pool from the townhome area, there will be noise
from the pool and the surroundings of Ashbrook will be changed. She asked if there are
guidelines set forth in the Village code for use of pools. Mayor Andrews stated that there
are no code regulations for pool use hours. Martha Triantafel, of 11075 Glenbrook Lane,
stated that it is almost six months from the first public hearing date on this zoning matter
and the same issues are being discussed again by the townhome residents. She stated
that when she purchased her home in Ashbrook several years ago she knew she would be
sharing a community with the townhome section and there were also young families in the
single family home area. Martha Traintafel stated that letters were circulated by the
townhome association members calling the Nix family children possible teenage
nuisances.
She added that most everyone has children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews or other
family members that they enjoy spending their time with at their home. Martha Triantafel
stated that Gwen and Jim Nixs' children are good kids and she does not recall one negative
comment from the single family area about the Nix family.
Michael Kryza, of 11070 Ashbrook Lane, stated that he went through a zoning process for
his property in Ashbrook for an amendment to allow for a deck extension around the same
time Jim and Gwen Nix filed a zoning petition for the in-ground pool in the spring. He noted
the zoning commission reviewed his petition, architectural drawings were submitted and
reviewed and he received approval from the zoning board as well as the Village Board. He
noted that he has already enjoyed the new deck that was constructed this summer and he
thanked the Board for approving his request. Mr. Kryza stated that all of the procedures
were followed, the zoning commission made their decision and recommendations to the
Board based on the ordinances and the argument over the last six months with regard to
the Nix property has been an emotional argument. He added that the Nixs' have provided
several sets of revised drawings to address many concerns, they have met the
requirements of the ordinances and have continued to go back to zoning for approvals.
Michael Kryza stated that it is time to say the property owners have addressed everything
that has been asked of them relative to the pool project.
Greg Dose stated with regard to visual impact the Nix property already has five large
existing mature Bradford pear trees at the south edge of the property, the pool area will be
entirely constructed within the foliage area that will be heavily screened with evergreens
around the safety fence. Mr. Dose stated that he is not in favor of the idea of limiting the
use of the pool and he asked Chief Alonzo how many complaints have been received by
the Village regarding noise from pool parties. Chief Alonzo stated that during his time as
Chief he does not recall any incidents of noise disturbances from pool parties that have
been reported to the police. Greg Dose stated that in-ground pools are a permitted use in
the rear yards of properties in residential districts as well as permitted uses in the Estate
Home declarations. He noted that the Village has a nuisance ordinance in the code if there
are disturbances that would fall under that reference. Mr. Dose stated that it is not a good
idea to impose a unique restriction on a single household but rules for everyone should be
established on a Village wide basis.
Gwen Nix, of 11145 Ashbrook Lane, stated that the zoning process has been a difficult one
for her family and that she and her husband and children have been good neighbors in the
Ashbrook area for about 11 years. Gwen Nix stated that she selected one of the largest lots
from the builder when her home was built so that at some point an in-ground pool could be
added as allowed in the covenants. Gwen Nix stated that she takes pride in her five
children and mentioned that the whole process is turning to an emotional personal level
with all the comments about the pool.
Mayor Andrews stated that it is a difficult issue, many of the items that come up are
routine matters and input from all parties is important before decisions are made on any
matter. He noted that there are certain existing factors that have to be addressed.
Mayor Andrews stated that it is obvious that the developer when the Ashbrook
Development P.U.D. was created contemplated pools and mentioned it in the covenants
from the beginning, the Ashbrook Estate Home Association approved the request based on
their covenants and by-laws, the Village does allow pools according to the code and there
are other swimming pools in town. Mayor Andrews stated at the beginning of the process a
full public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was conducted and a
recommendation was presented to the Board to grant the request for an in-ground pool
with certain conditions. One of those conditions was to build a pool without a retaining wall
because it was added as an option to the original plan. Mayor Andrews stated the
petitioner had many plan revisions along the way through the process and the Board is
considering this evening whether to approve a request to grant an amendment to the
Ashbrook Planned Unit Development to allow for an in-ground pool at 11145 Ashbrook
Lane.
Trustee Coleman commented that the matter before the Board is whether to amend the
Ashbrook Development Planned Unit Development which is R3A P.U.D. to allow for an inground swimming pool. She noted that when Ashbrook Development was first proposed
there were many meetings, workshops and hearings before the Village Board and Planning
and Zoning Commission with the developer. Trustee Coleman stated that the property was
annexed to Indian Head Park in 1995, a zoning designation was established for the
property, under R-1 zoning the minimum lot size is 20,000 square-feet, and lots would
have a total combined side yard of twenty-five feet but not less than ten-feet on either side.
Trustee Coleman stated that she served on the Village Board at the time and the Board
worked hard to determine what would be best for the Village with the development of
Ashbrook. After many meetings with the developer R3A P.U.D. for zoning was decided with
a mixture of single family homes and townhomes for the property. She noted the R3A
P.U.D. zoning has a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots for the estate homes, a ten-foot
side yard setback and different floor area ratios were allowed with a much higher density
in the townhome section. Trustee Coleman stated at the time a reduction in the corner side
yard setbacks was approved as part of the Planned Unit Development as well as street
right-of-ways and cul-de-sac areas bringing everything closer together with a higher density.
Trustee Coleman stated that she will vote no to amend the Ashbrook P.U.D. because of the
density, the Village had no input as far as the Ashbrook covenants when they were put into
place and that was decided by the developer.
Trustee Bermier stated that she also served on the Board at the time Ashbrook
Development Planned Unit Development was considered. She further stated that she
recalled when the room was filled with Acacia residents when Ashbrook Development was
proposed. At that time those residents stood up and said I moved here and purchased this
home believing that there would always be a golf course. She added that Ashbrook used to
be Par 3 Golf Course and now those Acacia residents no longer look at a golf course but
everything worked out in the end.
Mayor Andrews entertained a vote to grant the zoning relief requested with the following
conditions: (1) to direct counsel to prepare an ordinance to grant an amendment to the
Ashbrook Development P.U.D. to allow for an in-ground swimming pool in accordance with
the current set of plans; (2) the pool must be constructed to drain into the sanitary sewer
system; (3) no diving board, slide, hot tub, bubbler or other outdoor swimming pool
accessory be installed; (4) that no outdoor audio speakers would be installed in and around
the pool deck area; (5) that pool lighting be designed to retain the ambient lighting within
the confines of the property. Trustee Walsh stated that he is in favor of granting the zoning
relief requested. He asked that a specific time period be set forth to complete the pool
project, and if the project is not completed by that date, fines can be issued. Trustee Walsh
stated that he is not in favor of restricting a property owner from installing a speaker on
their pool decking area because it would be governing how a property owner can use their
pool or deck. Trustee Bailey stated that he agrees with Trustee Walsh that the condition
should be removed that would prohibit the property owner from installing a speaker on
their pool deck. He added that the single family homes next to the Nix property will be
much closer to the pool than the townhome section and there have been no complaints
about noise from pool parties in other areas of the Village.
Greg Dose asked the Board to define completion of the pool project. He noted that the
pool, deck, fencing and landscaping can be completed by that date. He noted that the
interior pool coating and possibly some of the landscaping restoration of grass areas might
be a weather issue and that may need to be done in the spring.
Mayor Andrews stated that approval of an amendment to the Ashbrook Planned Unit
Development for the property located at 11145 Ashbrook Lane is conditioned upon and
subject to the fulfillment of the following terms and conditions: (1) the swimming pool shall
be constructed in compliance with the revised Pool Plan, dated August 28, 2009, prepared
by Barrington Pools, consisting of one sheet; the color computer-generated graphic images
of the pool installation and associated landscaping, prepared by Pool Studio, not dated,
consisting of four sheets; the revised Grading Plan, prepared by W.C. Doland Engineering,
Inc., dated April 7, 2009, File No. 11145 Ashbrook, signed and wet sealed by Jason R.
Dolan, licensed professional engineer (#55603), and bearing the latest revision date of
August 26, 2009; (2) the Landscape Plan, prepared by J. J. Hayden, Inc., dated April 2,
2009, consisting of one sheet, and bearing the latest revision date of July 27, 2009 all
subject to the comments prepared by Tim Halik, Plan Review Consultant for the Village; (3)
the swimming pool shall be drained into the municipal sanitary sewer system; (4) no diving
board, slide, hot tub, bubbler or other outdoor fixed accessory shall be installed on or about
the swimming pool at any time; (5) all pool lighting shall be designed and installed so that
the lighting illuminates only the pool area, and ambient light to adjoining property is
minimized; (6) the construction of the pool bowl, pool deck, the installation of the required
permanent fencing and landscaping, the installation and removal of all temporary fencing
and the restoration of all property disturbed shall, if commenced in 2009, be completed on
or before November 15, 2009, otherwise no construction shall be commenced until the
spring of 2010 and, if so commenced in 2010, shall be completed with six (6) weeks of its
commencement; (7) failure to complete the construction of the pool bowl, pool deck, the
installation of the required permanent fencing and landscaping, the installation and
removal of all temporary fencing and the restoration of all property disturbed on or before
the time limits set forth shall be a violation punishable by a fine not less than twenty-five
dollars ($25.00) and not exceeding seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00); (8) each and
every day that the construction of the pool bowl, pool deck, the installation of the required
permanent fencing and landscaping, the installation and removal of all temporary fencing
or the restoration of all property disturbed shall be incomplete following the time limits set
forth shall be considered a separate offense; (9) except as modified by the relief granted,
the swimming pool shall be constructed in compliance with all other provisions of the
Indian Head Park Zoning Ordinance, all setback and area requirements of the R-3A
General Residence District. Mayor Andrews entertained a motion to grant the zoning relief
requested subject to the terms and conditions set forth. Trustee Walsh moved, seconded
by Trustee Bailey, to grant the zoning relief requested for the property located at 11145
Ashbrook Lane as follows: (1) to direct counsel to prepare an ordinance to grant an
amendment to the Ashbrook Development P.U.D. to allow for an in-ground swimming pool
in accordance with the current set of plans as well all terms and conditions set forth as
defined in the meeting this evening to be incorporated in an ordinance prepared by counsel
for the Board's approval. Carried by voice vote (5/0/1).
