Public Safety Minutes 2009 01-22-09
APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS
3/26/2009
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
City Hall, Conference Room
Thursday, January 22, 2009 – 6:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
Chairperson Spears, Committeemen Plocher, Sutcliff and Werderich
ABSENT:
None
ALSO PRESENT:
Chief Harold Martin, Lieutenant Rich Hart, Lisa Pickering, Alderman Bob Allen,
Rowena Vergara of The Beacon News and Lisa Welz of The Record
Members of the public in attendance included Mr. Art Prochaska, Mr. Glen Poole,
Ms. Tammy Smock, Mr. Tom Gilmour, Ms. Judy Gilmour, Mr. George Gilson, Mr.
Fred DuSell, Mr. Matt May, Ms. Jean McBride, Ms. Carol Foster, and Mr. Mark
Johnson
Chairperson Spears called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm. She asked that item #3 be moved
to the beginning of the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
3.PS 2009-09 – Ice Cream Vendors
Chairperson Spears stated that this topic was discussed by City Council in May,
2008 and by this committee in 2007. It was time to discuss the topic again to
determine if vendors are a danger. Ms. Tammy Smock was asked to speak
regarding incidents that have occurred in the area.
Ms. Tammy Smock distributed newspaper clippings and Internet articles regarding
incidents that have occurred in the area. Most articles occurred in 2008, with the
exception of a few. Many of the articles state that the ice cream vendors are
sexual predators, however, 1 of them was found to be selling marijuana from his
truck. Ms. Smock resides in Rivers Edge and stated that the vendor comes
through her neighborhood 4-5 times per day. She has seen the truck sit in one
location for lengthy periods of time, away from the park, but close enough that it
1
would appear as though the driver is watching the children, not trying to earn a
living selling ice cream.
Ms. Smock stated that there are loopholes in the system in that the owner of the
company can have his/her background checked, then can allow someone else to
drive the truck. That person would not have had a background check. Chief
Martin stated that Yorkville requires the drivers to have background checks and
then they are issued a Yorkville vendor ID permit that they must have at all times.
The Police Department checks the vendors periodically to ensure that they are
permitted to be selling within the city limits.
Ms. Smock stated that the world is different from when she grew up and for that
reason she is an advocate of banning the vendors or requiring them to operate
from carts without wheels. Many ice cream products get recalled and the trucks
are in bad shape. Chief Martin stated that the Kendall County Health Department
would conduct those types of inspections.
Chief Martin stated that the City has to be careful regarding what they regulate.
He feels that this matter needs to be discussed with the City Attorney because
people have the right to earn a living.
Mr. George Gilson suggested stricter enforcement or higher fees. Mr. Art
Prochaska suggested an ordinance prohibiting them from stopping for longer than
a specified amount of time. He stated that the City needs an avenue with which a
resident could file a complaint. The City should look at the resident concerns and
then tweak the ordinance to give people an opportunity to file complaints. Chief
Martin stated that it might be difficult to determine those circumstances.
Mr. Fred DuSell suggested that residents file a noise complaint. Chief Martin
stated that the music from the ice cream truck may be annoying but it is not
outside of the noise ordinance standards. In fact, he stated, resident lawnmowers
and other lawn equipment is actually louder.
Chairperson Spears stated that the City Attorney has advised that ice cream
vendors cannot be banned. However, she suggests increasing fees to a maximum
in order to be public safety minded.
Discussion regarding the background checks and identification badges took place.
It appeared as though many residents were unaware of the City’s current
ordinance requiring both. Committeeman Werderich suggested that the City issue
a statement in the newspaper informing residents of the ordinance and advising
them to contact the Police Department if they see a vendor without an
identification badge.
Ms. Smock asked how other communities are able to ban ice cream vendors. She
stated that someone needs to advocate for the children that are becoming victims.
2
She feels that it would be easier to control a pushcart vendor in Town Square Park
than a vendor driving throughout the City.
