Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03_28_05_ccCITY COUNCIL March 28, 2005 ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Alderman Moran Alderman Feldman Alderman Tisdahl Alderman Newman Alderman Rainey Alderman Wynne A Quorum was present. Alderman Bernstein NOT PRESENT AT ROLL CALL:Alderman Jean-Baptiste ABSENT:Alderman Kent PRESIDING:Mayor Lorraine H. Morton The OFFICIAL REGULAR MEETING of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Morton Monday, March 28, 2005, at 6:04 p.m. in the Aldermanic Library. Alderman Bernstein moved that Council convene into Closed Session for the purpose of discussing matters related to personnel, real estate, litigation and closed session minutes pursuant to 5ILCS Section 120/2 (c) (5), (6), (11) and (21). Seconded by Alderman Wynne. (5) The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired. (6) The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body. (11) Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. (21) Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section 2.06. Roll call. Voting aye Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Feldma n, Newman, Wynne, Bernstein. Voting nay none. Motion carried (7-0). At 7:28 p.m. Alderman Bernstein moved that the Council reconvene into open session and recess. Seconded by Alderman Wynne. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Morton reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:22 p.m. in the Council Chamber. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Parks/Forestry & Recreation Director Doug Gaynor presented a Community Service Award to Barbara Goldsmith in recognition of her many years as co-curator of the Noyes Gallery. Ms. Goldsmith is a sculptor and resident artist at Noyes Cultural Arts Center; has served two terms on the Citys Public Art Committee and currently is an associate member. Public Works Director David Jennings announced yard waste collection would begin Monday, April 4 on regular refuse/recycling days until December 1. Yard waste must be placed in a 90-gallon yard waste cart or paper bags. Plastic bags are not permitted. The environmentally friendly way to dispose of yard waste is to compost on ones own property. How to compost can be obtained at the Ecology Center. Yard waste must be separated from garbage according to state law. He called attention to the yard waste announcement on page 9 in the Spring Highlights that went to every household. Highlights also contains the street cleaning schedule that starts April 1. A street with parking on both sides has a published schedule that tells the days the streets are cleaned. If the date is not listed, people dont have to move their cars . The street cleaning schedule is on the Citys website (www.cityofevanston.org) or call the Streets & Sanitation Division to have a calendar mailed. The schedule for one sided streets and other special posted streets that are swept eight times 2 March 28, 2005 a year will be available in two weeks. On those streets, sweeping dates will be posted by the last week of April. In response to this announcement, Alderman Newman noted that people move their cars because they fear they will be towed. He commended staff for putting this information in Highlights, but said the City does not do enough to publicize this information. He suggested it be on cable TV, in ads and on Radio Evanston. If they were successful, they would produce substantial amounts of parking several nights a month. Alderman Tisdahl asked when street sweeping until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. would end? Mr. Jennings stated they are evaluating a proposal to move to day sweeping. If that happens, it will be at the beginning of the street sweeping season next year and would come before the A&PW Committee, require ordinance changes and a major revision of the program. City Clerk Mary Morris announced that in-person absentee voting would continue through Monday, April 4, at 5:00 p.m. Weekday voting hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday, April 2, from 9:00 a.m. to noon. Mayor Morton declared March 28-April 3, 2005 National Community Development Week CITIZEN COMMENT: Robert Nierodzik, 1820 Crain St., 20-months ago came and petitioned Council on behalf of 68 residents in the 2nd Ward and was ignored. He passed out copies of the request. Despite false accusations circulating in the community, the Candidates Guide and election laws were the reasons for his objections to Lionel Jean-Baptistes petitions. Alderman Bernstein moved that time for speakers be extended to two minutes. Seconded by Alderman Newman. Motion carried unanimously. Pam Waymack, 2233 Sherman Ave., 18 year resident, asked Council to re-examine the referendum question because in August the Cook County Board of Review rejected a similar challenge to the tax exemption of Resurrection Health system, parent of St. Francis Hospital. As a health care professional, she was appalled at how AFSCME has played with numbers to present a one-sided view of a community issue. She passed out a flyer containing available public data. Numbers on charitable care can be verified by the Illinois Public Aid office. She stated that AFSCME was not telling people that St. Francis disproportionately writes off patient care on the back end compared to industry standards and gives away about a dollar for every seven dollars they take in. In the metropolitan Chicago area less than 8% of all patients are served by Public Aid, which does not cover the cost to the hospital. St. Francis hospital provides care to more than 18% of the Public Aid population. Since Resurrection took over St. Francis, they have allowed St. Francis to exist to serve the Evanston community. AFSCMEs agenda does not serve the community. She asked voters to vote no and tell AFSCME to take their agenda home. If they want to unionize, do it the old fashion way, by getting enough employees to sign a petition to unionize. Dick Stillerman, 2330 Park Pl., spoke of the impact of business/commercial zoning on single family residential districts. Alderman Moran raised the issue on west Central St. where developers can build up to 45-feet height and back up to single family residences. He opposed Alderman Morans proposal because it is spot zoning. This is a citywide issue that affects C2, which abuts R1 on Chicago Ave. and affects R6, which abuts R1 at Grove/Davis. He saw no difference between B2 on west Central St. and the B2 in the 7th Ward east of Green Bay Rd. on Central St. where single family residences back up to commercial properties. He knew they have to balance the impact on single family residences against the need for development to increase the tax base. There is an adverse impact on single family residences. He suggested Council study this on a citywide basis. Charles Marshall, 1550 Asbury Ave., 36-year resident, said his family had used St. Francis hospital several times prior to the merger and since the merger. His concern was about Resolution 19-R-05. People had spoken about how they feel either way about the referendum and he had received many telephone calls and a lot of misinformation from both sides. He suggested passing a resolution in support of a player confused the debate. The resolution asks for a no vote by residents. He asked them to consider whether this resolution was in the best interest of the community and to let the vote fall where it may on April 5. 3 March 28, 2005 Dick Peach, 1414 Greenleaf St., said the referendum question has been clouded by lots of emotion and numbers on both sides. He read a quote from the president of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, These well organized corporate campaigns are designed to erode the publics confiden ce in a company by pushing negative publicity and applying pressure on management for the recruitment of non-employee groups. The central element of a corporate campaign is to enlist stakeholders of the business to do the unions work for them. However, the campaign design shrouds the true intention, which is unionization by creating the appearance of wrong doing on the part of the employer. The campaign then becomes a crusade against a perception of the unions own creation. The issue of unionization is ignored and hidden totally from the public. He thought this was what this refe rendum was about and had nothing to do with the care of the poor. He did not think it had anything to do with Evanston but about the unions need to unionize hospital employees, which he supported but they need to do it by the way the National Labor Relations Board says they should. Connie Patterson, 2110 Sherman Ave., spoke on behalf of Resurrection Health Care/ St. Francis Hospital. A student at Garrett Theological Seminary, she went to St. Francis Hospital for treatment. Her insurance had exclusions and would not pay all the bills. She applied for financial assistance and St. Francis paid her bills. If it werent for St. Francis she would have a lot of debt. She urged people to vote no on the referendum. Monique Clarine, 1503 Oak Ave., 42-year resident, has worked at St. Francis hospital for 39 years in the operating room and as an educator for the operating room