Board of Trustees — Skokie, IL
Date: 2016-03-21

MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016 – 8:00 P.M.


 1. Pledge of Allegiance led by Village Clerk Pramod Shah.

 2. Call meeting to order and roll call.

 3. Approve Consent Agenda.

* 4. Approve, as submitted, minutes of regular meeting held Monday, March 7, 2016.

* 5. Approve Voucher List #21-FY16 of March 21, 2016.

* 6. Proclamations and Resolutions.
 A. Proclamations
 Fair Housing is not an Option. It’s the Law – April 2016
 Day of Remembrance – May 8, 2016

 7. Recognition, Awards and Honorary Presentations.

* 8. Appointments, Reappointments and Resignations.
 A. Resignation
 Beautification and Improvement Commission: Asokan Krishnan

 9. Presentations and Reports.
 A. Presentation
 Presentation of 2015 National Citizen Survey – Ann Tennes, Director of Marketing and
 Communications

 10. Report of the Village Manager.
 A. Request for Executive Session.

 11. Report of the Corporation Counsel.
 CONSENT:
 * A. An ordinance approving a plat of dedication for a portion of Touhy Avenue adjacent to
 5201-5227 Touhy Avenue, Skokie, Illinois in a B2 Commercial district. This item is on
 the consent agenda for second reading and adoption.
 * B. An ordinance authorizing the sale of 4933-57 Dempster Street and 8734-38 Bronx
 Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, in conjunction with the redevelopment of West Dempster
 Street, Skokie, Illinois. This item is on the consent agenda for second reading and
 adoption.
 * C. A resolution authorizing the approval of the Village of Skokie’s Complete Streets
 Policy. This item is on the consent agenda for first reading and approval.
 FIRST READING:
 D. A resolution authorizing the publication of the official Zoning Map for the Village of
 Skokie, Illinois. This item is on the agenda for first reading and approval.
 E. An ordinance approving a plat of dedication for a portion of 7600 Kilbourn Avenue,
 Skokie, Illinois, adjacent to Howard Street, in an R2 Single-Family district. This item is
 on the agenda for first reading and will be on the April 4, 2016 agenda for second
 reading and adoption.
 F. An ordinance vacating a portion of the north-south alley within an area bounded by
 Kedvale Avenue, Cleveland Street, Karlov Avenue and Keeney Street, Skokie, Illinois,
 in an R2 Single-Family district. This item is on the agenda for first reading and will be
 on the April 4, 2016 agenda for second reading and adoption.


493257v1
 G. An ordinance approving a plat of dedication for the alley north of 8114 Karlov Avenue,
 Skokie, Illinois, in an R2 Single-Family district. This item is on the agenda for first
 reading and will be on the April 4, 2016 agenda for second reading and adoption.
 H. Request for an executive session in accordance with paragraph 2(c)(11) of the Illinois
 Open Meetings Act pertaining to the review and discussion of pending litigation.

 12. Unfinished Business.

 13. New Business.
 A. Plan Commission Case 2014-34P
 A request by Old Orchard Acquisition Partners, LLC, at 9801-9977 Woods Drive for an
 amendment to Site Plan Approval Ordinance 15-3-Z-4128 through the Modified
 Review Procedure to allow changes to the Site Plan.

 14. Plan Commission.

 15. Citizen Comments.

 16. Adjournment.




493257v1
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

FUND FUND TOTAL
 GENERAL FUND $193,923.95

 WATER FUND $245,612.30

 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND $2,141.30

 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT $1,500.00

 TIF SCIENCE & TECH $3,250.00

 WIRELESS ALARM FUND $270.00

 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $364,045.51

 CASUAL TY SELF INSURANCE $13,883.15

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND $8,654.21


 ALL FUNDS TOTAL $833,280.42
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name ExQenditure DescriQtion Fund DeQartment Pay:ment
 Amount
1000BULBS.COM Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $342.54
ABLE DISTRIBUTORS Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $69.11
ABLE DISTRIBUTORS Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $126.82
ABLE SERVICE AND SUPPLY Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $65.59
ABT ELECTRONICS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND HEALTH $4,488.00
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $14.48
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $29.98
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $5.19
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND HEALTH $26.96
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $6.99
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $8.44
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $21.48
ACE HARDWARE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $15.96
ACE HARDWARE Supplies WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $30.97
ACE HARDWARE Supplies WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $9.99
ACE HARDWARE Supplies WATER FUND PUBLIC WORKS $6.99
ACME TRUCK BRAKE & SUPPLY CO Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $43.56
ACTIVE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $164.62
ADVANCED CLEANING SYSTEMS INC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $6,874.00
ADVANCED CLEANING SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $6,324.32
ALLIED 100 LLC Maintenance CASUALTY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $46.99
AMBIUS LLC (19) Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $317.92
AMBIUS LLC(19) Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $656.45
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TOXICOLOY Prof service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $108.33
ANDERSON ELEVATOR CO Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $211.15
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY LTD Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $263.45
ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY LTD Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $504.90
ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER Professional service GENERAL FUND HEALTH $70.00


 Page 1
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Expenditure Description Fund Department PaJlment
 Amount
ARLINGTON POWER EQUIPMENT INC Other commodities GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $119.29
ARLINGTON POWER EQUIPMENT INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $109.80
ARLINGTON POWER EQUIPMENT INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $427.46
ARLINGTON POWER EQUIPMENT INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $1,390.20
ATRIUM LANDSCAPING Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $600.00
BARNES, JESSE Clothing GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $247.98
BAXTER & WOODMAN Training WATER FUND PUBLIC WORKS $156.00
BENEFIT ADVANTAGE Group insurance GENERAL FUND INSURANCE $58.75
BENEFIT ADVANTAGE Group insurance GENERAL FUND INSURANCE ($17.75)
BILL HAMMOND GRAPHICS Newskokie-march 16 GENERAL FUND MANAGER $921.00
BP Trip to wi GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $68.77
BRICH, ROBERT Safety boots GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $98.50
BRISTOL HOSE & FITTING MAIN WRHS Automotive maintenance GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $43.41
BURTON & ASSOCIATES Professional service CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $2,535.00
CALL ONE Phone service GENERAL FUND MANAGER $74.20
CALL ONE Phone service GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $8,973. 11
CALL ONE Phone service GENERAL FUND HEALTH $37. 10
CALL ONE Phone service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $8,973. 11
CALL ONE Phone service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $64.40
CALL ONE Phone service WATER FUND PUBLIC WORKS $214.20
CDW GOVERNMENT INC Elec lights & communicati CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $812.21
CDW GOVERNMENT INC Elec lights & communicati CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $241.52
CENTRAL RUG & CARPET Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $175.00
CERTIFIED FLEET SERVICE INC Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $192.11
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $472.90
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $235.40
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $274.40
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $598.50


 Page 2
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Ex11enditure Descri11tion Fund De11artment PaJ1ment
 Amount
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $380.30
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $287.50
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $835.00
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $90.00
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Maintenance GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $276.60
CHICAGO COMMUNICATIONS LLC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $917.35
CHICAGO DIAMOND SUPPLY LLC Fire & safety supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $500.00
CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FIRE PREVENTN Bia monitoring-2016 GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $420.00
CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FIRE PREVENTN Repair & maintenance svc WIRELESS ALARM FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $270.00
CHICAGO TRIBUNE Ad GENERAL FUND MANAGER $100.00
CHICAGO TRIBUNE Ad GENERAL FUND MANAGER $519.00
CHICAGO TRIBUNE Advertising GENERAL FUND FINANCE DEPARTMENT $39.49
CHICAGOLAND TRENCH LESS Non building improvements WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $6,500.00
CHICAGOLAND TRENCHLESS Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $2,275.00
CINTAS CORPORATION #22 Other contractual service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $110.03
CINTAS CORPORATION #22 Other contractual service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $84.10
CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY Other contractual service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $188.67
CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $193.31
CITY WELDING SALES & SERVICE INC Chemicals GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $133.98
CLAIM MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LLC Professional service CASUALTY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $1,440.00
COLLEGE OF DUPAGE Training GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $50.00
COMCAST BUSINESS Communications GENERAL FUND MANAGER $2,449.90
COMED Emergency assist-utility GENERAL FUND $400.00
CONSTRUCTION SPECIAL TIES INC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $343.00
COOK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE Street improvements CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $155,000.00
COOK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE Professional service CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $31,560.29
COTG Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FINANCE DEPARTMENT $1,932.00
COTG Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FINANCE DEPARTMENT $45.00


 Page 3
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name ExQenditure DescriQtion Fund DeQartment Payment
 Amount
COTG Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FINANCE DEPARTMENT $1,932.00
CRAFTY BEAVER HOME CENTER #1 Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $584.43
CUMBERLAND SERVICENTER INC Other contractual service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $76.82
DIGITAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT INC Professional service GENERAL FUND HEALTH $6,000.00
DOJE'S INCORPORATED Chemicals GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $119.70
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $345.00
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $63.85
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $26.94
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $13.32
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $264.20
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $168.66
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $255.95
EAGLE RECOGNITION Service awards GENERAL FUND MANAGER $295.95
EDGEWAVE Technical services GENERAL FUND MANAGER $1,131.88
EDGEWAVE Technical services GENERAL FUND MANAGER $1,170.68
EDGEWAVE Technical services CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $2,427.44
ELEVATOR INSPECTION SERVICES Professional service GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $100.00
ELEVATOR INSPECTION SERVICES Professional service GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $100.00
EMEDCO INC Printing & binding GENERAL FUND COMMISSIONS $1,299.95
EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $51.99
EVANSTON FUNERAL & CREMATION INC Professional service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $300.00
EVANSTON, CITY OF Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $2,783.42
EVANSTON, CITY OF Water for resale WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $217,359.27
EWS WELDING SUPPLY INC Chemicals GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $39.67
EWS WELDING SUPPLY INC Chemicals GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $52.90
EWS WELDING SUPPLY INC Chemicals GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $52.90
EWS WELDING SUPPLY INC Fire & safety supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $41.71
EWS WELDING SUPPLY INC Chemicals GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $72.06


 Page 4
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Expenditure Description Fund Department Pa)lment
 Amount
FERNO-WASHINGTON INC Fire &other safety equip CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $1,187.00
FORCE AMERICA DISTRIBUTING LLC Vehicles CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $318.15
FRITZ KONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS INC Add'I funds COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT PLANNING DEPARTMENT $1,500.00
G & M TRUCKING INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $1,969.90
G & M TRUCKING INC Construction materials WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $3,010 00
G & M TRUCKING INC Construction materials WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $1,819.99
G & M TRUCKING INC Professional service CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $445.59
GALLAGHER MATERIALS INC Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $2,713.20
GASAWAY DISTRIBUTORS INC Other contractual service MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND MOTOR FUEL TAX $2,141.30
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Repair &maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $370.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Repair &maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $225.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $200.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $370.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $167.50
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $200.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $172.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $200.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $335.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $952.50
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $126.25
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $150.00


 Page 5
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name ExE!enditure DescriE!tion Fund DeE!artment Pa~ment
 . Amount
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $275.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $225.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $206.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $150.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GB SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INC Other contractual service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $110.00
GILL BARKSTROM Emergency assist-rent GENERAL FUND $400.00
GLAUBERMAN & POLLAK LTD Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $3,000.00
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $89.70
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $79.55
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $319.84
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $15.42
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equ ipt GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $45.80
GLENBROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $56.75
GLENBROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $29.73
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $19.60


 Page 6
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/2112016

Vendor Name Expenditure Description Fund Department Pall'.ment
 Amount
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $56.64
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $46.28
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Other equ ipt GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS ($60.52)
GLENBROOK AUTO PARTS INC Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $73.67
GLENBROOK AUTO PARTS INC Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $43.22
GLENBROOK AUTO PARTS INC Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $11.82
GLENBROOK AUTO PARTS INC Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $34.56
GLEN BROOK AUTO PARTS INC Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $47.72
GLOBAL EMERGENCY PRODUCTS Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $338.70
GLOBAL EMERGENCY PRODUCTS Other equipt GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $141.38
GLOBAL EMERGENCY PRODUCTS Other equipt GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $182.23
GLOBAL EMERGENCY PRODUCTS Repair veh #109 CASUAL TY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $7,007.85
GOLF MILL FORD Other equipt GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $22.94
GOLF MILL FORD Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $22.94
GOLF MILL FORD Automotive maintenance GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $127.36
GOLF MILL FORD Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $82.24
GOT LAUNDRY CHICAGO? INC Cleaning services GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $280.00
GRAINGER Fire & safety supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $99.00
GRAINGER Fire & other safety equip GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $110.68
GRAINGER Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $412.23
GRAINGER Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $33.39
GRAINGER Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $68.40
GRAINGER Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $313.44
GRAINGER Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $30.24
GRAINGER Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $23.76
GRAINGER Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $33.39
GRAINGER Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $43.86
GRAINGER Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $33.96


 Page 7
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Ex(!enditure Descri(!tion Fund De(!artment Pal£ment
 Amount
GRAY-KEELER, KAREN Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $58.95
GREENSPAN, JEFFREY Adm hearing GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $375.00
HARRISON, TIM Fuel GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $62.07
HERITAGE CRYSTAL CLEAN LLC Other contractual service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $158.71
HERRERA LANDSCAPE INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $100.00
HERRERA LANDSCAPE INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $100.00
HERRERA LANDSCAPE INC Professional service CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $219.00
HERRERA LANDSCAPE INC Professional service CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $500.00
HERRERA LANDSCAPE INC Professional service CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $300.00
HOEFLICH, JEFFREY J Communications GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $97.50
HOEFLICH, JEFFREY J Communications GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $97.50
HOLIDAY INN CHICAGO-SKOKIE Ede mtg ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND PLANNING DEPARTMENT $239.54
HOUSE OF CANS Minor equipment & tools GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $37.20
IT SUPPLIES Photography/blueprinting GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $288.99
IDPH Surcharge GENERAL FUND HEALTH $972.00
IEHA 2016 aec conference GENERAL FUND HEALTH $100.00
ILCMA Ad GENERAL FUND MANAGER $50.00
ILLINOIS DEPT OF PUBLIC HEAL TH Renewal GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $150.00
ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Street improvements CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $57,642.60
ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Non building improvements CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $89,899.09
ILLINOIS FIRE CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION Training GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $950.00
ILLINOIS FIRE INSPECTORS ASSN Books and periodicals GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $73.00
ILLINOIS PAPER & COPIER CO Office supplies GENERAL FUND FINANCE DEPARTMENT $840.00
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL Training GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $240.00
INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER Minor equipment & tools GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $93.50
INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $74.13
INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $11.21
INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS General equipment parts GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $142.98


 Page 8
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Ex11enditure Descri11tion Fund De11artment PaJlment
 Amount
INTOXIMETERS INC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $119.00
INVENTORY TRADING COMPANY Clothing.dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $1,260.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $31.25
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $51.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $171.00
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $171.00
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $24.75
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $395.00
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $54.00
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $62.50
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $1,079.00
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $31.25
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $109.50
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $395.00
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $168.49
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $66.25
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $36.50
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $228.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $171.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $114.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods.notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $93.75
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $31.25
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $57.00
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $210.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $52.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $149.99
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $73.00
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing.dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $93.75


 Page 9
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Expenditure Description Fund Department Payment
 Amount
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $1,237.96
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $169.04
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $281.40
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $407.20
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $19.75
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $19.75
JG UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $36.50
J G UNIFORMS INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $62.59
JAMES P ORTICELLI Refund pkg-orticelli GENERAL FUND $125.00
JENNINGS CHEVROLET Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $124.99
JENSEN LITIGATION SOLUTIONS Prof service CASUALTY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $407.82
KLEIN, RALPH Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $57.00
KOMATSU FORKLIF USA LLC Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $267.79
LAKESHORE RECYCLING SYSTEMS Other contractual service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $24,188.41
LEACH ENTERPRISES INC Other equ ipt GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $218.00
LEACH ENTERPRISES INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $134.73
LEACH ENTERPRISES INC Other equip! GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS ($53.56)
LEHIGH OUTFITTERS LLC Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $126.89
LEHIGH OUTFITTERS LLC Clothing,dry goods, notion WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $53.99
LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $241.76
LINDA SCHMIDT Claims CASUAL TY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $451.59
LOCKERBY, JOHN Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $58.95
LOCKERBY, JOHN Fire dept retirement prty GENERAL FUND MANAGER $60.00
LORGE, MICHAEL Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $58.95
LUKE, PAUL Apa conference GENERAL FUND COMMISSIONS $603.37
LURVEY LANDSCAPE SUPPLY Topsoil GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $5,258.00
MARCIANI, STEVE Apa conference GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $336.20
MARGES FLOWER SHOP INC Flowers GENERAL FUND COMMISSIONS $50.00


 Page 10
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/2112016

Vendor Name Exgenditure Descrigtion Fund Department PaJlment
 Amount
MARGES FLOWER SHOP INC Flowers GENERAL FUND COMMISSIONS $50.00
MARZIGLIANO, JOSEPH Clothing GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $54.28
MCCANN INDUSTRIES INC General equipment parts GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $80.47
MCCARTHY, JAMES Prkg fee CASUALTY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $15.00
MCDONALDS CORPORATION Other commodities GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $355.02
MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY CO Minor equipment &tools GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $53.40
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Minor equipment &tools GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $24.97
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Fire &safety supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $39.80
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Construction materials GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $161.20
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Minor equipment &tools GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $12.48
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Construction materials GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $7.98
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $14.94
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $7.71
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $10.41
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $220.00
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $20.11
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $32.34
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $3.29
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $28.03
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $32.28
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $53.92
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $19.90
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $12.99
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $6.49
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $27.46
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $17.84
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $28.92
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $36.73


 Page 11
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Ex(!enditure Descri[!tion Fund De[!artment Payment
 Amount
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Vehicles CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $205.51
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Vehicles CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER ($44.99)
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $16.90
MENARDS MORTON GROVE Supplies CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $41.65
MEYER LABORATORY INC Minor equipment & tools GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $211.83
MGPINC Professional service WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $5,529.34
MGPINC Professional service ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND PLANNING DEPARTMENT $5,529.34
MICROSYSTEMS INC Office eq uipt. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $885.77
MID AMERICAN WATER OF WAUCONDA INC Fire & other safety equip CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $775.00
MIDWEST AIR PRO INC General equipment parts GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $161.75
MOHAMMAD KHAN Emergency assist-rent GENERAL FUND $175.00
MONROE TRUCK EQUIPMENT Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $319.50
MORTON GROVE SUPPLY CO Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $88.12
MURPHY, LESLIE Iese registration ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND PLANNING DEPARTMENT $190.00
NASRO Dues GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $40.00
NASRO Dues GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $40.00
NASRO Dues GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $40.00
NASRO Dues GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $40.00
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INC Health insurance GENERAL FUND INSURANCE $1,360.00
NEENAH FOUNDRY COMPANY Construction materials WATER FUND PUBLIC WORKS $1,770.29
NELS JOHNSON TREE EXPERTS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $5,509.00
NELS JOHNSON TREE EXPERTS INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $5,826.00
NFPA Dues GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $175.00
NILES TOWNSHIP DISTRICT 219 Other contractual service GENERAL FUND MANAGER $250.00
NORTH AMERICAN CORP Minor equipment & tools GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $353.50
NORTH COAST SEWER & DRAINAGE INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $1,320.00
O'LEARY'S CONTRCTRS EQPT & SUPPLY General equipment parts GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $282.46
O'LEARY'S CONTRCTRS EQPT & SUPPLY General equipment parts GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS ($94.52)


 Page 12
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Ex11enditure Descri11tion Fund De11artment Pa:iment
 Amount
OAKTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE Training GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $4,350.00
OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC Office supp lies GENERAL FUND HEALTH $175.84
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS INC Ad GENERAL FUND MANAGER $1,499.00
PARENT PETROLEUM INC Gasoline GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $304.35
PIRTEK O'HARE Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $314.24
POLLARD WATER Construction materials WATER FUND PUBLIC WORKS $194.10
POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC General equipment parts GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $179.48
POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $206.40
POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $32.10
POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $786.80
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $109.39
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $65.31
PRECISE MRM LLC Other contractual service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $173.31
PRESTO-X Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $207.00
PRESTO-X Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $542.96
PRESTO-X Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $196.98
PRESTO-X Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $157.98
PRINT XPRESS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND COMMISSIONS $460.00
PRINT XPRESS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND COMMISSIONS $180.00
PRINT XPRESS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $36.00
PRINT XPRESS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND HEALTH $600.00
PROSAFETY INC Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $123.90
PROSAFETY INC Clothing, dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $295.20
PROSAFETY INC Clothing,dry goods,notion WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $83.95
QUANTUM GROUP New skokie-march 16 GENERAL FUND MANAGER $6,992.02
RB PLUMBING & SEWER INC Construction services GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $185.00
RECORD COPY SERVICES Prof service CASUALTY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $39.75
RED WING SHOE STORE Clothing,dry goods,notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $677.00


 Page 13
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Ex11enditure Descri11tion Fund De11artment Pay:ment
 Amount
RED WING SHOE STORE Clothing,dry goods, notion GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $117.00
REICHERT, ROBERT Lunch mtg GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $313.79
REMRED BUSINESS CLASS PROMO PRDTS 2016 brd comm reception GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $2,181.66
ROBERTS OFFICE SUPPLIES AND EQPMT Office supplies GENERAL FUND MANAGER $5.00
ROBERTS OFFICE SUPPLIES AND EQPMT Office supplies GENERAL FUND MANAGER $11.00
ROBERTS, RANDALL Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $57.00
ROGUE FITNESS Office equip!. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $2,965.77
ROSEN BIOSCIENCE STRATEGIES Prof service TIF SCIENCE & TECH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING $3,250.00
RUSH TRUCK CENTER Motor vehicle parts & ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $640.94
RUSSO'S POWER EQUIPMENT INC Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $740.57
SAMS CLUB/SYNCHRONY BANK Supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $8.86
SAMS CLUB/SYNCHRONY BANK Late charge GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $15.99
SCARPELLI, ANTHONY Staff mtg GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $203.05
SCHER, JEAN Communications GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $97.50
SCHER, JEAN Communications GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $97.50
SCHER, JEAN Safety boots WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $214.10
SCHRAMBECK,GARRY Clothing GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $89.80
SHAH, PRAMOD Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $71.95
SHARING CONNECTIONS Donation GENERAL FUND $50.00
SHARPER DOT PRINTING INC Photographic & drafting GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $682.08
SHARPER DOT PRINTING INC Printing & binding WATER FUND WATER DEPARTMENT $166.00
SHERWIN INDUSTRIES INC Construction materials GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $4,893.87
SIGLERS AUTO BODY Repair veh #109 CASUALTY SELF INSURANCE INSURANCE $4,474. 15
SIGN A RAMA School signs GENERAL FUND COMMISSIONS $187.50
SNAP ON INDUSTRIAL Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $143.00
SPLASHTOP INC Other contractual service GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $60.00
SPRING ALIGN OF PALATINE INC Automotive maintenance GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $6,457.67
SPRINT Phone service GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $27.43


 Page 14
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/2112016

Vendor Name Ex!!enditure Descril!tion Fund De!!artment Payment
 Amount
STARE, EDWARD Apwa ad GENERAL FUND MANAGER $295.00
STEFAN PRESSLING Emergency assist-rent GENERAL FUND $400.00
THARWANI, NOORUDDIN Ms training GENERAL FUND MANAGER $193.40
THOMPSON, THOMAS ldia conference ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND PLANNING DEPARTMENT $2,695.33
THOMSON REUTERS - WEST Info charge-feb 16 GENERAL FUND LEGAL DEPARTMENT $968.00
THOMSON REUTERS - WEST Professional service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $108.09
TREDROC TIRE/ANTIOCH 002 Minor equipment &tools GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $605.47
TREDROC TIRE/ANTIOCH 002 Motor vehicle parts &ace GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $10.50
TURTLE WAX CAR WASH AIR Automotive maintenance GENERAL FUND HEALTH $5.99
ULRICH, ILONKA Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $58.95
ULTRA STROBE COMMUNICATIONS INC Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $177.46
VALENTI, MARIO Clothing GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $188.53
VAN DUSEN, GEORGE Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $57.00
VERIZON WIRELESS Phone service GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $1,092.32
VERIZON WIRELESS Communications GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $8.80
VERIZON WIRELESS Phone service GENERAL FUND HEALTH $63.97
VERIZON WIRELESS Phone service GENERAL FUND HEALTH $55.97
VERIZON WIRELESS Phone service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $1,092.32
VERIZON WIRELESS Phone service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $69.80
VERIZON WIRELESS Phone service GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $69.80
W S DARLEY & CO Minor equipment &tools GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $60.51
W S DARLEY & CO Fire &safety supplies GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $60.52
W S DARLEY & CO Repair &maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $230.13
WAREHOUSE DIRECT Office supplies GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $84.32
WAREHOUSE DIRECT Office supplies GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $118.60
WAREHOUSE DIRECT Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $56.91
WAREHOUSE DIRECT Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $667.50
WAREHOUSE DIRECT Janitorial supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $336.80


 Page 15
 Village of Skokie - FY16 Warrant List #21 - 3/21/2016

Vendor Name Ex[!enditure Descri[!tion Fund De[!artment Pal£ment
 Amount
WAREHOUSE DIRECT Office supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $50.52
WAREHOUSE DIRECT Office supplies GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $50.52
WASHBURN MACHINERY INC Repair & maintenance svc GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT $209.00
WATER RESOURCES INC Arb water meters CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $2,250.00
WATER RESOURCES INC Arb water meters CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $11,250.00
WATSON, LINDA Lunch mtg GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $332.00
WEBMARC DOORS Non building improvements CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $1, 193.56
WEBMARC DOORS Non building improvements CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND MANAGER $1,418.45
WEST SIDE EXCHANGE General equipment parts GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS $134.22
WICHA, JASON Professional service GENERAL FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES $58.95
WILLIAM AND JENNIE ROTHNER Refund water-rothner WATER FUND $64.80
Z-ROSE PRODUCTIONS Other commodities GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $409.38
Z-ROSE PRODUCTIONS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $905.00
Z-ROSE PRODUCTIONS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $690.00
Z-ROSE PRODUCTIONS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $570.00
Z-ROSE PRODUCTIONS Printing & binding GENERAL FUND POLICE DEPARTMENT $510.00
 WARRANT LIST TOTAL. ............................................................................................................. $833,280.42




 Page 16
Guide to Understanding and Using
Your Reports
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


Contents
Purpose of the User Guide .............................................................................. 1

What Does The NCS Measure? ........................................................................ 2

Using Your Reports ........................................................................................ 4
 Report Documents .........................................................................................................4
 Report Dissemination .....................................................................................................5
 Community Livability Report ...........................................................................................7
 Dashboard Summary of Findings .....................................................................................9
 Technical Appendices ................................................................................................... 10
 Trends over Time Report .............................................................................................. 14
 Demographic and Geographic Subgroup Comparison Reports ......................................... 15
 Open-ended Question Responses .................................................................................. 16

Understanding Survey Research ..................................................................... 17
 Survey Sampling .......................................................................................................... 17
 Margin of Error and Confidence Intervals ....................................................................... 17
 Non-response Bias ....................................................................................................... 18
 “Don’t know” Responses ............................................................................................... 18
 Response Scale ............................................................................................................ 19




 The National Citizen Survey™
 © 2001-2015 National Research Center, Inc.

 The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA.
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™




Purpose of the User Guide
As a participant in The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™), you are among an elite group of
communities that conduct resident surveys. Communities often use the results of The NCS to:

 Envision Make strategic plans and set goals
 Engage Partner with residents, other governments,
 The NCS Background
 private sector and community-based organizations
 Earmark Alter budgets, personnel or services National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
 Educate Communicate and reach out to residents to developed The NCS as a low-cost,
 inform, educate and advocate comprehensive, statistically valid survey
 Enact Create, alter and remove policies to promote solution for local governments eager to
 find out what their residents think about
 community strengths their communities. The NCS is not just a
 Evaluate Track strengths and problems, dig more deeply survey; it is a service that encompasses
 and evaluate progress the entire survey research process -
 scheduling, questionnaire development,
The purpose of this User Guide is to provide you with an sample selection, data collection, analysis
overview of the various products you have received related to and reporting. In partnership with the
 International City/County Management
your survey results, and to describe how to dive in and
 Association (ICMA), The NCS has been
understand the data that are provided in these products. administered hundreds of times in
 numerous U.S. cities, counties, towns,
Your community, including the elected officials and villages and boroughs.
government staff, should dig into data relevant to their
missions, discuss the findings and create action plans. The NCS assesses aspects of community
Residents expect their leaders to act on the survey results they life, local government service quality and
receive. By acting on survey results, community leaders build resident participation in community
 activities. The results, based on resident
credibility with residents. This credibility leads to heightened perceptions, describe the areas where
public trust which, in turn, makes it more likely that residents community members themselves believe
will support expenditures and resource allocations things are going well and shed light on the
recommended by their councils, commissions or staff. Proper areas that could benefit from
expenditure of resources leads to better communities. improvement.




 1
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™




What Does The NCS Measure?
Broadly, The NCS measures your community’s “livability.” A great many definitions have been made for
community livability,1 including one from the Partners for Livable Communities, calling it “the sum of
the factors that add up to a community’s quality of life.”2 Staff at NRC examined the extensive research
that has been done about community livability and many of the models that have been developed to
describe the components of livable communities.3 Eight facets of community livability were distilled
from our synthesis of this research: Safety, Mobility, the Natural Environment, the Built Environment,
the Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement. The
NCS questionnaire includes individual items that act as indicators of community quality within each of
the eight facets – and, split in a different way, they form three “pillars” of community quality:
Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation.

The Eight Facets of Livable Communities

 Natural Built
 Safety Mobility Environment Environment
 Protection from danger or risk Accessibility of a community Resources and features native Design, construction and
 (e.g., public safety, personal by motorized and non- to a community (e.g., open management of the human-made
 security and welfare, motorized modes of space in which people live, work,
 spaces, water, air)
 and recreate on a day-to-day
 emergency preparedness) transportation (e.g., ease of basis, including the buildings,
 travel, traffic flow, walking) streetscapes, parks, etc.




 Recreation and Education and Community
 Economy Wellness Enrichment Engagement
 Maintenance of a diverse Recreation, healthy lifestyles, Learning, enrichment and Quality and frequency of
 economy (e.g., vibrant preventive and curative workforce readiness for social interactions (e.g., civic
 downtown, cost of living) healthcare, supportive children, youth and adults groups, volunteering)
 services, (e.g., fitness
 opportunities, recreation
 centers)



The Three Pillars of Livable Communities

 Community
 Characteristics Governance Participation

 Inherent and acquired amenities, Services provided by local Connection to neighbors, resident
 the design and opportunities that government; government function activities; use of community
 contribute to the livability of a and levels of trust residents have amenities and services; “social
 community in government leaders capital”




1
  Many examples are shown at http://www.camsys.com/kb_experts_livability.htm
2
  Source: Partners for Livable Communities, http://www.livable.org/about-us/what-is-livability
3
  See, for example: http://livable.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/board_resources/BOT_Meetings/2010/4ExecCommNov5/
  Grand_Alliance_doc_for_EC.pdf; http://www.sustainable.org/images/stories/pdf/Placemaking_v1.pdf; http://www.who.int/ageing/
  publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf



 2
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


Other sectors that influence community quality include the businesses, non-profit agencies, fraternal or
service organizations (e.g., Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions and more) and other community groups (such as
homeowners or neighborhood associations, etc.) as well as other nearby local governments or other
levels of government. They are important target audiences for receiving and acting on The NCS results.

Because much of what The NCS measures is quality – quality of community life, services and
connection – it is common for community leaders to conclude that their locale must excel in every facet
of livability. While leaders may feel compelled to strive to be equally strong in all areas of community
life, such a strategy is rarely feasible or even desirable. Different communities have different strengths
and identities. These strengths and definitions of the community should be noted by all those reviewing
the results. Less desirable ratings for some indicators should not automatically be seen as negative for a
community, but instead a reflection of the community’s resources and priorities which wisely may be
spent on areas that matter more. Not all indicators that show less achievement are a call to action, just
as not all indicators that are strong should become a gateway to complacency. Those viewing The NCS
results, and in particular those charged with creating plans based on the results, should consider their
community’s essence and priorities, and should choose to make improvements or maintain excellence
in areas that support the identity they desire. Meeting your definition of success in the areas deemed
most important is the ultimate goal – and one that The NCS helps measure – even if all levels of success
are not equal.




 3
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™




Using Your Reports
Report Documents
Instead of a single, heavy document that can be difficult to navigate and share, The NCS results are
reported in multiple formats and lengths, each with varying levels of detail to ensure that your different
stakeholder groups get the right information to meet their needs. The Basic Service of The NCS includes
each of the following documents:

 Community Livability Report
 Dashboard Summary of Findings
 Technical Appendices
 Trends over Time (if you have administered The NCS before)
 At project end, a “Next Steps” overview webinar for staff and elected officials

Depending on the additional services you chose as part of your research project, you may also receive
additional reports, such as:

 Demographic Subgroup Comparisons
 Geographic Subgroup Comparisons
 Report of Open-ended Questions
 Presentation slideshow (shown at in-person presentation of results and provided to you for your
 own uses)

This User Guide describes these reports, how to interpret the data and how to dig deeper to ensure
everyone – you, government staff leadership, line staff, elected officials, residents, business owners and
community organizations – get the most out of The NCS results.

Report Types
When assembled together, these reports build on and reinforce each other, while separately, they
provide the flexibility for targeted reporting to specific audiences.

Community Livability Report • This report is the most universal and summarizes all the results and
key findings. The Community Livability Report is brief, attractive and accessible, making it a central
public document.

Dashboard Summary of Findings • This report offers a simplified (“rolled up”) quantitative view of
the data, as well as comparison details for each question (the relationship to the benchmark and over
time, if this is not the first iteration of the survey).

Technical Appendices • The appendices include the details about survey methods, individual
response options selected for each question – with and without the “don’t know” option – and detailed
benchmark results. This document speaks to the credibility of data and the most granular detail of
results.

Trends over Time • This report reveals how resident perspectives and behaviors have changed across
two or more administrations of The NCS. The report offers a high level view of how rankings have
changed as well as relative position to the benchmark including all administrations of The NCS.



 4
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


Next Steps Webinar • At the end of your project, this webinar (scheduled at your convenience for
staff and elected officials) summarizes the methods and select findings and helps you identify potential
actions – and provides an opportunity to ask questions of NRC researchers.

Guide to Understanding and Using Your Reports • The Guide to Understanding and Using Your
Reports (this document) is written simply so that the survey sponsors receive guidance about how to
understand all aspects of the reports, and also so that sponsors can explain to others how the reports
are organized and what they mean.

Presentation • An in-person presentation by NRC’s independent researchers will offer an engaging
overview of the findings – revealing important patterns without getting lost in the detail – at a Council
meeting (either formal or work session). The PowerPoint slideshow can be reused for other audiences,
including civic clubs, business and non-profit organizations and the press. Presentation by the unbiased
survey research team offers the neutrality that is hard to garner when staff themselves present survey
findings.

Subgroup Comparisons • Both demographic and geographic comparison options are available. Such
information can be especially useful as programs are considered for different parts of a community or
outreach is planned to educate different community groups.

Open-ended Questions • Residents’ own words add flavor to the survey results and a quantitative
grouping of similarly themed comments gives a sense of common ideas.

Report Dissemination
Distributing the results and communicating the key findings engages audiences.

Audiences and Stakeholders
Residents • Make the reports available to the public via your website. Share the results at a public
meeting, being sure to advertise the event. A full presentation of the results (either by NRC or your own
staff) with discussion of results among elected officials highlights the transparency of findings. If
independence of the findings is particularly important in your community, working with NRC to make
the presentation of results will be particularly effective.

Department Managers and Line Staff • Managers and staff will examine ratings most closely
aligned to their work. Make a plan to disseminate results to line staff (e.g., through a series of small
group meetings). Staff should be encouraged to identify specific areas where action is suggested –
including further research as well as service enhancements or partnerships outside of the organization.
These suggestions could be sent to the department heads who will meet to discuss action options with
the chief administrative officer.

Elected officials • Elected officials benefit most from advance distribution of survey reports prior to
public presentation and discussion. Ask elected officials to read the survey documents and funnel
questions to staff who then can get assistance with answers from NRC professionals, when needed. Staff
should develop an approach to action that can be presented to council. This way staff will be prepared
when the inevitable council question is asked of the manager, “What do you plan to do with these
results so that they don’t just sit on a shelf?”

Non-profits and Businesses • While local governments sponsor The NCS, it is not just for staff and
elected officials. It is a document to engage the entire community. Many of the findings of the survey
will be relevant to the non-profit and business sectors and many community improvements will rest on



 5
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


the shoulders of these sectors as much as on government. Convene a meeting of business and non-profit
leaders to release results and begin a discussion of actions to improve resident attitudes and behaviors.
This could be a town hall-style meeting or a special invitation lunch with elected officials.