Discussion returned to changing the current ordinance. Committeeman Plocher
feels that the ordinance is a strict as it can be. Chairperson Spears feels that the
fines and licensing fees should be increased. Mr. Glen Poole suggested a
revocation of the permit should a specific number of complaints be filed against a
vendor. Committeeman Sutcliff asked Chief Martin if there were any complaints
against the current vendor. Chief Martin stated that there have been a few in the
past. Lt. Hart stated that there was an incident during an event at Town Square
last year. Committeeman Sutcliff feels that the City Council spent a lot of time on
this issue last year and that perhaps the ordinance should be changed to not allow
drivers to sit still and it should also be added to the adjudication process. Mr.
Gilson added that raising the permit fee would discourage illegitimate businesses
from applying for a permit. Mr. Tom Gilmour feels that this is tough because you
could be stomping on people’s constitutional rights. Committeeman Werderich
suggested educating the residents and changing the ordinance to no standing still
if children are not present. Chief Martin stated that the Police Department would
research what the City can legally do.
Lisa Pickering reminded the group that the current ordinance requires each driver
to have a written license from the City, have a picture ID in a lanyard and they
must wear it at all times that they are soliciting business. Additionally, she stated
that if the fees were raised, it would apply to all mobile food vendors, which
affects the hot dog vendor. Chairperson Spears asked if the City could have
separate ordinances, which is a question for the City Attorney to respond to.
Mr. Mark Johnson asked how many companies / vendors applied for permits.
Lisa Pickering stated that 2 people from the same company have applied for
permits. After the ordinance was approved another company that previously did
business in the City left town because they needed to have a Department of
Revenue tax ID number.
Mr. Prochaska stated that the City could regulate the hours of operation, whether
or not the vehicle is in the vicinity of bus stops, etc. This would give the residents
the opportunity to file complaints.
Chairperson Spears stated that allowing the ice cream vendor in the City takes
business away from Culvers, Jewel and other City businesses that pay taxes. She
suggests the committee refer to the City Attorney regarding the maximum that can
be done within constitutional parameters. Additionally, the City will put
information in the water bills, newsletter and through the press regarding the
ordinance to educate the residents. Committeeman Sutcliff suggested utilizing the
schools for this matter as well. Mr. Matt May stated that the school could issue
the information in the form of “Safety for Summer” at the end of the year.
3
This item will be referred to the City Attorney for clarification and returned to the
agenda next month.
2.PS 2009-02 – Leash Law – Discussion
Chief Martin had a concern regarding this matter and outlined his concerns. The
matter went before the City Council and there was a tie vote. As such, the Mayor
broke the tie. At this time, it is requested that the matter be re-addressed.
A residents’ 17-year old son who was going to enter the Marines was walking to
work and was attacked by a dog. The boy will now be confined to a wheelchair
the rest of his life. Committeeman Werderich stated that his understanding is that
an ordinance was passed to do away with the previous ordinance. If that’s the
case, how can this issue be brought back? Lisa Pickering stated that there was an
amendment to the current code. Additionally, she stated that an ordinance could
be passed to supercede the current ordinance.
Committeeman Sutcliff stated that she is aware of what had transpired and wished
to inform the members of the public that were present that a Public Hearing was
scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2009 to discuss this matter. It would be nice
if everyone could attend and address the entire City Council. Chairperson Spears
stated that many of the people in attendance were informed of this meeting
because the entire City Council had not been informed about the Public Hearing.
The matter was opened up for public discussion. Members of the public stated
the following:
Mr. George Gilson:
I feel that the City Attorney’s agenda is to do what the Mayor says.
o
Rescinding an ordinance would not be setting precedence.
o
The City Council did not look at the whole picture when making
o
this decision.
Mr. Matt May:
It is the Council’s responsibility to write the ordinances and the
o
Attorney should put it into legal terms.
DISCUSSION: Committeeman Werderich stated that there has to
be a vehicle with which to put forth another ordinance. Due to his
legal background, Committeeman Werderich was asked to prepare
an ordinance for review by the committee. Committeeman Sutcliff
stated that the Mayor is providing the residents a forum for
discussion. Committeeman Werderich stated that the memo states
that the residents have a right to talk, however, no action can be
taken. Chairperson Spears stated that the Alderman were elected
to be the policymakers, let’s do our jobs. She added that the
original ordinance was put into place because a 6-year-old child
was bitten by a dog while on his own front porch.
