Public Safety Minutes 2009 07-23-09
APPROVED W/ CORRECTIONS
10/8/09
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
City Hall, Council Chambers
Thursday, July 23, 2009– 6:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
Chairperson Werderich, Committeemen Munns, Plocher, Spears (arrived at 7:30 pm)
ABSENT:
None
ALSO PRESENT:
Chief Harold Martin (arrived at 7:20 pm), Mayor Valerie Burd (arrived at 7:20 pm),
Lieutenant Rich Hart, Lieutenant Don Schwartzkopf, Aldermen Teeling, Gilson, and
Golinski, Community Development Director Miller, Tony Scott of The Record,
Rowena Vergara of The Beacon and the following residents from the City of
Yorkville or Kendall County: Lou Denny, Richard Lange, Sandra Lane, Andria
Bortner, Maribel Robles, Amy Steffan, Todd Steffan, Alex Balaguta, Kevin Klein,
Lana Murray, Lisa Carestia, Geoff Carreiro, Colleen Moffat, Nichole Ryan, Rachel
Cugier, Haley Cugier, Kristy Markhardt, Brian Payne, Albert McConnell, Anthony
Ray, and Tyshawn Dembry.
Chairperson Werderich called the meeting to order at 6:20 pm.
Chairperson Werderich asked to move New Business items 3 and 4 to the start of the meeting
as many of the attendees were here to discuss those items.
NEW BUSINESS:
4.PS 2009-24 Pit Bulls in Yorkville – Discussion
Chairperson Werderich explained that the item was placed on the agenda by
Alderman Teeling who was asked to explain why the item was brought forth for
discussion. Alderman Teeling explained that she received a call from a resident
and she feels that she needs to listen to what residents have to stay so she placed
the item on the agenda for discussion.
Chairperson Werderich stated that it was brought to the attention of this
committee by legal counsel that it would be illegal for the City of Yorkville to ban
a specific breed of animals, pursuant to state law. However, since so many
residents were in attendance, he stated he would open the discussion up to the
public.
1
The following public discussion took place:
Lou Denny
Stated that other towns in the State of Illinois have bans on pit
o
bulls, to which Chairperson Werderich advised that those towns
are Home Rule and therefore are legally able to have such
restrictions.
He feels this item should appear on the next election ballot.
o
He provided photos and comments from persons that had been
o
attacked by pit bulls.
He contacted 6 insurance companies and 5 of them refuse to insure
o
persons who have pit bulls.
He doesn’t understand why it is illegal to own a chicken, but a
o
man-eating dog whose intent is to kill you is legal.
He feels it is important for the safety of the residents of Yorkville
o
to ban pit bulls.
The City of Yorkville feels that a wireless fence is considered
o
containment, however in Streeter, IL you have to have 4 walls with
a lock and key and a sign visible 100’ away stating that a pit bull
resides at that residence.
Is the City going to wait until someone gets hurt before doing
o
something about this?
He circulated a petition and has over 40 signatures from residents
o
requesting a ban on pit bulls. Only 5 people who were asked to
sign the petition refused to sign it.
Between the years of 2006-2008 deaths as a result of a dog attack
o
in the United States were 55% due to pit bulls, 14% due to
rottweillers, 5% due to bull dogs, and 5% due to huskies.
Sandra Lange
She was attacked by a pit bull while walking her two small dogs at
o
Pleasure and Game Farm Roads. She was terrified. The owner of
the pit bull had to pull the dog off of her dogs. She thought one of
her dogs was dead. Her dog required stitches in the back of her
neck. If she had not remained still, she fears the pit bull would
have killed her. The owner of the pit bull did not understand that
the pit bull could have killed her dog.
DISCUSSION: Committeeman Munns asked Ms. Lange if she
resided within the City limits or within the County, to which she
replied the County; however the attack happened within the City
limits. He asked if she signed complaints regarding the attack, to
which she replied she had as the owner did not have the dog on a
leash and it was not fenced. She was told she would be informed
of a court date, but has not yet received any notification. Ms.