and family liaison. She does in service for paramedics who come to learn how to take care of patients. When she came here she had a choice of two hospitals and was told not to go to St. Francis because only the poor go there. She went to St. Francis because they take care of patients regardless of income and care for people in need. She spoke because she was appalled at this referendum. Betty Jo Yarling, 3300 Park Pl., has worked at St. Francis Hospital for nearly 30 years. An educator at the hospital, she felt the hospitals commitment to education for staff, community and health care professionals is a beautiful service and would not like to see it jeopardized. Their education is mission-based and they have continuing education for their staff, and support growth and development in the workplace to provide the excellence of care they need to give. They do a lot of community education through seminars, free screenings and lectures. They work with ETHS and their health sciences program; serve as the clinical site for area colleges and universities; have a physician residency program, on-site school of radiography and paramedic training program. Their commitment to education is an investment in people that strengthens health care in general and this community in particular. Kenneth Lehman, 2715 Sheridan Rd., came because a neighbor proposed a resolution that Council should oppose a shoreline protection project that they want to undertake. When they decided to do the project, they hired Charles Shabica & Associates, the premier coastal engineering firm in the area, to assist them. They visited a number of projects from Wilmette to Lake Bluff of comparable scale or larger. All of the projects were approved by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers, which look out for the community and the environmental interests in these matters. At no time did they want to undertake a project that would jeopardize the interests of the community or immediate neighbors. Charles Shabica has assured them that the project will help stabilize the shorelines of adjacent projects. If time permitted, he could provide the context for this project and his background of more than 30-year residency here where he and his wife have been active citizens and good neighbors. Charles Shabica, 326 Ridge, Winnetka, president of Charles Shabica & Associates, Professor of Coastal Geology and Engineering at Northeastern Illinois University; has been adjunct Professor of Environmental Science at Northwestern University for some years. His interest is in doing proper coastal management. He urged Council not to take a position on the resolution as Illinois is one of the best regulated coastal states in the country. He said it is not only the Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, but also the U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the Illinois Historic Preservation agency, assure that what is done on the shore is done properly. Unfortunately they have only been doing that since the 1970s. Prior to that time there were many foolish things done on the lakeshore. If they decide they want to be involved, he urged they support Illinois Coastal Management, which they are again working on after being knocked down in the 1970s. He urged soliciting the advice of a coastal geologist at the Illinois State Geological Service. He thought they were doing the right thing and would never do anything to harm the environment. He said the proposal has no basis in fact and urged them to do nothing about it. Jim Croegaert, 827 Monroe St., resident since 1976, lives near St. Francis. Since 1998 he has served at Resurrection 4 March 28, 2005 Medical Center as hospital chaplain with responsibilities in several other hospitals. He thought his perspective on St. Francis was unique because he is a neighbor, community member and works at other Resurrection Health Care hospitals. He became acquainted with many of the Sisters of the Resurrection, one of the sponsoring congregations of Resurrection Health Care. He has seen a sense of mission that motivates their involvement in health care. That mission expresses itself in many ways and one is that a department like his pays attention to the spiritual dimension of what hospitalization involves for patients and families and that continues to be a priority. It is not a profit making part of health care but an expression of mission. He stated the nations health care system is broken. Hospitals are left to provide services to the poor who are not being addressed. The idea of penalizing hospitals that address a need that society ignores is wrong. He said the people who work at St. Francis deserve the respect and appreciation of the community because they have earned it. He was grateful for their presence and proud to be associated with this distinguished organization. Eric Jacobson, 1422 Dempster St., 25 year resident, said as parents he and his wife have lived through accidents at the soccer field and baseball diamond and saw how St. Francis has responded. They have gone to the emergency room because a child swallowed a ball and staff respond with calm competence. They come to the emergency room and the hospital provides restoration. Because he enjoys a special relationship with St. Francis in an allied organization, he has an intimate knowledge of what they do to address the needs of people irrespective of their socio-economic status. He has never heard a discussion about whether they will be paid when they do an assessment of someone who is sick or infirm. He assumed that the people behind this dont understand what is involved in health care nor the crisis that all face and they will have to address if they dont suppor t institutions that are trying to care for people. Susan Indy spoke for Fr. Bob Oldershaw, St. Nicholas Church, who wrote, Dear members of City Council, I regret I cannot be present to express gratitude to you for passing a resolution tonight honoring St. Francis hospital for their service to the community during the past 104 years. You may not know it, but it was the pastors of St. Marys and St. Nicholas churches who invited the St. Franciscan Sisters to come to Evanston in 1901 to establish a hospital. As pastor of St. Nicholas parish for the past 17 years and board member of St. Francis hospital for several years, he was well aware of the impact of the hospital on the community. He joins them in recognizing the enormous amount of charity care that St. Francis provides to the Evanston community. I found it unconscionable that a referendum even suggesting the withdrawal of tax exempt status will appear on the ballot for the April 5 election. It is an insult to the hospital that has provided outstanding medical care, much of it uncompensated, to the Evanston community and has been a strong supportive presence in the south Evanston community. I urge all my fellow citizens to vote no on the proposed referendum on April 5. Brenda Sikorski, 801 Hinman Ave., 16-year resident and physician in private practice at 801 Austin knows that St. Francis does charity work and goes out of its way to hook up patients who have different needs when they cannot provide it. The hospital has worked closely with her to provide those needs for patients who cannot afford to pay. Joan Raisnar, 810 Washington St., 24-year resident, attended a meeting last Tuesday where Sheryln Hailstone, CEO of St. Francis addressed community questions about the referendum. She left more confused than when she came. She thought Ms. Hailstone split some fine hairs in giving information. She insisted that accounting procedures allowed the hospital to add all bad debts to the figures they count as charity care. Ms. Raisnar did not think they belonged together; favored an impartial review of the non-for-profit status of Resurrection Corporation. The referendum is advisory and non- binding. Resurrection has not been examined by the Cook County Tax Assessor as was claimed. This is to review the corporation that owns St. Francis, not the hospital itself, to ensure that Resurrection fulfills its mission by providing charitable care to the service areas. She understood that metropolitan Resurrection receives about $72 million in tax offsets from reputable sources, yet provides less than 10% of that in care. As a business its administrative salaries have climbed 400% during this time. She supports St. Francis hospital but wants it and its owners to be subject to the same kind of review that she is as a taxpayer. Kenneth Grumet, 1009 Mulford St., moved here in 1981 while a resident at Northwestern Memorial. In 1983 he started a private practice in Rogers Park and moved to south Evanston. In 1986 he joined the staff of St. Francis while using other hospitals. In the 1980s he joined the Evanston Hospital staff and gradually became more active at St. Francis. About ten years ago he began attending the Howard Health Clinic two days a week and supervises eight residents. It is a large structure south of Howard St. with 15 examining rooms, in the heart of a community with the most need. Most patients have no health insurance and the rest are on Public Aid. Nobody is turned away who cannot pay. They have 5 