I have a 5 year old and my neighbor has 2 dogs. I spent $4,000.00
o
putting up a fence so that my child would be safe.
4
My problem is more about people taking the law into their own
o
hands after an animal hurts someone.
I am an educator and I work with kids.
o
I had a neighbor with an electric fence and it did not stop his dog.
o
Not all dog owners are responsible.
o
My wife won’t walk past the neighbor’s house because of his
o
animals.
I can’t believe the Mayor had the audacity to pass this ordinance.
o
Mr. Art Prochaska:
What is the value of a Public Hearing after an ordinance has
o
already been passed?
Approximately 13 years ago, when I was Alderman, I received a
o
call from a mother whose child had been bitten by a neighbor’s
dog while the child was playing on his own front porch. When the
resident called the Police Department, she was advised that there
was no ordinance regarding this matter, therefore, there was
nothing they could do and she would have to pursue the matter
civilly. Back then, there were no electric fences and other
technology, therefore the best thing the City could do was pass an
ordinance requiring dogs to be contained by a fence, leash, etc.
Now that this matter has been opened back up and the ordinance
was changed, what recourse do people have?
As a child, a dog jumped me and I was immediately given rabies
o
shots, therefore, this is a passion of mine.
Isn’t the reason for government to protect the people against what
o
they cannot protect themselves against? Something needs to be in
place to prevent harm from happening.
Mr. Fred DuSell:
I was attacked in Rivers Edge 1 year ago. Electric fences do not
o
help.
Could this matter be considered under the bad law rule?
o
DISCUSSION: Committeeman Werderich replied only non-
constitutional laws would be. Chief Martin stated that his
recommendation was not to change the ordinance that was in
place.
Could the committee members ask the other Alderman to be more
o
professional during meetings? During the discussion regarding
this matter, another Alderman commented about ‘tethering
children’ which was not professional and sounded derelict.
Mr. Tom Gilmour:
If a gun was unsupervised and someone was shot, the person
o
responsible for the gun would be charged; the same should apply
to these circumstances.
By the time the Police Department is contacted regarding a dog
o
problem, it could be too late.
5
DISCUSSION: Chief Martin stated his problem is that you cannot
always control animals. Additionally, one of the biggest problems
over the years has been with animals. Chairperson Spears stated
that Chief Martin provided the City Council with a memo
indicating the history behind this matter. In his memo he indicated
that he recommended no change to the ordinance, yet the matter
still moved forward and the ordinance was changed.
It is unlikely that renters would put up fences. This is a dangerous
o
thing.
Ms. Carol Foster:
Being a pet owner is a choice. They should be more responsible. I
o
am constantly aware of the people and dogs that are unleashed
around me, as I have been attacked by dogs while I was walking
mine.
Animals do not know where property lines are.
o
Ms. Jean McBride:
There was an article in today’s newspaper about a child mauled to
o
death by a dog while in bed.
The City wants more trails and bike paths; unleashed animals can
o
easily take off. It’s too risky.
It’s dangerous for meter readers, delivery people, politicians, etc.
o
The audience should have been allowed to speak before the
o
ordinance was changed.
Mr. Mark Johnson:
Is a building permit required for installing an electric fence? I ask
o
because some installers go past the sidewalk. Perhaps a building
permit should be required.
Committee discussion resumed. Committeeman Golinski feels this issues needs
st
to be re-addressed. In the United States, since January 1, there have been 5 fatal
dog attacks, 2 of which occurred in Illinois. 3 of those occurred to children under
the age of 9. He has had more contact from constituents regarding this matter
than any other. Committeeman Werderich questioned whether this matter should
be brought back before the current session of City Council or to the new City
Council in April. Alderman Allen stated that when he was obtaining signatures
for his campaign, he saw a lot of dogs. He feels that dogs are good. They are a
great deterrent to threats against a family. However, people need to control their
dogs. He stated that good people came forward this evening to voice their
opinions and now the City Council can review their input. Additionally, he stated
that Mayor Burd responded to information that new technology is out there.