Press/Media • Getting in front of your results means controlling how and when results are shared
with the press. Whether your relationship with the local news media is cooperative or contentious, you
should declare your intentions for the results even before the survey is conducted – then reinforce those
intentions once you have the results. Let the press know that there are no bad results and that your
community conducts The NCS because it intends to learn and improve like the best businesses.
Certainly social media outlets also permit you to express your intentions for results and to interpret the
findings for any of your followers. (And do not forget to link subsequent decisions to what you learned
from the survey.)

Choosing a Report Audience
You can follow or adapt to your needs NRC’s recommendations for sharing The NCS reports with
different stakeholder groups in your community. There is no reason to withhold any report from any
individual or stakeholder group, but if targeting the right information to the right audience is seen to be
of value, we believe that these distinctions among audiences will make the first pass at distributing
results most effective.

Sharing The NCS Reports with Different Sectors
 Department
 Elected managers Non-profits Press/
Report Residents officials and line staff and businesses Media
Community Livability Report ● ● ● ● ●
Dashboard Summary of Findings ●
Technical Appendices ●
Trends over Time ● ● ● ○ ●
Next Steps Webinar ●
Presentation of key findings ● ● ● ●
Subgroup comparisons (demographic and/or
geographic) ○ ● ○
Open-ended Question Responses ○ ○ ○
Guide to Understanding and Using Your Reports ●
●=Recommended
○=Optional

These stakeholder groups may wish to “drill down” into the results most meaningful or pertinent to
their missions. Those wishing to drill down should review the questionnaire first and decide which
survey items are relevant to their mission – choosing from not only specific municipality-provided
services, but also those “community outcomes” that they wish to impact. The Dashboard Summary of
Findings and Community Livability Report provide an overview, while the Technical Appendices
provide the detailed survey responses and benchmark results. The Trends over Time can show how
stakeholders’ efforts have impacted the community over the years. Demographic and Geographic
Subgroup Comparisons reports can help to point out on whom and where impacts have been felt to
lesser and greater degrees.




 6
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Community Livability Report
Using the model of the eight facets of community livability within the three pillars of community, The
NCS Community Livability report is divided into seven sections:

 About
 Quality of Life
 Community Characteristics
 Governance
 Participation
 Special Topics
 Conclusions

About • This section provides background on The NCS and community livability with brief descriptions
of the survey methods.

Quality of Life • This section of the report highlights areas of community strength and challenge, as
well as identifying community characteristics most important to your residents’ assessments of their
quality of life. A summary of benchmark comparisons is presented by the eight community livability
facets helping communities to focus on areas that may provide “bigger bang for your buck.”

Community Characteristics • This section of the report describes residents’ ratings of the
characteristics that make a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be.

Governance • This section of the report evaluates how well the local government delivers services and
meets the needs and expectations of its residents.

Participation • This section of the report looks at how connected residents are to the community and
each other.

Special Topics • This section includes the custom or special questions you may have included on your
survey.

Conclusions • Your report ends with a summary of key findings.

For the most part, the “percent positive” is reported in the report’s charts. The percent positive is the
combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and
“somewhat safe”). For question that ask about behavior (e.g., asked on a yes/no scale or frequency scale
like “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “usually,” or “always”) we show a combination of responses that
reflects at least some behavior (e.g., percent “yes” or “always” and “usually”).

On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could answer “don’t know,” but these “don’t know”
responses have been excluded from the analyses shown in the report. In other words, the tables and
charts display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Appendix A of
the Technical Appendices provides the complete set of survey frequencies, with and without “don’t
know” responses. The User Guide section, Understanding Survey Research (starting on page 17)
describes how and why we remove the “don’t know” responses from our analyses.

Most of the charts in your Community Livability report have been color-coded to indicate how your
results compare to national benchmarks, with individual survey items grouped within the eight facets of
Community Livability. At a glance, you can see how your results compare to not only each other, but to



 7
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


national benchmark communities, as well. Detailed benchmark results are provided in Appendix B of
the Technical Appendices and include such additional information as your rank among the comparison
communities. If you chose to have custom benchmark comparisons made, the results appear in this
appendix as well.




 8
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Dashboard Summary of Findings
The Dashboard Summary of Findings summarizes resident ratings across the eight facets and three
pillars of a livable community. The Dashboard Summary chart displays your overall performance in
each facet based on each survey item’s comparison to the benchmark. When most ratings were higher
than the benchmark, the color is dark purple; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the
color is the lightest purple. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color
between the extremes.




The Detailed Dashboard displays for each item on the survey, its comparison to the benchmark and the
percent positive for the current year, and if applicable, how the current year’s rating compares to the
previous year’s rating (higher, similar or lower). Examination of how areas are trending over time and
how they compare to the benchmark can be helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention.




 9
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Technical Appendices
Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses
The first appendix in this document shows the responses to each question on the survey in two ways.
Included first are the responses excluding any “don’t know” responses and second are the responses
including the “don’t know” responses. We show both the percent of respondents giving a particular
response followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Every table in the appendix is
numbered, to ease its reference in additional documentation or reports you may develop. The complete
question wording that was used on the survey is also displayed in every table. This permits readers to
review the results in their entirety without having to cross-reference the survey instrument.

High “don’t know” (typically 20% or greater) responses can suggest a need for additional
communication or outreach in the community, especially if the high “don’t know” responses are related
to underused services.




For some questions, respondents are permitted to select more than one response. When some
respondents are counted in multiple categories, the total will likely exceed 100%. In these cases, those
multiple response questions will have the appropriate notation below the table.




 10
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons
What Benchmarks Are
Benchmarks are comparison data that provide context for your ratings. In Appendix B, your detailed
benchmark results are displayed in a table of five columns. The first column is the survey item for which
the comparisons have been provided. The second column is your community’s percent positive. The
third column is the rank assigned to your rating among communities where a similar question was
asked. The fourth column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The fifth and
final column shows how your rating compares to the other communities in the benchmarking database.
In that final column, your results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the
benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by residents of your
community is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme
differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.”




We also provide a list of the communities included in your comparison with their population according
to the U.S. Census Bureau. The communities in the national database represent a wide geographic and
population range; many communities find a custom comparison that targets specific geographies or
populations to be useful.




What Benchmarks Are Not
Benchmarks do not tell you what you need to fix. In this way, benchmarks are not like blood tests that
carry a range, often narrow, within which you are considered to be healthy and outside of which you
could be sick. A local score that is lower than scores typically seen in other places may indicate nothing
more than community sentiment that resonates. For example, a suburb located near a large
metropolitan center many not be seen to have as strong an economy as other places. This residential
suburb’s commercial areas are not seen to be as vibrant as other places, may have a higher cost of living,
fewer jobs and may have ceded downtown activities to a nearby metro area that has much higher
density and more entertainment opportunities. A lower benchmark rating for “economy” simply offers
specifics to the community identity which residents and leaders may feel no need to ameliorate. Instead



 11
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


this hypothetical community may want to focus its resources on sustaining or strengthening its image
as a safe place with many recreation opportunities and ease of travel by car and light rail.

How to Use Benchmarks
Many of the charts and tables in The NCS reports have been color-coded to indicate how your results
compare to national benchmarks.

Benchmark comparisons often are used for performance measurement. Communities use the
comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise
community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local
government performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what
pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up “good” citizen
evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if “good” is good
enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left
with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair.
Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example, how do
residents’ ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities?

A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service – one that closes most of its
cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low – still has a problem to fix if the perception
of residents in the community it intends to protect is not so strong. The benchmark data can help that
police department – or any department – to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the
comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are
scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about
budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results.

NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in
surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The NCS.
The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most
communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly
upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The Basic Service includes
national benchmark comparisons. If you chose a custom benchmarks comparison as an additional
service to the basic NCS, these comparison will appear in this appendix, as well.

Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range
from small to large in population size. Data come from tens of thousands of individual evaluations of
community quality, service delivery and engagement. Despite the differences in jurisdiction
characteristics, all are in the business of facilitating a high quality of life for residents, typically by
providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction circumstances,
resources and practices vary, the objective virtually everywhere is to help create and sustain highly
livable communities.

Where Benchmarks Come From
NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals
of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Citizen
Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by ICMA, not only were the
principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of benchmark data for citizen
opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered. The argument for benchmarks
was called “In Search of Standards.” “What has been missing from a local government’s analysis of its
survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80
percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems...”



 12
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™


Surveys in the benchmarks are conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each
jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC innovated a method
for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that are conducted by NRC with those that others
have conducted. The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen
Surveys book, but also in Public Administration Review and the Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this
work.4 The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a
growing number of citizen surveys in NRC’s proprietary databases. NRC’s work on calculating national
benchmarks for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May
award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association.




4
 See, for example: Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen
 satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271-288 and Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers
 and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public
 Administration Review, 64, 331- 341.



 13
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Trends over Time Report
If you have conducted The NCS before, you will automatically receive the Trends over Time report. In
this report we show your percent positive ratings by year, how your most current results compare to
your previous year’s results and how you have compared to the national benchmark for each survey
year.

The Trends over Time Report provides insight on the aspects of your community that may be improving
or perhaps starting to decline. While trends for your national benchmark comparisons are provided for
reference, the benchmark is constantly changing as communities conduct newer surveys or new
communities conduct surveys and resident perspectives change. Overall, your trends represent,
perhaps, the most powerful benchmark you have – a comparison of you to yourself in prior years. These
trends can be a window into the impact of new policies, capital projects or programs in your
community.




 14
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Demographic and Geographic Subgroup Comparison Reports
An additional service many participants in The NCS choose is comparison of results by respondent
characteristics. In the Demographic Subgroup Comparison Report, each survey question is cross-
classified by responses from different demographic groups in your community. We typically show five
demographic groupings (housing unit type, housing tenure, age, gender and race/ethnicity) so that you
can see if results differ depending on the demographic category of respondent. The Geographic
Subgroup Comparison Report is another optional service that compares survey responses by subgroups,
in this case, based on respondents’ location (e.g., district, neighborhood, ward, etc.). In order to create a
report of geographic comparisons, the geographic subareas will need to be determined well before the
survey mailing.

In these subgroup comparison reports, we show the percent positive rating and shade “statistically
significant” differences grey. The shading is based on analysis of variance and chi-square tests of
statistical significance where a “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability
that differences observed among subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95%
probability that there are differences that exist in the subgroups being compared.




Demographic subgroup comparisons can help with creating targeted communication and service
campaigns to address the concerns of each group.

Geographic subgroup comparisons can help demonstrate the sense of equity felt across the community
since residents in some parts of every community tend to feel better than do those in other areas about
the services they receive or the livability of their neighborhood. Results from geographic subgroup
comparisons will permit targeting of services, capital improvements and programs so that residents in
all areas can feel that they are receiving their fair share of resources.




 15
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Open-ended Question Responses
The NCS standard questions are close-ended. A closed-ended question is one where a set of response
options is listed as fixed choices on the survey and those taking the survey respond to each option listed.
Open-ended questions have no answer choices from which respondents select their response. Instead,
respondents must “create” their own answers and state them in their own words. The inclusion of an
open-ended question is available as an additional service for The NCS that results in a separate Report
of Open-ended Questions.

On the survey, respondents write, in their own words, their answer to the posed open-ended questions.
In this report, the verbatim responses are categorized by topic area using qualitative coding techniques.
Often, an “other” category is used for responses falling outside these coded categories. In general, a
code is assigned when the number of related responses reaches a critical mass.

We will provide a table showing the frequency of each code to give a general overview of the responses.




We also provide every verbatim response with its assigned code. This type of report gives you and
others a chance to “hear” the voice of respondents in their own words.




 16
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™




Understanding Survey Research
Survey Sampling
We systematically select households from a geocoded United States Postal Service (USPS) address list
to ensure that only households located within the boundaries of a community are surveyed. Systematic
sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all eligible addresses is culled, selecting every Nth
one (a number that changes depending on the size of the population and the sample size to be selected)
until the appropriate number of addresses is sampled. Not only does NRC scientifically and randomly
sample households to participate in The NCS, but we also select, without bias, the household member to
participate. This methodology helps ensure that the attitudes expressed by our respondent sample
closely approximate the attitudes of all adult residents living in the community. Without controlling
who in the household participates, it is likely that results would be biased towards those who are more
sedentary and those without jobs (who may have different opinions about some services).

The Basic Service of The NCS includes mailing to randomly selected households. Though response rates
across the US have dipped in recent years, the response rate for most administrations of The NCS
ranges between 20% and 40%, which yields between 300 and 480 completed surveys.



Margin of Error and Confidence Intervals Number of Margin
 completed surveys of error
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from 100 9.8%
surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence 300 5.7%
interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and 400 4.9%
the one used for The NCS, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can 500 4.4%
be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the 750 3.6%
survey results because some residents’ opinions are used to estimate
all residents’ opinions. The relationship between sample size and precision of estimates or margin of
error (at the 95% confidence level) is shown in the adjacent table. With a typical sample size for The
NCS, this means an estimated margin of error at the 95% confidence level of plus or minus four to six
percentage points.

A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of the same number of
residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory
is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the
confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as
“excellent” or “good,” then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the
range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty
is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey,
including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though
standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and
data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results.

For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is
smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10
percentage points.




 17
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Non-response Bias
Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC
oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample
data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic,
stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the community a known chance of receiving the survey
(and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers).

Weighting
The first step in preparing the data for analysis is to weight the data to reflect the demographic profile
of the residents of the community being surveyed. Weighting is the approach used by quality survey
consultancies to ensure that the demographic characteristics of the sample mirror the overall
population. It is an important method to adjust for potential non-response bias. NRC uses a special
software program of mathematical algorithms to calculate the appropriate weights. Several different
weighting “schemes” may be tested to ensure the best fit for the data.

“Don’t know” Responses
Generally, a small portion of respondents select “don’t know” for most survey items and inevitably some
items have a larger “don’t know” percentage. Comparing responses to a set of items on the same scale
can be misleading when the “don’t know” responses have been included. If two items have disparate
“don’t know” percentages (2% versus 17%, for example), any apparent similarities or differences across
the remaining response options may disappear once the “don’t know” responses are removed. Such an
example is shown below.

When comparing the community as a place to live to the community as a place to work, it would appear
that 76% of respondents rated the community as a place to live as “excellent” or “good” compared to
just 63% for the community as a place to work. However, the community as a place to work has a much
higher proportion of respondents answering “don’t know” (17% compared to 2%).

 Place to live Place to work
 Number Percent Number Percent
Excellent 48 25% 38 20%
Good 97 51% 81 43%
Fair 23 12% 22 12%
Poor 19 10% 17 9%
Don’t know 3 2% 32 17%
Total 190 100% 190 100%

If we remove the three “don’t know” responses from the community as a place to live and the 32 “don’t
know” responses from the community as a place to work, the two items are actually much more similar
in their evaluations: 78% “excellent” or “good” place to live compared to 75% “excellent” or “good” place
to work.

 Place to live Place to work
 Number Percent Number Percent
Excellent 48 26% 38 24%
Good 97 52% 81 51%
Fair 23 12% 22 14%
Poor 19 10% 17 11%
Total 187 100% 158 100%




 18
 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey™



Response Scale
The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality
is “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “poor” (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale
possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly
disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of communities conducting citizen surveys across
the U.S. The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss when crafting The NCS
questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys
measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only
two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in
other measurement tasks, NRC has found that ratings of almost every local government service in
almost every community tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore,
to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to
spread those ratings. With questions worded for EGFP, responses are more neutral because they
require no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree-disagree scales require) and, finally,
EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction
scales which ignore residents’ perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the
level of service offered).




 19
Skokie, IL
Dashboard Summary of Findings

DRAFT
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
Summary
The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are
standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS
communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community
Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural
Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and
Community Engagement). This report summarizes Skokie’s performance in the eight facets of community
livability with the “General” rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any
of the eight facets. The “Overall” represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general).

By summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of
Skokie’s community livability emerges. Below, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated
each of the pillars that support it – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings
were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the
benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a
color between the extremes.

Within the Community Characteristics pillar, most aspects of Mobility and Education and Enrichment received
higher ratings than in other communities. Ratings for the Built Environment, Recreation and Wellness, Education
and Enrichment and Community Engagement within the Governance pillar also tended to be higher than the
benchmarks. All other facets of Governance and Community Characteristics tended to have ratings that were
strong and similar to other communities. Most reported rates of Participation were similar to those in other
communities, however rates were higher within Built Environment and Education and Enrichment. The aspect of
Education and Enrichment was rated higher than other communities in all three pillars. This information can be
helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention.

Figure 1: Dashboard Summary
 Community Characteristics Governance Participation
 Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower
Overall 13 32 0 10 30 0 5 19 3
General 0 7 0 0 3 0 1 2 0
Safety 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 2 1
Mobility 6 1 0 1 6 0 2 0 0
Natural Environment 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0
Built Environment 2 3 0 3 3 0 1 1 0
Economy 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 3 0
Recreation and Wellness 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 5 0
Education and Enrichment 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Community Engagement 1 4 0 4 4 0 0 4 2

Legend
 Higher
 Similar
 Lower




 1
 The National Citizen Survey™

 Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard
 Percent Percent Percent
 Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Governance Trend Benchmark Participation Trend Benchmark
 positive positive positive
 Overall appearance ↔ ↔ 81% Customer service ↔ ↔ 80% Recommend Skokie ↔ ↔ 87%
 Overall quality of life ↔ ↔ 80% Services provided by Skokie ↔ ↔ 84% Remain in Skokie ↔ ↔ 84%
 Place to retire ↔ ↔ 61% Services provided by the ↓ ↔ 41% Contacted Skokie employees ↓ ↑ 59%

  General
 Federal Government
 Place to raise children ↔ ↔ 81%
 Place to live ↔ ↔ 87%
 Neighborhood ↑ ↔ 85%
 Overall image ↔ ↔ 68%
 Overall feeling of safety * ↔ 69% Police ↔ ↔ 83% Was NOT the victim of a crime ↔ ↔ 88%
 Safe in neighborhood ↔ ↔ 91% Crime prevention ↔ ↔ 68% Did NOT report a crime * ↔ 82%
 Safe downtown/commercial ↔ ↔ 93% Fire ↔ ↔ 91% Stocked supplies for an * ↓ 26%

  Safety
 area emergency
 Fire prevention ↔ ↔ 85%
 Ambulance/EMS ↔ ↔ 93%
 Emergency preparedness ↔ ↔ 76%
 Animal control ↔ ↔ 74%
 Traffic flow ↑ ↑ 67% Traffic enforcement ↔ ↔ 73% Walked or biked instead of * ↑ 68%
 driving
 Travel by car ↔ ↑ 83% Street repair ↔ ↔ 53% Used public transportation * ↑↑ 56%
 instead of driving

  Mobility
 Travel by bicycle ↑ ↑ 76% Street cleaning ↔ ↑ 74%
 Ease of walking ↔ ↑ 82% Street lighting ↔ ↔ 69%
 Overall ease travel * ↔ 84% Snow removal ↔ ↔ 71%
 Public parking * ↑ 74% Sidewalk maintenance ↔ ↔ 64%
 Paths and walking trails ↑ ↑ 82% Traffic signal timing * ↔ 64%
 Overall natural environment ↔ ↔ 81% Garbage collection ↔ ↔ 88% Recycled at home ↔ ↔ 88%
Natural Cleanliness ↔ ↔ 81% Recycling ↔ ↔ 86%
Environ
 ment Yard waste pick-up ↔ ↔ 80%
 Drinking water ↔ ↔ 81%
 New development in Skokie ↓ ↔ 59% Sewer services ↔ ↔ 74% NOT experiencing housing ↔ ↔ 61%
 cost stress




  Built Environment
 Affordable quality housing ↔ ↑ 61% Storm drainage ↔ ↔ 61% Did NOT observe a code * ↑ 70%
 violation
 Housing options ↔ ↔ 68% Power utility ↔ ↔ 83%
 Overall built environment * ↑ 76% Land use, planning and ↔ ↑ 69%
 zoning
 Public places * ↔ 74% Code enforcement ↑ ↑ 70%
 Cable television ↔ ↑ 72%




 Legend
 ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available
 2
 The National Citizen Survey™

 Percent Percent Percent
 Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Governance Trend Benchmark Participation Trend Benchmark
 positive positive positive
 Overall economic health * ↔ 69% Economic development ↔ ↔ 65% Economy will have positive ↔ ↔ 28%
 impact on income
 Shopping opportunities ↔ ↑↑ 83% Purchased goods or services in * ↔ 94%
 Skokie


 Economy
 Employment opportunities ↑ ↑ 53% Work in Skokie * ↔ 34%
 Place to visit * ↔ 62%
 Cost of living * ↔ 51%
 Vibrant downtown/commercial * ↔ 42%
 area
 Place to work ↔ ↔ 69%
 Business and services ↔ ↔ 67%
 Fitness opportunities * ↔ 80% Village parks ↔ ↔ 89% In very good to excellent health * ↔ 60%

 Recreation and
 Recreational opportunities ↔ ↔ 74% Health services ↔ ↑ 82% Used Skokie recreation centers * ↔ 63%
 Health care ↔ ↔ 69% Visited a Village park ↓ ↔ 78%
 Health and wellness * ↔ 81% Ate 5 portions of fruits and * ↔ 83%

 Wellness
 vegetables
 Preventive health services ↔ ↔ 77% Participated in moderate or * ↔ 82%
 vigorous physical activity
 Cultural/arts/music activities ↔ ↑ 80% Public libraries * ↑ 95% Used Skokie public libraries ↓ ↑ 78%
 Education Child care/preschool ↔ ↑ 67% Special events * ↔ 78% Attended a Village-sponsored * ↔ 50%
 and event
 Overall education and * ↔ 82%
Enrichment
 enrichment
 Opportunities to participate in ↔ ↔ 65% Public information ↔ ↑ 83% Sense of community ↔ ↔ 73%
 community matters
 Opportunities to volunteer ↓ ↔ 67% Overall direction ↔ ↔ 63% Voted in local elections ↔ ↔ 80%




 Community Engagement
 Openness and acceptance ↔ ↑ 79% Value of services for taxes ↔ ↔ 67% Attended a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 12%
 paid
 Social events and activities ↔ ↔ 69% Welcoming citizen ↔ ↔ 64% Watched a local public meeting ↓ ↓ 14%
 involvement
 Neighborliness * ↔ 55% Confidence in Village * ↑ 66% Volunteered ↔ ↓ 23%
 government
 Acting in the best interest * ↑ 69% Read or watched local news * ↔ 88%
 of Skokie
 Being honest * ↑ 71%
 Treating all residents fairly * ↔ 66%




 Legend
 ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available
 3
Skokie, IL
Community Livability Report

DRAFT
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
Contents
About .............................................................................................. 1
Quality of Life in Skokie .................................................................... 2
Community Characteristics ............................................................... 3
Governance ..................................................................................... 5
Participation .................................................................................... 7
Special Topics.................................................................................. 9
Conclusions ................................................................................... 13




 The National Citizen Survey™
 © 2001-2015 National Research Center, Inc.

 The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA.

 NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing
 clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices.
About
The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) report is about the “livability” of Skokie. The phrase “livable
community” is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where
people do live, but where they want to live.

Great communities are partnerships of the
government, private sector, community-based
organizations and residents, all geographically
connected. The NCS captures residents’ opinions Residents
within the three pillars of a community
(Community Characteristics, Governance and
Participation) across eight central facets of
community (Safety, Mobility, Natural
Environment, Built Environment, Economy,
Recreation and Wellness, Education and Communities
Enrichment and Community Engagement). are Community-
 Private
 based
 sector partnerships organizations
The Community Livability Report provides the
opinions of a representative sample of 388 among...
residents of the Village of Skokie. The margin of
error around any reported percentage is 5% for the
entire sample. The full description of methods used
to garner these opinions can be found in the
Technical Appendices provided under separate
cover. Government




 1
Quality of Life in Skokie
Most residents rated the quality of life in Skokie as excellent or good.
 Overall Quality of Life
This rating was similar to the national benchmark comparison (see
 Excellent
Appendix B of the Technical Appendices provided under separate 26%
cover).
 Poor
Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each 2%
community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three
sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community –
 Good
Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most Fair
 54%
 18%
ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the
color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower
than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings
(higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes.

In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community
facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety, Economy and
Community Engagement as priorities for the Skokie community in the coming two years. It is noteworthy that
Skokie residents gave particularly strong ratings to Mobility, Built Environment, and Education and Enrichment,
ratings within these facets tended to higher than ratings in comparison communities. Ratings for Safety, Natural
Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, and Community Engagement were positive and similar to
other communities. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where
residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for
improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the
characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best.

Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the
ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Skokie’s unique
questions.



 Legend
 Higher than national benchmark
 Similar to national benchmark
 Lower than national benchmark

 Most important




 Education
 Built
 Safety and
 Environment
 Enrichment


 Natural Recreation
 Environment and Wellness


 Community
 Mobility Economy
 Engagement




 2
 The National Citizen Survey™


Community Characteristics
What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be?
Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an
attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a
community. In the case of Skokie, 87% rated the Village as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents’ ratings
of Skokie as a place to live were similar to ratings in other communities across the nation.
In addition to rating the Village as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality
including Skokie as a place to raise children and to retire, their neighborhood as a place to live, the overall image
or reputation of Skokie and its overall appearance. About 8 in 10 residents gave positive ratings to Skokie as a
place to raise children, their neighborhood as a place to live and to Skokie’s overall appearance. A majority of
survey participants were pleased with Skokie as a place to retire and Skokie’s overall image. All of these ratings
were similar to ratings in other communities.
Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 40 features of the community
within the eight facets of Community Livability. Almost all aspects of Community Characteristics were rated
positively by a majority of respondents and all aspects were at least similar to the national benchmarks.
Approximately 9 in 10 residents gave favorable ratings to feelings of safety in their neighborhood and in Skokie’s
downtown/commercial area; ratings that were similar to those given in other communities across the nation. The
Mobility facet received the highest ratings almost all aspects were rated higher than the national benchmark, with
the exception of overall ease of travel which was similar to the national benchmark. Within the facets of Natural
 Environment and Recreation and Wellness, all aspects were rated
 Place to Live positively by at least 6 in 10 respondents and had ratings similar to or
 Excellent
 36%
 higher than the national benchmark. Aspects of the Built Environment
 were also favorably rated by around 6 in 10 residents and two aspects,
 the overall built environment and affordable quality housing, received
 Poor ratings higher than those given in other communities. Ratings for
 1%
 Economy were strong with shopping and employment opportunities
 receiving ratings higher than those given in comparison communities,
 Fair
 12% while other aspects were given similar ratings. Education and
 Good
 Enrichment and Community Engagement received strong ratings
 51% varying between being similar to and higher than the benchmark.




Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark
 Higher Similar Lower

 85% 81% 81%
 68%
 61%




 Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance

 3
 The National Citizen Survey™
Figure 1: Aspects of Community Characteristics

  Percent rating positively SAFETY
  (e.g., excellent/good, Overall feeling of safety 69%
  very/somewhat safe) Safe in neighborhood 91%
 Safe downtown/commercial area 93%
 MOBILITY
 Comparison to national
 benchmark Overall ease of travel 84%
 Paths and walking trails 82%
 Higher Ease of walking 82%
 Travel by bicycle 76%
 Similar
 Travel by car 83%
 Lower Public parking 74%
 Traffic flow 67%
 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
 Overall natural environment 81%
 Cleanliness 81%
 BUILT ENVIRONMENT
 Overall built environment 76%
 New development in Skokie 59%
 Affordable quality housing 61%
 Housing options 68%
 Public places 74%
 ECONOMY
 Overall economic health 69%
 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 42%
 Business and services 67%
 Cost of living 51%
 Shopping opportunities 83%
 Employment opportunities 53%
 Place to visit 62%
 Place to work 69%
 RECREATION AND WELLNESS
 Health and wellness 81%
 Preventive health services 77%
 Health care 69%
 Recreational opportunities 74%
 Fitness opportunities 80%
 EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT
 Education and enrichment opportunities 82%
 Cultural/arts/music activities 80%
 Child care/preschool 67%
 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
 Social events and activities 69%
 Neighborliness 55%
 Openness and acceptance 79%
 Opportunities to participate in community matters 65%
 Opportunities to volunteer 67%




 4
Governance
How well does the government of Skokie meet the needs and expectations of its residents?
The overall quality of the services provided by Skokie as well as the manner in which these services are provided
are a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. In Skokie, 84% of residents gave excellent or good
ratings to the overall quality of Village services and about 4 in 10 gave positive ratings to the services provided by
the Federal Government, both of which were similar to ratings given in other communities.

Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Skokie’s leadership and governance. About 8 in 10 residents gave
positive ratings to the overall customer service by Skokie employees. About 7 in 10 gave excellent or good ratings
to being honest, acting in the best interest of Skokie and confidence in the Village government, all which were
rated higher than the national benchmark. Around two-thirds of respondents were pleased with the value of
services for taxes paid, overall direction of Skokie, Village government welcoming citizen involvement and treating
all residents fairly. These aspects were rated similar to the benchmark.

Respondents evaluated over 30 individual services and amenities available in Skokie. A majority of respondents
gave positive ratings to all aspects of Governance. Residents rated all aspects of Safety and Mobility favorably, and
within Mobility, street cleaning was rated higher than the national benchmark. Within Natural Environment,
Built Environment, and Economy, all ratings were positive and similar to the benchmark with the exception of
land use, planning and zoning, code enforcement and cable television which were rated higher than in comparison
communities. Around 6 in 10 residents rated economic development services as excellent or good. Recreation and
Wellness, Education and Enrichment, and Community Engagement had positive ratings from about 8 in 10
 participants. Within Education and Enrichment, public library services were
 Overall Quality of Village rated as excellent or good by 95% of residents, a rating that was higher than
 Services the national benchmark. Within Community Engagement, public information
 Excellent
 35% services rated higher than comparison communities.

 Poor
 2%



Fair
14%
 Good
 49%




 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark

 Higher Similar Lower


 80%
 67% 66% 69% 71% 66%
 63% 64%
 41%


 Value of Overall Welcoming Confidence Acting in Being honest Treating all Customer Services
 services for direction citizen in Village best interest residents service provided by
  taxes paid involvement government of Skokie fairly Federal
 Government


 5
 The National Citizen Survey™
Figure 2: Aspects of Governance

  Percent rating positively SAFETY
  (e.g., excellent/good) Police 83%

 Fire 91%

 Ambulance/EMS 93%
 Comparison to national
 Crime prevention 68%
 benchmark
 Fire prevention 85%
 Higher
 Animal control 74%
 Similar Emergency preparedness 76%

 Lower MOBILITY
 Traffic enforcement 73%

 Street repair 53%

 Street cleaning 74%

 Street lighting 69%

 Snow removal 71%

 Sidewalk maintenance 64%

 Traffic signal timing 64%

 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
 Garbage collection 88%

 Recycling 86%

 Yard waste pick-up 80%

 Drinking water 81%

 BUILT ENVIRONMENT
 Storm drainage 61%

 Sewer services 74%

 Power utility 83%

 Land use, planning and zoning 69%

 Code enforcement 70%

 Cable television 72%

 ECONOMY
 Economic development 65%

 RECREATION AND WELLNESS
 Village parks 89%

 Health services 82%

 EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT
 Public libraries 95%

 Special events 78%

 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
 Public information 83%




 6
 Participation
 Are the residents of Skokie connected to the community and each other?
 An engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among
 residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of
 membership, belonging and history. The overall sense of community in Skokie received positive ratings from 73%
 of residents, a rating that was similar to other communities in the U.S.
 About 4 in 5residents were likely to recommend living in Skokie and about 4 in 5 were likely to remain in the
 Village for the next five years; these ratings were similar to other communities across the nation. Almost 6 in 10
 participants reported that they had contacted a Skokie employee, a level higher than those reported in other
 communities.
 The survey included over 20 activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated
 in or performed each, if at all. Levels of Participation tended to be mixed among the different facets. Within the
 facet of Safety, about 8 in 10 residents had not been the victim of a crime and had not reported a crime, and about
 one-quarter had stocked supplies for an emergency (a level lower than the national benchmark). Within Mobility,
 more than half of residents had used public transportation and walked or biked instead of driving; these rates
 were higher than in other communities. About 4 in 5residents reported that they recycled at home. About 7 in 10
 respondents reported they had not observed a code violation in the past 12 months, a level that was higher than
 comparison communities. Rates of Participation within the facets of Economy and Recreation and Wellness
 varied, but all were similar to other communities across the nation. More
 Sense of Community residents reported that they used the Skokie Public Library than residents in
  Excellent comparison communities. Within Community Engagement, Skokie residents
 20% were similar to other communities except for reporting volunteering and
 watching a local public meeting in the last 12 months which were lower than
 the benchmark.
Poor
5%
 Good
 54%




 Fair
 22%




 Percent rating positively Comparison to national
 (e.g., very/somewhat likely, benchmark
 yes)

 Higher Similar Lower




 87% 84%
 59%




 Recommend Skokie Remain in Skokie Contacted Skokie
 employees


 7
 The National Citizen Survey™
Figure 3: Aspects of Participation

 Percent rating positively SAFETY
 (e.g., yes, more than
 once a month, Stocked supplies for an emergency 26%
 always/sometimes)
 Did NOT report a crime 82%

 Comparison to national Was NOT the victim of a crime 88%
 benchmark
 MOBILITY
 Higher
 Used public transportation instead of driving 56%
 Similar
 Walked or biked instead of driving 68%
 Lower
 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

 Recycled at home 88%

 BUILT ENVIRONMENT

 Did NOT observe a code violation 70%

 NOT under housing cost stress 61%

 ECONOMY

 Purchased goods or services in Skokie 94%

 Economy will have positive impact on income 28%

 Work in Skokie 34%

 RECREATION AND WELLNESS

 Used Skokie recreation centers 63%

 Visited a Village park 78%

 Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables 83%

 Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity 82%

 In very good to excellent health 60%

 EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT

 Used Skokie Public Library 78%

 Attended a Village-sponsored event 50%

 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

 Volunteered 23%

 Attended a local public meeting 12%

 Watched a local public meeting 14%

 Read or watched local news 88%

 Voted in local elections 80%




 8
Special Topics
The Village of Skokie included four questions of special interest on The NCS. The first question asked residents to
rate the importance of the Village of Skokie investing in different kinds of community programs to increase the
sense of community in Skokie. About 73% of survey respondents indicated that increased and/or improved
neighborhood watch groups were essential or very important. Two-thirds of residents rated opportunities to get to
know their neighbors as essential or very important. A majority of respondents rated neighborhood clean-up
events and learning about diverse perspectives as important.

Figure 4: Importance of Village Investment in Community Programs
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Village to invest in each of the following community
programs to increase the sense of community in Skokie:
 Essential Very Important



  Increased/improved neighborhood watch groups 36% 37% 73%


 Opportunites to get to know your neighbors 18% 48% 66%


 Neighborhood clean-up events 19% 40% 59%


 Learning about diverse perspectives 22% 34% 56%


 Block parties 14% 26% 41%




 9
 The National Citizen Survey™
The second question asked residents about their support or opposition to Village investment in a number of areas.
A majority indicated they would strongly or somewhat support each of the potential investments. Additional street
lighting on residential east-west streets and additional street lighting in alleys received the highest levels of
support, followed by additional street lighting on the multi-use path from Dempster Street south to the Village
limit.

Figure 5: Support for Village Investment
How much do you support or oppose Village investment in each of the following?




 Strongly support Somewhat support




 Additonal street lighting on residential east-west streets 57% 30% 87%



Additional street lighting on the multi-use path from Dempster
 48% 37% 85%
 Street south to the Village limit



 Additional street lighting in alleys 53% 31% 84%




 Additional street lighting on Crawford Avenue 44% 37% 81%




 Cameras in public areas 44% 32% 76%




 10
 The National Citizen Survey™
The third question asked residents to rate the impact of different actions on the respondents’ likelihood to recycle.
Around 8 in 10 residents indicated they would recycle much more or somewhat more if they had a better
understanding of what materials can be recycled, or how to prepare those materials for recycling. A majority
indicated that assistance from a friend or neighbor to move the recycling container to and from the curb would not
cause them to recycle more.

Figure 6: Recycling Activities
Please indicate the impact, if any, each of the following would have on the amount you recycle from home each
week. Would you recycle much more, somewhat more, or would you not recycle more?

