Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-163 Resolution No. 97-163 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD TASK FORCE REPORT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, that it hereby adopts the School Crossing Guard Task Force Report dated February 1997 as the City of Elgin' s Policy for school pedestrian crossings, a copy of which is attached. s/ Kevin Kelly Kevin Kelly, Mayor Presented: June 25, 1997 Adopted: June 25, 1997 Omnibus Vote: Yeas 7 Nays 0 Attest: s/ Dolonna Mecum Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk • Agenda Item No. 1 ��OF 6- City of Elgin s RA TC D FEyt,t. May 19 , 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert O. Malm, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: School Crossing Guard Task Force Report PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to the Mayor and members of the City Council a process to address school crossing guard requests . BACKGROUND The attached report provides additional structure to assist school administrators, parents, and City staff in evaluating requests for school crossing guards . Outlined in the report is the process, time frames and recommendations endorsed by the Neighborhood Services Committee. The process outlined in the attached report supports the Crossing Guard Resolution adopted by City Council March 9 , 1988 (attached) . The report is the work product of a task force comprised of Police, Fire and Public Works personnel as well as the princi- pals from Century Oaks and Garfield Schools . The task force reviewed existing crossing guard criteria, benchmarked standards and procedures with other municipalities, school districts and traffic safety organizations, and developed a simplified and less costly process to determine whether or not a street inter- section requires a school crossing guard. COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED * Members of the Task Force * School District U-46 Board of Education (report filed) * Several Municipalities, Policing Agencies and Engineer- ing Departments - (all are specifically noted within the report) FINANCIAL IMPACT The 1997 Budget for the Crossing Guard Program is $168, 000 . The program is budgeted annually to maintain 28 locations at a cost of $6 , 000 per location. These expenditures are budgeted in account number 010-2305-731 . 01-03, Police Department Traffic Division Part-Time Employee Earnings . School Crossing Guard Task Force Report May 19 , 1997 Page 2 Should the City Council approve the Task Force Report, any new location would require a budget increase of $6 , 000 per site, plus $1 , 500 in engineering fees from a qualified traffic engi- neering firm. The $1, 500 engineering fee for a Warrant Study is not budgeted in 1997 or any subsequent year. This expense would be part of the process when a selected site is reviewed for a crossing guard. LEGAL IMPACT None, however, if implemented, the budget must be amended to 4 appropriate the necessary funds . ALTERNATIVES None. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the Task Force report and endorse its recommendations . Respectfully submitted, Charles Gruber Ch. Police 7 ---)0/61k----- Robe t 0. Malm Inte im City Manager CLK/st 190 VOLUME LIII Parcel 43 Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Block 3 of 0. Davidson's Addition to the City of Elgin, Kane County, Illinois. Section 3. That James J. Cook, City Manager of the City of Elgin, be and is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to negotiate for and on behalf of the City of Elgin with the owner or owners of the above-described real property for the purchase of the real property described by the City of Elgin. 4 Section 4. That the City Manager be and is hereby authorized to offer the follow- ing sums as and for compensation to the owner or owners of the above-described properties; said offers shall be in writing: Parcels as Described Above Authorized Sums Parcel 42 $ 200,000 Parcel 43 $ 405,000 Section 5. In the event that the City Manager is unable to agree with the owner or owners of said property as to compensation to be paid therefor, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, then title to and possession of said property shall be acquired by the City of Elgin in accordance with the laws of the eminent domain of the State of Illinois, and the Corporation Counsel is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to institute appropriate proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction to acquire title to and possession of said property for the City of Elgin in accordance with the eminent domain laws of the State of Illinois. s/ George Van nP vnnrria George VanDeVoorde, Mayor Presented: March 9, 1988 Adopted: March 9 , 1988 Vote: Yeas 6 Nays 0 Recorded: Attest: s/ Marie Yearman Marie Yearman, City Clerk RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD CRITERIA ( 1988 ) Councilwoman Moylan made a motion, seconded by Councilman Walters to adopt the aforementioned Resolution. Yeas: Councilmen Fox, Gilliam, Moylan , Popple, Walters and Mayor Van De Voorde. Nays: None. rim . II 191 VOLUME LIII RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD CRITERIA (1988) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY uard Crter 4 (OI988) asF N, I INyOIS, of that it hereby .adopts the Adult School Crossing of which is attached. Elgin's policy for school pedestrian crossings, a copy s Geor e Van D Mayor rde George VanDeVoorde, Presented: March 9, I9881988 Adopted: March 9 , Vote: Yeas 6 Nays 0 Recorded: Attest: s Marie Yearman Marie Yearman, City Clerk ORDINANCE PSSWIDHINETHENCITYROFIELGINKING RESTRICTION Moylan made a motion , seconded by Councilman Walterscilmen to Councilwoman pass the aformentiowadterslandcMayore. aVanCDenVoorde. Fox, Gilliam, Moylan, Popple, Nays : None . ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD cRIIERIA ( 1980) The following factors are considered in analyzing school pedestri- an crossings: 1 . IbQ_Dumter-Qf_Q1QmQntary_S9rladQQ_}S_6/_5zbQQl_QbildrQD-rrQs5- Jog, At an intersection having a major through street and a minor street ( s ) controlled by "Stop" or "Yield" signs , the number of elementary school children crossing the major street approach during the peak crossing hour shall be used . When the intersec- tion is signalized , the number of Elementary school children in the most heavily used crosswalk during the peak crossing hour shall be used . The total number of elementary school children crossing at an intersection shall be considered under Hazard Rating Factor 6 (Other Factors) . 