Skip to main content

July 17, 2001

1. Call to Order

Mayor Brian Krajewski called the regular meeting of the Village Council of the Village of Downers Grove to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Downers Grove Village Hall.

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

Mayor Krajewski led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Mayor Krajewski said he would like to remind everyone present that the Council meeting is broadcast over the local FM radio station, WDGC . In addition, a tape recording and videotape of the meeting are being made using Village owned equipment. The videotape of the meeting will be used for later rebroadcast of the Council meeting over the Village cable television Channel 6.

The Council will follow the rules of conduct for this meeting as provided in Sec. 2.5 of the Downers Grove Municipal Code. These offer the public the opportunity to comment at several points in the meeting. First, immediately following approval of the minutes of the past meetings, an opportunity will be given for public comments and questions on the active agenda items for this evening’s meeting. Following this, an opportunity is given for public comments and questions on any subject. Finally, if a public hearing is scheduled for this meeting, an opportunity is given for public comments and questions related to the subject of the hearing.

The Mayor stated that at the appropriate time the presiding officers will ask if there are any comments from the public. If anyone wishes to speak, the individual should raise their hand to be recognized and, after acknowledgment from the presiding officer, approach the microphone and state their name and address. He stated that remarks be limited to five minutes, and asked that individuals refrain from making repetitive statements.

The Mayor said there are agendas located on either side of the Council Chambers, and he invited the audience to pick up an agenda and follow the progress of the Council meeting.

2. Roll Call

Present: Commissioner Michael Gilbert, Commissioner Marilyn Schnell, Commissioner Martin Tully, Commissioner Mark Zabloudil and Mayor Brian Krajewski Absent: Commissioner Thomas Sisul Non Voting: Village Clerk April Holden, Village Manager Riccardo Ginex and Village Manager Riccardo Ginex

3. Minutes of Workshop and Council Meetings

Executive Session for Approval Only – June 19, 2001 Council Meeting – July 3, 2001 Workshop Meeting – July 10, 2001 Commissioner McConnell asked that on the July 3 minutes under Committee Reports the words “will become part of the Committee’s responsibilities” be added at the end. There being no other additions or corrections to the minutes, Mayor Krajewski said they would be filed as corrected. Special Presentation – Heritage Festival Photo Contest Award Recipients and 4th of July Parade Awards

Manager Ginex read the winners for the Heritage Festival photo contest, and the 4th of July parade float awards. The Mayor and Commissioner Gilbert presented the winners with a ribbon and certificate. The Mayor thanked the Community Events staff for their work in reviewing the entrees, and thanked the people who participated.

The Heritage Festival Photo contest winners are:

1st Place and Honorable Mention – Bruce Chlevin 2nd Place and Honorable Mention – Earl Kubis 3rd Place – Mike Seibert 4th Place – Elizabeth Kubis Honorable Mention – Brian Schuering, Mary Anderson, Lucy Spiker

The 4th of July Parade winners are:

  • Chamber of Commerce Award for Outstanding Business Entry – Good Samaritan Hospital
  • Council Award for the Best Entry Celebrating the Nation’s Birthday – Knights of Columbus, St. John Council #3738
  • Youth Award for the Best Entry from a Youth Organization – Downers Grove Roadrunners Soccer Club
  • Community Spirit Award for the Best Entry Depicting Neighborliness and Enthuiasm – Downers Grove Jr. Woman’s Club
  • Mayor’s Award – Special Recognition – West Suburban Humane Society
  • C.J. Shoemaker Award for the Best Musical Presentation – Proviso East Marching Band
  • American Legion/Heritage Award for the Best Patriotic Entry – Maple Hill Recreation Corp.

4. Public Comments and Questions

A. Comments and Questions on Active Agenda

1. Marc Patno, 4517 Belmont, commented on the Park District Recreation Center proposed for Belmont Avenue. He noted that there would be many other presentations made and he would review some of the issues raised about this proposal such as property values, traffic congestion, unreliable studies, etc. He stated that his understanding of Mr. Blondin’s opinion is that it must be shown that this site is more injurious at this location than in other areas where a special use is allowed. Mr. Patno said the Council should be looking for what is unique about the site. He feels the proposed recreation center is more injurious at this location because Belmont Road is the only controlled state road in the Village running through a residential district. He is unaware of another residential road in Downers Grove that would require a resident to yield, and then cross three lanes of traffic to make a left turn into their own driveway. He said where else except Belmont Road would there be such a massive reconstruction of driveways. Mr. Patno said another factor is the golf course. There is only one in the Village and there are only a handful of homes that enjoy the beauty and view of that golf course, and they are on Belmont Road. Belmont is also unique, according to Mr. Patno, because the Park District’s meeting records state that this is the only site available, and there is no other land available. He said many do not agree with that statement. It is just that the Park District does not own any other property. Mr. Patno said the words of the Park District have made the Belmont site unique. Mr. Patno thanked the Council members who took the time to come out to visit the site and the neighbors.

2. Rita Martin, 4942 Montgomery, addressed the issue of the Park District project, expanding her comments made at another meeting. She commented on the issue of the stormsewers and the drainage from the proposed facility. She then reviewed the path of drainage for stormwater from Belmont Road as she said the Village Engineer described it at the Council’s Workshop meeting, including the capacity for the proposed detention pond and existing ponds in the stormwater pathway. Ms. Martin said there should be some concerns by the Park District and the Village Council for Gilbert Park as the water eventually drains to that area. She said there doesn’t appear to be any cleansing efforts provided in the Park District’s project for the water. Ms. Martin said there is a Clean Streams program taking place in the Village, and she believes more attention needs to be paid to what is going into those streams. She believes more questions must be asked before the Council continues with these proceedings.

The Mayor said that the Park District has asked for no variances in stormwater detention, and they will have to be in 100% compliance. He said they will forward her letter on to the stormwater engineer.

