Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06_13_05_ccCITY COUNCIL June 13, 2005 ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Alderman Wynne Alderman Tisdahl Alderman Bernstein Alderman Rainey Alderman Holmes Alderman Hansen Alderman Moran Alderman Wollin A Quorum was present. Alderman Jean-Baptiste PRESIDING:Mayor Morton The OFFICIAL REGULAR MEETING of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Morton Monday, June 13, 2005, at 8:55 p.m. in the Council Chamber. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Facilities Management Director Max Rubin reported that the sound system in the Planning & Development Committee meeting room (2200) was temporary and that they would try a new “U” seating configuration for aldermen. Public Works Director David Jennings reminded all about the change in 4th of July parkway regulations. Last year an ordinance was passed about what can and cannot be used to reserve space for the July 4th parade and when that material may be placed. Rope, tape, stakes and similar materials for the purpose of reserving space for the parade at any time are not allowed. These items are a tripping hazard and will be removed. The earliest space may be reserved is Friday, July 1 at 6:00 a.m. Any material put out before that time will be removed by Public Works crews. These new regulations have been publicized in the newspaper and are on the City’s website. Finance Director Bill Stafford stated that staff recommended approval of proposed Bond Series 2005 in an amount not to exceed $32.5 million. This bond issue calls for $6.5 million for capital improvement projects, $3.5 million for water and sewer capital improvement projects, (both passed as part of the budget), $500,000 for the private portion of the 50% match on alleys, $14 million for the Sherman Avenue garage, (authorized by Council in February) and $6.3 million refunding of $8.5 million Series 1998 bonds. Due to low interest rates, the $8.5 million Series 1998 GO bonds are eligible for refinancing. The City’s benchmark for refinancing has to be more than 3% of the principal of the bonds outstanding. The savings translate into about 4.1%, which is more than $260,000 in present value savings. This ordinance will also increase the City’s debt limit from $90 million to $110 million. When the debt limit is increased, the policy has been to come back to Council. They will try something new in marketing these bonds. They propose participation of two minority firms: Jackson Securities of Atlanta and Melvin Securities of Chicago. Jackson Securities recently purchased the Chicago firm of Bereon Capital and one principal is Dudley Brown of Evanston. Melvin Securities of Chicago is active in the market. Both will be invited to sell Evanston bonds in the upcoming market and will have priority access to the bonds. They hope to see active competition and increased retail sales on the City’s bonds. It is well to discover a future partner for future Evanston bond sales. Staff recommended introduction and action on the bond ordinance due to the extremely low interest rate market they are in. They will go to the rating agencies next Monday and want to move forward from then to the sale, based upon market conditions. Staff thinks this is a great opportunity for the City to issue its bonds in a very advantageous interest rate market. He noted the 1998 bond issue was not in play even a month ago and now is due to the market. John Peterson from Legg Mason was available to take questions. Alderman Wynne asked how the $260,000 savings would be used? Mr. Stafford explained it was similar to refinancing a mortgage. Savings could be taken one of two ways. The City could take the present value in cash or take the savings in future years and use it to reduce the interest rate or issue more debt. Staff proposed that they take the savings in future years to give them more flexibility. Mayor Morton announced that at the last Council meeting this Council approved Ordinance 46-O-05, which provided for an Elm Tree Injection program. After reading the ordinance carefully, she could not put her name to it because of some concerns. She did not want to veto it because she thought they had a different spirit here and hoped if she brought 2 June 13, 2005 up some issues she had with the ordinance, that Council would possibly reconsider its vote and reconsider this item. She thought it had been passed in good faith, based upon information presented to those who had been on Council previously, but did not think new members had all the information available to returning Council members. (1) She said the Forestry Division and the municipal arborist, using the sanitation method, had done an outstanding job of preventing the spread of Dutch elm disease. The arborist was asked if he found anything wrong with the sanitation method and what he was doing. He stated he could not. (2) The increase in the number of trees that were infected with Dutch elm disease was due to drought. When there is a drought, the beetle grows. This increase was not due to the Forestry Division not doing what it was supposed to do to safeguard elm trees. (3) The percentage increase of trees that got Dutch elm disease in Evanston was less than any other place, which means the Forestry Division was doing a good job. (4) She asked whether trees that are not inoculated (10-inch diameter or less) can get Dutch elm disease and spread it? She did not have an answer. (5) She could not understand how they could use a study by the University of Illinois about public housing that says the greener the surroundings, the fewer the crimes committed against people and property which is in the ordinance. If that is the case, there should be no crime here because Evanston has many trees. (6) On the 50/50 cost sharing, where citizens have to pay one half of the cost of the injections, an amount was stated before the Council but was not stipulated in the ordinance. As the ordinance is written this cost will be in perpetuity. Injections will have to be done every three years without knowing the cost. (7) Another factor, unlike money spent to rehab sewers that benefit all in Evanston; she could not see how citizens should pay for half the cost of injecting a few elm trees per acre. She said one ward has almost no elm trees on parkways and those citizens are not affected by shade because no elm trees are there. In other wards there are few elm trees. In other areas there are places with no more than five diseased trees per acre. (8) She asked about a public tree that is near an elm tree on private property that is not injected. What does that do to the project to save the other elm trees? (9) The cost of the injections will be placed on the City’s water bill. Morally, how can they support cutting off water to a household that does not pay for elm tree injections? She could not get the relevance of putting together elm trees with something that it essential to life--water. (10) She looked at a friend’s water bill that lives in an apartment building where each tenant pays his/her water bill to an outside agency. She did not know how they would fine this person if he does not pay his water bill. The ordinance says all who receive a water bill have to pay a portion of this money to inject the trees. (11) The ordinance has a provision that violators of this ordinance can be fined from $50-$750 per day. She asked what kind of violation other than not paying the bill were they talking about? There is already a penalty, which is to cut off the water. (12) Another concern was about an apartment building where the owner pays the water bill. Suppose the owner does not pay the water bill. Would water be cut off to all tenants? (13) Mayor Morton suggested they look at the ordinance again, how it is written and make sure this is what Council wants is in the ordinance and that this is in the best interests of citizens. (14) Mayor Morton said this ordinance has not been well received; the City does not want to nickel and dime people. (15) Noting there are more than 3,000 trees on the parkways and 6% have a disease; multiply that to get the actual number of trees. If they were to look at it again, could they finance it? She recommended they talk to the arborist to see what could be done. (16) Six people voted for the ordinance according to the May 23 minutes. Alderman Rainey asked the Law Department staff to comment on the Mayor’s request to reconsider this ordinance. Assistant Corporation Counsel Kathy Brenniman said this is covered in Section 22.1 of City Council rules, which provide that an ordinance passed at the last meeting has to be reconsidered at the next (this) meeting. The motion to reconsider must be made by an individual who voted on the prevailing side and is debatable because the original ordinance was 3 June 13, 2005 debatable. The vote to reconsider is by a majority present. Copies of Ordinance 46-O-05 were distributed to Council. Mayor Morton explained she would not have become so incensed had she not seen a map of where the diseased trees were, their number and the many open spaces where there are almost no elm trees. Alderman Hansen moved to reconsider Ordinance 46-O-05. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Roll call. Voting aye - Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay - Wynne, Bernstein and Jean- Baptiste. Motion carried. 6-3. Alderman Wynne thought the primary objection to the ordinance concerned areas of the City that had no elms left, which she equated to the sewer project. She thought all benefit from having elm trees wherever they are. All benefit by having elm trees in parks and on neighboring streets, which makes Evanston more attractive and reduces energy costs. All one has to do these past days is walk down a shady street versus a sunny street. Less water is used and trees are better for the environment. If they start deciding that they are not going to pay for something because a person did not instantly benefit, they have lost their sense of community. There are only three elms left on her block and if there were no elm trees near her home, she would still want to pay for them. It is clear trees benefit all. People don’t live in balkanized compartments, but live in a community. Putting the charges on water bills was proposed by Alderman Jean-Baptiste to spread the cost to many different water users. There are many more water users than property tax payers. She thought there must be some mechanism to get payment from people who rent apartments and pay a water bill. She urged Council members not to reconsider this. She noted that all new aldermen sat through the budget deliberations while this was debated and had plenty of opportunity to participate. She urged them not to backtrack. Alderman Rainey noted they have many varieties of trees and they are singling out one variety; was interested in the current status of the program. She mistakenly voted to inoculate all the trees, came to her senses and supported the staff recommendation when it was too late. She thought staff had given in and seemed to no longer support their recommendation. She confirmed that Council could not hold this matter over. Parks/Forestry & Recreation Director Doug Gaynor reported that more than 500 trees have been injected to date of the 3,300 trees they planned to inject. The contractor is going through neighborhoods injecting all elm trees over 10 inches in diameter. Alderman Rainey asked if they had come across a private elm within root grafting distance of a City tree whose owner has indicated they would not pay for injections? He did not have that information. Have people begun to be billed? A price was set and people will be billed in July. Alderman Rainey wanted to hear from new Council members, because she was not sure they understood the full implications of this ordinance, which is that injections will be made for a three year period, another and another in perpetuity as long as the trees stay healthy unless some new chemical is discovered that allows for injections at a different rate. Alderman Wynne understood the injections were for a three-year period, then a study would be done to see if they should be continued. Alderman Rainey recalled they discussed this prior to the new Council that once an injection program is established, it must be continued every three years. Alderman Jean-Baptiste said it was reported the City is losing elm trees at the rate of 4% a year. During the last five years, 20% of the elms have been lost and the projection is that number could double. A statement was made that drought impacts the growth of the beetle that increases Dutch elm disease but he did not think we have had drought conditions for the past five years. This disease devastates elms and, based upon that, many did not want to lose more elms. Therefore, they engaged in the injection program and funded it for three years. On the amount identified during the budget process to inoculate all elms over 10-inch diameter, Council said the City will fund 50% and get the balance from residents by charging $1.35 every two months on water bills. Mr. Stafford explained the penalties in the ordinance, that when bills are paid, money for the elms would be taken from the top. Council identified the objective basis for this ordinance was the precipitous loss of elm trees. Council discussed the arborist’s program, which was to inject only signature trees. Council asked to define signature trees. Would there not be many definitions and constituents argue for their signature trees to be injected. So Council decided they needed a more objective process to do this. They asked the arborist why he would not support injecting all elm trees above 10-inches in diameter? He said because the City does not have the money to pay for it. Council resolved that by asking water bill payers to pay $1.35 each month. Council was not denigrating the arborist’s expertise, but when they looked at work done over the past five-ten years, they concluded 4 June 13, 2005 that something else needed to be done based upon material brought by the arborist. They concluded if the City kept doing what it had been doing, it was important to step up intervention and turn back the loss. It was stated that not everyone who participates will benefit. All represent a variety of constituents, come to the table and try to make the City operate in everyone’s best interest. He did not think the principle had been that all will benefit who participate. He thought the spirit had been open to be equitable throughout the City. They cannot use that principle to put in a program such as this on the basis that everybody is not benefiting equally. One thing they like about Evanston is that it has that softness about it; is a Tree City and to the extent that they can maintain a healthy environment that is what they want to do. They have looked at this for the last six-eight months. If anybody says they were misguided by the information, they need to argue their position and offer a different alternative. Mayor Morton noted when he spoke of a 20% increase in elm tree loss that was over a five-year period. She pointed out the ordinance said on page four, “injections every three years,” and will be paid for on a 50-50 basis. It does not say they will look it over every three years. Mayor Morton said this matter is not personal, because she reveres trees. Her concern was about the language in the ordinance; suggested they go through it item by item. She asked again about the penalties of this ordinance. Alderman Moran asked Mr. Gaynor if staff’s program was to inject the signature elms? Yes. In the December study that reported on various university department tree programs, was it not true that they considered tree inoculation programs for other than signature trees to be potentially risky? Mr. Gaynor did not recall that. Alderman Moran said that in ten of the reports, universities said because of lack of a track record in inoculating trees other than signatures trees (defined as 30-inch diameter or larger) that it was risky to inoculate smaller elms. Mr. Gaynor recalled the university discussions and the cities that were contacted noted that there is a risk when injecting a tree of less than 10-inches due to the holes that are drilled into the base of the tree. Larger trees have a higher survival rate. In that material, it indicated that over a three-year period those wounds grow over and there has not been a problem. Alderman Moran asked if Mr. Gaynor recalled his asking Mr. D’Agostino on the night they took the vote that part of the recommendation to Council was to inoculate signature elms only, was due to his appreciation that signature elms being the largest and most robust trees would survive repeated injections over time as opposed to smaller trees. Mr. Gaynor thought he had answered that. It was not necessarily true for a 26-inch tree versus a 30-inch tree. Mr. Gaynor said in the material they found that nobody has ever done all their elm trees, which has been limited due to financial resources. Alderman Moran said they also said that there