Lange stated that she sent the pit bull owner a letter explaining that
it was difficult for her to cover her dog’s medical expenses. The
pit bull owner contacted Ms. Lange and told her that she should
not have contacted the Police; she should have gone to her front
2
door and dealt with the situation. Chairperson Munns asked the
members of the Police Department what the penalty is for such
offenses. Lt. Hart stated that the pit bull would have been in
violation of the leash law and state law, however, that depends on
the severity of the bite.
Lou Denny
When he resided in Aurora, a pit bull attacked his dog and killed it.
o
His ex-wife was attacked recently in Aurora by 3 pit bulls. It took
o
6 police bullets to stop the dogs from attacking.
If the City will not ban them, would the City consider requiring
o
signs stating that the resident has pit bulls and a requirement of no
more than a 4” leash?
DISCUSSION: Chairperson Werderich asked Lt. Hart to expound
on the comments previously made by Mr. Denny. Lt. Hart stated
that since Yorkville is not a Home Rule community, we have to
follow the state’s Dangerous Animal law. Therefore, persons with
an animal that is a nuisance or is dangerous can be charged. It is
one of the stricter laws in the country. Additionally, it would be
very difficult to enforce restrictions on specific breed dogs and
legally, there is nothing that the City Council can do at this point to
restrict specific animals. Committeeman Munns asked what would
happen if a person or animal was attacked and needed medical
attention with regards to the medical bills. Lt. Hart stated that the
officer could issue a local ordinance citation which requires the
offending dog owner to attend an adjudication hearing. At that
hearing, the dog owner could be fined up to $750.00 per
occurrence. However, if the dog owner was charged under state
law, that would be handled differently. Lt. Hart added that the
Police Department takes dog enforcement very seriously.
Residents in attendance in favor of breed specific restrictions were
asked to contact their state legislators regarding changing state law
as there is legally nothing that can be done on a local level.
Committeeman Munns stated that the committee could discuss
more severe penalties as perhaps the $750.00 is not high enough.
Lt. Hart stated that in the past, the department has been given
orders to seize a dog in which there were serious problems.
Mr. Denny asked if he could have this item put on the next election
ballot. Chairperson Werderich advised him that it would be an
advisory referendum only. Mr. Denny would need petitions to
have such an item placed on the ballot.
Chairperson Werderich opened the discussion back up to public comment.
Kristy Markhardt
3
She is the Assistant Warden for the Kendall County Animal
o
Control and has worked there for 9 years.
They do get stray pit bulls and have found that there are several
o
other breeds of dogs that are more aggressive.
Restricting pit bulls would affect their adoption of animals that
o
deserve a good, loving home.
The aggressiveness of pit bulls depends a lot on how they were
o
raised and what they were exposed to.
She is not in favor of any restrictions.
o
Alex Balaguta
She is a scientist by occupation and has resided here for 3 years.
o
Her boyfriend in the Program Director for the YMCA and they
have a pit bull that is not aggressive.
According to statistics, pit bulls are the most common breed of
o
dog. Chow Chow are the most aggressive at .705%. Pit bulls that
are aggressive account for .0012% of the population. You have to
take into account the entire population of each breed. She advised
that these figures were obtained through the Center for Disease
Control.
Lisa Carestia
She is a Kendall County resident, but formerly from Yorkville.
o
She is an attorney and a voter.
o
She has 3 pit bulls, all of which were rescued. They were treated
o
horribly as puppies, but are now wonderful pets.
Aggressiveness is not about the breed, but the way a dog is raised.
o
She feels horrible about what happened to Ms. Lange.
o
She has had email correspondence with Mayor Burd, who is
o
familiar with the law and since Yorkville is not home rule, it is
illegal to ban specific breeds of dogs.
She asked to people be open-minded as not all pit bulls are bad
o
dogs. Bad ones are a result of their environment.
