Lincolnwood staff propose five changes to administrative-hearing rules to ease contests and curb interest growth
May 19, 2026 | Lincolnwood, Cook County, Illinois
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Lincolnwood Assistant Village Manager Farrell presented a package of five recommended municipal code amendments at the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 19 aimed at streamlining the village s administrative hearings process and reducing burdens on respondents.
"Tonight, I will be walking through five recommendations from staff regarding our administrative hearings process," Farrell said, opening the presentation. The recommendations would (1) allow residents as well as nonresidents to submit written contests without notarization by mail or email, (2) extend the time to file a motion to set aside a default judgment from 21 to 35 days, (3) change the interest calculation on unpaid fines to 5% annually beginning 35 days after the hearing, (4) remove a municipal-code provision that allowed driver's-license suspension for repeated parking or automated-traffic violations, and (5) remove administrative-hearing scheduling details from red-light camera tickets.
Farrell said staff proposed removing the notarization requirement and expanding access to written contests to reduce default judgments and the hearings docket load. "A lot of times, this is people who... didn't know about a hearing or whatnot, but many of the people do... suggest that it's difficult to leave work on a Tuesday," Farrell said, adding that written submissions could include documentation, photos and video and would be reviewed by the administrative hearing officer, who would read the determination into the record.
Trustees questioned the history and mechanics of the written-contest rule, asking why residents had been excluded and whether peer communities allow written contests. Farrell said the difference dated to the system established in 2008 and that many municipalities accept written contests, with email expected to be the primary channel. Trustees raised operational questions about mailing costs and whether an emailed submission would be treated as a legal document; Farrell said the village already mails default judgments and that email would be accepted and replied to electronically.
On appeals and timing, Farrell recommended aligning the village's motion-to-set-aside window with the 35-day period for payment or contest and the circuit-court appeal period. "So, if somebody does show up and they are found liable... they have 35 days to appeal it in circuit court," Farrell said, clarifying that the village does not participate in the circuit-court process but that synchronized timeframes improve notice and administrative coordination.
Staff also proposed revising how interest accrues on unpaid fines. Under current municipal language, Farrell said, the code applied interest in a manner that could compound frequently; staff presented an example showing a $50 alternate-side parking ticket rising to $532 after one year under the aggressive, every-10-day approach. "So the recommendation here is to modify the interest rate structure... to 5% annually beginning 35 days after the hearing," Farrell said, adding that with the proposed change the same $50 ticket would be about $209 after one year.
Trustees discussed whether the change was driven by fairness or by limitations in how the village's software applies interest. Farrell said the change was intended to be fairer and noted that, in practice, the village s system had not applied the compounding as written. One trustee suggested matching the county's higher collection rate; the board accepted staff's 5% proposal as presented.
Farrell said staff also recommends removing code language that would allow suspension of a driver's license after a stated number of parking or automated-traffic violations because the village can no longer apply that sanction and must bring the code into compliance with current law. Finally, staff recommended removing printed hearing dates from automated traffic (red light camera) violation notices because current practice requires respondents to request a hearing; printed dates on a ticket can create the misimpression that no further action is necessary.
The presentation closed with trustees expressing support for piloting the written-contest change and for moving forward with staff recommendations for code cleanup and timing alignment. The meeting record shows no formal vote on the five code amendments during the Committee of the Whole presentation; the meeting did approve the minutes from the May 5, 2026, Committee of the Whole and later adjourned.
What happens next: staff recommended ordinance language changes to the municipal code; trustees did not take a recorded vote on the package during the presentation and did not adopt ordinance language on the record. If the board pursues the changes, a draft ordinance or code amendment would return for formal consideration and a recorded vote at a later meeting.
"Tonight, I will be walking through five recommendations from staff regarding our administrative hearings process," Farrell said, opening the presentation. The recommendations would (1) allow residents as well as nonresidents to submit written contests without notarization by mail or email, (2) extend the time to file a motion to set aside a default judgment from 21 to 35 days, (3) change the interest calculation on unpaid fines to 5% annually beginning 35 days after the hearing, (4) remove a municipal-code provision that allowed driver's-license suspension for repeated parking or automated-traffic violations, and (5) remove administrative-hearing scheduling details from red-light camera tickets.
Farrell said staff proposed removing the notarization requirement and expanding access to written contests to reduce default judgments and the hearings docket load. "A lot of times, this is people who... didn't know about a hearing or whatnot, but many of the people do... suggest that it's difficult to leave work on a Tuesday," Farrell said, adding that written submissions could include documentation, photos and video and would be reviewed by the administrative hearing officer, who would read the determination into the record.
Trustees questioned the history and mechanics of the written-contest rule, asking why residents had been excluded and whether peer communities allow written contests. Farrell said the difference dated to the system established in 2008 and that many municipalities accept written contests, with email expected to be the primary channel. Trustees raised operational questions about mailing costs and whether an emailed submission would be treated as a legal document; Farrell said the village already mails default judgments and that email would be accepted and replied to electronically.
On appeals and timing, Farrell recommended aligning the village's motion-to-set-aside window with the 35-day period for payment or contest and the circuit-court appeal period. "So, if somebody does show up and they are found liable... they have 35 days to appeal it in circuit court," Farrell said, clarifying that the village does not participate in the circuit-court process but that synchronized timeframes improve notice and administrative coordination.
Staff also proposed revising how interest accrues on unpaid fines. Under current municipal language, Farrell said, the code applied interest in a manner that could compound frequently; staff presented an example showing a $50 alternate-side parking ticket rising to $532 after one year under the aggressive, every-10-day approach. "So the recommendation here is to modify the interest rate structure... to 5% annually beginning 35 days after the hearing," Farrell said, adding that with the proposed change the same $50 ticket would be about $209 after one year.
Trustees discussed whether the change was driven by fairness or by limitations in how the village's software applies interest. Farrell said the change was intended to be fairer and noted that, in practice, the village s system had not applied the compounding as written. One trustee suggested matching the county's higher collection rate; the board accepted staff's 5% proposal as presented.
Farrell said staff also recommends removing code language that would allow suspension of a driver's license after a stated number of parking or automated-traffic violations because the village can no longer apply that sanction and must bring the code into compliance with current law. Finally, staff recommended removing printed hearing dates from automated traffic (red light camera) violation notices because current practice requires respondents to request a hearing; printed dates on a ticket can create the misimpression that no further action is necessary.
The presentation closed with trustees expressing support for piloting the written-contest change and for moving forward with staff recommendations for code cleanup and timing alignment. The meeting record shows no formal vote on the five code amendments during the Committee of the Whole presentation; the meeting did approve the minutes from the May 5, 2026, Committee of the Whole and later adjourned.
What happens next: staff recommended ordinance language changes to the municipal code; trustees did not take a recorded vote on the package during the presentation and did not adopt ordinance language on the record. If the board pursues the changes, a draft ordinance or code amendment would return for formal consideration and a recorded vote at a later meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