2. Yghigje Gap Availability - The criterion for this element shall be the percentage of time during the school crossing period when gaps adequate for a safe crossing are available. The safe crossing time shall be considered as the time necessary for an elementary school child to cross from one refuge point to another (usually from one curb to another ) at a walking speed of 3.0 leet per second . At an intersection having a major through street and minor street ( s ) controlled by "STOP" or "YIELD" signs , the gaps in traffic to be considered will be those for the traffic on the major street approaches . At signalized intersections , the gaps to be considered shall be those from turning movements which conflict with the crosswalk used by the largest group of school children, and the gaps will be computed per hour of "GREEN" time. In this instance , the width of the roadway is equal to one-half of the roadway , since the children are "protected" on the other half by vehicles waiting for the green light on the cross street (except for right turns on red ) . Where a major street has a median strip at least ten feet in width which can afford adequate pedestrian refuge , the major approaches shall be considered as separate one-way streets and the gaps used will be those of the heaviest traveled approach . Right turns on red that conflict with a crosswalk used by elemen- tary students will be analyzed . There are both benefits and hazards to pedestrians from right turn on red , but if unusual , hazards exist from right turns on red , prohibition of such turns will be posted . • 3. 51:1eQd_Qf_MQtQL_YQhlclQQ - The criterion for this element shall be the 85th percentile speed observed on the major approaches. The 85th percentile speed is determined from a speed study made with a radar unit . It is the speed at which only 15 percent of the motorists were observed traveling faster than, or the speed below which 85 percent of the motorists travel . • -2- 4. SiQtit_Di5tance - The criterion for this element shall be the ratio of the sight distance of a vehicle driver observing a 1bEee=fQQI high object in the crosswalk to design stopping dis- tance. The following design stopping distances (wet pavement ) , as recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials , shall be used : 25-30 mph ' 150-200 feet 30-35 mph 200-250 feet 35-40 mph 250-325 feet 40-45 mph 325-400 feet 5. 51afe1X_d1QtQLy - The criterion for this element shall be the number of pedestrian accidents occurring at the study location, involving school children going to or coming from school , during the previous ttEee=yeaC period . For locations where two or more such accidents have occurred , the tbEee=Xeat limitation shall not apply. However , significant geometric or traffic control changes at the crossing location need to be considered . Vehicle traffic accidents will also be considered for each inter- section during the hours when school children are crossing . The point values in the table shall be assigned when vehicle accidents happen at the subject intersection during the school crossing hours during a study period of ibEQg=Year1 6. QitieL_EOciQL5 - Certain unique factors may exist at some locations which would tend to increase or decrease the hazard to school-age pedestrians . Such factors may include complex inter- section and/or traffic signal design, existence of safer crossings nearby, the age of children crossing , a street which is used extensively by "foreign" traffic , the presence of stopped buses and other obstructions, and the volume of turning traffic not reflected in the gap availability criterion. In addition, the character of the street ( i .e. , arterial , local , etc . ) will be considered and will be a factor in borderline situations. The uniformity of the hazards throughout the school year , and from morning to evening crossing periods , needs to be considered . Situations where few children desire to walk to school when the temperature drops in the fall need special consideration. IHE_d8ZBBD_BBIIdS_SYSIEd Each crossing is analyzed with respect to the above factors. In order to compare the degree of hazard associated with each cross- ing , a Lelatiye point (or hazard ) rating is assigned to each crossing . The bazacO_LatiuQ is the cumulative total of points assigned to the crossing based on each of the hazard factors. The higher the hazard rating , the more hazardous the crossing is , relatively speaking . Please note the Hazard Rating System at the conclusion of this report . • -3- INIEBEBEIAIIQd_QE_dAZABQ_BAIINO Using the hazard rating as a guide, the following measures are appropriate: 1 . MBBK_AS_A_SCHOQL_CBQSSING when the hazard rating is DLeJ5.12E IbLD tQ at a crossing used by a.t_1e155t_E5_eitMeatLY_ Cb441 cbilcIEen during the peak crossing hour . The Traffic Committee is authorized to mark such a crossing with appropriate warning signs and special crosswalk markings. 2. INSIALL_ELAStiING_BEACQdQ -if any one of the following -condi= tions is met : a. The 85th percentile speed is in excess of 40 mph , measured at existing school crossing signs which have been in place at least 30 days. b . The street crossed is a U.S. or State trunk Highway on which a significant percentage of "foreign" drivers can be expected . c . The ratio of sight distance to safe stopping distance is less than 1 .5. d . The hazard rating is greater than 30 at an unguarded location where at least 25 elementary students cross and the available safe crossing gaps are less than 50%. 3. BECQd[7ENQ_IdE_ASSIQNMEdI_QE_Ad_AQQLI_QZUABQ when the hazard rating is grQgteL_thaD_tQ_QQintQ at a crossing used by dt_1ea5t_E� _elemeotaLx atucteDtQ during the peak crossing hour . 