On the agenda: Indian Head Park meeting — SURVEILLANCE CAMERA (May 14)

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, May 14, 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

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 April 9, 2026
B.​ Approval of Payables for the Period Ending April 30, 2026
C.​ Approval of Preliminary Financial Report - Month ending April 30, 2026
V.​

New Business
D.​ Acceptance of Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Financial Report and Related Audit
Communications
E.​ Resolution 2026-15: Authorizing The Engagement of Selden Fox, Ltd. to Provide
Professional Auditing Services
F.​ Ordinance 2026-07: Amending Chapter 4, “Animals,” of The Village Code
Regarding Managed Feral Cat Colonies and Animal Nuisance Conditions
G.​ Ordinance 2026-08: Granting a Variation to Allow for the Removal and

201 Acacia Drive Indian Head Park, Illinois 60525 - Phone (708) 246-3080 Fax (218) 220-3643​
www.indianheadpark-il.gov

Reconstruction of a Detached Garage At 11315 Hiawatha Lane
H.​ Ordinance 2026-09: Amending Chapter 36, Article Vii, Division 2 of the Village
Code Regarding Vehicle Licenses
VI.​

Old Business
I.​ Discussion – Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Code Regulations for Fences

VII.​

Public Comments

VIII.​

Reports
J.​ Trustees
K.​ Village Clerk
L.​ Village Treasurer
M.​ Village Attorney
N.​ Village Administrator
O.​ Department Heads

IX.​

Executive Session (if required)

The Village Board may enter into Executive Session pursuant to the Illinois Open
Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2(c)) for the purpose of discussing: Personnel – Section
2(c)(1), Collective Bargaining – Section 2(c)(2), Purchase or Lease of Real Property –
Section 2(c)(5), Sale or Lease of Village Property – Section 2(c)(6), Pending or Imminent
Litigation – Section 2(c)(11), Review of Executive Session Minutes – Section 2(c)(21)
X.​

Adjournment

UPCOMING MEETINGS

​

Economic Development Committee​
​
Planning and Zoning Commission​​
​
Village Board Meeting​
​
​
​
Joint Planning and Zoning and Village Board​
Finance Committee​​
​
​
​

June 2, 2026, 6pm
June 2, 2026, 7pm
June 11, 2026, 7pm​
June 17, 2026, 7pm
July 8, 2026, 4pm

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
April 9, 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.”
I.

CALL TO ORDER: President Amy Jo Wittenberg

The regular meeting of the Village of Indian Head Park Board of Trustees was held on Thursday,
April 9, 2026, 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

ABSENT
X

X
X
X
X
X

Members present constituted a Quorum.
ALSO PRESENT
- Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
- Rick Veenstra, Village Attorney
- Steven Weatherford, Interim Police Chief
- Joe Coons, Public Works Director
- Andrez Beltran, Assistant to the Village Administrator
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
There were 3 members of the public present.
II.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by President Wittenberg.

III.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT
Board of Trustees Minutes – April 9, 2026

1

A. Swearing in of Interim Police Chief Steven Weatherford
President Wittenberg welcomed Steven Weatherford as Interim Chief of Police for the
Village of Indian Head Park, effective April 2, 2026. She stated that Chief Weatherford
would serve in that role while the Village undertakes the process of recruiting and hiring
a permanent Chief of Police following the recent resignation of Chief Walsh.
President Wittenberg reported that Chief Weatherford brings extensive experience in law
enforcement leadership, including command-level roles with the Elmhurst Police
Department and service with the Illinois Commerce Commission Police. She further
stated that Chief Weatherford most recently served as an accreditation assessor for the
Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, where he evaluated police departments
throughout the state against professional standards and best practices.
President Wittenberg welcomed Chief Weatherford to the Police Department and
acknowledged the presence of members of the Police Department, including officers,
commanders, and corporals, who attended the meeting. She stated that Chief Weatherford
would be sworn in and that a badge presentation would follow, with his daughter, Sophia,
participating, after which photographs would be taken.
Chief Weatherford was then sworn in as Interim Chief of Police. During the oath, Chief
Weatherford affirmed that he would support the Constitution of the United States, the
Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the ordinances of the Village of Indian Head
Park, and that he would faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Interim Chief of
Police to the best of his ability.
President Wittenberg then continued with the remainder of the Village President’s Report and
stated that she had three items to update the Board and public on.
President Wittenberg provided a legislative update regarding pending legislation in the State of
Illinois that she stated posed a threat to Indian Head Park’s local zoning control. She explained
that the matter involved several bills, with the primary bill identified as House Bill 5626. President
Wittenberg stated that the State’s proposed Build Illinois Homes initiative sought to increase
housing supply through state mandates requiring higher-density residential development and
streamlined approvals. She explained that, as proposed, the legislation would override local zoning
by allowing four to eight units on many single-family lots, standardizing impact fees, setting strict
permit review timelines, requiring accessory dwelling units in all single-family districts, allowing
third-party reviewers and inspectors if deadlines are missed, removing local development
discretion, permitting single-stair residential buildings, limiting parking requirements, and
significantly reducing local zoning and regulatory control.
President Wittenberg stated that the legislation would shift significant authority from local
government to the State. She explained that Indian Head Park’s current zoning intentionally
balances housing, neighborhood character, infrastructure, stormwater management, and public
safety. She further stated that State legislators Representative La Ha and Senator Curran, the

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

2

Illinois Municipal League, the West Central Municipal Conference, and the major councils of
governments in suburban Chicagoland strongly oppose the legislation.
President Wittenberg encouraged residents to contact their State officials to oppose the legislation.
She stated that the Village would share emails to facilitate that process and encouraged residents
to review information from the Illinois Municipal League regarding the initiative and to monitor
the progress of the bill, which was in committee. She stated that two documents were available
online explaining the legislation and the lobbying interests supporting it, which she identified
primarily as the real estate lobby. She advised that residents with questions could contact the
Village, Representative La Ha, Senator Curran, or the Illinois Municipal League.
President Wittenberg next provided an update on the Wolf Road redesign. She stated that the Wolf
Road study team, which includes Indian Head Park, Burr Ridge, the Village’s engineering
company Strand, and Cook County, was refining the preferred alternative. She explained that the
team was determining specific roadway footprints and evaluating drainage, structural,
environmental, and property impacts. She stated that the process required substantial coordination
with the Illinois Department of Transportation, the federal government, and other jurisdictional
agencies regarding roadway design details.
President Wittenberg stated that the preferred alternative was viewable online and that maps were
also available at Village Hall by appointment. She identified the preferred alternative as
Alternative 1 on the Wolf Road study website, also called the baseline sidewalk plan. She reported
that the study team had reviewed drainage alternative memoranda over the prior two months and
that Indian Head Park and Burr Ridge favored Drainage Alternative 2, a closed drainage system
that captures flows through roadway structures, over Drainage Alternative 1, which involved open
ditches.
President Wittenberg explained that the maintenance of traffic analysis memorandum addresses
how traffic would be managed during construction. She stated that advance planning was
important because traffic routing during the project could affect land acquisition. She reported that
the Village was meeting with police, fire, and school districts to develop an optimal roadway
construction plan, which would be provided to the Corridor Advisory Council in early 2027 and
to residents at Public Meeting No. 3 in spring 2027. She stated that the next Corridor Advisory
Council meeting was expected in early 2027 and that the next public meeting was expected in
spring 2027. She further stated that the Wolf Road construction start date was estimated to be no
sooner than 2031.
President Wittenberg stated that discussions with Cook County were now focused on safely
maintaining Plainfield Road and Wolf Road until 2031 due to the current poor condition of the
roadway.
President Wittenberg then provided an update regarding Plainfield Road. She stated that the
County is redesigning 3.5 miles of Plainfield Road from County Line Road to East Avenue to
address traffic, drainage, and safety issues. She reported that, because of the size of the project,
the County had notified the Village that the project would be completed in two phases over several
years.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

3

President Wittenberg stated that Phase 1 would extend from Laurel Avenue to East Avenue. She
explained that Laurel Avenue is located directly east of the elementary school. She reported that
design work for Phase 1 would begin within the next couple of years and that construction was
expected around 2029 to 2030.
President Wittenberg stated that Phase 2 of the Plainfield Road project would extend from County
Line Road to Laurel Avenue, which includes the portion within Indian Head Park. She stated that
Phase 2 would follow after Phase 1, with construction expected around 2031. She explained that
Laurel Avenue had been selected as the dividing point because of drainage patterns and to make
construction more efficient. She stated that the Village’s portion of the roadway is more
complicated due to drainage and the way the roadway pitches downward toward Flagg Creek,
requiring more complicated drainage accommodations and engineering. She noted that other
portions of the roadway also have complexities, but that those portions would proceed first.
President Wittenberg advised residents with questions to contact the Village by email or visit
Village Hall to discuss the projects in more detail. She stated that both projects were currently
projected for 2031, potentially no sooner, subject to change.
IV.

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TENTATIVE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 2026 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2027 (FY2027)
President Wittenberg stated that the next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the
tentative annual budget for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 2026 and ending April 30, 2027.
President Wittenberg stated that she would open the public hearing and asked for a motion,
second, and roll call vote.
MOTION: Eck
SECONDED: Gazis
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)

Aye

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The Motion PASSED unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:12pm.
President Wittenberg asked whether there were any public comments on the proposed annual
budget and stated that public comments were welcome during the hearing. She asked whether
any emailed comments had been submitted regarding the budget. No emailed comments were
reported.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

4

President Wittenberg then asked whether anyone present wished to make a budget-related
public comment. No public comments on the proposed annual budget were made. President
Wittenberg noted that no further feedback had been provided.
President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote to close the public hearing.
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)

Aye

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The Motion PASSED unanimously and the public meeting was closed at 7:13pm
V.

CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of March 12, 2026
B. Approval of Payables for the Period Ending March 31, 2026
C. Approval of Preliminary Financial Report - Month ending March 31, 2026
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Gazis
Mr. Morgan presented the Financial Report:
1. The Cash on Hand for February 28, 2026 included $2,412,917.90.
2. Payables for March 2026 amounted to $430,805.91.
3. Total Revenues for March 2026 amounted to $778,590.56.
4. Ending Bank Balance on March 31, 2026 was $2,760,702.55.
Hearing no questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote on the Consent
Agenda.
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)

Aye

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The Motion PASSED unanimously.
Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

5

V.

NEW BUSINESS
D. Consideration and Approval of Ordinance 2026-06: Adopting the FY2027 Budget
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Gazis
Mr. Morgan presented the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget and stated that staff requested
that the Village Board approve the budget as presented. He explained that the budget
reflected the Village’s ongoing operational needs, capital priorities, and service levels
while maintaining alignment with the Village’s fiscal policies and long-term planning
objectives.
Mr. Morgan stated that, as discussed at the previous meeting, the budget included a
strategic and planned use of fund balance, primarily to support one-time capital
expenditures, consistent with best practices. He further stated that the Finance Committee
had reviewed the proposed budget and determined that it was reasonable. Mr. Morgan
noted that the Finance Committee had discussed the projected deficit and would continue
to work with staff to monitor financial performance throughout the fiscal year. He stated
that staff would also continue to monitor revenues, expenditures, and broader economic
conditions to ensure continued fiscal stability, transparency, and responsible fiscal
management.
Trustee Eck reported that the Finance Committee had met the previous day and stated that
the Committee had voted in favor of the budget. He stated that the proposed budget was
consistent with the prior discussions held by the Committee. Trustee Eck acknowledged
that the budget included a slight deficit and stated that the Finance Committee would
continue reviewing the nature of the deficit and whether it could be addressed in future
years.
President Wittenberg asked if there were any other 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

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The Motion PASSED unanimously.
E. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-10: Appointment of Steven
Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

6

Weatherford as Interim Chief
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Gazis
Mr. Morgan stated that the appointment will ensure continuity of leadership and
operational stability within the police department and there's no fiscal impact beyond
what is already included in the budget.
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

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The Motion PASSED unanimously.
F. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-11: Awarding the Pump House
Chlorine Upgrade to Dahme Mechanical Industries, Inc. of Arlington Heights,
Illinois in the amount not to exceed $229,888
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Donnersberger
Mr. Morgan stated that Dahme Mechanical Industries, Inc. was the low bidder for the
project and that staff was recommending award of the project to Dahme Mechanical
Industries, Inc. for that reason. He explained that the project was necessary to maintain
water system reliability and to meet regulatory requirements. Mr. Morgan stated that the
cost of the project was included in the Village’s capital budget across the current and
upcoming fiscal years. He further stated that Mr. Coons was present and available to
provide additional detail or respond to questions if needed.
Hearing no questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote.
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

Aye

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X

7

Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)

Aye

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X

The motion PASSED unanimously.
G. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-12: Authorizing Participation in
the State of Illinois joint purchasing program for rock salt
MOTION: Donnersberger
SECONDED: Saldana
Mr. Morgan stated that the Village sought to participate in the purchasing program so
that the Public Works Department would have salt available for road treatment during
the upcoming winter season. He explained that the joint purchasing program allows the
Village to obtain competitive pricing and helps ensure the availability of materials needed
for winter operations. He further stated that participation in the program is consistent
with the Village’s purchasing policies.
Trustee Saldana asked whether staff had an estimated cost for the salt and what the
difference in cost would be compared with the prior year.
Mr. Coons responded that he did not have the difference in cost available. He stated that,
based on what he had been hearing, the price would likely increase due to fuel charges
and related factors. Mr. Coons explained that, because of that anticipated increase, the
Village was trying to obtain as much salt as possible during the current year in order to
fill the salt dome. He stated that the purchasing arrangement provides for an 80/20
structure, under which the Village must take 80% of the quantity requested but may take
up to 120% at the current cost.
Mr. Coons stated that the Village was attempting to fill the dome with as much salt as it
could obtain. He noted that the salt dome was already fairly full and that the Village could
possibly fit one additional truckload. He stated that staff was trying to do what it could
to save costs by obtaining available salt during the current year. He anticipated that prices
would be higher, but stated that the Village would not know the actual pricing until the
State purchasing process was completed.
Mr. Coons stated that there was no shortage of salt. He explained that, because recent
winters had been mild, there was plenty of salt available. He stated that he hoped the
availability would help keep costs lower, but that he did not yet know what the final
pricing would be.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

8

Hearing no further 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

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The motion PASSED unanimously.
H. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-13: Authorizing
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Major Case Assistance Team (MCAT)

an

MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Gazis
Mr. Morgan stated that the agreement would provide the Village with access to regional
investigative resources for major incidents, thereby enhancing the Village’s public safety
capabilities. He explained that the only anticipated fiscal impact would be any overtime
necessary for the Village to fulfill its obligations under the agreement. He stated that such
overtime was expected to be minimal and controlled, and that staff would monitor it
throughout the year. Mr. Morgan stated that Chief Weatherford was available to provide
additional details or answer questions.
President Wittenberg asked whether any Board members had questions regarding the
Major Case Assistance Team.
Trustee Saldana asked how many municipalities participate in MCAT and how many
municipalities the Village would be one of under the agreement.
Chief Weatherford responded that Indian Head Park would be one of 13 participating
municipalities and that the other 12 municipalities had already approved the
intergovernmental agreement.
Trustee Saldana asked whether the participating municipalities were located together
geographically or whether some were outside the immediate area. Chief Weatherford
responded that some were outside the Village’s area, but identified nearby participating
communities including Western Springs, Countryside, La Grange, and La Grange Park.
He explained that if an incident occurred in a more distant community, such as Bartlett,
Illinois, Indian Head Park would not be required to respond. He stated, however, that if
an incident occurred in one of the participating nearby communities, Indian Head Park
would be informed, asked to participate, and kept aware of the situation.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

9

Trustee Eck asked who on Village staff would serve as the key point of communication
for MCAT. Chief Weatherford stated that communication would go through dispatch. He
explained that the Village had two officers assigned to the task force and that, at any
given time, one of them could be sent to assist.
Trustee Eck asked how many events were currently active. Chief Weatherford responded
that there were none currently active within the 13 participating communities.
President Wittenberg also stated that the Village had spent approximately 106 hours on
MCAT and other task forces since July 2025. She clarified that those hours related to
three different task forces and not only MCAT, and noted that those were hours for which
officers had to respond.
Hearing no further 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

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The motion PASSED unanimously.
I. Consideration and Approval of Resolution 2026-14: Authorizing an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Illinois State Police for the Violent Crime
Intelligence Task Force
MOTION: Saldana
SECONDED: Gazis
Mr. Morgan stated that the agreement would make the Village eligible for grant funding
for which the Village was applying. He stated that the application was due the following
day and that staff would submit it. Mr. Morgan explained that participation in the task
force would also enhance intelligence sharing and coordination related to violent crime.
He further stated that the specific grant application due the following day related to gun
enforcement.
Hearing no further questions, President Wittenberg asked for a roll call vote.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

10

Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
Trustee Donnersberger
Trustee Svestka
Trustee Gazis
President Wittenberg (If necessary)

Aye

Nay

Abstain

Absent
X

X
X
X
X
X

The motion PASSED unanimously.
VI.

OLD BUSINESS:
J. Discussion – Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Code Regulations for Fences
VII. Old Business
J. Discussion – Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Code Regulations for Fences
Mr. Morgan introduced the discussion regarding the proposed ordinance amending zoning
code regulations for fences. He stated that, at this stage, staff was seeking further direction
from the Village Board regarding whether there were any additional changes or provisions
the Board wished staff to incorporate before the final ordinance was brought back for
consideration at a future meeting, hopefully the next meeting in May.
Mr. Morgan stated that the Village Board had undertaken extensive due diligence on the
matter, including input from the Plan Commission, staff analysis, consultant guidance, and
significant community engagement. He stated that the community engagement included
approximately 700 survey responses, as well as feedback from residents through meetings,
calls, emails, and other outreach. Mr. Morgan stated that the ultimate policy decision rested
with the Village Board and that staff’s role was to support that decision and ensure it was
implemented effectively. He stated that staff was seeking feedback on any final
modifications before bringing the ordinance back for formal consideration and approval.
Mr. Beltran then provided a presentation regarding the proposed fence ordinance
amendments. He stated that the presentation would provide background on the issue and
explain what was included in the current proposed ordinance.
Mr. Beltran reviewed the timeline of the matter. He stated that the process began in July
2025, when the Village Board directed the Plan Commission to examine the fence issue as
a whole. He explained that the Village Board passed a resolution, and the matter came
before the Plan Commission in August 2025. At that time, the Plan Commission began
initiating its process and creating a plan for reviewing the issue. Mr. Beltran stated that
staff and the Plan Commission sought to conduct a comprehensive review because the
fence issue had arisen many times in the Village’s history. He stated that, when the process

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

11

began, staff did not know how many times the issue had previously arisen, but the goal was
to establish a clear direction and communicate that direction to residents.
Mr. Beltran stated that, in September 2025, the Plan Commission began looking at the issue
and developing a public input strategy. He explained that the public input strategy was not
limited to Plan Commission meetings, but also included consideration of a survey, open
houses, and other outreach methods. He stated that the resident survey was planned during
that period. In October 2025, as part of the review, staff examined the fence ordinances of
14 neighboring municipalities. He stated that, at the October 2025 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, the Commission finalized the fence survey, which was then mailed
Village-wide to 1,947 households. Mr. Beltran stated that 1,947 represented the number of
residential units in the Village.
Mr. Beltran stated that, in November 2025, the survey period was extended, and a
community input session was also held. He stated that the final survey analysis was
completed in December 2025 and that 693 responses were analyzed. He explained that
those were the responses received before the due date. He further stated that the Village
had received eight additional responses after the due date, which were logged but not
included in the analysis in order to maintain the integrity of the survey results.
Mr. Beltran stated that, in December 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not
recommend changes to the Village-wide fence prohibition, but continued reviewing
possible amendments for properties along major roadways. He stated that the major
roadways identified during that review were Plainfield Road, Wolf Road, Joliet Road, and
Willow Springs Road. He stated that, in February 2026, the Planning and Zoning
Commission sent a recommendation to the Village Board to allow fences along major
roadways, and the Village Board then began discussing the issue.
Mr. Beltran next reviewed the resident survey process in greater detail. He stated that, in
September 2025, the Plan Commission discussed the survey questions and format. In
October 2025, the survey was finalized with five questions. Mr. Beltran stated that the five
questions focused on policy matters rather than technical details or specific ordinance
language. He explained that staff also considered survey length because shorter surveys
generally receive higher response rates.
Mr. Beltran stated that the survey was mailed in hard copy because the Village has a
significant older population, with approximately 50% of residents over the age of 55, and
because older residents may be less comfortable with digital formats than younger
populations. He also noted that approximately two-thirds of Village water bills are paid by
check or cash rather than through automatic electronic payment methods. Based on those
factors, staff determined that a paper survey would likely be the better approach.
Mr. Beltran explained that mailing one hard-copy survey to each household also helped
limit the number of responses in a controlled manner. He stated that the process allowed
one survey per household and avoided the issues associated with distributing a digital link
and attempting to verify respondents. He noted that digital surveys can present verification