March 28, 2005 many hospital admissions every week and many who go in on their own. When somebody comes in without insurance, and is discharged, they are sent to their clinic where they receive primary care. In addition to internal medicine, there are pediatrics and obstetrics/gynecology. From Lincoln Park to Wisconsin the only Level 1 Trauma Center is at St. Francis. The reason hospitals drop Level 1 Trauma Care is there is no profit. When Resurrection took over, many felt the ax would fall on the less profitable parts, including the clinic and strong educational programs--that did not happen. Dino Robinson, 2121 Church St., spoke as a representative of Shorefront, a historical organization that documents the African-American community in Evanston and North Shore area. He passed out copies of Gatherings to the City Council and noted the City was partially responsible for having this produced. About nine years ago, he received an award from the Cultural Fund that allowed him to pursue some research on this subject and he has been doing it ever since. The book is a history of the Emerson Street YMCA. Nearly 100 years ago, Richard Talley, a graduate of the Hampton Institute, settled in Evanston, went to the local YMCA and was not admitted. That did not deter him. He organized a youth group, and in a few years, in a blacksmith shop on Green Bay Rd. and Foster St., organized various sports. This led to the formation of the Emerson Street YMCA and Reverend Talley became the first director. This book commemorates its existence and heyday and what it means to the African-American community. Doors opened Sunday, July 5, 1914, when 450 people bought tickets for $1 each. This institution was segregated until 1969. Howard J. Andrews, 1919 Greenwood St., secretary/treasurer of Pinel Andrews Construction Corp., said their business has been here for 28 years and he is a 42-year resident. He reported that March 1 the company bid on a job for Levinson Park on Mulford St. There were three bidders. Twelve days ago they received notification that they took the base bid plus two alternates. That put them in second place, $437 above the low bidder. The rule is that if an Evanston contractor is within 5% of the low bid, their bid will be considered seriously for award of the job. He asked why Council did not take this into consideration and award them the contract? Under the Freedom of Information Act they obtained a copy of the low bid, where there was a violation greater than theirs and what he thought were feeble reasons not to award them the job. He asked Council to reverse that and award the job to them. Alderman Jean-Baptiste said that Pinel Andrews is located in the 2nd Ward. He asked City Manager Carroll to look into this. Ms. Carroll met with Pinel Andrews and parks/recreation staff. Apparently there was some inconsistency in the process where certain items were supposed to be used but were substituted to complete the job. He asked Ms. Carroll for clarification. Ms. Carroll said they met with Mr. Andrews and his son Peter to clarify why their bid was not accepted. It was related to the specification for the playground surface. The City expected a product that required a certain fall distance and the product Mr. Andrew specified did not meet those criteria so their bid was eliminated. Mr. Andrews bought up that the City did not confirm that the winning bidder had met the specifications. The City verified that the winning bidder was going to use the material the City had specified and confirmed with the company that they quoted prior to the date of the bid opening. The City believes they followed the procedure and that Pinel Andrews did not meet the specification. Susan Greene, 922 Asbury Ave., health care consultant with a specialty in providing access to poor women and children (specifically Medicaid) has followed the debate on St. Francis. She thought that health care is so complicated with reimbursement strategies and the definition of charity care that it is easy to make distortions. By law, hospitals are not allowed to turn anyone away who appears at their emergency room. By law, they are not allowed to do a financial assessment until they triage the condition that caused the patient to present. All the claims that Resurrection does not turn anyone away based on their financial class are true. It is true the Howard Area Community Health Center does take the uninsured and the poor. The reason Resurrection has that center is for training programs, which are required to provide outpatient settings for residents. Hospitals are reimbursed by the federal government for the cost of residents. She did not imply that covers the full cost of running that clinic and was not criticizing it. If one evaluates data on admissions to Resurrection, most of the Medicaid admissions are for OB deliveries and the infants who are delivered. In the State of Illinois, reimbursement for OB is rather competitive. At Northwestern Hospital downtown, close to 50% of its admissions are for OB. It is complicated and she could not see why Council would pass a resolution supporting St. Francis when all that is being asked for is that the County Assessor do a review. Betty Ester, 1806 Grey Ave., asked why there was a resolution before Council when citizens signed petitions to put the referendum on the ballot? A resolution was not done when citizens signed petitions to put the Northwestern issue on the ballot. She thought staff and elected officials were interjecting themselves into the process. 6 March 28, 2005 Maricela Munoz, 1226 Sherman Ave., reported in 1999 her aunt visited a local clinic because she had not felt well for several months and the doctor strongly urged her to seek treatment at a local hospital. She lived in Evanston with her family just blocks away from St. Francis, yet she was turned away for lack of health insurance. She was forced to travel to Cook County Hospital, where they welcomed her. She had to travel a large distance on public transportation because she did not drive. The travel time took its toll on her and in the end she was permanently hospitalized. She came because she did not want other families to go through what theirs did and asked that St. Francis to be a better neighbor. Ted Loda, 1314 Washington St., said he retired in 2004 as a representative for AFSCME Local 1891A for over 20 years. This union has been part of Evanston since 1968. Members provide services in Evanston by cleaning the streets, dispersing vehicle stickers and do all the work aside from managing a facility. Contrary to that, is a corporation that has been here for seven years. During the last three years the amount of charitable care provided has been cut in half. AFSCME Local 1891A is consistent with the progressive tradition of this City and strongly urged residents to support what Evanston is known for people who believe in citizen input. Lawrence McCarthy, 1104 Harvard Tr.,34-year resident, said all by now should be aware of the smoke and mirrors thrust upon citizens by statements that passage of the referendum question will revoke the non-for-profit tax exemption status of St. Francis Hospital. This is not true but it sounds true. At the last Council meeting anti-union feelings stood out. Since then he learned AFSCME has been here for 37 years and Resurrection Corporation just a few years. The issue is not about St. Francis but about Resurrection Health Care Corporation and their policies that affect all their hospitals including Evanston and their workers. The impact on St. Francis is why local employees have initiated this referendum. St. Francis dealt with charity for over 100 years but he asked if it is the same St. Francis now as it was when the nuns milked the goats. The nuns are no longer there and the same atmosphere is not there. He reported that last Tuesday CEO Sherlyn Hailstone said she was agreeable to talk with the union and Alderman Rainey supported this. He asked people when they vote to listen to their heart and compare the present policies to the past. Evelyn Kaehler, 409 Florence Ave., said St. Francis has been her neighbor and hospital for 25 years; respects those who work there and never had a bad experience. She loves St. Francis Hospital but will vote yes on the referendum question. It is not about the good and compassionate people who work there. It is about issues raised about charity care and debt collection policies of its parent corporation, Resurrection Health Care. If allegations were made by any other group, would they not want a proper investigation based upon the merits of the case? The Cook County Assessor can clear this up and make a definitive judgment. She was not convinced that passing the advisory referendum would cause harm to St. Francis, if Resurrection meets the County Assessors standards for charity care. Because the American health care system is broken does not mean they should not hold charitable institutions accountable for practices that entitle them to tax exemption status. She asked for an official review of the charity care practices of the parent corporation. Jason Kay, 2000 Cleveland St., AFSCME Council 31 employee, understood that robo calls have been made by Alderman