Ayes: Trustees: Anselmo, Bailey, Bermier, Schnaufer, Walsh
Nays: Coleman
Absent: None
July 8th, 2010
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE BY INDIAN HEAD PARK
RESIDENTS ONLY
Al Krisciunas stated that the contract between the Township of Lyons and the Village of
Indian Head Park for police patrol of the Township areas included many years ago funds
from the Township for police officer salaries as well as a new squad car. He asked if funds
for a new police vehicle are included in the current contract with the Township. Mayor
Andrews stated a new Hireback Contract was approved in June with the Township of Lyons.
Chief Frank Alonzo stated that a rate is charged to the Township that covers the salary of
the officers and there are some funds within the rate to allow for gas and vehicle
maintenance. Al Krisciunas stated that he appreciates the Village staff providing a stop sign
to be replaced in Acacia. Al Krisciunas stated at one Acacia meeting, it was mentioned that
possibly a dog run area could be established at Blackhawk Park or off- leash area. Mayor
Andrews stated that Lyons Township will be providing $165,000 in funding from the
Township Park Bond Referendum to Indian Head Park for specific scope of work to be
completed at Blackhawk Park. The funds when received must be used only for a specific
plan that was submitted at that time. Trustee Bermier mentioned that some residents of
Acacia mentioned that they would like to use the existing fenced in property behind the
Acacia tennis courts. She noted that the Board years ago talked about possibly turning the
fenced in area at the pump house into Village tennis courts. Trustee Coleman stated that
Acacia has a lot of common areas with big wide open area and she asked if Acacia
considered using some of that space for a dog area. Al Krisciunas stated that there are
some common areas but some Acacia homeowners may object to a dog run in Acacia
common areas.
October 21, 2010
TOWN HALL MEETING FORUM FOR THE PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSING THE HOME RULE REFERENDUM
A resident of Thunderbird Drive asked what items make up the shortfall in revenue over
the past few years. Mayor Andrews stated when the economy declined people stopping
tearing down homes and rebuilding new homes or putting money into home remodeling
projects so revenue from building permits decreased, people cut back on spending overall
due to worries about losing jobs so sales tax revenues decreased and state shared revenues
are also less. Mayor Andrews stated last year the budget deficit was projected to be about
$60,000 but because cuts were made to other budget items the deficit was only about
$20,000. He noted this year the budget deficit is projected to be about $125,000 but that
does not mean we will spend that deeply in the red. Mayor Andrews stated that the Board
could have considered to place a question on the November ballot regarding a property tax
increase but even if that was approved the Village would not receive the money from those
taxes for about two years so that would be a last resort. He noted that home rule would
give the Board the opportunity to try to raise revenues from other sources. A resident of
Thunderbird Drive asked the Board how much the Village spent on the lawsuit about the
fence for a handicapped child. Mayor Andrews stated that the Village did not deny a fence
for that property, the Village did not pursue a lawsuit on that matter, the property owner
decided to pursue the matter through the court system with legal action against the Village,
a settlement was reached and the legal costs spent by the Village on that matter according
to counsel was over $50,000.
Michael Pall stated that he is the resident that had an issue with the Village about a fence
for his daughter that has special needs and there was a public zoning hearing and meetings
on the issue. Mr. Pall further stated that the Village spent $50,000 over a fence issue to
fight the American with Disabilities Act law, there is no mention of why the Village spent
that much in legal fees for that one issue and the Village misused taxpayer money. A
resident in the audience stated that if anyone looks at the public record they will know
what really happened with the fence issue, the Pall’s knew even before they bought their
current house because they had another real estate contract on another home in town with
a contingency about a fence and they backed out of that contract. He added that the Pall’s
had the John Marshall Law School provide them with free legal representation while the
Village had to pay counsel and waste Indian Head Park taxpayer money when the Pall’s
dragged the case along in the court system. Mayor Andrews pointed out that the public
record reflects that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Village Board granted
approval of the fence for the Pall property but it was not big enough for the Pall’s so they
filed a lawsuit against the Village that cost the Village money until a settlement was
reached. He noted that the Village is fully aware of the American with Disabilities Act, the
Village had to defend itself against a lawsuit that was filed by a resident and the only issue
was that the fence granted was not big enough for the resident.
July 14th, 2011
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Al Krisciunas thanked Susan Friend from S.E.A.S.P.A.R. for her comprehensive report on
the programs provided by S.E.A.S.P.A.R and the excellent presentation.
Lenore Halac, of Blackhawk Trail, stated she has had a water problem on her property for
the past eight years, it was worse during the last storm and the previous opinion by the
Village Engineer from eight years ago was that the problem was surface water. Lenore
Halac stated that Bill McConaughy from the Water Department recently had someone take
a look at the problem with a camera below ground, there was a watermain leak in the area
that was fixed and the water problem on her property seems to have been corrected.
Mayor Andrews stated the watermain break at the street was fixed, the water problem on a
private property may not be related as we are using the same engineer. He asked Frank
Alonzo, Trustee Coleman and Superintendent Santen review the matter.
Michael Pall, of Apache Drive, referenced an article recently in the Administration Message
of the Smoke Signals regarding the fence on his property and litigation about the fence.
Mr. Pall stated that he felt his family is being blamed for the lack of the leaf pick-up
program. Mr. Pall asked how much money was spent on legal fees for the fence issue.
Mayor Andrews stated the legal fees were publicly stated previously and in the Smoke
Signals he was setting the record straight because a certain candidate for trustee in the
last election misrepresented some information that suggested the Village filed a lawsuit
when in fact it was Mr. & Mrs. Pall who filed a suit against the Village regarding the fence
even though the Village granted a fence. Mr. Pall stated during the home rule discussions
the Board mentioned a dollar amount of over $50,000 in legal fees relative to the fence
issue. Mayor Andrews stated that the Village did not initiate the lawsuit, which is part of the
public record, but the Village was compelled to defend itself. Mayor Andrews pointed out
that Village never denied a fence for the Pall property.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to discuss, Trustee Schnaufer moved, seconded by Trustee
Coleman, to adjourn the regular Board meeting at 9:45 p.m. Carried by unanimous voice
vote (6/0/0).
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Leach, Deputy Village Clerk/Recording Secretary
2012 - No Mention of Fences
February 28th, 2013
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE – AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
(DISCUSSION AND A POSSIBLE VOTE MAY TAKE PLACE)
1. Use of Heritage Center for Kids Soccer Program
Mayor Andrews stated a request was previously reviewed from Carly Mondschean of
Soccer Shots who presented a youth soccer program. She is asking for approval to use the
south end of the Heritage Center property for this program.
Mayor Andrews stated Ms. Mondschean is requesting use of the space south of the
Heritage Center on Mondays from 5:15 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. between April 1° and May 20th
of this year to offer introductory soccer classes for children three to five years old. He noted
there would be a maximum of twelve children at both classes.
Mayor Andrews stated Soccer Shots will provide a Certificate of Liability Insurance listing
the Village of Indian Head Park as additional insured, a permit fee of $125.00 will be
collected from Soccer Shots and the Board will consider a resolution that will include use of
the Heritage Center property on a one-time trial basis for this purpose. Trustee Walsh
stated it is a wonderful opportunity for someone to utilize the land at the Heritage Center
and if the program works out well for both parties the Board can revisit this issue again.
Trustee Bailey stated he agrees the Soccer Shots Program is a wonderful use of the
Heritage Center property but he has concerns that potentially there will be many parents
picking up and dropping off their children at a time and there is limited parking in the lot of
the Heritage Center. Mayor Andrews stated there is space for some cars to park on
Hiawatha Lane along the fence area of the Heritage Center, if needed. Carly Mondschean
stated that she would let parents know that when the first class is finished, children should
be picked up to accommodate the next class. Trustee Bailey stated Wolf Road is a busy
street and he suggested possibly temporary signs could be posted "no parking" along Wolf
Road during the soccer classes.
Trustee Schermerhorn asked if other groups have been allowed to use the Heritage Center
property. Trustee Bermier mentioned that book clubs have used the Heritage Center as
well as scout groups in the past. Mayor Andrews stated this is the first request for a
commercial use at one of the municipal properties and it is on a trial basis for a limited
period of time. Trustee Anselmo suggested that the Public Works Department check the
lawn areas of the Heritage Center property to make sure there are no ruts in the lawn, tree
roots or branches that have fallen down to make sure it is safe for children to play soccer.
December 11th, 2014
Report And Recommendation From The Planning/Zoning Commission Chairman Dennis
Schermerhorn (Discussion And A Vote Will Take Place)
Mayor Andrews explained that the Planning and Zoning Chairman Dennis Schermerhorn,
would be giving a report from the Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to Petition
#183, and that comments and questions from the audience and Board of Trustees would
follow. Chairman Schermerhorn read the Commission's Report, dated December 11, 2014
as follows; The December 2, 2014 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was
presented with the continuation of Zoning Petition #183 requesting a front yard variance to
construct a security gate at 6506 Wolf Road.
