Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04_25_05_ccCITY COUNCIL April 25, 2005 ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Alderman Rainey Alderman Wynne Alderman Feldman Alderman Bernstein Alderman Jean-Baptiste Alderman Tisdahl A Quorum was present. NOT PRESENT AT ROLL CALL:Aldermen Newman and Moran ABSENT:Alderman Kent PRESIDING:Mayor Lorraine H. Morton The OFFICIAL REGULAR MEETING of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Morton Monday, April 25, 2005, at 6:17 p.m. in the Aldermanic Library. Alderman Tisdahl moved that Council convene into Closed Session for the purpose of discussing matters related to real estate and closed session minutes pursuant to 5ILCS Section 120/2 (c) (5), (6) 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. (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 Rainey, Feldman, Jean-Baptiste, W ynne, Bernstein, Moran, Tisdahl. Voting nay none. Motion carried (7-0). At 6:45 p.m. Alderman Bernstein moved that the Council reconvene into open session and recess. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Morton reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:02 p.m. in the Council Chamber. ANNOUNCEMENTS: City Manager Julia Carroll reported that the Summer Youth Job Fair was well attended with some 300-400 youth applying for 157 summer jobs. Fifty-seven jobs are part of the 50/50 program where a business pays half the cost. Parks/Forestry & Recreation Director Doug Gaynor announced that pre-season beach tokens are on sale for $20 for Evanston and Skokie residents and $36 for other non-residents through Friday, June 10, when the fee will increase to $27 for residents and $51 for other non-residents. Public Works Director David Jennings announced that the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County is sponsoring a Computer & Electronics Recycling Event on Saturday, May 21, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the Village of Winnetka public works yard, 1390 Willow Rd. People will be required to show I.D. as the event is restricted to residents of SWANCC member communities. The event is only for residentially generated computers, hard drives, typewriters, TVs, and VCRs. No air conditioners, humidifiers, de-humidifiers or household chemicals will be accepted. Mayor Morton proclaimed May - Older Americans Month May 2-9 National Public Service Week CITIZEN COMMENT: 2 April 25, 2005 Michael OConnor, 1231 Isabella St., spoke on behalf of the 1227-31 Isabella Townhome Association that has fought a proposed development on a neighboring property, 1221 Isabella St., currently before the ZBA. The property consists of several substandard lots that have never been developed and have passed through the hands of real estate speculators. The latest owner plans an oversized single-family dwelling that is contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan and brings many safety and environmental issues. While they will continue to oppose this development before the ZBA, he wanted to bring to Councils attention the need to revise the current zoning laws. Development on substandard property should be considered as a special use under the Zoning Ordinance. Currently the development of a single-family dwelling on a substandard lot requires no more scrutiny than the zoning administrators review that other elements of the applicable code have been met. As a result, adverse impacts on neighbors and neighborhoods do not receive adequate consideration. He said more scrutiny is given to opening an ice cream shop in a commercial district, currently considered a special use, than an ill-conceived residential development with relief under 6-4-1-7 and 6-4-1-8, which presently are considered standard uses. In a mature community such as Evanston, most remaining open parcels of land are substandard. For those who hope for affordable housing, so scarce here, substandard lots present the best opportunity for positive change. Results, in recent experience, do not always match the hoped for intentions of the authors of the current zoning law. He proposed a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to have residential development of substandard lots receive the additional scrutiny of special use, rather than standard use. He hoped they would reflect upon this and, at the first opportunity, pass needed reform into law. Bill McClure, 12 Milburn Park, opposed the appeal of the Preservation Commission regarding 2408 Orrington Ave. He thought the nature of an appeal was probably reserved for a situation in which the applicant (Smithfield Properties) can show there has been some basic error made at the Preservation Commission and all they want is a re-hearing. Therefore, an appeal before Council of the standards reviewed in detail by that commission and the standards with respect to construction that were pointed out by Mr. Ruiz at the Planning & Development Committee of being unable to issue a certificate, because no plan had been developed, would more appropriately be considered before the Preservation Commission if they wanted a re-hearing and not before this body. This was because they have not been able to show the Preservation Commission made any errors regarding the standards to which they are bound to judge those matters. Bruce Enenbach, 802 Clinton Pl., said neighbors struggled with the former Kendall property for over a year. It has been a significant time commitment for people and was brought about by the intransigence of the developer, not the neighbors. Had this developer made a reasonable proposal, construction could be going on now. At every turn the developer has been denied. The Site Plan & Appearance Review Board, the Preservation Commission and, most recently, the Plan Commission rejected him. Most importantly, the proposal was rejected by the whole neighborhood. Before them is consideration of an appeal of the Preservation Commissions decision to deny Smithfield certificates of appropriateness for construction and demolition. The law is clear on standards. He read except in cases where the owner has no plans for a period of up to five years to replace an existing landmark or property in a district, no certificate of appropriateness shall be issued until plans for a replacement structure or object have been reviewed and approved by this commission. Susan Hughes, 810 Lincoln St., protested acceptance of the appeal to void the Preservation Commission ruling on the Kendall property at 2408 Orrington. Every time the Smithfield plan has gone before a board or commission, it has been voted down and the reason that has happened is the plan is totally improper for what exists in the neighborhood. There is no planned unit development within the historic district where Kendall is located. There are several deficiencies in the plan, including height, setbacks, number of guest parking spaces, etc. The inner green space would be inaccessible to the community and resembles a bowling alley as it gets successively narrower. The density of the proposed plan is too great for a three-acre parcel. There are seven magnificent oak trees around the administration building that would be lost forever. There is the National Louis precedent to keep in mind. Baker School has bought