was a risk to inject elms other than signature elms. Mr. Gaynor said the answer was when the size is reduced the risk is increased. Alderman Moran asked the size recommended? Mr. Gaynor said it was 30 inches. Alderman Moran asked if he recalled that was a concern of Mr. D’Agostino -- that if elm less than 30-inches in diameter were injected, those smaller elms would be at-risk due to repeated injections. Mr. Gaynor did not recall that. Alderman Hansen, as a new alderman, spoke about the background on this that she had received. She was glad this could be reconsidered because this ordinance makes the inoculation of all elm trees in perpetuity. At the last meeting the alternative Alderman Rainey proposed and the one by Alderman Moran she could not agree to, although she had no alternative. There were questions about what is a signature elm tree? There is no answer because it is subjective and citizens would come and say this or that tree was a signature tree. She thought when Council voted to inject all elm trees, there was a definition of a signature tree from staff’s recommendation to inoculate only signature trees. Since voting on this ordinance, for every resident who has come to say all elms must be inoculated, there are two who have said “no” because they don’t have an elm tree and don’t want to pay for it. That may seem strange to those who feel the entire community benefits from the elm trees but she has many people in the 9th Ward who don’t feel that way. She is for trees. She thought when they talk about inoculating all trees, they were talking about trading trees for people. She continually has to tell people they don’t have the money to put more police officers on the street. Council went on an orientation tour and saw a fire station badly in need of repair. She recognized the argument that elm trees are part of the infrastructure. She felt they were under a time constraint at the last meeting. They were told they had to start inoculating immediately. Alderman Newman came up with the 50-50 program that homeowners with elms in front would pay for these injections. People objected to that because they could not afford it. Alderman Rainey urged everybody to come and people came in and said, “don’t make me pay for that 50% share, make everybody pay” but they too could not come up with an alternative. She wanted to know more about the 60-40 Minnesota program, but was out of time. She thought this could be revisited once the season was over. She felt the elm tree proponents who advocated inoculating all elms did not want to pay for it, wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Some talk about how this benefits all, she saw it as benefiting a few. She could not agree to a 50-50 program where residents don’t feel they are benefiting. 5 June 13, 2005 Alderman Tisdahl said the argument is how best to take care of the trees. There are two schools of thought. One is to inoculate every tree with pesticide. Another is to use the sanitation method on diseased elms and plant a bio-diverse selection of trees to protect Evanston as a Tree City. She understood the pesticide being used is one with the lowest level of harm to the environment but is dangerous if spilled and gets into the water supply. She asked if any has been spilled? Mr. Gaynor responded that there are occasions when there is a drip due to a loose connection. The Environment Board discussed the chemical and thought it would not be harmful. The amount that would drip from a hose was so insignificant that it would not harm the water table. Alderman Holmes thought that the program was for only three years, but the ordinance does not say that. Her vote was not forever. She re-read the ordinance but did not understand. City Manager Julia Carroll said the original definition of a signature tree was 30-inches diameter or above but never officially adopted by Council. Other definitions were discussed. St. Louis Park, MN has a voluntary program. Mayor Morton was correct, the ordinance does not specify a time limit and could be corrected or a sunset provision could be added. She recalled, during budget discussions, they agreed to re-evaluate this in three years and apologized that that was not incorporated into the ordinance and could be corrected. She saw three choices: maintain the sanitation program and stop the injections. However, there is a contract with a vendor for $758,000 that was issued on the basis of Council’s action, so there is a legal obligation to pay that vendor and would be difficult to retract. The second option is to consider the signature program as the action they take, but the City still owes the vendor. The third option would be to inject some number of trees between 1,100 to 3,300 (signature trees and all trees). She explained the first penalty relates to not paying the bill (7-8-7-5) and the second penalty relates to not complying with the ordinance concerning Dutch elm disease in general. Mr. Stafford advised that the likelihood of the penalty in Section 7-8-7-5 was remote because payment is applied first to non-water charges. The second penalty is possible when somebody who has a tree adjacent refused to comply. Alderman Bernstein supported the adopted ordinance. When he talked to the tree people, he wondered why they considered Council adversaries because all want to save the trees. The method to pay for this was fair because it involves people who don’t customarily contribute to the City in other ways, such as non-profit organizations and churches. His real concern was they are as strong as their weakest link. He noted a lot of money is being put into Howard Street, which needs revitalization and they will go to the west side, which needs revitalization also. The worst thing that could come out of that evening’s vote is “it is not in the 4th Ward, forget it unless the 4th Ward gets something.” He represents 4th Ward citizens but considers himself an advocate for all citizens of Evanston. Trees help the City and bring an inviolate kind of feeling. Council discussed trees extensively and came to a reasonable determination. The sanitation program was state of the art but new studies have proven the inoculation program is better but more costly. He recalled asking if there were a disease that would attack every tree species. There is. They will avoid that by planting a variety of trees. Ultimately, every tree will die. Some people said let nature take its course. What they are doing is trying to slow down the process with the elms. He understood at the end of three years the injection program would be evaluated. If they find a better methodology, they would go to that. He recalled that small trees could suffer from multiple injections and they were trying to preserve every tree. Even a healthy public elm could be co-opted by a diseased private tree that was not injected. The contract says the City will extend the same cost paid by the City to the private owner, so private owners can have their trees injected more economically. They have had this conversation for eight months. The vote on the prior Council was 7-2 and on this Council 6-3. He warned they have to be careful about the precedent they are setting; thought every issue had been addressed. It is regrettable that new aldermen don’t have the benefit of history and perhaps they should consider staggering terms so there is no possibility of nine new aldermen. He was concerned about what he was hearing, which related to a greater problem. He implored people to continue the 50-50 program which is fair; encouraged private owners to inject their trees. He knows people who have been injecting their own trees and parkway trees for years; noted many collections have been taken up around the City to inject trees. They can not reconsider everything they do; try to err on the conservative side. He thought they wanted to save every elm in tree and don’t have the wherewithal to pay for it. Now they have a way to treat Dutch elm trees and asked Council to vote as they did before. Alderman Wynne saw the injection program as a remarkable benefit to all. She noted real estate agents say a property with trees around it is more valuable. Every elm tree that shades a house or a condominium increases the value of that property when sold. All benefit from shade trees and elm trees are the best shade trees. She noted the beauty of elms on 6 June 13, 2005 Ridge Ave. and Sheridan Rd. and one of the most beautiful is on Emerson St. She agreed with Alderman Holmes that this would be funded for three years, then studied. Which is an