The petition was presented by Kathleen Weger, the property owner and Meghan Knox, the
renter of the property, with an option to buy. The gate had previously been installed onto
existing stone pillars. This application asked for a gate variance to allow the installation to
stand. The original petition included the stone pillars as a structural front yard
encroachment until we were informed that the pillars were in place for many years and
prior to Ms. Weger's ownership. A neighbor to the south objected to the gate as well as
several other non-zoning issues, and was represented in the last meeting by Rita Farrell,
their attorney. A detailed discussion ensued describing the project, the property
enhancements and the reasons for the necessity of a security gate. Those reasons for the
gate centered on the traffic volume along Wolf Road and that several vehicles in the recent
past had used their driveway to turn around, to stop and make phone calls and otherwise
cause Ms. Knox to be concerned for her safety. Chief concerns opposing the installation of
the gate were the potential for precedent allowing a proliferation of such gates and running
counter to our Village "no fence" policy, and whether a gate would actually offer any
security against a determined intruder. After a review of the findings of fact and discussion
of the variance proposal the Commission found that Section 17.24.060E (c) of the
Ordinance that the installation would alter the essential character of the locality. The vote
to send the variance request to the Village Board with the Commission's recommendation
for non-approval was 5 in favor, 0 against, 2 absent.
Respectfully
submitted,
Dennis
Schermerhorm
December 11th, 2014
Report And Recommendation From The Planning/Zoning Commission Chairman Dennis
Schermerhorn (Discussion And A Vote Will Take Place)
1. Report and recommendation from the Planning/Zoning Commission regarding
Petition #183 – a request for a safety gate at 6506 Wolf Road.
2. Recommendation to direct Village Counsel to prepare an Ordinance granting a
safety gate at 6506 Wolf Road.
Mayor Andrews explained that the Planning and Zoning Chairman Dennis Schermerhorn,
would be giving a report from the Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to Petition
#183, and that comments and questions from the audience and Board of Trustees would
follow. Chairman Schermerhorn read the Commission’s Report, dated December 11, 2014
as follows;
The December 2, 2014 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was presented
with the continuation of Zoning Petition #183 requesting a front yard variance to construct
a security gate at 6506 Wolf Road. The petition was presented by Kathleen Weger, the
property owner and Meghan Knox, the renter of the property, with an option to buy.
The gate had previously been installed onto existing stone pillars. This application asked
for a gate variance to allow the installation to stand. The original petition included the
stone pillars as a structural front yard encroachment until we were informed that the pillars
were in place for many years and prior to Ms. Weger’s ownership. A neighbor to the south
objected to the gate as well as several other non-zoning issues, and was represented in the
last meeting by Rita Farrell, their attorney. A detailed discussion ensued describing the
project, the property enhancements and the reasons for the necessity of a security gate.
Those reasons for the gate centered on the traffic volume along Wolf Road and that
several vehicles in the recent past had used their driveway to turn around, to stop and
make phone calls and otherwise cause Ms. Knox to be concerned for her safety.
Chief concerns opposing the installation of the gate were the potential for precedent
allowing a proliferation of such gates and running counter to our Village “no fence” policy,
and whether a gate would actually offer any security against a determined intruder.
After a review of the findings of fact and discussion of the variance proposal the
Commission found that Section 17.24.060E (c) of the Ordinance that the installation would
alter the essential character of the locality. The vote to send the variance request to the
Village Board with the Commission’s recommendation for non-approval was 5 in favor, 0
against, 2 absent.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Schermerhorm
Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Andrews noted that the Board of Trustees was given a copy of the site plat of survey.
A discussion ensued between Mayor Andrews and Chairman Schermerhorn in regard to the
safety gate. The Board of Trustees did not have any questions. Trustee Bailey moved,
seconded by Trustee Hinshaw, to receive the Report recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission in regard to Petition #183 for a safety gate at 6506 Wolf Road, as
presented by Chairman Schermerhorn. Motion carried by voice (6-0-0).
Mayor Andrews stated that since the Village Board voted to receive the Report and
recommendation from The Planning and Zoning Commission not to approve a safety gate
at 6506 Wolf Road and the Mayor did not direct Counsel to prepare an Ordinance for a
safety gate at 6506 Wolf Road.
Mr. Tim Foley attorney representing Ms. Meghan Knox, one of the Petitioners, explained
that he was just retained two days prior, and submitted a Freedom of Information Request,
because unfortunately Ms. Knox had misplaced her copy of the Petition. Mr. Foley
requested a continuance for Petition #183, and to remand this Petition back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Rita Farrell, attorney for Sherman and Margaret Chao, of 6510 Wolf Road
stated her clients opposed the possible approval of the gate at 6506 Wolf Road. Ms. Farrell
passed out a copy of the letter she presented at the Planning and Zoning Public Hearing on
December 2, 2014, stating reasons why the Petition #183 should not be granted. Mr. Glen
Mann of 6458 Blackhawk Trail, also declared that he opposed the granting of variance for
Petition #183.
Trustee Walsh stated that he does not believe that this should be remanded back to the
Planning and Zoning Board, but does feel that this is an important issue that may come up
again, and would motion for a one time continuance to allow Counsel to prepare and
present their case at the next Village Board of Trustees meeting. Trustee Walsh moved,
seconded by Trustee Wittenberg, to grant a continuance for Petition #183 till the January
8th. Board meeting, as requested by Mr. Tim Foley, attorney for the Petitioners. Motion
passed by roll call vote: (5-1-0)
Ayes: Trustees; Bailey, O’Laughlin, Schnaufer, Walsh, Wittenberg
Nay: Trustee Hinshaw
Absent: None
April 15th, 2015
QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Mr. Scott Garon from 11207 Sequoya Lane commented that he has a new meter and pays
a high enough water bill and is not in favor for a meter replacement program. Mayor Andrews
informed him that he is in the Lagrange Highland’s Water System. Mr. Garon also noted that
he would like a fence and sidewalks on Wolf Road. Mayor Andrews stated that when brought
up in the past, the high cost of sidewalks and the idea of fences was not favored by the
residents. Discussion ensued.
2016 - No Mention of Fences
2017 - No Mention of Fences
2018 - No Mention of Fences
January 10th, 2019
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Resident Nancy Pritz wanted to address the Board and the Public to let them know there
will be an Open Forum held at Village Hall January 30th, 2019 at 6:00pm to discuss the
prospect of allowing fences in Indian Head Park. There is also an online survey that can be
taken on Survey Monkey, and you can also see discussions on the IHP Fence Ordinance
Facebook Page.
At 8:37 pm Trustee Wittenberg made a motion to close the open meeting and to adjourn
to closed session for the discussion of personnel per 5ILCS 120 Section 2(c) (1), to discuss
imminent or probable litigation per section 5ILCS 120 2(c) (11) and to discuss approval of
closed session minutes per 5ILCS 120 section 2(c) (21).
Motion seconded by Trustee Mann.
Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0). Trustees Mann, Farrell-Mayer, Conboy, O'Laughlin,
Metz and Wittenberg voted yes. No Nay Votes.
At 8:44 pm the open session reconvened with the following in attendance: Mayor Hinshaw;
Trustees Wittenberg, Conboy, Metz, Farrell-Mayer, O'Laughlin, Mann; Administrator
DuRocher, Attorney Brankin; At 8:45 pm Trustee Wittenberg made a motion to adjourn the
meeting, motion seconded by Trustee Mann. Motion passed by voice vote.
Linda Merrifield
List fine 2/15/2019 02/15/2019
Deputy Village Clerk / Recording Secretary
November 14th, 2019
REPORTS:
TRUSTEES:
Trustee Metz: Heritage Center Honey, and IHP totes, and tee-shirts are still for sale at the
Center which will be decorated for Christmas.
Trustee Wittenberg: She and Trustee O'Laughlin will be coordinating a Christmas
celebration for the children of IHP on December 21 at the Village Hall. Santa will be
present between 10:30-12:30.
VILLAGE CLERK: No Report
VILLAGE ATTORNEY: No report
VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR: Adjudication Process The Adjudicator holds local court on the
third Wednesday of every month at 9:30 A.M. At last month's session the Adjudicator
assisted in settling the dog disturbance of the previous month.
Solar Crossing-A solar crossing sign at the location of the Heritage Center crossing Wolf
Road is under consideration. The state seems amenable to the crossing. It may be possible
that it would be installed by May 2020.
Water Main Project Update The project is in its final stages. Work is basically completed.
The penalty phase is now in process for work that was not completed within the timeline.
Tree Bidding-Original bid was rejected. A new bid is expected in January.
Fences--Kyle O'Connor, former Public Works director, is in the process of working on a
temporary part-time basis to locate illegal fences throughout the Village.
Public Works Don Lorenzen, street superintendent, is working on formulating a
Data Base to determine underground water breaks, valves, topography, etc. GIS software
has been purchased for this project.
Branch Pickup Thanks to the Public Works crew who came to the rescue of residents
during the recent snow storm. Residents were most appreciative.
Rave Registration--Please sign up ASAP for notifications from the Village on the Website
and RAVE Alert if you haven't already done so.
August 13th, 2020
Sidewalks 4 main areas:
One of the Village Board's 3 goals from last year was to focus on improving pedestrian
access in the Village. We have been working to improve pedestrian access on our primary
roads. There has been no discussion or plans of working to get sidewalks on every street in
the Village, only for the primary roads.
Acacia Drive-Tonight we will discuss and potentially vote on the sidewalk options available.
The Board listened to the feedback we received and asked our Engineer to give 3 options
for the sidewalk. Administrator Durocher and I had a meeting on July 28 specifically for the
Executive Boards of Wilshire Green, Acacia, and Indian Ridge. If approved, construction is
planned for 2021.
Plainfield Road-Phase I for Plainfield Road from the tollway bridge in Indian Head Park to
East Avenue in Countryside has started. The first Corridor Advisory Committee meeting will
be September 1. The Phase I will be around 18 months (around the end of 2021).