the property, but the part Baker wont use will be R1 with no lack of available bidders for one of the last remaining and most valuable pieces of property on the North Shore. For all those reasons, she asked that they reject the appeal. Judy Fiske, 2319 Sherman Ave., asked Council not to accept the appeal of the Preservation Commissions decision on construction and demolition at the Kendall College site. If Council accepts the appeal, the decision on demolition has to be made within 45 days and means the required decision must be made at the May 23 Council meeting. She thought it tied the hands of the new City Council to make the best decision for this property. Historic preservation, especially at this particular site, which stands in both the national historic register and a local historic district, is an important part of the planned development process. In the Zoning Ordinance, part of the general conditions under the planned 3 April 25, 2005 development application are if the proposed planned development is for a property listed as an Evanston landmark or property located within a historic district, listed on the national register of historic places or for property located within a historic district so designated by the Evanston Preservation Commission, the planned development shall be compatible with the Secretary of the Interiors sta ndards for rehabilitation as set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended. That means retaining many of the five histor ic buildings there. If Council votes to accept the appeal, they will tie the hands of the new Council, which by law must consider rehabilitation and preservation of those buildings. The developer can always come back and apply for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition at a future date. Bernard Citron, 222 N. LaSalle, Chicago, represented the property owner at 2408 Orrington and would not argue the appeal. He asked Council to accept the appeal. He believed Council should have the right to review these actions as they reviewed the actions of the Preservation Commission in recommending the landmark status of 2408 Orrington, which was denied by this Council. He asked that they take on that right and accept the appeal. What was not in front of Council was the planned unit development in its totality. What is before them is their appeal before the Preservation Commission for a certificate of appropriateness for construction of single-family homes and townhouses. It was not the plan that was reviewed separately by the Plan Commission. That was reviewed separately by the Preservation Commission and they made their recommendation to the Plan Commission. The request was specifically for construction of single family and townhouses and should be reviewed along with everything else in this plan by the Planning & Development Committee and this Council. The second part of their appeal is for demolition, which should go hand in hand with the first. It is not this project specifically in terms of the planned unit development and rezoning. That is very specific in the ordinance. They strongly request that this Council accept this appeal, hear it and decide the use for this property. Tom Gemmell, 720 Colfax St., said Mr. Citron failed to mention there has to be a basis to appeal. He has not identified a basis to appeal; has never objected to any procedural issue that came before the Preservation Commission. They did not object to the Preservation Commission by saying that the commission did not follow the standards. There is no basis to appeal; therefore, Council should not accept the appeal. The Preservation Commission fully vetted the standards for the certificate of appropriateness for construction and demolition over months. The developer had a full and complete opportunity to bring his testimony before that commission and never objected to the procedural issues or never said the standards were not followed. That is a matter of record. The Preservation Commission found a dozen standards that were not met and is the responsible body that should look into this issue. Each standard is mandatory. If one standard is not met, the certificate of appropriateness for construction must be denied. It cannot be said that every standard was met or that the Preservation Commission was wrong on all 12 of them. This Council must look at the same standards. This developer has never identified an issue to appeal. He requested that Council not accept the appeal because there is no basis for construction. The case is even worse on demolition, which cannot be appealed based on law that prohibits granting a certificate without the issuance of a plan. He asked Council to reject the application for the appeal. 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 at City buildings; Ordinance 52-O-05 - Amend City Code to Increase Parking Meter Rates; Ordinance 42-O-05 - Weapons Ordinance; Request for Waiver of Various City Building Fees; Sidewalk Cafes for Type1/Type 2 Restaurants; Plan Commission Recommendation - Kendall College; Appeal of Preservation Commission Decision - Kendall College; and Plan Commission Recommendation - B1 District Review. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Roll call. Voting aye Rain ey, Feldman, Newman, Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Moran, Tisdahl. Voting nay none. Motion carried (8-0). * ITEMS APPROVED ON CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES: * Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 12, 2005. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Release of Executive Session Minutes. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) *Approval, as recommended, of the City of Evanston payroll for the period through April 21, 2005 and City of Evanston bills for the period ending April 26, 2005, authorized and charged to the proper accounts: 4 April 25, 2005 City of Evanston payroll (through 04/21/05) $2,028,698.90 City of Evanston bills (through 04/26/05) $2,576,107.51 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid from Home Towne Electric, Inc. in the amount of $169,782.60 for Traffic Signal Modernization at Dodge Ave./Church St. intersection. (Funded by Motor Fuel Tax and CIP funds for FY 2005-06.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid from Schroeder & Schroeder in the amount of $99,725 for FY 2005-06 50/50 Sidewalk and Curb Replacement Program. (Funded by GO Bonds.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid from Sumit Construction Company in the amount of $225,737 for FY 2005-06 Replacement of Sewer Structures, Sewer and Water Main improvement program at various locations. (Funded by Sewer and Water funds.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of contract with MWH Americas, Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $199,608 for Engineering Design Services for S82B Contract 1 Relief Sewer Project of the Long Range Sewer Improvement Program. (Funded by IEPA loans and Sewer Reserve Funds.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of contract with Government Technology Services Incorporated (GTSI) using the U.S. Community Government Purchasing Alliance Contract in the amount of $41,850 for false alarm tracking software. (Funded by Information Systems Capital Account funds.