issue. She voted for a three year program and then to analyze the results. She does not want it continued beyond three years if the study indicates it is not worth it. Every budget cycle they can decide to not fund a program. She said the City is confusing people. Her neighbor paid to inject the parkway elm in front of his home. Several months ago it was time to sign the contract again. When this was voted on she told the neighbor not to sign a contract, the City would take care of the tree, so he did not sign. At the last meeting they heard from Paul D’Agostino that Evanston had another mild winter, which means there will be a flare up of Dutch elm disease. The City has sent the message that the City would inject these trees. So now those who might have signed with a private contractor may have lost that opportunity. They also have $758,000 committed to the contract. She saw the benefit as widespread whether there is an elm tree on the block or not. She noted the City has signed a contract and thought the contractor would make the City pay for everything agreed to. She said they needed to make this a three-year program with a study provision and make that clear to the community. She did not want to go to a signature tree only program because of staff’s definition of signature trees as 30-inches or above and elm trees on McCormick Blvd. are 26- inches in diameter, which raises the question of how to define signature trees. She thought they would have many arguments about which trees are valuable, when all elm trees are valuable. Alderman Wynne said a neighbor’s tree came down that cost $3,000 to remove. The temperature in her house went up 10 degrees after that and so did their electrical bill. She said the City is spending money to cut down diseased trees, why not spend the money to save the trees. She recommended they go forward with a three-year program, conduct a study of the results; not put themselves at risk for litigation and confuse the public. Alderman Wollin stated the City had made a commitment and needed to live up to it but nothing was wrong with reconsideration of issues. She recommended amending the ordinance to clarify that this is a three-year program that would be evaluated in 2007. She did not think it appropriate to put the per year amount of $8.11 in an ordinance. She agreed with Alderman Holmes that they were going to inoculate all the trees and it was a matter of how to pay for it; agreed it was confusing as to what a signature tree is. Alderman Rainey spoke about the contract for the inoculations; recalled there was a scale of payments at so much an inch for so many trees and, for more trees, thought the payment would be based upon the number of trees injected. She did not recall approving a purchase for “X” amount. They voted on a purchase for a number of trees times the tree diameter, so the more trees injected the lower the cost. She said on the vote to support inoculating all the trees, they embraced the information that the science was correct. If this program was conducted every three years, the trees will be saved. She asked how they could then say today that they only meant this to be a one-time injection program. That was not the deal. The program was these trees would be injected every three years. Anybody who votes for a one-time three year program is throwing money down a rat hole. Without a long-term commitment, money is wasted. In her ward it was difficult to tell people who called and demanded to know “how could they do this without a public hearing on the 50-50 program.” She guessed that she and Alderman Hansen were the only ones who have citizens that outnumber those who want to inoculate all the trees. She knows Alderman Bernstein is a big supporter of elms, but there is no such tree as a “Dutch” elm tree. That is a disease. The American and red elm trees are the trees they are trying to save. She said the last time the 8th Ward was threatened with being cut off was by Alderman Newman and she thought those days were over. Alderman Moran said that at their final discussion, Paul D’Agostino told Council the time to conduct a study of the effectiveness of inoculation is nine or ten years out, which would involve three injection cycles. To amend this ordinance to a three-year sunset provision would be meaningless, according to the City’s arborist. There was no study or information brought to them that suggested an injection program was the way to go versus a sanitation program. All the universities said they would put their elm tree population at risk if they injected all the elms over ten inches in diameter. All agreed those elm trees of less than 10-inch diameter would probably be killed if injected. Some said it was okay to inject elms of 30-inch diameter or more. Of 10-inch to 30-inch diameter trees, 10 or 12 universities said it was risky, don’t do it. That is the issue they are looking at. Alderman Moran said it was evident to him the issue of McCormick Blvd. trees was political, brought by people on a crusade. When Council considered the McCormick Boulevard Resurfacing project, elm trees came up. In the following days, people tied green ribbons on McCormick Blvd. trees where virtually none of those trees would be cut for that 7 June 13, 2005 project. This was communicated to the community and caused a stir for people who lived nearby and throughout the City. The Council was not taking down those trees but the communication was what the City would do. The majority of trees to be cut down were on the canal bank. Other trees were in bad shape and could not survive the project. The universities said the sanitation program is the right one and put Evanston in good stead, as the Mayor indicated. They said it was the primary technique to protect elm trees and were concerned about injecting all trees other than the largest ones. He did not feel at-risk about the contract; said these people must have sent up a “woo” when they got it because no one has ever gotten one like this. Chicago spent $60,000 last year on elm tree injections. St. Louis Park, MN, lauded by advocates of this program, spent $45,000 on its injection program. Evanston will spend nearly $800,000. He did not feel compelled to do what is not the right thing. He thought they ought to inject the signature trees, have already injected some non- signature trees and tell the contractor to contour their work to the signature elms. Maybe the contractor will sue the City, but he did not think they would because they would be taking action that puts them at-risk in relation to their contractees. Alderman Moran moved, as part of the reconsideration, that the City would inject signature elms, defined as trees of 30 inches or more in diameter. Seconded by Alderman Tisdahl. Alderman Jean-Baptiste said they could not reconsider everything in this ordinance; thought reconsideration had to be based upon new information or information that was left out. They had let the contract and the program was being implemented. What can be changed is whether this is for three years or longer and whether to have a study. If they made a mistake in stating the intent, they can correct that. To reconsider a proposal that lost, with no new information, was not appropriate and they needed clarification. Mayor Morton questioned where he got that information and noted that Council had voted to reconsider this ordinance. Assistant Corporation Counsel Kathy Brenniman said Council had voted to reconsider the ordinance, which puts them back where they were at the last Council meeting. They could discuss and amend the ordinance as though it had not been discussed before. Reconsideration is not based upon any particular new information and had to be done that evening. Alderman Tisdahl wanted clarification from Mr. Stafford as to whether the City has to pay the contractor. Mr. Stafford said when they passed the contract, a purchase order for about 1,000 trees was issued. When the ordinance was passed, another purchase order for the remainder of the trees (2,300) was issued. The worst case scenario is that the City is on the hook for 3,300 trees. Alderman Rainey was correct in that when bids were received, costs varied according to the number of trees. The best case is they go back to the vendor and tell him they don’t want to inject as many trees and ask if he would do them for the higher price in the bid documents. His opinion was there would be some room for negotiation because there is room for future business. The contractor could also say he wants to stand by the purchase order. City