Metropolitan Mayors Caucus presents draft housing action plan to University Park board

Ben Schneley, manager of housing and community development initiatives for the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, presented a draft housing action plan to the University Park village board on the Homes for a Changing Region program and said the session was informational with adoption expected at a later meeting. "This is a process that we started back in November," Schneley said, describing the local outreach that informed the plan.

The plan, developed in partnership with the Homes for a Changing Region program, combines a housing needs assessment with recommended strategies. Nancy Ferber, the former mayor of Glenview who now works with the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, noted the program has worked in more than 65 Chicagoland communities. Schneley said the draft was informed by data and stakeholder input collected through a kickoff meeting, a community survey and an expert panel that considered lessons from similar suburbs.

Schneley said the village identified three primary needs. First, "University Park needs and wants more housing construction," he said, arguing new homes would support economic development, finish partially developed neighborhoods and expand the tax base to support local priorities such as the park district. Second, he cited census-based findings saying fewer than 2% of people who work in University Park also live there and that "over 20% commute more than 25 miles each day," a pattern the village wants to change by attracting more local workers to live in town. Third, Schneley said residents and property owners would benefit from more resources, though he did not specify funding sources or dollar amounts during this presentation.

Schneley described the plan document as the product of a five-step process: data and trends, a kickoff meeting with stakeholders (including trustees and staff), a community survey, an expert panel, and drafting recommended strategies based on that advisory input. He also described the plan's structure as a needs assessment followed by recommended strategies; during the session presenters referred to the draft's length variously as "almost 40 pages" and later as "about 30 pages." The presenters said they would return to the board at a later date with the expectation the board could consider adopting the plan.

The presentation was intended to provide board members with background and options rather than to prompt immediate action. No vote or formal motion occurred during the segment. The board and staff were invited to review the draft and consider it for adoption at a subsequent meeting.