3. Philip Barr, 4605 Puffer Road, spoke regarding the recreation center and asked the Council to ask themselves the following six questions: 1) Where will additional cars go; 2) With all other factors being equal, when is a home worth more money in Downers Grove—when it is bordered by other homes one of which is valued at $500,000 and sits on an acre and a half of land—or when it is bordered by a 245 car parking lot; 3) How and where will young people walk across Belmont Road to get to the center; 4) Why would the Park Board build a recreation center on Belmont Road when the Chief of Police, Chief Ginex, has already determined that the Prairie intersection is a hazardous intersection; 5) How dangerous does a location have to be before it is ruled out as the recreation center site; 6) Is building the recreation center responsibly managing growth and redevelopment and solving parking and traffic issues. Mr. Barr said the proposed project will negatively impact the Belmont residents and everyone in Downers Grove who travels on Belmont Road.

4. Janis Sleeter, 5416 Maplewood Place, distributed materials to the Council. She covered the uniqueness and characteristics of the Park District location versus those included in Mr. Tibble’s comparable facility evaluation. She said none of the facilities in his report were built after 1991, and only two were built after homes were already in the area. No comparison of the prices of the residential property at the time of construction were given in Mr. Tibble’s report. She said most of the locations have a crosswalk at the intersection. Ms. Sleeter said, continuing to review the properties used in Mr. Tibble’s appraisal report, that none of the areas had roadway widening, no left turn lanes were required that would conflict with other existing turn lanes; no single-family homes were demolished; no berms were added to block the pre-existing views of a park. She said none of the properties used as comparisons are really valid as comparisons with this site.

Ms. Sleeter then commented on traffic safety saying she e-mailed a memo and spread sheet to the Council on this issue, and distributed other copies to the Council. She reviewed the peak hours of traffic and timing available for vehicles to get onto Belmont Road, explaining that cars would only have a few seconds to get into the facility or onto the roadways. She said that they would need to consider installation of a signal at the sight, appointing a traffic officer at the location, or other traffic restrictions. Lack of those traffic control methods will minimize the use of the facility as well. Ms. Sleeter asked to be allowed to continue her remarks later in the meeting since no overhead projector was available to continue her presentation.

5. Jerry Youksoulian, 926 60th Place, said this is the best site to put the recreation facility in the Village. It is land that is already purchased, and there will not have to be increased taxes to purchase the land. Any other proposed sites are not adequate for the facility. There is traffic during rush hours everywhere. Mr. Youksoulian said the land is paid for and the facility is necessary. He does not want to see his taxes go up to purchase land somewhere else, and he wants the Village to move ahead with this quickly.

6. Ken Goel, 408 Lake Avenue, commented on the Ordinance amendment to allow a church to expand its facility, listed on this evening’s Active Agenda. He said that the project by the church amounts to moving a wall that will allow the church to increase its capacity without spending money. If the Ordinance is not approved, St. Mary’s would have to rebuild.

7. Ms. Sleeter returned to the microphone and showed her prepared traffic analysis on the overhead projection, noting she is not a traffic expert. It depicted ingress and egress and the need to cross several lanes of traffic. She agrees that good quality gymnasium space is needed in Downers Grove; however, she asked the Council to consider the traffic situation at this location which she does not believe is acceptable.

The Mayor said that, although he is not a traffic expert, he noted that the Park District report indicated these were four-second average intervals, which could mean some were at higher or lower intervals. He said he had asked the Village’s traffic engineer to go back to the site during the rush hour, and during the rush hour peaks there were about 70 gaps available for people to turn in. The average gap was 6.33 seconds, and there was plenty of time when there was no traffic to make the left hand turn. He pointed out that this was the Village’s engineer there for only one day’s study. He said the Council has copies of that report. The bigger problem would be coming southbound and turning left into the residential homes on the east side at rush hour in the morning, as well as the evening. He said that was based on the traffic engineer’s review from yesterday and today.

8. Tessy McGuire, 4910 Cornell, said Ms. Sleeter made some good points. She said there had been some discussion about a right-only turn. Ms. McGuire lives at Prairie and Cornell and drives that area every day. She asked where the concern was for the Puffer kids and the mothers who have to drive that area every day. There was no outrage expressed about the traffic situation until they wanted to put the rec center at that location. She thinks they should make it a right-only turn and that would help address the problem.

9. Philip Barr, 4605 Puffer Road, said the traffic on Belmont is not a new issue. He said that Chief Ginex has already gone on record as saying that Prairie should be defined as a hazardous intersection. Mr. Barr’s opinion is that this rec center will only exacerbate the problem.

10. Attorney Blondin noted that regarding the Active Agenda last item for Phase IV CBD Bonds, he was advised that the bond sale did occur today. Mr. Lyons is present to tell what the rate is on the bonds.

Marty Lyons, Director of Financial Services, said that at 11:00 a.m. today there was a sale of $6 million in General Obligation bonds for the Phase IV CBD infrastructure and the parking deck. There were six bids ranging from 5.0844% to 5.1896%. The scale was extremely tight. He said there are no maturities before the year 2007. Getting a rate of 5% is fantastic. Half of the maturities are coming due 2020 and 2021, which will allow the Village to take full advantage of the TIF district building its revenue base. He said the Attorney will have the bond Ordinance prepared.

The Mayor asked if they were looking to refund or reissue the Library bonds. Mr. Lyons said they have been watching every week and using the benchmark of a minimum of $150,000 in savings, however, the numbers have not come back. They have the opportunity to go back later this year, and as long as the Council is comfortable with this, staff will come to the Council as they did this evening when everything is in place. The benchmark is saving $150,000 or more, and the benchmark should go up with the higher amount funded.

B. Comments and Questions on General Matters

1. Marilyn Gerloff, 4241 Highland Avenue, referred to a May 23 Chicago Tribune article which applies to the Village as it concerns the proliferation of news racks outside business establishments. She said that Geneva, Illinois aldermen approved an Ordinance regulating the use of newsracks in the CBD and throughout their city. Ms. Gerloff said she would like to see newsracks eliminated in the Village, and said she sent e-mails to the Council regarding her opinion. She received some responses and said she is disappointed and confused about those answers in light of what was done in Geneva. After further research, she said she is raising the issue tonight for the Council’s consideration. On Monday, July 16 she looked at the boxes downtown. There were 19 by the post office some of which were empty, 12 by the Library, 15 at Curtiss and Main, 18 at the train station which were screened. She said hundreds of thousands of dollars has been and is being spent to improve and beautify the downtown area and design the parking deck, and she believes the Council needs to refocus and rethink these eyesores. Ms. Gerloff said residents are not allowed to place a sign of any nature in front of their homes on the parkway. The Village is looking for business owners to improve their properties, yet the newsboxes are placed wherever they please without any regard to the location or number of boxes. She said that two weeks ago the Village Corner indicated a newsbox ordinance was scheduled for the Workshop Agenda and that did not happen. She asked for the Council’s initial feedback this evening and strongly suggested that they begin to address this and other blight in the downtown area.

