Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_24_05_ccCITY COUNCIL January 24, 2005 ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Alderman Bernstein Alderman Tisdahl Alderman Moran Alderman Rainey A Quorum was present. Alderman Feldman NOT PRESENT AT ROLL CALL:Alderman Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Newman ABSENT:Alderman Kent PRESIDING:Mayor Lorraine H. Morton The OFFICIAL REGULAR MEETING of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Morton Monday, January 24, 2005, at 6:05 p.m. in the Aldermanic Library. Alderman Tisdahl moved that Council convene into Closed Session 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 Bernstein. (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 – Bernstein, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Feldman. Voting nay – none. Motion carried (5-0). At 7:23 p.m. Alderman Moran 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 8:57 p.m. in the Council Chamber. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Morton introduced new City Manager Julia Carroll. Ms. Carroll said she was glad to be here; was warmly received by Council, staff, and citizens and looked forward to working with the community. Ms. Carroll referred to a memorandum sent to Council Friday asking whether they wanted to do another citizen survey. The last one was done in 2003. She recommended a new survey to update the baseline that was taken in the last two surveys on satisfaction with City services, which ties in with her recommendation to look at a strategic plan. She asked if Council was interested in pursuing either item and, if they were, she would return with a full proposal in the near future. Alderman Feldman referred the City Manager’s proposal to the Rules Committee. Ms. Carroll asked whether they wanted her to bring back a proposal or wanted more discussion on the concepts. Alderman Feldman suggested Council discuss this to consider what she has in mind. It will be on the March Rules Committee meeting agenda. Mayor Morton read an excerpt from a letter sent by Virginia Beatty inviting citizens to a celebration that marks the 100th Anniversary of the installation of Frances Willard’s Statue in the U.S. Capitol. City Clerk Mary Morris conducted a lottery to determine ballot position among aldermanic candidates who filed simultaneously on Tuesday, January 18, for the April 5 Consolidated Election. Ms. Morris announced the next day was the last day to file petitions for municipal offices. Special Order of Business: 2 January 24, 2005 Community Emergency Response Team Graduation Deputy Chief Dennis Nilsson announced graduation of the second community response team; introduced Deputy Chiefs John Schroeder, Joe Bellino and Demetrious Cook; Commander Barbara Wiedlin and retired Lieutenant Ronald Walzak. He noted the Citizens Police Academy (CPA) is a popular program and Class #21 starts in March. An offshoot of the academy is the alumni association and the volunteer program. Since September 11, 2001, emergency preparedness has moved to the forefront for public safety workers because resources are taxed during emergencies. Because academy gradates wanted to do more, the Community Emergency Response Team was formed. The prerequisite is graduation from the CPA. It is a cooperative effort among the Police/Fire departments and Emergency Management. Graduates of the first class were recognized. Graduates received training in emergency management, incident command, traffic control, first aid, crowd control and participated in a mock disaster. Mr. Nilsson said these individuals give of themselves and are ready to help public safety agencies in an emergency. Special thanks from Mayor Morton and Max Rubin, Director, City Emergency Services, were extended to Tom Janetzke, who taught many of the classes. Mr. Rubin thanked the Emergency Management Agency of Illinois for funds. Graduates have been involved in 4th of July events, football games and First Night and take on needed jobs. Mayor Morton, Chief Kaminski, Chief Berkowsky, Tom Janetzke and Max Rubin congratulated the graduates: John Arnt, Jane Baugher, Phillip Baugher, Alden Cohen, Martin Freid, Ruth Lipshutz, Vicki McKinley, Evelyn Orange, Robert Orange, Mary Rodino, Lou Shapiro and Jean Speyer Scruggs. Special Order of Business: City and Township Ethics Ordinance Presentation At the Human Services Committee’s request, First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill presented an overview of the City and Township Ethics Ordinances. He explained that the City has an ethics ordinance because it is a Home Rule unit of government and is authorized to do anything pertaining to its business and affairs, while the Township government can act only on a specific grant of authority from the state. The state began examining ethics statutes in 1997-98 in reaction to concerns about the Secretary of State’s office. The State Ethics Ordinance was adopted in December 2003 and authorizes ethical standards for state conduct and remanding ethical standards for units of local government. The state law requires local governments to enact regulations no less restrictive than the state statute. That means an opportunity for the Township to adopt an ethics ordinance. It is a blessing and somewhat limiting for the City. In any situation where the City has a less restrictive standard than the state, that would have to be changed. The plus to Home Rule communities