4 . BEC4MMENQ_IH+E_QISC4NIINQ9NCE_QE_AQQLI_CzU8912_PHQIECIIQN at a crossing where the hazard rating falls bg1Qvw_30_QoiDt5 or if the number of school children crossing during the peak crossing hour is 1Q55_tta0_1Q, At the intersection of two arterial streets where the total entering weekday traffic volume exceeds 20,000 vehicles, the total number of students crossing at the intersec- tion will be used to compare to the minimum of 15 students re- quired to retain an adult guard . -4- 5CHNI _EBQE5INQ_EILM_BBNEQUBE In order to properly evaluate the hazard inherent in a given street crossing used by school children, certain data are neces- sary concerning the quantity and characteristics of the traffic at the location. , The specific field studies include counts of school children crossing , traffic volumes, turning movements , measurement of traffic gaps, vehicle speed , and physical conditions of the location. Pedestrian counts are made during the peak school crossing periods (morning ,noon and afternoon) . The exact hours counted will vary depending upon school starting and dismissal times. Only elemen- tary school children are counted . Crossing by single children may be tallied together , but groups should be noted by a numeral indicating the size of the group . Totals will be made by quarter hours. Vehicular traffic , turning movements , and traffic gaps will be measured during the same periods as the pedestrian counts . Tabula- tions by fifteen-minute intervals are desired . The count will be conducted on a warm, sunny day, if possible, during the fall or spring of the year . If doubt arises as to the accuracy and validity of the count , a second count will be made and the values resulting in the higher hazard rating will be used . The wintertime school pedestrian traffic will also be considered , especially in borderline situations. Spot speeds of traffic approaching on the major approaches to the crossingare measured with a radar speed p d meter . These speed studies are generally taken approximately 250 feet in advance of the crossing . Speed studies are not necessary where the crossing is at a signalized intersection or where the approach is con- trol led by a stop sign. Historical speed studies in the area may be sufficient for estimating motor vehicle speeds. The 85th percentile speed on each major approach is desired . Physical conditions required include street width , length of crosswalk , and approach sight distance. The street width is the face of curb , curb-to-curb width or width of paved surface where shoulder construction is used . Width of median is also desired . Where there is considerable skew to the crosswalk or normal crossing path , the length of such crosswalk should be measured . Sight distance is the distance from the crossing at which the driver first receives a continuous view of a IbrQg-fQQI high object . This information is needed for all uncontrolled approach- es . -5- As individual locations are called to the attention of the Traffic Committee, studies will be made and the indicated measures taken, or recommendations will be submitted to the Elgin City Council . The agencies responsible for the studies and recommendations for school crossing guards and the policy set forth in this criteria are the following : Traffic Committee, Engineering Division and Elgin Police Department . This criteria has also been reviewed by staff of U-46 School District for comments. Hazard points will be assigned according to the following sched- ule: -6- 1. SCHOOL CHILDREN CROSSING Volume Points Volume Points 0-9 1 50-74 20 10-19 2 75-99 24 20-29 4 100-124 28, 30-34 8 125-149 32 35-39 12 150 & Over 36 40-49 16 2. VEHICLE GAP AVAILABILITY % of time when there are safe gaps Points Over 80% 0 70-79 4 60-69 8 55-59 12 50-54 16 45-49 20 40-44 24 30-39 28 20-29 32 Less than 20 36 3. VEHICLE SPEED 4. SIGHT DISTANCE MPH Points Ratio Points 0-25 0 Over 2.0 0 25-30 1 1.5-2.0 1 30-35 2 1.0-1. 5 5 35-40 3 Less than 1 .0 15 40-45 4 Over 45 5 5. SAFETY HISTORY Vehicle Accidents Pedestrian During Crossing Hours Accidents Points Number Points 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 2 Each add 'l 20 2 5 3 10 4 or more 20 6. OTHER FACTORS Points Foreign traffic route 0 to +5 For each approach in excess of four +5 For complex signal design +3 to +8 For simple signal design -3 to -8 Safer crossing one block out of way -10 Large percentage of Grade K and Grade 1 students (over 40%) 0 to +5 An intersection of two arterial streets where the total weekday traffic approach volume exceeds 20,000 vehicles +4 Children crossing multiple crosswalks at an intersection 0 to +8 Stopped buses and other obstructions 0 to +5 Volume of turning traffic not reflected in gap availability 0 to +5 SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD TASK FORCE REPORT Prepared for Mayor and Members of the Elgin City Council Robert O. Malm, Interim City Manager School District U-46 Board of Education Marvin Edwards, Superintendent of Schools February 1997 /OFEto ` 00`� 1'� • City of Elgin Mayor a * , Y 911,� Kevin Kelly Council Members Terry Gavin Robert Gilliam John T. McKevitt Ed Schock John Walters Marie Yearman Mr. Robert Maim City of Elgin 150 Dexter Court Elgin, Illinois 60120 Dear Mr. Maim: The School Crossing Guard Task Force Report has been completed. This project sets forth a process to be used when evaluating the need of a neighborhood school to request the placement of a school crossing guard. A task force consisting of city and school officials was formed pursuant to your directive, and a series of six meetings were held between on October 22, 1996 and January 16, 1997. The result of those meetings culminated in this Task Force Report which sets forth a sound, consistent, and measurable set of standards to assist us and U-46 in making decisions on the need for a crossing guard at any specific location within the City. • • I want to thank all of the task force members for their hard work and determination in accomplishing this effort. They are all identified below, and special thanks goes to Deputy Chief Curt Kramer for his extra effort in producing our final document. We are pleased with the results of the task force and believe that the contents of this report will assist us and U-46 in our never ending goal of making Elgin schools and school children safer throughout our community. Sincerely, Charles Gruber, Chairman urt Kra r Dave Lawry Charlie Pitt Bob Duffy Bob Murphy �- - 1 J Burns Tim enz Tom Dahlfors Li/7Z)Z9 1/11;aAt/- Oceana Wright J 150 Dexter Court • Elgin, IL 60120-5555 • Phone 