Construction would be after 2022.
Wolf Road-This Phase I project is from Plainfield Road south to 79th Street. This project
has been approved by Cook County. The $1,800,000 cost of Phase I will be paid by the
County and is expected to take about 18 months. Phase I is the initial engineering of the
road, sidewalk, drainage, utilities, bridges, and everything involved. Nothing is guaranteed,
because this will be a big project. But after Phase I is finished, we should have draft plans
to share with the community to get feedback and potential modifications. This Board has
talked about the potential to allow fences along Wolf Road due to the road expansion. We
have also talked about working to eliminate Buck Thorn and other invasive plants in the
community. Over the next year, the Board and I will envision the Wolf Road Corridor, who
pays what, potential fences, Buck Thorn, and whatever else may be affected. We will have
at least 4 years before any construction starts.
Joliet Road―The State of Illinois recently-passed budget includes $4,125,000 for a
sidewalk/pedestrian access from Wolf Road to Willow Springs Road. A big thank you to
State Senator Jaqueline Collins for her efforts. We have started the process of working with
Senator Collins and the state departments to keep this project moving forward.
I-294 Update: Work in our area has begun on the sound walls in Countryside, sewer system
in Burr Ridge, and ramps on I-55 and I-294. Work still progresses. When the sound walls in
the Village will be affected, the Tollway will send out letters to all residents involved. We
will discuss these events at our monthly Village Board Meetings.
2020 Census: We are at 83% completion of the census in IHP, making us 2nd in
completion in the township. The deadline for the census is September 30. I strongly
courage every person to be counted since its count is used for factors such as distribution
of federal tax dollars. Census employees may knock on your door; if so, check their ID
badges.
BIG NEWS: The Federal Government, through the state, has paid off $1,500,000 of the
$2,000,000 water main project from last summer. This means we will be able to plan for
the next project sooner.
SHEDS AND FENCES: We are aware that many residents are here regarding sheds and
fences. The Board and I have heard your responses. We will be discussing this issue further
at next month's meeting. However, that does not mean that you cannot comment of the
issue at tonight's meeting. For those of you who received letters about removing fences by
September 30-that date has been extended by 6 months while we discuss various
solutions to this issue.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
At least 16 residents commented on 2 major issues:
One issue dealt with the sidewalks which will soon be constructed on Acacia Drive. The
type and size of the sidewalk will be voted upon at tonight's meeting. Topics included
possible alternatives and compromises, green spaces, least invasive structures, trees,
increase in property values, future ordinances regarding use of sidewalks, and more
ticketing of speeding drives along roads.
Another issue involved fences and sheds. A letter had been sent out at the beginning of
August about homes with fences and sheds which were to be removed by October 30. This
letter was very upsetting to long-standing residents, many of whom were under the
impression that they had been grandfathered into the original ordinance of 1969
forbidding sheds and fences. Mayor Hinshaw stated that several options presented in
tonight's Comments will be considered as the Board evaluates this issue for future action.
CONSENT AGENDA: Motion to Establish Consent Agenda as Printed moved by Trustee
Kennedy; seconded by Trustee O'Laughlin.
Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0). Trustees Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Metz, Kennedy,
O'Laughlin, and Wittenberg voted Yay. No Nay Votes.
Motion to Approve Consent Agenda as Established moved by Trustee O'Laughlin; seconded
by Trustee Kennedy.
A. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of July 9, 2020
B. Approval of Payables for the Period Ending July 31, 2020, in the amount of
$385,631.73
C. Approval of Preliminary Financial Report Ending July 31, 2020
Financial Report was presented by Trustee Metz in the absence of Treasurer Garcia. Cash
on Hand on June 30, 2020, was $2,972,557.91.
Payables for July 2020 amounted to $385,631.73.
Total Revenues for July 2020 amounted to $561,229.44.
Ending Balance on July 31, 2020, was $3,148,155.62.
Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0). Trustees Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, Metz,
O'Laughlin, and Wittenberg voted Yay. No Nay votes. 4
NEW BUSINESS:
A. BOY SCOUT PROJECT PRESENTATION BY CHRISTOPHER NOGA
A resident of Indian Head Park and a junior at Lyons Township High School, Christopher
Noga, approached the Board with a design for a new entry sign into the Arrowhead Trail
subdivision of IHP. Christopher plans to use this project in order to achieve Eagle Scout
rank in the Boy Scouts. He has designed four possible signs which his neighbors on
Arrowhead will help choose. The project will cost about $800 which is being funded
through private donations. Boy Scouts and adults will build the sign this autumn. The Board
applauded his efforts and gave
Christopher's full support.
B. ORDINANCE 2020-22—ROAD CONSTRUCTION AWARD OF CONTRACT
A motion to pass Ordinance 2020-22—an Ordinance awarding the 2020 road program
contract to Chicagoland Paving in the amount of $200,000 was made by Trustee Metz;
seconded by Trustee Kennedy.
Administrator DuRocher explained that at the last meeting, the Board rejected Austin
Tyler's low bid. Previous work done by Austin Tyler was done unsatisfactorily. The next low
bidder is Chicagoland Paving. Thomas Engineering Firm has recommended Chicagoland
Paving. Chicagoland had promised to have the necessary work done by October 15, as
colder temperatures are not beneficial to paving. Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0).
Trustees Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, Metz, O'Laughlin, and Wittenberg voted Yay. No
Nay votes. C. DISCUSSION-ACACIA DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION SIDEWALK OPTION
ACCEPTANCE
Matt Gadziak of Strand Engineering was introduced by Mayor Hinshaw. He discussed the
three proposals for the sidewalk which all included width of the sidewalk and width of the
grass buffer. A motion to accept Option 1 with a 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot grass buffer
for the Acacia Drive Road reconstruction project was made by Trustee Kennedy; seconded
by Trustee Farrell-Mayer.
Motion failed to pass by roll call vote (2-4). Trustees Conboy and Kennedy voted Yay.
Trustees Farrell-Mayer, Metz, O’Laughlin, and Wittenberg voted Nay. A motion to accept
Option 2 with a 3-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot grass buffer for the Acacia Drive Road
reconstruction project was made by Trustee Metz; seconded by Trustee Farrell-Mayer.
Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0). Trustee Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, Metz,
O'Laughlin and Wittenberg voted Yay. No Nay votes.
ORDINANCE 2020-23—APPROVAL OF ROOF REPAIR BID
A motion to pass an ordinance awarding the roof repair contract to Red Feather Group in
the amount of $36,770.00 was made by Trustee O'Laughlin; seconded by Trustee
Wittenberg.
Administrator DuRocher explained that the roof repair has been in the budget. The repair
would involve the Village Hall and the gazebo in Sacajawea Park.
Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0). Trustees Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, Metz,
O'Laughlin, and Wittenberg voted Yay. No Nay votes.
E. ORDINANCE 2020-24—REFUSE BID/LEAF VACUUMING AWARD OF CONTRACT
A motion to pass ordinance 2020-24 to award the waste hauling/leaf removal franchise to
SBC Waste Services was made by Trustee Metz; seconded by Trustee Kennedy.
Administrator DuRocher reiterated the history of the Waste Hauling/Leaf Vacuuming issue
that is before the Board at this time. This project started out as a possibility of bringing
back leaf vacuuming to the village. During the research, the possibility of lower rates for
garbage disposal might also be considered which would benefit the community. Three
companies submitted bids- SBC, DeGroot, and Lakeshore--with SBC being the low bidder.
SBC also presented a program for leaf pickup. The representative from SBC, Jake Diliberto,
was present (via Zoom) and he answered questions that were presented by Board
members. Motion carried by roll call vote (4-2). Trustees Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy
and Metz voted Yay. Trustees O’Laughlin and Wittenberg voted Nay.
REPORTS:
TRUSTEES: Trustee Kennedy questioned the estimated starting date/ending date of the
Wolf Road Project. Matt Gadziak, Strand Engineering, estimated that from beginning to
end it will probably take about/at least 3 years. The representative from one of the
associations contributed to the discussion with Information about recent evergreen bush
plantings along Wolf Road. Mayor Hinshaw added that bushes, fences, etc., along Wolf
Road would be taken into consideration during the planning sessions for the road
construction. Trustee O'Laughlin reported that plans are in progress for a Movie in the Park
Night with Seaspar on September 12. Trustee Metz announced that a new railing had been
installed on the front steps of the Heritage Center for added safety. He thanked
Administrator DuRocher for his actions in requesting the grant of $1.5 million forgiveness
on the government loan for last year's water main project in the Village. Trustee Metz
expressed confidence that the sidewalk in Acacia and the road construction on Wolf Road
would be wisely handled with regard to the landscaping to fit in with the beauty of our
Village. He also questioned the process involved in the Shed and Fence Moratorium which
would be discussed over the next months before a final decision is made by the Board. 6
VILLAGE CLERK: None
VILLAGE TREASURER: None
VILLAGE ATTORNEY: None
VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR: September is Suicide Prevention Month. This is a very serious
issue of which everyone should be aware. More info to follow in the next Smoke Signals.
Rebuild Illinois and the CARES Act have a significant amount of money that is available to
municipalities. DuRocher has applied for these grants for IHP. Several Town Hall meetings
will take place soon to provide information to the residents regarding the new waste
hauling and leaf vacuuming process. Parking overnight in a resident's driveway with a
commercial vehicle will be brought up for further discussion at upcoming meetings.
A follow-up letter will soon be sent to residents who received an initial letter re: fences and
sheds. This letter will announce that no action will be taken until further discussion by the
Board.