Rainey and those calls state this referendum will cause St. Francis to lose its tax exemption. That disturbed him because it was not accurate. This takes away no money from Resurrection but causes a review of their tax status. It disturbed him that this seemed to be a scare tactic by Resurrection and gets in the way of an honest debate about the referendum. He asked how did the alderman justify making those statements in a robo call and in other communications? Hank Scheff, 2122 Maple Ave., AFSCME Council 31 employee, wondered whether the City Council should be considering a resolution with wording that is the same word for word as is on St. Franciss website. He called it propaganda that they want Council to endorse. Resurrection is a fine institution, but their rhetoric should not be adopted blindly. Data they have seen shows since Resurrection bought St. Francis that charity care has been cut in half and collections and lawsuits have tripled. The hospital wants them to focus on a different figure, which is the amount of uncompensated care that includes debts they have written off. Those figures are highly inflated by St. Francis and are based on retail charges. As a plan administrator, if he goes into Evanston Hospital and gets a bill for $5,000, about $2,000 of that would be written off because he is in a PPO. If St. Francis writes off the charge, they dont write off the $3,000 but write off the retail charge. Nobody gets the retail charge anymore unless they are uninsured. This referendum is devised to bring accountability, is advisory and he believed it is a mistake for the Council to endorse propaganda of St. Francis and Resurrection Health Care. 7 March 28, 2005 Rachel Lippmann, 720 Emerson St., NU student at the Medill Journalism School, will be in charge of WNUR, the campus radio station Town Hall Debate between Mayor Morton and challenger Peter Godwin, Sunday April 3 at 3:30 p.m. in the Annie May Swift auditorium on the campus. Audience members may submit questions and hear their views and vision for Evanston. For those who cannot make that time, the debate will be carried on 89.3 FM. More information will be available on website, new.wnur.org, including directions and parking information. Raymond Summers, 1920 Asbury Ave., president of AFSCME, Local 1891A, a City of Evanston employees union, said that Evanston is considered a progressive community. However, within the past two weeks that could be debated. He read the referendum question, Shall the Cook County Assessor challenge the tax exempt status of Resurrection Health Care properties, including those in Evanston, Illinois, if it is determined that the healthcare corporation does not meet the standards for these exemptions, due to failure to provide adequate charity care and for filing lawsuits against indigent debtors. He noted nowhere did the referendum refer to revocation of St. Francis Hospitals tax exemptions nor does it jeopardize any ability to offer much needed services in Evanston as has been circulated. The referendum specifically is concerned with Resurrection Health Care Corporation. This information is intentionally misleading and a deliberate attempt to distort the facts. Tonight they will have a resolution that deals only with St. Francis Hospital, not the Resurrection Health Care Corporation the referendum addresses. He urged people to ask, if a health care facility was doing everything mentioned, would it not welcome a referendum that would clear up any allegations. Shannon Seiberling, 1632 Ashland Ave., repeated a statement by Alderman Jean-Baptiste at the last Council meeting. A few years ago when we had the fair share referendum on the ballot regarding Northwestern we got an 80% approval, but now when we propose one about the fairness of a large corporation in our midst, there is a great hue and cry. That seemed a good way to put it. Evanston has a reputation for progressiveness. She said that we have given a great privilege to Resurrection Health Corporation, the privilege of not paying taxes, neither property nor sales that are needed here. In exchange, the corporation gives charity to the less fortunate or to anyone in a medical crisis. St. Francis became corporate a few years ago when Resurrection Health Corporation purchased it as they did many non-profit Catholic hospitals. After buying these hospitals, Resurrection started cutting charity care, suing people too poor to pay, laying off employees, not filling staff positions and lowering salaries and benefits for those who remain. Resurrection Health Care grosses over $1 billion annually and, by its own figures, $47 million is profit. As its profits have increased, its CEO salary quadrupled and charity care declined. At a meeting last week, CEO Sherlyn Hailstone said charity care was given only to people whose income is at the poverty level or below. They heard that Advocate Hospital System guidelines provide charity care for people at four times the poverty level. This bears out the fact that Resurrection has cut its charity care by half or less of what other private non-profit hospitals do. During these times of high health care costs, corporate accountability is important and she hoped the character of Evanston has not changed and that they will insist on fairness. Dr. Denis B. Drennan, 38-year resident, came to practice as an extern at St. Francis Hospital in 1963 and was there until his retirement in 2001. He served for 18 years as chair of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery so he has intimate knowledge of what charity care is and how it is given. St. Francis has been a major giver of care to whoever came in the door. He would be called out two or three times a week at night because he was on the emergency room call list. Nobody asked this person whether they could pay. It was broken arms and legs; sprains, automobile accidents, gunshot wounds, etc. They did what was necessary for the patient. He recalled that never once, when he said the patient had to go to surgery, did an administrator come and ask him to transfer the patient elsewhere. In addition to that, they had clinics and totally free care from the doctors point of view. Some of the clinic patients were on Medicaid, which pays 20% of the cost. He found that Medicaid paid 12% of the charge and their office cost was 24%. The answer was to stop billing Medicaid so they lost 12% on every bill. In spite of what people have heard, the referendum question should be voted no and carries bad implications. This is an Evanston refe rendum for St. Francis Hospital and it is nonsense that it is against Resurrection, otherwise why is this not being carried out in other suburbs with Resurrection hospitals? Dr. Scott Ambers, clinical psychologist, worked at St. Francis hospital from 1994-2003, so he was there before Resurrection and when it became part of Resurrection. The difference in the amount of charity care could not have been more striking during those two eras. In June 2002, St. Francis closed its in-patient psychiatry unit as a result of petitioning the Illinois Health Facilities Board saying that primarily Rush North Shore and Evanston Hospital would accept the patients they could no longer treat. The majority of those patients were Medicaid, Medicare or indigent. They petitioned the board even though these other hospitals wrote saying their units were at maximum capacity and they could not treat the overflow by the closure at St. Francis. In 2002, Resurrection management instructed many of the clinicians 8 March 28, 2005 in the out-patient mental health center to terminate and discharge indigent patients who had long-standing therapeutic alliances with their psychologists or social workers, solely for business purposes. Little attention was paid to clinical matters. Patients were terminated from the clinic without consideration of their rights as are outlined in the Illinois Developmental Disabilities and Mental Health Confidentiality Act. There was an intensive outpatient program for Russian speakers, most of who were indigent and lived in Rogers Park and Skokie and were holocaust survivors. On Christmas Eve, Resurrection dictated that program be closed and gave the patients one-day notice. Martha Lettner, 1320 Central Ave., Wilmette, associated with St. Francis hospital since 1954, when she broke her arm. While she no longer lives in Evanston, their children were born there and brought in when they had accidents. Her youngest seven children are adopted as former wards of DCFS and have multiple medical issues. They have occasionally been taken to Evanston Hospital because that is where the ambulance took them and the difference in treatment for Medicaid patients between Evanston Hospital and St. Francis is unbelievable. She has never had any problems at St. Francis. The children always saw board certified pediatricians at the Howard Clinic. They have been referred to board certified specialists in every imaginable area due to their medical problems. She has never felt that Medicaid case or charity cases are treated with anything other than respect. They are referred to other specialists if needed. She continues to go to St. Francis for emergency room treatment