847/931-6100 • Fax 847/931-5610 • TDD 847/931-5616 ® Printed on recycled paper Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROJECT 5 RESEARCH 7 THE PROCESS 8 CROSSING GUARD EVALUATION TIME PROCESS 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 APPENDICES 12 3 MEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides the Mayor and Members of the City Council,Interim City Manager,Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools with the recommended solution for evaluating the need intheprocess bywhich requests for for crossing guards in the City of Elgin. This report contains q crossing guards are evaluated by both the City and U-46 Principals in the City of Elgin. This report contains time frames for each phase of the process. This report contains the cost associated with certain actions required for evaluations. This report contains the means by which requestors are informed of alternative solution's and/or approvals and denials. This report contains an explanation of how denials for crossing guards will be administered and an appropriate appeal process. 4 1 CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROJECT Crossing guard resolution adopted by City Council March 9, 1988 Request for criteria review October 15, 1996 ► Rationale for the review Can the process be streamlined to avoid unnecessary complexity, cost and staff hours? 0 Requirements for the review 1. Criteria should be easily explainable to the general public and parents of school children. 2. Data required for factor evaluation should be obtainable at a reasonable cost(dollars/time). 3. Bench mark our criteria with other cities or professional organizations. Committee Established October 15, 1996 Charles Gruber Curt Kramer Dave Lawry Charlie Pitt Members added to strengthen task force and enhance process outcomes. Bob Duffy Bob Murphy October 22, 1996 5 Jim Burns November 6, 1996 Jim Genz November 12, 1996 Principal Tom Dahlfors Principal Oceana Wright November 18, 1996 Meeting Dates 1st meeting October 22, 1996 2nd meeting November 6, 1996 3rd meeting November 12, 1996 4th meeting November 18, 1996 5th meeting December 12, 1996 6th meeting January 16, 1997 A copy of the meeting minutes for each meeting is contained in the Appendices. 6 RESEARCH Task Force research contained the review of past standard operating procedures issued by the Elgin Police Department including current crossing guard locations and how crossing guard locations were selected in the past. The Task Force reviewed such documents as the School Code,specifically sections 5/10-22.28. School Safety Patrol and 5/10-22.28a. School Crossings,Crossing Supervision,Adult Guards, School Routes and Established School Crossings, School Crossing Control Criteria and associated laws and requirements. The Task Force found that the information contained in the Traffic Institute,Northwestern University special studies and analysis techniques titled,Procedure for Determining Necessity for School Crossing Protection,was most widely used. This document was adapted from the publication: � Crossing A Program For School Protection,Institute of Transportation Engineers. The communities solicited for information regarding our study were: Aurora,Bartlett, Carpentersville,East Dundee,Evanston,Hanover Park,Hoffman Estates,Joliet,Kane County Sheriffs Department,Peoria,Rockford,Rolling Meadows,St. Charles, Schaumburg, Sleepy Hollow, South Elgin,Streamwood,Waukeegan,West Chicago and West Dundee. In most cases it is the Police Department and/or the Engineering Department which conducts the study using the criteria from the Traffic Institute. Principals' Dahlfors and'Wright conducted a survey of District U-46 Principals. The information received was valuable in determining the direction the Task Force wanted to take within the process. Utilizing the schools Principal in the evaluation and as the key contact person for crossing guard requests is imperative. 7 3 THE PROCESS The process begins when a person or people believe an area or intersection requires a crossing guard. Parents and concerned citizens will be directed to make their request to that particular schools principal. (This education will take place through school handouts to parents,parent/teacher organizations and can be printed in local newspapers). Step 1. School Principal receives request for a crossing guard. 1. The Principal initiates/completes a Crossing Guard Placement Evaluation for 2. The Principal forwards the Evaluation form to the Police Traffic Division. Step 2. The Police Traffic Division Commander receives and reviews the Evaluation form. 1. If a Crossing Guard is recommended by the school Principal,proceed to Step 3. 2. If a Crossing Guard is not recommended by the school Principal,the Evaluation form will be filed and retained by the Traffic Division.No further action required. Step 3. The Police Traffic Division Commander causes the following to occur: 1. Placement of the Mitron trailer to perform a minimum 48-hour count per traffic leg. This placement will be subject to weather conditions. 2. Collection of traffic crash history at the requested location(school days/hours). 3. Forward all collected data(3-1 and 3-2)to the Director of Public Works. Step 4. The Public Works Director receives and reviews the Evaluation form and Police data. 1. The Public Works Director is responsible for contacting a qualified Traffic Engineering firm to perform a warrant study. Step 5. The Public Works Director receives and reviews the recommendation of the Civil Design Group and generates a full report. The report and recommendation are forwarded to the Police Traffic Division Commander. 8 Step 6. The Police Traffic Division Commander receives and reviews the Director of Public Works report and recommendation. 1. If a Crossing Guard is recommended,proceed to Step 7. 2. If a Crossing Guard is not recommended,proceed to Step 8. Step 7. The Police Traffic Division Commander forwards all data,report(s)and recommendation(s)to the Neighborhood Services Committee(NSC). 1. The NSC receives and reviews all data,report(s)and recommendation(s). 2. The NSC identifies funding sources for the new Crossing Guard location. 3. The NSC causes a Committee of the Whole agenda item to be generated. 