Manager Carroll noted that once they start an injection program, even though they agreed to re-evaluate it, if the program is not continued after three years that money is lost. However, the future cost of the injection program would be reduced because staff would buy the chemical and inject the trees. Even though they commit to signature or the full program, the cost will be incurred in-house. Once started, unless there is new science, they would have to continue the injections. She clarified that once an injection program is started, whether for one tree or 3,300, they are committing to the injection program for the long-term unless a new science that comes up. That was why they discussed evaluating the program in three years. Did they wish to amend the ordinance to evaluate the program, not have a sunset provision, but an evaluation of the effectiveness? They also have to decide whether to change the policy decision made earlier. Alderman Tisdahl asked Alderman Moran to accept an amendment to his motion that would include location as a determining factor. He accepted the amendment. Alderman Tisdahl said location is the definition used by most cities. Alderman Wynne asked if she was substituting location for diameter? Alderman Tisdahl agreed to 30-inches as a determining factor and location when trees are around significant structures such as the arboretum. Roll call. Voting aye – Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Wollin. Voting nay – Wynne, Bernstein, Hansen, Baptiste. Motion carried. (5-4). In response to Mayor Morton, Ms. Brenniman said the section of the ordinance would be changed to say “signature trees of 30-inches or more and location” instead of 10-inch trees and above. Alderman Wynne thought they had created more confusion by this amendment; asked what about a 22-inch tree on a 8 June 13, 2005 prominent corner. She reiterated they should change the ordinance to limit the program to three years with a study provision. She noted if they inject for three years and did not continue, they had kept the trees alive. Alderman Rainey agreed that what was passed was somewhat confusing but that staff would have to make determinations on the size of trees. She thought that Alderman Tisdahl was talking about significant trees of less than 30 inches in different locations, which did not confuse her. If there is a grove of trees on McCormick Blvd. that are 23 inches around, they need to be saved. Instead of saying location, they should clarify and say significant trees in locations and groupings. Nobody wants the trees on McCormick to die; injecting every tree in town over 10-inches around is folly. Science does not sustain that. She thought staff and, the company that is injecting the trees, could participate in this decision. If this company rejects the City’s proposal to lower the number of trees (that should not happen since a former arborist works for that company and would be sensitive to the way Evanston operates). She suggested they ask staff to determine significant trees and consider that people in the community should not have to pay for that and it does not belong on everybody’s water bill. Alderman Bernstein recalled that Mr. Gaynor did not want to be responsible for determining which trees were significant because somebody with a 12-inch tree in front of his or her house could consider it significant. He would say they are right and Mr. Gaynor has no right to say they are not. Somebody will say the location of a tree is significant. Alderman Wynne moved to amend the definition of signature elm trees and location trees that staff believe are significant to include all elm trees above 10-inches on Ridge Ave., Dodge Ave., Sheridan Rd., McCormick Blvd., Dempster St., Asbury Ave., Central St. and Emerson St. Seconded by Jean-Baptiste. By including those streets, all know those elms would be injected. Roll call. Voting aye – Wynne, Bernstein, Hansen, Jean-Baptiste. Voting nay – Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Wollin. Motion failed (4-5). Alderman Moran moved that they amend the amendment by separating the signature trees of 30-inches or larger, from significant trees determined by location, and that the staff consider the tree survey recently completed and within the next 30 days make a designation of which trees are to be considered significant by location if they are less than 30-inches in diameter. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Roll call. Voting aye - Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay – Wynne, Bernstein, Jean-Baptiste. Motion carried.( 6-3) Alderman Rainey moved to delete all references in the ordinance to any 50-50 program. Seconded by Alderman Tisdahl. Alderman Bernstein pointed out they were making decisions without any evaluation of dollars; don’t know what they will pay for the trees that are injected. The City would be charged less due to a higher volume and they also have to consider staff time. Alderman Jean-Baptiste thought the initial question the Mayor should have asked was whether they wanted to change the amendment to make it clearer that it was for three years and would be evaluated. The penalty might have been modified and the language softened. Now they have many questions about the ordinance. If they want to do another ordinance, they need a comprehensive one on the table for reconsideration. They are patching this ordinance bit by bit. There is no consideration of staff time. Where is the clarity? They have created more confusion. People should have been prepared to bring their arguments to the table. Now they are gutting this ordinance to reflect what some think it should be. He found it reduced their credibility in how they make decisions. Mayor Morton corrected Alderman Jean-Baptiste; stated that under their law they must have reconsideration. The Mayor could not stand up and say this must be changed. The matter has to be reconsidered and under reconsideration changes are made. Alderman Rainey said the Council’s credibility was called into question the night, without any warning, Council assigned 9 June 13, 2005 50% of the cost of this program to citizens with no public hearing. That came off the top of somebody’s head when hundreds of thousand of dollars were assigned to be paid by citizens. Roll call. Voting aye – Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay – Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Jean-Baptiste. Motion carried. (5-4) Ms. Carroll asked First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill if the amended ordinance needed to come through the system again. Mr. Hill said the ordinance could be amended on the floor and amendments will be incorporated in a new draft and presented to the Mayor for signature. She noted they had voted 6-3 to identify trees by significant location and report back to the Council in 30 days. She clarified that, operationally, no tree less than 30-inches in diameter will be injected during the next 30-days. Alderman Wynne asked what aldermen are to tell citizens who have been injecting parkway trees? She thought private owners should be allowed to inject public trees and notify the City. Mr. Gaynor said they will continue to inject 30-inch or greater trees in the parkway and have no idea what specific other trees will be injected. The citizen who wants to inject a public tree can call in and get a permit to do so. However, the word has gotten out, so if people are serious about preserving an elm tree and do not know whether it will be considered a significant elm, he recommended they spend the money and do it. He thought elms of less than 30-inches would be injected on McCormick, Ridge and Sheridan Rd. Mr. Gaynor cannot tell which trees will be injected, so they are at the risk as they have been in past years. The sanitation program will be continued. Alderman Moran said a survey was done of trees that included the size of trees. He thought Alderman Wynne’s question could be answered by the survey. Alderman Wynne asked if there was still a provision that citizens pay the same price as the City? Alderman Rainey said that agreement was made with the vendor at the time of purchase and had nothing to do with the ordinance. At the A&PW Committee they awarded a purchase, but what happened was different. The purchase aldermen approved was for three different options and they were told it did not matter as long as the vendor was given the number of trees to inject. Roll call. Voting aye – Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay – Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Jean-Baptiste. Motion