She volunteers at the Naperville Humane Society and sees other
o
breeds that are more problems.
The City should punish the person who owns bad dogs, not the
o
breed.
She thanked the Committee for allowing her to speak.
o
Sandra Lange
She agrees that the City should make pit bulls owners post a sign.
o
She is a dog lover. She realizes that dog owners love their dogs,
o
but people have the right to be safe. She doesn’t like being afraid.
She will gladly post signs in her yard that states she owns 2 dogs.
o
Andria Bortner
Dogs should not be treated like criminals.
o
There is a dalmation in her neighborhood that killed another dog in
o
an attack.
4
She showed Ms. Lange photos of dogs and she could not identify
o
which was a pit bull.
Anthony Ray
Has resided in Yorkville for 24 years.
o
Owns 6 pit bulls. There are kids in the house and the dogs just lay
o
there while the kids play.
It’s all in how the dog was raised.
o
Chairperson Werderich asked the committee their opinion on what should be
done. Committeeman Plocher stated that this item could go to referendum as
advisory, however, it does nothing but allow the City to draft a letter requesting a
change in the law. Yorkville cannot change the law. Committeeman Munns
stated that the matter of raising penalties for all dog attacks should be brought
back to future meeting.
Chairperson Werderich stated that no action would be taken and that if someone
wished to present this item for the next agenda, they could request to do so.
3.PS 2009-23 Bristol Bay Parking Restrictions – Discussion
Lt. Hart stated that he is not sure why this item is on the agenda as they take
action when cars are illegally parked.
Chairperson Werderich stated that with nothing to discuss, this item would be
removed from the agenda. Should there be a need to discuss it in the future, it
could be brought back.
PRESENTATION:
None
MINUTES:
The minutes of May 28, 2009 were approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
1.PS 2009-21 Police Reports for May / June, 2009
Lt. Hart stated that the department has been busy. Lt. Schwartzkopf stated that a
memo was issued regarding increased thefts.
Chairperson Werderich stated that while this is not related, could the Police
Department speak about the bicycle accident. Lt. Hart stated that the accident
was still under investigation and that the department was awaiting results from the
crime lab.
This item was moved to the Consent Agenda.
2.PS 2009-22 ILEAS Grant Award
Lt. Hart stated that the department applied for an ILEAS Grant. They received
the grant which resulted in 3 MDTs at no cost to the City, including hookup and
5
modems. Lt. Schwartzkopf stated that the cost would have been $23,000.
Chairperson Werderich praised the Police Department for receiving the grant.
This item was moved to the Consent Agenda.
5.PC 2009-01 Wind Energy System Ordinance – Discussion
Alderman Golinski asked that this item return to this committee for discussion.
Alderman Gilson asked to review the concerns that he has.
Why would the City of Naperville adopt a document that has not been
officially adopted by the Small Wind Certification Council?
The Buydown Rebate Program only covers turbines, and again this has not
yet been adopted by the Small Wind Certification Council.
Annual inspections should be revisited as if the equipment is not kept up
then he has an issue with it.
Regarding the Chapter 16 Code:
General Purpose 10-16-2, item A – we don’t have the applicable
o
standards.
General Purpose 10-16-2, item B – this further reinforces that we
o
need annual inspections
Scope 10-16-3 – this section discusses regulations under IBC,
o
NEC, FAA, state, federal and city laws, however, none of those
specifically address structural regulations, only electrical.
General Provisions 10-16-5, item A-b – American Wind Energy
o
Association and California Energy Commission have still not
adopted the standards and therefore he feels the City is jumping the
gun.
General Provisions 10-16-5, item C – does not feel these are the
o
applicable codes.
General Provisions 10-16-5, item G – if a system needs to be
o
abated, who pays for it? The City does not have funds budgeted.
Rooftop Wind Energy System 10-16-6, Item B – states ‘local
o
building code and as approved by the City Code official’ however,
there is no ordinance in place. Also, does the official have the
ability to monitor the mounting?