POLICE REPORT: None
PUBLIC WORKS: Don Lorenzen reported on the Buck Thorn shrubbery in the Village. He
stated that 99% of the Buck Thorn in the Village is on private property or on state and
county roads. He also confirmed that it would take about 5 days to do the re-roofing of the
Village Hall and the park gazebo.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Via e-mail, a resident questioned about Acacia Association staying
with Groot instead of moving to SBC for garbage pick-up. Administrator DuRocher
confirmed this decision which was made by Acacia.
At 9:36 P.M. Trustee Kennedy motioned to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Trustee Metz.
Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0). Trustees Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, Metz
O’Laughlin, and Wittenberg voted Yay. No Nay votes.
Sharon Allison Village Clerk
April 8th, 2021
C. ORDINANCE 2021-03: FENCE ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Motion to adopt Ordinance 2021-03, an Ordinance adopting revisions to the Village's fence
code, was moved by Trustee Kennedy; seconded by Trustee Farrell-Mayer.
Committee Chair for the Fence and Shed Committee, Trustee Kennedy, announced that
the adoption of this ordinance is the final step in its approval from the Shed and Fence
Committee and the Planning and Zoning Committee. The following conditions will be
added to the present fence ordinance: all fences need approval through the special use
process; if property is sold, fences need to be removed; allows for fences to be used for
cover-up of garbage cans. Trustee Metz questioned how the ordinance will be enforced.
Administrator DuRocher stated that Staff will monitor village property occasionally.
Residents' complaints will be considered. Recorder of Deeds will be notified that, if a
property being sold, the fence needs to be removed before finality of the sale. Mayor
Hinshaw thanked Trustee Kennedy and Trustee Farrell-Mayor and village residents for
serving on the Fence and Shed Committee. Motion carried by roll call vote (6-0). Trustees
Conboy, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, Metz, O'Laughlin, and Wittenberg voted Yay. No Nay votes.
D. ORDINANCE 2021-06: VIDEO GAMING AT WILLOW HILLS RESTAURANT Motion to adopt
Ordinance 2021-06, an Ordinance allowing for video gaming at Willow Hills Restaurant
was moved by Trustee Metz; seconded by Trustee O'Laughlin. Administrator DuRocher
informed the Board that the Village strictly regulates the number of gaming licenses
permitted. Willow Hills has the capacity and the required licenses to have video gaming.
There are no instances of police activity at any of our video gaming establishments. Staff
recommends approval of this ordinance. Trustee Kennedy questioned if this is the last
location that can request a gaming license. Administrator DuRocher said yes; in order to
have a gaming license, one must have a liquor license; Willow Hills has a liquor license.
Motion carried by roll call vote (5-0). Trustees Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, Metz, O'Laughlin, and
Wittenberg voted Yay. Trustee Conboy was Nay.
E. FIRST READING-SHED ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Administrator DuRocher informed the Board of the progress of the Fence Committee. All
sheds must be approved by Fence Committee, then the Planning and Zoning Committee,
then the Village Board as a special use. Special consideration will be granted to houses
without basements and/or with only single-car garages. Special consideration will also be
granted to houses in the Robert Bartlett subdivision (behind Walgreens) in terms of
streamlining the application and overall expense to the property owner.
A lively discussion followed as to whether a shed would have to be removed when the
property is sold. At this point, Counsel Brankin recommended that he meet with
Administrator DuRocher to clarify language regarding tear-down and re-building sheds to
satisfy this ordinance. Administrator DuRocher will then bring the issue back to the May
Board meeting for additional discussion leading to a vote in June or July.
July 8th, 2021
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A resident who has been attending the 10-week Police Academy Program gave thanks to
Chief Stelter and the Board for promoting this activity for the benefit of its residents.
Presently 10-12 people are enrolled. All residents are invited to participate. Kudos to the
Chief for this great learning opportunity.
Several residents attended the meeting to voice concern about removing the fence
around the Heritage Center. They are in favor of keeping the fence as it protects the
property values of the neighbors. Since the Heritage Center is a public building, it should
be treated as municipal property and be allowed to have a fence. Another resident
requested the Village to smooth out the curbing leading into the driveways in Acacia.
Mayor Hinshaw stated that this is on a list of Public Works possible projects. Several
residents submitted on-line comments to the Board regarding the upcoming vote on an
ordinance that will extend the outdoor liquor license of the Driftwood Lounge. They are
opposed to this ordinance.
REPORTS
Administrator DuRocher explained that the fence at the Heritage Center is being
questioned. He discovered in the Village Code of Ordinances that a fence in that location is
legal. A consensus was requested of the Board members. Two are for removal of the
fence; two are in favor of keeping the fence. A decision will be delayed to the next meeting
when Trustee O’Laughlin and Trustee Donnersberger are present to offer their opinions.
March 10th, 2022
E. ORDINANCE 2022-11 SPECIAL USE AND VARIANCE-FENCE-1734 65TH PLACE
Motion to pass, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Ordinance 2022-11, an ordinance allowing as a special use for a fence at 1734 65th Place
was made by Trustee Farrell-Mayer; seconded by Trustee Eck.
Motion approved by roll call vote (4-0).
Trustees Eck, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, and Metz voted Yay.
No Nay votes.
Trustees Donnersberger and O'Laughlin were absent.
F. Ordinance 2022-12-- Special Use And Variance Shed-- 6547 Howard Motion to pass,
based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ordinance 202212, an Ordinance allowing as a special use and a variance for a shed at 6547 Howard was
moved by Trustee Farrell-Mayer; seconded by Trustee Eck.
Motion passed by roll call vote (4-0).
Trustees Eck, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy, and Metz voted Yay.
No Nay votes.
Trustees Donnersberger and O'Laughlin were absent.
G. Ordinance 2022-13 Special Use For A Fence-6547 Howard
A motion to pass, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Ordinance 2022-13, an ordinance allowing as a special use for a fence at 6547 Howard
was moved by Trustee Farrell-Mayer; seconded by Trustee Eck.
Motion passed by roll call vote (4-0). Trustees Eck, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy and Metz voted
Yay. No Nay votes. Trustees Donnersberger and O'Laughlin were absent.
REPORTS
Trustees: Trustee Eck: He reiterated that a review of the Ordinance re: Sheds and Fences
will be reviewed between the Board and the Staff.
Trustee Farrell-Mayer: She stated that about 5 homes occupied by residents who back up
to 65th street have approached the Planning and Zoning Committee about installing some
sort of fence or shrub so that people would not cut through the property enroute to Willow
Springs Road.
On February 23, Trustee Farrell-Mayer, John DuRocher and the Village Inspector toured the
Heritage Center to determine what improvements need to be made and what would be the
cost of the improvements. Trustee Farrell- Mayer will bring a report to the April Board
Meeting regarding this issue.
April 14th, 2022
B. ORDINANCE 2022-17—SPECIAL USE AND VARIANCE—FENCE AT 6546 HOWARD
A motion to pass, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Ordinance 2022-17, an ordinance allowing a special use and a variance for a fence at
6506 Howard subject to the following change: that the fence that is on the property which
backs up to Wilshire Green at the back
of the lot (west end) will not be required to be removed when the property is sold was
moved by Trustee Farrell-Mayer; seconded by Trustee Eck.
After considerable discussion and clarification, Trustees felt that this one property should
not be treated differently than the properties adjacent to this property.
Motion failed by roll call vote (3-4). Trustees Donnersberger, Eck, and Farrell-Mayer voted
Yay. Trustees Kennedy, Metz, O’Laughlin, and Mayor Hinshaw voted Nay.
At the end of the vote, a motion to reconsider Ordinance 2022-17 was moved by Trustee
Kennedy; seconded by Trustee O’Laughlin.
The motion to reconsider Ordinance 2022-17 passed by voice vote.
Motion to approve Ordinance 2022-17 as it is written was moved by Trustee Kennedy;
seconded by Trustee O’Laughlin.
Motion was approved by roll call vote (5-1). Trustees Donnersberger, Farrell-Mayer,
Kennedy, Metz, and O’Laughlin voted Yay. Trustee Eck voted Nay.
C. ORDINANCE 2022-18—PATIO RAILINGS IN ACACIA
Motion to pass, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Ordinance 2022-18, an ordinance allowing patio railings in Acacia was moved by Trustee
Farrell Mayer; seconded by Trustee Eck.
Assistant Village Administrator Ferrini met with the President of the Acacia Association
about the specifics of railings in Acacia. It must be 4 feet or under; it must be wood or
manufactured material; it must be attached to the patio, not in the ground; it must be
brown in color; it must not resemble a privacy fence.
Motion passed by roll call vote (6-0). Trustees Donnersberger, Eck, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy,
Metz and O’Laughlin voted Yay. No Nay votes.
May 12th, 2022
B. ORDINANCE 2022-22 SPECIAL USE FOR A FENCE AT 6537 HOWARD AVE.
A motion to pass, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Ordinance 2022-22, an ordinance allowing for a special use for a fence at 6537 Howard
Avenue was moved by Trustee Farrell-Mayer, seconded by Trustee Eck.
Motion passed by roll call vote (5-0). Trustees Donnersberger, Eck, Farrell-Mayer, Kennedy
and O'Laughlin voted Yay. No Nay votes. Trustee Metz was absent.
May 11th, 2023
III. MAYOR’S REPORT
Federal Funding: Thanks to our US Congressional Representative Sean Casten Indian Head
Park has potential for $947,775 for water main repairs as part of the FY2024 omnibus
government funding package. Thanks to John, Andy and staff along with trustee Kennedy
for their efforts in working with Representative Casten.
Acacia Drive: This week Strand and the landscaping company have been working on
planting 20 trees, bushes and plants along Acacia Drive. Next year the IDOT arborist will
come out and inspect the 20 trees and if any need to be replaced they will order the
replacements.