The Mayor said he agreed with her, and staff is working on that issue at this time. He said that many DuPage municipalities have been looking at this issue over the past few years. In addition, the National League of Cities looked at a stacking method for the boxes.

Ms. Gerloff said her concern was that she sent the article to the Council in May and only two people answered her. She said it was noted to be on the Agenda and then was not. The Mayor explained that sometimes when the Council receives e-mail it is forwarded on to the Village Manager to follow-up.

Mike Baker, Assistant to the Village Manager, said he received direction to review this matter and has evaluated several methods used by other communities. He said they have to be careful due to the 1st Amendment free speech issues. The ordinance must be carefully crafted to have the intended effect. He has worked with the Staff Attorney to prepare ordinance language to regulate the more unsightly newsboxes. The matter was supposed to come before the Council, however it was pulled to review the matter more closely. It will come before the Council within the next few weeks. Commissioner Schnell said there are organizations looking at addressing the unsightly cluttered look. Some manufacturers are making attractive boxes.

2. Patti Cole, 4602 Belmont, asked to comment on the Belmont recreation site. She said that if this rec center is approved tonight, the neighbors will take the Village and Park District to court.

5. Public Hearings

There were none.

6. Consent Agenda

COR00 -00563 Claim Ordinances: No. 5387, Payroll, June 29, 2001 No. 5389, Payroll, July 13, 2001 Sponsors: Accounting A motion was made to Approve this file on the Consent Agenda. Indexes: N/A

BIL00 -00564 List of Bills Payable: No. 5390a, July 17, 2001 No. 5390b, July 17, 2001 Sponsors: Accounting A motion was made to Approve this file on the Consent Agenda. Indexes: N/A

BID00 -00565 Bid: $153,500 plus 5% contingency to Trine Construction Corporation for Lindley-Washington Storm Sewer Improvements Sponsors: Public Works A motion was made to Approve this file on the Consent Agenda. Indexes: Storm Sewers Passed The Consent Agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Zabloudil, that the consent agenda be passed. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski

7. Active Agenda

ORD00 -00560 Ordinance: Authorize Special Use Providing for a Public Park with a Recreational Center and Accessory Parking, Uses and Improvements Sponsors: Zoning Board of Appeals Summary of Item: At their meeting of May 23, 2001 the Zoning Board of Appeals voted four to one to recommend that a Special Use be granted for the Downers Grove Park District Family Recreation Center.

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL USE PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC PARK WITH A RECREATIONAL CENTER AND ACCESSORY PARKING , USES AND IMPROVEMENTS

ORDINANCE NO . 4313 The Mayor called for any comments form the Council.

1. Manager Ginex said that Commissioner Sisul provided a letter that he asked would be read at the meeting. The Manager read the letter as follows:

“I apologize to the Council for not being here tonight, but a long-standing family commitment requires that I be out of town tonight. I have asked the Village Manager to provide me with a tape of this evening’s meeting.

I want to thank the residents and Park District staff for taking the time to orient us to the property and explain both sides of the issues.

Based upon the statutes and case law, it appears that our involvement with this very controversial issue regarding the Recreation Center and its location is restricted to just limited issues.

At this time, based upon the information that is available, in good conscience I would have to affirm the recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

In any event, I support the decision of the Council and urge the Park District to work where possible to mediate the impact on the residents.”

2. Commissioner Zabloudil said that the key points are very clear. Regarding necessary and desirable, the Park District makes that determination. He said individuals have commented on classes being cancelled and inconvenienced due to the lack of facilities. He said that there have been Park District members against the site, but acknowledging the need for the facility. In addition, the National Park survey stated that a community of this size has specific needs.

Concerning the health and safety standpoint, Commissioner Zabloudil said that in January the discussion of sidewalks and turn lanes was brought up by the residents. The Park District revised its plans and came forward with those revised plans based on the issues raised by the residents. He said that they can only speculate as to the impact on roads, traffic, or property values. He said that the Council received appraisals and there was no information provided to the Council to the contrary. He said that the Council understands and sympathizes with the situation the neighbors are facing. There have been many comments made and e-mails sent regarding the condition of the property, and that is the Park District’s responsibility to address those issues.

Commissioner Zabloudil said that there has been discussion as well about minimal impact on the community as a whole. He said if this location was not next to an apartment complex, the golf course, Belmont Road, etc., the facility, in any other part of the Village would potentially impact the surrounding properties.

Commissioner Zabloudil said that some of the comments made make it sound as though they were placing a garbage dump on the site based on how adamant some of the people are. Those are their opinions, but he said they have to keep in mind that this is a facility for residents of the community. The issue is whether this type of facility promotes a sense of community. This facility is well past due. He stated the dates other recreation centers were built. The Council needs to make a rational decision based on fact, not emotion, and on what is important to the community as a whole. He believes this meets the special use criteria.

3. Commissioner Gilbert said the issue before the Council is a very narrow and well-defined question as to how they are to apply the Zoning Ordinance to the Park District’s petition. It is not an issue of what the Council thinks of the proposal or the choices that the Park District has made in exercising their legally authorized duties as elected officials. He said there will be talk for many years as to the conclusions the Council has drawn on this issue and the case law before them. The Village could debate this issue for many more years, but it needs to respond to this now and it would be a dereliction of duties to further postpone or facilitate further delays in answering the Park District’s request. He said this would not be appropriate. The Council has an obligation to address this issue now, no matter how tough or how controversial it may be.

Commissioner Gilbert said he personally questioned the need for a referendum in this issue, although it was not legally required to aid the Park District in establishing a need for this facility. They chose to proceed without one which is within their legal right and authority to do so. Everyone can suggest how it should be resolved, but people are put in place through the election process to make that call, and the Park District did.