4. City Council action. Step 8. The Police Traffic Division Commander contacts the school Principal and the original requestor(s). 1. The Commander explains the outcome of the evaluation process and offers to have a meeting to further discuss the study results. 2.Appeal may be made to the NSC to review all information and overrule. 3. The Police Traffic Division Commander will follow-up on any written correspondence with the school Principal and the requestor(s). A sample of the Crossing Guard Placement Evaluation form can be found in the Appendices. The Police Traffic Division will explain how to use this form so each school Principal is appropriately prepared and familiar with the process. 9 4 CROSSING GUARD EVALUATION TIME PROCESS Each step within the process will take time to complete. The following is an indicator of that time showing a cumulative total for the entire process. Since weather is always a factor any of these times could be lengthened but on average these are the time frames we should expect. Step 1.No City time frame. Step 2.No City time if a Crossing Guard is not recommended. If a Crossing Guard is recommended,Step 2 through Step 3-3 would take 72 hours minimum to 28 days if weather is inclement. Steps 4 and 5.These steps will take approximately 14 to 21 days to complete. Steps 6 and 7.The recommendation for a Crossing Guard in these steps would take approximately 30 days. This will depend on when the NSC is scheduled to convene. Steps 6 and 8.Non recommendation of a Crossing Guard would take approximately 7 days depending on the schedules of the school Principal and the original requestor(s). The minimum amount of time for the process would be approximately 47 days and the maximum amount of time would be approximately 80 days. The Task Force, in its December 12, 1996 meeting,indicated that the optimum time for requesting an evaluation would be in March or April for the following school year beginning that August. This being the case we would have adequate time to review requests. It should also be noted that these time frames are for one request at a time. Multiple requests extend the time line. 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is the recommendation of the Task Force that the City manager and the Neighborhood Services Committee endorse this reports recommendation. The Process contains explainable criteria. The data required for evaluation is affordable considering the Mitron trailer. The involvement of the schools Principal will aid us considerably in the evaluation process. Bench marking with other municipalities indicates we are on target with the Process as submitted. The Task Force believes we have created a process which takes into consideration the safety of school children,design technology,economics and a responsible process for assessment,approval,denial and appeal. 2. The cost of this process is not out of the ordinary. The cost per site per request for a qualified Traffic Engineering firm is approximately$1,500.00. 3. The cost of a Crossing Guard location is currently$6,000.00 per location each year. 4. The related operational costs to the Police Department are approximately$150.00 per location. 5. The Traffic Division is looking at five locations which they believe may not meet warrants yet the City provides a Crossing Guard. The Traffic Division plans to use the Process as a means of determining their validity. Results of that study may indicate current guarded locations which may be moved if the City chose to do so. 11 6 APPENDICES This section contains copies of the minutes from each meeting and a sample of the Crossing Guard Placement Evaluation form developed by Sergeant Bob Duffy. 12 MEETING MINUTES Curt Kramer-Ext. 6181 550 Summit St. Elgin, Illinois 60120 Meeting Description School Crossing Guard Review Project Results Desired Review, Streamline, Understandable Policy and Low Cost Factor Evaluation Date October 22, 1996 Time 1:00 pm Location Office of the Police Chief Scheduled Time • `1 Actual Tirrre Start Stop Total Hours Start Stop Total Hours 1:00 pm 2:00 pm 1 1:10 pm I 2:00 pm 50 minutes Team Members 1 Police Sergeant Bob Duffy-Traffic 2 Police Chief Charles Gruber 3 I Deputy Fire Chief Curt Kramer 4 I Public Works Director Dave Lawry 5 Police Patrolman Bob Murphy 6 Traffic Superintendent Charlie Pitt 7 8 9 10 ttems:To Be Discussed • ' 'f ✓ 1 Direction from Robert Malm memorandum dated October 15, 1996. (Subsequent to discussion from NSC meeting) 2 3 4 5 6I 7I 8 9 • 10 • Materials Needed ';' •' •Person Responsible- 1 � MEETING.NOTES Purpose of Mr. Maims' memorandum discussed. - Review criteria and determine if the process can be streamlined. -Criteria needs to be easily explainable to all groups. - Data used for factor evaluation should be low cost. Sgt. Duffy will obtain ordinances from local area communities for review. Our current ordinance will be disseminated to team members for review. IDOT will be contacted for any up-dated information on the subject. The Assistant Superintendent of U-46 will be contacted for two school principals to serve on the team. (They should be from opposite ends of economical diversity within the district in Elgin). • Dave Lawry and Charlie Pitt will look at support information they may have and consider safety related items such as road signs and street markings. The main intent at this time is to Benchmark. Sgt. Duffy will be compiling a report detailing what we are doing now within the scope of this entire issue. MEETING MINUTES Curt Kramer-Ext.6181 Meeting#2 550 Summit St. Elgin, Illinois 60120 Meeting Description School Crossing Guard Review Project Results Desired Review, Streamline, Understandable Policy and Low Cost Date November 6, 1996 Time 10:00 am Location Office of the Police Chief • Scheduled Time Actual Time Start Stop Total Hours Start Stop I Total Hours 10:00 am 11:00 am 1 10:32 am I 11:05 am 33 minutes Persons Attending - 1 I Deputy Police Chief Jim Bums 2 Police Chief Charles Gruber 3 I Deputy Fire Chief Curt Kramer 4 Public Works Director Dave Lawry 5 Traffic Superintendent Charlie Pitt 6 7 Absent: 8I 9 Police Sergeant Bob Duffy-Traffic 10 Police Patrolman Bob Murphy Items Dtsciissectr .? . _ 1 Dave Lawry has made some contacts and has requested information. (Crossing guard criteria/policy) 2 Charlie Pitt has made some contacts with area Public Works departments. No information available at this time. -most agencies refer to Police Departments. 