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

12

challenges, including the possibility of spoofing IP addresses. Mr. Beltran also stated that
anonymity was an important feature of the survey. He explained that some digital survey
methods would have required respondents to sign in with an email address, and that a nonanonymous process could discourage participation, particularly on a contentious issue,
because residents may not want their names attached to their opinions due to concern about
negative reaction or awkwardness.
Mr. Beltran stated that, in October 2025, surveys were mailed Village-wide to all 1,947
households. He explained that, within a couple of weeks after the initial mailing, staff was
informed that approximately 70 households had been missed due to address errors. Staff
corrected the errors, double-checked the mailing information, and sent surveys to the
missed households within two weeks. Mr. Beltran stated that this was part of the reason
the survey period was extended through November when it had originally been scheduled
to close earlier.
Mr. Beltran stated that, at the November Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the
Commission previewed the survey results and held a community input session at which
residents could provide their opinions. He stated that the final survey counts and analysis
were completed in December and provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that
the Commission could begin making recommendations. He reiterated that 693 responses
were received before the due date.
Mr. Beltran then reviewed highlights of the survey results. He stated that, among the 693
responses Village-wide, 73% of respondents supported allowing fences along major
roadways and 23% did not support allowing fences along major roadways. He stated that
approximately 3% did not know, and a negligible percentage did not provide an answer.
Mr. Beltran stated that, when looking at all residential properties, including interior lots
and not only lots along major roads, 54% of respondents Village-wide were in favor of
allowing fences, 40% were not in favor, 5% did not know, and eight respondents, or
approximately 1%, did not answer.
Mr. Beltran stated that staff also reviewed the response rates by geographic area to ensure
that survey participation was not over-weighted in one area and that the responses captured
all areas of the Village. He stated that 35% of responses came from residents west of Wolf
Road, 47% came from residents east of Wolf Road, and 11% came from residents south of
Joliet Road. He stated that 5% of respondents preferred not to identify their area, and 3%
did not answer. Mr. Beltran stated that the responses reflected a generally good distribution
of households and population in the Village. He noted, however, that it had been raised that
the majority of residents east of Wolf Road do not live in areas that would potentially allow
fences under the proposed approach.
Mr. Beltran stated that, in response to one of the most requested forms of additional
analysis, staff examined the results for residents west of Wolf Road, which is primarily the
Village’s single-family residential area. He stated that, among respondents west of Wolf
Road, 191 responses, or 80%, supported allowing fences along major roads; 18% did not

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

13

support allowing fences along major roads; and the remaining responses either did not
know or did not answer. He stated that, when looking at allowing fences in all areas west
of Wolf Road, 40% were in favor, 52% were not in favor, 4% did not know, and no
respondents failed to answer that question.
Mr. Beltran stated that the survey included an open comment section so that the Village
could capture additional qualitative information. He explained that staff analyzed the
comments for themes. He stated that comments favoring preservation of the current rules
or no change to the current code generally reflected two primary themes. The first was
preservation of the Village’s character or rural aesthetic, which was mentioned 51 times.
The second was resident expectations, meaning the view that residents who moved into the
Village should continue to abide by the rules already in place and should not expect zoning
changes after moving in. Mr. Beltran stated that comments supporting a change included
themes of safety for children and pets, which was mentioned 36 times; general privacy and
protection, which was mentioned 29 times; and individual property rights, which was
mentioned 25 times. He explained that the comment themes were not mutually exclusive
and that, if one comment mentioned multiple themes, each theme was counted.
Mr. Beltran stated that, after reviewing the survey results and listening to the Board, staff
worked on the ordinance with the Village’s zoning consultants, engineering staff, and
building staff. He stated that, with respect to major and arterial roads, staff was attempting
to address safety concerns along those roads while balancing protection with preservation
of the Village’s open character.
Mr. Beltran reviewed the key policy concepts for fences along major and arterial roads. He
stated that fences would be allowed only on properties along major roads, specifically Wolf
Road, Plainfield Road, Willow Springs Road, and Joliet Road. He stated that the Plan
Commission also noted 65th Street as a unique situation because it backs up to
unincorporated Cook County and includes a Commonwealth Edison easement. He stated
that, after walking the area within the previous few months, staff observed that shrubbery
in the area had been cut back. He explained that the Plan Commission viewed the area as
one where some type of barrier may be appropriate because some residents in that area had
commented that individuals walk through their yards as a cut-through to and from
Walgreens. Mr. Beltran stated that, while 65th Street is not technically a major road or
major arterial, it was considered in a unique way for those reasons.
Mr. Beltran stated that the proposed fences along major roads would be required to be an
open style, black wrought-iron appearance, whether aluminum or a similar non-corrosive
material. He explained that the style would be comparable to black wrought-iron looking
fences commonly seen in the suburbs. He stated that the intent was to maintain visibility
through the fence while also addressing aesthetics. Mr. Beltran stated that the height limits
would generally be four to five feet depending on location, with some locations potentially
limited to three feet if located within a sight triangle for driver safety. He stated that fences
would be required to be set back from the roadway and located on private property, rather
than within easements.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

14

Mr. Beltran stated that the proposed ordinance also addressed gates. He stated that gate
safety requirements would prohibit gates from swinging into sidewalks or roads. Gates
would need to allow emergency access and be set back far enough to avoid blocking traffic.
He explained that, if a vehicle were turning into a property, the vehicle should be able to
completely clear the roadway.
Mr. Beltran stated that, from staff’s perspective, one of the key policy questions for the
Board was whether fences along major roads should be limited to the portion of the
property facing the roadway or whether fences should be allowed to extend more broadly
across the property.
Mr. Beltran then addressed fences in neighborhoods or interior lots, which he described as
general residential properties. He stated that the issue involved balancing preservation of
the Village’s open, natural character, which many residents value, with providing
reasonable safety options for children and pets. He stated that one approach under
consideration was allowing area fences rather than full perimeter fences. He explained that
an area fence would not enclose an entire property, but would enclose part of a yard. He
stated that area fences would be partial fences located in backyards only and would need
to be attached to the home, rather than free-standing pens or play areas. He stated that the
intended use would be for safety purposes, including children and pets, and that the fences
would not enclose the full yard.
Mr. Beltran stated that the size of the permitted fenced area would be limited based on yard
size. He explained that, after consultation with the Village’s zoning consultant, staff
reviewed the issue by zoning district. In the R-1 district, which he described as the Village’s
general residential district, the allowed fenced area would be approximately 25% to 30%
of the rear yard, with a 10-foot side setback on either side. Mr. Beltran stated that R-1A
and R-1B are new zoning classifications expected to be included as part of the broader
zoning update. He explained that R-1A would apply to Arrowhead Trail, and R-1B would
apply to Sequoia and Hiawatha. He stated that those areas are unique and currently present
zoning challenges, including requiring variations for many ordinary improvements. He
stated that the zoning code update would address those areas. He explained that, because
R-1A, R-1B, and R-2 lots are comparatively smaller than R-1 lots, the proposed allowance
for those areas could be 40% to 50% of the rear yard with a 5-foot setback.
Mr. Beltran then reviewed the zoning map. He stated that the R-1 district was shown in
lime green and was predominantly located on the west side of the Village in the northern
portion of town. He stated that there was also some R-1 zoning on the east side, including
Bartlett Estates. He noted that Village Hall was shown as R-1 in the middle of the map and
that there were other legacy R-1 areas, including the church and green space, which staff
intended to update in the new zoning code for clarity. On the south side of the Village, he
stated that most of the R-1 zoning was located either in the triangle area or in areas
associated with the interstate, which he described as legacy zoning. He stated that the other
R-1 area, which would become R-1A, was located on Arrowhead Trail.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

15

Mr. Beltran explained that areas identified with “PUD” are controlled by special zoning
and could be amended to allow or disallow fences. He stated that, on the north side, this
included the 45 Acres area. He stated that anything that is not R-1 or R-2 would require an
amendment to the PUD to allow fences. He noted that there are only a few R-2 properties
in the Village, including two on Plainfield Road and two on Howard Avenue. He stated
that R-1 and R-2 properties could have fences if allowed under the ordinance, while other
properties would need a PUD amendment, which would require review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and ultimately the Village Board.
Mr. Beltran responded to a question from Mr. Coons regarding Ashbrook. He stated that
Ashbrook is not in one of the R-1 or R-2 classifications and is instead zoned R-3A.
Mr. Beltran summarized the key decisions needed from the Village Board in order for staff
to move forward. He stated that, for properties along busy roads, the Board needed to
determine whether full property fencing should be allowed or whether fencing should be
limited to the side of the property facing the road. He stated that, for neighborhoods, the
Board needed to determine whether fences should be allowed, whether only area fences
should be allowed, whether full fences should be allowed, or whether no fences should be
allowed. He stated that the Board also needed to provide direction on technical standards,
including the percentage of the yard that may be fenced, setbacks from property lines, and
gate setback distances.
Mr. Beltran stated that his presentation had concluded and that he was available to answer
questions.
A question was raised as to whether the type of fence being contemplated would be the
same type of fence that surrounds Timber Trails. Mr. Beltran responded that it would be
very similar, but stated that he did not want to answer definitively because he did not
remember all details of the Timber Trails fence. He stated that the proposed fence type
would be open in style. It was noted that the internal Timber Trails fence is flat-topped and
that the external PUD fence has spikes. Mr. Beltran stated that the proposed fence would
have no spikes and would be flat-topped. A concern was noted regarding deer and other
wildlife not always clearing fences.
A question was raised regarding the key decisions before the Board, including whether full
property fencing would be allowed for homes facing busy streets and whether fences would
be permitted only in a small percentage of a yard for purposes such as dogs or children.
Mr. Beltran clarified that the second question related to neighborhood backyard fences and
the concept of area fences only. He stated that, in terms of size or extent of fencing, the
options could be understood as no fences, area fences, or full perimeter fences.
President Wittenberg thanked Mr. Beltran for the summary and stated that it was useful for
the public and the Board to review the process that began in 2025, the survey results and
data, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, and the Board’s discussions
over the previous three meetings. She stated that the final slide helped identify where the

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

16

Board stood in its discussion. President Wittenberg then asked the Board members where
they wished to begin the discussion.
A question was raised as to whether it would be appropriate to open the discussion to public
feedback. It was then noted that the Board had not discussed fence height.
Mr. Beltran directed attention back to the slide addressing fence types and height limits.
He stated that, if a fence is located within a sight line, the height would be limited to three
feet based on the recommendation of the Village engineers. He explained that this would
generally apply to corner lots or other areas where visibility is important for turning and
traffic safety. He stated that other locations may have a four-foot height limit, including
certain front yard locations if such fences were allowed, due to general sight-line
considerations. He further stated that five-foot heights would apply to backyards or similar
locations.
President Wittenberg stated that it was the appropriate time for the public to provide
questions and feedback. She explained that the purpose of the discussion was to receive
feedback from residents and engage in dialogue with those present.
It was stated that nothing had been decided regarding the proposed fence ordinance
amendments. It was further noted that rumors had been circulating and that certain
statements had been made, but that the matter remained at the discussion stage in the
process. The Board stated that it wanted to hear from the public and acknowledged the
resident turnout, as well as the emails received by Mr. Beltran.
Public comment was then received regarding the proposed fence ordinance amendments.
Ms. Silvia Maino, a resident of Timber Ridge Court, stated that the north side of her house,
from front to back, is along Plainfield Road. She stated that she had attempted to sell her
home throughout the prior year and that, although prospective buyers liked the house and
lot, their primary concern involved the safety of children and pets because the property
could not have a fence. She stated that those prospective buyers did not submit offers for
that reason.
Ms. Maino stated that the home was again on the market and that she had lowered the price
significantly. She reported that she had already had three very interested buyers, but that
the same concern had arisen again. She stated that the interested buyers were younger, in
their 30s, beginning families, and did not want to take the safety risk associated with the
lack of a fence. She stated that she had lived in the home for 25 years and had moved there
with a two-year-old child. She explained that she was always present outside with her child
and would not have left him alone in the backyard. She also stated that she had installed
arborvitae that had grown very tall, but that greenery does not provide the same safety
barrier because a child can still get through it.
Ms. Maino further expressed concern that future work on Plainfield Road could bring the
roadway closer to her house. She stated that this would create a dangerous situation,

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

17

regardless of whether she had a child or a pet, because she did not want a truck or other
vehicle to enter her home. She stated that she wanted a fence to provide a deterrent and
give her a chance for protection. She stated that the street was already too close for comfort
and that she understood road work could bring the roadway closer in the coming years. She
stated that if she could not sell the home and remained there, she wanted protection and
wanted a fence. She stated that she was among the residents who supported fences along
major roads and that, while she understood residents elsewhere in the Village who did not
want fences, properties located on major streets presented safety concerns that were too
close for comfort. She stated that she hoped she would be able to sell the house if fences
were allowed.
Anthony Bylina, a member of the Plan Commission, stated that he was speaking as a
resident of Big Bear Drive. Mr. Bylina stated that he would likely never add a fence to his
property, but supported allowing a limited rear yard safety enclosure attached to the home
for child and pet safety. He described the type of fencing he supported as similar to what
had been discussed, meaning a modest projection attached to the house rather than a
perimeter fence.
Mr. Bylina asked the Board to keep any allowance narrow and enforceable. He
recommended requiring an open ornamental fence, flat top design, no spikes, and objective
picket spacing. He stated that the proposal should use safety logic similar to barrier
standards. He also recommended requiring a permit with a reasonable fee, a simple plan,
and standards for drainage and utility access. He stated that this approach would preserve
the Village’s character while addressing the real safety concerns raised by families.
Mr. Bylina also referred to the anticipated 2031 roadway construction timeline and stated
that change would occur, including substantial construction. He stated that the Village
should be prepared. He stated that, although he may never add a fence to his own property,
other residents want that option, and he believed it was important to have standards in place
before those issues arise. He stated that the Village should not continue delaying the matter.
Sue Gainer, a resident of Pontiac Drive, stated that she lived on the other side of the Village
and had lived in Indian Head Park with her family for 18 years. She stated that her family
had raised three daughters in the Village, including one with special needs. Ms. Gainer
spoke against the proposal to allow fences in the neighborhood.
Ms. Gainer stated that one of the most special qualities of Indian Head Park is its open,
park-like environment. She stated that her daughters grew up running freely from one
backyard to another, building friendships, exploring, and experiencing a sense of
community that she described as rare. She stated that the openness is part of what makes
the Village feel safe, connected, and welcoming. She further stated that, for families such
as hers, especially those raising a child with special needs, that type of environment is very
valuable because it creates space, freedom, and a sense of inclusion that fences would
remove.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

18

Ms. Gainer also stated that there is something special about living in the Village because
residents can see deer roaming through their yards. She stated that this experience reminds
residents that they are part of something natural and serene. She stated that fences would
disrupt that experience and fundamentally change the character of the Village. Ms. Gainer
stated that once fences are installed, the open feeling would be lost and the sense of shared
space, natural beauty, and community would be permanently altered. She asked the Board
to consider what makes Indian Head Park unique and special and to preserve that quality
for current and future residents.
Sally Faust, a resident of 6537 Pontiac Drive, stated that she opposed the portion of the
fence ordinance under consideration that would apply to homes beyond those abutting
Wolf Road, Plainfield Road, and Joliet Road. She stated that she supported consideration
of fences for homes abutting those major roads, but opposed allowing limited-use fences
for all other homes. Ms. Faust stated that she had submitted a letter by email to the Board
expressing her position and asked the Board to strongly consider the points made in the
letter. She stated that she would not read the letter aloud, but wanted to ask questions about
the paper survey because the survey responses appeared to be the foundation for revisiting
the topic.
Ms. Faust asked whether the fence survey had been available for residents to pick up,
complete, and return at Village Hall. Mr. Beltran responded that the fence survey was not
made available for individual pickup at Village Hall and that the Village sent surveys
directly to households as a quality-control measure. Ms. Faust stated that she had filled out
a survey on white paper after seeing it at Village Hall when she came in to pick up a garbage
sticker or similar item. Mr. Beltran stated that he did not remember having the fence survey
available at Village Hall and did not believe it had been placed there. Ms. Faust stated that
she had filled it out twice. Mr. Beltran stated that, if the survey was submitted on white
paper, it was not counted.
Ms. Faust stated that her first awareness of the issue came from being in Village Hall and
seeing a survey there. Mr. Beltran noted that the Village had conducted a community
survey earlier in the year, which may have been placed at Village Hall. Mr. Beltran stated
that the community survey may have been what Ms. Faust saw and that it was not included
in the fence survey analysis. Ms. Faust stated that the clarification answered her question.
Ms. Faust then asked how the Village ensured that duplicate responses were not submitted.
She noted that the survey was on blue paper but remained a paper survey, and asked how
the Village knew homeowners did not submit duplicate responses. Mr. Beltran explained
that the survey was printed on a particular shade and weight of paper that was intentionally
selected because it was not common. He stated that the surveys were not numbered when
they were mailed out, though they were numbered when returned. He acknowledged that
the surveys were not pre-numbered, but stated that a person attempting to submit a
duplicate would have had to locate the same uncommon shade and weight of paper. Ms.
Faust stated that she was skeptical about the potential for more than one submission per
household.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

19

Ms. Faust also raised concern regarding the response rate for the survey and asked whether
a response rate of roughly 30% was considered statistically significant. Mr. Beltran stated
that it was.
When asked why, President Wittenberg stated that the response count was higher than the
number of votes cast in Village elections.
Mr. Beltran noted that the Village received 693 household survey responses out of 1,947
households and that, based on his review of approximately 10 years of election data, the
highest vote total in the Village was 701 votes. He noted that the voting pool was
approximately 3,100, while the household survey pool was 1,947. Mr. Beltran did
acknowledged that the two figures were not an apples-to-apples comparison because
multiple voters may live in one household, while the survey was based on households.
Ms. Faust stated that she also had concerns about the figure showing 54% support for
fences in interior areas or all residential areas. She stated that, when considered against the
whole Village, the support level would represent a smaller percentage of all households.
Mr. Beltran referred back to the applicable slide and stated that 373 of the 693 responding
households supported fences in that category. Ms. Faust stated that her point was that she
did not view the results as a strong enough signal that an overwhelming majority of the
community wanted fences in the interior of the Village. She stated that, in her view, the
paper survey was not sufficient grounds for a change of that magnitude, particularly
because the surveys were not pre-numbered and because she believed there were ways to
better ensure that residents did not submit more than one survey.
Ms. Faust then asked how allowances would be made for fences based on the rationale of
safety for children and pets. She asked whether any resident who wanted a fence would be
able to obtain one or whether the resident would need to state that they had a child or pet.
It was explained that, under the type of ordinance being discussed, a resident who applied
and met the applicable standards would be able to obtain a fence permit, assuming there
were no other outstanding issues.
President Wittenberg stated that there were currently 29 pools in the Village with partial
area fencing. She clarified that these were not perimeter fences, but pool fences. She stated
that this was being raised so that everyone understood that partial fences already exist in
the Village. Ms. Faust stated that she was aware of that. President Wittenberg stated that
the existing pool fence allowance was consistent with the safety rationale discussed by the
Board, including the safety of children, pets, and pools.
Ms. Faust asked whether the Village was aware of any children who had been injured by
cars or passersby or whether there was a history of incidents that created a particular safety
concern. President Wittenberg stated that safety was a common human preference
identified by residents in the survey. She stated that many comments received through the
survey referred to pet safety, child safety, and overall family safety. Ms. Faust stated that
she was asking the Board to consider whether there was a pre-existing reason or precedent
demonstrating an elevated safety concern for children or pets beyond what had existed to

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

20

date. She stated that, to her knowledge, no children had been injured, no pets had been lost,
and no pets had been injured, and she asked the Board to take that into consideration.
It was noted that, as a legal and policy matter, the Board likely could not discriminate
among residents based on whether they had a dog, a child, or neither. The point was raised
that, if a fence allowance were created, it likely could not be limited only to residents with
pets or children while denying the same accommodation to residents without pets or
children. Ms. Faust stated that this supported her concern because the scale of the potential
allowance was significant. She stated that, hypothetically, if a large share of residents with
children or dogs wanted fences, the Village would need to be prepared to regulate that
volume of requests.
President Wittenberg stated that the matter had become a question-and-answer discussion,
which was acceptable, and stated that she anticipated that fence requests would be handled
through a permit process, similar to requests to cut down a tree, finish a basement, or
undertake other regulated improvements. She stated that the Village was in the process of
making its permit process more efficient than it had been the prior year and that fencing
would likely be handled in a similar manner.
Mr. Beltran stated that all fences would go through permitting and that such permitting is
routine. He stated that, in his prior experience with Burr Ridge, he reviewed and inspected
fence permits regularly. He stated that the Village would be equipped to receive
applications, process them, inspect the work, and, if necessary, take code compliance action
to ensure fences remained in compliance.
President Wittenberg thanked Ms. Faust for her comments and stated that the Board had
received and read her letter.
Christy Bruno, a resident of 6508 Pontiac Drive, commented regarding enforcement. She
stated that her concern was not with residents who apply for a permit and follow the proper
process, but rather with residents who install fences or other structures without permission.
She stated that there are fences, sheds, and other items located throughout the Village that
should not be there but remain in place.
Ms. Bruno stated that the fence issue is cyclical in Indian Head Park and appears to arise
every five years when new residents move into the Village and want fences or similar
changes. She asked whether the Village could address the issue further upstream by
educating prospective buyers and realtors in the area that fences and sheds are not permitted
in certain circumstances. She stated that the Village had spent significant time and energy
on the issue.
Mr. Beltran stated that, since the prior July, he had spent an average of approximately five
hours per week on the fence project, with some weeks requiring more time. He stated that
the issue had required a significant amount of staff time. Mr. Beltran agreed that the issue
had arisen repeatedly. He stated that the fence report reviewed each time the issue had been

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

21

raised and found that it had come up approximately every four years, with the first instance
occurring in 1960, one year after the Village was established.
Mr. Beltran stated that staff and the Board decided to provide a comprehensive review of
the issue in the hope that, after the current process, residents would be educated and there
would be a firm reference document available. He stated that the fence report was 134
pages and included comments, analysis, and research. Mr. Beltran stated that staff had also
researched whether there had been incidents of children or adults being injured in trafficrelated events and did not find any such incidents in the prior 20 years. He stated, however,
that staff was aware of pets being injured and at least one pet being killed after running
onto Wolf Road.
Ms. Bruno stated that the Village is small and questioned why so many resources are spent
discussing the issue repeatedly. She again suggested that the Village educate local realtors,
noting that the same group of realtors frequently sells homes in the area. She stated that
realtors should be informed about Village rules so prospective buyers understand that, if
fences are a deal breaker and the property is not located along the outside perimeter, the
property may not be suitable for them. Ms. Bruno stated that she understood allowing
fences for outside perimeter properties, but opposed expanding fences to interior
properties. She stated that the Village should focus on other issues and stated that, during
her 13 years in the Village, recurring issues had included sidewalks, fences, and sheds.
President Wittenberg stated that the Village lives in a democracy and that the Board listens
to residents regarding their preferences and needs, which elected officials must respond to.
Ms. Bruno stated that she understood, but again emphasized that education should occur
earlier in the process.
President Wittenberg stated that the Village would consider realtor education and that a
realtor packet had been suggested, which she believed was a good idea. It was also stated
that the current discussion arose in part because of the expansion of Wolf Road and
Plainfield Road. President Wittenberg stated that residents have preferences and that, in
the present day, residents have raised safety questions. She stated that the Village had
spoken with younger people moving into the Village and that the issue was not raised
simply because the Board decided it was important.
Ms. Bruno clarified that she was not suggesting that the Board improperly prioritized the
issue. She stated that her concern was that, every five years, new residents move in and the
issue repeats, which she viewed as an education problem. She stated that she had worked
on roadway projects and understood that consultants are expensive. She asked the Board
to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and to avoid revisiting the same issue again in five
years.
Sandy Hayes then addressed the Board. Ms. Hayes stated that, 53 years earlier, she also
had concerns about the safety of her children and had a dog, but that her family had
managed without a fence. She stated that she had lived in the Village for 53 years. Ms.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