Commissioner Gilbert said he is pleased that the citizens on both sides of the issue have been so vocal. It is healthy and it is appropriate. He said they can certainly disagree with one another. Thankfully, there is law and some very serious people to interpret it with the best for the Village in mind. He said that somehow in our world we get into these diabolically opposed positions that seem unclear and endless.

Regarding legal issues, Commissioner Gilbert said he has read as much paperwork on the legal aspects of the Council’s role in this case as has been presented to him, and then some. He has surveyed the site, the residents’ locations, and the plans that have been submitted and proposed by the Park District. He agrees with the Village Attorney’s assessment of the limits of the Council’s authority and finds himself in such a narrow hallway that he must respond favorably to this petition before the Council. For every traffic report saying there is going to be a tremendous impact, he has seen reports that state the opposite. The same is true for property values. On those specific points he is left to his own good judgment. He cannot agree or disagree that it will harm the property values or contribute unreasonably to traffic issues.

On the issue of need, or of the plan’s contribution to the Village, or on how the Park District uses its facilities, Commissioner Gilbert said he has no room for personal judgment. He finds that he cannot even use his own thoughts on the plan when making this decision. It is the Park District’s call as to where they build this facility, and not the Village’s Council’s choice, so long as it is done in a manner that is not arbitrary or unreasonable as outlined in the Attorney General’s Opinion of 1991. The law clearly states that the Park District has some degree of special rights on the issue, and he does not believe he has the authority to object to their decision by way of this vote.

In conclusion, Commissioner Gilbert said this is not their fight. The Council has been asked to rule on some very narrow parameters regarding the Zoning Ordinance. They accept that call and will do exactly that. Anything further is left to the courts and the Park District itself to decide.

4. Commissioner Tully said that, like the other members of the Council, he has spent a great deal of time on this matter, and has made some observations. He noted, first of all, that the Council has taken this matter extremely seriously. Members have attended Park District and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. They have read minutes, and minutes, and more minutes of these meetings. They have read numerous reports and materials. They have been inundated with letters, calls and e-mails, all of which have been read. They have walked the properties involved, some of them many times, and he noted that he personally has read all of the cases cited by the lawyers in this matter. If nothing else can be said, Commissioner Tully said he believes the Council is making a well-informed decision.

Commissioner Tully stated that there are those who view the Council as the ultimate decision-maker regarding whether the Park District should build this proposed facility at this location. However, he said if it is not clear by now it should be. The Council members are not the decision-makers here with respect to that issue. It’s not a question of delegating the Council’s authority to someone else. He said it was never the Council’s authority in the first place

The debate regarding if, what, where and how to build on the Belmont property lies squarely with the Park District, and it always has. Commissioner Tully noted that the Park District, a separate elected body, has made the decision to proceed with this project in the face of vigorous public debate. He said they are not here tonight to judge the wisdom of the Park District’s decision or the manner by which they reached their decision. The Council is not present tonight to criticize the Park District, nor is it present to praise them. He added that the Council is also not here to dictate to the Park District how they should conduct their own internal affairs.

Commissioner Tully noted that it has been pointed out again and again that the sole issue before the Village Council tonight is whether the criteria have been met under the Village’s Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of the special use permit as requested by the Park District. He said that in this regard, it is worth emphasizing that this matter only comes before the Village because the Park District has sought a special use permit for the Belmont property. He said if they had not sought a special use permit, the Council would not be present this evening on this matter. That is how limited the Village Council’s role in this matter is.

Commissioner Tully said his next observation is that this is a matter that is not without some controversy and emotion. He fully appreciates that emotions run high on all sides of this issue and that many residents feel strongly one way or another; but, he said the Council members cannot allow their role here to be skewed by controversy or emotion, no matter how strongly it is expressed. He added, with all due respect, that they also cannot allow their role to be skewed by threats of litigation. That would be irresponsible. In the same vein, Commissioner Tully said some residents have suggested to the Council that they will hold the Council accountable in the next election for its decision tonight. He said that is certainly their right to do so. However, Commissioner Tully said he thought that the Village residents would much rather have representatives with the courage and conviction to make the correct decision, even if unpopular, rather than representatives who would do whatever they think they need to do simply to get re-elected.

Commissioner Tully stated he also recognizes that no matter how the Council votes on this issue, many people will not be pleased. While they cannot make everyone happy, they can try their very best to reach the right conclusions. He said he does not expect everyone to agree with his conclusions on this issue, but he hoped that everyone would at least understand how he reached his decision and respect the fact that a great deal of thought went into it.

Commissioner Tully said his next observation is that it is important to remember that the Village may not administer its Zoning Ordinance in an unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory manner or otherwise act to thwart the Park District’s determination regardless of what they might think about the wisdom of this proposed project, or whether they think the Park District should work out some kind of compromise with their opponents

Commissioner Tully pointed out that everyone knows that the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the four criteria under the Zoning Ordinance have been met and has recommended that the requested special use be granted. He said that if the Council agrees the four criteria have been met, the special use should be allowed, and if the four criteria have not been met, the special use should not be allowed. Commissioner Tully said his decision focuses on the simple question of applying the objective evidence. He said he used the term “objective evidence” because the Council has heard a great number of opinions expressed by those in favor of and opposed to the project. But, he added with all due respect to those who have been living and breathing this for the past several years, and who will carry their beliefs with them for the rest of their lives, they are opinions. They are subjective and inherently speculative. The Council’s role is to look at the objective evidence that is before them, and apply it to the four factors.

Commissioner Tully then said he would comment on the four factors specified by the Zoning Ordinance in reverse order. Factor #4 concerns whether the proposed use is specifically listed for the zoning district in which it is to be located. He said that the Village Attorney pointed out in a prior Workshop that the very nature of a special use means that a determination has already been made that this type of use is appropriate for this particular zoning district. He said that the listed special uses for the R-1 and R-4 districts include public parks, playgrounds or municipal community centers. He noted that the terms “park” and “playground” are not defined; however, he cannot say that this proposed special use does not fall within the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms. He said there is no question the facility will be used for recreation, a considerable amount of the acreage will be greenspace, it will include walking/running paths, etc. Simply because a building is to be constructed there does not take it out of the definition of a park or a playground.