carried (5-4). COMMUNICATIONS: City Clerk Mary Morris read into the record the following letter of May 31, 2005 from Alan Leder, Executive Director of the Evanston Art Center: “The Evanston Art Center would like to acknowledge, with gratitude, the generosity of several area developers who have underwritten EAC’s 2005-2006 Sculpture on the Grounds project: “Cultural Cargo” by Bernard Williams. The sponsors include: David Hovey of Optima, Inc.; Lee Golub of Golub & Company; Tom Roszak of Roszak ADC; and Gary DeStefano of DeStefano Development. Bernard Williams, a well-known Chicago artist who has achieved national prominence in recent years, has a Master of Fine Arts degree from Northwestern University and has taught at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago since 1991. During the coming year (June 5, 2005 to spring 2006), his work will speak eloquently to thousands of visitors to the Evanston Art Center and surrounding area. We believe that the developers who have generously provided funding for this project have demonstrated civic pride and support for the cultural life of the region and have earned the gratitude of area residents and visitors.” CITIZEN COMMENT: Robert Bady, 838 Elmwood Ave., said some may have received his letter which was in response to one he received May 17, 2005 for the firefighter/paramedic eligibility list, which was why he was present. He was taken off that list recently when it was cancelled. He was excited about the possibility of joining the Evanston Fire Department; has lived here for 10 June 13, 2005 six years and is married with children. He would be happy if Council could reconsider his position. He is 35 years old, in good physical condition and volunteers at Fire Station #2. Firefighter Steve Ready was there tonight with him. He said the City’s answer to him was it was at their discretion to throw a list out. He has been waiting on that list for almost three years. He would like for someone to give him an explanation of the City’s discretion and what that is about. His letter asked, “what constitutes cancellation of an eligibility list? Is it totally at the City’s discretion or are exceptions made?” He hoped they would look at that. He just bought a condominium and is happy here; is a member of the Reba community and goes to the Reba Church. He will continue to live here and volunteer. He wanted to be able to take that test in two weeks. The final application date is June 17 and he was prepared to put all his stuff in if an exception was made. Mayor Morton had sent the letter to the City Manager that day. Betty Ester, 2114 Darrow Ave., spoke about Resolution 39-R-05, scheduling a Joint Review Board Meeting and public hearings for the proposed West Evanston TIF. She thanked the Economic Development Committee for holding two public hearings. The first will be at the Civic Center on August 15. She suggested the second hearing be held at ETHS, which is a central location for both 2nd and 5th ward residents since the TIF is in both. She hoped the second hearing could be held before September 13, 2005 as was discussed in the EDC Committee. CONSENT AGENDA (Any item marked with an Asterisk*) Alderman Moran moved Council approval of the Consent Agenda with these exceptions: Items for Future Consideration; Ordinance 76-O-05 - Increase in Class D Liquor Licenses (Siam Pasta); Ordinance 52-O-05 - Amend City Code to Increase Parking Meter Rates; Planned Development at Kendall College, 2408 Orrington – Plan Commission Recommendation; Ordinance 57-O-05 - Planned Development - 1603 Orrington; Ordinance 60-O-05 - Special Use request for Type 2 Restaurant - 1740 Sherman; and Appeal of Preservation Commission Decision – 2408 Orrington, Kendall College. Seconded by Alderman Wynne. Roll call. Voting aye – Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin, Jean-Baptiste. Voting nay – none. Motion carried (9-0). * ITEMS APPROVED ON CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES: * Approval of Minutes of the Special Meetings of May 21, May 23 and May 31, 2005 and the Regular City Council Meeting of May 23, 2005. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (9-0) *Approval, as recommended, of the City of Evanston payroll for the period through June 9, 2005 and City of Evanston bills for the period ending June 14, 2005, authorized and charged to the proper accounts: City of Evanston payroll (through 06/09/05) $2,062,157.18 City of Evanston bills (through 06/14/05) $5,465,481.94 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (9-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid from SBC to improve the network and telephone infrastructure for the Library in an amount not to exceed $65,585.45. Funded by two CIP accounts: $46,088.05 / $19,497.40. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * Approval of the lowest responsive and responsible bid from Dennison Corporation for one (1) truck with utility body for the Facilities Management Department in the amount of $38,731.35. Funded by the Fleet Services Fund. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * Approval of contract for 2005 Sewer Maintenance Contract in the amount of $168,560 from Municipal Sewer Services, LLC of Chicago. Funded by the Sewer Operating Fund. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * * * * * * Resolution 40-R-05 - Supplemental Agreement for Engineering Services - Ridge/Church/Davis 11 June 13, 2005 Traffic Signals Upgrade Project - Consideration of Resolution 40-R-05, which authorizes the City Manager to sign the Supplemental Agreement for Engineering Services with Metro Transportation Group to redesign the proposed new traffic signals at a cost of $52,804. This supplemental agreement will bring the total Phase II Engineering contract amount to $230,048. Funded by CMAQ - 80% federal share/20% local share. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * Ordinance 58-O-05 - Amending Title 9 of the City Code - Air Rifles - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 58-O-05, which amends Title 9 of the City Code to create a new Chapter 15, “Air Rifles.” * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 62-O-05 - Decrease in Class B1 Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 62-O-05, which amends Section 3-5-6(B)1 of the City Code to decrease the number of Class B1 Liquor Licenses from 6 to 5 for Pete Miller’s, 1557 Sherman Ave. * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 73-O-05 - Increase in Class B Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 73-O-05, which amends Section 3-5-6(B) of the City Code to increase the number of Class B Liquor Licenses from 12 to 13 for Pete Miller’s, 1557 Sherman Ave. * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 74-O-05 - Decrease in Class D Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 74-O-05, which amends Section 3-5-6(D) of the City Code to decrease the number of Class D liquor licenses from 22 to 21 due to the sale of Viva La Crepe, Inc., 1565 Sherman Ave. * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 75-O-05 - Increase in Class D Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 75-O-05, which amends Section 3-5-6(D) of the City Code to increase the number of Class D liquor licenses from 21 to 22 due to the purchase of Viva La Crepe, Inc., 1565 Sherman Ave. * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 63-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2030 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 63-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Peter & Gail Lobin (2030 Orrington Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 64-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2026 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 64-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Andrew & Rachel Sollinger (2026 Orrington Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 65-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2033 Sherman Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 65-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Sherman Condo Association (2033 Sherman Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 66-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2025 Sherman Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 66-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Sherwood Condo Association (2025 Sherman Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 67-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2018 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 