22

Hayes stated that the open space is what drew residents to the community and that her
family joined the community knowing there was open land.
Ms. Hayes referred to a prior comment that surrounding communities, including Western
Springs, have fences. She stated that those communities may have fences, but that she did
not view that as a reason for Indian Head Park to allow them. She stated that residents in
Indian Head Park do not want fences.
It was noted in response that properties along Joliet Road, including Ms. Hayes’s property,
have fences. Ms. Hayes acknowledged that this was true. President Wittenberg stated that
the presence of fences along Joliet Road was being noted as a fact.
Diane Andrews, a resident of Arrowhead Trail, stated that Arrowhead Trail backs up to
Burr Ridge and that she had lived there for 48 years. Ms. Andrews stated that, during that
time, she had seen people come and go and install fences that later fell apart. She expressed
concern that fences are not inspected after installation. She described an existing rusted
chain-link fence where a dog goes outside and returns to the house, stating that there are
no children playing in the fenced area and that the fence appears to serve only that limited
purpose. She stated that the fence behind her property had fallen down three times.
Ms. Andrews stated that she has two swimming pools on either side of her property and
that both pools are completely fenced in with attractive pool fencing. She also stated that
the neighboring properties have arborvitae along their lot lines. Ms. Andrews stated that,
if fences are permitted, the Village should ensure that residents install attractive
landscaping, such as six-foot arborvitae, so that neighboring residents do not have to look
at deteriorated fences.
Rich Mitchell, a resident of Hiawatha Lane, stated that he was glad to hear the comments
offered and agreed with much of what had been said. He stated that the park-like
atmosphere is part of what drew residents to the Village and that he loves that character.
He also acknowledged the need to be sensitive to residents who live on busy streets that
are expected to become busier and to consider how the Village might help provide those
residents with some sense of safety and security.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he did not think the Board had yet fully discussed what fencing
along a roadway such as Wolf Road would look like. He stated that such fencing would be
very different from the fence surrounding Timber Trails, which has only two access points
that are gated and encompasses the entire development. Mr. Mitchell stated that, along
Wolf Road, there are likely numerous streets or driveways. He stated that each house that
wants a fence would need to incorporate much of its street-facing yard in order to create a
safe environment. He stated that a single panel between driveways would not serve a safety
purpose and would not function as a safety feature unless the area were enclosed. Mr.
Mitchell expressed concern that fencing along Wolf Road would be discontinuous and
incongruent, unlike the complete perimeter fence surrounding Timber Trails.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

23

Debbie Brandon, a resident of Wolf Road, commented on several prior remarks. Ms.
Brandon stated that she appreciated the concern raised about residents installing
improvements first and seeking permission afterward. She stated that she had attended
Village Board meetings where residents had constructed various types of improvements
without approval and were not required to remove them, but instead received permission
afterward.
Ms. Brandon also addressed the comments regarding the appearance and practicality of
fencing along Wolf Road. She stated that she lives at the intersection of Wolf Road and
Thunderbird Drive and has lived in the community for over 30 years. She stated that, when
her family purchased the home, there were no fences and no sidewalks, and they had a
newborn child. She explained that those conditions were part of the family’s consideration
when looking at different communities, but that the home was more affordable because it
was located on Wolf Road and was not the most ideal location.
Ms. Brandon stated that her family lived there, raised four children, raised and fostered
many dogs, and had dogs get loose on Wolf Road, though fortunately they were not injured.
She stated that the family does not have an invisible fence and walks its dogs several times
per day. She stated that neighborhood residents recognize them from their daily walks.
Ms. Brandon stated that conditions are now changing. She noted that there are sidewalks,
that Wolf Road will change, and that her property will lose its right-of-way area. She stated
that a fence is therefore important to her. She explained that a small memorial had been
placed during the summer by a family who lost their mother after she went off the road and
died. Ms. Brandon stated that the accident occurred on her property. She stated that two
10-year-old boys, her son Thomas and his friend Donovan, were in the yard when the
accident occurred. She stated that the car did not enter the yard because there was a rightof-way area with trees that protected them, but that the trees would be removed. Ms.
Brandon stated that, for that reason, she believed a fence was important.
Ms. Brandon further stated that, because her property is located at Wolf Road and
Thunderbird Drive, a perimeter fence would be needed. She explained that placing fencing
only along Wolf Road would not fully protect the property or keep everyone safe because
of the side street. She stated that her children had been raised there and had survived, but
that conditions are changing.
John Corcoran, a resident of 6417 Apache Drive, stated that he wanted to follow up on Ms.
Brandon’s comments. Mr. Corcoran stated that the central issue was what had changed. He
stated that Wolf Road is going to change and that fences along perimeter streets therefore
make sense. He also stated that Plainfield Road is going to change. By contrast, he asked
what had changed about child safety or pet safety.
Mr. Corcoran stated that he had raised four children and that they had managed without
interior fences. He stated that he did not see a driving change that justified altering the open
space that many residents had fought for and come to appreciate. Mr. Corcoran stated that
if something changes, the Village should address it, but in the absence of a real driver, he
did not see a reason to change the Village’s approach to interior fences.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

24

Joan Metz, a resident of Arrowhead Court, stated that she opposed interior fencing. Ms.
Metz stated that she believed the issue had evolved in a way that felt somewhat
disingenuous compared with what was initially presented in the survey. She specifically
referenced the survey question regarding perimeter or Wolf Road fencing, stating that the
question initially referred to fences along the property that bordered the busy road. She
stated that the discussion had now expanded to include perimeters, whole yards, half-yards,
and other configurations.
Ms. Metz stated that, when she answered the survey questions, she found them too brief
and basic and did not feel that they provided a meaningful opportunity to address gray
areas. She stated that the questions were essentially yes or no, and although comments were
allowed, she did not feel able to provide a full explanation of her opinions. She stated that
when she answered yes to fences along busy roads, she did so because she understood that
the survey separately addressed busy roads and because she supported fencing along Wolf
Road. She stated that she did not agree to interior fences or other changes to the Village’s
fence ordinance.
Ms. Metz stated that her support for fencing along busy roads was based on the change
coming to the Village through road projects. She stated that she understood the need to
address fencing along busy roads within limits, but did not understand why that roadwayrelated change should lead to interior fence allowances. She stated that she had four young
children, including one with special needs, and that her family made the open-yard
environment work. She described how neighboring yards connected and how children
moved through yards throughout the neighborhood, creating a strong sense of community.
Ms. Metz stated that the openness allowed her children to know neighbors and move freely
among homes and play areas, which she described as an idyllic experience.
Ms. Metz stated that fences would break up the pastoral view and limit the ability of
children to feel free. She stated that children still run through yards from one playset to
another and that such activity would change if fences were allowed. She stated that she did
not understand why the Village needed to change its interior neighborhood character
because of busy-road changes. Ms. Metz reiterated that she opposed interior fences for any
reason, while understanding that the Village may need to take some action for properties
along busy roads, within limits.
Avery Dinn, a resident of Big Bear Drive, stated that she wanted to build on Ms. Metz’s
comments. Ms. Dinn stated that she is a lifelong resident of Indian Head Park. She stated
that her parents built the home where she grew up on Indian Head Court and still live there.
Ms. Dinn stated that she grew up with Wolf Road behind her and that the sound of cars
was part of the family’s background environment. She stated that her parents planted trees
and that the natural barrier was enough for the family at that time.
Ms. Dinn stated that what she remembered most about growing up in Indian Head Park
was not what separated residents, but what connected them. She stated that she spent her
childhood running freely through backyards with friends, cutting through to each other’s

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

25

homes, and spending time outside in an open, safe, and shared environment. She stated that
this experience was why her family chose to remain in the Village. She stated that her
family moved into its home on Big Bear Drive 10 years earlier so that her children could
have the same kind of childhood, and that they do. She stated that her children run through
her yard and neighbors’ yards, as she did as a child, and that there is a sense of trust and
community that is increasingly rare.
Ms. Dinn stated that allowing interior fencing would fundamentally change that character.
She stated that fences do not merely add structures, but change how people interact by
closing spaces off and creating barriers where none existed. Ms. Dinn stated that there are
effective ways to address safety for pets and children and clarified that she was not opposed
to fences along major roadways. However, she stated that once fences are introduced in the
interior, even with regulations, the shift in neighborhood character would be permanent.
She stated that Indian Head Park is special because of its openness, shared space, and
connection among neighbors, and she urged the Board to preserve that character.
Laura Turk, a resident of Blackhawk Trail, stated that she was addressing yard fences rather
than main-road fences and that she opposed interior yard fences. Ms. Turk stated that she
had read the report and appreciated the time and effort that went into documenting the
issue. She stated that, as many residents had noted, the topic had been recurring for many
years. Ms. Turk stated that she does not speak for everyone, but noted that she is under 55
years old, has lived in the Village for less than five years, and opposes fences.
Ms. Turk stated that, based on the process, she expected there to be exceptions to the
proposed regulations. She stated that not every property has the capacity to place a fence
behind the house because of the Village’s irregular lot lines. She expressed concern that if
a property’s permitted percentage of fenced area cannot fit in the rear yard, residents may
seek exceptions to move fencing into side yards. She stated that if one resident is allowed
a side-yard fence, others may request the same treatment. She raised similar concerns about
irregular lots, corner lots, properties with hills or drop-offs, properties with decks, and the
requirement that a fence be attached to a house. She questioned whether exceptions would
be granted to attach fences to decks or expand the permitted fenced area.
Ms. Turk also stated that some yards are shaded and that allowing fenced areas may
encourage the removal of trees so that residents can establish turf grass in areas that are
currently muddy due to shade. She stated that the Village’s unique small-community feel
and landscape brought her to Indian Head Park.
Ms. Turk stated that, if the Board adopts fencing as a policy, she would prefer full lot-line
fences because that would create a unique approach. She stated that, if the Village bases its
regulations on other towns’ fence regulations, Indian Head Park would become the same
as those towns and would lose its uniqueness. She stated that, in order to remain unique
while allowing fences, the Village would need to allow full lot-line fences.
Ms. Turk then commented on the proposed residential restriction areas, including R-1 and
R-2. She stated that she is in an R-1 area where the proposed fenced area would be 25% to

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

26

30%, while she understood that Hiawatha could have 40% to 50%. Mr. Beltran stated that
he wanted to double-check the applicable classification before answering because he did
not want to provide incorrect information.
Ms. Turk stated that she was aware of a specific lot that had sold on Christmas Day and
was the same size as her lot, but because of its dimensions could potentially have a fence
twice as large as hers. She explained that the other lot was approximately 290 feet deep,
while her lot was approximately 290 feet across, resulting in significantly different possible
fenced areas for lots of the same overall size. Ms. Turk stated that this reinforced her
concern that exceptions would arise. She stated that, otherwise, the Village could decrease
property values where select houses are not able to have the same fencing opportunities as
others or are excluded.
Patrick Duffy, a resident of 6333 Blackhawk Trail, stated that the issue appeared to reflect
different conditions between the east side and west side of the Village, including the Old
Town area near Hiawatha. Mr. Duffy referred to the prior comment regarding realtor
education and stated that, in his view, there is no misunderstanding about fences. He stated
that people know there are no fences in the Village, but later change their minds. He stated
that the absence of fences is immediately noticeable and is part of what makes the Village
different from other communities. He stated that the Village developed that way from the
beginning and that the no-fence character was a selling point for him when he moved to
the Village.
Mr. Duffy stated that not much has changed on the west side of the Village. He stated that
he did not believe the issue was primarily an education issue, but rather that people’s
preferences change, such as when they acquire dogs. He stated that residents may want
privacy or may want to be fenced in, but that was not the reason he bought in Indian Head
Park. Mr. Duffy acknowledged that Wolf Road is busy and stated that fencing there is
probably appropriate for safety. He also stated that technology has changed and that
invisible fences can work for dogs, although not for children and not for every dog. He
stated that invisible fencing is a significant business and provides another option for pet
safety. Mr. Duffy stated that he did not believe the west side had changed and that, rather,
people had changed and now wanted fencing and privacy.
Lori Davis, a resident of Apache Drive, stated that she and her family had lived in their
home for almost 48 years. Ms. Davis described the strong neighborhood community that
existed in the cluster of backyards near her home. She stated that neighbors had participated
in major family events, including weddings and confirmations, and that she and her
husband became godparents to the daughter of a girl who grew up next door. She stated
that when her children were married, approximately 50 people from the neighborhood
attended the weddings. Ms. Davis stated that this sense of community existed because there
were no fences, and that the neighborhood was a strong and connected community.
Ms. Davis stated that she was concerned about the accuracy of the survey. She stated that
she was the person who had informed the Village that her household was one of the
households that did not receive a survey, and she recalled learning this around Halloween

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

27

after asking others about the issue. Ms. Davis also agreed with prior comments that the
survey included many gray areas.
Ms. Davis questioned how much weight was being placed on survey responses from
condominium residents. She compared the issue to a separate matter involving a generator
at the 111 building, noting that residents of other nearby buildings had opinions about
whether they wanted to see or hear it, while residents not living there did not have the same
direct impact. She stated that she did not believe it was her place to have an opinion on that
issue because she did not live there, see it, or hear it. She expressed concern that the Village
had included input from east of Wolf Road, including condominium residents, on an issue
that would affect single-family residential areas differently.
Ms. Davis asked whether the condominium responses overwhelmingly supported fences.
Mr. Beltran responded that staff could not make that statement with accuracy because the
analysis looked at the east side of Wolf Road in total, rather than separately identifying
condominium residents. He stated that east of Wolf Road included other areas such as
Bartlett Estates and Ashbrook, and that the data could not be broken down to identify
responses from specific developments. He stated that the survey analysis distinguished
between east of Wolf Road, west of Wolf Road, and south of Joliet Road, but could not
pinpoint responses by individual neighborhood or housing type.
Ms. Davis stated that, based on the number of responses, she believed a significant number
of condominium residents likely supported fences, and she noted that Ashbrook also
involves homeowner association considerations. She reiterated concern about lot size
differences, stating that in the 45 Acres area alone, lots range from approximately 7,000
square feet to one-half acre, while lots on Pontiac Drive and Blackhawk Trail can be as
large as an acre. She stated that those differences matter when considering any fence
allowance.
Ms. Davis also raised concerns regarding enforcement. She asked who would monitor even
partial fences and how the Village would enforce permit conditions and restrictions. She
stated that there are many existing infractions that residents do not report because they do
not want to alienate their neighbors. She asked whether Village representatives may walk
through backyards to inspect for fences or sheds.
Mr. Beltran stated that the Village may use Village rights-of-way, public utility easements,
or public easements for inspection purposes, but that a code enforcement officer may not
walk onto private property for enforcement purposes without appropriate authorization. He
noted that peace officers are different. Mr. Beltran explained that the Village operates under
a complaint-based code enforcement system. He stated that, if the Village does not receive
a complaint, staff generally does not initiate enforcement, though there are situations where
staff may observe an issue that must be addressed, such as illegal construction or a code
issue affecting Public Works. It was also noted that JULIE locate requests may alert Public
Works to work being performed on a property because utilities must be marked.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

28

It was then stated that complaints may be made anonymously and that code enforcement
can investigate. It was further explained that, if permission is obtained from a neighboring
property owner, code enforcement may enter that neighbor’s property to observe and assess
a possible violation on an adjacent property. It was stated that this process can allow code
enforcement to evaluate backyard violations without entering the property that is alleged
to be in violation.
Ms. Davis stated that residents often do not want to be viewed as cranky neighbors by
reporting violations, which she viewed as part of the enforcement problem. She stated that
she did not know how the Village would be able to enforce partial fences and the various
proposed restrictions.
Ms. Davis then asked whether the Board had received a letter from Joe Chesare. President
Wittenberg stated that letters would be read after the public comments and that the Village
intended to include both verbal comments and written comments received by email by 4:30
p.m. Ms. Davis stated that she did not believe a letter from Frank Leon had been sent, but
that Mr. Chesare had sent one.
She then read a letter from Frank Leon, who was identified as a resident of Thunderbird
Drive. In the letter, Mr. Leon stated that he and his wife, Chris, raised two children in
Indian Head Park and had been residents for 44 years. Mr. Leon stated that he was opposed
to any fence or shed ordinance because the absence of fences and sheds was a main reason
they moved to the Village. He stated that guests and relatives observe and appreciate the
open character of the Village without fences or sheds. Mr. Leon stated that he strongly
opposed Board approval of any new ordinance and stated that, if such an ordinance were
approved, some residents would consider litigation.
President Wittenberg asked whether there were any additional comments from members
of the audience. Hearing none, she stated that the Board would move on to the emails
received. Mr. Beltran stated that he was looking for the email from Mr. Chesare because
the name sounded familiar, but he had not located it at that time. President Wittenberg
directed that the Board proceed with the emails that had been received and stated that, if
Mr. Beltran did not locate the email from Mr. Chesare, Ms. Davis could read it after the
other written comments.
Mr. Beltran stated that the written comments would be read verbatim. He explained that,
unless a resident included their address within the body of the written comment, he
removed address information that appeared in signatures because the Open Meetings Act
does not require residents to provide their address when submitting public comment. Mr.
Beltran stated that he generally keeps addresses out of the public reading of written
comments for that reason.
Mr. Beltran stated that the first written comment was from Veni and Mike Lacani. He noted
that Veni and Mike Lacani were the residents who had applied for a permit in June 2025.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

29

“Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate the Board evaluating the current fence
regulations; the existing ordinance feels outdated and could be more accommodating to the
current needs of Indian Head Park residents. Since I am more comfortable expressing my
thoughts in writing than in a public forum, please accept this email as my formal feedback.
Regarding the proposal to allow partial backyard fences: this solution does not meet our
family's needs. We currently have two young, high-energy dogs. For us, a fence is a
significant investment, and a partial enclosure would not provide the necessary space for
them to exercise within our property.
When we moved to Indian Head Park, we had an elderly dog who stayed by our side.
However, our current dogs will chase wildlife and run beyond property lines. If we were
looking for a home today, we simply could not move to a community that prohibits fencing.
Additionally, the Board’s previous suggestions of electric fences are not a viable solution
for our specific breed, nor have always been effective in our neighborhood. We have
witnessed multiple instances where dogs cross the electric line and are then too afraid to
return home due to the shock.
I may not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow, but please feel free to share this email
with the Board. In past meetings, the discussion has often been dominated by residents who
prioritize aesthetic preferences over the functional safety and changing needs of their
neighbors. While I understand the desire to maintain a certain look for the village,
everyone’s situation is different. We have the full support of our immediate neighbors for
a fence, yet we are currently restricted.
I hope the Board will consider a more flexible policy that accounts for the safety and
containment of loved ones in a meaningful way.
Sincerely,
Wenke and Mike Lakani”
Mr. Beltran read the next one from Shannon and David Leuzzi.
“Good morning,
I understand a meeting is taking place tonight about the ongoing conversation about fences.
I am requesting that my comment be read and taken into great consideration.
We live at 11202 Arrowhead Trail (corner house on Wolf Rd and Arrowhead Trail - NW
side). Our house has been significantly damaged by ice dams and a tornado. We have spent
an enormous amount of money in the last 12 years on the landscaping, the exterior, and the
interior of our home, which we love. Our landscaping, which gave us some visibility and
privacy and helped with noise reduction, was ruined by the tornado. We spent over $20k

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

30

on the landscaping within the last few years, and it will take years before we ever get that
back again.
I don't think it's much to ask for an option for those that border any busy street, for an
option other than wrought iron fencing. A staggered wood or wood-like board fence that
would allow water flow and still give a natural look to any property could be an option.
The fact that anyone has to have this continuous conversation about their property that they
pay taxes for and are not part of an HOA is quite ridiculous to me. I don't believe it's much
to ask for a little peace when sitting in your yard or on your deck that you have spent so
much money on and take pride in.
Respectfully,
Shannon and David Leuzzi”
The next was from Hilar Poshek.
“Hello,
I'm a resident who lives at Blackhawk Trail. Our yard backs up to Wolf Rd. Being able to
have a fence for safety reasons for kids and pets and to also provide a visual and sound
barrier from the very busy and extremely loud traffic that flies past our backyard would be
an absolute dream!
I'm hopeful that these factors (safety, noise, privacy, visual disturbance) will be considered
if or when choosing fence material options for along IHP's busy roadways.
Thank you,
Hilary Poshek”
The next was from Greg Scovitch, the Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman.
“I write to you in hopes that this e-mail can be considered during the board meeting this
evening. Unfortunately, I am traveling as I would have preferred to attend the Board
Meeting in person tonight.
I am writing to clarify the recommendation, rendered by a 6-1 vote from the Plan
Commission, relative to a potential revision to the Fence Ordinance.
I’d like to start by commending staff on the communication to the public regarding the
agenda for tonight’s Board Meeting, I saw multiple forms of communication through
multiple channels. Thank you for the efforts and diligence in community outreach.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

31

It was, however, articulated in the community outreach that the Board is considering action
that is in excess of the recommendation rendered by the Plan Commission and I wanted to
share the history behind the Plan Commissions recommendation.
As you well know, given you were at each meeting with the Plan Commission, this subject
was not taken lightly. Over the course of 6 Months and at the request of the Board, the
Plan Commission formulated a plan and schedule that allowed for numerous opportunities
for the public to engage by way of public hearings and through a community survey.
Additionally, the Plan Commission tasked Staff with studying Fence Ordinances from
neighboring communities that we could compare and leverage the successes and failures
within these outside fence ordinances.
Ultimately, after this exhaustive effort we rendered a decision that supported a change to
the Fence Ordinance largely driven by the changes contemplated by governing bodies
(IDOT and Cook County DOR) outside of the control of Indian Head Park. The
Commission was sensitive to the residents who abut major thoroughfares and understand
that planned improvements, particularly along Wolf and Plainfield are outside of their
control and the control of Indian Head Park. Given the lack of control on timing and scope
of these roadway improvements, the Plan Commission supported controlling something
that we could influence which was to recommend to the Board the Approval of Fencing on
property lines immediately adjacent to these (and others not specifically included in this email, but contained within our recommendation) thoroughfares.
While we considered expanding the scope of the recommendation to include side yards and
front yards, we felt that would be inappropriate given the intent behind the original
ordinance and the Indian Head Park vision when the community was originally planned.
We took safety of children and pets very seriously, many Commissioners have children
and pets, but felt this responsibility is no different than the responsibility bestowed upon
Indian Head Park residents from its incorporation to today.
Again, I apologize I am not able to attend and present this personally, but would appreciate
if this could be formally entered into record this evening so as to clarify the intent behind
the Plan Commission Recommendation. The Plan Commission understands that our scope
is limited to a recommendation only and the Board has ultimate authority, but we are
hopeful our 6 month effort and due diligence which lead to our recommendation is
considered appropriately.
Finally, the Plan Commission would like to formally thank Trustees Gazis and Svestka
who joined us for the ride and provided helpful context on our task in evaluating the
Ordinance. There was an appropriate amount of emotion expressed on this sensitive
subject and it is abundantly clear that the officials elected by Indian Head Park are taking
this seriously.
Please let me know if you have any questions, responses may be difficult but will keep an
eye on any e-mail communication.”