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of contract with Virchow Kraus & Company for Water & Sewer cost of services and fee study in the amount of $41,000. (Funded by Sewer & Water funds.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of Change Order No. 1 for Roof Consulting Services for the repair/replacement of a portion of the roof at the Police/Fire Headquarters with an increased cost of $4,700 to the original contract amount of $63,010.99. (Funded by Police/Fire CIP accounts.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with MWH Americas, Inc. for Phase X - Contract B Relief Sewer Program Engineering Services. This amendment modifies the language regarding the fair share percentage goals for minority and womens business enterprise participation by the engineer. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) ■ ■ ■ ■ * Resolution 27-R-05 - Authorizing a Lease Agreement - Consideration of proposed Resolution 27-R- 05, which authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Lease Agreement for the apartment at the Civic Center, 1223 Simpson St for the term May 31, 2005 May 30, 2006. * APPROVED-CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (8-0) * Resolution 25-R-05 - FY 2005-06 MFT Resurfacing Program - Consideration of proposed Resolution 25-R-05, by which the City Council would appropriate $1,200,000 of MFT funds to resurface various locations citywide. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (8-0) * Resolution 26-R-05 - General Maintenance MFT Resolution - Consideration of proposed Resolution 26-R-05, by which the City Council would appropriate $650,000 of MFT funds for FY 2005-06 to finance the general maintenance of streets by City forces. * APPROVED-CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 51-O-05 - Amends Title 3 of the City Code - Parking Tax - Consideration of proposed 5 April 25, 2005 Ordinance 51-O-05, which amends Title 3 of the City Code to increase the parking tax. * MARKED INTRODUCED CONSENT AGENDA Alderman Feldman moved to Suspend the Rules to adopt an ordinance on the evening in which it was introduced. Seconded by Alderman Wynne. Motion carried unanimously. Alderman Feldman moved approval of Ordinance 51-O-05. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Alderman Newman said a package of two ordinances, 51-O-05 and 52-O-05, was put together by the City Manager and Finance Director to balance the Parking Fund. About four-five years ago, Cook County passed a $1 parking tax on permits costing more than $60 monthly. That tax put Evanston in a terrible position because permits were close to $60. If the parking permit fee was raised, then the next dollar charged goes to the County. The parking permit money goes to the Parking Fund and the parking tax goes to the General Fund. For years the City has not raised the permit fees and raised the overall parking tax on several occasions. Monthly permits at the garages are now $77 a month. Staff has looked at virtually every way to balance this fund. Nobody wants to raise rates. Everybody wants to keep the rates down. Outlying meter rates have not been raised since 1986. They have built garages of comparable quality to downtown Chicago, where $6 is charged for 30 minutes. Evanston is a suburban community and has kept parking rates down for low-income employees and shoppers. The first hour is free and that has been the policy for many years. He asked for suggestions on solving this problem and that it be put on the table. This was gone over extensively at several Parking Committee meetings. The reason for suspending the rules was so less time would be spent on City business on May 9.. He hoped the parking tax would be adopted and praised staff for their work on this. Roll call. Voting aye Rainey, Feldman, Newman, Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Moran, Tisdahl. Voting nay none. Motion carried (8-0). * Ordinance 50-O-05 - Increasing Class B Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 50-O-05, introduced April 12, 2005, which amends Section 3-5-6(B) of the City Code to increase the number of Class B liquor licenses by one from 11 to 12 for Golden Olympic, 1608 Chicago Ave. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: * Ordinance 53-O-05 - Special Use Request for a Type 2 Restaurant - 922 Noyes St. - Consideration of the recommendation of the ZBA to grant a special use for a Type 2 Restaurant to operate an ice cream parlor at 922 Noyes St. * MARKED INTRODUCED CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 5-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 2 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introdu ced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the International Building Code, 2003 Edition and amendments. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 26-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 7 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introdu ced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition and amendments. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 27-O-05 - Amendment to the Evanston Housing Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 1 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introduced April 12, 2005, for adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code, 2003 Edition with amendments that include provisions for building security. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 28-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 6 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introdu ced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the International Plumbing Code, 2005 Edition and amendments. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA 6 April 25, 2005 MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 29-O-05 - Amending the International Fire Code & NFPA Life Safety Code 101 - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introdu ced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the International Fire Code, 2003 Edition and the NFPA Life Safety Code 101, 2003 Edition and amendments. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 30-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 11 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introdu ced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the International Residential Code for One-and-Two-Family Dwellings, 2003 Edition and amendments. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 31-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 21 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introdu ced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the International Fuel Gas Code for, 2003 Edition and amendments. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 41-O-05 - Amending Certain Sections of Title 4, Chapter 9 of the City Code - Consideration of staffs recommendation, introdu ced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the International Mechanical Code for, 2003 Edition and amendments. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * 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, introduced April 12, 2005, to adopt, by reference, the amendments to the Property Services Board regarding the hearing of certain appeals. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: * Approval of March Township Monthly Bills - Consideration of a recommendation to approve the Township bills, payroll and medical payments for the month of March 2005 in the amount of $75,185.70. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Morton asked the following appointments be introduced: Maidel Cason Library Board 1585 Ridge Ave. Mayor Morton asked the following re-appointments be introduced: Jean Esch Ladd Arboretum Committee 930 Washington St. Susan Canter Mental Health Board 3151 Harrison St. * INTRODUCED CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Morton asked the following appointments be confirmed: Joanna Felder Arts Council 816 Michigan Ave. For term ending May 15, 2008 7 April 25, 2005 Marilyn Price Arts Council 2430 Prairie Ave. For term ending May 15, 2008 David Kaiser Ladd Arboretum Committee 620 Custer Ave. For term ending May 15, 2008 Marcus W. Casady Playground & Recreation Board 1521 Greenleaf St. For term ending May 15, 2010 Mary Beth Whalen Playground & Recreation Board 1109 Grove St. For term ending May 15, 2010 Lori Summers Zoning Board of Appeals 1830 Ridge Ave. For term ending May 15, 2010 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS: Alderman Feldman moved approval of sole-source contract with Current Technologies Corporation for $133,659.35 for a security camera surveillance system at City buildings. (Funded by CIP funds.) Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Alderman Jean-Baptiste had problems with this purchase for 57 cameras; agreed that cameras were needed at the Water Department, Church St. and Maple Ave. parking systems, Police headquarters, Police Outpost, and the Levy Center. Initially when proposed, he thought it was a major departure from what they intended as a policy on security in some locations; felt they needed to discuss the need for cameras. He understood the rationale was the City wanted to make sure that where cash transactions take place, cameras would be used to ensure safety. When he inquired where these 57 cameras would be located, they were not all where cash is handled. He was not sure they stayed within the objective. At Fleetwood-Jourdain a camera would be placed in the fitness center. There had been a lawsuit there where somebody snuck into the room and they had a claim. He did not know whether that justified a security camera where people workout. He understood at the Levy Center, a camera was important because of the possibility of injury during workouts. There are 16 cameras for the library and he was not sure where they would be placed. The basement parking area needs cameras due to safety concerns. He had not seen a diagram indicating where the cameras would be placed. He did not want to raise the specter of Big Brot her, but was concerned that they may be overreaching. He agreed generally with the need for security but did not want to see cameras where they are not needed. He did not favor passing this purchase, but wanted a discussion and to see a diagram of where the cameras would be placed. Alderman Feldman said committee discussion paid respect to the views of Alderman Jean-Baptiste and his concern about unnecessary cameras. No one wants unneeded cameras. All were concerned about the privacy rights of individuals and if those would be compromised. The majority of the committee felt protecting the safety of people who use City facilities is the prime purpose of the cameras, which are there to observe. At Fleetwood-Jourdain there are young people 12-13 years old who use the facility. The City has no way to patrol the buildings to make sure they are looking down the halls. Young people are as easily victimized as older persons. Even if people get through entrances, they are not assured a normal person could not possibly decide to do something in a remote hall and compromise the safety of the workforce and the people who use the facility. He understood that most cameras at the library would be in the underground garage and were justified there. Other cameras would be placed at entrances and exits of buildings. He could not decide where 8 April 25, 2005 several cameras could be eliminated. He urged them to go ahead with this and, once installed, make a tour and see whether there is justification for the cameras. If there is no way the cameras can protect people or cash, a good case could be made not to have them and gave staff the benefit of doubt. He urged passage and Council scrutiny. Alderman Newman was not sure Council should be telling staff where every security camera ought to be placed. He recalled a guy who asked women in parking lots for money because he just got out of the penitentiary. People still beg near the library. The reason Maple Avenue garage was turned around was because people feel safe there, in contrast to Sherman Avenue Garage where people did not feel safe. Security personnel cost money. He noted there is not a large staff at the library. There are many street people who come and go and the police are called. He was for installing security cameras there so that staff can have a larger view of the people of the building. He was all for making any City building safer. He thought staff was doing the best they can. If any cameras are misused, that should be reviewed. Alderman Bernstein has problems with cameras philosophically and finds a fine line between security and surveillance cameras. His frustration was that they are installed and then somebody sees what they are observing, rather than having a standard or pattern of behavior at a location that warrants a camera. A camera wont stop bad conduct; may report it and help procure an arrest, but is not like a security guard on site who can step in and arrest somebody. He was concerned. He was raised to fear the concept in the book 1984. He knows that Mayor Daley loves cameras and everywhere somebody is being observed. He does not want to live in a society where people are being watched; feels safer when not being watched. In certain instances cameras are appropriate such as at parking lots because somebody on site is watching and theoretically preventing crimes. Before installation of cameras, he wanted to see the intention and history of particular locations for criminal or other difficult conduct that they must observe. When Alderman Kent fought for cameras on Emerson Street, they became aware that the bad guys move away from the camera to another location. He wanted to know before approving them that they will be used for safety, not surveillance. Alderman Rainey assured Alderman Bernstein the cameras are for safety, not surveillance. Staff has convinced the committee that a great deal of analysis and thought went into the recommendation of the number of cameras needed. People who staff these buildings were communicated with as well as department heads and it was determined that this number of cameras was needed to provide safety for staff, people who use these facilities and visitors. She could not imagine that staff would recommend the purchase of 57 cameras to be sprinkled willy-nilly in public buildings. This matter has been on the A&PW Committee agenda for