Village of Oswego Committee of the Whole met Nov. 13.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
CALL TO ORDER
President Gail E. Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Physically Present: President Gail Johnson and Trustees Ryan Kauffman, Karin McCarthy-Lange, Pam Parr, Luis Perez, Judy Sollinger and Joe West.
Staff Present: Dan Di Santo, Village Administrator; Christina Burns, AVA/HR Director; Tina Touchette, Village Clerk; Brad Delphey, Deputy Police Chief; Jennifer Hughes, Public Works Director; Mark Horton, Finance Director; Rod Zenner, Community Development Director; Corinna Cole, Economic Development Director; Jay Hoover, Building & Zoning Manager; Jenette Sturges, Community Engagement Coordinator- Marketing; Greg Jones, Village Attorney; and Marron Mahoney, Village Attorney.
CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS ON ANY REQUESTS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN MEETING
There was no one who participated electronically.
PUBLIC FORUM
Public Forum was opened at 6:01 p.m.
There was no one who requested to speak; the Public Forum was closed at 6:01 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business.
NEW BUSINESS
F.1. Receive the Police Pension Fund Tax Levy Request for Calendar Year 2018.
Director Horton addressed the Board regarding the Police Pension Fund Tax Levy Request for Calendar Year 2018. State statutes require the Police Pension Fund to submit a tax levy request, to the Village Board, for the purpose of accumulating sufficient resources to pay for the annual requirements of the Pension Fund. The pension board is requesting the Village Board levy not less than $1,398,759 for calendar year 2018. The levy request is based on the amount determined to be levied by the actuarial report completed by the Village hired actuary. The Village will add an additional $101,241 of general operating revenues to contribute a total of $1,500,000 to the pension fund in fiscal year 2020, provided funding is available. The request was given to the Village Clerk to be filed on behalf of the Village Board. There was no further discussion.
F.2. Receive and Review the Municipal Compliance Report from the Police Pension Fund
Director Horton addressed the Board regarding the Municipal Compliance Report from the Police Pension Fund. House Bill 5088 (Public Act 95-950) requires the Police Pension Fund to submit, to the Village Board, an annual report on the condition of the pension fund. The 2018 Municipal Compliance Report is submitted for acceptance by the Village Board. The report summarizes the current fiscal year and prior fiscal year information from the Actuarial report in an easy to understand format. The report was given to the Village Clerk to be filed on behalf of the Village Board. There was no further discussion.
F.3. Discussion Regarding Pedestrian Crossings on Washington Street
Director Hughes addressed the Board regarding pedestrian crossings on Washington Street. On Friday, October 1, 2018, a pedestrian was tragically struck and subsequently died from injuries sustained when she was hit by a westbound vehicle while attempting to cross Washington Street. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her family.
The following is a brief history of improvements made in this area:
- IDOT widened the intersection of Washington Street at Harrison Street to four lanes in 1992 when constructing the new bridge over the Fox River
- Main Street and Madison Street intersections widened in 1995
- Village sent a letter to IDOT on September 30, 1997 requesting a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Washington and Main
- ➢ Requested the State to investigate flashing beacons
- ➢ Village acknowledged that the State was going to lower the speed limit to 20 mph and add “No Left Turn” signs
- By December 1997, IDOT noted that the signs and lower speed limit installed in October had a “positive effect on vehicle safety”
- Appears there had been some back-and-forth about how a traffic signal would be constructed “without additional lanes” apparently referring to a dedicated left-turn lane on Washington Street➢ IDOT noted concerns about accidents for westbound traffic
➢ Something happened after this to cause IDOT to change its mind
➢ The files are silent as to what ultimately inspired IDOT to develop plans for the traffic signal➢ Appears there were discretionary funds available, but only until the end of the fiscal year
- IDOT delivered plans to the Village, in draft form, on March 29, 1999
- Village Board approved Resolution No. 99-R-13, on April 5, 1999, authorizing the execution of an intergovernmental agreement between the Village and IDOT
- ➢ Village was obligated to enact parking restrictions on Main Street that would have resulted in the loss of approximately 19 parking spaces
- ➢ Village’s cost share was estimated at $16,100 of the total $161,000 cost
- Village Board convened a special meeting on April 26, 1999 and a public meeting on May 10, 1999 to gather input from the business owners
➢ The businesses gathered more than 800 signatures from downtown patrons protesting the loss of parking
- Village staff advocated for the truck restrictions in an April 23, 1999 memo to the Village Board;
reducing the parking restrictions from 75 feet to 30 feet
- ➢ Village Board elected not to restrict parking and did not approve the plans
- ➢ IDOT canceled the project, and thereafter, has denied the signal on the basis that the intersection does not meet the warrants (prerequisites) for a signal as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
✓ Warrants address traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, proximity to schools, the needs of a road network, the proximity of the intersection to a railroad crossing, and crash experience
- In 2004, the Village was again discussing installing a traffic signal at the intersection