is that the state statute increased the authority of home rule governments on sanctions and authorized areas of regulation not covered by the City’s ordinance. The existing ethics ordinance was originally passed in 1978 and is in Title 1 Chapter 10, one of the first ethics ordinances in the state. When initially adopted, the ethics ordinance was a financial disclosure ordinance. In 1981 the City’s ethics ordinance was amended to proscribe certain behavior. Ordinance 54-O-04 tracks changes in the state legislation. The language in this ordinance is the work of the Ethics Board and the Law Department. It is modeled on an ethics ordinance recommended by the Illinois Attorney General. There are significant changes in Evanston’s ordinance. The City’s ordinance adopts gift ban language required by the state. The City’s current ordinance has language prohibiting acceptance of gifts and the new language is stricter. Prohibited political activities are relatively new for the City ordinance. The City is required to adopt the state language, which is stricter, not less. The state language on prohibited political activity mandates the possibility of criminal sanctions and prosecution by the City’s Law Department. Punishment is up to 364 days in prison. The gift ban provisions, as required, expanded the scope of coverage by the City’s ordinance to cover spouses and immediate family members. Alderman Rainey asked what City employees are allowed to do, since they are going into an active political season for the upcoming election. Mr. Hill said that employees have the same broad spectrum rights as any other person. The key difference is that City employees are prohibited from engaging in political activities during compensated time. If a City employee is working or on duty, that individual cannot engage in political activity. The ordinance has a page of definitions of prohibited political activities. It is anything one can think of to promote election of an individual or promotion of a referendum question. Alderman Rainey confirmed when a City employee is not working they may participate in election activity like anyone else. Mr. Hill said that under the City ordinance, the Board of Ethics remains an advisory body. Any officer or employee can come to the board with an issue or concern and the board will give an advisory opinion. 3 January 24, 2005 Expanded coverage of gift ban of spouses and family members. The state ordinance directly prohibits spouses and family members who live with the officer or employee from receiving gifts. Non-home rule governments must be at least as restrictive as the state statute. It is a grant to Home Rule government to be more restrictive than the state statute. Until now, the Township did not have authority to pass an ethics ordinance and now can pass such an ordinance more restrictive than the state statute. Prohibited activity during compensated time includes preparing for, organizing, participating, conducting, or planning for a political meeting, or public demonstration. Prohibited political activity concerning officers of the City with no fixed work time. There are no fixed hours for the City Council members. The ordinance prohibits political activity on City premises or while the elected official is engaged in official conduct of the office. No officer or employee shall intentionally use City property or resources for a prohibited political activity. People cannot pick up the phone and urged somebody to vote for somebody; cannot use a City vehicle to drop off campaign signs for somebody. There has never been a situation like that in Evanston. Alderman Newman confirmed a call on a City phone to support someone’s election is prohibited. Mr. Hill said that also applies to use of City laptops and computers. City equipment and resources cannot be used to promote electoral interests of any individual. Alderman Newman noted that would apply to City computers that aldermen have. They would have to use their own equipment. The key change in the gift ban is prohibition of gifts to a spouse or close family member. A gift from a prohibited source is any person seeking official action or who is doing business or seeking to do business with any person who conducts activities regulated by the City officer or employee. If an activity is related or licensed that person is a prohibited source. The state then made 12 exceptions to the act. He pointed out in 54-O-04, pages 12-14, specify the gift exceptions. The exceptions have caused the most concern to staff who has reviewed the language and its impact. The most important are exceptions 10 and 12 to the state gift ban provisions and the state act as adopted by the City lessen the authority of the City’s current ordinance. He read from page 13, #10 from the gift ban act. By it being an exception, the state is saying this conduct is acceptable. “Food/refreshments not exceeding $75 per person on a single calendar day provided the food/refreshments are consumed on the premises or catered.” Under the City’s current ordinance that would not be a per day exception. The second component is paragraph 12 of the exceptions. “The receipt of any item or items from any one prohibited source during any calendar year with a cumulative value of less than $100.” Under the City’s ordinance the City Manager has the authority to promulgate rules/regulations regarding this conduct. Senior staff is meeting to promulgate more