 Much more Somewhat more Would not recycle more




 Better understanding of what materials can be
 41% 40% 19%
 recycled



  Better understanding of how to prepare materials
 36% 42% 21%
 for recycling




 Larger outdoor recycling container 35% 33% 33%




 More indoor space to collect recyclable materials 33% 37% 30%




 Assistance from friend or neighbor to move the
 13% 31% 56%
 recycling container to and from the curb




 11
 The National Citizen Survey™
The last special interest question was an open-ended question in which residents were asked to identify a
community issue or concern not addressed in the rest of the survey. The verbatim responses were categorized by
topic area and those topics are reported in the chart below with the percent of responses given in each category. Of
the respondents who wrote in a response, the most commonly cited topics were Village services/policy,
transportation, traffic and roads and law enforcement and crime. For the full verbatim responses, see the Open
End Report under separate cover.

Figure 7: Unaddressed Community Issue or Concern
Is there a community issue or concern that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain.



 Village services/policy 19%



 Transportation, traffic, roads 19%



 Law enforcement, crime 19%


 Code enforcement/maintenance,
 17%
 property, taxes


 Other 9%



 Don't know/nothing 17%




 12
Conclusions
Skokie continues to be a great place to live.

Most of survey respondents rated the overall quality of life in Skokie and the Village as a place to live as excellent
or good and these ratings were similar to the benchmarks. About 4 in 5 would recommend Skokie as a place to live
and planned to remain in the community. Rating for features that enhance quality of life, such as Skokie as a place
to raise children, their neighborhoods, and the overall Village appearance were given positive ratings by at least 4
in 5 respondents. These positive ratings remained stable from 2012 to 2015 (for more information see the Trends
over Time report under separate cover).

Safety is a priority for the community.

Residents identified Safety as a top priority for the Skokie community for the next two years. Most safety ratings
were similar to ratings seen elsewhere. About 9 in 10 residents felt safe in their neighborhoods and in the
downtown/commercial area of Skokie. Further, a majority gave excellent or good ratings to the overall feeling of
safety in Skokie. Residents also valued safety services provided by the Village of Skokie. Ratings for police, fire,
ambulance/EMS and fire prevention were rated positively by at least 4 or 5 citizens. About 8 in 10 residents had
not reported a crime or were not the victim of a crime. Safety ratings remained stable from 2012 to 2015.

Skokie residents are engaged in their community.

Residents also identified Community Engagement as a top priority for the Skokie community. About 79% of
survey respondents were pleased with the openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse
backgrounds, and this was rating higher than in comparison communities. About 8 in 10 residents rated the
quality of public information services in the Village of Skokie as excellent or good, which was also higher than the
national benchmark. Skokie also received ratings higher than comparison communities for residents’ confidence
in the Village government, the government being honest, and the government acting in the best interest of Skokie.
However, fewer respondents gave positive ratings to opportunities to volunteer and fewer reported that they had
watched a local public meeting in 2015 compared to 2012.




 13
Skokie, IL
Trends over Time

DRAFT
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
Summary
The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are
standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS
communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community
Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural
Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and
Community Engagement). This report discusses trends over time, comparing the 2015 ratings for the Village of
Skokie to its previous survey results in 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012. Additional reports and technical appendices
are available under separate cover.

Trend data for Skokie represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or
declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local
policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions.

Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or
“lower” if the differences are greater than seven percentage points between the 2012 and 2015 surveys, otherwise
the comparison between 2012 and 2015 are noted as being “similar.” Additionally, benchmark comparisons for all
survey years are presented for reference. Changes in the benchmark comparison over time can be impacted by
various trends, including varying survey cycles for the individual communities that comprise the benchmarks,
regional and national economic or other events, as well as emerging survey methodologies.

Overall, ratings in Skokie for 2015 generally remained stable. Of the 79 items for which comparisons were
available, 66 items were rated similarly in 2012 and 2015, 7 items showed a decrease in ratings and 6 showed an
increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following:

 Most of the facets of Community Characteristics remained stable from 2012 to 2015. Aspects within the facet
 of Mobility that trended up from 2012 to 2015 were traffic flow, travel by bicycle and paths and walking trails.
 Ratings for employment opportunities and neighborhoods also increased from 2012 to 2015. Ratings
 decreased for the overall quality of new development in Skokie and volunteer opportunities.
 Almost all rates of Governance remained stable from 2012 to 2015. Ratings for services provided by the
 Federal government decreased, and ratings for code enforcement increased.
 While most ratings within the pillar of Participation remained stable from 2012 to 2015, there were a few
 decreases over time. In 2015, fewer residents than in 2012 reported that they had visited a Village park, used
 Skokie Public Library, watched a local public meeting or contacted Skokie employees.




 1
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 1: Community Characteristics General
 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2015 rating compared to 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
Overall quality of life 86% 87% 81% 81% 80% Similar Similar Much higher Higher Similar Similar
Overall image NA 78% 79% 71% 68% Similar NA Much higher Much higher Similar Similar
Place to live 90% 92% 93% 88% 87% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar
Neighborhood 83% 81% 80% 78% 85% Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Place to raise children 87% 87% 84% 83% 81% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Higher Similar
Place to retire 68% 70% 68% 65% 61% Similar Higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar
Overall appearance 75% 75% 74% 77% 81% Similar Higher Much higher Higher Higher Similar

Table 2: Community Characteristics by Facet
 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good,
 very/somewhat safe) 2015 rating Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 compared to 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Overall feeling of safety NA NA NA NA 69% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Safe in neighborhood 93% 94% 91% 87% 91% Similar Similar Higher Similar Lower Similar
 Much Much
Safety Safe downtown area 93% 94% 93% 89% 93% Similar Higher higher higher Similar Similar
 Overall ease of travel NA NA NA NA 84% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Paths and walking trails NA NA NA 69% 82% Higher NA NA NA Higher Higher
 Much Much Much
 Ease of walking NA 73% 77% 76% 82% Similar NA higher higher higher Higher
 Much Much Much
 Travel by bicycle NA 57% 68% 62% 76% Higher NA higher higher higher Higher
 Much
 Travel by car NA NA NA 82% 83% Similar NA NA NA higher Higher
 Public parking NA NA NA NA 74% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
 Much Much
Mobility Traffic flow 49% 47% 58% 60% 67% Higher NA NA higher higher Higher
 Overall natural environment NA NA NA 75% 81% Similar NA NA NA Similar Similar
Natural Much
Environment Cleanliness NA NA NA 82% 81% Similar NA NA NA higher Similar
 Overall built environment NA NA NA NA 76% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
 Much
 New development in Skokie NA NA NA 70% 59% Lower NA NA NA higher Similar
 Much Much
 Affordable quality housing 45% 49% NA 59% 61% Similar Similar higher NA higher Higher
 Much
 Housing options NA NA NA 72% 68% Similar NA NA NA higher Similar
Built Environment Public places NA NA NA NA 74% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
Economy Overall economic health NA NA NA NA 69% NA NA NA NA NA Similar



 2
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good,
 very/somewhat safe) 2015 rating Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 compared to 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Vibrant downtown area NA NA NA NA 42% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much
 Business and services NA NA NA 74% 67% Similar NA NA NA higher Similar
 Cost of living NA NA NA NA 51% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much Much
 Shopping opportunities NA NA NA 86% 83% Similar NA NA NA higher higher
 Much Much Much
 Employment opportunities 38% 44% 43% 46% 53% Higher Similar higher higher higher Higher
 Place to visit NA NA NA NA 62% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much Much Much
 Place to work NA 72% 66% 73% 69% Similar NA higher higher higher Similar
 Health and wellness NA NA NA NA 81% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much
 Preventive health services NA NA NA 73% 77% Similar NA NA NA higher Similar
 Much
 Health care NA NA NA 75% 69% Similar NA NA NA higher Similar
 Much Much Much Much
Recreation and Recreational opportunities 83% 79% 80% 80% 74% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
Wellness Fitness opportunities NA NA NA NA 80% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much Much Much Much
 Cultural/arts/music activities 80% 80% 81% 78% 80% Similar higher higher higher higher Higher
Education and Much
Enrichment Child care/preschool NA NA NA 64% 67% Similar NA NA NA higher Higher
 Much
 Social events and activities NA NA NA 75% 69% Similar NA NA NA higher Similar
 Neighborliness NA NA NA NA 55% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much Much Much Much
 Openness and acceptance 76% 81% 81% 81% 79% Similar higher higher higher higher Higher
 Opportunities to participate in
Community community matters NA NA NA 71% 65% Similar NA NA NA Higher Similar
Engagement Opportunities to volunteer NA NA NA 76% 67% Lower NA NA NA Similar Similar

Table 3: Governance General
 Percent rating positively (e.g.,
 excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Much Much Much Much
Services provided by Skokie 89% 88% 88% 87% 84% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much
Customer service 80% 82% 86% 82% 80% Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar



 3
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Percent rating positively (e.g.,
 excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Much Much Much
Value of services for taxes paid NA 69% 71% 65% 67% Similar NA higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much Much
Overall direction 67% 67% 68% 65% 63% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much Much
Welcoming citizen involvement 73% 74% 73% 64% 64% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
Confidence in Village government NA NA NA NA 66% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
Acting in the best interest of Skokie NA NA NA NA 69% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
Being honest NA NA NA NA 71% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA 66% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
Services provided by the Federal Much
Government 53% 47% 43% 54% 41% Lower Similar Higher Similar higher Similar

Table 4: Governance by Facet
 Percent rating positively (e.g.,
 excellent/good) 2015 rating compared Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 to 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Much Much Much Much
 Police 87% 86% 89% 87% 83% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much Much
 Fire 98% 96% 98% 97% 91% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much Much
 Ambulance/EMS 95% 96% 96% 96% 93% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much
 Crime prevention 82% 78% 74% 66% 68% Similar higher higher higher Similar Similar
 Much
 Fire prevention 89% NA 88% 84% 85% Similar Higher NA higher Higher Similar
 Much Much Much
 Animal control 72% 71% 75% 73% 74% Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much
Safety Emergency preparedness NA NA 79% 73% 76% Similar NA NA higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much
 Traffic enforcement 74% 76% 72% 77% 73% Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much
 Street repair 58% 56% 55% 55% 53% Similar Similar higher higher Higher Similar
 Much Much Much Much
 Street cleaning 80% 78% 77% 76% 74% Similar higher higher higher higher Higher
 Much Much
Mobility Street lighting 74% 69% 70% 68% 69% Similar Higher higher higher Higher Similar




 4
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Percent rating positively (e.g.,
 excellent/good) 2015 rating compared Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 to 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Much Much Much
 Snow removal 73% 68% 70% 67% 71% Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much Much
 Sidewalk maintenance 67% 67% 67% 66% 64% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar
 Traffic signal timing NA NA NA NA 64% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much Much Much
 Garbage collection 88% 85% 90% 89% 88% Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much Much Much
 Recycling 84% 84% 87% 86% 86% Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much
 Yard waste pick-up 76% 79% NA 76% 80% Similar Higher higher NA Higher Similar
 Much Much Much
Natural Environment Drinking water 78% 82% 84% 82% 81% Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar
 Much
 Storm drainage 52% 63% 51% 58% 61% Similar Similar higher Similar Similar Similar
 Sewer services NA NA 71% 71% 74% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar
 Much
 Power utility NA NA 84% 81% 83% Similar NA NA higher Similar Similar
 Land use, planning and Much Much
 zoning NA NA 64% 68% 69% Similar NA NA higher higher Higher
 Much Much Much
 Code enforcement 63% 69% 62% 61% 70% Higher Higher higher higher higher Higher
 Much
Built Environment Cable television NA NA 66% 66% 72% Similar NA NA higher Higher Higher
 Much Much
Economy Economic development NA NA 55% 60% 65% Similar NA NA higher higher Similar
 Much
 Village parks NA NA NA 89% 89% Similar NA NA NA higher Similar
Recreation and Much Much Much
Wellness Skokie Health Department 89% NA 81% 81% 82% Similar higher NA higher higher Higher
Education and Special events NA NA NA NA 78% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
Enrichment Public libraries NA NA NA NA 95% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
Community Much
Engagement Public information NA NA 85% NA 83% Similar NA NA higher NA Higher




 5
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 5: Participation General
 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a
 month, yes) 2015 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Much
Sense of community 72% 73% 67% 71% 73% Similar Higher higher Similar Higher Similar
Recommend Skokie NA NA 90% 87% 87% Similar NA NA Higher Similar Similar
Remain in Skokie NA NA 85% 80% 84% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar
Contacted Skokie Much Much
employees 70% 67% 67% 73% 59% Lower NA NA higher higher Higher

Table 6: Participation by Facet
 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more
 than once a month, yes) 2015 rating Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 compared to 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Stocked supplies for an
 emergency NA NA NA NA 26% NA NA NA NA NA Lower
 Did NOT report a crime NA NA NA NA 82% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
Safety Was NOT the victim of a crime 89% 88% 87% 84% 88% Similar NA NA Similar Lower Similar
 Used public transportation Much
 instead of driving NA NA NA NA 56% NA NA NA NA NA higher
 Walked or biked instead of
Mobility driving NA NA NA NA 68% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
Natural
Environment Recycled at home 79% 86% 85% 87% 88% Similar NA NA Higher Higher Similar
 Did NOT observe a code
 violation NA NA NA NA 70% NA NA NA NA NA Higher
 Much
Built Environment NOT under housing cost stress NA NA 54% 58% 61% Similar NA NA lower Lower Similar
 Purchased goods or services in
 Skokie NA NA NA NA 94% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Economy will have positive
 impact on income 22% 20% 15% 23% 28% Similar NA NA Similar Higher Similar
Economy Work in Skokie NA NA NA NA 34% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Used Skokie recreation centers NA NA NA NA 63% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Visited a Village park NA 87% 90% 88% 78% Lower NA NA Higher Similar Similar
 Ate 5 portions of fruits and
 vegetables NA NA NA NA 83% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Participated in moderate or
Recreation and vigorous physical activity NA NA NA NA 82% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
Wellness In very good to excellent health NA NA NA NA 60% NA NA NA NA NA Similar




 6
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more
 than once a month, yes) 2015 rating Comparison to benchmark
 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 compared to 2012 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Much Much
 Used Skokie Public Library NA 84% 83% 89% 78% Lower NA NA higher higher Higher
Education and Attended a Village-sponsored
Enrichment event NA NA NA NA 50% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
 Much Much
 Volunteered 21% 27% 26% 22% 23% Similar NA NA lower lower Lower
 Much
 Attended a local public meeting 16% 12% 24% 19% 12% Similar NA NA Lower lower Similar
 Much Much
 Watched a local public meeting 25% 30% 27% 26% 14% Lower NA NA lower lower Lower
 Read or watched local news NA NA NA NA 88% NA NA NA NA NA Similar
Community Much
Engagement Voted in local elections NA NA 69% 74% 80% Similar NA NA lower Similar Similar




 7
Skokie, IL
Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups
DRAFT
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
Summary
The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are
standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS
communities. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by questions D6 ( number of
years in Skokie), D7 (housing unit type), D12 (annual household income), D15 (age of respondent) and D16
(gender of respondent).

Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example,
the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents who
attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to
these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability
that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability
that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded
grey.

The margin of error for this report is generally no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any
given percent reported for the entire sample (388 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of
error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100
respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points.




 1
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 1: Community Characteristics - General
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
(e.g., excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
The overall quality of life in
Skokie 74% 87% 77% 86% 73% 81% 72% 84% 74% 82% 81% 80% 81% 80%
Overall image or reputation
of Skokie 65% 73% 65% 72% 63% 72% 65% 65% 57% 69% 73% 70% 66% 68%
Skokie as a place to live 87% 90% 82% 89% 83% 83% 87% 87% 84% 86% 87% 84% 90% 87%
Your neighborhood as a
place to live 95% 79% 84% 89% 80% 85% 86% 85% 92% 82% 84% 85% 85% 85%
Skokie as a place to raise
children 81% 82% 81% 87% 73% 73% 77% 92% 75% 84% 82% 82% 81% 81%
Skokie as a place to retire 64% 65% 57% 60% 63% 72% 49% 61% 64% 54% 66% 67% 54% 61%
Overall appearance of
Skokie 81% 84% 76% 81% 79% 85% 78% 80% 81% 79% 82% 84% 77% 81%

Table 2: Community Characteristics - Safety
Percent rating positively (e.g., Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
safe) or less years 20 years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 73% 67% 67% 72% 65% 69% 64% 73% 65% 67% 73% 68% 69% 69%
In your neighborhood during the
day 92% 91% 89% 93% 86% 86% 89% 95% 90% 92% 89% 92% 89% 91%
In Skokie's downtown area
during the day 89% 96% 91% 95% 90% 92% 92% 95% 92% 95% 92% 93% 92% 93%

Table 3: Community Characteristics - Mobility
Percent rating positively (e.g., Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
safe) or less years 20 years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Overall ease of getting to the
places you usually have to visit 82% 82% 89% 89% 78% 84% 77% 89% 78% 85% 86% 89% 78% 84%
Traffic flow on major streets 56% 70% 72% 70% 63% 68% 60% 70% 55% 68% 73% 74% 59% 67%
Ease of public parking 66% 81% 73% 81% 66% 68% 66% 87% 69% 79% 75% 76% 73% 74%
Ease of travel by car in Skokie 81% 86% 83% 88% 78% 83% 74% 91% 80% 85% 84% 88% 78% 83%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 75% 80% 75% 79% 75% 82% 74% 79% 93% 77% 68% 79% 75% 76%
Ease of walking in Skokie 74% 84% 86% 85% 78% 80% 78% 87% 74% 86% 83% 83% 80% 82%
Availability of paths and walking
trails 80% 84% 81% 82% 82% 83% 84% 81% 86% 86% 76% 82% 82% 82%




 2
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment
Percent rating positively (e.g., Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
safe) or less years 20 years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Quality of overall natural
environment in Skokie 77% 85% 81% 83% 79% 87% 73% 83% 82% 81% 82% 83% 80% 81%
Cleanliness of Skokie 83% 81% 80% 87% 73% 83% 76% 82% 72% 80% 86% 85% 75% 81%

Table 5: Community Characteristics - Built Environment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
 More
Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Overall "built environment" of Skokie
(including overall design, buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 74% 78% 74% 75% 76% 73% 73% 80% 67% 81% 76% 78% 74% 76%
Public places where people want to
spend time 79% 77% 66% 72% 75% 78% 67% 76% 72% 72% 76% 76% 71% 74%
Variety of housing options 63% 74% 64% 72% 62% 73% 60% 67% 60% 69% 72% 69% 66% 68%
Availability of affordable quality
housing 59% 60% 64% 66% 54% 57% 57% 68% 56% 62% 65% 61% 62% 61%
Overall quality of new development in
Skokie 64% 63% 50% 60% 58% 65% 59% 55% 57% 62% 58% 66% 52% 59%

Table 6: Community Characteristics - Economy
Percent rating positively (e.g., Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
safe) or less years 20 years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Overall economic health of Skokie 65% 67% 73% 73% 63% 77% 55% 70% 62% 64% 76% 72% 64% 69%
Skokie as a place to work 64% 68% 71% 67% 70% 73% 58% 68% 56% 65% 79% 71% 66% 69%
Skokie as a place to visit 60% 66% 59% 65% 59% 76% 48% 59% 45% 67% 67% 66% 57% 62%
Employment opportunities 47% 56% 54% 57% 50% 56% 50% 49% 46% 58% 55% 58% 49% 53%
Shopping opportunities 78% 82% 88% 81% 86% 89% 87% 75% 78% 82% 87% 88% 77% 83%
Cost of living in Skokie 57% 41% 57% 51% 51% 49% 40% 58% 39% 53% 55% 58% 42% 51%
Overall quality of business and
service establishments in Skokie 66% 67% 67% 67% 67% 75% 66% 64% 53% 72% 71% 72% 62% 67%
Vibrant downtown 46% 42% 39% 35% 51% 57% 41% 29% 40% 45% 39% 50% 32% 42%




 3
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 7: Community Characteristics - Recreation and Wellness
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years 6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
safe) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Health and wellness opportunities
in Skokie 79% 79% 85% 83% 78% 79% 79% 83% 71% 81% 86% 88% 74% 81%
Fitness opportunities (including
exercise classes and paths or
trails, etc.) 70% 82% 83% 81% 76% 80% 78% 82% 71% 80% 84% 85% 72% 80%
Recreational opportunities 64% 78% 78% 78% 71% 70% 75% 82% 59% 79% 79% 80% 69% 74%
Availability of affordable quality
health care 60% 65% 78% 72% 65% 69% 68% 66% 52% 67% 78% 76% 60% 69%
Availability of preventive health
services 66% 75% 85% 79% 74% 70% 78% 80% 67% 76% 81% 83% 69% 77%

Table 8: Community Characteristics - Education and Enrichment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years 6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
safe) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Overall opportunities for education
and enrichment 72% 86% 85% 87% 76% 80% 78% 87% 78% 82% 85% 86% 78% 82%
Availability of affordable quality
child care/preschool 56% 67% 75% 69% 63% 63% 77% 62% 51% 70% 74% 68% 64% 67%
Opportunities to attend
cultural/arts/music activities 77% 79% 84% 77% 84% 83% 84% 75% 82% 83% 78% 85% 75% 80%

Table 9: Community Characteristics - Community Engagement
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
safe) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Opportunities to participate in social
events and activities 64% 70% 70% 67% 71% 74% 72% 61% 63% 69% 71% 74% 63% 69%
Opportunities to volunteer 61% 71% 67% 64% 71% 72% 69% 61% 55% 68% 73% 75% 59% 67%
Opportunities to participate in
community matters 59% 67% 68% 63% 69% 69% 69% 58% 56% 68% 69% 73% 57% 65%
Openness and acceptance of the
community toward people of
diverse backgrounds 70% 84% 80% 83% 74% 78% 78% 84% 82% 80% 77% 79% 78% 79%
Neighborliness of residents in
Skokie 48% 57% 59% 60% 48% 55% 60% 51% 39% 57% 63% 60% 50% 55%




 4
 The National Citizen Survey™



Table 10: Governance - General
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
 More
Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
excellent/good) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
The Village of Skokie 76% 86% 86% 87% 80% 83% 81% 86% 80% 78% 89% 87% 79% 84%
The value of services for the taxes
paid to Skokie 69% 61% 72% 68% 65% 68% 62% 68% 70% 56% 73% 71% 62% 67%
The overall direction that Skokie is
taking 64% 61% 64% 63% 63% 72% 53% 62% 61% 54% 72% 72% 53% 63%
The job Skokie government does at
welcoming citizen involvement 57% 71% 61% 62% 66% 69% 52% 68% 60% 60% 72% 69% 57% 64%
Overall confidence in Skokie
government 62% 68% 65% 66% 66% 74% 54% 68% 55% 61% 74% 70% 61% 66%
Generally acting in the best interest
of the community 68% 70% 69% 70% 67% 77% 60% 68% 59% 62% 79% 71% 67% 69%
Being honest 73% 70% 70% 72% 69% 76% 64% 70% 60% 67% 80% 72% 69% 71%
Treating all residents fairly 62% 62% 72% 69% 60% 65% 63% 67% 46% 65% 77% 67% 63% 66%
Overall customer service by Skokie
employees (police, receptionists,
planners, etc.) 70% 86% 79% 80% 80% 80% 81% 79% 77% 78% 82% 82% 77% 80%
The Federal Government 33% 46% 41% 38% 45% 56% 38% 33% 36% 39% 46% 41% 40% 41%

Table 11: Governance - Safety
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
 More
Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
excellent/good) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Police services 80% 83% 85% 84% 83% 81% 84% 86% 72% 83% 88% 85% 80% 83%
Fire services 90% 88% 93% 93% 88% 83% 94% 93% 85% 91% 92% 94% 87% 91%
Ambulance or emergency medical
services 88% 94% 96% 93% 93% 93% 96% 91% 89% 93% 95% 95% 91% 93%
Crime prevention 63% 68% 70% 66% 70% 76% 65% 63% 49% 65% 78% 70% 65% 68%
Fire prevention and education 77% 86% 89% 88% 81% 82% 84% 86% 79% 84% 88% 84% 85% 85%
Animal control 67% 75% 76% 73% 75% 77% 69% 74% 83% 69% 74% 75% 73% 74%
Emergency preparedness (services that
prepare the community for natural
disasters or other emergency
situations) 70% 70% 85% 81% 69% 69% 76% 83% 65% 74% 84% 81% 68% 76%




 5
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 12: Governance - Mobility
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
(e.g., excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Traffic enforcement 79% 72% 71% 75% 70% 78% 71% 73% 65% 74% 77% 76% 68% 73%
Street repair 49% 56% 53% 57% 49% 64% 47% 49% 37% 55% 59% 56% 50% 53%
Street cleaning 68% 73% 78% 81% 65% 72% 70% 76% 57% 74% 80% 77% 69% 74%
Street lighting 59% 73% 72% 74% 62% 68% 68% 69% 56% 68% 75% 68% 69% 69%
Snow removal 68% 66% 78% 81% 59% 65% 80% 69% 66% 68% 75% 71% 71% 71%
Sidewalk maintenance 65% 67% 61% 69% 59% 66% 62% 67% 67% 61% 66% 65% 63% 64%
Traffic signal timing 61% 68% 62% 69% 58% 67% 65% 60% 62% 66% 62% 68% 58% 64%

Table 13: Governance - Natural Environment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
(e.g., excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Garbage collection 85% 84% 93% 94% 79% 89% 89% 84% 86% 85% 91% 92% 83% 88%
Recycling 79% 83% 92% 90% 79% 85% 87% 85% 91% 78% 89% 88% 82% 86%
Yard waste pick-up 84% 77% 81% 86% 69% 73% 86% 79% 70% 80% 85% 86% 73% 80%
Drinking water 77% 76% 88% 85% 75% 76% 85% 82% 76% 79% 84% 78% 84% 81%

Table 14: Governance - Built Environment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Storm drainage 66% 54% 68% 65% 57% 60% 63% 64% 62% 55% 67% 59% 64% 61%
Sewer services 80% 69% 77% 76% 72% 68% 75% 79% 76% 72% 75% 78% 71% 74%
Electric utility billing 78% 81% 88% 85% 81% 78% 84% 84% 79% 79% 87% 84% 81% 83%
Land use, planning and zoning 64% 68% 72% 69% 67% 73% 72% 65% 56% 71% 74% 73% 63% 69%
Code enforcement (weeds,
abandoned buildings, etc.) 73% 70% 68% 69% 71% 73% 68% 71% 67% 70% 72% 77% 61% 70%
Cable television 81% 68% 67% 71% 73% 69% 65% 74% 75% 71% 69% 76% 66% 72%

Table 15: Governance - Economy
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
(e.g., excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Economic development 61% 67% 64% 65% 65% 80% 57% 59% 50% 64% 72% 68% 60% 65%




 6
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 16: Governance - Recreation and Wellness
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
(e.g., excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Village parks 88% 87% 91% 90% 89% 82% 94% 92% 85% 90% 90% 91% 86% 89%
Skokie Health Department
services 69% 83% 85% 82% 81% 81% 86% 80% 78% 76% 87% 84% 79% 82%

Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
(e.g., excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Public library services 90% 96% 98% 96% 93% 96% 95% 94% 91% 94% 97% 96% 94% 95%
Village-sponsored special
events 72% 82% 78% 71% 87% 82% 82% 74% 79% 76% 79% 84% 72% 78%

Table 18: Governance - Community Engagement
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 or $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
(e.g., excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Public information services 69% 89% 84% 85% 80% 81% 79% 85% 73% 84% 86% 84% 81% 83%

Table 19: Participation General
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once a 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Sense of community 85% 73% 67% 75% 72% 74% 64% 79% 78% 69% 75% 80% 66% 73%
Recommend living in Skokie to
someone who asks 86% 90% 82% 90% 82% 85% 82% 92% 88% 87% 86% 89% 84% 87%
Remain in Skokie for the next five
years 70% 90% 86% 91% 74% 77% 83% 88% 71% 86% 87% 87% 79% 84%
Contacted the Village of Skokie (in-
person, phone, email or web) for help
or information 49% 64% 62% 64% 53% 44% 64% 67% 56% 64% 58% 57% 61% 59%

Table 20: Participation - Safety
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Was NOT the victim of a crime 92% 87% 87% 87% 90% 87% 85% 89% 89% 83% 92% 89% 86% 88%




 7
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Did NOT report a crime 86% 81% 80% 78% 88% 82% 77% 84% 84% 77% 84% 84% 80% 82%
Stocked supplies in preparation for
an emergency 28% 26% 23% 27% 24% 29% 21% 26% 25% 26% 24% 24% 28% 26%

Table 21: Participation - Mobility
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Walked or biked instead of driving 66% 79% 59% 73% 62% 59% 73% 79% 82% 78% 55% 67% 71% 68%
Used bus, rail or other public
transportation instead of driving 73% 59% 41% 50% 65% 57% 59% 59% 77% 62% 42% 54% 59% 56%

Table 22: Participation - Natural Environment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Recycle at home 79% 89% 93% 96% 77% 75% 90% 94% 82% 90% 88% 91% 83% 88%

Table 23: Participation - Built Environment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
NOT under housing cost stress 56% 61% 66% 61% 62% 36% 55% 86% 58% 67% 59% 60% 63% 61%
Did NOT observe a code violation 79% 70% 63% 66% 75% 69% 75% 65% 74% 67% 71% 72% 68% 70%

Table 24: Participation - Economy
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Purchase goods or services from a
business located in Skokie 88% 96% 95% 94% 93% 93% 94% 94% 92% 94% 94% 94% 93% 94%
Economy will have positive impact
on income 34% 29% 23% 31% 23% 12% 27% 40% 36% 29% 24% 24% 33% 28%
Work in Skokie 31% 40% 31% 39% 28% 35% 31% 39% 39% 42% 25% 33% 37% 34%




 8
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 25: Participation - Recreation and Wellness
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Used Skokie recreation centers or
their services 52% 66% 70% 68% 58% 54% 67% 74% 55% 75% 60% 67% 60% 63%
Visited a neighborhood park or
Village park 80% 79% 76% 78% 78% 72% 80% 85% 80% 89% 69% 81% 77% 78%
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and
vegetables a day 78% 85% 85% 85% 80% 85% 85% 80% 68% 90% 85% 89% 75% 83%
Participate in moderate or vigorous
physical activity 78% 83% 84% 82% 83% 73% 89% 86% 80% 87% 81% 83% 82% 82%
Reported being in "very good" or
"excellent" health 57% 62% 61% 66% 52% 45% 61% 71% 66% 65% 54% 66% 52% 60%

Table 26: Participation - Education and Enrichment
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Used Skokie Public Library or its
services 68% 78% 87% 83% 72% 73% 80% 81% 61% 87% 80% 83% 72% 78%
Attended a Village-sponsored event 50% 53% 47% 51% 49% 45% 49% 60% 49% 62% 42% 51% 50% 50%

Table 27: Participation - Community Engagement
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Volunteered your time to some
group/activity in Skokie 21% 28% 21% 24% 23% 21% 28% 24% 9% 35% 23% 27% 20% 23%
Attended a local public meeting 4% 14% 16% 14% 10% 10% 17% 10% 0% 21% 10% 11% 14% 12%
Watched (online or on television) a
local public meeting 7% 17% 17% 14% 14% 18% 14% 11% 15% 16% 12% 11% 18% 14%
Read or watch local news (via
television, paper, computer, etc.) 77% 90% 92% 93% 81% 88% 84% 89% 81% 88% 91% 89% 86% 88%
Vote in local elections 71% 76% 91% 86% 73% 73% 84% 80% 62% 79% 91% 86% 73% 80%




 9
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 28: Community Focus Areas
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
 More
Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35-
essential/very important) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 86% 94% 97% 94% 92% 98% 88% 92% 81% 96% 98% 98% 87% 93%
Overall ease of getting to the places
you usually have to visit 87% 81% 77% 75% 90% 92% 83% 71% 77% 80% 84% 88% 74% 81%
Quality of overall natural environment
in Skokie 87% 80% 83% 81% 86% 92% 80% 79% 79% 85% 83% 87% 77% 83%
Overall "built environment" of Skokie
(including overall design, buildings,
parks and transportation systems) 79% 83% 85% 84% 81% 83% 84% 81% 77% 84% 86% 84% 80% 83%
Health and wellness opportunities in
Skokie 84% 74% 81% 75% 83% 93% 84% 65% 71% 79% 84% 84% 72% 79%
Overall opportunities for education
and enrichment 81% 87% 85% 85% 84% 89% 80% 87% 81% 86% 86% 89% 80% 84%
Overall economic health of Skokie 89% 93% 91% 92% 91% 89% 97% 90% 88% 93% 92% 93% 90% 91%
Sense of community 76% 93% 96% 89% 91% 98% 85% 85% 71% 94% 96% 98% 80% 90%

Table 29: Importance of Village Investment in Community Programs
Please rate how important, if at all, you think Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
it is for the Village to invest in each of the More
following community programs to increase the 5 6 to than $50,000
sense of community in Skokie: (Percent rating years 20 20 $49,999 to $100,000 18- 35-
as "essential" or "very important"). or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Increased/improved neighborhood watch
groups 63% 76% 77% 73% 72% 83% 67% 71% 68% 74% 78% 77% 69% 73%
Opportunities to get to know your neighbors 65% 74% 58% 65% 67% 75% 63% 67% 69% 67% 64% 64% 69% 66%
Block parties 51% 42% 32% 43% 37% 45% 41% 42% 33% 50% 38% 40% 40% 41%
Neighborhood clean-up events 61% 61% 56% 55% 65% 68% 56% 54% 54% 63% 61% 60% 57% 59%
Learning about diverse perspectives, including
races and cultures 60% 60% 48% 50% 64% 67% 55% 52% 54% 60% 56% 59% 53% 56%

Table 30: Support for Village Investment
How much do you support or oppose Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Village investments in each of the 6 to More $50,000
following? (Percent rating as "strongly 5 years 20 than 20 $49,999 to $100,000 18- 35-
support" or "somewhat support"). or less  years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Additional street lighting on residential
east-west streets 87% 81% 94% 84% 91% 92% 79% 86% 70% 89% 94% 93% 79% 87%
Additional street lighting on Crawford
Avenue 81% 75% 87% 77% 86% 85% 78% 78% 67% 84% 86% 87% 73% 81%




 10
 The National Citizen Survey™


How much do you support or oppose Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Village investments in each of the 6 to More $50,000
following? (Percent rating as "strongly 5 years 20 than 20 $49,999 to $100,000 18- 35-
support" or "somewhat support"). or less  years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Additional street lighting in alleys 86% 79% 87% 82% 85% 87% 79% 83% 77% 85% 86% 89% 77% 84%
Additional street lighting on the multi-use
path from Dempster Street south to the
Village limit 88% 82% 87% 83% 89% 89% 81% 85% 72% 88% 90% 92% 77% 85%
Cameras in public areas 69% 78% 79% 75% 78% 72% 69% 79% 62% 78% 80% 78% 73% 76%

Table 31: Impact on Recycling from Home
Please indicate the impact, if any, each of the Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
following would have on the amount you
recycle from home each week. Would you More
recycle much more, somewhat more, or would 5 6 to than $50,000
you not recycle more? (Percent rating as years 20 20 $49,999 to $100,000 18- 35-
"much more" or "somewhat more"). or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Better understanding of what materials can be
recycled 88% 80% 77% 77% 86% 82% 75% 86% 91% 84% 73% 82% 81% 81%
Better understanding of how to prepare
materials for recycling 87% 79% 73% 75% 84% 82% 76% 82% 89% 84% 70% 78% 80% 79%
More indoor space to collect recyclable
materials 89% 70% 57% 62% 80% 80% 68% 69% 93% 71% 57% 70% 71% 70%
Larger outdoor recycling container 82% 68% 56% 61% 77% 79% 59% 68% 81% 73% 56% 68% 68% 67%
Assistance from friend or neighbor to move
the recycling container to and from the curb 55% 46% 36% 33% 60% 66% 42% 32% 44% 52% 40% 41% 50% 44%

Table 32: Community Characteristics - Skokie-Specific Items
Percent rating positively (e.g., Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
excellent/good, very/somewhat 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
safe) or less years 20 years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
In your neighborhood after dark 75% 72% 72% 76% 69% 67% 76% 77% 66% 77% 75% 71% 75% 73%
In Skokie's downtown area after
dark 81% 79% 65% 72% 78% 75% 77% 75% 75% 78% 72% 73% 77% 75%
Ease of travel by train in Skokie 68% 81% 82% 80% 76% 82% 79% 72% 74% 79% 79% 87% 69% 78%
Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 80% 86% 80% 84% 82% 82% 86% 80% 89% 83% 78% 86% 79% 83%

Table 33: Participation - Skokie-Specific Items
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 18-34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Paid a cable television bill 75% 61% 65% 67% 64% 63% 64% 71% 70% 68% 63% 69% 63% 66%




 11
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., More
always/sometimes, more than once 5 years  6 to 20 than 20 $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 35-
a month, yes) or less years years Detached Attached or less $99,999 or more 18-34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Accessed the internet from a home
computer 90% 91% 84% 92% 84% 82% 93% 96% 93% 94% 83% 88% 90% 88%
Read NewSkokie newsletter 78% 84% 83% 89% 74% 76% 90% 81% 74% 88% 82% 85% 78% 82%
Visited www.skokie.org 62% 64% 55% 67% 51% 45% 71% 71% 71% 69% 48% 59% 62% 60%
Listened to 1660 AM Skokie radio
station 20% 19% 17% 15% 23% 33% 21% 7% 14% 23% 18% 19% 18% 18%
Visited Downtown Skokie 98% 92% 89% 91% 94% 92% 94% 94% 100% 95% 85% 93% 91% 92%
Ridden a Senior Transportation for
Area Residents (STAR) bus 7% 5% 3% 5% 5% 11% 2% 1% 4% 7% 4% 4% 6% 5%
Called or emailed the Village for
yard waste collection 20% 28% 34% 41% 10% 20% 37% 27% 14% 34% 31% 27% 29% 28%
Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 42% 57% 51% 52% 49% 54% 59% 47% 39% 58% 52% 49% 53% 51%

Table 34: Governance - Skokie-Specific Items
 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Skokie's Backlot Bash 85% 86% 75% 84% 80% 87% 76% 88% 90% 78% 82% 82% 82% 82%
Skokie Farmers' Market 77% 87% 77% 78% 85% 80% 82% 81% 87% 75% 83% 78% 85% 81%
Administrative hearings
(parking or code violations) 52% 61% 66% 64% 55% 64% 51% 64% 63% 46% 72% 63% 57% 61%
Sidewalk snow plowing 60% 56% 61% 68% 45% 60% 58% 59% 67% 52% 60% 58% 59% 59%
Alley maintenance 66% 62% 61% 68% 54% 63% 64% 61% 76% 55% 63% 61% 63% 63%
Obtaining a building permit 70% 65% 68% 63% 76% 80% 67% 57% 74% 47% 76% 68% 67% 66%
Public information - NewSkokie
municipal newsletter 80% 85% 86% 84% 84% 83% 84% 85% 75% 85% 87% 87% 80% 84%
Public information -
www.skokie.org municipal
website 70% 81% 82% 79% 78% 73% 84% 78% 70% 75% 87% 82% 73% 78%
Public information - Village of
Skokie electronic newsletter 80% 78% 83% 78% 83% 74% 87% 78% 77% 77% 84% 85% 73% 80%
Shop Local Skokie Facebook
page 68% 70% 87% 74% 74% 70% 77% 77% 88% 65% 76% 76% 73% 74%
Skokie Police Department
Facebook page 63% 73% 77% 63% 82% 77% 76% 64% 68% 64% 87% 80% 65% 72%
Overall competence of Police
Department employees 75% 79% 78% 77% 78% 77% 74% 80% 67% 73% 87% 80% 75% 78%
Police officers' attitudes and
behaviors towards citizens 58% 76% 73% 69% 73% 73% 65% 73% 53% 69% 83% 73% 67% 71%



 12
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type Annual household income Age Gender
Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years 6 to 20 More than $49,999 $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35-
excellent/good) or less years 20 years Detached Attached or less $99,999 more 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall
Fire prevention - code
enforcement 78% 86% 85% 82% 87% 83% 76% 91% 88% 76% 90% 82% 86% 84%
Fire prevention - public
education 77% 79% 82% 75% 85% 85% 74% 78% 78% 74% 87% 85% 74% 80%
Senior Transportation (STAR)
bus service 61% 67% 80% 63% 78% 69% 65% 93% 84% 48% 83% 75% 67% 70%
Knowledge of Village of Skokie
employees 73% 79% 76% 77% 75% 78% 66% 83% 84% 67% 79% 79% 73% 77%
Responsiveness of Village of
Skokie employees 78% 82% 75% 79% 77% 79% 76% 81% 86% 71% 79% 82% 74% 79%
Courtesy of Village of Skokie
employees 81% 87% 80% 83% 82% 87% 78% 83% 87% 77% 85% 86% 78% 83%
State of Illinois 33% 30% 32% 29% 35% 47% 36% 19% 29% 27% 37% 34% 29% 31%
Cook County 30% 31% 31% 29% 33% 47% 29% 22% 17% 33% 38% 34% 28% 31%




 13
Skokie, IL
Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups
DRAFT
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
Summary
The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are
standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS
communities. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by three different zip codes;
60076, 60077 and 60203.

Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example,
the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents who
attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to
these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability
that differences observed between zip codes are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability
that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded
grey.

The margin of error for this report is generally no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any
given percent reported for the entire sample (388 completed surveys). For each zip code (60076, 60077, 60203),
the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 18 percentage points since sample sizes were
approximately: 167 for zip code 60076, 190 for zip code 60077 and 31 for zip code 60203.




 1
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 1: Community Characteristics - General
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
The overall quality of life in Skokie 84% 76% 98% 80%
Overall image or reputation of Skokie 70% 65% 76% 68%
Skokie as a place to live 89% 83% 100% 87%
Your neighborhood as a place to live 87% 82% 91% 85%
Skokie as a place to raise children 87% 75% 94% 81%
Skokie as a place to retire 60% 60% 81% 61%
Overall appearance of Skokie 80% 81% 83% 81%

Table 2: Community Characteristics - Safety
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 67% 68% 88% 69%
In your neighborhood during the day 89% 91% 100% 91%
In Skokie's downtown area during the day 94% 91% 100% 93%

Table 3: Community Characteristics - Mobility
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 83% 85% 89% 84%
Traffic flow on major streets 69% 63% 86% 67%
Ease of public parking 78% 71% 71% 74%
Ease of travel by car in Skokie 84% 81% 90% 83%
Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 79% 77% 53% 76%
Ease of walking in Skokie 81% 82% 79% 82%
Availability of paths and walking trails 80% 84% 70% 82%

Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 82% 81% 77% 81%
Cleanliness of Skokie 84% 76% 100% 81%




 2
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 5: Community Characteristics - Built Environment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 75% 77% 64% 76%
Public places where people want to spend time 77% 73% 62% 74%
Variety of housing options 77% 61% 70% 68%
Availability of affordable quality housing 58% 63% 62% 61%
Overall quality of new development in Skokie 67% 51% 69% 59%

Table 6: Community Characteristics - Economy
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Overall economic health of Skokie 73% 62% 95% 69%
Skokie as a place to work 73% 63% 85% 69%
Skokie as a place to visit 70% 56% 55% 62%
Employment opportunities 59% 49% 56% 53%
Shopping opportunities 79% 87% 81% 83%
Cost of living in Skokie 47% 53% 57% 51%
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 68% 67% 68% 67%
Vibrant downtown 36% 47% 27% 42%

Table 7: Community Characteristics - Recreation and Wellness
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 86% 77% 96% 81%
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 83% 77% 80% 80%
Recreational opportunities 75% 73% 78% 74%
Availability of affordable quality health care 74% 64% 72% 69%
Availability of preventive health services 77% 75% 84% 77%

Table 8: Community Characteristics - Education and Enrichment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 86% 78% 90% 82%
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 69% 67% 44% 67%
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 81% 82% 62% 80%




 3
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 9: Community Characteristics - Community Engagement
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 72% 68% 55% 69%
Opportunities to volunteer 64% 70% 70% 67%
Opportunities to participate in community matters 66% 66% 55% 65%
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 83% 75% 79% 79%
Neighborliness of residents in Skokie 59% 51% 62% 55%

Table 10: Governance - General
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
The Village of Skokie 88% 79% 95% 84%
The value of services for the taxes paid to Skokie 72% 61% 82% 67%
The overall direction that Skokie is taking 67% 58% 88% 63%
The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement 65% 61% 84% 64%
Overall confidence in Skokie government 71% 60% 79% 66%
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 74% 63% 78% 69%
Being honest 80% 62% 87% 71%
Treating all residents fairly 69% 62% 75% 66%
Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 82% 77% 96% 80%
The Federal Government 39% 43% 38% 41%

Table 11: Governance - Safety
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Police services 83% 82% 97% 83%
Fire services 91% 89% 100% 91%
Ambulance or emergency medical services 94% 92% 100% 93%
Crime prevention 69% 64% 96% 68%
Fire prevention and education 88% 82% 96% 85%
Animal control 76% 72% 75% 74%
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 77% 74% 90% 76%




 4
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 12: Governance - Mobility
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Traffic enforcement 77% 69% 77% 73%
Street repair 60% 46% 68% 53%
Street cleaning 76% 71% 90% 74%
Street lighting 71% 65% 90% 69%
Snow removal 78% 65% 83% 71%
Sidewalk maintenance 68% 61% 67% 64%
Traffic signal timing 66% 64% 46% 64%

Table 13: Governance - Natural Environment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Garbage collection 95% 81% 94% 88%
Recycling 91% 81% 88% 86%
Yard waste pick-up 84% 74% 94% 80%
Drinking water 82% 79% 88% 81%

Table 14: Governance - Built Environment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Storm drainage 59% 63% 63% 61%
Sewer services 71% 77% 80% 74%
Electric utility billing 81% 83% 92% 83%
Land use, planning and zoning 69% 69% 70% 69%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 65% 74% 83% 70%
Cable television 77% 68% 65% 72%

Table 15: Governance - Economy
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Economic development 70% 60% 79% 65%




 5
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 16: Governance - Recreation and Wellness
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Village parks 92% 86% 97% 89%
Skokie Health Department services 85% 78% 94% 82%

Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Public library services 94% 95% 100% 95%
Village-sponsored special events 77% 79% 76% 78%

Table 18: Governance - Community Engagement
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Public information services 88% 77% 95% 83%

Table 19: Participation General
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Sense of community 74% 72% 82% 73%
Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 90% 83% 91% 87%
Remain in Skokie for the next five years 88% 79% 89% 84%
Contacted the Village of Skokie (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 67% 52% 72% 59%

Table 20: Participation - Safety
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Was NOT the victim of a crime 83% 91% 94% 88%
Did NOT report a crime 75% 86% 90% 82%
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 26% 26% 29% 26%

Table 21: Participation - Mobility
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Walked or biked instead of driving 68% 68% 66% 68%
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 57% 59% 26% 56%



 6
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 22: Participation - Natural Environment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Recycle at home 89% 85% 95% 88%

Table 23: Participation - Built Environment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
NOT under housing cost stress 64% 58% 78% 61%
Did NOT observe a code violation 60% 76% 75% 70%

Table 24: Participation - Economy
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie 95% 92% 94% 94%
Economy will have positive impact on income 27% 30% 21% 28%
Work in Skokie 36% 32% 47% 34%

Table 25: Participation - Recreation and Wellness
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Used Skokie recreation centers or their services 69% 59% 64% 63%
Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 82% 75% 77% 78%
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 81% 83% 95% 83%
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 82% 81% 93% 82%
Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health 57% 62% 63% 60%

Table 26: Participation - Education and Enrichment
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Used Skokie Public Library or its services 77% 80% 81% 78%
Attended a Village-sponsored event 52% 49% 45% 50%




 7
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 27: Participation - Community Engagement
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 31% 18% 19% 23%
Attended a local public meeting 12% 12% 17% 12%
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 12% 17% 5% 14%
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 92% 84% 90% 88%
Vote in local elections 79% 80% 95% 80%

Table 28: Community Focus Areas
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 98% 90% 90% 93%
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 76% 86% 80% 81%
Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 84% 82% 82% 83%
Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 86% 80% 84% 83%
Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 74% 83% 81% 79%
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 86% 83% 90% 84%
Overall economic health of Skokie 93% 91% 87% 91%
Sense of community 92% 88% 88% 90%

Table 29: Importance of Village Investment in Community Programs
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Village to invest in each of the following community programs to increase the Zip Code
sense of community in Skokie: (Percent rating as "essential" or "very important"). 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Increased/improved neighborhood watch groups 74% 74% 61% 73%
Opportunities to get to know your neighbors 66% 68% 51% 66%
Block parties 41% 40% 46% 41%
Neighborhood clean-up events 58% 63% 44% 59%
Learning about diverse perspectives, including races and cultures 52% 59% 52% 56%

Table 30: Support for Village Investment
How much do you support or oppose Village investments in each of the following? (Percent rating as "strongly support" or "somewhat Zip Code
support"). 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Additional street lighting on residential east-west streets 87% 88% 78% 87%
Additional street lighting on Crawford Avenue 79% 83% 77% 81%
Additional street lighting in alleys 85% 85% 61% 84%
Additional street lighting on the multi-use path from Dempster Street south to the Village limit 81% 88% 90% 85%



 8
 The National Citizen Survey™


How much do you support or oppose Village investments in each of the following? (Percent rating as "strongly support" or "somewhat Zip Code
support"). 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Cameras in public areas 73% 78% 76% 76%

Table 31: Impact on Recycling from Home
Please indicate the impact, if any, each of the following would have on the amount you recycle from home each week. Would you Zip Code
recycle much more, somewhat more, or would you not recycle more? (Percent rating as "much more" or "somewhat more"). 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Better understanding of what materials can be recycled 81% 83% 62% 81%
Better understanding of how to prepare materials for recycling 77% 82% 59% 79%
More indoor space to collect recyclable materials 68% 76% 33% 70%
Larger outdoor recycling container 66% 72% 35% 67%
Assistance from friend or neighbor to move the recycling container to and from the curb 43% 49% 9% 44%

Table 32: Community Characteristics - Skokie-Specific Items
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
In your neighborhood after dark 72% 72% 93% 73%
In Skokie's downtown area after dark 79% 70% 88% 75%
Ease of travel by train in Skokie 79% 80% 54% 78%
Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 86% 81% 66% 83%

Table 33: Participation - Skokie-Specific Items
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Paid a cable television bill 67% 65% 64% 66%
Accessed the internet from a home computer 89% 87% 89% 88%
Read NewSkokie newsletter 88% 77% 77% 82%
Visited www.skokie.org 58% 60% 77% 60%
Listened to 1660 AM Skokie radio station 19% 20% 0% 18%
Visited Downtown Skokie 92% 93% 82% 92%
Ridden a Senior Transportation for Area Residents (STAR) bus 5% 5% 0% 5%
Called or emailed the Village for yard waste collection 32% 25% 33% 28%
Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 45% 55% 52% 51%




 9
 The National Citizen Survey™


Table 34: Governance - Skokie-Specific Items
 Zip Code
Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 60076 60077 60203 Overall
Skokie's Backlot Bash 84% 79% 100% 82%
Skokie Farmers' Market 80% 80% 100% 81%
Administrative hearings (parking or code violations) 67% 54% 68% 61%
Sidewalk snow plowing 63% 57% 47% 59%
Alley maintenance 67% 57% 84% 63%
Obtaining a building permit 67% 63% 83% 66%
Public information - NewSkokie municipal newsletter 85% 82% 97% 84%
Public information - www.skokie.org municipal website 83% 74% 91% 78%
Public information - Village of Skokie electronic newsletter 79% 79% 95% 80%
Shop Local Skokie Facebook page 70% 76% 100% 74%
Skokie Police Department Facebook page 75% 71% 62% 72%
Overall competence of Police Department employees 78% 76% 89% 78%
Police officers' attitudes and behaviors towards citizens 74% 68% 79% 71%
Fire prevention - code enforcement 87% 81% 82% 84%
Fire prevention - public education 79% 80% 86% 80%
Senior Transportation (STAR) bus service 72% 68% 100% 70%
Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees 81% 71% 86% 77%
Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees 80% 76% 92% 79%
Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees 84% 81% 93% 83%
State of Illinois 28% 34% 34% 31%
Cook County 31% 30% 34% 31%




 10
Skokie, IL
Open Ended Responses
DRAFT
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
Contents
Summary ........................................................................................ 1
Verbatim Responses to Open Ended Question ................................... 2




 The National Citizen Survey™
 © 2001-2015 National Research Center, Inc.

 The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA.

 NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing
 clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices.
Summary
The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are
standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS
communities. This report includes the verbatim responses to an open ended question included on The NCS 2015
survey for Skokie. Additional reports and the technical appendices are available under separate cover.

Respondents were asked to record their opinions about community issues and concerns in the following question:

 Is there a community issue or concern that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain.

The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in the following chart with
the percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments from residents covered more than a
single topic, those verbatim responses are grouped by the first topic listed in each comment whenever a
respondent mentioned more than a single topic.

Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the frequencies that summarize
responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. A total of 388 surveys were completed by Skokie
residents; of these 162 respondents wrote in responses for the open-ended question. Of the respondents who
answered the question, around 2 in 10 voiced concerns about Village services and policy and transportation,
traffic and roads. A similar proportion of respondents raised issue about law enforcement and crime and code
enforcement, property and taxes. Some residents wrote that there were not any issues to address or they did not
know enough to respond.

Figure 1: Question 17
Is there a community issue or concern to you that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain.




 Village services/policy 19%



 Transportation, traffic, roads 19%



 Law enforcement, crime 19%



 Code enforcement/maintenance, property,
 17%
 taxes


 Other 9%



 Don't know/nothing 17%




 1
Verbatim Responses to Open Ended Question
The following pages contain the respondents’ verbatim responses as written on the survey or entered in the web
survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by coded topic areas.

Is there a community issue or concern that is not addressed in this survey? Please
explain.

Village services and policy

 Deeply concerned about lack of communication from district 219 about superintendent's leave! Complete lack
 of transparency, openness, communication to stakeholders!!!
 Helping Downtown & East Dempster to grow.
 I appreciate all the effort to make our Downtown special, but it's not happening. Just let it go & stop wasting
 energy/resources on it. The businesses that are there won't draw the interest/activity you want. It's ok because
 we have plenty of other great shopping areas.
 I think that the present mayor is doing a very good job. Thanks.
 I think the Skokie public library is the best part of living in Skokie.
 I went to animal court and the ticket giver (Skokie employees) was rude. She did not look to resolve issues just
 give tickets. I stayed for the whole call- It (the attitude of rudeness) went on the whole time.
 Insuring that businesses in Skokie pay living wages and support workers right to organize. Support and
 protect public sector employment
 Just make sure that my property tax dollars are spent wisely. Don't spend it on frivolous things; public car for
 director of library? She travels that much for work?
 Live in large condo bldg that does not recycle.
 More clarity on what can be recycled, what happens to recycled materials, how/if/to what extent recycling is
 beneficial.
 More economic development- get more people coming to work in Skokie. Backfill loss from Stark &
 manufacturing jobs.
 Much of this is specific to locations. In the matter of taxes I shop elsewhere when possible due to lower sales
 tax i.e. gas & groceries. Skokie needs more senior oriented programs. Oakton College has become expensive.
 My community does not recycle.
 Need a recycle bin outside, ours was taken.
 Need for more street benches and bus shelters with seats inside.
 Need help for seniors.
 Not enough financial assistance for seniors such as discounts on car stickers, water.
 Not everyone likes to recycle, to have to devote so much time, energy, cost to garbage! Safety should be #1
 priority if people don't feel safe they move!
 Now that we recycle a lot, do we need 2x week garbage pickup
 One person alone has no vote. They do what they want anyway. I like more weeds removed before they bloom.
 Overflow of garbage at some eating establishments; Skokie Swift Starbucks. Lack of full service grocery store
 close to the downtown area.
 Plans to upgrade Downtown area with more interesting shops, restaurants.
 Positive note: Meal delivery service is excellent service for the elderly. The seniors love it, appreciate it and
 love the food. They enjoy the volunteers, who are very kind to them when delivering.
 Providing services for the homeless or support for those living at (or below) the poverty line.
 Re question 16- we already recycle more each week than we put in the trash.
 Recycling food, vegetables, fruits, i.e. composting.
 Rudeness of village hall employees.
 Section 8-- how community is informed regarding this issue peoples with disability issue, how Skokie
 government can help etc.
 Services and activities for special needs children and adults.



 2
 Skokie is a great city/village.
 The difficulty of running a small business in Skokie, mainly real estate taxes.
 The issue is about taxes. Taxes are so high in Skokie but facilities are not good.
 The lack of ways to get rid of our stupid mayor and the assistant outrageously over paid woman who issues
 handicap temp passes. She is just a rude person put in that job because she is politically tied to the head of the
 plan commission; Mr. Paul Luke. The idiot works under Mr. Shah who is another idiot.
 Unresponsiveness of members of village trustees issue: Rats and mice in Skokie, revolting conditions! Lack of
 response by the village to the mess in my neighbor's yard.
 We need to allow backyard (3 to 4) hens in Skokie as they do in Evanston. We need to allow home composting.
 Too difficult to get permits so people don't do remodeling. 2x/week garbage pickup is wasteful and
 unnecessary.
 We need to attract more businesses to Downtown Skokie and keep them there.
 Why is Optima (DCH) Skokie not participating in the recycling program?
 Would like to see more neighborhood passive parks.
 Would like to see Skokie be a leader in curtailing the use of fossil fuels and encouraging its residents to do the
 same. Thank you for installing electric vehicle charging stations- it's a start.
 You guys make a lot of money, do your job! Stop spending property tax money foolishly.

Transportation, traffic and roads

 (1)Dempster is slow from I 94 to Skokie Blvd. (2) Get rid of traffic cameras (3) Real estate tax is high (4)
 Skokie is great place to live.
 1) I walk all the time, 75% of the time, cars do not stop at corners/crosswalks to let me cross; what about
 tickets for these drivers? 2) I am fearful to walk down Gross Point Rd from Church to Dempster because of
 large groups of teenagers playing in the park there. I have received threatening looks, sneers, and stares. No
 one who passes by me on the sidewalk ever steps aside to let me (a senior citizen) pass by; I always have to
 move over, for fear of being knocked over. I stopped walking in that area completely.
 A) The design & traffic flow are terrible for the village crossing parking lot & for the chase bank/subway stop
 mill at Gross Point and Dempster. B) We are looking to move out of Skokie in the near future because the
 property taxes keep going up!
 As a senior, my concern is parking on my street. Some single family dwellings have more than two vehicles,
 industry trucks, which quickly limits others who live in the neighborhood. It's particularly a problem on
 weekends because of visitors. I believe nonresidents should not be able to park in neighborhoods/streets
 overnight where they do not live.
 Crawford Ave during rush hours should have no onstreet parking.
 Crawford Ave north of Oakton; rt turn on red at NW corner of Howard/McCormick/ red light synchronizing
 at McCormick/Howard & east
 Downtown parking still a problem.
 Fixing based street 4900 block.
 Flooding after a very heavy rain storm.
 Gulf Road stop lights need to be timed better. Back up at a westbound red light allows no room for cars
 further east to advance upon their green. Then more western light turns green, the blockage moves on and the
 cars that had no room to advance remain b/c their light turned red.
 I am most concerned by Skokie's infrastructure and economic direction. I support extending the yellow line to
 the mall, expanding telecommunication options, and repairing roads over adding street lights and holding
 neighborhood events.
 Love Skokie, but poor road maintenance is a big issue. Skokie should be responsible for roads in its village,
 don't push off repairs to county & state, e.g. Crawford from Golf, Oakton is a disaster!!
 More bus transportation to Downtown Chicago.
 My concern is the traffic lights in Skokie. Particularly at the crossing of Skokie boulevard and Niles Center
 Road very dangerous. Lights need redesigning. Accidents occur. Can provide suggestion.
 Need police presence at heavily trafficked intersections during peak times.
 Niles Center Road after Howard before Lincoln, speed limit needs to be reduced. Cars are going 40 plus miles
 in hour with kids at risk of being hit. Either reduce limit to 25 on 30 or put police to give tickets.



 3
 Oakton Street traffic travels consistently over speed limit especially by Village Hall & library.
 Reduce speed on Niles Center Rd. form Oakton to Touhy Av. cars going over 50mph.
 Side streets stop signs not followed, new street lights with brighter bulbs like Chicago.
 snow plowing, including alleys that provide the only access to/from a residence parking space!!! Such alleys
 should be plowed at the same time as streets. Many alleys are not paved and are hazardous for driving as they
 have potholes. Putting gravel there year after year is a waste of money. Would be interested in the Village
 providing snow removal services after a snow storm for disabled and elderly
 Street parking's! Causes more congestion in the street. I hope Skokie would address the street parking issues
 in Crawford which causes delay in travel due to one lane being used up for parking (lanes between Oakton,
 Main, Dempster by Crawford).
 The bike path on main street... stupid
 The noise from the yellow line is disruptive lately w/the horns & longer hours of operation.
 The state of some alleys. They are deplorable as it is ploughed and there is so much dust and dirt as there is no
 asphalt or small stones. The car engine is really dirty from this and there are potholes when it rains. Horrible!!
 Traffic camera on McCormick and Oakton as your heading south on McCormick turn right on Oakton there
 are no signs stating not to turn right on Oakton. I have already receive two $100 tickets see people turning
 right and no sign probably getting tickets turning on red. There should be a sign put on that street. Peoples
 hard earned money going to politician pockets.
 Traffic light cameras are safety hazard, and money grab. (Don't feel safe driving to businesses near
 McCormick Blvd), Routinely slam on brakes & accelerate near intersections for fear of random light chgs. &
 arbitrary camera tickets. Shop elsewhere as a result, whenever possible (outside Skokie).
 Train needs to leave Howard later than 11PM- you can't get home after a play Downtown!
 Use of traffic camera on McCormick Boulevard.
 Very dangerous intersections with no stop signs! People drive right through without slowing down! Please put
 in stop signs!!
 We live on Madison St. for 26 yrs, not even once our street was resurfaced, it so uneven! Why?
 Why aren't their more devices at stop lights that turn all lights red so firemen don't have to risk their lives?

Law enforcement and crime

 (1) Advertising posters on windows of businesses looks definitely tacky & low economic environment (2)
 Would like to see more marked police cars patrolling neighborhoods night& day. (3) Have more neighborhood
 block captain meetings to gain information can pass on to other residents. (4) Do something to eliminate
 empty strip stores & individual businesses along Dempster, particularly between McCormick & Crawford (1st
 impression of Skokie there not good). (5) Create "temporary parks" on empty lots (ex: Oakton & Nile Center).
 Pattern (over) created few years ago at Dempster Skokie Blvd was excellent. To attract new businesses
 important to eliminate appearance of failed businesses, also to attract home buyers, both important for tax
 revenue.
 (1)I read the police blotter regularly, and there seems to be increasing petty car & home theft/vandalism; so
 called crimes of opportunity. Perhaps increasing nighttime/early AM police neighborhood patrols would help.
 (2) I am also very concerned about ever increasing property taxes. Very big percentage jump in the last 10 yrs.
 Additional street lights. Please keep up as safe!
 Crime is increasing in many parts of Skokie- This is turning many people away from a once desirable
 community. If Skokie wants to continue to attract residents, it is going to need to correct the bad reputation it
 is getting.
 Crime rate. Street repair on Crawford Ave. The mayor cares more about Downtown than the rest of Skokie.
 During summer time we needs more police patrol in residential areas.
 High crime rate, loitering, poor development of families that are not on public aid or Section 8.
 High gang violence, low property value.
 I do not feel safe when I am going north of Dempster, from Gross Point Rd. east.
 Increase of Islamic members may cause problems i.e. the security of Skokie or monitor them to avoid any
 security issues.
 More focus on safety in Skokie. More police officers on the streets and more crime prevention.




 4
 Our house was robbed. The police detective never followed through - never even called us. A Skokie police
 woman pulled her gun on my teenage son for a potato launcher he made.
 Poor police support in localized (by block) issues with problem residents. Very disappointed in 13 years of
 home ownership.
 Safety- what happened? Police are great- new people in Skokie intimidating.
 Safety & concern for criminal activity is of utmost concern. The other items addressed are already what make
 Skokie so wonderful!
 Section 8 housing blocks where crime is huge. I would like to see the village have real solutions for these
 sections of dangerous neighborhoods in Skokie. Also, our ridiculously high property tax makes it almost
 impossible to consider buying a home in Skokie. I would like to see spending reduced so my taxes aren't so
 high.
 Section 8 housing has deteriorated Skokie, crime has risen dramatically; safety is a huge issue.
 Skokie police need a twitter account (like Evanston police).
 Subsidized housing has absolutely been a disaster. Crime has gone up and a feeling of being safe no longer
 exists. Skokie tries entirely too hard to embrace diversity. Be careful what you wish for!!
 Teen licenses should be observed more for vehicles and fast driving.
 The section 4 I don't think any over the age of 40 feels safe anywhere, day or especially night
 There are too many policeman/women. Too many scene for nonemergency events. The village spent too much
 on the new train station. Also, we only need garbage pickup once per week.
 There have been numerous robberies reported in the area but haven't seen any action or plan to tackle these
 issues.
 Too much Section 8 housing near Downtown Skokie. No longer feel safe like I used to.
 Walking/biking safety across bridges over I-94 to Niles West and on Niles Center Rd.
 We need more police walking on beats in Downtown & "troubled" multifamily neighborhoods. We need more
 police officers hired to increase patrols and be more visible. Increase police.

Code enforcement, maintenance, property and taxes

 1. Lack of sidewalks in many areas. 2. Allowing huge houses to be built to close to the street & neighboring
 houses.
 9119 N Lamon is unsafe, filthy and no one cares.
 Auto dealerships that have large parcels of land (all of them!) Should be forced to clear their sidewalks of
 snow!! They never do this!
 Despite the downturn in property values, the property taxes in Evanston school district portion of Skokie are
 inordinately high. Why aren't we in Niles Township school districts?
 Dog feces. I don't own a dog but my house is at the corner where people walk their dogs and throw the dogs
 feces in my garbage receptacle. We put our garbage in one 5 gal plastic bag. The garbage then does not pick up
 the small plastic bags full of dog feces.
 Housing values were hit hard by the downturn a number of years ago, and prices have not rebounded as
 vigorously as other neighboring communities. There should be some relief provided by the village of Skokie to
 condo owners who were delivered defective property, causing pervasive mold issues and plummeting property
 values. These developments were apparently inspected and approved by village. (see next page>) The financial
 impact also reaches and impacts nearby properties, when they are appraised and the defective properties are
 used as "comps" to ascertain appraisals, the financial ripple effect is devastating.
 Housing: It seems Skokie now allows Section 8 that will destroy Skokie and bring property sale down, I moved
 to Skokie because it was safe and people that lived here then mostly owned. Now our neighborhood is
 changing not for better instead for worst.
 I know it's late to mention this but our blocks look unbalanced with small homes & gigantic homes next to
 each other & those big homes decrease privacy of neighbors’ homes.
 I live in an apartment building which has no code for seconds hand smoking or fire hazard from smoking
 indoors. Need more education on the fire alarm systems. Snow pickup is very bad in my area because of that
 cars are slipping.
 Many people who have Section 8 housing take advantage of the system and should be checked out as to
 income and family living with them.



 5
 More follow ups on tenant complaints on rental companies.
 My building's units are not up to code with smoke detectors.
 None of my neighbors clean up their dog waste! Neighbors across the street use our yard!!
 None. Except please try to remove snow from alleys faster. It becomes hard for us to get our cars out!
 Our concern is the size of new homes being built on residential lots, some of the homes are much too massive
 for the neighborhood.
 People posting signs on their lawns.
 Property Tax is too high, better public transportation, fix pot holes immediately
 residents who do not properly clean up after their dogs...this is especially problematic in our neighborhood/on
 our block
 Section 8 needs to be monitored or removed completely!! It has lowered our property values drastically!
 Snow shoveling on the sidewalks on Oakton near the yellow line and going east and west. For some reason, on
 one shoveled the snow on Oakton, leading to treacherous walking conditions. Either force the businesses to do
 it or use village workers to get it done.
 Talk to dog's owners to keep Skokie clean after their dogs. Thank you!
 The village does not do a good job mid to late summer enforcing the need for property owners to trim back
 their shrubs & trees that have grown to block the sidewalks.
 There is a illegally parked Mercedes on Cleveland of Crawford (NEC) that I have called the police about for
 over a year and it is still parked there almost all the time. It obstructs vision.
 There needs to be restrictions on the people receiving Section 8. Ever since it has been allowed Skokie has
 deteriorated.
 Too many rental properties on Church St & Skokie Blvd.
 Tree issues, like neighbor's trees falling on your property. Or neighbors having dead trees close to property
 lines. Neighbors having boxes, etc outside in front of home.
 Would like an ordinance that would prohibit the disposal of animal waste into garbage & recycling containers
 that don't belong to the animal's owner.

Other

 An indoor pool at Weber would be nice.
 At the Backlot Bash, quit giving goldfish away as a prize. It's not right.
 Coffee shops needed!
 Cultural issues that can be sensitive and can lead to miscommunications. School issues (role in the above).
 Garage sale signs allowed at street corners as long as they are removed after the sale or nightly.
 Have lived in Skokie since 1954, now in condo since 1979, some questions do not apply to me.
 Living in zip code 60203, I consider myself an Evanston resident. I appreciate Skokie but with Evanston
 school district, that is where I feel aligned.
 Localized (by block) problem residents/home owners.
 More competition in cable TV
 Need for an indoor pool to use in winter months.
 Need to look at how village of Forest Park reinvented & reinvigorated itself in the past 10 years!
 One party rule.
 Overall view/opinion of Skokie has gone downhill during past 0 to 10 years
 Rats!
 Too highly compensated teachers & principals. To lax oversight of educational institutions.

Don’t know/nothing

 No!
 No, now that the yellow line is back up & running. That was a pain.
 No, seems well covered.
 No.
 No.



 6
 No.
 No.
 No.
 No.
 No.
 No.
 No.
 No.
 No.
 none
 None so far.
 None!
 None.
 None.
 None.
 None.
 None.
 To my understanding. These six pages of survey it is cover everything and my apology because of the deaf and
 health problem, thank you.




 7
Skokie, IL
Technical Appendices
DRAFT
2015




2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002
n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780
 The National Citizen Survey™


Contents
Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses .......................................... 1
Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons ............................................. 19
Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods ............................................. 28
Appendix D: Survey Materials ......................................................... 33




 The National Citizen Survey™
 © 2001-2015 National Research Center, Inc.

 The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA.

 NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing
 clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices.
 The National Citizen Survey™

Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses
Responses excluding “don’t know”
The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents
giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”).