3 Sgt. Duffy was in court and unable to attend this meeting. He has information valuable to the group so another meeting will be held on Tuesday-November 12, 1996 at 11:00 am in the Major Case Room (2nd floor, new police facility). 4 Following our next meeting on November 12, Chief Gruber will contact U-46 for the names of 2 school principals. IThese individuals will then be part of our team. ,-Materials needed Next Meeting I ` Person'Resp st a 1 Report regarding what we are doing now within the scope of this entire issue. Patrolman Jim Genz This will better inform all team members prior to bringing anyone else on board the team. Following discussion we can establish the direction we wish to take. 2 , Age appropriateness of children walking to school and School Patrol Boys/Giris. Patrolman Jim Genz MEETING NOTES An article was distributed to all team members by Chief Gruber. MEETING MINUTES Meeting #3 Curt Kramer-Ext.6181 550 Summit St. Elgin, Illinois 60120 Meeting Description School Crossing Guard Review Protect Results Desired Review, Streamline, Understandable Policy and Low Cost Factor Evaluation Date November 12, 1996 Time 11:15 am Location Major Case Room - New Police Facility Scheduled Time I Actual Time Start Stop Total Hours Start i Stop Total Hours 11:15 am 12:15 pm 1 11:15 am I 12:05 pm 50 minutes Persons Attending 1 I Deputy Police Chief Jim Burns 2 I Police Patrolman Jim Genz 3 Chief of Police Charles Gruber 4 Deputy Fire Chief Curt Kramer 5 Director of Public Works Dave Lawry 6 Police Patrolman Bob Murphy 7 Traffic Superintendent Charlie Pitt 8I 9I 10 Items:.Discussed - _.,. m 1 I Chief Gruber began by restating our mission and the need to focus and benchmark. 2 I Patrolman Murphy reported that School Principals Tom Dahlfors and Oceana Wright would be assigned to our team. Also, Patrolman Murphy reviewed previous information sent to us by Sgt. Duffy and information he has received from 15 area communities.The only community with any information was Schaumburg.They have personnel who have attended classes at Northwestern University.They will be sending us more information. 6 more communities will be contacted. (Aurora, Evanston, Joliet, Peoria, Rockford and Waukeegan). 3 Superintendent Pitt reported that from an engineering standpoint, he has spoken with 5 or 6 local communities.All refer the responsibilities to their Police Departments. 4 Chief Gruber stated that we need to look at the problem from the point of view of processing time.The time it takes once a request is received until a final decision is reached. • � .Res e Materials-/Reports Needed Next Meeting Person Responsible " 1 I Procedural Flow Charts-Public Works and Police Director Lawry/Patrolman Murphy 2 I Information from the additional 6 communities surveyed Patrolman Murphy 3 I How much training time is involved to adequately train personnel to complete Patrolman Murphy intersection analysis studies. I � MEETING NOTES . Our past history has been that if we received a request for a crossing guard an Officer would look at the area and use his or her best judgement.As the city grew and more requests came in we needed a more definitive solution. Public wbrks was not in a position to take on the task.The last review for consideration was contracted out. We need to know: -What training is involved to do an analysis for a crossing guard?(It appears that the standard is the Traffic Institute) -What are other communities our size doing? -What does it take to do it right? -What is the process? What does the Police need to do and what does Public Works need to do within that process? -What will be our procedure? (From request to resolution) -What can District U-46 do to help? Mr. Tom Dahlfors and Ms. Oceana Wright were contacted and will be present at our next meeting . NEXT MEETING: November 18, 1996 at 11:00 am in the Major Case Room-2nd Floor-New Police Facility on Douglas Ave. MEETING MINUTES Meeting #4 Curt Kramer-Ext. 6181 550 Summit St. Elgin, Illinois 60120 Meeting Description School Crossing Guard Review Protect • Results Desired Review,Streamline. Understandable Policy and Low Cost Factor Evaluation Date November 18, 1996 Time 11:00 am Location Major Case Room - New Police Facility Scheduled Time Actual Time Start Stop Total Hours Start Stop Total Hours 11:00 am 12:00 pm 1 11:15 am 12:20 pm 1:05 Persons Attending 1 Deputy Police Chief Jim Burns 2 Century Oaks School Principal Tom Dahlfors 3 Police Sergeant Bob Duffy-Traffic 4 Police Patrolman Jim Genz 5 Chief of Police Charles Gruber 6 I Deputy Fire Chief Curt Kramer 7 Police Patrolman Bob Murphy 8 Traffic Superintendent Charlie Pitt 9 Garfield School Principal Oceana Wright 10 • Items Discussed.(continued onnNOTES page) .:. 1 Information supplied by Officer Murphy regarding the additional 6 communities surveyed. Most conduct their own studies using their Police Department, Engineering Department or both. Crossing Guard criteria from the Traffic Institute is used. 2 Discussion regarding our past process/procedures, the necessity of input from the Elgin U-46 School Principals and what information is necessary to intelligently make decisions on an Elgin Process. Child Age and Responsibility. 3 The 1988 procedure-This procedure is effective and takes approximately 40 hours to collect and interpret data. Recently, Congdon and Hiawatha were analyzed.This intersection received 7 points of the required 40 points necessary to validate the need for a crossing guard. Criteria examples were: number of children, peak hours, gap percentage, signage and accident history.The 1988 procedure is a good procedure and closely models the Traffic Institute procedure.The traffic trailer has value in intersection analysis. Materials/Reports Needed Next Meeting 1 Public Works Flow Chart Charlie Pitt 2 Police Department Flow Chart and Procedure Time Line Sgt. Duffy 3 j Survey-Current Safety Programs, Safety Practices and any Training. (Freedom to Principals Dahlfors and gather anything else of importance or ideas from other Principals) Wright � I I MEET1NG NOTES ,, •, w Y a r fC ItemsDiscussed-continued 74 �" :+ 4. Principal Wright noted that it is important to be able to relate to concerned parents. Group discussion continued-Even after a time consuming and expensive procedure has been accomplished, an intersection may not meet required criteria for a crossing guard.There is also a perception that things get done the way a person wants if they complain about it long enough.We need to 'formulate a process that will satisfy a need if one exists and justifies a"no"answer. 