three meetings. The Citys policy on security cameras was included in the A&PW packet. She encouraged Council support. Alderman Tisdahl noted that security cameras at ETHS have stopped bad behavior. It was with great fear and trepidation that the District 202 Board voted to install cameras and got results similar to other high schools. Fights in the halls decreased significantly. She was glad there is a policy and supported the purchase. Alderman Feldman noted ten cameras were going into the Civic Center and that three or four cameras could be used just on the ground level to protect children and older people who come there. He understood they dont want to live in a 1984 world and suggested telling that to someone who is mugged in the hall at the Levy Center. He suggested they dont wait for something horrible to happen, such as a mugging or falling off an exercise machine with a heart attack and no one to respond. He said they have an obligation to ensure the safety of people who come into any City facility. They cannot say they are worried about 1984. He has never met any staff member who is interested in surveillance in public buildings. He said they have to keep their eyes open to the misuse of cameras but that excuse cannot be used unless someone is certain malfeasance is going on. He urged them not to hint at the possibility that will happen unless they are certain. There could be 30-50 more cameras and, if decent people operate them, it still would not be 1984. Alderman Jean-Baptiste said there is some general justification for the cameras. There is an existing security camera count, locations of cameras and what they do included. The proposal for the 57 cameras is devoid of what they do and location. In response to questions to staff, they were referred to a diagram that was not included. He suggested when staff comes with a proposal for more cameras, that they come with the rationale and location of cameras so those who are sensitive to this issue can understand where the cameras will be located. He had no argument with good intentions of staff; suggested some may be satisfied with a general call for more cameras but he was not satisfied. He wanted more specific identification of problems they are trying to solve, so when a particular building is identified, it is clear where 9 April 25, 2005 the cameras are going and the purpose for them. He and Alderman Bernstein had a concern about placement of a camera at Dodge/Main, which was the same debate. There is no camera there. He said that through dialogue they do what is right and suggested a different process. Mayor Morton agreed with Alderman Bernstein that some cameras now are for surveillance. She asked staff to come forward to explain and clarify how these cameras are used. Mayor Morton asked how many cameras would be monitored by someone. She said at the corner of Simpson St., across from her home there is a camera which is only viewed when the Police Department takes the tape. The police only looked at the tape if there was a problem. At night at St. Francis Hospital, a man monitors a number of screens to see if something is going on at entrances. She asked how the cameras used are for safety and for surveillance? Assistant Director Facilities Management David Cook said that most cameras would be used as the one near her home. If something has happened, they can review the tape. Presently, staff has no plans for constant monitoring of any cameras. Alderman Feldman asked if the camera in the fitness center at the Levy Center is monitored? Mr. Gaynor said they have the ability to monitor all the cameras at the Levy Center 24/7. Alderman Feldman asked if this was all the time? Mr. Gaynor said the monitors are on where staff is located. They dont have one person watching the monitors all day. Alderman Feldman asked how cameras could inhibit criminal behavior and accidents and ensure the safety of people? He thought they were talking about many things and his concern was for somebody who, without supervision, had suffered an accident. This camera has the capacity to do that, but is not designed for that purpose. Mr. Gaynor said the system can be monitored. The policy places the Facilities Manager as the keeper and the one who does the monitoring. Ongoing monitoring is not proposed. In committee it was stated that this deters inappropriate conduct. On the safety issue, this is a deterrent for employees or anybody else is in the building. Data indicates that when cameras are installed and signs say there are monitors, inappropriate activity decreases. The system can be modified and monitors can be part of this. It is a mix between monitoring and privacy issues that were put together for a policy. Alderman Newman noted that in Kansas City they looked for a serial killer for 30 years. They found this person through private tapes where they kept finding the city vehicle this person drove. Security tapes add to safety and he guaranteed that there would not be a security camera at Simpson if it did not help in terms of public safety. They help, whether somebody is watching or not. He supported this purchase. Roll call. Voting aye Rainey, Feldman, Newman, Wynne, Moran, Tisdahl. Voting nay Jean-Baptiste, Bernstein. Motion carried (6-2). Ordinance 52-O-05 - Amends Title 10 of the City Code - Increase Parking Meter Rates - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 52-O-05, which amends Section 10-11-12, Schedule XII of the City Code to increase the Parking Meter Rates. Alderman Feldman asked that Ordinance 52-O-05 be marked introduced. Ordinance 42-O-05 - Weapons Ordinance - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 42-O-05, introduced April 12, 2005, which amends Title 9, Chapter 8 of the City Code with regard to Weapons. Alderman Feldman moved approval. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Alderman Jean-Baptiste asked that this item be held. Seconded by Alderman Moran. This item was held at the request of two aldermen. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: Request for Building Permit Fee, City Tax Stamps, Interest Charges Waiver - Consideration of a request from Econ Development for a waiver of the aforementioned fees, totaling $20,206, for 10 April 25, 2005 construction of three affordable townhouses at 1834-38 Darrow Ave. Alderman Tisdahl reported that this item was held in committee. Sidewalk CafØs for Type 1 and Type 2 Restaurants at Various Locations - the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee has recommended approval of the following sidewalk cafØ permits: Cold Stone Creamery (Type 2), Bluestone (Type 1 with liquor), Chipotle Mexican Grill (Type 2), Starbucks (Type 2-1724 Sherman Ave.) and Foodstuffs (retail food store). Alderman Tisdahl moved approval of this item, except that the Chipotle Mexican Grill be held in committee. Seconded by Alderman Bernstein. Voice vote. Motion carried. No nays. Planned Development - Kendall College, 2408 Orrington Ave. - Plan Commission Recommendation - Consideration of a unanimous recommendation from the Plan Commission to deny the proposed planned development from Smithfield Properties LLC for Kendall College. Alderman Tisdahl reported this item would be held in committee until the May 23 Council