Comprehensive Plan Implementation Subcommittee

Niles 2030 Plan Implementation Sub –Committee Meeting Summary Monday July 16th, 2012 The following persons were in attendance: The Committee comprised of Pat Dalessandro, Steve Gorski, Fred Kudert, Harry Major, Chairman Chuck Ostman, and Mike Shields. Also in attendance were Trustee Rosemary Palicki, Assistant Village Manager Steve Vinezeano, and Community Development Manager Rich Wlodarski. The meeting was called to order at 6:30pm by Chairman Chuck Ostman. 1. The Minutes of the June 12th, 2012 meeting were discussed. Mike Shields proposed that a line be added to the minutes identifying that the meeting was video‐recorded and a DVD was available for viewing upon request to Chuck Ostman. Motion was seconded and approved. A Motion was then put forward to approve the Minutes; it was seconded and approved unanimously by the Committee. 2. Chuck Ostman distributed copies of the consolidated 2030 Plan Objectives Matrix with Committee member prioritization ratings noted. Pat Dalessandro’s ratings, while not shown on the Matrix were communicated as the meeting proceeded. Chuck explained to the Committee that he would like to focus the discussions on the Objectives highlighted in Orange and Deep Yellow , reflecting the highest average ratings on the 10 point scale (10 being highest priority) and those with average ratings of 7 or above. Chuck also indicated that he would be providing further activity status updates that the Committee members were likely not to be aware of on specific objectives as they were discussed. 3. Mike Shields asked how the final result from the Matrix reviews and prioritization process was going to be used and what was the timing that Chuck had in mind for presenting the priorities to the Board of Trustees. Chuck responded that he thought a presentation to the Board in the October‐November time period was a good timing goal with a primary focus on the 2014 Budget process, that ‘high priority’ objectives needing funding and or formal department/ leadership assignment are clearly identified for the Trustees at that time.  Chuck also commented that it would be important for the Committee to provide details and justification in support of priority items as part of the recommendations to the Board along with identifying any “roadblocks” associated with specific objectives. 4. Steve Gorski asked about the status of the Planner and Economic Coordinator positions previously approved by the Board for the 2013 budget. Chuck reiterated that both positions were in the approved 2013 Budget and position descriptions had been written. Chuck said that the Planner position would be presented for Board approval to proceed with the hiring process, which is required, at the upcoming July Board meeting. Fred Kudert asked about the timing to complete the hiring. Chuck indicated that approximately (3) three months is to be expected given job posting time requirements and other procedural and interview steps that need to be followed. Mike Shields asked why the hiring process was not approved in May. Chuck said he did not know why. 5. Mike Shields provided his overall opinion on the general implementation of objectives based on his analysis of the 183 objectives noting: that it appeared that nearly half of the 183 objectives (85 of 183) could be accomplished by several basic actions: 1) Developing and passing the proposed new and more defined ‘Building and Appearance Ordinances’ (not updated since 1965 as identified by Chuck in later discussions). 2) Filling the Planner and Economic Coordinator Positions and 3) By Village Management direction as many of the other remaining objectives could be accomplished by existing work processes, particularly in the Public Services Dept. and the Village manager’s Dept. Shields made the point that the Committee should not lose sight of this key point ‐ that nearly half the objectives could very well be achieved by just two actions – both of which are in the 2013 Budget. Fred Kudert commented supporting this overall point of view that basic actions appear to be more important than financing. Furthermore, Mike Shields also added that in his view one of the Committee’s primary functions is to ensure that ‘the community’s desires’ (as expressed in the various 2030 Plan outreach events in the fall of 2010 and early 2011) were in fact reflected in the Implementation Committee’s final priority rankings of the 183 Objectives and then effectively and in a timely way communicated to the Board. Mike mentioned the four basic broad areas of priority to the Niles community: Storm Water remediation (plan approved and in process of implementation), Milwaukee Ave. Streetscape, Image and Identity, and Reducing traffic congestion and improving pedestrian safety in our major commercial corridors. 6. Regarding Milwaukee Ave., Chuck Ostman made the point that he believed there needed to be a ‘new study’ of what businesses should be  on Milwaukee Ave and with a specific example concerning the corner of Harlem and Milwaukee, the site of the former United Transmission Service Center and associated parcels because of current interest in this site by a potential developer. This statement precipitated a discussion among Committee members about 1) the need for such a study and 2) whether Niles should be or would be able to select specific business types to any significant degree and under current difficult market conditions. There was no consensus or agreement on the need for yet another ‘Milwaukee Ave. Study’. There was, however, unanimous agreement that the budgeted and approved zoning ordinance revision program address this issue. Fred Kudert asked about the timing for the completion of the zoning reviews and the presentation of a proposed new zoning ordinance. Chuck commented that once the contracted firm starts it will take 12‐14 months and the required RFQ and selection process will take several months. Over all it is expected that the zoning review work will not completed until late 2013 or early 2014. 