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

32

The next was from Joe Betcher,
“Hi Village Board,
Writing in as a resident of Indian Head Park with two toddler aged children. As I'm
listening to the board meeting from 3-12 regarding fence ordinance, the continued
conversation is around safety for kids/pets along major roadways and in the scenario of a
pool, water. I wrote this special circumstance in the original feedback about fences and
have yet to hear it discussed. My house butts up to the creek which offers the exact same
safety concern as a pool, if not more of a concern with the water being out of sight unless
at the rear of the yard. If safety is the major force in allowing for fences along busy roads
and pools, the same consideration should be given to houses along Flagg Creek. Thank you
for reading and considering, wanted to make sure I was able to voice this if I am unable to
attend on April, 9th.”
The next from a commenter named Jackie,
“Hello- I will be unable to attend this session this evening but wanted to share my thoughts
for the meeting.
1. The votes indicate that people are pro having fences. If that is the case why not consider
perimeter fencing for residents. Creating odd shaped and sized fencing options will create
eye sores for the community and reduce the intended value of a fence. Kids and animals
should not be restricted to a cage like size fence to play or safely move about. I think fences
if requested should be allowed to go to the perimeter. I think there should be various types
allowed for people to consider.
2. Wolf road or heavily trafficked areas should not be restricted to an open fence. Safety
and privacy should be of the utmost importance including sound management. They should
be allowed exceptions and perimeter optionally if they want it. At a minimum- the outside
road fence should be sound, safety and private proof.
If fence types will not be allowed to change then the village should pay to have large
privacy trees planted for year round support and coverage.
3. Fences if installed must be maintained and subject to a fine for improper care and
maintenance.
I think people are overestimating the amount of people that will want a fence and if they
want it they should be allowed. Many exclusive neighborhoods allow fences with zero
impact to their property value - or if anything increasing its value.
Best of luck with the discussion. Happy our voices can be heard.
Jackie”

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

33

The next was from Kari Dillon,
“I am writing to express my opinion on the fence ordinance discussion tonight. I took part
in the surveys that were conducted the last two years about sidewalks and fencing and from
what I recall, the discussion around the fences, and allowing for them, specifically included
ONLY residences that were along busy corridors like Wolf, Plainfield and Joliet roads.
IHP is a small town and what makes this community so attractive is the landscape where
neighbors are connected by yards and greenery, not divided by fences. It's truly one of the
main reasons we moved here. It feels intentional without being rigid. Welcoming, lush and
organic. I am not in support of fences of any kind on interior street properties (any homes
that do not border a busy street as listed above). And especially not for the purposes of dog
runs. In-ground swimming pools would be the only exception in my opinion for the purpose
of safety.
I have lived here for 12 years and if residents are allowed to resurrect fences throughout
the neighborhood and not just along busy roadways, we would move.
Also, not on the agenda tonight but worth mentioning are sidewalks, which I would
welcome and support. Along busy corridors, sidewalks can provide safety and access for
our most vulnerable community members: school children, people with disabilities
(wheelchair bound), the elderly and even our pets.
Thank you for your time and dedication to volunteer on behalf of the residents of this
village.
Kari Dillon”
The last email comment was from Brian Wolf,
“To the Village Board of Indian Head Park,
I am writing to respectfully request that the Village reconsider its current ordinances that
prohibit residential fencing within Indian Head Park. Allowing thoughtfully designed
fencing options would improve safety, support property values, strengthen homeowner
autonomy, and reduce environmental health concerns associated with deer activity and tick
exposure.
Fences are an important safety feature for many families. They help protect children and
pets by creating secure outdoor spaces and reducing the risk of unintended access to streets,
neighboring properties, and wildlife. In many surrounding communities, residential
fencing is considered a standard safety accommodation rather than an exception.
Additionally, the ability to install a fence can positively influence property values and
marketability. Many prospective homeowners actively seek fenced yards, particularly
families with children or pets. Updating current ordinances to allow fencing would help

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

34

ensure that Indian Head Park remains competitive and attractive to future residents while
supporting the investments of current homeowners.
Allowing fencing would also promote reasonable homeowner autonomy. Residents take
pride in maintaining their properties, and providing structured guidelines for fencing
materials, placement, and height would allow the Village to preserve its character while
still meeting the practical needs of homeowners. In particular, homeowners should have
the option to install privacy fences of up to six feet in height, as a four-foot limitation does
not adequately provide privacy or security for many properties.
There are also specific concerns related to potential changes in infrastructure, such as the
addition of walkways. In some cases, new walkways may reduce natural privacy buffers
and require the removal of existing landscaping. Replacing mature trees and plantings can
be costly and time-consuming, placing an additional burden on homeowners. In these
situations, the ability to install an appropriate privacy fence becomes even more important
to maintain reasonable privacy and property enjoyment.
Finally, fencing can help reduce deer access to residential yards. Deer frequently carry ticks
that can transmit illnesses such as Lyme disease. Limiting deer movement through private
yards can reduce exposure risks for both families and pets and contributes to a healthier
residential environment overall.
It is also important to recognize that different areas within the Village may have different
needs. For example, residents along Wolf Road experience higher traffic levels and unique
privacy and safety concerns. These homeowners should have the opportunity for their
perspectives to be considered independently when evaluating fencing policies.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Village Board to consider reviewing and updating
the current ordinance prohibiting residential fences. Allowing carefully regulated fencing
options would improve safety, health, and quality of life for residents while maintaining
the community standards that make Indian Head Park a desirable place to live.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this request.
Brian Wolf”
As Mr. Beltran was unable to find Dr. Chesare’s emailed comment, Tom Davis read an
email from Dr. Joe Chesare. He stated that Dr. Chesare and Nancy Chesare live in the first
cul-de-sac near the entrance toward Apache Drive and had lived in the Village for
approximately 47 or 48 years.
In the email, Dr. Chesare stated that he had attended the prior Village Board meeting and
believed that the Board and administration had not discussed the fact that the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted against fences except for the immediate portion of lots abutting
Wolf Road, Joliet Road, and Plainfield Road, or commercial establishments. Dr. Chesare

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

35

stated that, in his view, the Planning and Zoning Commission report was ignored, as was
resident input provided to the Commission.
Dr. Chesare stated that he lives in the 45 Acres area, where he believed the majority of
surveyed residents did not want fences except for the limited exception noted for major
roads. He stated that a large portion of survey responses favoring fences came from east of
Wolf Road, where fences are prohibited by homeowners association rules. He further stated
that some residents had argued that fences were needed for dogs, but that resident dogs had
done well in Indian Head Park for decades without fences or through the use of electric
fences.
Dr. Chesare also addressed the issue of fences as a crime-prevention tool. He stated that,
as acknowledged by the Board at the prior meeting, there are statistics indicating that
neighborhoods with fences are less safe. He stated that people are drawn to open views and
vistas. He also referenced a couple who had recently moved to Indian Head Park from La
Grange and reportedly commented that fences in La Grange were an impediment to
camaraderie with neighbors, while they found Indian Head Park to be much friendlier. Ms.
Davis added that she had heard a similar observation from a different couple.
Dr. Chesare stated that Indian Head Park has something unique and valuable in its open
views and vistas and urged the Board not to lose that quality. He stated that allowing more
than limited fencing would result in the permanent loss of Indian Head Park’s character.
He further stated that he had attended many Planning and Zoning Commission meetings
and Village Board meetings where fences were discussed and that, in his view, there had
been very few public comments in favor of fences and many comments opposed. Dr.
Chesare concluded by questioning whether the Board and administration intended to serve
the will of constituents or pursue their own agenda.
Ms. Davis asked how often the Village Board votes differently than the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The resident stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation had been 6-1 in favor of not changing the ordinance and
asked how much weight the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation carries,
noting that several residents had attended many meetings.
President Wittenberg stated that Mr. Morgan would explain the role of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the role of the Village Board.
Mr. Morgan explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory
commission. He stated that its role and authority are to advise the Village Board, while the
Village Board has the authority to make the final decision. He stated that the Board takes
the Commission’s advice into consideration, but also considers other public input.
Mr. Morgan stated that, with this specific issue, the Board considered the record from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, guidance from the consultant regarding how to achieve
the Board’s vision, and the significant community engagement discussed during the
meeting. He stated that all of those sources were pieces of information for the Board to

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

36

consider. Mr. Morgan stated that each Board member would vote as their conscience
directed when the final ordinance was brought forward for approval.
It was stated that the advice of the Planning and Zoning Commission had been considered
by the Village Board. It was further stated that the Commission’s recommendation was
reflected in the concept of applying fence allowances to properties abutting major roads,
while not approving perimeter fences within interior neighborhoods. It was explained that
the concept of smaller safety-related fenced areas had been introduced because the Village
received significant public feedback regarding safety for children and pets. The point was
made that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s advice was taken into account and that
this was part of the reason perimeter fencing within neighborhoods was not being
considered in the same manner.
It was also stated that, although the survey responses could be read and tabulated, the
resident comments provided at the meeting were particularly helpful to the Board’s
decision-making process. The Board acknowledged that in-person comments were
powerful and thanked residents for attending and presenting their views.
The Board then considered whether to move on to the next section of the agenda or continue
discussion of the proposed fence ordinance amendments. It was determined that the Board
should spend additional time discussing the matter before proceeding to the report section
of the agenda.
The discussion then turned to the structure of the potential ordinance amendments. It was
stated that there appeared to be two separate issues under consideration. The first issue
involved possible fencing for yards located along major or busy streets. The second issue
involved possible limited-area fences in backyards on interior properties. It was clarified
that the Board was not voting on the matter that evening, but was discussing potential
direction for ordinance amendments.
Mr. Beltran summarized the key decisions that staff needed from the Board. He stated that,
for busy roads, where there appeared to be substantial support for allowing some form of
fencing, staff needed direction on the extent of the permitted fencing. He explained that the
options could include allowing fencing only along the abutting property line, limiting
fencing to one or two yards where a property abuts a major road with multiple yard areas,
allowing fencing in any yard that touches the major road, or allowing fencing around the
entire property. Mr. Beltran stated that these were the core issues for busy-road properties.
Mr. Beltran then summarized the options for interior neighborhood properties, moving
from most restrictive to least restrictive. He stated that one option would be no change,
meaning fences would not be allowed on interior residential properties. A second option
would be to allow fencing only within a certain limited area or percentage of the yard, such
as 25%, 35%, 15%, or another percentage selected by the Board. A third option would be
to allow full backyard perimeter fencing, meaning a fence enclosing the backyard
perimeter. The options were summarized as no fence, some fence, or all the fence.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

37

Mr. Beltran stated that the remaining technical standards would depend on the policy
direction selected by the Board. These standards included the percentage of the yard that
would be allowed to be fenced, the required setback from property lines, whether fences
would be placed on property lines or set back one foot, two feet, five feet, or another
distance, and the required gate setback distance. Mr. Beltran noted that the gate setback
discussion had included whether a 10-foot setback would be sufficient or whether a greater
distance would be appropriate to accommodate larger vehicles, such as Ford F-150 trucks.
He stated that staff was seeking Board consensus on these matters so that an ordinance
could be prepared accordingly.
The Board discussed whether to begin with the busy-street issue. It was suggested that,
because the ordinance could contain separate sections, the Board could consider the
amendments in two separate motions when the matter returns for formal action. Under that
approach, the amendment addressing fences along busy roads could be considered
separately from the amendment addressing interior neighborhood fences. It was suggested
that separating the amendments would make the discussion and decision easier to
understand, provided that the technical language and supporting ordinance provisions were
properly included.
The Board then discussed possible support for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s
recommendation regarding fencing along busy streets and the need for one standardized
fence type under any ordinance that might be adopted. It was clarified that the Planning
and Zoning Commission had not recommended full perimeter fencing for busy-road
properties, but rather fencing only along the street-facing property line. It was further
clarified that this would mean a line of fencing along the property line abutting the major
road, not fencing that enclosed the yard.
The Board discussed concerns regarding what street-facing fences would look like if
installed along major roads. It was noted that fencing could be broken up by driveways,
streets, and properties where owners may not want a fence. Concern was expressed that the
appearance of intermittent fencing along a corridor could be an important issue for the
Board to consider.
The discussion also addressed landscaping along Wolf Road. It was noted that a prior
Board had set aside funds for roadway corridor improvements, with the understanding that
trees, shrubbery, or other landscaping might be installed as an alternative or supplement to
fencing. The amount set aside was clarified as $300,000. It was stated that a landscape
architect and design firm had provided an estimate of more than $2 million to complete the
type of Wolf Road landscaping the Village would want. The discussion noted that while
the Village has time before construction, would seek grants, and already has funds set aside,
Cook County’s tree replacement policy is not robust and may not produce a corridor
appearance that residents would find satisfactory. It was stated that the Village has long
expressed a desire for the corridor to look better after the project than it does currently. The
discussion noted that the estimate did not include lighting and that the County would not
be providing streetlights. The Board generally agreed that landscaping, including trees,

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

38

shrubs, and native plants, should remain part of the discussion and that the corridor should
look significantly better than it does today.
The Board then returned to the busy-road fence question and discussed whether there was
consensus regarding fencing along the street-facing side only. It was noted that some Board
members favored fencing only along the major road property line, while others had
concerns that such fencing might not meaningfully address safety concerns. It was also
noted that the prior discussion of perimeter fencing for busy-road properties had arisen
because of practical concerns regarding properties that back up to or front onto Wolf Road
and other major roads.
The Board discussed the suggestion to consider the issue in separate amendments, while
recognizing that the amendments would still need to be coordinated. It was stated that the
Planning and Zoning Commission had completed substantial work on the matter and that
the upcoming Wolf Road project was a major factor. It was noted that, although
construction was not expected until 2031, the Board did not want to continue delaying the
policy discussion indefinitely.
The Board discussed the practical challenges of fencing along Wolf Road, including the
fact that between 79th Street and Plainfield Road there are numerous streets and driveways.
It was stated that a continuous fence like the Timber Trails fence would not be possible
because of those openings. It was also noted that existing vegetation, including buckthorn
and other trees, currently provides screening and greenery, even if the vegetation is not
ideal. The removal of that vegetation during roadway improvements would significantly
affect the corridor, and restoring greenery could be costly.
The Board discussed whether fencing along the major-road property line alone would
actually solve the safety concerns raised by residents. It was noted that, for a property that
fronts Wolf Road, a fence along the sidewalk in front of the home may not be desirable
after the loss of existing trees. It was also noted that, for properties whose rear yards back
up to Wolf Road, fencing only along the rear property line may provide screening but may
not provide an enclosed safety area. The point was made that residents seeking protection
for children or pets may need an enclosed perimeter fence in order for the fence to function
as a safety measure. It was further noted that the needs of front-facing properties and rearfacing properties along a major road may differ, and that the Board may need to consider
whether the ordinance should distinguish between those circumstances without creating
improper discrimination.
The Board discussed that allowing fences on major-road properties but not on interior
properties raised concerns about consistency and fairness. At the same time, it was
acknowledged that major-road properties face different conditions because of roadway
changes and safety concerns. The Board also discussed the possibility that small protective
fenced areas attached to houses could create aesthetic or enforcement issues and might in
some cases look worse than a standardized backyard property-line fence. The Board
recognized that any change to the fence ordinance would involve giving up some of the
Village’s existing open aesthetic. The discussion concluded with the view that fencing only

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

39

along the major-road property line may not address the safety concerns and could amount
primarily to a visual treatment rather than a functional safety solution.
The Board discussed how the ordinance should describe yards for properties along major
roads. It was stated that the ordinance should not necessarily refer to front yards or rear
yards, but instead should refer to the yard that abuts the major or busy street, regardless of
whether that yard is located in front of or behind the house. It was noted that a permit
application may include a description of the specific yard involved, but that the ordinance
language should focus on the abutting yard rather than labeling it as a front or rear yard.
The Board discussed concerns that allowing fencing for an abutting yard could create
unusual results on certain properties, including side yards or larger yard areas abutting
major roads. Concern was expressed that a fence located only along the property line
abutting the major road may not provide meaningful protection for residents and may not
adequately address the concerns of properties located along those roads. It was also stated
that such an approach could appear to be an attempt to do something without fully solving
the issue.
The Board then focused the discussion on properties along busy roads and set aside the
separate discussion regarding smaller standalone or limited-area fences in interior
neighborhoods. The Board discussed whether it could reach a conclusion regarding busyroad properties and whether fencing only along the abutting property line would create a
hodgepodge appearance over time if some owners installed fences, others did not, and some
properties used landscaping or other screening instead.
The Board discussed landscaping as an alternative or complement to fencing. It was noted
that arborvitae and other shrubbery may provide an effective barrier and may look better
than fencing in some circumstances. It was also noted that residents may currently install
landscaping or hedging along their property lines or elsewhere on their properties, subject
to maintenance, and that a living fence or hedge can serve as a form of screening. However,
it was also noted that for properties affected by future road construction, landscaping
installed before construction could be removed during the roadway project. The discussion
returned to the need to determine the fence policy for busy-road properties.
The Board discussed whether perimeter fencing should be allowed for properties along
busy streets. It was stated that the issue was one of functionality and safety rather than
aesthetics alone. It was noted that a fence along only the street-facing property line may
not provide a secure or functional area for children, pets, or residents, particularly where a
backyard abuts a major road or where pedestrian traffic, sidewalk relocation, and traffic
impacts are concerns. The Board discussed that residents along major roads may view
safety differently based on their location and conditions, and that some properties may
require a more enclosed fenced area to provide the intended protection.
The Board discussed the distinction between properties that front onto a major road and
properties whose rear yards abut a major road. It was noted that a homeowner whose house
faces a major road may not want a fence in the front yard, while a homeowner whose

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

40

backyard abuts a major road may find that a fence only along the property line does not
provide adequate protection or functionality. It was stated that future roadway work may
bring sidewalks or roadway-related activity closer to some yards, increasing concerns not
only about motor vehicles but also about pedestrian traffic. It was further stated that the
Board may need to consider practical differences among properties along major roads.
The Board discussed support for perimeter fencing, or fencing enclosing the yard that abuts
a busy street, for properties located along busy streets. It was stated that such support would
apply only to properties along those identified busy streets. The Board also discussed
whether screening should be required or encouraged in connection with such fencing. It
was stated that support for perimeter fencing on busy-road properties could be conditioned
on or accompanied by screening, such as arborvitae or other greenery, particularly on the
street side, so that the fence would be less visually prominent and the corridor would retain
a more landscaped appearance.
The Board discussed that any ordinance language would need to address technical details,
including corner lots and properties with unusual configurations. It was noted that several
lots present particular complications, including certain Timber Ridge Court, Sequoia,
Hiawatha, and former Hayes properties. It was stated that the consultant and staff had
already discussed those complicated lots and that the ordinance would include language
addressing issues such as roadway corners and lower fence heights where necessary for
visibility and safety.
The Board then discussed fence placement between neighboring properties. It was noted
that, if neighboring property owners agree, a shared fence may be placed along a common
property line, similar to practices used in other communities. If neighbors do not agree, a
separation requirement would apply. Concern was raised that a three-foot separation
between fences seemed excessive. It was explained that the consultant had advised that
three feet is standard because of mowing and maintenance considerations. It was also
explained that setbacks help avoid disputes, particularly where surveys are inaccurate or
where property lines in Indian Head Park may run at angles, creating the risk that a fence
could be constructed on a neighboring property. The Board also discussed that placing a
fence three feet inside a property line does not cause the owner to lose ownership of that
land, provided the property owner continues to maintain it. It was noted that the owner
remains responsible for maintaining the property inside the property line.
The Board recognized that there were complexities regarding corner lots and other unusual
properties and that those issues would require further discussion and refinement in the
ordinance language. It was stated that there appeared to be general concurrence, with one
noted exception, regarding the direction for busy-road properties. The Board then discussed
the version of the draft ordinance that had been circulated. It was explained that the draft
combined language from the Village’s zoning consultant, based on the Board’s prior
discussion, with additional changes and technical input from Strand, and that staff had
reorganized the document to make it easier to review.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