Commissioner Tully said it has also been pointed out previously that the Park District has broad discretion to define what recreation facilities are and what they should build. He said it should be noted that courts in the modern era, since 1950, have said that the definition of a “park” for zoning purposes even includes an indoor shooting range. That is what the law of Illinois said.

On the other side, Commissioner Tully said that people have suggested this is a commercial facility that would be better suited to a B-1 or B-2 zoning district; however, he said that he is not convinced that this is a commercial gymnasium as defined elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance regarding special uses allowed in business districts. He said it is not a privately-operated commercial facility. It is to be run by a unit of local government, which takes it out of the definition of a commercial facility. There has been testimony that this will be run not-for-profit; therefore, he is convinced that this proposed special use is one that is provided for in the Zoning Ordinance.

Commissioner Tully then referred to Factor #3 which states that the proposed use will comply with all the regulations in the zoning district in which it is located. He noted that the Village’s staff has indicated that the Park District has met all the zoning regulations and has not applied for any variances. He said he has seen no objective evidence to the contrary

Regarding Factor #2 which questions whether the proposed use would be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property values in the vicinity, Commissioner Tully said he found this factor the most troubling, and one over which he lost a good deal of sleep. He said he had to return to objective evidence. There have been opinions expressed by residents suggesting that adjacent property values will decrease, while others have suggested they will increase. He said he especially sympathizes with the neighbors, such as the Napolskis, Klebs, Coles and Barrs, as well as others who perceive the proposed project as being detrimental to the value of their homes. However, he said that property value diminution must be shown by objective evidence of market value.

Commissioner Tully said there were two appraisals by independent appraisers submitted by the Park District, both of which show no property value diminution. While these studies have been criticized, there is no sound basis to reject them. He said he has seen two letter opinions from appraisers which were submitted by residents that opine that there would be some loss in value. He said these letters cannot be given much weight for several reasons including that they were conducted in 1999 regarding a substantially different project; they were not true appraisals; they were not based on the use of comparables; they were not reproducible, and no criteria were given. They were very subjective and speculative.

Regarding the golf course view, Commissioner Tully inquired as to whether or not, regardless of whether the facility was built, the Park District would be able to build the retention pond on the golf course irrespective of this project. There is nothing stopping them from doing so right now.

Commissioner Tully said that the dispositive factor for him is that, even if there were objective proof of an adverse effect upon property values, the Illinois Supreme Court has said that the Village cannot deny this petition unless the proposed special use is shown to have an adverse effect above and beyond that inherently associated with such a special use, regardless of its location in any R-1 or R-4 zoning district. Based on the objective evidence that has been presented, he said he cannot conclude that such an adverse impact has been shown.

In further consideration regarding this issue, Commissioner Tully addressed the issue of the driveway reconfigurations, stating he was very sympathetic to neighbors whose driveways will be affected by the installation of a left-hand turning lane on Belmont. However, he noted this is being required by the State of Illinois and not by the Village of Downers Grove or by the Park District. Regarding the road widening work, he understands it is being done within the right-of-way which is technically not the property of the residents, although it will affect their property. He further pointed out that changes are coming to Belmont Avenue regardless of whether or not this recreation facility is built. Commissioner Tully said he sincerely expects the Park District to keep its commitment to work with the neighbors to the south to minimize the impact of the road widening by paying to reconfigure their driveways as necessary.

Concerning the issue of traffic, Commissioner Tully said that Belmont is a busy street, so traffic is always a concern; however, the professional traffic study submitted has concluded that the increased traffic from this facility will not be a problem. He said he is not a traffic engineer, nor are many of the people who spoke on this issue. He said the objective evidence provided by the professional traffic engineers indicate this facility will not be a problem. He indicated that if it becomes a problem some day, that issue can be addressed at that time.

Commissioner Tully reiterated that because this is a listed special use, the Council cannot reject the petition unless it is shown that it will have an adverse affect on traffic above and beyond that normally associated with the special use, irrespective of its location within an R-1 or R-4 zoning district.

Commissioner Tully then addressed Factor #1, stating that because this special use has been requested by another unit of local government, this is a different situation. He noted that the Park District has specific statutory authority that the Village should not and is not permitted to interfere with. The Park District must be allowed to make decisions they were empowered to make, regardless of their wisdom. He said the law is clear in the cases he read, on both sides, that the Village Council does not have the authority to second guess the Park District on the necessary or desirable factor. He said that does not mean that the Park District is immune to the Village’s Zoning Ordinance. The very fact that they are before the Council this evening states that they are not immune. They still must go through the normal process for issuance of a special use permit and comply with the other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance, which he noted, they have done.

In summary, Commissioner Tully said that he cannot say that based on the objective evidence presented that the Park District has failed to satisfy the four factors necessary for issuance of a special use permit. He then offered two final comments. He stated that there are a number of residents who will not be pleased with how the Council votes on this matter, and he is saddened to see how divisive this issue has become in the community. Commissioner Tully referred to a recent letter to the editor submitted by Mr. Julian, stating that he, too, hopes that those who feel strongly on both sides of the issue can overlook their differences, mend fences and put an end to the unproductive divisiveness.

Concerning compromises, Commissioner Tully repeated that the Village cannot dictate how the Park District chooses to conduct its affairs, and it cannot condition or reject the petition simply to force a compromise among those who apparently cannot. He stated that if there is a compromise to be had, that debate lies squarely with the Park District. He suggested that the end to the unproductive divisiveness should begin there. He thanked the Council and public for hearing him out on this important issue.

5. Commissioner McConnell said she also spent a great deal of time reading materials on the project, talking with people, and also having some nightmares regarding this issue. She made four or five visits to the site, drove Belmont Avenue numerous times, and she thanked the people for walking the site with her.

Commissioner McConnell said that as she thought about what decision was the best for the community, she based her consideration on the second condition for a special use permit, which is that the special use would not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the people residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to the property value or improvements in the vicinity. She said she looked at each of the issues individually and didn’t think there was any moral issue with the concept of a recreation center or park in that area.

Concerning the concept of general health and welfare for the community and the vicinity, Commissioner McConnell said the concept of health and recreation and the need for parks and fitness in the United States has probably never been more emphasized than it is now. She doesn’t think Downers Grove is an exception to that rule, so she sees nothing in this proposal that is dangerous to the community. She commented that she expected the Park District to proceed with the changes discussed last week regarding moving the berm on the south side that will in some way help mitigate some of the issues raised by the residents. She believes they expressed their intention to do that and she added her personal request that they meet that commitment.