and, if admitted, the care the children receive is excellent. There was never a comment about their status as Medicaid patients but she had that at Evanston Hospital. Benita Cohen, 9150 Kedvale, Skokie, was there because her husband is on the staff of St. Francis Hospital. Weekly he is called to see patients who are indigent with no insurance. Every week they see indigent patients and those who dont qualify for Medicaid. They are not training residents. He goes freely to the Howard Street Clinic when the staff calls his office. She asked people to vote no on the referendum. Sh e said this is not an investigation but a witch-hunt. Shannon Gilson, Chicago, AFSCME Council 31, was struck by what was left out of the resolution. There was no mention of how Resurrection overcharges the uninsured; no mention of lawsuits against thousands of patients; no reference to drastic cuts in charity care. These issues are at the core of why this referendum is so important and why this resolution does a great disservice to residents. Resurrection has made an honest public debate difficult. They provide $21 million in free care. Their mandate, as a tax-exempt organization, is to provide charity care. The actual amount of their charity care reported to the state is only $4 million. That is why they want people to focus on the amount of free care, which is largely bad debt. The state mandates that bad debt cannot be considered charity. Bad debt does count as charity if a hospital has relentlessly pursued collections. A patient who was homeless with two children was sued by the hospital for $10,000 and as a result her credit was damaged and she was forced to declare bankruptcy. Even after the bankruptcy proceedings, the bill went unpaid. Resurrection claimed that $10,000 as free care. Marketing bad debt as free care does not make it any more charitable. Filing lawsuits against the poor is not considered charitable under state law. Court records show that Resurrection sues people even after the courts declare them indigent. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: * Resolution 19-R-05 - Recognizing St. Francis Hospital - Consideration of proposed Resolution 19- R-05, which recognizes and commemorates the health care services provided by St. Francis Hospital to the Evanston Community. City Manager Carroll stated the Special Order of Business was a resolution that recognizes St. Francis Hospital and at the request of an alderman she placed on the agenda. Alderman Jean-Baptiste asked how things get on the agenda. Alderman Rainey had requested it. First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill explained that Council Rules adopted by the City Council provide in Section 2.6 that an individual alderman may ask the city manager to put a matter on the agenda for consideration. Alderman Feldman moved that Council adopt Resolution 19-R-05. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Alderman Feldman supported the resolution because the issue is dealt with inappropriately as a referendum. That did not mean the community could not debate this issue. To place a referendum that, in essence, makes an accusation that requires critical and complicated information to be discussed by a community over time requires that provisions for that discussion be made, which has not been done. Five to twelve meetings do not provide the kind of platform where 9 March 28, 2005 information can be disseminated, examined, checked, debated, nor does an argument between a CEO and an AFSCME representative. That is not the way this community makes a decision. He questioned whether an investigation was even necessary. He was not suggesting that institutions should not be examined. They should be. He saw no reason for this referendum. If there is a problem, there are processes that should take place to allow the proper authorities to investigate. He asked if anybody who has listened to this debate knew for sure if this referendum is necessary? He has heard facts on both sides. The community is being asked, based upon protestations presented that evening or circulated in the community, to make a decision of importance. He called it unfair, unjust and said it did not belong in this community. This is not a dialogue but an accusation. He supported the resolution because nothing discussed has been investigated by proper authorities. One group is making accusations against another. There is no authority, investigating body, no court, no judge, no county official, or independent research to establish any facts so how can they possibly expect with this kind of process for a community to make a decision of this importance. The referendum question starts out with a statement that almost implies guilt. Who could not vote for a referendum phrased the way this one is phrased. If any one of them were accused and found guilty, shouldnt they be punish ed. There is an implication that they are guilty. St. Francis has no reason to defend itself in a public court. It may have to defend itself in a proper investigation. He asked Council to support an institution that has worked hard and with selflessness to help people here. He recalled a fire in his ward, and St. Francis took everybody and provided them with food and shelter for many days. They did not have to do that but they were a neighbor. Working with St. Francis Hospital to help the neighborhood has been an easy job for both he and Alderman Rainey because St. Francis was eager to help and be involved with the community. During the years, St. Francis could have left the community when many hospitals closed or left a neighborhood. St. Francis chose to stay here because it believed in its mission, in the community and it had a special purpose in south Evanston. He asked Council to do the just and right thing to support an institution that pays a lot of taxes, that has helped people in this community over a long period and done so in a compassionate and humane way. Alderman Jean-Baptiste stated the resolution puts Council members in a precarious position. Many have had positive experiences with St. Francis and thus want to support the resolution. On the other hand, in the context of this debate in the public realm, the resolution is to leverage the collective weight of the Council. Alderman Feldman asked what proper authority has looked into this matter? He thought the union was a proper authority considering its role in this society. In many places it represents the majority of people who work. Unions have played a historical role in fighting for numerous changes in society. He would not question the value, authority and wisdom of the union, which led this charge. The issue on the table is whether Resurrection is consistent in providing charitable care. Resurrection has not been investigated by this Council and has had some investigation by the union. No leadership has come from Resurrection to deny of any of the charges the union has made. He did not see the necessity to throw in a resolution to cloud the issue while the bottom line of this debate is a public discussion. The truth will come from an investigation by the assessors office if the referendum passes. The request is for investigation. The union is putting a special order of business before the community which is a referendum that asks citizens to consider all the facts. St. Francis has put out its information and they are debating the issue. For Council to weigh in on it with this resolution is to distort the process and give too much leverage in one direction. There is a lot of confusion. The resolution talks about St. Francis, yet the referendum talks about Resurrection Health Care. He suggested the resolution be voted down. Alderman Rainey suggested that Alderman Jean-Baptiste was confusing the issue. The referendum on the ballot is not about the union. The resolution says to this community that the people on this Council, who represent residents, that a majority of them believe that St. Francis Hospital has done a wonderful, caring job in this community. The resolution says St. Francis pays over $1 million annually in property taxes; is one of the largest employers here; has worked hard to stabilize the south Evanston community and is a caring, wonderful hospital. None disagree with that. If passing the resolution means that the community will turn around and en masse vote against the referendum, so be it. She thought the community is smart and will study the issues. All she asked was that this Council give St. Francis its due and support its commitment and caring in this community. She was not raising any issue with the union in the resolution. She thought it important that, from time to time, they stand up and support various institutions here. This is a major institution here and the community hospital. This Level 1 Trauma Center is the only one between Lincoln Park and Wisconsin. The community depends on St. Francis and she asked for support of this hospital. She said if you think that St. Francis does not provide care for people who cannot afford to pay, she urged that person vote yes on the referendum. Alderman Newman said a number of elected officials who support the referendum were putting out as