- May 3, 2004 board minutes state “IDOT has done two previous counts; the first one indicated that the light was justified; the one done in 2003 did not indicate that a traffic light was needed”
- June 19, 2006 board meeting minutes indicate that a traffic study conducted in 2004 showed the intersection still did not meet warrants
➢ Board commissioned SEC (now HR Green) to conduct a study based upon future traffic generated by the redevelopment of the old Village Hall property
- Late 2007 or early 2008, the Village and State Representative Tom Cross met with IDOT to discuss downtown traffic signals
- Installed a flashing pedestrian crossing beacon in 2011
- Installed pedestrian crossing signage in the center of the right-of-way
- Installed pedestrian crossing flags in 2016
- Traffic enforcement is regularly conducted along Washington Street
- In 2015, the Village convened a task force to investigate how to address complaints about speeding in residential neighborhoods
- ➢ Intended for locations where traffic control signals, stop, or yield signs were not warranted
- ➢ Resolution 16-R-01 adopted the Village of Oswego Traffic Calming Request and Implementation Policy
✓ Identified multiple traffic calming measures suitable for installation in the Village
o Radarfeedbacksigns
o Curb extensions
o Pedestrian refuge areaso On street bike lanes
The Village President and staff will be meeting with IDOT to revisit the request to install traffic signals along Washington Street at Main and Harrison Streets. There are other options that may be considered:
- Relocating/adding Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons over the pavement to improve visibility to all drivers
➢ System would not provide red signals to drivers along Washington Street
- Install a High Intensity Activated Cross Walk (HAWK) Pedestrian Beacon system that flashes a red light when a pedestrian activates it
➢ Requires vehicles to stop
- Narrowing the lanes or adding speed tables to intersections like those in downtown Plainfield
➢ Will require a study to be conducted
➢ Could take years to approve and construct
- Oswegoland Park District’s master plan includes a pedestrian underpass under the US 34 bridge
➢ Designed to continue the Fox River Trail and connect development of a south park to Hudson Crossing Park
- Staff does not recommend the installation of an underpass or overpass at Washington and Main Street
- ➢ Structures pose several engineering challenges due to ramp requirements, footprint size, and drainage requirements
- ➢ Often underutilized by pedestrians unless physical barriers are constructed to force pedestrians to use them
- ➢ Many pedestrians prefer to cross at Main Street, under the current conditions, rather than walk one block east to Madison Street where they can cross at a signalized intersection
Safety Suggestions
- Encourage pedestrians to cross at the designated crosswalks at Harrison Street and at Main Street
- Crossing at the traffic signal at Madison is the safest route to cross Washington
- Ask drivers to continue to be alert to pedestrians whenever they are in downtown
- Do not rely on the activation of the flashing pedestrian signs alone to alert you to the presence of pedestrians
- Pedestrians and drivers are also reminded of general precautions
➢ Make eye contact if possible
➢ Avoid distractions like cell phones
- ➢ Obey all laws and roadway signs and markings
• Motorists must adhere to the 20 miles per hour speed limit through the downtown Pedestrian safety, in the downtown, is a high priority for the Village. The Village has a vision for a vibrant, welcoming downtown which cannot be fully realized unless it is easily and safely accessible for pedestrians. The Village has worked, and will continue to work, with IDOT to improve the convenience and safety of pedestrian crossings. Washington Street (US Highway 34) is a state highway under IDOT’s jurisdiction. Any improvements along US Highway 34 must be approved by IDOT.
Board and staff discussion focused on concerns with overburdening drivers; concerns for continued safety; traffic signal options; solar powered flashing beacons not working; increasing the battery life of the beacons; current flashing beacons product is no longer supported for maintenance; recommend a complete change-out of the product; can run power to the area; waiting to hear what IDOT says; light-up cross walks; overhead traffic light; re-routing traffic requires funding and jurisdictional transfer of streets and bridges; IDOT does not want to transfer; concerns with the Village taking over the US Highway 34 bridge; diverting truck traffic; not seeing a significant amount of truck traffic; surprised that a traffic light was approved and then rejected; minutes did not provide information;funding pool; tough to meet the warrants; couldn’t find the studies; frustration from IDOT onapproving the light and then the Village not doing it; meeting on Thursday with IDOT. There was no further discussion.
CLOSED SESSION
a. Pending and Probable Litigation [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11)]
b. Appointment, Employment, Compensation, Discipline, Performance, or Dismissal of Personnel [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1)]
c. Collective Bargaining, Collective Negotiating Matters, Deliberations Concerning Salary Schedules [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(2)]
d. Sale, Lease, and/or Acquisition of Property [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5) & (6)]
e. Security Procedures and the Use of Personnel and Equipment to Respond to an Actual, Threatened, or a Reasonably Potential Danger to the Safety of Employees, Staff, the Public, or Public Property [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(8)]
The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 6:19 p.m.
The Board returned to open session at 6:59 p.m.; all remaining members still present.
ADJOURNMENT
The Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
Alerts Sign-up