In regards to the safety issue, Commissioner McConnell said she expects that the Park District will be fully compliant with all of the requirements established by the Village, IDOT or any other regulatory agency.

Commissioner McConnell said she spent a lot of time walking around and looking at the area. She appreciated having the opportunity to do so, and thanked the residents again for allowing her to walk around their yards and property over the past weeks. She said it is true some people will be losing their view of the golf course, as the view will be obstructed with the berms; however, she has seen no objective evidence that there will, in fact, be a long-term decrease in the property values. Commissioner McConnell also agreed that three driveways would be impacted by the left-hand turn lane, and she expected and hoped the Park District would do all they can within their power and purview to mitigate those issues as much as possible. Based upon her valuation of the issues related specifically to the second requirement of the Ordinance, she would be voting in favor of the ordinance.

Commissioner McConnell said, as part of the Downers Grove Character Counts Coalition, she hoped that everyone would take a step back and look at their own behavior during the course of this divisive issue. She said that the six pillars of the Character Counts program are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, citizenship, fairness, and caring. There have been some examples of good citizenship by people getting out and getting involved in their government and community. She has also seen good examples of responsibility by people doing their best to research the information and get that information out to others. However, she said one pillar that has taken a hit is the pillar of respect, as there have been a number of examples of people and situations where people have discounted the opinons or comments of others, where they have interrupted each other, or people who have not taken the time to listen and really hear each other, but only accepted their own predetermined opinions. She explained that she was not trying to throw stones, because she is probably also guilty of these things periodically. She indicated that the community will continue to have divisive issues come before it, and she hoped that people would learn from this recent situation and think before speaking.

6. Commissioner Schnell said after serving 14 years on the Council, this has been one of the most difficult decisions she has ever made. This is not a black and white issue. It is an issue that everyone on the Council has put a lot of effort into. She said she visited the site, talked to residents and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and trudged through all of the reports sometimes two or three times in an effort to get a handle on what this means to our community and to the residents in particular. Commissioner Schnell said that after all those years of doing research and data analysis, she has learned that people can look at data differently and come to different conclusions. She said she has looked at the issue from two points of view.

Commissioner Schnell said the first issue she studied relates to the stormwater. She read the stormwater report and spoke to staff and Zoning Board of Appeals members. She also looked at pictures that were given to the Council by some of the residents. Although it cannot be proven that this facility will increase the water on the east side of Belmont, she noted that even staff concedes that there will be water on the open lot for a longer period of time. In addition, she said they have heard about problems on Pershing as far as stormwater issues, and she would hope that these issues are looked at very carefully and monitored so as not to create a problem downstream.

Commissioner Schnell stated that her primary area of concern concerns Belmont Road. She firmly believes that this site and the fact that it exists on Belmont Road makes it different from any other street in the community. If they were to take the facility and put it on Fairview, or take the facility and put it on Main Street, she firmly believes it would not have the same traffic issues that are on this site. For one thing, there will be an underpass on Belmont Road, which will be the only underpass in the Village. It will cause more traffic. It is not yet built and there is no data for it, but she believes that more people will use it. Not having data available makes it problematic.

Commissioner Schnell then said that nowhere else in the Village would they put in a left turn lane, nor cut dramatically into people’s driveways. She has talked with the residents and they are in pain. The fact exists that there must be a turn lane that might not be required elsewhere in the Village, and that they will be taking away a significant right-of-way. She said that if, for some reason, the reconstruction of the driveways did not occur, there would be major safety issues for those residents. That concerns her. She believes there are safety issues associated with this facility on Belmont Road. Commissioner Schnell said at a minimum she would need in writing that the Park District would agree to the reconstruction of the residents’ driveways, and to providing a timetable for the residents to understand when the driveways would be torn up, when their water service would be disconnected, when the phone lines would not be available, etc. These are issues that the Park District staff is going to have to address.

Commissioner Schnell said she believes as a special use permit the Council has a certain amount of leeway. They can attach certain conditions to that permit. She said, however, that they have been told by the Attorney that reconstruction of the driveways cannot be a condition of approval. Because of these issues, because she thinks this is a unique situation, and because of her concerns for the safety of the residents, she will be voting no.

7. Mayor Krajewski thanked the Council for all of the time they spent on this issue. It was a very emotional issue for the community, and a number of the residents. He said the Council took the issue very seriously, as was stated tonight by their review of the material. He said he personally attended both of the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings on this issue, and in addition to reading a number of minutes from the Park District, also reviewed the traffic reports and appraisals. Although he did not read every legal opinion, he read most of them. He said he did a lot of reading on the objectives, and the material that was presented. There were a lot of comments both for and against the special use permit. Many of the issues however, though emotional, did not apply to what the Village is looking at tonight, which is a request from the Park District to the Village for a special use permit under the Village’s Zoning Ordinance.

The Mayor said the request for a special use is nothing new to the Council. Over the past several months there have been special uses before the Council such as the drug store on Ogden Avenue, and the YMCA . This Ordinance is the same as the Ordinance applied in those cases. He noted there are four specific points that are outlined in the Ordinance, and if those are met based upon the facts, circumstances and evidence presented to the Council, the Council cannot deny a special use permit. The Council cannot tell another government entity what type of facilities are to be built, and where they should build them. He said the Park District has that information and has been elected to decide those issues. They do, however, have to come to the Village for a special use permit. The Council has the four Zoning Ordinance criteria that apply to the requested special use. He then reviewed those four criteria in reverse order.

Mayor Krajewski said Criteria #4 concerns whether or not the specific special use is allowed in a particular district. He noted that although parks are not defined in the Ordinance, the Village has a Future Land Use Plan under Ordinance #3734 which was approved on April 23, 1995, for open space, which is designated as a land use classification under that Plan. “Open Space” is defined as a multi-functional land use category that includes both active and passive recreational areas. He said that “Recreational Activity” is defined to include the traditional outdoor facilities such as ball fields and tennis courts, as well as recreational buildings such as field houses, gymnasiums and clubhouses. The Mayor said that most of the Park District’s Belmont property is classified as open space in the Village’s Future Land Use Plan.