41

It was stated that the Board had the current draft ordinance for review and that no vote
would be taken that evening.
The Board then moved to the second issue, which involved possible area fences in
neighborhoods or interior residential properties.
The Board discussed concern that allowing partial or limited-area fences could create
significant complications and inconsistent results. It was stated that allowing a partial
accommodation could open a broader issue and that the Board should either allow full rearyard perimeter fencing or make no change. It was noted that full rear-yard perimeter
fencing may look cleaner and more consistent than varying percentages of fenced areas on
different lots, such as 25% on one property and 40% on another. It was also stated that,
because lot shapes and dimensions differ throughout the Village, the same square footage
could produce very different fencing outcomes depending on whether a lot is wide, deep,
shallow, or irregular. The concern was raised that partial fencing may not stand the test of
time and may create long-term visual and enforcement issues.
It was then stated that the preferred approach would be to leave the interior neighborhood
rules as they are and not allow perimeter fences in interior neighborhoods. The Board
discussed that some members who had previously been open to percentage-based partial
fencing had reconsidered after speaking with residents and reviewing possible visual
examples. It was stated that partial fencing could look disjointed and could negatively
affect the Village’s aesthetic. The view was expressed that the available options should be
either full backyard perimeter fencing or no interior fencing at all, rather than partial
percentage-based fencing. It was also stated that, because of the inconsistency in lot sizes
and configurations, partial fencing would be difficult to regulate fairly.
The Board then discussed the origin of the partial-fencing concept. It was stated that the
language regarding partial fencing had been introduced as a way to foster discussion and
explore whether there was a possible compromise with residents. It was further stated that
the proposal was not necessarily the preferred policy outcome of those who raised it for
discussion. The Board discussed that several residents directly affected by interior
neighborhood fencing, particularly in Old Town and west of Wolf Road, had expressed
opposition to interior fences. It was noted that, based on the survey analysis, the majority
of residents in the area most directly affected by the aesthetics of interior fencing opposed
such fencing. The Board also discussed that many residents east of Wolf Road are subject
to homeowners association rules, which may affect whether they can install fences
regardless of any Village ordinance change.
The Board discussed that, although the majority margin was not overwhelming, it was still
a majority of those affected residents who opposed interior fences. The point was made
that election outcomes may turn on narrow margins, and that the expressed views of the
directly affected residents should be given weight.
The Board then discussed next steps. It was stated that staff should prepare amendment
language for the busy-road fencing issue for further review. It was also noted that one

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

42

trustee was absent and should have an opportunity to participate in the discussion. The
Board discussed whether both amendments should be brought back, including an
amendment regarding interior fences, so that the matter could be fully addressed at the next
meeting. It was stated that the Board needed to continue reviewing the options and that
members would need to decide whether they supported no interior fencing, full rear-yard
perimeter fencing, or some other approach.
It was noted that a Committee of the Whole meeting was scheduled for April 23, 2026, and
that the discussion could continue at that meeting. It was further noted that the Board could
discuss the proposed ordinance amendments at the Committee of the Whole meeting but
could not take final action there. The Board discussed using that meeting to review the
amendment language, discuss the remaining technical issues, and then bring the matter
back for a vote the following month.
The Board identified several items for continued discussion at the Committee of the Whole
meeting, including gate setbacks, technical standards for fencing along busy roads, and the
treatment of complicated lots. The Board also discussed adding landscaping and screening
to the discussion, including how the Village might plan for or fund shrubbery or other
landscape screening along busy roads, whether as coverage for fences or as an alternative
to fencing. It was stated that the Committee of the Whole should include discussion of
landscaping along busy roads because two of the major roads are expected to be redesigned.
The Board concluded that the next steps would be to continue the discussion at the
Committee of the Whole meeting, advance and review the proposed amendment language
at that meeting without taking formal action, and then bring the matter back for a vote at
the following month’s Village Board meeting. The Board also noted that additional detail
would need to be addressed regarding complicated lots involved in the busy-street fencing
discussion.
VII.

PUBLIC COMMENT - NONE

VIII.

REPORTS
K. TRUSTEES
Trustee Iannacco
Absent
Trustee Saldana
No Report
Trustee Eck
No Report

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

43

Trustee Donnersberger
No Report
Trustee Svestka
No Report
Trustee Gazis
No Report
L. VILLAGE CLERK
No Report.
M. VILLAGE TREASURER
No report.
N. VILLAGE ATTORNEY
No report.
O. VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR
No Report.
P. DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS
POLICE
Chief Weatherford stated that he was revamping the Police Department report and
therefore did not have a formal report to present. He stated that he felt fortunate to have
been selected for the interim position and expressed that, with the Board’s support, the
Village could make a good Police Department even better.
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Coons provided a Public Works update. He stated that, because he would be on
vacation for the next meeting, he wanted to provide a brief update regarding road projects
and related Public Works matters.
Mr. Coons reported that the Village, together with Strand, submitted a project plan to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. He stated that the project plan was approved,
which is the first step in the process of seeking loan funding for certain projects. He
explained that the Village had been discussing the Pontiac Drive, Keokuk Road, and related
road program, but that staff wanted to complete the water main work first. He stated that
the Village began the IEPA process rather than simply proceeding directly with the project

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

44

and paying approximately $1.5 million. He stated that, after discussions with Mr. Morgan,
staff decided to continue through the process and determine whether loan funding may be
available.
Mr. Coons stated that the first step had been completed successfully because the IEPA
approved the Village’s project plan. He explained that the approved plan was not limited
to the Pontiac and Keokuk project, but also included six other projects, which places the
Village in a better position for future projects. He stated that the Village expects to learn in
May whether it qualifies for the first round of loan funding. If the Village does not qualify
at that stage, it may learn in December whether bypass funding is available.
Mr. Coons stated that the Village is attempting to combine the Blackhawk Trail water main
and road program with the Pontiac project in order to create a larger project using loan
funds and potentially begin that work. He stated that, although the Pontiac Road program
and Keokuk project remain important, they have been pushed back somewhat while the
Village determines whether loan funding will be available.
Mr. Coons stated that, because the Pontiac project has been delayed slightly, staff is
considering other road programs for the current year. He stated that the Village is
considering the Ashbrook subdivision as a possible road program, along with a few smaller
areas. He explained that staff is looking at roads that will not be impacted by future water
main infrastructure projects. He stated that because the water main in Ashbrook is not
owned by the Village, the Village could proceed with road work there. He also stated that
there are several sections near Cascade that would not be affected by water main work. Mr.
Coons stated that staff had obtained cost information for those possible road programs and
that he would continue discussing the matter with Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Coons then provided a stormwater update. He stated that President Wittenberg, Mr.
Coons, and Public Works intern Brandon attended a stormwater infrastructure luncheon in
Countryside earlier in the week. He stated that the luncheon included updates on various
projects in the area, including Plainfield Road.
Mr. Coons reported that the Village had a jet truck in town performing stormwater
maintenance at various trouble spots, including the Pontiac bubbler. He stated that Public
Works also completed in-house work on the Pontiac bubbler, including ditch work in the
area. He stated that the work improved the appearance of the area and was intended to
allow the bubbler to continue functioning more efficiently.
Mr. Coons stated that the Village would post information on social media regarding
stormwater maintenance and public assistance. He stated that Public Works does
everything it can to prevent flooding, including going out before storms, attempting to
address issues during storms, and cleaning up afterward. He asked residents to assist by
clearing leaves and debris from storm sewer grates near their homes during storms when
possible. He stated that, if there is an emergency, residents should call the Police
Department and Public Works would respond as needed, but that public assistance in
clearing grates would be very helpful.

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

45

Mr. Coons also reported that the louver program for the Public Works building would be
advertised for bid the following week, with a bid opening scheduled for April 30, 2026. He
stated that, if the bid process proceeds as expected, the matter would be placed on the May
Village Board agenda.
Mr. Coons stated that the garden plots were in good condition and that the Village had
received some new participants. He stated that use of the garden plots would begin around
Mother’s Day weekend.
President Wittenberg requested that shoulder ordinance changes, specifically related to
road edging and enforcement, be placed on an upcoming meeting agenda.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Trustee Saldana made the MOTION to adjourn. Trustee Gazis SECONDED. With no objections,
the regular meeting was adjourned at 9:40p.m. The next regular scheduled meeting will be held on
Thursday, May 14, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrez Beltran
Assistant to the Village Administrator/Village Clerk

Board of Trustees Minutes - April 9, 2026

46

Village of Indian Head Park
Financial Summary
For the Month Ending April 2026
Cash on Hand

March 31, 2026

All Payments

April 2026

$467,669.13

Total Revenues

April 2026

$758,029.99

Ending Bank Balance

April 30, 2026

$

$

2,806,289.20

3,096,650.06

Current Bank Balances
April 2026

Countryside Bank Account

Mar-26
Interest %
Ending Balance

Apr-26
Interest %
Ending Balance

AP Operating Account

$

-

$

-

Payroll Account

$

-

$

-

Revenue Deposit Account

$

1,561.00

$

-

Water & Sewer

$

-

$

-

Money Market Account

$

967,273.23

3.85%

$

1,089,749.94

3.84%

PD Seizure Account

$

45,586.65

3.86%

$

45,728.05

3.84%

State Shared Revenues

$

1,111,046.99

3.85%

$

1,278,238.66

3.84%

MONTH END TOTAL

$ 2,125,467.87

$ 2,413,716.65

Illinois Funds Account
Savings 2160

$

568,104.39

3.782%

$

569,866.81

3.774%

Savings 1838

$

112,716.94

3.782%

$

113,066.60

3.774%

MONTH END TOTAL

$

680,821.33

$

682,933.41

GRAND TOTAL

$ 2,806,289.20

$ 3,096,650.06

April 2026
NAME

DATE

ACH WITHDRAWALS
IPBC and DELTA DENTAL
IMRF
COUNTRYSIDE BANK FEES
MERCH BANKCARD FEE/HEARTLAND/POSTAGE
USPS
AFLAC
ADP - PAYROLL FEES
TOTAL ACH DEBITS

AMOUNT

$38,674.93
$25,704.05
$814.29
$354.29
$1,770.21
$623.40
$647.47
$68,588.64

MANUALLY ENTERED CHECKS
TOTAL MANUALLY ENTERED CHECKS

$0.00

CHECK RUNS (SEE ATTACHED FOR DETAIL)

$170,105.82

TOTAL CHECK RUNS

$170,105.82

TOTAL ALL NON-PAYROLL EXPENSES

$238,694.46

PAYROLL

4/1/2026
4/15/2026
4/29/2026

TOTAL PAYROLL
TAXES

$47,120.11
$49,872.82
$53,621.73
$150,614.66

4/1/2026
4/15/2026
4/29/2026

$25,990.47
$24,947.50
$27,422.04

TOTAL TAXES

$78,360.01

GRAND TOTAL ALL PAYMENTS

$467,669.13

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026

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
01-00-4410 GROCERY TAX
01-00-4411 BUSINESS DISTRICT 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 HEALTH INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT
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
01-00-5110 POLICE GRANTS
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 GARDEN PLOT DONATIONS
05/12/2026 10:09 AM

25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

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
0.00
0.00
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
0.00
25,000.00
0.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

316,854.23
61,704.21
352.29
55,398.82
37,239.56
7,419.48
57,871.97
101,283.69
9,174.00
70,572.79
42,040.35
53,642.91
6,066.65
164,643.13
747,725.14
389,509.69
37,331.93
1,836.98
229,480.27
1,846.94
2,377.71
6,110.17
22,763.19
199,220.00
24,600.00
45.00
0.00
68,647.01
0.00
14,800.00
1,815.00
64,565.34
55,773.80
500.00
0.00
64,251.19
0.00
232,945.62
39,145.81
42,905.00
11,895.90
0.00
0.00
1,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,282.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
834.00
0.00
3,229.94
0.00
0.00
12,442.19
79,188.79
30,857.80
2,880.05
152.53
18,506.24
1,846.94
2,377.71
561.37
1,005.57
550.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,040.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
840.24
1,925.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00

Available
Balance
04/30/2026

357,288.77
71,154.79
34,647.71
63,883.18
42,943.44
8,555.52
66,818.03
(6,283.69)
5,826.00
(10,572.79)
2,959.65
41,357.09
(6,066.65)
(4,643.13)
(47,725.14)
(79,509.69)
112,668.07
163.02
(44,480.27)
(1,846.94)
(2,377.71)
389.83
42,236.81
(49,220.00)
400.00
(45.00)
1,000.00
(28,647.01)
750.00
(14,800.00)
685.00
11,514.66
(55,773.80)
3,000.00
6,400.00
60,748.81
0.00
(232,945.62)
(19,145.81)
(42,905.00)
(11,895.90)
25,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(2,282.00)
Page:

1/16

% Bdgt
Used

47.00
46.44
1.01
46.44
46.44
46.44
46.41
106.61
61.16
117.62
93.42
56.47
100.00
102.90
106.82
125.65
24.89
91.85
124.04
100.00
100.00
94.00
35.02
132.81
98.40
100.00
0.00
171.62
0.00
100.00
72.60
84.87
100.00
14.29
0.00
51.40
0.00
100.00
195.73
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

3,546,862.00

3,247,637.77

161,338.56

299,224.23

91.56

3,546,862.00

3,247,637.77

161,338.56

299,224.23

91.56

2,000.00
12,000.00
500.00
1,000.00

2,265.56
4,000.00
0.00
481.34

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

(265.56)
8,000.00
500.00
518.66

113.28
33.33
0.00
48.13

15,500.00

6,746.90

0.00

8,753.10

43.53

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 PROCESSING FEES
01-21-6215 CODIFICATION SERVICES
01-21-6217 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE
01-21-6230 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
01-21-6243 TRAINING & TRAVEL
01-21-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
01-21-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
01-21-6248 GARBAGE STICKERS
01-21-6249 PRINTING
01-21-6250 POSTAGE
01-21-6253 INSURANCE ALLOCATION
01-21-6254 PUBLICATIONS/LEGAL NOTICES
01-21-6255 PROCESSING FEES
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
01-21-6351 PEG FEES
01-21-6410 COMPUTER SOFTWARE
01-21-6426 OFFICE EQUIPMENT

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
0.00
2,500.00
0.00
1,000.00
0.00
2,000.00
124,800.00
18,910.00
6,000.00
0.00
0.00
5,000.00
3,500.00

280,146.24
5,307.71
721.78
20,697.71
21,711.03
42,620.22
37,388.44
16,403.71
63,805.77
0.00
35,261.66
552.40
1,844.94
18,867.94
11,026.17
7,800.00
9,043.47
5,484.57
0.00
1,711.36
0.00
810.63
115,500.00
16,654.10
6,851.88
249.80
2,049.19
12,556.84
4,415.61

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,731.28
0.00
0.00
6,929.00
552.40
382.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
8,865.25
274.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
78.81
10,800.00
1,947.10
109.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

63,261.76
692.29
5,278.22
5,022.29
17,858.97
(13,958.22)
(12,388.44)
1,596.29
(49,805.77)
3,200.00
(20,261.66)
2,447.60
8,155.06
(15,867.94)
(1,026.17)
2,200.00
(9,043.47)
(2,984.57)
0.00
(711.36)
0.00
1,189.37
9,300.00
2,255.90
(851.88)
(249.80)
(2,049.19)
(7,556.84)
(915.61)

81.58
88.46
12.03
80.47
54.87
148.70
149.55
91.13
455.76
0.00
235.08
18.41
18.45
628.93
110.26
78.00
100.00
219.38
0.00
171.14
0.00
40.53
92.55
88.07
114.20
100.00
100.00
251.14
126.16

Total Dept 21 - ADMINISTRATION

724,270.00

739,483.17

31,670.72

(15,213.17)

102.10

165,360.00
25,000.00

159,693.05
14,444.55

0.00
0.00

5,666.95
10,555.45

96.57
57.78

GL Number

Description

Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Revenues
Department: 00
01-00-5150 PROCEEDS FROM LOANS
01-00-5200 GAIN ON INVESTMENT
Total Dept 00
Revenues
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 11 PRESIDENT AND VILLAGE BOARD
01-11-6243 TRAINING & TRAVEL
01-11-6245 MEMBERSHIP FEES
01-11-6247 MISC. EXPENSE
01-11-6426 OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE
Total Dept 11 - PRESIDENT AND VILLAGE
BOARD

Department: 31 PUBLIC WORKS
01-31-6102 REGULAR SALARIES
01-31-6104 OVERTIME
05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Available
Balance
04/30/2026

Page:

2/16

% Bdgt
Used

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

14,639.00
20,303.00
22,599.00
25,000.00
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

12,944.33
15,592.35
39,595.76
7,855.22
0.00
12,363.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
64.00
7,068.73
211.60
409.00
0.00
24,590.00
1,505.35
0.00
9,962.50
978.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,949.80
6,242.72
907.33
2,556.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,585.94
2,185.31
1,367.32
724.41
0.00
17,414.50
0.00
0.00
29,850.63
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
921.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
333.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
742.81
0.00
65.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.96
1,005.00
82.47
0.00
3,240.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

1,694.67
4,710.65
(16,996.76)
17,144.78
0.00
636.93
0.00
2,000.00
0.00
1,936.00
7,931.27
1,788.40
141.00
500.00
(4,590.00)
2,494.65
5,000.00
15,037.50
4,021.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.20
4,257.28
4,092.67
5,943.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,914.06
314.69
3,632.68
1,775.59
0.00
10,085.50
0.00
0.00
(29,850.63)
0.00

88.42
76.80
175.21
31.42
0.00
95.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.20
47.12
10.58
74.36
0.00
122.95
37.63
0.00
39.85
19.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
97.49
59.45
18.15
30.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.84
87.41
27.35
28.98
0.00
63.33
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00

Total Dept 31 - PUBLIC WORKS

435,951.00

372,062.62

6,562.66

63,888.38

85.35

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

0.00
1,352,094.00
100,000.00
124,695.00
172,943.00
123,543.00

0.00
1,190,212.07
130,847.95
98,506.36
99,648.72
165,242.50

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
161,881.93
(30,847.95)
26,188.64
73,294.28
(41,699.50)

0.00
88.03
130.85
79.00
57.62
133.75

GL Number

Description

Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 31 PUBLIC WORKS
01-31-6105 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE
01-31-6107 PENSION
01-31-6108 HEALTH BENEFITS
01-31-6200 PROF SERVICES-ENGINEERING
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 TRAINING & TRAVEL
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

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Available
Balance
04/30/2026

Page:

3/16

% Bdgt
Used

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

8,648.00
2,500.00
20,000.00
0.00
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

0.00
5,993.09
22,186.46
0.00
12,650.89
0.00
22,137.77
12,950.00
8,983.75
0.00
817.25
652.58
79.10
7,725.26
0.00
13,832.65
29,410.92
8,919.59
3,577.58
15,056.07
0.00
0.00
50,740.00

0.00
0.00
1,711.28
0.00
264.00
0.00
489.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
165.00
211.38
0.00
171.57
0.00
877.86
5,468.00
164.78
351.16
1,467.59
0.00
0.00
0.00

8,648.00
(3,493.09)
(2,186.46)
0.00
2,349.11
0.00
(2,137.77)
650.00
(4,483.75)
4,500.00
(317.25)
1,547.42
(79.10)
12,274.74
0.00
4,167.35
589.08
(7,419.59)
(577.58)
(56.07)
0.00
0.00
(50,740.00)

0.00
239.72
110.93
0.00
84.34
0.00
110.69
95.22
199.64
0.00
163.45
29.66
100.00
38.63
0.00
76.85
98.04
594.64
119.25
100.37
0.00
0.00
100.00

2,052,223.00

1,900,170.56

11,341.62

152,052.44

92.59

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

8,375.40
0.00
15,487.27
16,632.00
25,000.00
6,353.71
226.35
2,455.69
4,680.11
0.00
7,881.00
985.85
0.00

65.00
0.00
239.27
812.00
3,125.00
600.87
114.95
0.00
287.94
0.00
5,392.50
0.00
0.00

11,624.60
0.00
9,512.73
368.00
10,000.00
5,646.29
2,973.65
2,544.31
(180.11)
500.00
119.00
14.15
0.00

41.88
0.00
61.95
97.84
71.43
52.95
7.07
49.11
104.00
0.00
98.51
98.59
0.00

Total Dept 51 - BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

131,200.00

88,077.38

10,637.53

43,122.62

67.13

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

1,500.00
20,000.00
2,000.00
1,600.00
15,000.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
5,900.00
1,305.00
935.00
36,474.79
0.00
0.00

0.00
100.00
35.00
0.00
575.00
0.00
0.00

1,500.00
14,100.00
695.00
665.00
(21,474.79)
0.00
0.00

0.00
29.50
65.25
58.44
243.17
0.00
0.00

GL Number

Description

Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 41 POLICE
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
01-41-6230 EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
01-41-6240 OPEB EXPENSE
01-41-6243 TRAINING & TRAVEL
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

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Available
Balance
04/30/2026

Page:

4/16

% Bdgt
Used

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026

GL Number

Description

25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

Available
Balance
04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

Fund: 01 GENERAL FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 55 BUILDING
01-55-6259 PLANNING SERVICES

50,000.00

95,729.34

2,638.06

(45,729.34)

191.46

Total Dept 55 - BUILDING

90,100.00

140,344.13

3,348.06

(50,244.13)

155.76

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
1,946.00
0.00
400.00
1,043.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

1,000.00
8,054.00
3,000.00
100.00
(543.00)

0.00
19.46
0.00
80.00
208.60

15,000.00

3,389.00

0.00

11,611.00

22.59

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

30,736.25
19,450.83
2,583.62
6,048.27
0.00
0.00
24,494.09
0.00
9,817.12
0.00
220.00
9,350.00
0.00

8,466.25
970.76
30.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,555.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
220.00
850.00
0.00