Table 1: Question 1
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Skokie as a place to live 36% N=137 51% N=191 12% N=47 1% N=4 100% N=378
Your neighborhood as a place to live 31% N=119 53% N=202 13% N=48 3% N=10 100% N=380
Skokie as a place to raise children 36% N=127 45% N=156 17% N=60 2% N=5 100% N=348
Skokie as a place to work 26% N=65 43% N=109 24% N=62 7% N=18 100% N=253
Skokie as a place to visit 19% N=65 43% N=152 30% N=105 8% N=29 100% N=351
Skokie as a place to retire 22% N=67 39% N=118 27% N=81 12% N=36 100% N=301
The overall quality of life in Skokie 26% N=100 54% N=205 18% N=67 2% N=7 100% N=380

Table 2: Question 2
 Don't
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total
Sense of community 20% N=73 54% N=200 22% N=82 5% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=371
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 37% N=142 47% N=178 14% N=52 2% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=380
Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 29% N=107 53% N=199 16% N=59 3% N=11 0% N=0 100% N=376
Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 30% N=111 46% N=169 20% N=76 4% N=15 0% N=0 100% N=371
Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 30% N=104 52% N=182 16% N=58 2% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=352
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 32% N=114 50% N=176 16% N=57 2% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=353
Overall economic health of Skokie 21% N=70 48% N=160 27% N=92 4% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=335
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 19% N=72 49% N=186 22% N=83 9% N=35 0% N=0 100% N=376
Overall image or reputation of Skokie 20% N=75 47% N=178 26% N=99 6% N=21 2% N=7 100% N=380

Table 3: Question 3
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total
Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 49% N=184 38% N=142 10% N=37 4% N=14 100% N=376
Remain in Skokie for the next five years 55% N=204 28% N=104 10% N=36 7% N=25 100% N=369

Table 4: Question 4
Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total
In your neighborhood during the day 62% N=238 28% N=108 5% N=20 3% N=12 1% N=4 100% N=381
In Skokie's downtown area during the day 64% N=236 28% N=104 6% N=24 0% N=2 0% N=2 100% N=366
In your neighborhood after dark 32% N=121 41% N=153 14% N=51 9% N=35 4% N=14 100% N=375
In Skokie's downtown area after dark 31% N=100 43% N=139 13% N=43 9% N=29 3% N=9 100% N=320



 1
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 5: Question 5
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Traffic flow on major streets 18% N=67 49% N=186 26% N=97 8% N=29 100% N=378
Ease of public parking 30% N=110 44% N=162 21% N=76 5% N=20 100% N=368
Ease of travel by car in Skokie 33% N=127 50% N=189 13% N=50 4% N=15 100% N=382
Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 30% N=74 47% N=115 19% N=46 5% N=12 100% N=247
Ease of walking in Skokie 33% N=124 48% N=182 16% N=59 3% N=10 100% N=374
Availability of paths and walking trails 26% N=88 55% N=185 16% N=54 2% N=8 100% N=334
Cleanliness of Skokie 34% N=130 47% N=178 16% N=60 3% N=12 100% N=381
Overall appearance of Skokie 29% N=110 51% N=193 17% N=64 2% N=9 100% N=376
Public places where people want to spend time 32% N=114 42% N=150 20% N=73 6% N=20 100% N=358
Variety of housing options 21% N=69 47% N=155 26% N=86 6% N=20 100% N=329
Availability of affordable quality housing 13% N=40 48% N=147 30% N=91 9% N=28 100% N=306
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 32% N=111 47% N=164 18% N=61 3% N=10 100% N=346
Recreational opportunities 31% N=106 43% N=151 23% N=81 3% N=9 100% N=347
Availability of affordable quality health care 22% N=61 47% N=128 24% N=65 8% N=21 100% N=275
Availability of preventive health services 25% N=68 52% N=144 19% N=54 4% N=11 100% N=277
Ease of travel by train in Skokie 38% N=126 41% N=136 16% N=52 6% N=21 100% N=336
Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 33% N=96 50% N=145 14% N=42 3% N=9 100% N=292

Table 6: Question 6
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 22% N=41 45% N=84 31% N=58 2% N=4 100% N=186
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 27% N=92 53% N=181 17% N=57 3% N=10 100% N=340
Employment opportunities 11% N=23 43% N=92 33% N=72 14% N=29 100% N=216
Shopping opportunities 45% N=165 39% N=143 17% N=62 0% N=1 100% N=370
Cost of living in Skokie 10% N=35 41% N=150 41% N=150 8% N=29 100% N=363
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 14% N=50 53% N=189 29% N=105 4% N=13 100% N=357
Vibrant downtown 12% N=43 29% N=104 37% N=131 21% N=76 100% N=353
Overall quality of new development in Skokie 16% N=52 43% N=141 32% N=105 9% N=29 100% N=326
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 18% N=59 50% N=162 24% N=79 7% N=22 100% N=321
Opportunities to volunteer 19% N=48 48% N=123 29% N=74 4% N=9 100% N=254
Opportunities to participate in community matters 16% N=43 50% N=137 28% N=76 7% N=20 100% N=276
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 26% N=89 53% N=179 18% N=62 3% N=10 100% N=340
Neighborliness of residents in Skokie 15% N=56 39% N=144 37% N=134 8% N=31 100% N=366

Table 7: Question 7
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Skokie 70% N=257 30% N=112 100% N=369
Household member was a victim of a crime in Skokie 88% N=328 12% N=46 100% N=373
Reported a crime to the police in Skokie 82% N=303 18% N=67 100% N=370
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 74% N=272 26% N=96 100% N=368
Contacted the Village of Skokie (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 41% N=152 59% N=221 100% N=373


 2
 The National Citizen Survey™
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Paid a cable television bill 34% N=127 66% N=244 100% N=371
Accessed the internet from a home computer 12% N=44 88% N=327 100% N=372

Table 8: Question 8
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household 2 times a week or 2-4 times a Once a month or
members done each of the following in Skokie? more month less Not at all Total
Used Skokie recreation centers or their services 17% N=63 20% N=73 27% N=100 37% N=136 100% N=372
Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 17% N=65 27% N=100 34% N=125 22% N=82 100% N=371
Used Skokie Public Library or its services 23% N=86 31% N=118 24% N=92 22% N=81 100% N=377
Attended a Village-sponsored event 2% N=7 7% N=27 41% N=153 50% N=188 100% N=375
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 12% N=46 14% N=54 30% N=112 44% N=167 100% N=379
Walked or biked instead of driving 16% N=58 21% N=78 32% N=119 32% N=118 100% N=373
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 3% N=10 7% N=28 13% N=48 77% N=286 100% N=372
Read NewSkokie newsletter 8% N=31 24% N=91 49% N=185 18% N=68 100% N=374
Visited www.skokie.org 4% N=16 13% N=49 43% N=160 40% N=149 100% N=373
Listened to 1660 AM Skokie radio station 3% N=10 3% N=12 12% N=46 82% N=300 100% N=368
Visited Downtown Skokie 29% N=108 31% N=114 32% N=120 8% N=29 100% N=371
Ridden a Senior Transportation for Area Residents (STAR) bus 2% N=6 2% N=7 1% N=5 95% N=356 100% N=374
Called or emailed the Village for yard waste collection 2% N=7 7% N=28 19% N=72 72% N=271 100% N=377
Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 2% N=7 15% N=59 33% N=126 49% N=187 100% N=379

Table 9: Question 9
Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like Village Council or County
Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months,
about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local 2 times a 2-4 times a Once a month
public meeting? week or more month or less Not at all Total
Attended a local public meeting 0% N=0 1% N=5 11% N=40 88% N=326 100% N=371
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=4 2% N=8 11% N=39 86% N=318 100% N=369

Table 10: Question 10
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Police services 43% N=149 41% N=142 14% N=49 3% N=9 100% N=349
Fire services 54% N=178 37% N=121 9% N=31 0% N=0 100% N=330
Ambulance or emergency medical services 58% N=168 35% N=102 6% N=18 0% N=1 100% N=289
Crime prevention 23% N=67 45% N=131 21% N=60 11% N=33 100% N=292
Fire prevention and education 33% N=88 52% N=140 13% N=34 2% N=6 100% N=268
Traffic enforcement 22% N=71 51% N=165 19% N=63 7% N=24 100% N=323
Street repair 19% N=66 34% N=123 34% N=122 13% N=46 100% N=357
Street cleaning 34% N=125 40% N=144 23% N=83 3% N=12 100% N=364
Street lighting 25% N=91 44% N=165 22% N=81 9% N=34 100% N=372
Snow removal 31% N=113 40% N=145 17% N=61 12% N=43 100% N=363
Sidewalk maintenance 22% N=79 42% N=146 30% N=107 6% N=20 100% N=352
Traffic signal timing 17% N=64 46% N=170 25% N=92 11% N=40 100% N=366


 3
 The National Citizen Survey™
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Garbage collection 54% N=194 34% N=120 11% N=38 1% N=4 100% N=356
Recycling 50% N=170 36% N=123 12% N=40 2% N=8 100% N=341
Yard waste pick-up 39% N=117 41% N=124 16% N=48 4% N=12 100% N=301
Storm drainage 18% N=59 44% N=142 24% N=77 15% N=49 100% N=327
Drinking water 37% N=132 44% N=157 15% N=52 5% N=17 100% N=358
Sewer services 26% N=76 49% N=144 22% N=65 4% N=11 100% N=295
Electric utility billing 27% N=97 55% N=194 14% N=50 3% N=10 100% N=352
Village parks 43% N=153 46% N=161 9% N=32 2% N=7 100% N=353
Land use, planning and zoning 21% N=59 48% N=136 22% N=62 9% N=26 100% N=283
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 18% N=50 52% N=142 23% N=64 7% N=18 100% N=274
Animal control 20% N=54 54% N=144 16% N=43 9% N=25 100% N=267
Economic development 18% N=50 47% N=128 24% N=67 11% N=29 100% N=275
Skokie Health Department services 32% N=82 50% N=128 17% N=43 2% N=5 100% N=257
Public library services 67% N=233 28% N=98 5% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=348
Public information services 33% N=102 50% N=156 16% N=49 1% N=4 100% N=311
Cable television 22% N=55 50% N=126 21% N=53 7% N=18 100% N=253
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other
emergency situations) 22% N=54 54% N=132 18% N=45 6% N=14 100% N=246
Village-sponsored special events 25% N=66 53% N=139 17% N=46 4% N=12 100% N=263
Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 35% N=117 46% N=153 17% N=56 3% N=10 100% N=335
Skokie's Backlot Bash 33% N=76 50% N=116 11% N=25 7% N=17 100% N=233
Skokie Farmers' Market 31% N=79 50% N=130 16% N=42 3% N=7 100% N=258
Administrative hearings (parking or code violations) 15% N=21 46% N=65 19% N=27 20% N=29 100% N=140
Sidewalk snow plowing 27% N=92 32% N=107 31% N=105 10% N=32 100% N=336
Alley maintenance 21% N=57 42% N=116 26% N=71 12% N=33 100% N=276
Obtaining a building permit 15% N=22 52% N=78 28% N=42 5% N=8 100% N=151
Public information - NewSkokie municipal newsletter 32% N=100 52% N=163 14% N=45 1% N=5 100% N=313
Public information - www.skokie.org municipal website 24% N=61 54% N=135 20% N=50 2% N=4 100% N=250
Public information - Village of Skokie electronic newsletter 27% N=56 53% N=111 18% N=38 2% N=4 100% N=210
Shop Local Skokie Facebook page 20% N=18 54% N=48 22% N=20 4% N=4 100% N=90
Skokie Police Department Facebook page 21% N=18 51% N=46 24% N=22 4% N=3 100% N=89
Overall competence of Police Department employees 31% N=86 47% N=129 16% N=44 6% N=17 100% N=276
Police officers' attitudes and behaviors towards citizens 31% N=97 40% N=123 20% N=62 9% N=27 100% N=309
Fire prevention - code enforcement 29% N=57 55% N=106 13% N=26 3% N=5 100% N=194
Fire prevention - public education 28% N=60 52% N=110 18% N=38 2% N=5 100% N=213
Senior Transportation (STAR) bus service 26% N=22 45% N=37 24% N=20 6% N=5 100% N=84
Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees 20% N=52 56% N=144 19% N=49 4% N=10 100% N=256
Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees 27% N=79 51% N=148 17% N=48 5% N=14 100% N=289
Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees 32% N=101 51% N=159 11% N=35 6% N=19 100% N=314




 4
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 11: Question 11
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
The Village of Skokie 35% N=126 49% N=176 14% N=52 2% N=8 100% N=362
The Federal Government 10% N=34 31% N=101 44% N=144 16% N=52 100% N=330
State of Illinois 7% N=22 25% N=82 37% N=123 32% N=106 100% N=333
Cook County 8% N=26 23% N=77 42% N=138 28% N=92 100% N=333

Table 12: Question 12
Please rate the following categories of Skokie government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
The value of services for the taxes paid to Skokie 19% N=64 48% N=162 23% N=80 10% N=33 100% N=339
The overall direction that Skokie is taking 19% N=64 43% N=142 26% N=86 11% N=36 100% N=328
The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement 21% N=55 43% N=112 26% N=68 10% N=26 100% N=262
Overall confidence in Skokie government 21% N=70 44% N=146 25% N=82 10% N=31 100% N=329
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 25% N=79 44% N=138 22% N=71 9% N=28 100% N=316
Being honest 27% N=77 44% N=127 22% N=65 7% N=19 100% N=289
Treating all residents fairly 23% N=69 43% N=132 24% N=74 10% N=31 100% N=307

Table 13: Question 13
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Skokie community to focus on each of Very Somewhat Not at all
the following in the coming two years: Essential important important important Total
Sense of community 64% N=243 25% N=96 8% N=30 2% N=9 100% N=376
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 35% N=130 46% N=172 15% N=57 3% N=12 100% N=371
Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 33% N=122 50% N=182 15% N=57 1% N=5 100% N=366
Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 38% N=140 45% N=168 16% N=61 1% N=3 100% N=372
Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 31% N=112 49% N=178 19% N=71 2% N=7 100% N=368
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 48% N=177 37% N=135 14% N=52 1% N=5 100% N=370
Overall economic health of Skokie 54% N=201 37% N=138 6% N=24 2% N=8 100% N=371
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 71% N=266 23% N=85 6% N=23 1% N=3 100% N=376

Table 14: Question 14
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Village to invest in each of the Very Somewhat Not at all
following community programs to increase the sense of community in Skokie: Essential important important important Total
Increased/improved neighborhood watch groups 36% N=137 37% N=139 19% N=73 7% N=28 100% N=377
Opportunities to get to know your neighbors 18% N=67 48% N=179 27% N=99 7% N=28 100% N=373
Block parties 14% N=53 26% N=99 40% N=151 19% N=71 100% N=375
Neighborhood clean-up events 19% N=73 40% N=149 31% N=115 10% N=37 100% N=374
Learning about diverse perspectives, including races and cultures 22% N=83 34% N=126 35% N=130 9% N=35 100% N=375

Table 15: Question 15
 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
How much do you support or oppose Village investments in each of the following? support support oppose oppose Total
Additional street lighting on residential east-west streets 57% N=209 30% N=108 10% N=35 4% N=13 100% N=365
Additional street lighting on Crawford Avenue 44% N=155 37% N=130 13% N=46 6% N=21 100% N=353


 5
 The National Citizen Survey™
 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
How much do you support or oppose Village investments in each of the following? support support oppose oppose Total
Additional street lighting in alleys 53% N=194 31% N=113 13% N=47 4% N=14 100% N=367
Additional street lighting on the multi-use path from Dempster Street south to the Village
limit 48% N=174 37% N=133 11% N=39 4% N=14 100% N=360
Cameras in public areas 44% N=159 32% N=119 16% N=57 8% N=31 100% N=366

Table 16: Question 16
Please indicate the impact, if any, each of the following would have on the amount you recycle from home each Somewhat Would not recycle
week. Would you recycle much more, somewhat more, or would you not recycle more? Much more more more Total
Better understanding of what materials can be recycled 41% N=151 40% N=147 19% N=72 100% N=370
Better understanding of how to prepare materials for recycling 36% N=134 42% N=157 21% N=79 100% N=370
More indoor space to collect recyclable materials 33% N=121 37% N=136 30% N=108 100% N=366
Larger outdoor recycling container 35% N=129 33% N=120 33% N=120 100% N=368
Assistance from friend or neighbor to move the recycling container to and from the curb 13% N=48 31% N=111 56% N=200 100% N=359

Table 17: Question D1
How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you
could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total
Recycle at home 6% N=22 7% N=25 12% N=46 19% N=73 56% N=211 100% N=376
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie 2% N=7 5% N=17 29% N=110 40% N=149 25% N=93 100% N=376
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 3% N=10 14% N=54 27% N=102 32% N=119 24% N=90 100% N=375
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 3% N=10 15% N=57 31% N=118 33% N=125 17% N=65 100% N=375
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=15 8% N=31 20% N=73 26% N=98 42% N=156 100% N=374
Vote in local elections 12% N=46 7% N=28 15% N=58 25% N=94 40% N=149 100% N=374

Table 18: Question D2
Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number
Excellent 16% N=61
Very good 44% N=166
Good 32% N=121
Fair 8% N=29
Poor 1% N=3
Total 100% N=379

Table 19: Question D3
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number
Very positive 4% N=16
Somewhat positive 24% N=89
Neutral 57% N=213
Somewhat negative 12% N=45
Very negative 3% N=12
Total 100% N=375



 6
 The National Citizen Survey™

Table 20: Question D4
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 60% N=222
Working part time for pay 10% N=38
Unemployed, looking for paid work 5% N=17
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 3% N=10
Fully retired 23% N=85
Total 100% N=372

Table 21: Question D5
Do you work inside the boundaries of Skokie? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 25% N=92
Yes, from home 9% N=33
No 66% N=237
Total 100% N=361

Table 22: Question D6
How many years have you lived in Skokie? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 12% N=47
2 to 5 years 13% N=51
6 to 10 years 14% N=54
11 to 20 years 23% N=89
More than 20 years 37% N=140
Total 100% N=381

Table 23: Question D7
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 58% N=219
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 41% N=155
Mobile home 0% N=0
Other 1% N=5
Total 100% N=379

Table 24: Question D8
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number
Rented 26% N=100
Owned 74% N=281
Total 100% N=380




 7
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 25: Question D9
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association
(HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $300 per month 2% N=8
$300 to $599 per month 4% N=14
$600 to $999 per month 19% N=67
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 26% N=91
$1,500 to $2,499 per month 36% N=128
$2,500 or more per month 13% N=47
Total 100% N=355

Table 26: Question D10
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 63% N=240
Yes 37% N=140
Total 100% N=380

Table 27: Question D11
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 65% N=246
Yes 35% N=133
Total 100% N=379

Table 28: Question D12
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all
persons living in your household.) Percent Number
Less than $25,000 8% N=27
$25,000 to $49,999 24% N=80
$50,000 to $99,999 29% N=98
$100,000 to $149,999 27% N=91
$150,000 or more 12% N=42
Total 100% N=338

Table 29: Question D13
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 94% N=345
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 6% N=23
Total 100% N=369




 8
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 30: Question D14
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number
American Indian or Alaskan Native 2% N=6
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 24% N=91
Black or African American 4% N=15
White 65% N=241
Other 9% N=33
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.

Table 31: Question D15
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 1% N=2
25 to 34 years 22% N=81
35 to 44 years 15% N=55
45 to 54 years 20% N=73
55 to 64 years 16% N=60
65 to 74 years 16% N=60
75 years or older 11% N=40
Total 100% N=373

Table 32: Question D16
What is your sex? Percent Number
Female 55% N=205
Male 45% N=169
Total 100% N=374

Table 33: Question D17
Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number
Cell 56% N=210
Land line 20% N=76
Both 24% N=90
Total 100% N=376




 9
 The National Citizen Survey™
Responses including “don’t know”
The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents
giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”).

Table 34: Question 1
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Skokie as a place to live 36% N=137 50% N=191 12% N=47 1% N=4 0% N=1 100% N=379
Your neighborhood as a place to live 31% N=119 53% N=202 13% N=48 3% N=10 0% N=1 100% N=380
Skokie as a place to raise children 34% N=127 41% N=156 16% N=60 1% N=5 8% N=30 100% N=378
Skokie as a place to work 17% N=65 29% N=109 16% N=62 5% N=18 33% N=124 100% N=377
Skokie as a place to visit 17% N=65 40% N=152 28% N=105 8% N=29 7% N=27 100% N=378
Skokie as a place to retire 18% N=67 31% N=118 22% N=81 10% N=36 20% N=73 100% N=374
The overall quality of life in Skokie 26% N=100 54% N=205 18% N=67 2% N=7 0% N=1 100% N=380

Table 35: Question 2
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Sense of community 19% N=73 53% N=200 22% N=82 4% N=17 1% N=5 100% N=376
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 37% N=142 47% N=178 14% N=52 2% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=380
Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 28% N=107 53% N=199 16% N=59 3% N=11 0% N=2 100% N=377
Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 29% N=111 45% N=169 20% N=76 4% N=15 2% N=6 100% N=377
Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 28% N=104 48% N=182 15% N=58 2% N=8 7% N=26 100% N=378
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 30% N=114 46% N=176 15% N=57 2% N=7 7% N=26 100% N=380
Overall economic health of Skokie 19% N=70 43% N=160 25% N=92 3% N=13 10% N=39 100% N=373
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 19% N=72 49% N=186 22% N=83 9% N=35 1% N=2 100% N=379
Overall image or reputation of Skokie 20% N=75 47% N=178 26% N=99 6% N=21 2% N=7 100% N=380

Table 36: Question 3
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total
Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 49% N=184 37% N=142 10% N=37 4% N=14 1% N=3 100% N=379
Remain in Skokie for the next five years 54% N=204 28% N=104 10% N=36 6% N=25 2% N=8 100% N=377

Table 37: Question 4
Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total
In your neighborhood during the day 62% N=238 28% N=108 5% N=20 3% N=12 1% N=4 0% N=1 100% N=382
In Skokie's downtown area during the day 62% N=236 27% N=104 6% N=24 0% N=2 0% N=2 3% N=11 100% N=378
In your neighborhood after dark 32% N=121 40% N=153 13% N=51 9% N=35 4% N=14 1% N=5 100% N=380
In Skokie's downtown area after dark 26% N=100 36% N=139 11% N=43 8% N=29 2% N=9 16% N=60 100% N=380


Table 38: Question 5
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Traffic flow on major streets 18% N=67 49% N=186 26% N=97 8% N=29 1% N=2 100% N=380
Ease of public parking 29% N=110 43% N=162 20% N=76 5% N=20 2% N=9 100% N=378

 10
 The National Citizen Survey™
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Ease of travel by car in Skokie 33% N=127 49% N=189 13% N=50 4% N=15 0% N=2 100% N=383
Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 20% N=74 31% N=115 12% N=46 3% N=12 34% N=129 100% N=376
Ease of walking in Skokie 32% N=124 47% N=182 15% N=59 3% N=10 2% N=9 100% N=383
Availability of paths and walking trails 23% N=88 49% N=185 14% N=54 2% N=8 11% N=41 100% N=375
Cleanliness of Skokie 34% N=130 47% N=178 16% N=60 3% N=12 0% N=1 100% N=382
Overall appearance of Skokie 29% N=110 51% N=193 17% N=64 2% N=9 0% N=2 100% N=377
Public places where people want to spend time 30% N=114 39% N=150 19% N=73 5% N=20 6% N=24 100% N=382
Variety of housing options 18% N=69 41% N=155 23% N=86 5% N=20 13% N=49 100% N=378
Availability of affordable quality housing 11% N=40 39% N=147 24% N=91 7% N=28 20% N=75 100% N=381
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 29% N=111 43% N=164 16% N=61 3% N=10 9% N=33 100% N=379
Recreational opportunities 28% N=106 40% N=151 21% N=81 2% N=9 8% N=30 100% N=377
Availability of affordable quality health care 16% N=61 34% N=128 17% N=65 6% N=21 27% N=102 100% N=377
Availability of preventive health services 18% N=68 39% N=144 14% N=54 3% N=11 26% N=96 100% N=373
Ease of travel by train in Skokie 33% N=126 36% N=136 14% N=52 6% N=21 12% N=44 100% N=381
Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 25% N=96 38% N=145 11% N=42 2% N=9 23% N=89 100% N=381

Table 39: Question 6
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 11% N=41 22% N=84 15% N=58 1% N=4 50% N=186 100% N=372
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 25% N=92 48% N=181 15% N=57 3% N=10 9% N=34 100% N=373
Employment opportunities 6% N=23 24% N=92 19% N=72 8% N=29 43% N=161 100% N=376
Shopping opportunities 44% N=165 38% N=143 17% N=62 0% N=1 1% N=3 100% N=373
Cost of living in Skokie 9% N=35 40% N=150 40% N=150 8% N=29 3% N=10 100% N=373
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 14% N=50 51% N=189 28% N=105 3% N=13 4% N=14 100% N=371
Vibrant downtown 11% N=43 28% N=104 35% N=131 20% N=76 5% N=20 100% N=373
Overall quality of new development in Skokie 14% N=52 38% N=141 28% N=105 8% N=29 12% N=46 100% N=372
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 16% N=59 43% N=162 21% N=79 6% N=22 15% N=57 100% N=378
Opportunities to volunteer 13% N=48 33% N=123 20% N=74 2% N=9 32% N=121 100% N=375
Opportunities to participate in community matters 12% N=43 38% N=137 21% N=76 5% N=20 24% N=88 100% N=364
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 24% N=89 48% N=179 17% N=62 3% N=10 9% N=33 100% N=373
Neighborliness of residents in Skokie 15% N=56 38% N=144 36% N=134 8% N=31 3% N=12 100% N=377

Table 40: Question 7
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total
Observed a code violation or other hazard in Skokie 70% N=257 30% N=112 100% N=369
Household member was a victim of a crime in Skokie 88% N=328 12% N=46 100% N=373
Reported a crime to the police in Skokie 82% N=303 18% N=67 100% N=370
Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 74% N=272 26% N=96 100% N=368
Contacted the Village of Skokie (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 41% N=152 59% N=221 100% N=373
Paid a cable television bill 34% N=127 66% N=244 100% N=371
Accessed the internet from a home computer 12% N=44 88% N=327 100% N=372



 11
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 41: Question 8
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household 2 times a week or 2-4 times a Once a month or
members done each of the following in Skokie? more month less Not at all Total
Used Skokie recreation centers or their services 17% N=63 20% N=73 27% N=100 37% N=136 100% N=372
Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 17% N=65 27% N=100 34% N=125 22% N=82 100% N=371
Used Skokie Public Library or its services 23% N=86 31% N=118 24% N=92 22% N=81 100% N=377
Attended a Village-sponsored event 2% N=7 7% N=27 41% N=153 50% N=188 100% N=375
Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 12% N=46 14% N=54 30% N=112 44% N=167 100% N=379
Walked or biked instead of driving 16% N=58 21% N=78 32% N=119 32% N=118 100% N=373
Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 3% N=10 7% N=28 13% N=48 77% N=286 100% N=372
Read NewSkokie newsletter 8% N=31 24% N=91 49% N=185 18% N=68 100% N=374
Visited www.skokie.org 4% N=16 13% N=49 43% N=160 40% N=149 100% N=373
Listened to 1660 AM Skokie radio station 3% N=10 3% N=12 12% N=46 82% N=300 100% N=368
Visited Downtown Skokie 29% N=108 31% N=114 32% N=120 8% N=29 100% N=371
Ridden a Senior Transportation for Area Residents (STAR) bus 2% N=6 2% N=7 1% N=5 95% N=356 100% N=374
Called or emailed the Village for yard waste collection 2% N=7 7% N=28 19% N=72 72% N=271 100% N=377
Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 2% N=7 15% N=59 33% N=126 49% N=187 100% N=379

Table 42: Question 9
Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like Village Council or County
Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months,
about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local 2 times a 2-4 times a Once a month
public meeting? week or more month or less Not at all Total
Attended a local public meeting 0% N=0 1% N=5 11% N=40 88% N=326 100% N=371
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=4 2% N=8 11% N=39 86% N=318 100% N=369

Table 43: Question 10
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Police services 40% N=149 38% N=142 13% N=49 2% N=9 7% N=25 100% N=375
Fire services 47% N=178 32% N=121 8% N=31 0% N=0 13% N=48 100% N=378
Ambulance or emergency medical services 44% N=168 27% N=102 5% N=18 0% N=1 24% N=89 100% N=378
Crime prevention 18% N=67 35% N=131 16% N=60 9% N=33 21% N=78 100% N=370
Fire prevention and education 23% N=88 37% N=140 9% N=34 2% N=6 29% N=107 100% N=376
Traffic enforcement 19% N=71 45% N=165 17% N=63 7% N=24 12% N=43 100% N=367
Street repair 18% N=66 33% N=123 32% N=122 12% N=46 5% N=20 100% N=377
Street cleaning 33% N=125 38% N=144 22% N=83 3% N=12 4% N=15 100% N=378
Street lighting 24% N=91 44% N=165 22% N=81 9% N=34 1% N=3 100% N=375
Snow removal 30% N=113 38% N=145 16% N=61 11% N=43 4% N=15 100% N=378
Sidewalk maintenance 21% N=79 39% N=146 28% N=107 5% N=20 7% N=26 100% N=378
Traffic signal timing 17% N=64 45% N=170 25% N=92 11% N=40 3% N=10 100% N=376
Garbage collection 51% N=194 32% N=120 10% N=38 1% N=4 5% N=20 100% N=376
Recycling 45% N=170 33% N=123 11% N=40 2% N=8 9% N=34 100% N=376
Yard waste pick-up 31% N=117 33% N=124 13% N=48 3% N=12 20% N=73 100% N=374
Storm drainage 16% N=59 38% N=142 20% N=77 13% N=49 13% N=50 100% N=378

 12
 The National Citizen Survey™
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Drinking water 35% N=132 42% N=157 14% N=52 4% N=17 5% N=19 100% N=377
Sewer services 20% N=76 39% N=144 18% N=65 3% N=11 20% N=75 100% N=370
Electric utility billing 26% N=97 52% N=194 13% N=50 3% N=10 6% N=21 100% N=372
Village parks 41% N=153 43% N=161 9% N=32 2% N=7 5% N=18 100% N=371
Land use, planning and zoning 16% N=59 37% N=136 17% N=62 7% N=26 23% N=84 100% N=367
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 14% N=50 39% N=142 17% N=64 5% N=18 25% N=92 100% N=367
Animal control 15% N=54 39% N=144 12% N=43 7% N=25 28% N=103 100% N=370
Economic development 14% N=50 35% N=128 18% N=67 8% N=29 25% N=91 100% N=366
Skokie Health Department services 22% N=82 35% N=128 12% N=43 1% N=5 30% N=108 100% N=366
Public library services 62% N=233 26% N=98 5% N=17 0% N=0 7% N=26 100% N=375
Public information services 27% N=102 42% N=156 13% N=49 1% N=4 16% N=60 100% N=371
Cable television 15% N=55 35% N=126 15% N=53 5% N=18 31% N=112 100% N=364
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters
or other emergency situations) 15% N=54 36% N=132 12% N=45 4% N=14 33% N=121 100% N=367
Village-sponsored special events 18% N=66 38% N=139 13% N=46 3% N=12 27% N=99 100% N=362
Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 32% N=117 41% N=153 15% N=56 3% N=10 9% N=34 100% N=369
Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 32% N=117 41% N=153 15% N=56 3% N=10 9% N=34 100% N=369
Skokie's Backlot Bash 21% N=76 32% N=116 7% N=25 5% N=17 36% N=130 100% N=363
Skokie Farmers' Market 21% N=79 35% N=130 11% N=42 2% N=7 31% N=116 100% N=374
Administrative hearings (parking or code violations) 6% N=21 18% N=65 7% N=27 8% N=29 61% N=221 100% N=361
Sidewalk snow plowing 24% N=92 28% N=107 28% N=105 9% N=32 11% N=41 100% N=377
Alley maintenance 15% N=57 32% N=116 19% N=71 9% N=33 25% N=90 100% N=366
Obtaining a building permit 6% N=22 22% N=78 12% N=42 2% N=8 58% N=209 100% N=360
Public information - NewSkokie municipal newsletter 28% N=100 45% N=163 12% N=45 1% N=5 14% N=51 100% N=365
Public information - www.skokie.org municipal website 17% N=61 38% N=135 14% N=50 1% N=4 31% N=110 100% N=360
Public information - Village of Skokie electronic newsletter 16% N=56 31% N=111 11% N=38 1% N=4 41% N=144 100% N=354
Shop Local Skokie Facebook page 5% N=18 13% N=48 5% N=20 1% N=4 75% N=272 100% N=362
Skokie Police Department Facebook page 5% N=18 13% N=46 6% N=22 1% N=3 75% N=265 100% N=354
Overall competence of Police Department employees 24% N=86 36% N=129 12% N=44 5% N=17 24% N=87 100% N=363
Police officers' attitudes and behaviors towards citizens 26% N=97 33% N=123 17% N=62 7% N=27 16% N=58 100% N=367
Fire prevention - code enforcement 16% N=57 29% N=106 7% N=26 1% N=5 47% N=172 100% N=365
Fire prevention - public education 16% N=60 30% N=110 10% N=38 1% N=5 42% N=153 100% N=366
Senior Transportation (STAR) bus service 6% N=22 10% N=37 5% N=20 1% N=5 77% N=279 100% N=362
Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees 14% N=52 39% N=144 14% N=49 3% N=10 30% N=109 100% N=365
Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees 21% N=79 40% N=148 13% N=48 4% N=14 22% N=80 100% N=370
Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees 27% N=101 43% N=159 9% N=35 5% N=19 16% N=59 100% N=373


Table 44: Question 11
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the
following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
The Village of Skokie 34% N=126 48% N=176 14% N=52 2% N=8 2% N=7 100% N=369
The Federal Government 9% N=34 28% N=101 40% N=144 14% N=52 9% N=34 100% N=363


 13
 The National Citizen Survey™
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the
following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
State of Illinois 6% N=22 23% N=82 34% N=123 29% N=106 8% N=30 100% N=363
Cook County 7% N=26 21% N=77 38% N=138 25% N=92 8% N=31 100% N=364

Table 45: Question 12
Please rate the following categories of Skokie government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
The value of services for the taxes paid to Skokie 17% N=64 43% N=162 21% N=80 9% N=33 11% N=40 100% N=379
The overall direction that Skokie is taking 17% N=64 38% N=142 23% N=86 9% N=36 13% N=48 100% N=376
The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement 14% N=55 30% N=112 18% N=68 7% N=26 31% N=115 100% N=377
Overall confidence in Skokie government 19% N=70 39% N=146 22% N=82 8% N=31 13% N=48 100% N=377
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 21% N=79 37% N=138 19% N=71 7% N=28 16% N=59 100% N=375
Being honest 21% N=77 34% N=127 17% N=65 5% N=19 23% N=89 100% N=378
Treating all residents fairly 18% N=69 35% N=132 20% N=74 8% N=31 19% N=73 100% N=380

Table 46: Question 13
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Skokie community to focus on each of Very Somewhat Not at all
the following in the coming two years: Essential important important important Total
Sense of community 64% N=243 25% N=96 8% N=30 2% N=9 100% N=376
Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 35% N=130 46% N=172 15% N=57 3% N=12 100% N=371
Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 33% N=122 50% N=182 15% N=57 1% N=5 100% N=366
Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and
transportation systems) 38% N=140 45% N=168 16% N=61 1% N=3 100% N=372
Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 31% N=112 49% N=178 19% N=71 2% N=7 100% N=368
Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 48% N=177 37% N=135 14% N=52 1% N=5 100% N=370
Overall economic health of Skokie 54% N=201 37% N=138 6% N=24 2% N=8 100% N=371
Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 71% N=266 23% N=85 6% N=23 1% N=3 100% N=376

Table 47: Question 14
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Village to invest in each of the Very Somewhat Not at all
following community programs to increase the sense of community in Skokie: Essential important important important Total
Increased/improved neighborhood watch groups 36% N=137 37% N=139 19% N=73 7% N=28 100% N=377
Opportunities to get to know your neighbors 18% N=67 48% N=179 27% N=99 7% N=28 100% N=373
Block parties 14% N=53 26% N=99 40% N=151 19% N=71 100% N=375
Neighborhood clean-up events 19% N=73 40% N=149 31% N=115 10% N=37 100% N=374
Learning about diverse perspectives, including races and cultures 22% N=83 34% N=126 35% N=130 9% N=35 100% N=375

Table 48: Question 15
 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
How much do you support or oppose Village investments in each of the following? support support oppose oppose Total
Additional street lighting on residential east-west streets 57% N=209 30% N=108 10% N=35 4% N=13 100% N=365
Additional street lighting on Crawford Avenue 44% N=155 37% N=130 13% N=46 6% N=21 100% N=353
Additional street lighting in alleys 53% N=194 31% N=113 13% N=47 4% N=14 100% N=367



 14
 The National Citizen Survey™
 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
How much do you support or oppose Village investments in each of the following? support support oppose oppose Total
Additional street lighting on the multi-use path from Dempster Street south to the Village
limit 48% N=174 37% N=133 11% N=39 4% N=14 100% N=360
Cameras in public areas 44% N=159 32% N=119 16% N=57 8% N=31 100% N=366

Table 49: Question 16
Please indicate the impact, if any, each of the following would have on the amount you recycle from home each Somewhat Would not recycle
week. Would you recycle much more, somewhat more, or would you not recycle more? Much more more more Total
Better understanding of what materials can be recycled 41% N=151 40% N=147 19% N=72 100% N=370
Better understanding of how to prepare materials for recycling 36% N=134 42% N=157 21% N=79 100% N=370
More indoor space to collect recyclable materials 33% N=121 37% N=136 30% N=108 100% N=366
Larger outdoor recycling container 35% N=129 33% N=120 33% N=120 100% N=368
Assistance from friend or neighbor to move the recycling container to and from the curb 13% N=48 31% N=111 56% N=200 100% N=359

Table 50: Question D1
How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you
could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total
Recycle at home 6% N=22 7% N=25 12% N=46 19% N=73 56% N=211 100% N=376
Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie 2% N=7 5% N=17 29% N=110 40% N=149 25% N=93 100% N=376
Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 3% N=10 14% N=54 27% N=102 32% N=119 24% N=90 100% N=375
Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 3% N=10 15% N=57 31% N=118 33% N=125 17% N=65 100% N=375
Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=15 8% N=31 20% N=73 26% N=98 42% N=156 100% N=374
Vote in local elections 12% N=46 7% N=28 15% N=58 25% N=94 40% N=149 100% N=374

Table 51: Question D2
Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number
Excellent 16% N=61
Very good 44% N=166
Good 32% N=121
Fair 8% N=29
Poor 1% N=3
Total 100% N=379

Table 52: Question D3
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number
Very positive 4% N=16
Somewhat positive 24% N=89
Neutral 57% N=213
Somewhat negative 12% N=45
Very negative 3% N=12
Total 100% N=375




 15
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 53: Question D4
What is your employment status? Percent Number
Working full time for pay 60% N=222
Working part time for pay 10% N=38
Unemployed, looking for paid work 5% N=17
Unemployed, not looking for paid work 3% N=10
Fully retired 23% N=85
Total 100% N=372

Table 54: Question D5
Do you work inside the boundaries of Skokie? Percent Number
Yes, outside the home 25% N=92
Yes, from home 9% N=33
No 66% N=237
Total 100% N=361

Table 55: Question D6
How many years have you lived in Skokie? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 12% N=47
2 to 5 years 13% N=51
6 to 10 years 14% N=54
11 to 20 years 23% N=89
More than 20 years 37% N=140
Total 100% N=381

Table 56: Question D7
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 58% N=219
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 41% N=155
Mobile home 0% N=0
Other 1% N=5
Total 100% N=379


Table 57: Question D8
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number
Rented 26% N=100
Owned 74% N=281
Total 100% N=380




 16
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 58: Question D9
About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association
(HOA) fees)? Percent Number
Less than $300 per month 2% N=8
$300 to $599 per month 4% N=14
$600 to $999 per month 19% N=67
$1,000 to $1,499 per month 26% N=91
$1,500 to $2,499 per month 36% N=128
$2,500 or more per month 13% N=47
Total 100% N=355

Table 59: Question D10
Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number
No 63% N=240
Yes 37% N=140
Total 100% N=380

Table 60: Question D11
Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number
No 65% N=246
Yes 35% N=133
Total 100% N=379

Table 61: Question D12
How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all
persons living in your household.) Percent Number
Less than $25,000 8% N=27
$25,000 to $49,999 24% N=80
$50,000 to $99,999 29% N=98
$100,000 to $149,999 27% N=91
$150,000 or more 12% N=42
Total 100% N=338

Table 62: Question D13
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 94% N=345
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 6% N=23
Total 100% N=369




 17
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 63: Question D14
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number
American Indian or Alaskan Native 2% N=6
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 24% N=91
Black or African American 4% N=15
White 65% N=241
Other 9% N=33
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.