In regards to Criteria #3, the Mayor said that the Park District has not come to the Village requesting any variances. They will satisfy the parking and stormwater requirements.

In regards to Condition #2, Mayor Krajewski said there was much testimony given at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearings and Park Board meetings from a number of people agreeing that property values would go up, or believing that the property values would go down. He said that what was submitted as evidence, however, was two appraisals which were submitted by experts. The Mayor said he read those appraisals, and although he is not an expert in evaluating property, the appraisals were prepared by experts. He cannot find any other objective evidence to contradict what they said. He said after he first listened to the Zoning Board of Appeals hearings, he wrestled with the property value issue until it was brought A motion was made by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Zabloudil, to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Nay: Commissioner Schnell Indexes: Park District, Park District Recreation Center Concerning Condition #1 and the desirability or necessity of the facility, Mayor Krajewski said the Council heard a lot of testimony from a number of people about the need for the facility. Even members of the Park Board who did not agree with the site location, testified at the Zoning Board of Appeals that they are proponents of the need for a recreation center, but not at that location. The Mayor noted that this Council was not elected to decide what types of parks there should be, what the location should be, or what should be built. This Council is to apply all the Village Ordinances objectively. He said he knows the Council was threatened tonight, but said you cannot have Council members who base their vote on threats or emotions. They must look at all the evidence, which he believes this Council did. He said they might not all agree, but they all spent a good deal of time, researched this issue, and read mounds of documents related to this case. Based upon everything that he has reviewed, the Mayor said he believes the Park District has met the four criteria for a special use permit as outlined under the Village’s Ordinance; therefore, he would be voting in favor of the special use. The Mayor also encouraged, although he would not make it a condition of the special use, that the Park District continue to work with the residents in the immediate neighborhood as they move forward with this project.

ORD00 -00566 Ordinance: Amend Planned Development #31, Esplanade at Locust Point for Approval of Final Planned Development Plans to Permit Construction of a Restaurant, Office Building and Accessory Parking Structure Sponsors: Plan Commission Summary of Item: At their meeting of June 5, 2001, the Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval of Planned Development #31 final planned development plans for Esplanade at Locust Point to permit construction of a restaurant, office building and accessory parking structure.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #31, ESPLANADE AT LOCUST POINT FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A PORTION THEREOF TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT , OFFICE BUILDING AND ACCESSORY PARKING STRUCTURE

ORDINANCE NO . 4314 A motion was made by Commissioner Zabloudil, seconded by Commissioner Schnell, to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Planned Development #31 – Esplanade at Locust Point

ORD00 -00567 Ordinance: Restricting Parking on Cumnor Road and Concord Drive Sponsors: Parking & Traffic Commission Summary of Item: At the May 15, 2001 Parking & Traffic Commission meeting, the Commission moved to recommend to the Village Council to restrict parking on the north side of Concord Drive 50 feet east and west of Bunker Hill and on the north side of Concord Drive 50 feet east and west of Stonewall and to provide adequate sight distance so vehicles can safely enter Concord Drive.

At the May 15, 2001 Parking & Traffic Commission meeting, the Commission moved to recommend to the Village Council to restrict parking on the west side of Cumnor Road at a point 50 feet north and 50 feet south of Foxfire Court and on the east side of Cumnor Road at a point 50 feet north and 50 feet south of the Cumnor Road entrance to Downers Drive.

AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING PARKING ON CUMNOR ROAD AND CONCORD DRIVE

ORDINANCE NO . 4315 A motion was made by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Schnell, to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Parking Restrictions – Concord Drive, Parking Restrictions – Cumnor Road

ORD00 -00568 Ordinance: Establish Permit Parking for Downers Grove South High School and Raise Permit Parking Fees for Non-Residents Sponsors: Finance Summary of Item: At their meeting of November 21, 2000, the Parking and Traffic Commission recommended that permit parking be implemented on Springside Avenue between 63rd Street and Bolson Drive.

This ordinance will also increase certain parking permit fees for non-residents.

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PERMIT PARKING FOR DOWNERS GROVE SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL AND RAISING PERMIT PARKING FEES FOR NON -RESIDENTS

ORDINANCE NO . 4316 The Mayor verified with Mr. Lyons that this would become effective in the 4th quarter. A motion was made by Commissioner Schnell to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: South High School, Parking Permit – South High School

RES00 -00569 Resolution: Authorize License Agreement for the Rotary Club of Downers Grove Octoberfest Sponsors: Liquor Commission and Manager’s Office Summary of Item: This will authorize a license agreement with the Rotary Club of Downers Grove related to the 2001 Octoberfest. This will approve the use of Village property (commonly known as the former Grove Premium Parking Lot area) to accommodate the Festival.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE ROTARY CLUB OF DOWNERS GROVE OCTOBERFEST

RESOLUTION 2001 -63 Commissioner Tully said the Rotary has done an outstanding job each year with the beer tent at Heritage Festival. He is looking forward to another event to bring the residents to the downtown area. A motion was made, seconded by Commissioner Tully, to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Rotary Club – Octoberfest

ORD00 -00571 Ordinance: Amend Zoning Ordinance re: Churches in Residential Zoning Districts Sponsors: Zoning Commission Summary of Item: At their meeting of May 24, 2001, the Zoning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow churches to request exception to the Lot and Bulk Regulations of Article XI in the event strict compliance substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DOWNERS GROVE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING CHURCHES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

ORDINANCE NO . 4317 Commissioner Tully said this opens up the channel by which churches can bring requests for consideration to the Village Council. He said it lays out the criteria they have to meet in order to move forward.