19,263.75
5,549.17
2,416.38
7,951.73
50,000.00
0.00
(7,494.09)
7,500.00
(5,317.12)
13,000.00
2,180.00
850.00
197,500.00

61.47
77.80
51.67
43.20
0.00
0.00
144.08
0.00
218.16
0.00
9.17
91.67
0.00

396,100.00

102,700.18

12,093.37

293,399.82

25.93

3,860,344.00

3,352,973.94

75,653.96

507,370.06

86.86

TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

3,546,862.00
3,860,344.00

3,247,637.77
3,352,973.94

161,338.56
75,653.96

299,224.23
507,370.06

91.56
86.86

NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:

(313,482.00)

(105,336.17)

85,684.60

(208,145.83)

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 TRAINING & TRAVEL
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
Fund 01 - GENERAL FUND:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

5/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026

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 TRAINING & TRAVEL
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
02-85-6278 AUDIT EXPENSE
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
05/12/2026 10:09 AM

25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

Available
Balance

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

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

1,060,846.78
4,656.70
18,093.47
135,882.15
424,077.63
149,766.81
325.00
22,166.08
75.00
0.00
0.00

159,967.08
0.00
100.00
20,750.64
71,359.96
25,132.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

135,153.22
(1,156.70)
(3,093.47)
10,997.85
136,922.37
23,633.19
(325.00)
(22,166.08)
925.00
0.00
0.00

88.70
133.05
120.62
92.51
75.59
86.37
100.00
100.00
7.50
0.00
0.00

2,096,780.00

1,815,889.62

277,310.57

280,890.38

86.60

2,096,780.00

1,815,889.62

277,310.57

280,890.38

86.60

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
0.00
95,000.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
5,000.00
11,000.00
0.00
0.00

148,411.27
15,380.49
11,924.76
14,174.35
25,978.88
5,650.83
4,705.00
3,335.00
0.00
0.00
825.31
1,898.98
6,892.75
0.00
216.78
3,831.11
0.00
634.64
1,133.08
0.00
0.00
1,500.00
17,831.35
0.00
47,155.05
446.37
1,682.77
803.60
2,594.20
6,691.47
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
835.16
0.00
640.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
565.00
1,022.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,500.00
4,577.57
0.00
3,426.21
0.00
302.56
495.99
519.97
223.64
0.00
0.00

38,788.73
(380.49)
2,993.24
6,515.65
22,781.12
44,349.17
2,795.00
665.00
4,000.00
750.00
7,174.69
(398.98)
(2,392.75)
700.00
33.22
(831.11)
0.00
365.36
866.92
1,500.00
10,000.00
3,500.00
(3,831.35)
0.00
47,844.95
553.63
317.23
196.40
2,405.80
4,308.53
0.00
0.00

79.28
102.54
79.94
68.51
53.28
11.30
62.73
83.38
0.00
0.00
10.32
126.60
153.17
0.00
86.71
127.70
0.00
63.46
56.65
0.00
0.00
30.00
127.37
0.00
49.64
44.64
84.14
80.36
51.88
60.83
0.00
0.00

04/30/2026

Page:

6/16

% Bdgt
Used

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026

GL Number

Description

Fund: 02 WATER AND SEWER FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 85 WATER
02-85-6334 MATERIALS TO MAINTAIN WATER SYSTEM
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 DEBT SERVICE
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 TRAINING & TRAVEL
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
02-90-6278 AUDIT EXPENSE
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
05/12/2026 10:09 AM

25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

Available
Balance

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

15,000.00
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

5,946.53
35.00
0.00
544,248.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,923.20
2,196.92
0.00
0.00

400.00
0.00
0.00
39,904.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,057.33
0.00
0.00

9,053.47
965.00
2,500.00
105,751.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,837.80
164.08
0.00
0.00

39.64
3.50
0.00
83.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.18
93.05
0.00
0.00

1,213,890.00

888,047.77

55,470.57

325,842.23

73.16

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
0.00
200.00
300.00
1,000.00
100.00
300.00
2,500.00
50,000.00
0.00

89,947.15
2,614.23
7,131.31
8,485.50
14,985.29
9,728.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,004.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
648.00
0.00
200.00
1,111.76
107.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
9,280.80
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
602.37
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
200.00
222.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

24,452.85
7,385.77
2,048.69
4,246.50
11,514.71
25,271.36
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
4,352.00
0.00
0.00
(811.76)
892.09
100.00
300.00
2,500.00
40,719.20
0.00

78.63
26.14
77.68
66.65
56.55
27.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.96
0.00
100.00
370.59
10.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.56
0.00

333,962.00

145,245.56

1,025.20

188,716.44

43.49

0.00
25,000.00
0.00
2,800.00
15,000.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
1,548.79
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
25,000.00
0.00
1,251.21
15,000.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
55.31
0.00

04/30/2026

Page:

7/16

% Bdgt
Used

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

Fund: 02 WATER AND SEWER FUND
Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 92 GENERAL
02-92-6500 DEBT SERVICE
02-92-6701 IMRF NPL EXPENSE
02-92-6733 DEPRECIATION

1,455,000.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

1,455,000.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

Total Dept 92 - GENERAL

1,497,800.00

1,548.79

0.00

1,496,251.21

0.10

3,045,652.00

1,034,842.12

56,495.77

2,010,809.88

33.98

TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

2,096,780.00
3,045,652.00

1,815,889.62
1,034,842.12

277,310.57
56,495.77

280,890.38
2,010,809.88

86.60
33.98

NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:

(948,872.00)

781,047.50

220,814.80

(1,729,919.50)

GL Number

Description

Expenditures

Available
Balance
04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

Fund 02 - WATER AND SEWER FUND:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

8/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

170,000.00
35,000.00
0.00

186,145.14
32,255.93
0.00

13,311.65
2,281.48
0.00

(16,145.14)
2,744.07
0.00

109.50
92.16
0.00

205,000.00

218,401.07

15,593.13

(13,401.07)

106.54

205,000.00

218,401.07

15,593.13

(13,401.07)

106.54

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
24,292.21
9,049.10
8,546.00
0.00
19,171.68
3,108.27
0.00
500.00
32,447.35

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,101.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
7,459.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

20,000.00
8,500.00
7,500.00
20,000.00
707.79
(1,049.10)
6,454.00
0.00
828.32
26,891.73
114,000.00
(500.00)
2,552.65

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
97.17
113.11
56.97
0.00
95.86
10.36
0.00
100.00
92.71

Total Dept 94 - MOTOR FUEL TAX

303,000.00

97,114.61

9,560.82

205,885.39

32.05

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

97,114.61

9,560.82

205,885.39

32.05

TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

205,000.00
303,000.00

218,401.07
97,114.61

15,593.13
9,560.82

(13,401.07)
205,885.39

106.54
32.05

NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:

(98,000.00)

121,286.46

6,032.31

(219,286.46)

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
04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

Fund 10 - MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

9/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026

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

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

32,095.00

12,737.02

0.00

19,357.98

39.69

32,095.00

12,737.02

0.00

19,357.98

39.69

04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

32,095.00

12,737.02

0.00

19,357.98

39.69

Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 93 SPECIAL PARKS
16-93-6264 SEASPAR MEMBERSHIP FEE

32,095.00

16,047.50

0.00

16,047.50

50.00

Total Dept 93 - SPECIAL PARKS

32,095.00

16,047.50

0.00

16,047.50

50.00

32,095.00

16,047.50

0.00

16,047.50

50.00

32,095.00
32,095.00

12,737.02
16,047.50

0.00
0.00

19,357.98
16,047.50

39.69
50.00

0.00

(3,310.48)

0.00

3,310.48

Expenditures
Fund 16 - SPECIAL PARKS FUND:
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

10/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026

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

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

211,669.00

106,857.38

0.00

104,811.62

50.48

211,669.00

106,857.38

0.00

104,811.62

50.48

04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

211,669.00

106,857.38

0.00

104,811.62

50.48

Account Category: Expenditures
Department: 96 DEBT SERVICE
40-96-6500 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
40-96-6514 IEPA LOAN PRINCIPAL
40-96-6515 IEPA LOAN INTEREST

0.00
275,000.00
59,500.00
180,000.00
31,669.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
29,750.00
0.00
(30,699.76)
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
196.94
0.00
0.00
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

106,857.38
547,118.76

0.00
0.00

104,811.62
(949.76)

50.48
100.17

NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:

(334,500.00)

(440,261.38)

0.00

105,761.38

Expenditures
Fund 40 - DEBT SERVICE FUND:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

11/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

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
84,267.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80,688.79
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17,511.10
0.00

0.00
0.00
(84,267.50)
197,500.00
1,455,000.00
114,000.00
0.00
0.00
94,311.21
0.00

0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.11
0.00

1,941,500.00

164,956.29

17,511.10

1,776,543.71

8.50

1,941,500.00

164,956.29

17,511.10

1,776,543.71

8.50

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
3,235.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
229,875.94
2,271.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,355.30
0.00
204,014.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14,403.09
4,210.39
61,782.00
63,570.00
8,130.00
40,750.00
0.00
98,755.65

0.00
1,681.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10,294.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,020.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,025.40

0.00
(1,235.03)
0.00
0.00
0.00
(229,875.94)
(2,271.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
(6,355.30)
0.00
(204,014.07)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30,596.91
120,789.61
8,218.00
(47,070.00)
4,870.00
109,250.00
0.00
1,421,244.35

0.00
161.75
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
3.37
88.26
385.27
62.54
27.17
0.00
6.50

Total Dept 95 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

1,941,500.00

737,352.47

16,021.02

1,204,147.53

37.98

1,941,500.00

737,352.47

16,021.02

1,204,147.53

37.98

1,941,500.00
1,941,500.00

164,956.29
737,352.47

17,511.10
16,021.02

1,776,543.71
1,204,147.53

8.50
37.98

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
04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

Fund 50 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS:
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

12/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026

GL Number

Description

Fund: 50 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

0.00

(572,396.18)

1,490.08

Available
Balance
04/30/2026
572,396.18

Page:

13/16

% Bdgt
Used

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

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
04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

Fund 53 - BOND FUND:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

14/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

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
04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

Fund 98 - GENERAL CAPITAL ASSET GROUP FUND:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

15/16

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
Balance As Of 04/30/2026
25-26
Amended
Budget

YTD Balance

Activity For

04/30/2026

04/30/2026

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

5,566,479.15
5,785,449.40

471,753.36
157,731.57

2,467,426.85
3,943,310.60

NET OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES:

(1,694,854.00)

(218,970.25)

314,021.79

(1,475,883.75)

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
04/30/2026

% Bdgt
Used

Fund 99 - LONG TERM LIABILITY GROUP FUND:

Report Totals:

05/12/2026 10:09 AM

Page:

69.29
59.47

16/16

CHECK REGISTER FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
CHECK DATE 04/01/2026 - 04/30/2026
Check Date

Check

Bank AP ACCTS PAYABLE
04/10/2026
32197
04/10/2026
32198
04/10/2026
32199
04/10/2026
32200
04/10/2026
32201
04/10/2026
32202
04/10/2026
32203
04/10/2026
80000381(E)
04/10/2026
80000382(E)
04/10/2026
80000383(E)
04/10/2026
80000384(E)
04/10/2026
80000385(E)
04/10/2026
80000386(E)
04/10/2026
80000387(E)
04/13/2026
80000357(A)
04/13/2026
80000358(A)
04/13/2026
80000359(A)
04/13/2026
80000360(A)
04/13/2026
80000361(A)
04/13/2026
80000362(A)
04/13/2026
80000363(A)
04/13/2026
80000364(A)
04/13/2026
80000365(A)
04/13/2026
80000366(A)
04/13/2026
80000367(A)
04/13/2026
80000368(A)
04/13/2026
80000369(A)
04/13/2026
80000370(A)
04/13/2026
80000371(A)
04/13/2026
80000372(A)
04/13/2026
80000373(A)
04/13/2026
80000374(A)
04/13/2026
80000375(A)
04/13/2026
80000376(A)
04/13/2026
80000377(A)
04/13/2026
80000378(A)
04/13/2026
80000379(A)
04/13/2026
80000380(A)
04/24/2026
32204
04/24/2026
32205
04/24/2026
32206
04/24/2026
32207
04/24/2026
32208
04/24/2026
32209
04/24/2026
32210
04/24/2026
32211
04/24/2026
32212
04/24/2026
32213
04/24/2026
32214
04/24/2026
32215
04/24/2026
32216
04/24/2026
32217
04/24/2026
32218
04/24/2026
80000388(E)
04/24/2026
80000389(E)
04/24/2026
80000390(E)
04/24/2026
80000391(E)
04/27/2026
80000392(A)
04/27/2026
80000393(A)
04/27/2026
80000394(A)
04/27/2026
80000395(A)
04/27/2026
80000396(A)
04/27/2026
80000397(A)
04/27/2026
80000398(A)
04/27/2026
80000399(A)
04/27/2026
80000400(A)
04/27/2026
80000401(A)

Vendor Name
FLEISHER, BRANDON M.
DON MORRIS ARCHITECTS P.C.
ECO CLEAN MAINTENANCE, INC.
ETP LABS, INC.
MATTHEW F. WALSH
METROPOLITAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
SBC WASTE SOLUTIONS INC
COMCAST CABLE
COMED
FNBO
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
MENARD'S
NICOR
QUADIENT, INC
ACCURATE OFFICE SUPPLY CO
ALL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC
BADGER METER
BEARY HOLDCO LLC
PLANNING RESOURCES, INC
MEGWEAR INC
VICARIOUS MULTIMEDIA
PIN HIGH SOLUTIONS
CALUMET CITY PLUMBING CO., IN
CINTAS
CIVIC PLUS
ELEVATOR INSPECTION SERVICE C
GRIZZ PEST MANAGEMENT, INC.
K-FIVE HODGKINS LLC
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUT
LAUTERBACH & AMEN, LLP
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS.
ODELSON, MURPHEY, FRAZIER & M
O'REILLY
PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES
SCHAIN BANKS KENNY & SCHWARTZ
STRAND ASSOCIATES
THIRD MILLENNIUM ASSOCIATES,
THOMAS J. BRESCIA
AT&T
MICHAEL IAMBOR
CHICAGO PARTS AND SOUND, LLC
CITY OF COUNTRYSIDE
FULLER'S CAR WASH OF COUNTRYS
ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE
ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE
LUCY SANDERS
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
RAY O'HERRON CO., INC.
TAMELING INDUSTRIES INC
ERWIN, JESSICA
KOSBAB, KAREN
SOFIJA NOVAKOVIC
AT&T
FNBO
T-MOBILE
WEX BANK
ALL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC
DAVID KARAFFA
EAGLE UNIFORM
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUT
M.E. SIMPSON COMPANY, INC
MORTON SALT
RUSSO POWER EQUIPMENT, INC.
SAFEBUILT ILLINOIS LLC
THIRD MILLENNIUM ASSOCIATES,

Amount
32.08
675.00
812.00
400.00
300.00
900.00
1,768.21
1,057.98
2,200.45
1,618.64
385.01
677.63
167.11
274.97
109.83
1,468.76
1,022.26
3,125.00
5,392.50
1,005.00
3,500.00
3,240.00
758.00
108.12
3,429.00
35.00
130.00
400.00
9,076.20
10,800.00
16.00
3,986.25
13.78
240.00
4,700.00
14,679.15
3,385.80
850.00
68.05
10.00
2,020.00
39,904.88
119.00
165.00
151.00
30.97
145.00
1,789.60
862.86
780.00
214.97
47.88
91.69
1,237.40
2,878.16
433.26
6,953.61
2,526.20
157.50
15.00
13,061.04
0.43
1,500.00
7,459.58
114.95
2,638.06
1,990.00

AP TOTALS:
Total of 67 Checks:
Less 0 Void Checks:
05/12/2026 10:00 AM

170,105.82
0.00
Page:

1/2

CHECK REGISTER FOR VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK
CHECK DATE 04/01/2026 - 04/30/2026
Check Date

Check

Bank AP ACCTS PAYABLE
Total of 67 Disbursements:

05/12/2026 10:00 AM

Vendor Name

Amount
170,105.82

Page:

2/2

To:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From:
Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
Date:
May 8, 2026
Subject: Acceptance of the Fiscal Year 2025 Audit
Recommended Motion: Move to accept the Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Financial Report
and Related Audit Communications
Background
The Village’s independent auditors, Lauterbach & Amen, LLP, have completed the audit
of the Village of Indian Head Park’s financial statements for the fiscal year ending April
30, 2025. The audit materials provided to the Board include:
● Annual Financial Report (AFR)
● Auditor Communication Letter (SAS 114)
● Management Letter
The Annual Financial Report presents the Village’s financial position and operating
results for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2025. The auditors issued an unmodified
opinion, indicating that the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of the Village in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
The auditors also reported that they encountered no significant difficulties during the
audit process, noted no disagreements with management, and found the Village’s
financial disclosures to be neutral, consistent, and clear.
Audit Highlights
Key items identified within the audit and related communications include:
● The Village received an unmodified (“clean”) audit opinion.
● Management prepared and provided a well-organized audit package, which was
specifically commended by the auditors.
● The Management Letter identified two recommendations for continued
administrative attention:
1. Monitoring and controlling expenditures within adopted budget
appropriations; and

2. Continued focus on information technology security awareness and
monitoring of emerging cybersecurity risks.
● Audit adjustments primarily consisted of standard year-end accruals, receivable
adjustments, debt activity reconciliations, and pension/OPEB-related entries.
The FY2025 audit reflects continued stable financial operations and compliance with
applicable governmental accounting standards.
Staff will continue to review auditor recommendations and implement operational
improvements where appropriate to support transparency, efficiency, and long-term
fiscal sustainability.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Village Board formally accept the Fiscal Year 2025 Annual
Financial Report and related audit communications as presented by Lauterbach &
Amen, LLP.
Attachments
1. FY2025 Annual Financial Report
2. FY2025 Management Letter

To:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From:
Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
Date:
May 7, 2026
Subject: Engagement of Selden Fox, Ltd. for Fiscal Year 2026 Auditing Services
Recommended Motion: Move to approve Resolution 2026-15: Authorizing the
Engagement of Selden Fox, Ltd. for Auditing Services
The Village’s current audit services agreement with Lauterbach & Amen concludes
upon presentation of the FY2025 audit at tonight’s meeting. In keeping with
governmental finance best practices regarding auditor independence and periodic
rotation of audit firms, staff recommends engaging a new independent auditing firm for
future audit services.
To facilitate a competitive procurement process, Lauterbach & Amen solicited
proposals on behalf of the Village for professional auditing services for the fiscal year
ending April 30, 2026, with options to renew for two additional fiscal years. Proposals
were received from Selden Fox, Ltd., Sikich LLP, and Eccezion, LLC. After review of
the submitted proposals, staff recommends the selection of Selden Fox, Ltd. as the
lowest qualified bidder.
Selden Fox has extensive governmental auditing experience, currently serving nearly
40 governmental agencies and having completed more than 600 governmental audits
over the last 40 years. The proposed engagement includes the audit of the Village’s
annual financial statements for FY2026, with options for renewal for up to two
additional fiscal years, subject to Board approval and satisfactory performance.
Fiscal Year Services
FY2026
Annual Financial Audit
FY2027
Year 2 (Optional)
FY2028
Year 3 (Optional)

Proposed Fee
$26,500
$27,750
$28,750

Increase
—
4.72%
3.60%

Staff therefore recommends approval of the attached resolution authorizing the Village
Administrator to engage Selden Fox, Ltd. for professional auditing services.

RESOLUTION 2026-15
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENGAGEMENT OF SELDEN FOX, LTD. TO
PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN
HEAD PARK
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park (“Village”) is an
Illinois municipal corporation organized and operating pursuant
to the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/1-1-1 et seq.;
WHEREAS, the Village desires to periodically rotate
independent auditing firms in accordance with governmental
finance best practices and principles of auditor independence
and accountability; and
WHEREAS, Village staff has reviewed the submitted proposals
and determined that Selden Fox, Ltd. is the lowest qualified
bidder and is experienced and qualified to provide professional
governmental auditing services to the Village; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees find that it
is in the best interests of the Village to authorize the
engagement of Selden Fox, Ltd. for auditing services for the
fiscal year ending April 30, 2026, with options for renewal for
two additional fiscal years.
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. Incorporation of Recitals.
The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated into and made a
part of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Authorization of Engagement.
The Village Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to
negotiate and execute an engagement letter and related documents
with Selden Fox, Ltd. for professional auditing services for the
fiscal year ending April 30, 2026, with options to renew for up
to two additional fiscal years, subject to terms acceptable to
the Village Attorney.

RESOLUTION 2026-15
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENGAGEMENT OF SELDEN FOX, LTD. TO
PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN
HEAD PARK
SECTION 3. Authority to Implement.
The Village Administrator and Village officials are hereby
authorized to take all actions necessary to implement this
Resolution.
SECTION 4. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage and approval in the manner provided by law.
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this 14th day of
May, 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote as recorded below:
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
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:
May 7, 2026
Subject: Ordinance 2026-07: Feral Cat Ordinance
Recommended Motion: Move to approve the ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the
Village Code regarding managed feral cat colonies and nuisance feeding conditions,
and to authorize staff to finalize a Memorandum of Understanding with Triple R Pets,
subject to review by the Village Attorney.
Background
The Village has been discussing a possible cooperative arrangement with Triple R Pets
regarding feral cat management. Triple R Pets operates Trap-Neuter-Return (“TNR”)
programs within the framework of the Cook County Animal Control Ordinance.
The Village’s current Chapter 4 already includes provisions related to animal nuisance,
animal waste, complaint response, and impoundment. However, it does not clearly
distinguish between unmanaged feeding of feral cats and managed colony care
conducted through an approved TNR program.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Village adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4,
along with proceeding with a cooperative Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
Triple R Pets.
This approach allows the Village to recognize and work within the existing Cook County
framework while maintaining clear local authority to address nuisance or public health
situations.
Key Features of the Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance:
● Recognizes managed feral cat colonies
Colonies are permitted when registered with and supervised by an approved
sponsor organization operating under the Cook County ordinance.
● Allows approved caretakers to provide care
Trained and approved caretakers may provide food, water, and shelter as part of
a managed TNR program.