67-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Allan & Ellen Drebin (2018 Orrington Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA 12 June 13, 2005 * Ordinance 68-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2014 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 68-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Lubavitch Chabad of Evanston (2014 Orrington Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 69-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2024 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 69-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Simon & Janette Thompson (2024 Orrington Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 70-O-05 - Acceptance of Right-of-Way- 2020 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 70-O-05, for acceptance of right-of-way for the 2000 block of Sherman Avenue Alley Paving Project from certain land owned by Margaret Eissa (2020 Orrington Ave.). * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Ordinance 77-O-05 - Issuance of Series 2005 Bonds - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 77-O- 05, which provides for the issuance of Series 2005 Bonds for Capital Improvements, Sherman Avenue Garage, Special Assessments and Refinancing Series 1998 Bonds. * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA Alderman Rainey moved to Suspend the Rules to adopt Ordinance 77-O-05, which was introduced that evening. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Motion carried. No nays. Alderman Rainey moved approval of Ordinance 77-O-05. Seconded by Alderman Tisdahl. Roll call. Voting aye – Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin, Jean-Baptiste. Voting nay – none. Motion carried (9-0). PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: * Ordinance 61-O-05 - Special Use for three Type 2 Restaurants at 2209 Howard St. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 61-O-05, recommendation by the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special use for three Type 2 restaurants (Starbucks, Pizza Hut and Food Avenue) inside the Target retail store, 2209 Howard St. * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Sidewalk Cafés for Type 2 Restaurant at Starbucks- the Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee has recommended approval of the following sidewalk café permits: Starbucks, 528 Dempster St. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) HUMAN SERVICES: * Approval of May Township Monthly Bills- Consideration of a recommendation to approve the Township bills, payroll and medical payments for the month of May 2005 in the amount of $84,858.73. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * Ordinance 59-O-05 - Proposed FY 2005/06 Annual Budget for Township - Consideration of Ordinance 59-O-05, whereby the City Council, acting as Trustees of Evanston Township, approve the annual budget ordinance for Evanston Township for the Fiscal Year April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, in the amount of $1,249,930. * MARKED INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA * Renewal of the Intergovernmental Agreement - Consideration of authorizing the renewal of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Evanston and Evanston Township for the provision of Emergency Assistance services for an annual amount not to exceed $110,000 from March 1, 2005 13 June 13, 2005 through February 28, 2007. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * Renewal of the Engagement of Miller Cooper - Consideration of renewal of the engagement of Miller Cooper to conduct the Annual Financial Audits of Evanston Township for the years ending March 31, 2005 through 2008 at an escalating annual rate of $15,100 in 2005 and ending in 2008 at $16,700. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * FY 2006 HUD Emergency Shelter Grant Recommendations - Consideration of a recommendation that the City award $87,597 in Federal Emergency Shelter Grant funds to three local agencies serving persons who are homeless. * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) OTHER COMMITTEES: * Resolution 38-R-05 - Schedule Joint Review Board meeting and Public Hearings for Proposed West Evanston TIF - Consideration of proposed Resolution 39-R-05, by which the Economic Development Committee recommended on May 25, 2005 that City Council establish dates for the Joint Review Board Meeting (June 30, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.) and the Public Hearing required by state statute (August 15, 2005 at 8:30 p.m.) In addition, the EDC recommended that a neighborhood public hearing occur on a date to be established within or near the proposed TIF District * APPROVED -CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) * Recommendation to approve Annual Funding for Chicago’s North Shore Convention & Visitors Bureau - Consideration of a recommendation by the Economic Development Committee to provide an annual grant of $61,800 to Chicago’s North Shore Convention & Visitors Bureau for the 2005-06 fiscal year. Funding budgeted in the 2005-06 Economic Development Fund. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (9-0) APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Morton asked the following appointment be confirmed: Lynette Murphy Library Board 1420 Ridge Ave. For term ending June 30, 6008 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS: Ordinance 76-O-05 - Increase in Class D Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 76- O-05, which amends Section 3-5-6(D) of the City Code to increase the number of Class D liquor licenses from 22 to 23 for Siam Pasta Thai Cuisine, 809 Dempster St. Alderman Rainey reported that this item was held in committee. Ordinance 52-O-05 - Amend Title 10 of the City Code - Increase Parking Meter Rates - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 52-O-05, introduced April 25, 2005, which amends Section 10-11-12: Schedule XII of the City Code to increase parking meter rates. Alderman Rainey moved approval of Ordinance 52-O-05. Seconded by Alderman Bernstein. 14 June 13, 2005 Alderman Moran found this a difficult issue due to a large series of proposals from the Parking Committee regarding a revised structure for parking fees throughout the City. At the last committee meeting, the first since the new Council was seated, they had a good discussion. One component of the proposal he felt was a mistake is that parking meter rates in commercial areas outside the downtown are to be increased by 100% from 25¢ to 50¢ with adoption of this full package. He appreciated recommendations made by the Parking Committee. There was discussion that parking rates have not been raised for a long time; that the Parking Fund has been depleted significantly in recent history, and the fact that there is a drain on the Parking Fund related to larger parking structures built downtown. In the future, changes in parking rates will be focused in that area. He said it made sense that the parking rates in outlying districts could be asked to make up the shortfall, but to ask them to absorb a 100% increase is a significant problem. Many small businesses hustle to bring business into the City and parking is a chronic problem in these areas. The Central Street Merchants Association wants to have all parking meters removed so people could drive up and park. He was not advocating that be done; would like to see it done but did not know if it could be. Part of the problem as was discussed is a question of perception. Small businesses in smaller commercial districts want to continue to draw customers and hiking the meter rates by 100% was drastic. He asked that the ordinance be amended and suggested no increase now or that it be 20%. Alderman Wynne, on the Parking Committee for eight years, said this was first discussed last August in great detail with numerous discussions since. The Parking Fund is about to go into deficit. The committee debated various solutions to this problem; both the committee and staff recommended spreading the burden onto the community with the largest burden on the garages. This included increasing rates on outlying meters, parking lots and garage rates. Saying that this is a drastic increase is to misconstrue this. Outlying meter rates were last increased 17 years ago. Increasing meter rates from 25¢ to 50¢ does not solve the deficit problem. Some people don’t realize they don’t have to put a quarter in the meter that a smaller coin, except pennies, can be put in. Meters will