Civility Pledge: The Illinois Municipal League (IML), which is Illinois’ premier municipal
organization recently adopted a Civility Pledge and they ask all municipalities to also
adopt the pledge. The pledge seeks to restore civility in local governments, encourage
productive dialogue and build public trust. Residents and elected officials are often faced
with challenging and complex issues that can spark strong emotions and create conflict.
The pledge reads, “In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being
respectful of others, acknowledging that we are all striving to support and improve our
community and understanding that we each may have different ideas for achieving that
objective.” 294 Tollway: The village has worked with the tollway to stop the installation of a
new fence along part of Cochise Drive near the Flagg Creek bridge, and to get additional
plantings for the embankment along Keokuk with landscaping plans due to the village in
the late summer or early fall of this year. Final update: As mayor I have always thought of
my job as like part of a relay race. To do the best that I can in my time in the office,
knowing the work is never done. In the history of the village, a village board has never left
the new board over $2.3 million in unencumbered funds. This board, staff and volunteers
should be very proud of their planning, capital investments, improvements in the village
and financial stewardship. Tuesday night at an Acacia meeting a resident apologized to the
village board that she was wrong for opposing the sidewalk for Acacia Drive. She said the
street looks great, the sidewalk is wonderful, and she thanked the board for their vision. I
believe the same will be true with the Wolf Road improvements, that it will look much
better than it does today when Completed, with vastly improved stormwater management,
and of course, be considerably safer. With this meeting I will be turning over the baton to
Amy to continue the job.
Employee Anniversaries this month: Argelia Garbacz – 7 years, Don Lorenzen and Jill
Pilipchuk – 4 years each.
Happy Mother’s Day to all!
Thank You to Outgoing Officials-Trustee Kennedy
Mayor Hinshaw thanked Trustee Kennedy for his time service on the Board and also the
many committees that he served including Head of Public Works, Head of Tree &
Landscape, Economic Development, Shed & Fence and for his contributions to the Village
Car Shows. Trustee Kennedy said his best takeaway from his time was the people that he
served with. Everyone who currently works for the Village does so because they care.
Thank you to all Staff members, especially Public Works crew, it is amazing what they
accomplish with only four of you. Trustee Kennedy also thanked the residents for their
input and for their help.
VII. WELCOMING COMMENTS BY VILLAGE PRESIDENT WITTENBERG
Thank you all for being here this evening. I am privileged and grateful to have the
opportunity to serve our Community as Village President for the next four years, and to
work with an energetic and proactive Village Board of Trustees and committed and
dedicated staff.
There are many important issues facing the Village of Indian Head Park in the short and
long-term, and I am confident we have a Board and supporting committees and
commissions that can move the Village forward in a way that is consistent and in keeping
with our residents needs and preferences.
There are several details I’d like to share with you regarding key positions in the Village.
John DuRocher, our Village Administrator has previously announced his retirement on June
23rd. We are appreciative of John’s service to our Community and wish him a restful and
fulfilling retirement. The Village Administrator position has been posted on various
professional municipal administration websites and we will be conducting interviews
during the weeks of May 29 - June 9. After June 23rd, as we are awaiting our new Village
Administrator, I’ve asked Andy Ferrini, our Assistant Village Administrator to serve as
Interim Village Administrator until our new hire is in position.
Regarding the Chief of Police Position, we will start the recruiting process for this position
over the next month or two, Mike Kurinec will remain in the Chief of Police position until a
new Chief has been hired, at which time he will serve as Deputy Chief of Police.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank John and Mike for their service in these
leadership positions. Also I’d like to extend a Thank you to our former Village President
and Trustees, we are grateful and thankful to inherit a Village in strong financial standing,
There is much work to do and we are hitting the ground running, next week we will be
meeting with the Tollway regarding the Plainfield Rd Bridge and the fence, discussing our
Treasury management options with our bank and reviewing our transition priority lists as
we all settle into the new Administration.
August 10th, 2023
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance 2023-21 Ordinance Establishing Committee of the Whole.
The first Committee of the Whole will take place Thursday September 7, 2023 and will be
held quarterly.
B. Arrowhead Pointe Fence Discussion
∙ Two homeowners on the north side of Ashbrook are concerned that the steps they’ve
taken have not stopped the trespassers in their back yards. They would like help from the
Village to stem the flow of trespassers from gaining easy access to their patios and to
protect their private property. They have considered a living fence but that is expensive
and must be constantly watered. And, the kids can still get through.
∙ Trustee Eck asked for the Village to get costs from planning and zoning.
∙ Trustee Svestka interjected that a fence would likely cost between $14-$17,000. ∙ Andy
Ferrini added it would cost roughly the same as a live barrier.
∙ Trustee O’Laughlin indicated that she had planted trees years ago for the same reason
and now no one comes through her yard.
∙ Others added that maybe the Village could share the cost for the benefit of the live fence
looking better. However, Trustee Gazis felt there are funding issues.
∙ President Wittenberg said we should review and give the residents some guidance. We
are empathetic but it may be setting a precedence.
∙ Andy Ferrini said he would put together a memo with possible options.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes on Fences
September 28, 1993
Application for a Yard Variation at 11141 Indian Woods Drive (Petition for a deck extension
and stairs down to grade)
Chairman Andrews: Ok. Let's turn to 11141, Dr John Skreko. Petition for a deck extension
and stairs down to grade at 11141 Indian Woods Drive. Is Dr. Skreko here? Dr. Skreko:
Present. Ms. Harper: For my own information, could we try and, somehow, identify what
numbers the buildings are? Chairman Andrews: 11141 is in Building 2, correct, Doctor? Dr.
Skreko: Yes. Ms. Harper: In the A Unit? Chairman Andrews: The A Unit. You're at the east
end of the building? Dr. Skreko: Correct. Ms. Raymond: Did we receive any letters from
neighbors? Chairman Andrews: Just that one. I note that the steps are already in place. Dr.
Skreko: Yes. Chairman Andrews: When were they built? Dr. Skreko: In the summer. I built
them myself. I apologize to the Board. I didn't realize I was doing anything wrong. I put
them in myself. Chairman Andrews: You actually did the labor in putting them up? Dr.
Skreko: Yes. Chairman Andrews: Nice job. Dr. Skreko: I have some pictures. I didn't really
know I was violating anything. I've been a dentist here for almost thirteen years. I know you
can't have detached sheds and fences, but I didn't really realize that I was violating
anything. I didn't go against the building line, or anything, I just came straight down.
Chairman Andrews: Are these the pictures that you -- Are these from you? As I understand
it, there's only one marked here with your unit and I think these other ones don't apply. Can
you see them from where you are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think these other
pictures apply to your unit. Dr. Skreko: No. Chairman Andrews: This is yours? Dr. Skreko:
Yes. Chairman Andrews: For the sake of marking these, this is Petition Number 70-1 at
11141 Indian Woods, Dr. John Skreko. I'm going to identify the picture, there is Exhibit 701. I'm going to use the petition numbers to denote the exhibits we have here. Exhibit 70-1
(11141/Skreko) Chairman Andrews marked and received into evidence Planning & Zoning
Commission Exhibit Number 70-1, picture reflecting Dr. Skreko's deck and stairs."
September 28, 1993
Application for a Yard Variation at 11114 Indian Woods Drive (Petition for a deck extension
and stairs)
Mr. Cozza: I just have one. Chairman Andrews: Ok, fine. Does anybody have any questions
for Mr. Cozza? Mr. Stehman: Are you going to extend that privacy fence? Mr. Cozza: No.
Chairman Andrews: Well, what's the reason for your request? Mr. Cozza: Well, a lot of it's
been said already. I think since what was it, 1990 or 1991, when those plans were first
looked at and it was voted that there wouldn't be any stairs, and so on and so forth. I think
a lot has happened, since then, with the retention areas. I don't think any one of the
people, who are petitioning here, knew that we were going to have these pits between the
buildings. I didn't see the picture you had yesterday with the retention they showed there,
but there is a larger retention between building numbers - See, that's a small one. Between
Building 5 and Building 6, it's about three times that size."
May 10, 1994
Trustee Andrews informed the Commission members that there was a discussion at the
last Village Board meeting concerning a replacement fence that had been constructed on a
property at 65th Street and Willow Springs Road, just north of the gas station. What
prompted this discussion was a report from the building inspector to Trustee Beauford with
respect to this replacement fence. The fence surrounds a patio and Trustees Beauford and
Bermier are checking into it. Since it appears there originally was a fence along that lot
line, which had been grandfathered along with other fences on 65th because of the trailer
sales place, etc. Trustee Andrews stated that some Board members felt that the zoning
ordinance, although it specifically prohibits everything but a safety fence, that they should
consider allowing a fence between commercial and residential properties in the Village.
Trustee Andrews advised the Commission that if the Commission could come up with a
recommendation as to fencing and fences in the Village, this issue may have to come
ahead of everything else. He stated that this would then be incorporated into 64-1 and
submitted to the Village Board, and that the Village Board did not need all of 64-1 to enact
it, just that portion. Mr. Pellegrino stated that he has the letter F in regard to definitions, so
he said he would review and compare other ordinances concerning fences. Mr. Reda
brought up the question of allowing a fence in the front of a house which might be so many
feet off of a busy road. Would this be covered in the definitions, or would everyone be
allowed to have one? Trustee Andrews felt that there was a mood change with the Village
to allow for more fences then what they do now. Chairman Faron felt that by going through
some type of review process, either before the Commission or the Village Board, would
control the type of fence that could be put up. The Commission members felt that the issue
of fences needed a good deal of review in order to answer the many questions that had
surfaced. However, they felt this issue could be addressed and a recommendation could be
made to the Village Board for their consideration in the very near future."