● Preserves local nuisance and public health authority
The Village retains authority to address conditions such as unsanitary
environments, rodent attraction, waste accumulation, property damage, and
similar nuisance conditions.
● Avoids overbroad restrictions on feeding
The ordinance does not prohibit ordinary residential activities (such as bird
feeding), and instead focuses on conditions that create nuisance or public health
concerns.
● Utilizes code enforcement as the primary response
Nuisance conditions related to feeding or unmanaged animal activity are
addressed through the Village’s standard code enforcement process, including
notice and opportunity to correct where appropriate.
● Allows coordination with sponsor organizations
For managed colonies, the Village may coordinate with the sponsor organization
(e.g., Triple R Pets) to address complaints before enforcement action, when
appropriate.
Rationale
This approach balances allowing a structured and humane population management
program with ensuring the Village retains the ability to respond to nuisance or public
health concerns at the local level.
It builds on the existing Cook County framework rather than duplicating it and relies on
the Village’s current nuisance and enforcement authority, with targeted clarification
where needed.
Next Steps
Following Board discussion, staff will finalize the MOU with Triple R Pets and return it
for approval.

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, “ANIMALS,” OF THE VILLAGE
CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING MANAGED FERAL
CAT COLONIES AND ANIMAL NUISANCE CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park has authority to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 4 of the Village Code currently regulates
animals, nuisance conditions, animals running at large, animal
waste, complaint procedures, and impoundment; and
WHEREAS, Cook County has adopted regulations concerning
managed feral cat colonies, including sponsor organizations,
caretakers, Trap-Neuter-Return programs, nuisance complaints,
and enforcement procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Village desires to recognize managed feral cat
colonies operating under the Cook County framework while
preserving the Village’s authority to address nuisance,
unsanitary, or public health conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Village does not intend to prohibit
responsible bird feeding or ordinary residential activities that
do not create nuisance or public health conditions;
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 Chapter 4.
Chapter 4, Article I, of the Village Code is amended by adding a
new Section 4-12, “Managed Feral Cat Colonies and Nuisance
Feeding Conditions,” as follows:
Sec. 4-12. Managed Feral Cat Colonies and Nuisance Feeding
Conditions.
(a) Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to recognize managed feral cat
colonies operating under the Cook County Animal Control

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, “ANIMALS,” OF THE VILLAGE
CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING MANAGED FERAL
CAT COLONIES AND ANIMAL NUISANCE CONDITIONS
Ordinance and to preserve the Village’s authority to address
nuisance, unsanitary, or public health conditions caused by
unmanaged feeding or improper animal care.
(b) Definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the
meanings set forth below. Terms not defined herein may be
interpreted consistently with the Cook County Animal Control
Ordinance.
Approved Sponsor means an animal humane society or nonprofit
animal welfare organization approved or recognized under the
Cook County Animal Control Ordinance to sponsor managed feral
cat colonies.
Feral Cat Colony Caretaker means a person approved by an
Approved Sponsor to provide care for a managed feral cat colony.
Managed Feral Cat Colony means a feral cat colony registered
with and supervised by an Approved Sponsor and managed
consistent with the Cook County Animal Control Ordinance.
TNR Program means a Trap-Neuter-Return program under which feral
or stray cats are humanely trapped, sterilized, vaccinated
against rabies, microchipped or otherwise identified, ear-tipped
when appropriate, and returned or otherwise placed consistent
with applicable law.
(c) Managed feral cat colonies permitted.
Managed Feral Cat Colonies shall be permitted within the Village
when registered with and supervised by an Approved Sponsor and
operated in compliance with the Cook County Animal Control
Ordinance and this section.
(d) Approved caretakers.
A Feral Cat Colony Caretaker may provide food, water, shelter,
monitoring, and other care to cats within a Managed Feral Cat

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, “ANIMALS,” OF THE VILLAGE
CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING MANAGED FERAL
CAT COLONIES AND ANIMAL NUISANCE CONDITIONS
Colony, provided the caretaker remains approved by an Approved
Sponsor and complies with applicable sponsor requirements.
(e) Village cooperation with Approved Sponsor.
The Village may cooperate with an Approved Sponsor regarding
identification, management, monitoring, and complaint resolution
involving Managed Feral Cat Colonies. The Village may request
reasonable information from the Approved Sponsor regarding
colonies located within the Village, including general location,
caretaker approval status, and information necessary to address
nuisance or public health concerns.
(f) Nuisance feeding prohibited.
No person shall feed, provide food for, or otherwise attract
cats, wildlife, or other animals in a manner that creates or
contributes to a nuisance or public health condition, including
but not limited to:
1. unsanitary conditions;
2. accumulation of food, waste, feces, containers, or debris;
3. attraction of rodents, vermin, or other pests;
4. noxious or offensive odors;
5. property damage;
6. interference with the reasonable use and enjoyment of
neighboring property;
7. repeated trespass or soiling of neighboring property by
animals attracted to the feeding location; or
8. any other condition constituting a nuisance under this
Chapter or other applicable Village ordinance.
This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit ordinary
residential bird feeding or other lawful activity unless such
activity creates or contributes to a nuisance or public health
condition.

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, “ANIMALS,” OF THE VILLAGE
CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING MANAGED FERAL
CAT COLONIES AND ANIMAL NUISANCE CONDITIONS
(g) Feeding outside a managed program.
Regular or ongoing feeding of feral or stray cats outside of a
Managed Feral Cat Colony may be considered evidence of a
nuisance condition if such feeding results in one or more of the
conditions described in subsection (f).
(h) Complaint and enforcement procedure.
Upon receipt of a complaint or observation of a possible
violation, the Village may investigate through code enforcement,
the Police Department, or other authorized Village personnel.
Where practical, the Village may provide written notice and an
opportunity to correct the violation before issuing a citation.
Nothing in this section shall limit the Village’s authority to
act immediately where necessary to protect public health,
safety, property, or animal welfare.
For complaints involving a Managed Feral Cat Colony, the Village
may notify the Approved Sponsor and provide an opportunity to
address the concern, unless immediate action is necessary.
(i) Penalty.
Any person violating this section shall be subject to the
penalties provided in this Chapter or the general penalty
provisions of the Village Code. Each day a violation continues
may constitute a separate offense.
(j) No limitation on other authority.
Nothing in this section shall limit the Village’s authority
under any other provision of the Village Code, including
provisions relating to nuisance, sanitation, property
maintenance, animals at large, animal waste, dangerous animals,
impoundment, or public health.

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, “ANIMALS,” OF THE VILLAGE
CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING MANAGED FERAL
CAT COLONIES AND ANIMAL NUISANCE CONDITIONS
SECTION 2. Severability.
If any provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions.
SECTION 3. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect following
passage, approval, and publication as required by law.
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this day of 14th
of May 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote on this page:
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
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

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made this ___ day of May, 2026, by and
between the Village of Indian Head Park, Illinois (“Village”) and Triple R Pets, an Illinois notfor-profit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization (“Triple R Pets”).
A. Purpose of Agreement
Triple R Pets will lead and coordinate a trap-neuter-return (“TNR”) program in the Village for
the purpose of humanely and effectively stabilizing and gradually reducing the Village’s feral cat
population (the “TNR Program”).

T

The TNR Program shall be operated consistent with the Cook County Animal Control Ordinance
governing managed feral cat colonies.

AF

For purposes of this MOU, “feral cat” shall have the meaning set forth in the Cook County
Animal Control Ordinance.
Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to create an agency, employment, or contractual vendor
relationship between the Village and Triple R Pets. Triple R Pets shall operate independently and
shall not be deemed an agent of the Village.

D
R

B. Term

This MOU shall be effective from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2027. Either party may
terminate this MOU upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party.
C. Program Objective

The objective of the TNR Program is to create a collaborative effort designed to protect public
health, reduce shelter euthanasia, preserve shelter resources, and address feral and stray cat
overpopulation through managed TNR practices.
TNR involves the humane trapping of cats, sterilization, rabies vaccination, ear-tipping for
identification, and microchipping, followed by return to the original location or appropriate
placement.
The goal of the TNR Program is to stabilize and gradually reduce the feral cat population within
the Village through attrition over time.

D. Program Overview
Village residents may participate in the TNR Program by contacting the Village or Triple R Pets
directly.
The Village may refer resident inquiries to Triple R Pets and may request assistance regarding
cats located on public property.
Triple R Pets shall coordinate TNR activities and serve as a sponsor organization consistent with
the Cook County Animal Control Ordinance.

The following protocol shall be used:

T

E. Program Protocol

D
R

AF

1. Residents or caretakers contact Triple R Pets directly or through the Village.
2. Triple R Pets provides information regarding program procedures, expectations, and
timing.
3. Triple R Pets coordinates training, trapping, and veterinary services.
4. Triple R Pets shall maintain records for managed colonies consistent with applicable law.
5. All cats entering the program shall be processed consistent with the Cook County Animal
Control Ordinance.
6. Triple R Pets shall monitor ongoing colony conditions and address operational issues as
they arise.
7. Triple R Pets shall collect data regarding TNR activity and outcomes.

F. Funding

For purposes of this MOU, a “TNR Package” means the trapping, sterilization, vaccination, eartipping, and return or placement of a single feral or stray cat.
Triple R Pets may request a voluntary donation of $40.00 per TNR Package completed. Nothing
herein shall obligate the Village to make such payments unless separately approved by the
Village.
Triple R Pets reserves the right to decline services where participants do not agree to caretaker
requirements established by Triple R Pets.
G. Reporting
Upon reasonable request, Triple R Pets shall provide summary reporting to the Village regarding
TNR activity, including:

● date and type of services performed;
● general description of cats processed;
● disposition of cats (returned, adopted, etc.).
Triple R Pets may withhold exact colony locations to protect caretaker privacy, except as
reasonably necessary to address public health, safety, or nuisance concerns in coordination with
the Village.
H. Training and Consultation
Triple R Pets shall provide training and educational resources for Village residents interested in
serving as colony caretakers.

AF

I. Veterinary Services

T

Triple R Pets shall provide guidance regarding best practices for colony management, including
feeding, shelter, sanitation, and community relations.

Triple R Pets shall be responsible for arranging veterinary services and payment to participating
veterinarians.
J. Colony Management and Maintenance

D
R

Triple R Pets and its trained volunteers may provide or coordinate long-term management of
feral cat colonies, provided such activities are conducted consistent with:
● this MOU;
● applicable law, including the Cook County Animal Control Ordinance; and
● applicable caretaker requirements established by Triple R Pets.

K. Volunteers and Public Information

The Village may provide general information regarding the TNR Program on its website or
through Village communications and may refer residents to Triple R Pets.
L. Nuisance and Enforcement Coordination
Nothing in this MOU shall limit the Village’s authority to enforce its ordinances, including those
related to nuisance, sanitation, public health, or animal control.

In the event of a complaint regarding nuisance conditions associated with a managed colony, the
Village may notify Triple R Pets and provide an opportunity to address the concern, where
practical.
The Village retains the right to take enforcement action as necessary to protect public health,
safety, and welfare.
M. Insurance
Triple R Pets represents that it maintains appropriate insurance coverage for its operations and
volunteers.

T

N. Indemnification

D
R

O. Entire Agreement

AF

Each party (the “Indemnifying Party”) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other
party and its respective commissioners, officers, agents, servants, representatives, employees,
attorneys, consultants, and independent contractors (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”) from
and against any and all claims, damages, losses, costs, and expenses (including reasonable
attorneys’ fees) arising out of or resulting from the Indemnifying Party’s own acts or omissions,
negligence, or willful misconduct in connection with this MOU; provided, however, that neither
party shall be obligated to indemnify the other for losses arising from the Indemnified Party’s
own gross negligence or willful misconduct.

This MOU represents the understanding between the parties regarding the subject matter herein
and may be modified only in writing.
Signatures

______________________________
Judy L. Clark, President and Director
Triple R Pets

______________________________
Gavin W. Morgan, Administrator
Village of Indian head Park

______________________________
Date

______________________________
Date

To: Village President & Board of Trustees
From: Brandon Fleisher, Administrative Intern
Date: May 7, 2026
Subject: Ordinance 26-08 - Variance Recommendation
Recommended Motion: Approve Ordinance 2026-08: Variation To Allow For The Removal,
Reconstruction and Enlargement of a Detached Garage at 11315 Hiawatha Lane
Background
On May 5, 2026, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) held a public hearing for a
variance request at 11315 Hiawatha Lane. Petitioner Allan Watson requested the Removal,
Reconstruction and enlargement of the Detached Garage at the same location on the property.
The property is located in a R-1 Single Family Residential District which does not allow
construction of detached garages. Municipal Code Section 42-219(5) allows for the
reconstruction or enlargement of an existing detached garage on R-1 lots if said lots have a
total width of less than 70 feet as a Special Use. The Petitioner’s lot is 66 feet wide, so it
would qualify as long a hardship can be demonstrated and that the use is not detrimental to the
village as a whole or to adjacent properties.
NOTE: Although Section 42-219(5) identifies the reconstruction or enlargement of an
existing detached garage on a narrow R-1 lot as a special use, staff reviewed the
petition as a variance application. The Special Use provision is relevant to the intent of
the Code, but staff recommended it as a variance due to it being a permanent structure
and the hardship being based on the property characteristics. The variation would stay
with the property though multiple owners whereas a Special Use is non-transferrable
and would expire when the property is sold.
After reviewing the findings of fact and hearing from the petitioner, the PZC unanimously
recommended to the Board to approve the variation. The staff report presented to the PZC is
attached for the Board’s review.

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-08
VARIATION TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL, RECONSTRUCTION, AND
ENLARGEMENT OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 11315 HIAWATHA LANE
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park, Cook County, Illinois (the
“Village”) is a duly organized and existing municipality under the laws
of the State of Illinois and operating under the general authority
granted to non-home rule municipalities in the State of Illinois pursuant
to the Illinois Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Allan Watson (the “Applicant”) is the owner of the property
commonly known as 11315 Hiawatha Lane, Indian Head Park, Illinois, PIN
18-19-201-010-0000, legally described in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto and
made part hereof (the “Subject Property”), which is located in the R-1
Single-Family Residence District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested approval of a variation to allow for
the demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a new
detached garage in substantially the same location, with larger
dimensions, while maintaining the existing setback relationship shown
on the submitted survey; and
WHEREAS, the Village provided all required notices, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 5, 2026 to consider the
requested variation, at which interested persons had the opportunity to
be heard; and
WHEREAS, after considering the application, staff analysis, findings of
fact, public hearing record, and applicable standards for variations
under the Village Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that
the narrow lot width, existing site configuration, and long-standing
detached garage create property-specific circumstances supporting the
requested variation, and voted unanimously, 6-0, to recommend approval
of the requested variation; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees have reviewed the requested
variation, the staff analysis, the findings of fact, the record of the
public hearing, and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and find that approval of the variation is consistent with
the applicable standards of the Village Code and in the best interests
of the Village.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Grant of Variation.
A Variation is hereby granted to Allan Watson for the property
commonly referred to as 11315 Hiawatha Lane allowing for removal
and reconstruction of a detached garage, subject to the conditions
set forth herein.

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-08
VARIATION TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL, RECONSTRUCTION, AND
ENLARGEMENT OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 11315 HIAWATHA LANE
Section 2. Findings of Fact.
The corporate authorities
findings of fact:

of

the

Village

make

the

following

1. The proposed variation allowing for the reconstruction of
a garage is so designed, located and proposed to be
operated that the public health, safety and welfare will
be protected.
2. The variation allowing for the reconstruction will not
cause substantial injury to the value of other property in
the neighborhood in which the Subject Property is located.
3. The Subject Property is residential property and,
therefore, the standard that the property in question
cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used
only under the conditions allowed by the regulations
governing the district in which it is located is not
applicable to the Subject Property;
4. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances in
that the required lot size in the R-1 Single Family Zoning
District shall have to request a variance for any garage
constructed after 1984. The current garage in question was
constructed in 1975 prior to current ownership. This
circumstance leads to a unique circumstance as the garage
in question requires a variance.
5. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality because the proposed structure
will be in conformity with the single-family residence
character of the locality.
6. The
particular
physical
surroundings,
shape
or
topographical conditions of the specific property involved
would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict
letter of the regulation were to be carried out;
7. The conditions upon which the petition for variation is
based would not be applicable generally to other property
within the neighborhood that the Subject property is
located.
Each property within the neighborhood has its
own set of circumstances.

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-08
VARIATION TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL, RECONSTRUCTION, AND
ENLARGEMENT OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 11315 HIAWATHA LANE
8. The purpose of the variation and special use are not based
exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the Subject
Property. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been
created by any person presently having an interest in the
Subject Property;
9. The granting of the variations will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the Subject
Property is located; and
10. The proposed variations 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; therefore,
11. There are practical difficulties or a particular
hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of
the Indian Head Park Zoning Ordinance relating to the use,
construction, or alteration of buildings or structures or
the use of land.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval of the Amendment
The amendment to the planned development authorized by this
ordinance is conditioned upon and subject to the fulfillment of
the following terms and conditions;
A.

Except as modified by the variance granted, the
addition shall be constructed in compliance with all other
provisions of the Indian Head Park Zoning Ordinance, all
setback and area requirements of the R-1 Single Family
Residence District

B. The petitioner shall apply for and be issued a building
permit by the Indian Head Park Building Department and
agrees to pay all fees associated with the cost of
obtaining such permit.
C.

The failure to meet the conditions set forth this in
ordinance shall, in addition to the other requirements of
this ordinance, be a violation of this ordinance punishable
by a fine not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and
not exceeding seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00).

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-08
VARIATION TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL, RECONSTRUCTION, AND
ENLARGEMENT OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 11315 HIAWATHA LANE
Section 4. Severability
If any section of this ordinance is held invalid, that invalidity
does not affect other provisions.
Section 5. Effective Date
This resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately
upon its passage and approval.
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this day of 14th
of May 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote on this page:
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
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: Chairman Greg Scovitch; Planning and Zoning Commission Members
From: Brandon Fleisher, Administrative Intern
Date: April 29, 2026
Subject: 11315 Hiawatha Lane Variance Request
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested variance for
reconstruction of the existing detached garage at 11315 Hiawatha Lane, subject to conditions.
Due to the narrow lot width, pre-existing configuration of the garage, staff finds the request is
reasonable. The findings of the analysis explain the variation will not adversely affect the
character of the locality so long as the approval is consistent with the section 42-219, 42-224 of
the code.
Recommendation: Demolition and reconstruction of garage on the land, as substantially similar
to the application as possible.
BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2026, Petitioner Allan Watson applied for a variation to allow for the demolition
of an existing detached garage and the construction of a new detached garage in the same
location with larger dimensions while maintaining the existing setback relationship shown on the
survey. The initial garage was built in 1975. Also included in the application was a demolition
permit. The property, 11315 Hiawatha Lane is in a R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
Applicable Information Included:
Lot Width: 66 ft
Current Garage Dimensions:18.35x31.95 ft
Proposed Garage Dimensions: 30x40 ft
Location of Proposed Garage: Rear lot, 17.25 ft behind principal building (Full picture
available in Attachment E)
PIN NUMBER: 18-19-201-010-0000

RELEVANT CODE
Municipal Code Section 42-219. - Special uses.
(5) Reconstruction or enlargement of an existing detached garage on R-1 lots on which a
residence already exists, said lots having a total width of less than 70 feet at any point at the
buildable area, may be permitted provided that a hardship can be demonstrated and that the use is
not detrimental to the village as a whole or to adjacent properties.
(6)e.Unattached private garages constructed after May 14, 1984, must be in the buildable area of
the lot unless granted a variance by the board;
Municipal Code Section 42-224. - Building width.
No building shall be of greater width than 75 percent of the lot width at the building setback

lines, but not less than a total of 25 feet of combined side setback space allowance.
ANALYSIS
In the R-1 Single-Family Residence District, private garages are permitted when attached to or
structurally part of the principal building; however, detached or unattached structures may be
permitted through the Village’s special-use and variance provisions. Since the existing garage on
the subject property was constructed in 1975; it predates the May 14, 1984 threshold referenced
in Section 42-219(6)e. Staff has determined that it meets the requirements as Section 42-219(6e)
to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOTE
Although Section 42-219(5) identifies the reconstruction or enlargement of an existing detached
garage on a narrow R-1 lot as a special use, staff has reviewed this petition as a variance
application based on the nature of the request and the prior treatment of similar detached-garage
cases. The special-use provision is relevant background to the Commission’s review, but staff
recommends consideration of the present request as a variance

The subject lot is approximately 66 feet in width. Under Section 42-224, the maximum permitted
building width is 75 percent of the lot width at the building setback lines, which equals 49.5 feet
on a 66-foot-wide lot. The proposed 40-foot width is therefore within that limit.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The petitioner submitted a written statement addressing the variation standards in Section
42-107. Based on the petition, supporting plans, and staff review of the property and applicable
code, staff finds that the relevant standards are met as follows:
1. As to commercial properties, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if
permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district
in which it is located. - Sec. 42-107(e)(1)(a)
a. Petitioner: The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by the current zoning regulations. Due to the lots
existing dimensions and the placement of the residence, compliance with current setback
requirements would make it impossible to construct a functional garage of adequate size
for vehicle storage Without the requested variance, the property lacks suitable off.street
parking and secure storage, diminishing its functionality The hardship is not self-created,
as a garage location predates current zoning standards.
b. Staff agrees.
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. - Sec. 42-107(e)(1}(b)
a. Petitioner: The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances of the property,
specifically its narrow lot width. The positioning of the residence lot line that limits
alternative garage placement. Without the requested variance, adequate vehicle storage
and property functionality cannot be maintained. 3. The variation, if granted, will not

alter the essential character of the locality. - Sec. 42-107(e)(1)(c)
b. Staff agrees, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances, including the
narrow lot width and existing garage configuration.
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
a. Petitioner: The proposed garage will occupy the same location as the existing structure,
maintaining the established property layout and driveway access. The design and exterior
finishes will be compatible with neighboring properties and the residential character of
the property. The structure will be used as a private garage and storage area, no adverse
effects to surrounding properties are anticipated.
b. Staff agrees, the requested variation will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
4. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific
property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out.• Sec. 42-107(e}(2)(al)
a. Petitioner: The particular physical surroundings, shape, and existing layout of the
property create hardship distinct from a mere inconvenience if standard strict zoning
regulations were applied. The narrow width, combined with the placement of the
residence leaves no viable location for a garage that complies with standard strict zoning
ordinance.
b. Staff agrees, the physical conditions of the property create a practical difficulty
beyond mere inconvenience.
5. The conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable
generally to other property within the same zoning classifications. -Sec. 42-107(e}(2)(b)
a. Petitioner: The conditions upon which this petition for variation is based are not generally
applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. The lots narrow
width, the placement of the residence, and established driveway location create
limitations unique to this parcel. These constraints predate the current zoning ordinance
and do not exist for most other properties in the district, which can typically
accommodate a conforming garage without variance.
b. Staff agrees, the conditions supporting the request are not generally applicable to
other similarly zoned properties.
6. The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the
property. - Sec. 42- 107(e)(2)(c)
a. Petitioner: The purpose of this variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make
money out of the property. The proposed garage reconstruction is intended to replace an
aging structure that no longer serves its intended function, while maintaining safe and
adequate off-street parking and storage for the residence. The request is based on unique
property constraints and the need for practical use, not for speculative financial gain.
b. Staff agrees, no fiscal income/benefit from the garage.

7. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property. - Sec. 42-107(e){2)(d)
a. Petitioner: The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently
in the property. The lot's configuration. residence placement, and existing garage location
predate current ownership and zoning regulations. These conditions are inherent to the
parcel and not the result of any actions by the current owner.
b. Staff agrees, the alleged hardship was not created by the current owner.
8. 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. - Sec.
42-107(e)(2)(e)
a. Petitioner: The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is
located. The proposed garage will replace the existing structure in the same location,
maintaining the established layout and use of the property. Its design and materials will
be compatible with neighboring residences. No adverse impacts on light, air, traffic, noise
or neighboring property enjoyment will result.
b. Staff agrees, the requested variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to neighboring property.
9. 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. - Sec. 42-107(e)(2)(e).
a. Petitioner: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, will not substantially increase the danger of fire, and will not otherwise
endanger the public safety. The structure will be built in the same location that wouldn't
affect sunlight or ventilation to neighboring properties. All construction will comply with
current building codes, utilizing fire resistant materials where required. The improved
appearance and functionality of the garage will help maintain, and potentially enhance
property values within the neighborhood.
b. Staff agrees, the proposed garage will not materially impair light, air, safety, or
neighborhood property values.
CONCLUSION
Based on those materials and the findings of fact, staff finds that the narrow lot width, existing
site configuration, and the long-standing detached garage create property-specific circumstances
supporting the requested variance. Staff further finds that the proposed reconstruction will not
adversely affect the character of the locality, nor affect nearby neighborhoods.

ATTACHMENTS ENCLOSED
A. Picture Of Parcel - Location In Relation To Village
B. Overhead Ariel View
C. Street View (House)
D. Street View (Garage)
E. Variance Application
F. Consent To Install Public Notice Sign (Property Owner)
G. Public Notice
H. Affidavit Of Publishing Of Notice
I. Property Owners Within 250 Feet
J. Public Notice Sign Picture

ATTACHMENT A: PICTURE OF PARCEL - LOCATION IN RELATION TO VILLAGE

ATTACHMENT B: PICTURE OF PARCEL - OVERHEAD AERIAL VIEW

ATTACHMENT C: PICTURE OF PARCEL - STREET VIEW (HOUSE)

ATTACHMENT D: PICTURE OF PARCEL - STREET VIEW (GARAGE)

ATTACHMENT E: VARIANCE APPLICATION

ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC NOTICE CONSENT FORM

ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK, ILLINOIS
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the Village of Indian Head Park, Cook County, Illinois, on Tuesday, May 5,
2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Village boardroom, 201 Acacia Drive, Indian Head Park, Illinois 60525,
to consider an application filed by Allan Watson, owner of the property commonly known as
11315 Hiawatha Lane, Indian Head Park, Illinois, PIN 18-19-201-010-0000. The property is
further described as:
LOT 10 IN GEAR’S SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ (EXCEPT THE SOUTH 20
ACRES) OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
The applicant requests approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing detached garage on the
subject property, which is located in the R-1 Single-Family Residence District. The existing
detached garage was constructed prior to current zoning requirements, and the proposed
replacement garage would remain detached and would increase in size from the existing
structure.
Notice is further given, that all persons present at said hearing and desiring to be heard for or
against the requested variance/special use and or to ask questions shall be given such
opportunity. For questions about the notice please contact Andrez Betltran, Assistant to The
Village Administrator at (708) 246-3080.
Dated: April 16, 2026
Andrez Beltran
Assistant to The Village Administrator

ATTACHMENT H: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLISHING OF NOTICE

Sold To:
Village of Indian Head Park - 121984
201 Acacia Drive
Indian Head Park, IL 60525-9093
Bill To:
Village of Indian Head Park - 121984
201 Acacia Drive
Indian Head Park, IL 60525-9093

Certificate of Publication:
Order Number: 62767
Purchase Order: Variance Letter 11315 Hiawatha
State of Illinois - Cook
Chicago Tribune Media Group does hereby certify that it is the publisher of the Daily Southtown Classified. The Daily Southtown
Classified is a secular newspaper, has been continuously published Daily for more than fifty (50) weeks prior to the first publication of
the attached notice, is published in the City of Park Forest, Township of Rich, State of Illinois, is of general circulation throughout that
county and surrounding area, and is a newspaper as defined by 715 IL CS 5/5.
This is to certify that a notice, a true copy of which is attached, was published 1 time(s) in the Daily Southtown Classified. The first
publication of the notice was made in the newspaper, dated and published on 4/21/2026, and the last publication of the notice was
made in the newspaper dated and published on 4/21/2026.
This notice was also placed on a statewide public notice website as required by 715 ILCS 5/2. 1.
PUBLICATION DATES: 21 Apr 2026.

Daily Southtown Classified
In witness, an authorized agent of The Chicago Tribune Media Group has signed this certificate executed in Chicago, Illinois on this
22 Apr 2026, by

Chicago Tribune Company

____

_________________
Jeremy Gates

Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENT I: PROPERTIES WITHIN 250 FEET
PIN14
18-19-210-006-0000
18-19-201-037-0000
18-19-201-034-0000
18-19-201-012-0000
18-19-210-007-0000
18-19-201-014-0000
18-19-201-013-0000
18-19-201-009-0000
18-19-201-031-0000
18-19-201-030-0000
18-19-210-005-0000
18-19-201-033-0000
18-19-201-006-0000
18-19-201-035-0000
18-19-201-032-0000
18-19-201-011-0000
18-19-201-008-0000
18-18-401-015-0000
18-18-401-019-0000
18-18-401-018-0000
18-18-401-013-0000
18-18-401-020-0000
18-19-201-007-0000
18-18-401-025-0000
18-18-401-012-0000
18-18-401-017-0000
18-18-401-016-0000
18-18-401-014-0000

Street Address
6466 APACHE DR
6403 ARROWHEAD CT
6465 APACHE DR
11245 63RD ST
6458 APACHE DR
11225 HIAWATHA LN
11235 HIAWATHA LN
11323 HIAWATHA LN
6485 APACHE DR
6493 APACHE DR
6472 APACHE DR
6469 APACHE DR
11339 HIAWATHA LN
6453 APACHE DR
6477 APACHE DR
11305 63RD ST
11327 63RD ST
11312 HIAWATHA LN
11232 HIAWATHA LN
11240 HIAWATHA LN
11328 HIAWATHA LN
11226 HIAWATHA LN
11333 HIAWATHA LN
11340 HIAWATHA LN
11334 HIAWATHA LN
11246 HIAWATHA LN
11304 HIAWATHA LN
11320 HIAWATHA LN

City State Zip
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525
INDIAN HEAD PARK, IL 60525

ATTACHMENT J: PHOTO OF PUBLIC NOTICE SIGN

To:​
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From:​ Gavin Morgan, Village Administrator
Date:​ May 8, 2026
Subject:​ Revised Fence Code Amendments
Based on the discussion and direction provided at the previous Village Board meeting,
staff has prepared an updated version of the proposed Fence Code amendments for
Board consideration.
Major features of the proposed amendments include:
●​ Clarification of where fences may be permitted by right.
●​ Updated standards for fences allowed in front, side, and rear yards along major
roads and properties adjoining non-residential districts.
●​ Revised regulations governing allowable fence height, materials, and opacity.
●​ Updated provisions addressing decorative, privacy, and security fencing.
●​ Additional guidance regarding corner lots, visibility triangles, and public safety
considerations.
●​ Improved definitions and administrative language intended to reduce ambiguity
and streamline enforcement.
●​ Updated permit and compliance procedures to provide clearer expectations for
residents and contractors.
●​ Provisions intended to preserve neighborhood character while balancing privacy,
safety, and property maintenance concerns.
The proposed revisions reflect feedback received from the Village Board and are
intended to provide a clearer and more predictable regulatory framework for residents,
property owners, and staff.
The ordinance is attached for review and discussion.

Sec. 42-14. Fences.
The purpose of this section is to establish regulations of fences in order to promote public safety, protect
property values, and preserve the visual character of neighborhoods and districts.
(1)

Fences Permitted in Residential Zones
a.

In residential zones, fences may be permitted only on residential properties located along major
roadways and arterial streets as defined in Section 42-14(5), and subject to the regulations
established in this Section.

b.

General Requirements for All Residential Fences.
i.

Fences shall be an “open” design constructed of a black, wrought-iron or aluminum
material or other corrosion-resistant material approved by the Village Administrator.

ii.

Vertical fencing slats shall be sufficiently close, no more than 4 inches of clearance
between slats, to prevent a child from passing through.

iii.

Fences shall be flat topped; shall not have spikes or pointed ends on the top of the fence or
finials; and shall not have barbed or razor wire attached.

iv.

Fences shall be located entirely on private property, and setback a minimum of 3 feet from
the public right-of-way;

v.

Fences between abutting properties may be permitted along the adjoining property line
with the signed authorization of all impacted property owners or set back a minimum of 2
feet from the property line.

vi.

All property lines and easements must be determined by a licensed land surveyor on a site
plan submitted to the Village Administrator. Site plans shall include dimensions between
buildings and property lines.

vii.

Fences, gates, posts, decorative columns, pilasters, or landscaping shall not:

viii.

1.

block access to sidewalks, parkways, hydrants, manholes, utilities, or stormwater
structures;

2.

be attached to or constructed over utility structures;

3.

compromise drainage facilities, detention areas, or swales; or

4.

exceed 3 feet in height within the visibility triangle.

Gate Requirements
1.

Gates shall not swing outward into the sidewalk or right-of-way.

2.

Pedestrian gates must provide a minimum 36 inch clear opening.

ix.

x.

xi.

xii.

3.

Vehicle gates must be set back 10 feet behind the public right-of-way to prevent
vehicles from stopping in the roadway.

4.

Gates must be maintained in operable condition; self-closing/latching required for
safety.

5.

Gates shall not impede emergency access.

Rear Yard Fences
1.

Fences shall be a maximum height of five (5) feet measured from grade level. If in the
visibility triangle, fences shall be a maximum of three (3) feet in height.

2.

Must be attached to the primary dwelling, starting at the rear plane of the structure. If
a fence is allowed in the side yard, may connect to the side yard fence instead.

Front Yard Fences
1.

Shall be a maximum of four (4) feet in height. If in the visibility triangle, fences shall be
a maximum of three (3) feet in height.

2.

Must be attached to the primary dwelling, starting at the front plane of the structure.
If a fence is allowed in the side yard, may connect to the side yard fence instead.

Side Yard Fences
1.

Shall be a maximum of four (4) feet in height. If in the visibility triangle, fences shall be
a maximum of three (3) feet in height.

2.

Must be attached to the primary dwelling, starting at either the front or rear plane of
the structure, depending which is closer to the major roadway or arterial street as
defined in Section 42-14(5). If a fence is allowed in the either the front or rear yard,
that side may connect to that fence instead.

Fences adjoining non-residential zoning districts
1.

Fences along the property lines adjoining a non-residential zoning district shall be a
maximum of six (6) feet in height.

2.

May be constructed of “open”, black, wrought iron fencing as established in Section
42-14(1)(b), or “closed”, solid wood privacy fencing materials.

3.

Solid wood fencing shall be installed with the finished side of the fence facing outward
from the property on which it is installed. The wood may be painted in one neutral
color, or one color matching the primary residence.

4.

Fences adjoining non-residential districts shall require a Special Use Permit.
Alternate 4.
Fences along the property lines adjoining a non-residential zoning district (or
separated only by a street or public highway right-of-way from) are permitted
in the following cases:
1.

The fence is constructed only along and within five feet of the boundary of said lot
which is adjacent to (or separated only by a street or public right-of-way
from) the lot or parcel designated and zoned under a non-residential designation.

2.

The fence is no more than eight (8) feet in height

3.

The fence is constructed of “open style”, black, wrought iron fencing as
established in Section 42-14(1)(b), or “closed style”, solid wood privacy fencing
materials. Only one style may be used for the entire length.

(2)

(3)

4.

Solid wood fencing must be constructed only of weather-resistant wood, including
cedar, redwood or treated lumber or similar low maintenance synthetic material.

5.

Solid wood fencing shall be installed with the finished side of the fence facing
outward from the property on which it is installed with all fence posts and all
supports facing the interior of the property on which it is located.

6.

Solid wood fencing may be painted in one neutral color, or one color
matching the primary residence.

xiii.

Existing decorative (split-rail) fences may remain only if properly maintained. The fencing
may be sealed or stained in a natural color, not painted and must be removed when the
property is sold.

xiv.

Swimming pool safety fence requirements shall remain in effect.

xv.

The village administrator will record notice of affected properties with the Cook County
Recorder of Deeds.

Permit Required
a.

Fences and gates proposed under this section require a site plan submitted to the Village
Administrator for administrative approval and may require review by the Village Engineer.

b.

Fences required as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability, may be permitted
in accordance with the American Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12202 et seq., and the Fair Housing
Amendments Act, 42 USC 3601 et seq., subject to a reasonable accommodation permit and the
requirements established in Section 42-14(1) of the Village Municipal Code.

c.

Fences requested in conjunction with a non-residential land use or adjoining a non-residential
zoning district will require a Special Use Permit.

Minor Deviations
In cases where lot standard nonconformities, or unique lot dimensions or topography exist, which
prevent the property owner from installing a fence in compliance with the regulations established
herein, the Village Administrator may allow up to a 10% deviation from these regulations. In such
cases, the following shall apply:

(4)

a.

The Village Administrator must inform the adjacent property owners and the Planning and
Zoning Commission in writing.

b.

The Administrator’s decision may be appealed pursuant to Section 42-106 of the Village
Municipal Code.

c.

Any deviation requested exceeding 10%, is subject to a Variation Permit.

Civil Fines and Citations
a.

Non-compliance with fence regulations may result in civil fines of up to $500 per day.

b.

Owners are responsible for repair or removal of non-compliant or unsafe fences.

c.

If the Village removes a fence due to non-compliance or emergency access, all costs shall be
billed to the owner.

d.

Fences exhibiting more than 50% deterioration shall be repaired or replaced within 30 days of
notice.

(5)

Definitions.

Access Easement. A legal, non-possessory right allowing a person or entity to cross another person’s land
for ingress and egress, typically to reach a public road or specific location. It is a permanent, written
agreement, often necessary for landlocked properties, that runs with the land, benefiting the holder
regardless of ownership.
Corner Lot. A lot abutting two intersecting streets, where one yard is considered the “front yard” and the
other the “corner side yard.”
Drainage Easement. An easement reserved for stormwater conveyance, detention, overland flow, or
drainage facilities, including swales, ditches, inlets, outlets, and storm sewer structures.
Fence. A freestanding, man-made barrier or enclosure that is erected for the purpose of screening,
securing, enclosing, or defining the boundaries of a property or portion thereof.
Flankage Yard. The side yard of a corner lot that directly faces a major roadway or arterial street.
Major Roadway/Arterial Street. A street designated by the Village Board as a major or arterial roadway
due to traffic volume, speed, or regional connectivity. This includes, but is not limited to: Wolf Road,
Plainfield Road, Willow Springs Road, Joliet Road, and 68th Place.
Swale. A shallow, sloped drainage channel designed to convey stormwater across or between properties.
Utility Easement. An easement reserved for the installation, operation, maintenance, and access of
utilities including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electric, gas, and communications.
Visibility Triangle. A triangular area at street intersections or driveway entrances where height limitations
apply to ensure safe sightlines. The triangle is determined by a diagonal line connecting two points measured
25 feet from the intersection of the projected rights-of-way lines, or 10 feet from driveways.

To:
President Wittenberg and the Board of Trustees
From:
Gavin Morgan, VIllage Administrator
Date:
May 8, 2026
Subject: Amendments to the Village Code Regarding Vehicle Licenses
Recommended Motion: Move to approve Ordinance 2026-09 amending Chapter 36,
Article VII, Division 2 of the Village Code regarding vehicle licenses
Staff and legal counsel have reviewed the Village’s current vehicle sticker ordinance
following questions regarding the applicability of the vehicle tax to certain vehicles
registered to Village addresses and business entities.
The proposed ordinance amendments are intended to clarify which vehicles are
required to obtain Village vehicle stickers, ensure consistency with the Village’s
statutory authority under the Illinois Municipal Code, and improve administration and
enforcement of the vehicle sticker program.
Major features of the proposed amendments include:
● Clarification that vehicles registered with the Illinois Secretary of State to a
Village resident or to a business entity with its principal place of business in the
Village are required to obtain a Village vehicle sticker.
● Updated language intended to simplify administration and reduce ambiguity.
● Revisions intended to align the ordinance more closely with the Village’s
authority under the Illinois Municipal Code.
● Additional language clarifying the authorized uses of vehicle sticker revenues,
including roadway maintenance, traffic-related public safety functions, and
administrative costs associated with the program.
The proposed revisions are intended to provide clearer guidance to residents,
businesses, staff, and adjudication personnel regarding the scope and application of
the Village’s vehicle sticker requirements.
The ordinance is attached for review and discussion.

ORDINANCE 2026-09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36, ARTICLE VII, DIVISION 2 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING
VEHICLE LICENSES
WHEREAS, the Village of Indian Head Park is a non-home rule
municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Illinois; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 8-11-4 and 11-4-1 of the
Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/8-11-4 and 65 ILCS 5/11-4-1,
municipalities are authorized to impose vehicle license taxes
upon residents and business entities having their principal
place of business within the municipality; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees have
determined that the Village’s existing vehicle license ordinance
should be clarified to more clearly identify the vehicles
subject to the Village vehicle license requirement and to ensure
consistency with Illinois law; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees further find
that it is in the best interests of the Village to clarify the
authorized uses of vehicle license fee revenues collected by the
Village;
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 of Section 36-179.
Section 36-179 of the Village Code is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
Sec. 36-179. Vehicle license required.
The owner of any motor vehicle or motor bicycle that is
registered or required to be registered with the Illinois
Secretary of State shall annually obtain and display a Village
vehicle license for each such motor vehicle or motor bicycle and
shall pay the fee required by Section 36-181(a), if:
1. The owner resides within the Village; or

ORDINANCE 2026-09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36, ARTICLE VII, DIVISION 2 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING
VEHICLE LICENSES
2. The owner is a business entity having its principal place
of business within the Village.
This section shall not apply to any commercial motor vehicle, as
defined in Section 18b-101 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, that is
registered pursuant to Section 3-402.1 of the Illinois Vehicle
Code.
SECTION 2. Amendment of Section 36-181.
Section 36-181 of the Village Code is hereby amended by adding
subsection (c), which shall read as follows:
Sec. 36-181(c). Use of proceeds.
The proceeds of the fees collected pursuant to this Section
shall be used for:
1. Improving, paving, repairing, or maintaining streets and
other public roadways within the Village; provided,
however, that the actual costs of collecting and
administering such fees may be deducted from the total
amount collected;
2. Payment of the salaries and wages of police officers
engaged in the regulation of traffic, in an amount not to
exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the total fees
collected; and
3. Any other purpose authorized by applicable law.
SECTION 3. Severability.
If any provision, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of
this Ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect,
impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this Ordinance,
which remainder shall continue in full force and effect.

ORDINANCE 2026-09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36, ARTICLE VII, DIVISION 2 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN HEAD PARK REGARDING
VEHICLE LICENSES
SECTION 4. Repealer.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this
Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form as provided
by law.
ADOPTED by the President and Board of Trustees on this day of 14th
of May 2026 pursuant to a roll call vote on this page:
Name
Trustee Iannacco
Trustee Saldana
Trustee Eck
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

Indian Head Park Police Department
Monthly Report
April 2026
Activity
Calls for Service
Officer Initiated Activity
Traffic Stops
Citations Issued - Bridgeview

April-25 April-26
549
482
327
336
149
211
17
64

Traffic Crashes
Parking/Compliance Tickets
Vehicle License Violations
Arrests

7
88
18
0

FOIA Requests

5
69
400
3

Requests
6

Change
Y-T-D 2026
-12.2%
2.8%
41.6%
276.5%
-28.6%
-21.6%
2122.2%
300.0%

Fulfilled
6

Overtime Hours
Shift Coverage
Court
Task Force
Investigations
Grant Hours
Training Hours

16
16
3
0
18
26

Total Training Hours

124

Significant Activity
In April, Officer Majewski attended the Illinois Police Accreditation
Coalition (I-PAC) conference, in St. Charles, where he attained
certification as an accreditation manager. Having a certified accreditation
manager is the first step to attaining accreditation.

Hours
4