He feels the need to add reputable manufacturers because if that is not
monitored, lousy systems could be installed with the City,
His main point is that he doesn’t feel the City should adopt standards from
organizations that have not adopted the standards themselves.
Sugar Grove adopted a policy, to which they now have a moratorium;
however, our attorneys advised that we can’t institute a moratorium.
When asked by Alderman Golinski what Alderman Gilson would like the City to
consider, he stated that he would like his recommended changes to be included or
to institute a moratorium.
Discussion took place regarding the standards. Mr. Miller explained that the
standards are the ordinance. Additionally, he stated that the organization has
6
certified manufacturers and the CEC’s list has been around since 2003. The
system sold at Menards appears on the recommended list of manufacturers.
Mr. Miller stated that with regards to a moratorium, it is by definition temporary
and should be used to do additional research. He feels that there is no emergency
situation here where the City has to act immediately. There have been no systems
installed within the City. If there were systems installed and they were falling, the
he would recommend a moratorium.
Alderman Gilson spoke about the written response prepared by Mr. Miller. It was
noted that item #5 states that information on the association and the certification
are attached, however, it notes that it will is in draft form. Mr. Miller explained
that California only gives rebates if the manufacturer appears on the list and they
are connected to the grid. I recommend borrowing their list as they state the
manufacturers provide acceptable and safe products. Additionally, the association
certifies for eligibility of rebates.
Mr. Miller stated that with regards to Section 10-16-5, item B this states that the
wind turbine must be approved by those organizations. Alderman Gilson feels
that they are no approved by the organizations. Mr. Miller stated that the
organizations list the manufacturer name and model number on their published
list.
The committee was asked what they wished to do at this point. Committeeman
Plocher feels that this item should be moved forward and noted that he values
Alderman Gilson’s concerns; however he does not share them. Committeeman
Munns stated that he feels as though a small rooftop unit is not going to safe much
energy anyway. Furthermore, he was comfortable making the changes.
Chairperson Werderich stated that he wished to move this item forward, but feels
the committee should look at the changes individually.
Mr. Miller stated that list is current. The Committee was satisfied.
After much discussion, it was determined that bi-annual inspections will
be conducted.
With regards to the standards – Mr. Miller stated that the standards are
referring to height, length of blades, etc. which is included in the
ordinance. The committee agreed to leave the standards as is.
Scope 10-16-3 – no suggested change was submitted.
General Provision 10-16-5 – Alderman Gilson wants to wait until the
agencies approve the lists. Mr. Miller indicated that the CEC list is
approved and the AWEA list has been approved by a sub-committee but is
awaiting approval from the full committee. The consensus was to leave
this section as is.
General Provision 10-16-5 (Abandon system) – Alderman Gilson feels
that the City needs to pay the cost of abating a system upfront, and
therefore, the City needs to anticipate the cost + legal fees and place that
amount in the budget before this item moves forward. Alderman Golinski
7
feels that the cost of repairing the roof should also be included.
Committeeman Spears feels it is premature to move forward at this time.
Committeeman Plocher, Munns and Chairperson Werderich are
comfortable with leaving this section as is.
General Provision 10-16-6c – this has been resolved by the inspection
requirement; therefore, this section will not be changed.
General Provision 10-16-6 (City Code Official) – Alderman Gilson feels
that the City Code Official is too overburdened and not qualified to
complete these inspections. The consensus was to educate the City Code
Official on how to conduct these inspections. The committeeman showed
concern that they would not be followed through on. No amendments are
suggested for this section, other than the previously approved change to
bi-annual inspections.
This item was moved to the City Council agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
1.PS 2009-17 Off Street Parking Regulations / Shell Gas Station Semi Parking
Mr. Miller stated that previous direction was to address parking in the nuisance
ordinance, however, after speaking with Attorney Orr, she feels that parking on
private property would not be appropriate to include in the nuisance ordinance.