specific rules regarding the $75 and $100 exceptions to the gift ban act. The rules/regulations promulgated will be stricter than the act. This applies to City officials, officers of the City and employees. The City Manager’s rules apply only to City employees. One question is, is it possible not to be in violation of the gift ban act but still be in violation of the City’s ordinance? The way it is written now, one cannot be in violation of the City Code regarding other conduct, if it is within the exception of the gift ban act. It would be possible to draft legislation to allow a $75 food or $100 gift, not be subject to the Gift Ban language, but be a violation of the conflict of interest provisions in the City Code. He directed them to page 6 of the ordinance, first paragraph; it now reads “to be consistent with the state statute, conduct which is consistent with the gift ban act within the exceptions of the gift ban act is specifically excluded from any other provisions of the code. It reads, “A business transaction, or financial or personal interest which is within the exceptions to the gift ban provisions of Section 1-10-4(C) 5 does not violate the code.” If City Council takes exception to that and thinks it is in the interest of all concerned to have exceptions to the Gift Ban Act subject to review by the Board of Ethics as violations of the City’s Conflict of Interest provisions, the suggestion is to substitute the word “may” for “does not.” Home Rule Authority was increased by sanctions, which are straightforward: political activity results in 364 days in jail; and violation of the gift ban act is a monetary fine. The state has imposed and the City has adopted a fine for filing an intentionally false report. That has not been in the City’s ethics ordinance and at times there have been frivolous complaints made against individuals for whatever purpose one could think of. The Board has had to meet, review and, at times, subpoena, to determine the full extent of the situation. Some years back some frivolous complaints were filed and they had no mechanism in the ordinance to sanction the individual who filed the frivolous complaint. Alderman Bernstein confirmed that only officers and employees are subject to this ordinance. Mr. Hill explained that 4 January 24, 2005 if someone files a complaint against an elected official or employee and the complaint is intentionally false, the Board of Ethics can recommend criminal proceedings against that individual. This is a new standard. Mr. Hill said the Board of Ethics central role is to review complaints, advise City Council/employees, same as before. The City’s Board of Ethics will also now be the Board of Ethics for the Township. Township matters will be subject to and reviewed by the Board of Ethics. It is an increased scope for the Board of Ethics, solely arising from state legislation. Alderman Newman asked if the Board of Ethics could come up with an opinion and send it to the State’s Attorney for prosecution. Mr. Hill stated the Board of Ethics can develop an opinion; send it to the City’s Law Department with a recommendation to proceed with criminal prosecution or for an ordinance violation. That applies to the City and Township, which is not in the current ordinance. Alderman Rainey asked if there is provision in the Ethics Ordinance that provides the work of the Ethics Board be confidential. She has no idea of what they do, what they hear or how they dispose of cases. Mr. Hill stated that decisions of the Board of Ethics are on file in the City Clerk’s office when there has been action or a complaint filed. He said it has been three-four years since filing of a formal opinion. He said the Board of Ethics actions are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act. Board of Ethics minutes are public documents. The Board of Ethics may go into closed session as appropriate. Alderman Rainey asked for minutes the next time they meet. Alderman Bernstein asked if the Law Department acts as a reviewing board regarding information the Board of Ethics passes to it. Mr. Hill said the recommendation of the Board of Ethics is a recommendation, not a mandatory action. Alderman Bernstein asked if the Law Department makes the final decision whether to engage in civil or criminal prosecution? Mr. Hill said yes, by consultation with appropriate authorities. Alderman Rainey said if there have been no cases for three-four years, had the Board of Ethics met? The Board has met. She asked what the board does. Mr. Hill said they were involved with these ordinances. Mr. Hill said the ordinances are up for adoption. Language, which has been added, is underlined; language, which is being deleted, is struck. The Township ordinance, 55-O-04, is new and there is no underlining. CITIZEN COMMENT: Virginia L. Beatty, 1509 Forest Ave., long-term resident, invited all to honor Francis Willard this year because it marks the 100th anniversary of her statue in Statuary Hall in Washington, D.C. Her statue was placed there because she did so much for the state and the country. For over 50 years she was the only woman there. Francis Willard was a Northwestern University trustee and the first Dean of Women. She was responsible for instituting police matrons and paid them herself; believed that women could think on their feet, speak in public and run organizations. The celebration is Sunday, February 13, 3:00 p.m. at the First United