7. Chuck began the discussion of the consolidated 2030 Plan Objectives Matrix, the compilation with Committee member prioritization ratings. Chuck asked the Committee to focus on the average ratings highlighted in Orange and Deep Yellow as previously outlined. As discussions concerning the first section, Residential, proceeded it became apparent from the wide range of individual priority ratings that Committee Members based their priority decisions primarily on their own personal criteria. There was discussion amongst all of the Committee members describing individual priority perspectives, all of which identified that compilation, using an average to determine Committee recommendations would be inaccurate because the individual criteria differed significantly in some cases. Mike Shields commented that this uniformity issue would also be of concern to the Building and Zoning Committee or the Board of Trustees regarding any specific Committee recommendations and the Committee should “step back” and discuss and collectively agree on a new criteria. Steve Gorski and Fred Kudert agreed. 8. Regarding this issue, Mike Shields proposed the following criteria – a rating system that more or less equated ‘High Priority’ (10) with ‘Timing Implementation Immediacy’ (‘Needs to be done now’ etc.). ‘10’ Critical – implement in 2013 ‘9’ Implement within two years ‘8’ Implement within three years ‘7’ Implement within four years ‘6’ Implement within five years  ‘5’ Implement beyond five years Each of the above score values could also be repeated in evaluating specific objectives within one of the thirteen sections allowing for a number of objectives to carry the same importance. In addition to the above ratings, with further discussion that additional factors beyond timing were also important, it was agreed that an indication should also be made, primarily via Chuck Ostman’s input and judgment, concerning the status of each specific objective whether they are ‘In Place’ (PL) – already existing, ‘In Process’ (PR), or ‘Not Started’ (N). Comments from various committee members indicated that one of the purposes of the status additions was to insure that objectives which in essence exist (In Place) remain so as the 2030 program proceeds, that they are expected to remain of importance to the Village of Niles and remain in place. The Committee after some further discussion agreed to the new Criteria and prioritization methodology. 9. Using the new criteria, the Committee repeated the review of the 22 objectives in the Residential section and in many cases, amending previous ratings. Chuck Ostman will update the results of this additional review and issue a Residential section compilation update to all Committee members on or before the next meeting. In the course of the discussion of this section Harry Major and Pat Dalessandro offered comments from their experiences within Niles and other communities concerning the potential importance of an Appearance Committee, from a control aspect, to augment zoning ordinances; the permitting process, which was viewed as generally acceptable in Niles, and general opinions that Niles was an affordable place to do business, attributes that were deemed important to retain. Pat also commented that there are significant parking issues in Niles, both in residential and commercial corridors, with the suggestion to consider this problem somewhere in the review process. Steve Vinezeano also provided detail in the discussion regarding an objective to encourage energy efficient residential and commercial construction methods identifying for Committee members the difficulties associated with the existing code, that current code does not allow the use of certain energy efficient construction methods. Pat Dalessandro shared information based on professional experience that energy efficient, “green” methods can in some cases double construction costs.  Trustee Palicki and Fred Kudert commented that allowing but not requiring the use of all new energy efficient construction methods should be considered in drafting the new zoning ordinance to address this objective. Also in the general closing discussion Pat Dalessandro reiterated his opening opinion that the 2030 plan was an aggressive document with a lot to just get it done, and his personal perspective to consider municipal actions that enhance the life of the residents and business profitability in the priority review. 10. The Committee agreed to meet Monday July 30th at 6:30pm to continue and complete the ratings for all other sections and objectives, using the new criteria. It was requested that Committee members in the interim re‐review the matrix and note their new rating in preparation for further discussion at the July 30 meeting. Chuck Ostman will recompile the overall ratings afterwards. 11. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35pm