meeting. Appeal of the Preservation Commission Decision - Kendall College, 2408 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of an appeal of the Preservation Commission decision by Smithfield Properties LLC, concerning the denial of certificates of appropriateness for the construction of 16 single-family homes and 32 townhouses as well as the demolition of 2408, 2344 and 2340 Orrington Ave.; 725, 730 and 735 Colfax St. and 2351 Sherman Ave. at the Kendall College site. Alderman Tisdahl moved that Council accept the appeal. Seconded by Alderman Bernstein. Alderman Rainey asked for insight from the P&D Committee discussion on this matter. Alderman Tisdahl said the committee wanted this matter to come before Council and that the planned development and certificates be decided together. If buildings cannot be taken down, then that somewhat decides the planned development. Alderman Jean-Baptiste understood this was to be held and asked why they must move forward on it. Alderman Bernstein stated this motion allows Council to hear the appeal. If accepted, it would be heard May 23. The ordinance demands the recipient of the appeal be at the P&D Committee or City Council within 45 days of acceptance. They were not making judgments on the appeal. This accepts the act of the appeal and is not a decision on its merits. Alderman Jean-Baptiste asked for clarification of the procedure? Alderman Bernstein stated that the clock starts ticking with acceptance by the P&D Committee or City Council. From April 25, they have 45 days to determine the appeal. If they dont act within that time, the Preservation Commission recommendation stands. He thought the new City Council would probably conduct a public hearing to determine whether the Preservation Commission was justified in its recommendation. Council does not have to accept the recommendation and can determine the appeal is valid and overturn the recommendation. If the new Council is not ready for a hearing by May 23, they may have to put this over for a special hearing within the 45 days. Alderman Jean-Baptiste asked if Council did not act that evening, would there be consequences? Assistant Corporation Counsel Ellen Szymanski stated if they did not accept the appeal that evening, then the decision of the Preservation Commission is final and may be appealed to the Circuit Court. Alderman Newman said he has voted 98% of the time so the property owner gets to do he/she wants with the property. When the City tells a property owner they cannot do something with their property, they deserve as much due process as can be given. They own the property, pay the taxes and have the right to argue an appeal to Council. He thought they should hear the appeal almost every time. If it turns out that Council will not hear the appeal, they can turn it down. All 11 April 25, 2005 the arguments by the citizens could be adopted. Council has not always agreed with the Preservation Commission. Council reversed them on the Georgian and the Kendall property. Council may uphold the Preservation Commissions recommendation. He said this item was before a Council committee on January 12, 2004. That is 16 months with nothing happening to this property. If for some reason they are denied that evening, they will be back at the Preservation Commission and this process will go on for two years. All will suffer. Ms. Szymanski explained if the Council accepts the appeal, then the action required within 45 days is to affirm, modify or reverse. Acceptance of the appeal does not allow inaction to make a decision. Alderman Newman asked why the appeal on 904 Hinman is still on the agenda; thought they had reached an agreement. City Manager Carroll said when she came to Evanston there were many references on the agenda. Staff is preparing a report in which they will identify what has happened to them for the next meeting because these need to be cleaned up. Community Development Director James Wolinski stated they had not reached a conclusion with the owner of 904 Hinman Ave. and the Preservation Commission. The P&D Committee directed staff to work on this issue so that the property owner would not incur a great financial expense for the windows he already purchased, but could meet the intent of what the Preservation Commission required. Staff is still working on this. Alderman Newman thought they had gone beyond the 45 days by agreement of the parties, is that option open? He thought Council had agreed with the owner to waive the 45 days. Is that available in this case? Ms. Szymanski stated it is not specifically prohibited by the ordinance. If the applicant were to agree to it or request it, they could do so. Mr. Wolinski said he recalled there was consent of both parties. Voice vote. Motion carried. No nays. Plan Commission Recommendations: B1 District Review - Consideration of the findings and report of the Plan Commission regarding regulations of Business Districts. Alderman Tisdahl moved approval of the Plan Commissions request to close the zoning amendment hearing. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Voice vote. Motion carried. No nays. Discussion of Council rules Alderman Rainey learned that evening that four aldermen had been appointed to consider changes to Council rules. She found that surprising because no memo was sent to aldermen with the names the Mayor recommended and what they were to do. She heard a perception that the current Council rules automatically expire and dont follow with the Council until they are changed. She read from the rules, item 9.10 Special Committees: Special committees of the aldermen shall be composed of aldermen, appointed by the City Council, Rules Committee or by the Mayor. Item 9.10.6 All appointments of the above committees shall be with the advice and consent of the City Council. She asked why these appointments would not come under these two rules? First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill said Mayor can establish various types of committees, such as advisory committees to the Mayor and other committees, separate from the Council Rules. He did not know the basis for this committee. The ultimate authority on Council rules is the City Council. The new City Council on May 9, May 23 or at a special meeting thereafter, will adopt rules and procedures for its structure and is not bound by rules of the current Council. It can change the structure in any manner that it desires, except for specific rules regarding the authority of the Mayor and City Manager. Alderman Rainey understood that until the new Council adopts new rules, the rules they currently operate under would apply. Mr. Hill said the recommendation on May 9 is that the new Council adopt rules under which they will proceed. Alderman Rainey asked could new Council members deliberate on what those rules should be prior to that time? Mr. Hill explained that they are not bound by any statutory requirement prior to May 9, so there is nothing to prevent an 12 April 25, 2005 individual from considering changes to the rules. However, they can take no official action until after May 9. The Open Meetings Act would not apply to newly elected aldermen. Alderman Rainey asked in previous years, if adoption of new rules always had taken