Table 64: Question D15
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 1% N=2
25 to 34 years 22% N=81
35 to 44 years 15% N=55
45 to 54 years 20% N=73
55 to 64 years 16% N=60
65 to 74 years 16% N=60
75 years or older 11% N=40
Total 100% N=373

Table 65: Question D16
What is your sex? Percent Number
Female 55% N=205
Male 45% N=169
Total 100% N=374

Table 66: Question D17
Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number
Cell 56% N=210
Land line 20% N=76
Both 24% N=90
Total 100% N=376




 18
 The National Citizen Survey™



Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons
Comparison Data
NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from
over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Citizen Survey™. The
comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities
conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion,
keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic
and population range. The Village of Skokie chose to have comparisons made to the entire database.

 Benchmark Database Characteristics
Interpreting the Results Region Percent
Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a New England 3%
similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns Middle Atlantic 5%
are provided in the table. The first column is Skokie’s “percent positive.” The East North Central 15%
percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response West North Central 13%
options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” South Atlantic 22%
“essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident East South Central 3%
behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of West South Central 7%
respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a Mountain 16%
month. The second column is the rank assigned to Skokie’s rating among Pacific 16%
communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the Population Percent
number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column Less than 10,000 10%
shows the comparison of Skokie’s rating to the benchmark. 10,000 to 24,999 22%
 25,000 to 49,999 23%
In that final column, Skokie’s results are noted as being “higher” than the 50,000 to 99,999 22%
benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, 100,000 or more 23%
meaning that the average rating given by Skokie residents is statistically
similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much
higher” or “much lower.”




 19
 The National Citizen Survey™


National Benchmark Comparisons
Table 67: Community Characteristics General
 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark
The overall quality of life in Skokie 80% 233 399 Similar
Overall image or reputation of Skokie 68% 175 298 Similar
Skokie as a place to live 87% 194 342 Similar
Your neighborhood as a place to live 85% 144 264 Similar
Skokie as a place to raise children 81% 165 333 Similar
Skokie as a place to retire 61% 198 316 Similar
Overall appearance of Skokie 81% 93 311 Similar

Table 68: Community Characteristics by Facet
 Number of
 Percent communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
 Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 69% 178 231 Similar
 In your neighborhood during the day 91% 196 304 Similar
Safety In Skokie's downtown area during the day 93% 104 258 Similar
 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually
 have to visit 84% 28 147 Similar
 Availability of paths and walking trails 82% 58 267 Higher
 Ease of walking in Skokie 82% 49 248 Higher
 Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 76% 22 252 Higher
 Ease of travel by car in Skokie 83% 17 255 Higher
 Ease of public parking 74% 13 122 Higher
Mobility Traffic flow on major streets 67% 44 300 Higher
Natural Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 81% 95 236 Similar
Environment Cleanliness of Skokie 81% 79 229 Similar
 Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including
 overall design, buildings, parks and transportation
 systems) 76% 24 141 Higher
 Overall quality of new development in Skokie 59% 100 244 Similar
 Availability of affordable quality housing 61% 53 256 Higher
Built Variety of housing options 68% 59 235 Similar
Environment Public places where people want to spend time 74% 35 134 Similar
 Overall economic health of Skokie 69% 56 146 Similar
 Vibrant downtown area 42% 72 131 Similar
 Overall quality of business and service
 establishments in Skokie 67% 94 229 Similar
 Cost of living in Skokie 51% 45 140 Similar
 Shopping opportunities 83% 14 254 Much higher
 Employment opportunities 53% 42 268 Higher
 Skokie as a place to visit 62% 90 153 Similar
Economy Skokie as a place to work 69% 115 307 Similar
 Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 81% 42 143 Similar
 Availability of preventive health services 77% 35 193 Similar
 Availability of affordable quality health care 69% 69 217 Similar
 Recreational opportunities 74% 63 260 Similar
Recreation and Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes
Wellness and paths or trails, etc.) 80% 35 137 Similar
 Overall opportunities for education and
 enrichment 82% 41 141 Similar
 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music
 activities 80% 36 253 Higher
Education and Availability of affordable quality child
Enrichment care/preschool 67% 27 215 Higher




 20
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Number of
 Percent communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
 Opportunities to participate in social events and
 activities 69% 73 216 Similar
 Neighborliness of Skokie 55% 82 136 Similar
 Openness and acceptance of the community
 toward people of diverse backgrounds 79% 18 246 Higher
Community Opportunities to participate in community matters 65% 104 229 Similar
Engagement Opportunities to volunteer 67% 131 223 Similar

Table 69: Governance General
 Percent Number of communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
Services provided by the Village of Skokie 84% 46 387 Similar
Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police,
receptionists, planners, etc.) 80% 87 322 Similar
Value of services for the taxes paid to Skokie 67% 65 348 Similar
Overall direction that Skokie is taking 63% 103 279 Similar
Job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen
involvement 64% 45 266 Similar
Overall confidence in Skokie government 66% 21 141 Higher
Generally acting in the best interest of the community 69% 19 141 Higher
Being honest 71% 16 137 Higher
Treating all residents fairly 66% 27 140 Similar
Services provided by the Federal Government 41% 38 207 Similar

Table 70: Governance by Facet
 Number of
 Percent communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
 Police services 83% 100 384 Similar
 Fire services 91% 89 311 Similar
 Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 47 300 Similar
 Crime prevention 68% 181 308 Similar
 Fire prevention and education 85% 82 245 Similar
 Animal control 74% 91 296 Similar
 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare
 the community for natural disasters or other
Safety emergency situations) 76% 46 241 Similar
 Traffic enforcement 73% 91 328 Similar
 Street repair 53% 134 373 Similar
 Street cleaning 74% 29 277 Higher
 Street lighting 69% 60 272 Similar
 Snow removal 71% 69 259 Similar
 Sidewalk maintenance 64% 47 276 Similar
Mobility Traffic signal timing 64% 23 217 Similar
 Garbage collection 88% 19 309 Similar
 Recycling 86% 38 315 Similar
Natural Yard waste pick-up 80% 61 228 Similar
Environment Drinking water 81% 65 293 Similar
 Storm drainage 61% 203 316 Similar
 Sewer services 74% 144 277 Similar
 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 83% 45 140 Similar
 Land use, planning and zoning 69% 23 256 Higher
 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings,
Built etc.) 70% 41 316 Higher
Environment Cable television 72% 7 165 Higher



 21
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Number of
 Percent communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
Economy Economic development 65% 60 244 Similar
Recreation and Village parks 89% 62 286 Similar
Wellness Skokie Health Department services 82% 19 169 Higher
Education and Village-sponsored special events 78% 38 150 Similar
Enrichment Public library services 95% 4 302 Higher
Community
Engagement Public information services 83% 11 249 Higher

Table 71: Participation General
 Percent Number of communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
Sense of community 73% 80 263 Similar
Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 87% 139 237 Similar
Remain in Skokie for the next five years 84% 131 232 Similar
Contacted Skokie (in-person, phone, email or web) for
help or information 59% 24 269 Higher

Table 72: Participation by Facet
 Percent Number of communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
 Stocked supplies in preparation for an
 emergency 26% 103 127 Lower
 Did NOT report a crime to the police 82% 54 137 Similar
 Household member was NOT a victim of
Safety a crime 88% 140 229 Similar
 Used bus, rail or other public
 transportation instead of driving 56% 14 114 Much higher
Mobility Walked or biked instead of driving 68% 31 136 Higher
Natural
Environment Recycle at home 88% 117 216 Similar
 Did NOT observe a code violation or
 other hazard in Skokie 70% 11 129 Higher
Built Environment NOT experiencing housing costs stress 61% 172 212 Similar
 Purchase goods or services from a
 business located in Skokie 94% 119 133 Similar
 Economy will have positive impact on
 income 28% 84 214 Similar
Economy Work inside boundaries of Skokie 34% 77 133 Similar
 Used Skokie recreation centers or their
 services 63% 44 201 Similar
 Visited a neighborhood park or Village
 park 78% 184 232 Similar
 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and
 vegetables a day 83% 68 130 Similar
 Participate in moderate or vigorous
Recreation and physical activity 82% 96 131 Similar
Wellness In very good to excellent health 60% 81 132 Similar
 Used Skokie Public Library or its
Education and services 78% 23 202 Higher
Enrichment Attended Village-sponsored event 50% 77 134 Similar
 Volunteered your time to some
 group/activity in Skokie 23% 205 221 Lower
 Attended a local public meeting 12% 211 221 Similar
Community Watched (online or on television) a local
Engagement public meeting 14% 173 186 Lower




 22
 The National Citizen Survey™


 Percent Number of communities in Comparison to
 positive Rank comparison benchmark
 Read or watch local news (via
 television, paper, computer, etc.) 88% 54 132 Similar
 Vote in local elections 80% 113 214 Similar

Communities included in national comparisons
The communities included in Skokie’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population
according to the 2010 Census.

 Adams County, CO ..................................................441,603 Brentwood city, TN .................................................. 37,060
 Airway Heights city, WA ............................................. 6,114 Brighton city, CO...................................................... 33,352
 Albany city, OR ........................................................ 50,158 Bristol city, TN ......................................................... 26,702
 Albemarle County, VA............................................... 98,970 Broken Arrow city, OK .............................................. 98,850
 Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 18,016 Brookfield city, WI ................................................... 37,920
 Algonquin village, IL ................................................. 30,046 Brookline CDP, MA ................................................... 58,732
 Aliso Viejo city, CA ................................................... 47,823 Broomfield city, CO .................................................. 55,889
 Altoona city, IA ........................................................ 14,541 Brownsburg town, IN ............................................... 21,285
 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 19,454 Bryan city, TX .......................................................... 76,201
 Ames city, IA ........................................................... 58,965 Burien city, WA ........................................................ 33,313
 Andover CDP, MA....................................................... 8,762 Burleson city, TX ...................................................... 36,690
 Ankeny city, IA ........................................................ 45,582 Cabarrus County, NC ...............................................178,011
 Ann Arbor city, MI ...................................................113,934 Cambridge city, MA .................................................105,162
 Annapolis city, MD ................................................... 38,394 Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,057
 Apache Junction city, AZ........................................... 35,840 Cape Coral city, FL ..................................................154,305
 Apple Valley town, CA .............................................. 69,135 Cape Girardeau city, MO ........................................... 37,941
 Arapahoe County, CO ..............................................572,003 Carlisle borough, PA ................................................. 18,682
 Arkansas City city, AR.................................................... 366 Carlsbad city, CA .....................................................105,328
 Arlington city, TX ....................................................365,438 Carroll city, IA .......................................................... 10,103
 Arlington County, VA ...............................................207,627 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 19,731
 Arvada city, CO .......................................................106,433 Cary town, NC ........................................................135,234
 Asheville city, NC ..................................................... 83,393 Casa Grande city, AZ ................................................ 48,571
 Ashland city, OR ...................................................... 20,078 Casper city, WY ....................................................... 55,316
 Ashland town, VA....................................................... 7,225 Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366
 Aspen city, CO ........................................................... 6,658 Castle Pines North city, CO ....................................... 10,360
 Auburn city, AL ........................................................ 53,380 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 48,231
 Auburn city, WA ....................................................... 70,180 Centennial city, CO..................................................100,377
 Augusta CCD, GA ....................................................134,777 Centralia city, IL ...................................................... 13,032
 Aurora city, CO .......................................................325,078 Chambersburg borough, PA ...................................... 20,268
 Austin city, TX ........................................................790,390 Chandler city, AZ ....................................................236,123
 Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,025 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 22,952
 Baltimore city, MD...................................................620,961 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 57,233
 Bartonville town, TX ................................................... 1,469 Charlotte city, NC ....................................................731,424
 Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 52,347 Charlotte County, FL ...............................................159,978
 Bay City city, MI....................................................... 34,932 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 43,475
 Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 71,802 Chattanooga city, TN...............................................167,674
 Bedford city, TX ....................................................... 46,979 Chesterfield County, VA ...........................................316,236
 Bedford town, MA .................................................... 13,320 Chippewa Falls city, WI ............................................ 13,661
 Bellevue city, WA ....................................................122,363 Citrus Heights city, CA .............................................. 83,301
 Bellingham city, WA ................................................. 80,885 Clackamas County, OR ............................................375,992
 Beltrami County, MN ................................................ 44,442 Clarendon Hills village, IL ........................................... 8,427
 Benbrook city, TX..................................................... 21,234 Clayton city, MO ...................................................... 15,939
 Bend city, OR........................................................... 76,639 Clearwater city, FL ..................................................107,685
 Benicia city, CA ........................................................ 26,997 Cleveland Heights city, OH ....................................... 46,121
 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 33,217 Clive city, IA ............................................................ 15,447
 Billings city, MT .......................................................104,170 Clovis city, CA .......................................................... 95,631
 Blaine city, MN ......................................................... 57,186 College Park city, MD ............................................... 30,413
 Bloomfield Hills city, MI .............................................. 3,869 College Station city, TX ............................................ 93,857
 Bloomington city, MN ............................................... 82,893 Colleyville city, TX .................................................... 22,807
 Blue Springs city, MO ............................................... 52,575 Collinsville city, IL .................................................... 25,579
 Boise City city, ID ...................................................205,671 Columbia city, MO ...................................................108,500
 Boone County, KY ...................................................118,811 Columbia city, SC ....................................................129,272
 Boulder city, CO ....................................................... 97,385 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 4,688
 Bowling Green city, KY ............................................. 58,067 Columbus city, WI ...................................................... 4,991
 Brentwood city, MO.................................................... 8,055 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 45,913




 23
 The National Citizen Survey™
Concord city, CA .....................................................122,067 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 62,487
Concord town, MA.................................................... 17,668 Fredericksburg city, VA ............................................. 24,286
Cookeville city, TN ................................................... 30,435 Fremont city, CA .....................................................214,089
Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 61,476 Friendswood city, TX ................................................ 35,805
Copperas Cove city, TX............................................. 32,032 Fruita city, CO.......................................................... 12,646
Coronado city, CA .................................................... 18,912 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 33,248
Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 54,462 Gaithersburg city, MD............................................... 59,933
Creve Coeur city, MO ............................................... 17,833 Galveston city, TX .................................................... 47,743
Cross Roads town, TX ................................................ 1,563 Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 19,123
Crystal Lake city, IL .................................................. 40,743 Geneva city, NY ....................................................... 13,261
Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,152 Georgetown city, TX ................................................. 47,400
Dade City city, FL ....................................................... 6,437 Gilbert town, AZ ......................................................208,453
Dakota County, MN .................................................398,552 Gillette city, WY ....................................................... 29,087
Dallas city, OR ......................................................... 14,583 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 50,073
Dallas city, TX ...................................................... 1,197,816 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 44,692
Danville city, KY ....................................................... 16,218 Globe city, AZ ............................................................ 7,532
Dardenne Prairie city, MO ......................................... 11,494 Golden Valley city, MN.............................................. 20,371
Davenport city, IA .................................................... 99,685 Goodyear city, AZ .................................................... 65,275
Davidson town, NC................................................... 10,944 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,459
Dayton city, OH ......................................................141,527 Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 8,276
Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 19,335 Grand Island city, NE ............................................... 48,520
Del Mar city, CA ......................................................... 4,161 Grass Valley city, CA ................................................ 12,860
Delray Beach city, FL ................................................ 60,522 Greeley city, CO ....................................................... 92,889
Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682 Green Valley CDP, AZ ............................................... 21,391
Denton city, TX .......................................................113,383 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 84,554
Denver city, CO.......................................................600,158 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171
Derby city, KS .......................................................... 22,158 Greenwood Village city, CO....................................... 13,925
Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,373 Greer city, SC .......................................................... 25,515
Destin city, FL .......................................................... 12,305 Guilford County, NC ................................................488,406
Dorchester County, MD ............................................ 32,618 Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 15,324
Dothan city, AL ........................................................ 65,496 Gurnee village, IL..................................................... 31,295
Douglas County, CO ................................................285,465 Hailey city, ID ............................................................ 7,960
Dover city, NH ......................................................... 29,987 Haines Borough, AK ................................................... 2,508
Dublin city, CA ......................................................... 46,036 Hallandale Beach city, FL .......................................... 37,113
Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,265 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,477
Duncanville city, TX .................................................. 38,524 Hanover County, VA ................................................. 99,863
Durham city, NC .....................................................228,330 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 48,914
Eagle town, CO .......................................................... 6,508 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,019
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ....................................440,171 Hayward city, CA ....................................................144,186
East Grand Forks city, MN .......................................... 8,601 Henderson city, NV .................................................257,729
East Lansing city, MI ................................................ 48,579 Herndon town, VA .................................................... 23,292
Eau Claire city, WI ................................................... 65,883 High Point city, NC ..................................................104,371
Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 60,797 Highland Park city, IL ............................................... 29,763
Edgerton city, KS ....................................................... 1,671 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ........................................ 96,713
Edgewater city, CO .................................................... 5,170 Hillsborough town, NC ................................................ 6,087
Edina city, MN ......................................................... 47,941 Holland city, MI........................................................ 33,051
Edmond city, OK ...................................................... 81,405 Honolulu County, HI ................................................953,207
Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 39,709 Hooksett town, NH ................................................... 13,451
El Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 23,549 Hopkins city, MN ...................................................... 17,591
El Dorado County, CA ..............................................181,058 Hopkinton town, MA................................................. 14,925
El Paso city, TX .......................................................649,121 Hoquiam city, WA ...................................................... 8,726
Elk Grove city, CA ...................................................153,015 Horry County, SC ....................................................269,291
Elk River city, MN ..................................................... 22,974 Hudson city, OH ....................................................... 22,262
Elko New Market city, MN ........................................... 4,110 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356
Elmhurst city, IL....................................................... 44,121 Hudsonville city, MI .................................................... 7,116
Encinitas city, CA ..................................................... 59,518 Huntersville town, NC ............................................... 46,773
Englewood city, CO .................................................. 30,255 Hurst city, TX........................................................... 37,337
Erie town, CO .......................................................... 18,135 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 14,178
Escambia County, FL ...............................................297,619 Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 14,698
Estes Park town, CO................................................... 5,858 Hyattsville city, MD .................................................. 17,557
Fairview town, TX ...................................................... 7,248 Independence city, MO............................................116,830
Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 79,740 Indian Trail town, NC ............................................... 33,518
Fayetteville city, NC.................................................200,564 Indianola city, IA ..................................................... 14,782
Fishers town, IN ...................................................... 76,794 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862
Flower Mound town, TX............................................ 64,669 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 30,434
Forest Grove city, OR ............................................... 21,083 Jackson County, MI .................................................160,248
Fort Collins city, CO .................................................143,986 James City County, VA ............................................. 67,009
Fort Smith city, AR ................................................... 86,209 Jefferson City city, MO ............................................. 43,079
Fort Worth city, TX..................................................741,206 Jefferson County, CO ..............................................534,543
Fountain Hills town, AZ ............................................ 22,489 Jefferson County, NY...............................................116,229


 24
 The National Citizen Survey™
Jerome city, ID ........................................................ 10,890 McMinnville city, OR ................................................. 32,187
Johnson City city, TN................................................ 63,152 Medford city, OR ...................................................... 74,907
Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 17,278 Menlo Park city, CA .................................................. 32,026
Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 55,156 Mercer Island city, WA ............................................. 22,699
Kalamazoo city, MI ................................................... 74,262 Meridian charter township, MI .................................. 39,688
Kansas City city, KS .................................................145,786 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 75,092
Kansas City city, MO................................................459,787 Merriam city, KS....................................................... 11,003
Keizer city, OR ......................................................... 36,478 Mesa County, CO ....................................................146,723
Kenmore city, WA .................................................... 20,460 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 87,779
Kennedale city, TX ..................................................... 6,763 Miami city, FL .........................................................399,457
Kennett Square borough, PA ....................................... 6,072 Middleton city, WI .................................................... 17,442
Kettering city, OH .................................................... 56,163 Midland city, MI ....................................................... 41,863
Key West city, FL ..................................................... 24,649 Milford city, DE .......................................................... 9,559
King County, WA .................................................. 1,931,249 Milton city, GA ......................................................... 32,661
Kirkland city, WA...................................................... 48,787 Minneapolis city, MN ...............................................382,578
Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,540 Mission Viejo city, CA ............................................... 93,305
Knoxville city, IA ........................................................ 7,313 Modesto city, CA .....................................................201,165
La Mesa city, CA ...................................................... 57,065 Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810
La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753 Montgomery County, VA ........................................... 94,392
La Porte city, TX ...................................................... 33,800 Monticello city, UT ..................................................... 1,972
La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 15,758 Monument town, CO .................................................. 5,530
Lafayette city, CO .................................................... 24,453 Mooresville town, NC ................................................ 32,711
Laguna Beach city, CA .............................................. 22,723 Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,137
Laguna Hills city, CA................................................. 30,344 Morrisville town, NC ................................................. 18,576
Laguna Niguel city, CA ............................................. 62,979 Moscow city, ID ....................................................... 23,800
Lake Oswego city, OR .............................................. 36,619 Mountain Village town, CO.......................................... 1,320
Lake Stevens city, WA .............................................. 28,069 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ...................................... 19,909
Lake Worth city, FL .................................................. 34,910 Muscatine city, IA .................................................... 22,886
Lake Zurich village, IL .............................................. 19,631 Naperville city, IL ....................................................141,853
Lakeville city, MN ..................................................... 55,954 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 28,886
Lakewood city, CO ..................................................142,980 New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 57,740
Lakewood city, WA................................................... 58,163 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 21,456
Lane County, OR .....................................................351,715 New Hanover County, NC ........................................202,667
Larimer County, CO .................................................299,630 New Orleans city, LA ...............................................343,829
Las Cruces city, NM .................................................. 97,618 New Smyrna Beach city, FL ...................................... 22,464
Las Vegas city, NV ..................................................583,756 Newberg city, OR ..................................................... 22,068
Lawrence city, KS..................................................... 87,643 Newport Beach city, CA ............................................ 85,186
League City city, TX ................................................. 83,560 Newport News city, VA ............................................180,719
Lee's Summit city, MO .............................................. 91,364 Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,254
Lehi city, UT ............................................................ 47,407 Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 51,969
Lenexa city, KS ........................................................ 48,190 Nogales city, AZ ....................................................... 20,837
Lewis County, NY ..................................................... 27,087 Norfolk city, VA .......................................................242,803
Lewisville city, TX ..................................................... 95,290 North Richland Hills city, TX ...................................... 63,343
Libertyville village, IL................................................ 20,315 Northglenn city, CO .................................................. 35,789
Lincoln city, NE .......................................................258,379 Novato city, CA ........................................................ 51,904
Lindsborg city, KS ...................................................... 3,458 Novi city, MI ............................................................ 55,224
Littleton city, CO ...................................................... 41,737 O'Fallon city, IL ........................................................ 28,281
Livermore city, CA .................................................... 80,968 O'Fallon city, MO ...................................................... 79,329
Lombard village, IL .................................................. 43,165 Oak Park village, IL .................................................. 51,878
Lone Tree city, CO ................................................... 10,218 Oakland city, CA .....................................................390,724
Long Grove village, IL ................................................ 8,043 Oakland Park city, FL ............................................... 41,363
Longmont city, CO ................................................... 86,270 Oakley city, CA ........................................................ 35,432
Longview city, TX ..................................................... 80,455 Ogdensburg city, NY ................................................ 11,128
Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 17,950 Oklahoma City city, OK ............................................579,999
Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376 Olathe city, KS ........................................................125,872
Lynchburg city, VA ................................................... 75,568 Old Town city, ME ...................................................... 7,840
Lynnwood city, WA .................................................. 35,836 Olmsted County, MN ...............................................144,248
Macomb County, MI ................................................840,978 Olympia city, WA ..................................................... 46,478
Madison city, WI .....................................................233,209 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 56,767
Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,135 Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,083
Mankato city, MN ..................................................... 39,309 Oshtemo charter township, MI .................................. 21,705
Maple Grove city, MN ............................................... 61,567 Otsego County, MI ................................................... 24,164
Maple Valley city, WA ............................................... 22,684 Overland Park city, KS .............................................173,372
Maricopa County, AZ ............................................ 3,817,117 Oviedo city, FL ......................................................... 33,342
Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 35,824 Paducah city, KY ...................................................... 25,024
Maryland Heights city, MO ........................................ 27,472 Palm Coast city, FL................................................... 75,180
Matthews town, NC .................................................. 27,198 Palo Alto city, CA ..................................................... 64,403
McAllen city, TX ......................................................129,877 Papillion city, NE ...................................................... 18,894
McDonough city, GA ................................................. 22,084 Park City city, UT ....................................................... 7,558
McKinney city, TX....................................................131,117 Parker town, CO ...................................................... 45,297


 25
 The National Citizen Survey™
Parkland city, FL ...................................................... 23,962 San Marcos city, TX.................................................. 44,894
Pasadena city, CA ...................................................137,122 San Rafael city, CA ................................................... 57,713
Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 59,781 Sandy Springs city, GA ............................................. 93,853
Pasco County, FL ....................................................464,697 Sanford city, FL........................................................ 53,570
Pearland city, TX ...................................................... 91,252 Sangamon County, IL ..............................................197,465
Peoria city, AZ ........................................................154,065 Santa Clarita city, CA ...............................................176,320
Peoria city, IL .........................................................115,007 Santa Fe County, NM ..............................................144,170
Peoria County, IL ....................................................186,494 Santa Monica city, CA ............................................... 89,736
Petoskey city, MI ....................................................... 5,670 Sarasota County, FL ................................................379,448
Pflugerville city, TX .................................................. 46,936 Savage city, MN ....................................................... 26,911
Phoenix city, AZ ................................................... 1,445,632 Scarborough CDP, ME ................................................ 4,403
Pinal County, AZ .....................................................375,770 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................. 74,227
Pinehurst village, NC ................................................ 13,124 Scott County, MN ....................................................129,928
Piqua city, OH .......................................................... 20,522 Scottsdale city, AZ ..................................................217,385
Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,148 Seaside city, CA ....................................................... 33,025
Plano city, TX .........................................................259,841 SeaTac city, WA ....................................................... 26,909
Platte City city, MO..................................................... 4,691 Sevierville city, TN ................................................... 14,807
Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 70,576 Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 62,209
Pocatello city, ID ...................................................... 54,255 Sheboygan city, WI .................................................. 49,288
Polk County, IA .......................................................430,640 Shoreview city, MN .................................................. 25,043
Pompano Beach city, FL ........................................... 99,845 Shorewood city, MN ................................................... 7,307
Port Huron city, MI................................................... 30,184 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 15,615
Port Orange city, FL ................................................. 56,048 Shorewood village, WI ............................................. 13,162
Portland city, OR .....................................................583,776 Sioux Center city, IA .................................................. 7,048
Post Falls city, ID ..................................................... 27,574 Sioux Falls city, SD ..................................................153,888
Prince William County, VA........................................402,002 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,784
Prior Lake city, MN ................................................... 22,796 Snellville city, GA ..................................................... 18,242
Provo city, UT .........................................................112,488 Snowmass Village town, CO........................................ 2,826
Pueblo city, CO .......................................................106,595 South Kingstown town, RI ........................................ 30,639
Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 7,727 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................................ 21,403
Queen Creek town, AZ ............................................. 26,361 South Portland city, ME ............................................ 25,002
Radnor township, PA ................................................ 31,531 Southborough town, MA ............................................. 9,767
Ramsey city, MN ...................................................... 23,668 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575
Rapid City city, SD ................................................... 67,956 Sparks city, NV ........................................................ 90,264
Raymore city, MO .................................................... 19,206 Spokane Valley city, WA ........................................... 89,755
Redmond city, WA ................................................... 54,144 Spring Hill city, KS...................................................... 5,437
Rehoboth Beach city, DE ............................................ 1,327 Springboro city, OH .................................................. 17,409
Reno city, NV ..........................................................225,221 Springfield city, MO .................................................159,498
Reston CDP, VA ....................................................... 58,404 Springfield city, OR .................................................. 59,403
Richmond city, CA ...................................................103,701 Springville city, UT ................................................... 29,466
Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,603 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,974
Rifle city, CO.............................................................. 9,172 St. Cloud city, FL ...................................................... 35,183
Rio Rancho city, NM ................................................. 87,521 St. Cloud city, MN .................................................... 65,842
River Falls city, WI ................................................... 15,000 St. Joseph city, MO .................................................. 76,780
Riverdale city, UT ....................................................... 8,426 St. Louis County, MN ...............................................200,226
Riverside city, CA ....................................................303,871 St. Louis Park city, MN ............................................. 45,250
Riverside city, MO ...................................................... 2,937 Stallings town, NC .................................................... 13,831
Rochester Hills city, MI ............................................. 70,995 State College borough, PA ........................................ 42,034
Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154 Steamboat Springs city, CO ...................................... 12,088
Rockford city, IL .....................................................152,871 Sterling Heights city, MI ..........................................129,699
Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 61,209 Sugar Grove village, IL ............................................... 8,997
Rogers city, MN ......................................................... 8,597 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817
Rolla city, MO .......................................................... 19,559 Summit city, NJ........................................................ 21,457
Roselle village, IL ..................................................... 22,763 Summit County, UT .................................................. 36,324
Rosemount city, MN ................................................. 21,874 Sunnyvale city, CA ..................................................140,081
Roseville city, MN ..................................................... 33,660 Surprise city, AZ......................................................117,517
Roswell city, GA ....................................................... 88,346 Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 15,355
Round Rock city, TX ................................................. 99,887 Tacoma city, WA .....................................................198,397
Royal Oak city, MI .................................................... 57,236 Takoma Park city, MD .............................................. 16,715
Saco city, ME ........................................................... 18,482 Tamarac city, FL ...................................................... 60,427
Sahuarita town, AZ .................................................. 25,259 Temecula city, CA ...................................................100,097
Sammamish city, WA ............................................... 45,780 Tempe city, AZ .......................................................161,719
San Anselmo town, CA ............................................. 12,336 Temple city, TX ........................................................ 66,102
San Antonio city, TX ............................................. 1,327,407 The Woodlands CDP, TX ........................................... 93,847
San Carlos city, CA ................................................... 28,406 Thornton city, CO....................................................118,772
San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,307,402 Thousand Oaks city, CA ...........................................126,683
San Francisco city, CA .............................................805,235 Tigard city, OR......................................................... 48,035
San Jose city, CA ....................................................945,942 Tracy city, CA .......................................................... 82,922
San Juan County, NM ..............................................130,044 Tualatin city, OR ...................................................... 26,054
San Marcos city, CA ................................................. 83,781 Tulsa city, OK .........................................................391,906


 26
 The National Citizen Survey™
Twin Falls city, ID .................................................... 44,125 Western Springs village, IL ....................................... 12,975
Tyler city, TX ........................................................... 96,900 Westerville city, OH .................................................. 36,120
Umatilla city, OR ........................................................ 6,906 Westlake town, TX ........................................................ 992
Upper Arlington city, OH ........................................... 33,771 Westminster city, CO ...............................................106,114
Urbandale city, IA .................................................... 39,463 Weston town, MA..................................................... 11,261
Vail town, CO............................................................. 5,305 Wheat Ridge city, CO ............................................... 30,166
Vancouver city, WA .................................................161,791 White House city, TN ............................................... 10,255
Vestavia Hills city, AL ............................................... 34,033 Wichita city, KS .......................................................382,368
Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 7,345 Williamsburg city, VA................................................ 14,068
Virginia Beach city, VA.............................................437,994 Wilmington city, NC.................................................106,476
Wake Forest town, NC.............................................. 30,117 Wilsonville city, OR................................................... 19,509
Walnut Creek city, CA............................................... 64,173 Winchester city, VA .................................................. 26,203
Washington County, MN ..........................................238,136 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 18,644
Washington town, NH ................................................ 1,123 Windsor town, CT .................................................... 29,044
Washoe County, NV ................................................421,407 Winnetka village, IL ................................................. 12,187
Watauga city, TX ..................................................... 23,497 Winston-Salem city, NC ...........................................229,617
Wauwatosa city, WI ................................................. 46,396 Winter Garden city, FL.............................................. 34,568
Waverly city, IA ......................................................... 9,874 Woodbury city, MN................................................... 61,961
Weddington town, NC ................................................ 9,459 Woodland city, CA .................................................... 55,468
Wentzville city, MO................................................... 29,070 Woodland city, WA ..................................................... 5,509
West Carrollton city, OH ........................................... 13,143 Wrentham town, MA ................................................ 10,955
West Chester borough, PA ........................................ 18,461 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067
West Des Moines city, IA .......................................... 56,609 York County, VA....................................................... 65,464
West Richland city, WA............................................. 11,811 Yorktown town, IN ..................................................... 9,405




 27
 The National Citizen Survey™

Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods
The National Citizen Survey (The NCS™), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide
communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local
topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and
each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS.

Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities,
services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting,
land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit
comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The Village of
Skokie funded this research. Please contact Ann Tennes of the Skokie office at ann.tennes@skokie.org address if
you have any questions about the survey.

Survey Validity
The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those
who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey
been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect
what residents really believe or do?

To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that
the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices
include:

 Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same
 dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those
 who did respond.
 Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households
 selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community.
 Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger
 apartment dwellers.
 Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the
 “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household
 be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth.
 Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different
 opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt.
 Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible
 leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility.
 Providing a pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelope.
 Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community.
 Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population.

The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what
residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors.
For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for service quality play a role as well as the “objective”
quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which
the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the
opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s report of certain behaviors is colored
by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed
groups,” likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to
work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question
speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering
any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself.

How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the
coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to
behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality

 28
 The National Citizen Survey™
with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a
body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual
behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with
great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported
behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned
activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the
respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be.

Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality
vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents
who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than
those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair
employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire
services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and
training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure
on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash
haul is lousy, you still have a problem.”

Survey Sampling
“Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the
Village of Skokie were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving
Skokie was purchased based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes
that serve the Village of Skokie households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact
geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current
municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the Village of Skokie
boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within Village boundaries was
further identified as being within one of three different zip codes.

To choose the 1,400 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households
previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all
possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of
selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units were over sampled
as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family
housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. In general, because of the
random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit
density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in
selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units
might be sampled at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that).

An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a
person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the
questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people
respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.




 29
 The National Citizen Survey™
Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients




 30
 The National Citizen Survey™
Survey Administration and Response
Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on November 4th, 2015. The first mailing
was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the
Mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing
contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked
those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in
another survey. Respondents could opt to take the survey online as well. Completed surveys were collected over
the following eight weeks.

About 2% of the 1,400 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was
unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 1,374 households that received the survey, 388
completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 28%. Of the 388 completed surveys 31 were completed
online. Additionally, responses were tracked by zip code; response rates by zip code ranged from 26% to 34%.

Table 73: Survey Response Rates by Zip Code
 Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate
Zip Code 60076 571 7 564 167 30%
Zip Code 60077 736 18 718 190 26%
Zip Code 60203 93 1 92 31 34%
Overall 1,400 26 1,374 388 28%

Confidence Intervals
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and
accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here,
is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey
results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.1

The margin of error for the Village of Skokie survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around
any given percent reported for the entire sample (388 completed surveys).