However, he feels that this since many people have come forward, this is an
opportunity for the issue to be brought forward again.
Mr. Prochaska added that the issue is not how the ordinance got changed, but
whether or not the City has done enough to protect the citizens. Additionally, no
6
one wants to cause problems with dog owners as many people have well trained
dogs, however, there are a lot of dogs that are not well trained.
Chairperson Spears thanked the public attendees for coming and addressing the
committee with their concerns. She reminded them of the Public Hearing on
January 27, 2009. Additionally, she stated that the leash law was amended to
include only the owner’s yard, if animals are unleashed anywhere else, you are
encouraged to contact the Police Department.
Alderman Allen asked to clarify that the residents wish to revert back to the old
ordinance. However, he feels the proper legal procedure would be to rescind the
ordinance and re-issue it. He feels that the previous ordinance was ignored, as
many residents did not want to start neighborhood problems by complaining
about their neighbors. Chief Martin stated that once there was an issue where
neighbors went back and forth about their animals. He stated that the normal
procedure would be to issue a citation for an unleashed dog. Furthermore, his
major concern is owners walking their dogs unleashed.
Public Discussion was once again opened. The following comments were made:
Ms. Judy Gilmour:
I don’t reside within the City limits, however, I am right next-door.
o
I feel as though Alderman Sutcliff is the only person defending the
change to the ordinance.
DISCUSSION: Alderman Sutcliff stated that she did vote to
change the ordinance because she feels that people own their
property and have the right to do what they want on their property.
Ms. Gilmour added that with regards to this issue, the City should
have erred on the side of safety.
Mr. Fred DuSell:
I respect people’s rights. However, if a dog came off his property
o
and attacked me, I have the right to defend myself. I feel that dogs
should be fenced, in an electric fence or tethered.
Ms. Jean McBride:
I checked into what I could do to defend myself against a loose
o
dog and was told to carry a stick for protection.
DISCUSSION: Lt. Hart informed Ms. McBride that she has the
right to carry pepper spray.
Mr. Matt May:
Do you have kids? What if your child was attacked? People will
o
take the matter into their own hands.
Mr. Mark Johnson:
I reside in a neighborhood with 8-9 dogs. They are always leashed
o
and the owners always pick up after them. However, I have been
in areas where dogs run free. The majority of people are good
owners and follow the law.
Whose job is it to handle loose dogs?
o
7
DISCUSSION: Chief Martin stated that it is the responsibility of
the Police Department, however, if they have problems getting
control of a dog, they can ask Animal Control to assist them. Lt.
Hart added that the Police Department tries to get a loose dog to
get into their cars and then they take them to Animal Control.
However, that requires them to corral the dog. Before the
ordinance was amended, citations would have been issued.
The committee returned to their discussion. Committeeman Werderich stated that he
feels this matter needs to return to City Council. He will draft an ordinance to
supercede this one. Committeeman Plocher agrees and feels the issue needs to be
addressed, as most residents believe that the ordinance has been rescinded.
This item will be returned to next month’s agenda.
MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL:
The minutes of November 24, 2008 and December 18, 2008 were approved with corrections,
which will be submitted to the City Clerk’s office.
NEW BUSINESS:
1.PS 2009-01 – Police Reports for November/December, 2008
Committeeman Werderich noted that there were more complaints regarding
ordinance violations.
This item was moved to the Consent Agenda.
4.PS 2009-04 – Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Regarding Term
of Liquor License
Lisa Pickering stated that the City currently issues liquor licenses twice per year.
16 other local towns issue them once per year. Much time and money would be
saved by changing procedure to issue them once per year, without any additional
cost of the City. The fees would remain the same. Currently there are 32-33
licenses issued and the process is very time consuming. Chief Martin stated that
he supported this request.
Discussion took place regarding the issuance of licenses. The license stays with
the person it is issued to, not the establishment. There are no restrictions of the
number of licenses for selling liquor.