place at the first meeting? Mr. Hill recalled rules being presented by aldermen to the City Council that were not on the agenda. Temporary rules can be in place for the May 9 meeting and they can recommend that rules be adopted at the May 23 meeting. The May 9 meeting is ceremonial. Alderman Raineys concern was that the rules are not promulgated by the Rules Committee, which could meet the following Monday. She asked how aldermen may request a meeting on the rules after May 9? She noted three aldermen could make a request in writing to a standing committee to have a special meeting. Mr. Hill stated that three aldermen may request a meeting of the City Council. She said the rules also say the Rules Committee may call a meeting. He said then it would apply to the Rules Committee. Mr. Hill explained the Rules Committee does not establish the rules that govern the City Council. Under the old structure, the Rules Committee may have been a recommending body but only the City Council can adopt rules for the body. Alderman Rainey noted they have standing committees that do that kind of thing. If they want to dismantle that structure, they could say there is no point in meeting, but meet as a Council and go into Committee of the Whole and abolish all the rules they currently operate under. Mr. Hill noted to abolish the rules requires a majority vote. However, any alderman can request that the City Manager place Council rules on the agenda for consideration. This special committee of aldermen may be a clearing house for suggestions from other aldermen. They could be a recommending body and any alderman can offer contrary rules for consideration. As a new alderman once, she cautioned new aldermen about making new rules until they get some idea of the temperature of the water. Alderman Feldman took part in five inaugural ceremonies and not once did the Legal Department indicate to aldermen that they should adopt rules under which they would operate. If this is the way the City should operate, it seemed a newborn concept. The idea that a set of rules does not exist even if not changed astonished him. He could not imagine a legislative body would say the minute it changes, all prior rules are out. Rules exist until they are changed. Councils have the obligation to change rules or sustain them. Mr. Hill said a resolution exists until it is altered and resolutions have been amended over time. What Mr. Hill had said was that the new City Council is responsible for the rules that it operates under; that on May 9 or May 23, the new council should consider the rules it would operate under. He recalled some years ago, they operated under Committee of the Whole, a structure that amended the rules. This Council has the same authority, right or power to go to that extreme or a different extreme as to how it wishes to handle its business. Alderman Feldman did not argue with the fact that Council sets its own rules, but that never before had the Legal Department stood before them and said they had better establish rules on the night of the inauguration. What would happen if they did not do that? When he became an alderman there was a set of rules he was obligated to follow as well as agreements. Alderman Feldman said the question is does the new Council have to consider rules on May 9? Mr. Hill said the new council could exist under Resolution 30-R-01, as amended on May 24, 2004. The new City Council can consider the new rules on May 9. Alderman Feldman never got this advice and asked why the Legal Department was so deeply interested in this? Mr. Hill was called in to answer a question and noted that it is not the Mayor, one alderman, or the Rules Committee, but a majority vote of the City Council that determines the rules under which they operate. Alderman Feldman said the Rules Committee was where they discussed the rules and changes to be made; it was a recommending body. The advantage was that it was done in a venue that allowed for greater give/take and the opportunity to discuss issues before they got to the Council floor. He urged the new Council to be scrupulous, intent on research and understanding of the issues in establishing rules, which can change the tone of the Council. The notion that somebody, who takes an oath and becomes a member of a body, suddenly becoming a repository of all they need to know regarding rules changes is ludicrous. The idea that monumental decisions will be made without dialogue, to learn and see how other Councils operate, is not done here. Mr. Hill said from May 9 forward, the new City Council has the power to adopt the rules under which it operates. What Alderman Feldman heard was that the rules dont exist once a new Council is sworn in. Alderman Rainey confirmed they were operating under 30-R-01 and the last sentence of the first paragraph says: Be it further resolved that all rules, order of business and organization of the City Council heretofore adopted hereby are expressly rescinded and appealed. The following rules 1 through 26 shall be in effect from and after April 29, 1997. She thought that would apply through May 9 and that Council has amended the rules from time to time. Mr. Hill said there have been dramatic changes made to the rules. The structure went from committees, to Committee of the Whole, then back to committees. Alderman Rainey noted the dates of amendment at the top of the page showed no dates from March 23 until today. Mr. Hill said the only point made is that the new City Council, may, can, or will amend the rules. 13 April 25, 2005 Alderman Wynne clarified that the rules are in effect until a majority vote to abolish them. She recalled a change four years ago to limit Citizen Comment to 45 minutes, which had a positive effect on the meetings. All other rules were left intact. The change was discussed at the Rules Committee, then adopted. Alderman Newman recalled when he first served on the Council there was a dispute as to whether he would be appointed to the A&PW Committee. The new Rules Committee met before they were inaugurated and he was appointed to the A&PW Committee. He said the rules were never changed and voted on. In 1996 there was the possibility that certain members of Council would comprise a majority on the P&D Committee, so it was decided to get rid of the committee system. He did not think there was re-adoption of the rules from 1991 until 1996. On April 29, 1997, they adopted new rules and abolished the Committee of the Whole. Rules stayed the same then for eight years. The Rules Committee was operating and made recommendations before the new Council was inaugurated. CALL OF THE WARDS: 8th Ward. Alderman Rainey thanked Community Development Department Director James Wolinski and Assistant Director Stan Janusz for their work on the new property maintenance code, especially for adding language that allows for immediate violation citations in areas such as garbage, litter, abandoned vehicles and general nuisance properties. She noted there are property owners here who, when they know an inspection is scheduled, will start picking things up. Other owners get a notice for inspection, throw it away and wait until the inspector cites them, then do nothing until a re-inspection is scheduled. Maybe on the