For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For
subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points.

Survey Processing (Data Entry)
Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was
reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out
of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two
of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset.

All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to
the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed.

Survey Data Weighting
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and
American Community Survey estimates for adults in the Village of Skokie. The primary objective of weighting
survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics
used for weighting were housing tenure, housing unit type, sex and age and zip code. The results of the weighting
scheme are presented in the following table.



1
  A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will
include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies
within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the
4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71%
and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey,
including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys,
differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results.

 31
 The National Citizen Survey™
Table 74: Skokie, IL 2015 Weighting Table

Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing
Rent home 28% 15% 26%
Own home 72% 85% 74%
Detached unit 57% 63% 58%
Attached unit 43% 37% 42%
Race and Ethnicity
White 62% 72% 62%
Not white 38% 28% 38%
Not Hispanic 92% 95% 94%
Hispanic 8% 5% 6%
Sex and Age
Female 54% 58% 55%
Male 46% 42% 45%
18-34 years of age 25% 7% 22%
35-54 years of age 35% 25% 34%
55+ years of age 40% 68% 43%
Females 18-34 12% 5% 12%
Females 35-54 19% 15% 19%
Females 55+ 23% 39% 24%
Males 18-34 12% 2% 11%
Males 35-54 16% 10% 16%
Males 55+ 18% 30% 19%
Zip Code
Zip 60076 43% 43% 42%
Zip 60077 49% 49% 52%
Zip 60203 8% 8% 6%




Survey Data Analysis and Reporting
The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part,
the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination
of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,”
“essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive
represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month.

On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents
giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been
removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses
from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.




 32
 The National Citizen Survey™

Appendix D: Survey Materials




 33
Dear Skokie Resident, Dear Skokie Resident,

It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!

Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey
about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days.

Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie! Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie!

Sincerely, Sincerely,




George Van Dusen George Van Dusen
Mayor Mayor




Dear Skokie Resident, Dear Skokie Resident,

It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference!

Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey
about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days.

Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie! Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie!

Sincerely, Sincerely,




George Van Dusen George Van Dusen
Mayor Mayor
5127 Oakton Street Presorted
 First Class Mail
 5127 Oakton Street Presorted
 First Class Mail
Skokie, IL 60077 US Postage Skokie, IL 60077 US Postage
 PAID PAID
 Boulder, CO Boulder, CO
 Permit NO. 94 Permit NO. 94




5127 Oakton Street Presorted
 First Class Mail
 5127 Oakton Street Presorted
 First Class Mail
Skokie, IL 60077 US Postage Skokie, IL 60077 US Postage
 PAID PAID
 Boulder, CO Boulder, CO
 Permit NO. 94 Permit NO. 94
 November 2015


 Dear Village of Skokie Resident:

 Please help us shape the future of Skokie! You have been selected at random to participate
 in the 2015 Skokie Citizen Survey.

 Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is
 very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of
 households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Skokie make decisions that affect our
 Village.

 A few things to remember:
  Your responses are completely anonymous.
  In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in
 your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey.
Mayor George Van Dusen
  You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or
Clerk Pramod C. Shah
Trustees Michele L. Bromberg
 you can complete the survey online at:
 Karen Gray-Keeler
 Ralph Klein www.n-r-c.com/survey/skokie.htm
 Randall E. Roberts
 Edie Sue Sutker
 Ilonka Ulrich If you have any questions about the survey please call 847-933-8210.
Manager John T. Lockerby
Counsel Michael M. Lorge
 Thank you for your time and participation!

 Sincerely,


All America City Finalist
American Public Works Association
(APWA) Accreditation
Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies George Van Dusen
(CALEA)
 Mayor
Commission on Fire Accreditation
International (CFAI)
Fitch IBCA AAA
Financial Bond Rating
Gold Level Clean Air Counts
Community
Governor’s Hometown Award
Government Finance Officers
Association Budget Award
Government Finance Officers
Association Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting
Illinois Law Enforcement
Accreditation (ILEAP)
Insurance Services Office (ISO)
Class One Fire Department
State of Illinois Certified Health
Department
Tree City U.S.A. Distinction
 November 2015


 Dear Village of Skokie Resident:

 Here’s a second chance if you haven’t already responded to the 2015 Skokie Citizen
 Survey! (If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you
 to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice.)

 Please help us shape the future of Skokie! You have been selected at random to participate
 in the 2015 Skokie Citizen Survey.

 Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is
 very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of
 households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Skokie make decisions that affect our
 Village.
Mayor George Van Dusen
 A few things to remember:
Clerk Pramod C. Shah
  Your responses are completely anonymous.
Trustees Michele L. Bromberg
 Karen Gray-Keeler  In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in
 Ralph Klein your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey.
 Randall E. Roberts
 Edie Sue Sutker  You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or
 Ilonka Ulrich you can complete the survey online at:
Manager John T. Lockerby
Counsel Michael M. Lorge
 www.n-r-c.com/survey/skokie2015.htm

 If you have any questions about the survey please call 847-933-8210.

 Thank you for your time and participation!
All America City Finalist
American Public Works Association Sincerely,
(APWA) Accreditation
Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies
(CALEA)
Commission on Fire Accreditation
International (CFAI)
Fitch IBCA AAA
Financial Bond Rating George Van Dusen
Gold Level Clean Air Counts Mayor
Community
Governor’s Hometown Award
Government Finance Officers
Association Budget Award
Government Finance Officers
Association Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting
Illinois Law Enforcement
Accreditation (ILEAP)
Insurance Services Office (ISO)
Class One Fire Department
State of Illinois Certified Health
Department
Tree City U.S.A. Distinction
The Village of Skokie 2015 Citizen Survey
Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a
birthday. The adult’s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box)
that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group
form only.
1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Skokie:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
 Skokie as a place to live...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Your neighborhood as a place to live................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie as a place to raise children ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie as a place to work ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie as a place to visit ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie as a place to retire ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 The overall quality of life in Skokie ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
 Overall sense of community ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall “built environment” of Skokie (including overall design,
 buildings, parks and transportation systems) .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall economic health of Skokie .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall feeling of safety in Skokie ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall image or reputation of Skokie ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following:
 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t
 likely likely unlikely unlikely know
 Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks ................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Remain in Skokie for the next five years................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel:
 Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t
 safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know
 In your neighborhood during the day................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
 In Skokie’s downtown area during the day ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
 In your neighborhood after dark .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
 In Skokie’s downtown area after dark ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
 Traffic flow on major streets .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Ease of public parking ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Ease of travel by car in Skokie ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Ease of walking in Skokie ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Availability of paths and walking trails .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Cleanliness of Skokie.......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall appearance of Skokie ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Public places where people want to spend time ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Variety of housing options ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Availability of affordable quality housing .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) .......... 1 2 3 4 5
 Recreational opportunities ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Availability of affordable quality health care ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Availability of preventive health services ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Ease of travel by train in Skokie ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Ease of travel by bus in Skokie ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5



Page 1 of 5
6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
 Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Employment opportunities ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Shopping opportunities ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Cost of living in Skokie ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie ....................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Vibrant downtown ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall quality of new development in Skokie .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Opportunities to volunteer ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Opportunities to participate in community matters .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of
 diverse backgrounds ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Neighborliness of residents in Skokie ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.
 No Yes
 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Skokie (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) .......................................1 2
 Household member was a victim of a crime in Skokie ............................................................................................1 2
 Reported a crime to the police in Skokie .................................................................................................................1 2
 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency ..................................................................................................1 2
 Contacted the Village of Skokie (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information.....................................1 2
 Paid a cable television bill ........................................................................................................................................1 2
 Accessed the internet from a home computer..........................................................................................................1 2
8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the
 following in Skokie?
 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not
 week or more a month or less at all
 Used Skokie recreation centers or their services ................................................................ 1 2 3 4
 Visited a neighborhood park or Village park..................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Used Skokie Public Library or its services ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Attended a Village-sponsored event .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4
 Used bus, rail, or other public transportation instead of driving ....................................... 1 2 3 4
 Walked or biked instead of driving .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie .................................................. 1 2 3 4




 The National Citizen Survey™ • © 2001-2015 National Research Center, Inc.
 Read NewSkokie newsletter ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Visited www.skokie.org ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Listened to 1660 AM Skokie radio station ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Visited Downtown Skokie .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4
 Ridden a Senior Transportation for Area Residents (STAR) bus ..................................... 1 2 3 4
 Called or emailed the Village for yard waste collection ..................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Visited the Skokie Farmers’ Market ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
9. Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like the Skokie Village Board, or a meeting of
 one of the Village’s advisory boards/commissions, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at
 all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting?
 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not
 week or more a month or less at all
 Attended a local public meeting ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4
 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ................................................... 1 2 3 4




 Page 2 of 5
The Village of Skokie 2015 Citizen Survey
10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
 Police services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Fire services ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Ambulance or emergency medical services ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Crime prevention ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Fire prevention and education ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Traffic enforcement ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Street repair ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Street cleaning ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Street lighting ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Snow removal .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Sidewalk maintenance ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Traffic signal timing ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Garbage collection ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Recycling ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Yard waste pick-up ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Storm drainage .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Drinking water ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Sewer services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Electric utility service ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Village parks ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Land use, planning and zoning .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Animal control ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Economic development ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie Health Department services ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Public library services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Public information services ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Cable television services ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for
 natural disasters or other emergency situations) ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Village-sponsored special events ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie’s Backlot Bash ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie Farmers’ Market ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Administrative hearings (parking or code violations) ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Sidewalk snow plowing ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Alley maintenance ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Obtaining a building permit .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Public information – NewSkokie municipal newsletter ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Public information – www.skokie.org municipal website ................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Public information – Village of Skokie electronic newsletter ............................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Shop Local Skokie Facebook page..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Skokie Police Department Facebook page ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall competence of Police Department employees ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Police officers’ attitudes and behaviors towards citizens .................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Fire prevention – code enforcement .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Fire prevention – public education .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Senior Transportation (STAR) bus service ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following?
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
 The Village of Skokie ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 The Federal Government .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 State of Illinois ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Cook County ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5


Page 3 of 5
12. Please rate the following categories of Skokie government performance:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
 The value of services for the taxes paid to Skokie .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 The overall direction that Skokie is taking ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Overall confidence in Skokie government ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Being honest....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Treating all residents fairly ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
13. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Skokie community to focus on each of the following
 in the coming two years:
 Very Somewhat Not at all
 Essential important important important
 Sense of community ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................................ 1 2 3 4
 Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie .............................................................. 1 2 3 4
 Overall “built environment” of Skokie (including overall design,
 buildings, parks and transportation systems) ................................................................. 1 2 3 4
 Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie...................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Overall economic health of Skokie .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Overall feeling of safety in Skokie ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
14. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Village to invest in each of the following community
 programs to increase the sense of community in Skokie:
 Very Somewhat Not at all
 Essential important important important
 Increased/improved neighborhood watch groups ............................................................. 1 2 3 4
 Opportunities to get to know your neighbors .................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Block parties ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Neighborhood clean-up events ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Learning about diverse perspectives, including races and cultures .................................... 1 2 3 4
15. How much do you support or oppose Village investment in each of the following?
 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
 support support oppose oppose
 Additional street lighting on residential east-west streets ................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Additional street lighting on Crawford Avenue ................................................................. 1 2 3 4




 The National Citizen Survey™ • © 2001-2015 National Research Center, Inc.
 Additional street lighting in alleys ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
 Additional street lighting on the multi-use path from Dempster Street
 south to the Village limit ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4
 Cameras in public areas ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4
16. Please indicate the impact, if any, each of the following would have on the amount you recycle from home each
 week. Would you recycle much more, somewhat more, or would you not recycle more?
 Much Somewhat Would not
 more more recycle more
 Better understanding of what materials can be recycled........................................................................ 1 2 3
 Better understanding of how to prepare materials for recycling ............................................................ 1 2 3
 More indoor space to collect recyclable materials ................................................................................. 1 2 3
 Larger outdoor recycling container ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3
 Assistance from a friend or neighbor to move the recycling container to and from curb ...................... 1 2 3
17. Is there a community issue or concern to you that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain.

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________




 Page 4 of 5
The Village of Skokie 2015 Citizen Survey
Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are
completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only.
D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could?
 Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
 Recycle at home ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie ........................ 1 2 3 4 5
 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ................... 1 2 3 4 5
 Vote in local elections..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
D2. Would you say that in general your health is:
  Excellent  Very good  Good  Fair  Poor
D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you
 think the impact will be:
  Very positive  Somewhat positive  Neutral  Somewhat negative  Very negative
D4. What is your employment status? D12. How much do you anticipate your household’s
  Working full time for pay total income before taxes will be for the current
  Working part time for pay year? (Please include in your total income money
  Unemployed, looking for paid work from all sources for all persons living in your
  Unemployed, not looking for paid work household.)
  Fully retired  Less than $25,000
D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Skokie?  $25,000 to $49,999
  Yes, outside the home  $50,000 to $99,999
  Yes, from home  $100,000 to $149,999
  No  $150,000 or more

D6. How many years have you lived in Skokie? Please respond to both questions D13 and D14:
  Less than 2 years  11-20 years D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?
  2-5 years  More than 20 years  No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino
  6-10 years  Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic
D7. Which best describes the building you live in? or Latino
  One family house detached from any other houses
 D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races
  Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome,
 to indicate what race you consider yourself
 apartment or condominium)
 to be.)
  Mobile home
  American Indian or Alaskan Native
  Other
  Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander
D8. Is this house, apartment...  Black or African American
  Rented  White
  Owned  Other
D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost D15. In which category is your age?
 for the place you live (including rent, mortgage  18-24 years  55-64 years
 payment, property tax, property insurance and  25-34 years  65-74 years
 homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)?  35-44 years  75 years or older
  Less than $300 per month  45-54 years
  $300 to $599 per month
 D16. What is your sex?
  $600 to $999 per month
  Female  Male
  $1,000 to $1,499 per month
  $1,500 to $2,499 per month D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your
  $2,500 or more per month primary telephone number?
  Cell  Land line  Both
D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your
 household?
  No  Yes
D11. Are you or any other members of your household Thank you for completing this survey. Please
 aged 65 or older? return the completed survey in the postage-paid
  No  Yes envelope to: National Research Center, Inc.,
 PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502

Page 5 of 5
 Presorted
5127 Oakton Street First Class Mail
Skokie, IL 60077 US Postage
 PAID
 Boulder, CO
 Permit NO.94
 A
 MML: 3/7/16
 *3/21/16


 THIS ORDINANCE MAY BE CITED AS
 VILLAGE ORDINANCE NUMBER
 16-3-Z-


 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLAT OF DEDICATION FOR A
 PORTION OF TOUHY AVENUE ADJACENT TO 5201-5227 TOUHY
 AVENUE, SKOKIE, ILLINOIS IN A B2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

1 WHEREAS, the owner of the following described real property:

2 THE NORTH 50.00 FEET OF THE EAST 320.00 FEET OF LOT 14 IN COUNTY
3 CLERK’S DIVISION BEING THE NORTH 3 CHAINS OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
4 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH RANGE
5 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

6 Affected PINs: 10-33-101-014-0000, 10-33-101-015-0000

7 more commonly known as a portion of 5201-5227 Touhy Avenue, Skokie, Illinois
8 (hereinafter the “Subject Property”) in a B2 Commercial district, petitioned the Village of
9 Skokie for a dedication of the Subject Property, as depicted on the “Plat of Dedication“
10 dated February 5, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”; and

11 WHEREAS, while the Subject Property is currently being utilized as part of the
12 Touhy Avenue right of way, it abuts Laramie Avenue, a Village of Skokie public right of way.
13 The Subject Property measures 50.00 feet by 320.00 feet and is being made to dedicate it
14 as a public right of way, Touhy Avenue; and

15 WHEREAS, it is anticipated that once dedicated, the Village of Skokie will convey
16 the Subject Property to the State of Illinois, as Touhy Avenue is a State of Illinois right of
17 way; and

18 WHEREAS, the owner has made this dedication without a request for compensation;
19 and

20 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the request for the
21 dedication and recommended to the Mayor and Board of Trustees that the requested
22 dedication be approved as stated in his memorandum dated February 5, 2016; and

23 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees, at a public meeting duly held on
24 March 21, 2016 concurred in the aforesaid recommendation of the Director of Community
25 Development:

26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
27 Village of Skokie, Cook County, Illinois:


 Page 1 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#491897-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__5201-5227_Touhy.doc
1 Section 1: That the above stated Recitals are restated and incorporated as if
2 stated in full.

3 Section 2: That the dedication of the Subject Property, legally described above
4 and commonly known as 5201-5227 Touhy Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, in a B2 Commercial
5 district as depicted on the “Plat of Dedication”, dated February 5, 2016, be approved.

6 Section 3: That the Plat of Dedication, dated February 5, 2016, attached as
7 “Exhibit 1”, except as it may be revised subject to the approval of the Corporation Counsel
8 and the Village Manager or designee, be and the same is hereby accepted. The Plat shall
9 be recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Office.

10 Section 4: That a notice of the approval of this Ordinance incorporating the
11 conditions contained herein shall be executed by the owner of the property in writing and
12 duly recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Office.

13 Section 5: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
14 passage, approval and recordation as provided by law.
15 ADOPTED this day of March, 2016.
16
17
18 Ayes: Village Clerk
19 Nays:
20 Absent: Approved by me this
21 day of March, 2016.
22 Attested and filed in my office
23 this day of March, 2016.
24
25
26
27 Village Clerk Mayor, Village of Skokie
28
29
30
31




 Page 2 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#491897-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__5201-5227_Touhy.doc
 Exhibit 1




 Page 3 of 3
VOSDOCS-#491897-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__5201-5227_Touhy.doc
MML: 3/7/16 1st Reading
 B
 *3/21/16
LAND DISPOSITION


 THIS ORDINANCE MAY BE CITED AS
 VILLAGE ORDINANCE NUMBER
 16-3-P-


 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF 4933-57 DEMPSTER
 STREET AND 8734-38 BRONX AVENUE, SKOKIE, ILLINOIS, IN
 CONJUNCTION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF WEST
 DEMPSTER STREET, SKOKIE, ILLINOIS


 WHEREAS, the Village of Skokie (hereinafter “Village”) is a home rule
 municipality in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois (1970); and

 WHEREAS, as a home rule municipality, the Village has the authority to adopt
 ordinances pertaining to its government and affairs, the declaration of surplus
 property, the disposition of property and the protection of the public health, safety and
 welfare of its citizens; and

 WHEREAS, the Village is the owner of the real estate commonly known as
 4933-57 Dempster Street and 8734-38 Bronx Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, (hereinafter
 “Subject Property”); and

 WHEREAS, the Subject Property is in the West Dempster Tax Increment
 Finance Allocation District (hereinafter “TIF District”) and was acquired by the Village for
 the purpose of furthering the goals of the TIF District; and

 WHEREAS, the funds used to purchase the Subject Property were, and
 remain, a financial obligation of the TIF District; and

 WHEREAS, the Village received an offer to purchase the Subject Property from
 4945 Dempster, LLC, for the development of a 33,000 square foot national general
 merchandise retail store. The sale and anticipated development of the Subject Property
 will further the purpose of the TIF District, generate property and sales tax revenues,
 create employment and improve the aesthetics of the West Dempster Street area; and

 WHEREAS, the Village, in the exercise of its home rule powers, hereby
 approves the sale of the Subject Property to 4945 Dempster, LLC. The consideration
 and benefits to the Village in relation to the sale of the Subject Property are: (i) the
 purchase price of Two Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,650,000.00); (ii)
 the commitment from 4945 Dempster Street, LLC to develop the Subject Property in a
 certain manner, within a given timeframe, as referenced in the proposed Real Estate
 Sale Contract; (iii) the elimination of liability and maintenance costs or obligations that
 would be incurred by Skokie if the Subject Property was not developed; and (iv) tax and

 Page 1 of 11
VOSDOCS-#492003-v1-Ordinance__Land_Disposition__Sale_of_4933-57_Dempster_and_8734-38_Bronx_Ave_.doc
other economic benefits that will occur in the Village, attendant with the development of
the Subject Property; and

 WHEREAS, a copy of the Real Estate Sale Contract with 4945 Dempster, LLC is
attached hereto as Exhibit “1”; and

 WHEREAS, the Village Manager and Corporation Counsel recommended to the
Mayor and Board of Trustees that the Subject Property be sold to 4945 Dempster, LLC
and the Real Estate Sale Contract be approved, and the Mayor and Board of Trustees
concurred in the aforesaid recommendation; and

 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees have determined that (i) the
proposed development by 4945 Dempster, LLC is in the best interests of the Village,
and (ii) the Subject Property is not likely to be redeveloped independent of the proposal
by 4945 Dempster, LLC;

 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of
the Village of Skokie, Cook County, Illinois:
 Section 1: That the preambles to this Ordinance are hereby incorporated in
this Section 1 as if fully set forth herein.

 Section 2: That the property legally described above with the common
address of 4933-57 Dempster Street and 8734-38 Bronx Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, is
located within the Village of Skokie and within the West Dempster Tax Increment
Finance Allocation District.

 Section 3: That pursuant to its home rule authority and applicable statutes,
the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Skokie hereby find that it is no longer
necessary, appropriate, or in the best interest of the Village of Skokie that it retain the
real property, legally described above, and commonly known as 4933-57 Dempster
Street and 8734-38 Bronx Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, and that the sale and development
shall proceed according to the Real Estate Sale Contract between 4945 Dempster, LLC
and the Village, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”.

 Section 4: That the fee simple title to the Subject Property shall be transferred
for redevelopment or other valid municipal purposes.

 Section 5: That the Real Estate Sale Contract with 4945 Dempster, LLC is
hereby approved, subject to any revisions approved by the Village Manager and the
Corporation Counsel.

 Section 6: That the Village Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Real
Estate Sale Contract with 4945 Dempster, LLC and directed to proceed with the sale of
the Subject Property.

 Section 7: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form and in the Skokie Review on
 and as provided by law.



 Page 2 of 11
VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
 ADOPTED this day of March, 2016.

 Village Clerk
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
 Approved by me this day of
Attested and filed in my office this March, 2016.
 day of March, 2016; and
published in the Skokie Review according
to law on March , 2016 and Mayor, Village of Skokie
March , 2016.


Village Clerk




 Page 3 of 11
VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
 Exhibit 1


 REAL ESTATE SALE CONTRACT



The Parties and the Contract: 4945 Dempster LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, is the
purchaser (hereinafter "Purchaser"), and seller is the Village of Skokie, a municipal
corporation, (hereinafter "Seller") (hereinafter collectively "Parties"). This Real Estate Sale
Contract (hereinafter "Contract") has an effective date of ______________, 2016
(hereinafter “Effective Date”).

1. Real Estate: Seller agrees to convey to Purchaser the real estate legally described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference and all improvements thereon [to be
revised prior to second reading] (hereinafter "Subject Property"), which is commonly known as
4933-57 West Dempster Street, and 8734-38 Bronx Avenue, Skokie, Illinois. The Property
Identification Number included in this Contract is 10-21-202-042-0000 [to be revised prior to
second reading].

2. Fixtures and Personal Property: The Subject Property is vacant and improved only
with a paved surface.

3. Purchase Price: Purchaser agrees to purchase the Subject Property at a purchase price
(hereinafter "Purchase Price") of Two Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,650,000).

 a. Purchaser shall deposit Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) as earnest money
 (hereinafter "Earnest Money") with Chicago Title Insurance Company (hereinafter "Title
 Company") in a strict joint order escrow within seventy-two (72) hours of execution of the
 Contract. Should Purchaser fail to close the transaction for any reason other than the
 reasons allowed pursuant to the Contract, the Earnest Money shall be turned over and
 paid to Seller as liquidated damages and as Seller's sole remedy for any such failure.
 Should Seller default under the terms of this Contract and fail to close hereunder,
 Purchaser shall be entitled to a return of its Earnest Money, and, at Purchaser’s
 election, may seek specific performance hereof.

 b. At Closing, pursuant to Section 4, the Purchase Price shall be due in full, plus or
 minus credits and prorations, if any, and Earnest Money.

4. Closing: The closing of this transaction (hereinafter "Closing") shall be on the thirtieth (30th)
day following the expiration of the Approvals Period referenced in Section 6 below (hereinafter
"Closing Date"), or sooner if mutually agreeable to both Parties, at the Skokie office of Chicago Title
Insurance Company, provided title is shown to be good or is accepted by Purchaser. Closing costs
shall be paid as follows:

 a. Seller's Closing Costs. Seller shall pay (i) the base premium of the owner's title
 insurance policy required under Section 19; (ii) recording charges for any documents
 required to clear title, to the extent Seller is required to do so as provided in Section 17
 hereof; (iii) half of the closing fee charged by the Title Company.

 b. Purchaser's Closing Costs. Purchaser shall pay (i) the premium for any
 endorsements, including extended coverage, requested by Purchaser for the owner's title


 Page 4 of 11
VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
 insurance policy provided in Section 19; (ii) half of the closing fee charged by the Title
 Company; and (iii) the recording costs for warranty deed.

5. Inspection(s), Indemnification and Due Diligence: Purchaser shall have forty-five
(45) days from the Effective Date to perform inspections and due diligence on the Subject Property
(hereinafter "Due Diligence Period"). Purchaser, at Purchaser's expense, may perform any
inspections needed to satisfy due diligence, including but not limited to environmental. Seller shall
allow reasonable access to the Subject Property in order to allow Purchaser to perform any such
inspections. Purchaser agrees to indemnify the Seller, its agents and employees, and save them
from and indemnify the Seller for all costs, claims, suits, demands, and actions, including but not
limited to court costs and attorney's fees arising from or through or because of or in any way
connected with any inspections performed pursuant to this Contract. At any time within the Due
Diligence Period, Purchaser may elect to terminate the Contract. In the event Purchaser elects to
terminate this Contract, neither Party hereto shall have any further obligation or liability under this
Contract and the Earnest Money shall be returned to Purchaser.

6. Approvals Period: As used herein the term “Approvals Period” shall mean the ninety (90)
day period immediately following the last day of the Due Diligence Period. The Approvals Period
may be extended as set forth in this Section 6). Purchaser shall use the Approvals Period to secure
any and all necessary government approvals from Seller or any other governmental entity for the
intended use of the Subject Property outlined in Sections 14 and 15 (hereinafter “Government
Approvals”). If the Government Approvals have been applied for and have substantially proceeded
through the required process, but have not yet been granted at the end of the Approvals Period,
Purchaser may request an extension of the Approvals Period for an additional thirty (30) days in order
to obtain the Governmental Approvals. If the Government Approvals including but not limited to
zoning approvals or building permits are denied or have not been granted by the end of the
Approvals Period, Purchaser may elect to terminate this Contract. If this Contract is terminated,
neither Party hereto shall have any further obligation or liability under this Contract and the
Earnest Money shall be returned to Purchaser.

7. Delay of Closing: Purchaser may request a delay of the Closing Date for up to sixty
(60) days, for the purposes of scheduling accommodation. Purchaser understands and
agrees that the requested delay is not an extension of either the Approvals Period or the Due
Diligence Period referenced in Sections 5 and 6, respectively, and shall not have the right to
terminate the Contract, during a delay.

8. Possession: Possession shall be delivered to the Purchaser at the Closing.

9. Tax Prorations: The Parties understand and agree that the Subject Property holds an
exempt status, thus, no tax prorations will be required.

10. Real Estate Transfer Tax: The parties acknowledge that this transaction is exempt from
State of Illinois and Cook County real estate transfer tax pursuant to 35 ILCS 200/31-45(b) and the
Village of Skokie's Economic Development Tax.

11. Plat of Survey: Purchaser, at Purchaser’s expense, shall obtain a current ALTA plat of
survey which shall be sufficient to cause the Title Company to delete the survey exception from the
owner's title insurance policy required under Section 19 hereof. Seller shall bear the cost of any
revised survey.

12. Notices: All notices, demands or other communications required to be given under this
Contract shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served if personally served, sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested, or by facsimile transmission, with a copy sent first class mail on the date of
transmission. All notices shall be addressed to the party intended to be served. Until changed in
 Page 5 of 11
VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
the manner provided in the previous sentence, the addresses and facsimile numbers of the parties
shall be:

 If to Seller: If to Purchaser:
 Michael M. Lorge David J. Blitz
 Corporation Counsel BlitzLake Partners
 Village of Skokie 214 W Erie
 5127 Oakton Street Chicago, Illinois 60654
 Skokie, Illinois 60077 Facsimile No. (312) 396-1001
 Facsimile No. (847) 933-8200

 With copies to: With copies to:
 John T. Lockerby Michael Stein
 Village Manager 2201 Main Street
 Village of Skokie Evanston, IL 60202
 5127 Oakton Street Facsimile No. (847) 905-4040
 Skokie, IL 60077
 Facsimile No. (847) 933-8200

 Pramod Shah Michael Z. Margolies
 Village Clerk 2201 Main Street
 Village of Skokie Suite 101
 5127 Oakton Street Evanston, IL 60202
 Skokie, Illinois 60077 Facsimile No. (847) 556-0852
 Facsimile No. (847) 933-8200

13. Deed: Seller shall convey or cause to be conveyed to Purchaser good and merchantable
title to the Subject Property by a warranty deed in recordable form and a proper bill of sale, subject only
to the Permitted Exceptions described in Paragraph 19 hereof.

14. Environmental: Within five (5) business days following the execution hereof by Seller, Seller
shall deliver to Purchaser a copy of all environmental reports that Seller has in its possession relating
to the Subject Property. Seller represents to Purchaser that the Subject Property has received a No
Further Remediation letter (hereinafter "NFR") from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Seller represents that the Subject Property has been certified for commercial use provided any plan
for the Subject Property comports to the parameters set forth in the NFR. Seller has provided
Purchaser with a copy of said NFR issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and
Purchaser acknowledges receipt. Seller further represents that except as set forth in the NFR
or in any environmental report that Seller delivers to the Purchaser, Seller has no actual
knowledge of any underground storage tank, petroleum products or hazardous materials now
or previously located on the Subject Property.

15. Conditions to Purchaser's Obligation to Close: (a) It shall be a condition to
Purchaser's obligation to close that, on or prior to the closing, Purchaser shall have obtained
from the Village of Skokie all necessary zoning, building and other permits and approvals
for the construction of a 33,000 sq. foot national general merchandise retail store substantially
as shown on the Site Plan drawing attached hereto as Exhibit B (hereinafter “Drawing”).
Purchaser agrees that the design, aesthetics, plans and specifications for this development
shall conform to any and all applicable municipal design standards set forth by the Village of
Skokie. (b) The Seller has advised the Purchaser that a 33,000 square foot commercial
development substantially as shown on the Drawing may be constructed on the Subject
Property in compliance with existing zoning ordinances without requiring any special use
 Page 6 of 11
VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
permit or variance, and that with the completion of the Additional Parking set forth in
Paragraph 16 there is no need for off-site parking to satisfy parking requirements.
Purchaser acknowledges that it will be required to obtain all appropriate building permits
from the Seller. (c) Seller shall obtain the vacation of any existing dedicated right-of-way on
the Subject Property.

16. Condition to Seller's Obligation to Close: It is expressly understood between the
Parties that the Subject Property is to be developed for and will be occupied by a national
general merchandise retail operation (hereinafter “Operator”). Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in this Contract, it shall be a condition to Seller's obligation to close that
at least thirty (30) days prior to the closing, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller a copy of an
executed letter of intent (hereinafter “LOI”) between Purchaser and an Operator, stating that the
Operator will occupy approximately 33,000 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial space with related
improvements, as mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Should Purchaser fail to deliver said LOI,
Seller shall have the right to terminate the Contract.

17. Additional Parking: Purchaser shall construct at its expense, sixteen (16) head-in,
angled vehicle parking spaces at the far south end of the Subject Property, that abuts Carol Street
as set forth on Exhibit “B” (hereinafter “Additional Parking”) and 10 of these additional parking
spaces in combination with the other parking spaces on Exhibit “B” shall satisfy the Code
requirements for vehicle parking for this development. Further, Purchaser shall enter into a
perpetual easement with the Seller for six (6) of these vehicle parking spaces for public use with
restrictions that may be established by the Seller from time to time, and for the remaining ten (10)
vehicle parking spaces to be available for public use when the Operator is closed. Should Seller
fail to vacate the right-of-way dedication for the Additional Parking on the Subject Property, the
Parties shall enter into a lease agreement for sixteen (16) parking spaces in the CTA parking lot
with reasonable leasing rates to be paid by Purchaser or Operator, to satisfy Code requirements
for vehicle parking for this development.

18. Offsite Improvements: In consideration of the Purchase Price, Seller has agreed that
Seller, and not Purchaser, shall be responsible for any off-site improvements that may be
required for the development of the Subject Property, including, without limitation, installation
of a traffic light (if one is required) at the intersection of Dempster Street and Bronx Avenue,
and the extension of Carol Street to connect with the existing parking lot serving the Skokie
Swift terminal. Purchaser understands that as part of the Governmental Approval process,
the Seller will be requiring a dedication of an approximate one to two foot wide strip of land
along the north side of the Property, for use as a sidewalk and public right of way.

19. Construction Time: Construction of the New Improvements shall begin within twelve (12)
months of closing and be substantially completed within twenty-four (24) months of closing.

20. Title:
 a. Seller will deliver within twenty one (21) days after the date of this Contract, as
 evidence of title in Seller, a title commitment issued by the Title Company with an effective
 date no earlier than thirty (30) days prior to the date of this Contract (hereinafter "Title
 Commitment") for an ALTA title insurance policy in the amount of the Purchase Price. The
 Title Commitment will be conclusive evidence of good and merchantable title as therein
 shown, subject only to the exceptions therein stated. The Title Commitment and the Title Policy
 (as defined below) shall include therein, as additional insured parcels, any easements created
 in favor of the Subject Property pursuant to the terms of the Easements. Within ten (10) days
 after Seller's delivery of the Title Commitment to Purchaser, Purchaser shall send written
 notice to Seller of any objections by Purchaser to any of the title exceptions identified on the
 Title Commitment (hereinafter "Objectionable Exceptions"). All exceptions identified in
 Page 7 of 11
VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
 the Title Commitment which are not Objectionable Exceptions shall be deemed "Permitted
 Exceptions" under this Contract.. Seller may, within ten (10) business days after receipt of
 Purchaser's notice of any Objectionable Exceptions, elect to eliminate or provide title
 insurance over the Objectionable Exceptions. If Seller is unable or unwilling to so eliminate or
 provide title insurance over the Objectionable Exceptions, then Purchaser shall have the right,
 at its election, but as its sole and exclusive remedy, either to (a) waive the Objectionable
 Exceptions and accept title to the Subject Property subject to such Objectionable
 Exceptions (in which event such exceptions shall be deemed Permitted Exceptions), or (b)
 terminate this Contract by delivering written notice to Seller on or before five (5) days after the
 end of the said ten (10) business day period. In the event Purchaser elects to terminate this
 Contract, neither Party hereto shall have any further obligation or liability under this Contract,
 except as otherwise provided to the contrary in this Contract, and the Earnest Money shall be
 returned to Purchaser. In the event Purchaser does not elect to terminate this Contract in
 accordance with the terms of this Section 17, all exceptions to title listed in the Title
 Commitment (including those which Purchaser previously designated as Objectionable
 Exceptions) shall conclusively be deemed to constitute Permitted Exceptions.

 b. As of the Closing Date, Seller shall cause the Title Company to issue to Purchaser an
 ALTA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance or irrevocable commitment to issue (hereinafter
 "Title Policy") covering the Subject Property in the amount of the Purchase Price, subject only
 to the Permitted Exceptions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any additional exceptions to title
 are identified after the date of the Title Commitment that were not caused by the voluntary act
 of Seller, Seller shall not be required to remove such additional exceptions and the sole and
 exclusive remedy of Purchaser will be either to (i) take title to the Subject Property subject to
 such additional exceptions or (ii) terminate this Contract. In the event Purchaser elects to
 terminate this Contract, neither Party hereto shall have any further obligation or liability under
 this Contract, except as otherwise provided to the contrary in this Contract, and the Earnest
 Money shall be returned to Purchaser within seventy-two (72) hours of notification to the Title
 Company by the Purchaser, regarding the Purchaser's election to terminate.

 c. At the closing Seller will deliver an executed Affidavit of Title, attesting that Seller has
 not had any work or service performed or contracted for, that is basis for any type of lien or
 encumbrance filed against the Subject Property, since the date the Title Commitment
 was issued.

 d. Any endorsements requested by Purchaser for the Title Policy, including extended
 coverage shall be paid for solely by Purchaser. Issuance or availability of any such
 additional endorsements requested by Purchaser shall not be a condition of Closing, and the
 failure of Purchaser to obtain any such additional endorsements shall not be deemed a
 default by Seller or a reason for Purchaser not to acquire the Subject Property.

 e. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 19 or anything to the contrary
 contained in this Contract, the following types of title exceptions shall not be Permitted
 Exceptions, and Purchaser shall not be obligated to provide any notice of Objectionable
 Exceptions with respect thereto and Seller shall be obligated, at its expense, to cause the
 removal of the same from the Title Policy: any lien upon the Subject Property (other than any
 lien for real estate taxes not yet due and payable) and/or any lease or other tenancy.