This item was moved to the Consent Agenda.
5.PS 2009-05 – Discussion of Amending Ordinances and/or Creating New
Codes/Ordinances
Chairperson Spears stated that this item was added to the agenda because
Committeeman Werderich had a concern regarding the number of ordinances that
have been amended. The Committee was told that the Attorney was informed to
clean up the books; however, it is costing the City a lot of money.
8
Committeeman Werderich stated that his concern is that the City Council is the
policymakers. He feels it is wrong that ordinances are being brought to the City
Council, as the City Council should be initiating changes. Chief Martin stated
that the adjudication process has required many changes to ordinances.
Committeeman Werderich stated that those changes are understandable and
acceptable. He stated that the City should initiate changes because there is a
concern that needs to be addressed. There must be a core reason behind these
changes.
Committeeman Plocher asked why Building and Zoning ordinances are coming
through this Committee. Chief Martin stated because they control the
Adjudication Process. After discussion, it was determined that ordinances
reviewed by the Public Safety Committee should be only reviewed if requested by
the committee or Chief Martin.
OLD BUSINESS:
1.PS 2008-46 Code Amendment Ordinances
A.Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Regarding Advertising on
Signs and Buildings
Chief Martin recommends moving this item to the Public Works Committee
Agenda and allowing them to make a recommendation on this matter as they
have knowledge of the purpose behind it. Lisa Pickering noted that Travis is
the liaison to the EDC and he controls Building and Zoning so she
recommends moving this item to EDC. Chief Martin and the Committee
agreed.
This item was moved to the Economic Development Committee.
B.Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Regarding Fireworks
Chief Martin stated that he would like to retain this ordinance for the
adjudication process. Discussion took place regarding cap guns and guns with
blanks for use at the beginning of races. Lt. Hart suggested mimicking the
state law regarding this matter, to which the Committee agreed.
This item was moved to the City Council.
C.Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Regarding Trespassing on
Property
Chief Martin recommends withdrawing this item for consideration. The
Committee unanimously agreed.
No further action is required.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:
Committeeman Plocher
Can jake breaking become a City ordinance? Chief Martin responded that
it is a moving violation, therefore, it cannot be. Additionally, the City is
not a Home Rule City, which also prohibits such action.
9
Can the ordinance regarding parking across a sidewalk be rescinded
during a snowfall? Chief Martin replied that it is a state law; therefore, it
cannot be rescinded. Additionally, the City ordinance is punishable by a
$25.00 fine, whereas state law is punishable by a $75.00 fine.
Committeeman Werderich
With regards to the Bassett Training law, I received a call from Bob
Dearborn who advised that it creates a hardship on his business, as he has
to pay his employees to attend. Therefore, I would like to revisit this
issue. Committeemen Plocher and Sutcliff agreed. Chairperson Spears
suggested bringing this item forward at the next committee meeting and
having Barry attend to speak regarding the matter. Chief Martin suggested
inviting Mayor Burd to attend as well.
With regards to punishment in terms of the adjudication process, could the
City consider issuing public service time rather than just a fine, as
sometimes having to do public service would make a greater impact than a
fine would? Chief Martin stated that many years ago that was the practice,
however, it is difficult because the people have to be monitored and the
City has to find things for them to do. He stated he is not against such a
policy and therefore, it could be researched again. Chairperson Spears
stated that from personal experience at her place of employment, the
Police Department had to pick up the people and supervise and monitor
their progress. Committeeman Werderich stated that in the case of a 14
year old who can not legally work to raise money for a fine he/she might
be issued, that child would be required to get the money from his/her
parents and therefore, is not really learning a lesson. Chairperson Spears
stated that another consideration would be who would be legally
responsible if that child was injured while conducting public service.
Chief Martin stated that is why this matter was such a problem in the past
and it was referred to the Probation Department.
Chief Martin – none
Lisa Pickering – none
Chairperson Spears – none
Alderman Allen
With regards to the Bassett Training, perhaps the City could find a
medium ground such as an extension or scheduling another class.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING:
With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Margaret M. Hartigan.
10