third inspection they make changes. Other owners have the same violations month after month. The new code language allows for repeat offenders to be issued immediate notices of violation, which she thought was critical to get compliance. She appreciated that. 9th Ward. Alderman Feldman spoke about what the committee system of the Council has done for the community. He stated it has allowed people to participate on an intimate level, unheard of in any other form of government. It means that issues that come before the A&PW, P&D and Human Services committees, have hours spent on-task, that aldermen pay attention and sit together with citizens without microphones. Citizens work together, ask questions and dialog together for hours on issues. That is impossible under the Committee of the Whole. When they had it they saved time, but there was no give and take like the committees that listen to people talk about their issues and what they need and want. He knows other cities operate with the Committee of the Whole system, but they dont have the standards of citizen participation that Evanston has. He received many complaints from constituents, when the Council had the Committee of the Whole system, who asked how they could plead their case in front of a gigantic tribunal. The committees develop expertise, an understanding of issues and terminology and become the Councils experts. However, they are not infallible. They have confidence those issues are worked over until they believe they have it right, which is impossible under the Committee of the Whole. Another advantage with the committee system is they have shared chairmanships, which means each committee member gets to establish agendas, push for things they think are important, direct staff to do research, and put items on the agenda that other members request. Under Committee of the Whole, there are no changes, no different points of view and the Mayor chairs all the meetings. The Mayor does a good job, but by chairing all meetings, others are excluded and that is not Evanstons style. The only reason for Committee of the Whole is to save time. If they wanted to save time, they would not be here. The value of the committee is to stay with an issue until they get it right. 1st Ward. Alderman Newman reflected on his 14 years of service and thought the best public service he did happened four years before he got on Council, when he worked in the 5th Precinct of the 9th Ward in the 1987 municipal election. He had never met candidate Gene Feldman but had expert opinions on what to do in that election from Ann Rainey, Jack Korshak and Evelyn Raden. They knew Gene Feldman and urged Newman to support him. He spent a significant amount of time in the 9th Ward and Gene Feldman won by 13 votes. Gene Feldman was elected to the Council and every minute that Alderman Newman has spent on Council, Gene Feldman has been here. He described his accomplishments: the library, movie theaters, the hotel, McDougal Littell, 1720 Maple Ave., Sherman Plaza, and Sams Club; said that each project will generate millions of dollars to Evanston now and in the future. He called attention to the work Gene Feldman has done in the parks and the Levy Center. In 1993 he should have been made chairman of the Economic Development Committee, but that did not happen until 1997. It happened due to certain qualities that Feldman had and one was communication; another was the ability to get along with everybody in the room much better than he could and the ability 14 April 25, 2005 to formulate ideas and vision. What he learned over time is that it is not about title or the office, but about the work a person does, the knowledge a person brings, the effort made and the care that a person has about the community. When it comes to those values, there is nobody who will ever be ahead of Gene Feldman. The president of Northwestern University may never invite Gene Feldman to a cocktail party, but he would be welcome in many homes on Orrington Ave. That value meant a lot to the people in the 1st Ward whom Newman has represented over the years. 1st Ward people needed support and Gene Feldman was there for them. That will not be forgotten. He thought of the words: decency, understanding, patience, courage, vision, integrity, intelligence, eloquence and nobody who comes to this office brings more of those words. He recalled when Mike Foley from Home Depot called and said they would walk with Home Depot and wanted to meet with Feldman because the chair of the Economic Development Committee and Council were going to study the impact to the community. They went to a restaurant and negotiated a deal on a napkin. They copied the napkin, told Foley to do everything on it and Evanston would get a Home Depot. They have had many great times. Anything he has ever done on this Council has started by consulting with Feldman to see if the idea was worth doing. As he leaves Council, he will miss those calls from Gene Feldman. 2nd Ward. Alderman Jean-Baptiste did not know whether Alderman Kent would be present on May 9. He recalled a conversation with Alderman Newman who said about Alderman Kent that, in his own way, his intransigence and refusal to move on issues in the 5th Ward regarding development, was perhaps the basis upon which they were able to pull back a major run on the ward. In his way, he was able to preserve affordable housing and keep the speculators from coming in and turning over property later. He reported two homes on Wesley Ave. recently sold for $480,000 and had spoken to Township Assessor Eckersall about the impact on the community. The individual who sold those homes owns 15 other properties. They expect the trend to continue and that owner will reap a considerable profit. In the next couple of years, the tax consequences will be significant. Neighboring homes will be re-assessed at much higher values. Reflecting on Alderman Kents approach to resist efforts to move developm ent forward, he did not agree with all of his strategies, but much credit should be given to him, for the outcome that may be best for a significant number of residents who need affordable housing in the 5th, 2nd wards and other areas. As they move ahead with the new Council they will seek development on the west side, but it will be with the sensitivity that revitalization, growth and improvement of infrastructure is a right people have, whether or not they need affordable housing. Quality neighborhoods, safety, and cleanliness are a right of people who pay for it, regardless of their income. They will push for that with the consciousness that Alderman Kents objective was consistent with what they will try to do. 4th Ward. Alderman Bernstein congratulated Bennisons Bake ry, Maple/Davis, which recently won a worldwide competition for its pastry. He reported the Chamber of Commerce had honored Dan Kelch, owner of Lulus restaurant as the Small Businessperson of the Year, and noted that Kelch does good things here. He also congratulated Howard Cain, president of First Bank & Trust, who was honored with the Community Leadership Award. There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Morton adjourned the meeting at 11:31 p.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.