be marked to indicate the coins they will take. A study was done that showed most people don’t spend two hours at a meter. This package has been thoroughly reviewed and needed to be adopted. She represents two smaller commercial areas and most people there do not feel this increase is drastic. She urged Council to pass the ordinance that evening. Alderman Tisdahl appreciated the work of the Parking Committee but was worried about meter rates in outlying districts. Nobody has ever called her about paying a dime or a quarter to park. They call her about paying for parking tickets. When rates are increased people can shop to the north where there are no parking meters. Central St. is a good economic engine for Evanston. If they had meters like Chicago, Denver and Paris have, residents could pay with a MasterCard. The problem is not having a dime and getting a ticket. She would support this if there would not be more tickets. Often people don’t have dimes or quarters, which is why they get tickets. Alderman Wynne said the Parking Committee has discussed different kinds of meters. In Europe meters are removed from the street and people pay at a central location. Different kinds of meters are being implemented here. She explained parking meters have a 10-minute grace period built into them; said they would look into the credit card method. Mayor Morton asked why there is a deficit in the Parking Fund? Ms. Carroll explained the City is operating at a paper deficit, which means they don’t have rates high enough to fund the depreciation reserve that will fund future capital replacements. They need to take care of their decks in the future and need money on hand to take care of those repairs. Mr. Stafford added that the City has totally changed the structure of the fund due to the size of the new garages. The City is in a different business and they would have to raise rates anyway. When garages this large are built, with operating costs they never had before, historically, parking lots subsidized parking garages. The City is in a different economic position. The Parking Committee’s strategy is a gradual way to address it over the next few years. Ms. Carroll explained the Parking Fund is not operating at a deficit this year, but next year they will run into a cash flow problem. They have not been operating at a total deficit. It is a combination of factors and the cost of operating large garages is much more expensive than operating a meter based system. Roll call. Voting aye – Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin, Jean-Baptiste. Voting nay – Moran, Tisdahl. Motion carried (7-2). PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: 15 June 13, 2005 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 the Kendall College site. On behalf of the applicant, Alderman Bernstein asked that this item be held in committee until the July 11, 2005 meeting. Ordinance 57-O-05 - Planned Development - 1603 Orrington Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 61-O-05, findings and report of the Plan Commission to grant a requested planned development for 1603-1629 Orrington Ave. Alderman Bernstein asked that Ordinance 57-O-05 be marked introduced. Ordinance 60-O-05 - Special Use for Type 2 Restaurant at 1740 Sherman Ave. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 60-O-05, recommendation by the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special use for a Type 2 restaurant (Cosi) at 1740 Sherman Ave. Alderman Bernstein asked that Ordinance 60-O-05 be marked introduced. Alderman Bernstein moved to Suspend the Rules to adopt Ordinance 60-O-05, which was introduced that evening. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried. No nays. Alderman Bernstein moved approval. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Motion carried. No nays. Appeal of the Preservation Commission Decision - 2408 Orrington Ave., Kendall College - 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. On behalf of the applicant, Alderman Bernstein asked that this item be held in committee until the July 11, 2005 meeting. CALL OF THE WARDS: 4th Ward. Alderman Bernstein made a reference to the Rules Committee regarding recitation of the Consent Agenda and to consider a method by which they don’t have to read the items aloud. He reported that the day before Reverend Hardisty Lane, senior pastor at the Fischer A.M.E. Memorial Church at 944 Elmwood Ave., was honored for 35 years of service to that congregation. A community oriented, wonderful and selfless man, he congratulated him and Mrs. Lane on their success. 8th Ward. Alderman Rainey made a reference to the Environment Board to study the feasibility and the legality of making illegal the use of pesticides on private property and to report back to Council. Seconded by Alderman Moran. Motion carried unanimously. Alderman Rainey referred to the citizen who spoke about the firefighter/paramedic list. She told a story about a former 8th Ward resident where a similar situation happened. This dedicated family almost reversed a certain neighborhood. The man was a firefighter/paramedic contract employee for a municipality and commuted an hour each way daily and was on a firefighter/paramedic list for the City of Evanston. He was told he was too old (age 35) and recently was told he was not too old. Last month he was hired away from Evanston by the City of Chicago. This family had to leave Evanston and rent a house in Rogers Park, hoping this current situation would be reversed. She suggested when they get a man who is a dedicated community member and the man in her ward was a strong healthy man who had experience in another fire department for several years, would be of no cost were he allowed to take the test. She suggested they look at how they handle the process of hiring firefighter/paramedics. She encouraged the city manager to look at that. 16 June 13, 2005 Alderman Rainey reported attending a recent neighborhood meeting at the Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation on Dodge Ave. across the street from the Levy Center. The congregation has outgrown its present quarters; conducted a successful capital fund raising program and hired the Carol Ross Barney firm to design a new synagogue. 1st Ward. Alderman Wollin thanked Chief Kaminski and Chief Lewis at NU for organizing and controlling Dillo Day this year. There were fewer complaints and constituents told her that students and administrators were picking up trash in the neighborhood at 6:00 a.m. the next morning. That is the kind of cooperation they have asked for at meetings with Aldermen Holmes and Tisdahl. She appreciated the cooperation among City and NU police, students and administrators. 2nd Ward. Alderman Jean-Baptiste made a reference to the A&PW Committee to reconsider whether the leaf blower ordinance is needed due to new quieter technology. The City’s ordinance was intended to reduce noise. Alderman Jean-Baptiste made a reference to the Rules Committee to consider giving aldermen an automobile tag when they are on urgent business and cannot find parking at the Civic Center. He has found the lot packed at 3:00 p.m. He commented on Mr. Bady and others like him; had spoken to Chief Berkowsky about this. He believed the 2003 list was eliminated when Council called for more diversified recruitment in the Fire Department. They had observed that ten years prior to 2003, the EFD had not hired one African-American. Many African-Americans in the department are on the verge of retiring. He said there has been some progress, but they need to see if they can give Mr. Bady a chance. Mayoral Comments Mayor Morton said in her 12 years, this Council followed the rules and members spoke to each other not the audience. She had left the U.S. Conference of Mayors with a lot of information for aldermen on faith-based initiatives, which are funded by the federal government. She noted money was given to Reverend Lane, who has a program for ex-offenders. At 12:23 a.m., Alderman Bernstein moved that City Council convene into Executive Session in the Aldermanic Library for the purpose of discussing matters related to litigation and closed session minutes pursuant to 5ILCS Section 120/2 (c) (11) and (21). Seconded by Alderman Wynne. (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 – Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin, Jean-Baptiste. Voting nay – none. Motion carried (9-0). Mayor Morton adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 12:40 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 Clerk’s office.