She suggested including this matter in the Zoning Ordinance. It was already
addressed in the zoning ordinance, however, now #2 was added to discuss
business districts and restrict parking from 10:00 p.m. – 4:00 a.m. in such areas.
Mr. Miller added that, procedurally, this matter requires a public hearing at the
Plan Commission; however, he wished to open the matter up for discussion. This
item will go to public hearing, then first reading of the City Council.
With regards to Mr. Miller’s 7/16/09 memo, Committeeman Spears stated that by
placing the responsibility of signing off on the parking enforcement agreements
on the Mayor, it is essentially taking away the City Council’s powers. She added
that the Mayor would have rejected the same request from the previous Mayor to
do such a thing. The entire committee and Alderman Golinski were in agreement
with Committeeman Spears. Mayor Burd stated that there was a reason this was
requested. Chief Martin added that the Police Department requested this for the
sake of expediency and to get the process in motion. Committeeman Spears and
Alderman Golinski stated they were still not comfortable making the change.
Mayor Burd stated that the basic agreement itself has already been approved.
Alderman Golinski feels that the specifics of the agreement should be approved
by the City Council. Mayor Burd stated that it would only be a change in the
business name. Chief Martin stated that this is a parking issue. The signed
agreement allows the Police Department to enforce parking restrictions on private
property. Mr. Miller added that the form is already agreed upon. The committee
members were asked if they wished to change their position. Alderman Plocher is
the only person who is changing his position and feels the Mayor should have the
8
authority to approve the agreement. Since there was no consensus, this change
will not take place.
Alderman Golinski requested clarification on the term “accessory” used in section
10-11-3. Mr. Miller stated that it is an accessory use to the structure, meaning any
parking facility.
Committeeman Plocher asked if the proposed zoning ordinance change would
affect Illinois Trucking Facility or the bus lot. It was determined that if vehicles
are owned by the business and necessary to operate the business, then they could
be parking during the restricted hours.
This item was moved to the City Council, with changes, to conduct the Public
Hearing. Committeeman Plocher wished to voice his objection to the ordinance.
Mr. Miller stated that he also has 2 parking enforcement agreements to discuss.
The first is the Hughes property. This agreement has been executed and ready to
send to the City Council for approval. The other was sent to Shell Gas Station,
but has not been returned for processing. The problem is that Shell Gas Station
has a sign that reads “parking in excess of 24 hours is prohibited”. He is
concerned about how to enforce that. Mr. Miller showed the committee
illustrations for the proposed signage which states ‘no parking form 10:00 p.m. –
4:00 a.m.” and stated the cost for each sign is $55.00. He feels the property
owner should have to install the sign. Mr. Miller added that the Hughes Property
currently has no signage. He is seeking direction on whether or not he is
supposed to instruct the property owners to install the signs.
Mayor Burd feels that the City has never dictated to a property owner which type
of sign they needed to install. Furthermore, she stated that the agreement between
the City and the property owners states that the City will enforce the parking
restrictions. She feels that purchasing the signs would be bad precedence and the
City should not do that either. Mr. Miller stated that the Hughes Property has no
signs present, so there is nothing to enforce without any signs present. The
Committee feels that the City instructs business owners to purchase handicapped
parking signs so this is no different. Mr. Miller stated that the City gets a discount
for these signs and they would be more expensive for the property owners to
purchase them. He would like the City to purchase the signs, and then have the
property owner reimburse the City. The Committee agreed.
Mr. Miller asked if the agreement is received by Shell Gas Station soon, could he
place that item directly on the City Council agenda for processing. The
Committee agreed.
The Hughes Property parking enforcement agreement was sent to the City
Council Agenda.
9
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:
Committeeman Spears – Asked Mr. Miller when the AED at the Riverfront that was
donated to the City would be in operation. Mr. Miller stated it should be working in
2-4 weeks. Mayor Burd stated the problem is that Ken Com would not allow direct
calling for the AED so additional wiring needed to be done.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING:
With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Margaret M. Hartigan.
10