May 24, 1994
Under the section "Definitions Needed" for the ongoing revision of Zoning Ordinance 64-1,
the term "fence (La Grange)" is listed. This indicates that a definition for "fence" from the
La Grange Ordinance was being reviewed for potential incorporation or comparison as part
of the Village's zoning ordinance revision.
This was part of a list of definitions being compiled and reviewed by different Commission
members as part of an ongoing revision process. There was no specific vote on this
individual definition at this meeting.
February 28, 1995
Donven Corporation Public Hearing
The single-family homes that address Wolf Road, front: First our collector street or as it
serves here as a frontage street, and then finally address Wolf Road, putting our best foot
forward along the entire length of Wolf Road. We only have one building, a townhome
building, which is backing up to Wolf Road. But fortunately, as you all know, there's a
substantial existing stand of trees at this corner. And, of course, the majority of the
perimeter, which we're planning to save in its entirety, is probably 40 to 50 feet thick and
it's difficult to see through it, even in the wintertime. We find that to be a negative not only
from an aesthetic standpoint, but also from a marketing standpoint, and just a general
appearance in any municipality. The reason was to eliminate the use of any fencing, which
I understand is not allowed in Indian Head Park, but certainly the stockade fencing is
something that we would have never introduced in the first place.
Presentation by Developer (continuation of Mr. Lindley's comments) One last item. We
have a very preliminary sketch, but we are requesting the entrance with a gate-house
effect. We're looking at a brick or stone, stucco, possibility, structure. An elegant
architecture. It will be articulated in paver or some kind of enhanced treatment of the
pavement. We are seeking approval for some architectural wall detailing. These are curved
walls as is reflected on the land plan (curvy orange areas). We hope to convince you to
allow us to also extend maybe another 75 feet or so, of the same piers every 16 feet or so,
with some wrought iron treatment. Not the entire length of Wolf Road. We're not interested
in that. We're just trying to make a strong enough statement on either side of the
boulevard, rather than just the architectural wall, extend that treatment just a little further.
And we do recognize that "fencing is not allowed." We consider this to be an architectural
monument, if you will, and not fencing." (Mr. Lindley, Project Engineer, clarifies that their
proposed architectural elements for the entrance are considered "architectural
monuments" and not fencing, implying a distinction in what is allowed or intended.)
March 28, 1995
Discussion regarding Revisions to Zoning Ordinance
Trustee Andrews informed the Commission that he had made notes on a few issues and
that the Commission would receive this material after April 30th. These issues dealt with
different topics that the Board felt the would like to review; one being the grandfathering
provision for fences. Trustee Andrews stated that if this provision was not being enforced,
maybe the provision should not be in there or maybe it should be rewritten and something
about grandfathering incorporated into it. He stated that there were several alternative
ways of handling this issue and noted that this was just an example of the issues to be
reviewed. This highlights a specific issue within the zoning ordinance revisions: how to
handle the "grandfathering provision for fences," including whether it's enforced, needs
rewriting, or alternative ways to manage it.
Mr. Scalise questioned the meaning of enforce, in regard to grandfathering. He asked what
the Village was to accomplish with this issue and pointed out that many aspects would
have to be considered, such as the different types of fences; where they were located; how
long they were there; if one fence was legal to begin with; what condition the fence was in;
etc. He felt this needed to be looked at with a concern for the whole Village, as opposed to
a concern with a certain section of the Village. Trustee Andrews explained that one of the
concerns in regard to fences was that if a fence came under the provision of being
grandfathered, it would remain so, as long as it was maintained by the owner. He further
stated that the owner allowed the fence to become rotten and broken down and wanted to
replace it with another fence; it would no longer come under the grandfathering provision.
He stated that the intent of the grandfathering provision was to eliminate non-conforming
uses in a given period of time. Trustee Andrews informed the Commission that a
suggestion had been made that the PZC consider establishing a useful life for a fence. This
would mean that, for example, if the fence was established five years after 5 years, it
would have to come down. Mr. Scalise reiterated his concerns and Trustee Andrews agreed
that there were many concerns with the fence issue. This is a detailed discussion between
Mr. Scalise and Trustee Andrews about the complexities of fence regulations, including
types, location, age, maintenance, and the implications of a "useful life" provision for
fences under the grandfathering clause in the zoning ordinance.
August 22, 1995
Trustee Andrews informed the Commission that he had made notes on a few issues and
that the Commission would receive this material after April 30th. These issues dealt with
different topics that the Board felt they would like to review; one being the grandfathering
provision for fences." (This is a brief re-mention of the ongoing discussion from March 28,
1995, regarding revisions to the zoning ordinance, specifically the "grandfathering
provision for fences.")
June 11, 1996 Meeting
R&R Associates Public Hearing
Ms. Harper: Can I ask why you want a gate and not a fence? Mr. Pappe: Anybody who’s
going to come in there - like I said, we’ve had stuff out there for three or four years, no
one’s ever touched a thing, except dumping. To dump, they’ve got to pull a truck or car
onto the property. If the property is sealed with vegetation - if access to the street is sealed
with vegetation, where they can’t drive through it, the only access they have is through the
driveway. If we gate the driveway, they can’t get in to dump. Mr. Reda: And the driveway
that you show is going to service the first lot also, right? Mr. Pappe: Yes. Mr. Reda: Which
will be more or less the same thing, all in crushed rock except for the handicap parking. Mr.
Pappe: No, on lot 1, there will be a larger office area that will have a paved parking lot.
Number 1 is more employees. Five times as many employees will be working on lot 1 than
on lot 2. So we will have a paved parking lot on lot 1."
Mr. Pappe: A big open area. The trees on this side of the lot will remain alive, the same way
they do in the front, here (indicating on plan). The Village has said that they’re going to
fence their lot. So we will probably have to fence the east end of our lot to close theirs.
They’ll fence three sides and they’ll expect us to fence the fourth side. Ms. Harper:
Originally, back in 1990, it was stated that it would include a fenced area, so there would
be no danger to people strolling onto your property, is that still a concern? Mr. Pappe: I’d
never seen any people who live there. Nobody even knows where that place is. For people
to stroll down there, they can’t cut through. They have to stroll back out the same way they
went in. They can’t cut through. It doesn’t go anywhere."
Mr. Harper: Well, you know, I’ve seen people walking down Joliet Road towards I-55, and I
wonder where they’re going. I see them walking down that way. I don’t know. I have no
idea where they’re going. One can’t say what people are going to do. I think there’s a
shelter nearby. I don’t know. Mr. Pappe: If the Village wants us to put a fence up, we’ll put a
fence up. I don’t think, from a security standpoint, I don’t think it’s necessary. If they want
it up, we’ll put it up. I don’t think it will look as good as vegetation. I just don’t like it. But
whatever the Board decides is what we’re going to do. We’re just trying to find a way to
avoid putting a fence up. Right now, we’re in an area where not only do we need a fence,
we have six guard dogs and an UZI, and it doesn’t help. They literally steal anything that’s
not bolted down. We’ve had stuff out here for 4 years and nobody’s touched it. We can try
it without a fence and, is there’s any problems, we can come back in and get a variance
and put the fence back. Ms. Harper: I thought that this - the fencing was already approved?
Mr. Pappe: It was, but they didn’t approve a gate. Ms. Harper: Okay, so you wouldn’t need a
variance for a fence? Mr. Pappe: Right. It’s already been approved. The question at the
time when we first came before the Board, there was an ordinance that said we couldn’t
have a fence. There was also an ordinance that said you had to have a fence for safety. So
they were kind of going back and forth. Do you remember that Ms. Beauford? Trustee
Beauford: Yes. Mr. Pappe: Then they decided, because we had said originally that we’d like
a fence. We didn’t know what the security was going to be like out here. We’ve never had a
need for a fence. Trustee Beauford: My guess is we passed it as a safety fence, in order to
provide for a fence, under the ordinance. Ms. Harper: Okay. But no gate? Trustee Beauford:
But no gate. We don’t have safety gates. Mr. Pappe: We don’t have safety gates. Trustee
Coleman: Did you actually eliminate the gate, on purpose, at the time? Chairman Faron: I
didn’t specify a gate.
Chairman Faron: I didn’t specify a gate. Trustee Coleman: You’d have a fence, you can’t
have a gate? Trustee Beauford: Right. Trustee Coleman: Okay. Chairman Faron: An opening
in a fence without a gate, it’s a possibility. But then, the question comes in, too, if he
doesn’t have big things to steal. And if he can’t drive in, they can’t carry it out. So, if we can
keep them from driving in, we’ll be eliminating 90% of our theft problem right there. So if
you have the area closed off with vegetation, so they can’t get through, they can’t drive
through the trees, if we gate the driveway, they can’t drive in to steal anything. Ms. Harper:
What kind of gate are you talking about? Mr. Pappe: All we need is a pole gate, really. We
don’t need a cyclone gate. All we need is a pole gate, to stop vehicles from driving through.
We’re going to have to put a pole gate up, now, on lot 1, next to the Village’s salt pile,
because they’re dumping there at a fantastic rate. We just can’t stop them anymore."
Mr. Reda: And you’re asking for a gate now and your preference would be for a vegetated
perimeter as opposed to a fence? Mr. Pappe: Yes."
December 16, 1996
Comm. Harper: I’m a little concerned about privacy. Are you willing to consider the
landscaping? Mr. Dimoff: Oh, yes. Chairman Faron: The chain link fence is also lower.Mr.
Dimoff: That’s why I thought I’d put the vegetation. It would give her a lot of privacy. Comm.
Stehman: Is that fence on the lot line, right now? Mr. Dimoff: Yes. Ms. Fredericks: We do
use that back space. That’s where she sunbathes. He was mentioning putting up these
slats in a fence and I’m still thinking that’s not enough privacy. The fence comes so high
and my daughter is talking about how she’s walking through her bathing suit. I don’t feel
that’s enough privacy. Chairman Faron: How tall is the fence? Mr. Dimoff: 5 feet. What I
would do is put some vegetation up there and go across that whole area. Maybe 6’ or 5’.