candidates for election as people who are non-confrontational and experts on civility. He found this the most confrontational tactic he 10 March 28, 2005 has seen. This is getting the community involved in an issue in which they will never have the information to make an important decision. His problem with the resolution is similar to what is going on during this election season. It is not straightforward. He asked why did they come up with information from the St. Francis website? He does not want St. Francis to speak for the Council; wants Council to speak for itself. He thought the resolution was overly political. Why cannot they say what they want to say. He respects AFSCME, the right to organize, become a member and participate but thought AFSCME had dragged the community into whatever issue was going on between Resurrection and AFSCME. He saw a community interest here. The community interest is the Level 1 Trauma Center that Evanston Hospital used to provide and does not anymore. It should not be taken for granted that every hospital will provide this. That service is important to the community. He did not know what is going on with employees at St. Francis. He knows that hospitals have choices as to where they locate and the types of services they provide. If the community votes for this referendum on April 5, they are saying to St. Francis that whatever you are doing we dont respect it. There may be aspects of their operations that are wrong and maybe he would have conducted himself differently if he were a union member. As he listened that evening, he could not determine the level of charitable care and there are many here who were well informed. He could not possibly expect the community to understand and have the facts on this referendum and it did not belong on the ballot. He had no problem joining the resolution and voting no because of the important services St. Francis provides to this community. His first involvement with St. Francis was to oppose them putting in a helipad on the hospitals roof in 1987. Since that episode, St. Francis has made tremendous efforts to reach out to the community and not every major non-profit institution here has done that. He urged Council to take a leadership role and say what they mean. St. Francis Hospital belongs in the City of Evanston. Alderman Wynne was not sure which facts to believe; talked to people on both sides and had yet to hear a coherent definition of charity. She thought they have to discuss the same thing. She has read all the materials handed to her and saw truth in some of it, but found they were not comparing the same terms. She did not think the referendum was a good idea; supports a unions right to organize. She found the descri ption of what they were trying to do too brief. She thought the Cook County Assessor should regularly examine every large non-profit that exists in Cook County and did not understand why they were only looking at Resurrection Health Care. She urged them to take the top ten institutions and not single out one. She suggested when the storm has died down, that they discuss with the school districts, having the Cook County Assessor examine large non-profits in Evanston and Cook County. Everyone that claims tax exempt status should have to demonstrate that they qualify just as any individual has to. She would support the good work of St. Francis; noted they are a critical organization here; pay taxes and provide charitable care. However, there are many whereas clauses she had no ability to judge. Unless somebody could provide an objective standard, she did not know which facts to believe and could support a resolution commending St. Francis for its community efforts and outreach program, but did know if the six whereas clauses on the bottom of page two were true. She noted that when Council works on resolutions on the Council floor, they are careful to verify with the Legal Department that every statement in the whereas clause is accurate. If the maker of the resolution could make changes, she would support it. She was skeptical of the referendum and would like Council action in a different way. Alderman Bernstein supported some form of the resolution. He thought if the union was trying to organize a group of people and that some opposing the referendum say that if St. Francis loses their tax exempt status the hospital will have to close. That is an insult to those who work at the hospital. If he was a union member and heard that the union was guilty of closing hospitals and eliminating jobs he did not know why he would go with that union. He did not understand how this referendum came to be. For the last eight years he has expressed concerns about non-profit organizations generally; asked who could not vote yes for this referendum. He thought if an institution is receiving a benefit there is a corresponding obligation with that. He does not want St. Francis to go away; was not denigrating that institution or anything it does for this community. He has the highest regard for people voting no in support of St. Francis Hospital. However, if there is nothing to hide he urged that Resurrection Health Care open its books. He stated that anybody who gets a benefit should pay for it. He will vote yes on the referendum because there is a greater source than Council whose responsibility is to determine the validity of non-profit status. He reported that Commissioner Suffredin plans to propose a resolution at the Cook County Board to have the appropriate bodies investigate every institution that gets non- profit status. He values St. Francis and does not want them to give up any care or the Level 1 Trauma Care Center. Alderman Feldman acknowledged that unions are a vital part of American life, which was undeniable. However, unions like other bodies, are fallible. To assume that because something is proposed by either a council or a union it must be so is not what Alderman Jean-Baptiste meant. Every day they try to do the right thing. Sometimes they make mistakes. 11 March 28, 2005 He urged them to examine the issue and not create authority based on some other time or past contribution. They will establish authority that evening and one way that they will do that, is to try to craft a resolution that supports St. Francis Hospital that all can support. One of the reasons that he was willing to support the resolution and urged people to vote no on the referendum was because it is the only tool left to him once an irresponsibly placed referendum question is on the ballot. Does his no mean they should not lose thei r non-for-profit status if they are found derelict in meeting the standards? He could not say that. His objection was that this issue does not belong as a referendum question before this community. If people are serious about examining non-profit institutions, there are ways to do it. They can lobby the county and so could the union. The referendum question forces people to make ridiculous choices. If people ignore it, in essence, they are voting for it. He stated that St. Francis Hospital deserves the right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. They should not have to say they are not guilty. That is not the American way. Alderman Jean-Baptiste said it is not what you stand for. The great accusation is made publicly, then the accused scramble to deny it. He did not think he would stand for it if it was done to him and could be done in a campaign. It happened to him on the Internet and he asked how one defends that. That is what is happening here and he wanted the message to get out that this kind of referendum question has no place in Evanston. These accusations are without basis and should not be placed before citizens. The community and this Council cannot make that decision. Everybody has an opinion and a reason, which he does not question. They have the right based upon the amount of information, investigation and struggle to get the facts. That wont come from one side and another shouting at each other. He wanted to craft a resolution that supports St. Francis Hospital that urges a no vote, not because he has taken a position on the question, but because the question should not be asked of the public. Alderman Rainey moved they amend the resolution by striking everything after the second whereas clause on page two and then say be it resolved that because we believe this referendum question to appear on the April 5 ballot to be misplaced, we urged the community to vote no. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Alderman Rainey clarified the amendment was to delete everything beyond the two whereas clauses on page two and all of page three. The whereas clause would read: And therefore let it be resolved that because we believe this referendum question appearing on the April 5 ballot is misplaced, we encourage the community to vote no on the referendum. Mayor Morton reminded Council they were to discuss the amendment. Alderman Newman asked to add to the amendment: and it involves financial issues far too complicated for a public policy question. Alderman Rainey accepted the amendment. Alderman Bernstein noted that an indictment is not a conviction in reference to Alderman Feldmans comments. He said this is not an indictment but a request for information. He could support the resolution and did not think the referendum question was inappropriate. This referendum question only asks for information. When somebody races to a defense, maybe something is there. If Resurrection is doing everything by the book, clear the air. He does not want them to be destroyed if they lose their non-profit status; thought it would not happen but could. They have confusion by having a resolution that ends with a Council vote to oppose a referendum, which mingles too many disparate things. Resurrection Health Care either is conforming or not to standards. He was not sure to whom the advisory referendum would go but hoped that somebody picks it up and reviews not only Resurrection Health Corporation but others as well. Should the question be on the ballot, which many people have varying views about? The issue is not easy and he did not have the wherewithal to resolve it, but wanted somebody who could. He could not support the resolution as amended. Alderman Feldman posed a question to Alderman Bernstein, who is running for office, Shall Steven Bernstein be stripped of his authority and position as alderman of the 4th Ward in the City of Evanston, if it is determined that he is performing his job with deceit, malfeasance, no integrity and achieves great profit as the result of his office? All he was doing was asking for information according to Alderman Bernstein. Alderman Feldman said they all could realize the terrible injustice of that phrase. It was not a legitimate question and such a question should not be tolerated against anyone. That is unjust, unfair and un-American and not the way this Council does business. He urged support of the amended resolution. Alderman Tisdahl believed that AFSCME is a terrific union and has the right to put the referendum question on and followed procedure to get the proper number of signatures, but she did not support the referendum. She supported the amended resolution that supports St. Francis. 12 March 28, 2005 Alderman Newman disagreed with Alderman Bernstein about St. Francis Hospital losing its non-for-profit status. He pointed out it runs a multimillion dollar corporation. If the City lost $3 million in revenue, they would have to reduce service or somehow raise revenue. If the hospital lost its tax-exempt status, it would have to pay taxes, then figure out revenues and make financial choices at the hospital such as Level 1 Trauma service and the many poor people they serve. He said this is not a simple thing to say so what if there is an investigation and they lose. They are asking the public to micromanage the financial operation of a major institution where nobody present or in the public truly knows the implications. If St. Francis loses its tax exempt status, it either has to cut services or raise rates, the same as the City has to when revenues decline. He saw an implication that the hospital could lose its status and Council needs to lead. St. Francis provides services to this community that are extraordinarily valuable that it makes economic decisions about. That was why he thought Council should lead. He supported the resolution with the amended language. The referendum would do harm and was not a public policy issue. Voice vote on the amendment. Motion carried. Voice vote on the amended resolution. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA (Any item marked with an Asterisk*) Alderman Feldman moved Council approval of the Consent Agenda with these exceptions: contract with Current Technologies for security camera surveillance system at City buildings; Ordinance 5-O-05 - Amends sections of Title 4, Section 2 (Building Code); Ordinance 26-O-05 - Amends sections of Title 4, Chapter 7 (Electrical Code); Ordinance 27-O-05 - Amends Title 5, Chapter 1 (Housing Regulations); Ordinance 28-O-05 - Amends sections of Title 4, Chapter 6 (Plumbing Code); Ordinance 29-O-05 - Amends International Fire Code & NFPA Life Safety Code 101; Ordinance 30-O-05 - Amends sections of Title 4, Chapter 11 (One & Two Family Dwelling Code); Ordinance 31-O-05 - Amends sections of Title 4, Chapter 21 (Fuel Gas Code); Ordinance 41-O-05 - Amends sections of Title 4, Chapter 9 (Mechanical Code); Ordinance 48-O-05 - Amends Title 4, Chapter 18 (Property Services Board) and Ordinance 40-O-05 - Special Use request for a convenience store at 555 Howard St. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Roll call. Voting aye Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Feldman, Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein. Voting nay none. Motion carried (7-0). * ITEMS APPROVED ON CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES: * Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 14, 2005. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) *Approval, as recommended, of the City of Evanston payroll for the period through March 24, 2005 and City of Evanston bills for the period ending March 25, 2005, authorized and charged to the proper accounts: City of Evanston payroll (through 03/24/05) $2,059,602.51 City of Evanston bills (through 03/25/05) $2,039,008.67 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of the purchase of four (4) police vehicles, using the Northwest Municipal Conference bid from Currie Motors, in the amount of $90,894. (Funded in the Fleet Services Fund, Capital Outlay Account.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Recommendation for award of the 2005 water main and sewer improvements, Contract A, to George W. Kennedy Construction Co. in the amount of $845,730. (Funded by the CIP, Water Fund, Depreciation, Improvement and Extension accounts and Sewer Reserve Fund.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of a sole-source contract with IBM for WebSphere Enterprise Software for the financial/payroll system upgrade at a cost of $28,298. (Funded by the CIP Financial Software funds.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA 13 March 28, 2005 MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of contract renewal with Crawford & Company in the amount of $82,973 for Third-Party Administration of workers compensation and general liability claims against the City. (Funded in the Insurance Fund.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of contract renewal with Yes, We Care Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $64,076.30 for landscape maintenance of the Green Bay Rd. railroad embankment for 2005. (Funded in the FY 2005-06 Park/Forestry operating budget.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of Change Order No. 3 (final) for Phase IX, Contract A of the Relief Sewer Program with Civil Contractor & Engineers, Inc., decreasing the cost by $116,472.13 from $5,480,431.50 to $5,363,959.38. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of Change Order No. 2 for Phase IX, Contract B of the Relief Sewer Program with Pan Oceanic extending the contract time and decreasing the cost by $461,521.30 from $2,526,778.30 to $2,065,257. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of Change Order No. 2 for Phase X, Contract A of the Relief Sewer Program with DiPaolo Company extending the contract time and increasing the cost by $19,098.50 from $10,046,423 to $10,065,521.95. (Funded by IEPA loans.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of Change Order No. 1 for Contract A-04 for Capital Improvements at the Water Treatment Facility with Kovilic Construction Company, Inc., modifying the contract time from December 3, 2004 to March 31, 2005. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Approval of Change Order No. 2 to the contract for engineering services for Capital Improvements at the Water Treatment Facility with AB&H, LLC, increasing the not-to-exceed amount by $30,000 from $278,232.33 to $308,232.33. (Funded by the Water Bond Fund account.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) ■ ■ ■ ■ * Resolution 15-R-05 - Amended Lease Agreement - Consideration of proposed Resolution 15-R-05, which authorizes the City Manager to sign an amended lease agreement with the MWRD for property located at 2145 Grey Ave. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Ordinance 34-O-05 - Special Assessment #1458: Alley Paving - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 34-O-05, introduced March 14, 2005, which authorizes the paving of an alley located north of Noyes St. and east of Green Bay Rd. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Ordinance 35-O-05 - Special Assessment #1467: Alley Paving - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 35-O-05, introduced March 14, 2005,which authorizes the paving of an alley located north of Harrison St. and east of Prospect Ave. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Ordinance 37-O-05 - Special Assessment #1471: Alley Paving - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 37-O-05, introduced March 14, 2005,which authorizes the paving of an alley located north of Emerson St. and east of Wesley Ave. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) * Ordinance 38-O-05 - Special Assessment #1473: Alley Paving - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 38-O-05, introduced March 14, 2005,which authorizes the paving of an alley located north of Grant St. and east of Central Park Ave. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) 14 March 28, 2005 * Ordinance 39-O-05 - Special Assessment #1478: Alley Paving - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 39-O-05, introduced March 14, 2005,which authorizes the paving of an alley located north of Harrison St. and east of Elm Ave. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: * Sidewalk CafØs for Type 1 and Type 2 Restaurants at Various Locations - The Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee has recommended approval of the following sidewalk cafØs: Tommy Nevins, Noodles & company, Ben & Jerrys, Taco Bell Express, Unicorn CafØ, CafØ Express South, Oceanique and CafØ Mozart. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (7-0) * Ordinance 49-O-05 - Special Use and Major Variation Request for an Automobile Service Station at 2450 Main St. - Consideration of the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special use and a major variation for an automobile service station at 2450 Main St. * MARKED INTRODUCED CONSENT AGENDA HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: * Ordinance 32-O-05 -Amending City Code Pertaining to Park Regulations - Consideration of Ordinance 32-O-05, introduced March 14, 2005,which amends Title 7, Chapters 9, 10 and 11 of the City Code and adds a section pertaining to park permits. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) OTHER COMMITTEES: * Resolution 20-R-05 - Amends the City’s FY 2004-05 and 2005-06 One-Year Action Plans - Consideration of proposed Resolution 20-R-05, which approves the reallocation of $3,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Hemenway Elevator Project. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (7-0) APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Morton asked the following appointments be introduced: Tiffany Farriss M/W/EBE Committee 618 Hinman Ave. Joanna Goodson M/W/EBE Committee 1208 Fowler Ave. Vaughan A. Jones M/W/EBE Committee 1732 Dobson St. * INTRODUCED CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Morton asked the following reappointment be confirmed: Marvin D. Juliar Economic Development Committee 425 Grove St. For term ending April 30, 2008 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA 15 March 28, 2005 REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS: Alderman Feldman reported that the sole-source contract with Current Technologies Corporation in the amount of $133,695 for a security camera surveillance system at City buildings was held in committee. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: Ordinance 10-O-05 - Zoning Planned Development - 1228 Emerson St. - Consideration of the findings and report of the Plan Commission to rezone to R5 from O1 and grant a planned development for 50 condos with 87 parking spaces at a height limited to the R5 maximum of 50 feet or 5 stories. MARKED INTRODUCED Ordinance 33-O-05 - Planned Development for an Addition to the Retirement Community at 2320 Pioneer Rd. - Consideration of the findings and report of the Plan Commission to grant a requested Planned Development for Three Crowns Park at 2320 Pioneer Rd. MARKED INTRODUCED Alderman Tisdahl reported these two ordinances were marked introduced and a Special P&D Committee meeting would be held on April 11 to deal with them. The following nine ordinances will also be discussed at the April 11 meeting because the committee did not get to them. Ordinance 5-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 2 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by reference, the International Building Code, 2003 Edition and amendments. Ordinance 26-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 7 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by reference, the National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition and amendments. Ordinance 27-O-05 - Amendment to the Evanston Housing Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 1 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation for adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code, 2003 Edition with amendments that include provisions for building security. Ordinance 28-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 6 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by reference, the International Plumbing Code, 2005 Edition and amendments. Ordinance 29-O-05 - Amending the International Fire Code & NFPA Life Safety Code 101 - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by reference, the International Fire Code, 2003 Edition and the NFPA Life Safety Code 101, 2003 Edition and amendments. Ordinance 30-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 11 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by reference, the International Residential Code for One-and-Two-Family Dwellings, 2003 Edition and amendments. Ordinance 31-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 21 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by reference, the International Fuel Gas Code for, 2003 Edition and amendments. Ordinance 41-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 9 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by reference, the International Mechanical Code for, 2003 Edition and amendments. Ordinance 48-O-05 - Amending Title 4, Chapter 18 of the City Code Property Services Board Regarding the Hearing of Certain Appeals - Consideration of staffs recommendation to adopt, by 16 March 28, 2005 reference, the amendments to the Property Services Board regarding the hearing of certain appeals. Ordinance 40-O-05 - Special Use Request for a Convenience Store at 555 Howard St. - Consideration of Ordinance 40-O-05, the findings and recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a Special Use for a convenience store at 555 Howard St. Alderman Tisdahl moved approval of the special use request for a convenience store at 555 Howard Street. Seconded by Alderman Bernstein. Alderman Rainey noted Council had seen a convenience store near this one that was a subject in a videotape. That was not to say this would end up with the same kind of activity. A reason she heard at the P&D Committee for granting the special use was because this person is a shopkeeper here who has run this operation for a long time. She has been told that the reason for this request is so that the property can be sold as more valuable with the special use. She asked to hold this matter over until further information can be obtained directly from the owner about his plans. Seconded by Alderman Feldman. At the request of two aldermen this item was held. CALL OF THE WARDS: 6th Ward. No report. 7th Ward. No report. 8th Ward. Alderman Rainey asked staff to prepare a memo on designating the Civic Center a landmark for the Civic Center Committee meeting. 9th Ward. No report. 1st Ward. Alderman Newman commented on a recent press conference in front of the Civic Center about the future of the building. Evidently people want to keep this building and he would too. He said if they want to provide leadership, they have to recognize strengths and weaknesses. Great things are going on here with many wanting to do development. There are great parks, property values are up and crime rates low. However, there is a large capital problem here. The Civic Center needs $20 million in repairs and the Robert Crown Center and streets need attention. He urged people to read the Doyle report on the Civic Center that tells in the event of a serious fire where occupants may be injured or killed, the City could be held liable for a portion of the damages since it operates a building that does not conform to the local building codes. Something has to be done about the Civic Center. He suggested citizens read the report prepared by professional staff. $2.5 million is needed for a new HVAC system. Relocation costs are huge. General remodeling cost is $3.5 million. The roof, concrete and masonry are at $1.4 million. The City has an opportunity to use creativity to help reduce capital costs without socking it to the taxpayers. He could not understand how anyone could advocate staying in the Civic Center without also presenting a serious alternative to make up for the $20 million. Those who wish the City could stay in this building should read the report and not question the motivations of professional staff. When somebody says they dont need $20 million, they are saying staff cooked the Doyle report. 2nd Ward. No report. 3rd Ward. No report. 4th Ward. Alderman Bernstein announced a Civic Center Committee meeting Wednesday, March 30 at 7:00 p.m. 5thWard. No report. Mayor Morton thanked the City Manager for consolidating the sidewalk cafØs into one item and suggested Council pay careful attention to the proposed new international codes. 17 March 28, 2005 There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Morton adjourned the meeting at 12:17 a.m. Mary P. Morris, City Clerk A videotape recording of this meeting has been made part of the permanent record and is available in the City Clerks office.