5. Chief Gruber inquired at what age can a child be considered responsible enough to walk to school?At what age can we consider them responsible to be patrol boys/girls?At what age are children responsible to cross-residential/neighborhood, collector and arterial streets?We need to develop criteria and formulate a process which entails what should occur before we get to the analysis procedure for a crossing guard. Discussion continued with input from Principals Wright and Dahlfors that it is difficult to put an age on responsibility. Varried skills, intelligence and background are key factors in that kind of determination.There is a negative side in that young children (kindergarten) can only get to school if they walk. If they are deemed too young, they won't be attending school. Possibly training/teaching children how to walk to school may be of help. Observance of the childrens behavior. It was also noted that children do not always respect the Safety Patrols.We need to try and determine at what age, with some assurity, that we can expect children to walk a particular distance,what that distance is and which type of streets can be crossed by what age groups. 6. It was noted by Sgt. Duffy that we cannot put children in the street stopping traffic. It was noted that abrupt changes without a transition period makes it difficult for the schools to adjust properly and brings many questions and concerns.This occurred when Safety Patrols were no longer allowed in the street.The District gives little support for Safety Patrols. 7. Chief Gruber stated that our report is to outline who has what responsibilities and to what extent.We need a process from start to finish that indicates what the first step is when someone wants a crossing guard. That first step may begin with that Schools Principal (as an example).The analysis procedure is a good procedure but other actions need to occur before we get to that step. Next Meeting -December 12, 1996 at 9:00 am -Major Case Room -2nd floor, New Police Facility MEETING MINUTES Meeting #5 Curt Kramer-Ext. 6181 550 Summit St. Elgin, Illinois 60120 Meeting Description School Crossing Guard Review Project Results Desired Review Streamline t nderstandable Policy and Low Cost Factor Evaluation Date December 12, 1996 Time 9:00 am Location Major Case Room -New Police Facility Scheduled Time Actual Time Start Stop Total Hours Start Stop Total Hours 9:00 am 10:00 am 1 9:12 am 10:12 1 Persons Attending.: 1 Deputy Police Chief Jim Bums 2 Century Oaks Principal Tom Dahlfors 3 Police Sergeant Bob Duffy-Traffic 4 Police Patrolman Jim Genz 5 Chief of Police Charles Gruber 6 Deputy Fire Chief Curt Kramer 7 Public Works Director Dave Lawry 8 Police Patrolman Bob Murphy 9 Traffic Superintendent Charlie Pitt 10 Garfield School Principal Oceana Wright • Items Discussed:(see.notesfor specifics): 5 1 Public Works-School Crossing Guard Warrant Evaluation Engineering Time Line 2 Police-Crossing Guard Evaluation FlowTme Process-Police Traffic Division 3 Principals Dahlfors and Wright-School Crossing Guard Review Project Survey 4 School Crossing -20 MPH mini-cades legislation (Chief Gruber) 5 6 7 8 9 10 ; . . :.• Person Responsible :: Materials/Reports Needed Next Meeting 1 Procedure for the U-46 School Principals to follow(crossing guards) Sergeant Duffy 2 City Flow/Time Procedure Director Lawry 3 Document melding all information into one Process Sergeant Duffy ` I a. EETINC;NOTES a i / Discussed the process the Police would undergo once the Traffic Division becomes involved.This scenario ranged from 3 to 16 weeks depending on weather conditions.The Public Works scenario is 2 weeks and consists of using the Civil Design Group at a cost of$1,500.00 per site per request. Chief Gruber continued the discussion with all present to meld this information into one process for the city. Consensus was that the best case scenario at the point the city becomes involved is approximately 6 weeks. This takes into consideration Spring or Fall evaluation periods.There are no children present in the summer and winter conditions prohibit evaluation.The optimum period would be March or April in any year. Chief Gruber pointed out that we need a consistent detailed process to follow to determine if a crossing guard is needed and where • they will be located and what costs will be associated with such decisions. Principal Wright noted that volunteer parents work with safety patrol students. For continuity it would be better if the crossing guards attend to that task. All members agreed. Discussion regarding a stipend for crossing guards working with the children and the Principals. Principal Wright noted that the District should share in the cost of such an initiative.The stipend should be equitable for each crossing guard participating in the program. Discussion on the schools level of oversight. Members were in agreement that training safety patrol children rests with the crossing guards but the supervision of these children rests with the school. Co participation between the City and District U-46 will enhance consistency among the schools regarding crossing guards and safety patrols.The members agreed that ultimately the City will only take crossing guard requests from a school Principal. Principals will have a set of guidelines and appropriate form(s)to use in the evaluation of a presumed need.There will need to be criteria established, Ordinance for minimal provisions, rules to follow and exceptions to be considered. Discussion regarding the legality of"mini-cades"which are used by crossing guards.These yellow signs indicate a crossing and the speed of 20 mph. I.D.O.T. states these are not enforceable and are not legal.The Police Chief will handle this noting it may require a legislative change. This is a side issue which the Chief will pursue once the business at hand has been attended to with this project team. Next Meeting -January 16, 1997 at 9:00 am in the Major Case Room, 2nd floor, New Police Facility. /Af s r /!t • • • • • SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD WARRANT EVALUATION / • 611/ ENGINEERING TIME LINE 1)D Upon receipt of a request from EPD with accompanying accident statistics and relevant NIITRON data Engineering will submit the data for analysis. The analysis will include on site observation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Processing of the data from EPD and the on site information will take approximately two to three weeks at a cost of S1,500.00 per site per request. • i • •. /02•4"1/44(---- . • ity ' Crossing Guard Evaluation Flow/Time Process Police Traffic Division • Step Receive request for a crossing guard Step #2: Place into Traffic Division priority cue. (Within 14 working days) Step #3:/' Contact with Elementary School(s) served by location. 