Trustee Beauford commented that, based upon the Planning & Zoning Commission’s
recommendation Mr. Dimoff’s plans and the current handicapped parking law are
reviewed by the Village engineer, and that the Village prefers natural vegetation over
fences. He stated that the Village prefers natural vegetation over fences.
July 22, 1997
6519 Shabbana
When asked about the deck, Mr. Johnson stated: "I know some of it's coming down. Where
the deck is, there's a fence that goes around the pool (Easel Exhibit). It starts here. The
railing that's presently in this area is coming out. I think it's going to be a touch higher
here. I'm not really sure. All this railing is coming out, because the deck was in before the
pool. This is going to come out and this is going to be a step down."
August 26, 1997
Mr. Glenn discussed the design of a berm, explaining: "Where it says berm, this got
feathered in, but this is supposed to be feathered down, because of the radius of Acacia
coming into Laurel. That would have to be redesigned. That would be done. What we
basically do is mark the area and that would be the area under landscape study to tie in
the road to tie in the radius, to tie into the existing landscaping, and the fencing located
behind the high-rise homes."
Mr. Glenn concluded his remarks by emphasizing: "I do believe the sensitivity to the
berming and the landscaping is the key to development. And if you decide or don't decide
on what you do with those two homes, one of the things I think is that there is always a
delicate balance between development and residential. It's a hard decision to be made by
any Board. One of the things you have, when you have a road right-of-way which carries
30,000 cars, is that there will be a commercial property on that. And you're going to have
to have some of the homeowners who decided that you can run through an auto park or
whatever he decided to do, because he could attract traffic and practice long commercial
ideas. The property is in the underlying Village long range plan and this is commercial. We
didn't come under something that wasn't under the long range plan. That's why I did meet
with the people that I met with, and I will continue to do so, because I think the berm and
the fences are very important."
An audience member directly asked: "Are you going to have a fence along that?" Mr. Glenn
responded, "We'd be happy to put a fence in. I fought that battle once, in front of the rest of
the retail development." The audience member then stressed, "I think for the safety of the
children and the fact of the people coming through, you should put that in." Mr. Glenn
agreed, "A fence is not a problem. And I think you may want to have an access point
somewhere through that fence. That way, they don't climb."
October 14, 1997
Anthony Greco expressed his concerns about the proposed development, stating: "My
name is Anthony Greco and I live directly east of the Riordans' residence. This isn't very
easy for us tonight to be here, because we've been neighbors with Mr. Riordan for 20
years. We just hate to be here and voice our opinion. We've consulted with a local realtor
because we were advised by her that we could move to the village for the green spaces
that we have by not being able to have fences and hedged buildings. That is not the kind of
thing that usually people want to live next to."
Mr. Riordan stated he would "have to fence it anyway" for privacy and pool security if he
put the pool in the back. Commissioner Andrews confirmed a "safety fence" would be
required for the pool. Mr. Riordan reiterated he would need a "privacy fence there, to
secure the pool." Commissioner Andrews again emphasized the "safety fence"
requirement.
Chairman Faron clarified the type of enclosure required: "It's a safety fence. It's not solid,
it's open. Chairman Faron inquired about specific requirements for outdoor pools, asking
about the size of the fence: "There are certain requirements. The openness of the fence,
I'm not exactly sure what the requirements are." He also asked about its distance from the
pool, noting he was "not exactly sure what the requirements are" regarding the "openness
of the fence." In a letter from Anthony and Barbara Greco included as "Additional Findings
of Fact," they stated their belief that "Village ordinances concerning fences, unattached
structures, and other building covenants are crucial for preserving the 'open green spaces'
residents value."
March 23, 1999
Chairman Andrews informed the Commissioners that the regularly scheduled Planning &
Zoning Commission meeting for April 13, 1999, would be cancelled since it was Election
Day. He noted that the Commissioners would be holding a special meeting on Thursday,
April 15, 1999, to consider a variation relative to the Hayes property to allow for a
swimming pool and fence. The Commissioners who were absent from the current meeting
would be notified, and the date for the special meeting would be confirmed later.
Public Hearing Meeting – April 15, 1999 11205 Hiawatha Lane Swimming Pool
A public hearing was held for a variation request for the construction of an in-ground
swimming pool on the corner side yard of the property at 11205 Hiawatha Lane, which
included consideration of a fence. Vice-Chairman Faron inquired if the fence would follow
the contour of the pool. Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Hayes if he planned to install the
fence flush up against the house on the north and south ends of the property. Mr. Hayes
stated he would install the fence in any manner the Commission suggested to provide the
best safety. Vice-Chairman Faron requested clarification on whether the fence would
extend farther than the front of the house. Mr. Hayes confirmed the fence would not extend
past the house and would go flush to the decks. Chairman Andrews noted that the fence
would be located not less than 3' or more than 7' away from the edge of the pool on the
east side. Commissioner Harper questioned the height of the fence, and Mr. Hayes
indicated he would install a 5' fence all the way around the pool to meet safety
requirements. The style of the fence was noted to be as described in the Proline Fence and
Products brochure, specifically style #202. One of the findings of fact supporting the
variation was that a safety fence would be installed as suggested and agreed to by Mr.
Hayes. The conditions for the variation specified that the fence will follow the shape of the
pool on all four sides. The fence will be located 3' from the perimeter of the pool. The
space between the pool edge and the fence will be concrete or a cement walkway. The
pool should be sighted so that the fence will not extend further north than the actual north
face of the residence. The fence height was specified as 5'. The fence style was to be #202
as shown in the Proline packet, Exhibit #4, and depicted in Exhibit 4 from Proline Fence Co.
2000-No Mention Of Fences
October 2nd, 2001
Commissioner Mayer stated that the Village's ordinance prohibits fences of any kind. She
asked if the Zoning Commission has ever considered whether such stone exterior wing
walls would constitute the definition of a fence. Commissioner Mayer pointed out that the
definition of a fence in the Zoning Code is quite broad.
Chairman Faron and Commissioner Andrews pointed out that both properties adjacent to
Mr. Gibson's property have such exterior stone wing walls in the front of the residence. Mr.
Gibson added that the property to the west of his residence has a stone wing wall that
extends out approximately seven-feet (7') into the front yard and the property to the east
have a wing wall that extends out approximately three feet (3'). Commissioner Mayer
stated that if the Zoning Commission is interpreting that the stone wing walls are not
defined as a fence, she asked that appropriate language be added to the motion amending
the Planned Unit Development so that a precedent is not set forth for property owners who
may decide to construct a fence made of brick in the future.
Trustee Andrews referred to the following definition of fences per Section 17.08.310 of the
Village's Zoning Code: "a fence means an enclosure about a parcel of land, field, or other
space or about any object, any barrier such as a structure of wood, brick, stone, steel or the
like that is intended to prevent straying from within or intrusion therein. Also any structure
including a trellis placed within the confines of a parcel of land even for decorative
purposes". Trustee Andrews stated that a wing wall is not an enclosure designed to prevent
straying from within or intrusion therein. He added that he did not recall the particular
issue of stone wing walls ever being addressed previously by the Zoning Commission.
Trustee Andrews stated that if a property owner attempted to line their property with a
brick wall all the way around the property, that certainly would prevent intrusion to the
property. Commissioner Mayer stated that she visited the Gibson property and observed
the stone wing wall that was installed at the front of the residence and it appears the
structure at the main entrance of the residence does tend to create a barrier effect.
Chairman Faron asked Mr. Gibson how many feet from the lot line are the stone wing
walls. Mr. Gibson stated that the stone wing wall on the west side of the residence is
approximately four-feet (4') off of the lot line. He noted that his neighbor has a wing wall
with a ten-foot (10') side yard. Mr. Gibson stated that he is willing to compromise and that
he is merely installing the stone wing walls for aesthetic purposes to enhance the
appearance of this home. Commissioner Stomberski inquired about the length of the
proposed wing walls into the front yard setback.
October 2, 2001, Petition #125
Chairman Faron entertained a motion to provide a recommendation to the Village Board of
Trustees granting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the Gibson property
located at 6480 Cherokee Drive. Commissioner Andrews moved, seconded by
Commissioner Schermerhorn, to provide a recommendation to the Board of Trustees to
grant an amendment to the P.U.D. for the property located 6480 Cherokee Drive as
follows: (1) to allow for the construction of a bay window overhang approximately 1' 6" into
the front yard; (2) a stone wing wall of approximately 3' in height and extending no more
than 6' into the west side yard; (3) a stone wing wall in the east side yard to match the
height, shape and materials of the west yard wing wall, but not to extend further than 4.5'
into the east yard; and (4) to allow for the construction of two stone wing walls in the front
yard of the lot located between the garage and living room of the house as depicted on the
Plat of Survey and construction site plan with dimensions, as set forth and amended at this
public hearing. The following items were added as part of
The government’s own published record — read it yourself, then decide what to do about it.
The cameras, the coverage, and the local record for this community.
Not yet recorded. The record stays open — outcomes are added as minutes and vote results are published.
Provenance
Where this record came from. Every source is listed, permanently.
- Agenda Watch · Aug 2, 2026
Permanent ID DKT-2026-000185 — this record is never deleted.
Record history
Every change to this record, logged as it happened.
- Aug 2, 2026 Filed on the Docket
- Aug 2, 2026 Full document archived — public record
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 6, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 7, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 7, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 7, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 7, 2026 Record updated
- Aug 7, 2026 Record updated
← The full Docket · every meeting, vote, and action on the permanent record · also in the National Record Index.