Commissioner Schnell said this brings the Zoning Ordinance up to the standards of RFRA . A motion was made by Commissioner Tully, seconded by Commissioner Zabloudil, to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Zoning Ordinance – Churches

ORD00 -00572 Ordinance: Amend Zoning Ordinance re: Signs for Colleges and Universities in Residential Zoning Districts Sponsors: Zoning Commission Summary of Item: At their meeting of May 24, 2001, the Zoning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would create a new sign category for colleges and universities. In addition, this ordinance increases the maximum sign area from 20 to 50 square feet and increases the number of signs allowed at the primary entrance of the facility from one (1) to two (2).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DOWNERS GROVE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING SIGNS FOR COLLEGES /UNIVERSITIES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

ORDINANCE NO . 4318 A motion was made by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Zabloudil, to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Zoning Ordinance – Signs for Colleges and Universities

MOT00 -00573 Motion: Approve Schematic Design and Authorize Design Development Phase of CBD Parking Deck with Desman Associates, Inc. Sponsors: Director of Redevelopment Summary of Item: Motion to approve the Schematic Design and authorize Desman Associates, Inc. to proceed with the Design Development phase of the CBD Parking Deck. A motion was made by Commissioner Zabloudil, seconded by Commissioner Schnell, to Authorize this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Central Business District – Parking Deck

ORD00 -00527 Ordinance: Provide for the Issuance of Phase IV CBD Bonds Sponsors: Finance Summary of Item: This will authorize the sale of $6,000,000.00 in general obligation TIF bonds.

AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2001 , OF THE VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE , DUPAGE COUNTY , ILLINOIS , AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF A DIRECT ANNUAL TAX FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SAID BONDS

ORDINANCE NO . 4319 A motion was made by Commissioner Schnell to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Bond Issue

8. Mayor’s Report

Materials to be Received – Minutes

Library Board – June 27, 2001 Public Safety Committee – May 18, 2001 Zoning Board of Appeals – May 23, 2001 Zoning Commission – May 24, 2001 A motion was made by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Zabloudil, to Note Receipt Of this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Materials to be Received – Monthly Reports

New Business

Mayor Krajewski asked the Clerk to read a resolution appointing and reappointing members to Village Boards and Commissions.

RES00 -00576 Resolution: Appoint and Reappoint Members to Village Boards and Commissions Sponsors: Mayor Summary of Item: This confirms the following appointments:

COMMUNITY MAINTENANCE BOARD

Sharon Dunn and Timothy McJoynt reappointed for terms expiring 4/30/04

ELECTRICAL COMMISSION

Robert Carlson, Curtiss Frank, Michael Johnson and Lanny Russell reappointed for terms expiring 4/30/02

HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION

Trisha Svehla reappointed for a term expiring 4/30/04

LIQUOR COMMISSION

Ronald Sandack appointed for a term expiring 4/30/04; Michael Kubes appointed for a term expiring 4/30/02; Richard Mochel appointed as Chair

PARKING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION

John Wendt appointed for a term expiring 4/30/04

A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO VILLAGE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

RESOLUTION 2001 -64 Commissioner Gilbert said that Dick Mochel has served on the Liquor Commission for some time and the Commission is being placed in capable hands. He noted that both Ron Sandack and Mike Kubes are new to the Liquor Commission. Mike has been involved in the Community Events Commission, and Ron is a new appointee.

Commissioner McConnell said that Trisha Svehla has been with the Commission for a while.

Commissioner Schnell thanked the members of the Community Maintenance Board, and the new member of the Parking and Traffic Commission who will bring new perspective to the Board.

Commissioner Tully extended his thanks and congratulations to the new appointments and reappointment.

The Mayor thanked everyone for volunteering to serve. A motion was made by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Zabloudil, to Adopt this file. Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Yea: Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Schnell, Commissioner Tully, Commissioner Zabloudil and Mayor Krajewski Indexes: Boards and Commissions

9. Manager’s Report

Manager Ginex said about a month ago the Council approved a purchase for a grinder at a cost of $182,000. They have started training the public works staff and already are replacing patches of street on 59th Street west of Carpenter. He said the Public Works Director and staff are very happy with the product.

10. Attorney’s Report

Village Attorney Blondin said he had no items to present tonight. He referenced items on the future agenda without dates.

Future Active Agenda

ORD00 -00373 Ordinance: Refund of GO Bonds Series 1996 and 2000 Sponsors: Finance Indexes: General Obligation Bond – Refund

ORD00 -00428 Ordinance: Amend Open Burning Restrictions Sponsors: Village Attorney Indexes: Open Burning

ORD00 -00570 Ordinance: Amend the Downers Grove Municipal Code re: EDC Non Voting Membership on Land Use Commissions Sponsors: Village Attorney Indexes: Economic Development Commission, Zoning Commission, Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals

11. Committee Standing Reports

1. Commissioner Gilbert said the next meeting of the Public Safety Committee is Wednesday, July 25 at 12:00 noon.

2. Commissioner Schnell said the Public Works Committee met at 5:00 tonight. She said they saw a video of the grinder and its operation. The video will be provided to the Council once the staff has about a month of use behind them.

Commissioner Schnell said the Stormwater Commission will be meeting tomorrow evening to discus the possible expansion of their duties and possibly the consideration of establishing a matrix system for the community.

Commissioner Schnell said that the PSI report on compaction downtown will be available and will be discussed at the Public Works Committee meeting the first week on August. They will also have a preliminary look at the sidewalk bid project.

3. Commissioner McConnell said the Finance Committee met tonight to discuss the infrastructure maintenance fee and telecommunication fee. Staff is proposing a swap which would be cost neutral. This reconfiguration is being proposed to meet regulatory requirements. They also discussed fees regarding the parking deck. She said that their next meeting is August 21. In addition they discussed SCI , the application for financing areas. They have concerns about that as it is not a smooth implementation. Some parts work well, however the utility/water billing area and budget areas do not work. They agreed to go back to SCI for additional information and see if there are some improvements that could be implemented. Finally, she said the Committee discussed briefly the landbank properties. There are two proposals in at this time and they will review what impact this will have on the TIF .

4. Regarding the tax swap, the Mayor asked the Village Manager, Village Attorney and Finance Director to look at the legislative changes in Springfield. Attorney Blondin said the legislation will raise the authority of municipalities to levy a telecommunications tax from 5% to 6%.

12. Council Member Reports and New Business

There was none.

13. Adjournment

Commissioner Gilbert moved to convene into closed session pursuant to Section 2©1 and 2©5 to discuss matters of personnel and real estate acquisition. Commissioner Zabloudil seconded.

VOTE : YEA – Commissioners Gilbert, Zabloudil, Tully, McConnell, Schnell, Mayor Krajewski

Mayor Krajewski declared the motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m