1. Obtained numbers school children which could use the location. V / 2. Anticipated crossing times. t_n (10 School Days) based upon previous experience Step #4: Placement of 1LfITRONtrailer. Minimum 24 hour collection. All traffic flow patterns, determined by crossing location. (7 School Days *with ideal weather conditions) 2 man-hours per placement Step #S• Physical Counts of elementary school children using crossing • (3 School Days) 7 man-hours per day Step #6: Collection of Traffic Crash/Safety history at location, during crossing times (1 Business Day) 3 to 8 man-hours depending on location Step #7: Forward information to Public Works Engineering for work up and decisions. Traffic Division's response to a request would occur : Best case scenario: 3-4 Weeks Average 5-6 Weeks Worst Case 10-16 Weeks *weather effecting ability to place MITRON \�p Schoof • . -filiii • District _ U46 l . . - F- .- December 3, 1996 . School Crossing Guard Review Project The following questionnaire is an outgrowth of a committer organized through the City of Elgin. Chief of Police, Charles Gruber is the chairperson with representatives from various city departments as well as U-46. The goal is to develop process/procedures in the placement/employment of arhilt crossing guards. • As a means toward that end the committee is soliciting input from elementary principals on the following. Please complete this and hand it in to either Oceana Wright or Tom Dahlfors prior to leaving. Thanks-we will keep you posted. •Name School I. Does your school currently have an active safety patrol? Yes No . 2. If yes,who is in charge of the patrol group? . 3. If yes, what training do you have for the patrol members? 4. "Are there other safety programs that are ncM with the patrol or other students in your building? Bus evacuation• McGruff • Stranger Danger Fire Safety Other 0 - • 5. What role, if any does the police department play in the training of patrol or other safety programs? 6. What do you feel is a good age range for the students to safely cross a street unassisted? (We realize streets vary in. traffic volume, time of day, etc. -so you may want to clarify). 7. What is a safe/reasonable distance(range)for a student to be walking(lmowing is service is provided at the mile . mark?) 8. Do you currently have any adult crossing guards? Yes No How Many? • • School District U•46 Serves: Bartlett, Elgin, Hanover Park, South Elgin, Streamwood, WaYnE • • • 9. If yes, what role did you play in that decision making process if any? Were you aware of any criteria for chat decision? • 10. Any other comments that could assist us as your representatives: • • • MEETING MINUTES Curt Kramer-Ext.6181 550 Summit St. Meeting#6 Elgin, Illinois 60120 Meeting Description School Crossing Guard Review Project Results Desired Review, Streamline, Understandable Policy and Low Cost Factor Evaluation Date January 16, 1997 Time 9:20 am Location Major Case Room - New Police Facility Scheduled Time Actual Time: Start i Stop I Total Hours Start I Stop I Total Hours 9:00 am 10:00 am 1 9:20 am 10:20 am 1 Persons Attending 1 T Deputy Police Chief Jim Burns 2 I Century Oaks Principal Tom Dahlfors 3 I Police Sergeant Bob Duffy-Traffic 4 Chief of Police Charles Gruber 5 I Deputy Fire Chief Curt Kramer 6 Traffic Superintendent Charlie Pitt 7 8 9 10 Items:Discussed :.. 1 Crossing Guard Evaluation flow time process-time frames discussed and refined where possible. 2 Crossing Guard Placement Evaluation form-explained and evaluated for content and format. 3 Discussion continued-the Evaluation form will be given to school Principals with one-on-one instruction for clarification and consistency. 4 Discussion over time allocation for each Step within the process. Consensus to show minimum and maximum Itime frames. 5 The Task Force agreed that it was time to draft our study in the form of a report to the City Manager. ` Per n Responsible - Materials/Reports Needed.NextMeeting. . ` . 1 There is no scheduled meeting. Once the report is complete Chief Gruber will Chief Gruber obtain agreement from Task Force participants prior to submission to the City Managers Office. I Crossing Guard Placement Evaluation Form School: Principal: Date Request Received: Crossing Location: Requestor for Crossing Guard Placement: Contact Person Name, Phone Number, and Time Most Easily Contacted: School Principal's Evaluation Process: Number of School Children Using Requested Location: Times of Crossings: AM: Noon: PM: Does Location Meet Minimum of 15 (K-6) School Children: YES NO Date of meeting held with requesting group/contact person: Summary of request justification: Date of Site Visit (together) By Requestors and Principal: Continued On Reverse Side Page 2 Crossing Guard Placement Evaluation Form Evaluation of Alternatives to Crossing Guard (ie: change in walk patterns; use of school parent volunteers; etc:) Summary of Discussion with Requestors: Would Police Department Assistance (training/presentations) Be Helpful: Yes No Type of Assistance requested: Target Audience (school children; parents; staff; etc): Date Police Department Contacted: Person Contacted at Police Department: Date Police Training/Presentations Provided: PRINCIPAL'S Assessment and Recommendation of Requested Crossing Guard Location: Please Forward Completed Forms To: Traffic Police Tra c Division Commander 151 Douglas Ave. Elgin, Illinois 60120