21. Performance: Time is of the essence of this Contract.

22. Commissions/Fees: Purchaser shall be solely and completely responsible for any and all
brokers' commissions, appraisal fees or finder's fees with respect to a broker, appraiser or
finder claiming to have been engaged by Purchaser. Seller represents to Purchaser that
Seller has dealt with no broker, appraiser or finder.
 Page 8 of 11
VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
 23. Assignment: Purchaser shall not have the right to assign this Contract to any other person
 or entity. If Purchaser shall attempt to assign this Contract in violation of the foregoing
 prohibition, then Seller shall have the right (but not the obligation) to terminate this Contract by
 sending written notice of such termination to Purchaser and shall pursue any and all legal remedies at
 its discretion, in addition to being paid all monies escrowed as Earnest Money.

 24. Duplicate: A duplicate original of this Contract, duly executed by the Seller, shall be
 delivered to Purchaser within five (5) business days from the date hereof, otherwise, at the
 Purchaser's option, this Contract shall become null and void.

 25. Choice of Law: This Contract shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of
 Illinois (excluding its conflicts of law rules) and any dispute arising as to the interpretation of this
 Contract shall be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction sitting in Cook County, Illinois and in no
 other court.

 26. Village Board Approval: The terms and conditions of this contract are subject to approval, as
 evidenced by adoption of an ordinance (the “Authorizing Ordinance”) authorizing the Village to enter
 into this contract, by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Skokie. Seller shall give
 Purchaser notice of approval or disapproval within thirty (30) days of execution of this Contract. In
 the event, within said time period the terms of the Contract are not approved by the Mayor and
 Board of Trustees, this Contract will be deemed terminated and will be without any further force
 and effect and without further obligation of either party to the other. The Earnest Money shall be
 returned to Purchaser upon notification to the Title Company. All dates set forth herein that
 are intended to be a certain number of days following execution hereof (e.g., the Due
 Diligence Period and the Approvals Period), shall commence upon adoption by the Seller of
 the Authorizing Ordinance.

 27. Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act: The Parties agree that the Uniform Vendor and
 Purchaser Risk Act of the State of Illinois shall be applicable to this Contract.

 28. Authorized Signatories: The Parties represent that the undersigned signatories for each of
 them respectively are authorized signatories for this Contract and that the effect of the signatures is to
 make this Contract binding on the respective Parties.

 29. Contract Survival: The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that this Contract shall
 survive closing and shall remain in full force and effect.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have executed this Contract as of the
 date first above written.
 PURCHASER: SELLER:

 4945 Dempster LLC Village of Skokie


 By: ____________________________ By: ________________________________
 John T. Lockerby
 Its __________________________ Village Manager
 Attest:
 By:____________________________
 Pramod Shah
 Village Clerk
1
2


 Page 9 of 11
 VOSDoc.#491821 Misc\Skokie Swift\Dempster Bronx Real Estate Sale Contract MZM ver.011816
1




2 EXHIBIT A
3
4
5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
6
7 4933-57 DEMPSTER STREET AND
8 8734-38 BRONX AVENUE, SKOKIE, ILLINOIS
9
10
11
12 LOTS 29 TO 37 (INCLUSIVE) AND LOTS 53 TO 56 (INCLUSIVE), INCLUDING
13 VACATED ALLEY, IN TERMINAL SUBDIVISION IN THE NORTHEAST
14 QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF
15 THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
16
17
18 PIN: 10-21-202-042-0000
19


20


21


22


23


24


25


26


27




28



29



30



 Page 10 of 11
 VOSDOCS-#492003-v1-Ordinance__Land_Disposition__Sale_of_4933-57_Dempster_and_8734-38_Bronx_Ave_.doc
1 EXHIBIT B

2 SITE PLAN




 Page 11 of 11
 VOSDOCS-#492003-v1-Ordinance__Land_Disposition__Sale_of_4933-57_Dempster_and_8734-38_Bronx_Ave_.doc
 MML: 3/21/16
 C
 THIS RESOLUTION MAY BE CITED AS
 VILLAGE RESOLUTION

 16-3-R-



 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF THE
 VILLAGE OF SKOKIE’S COMPLETE STREETS POLICY


1 WHEREAS, in 2015, with funding from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
2 Prevention, through the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Village of Skokie
3 initiated a Complete Streets Steering Committee, comprised of community representatives
4 and Village Staff with the assistance of the Active Transportation Alliance (“Active Trans”) in
5 order to develop a Complete Streets Policy (hereinafter “Policy”) for the Village of Skokie;
6 and
7
8 WHEREAS, the Policy is designed and intended to improve the quality of life for the
9 residents, workers and visitors of Skokie by enhancing its existing multi-modal
10 transportation system for users of all ages and abilities, including prioritizing the needs of
11 pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. This will be accomplished by the development of a
12 well-designed interconnected and integrated system of complete streets and corridors; and
13
14 WHEREAS, the Policy has been presented to and reviewed by four advisory
15 boards/commissions for the Village: the Plan Commission, Board of Health, Public Safety
16 Commission and the Sustainable Environmental Advisory Commission, and all supported
17 the Policy; and
18
19 WHEREAS, the Village Manager recommend to the Mayor and Board of Trustees
20 that the Complete Streets Policy be approved in the form attached hereto and marked as
21 Exhibit “1”;
22
23 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
24 Village of Skokie, Cook County, Illinois that the Complete Streets Policy in the form
25 attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “1” be approved.
26 PASSED this day of March, 2016.
27
28 Ayes:
29 Nays: Village Clerk
30 Absent:
31 Approved by me this day of
32 Attest: March, 2016.
33
34
35
36 Village Clerk Mayor, Village of Skokie
37


 Page 1 of 4

 VOSDOCS-#492923-v1-Resolution__Adoption_of_Complete_Streets_Policy.doc
 Exhibit 1




1 Complete Streets Policy for the
2 Village of Skokie
3
4
5 1. Vision and Intent. The Village of Skokie will improve the quality of life for its
6 residents, workers, and visitors by enhancing its existing multi-modal transportation
7 system. This will be accomplished by developing a well-designed, inter-connected, and
8 integrated system of complete streets and corridors.
9
10 2. All Users and Modes. The Village of Skokie will strive to accommodate and educate
11 users of all ages and abilities by prioritizing the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and
12 transit users; adapting to the needs of emergency responders and commercial vehicle
13 drivers; and acknowledging vehicular use and safety.
14
15 3. All Projects and Phases. The Village of Skokie will approach every transportation
16 improvement and project phase as an opportunity to create safer and more accessible
17 streets and corridors for users of all ages and abilities. Activities include, but are not
18 limited to, design, construction, reconstruction, major maintenance, and routine
19 operations, plus other changes to transportation facilities on streets, corridors, and
20 private properties, including capital improvements and rechannelization projects. The
21 following will comply with the Complete Streets Policy:
22
23 a. All Village-owned transportation facilities in the public right-of-way including, but
24 not limited to, streets, bridges, and pedestrian facilities.
25
26 b. Privately-constructed streets, driveways, and parking lots.
27
28 c. Transit stops, stations, and facilities.
29
30 4. Exceptions. The Village of Skokie Board of Trustees must approve any exception to
31 this Complete Streets Policy. The exception must be assigned to a specific project,
32 supported by a staff report describing the rationale for the exception. Exceptions to this
33 policy may be made when:
34
35 a. The project involves a roadway on which non-motorized use is prohibited by law.
36 In this case, an effort shall be made to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists
37 elsewhere.
38
39 b. The project cost or impact is excessively disproportionate to the need and use.
40
41 c. The scope of the relevant project is limited to minor maintenance activities
42 intended to keep the roadway in serviceable condition.
43

 Page 2 of 4

 VOSDOCS-#492923-v1-Resolution__Adoption_of_Complete_Streets_Policy.doc
1 Network. The Village of Skokie will strive to create a comprehensive, integrated, and
2 connected network of transportation options for all modes of travel, designed and operated
3 to enable safe and accessible transportation options for all users.
4
5 5. Jurisdiction. The Village of Skokie will adhere to this Complete Streets Policy for all
6 street and corridor design, and construction projects in the Village requiring funding or
7 approval by the:
8
9 a. Village of Skokie
10
11 b. County, State, or Federal Government
12
13 c. Private development
14
15 The Village of Skokie will strive to foster partnerships with the State of Illinois, Cook
16 County, the Regional Transportation Authority, the Chicago Transit Authority, Pace
17 Bus, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, Niles Township, local schools
18 (public and private), Skokie Park District, Skokie Public Library, Skokie Chamber of
19 Commerce, neighboring communities, and other stakeholders to enhance local
20 transportation system connectivity.
21
22 6. Design. The Village of Skokie will follow a flexible and innovative design approach that
23 balances user needs, provided there is a comparable level of safety for all users. In
24 addition, the Village will use the best and latest design standards available, including,
25 but not limited to the following to develop Complete Streets:
26
27 a. AASHTO (Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities | Guide for Planning,
28 Design and Operations of Pedestrian Facilities)
29
30 b. NACTO (Urban Bikeway Design Guide | Urban Street Design Guide)
31
32 c. FHWA (Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide)
33
34 d. Active Transportation Alliance (Complete Streets, Complete Networks)
35
36 Design solutions will promote safety, accessibility, mobility, convenience, efficiency,
37 and reliability, while enhancing public health, green infrastructure, and economic
38 development.
39
40 7. Context Sensitivity. The Village of Skokie will create context-sensitive Complete
41 Streets that meet or exceed national best-practice guidelines. Design criteria will be
42 based on the thoughtful application of context-sensitive engineering, landscape,
43 architectural, environmental sustainability, and design principles.
44
45




 Page 3 of 4

 VOSDOCS-#492923-v1-Resolution__Adoption_of_Complete_Streets_Policy.doc
1 Performance Standards. The Village of Skokie will collect and analyze data, and
2 coordinate with other entities as needed, to track successes, modify design concepts, and
3 update best practices that may include, but not be limited to:
4
5 a. Total miles of bike lanes and trails built
6 b. Linear feet of new pedestrian accommodation
7 c. Number of new bicycle parking spaces installed
8 d. Number of ADA accommodations built
9 e. Rate of children walking and bicycling to school
10 f. Bicycle counts on trails/paths
11 g. Number of transit improvements
12 h. Transit ridership
13 i. Intersection safety analysis
14
15 8. Implementation Steps. The Village of Skokie will implement this Complete Streets
16 Policy through the Department of Community Development or the Village Manager's
17 designee. Simple and straightforward approaches to data collection, project review,
18 capital improvement project prioritizations, plan adjustments, policy revisions, public
19 official and staff trainings, project coordination, funding awards, and public hearings will
20 be pursued, to ensure the highest possible return on investment of Village and other
21 public and private resources.




 Page 4 of 4

 VOSDOCS-#492923-v1-Resolution__Adoption_of_Complete_Streets_Policy.doc
 MML: 3/21/16
 D
 THIS RESOLUTION MAY BE CITED AS
 VILLAGE RESOLUTION NUMBER

 16-3-R-

 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF THE
 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, ILLINOIS

1 WHEREAS, Section 11-13-19 of the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/11-13-19,
2 provides that the corporate authorities shall cause to be published each year a map clearly
3 showing the existing zoning uses, divisions, restrictions, regulations and classifications of such
4 municipality for the proceeding calendar year (hereinafter the “Official Zoning Map”); and
5
6 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department staff for the Village of Skokie (the
7 “Village”) have reviewed the prior Official Zoning Map for the Village and made all necessary
8 changes, corrections and alterations that have occurred since its publication in order to prepare
9 the proposed Official Zoning Map; and
10
11 WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has reviewed the proposed Official
12 Zoning Map for the Village, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit “1”, and
13 recommends it be published and printed as the Official Zoning Map of the Village;
14
15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
16 Village of Skokie, Cook County, Illinois, that the recommendation of the Director of Community
17 Development is accepted and the proposed Official Zoning Map, as prepared by the Community
18 Development Department, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “1”, is
19 declared to be the Official Zoning Map for the Village.
20
21 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees that the Director of
22 Community Development is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the printing and
23 publication of the Official Zoning Map for the Village in accordance with law.
24
25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees that the Director of
26 Community Development is hereby authorized to print and publish amended Zoning Maps
27 throughout 2016 that reflect changes that may occur as a result of ordinances that become
28 effective during 2016.
29 PASSED this day of March, 2016.
30
31 Ayes: ____________________________________
32 Village Clerk
33 Nays:
34 Absent:
35 Approved by me this day of
36 Attest: March, 2016.
37
38
39
40 Village Clerk Mayor, Village of Skokie


 Page 1 of 1
 492564v1 Resolution, Zoning Map, 2016
Exhibit 1
 E
 MML: 3/21/16 1st Reading
 *4/4/16


 THIS ORDINANCE MAY BE CITED AS
 VILLAGE ORDINANCE NUMBER
 16-4-Z-


 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLAT OF DEDICATION FOR A
 PORTION OF 7600 KILBOURN AVENUE, SKOKIE, ILLINOIS,
 ADJACENT TO HOWARD STREET, IN AN R2 SINGLE-FAMILY
 DISTRICT

1 WHEREAS, the owner of the following described real property:

2 THE SOUTH 7.00 FEET OF LOTS 56 & 57 IN KRENN & DATO’S HOWARD-
3 FOREST VIEW “L” SUBDIVISION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
4 QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 41
5 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN EXCEPT THAT
6 PART THEREOF LYING EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF KENNETH AVENUE, IN
7 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
8 PINS: 10-27-119-039-0000, 10-27-110-040-0000
9 more commonly known as a portion of 7600 Kilbourn Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, adjacent to
10 Howard Street (hereinafter the “Subject Property”), in an R2 Single-Family district,
11 petitioned the Village of Skokie for a dedication of the Subject Property, as depicted on the
12 “Plat of Dedication”, dated July 19, 2015, and subsequently revised February 16, 2016, a
13 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”; and

14 WHEREAS, the Subject Property measures 7.00 feet by 56.26 feet and runs along
15 the most southern portion of Lots 56 and 57 as outlined on Exhibit “1”. This dedication is
16 being made for the public purpose of placing the public sidewalk onto the public right of
17 way; and

18 WHEREAS, the plat meets all Village requirements and the property owner has
19 made the dedication without requesting compensation from the Village of Skokie; and

20 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the request for the
21 dedication and recommended to the Mayor and Board of Trustees that the requested
22 dedication be approved as stated in his memorandum dated March 1, 2016; and

23 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees, at a public meeting duly held on
24 March 21, 2016 concurred in the aforesaid recommendation of the Community
25 Development Director:

26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
27 Village of Skokie, Cook County, Illinois:



 Page 1 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#492538-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__Portion_of_7600_Kilbourn__Adjacent_to_Howard_St_.doc
1 Section 1: That the above stated Recitals are restated and incorporated as if
2 stated in full.

3 Section 2: That the dedication of the Subject Property, legally described above
4 and commonly known as a portion of 7600 Kilbourn Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, adjacent to
5 Howard Street, in an R2 Single-Family district, as depicted on the “Plat of Dedication”,
6 dated July 19, 2015, and subsequently revised February 16, 2016, be approved.

7 Section 3: That the “Plat of Dedication”, dated July 19, 2015 and subsequently
8 revised February 16, 2016, attached as “Exhibit 1”, except as it may be revised subject to
9 the approval of the Corporation Counsel and the Village Manager or designee, be and the
10 same is hereby accepted. The Plat shall be recorded with the Cook County Recorder of
11 Deeds Office.

12 Section 4: That a notice of the approval of this Ordinance incorporating the
13 conditions contained herein shall be executed by the owner of the property in writing and
14 duly recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Office at the owner’s expense.

15 Section 5: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
16 passage, approval and recordation as provided by law.
17 ADOPTED this day of April, 2016.
18
19
20 Ayes: Village Clerk
21 Nays:
22 Absent: Approved by me this
23 day of April, 2016.
24 Attested and filed in my office
25 this day of April, 2016.
26
27
28
29 Village Clerk Mayor, Village of Skokie
30
31
32




 Page 2 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#492538-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__Portion_of_7600_Kilbourn__Adjacent_to_Howard_St_.doc
 Exhibit 1




 Page 3 of 3
VOSDOCS-#492538-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__Portion_of_7600_Kilbourn__Adjacent_to_Howard_St_.doc
 MML: 3/21/16 1st reading
 F
 *4/4/16


 THIS ORDINANCE MAY BE CITED AS
 VILLAGE ORDINANCE NUMBER
 16-4-Z-


 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH
 ALLEY WITHIN AN AREA BOUNDED BY KEDVALE AVENUE,
 CLEVELAND STREET, KARLOV AVENUE AND KEENEY STREET,
 SKOKIE, ILLINOIS, IN AN R2 SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT

1 WHEREAS, this ordinance proposes to vacate a portion of the 16-foot wide north-
2 south alley in the block bounded by Kedvale Avenue, Cleveland Street, Karlov Avenue and
3 Keeney Street (hereinafter “Subject Property”), which is legally described as:
 4 ALL OF THE NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN KRENN AND DATO’S CRAWFORD AVENUE EXPRESS “L”
 5 SUBDIVISION OF THAT PART OF LOT 4 OF SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF THE EAST HALF OF
 6 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, WITH THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23,
 7 TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WEST OF
 8 THE CENTER LINE OF EAST PRAIRIE ROAD; LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF CLEVELAND
 9 STREET; LYING WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 25 TO 28, BOTH INCLUSIVE; LYING NORTH
10 OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; LYING EAST OF THE EAST LINES OF LOTS 21 TO 24,
11 BOTH INCLUSIVE; ALSO PART OF THE NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN KRENN AND DATO’S
12 CRAWFORD AND KEELER AVENUE SUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 15 ACRES OF LOT 5 IN
13 SUPERIOR COURT PARTITION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
14 22, WITH THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST
15 OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION;
16 LYING WEST OF THE WEST LINES OF LOTS 38 TO 44, BOTH INCLUSIVE; LYING WEST OF THE
17 WEST LINE OF LOT 37 (EXCEPT THE SOUTH 36 FEET THEREOF); LYING NORTH OF A LINE
18 BEING A LINE EXTENDED WEST OF THE SOUTH 26 FEET OF SAID LOT 37; LYING EAST OF THE
19 EAST LINES OF LOTS 23 TO 29 AND EAST OF THAT PART OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 30 (EXCEPT
20 THAT PART LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 26 FEET OF SAID LOT 37, EXENDED WEST); ALL IN
21 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; and

22 WHEREAS, in an ongoing review of the residential alleys in Skokie, the Community
23 Development Department staff determined that the Subject Property had been previously
24 vacated by an ordinance adopted by the Village of Skokie (hereinafter “Village”) on
25 September 15, 1956, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”; however, neither the
26 ordinance nor the plat were recorded; and

27 WHEREAS, St. Lambert’s Church and parking lot, owned by the Archdiocese of
28 Chicago, are currently located over the Subject Property; and

29 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, in his memorandum dated March
30 8, 2016, is recommending that the existing ordinance be repealed and replaced with a new
31 ordinance that reflects a minor change to the legal description. The proposed alley vacation
32 is ten (10) feet shorter than the previously approved vacation due to the proposed
33 dedication of the east-west alley on land that is currently owned by the Archdiocese of



 Page 1 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#493266-v1-Ordinance__Alley_Vacation__Block_Bounded_by_Kedvale-Cleveland-Karlov-Keeney.doc
1 Chicago, that will connect the remaining portion of the north-south alley to Karlov Avenue;
2 and

3 WHEREAS, the Subject Property is depicted on the Plat of Vacation, dated
4 February 16, 2016 and subsequently revised March 14, 2016, a copy of which is attached
5 hereto as Exhibit “2”; and

6 WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in an R2 Single-Family district within an
7 area bounded by Kedvale Avenue, Cleveland Street, Karlov Avenue and Keeney Street;
8 and

9 WHEREAS, the nature and extent of the public use or public interest to be
10 subserved in the Subject Property shall warrant the vacation of the same; and

11 WHEREAS, the title and ownership of the Subject Property to be vacated shall,
12 pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-91-1, vest to the abutting property owner, the Archdiocese of
13 Chicago, as identified by the Permanent Index Numbers (hereinafter “PIN”) and are listed
14 by PIN block numbers in Exhibit “3” attached hereto; and

15 WHEREAS, no compensation shall be paid by the owner of the abutting property for
16 the value of the real estate which may accrue to it by reason of the enactment of this
17 Ordinance; and

18 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Skokie, at a public
19 meeting duly held March 21, 2016, concurred in the recommendation of the Community
20 Development Director;

21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
22 Village of Skokie, Cook County, Illinois:

23 Section 1: That the following portion of the alley commonly described below, and
24 legally described above, and depicted on the Plat of Vacation, dated February 16, 2016 and
25 subsequently revised March 14, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “2”,
26 located in the Village of Skokie, be and the same is hereby vacated:
27 The 16-foot wide by 392.99 feet long portion of the north-south alley within an
28 area bounded by Kedvale Avenue, Cleveland Street, Karlov Avenue and
29 Keeney Street,
30 and the title to the vacated alley shall vest to the abutting property owner pursuant to 65
31 ILCS 5/11-91-1, as identified by its Permanent Index Numbers set out in Exhibit “3”
32 attached hereto.

33 Section 2: That the aforesaid vacation shall be effective upon the recording of a
34 Plat of Vacation by the Village of Skokie in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook
35 County.

36 Section 3: That no compensation shall be paid by the owner of the abutting
37 property for the value of the real estate which may accrue to it by reason of the enactment
38 of this ordinance and that the public interest and benefit will be subserved by the vacation of
39 the alley referenced herein.

 Page 2 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#493266-v1-Ordinance__Alley_Vacation__Block_Bounded_by_Kedvale-Cleveland-Karlov-Keeney.doc
1 Section 4: It is the intention of the Village that ownership and title to the vacated
2 alley shall pass to and vest in the adjacent property owner, as listed by the Permanent
3 Index Numbers in Exhibit “3”.

4 Section 5: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
5 passage, approval, and recordation as provided by law.
6
7 ADOPTED this day of April, 2016.
8
9 Village Clerk
10 Ayes:
11 Nays:
12 Absent:
13 Approved by me this day of
14 Attested and filed in my April, 2016.
15 office this day of
16 April, 2016.
17
18 Mayor, Village of Skokie
19
20 Village Clerk




 Page 3 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#493266-v1-Ordinance__Alley_Vacation__Block_Bounded_by_Kedvale-Cleveland-Karlov-Keeney.doc
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
 Exhibit 3




PROPERTY INDEX NUMBERS AFFECTED

 10-22-421-001-0000
 10-22-421-002-0000
 10-22-421-003-0000
 10-22-421-004-0000
 10-22-421-005-0000
 10-22-421-006-0000
 10-22-421-007-0000
 10-22-421-008-0000
 10-22-421-009-0000
 10-22-421-010-0000
 10-22-421-011-0000
 10-22-421-012-0000
 10-22-421-017-0000
 10-22-421-018-0000
 10-22-421-019-0000
 10-22-421-020-0000
 10-22-421-021-0000
 10-22-421-022-0000
 10-22-421-023-0000
 10-22-421-024-0000
 10-22-421-025-0000
 10-22-421-026-0000
 10-22-421-027-0000
 10-22-421-028-0000
 G
 MML: 3/21/16 1st Reading
 *4/4/16


 THIS ORDINANCE MAY BE CITED AS
 VILLAGE ORDINANCE NUMBER
 16-4-Z-


 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLAT OF DEDICATION FOR
 THE ALLEY NORTH OF 8114 KARLOV AVENUE, SKOKIE,
 ILLINOIS, IN AN R2 SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT

1 WHEREAS, the owner, the Archdiocese of Chicago (hereinafter “Archdiocese”), of the
2 following described real property:

 3 PART OF LOT 37 IN KRENN AND DATO’S CRAWFORD AND KEELER AVENUE
 4 SUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 15 ACRES OF LOT 5 IN SUPERIOR COURT
 5 PARTITION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22,
 6 WITH THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH,
 7 RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
 8 BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND
 9 THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH ALONG
10 THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
11 THE SOUTH 26 FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 26
12 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE
13 OF SAID LOT TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE
14 NORTHWESTERLY TO A POINT ON THE AFORESAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH
15 10 FEET; SAID POINT BEING 113.04 FEET WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
16 THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET A DISTANCE OF
17 113.04, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
18 PIN: 10-22-421-028-0000
19 more commonly known as a portion of 8114 Karlov Avenue, Skokie, Illinois (hereinafter the
20 “Subject Property”), in an R2 Single-Family district, petitioned the Village of Skokie for a
21 dedication of the Subject Property, as depicted on the “Plat of Dedication”, dated February 17,
22 2016, subsequently revised March 15, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”;
23 and

24 WHEREAS, the Subject Property is inclusive of two adjacent portions of land, commonly
25 described as follows: i) a rectangular shaped portion, 16 feet x 123 feet, and ii) a triangular
26 shaped portion, 10 feet x 10 feet x 14.30 feet, located adjacent the south line of the previous
27 portion. While the Subject Property is situated on land owned by the Archdiocese (St. Lambert’s
28 Church), it has been utilized by the public as an alley for many years; and

29 WHEREAS, the Subject Property is being dedicated for the public purpose of being used
30 as a public right of way; and

31 WHEREAS, the plat meets all Village requirements and the Archdiocese has made the
32 dedication without requesting compensation from the Village of Skokie; and

 Page 1 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#492997-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__Alley_North_of_8114_Karlov_&_Bounded_by_Kedvale-Cleveland-
 Karlov-Keeney.doc
1 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the request for the
2 dedication and recommended to the Mayor and Board of Trustees that the requested dedication
3 be approved as stated in his memorandum dated March 8, 2016; and

4 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees, at a public meeting duly held on March
5 21, 2016 concurred in the aforesaid recommendation of the Community Development Director:

6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
7 Village of Skokie, Cook County, Illinois:

8 Section 1: That the above stated Recitals are restated and incorporated as if stated
9 in full.

10 Section 2: That the dedication of the Subject Property, legally described above and
11 commonly known as a portion of 8114 Karlov Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, adjacent to Howard
12 Street, in an R2 Single-Family district, as depicted on the “Plat of Dedication”, dated February
13 17, 2016, and subsequently revised March 15, 2016, be approved.

14 Section 3: That the “Plat of Dedication”, dated February 16, 2016, and subsequently
15 revised March 15, 2016, attached as “Exhibit 1”, except as it may be revised subject to the
16 approval of the Corporation Counsel and the Village Manager or designee, be and the same is
17 hereby accepted. The Plat shall be recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Office.

18 Section 4: That a notice of the approval of this Ordinance incorporating the
19 conditions contained herein shall be executed by the owner of the property in writing and duly
20 recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Office at the owner’s expense.

21 Section 5: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
22 passage, approval and recordation as provided by law.
23 ADOPTED this day of April, 2016.
24
25
26 Ayes: Village Clerk
27 Nays:
28 Absent: Approved by me this
29 day of April, 2016.
30 Attested and filed in my office
31 this day of April, 2016.
32
33
34
35 Village Clerk Mayor, Village of Skokie
36




 Page 2 of 3
 VOSDOCS-#492997-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__Alley_North_of_8114_Karlov_&_Bounded_by_Kedvale-Cleveland-
 Karlov-Keeney.doc
 Exhibit 1




 Page 3 of 3
VOSDOCS-#492997-v1-Ordinance__Plat_of_Dedication__Alley_North_of_8114_Karlov_&_Bounded_by_Kedvale-Cleveland-
Karlov-Keeney.doc
Memorandum

TO: Honorable Mayor and Board of Trustees

FROM: Paul Luke, Chairman
 Skokie Plan Commission

DATE: March 8, 2016

SUBJECT: CASE 2014-34P – A REQUEST BY OLD ORCHARD ACQUISITION
 PARTNERS, LLC, AT 9801-9977 WOODS DRIVE FOR AN
 AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL ORDINANCE 15-3-Z-4128
 THROUGH THE MODIFIED REVIEW PROCEDURE TO ALLOW
 CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN

The Community Development Department received a request from Old Orchard Acquisition
Partners, LLC, on behalf of Bright Horizon Daycare Center, at the above listed Woods Drive
addresses, to amend Site Plan Approval Ordinance 15-3-Z-4128 through the modified review
procedure. The Petitioner is requesting the amendment to allow the construction of two outdoor
playgrounds adjacent to the 9877 Woods Drive building that will house the Bright Horizon
Daycare Center which is a permitted use in the OR Office Research District. A preschool
playground, with dimensions of approximately 60 ft. by 60 ft. will be located to the north of the
building in an existing landscaped area. A playground for infants and toddlers, with dimensions
of approximately 36 ft. by 48 ft., will be located on the east side of the building on an existing
raised terrace. Both playground locations will be protected from traffic and will provide
convenient and safe locations for outdoor play for the daycare center. The outdoor play areas will
not change the nature or purpose of the office development.

Appearance Commission review is not required for the outdoor play areas.

The Corporation Counsel, Plan Commission Chairman, and Community Development Director
reviewed the request. It was their opinion that the proposed site plan modifications are in
substantial compliance with the intent of the original site plan approval ordinance.

It is respectfully recommended that the Petitioner’s request be approved and that Condition #2 of
Site Plan Approval Ordinance 15-3-Z-4128 be amended to read as follows with text to be added
highlighted and in bold type:

2. The petitioner shall develop the Subject Property in substantial conformance with the final
Village approved site plan dated February 9, 2015, as amended by the addition of the Bright
Horizons Day Care Playgrounds in amended site plan dated February 16, 2016, and
landscape plans dated February 24, 2015.

Attachments
 1. Site Floor Plan, dated 2/29/16
 2. Enlarged Site Plan, dated 2/16/16
 3. Aerial

cc: Michael M. Lorge, Corporation Counsel
 Peter W. Peyer, Community Development Director



492831

12985
MINUTES of a regular meeting of the Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of
Skokie, Cook County, Illinois held in the Council Chambers at 5127 Oakton Street at 8
p.m. on Monday, March 21, 2016

Pledge of Allegiance led by Village Clerk Pramod Shah
The Clerk called the Roll. Those present were Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, Gray-Keeler
and Mayor Van Dusen. Trustee Klein was not present.
Motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Moved: Trustee Roberts Seconded: Trustee Ulrich
Ayes: Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, Gray-Keeler and Mayor Van Dusen
Nays: None.
Absent: Klein.
MOTION CARRIED

* Approve, as submitted, minutes of regular meeting held Monday, March 7, 2016.
Omnibus vote.

* Approve Voucher List #21 -FY16 of March 21, 2016.
Omnibus vote.

*Proclamations and Resolutions.
A. Proclamations
Fair Housing is not an Option. It’s the Law – April 2016
Day of Remembrance – May 8, 2016
Omnibus vote.

* Appointments, Reappointments and Resignations.
 A. Resignation
 Beautification and Improvement Commission: Asokan Krishnan
Omnibus vote.

Presentations and Reports.
A. Presentation
Presentation of 2015 National Citizen Survey – Ann Tennes, Director of Marketing and
Communications
Director of Marketing and Communications, Ann Tennes, gave a detailed Power Point
Presentation on the 2015 National Citizen Survey. She gave a brief summary of Skokie’s scores.
The survey asked residents to rate life in the community and specific Village programs and
services. She answered questions from the Board.

Report of the Village Manager.
A. Request for Executive Session.
Motion to approve the request of the Village Manager for an Executive Session pursuant to
Section 2, Paragraph C.2 of the State of Illinois Open Meetings Act
Moved: Trustee Sutker Seconded: Trustee Bromberg
Ayes: Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, Gray-Keeler and Mayor Van Dusen
Nays: None.
Absent: Klein.
MOTION CARRIED

Report of the Corporation Counsel.
 CONSENT:
*A. Ordinance 16-3-Z-4214
Motion to approve an ordinance approving a plat of dedication for a portion of Touhy Avenue
adjacent to 5201-5227 Touhy Avenue, Skokie, Illinois in a B2 Commercial district. This item is
on the consent agenda for second reading and adoption.
Omnibus vote.
12986
Meeting of the Mayor and Board of Trustees
Monday, March 21, 2016 Page Two

*B. Ordinance 16-3-P-4215
Motion to approve an ordinance authorizing the sale of 4933-57 Dempster Street and 8734-38
Bronx Avenue, Skokie, Illinois, in conjunction with the redevelopment of West Dempster Street,
Skokie, Illinois. This item is on the consent agenda for second reading and adoption.
Omnibus vote.

*C. Resolution 16-3-R-1320
Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the approval of the Village of Skokie’s Complete
Streets Policy. This item is on the consent agenda for first reading and approval.
Omnibus vote.

FIRST READING:
D. Resolution 16-3-R-1321
Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the publication of the official 2016 Zoning Map for the
Village of Skokie, Illinois. This item is on the agenda for first reading and approval.
Moved: Trustee Sutker Seconded: Trustee Ulrich
Ayes: Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, Gray-Keeler and Mayor Van Dusen
Nays: None.
Absent: Klein.
MOTION CARRIED

E. An ordinance approving a plat of dedication for a portion of 7600 Kilbourn Avenue, Skokie,
Illinois, adjacent to Howard Street, in an R2 Single-Family district. This item is on the agenda
for first reading and will be on the April 4, 2016 agenda for second reading and adoption.

F. An ordinance vacating a portion of the north-south alley within an area bounded by Kedvale
Avenue, Cleveland Street, Karlov Avenue and Keeney Street, Skokie, Illinois, in an R2 Single-
Family district. This item is on the agenda for first reading and will be on the April 4, 2016
agenda for second reading and adoption.

G. An ordinance approving a plat of dedication for the alley north of 8114 Karlov Avenue,
Skokie, Illinois, in an R2 Single-Family district. This item is on the agenda for first reading and
will be on the April 4, 2016 agenda for second reading and adoption.

H. Request for an executive session in accordance with paragraph 2(c)(11) of the Illinois Open
Meetings Act pertaining to the review and discussion of pending litigation.
Motion to approve the request of the Corporation Counsel for an Executive Session in
accordance with paragraph 2C.11 of the Illinois Open Meetings Act pertaining to
litigation and the end of the regular meeting and to adjourn therefrom.
Moved: Trustee Sutker Seconded: Trustee Ulrich
Ayes: Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, Gray-Keeler and Mayor Van Dusen
Nays: None.
Absent: Klein.
MOTION CARRIED

New Business.
A. Plan Commission Case 2014-34P
A request by Old Orchard Acquisition Partners, LLC, at 9801-9977 Woods Drive for an
amendment to Site Plan Approval Ordinance 15-3-Z-4128 through the Modified Review
Procedure to allow changes to the Site Plan.
Motion to approve the request of Old Orchard Acquisition Partners, LLC at 9801-9977
Woods Drive for an amendment to the Site Plan Ordinance through the Modified Review
procedure to allow changes to the Site plan subject to all conditions.
Moved: Trustee Gray-Keeler Seconded: Trustee Bromberg
Ayes: Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, Gray-Keeler and Mayor Van Dusen
Nays: None.
Absent: Klein.
MOTION CARRIED
 12987
Meeting of the Mayor and Board of Trustees
Monday, March 21, 2016 Page Three


Citizen Comments.
John Burton, 4839 Howard, spoke about littering on Skokie Boulevard between Howard
and Oakton. He also spoke about a possibility of speed bumps in the alley by his property.




Adjournment
Motion to adjourn at 8:40 p.m.
Moved: Trustee Roberts Seconded: Trustee Bromberg
Ayes: Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, Gray-Keeler and Mayor Van Dusen
Nays: None.
Absent: Klein
MOTION CARRIED




 __________________________
 Pramod Shah, Village Clerk




Approved:
______________________
Mayor George Van Dusen




Closed Session
A Closed Session was held in the main floor conference room at 8:45 p.m. Those present were
Mayor Van Dusen, Clerk Shah, Trustees Roberts, Sutker, Ulrich, Bromberg, and Gray-Keeler.
Also present were Manager Lockerby, Assistant Manager Wicha, Corporation Counsel Lorge
and Economic Coordinator Thompson. The meeting ended at 9:30 p.m.
12988
Meeting of the Mayor and Board of Trustees
Monday, March 21, 2016 Page Four