Methodist Church, 516 Church St. with Carolyn Gifford speaking about Francis Willard. Eric Diekhans, 1232 Simpson St., opposed the proposal not to rehabilitate the Civic Center; appreciated all the work Max Rubin and staff had done to maintain this old building. He and his wife live in a house built in 1855 by Eli Gaffield, an early settler. If they totaled all the work that needs to be done on their home, the cost would be shocking as is the $20 million cost to renovate the Civic Center. They don’t add it up; fix what they can; save and fix more when they can. He said, perhaps, it would make more economic sense to buy a new condo downtown but did not think those buildings would be around in 150 years. Their home and the former Marywood Academy are important parts of Evanston’s heritage and an important connection to that heritage. He thought this was the only remaining school designed by Henry Schlacks who attended M.I.T. and studied under Adler and Sullivan. He has been described as a foremost church architect. He recalled in 1970 when the Sisters announced they were going to sell 2100 Ridge to a developer and turn this block into a mammoth housing development, an Evanston Review article said it was a done deal. Then 200 residents showed up to protest. That City Council had a vision that this was an important place to save. He quoted architect Hugh Hardy from the Civic Center Report of July 29, 1974. “All existing structures are worthy of consideration for re-use, not just a few lonely landmarks in a glittering sea of new shapes. The re-use and the recycling of older buildings is important, 5 January 24, 2005 not because of sentiment, but because it strengthens the very fabric of a city and reinforces the variety of choice that is so much a part of urban living.” He hoped the 2005 City Council has the same vision. Junad Rizki, 2784 Sheridan Rd., said the proposed plan to tear down 2100 Ridge and put all this development in is too dense, given what he sees at National Louis, Kendall College and property at 1228 Emerson Street. He does not know why Council would spend taxpayer money to do a study when most citizens, as they realize how dense it will be, will object to it. He was not “for” or “against” moving from 2100 Ridge, said it has to be done cost-effectively. He saw politics was involved; noted 2100 Ridge is only 50% occupied. He pointed out Council is looking at other sites without programming for the building, which is not in the taxpayers’ interest. It seemed that Council was jumping the gun. CONSENT AGENDA (Any item marked with an Asterisk*) Alderman Feldman moved Council approval of the Consent Agenda with these exceptions: contract with U.S. Equities for professional services regarding Civic Center replacement; Ordinance 123-O-04 - Special Use/Major Variation at 702- 708 Greenleaf; Ordinance 10-O-05 - Zoning Planned Development - 1228 Emerson; Major Variation for a Multi-family dwelling at 1729 Lyons St. and Recommendation to pursue alternatives to rehabilitation of Civic Center. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Roll call. Voting aye – Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Feldman, Newman. Voting nay – none. Motion carried (8-0). * ITEMS APPROVED ON CONSENT AGENDA MINUTES: * Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 10, 2005 and the Special City Council Meeting of January 8, 2005. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) *Approval, as recommended, of the City of Evanston payroll for the period through January 13, 2005 and City of Evanston bills for the period ending January 25, 2004 authorized and charged to the proper accounts: City of Evanston payroll (through 01/13/05) $2,005,685.52 City of Evanston bills (through 01/25/05) $3,746,609.62 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of the award of Phase X, Contract B, of the relief sewer project, to Benchmark Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $7,148,765.60. (Funded by IEPA loans and the Sewer Reserve Fund.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of contract with MWH America for engineering services during Phase X, Contract B of the relief sewer project in an amount not to exceed $912,318. (Funded by IEPA loans). * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of contract with MWH America for engineering design of the Colfax/Bryant storm sewer project in an amount not to exceed $68,000. (Funded by the Sewer Reserve Fund.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Approval of Change Order #1 of the contract with Alvord, Burdick & Howson for capital improvements to the Water Treatment Facility at a cost of $10,715.33, which increases the contract amount from $267,517 to $278,232.33. (Funded by the Depreciation, Improvement and Extension account in the Water Fund.) * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 2-O-05 - Decreasing Class D Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 2- 6 January 24, 2005 O-05, introduced January 10, 2005, amends Section 3-4-5-(D) of the City Code, which decreases the number of Class D liquor licenses by one from 24 to 23 for Golden Olympic located at 1608 Chicago Ave. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 3-O-05 - Decreasing Class D Liquor Licenses - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 3- O-05, introduced January 10, 2005, amends Section 3-5-6-(D) of the City Code, which decreases the number of Class D liquor licenses by one from 23 to 22 for Annam Café located at 724-726 Clark St. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) * Ordinance 54-O-04 - City Ethics Code - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 54-O-04, introduced December 13, 2004, which amends the Ethics Ordinance on prohibited political activities and gift bans as provided for by state law. * ADOPTED-CONSENT AGENDA MOTION & ROLL CALL (8-0) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: * Ordinance 1-O-05 - Special Use for a Type 2 restaurant (Starbuck’s) at 2400 Main St. - Consideration of proposed Ordinance 1-O-05, introduced January 10, 2005, which would grant a Special Use for a Type 2 restaurant (Starbuck’s) at 2400 Main St. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE * Ordinance 55-O-04 - Evanston Township Ethics Ordinance - Consideration of Ordinance 55-O-04, introduced December 13, 2004, which establishes an Ethics Ordinance for Evanston Township. * ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (8-0) APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Morton asked that the following appointments be introduced: Mary Jennings Power Arts Council 2020 Ridge Ave. Carol Balkcom Housing Commission 2811 Harrison St. Eric Beauchamp Housing Commission 809 Sherman Ave. Dona P. Gerson Library Board 200 Lee St. Tad Cook Site Plan & Appearance Review Board 1519 Hinman Ave. Susan Bryniarski Frischer Zoning Board of Appeals 2011 Seward St. Mayor Morton asked that the following reappointments be introduced: Arlene Haas Energy Commission 412 Clark St. Vicky McKinley Environment Board 223 Grey Ave. 7 January 24, 2005 * INTRODUCED – CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Morton asked the following appointments be confirmed: Brent Ritzel Arts Council 1624 Central St. For term ending January 30, 2008 Vera Chatz Parking Committee 1430 Ridge Ave. For term ending January 30, 2008 Paul M. White Parking Committee 1219 Oak Ave. For term ending January 30, 2008 Mayor Morton asked the following reappointment be confirmed: Robin Snyderman Pratt Housing Commission 1025 Sherman Ave. For term ending January 30, 2008 * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS: Alderman Feldman referred to a January 24, 2005 memorandum from Judith Aiello, page five, Term and Rights of Termination was amended from January 1 to “February 1, 2005.” On page six changed to: “This Agreement shall replace and supersede the Civic Center Strategic Study task performed under the initial Real Estate Consulting Services Agreement, effective November 1, 2004.” Alderman Feldman moved approval. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Voice vote, motion carried unanimously. Alderman Feldman moved approval of the amended sole source contract for professional services with U.S. Equities for the Civic Center replacement. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Roll call. Voting aye – Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Feldman, Newman. Voting nay – none. Motion carried (8-0). PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: Ordinance 123-O-04 - Special Use and Major Variation request for a Multi-Family Residential Use at 702-708 Greenleaf St. - Consideration of Ordinance 123-O-04 - special use and major variation request for a multi-family residential use at 702-708 Greenleaf St. Alderman Tisdahl reported that this item was held in committee. Major Variation for a Multi-family Dwelling at 1729 Lyons St. - Consideration of a recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny a major variation request for a three-unit multi-family dwelling at 1729 Lyons St. Alderman Tisdahl reported that this item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 8 January 24, 2005 Alderman Tisdahl announced a Special Meeting of the Planning & Development Committee on Monday, January 31, 7:00 p.m. to discuss the proposal for a planned development at 1228 Emerson St. HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE – No report OTHER COMMITTEES: Alderman Bernstein moved approval of a recommendation from the Civic Center Committee that the City of Evanston pursue alternatives to rehabilitation of the current Civic Center at 2100 Ridge Ave. Seconded by Alderman Feldman. Alderman Bernstein reported the Civic Center Committee consists of all nine aldermen; seven voted unanimously to make this recommendation. He said this was the first step of an ongoing process; noted the City had commissioned the architectural firm of Doyle & Associates to analyze the condition of this building five years ago. The Doyle report said the building had $17 million in structural needs to bring it up to standards. This building was once a wonderful high school, but is not a very good office building. He did not question the decision of the prior Council that moved the City offices into 2100 Ridge. Currently two-thirds of the building space is used. Ceiling heights up to 20-feet are heated, which is an inefficient use of energy. The Doyle report sat until two years ago when it was brought up again. Inflation would cause the $17 million to increase to $20 million to restore the building. He recalled on numerous occasions water leaking into the Council Chamber. He stated this structure is old, inadequate and it is no longer feasible to stay in the building. The committee continued to study this and had several meetings about what should be done. After meeting last week, the committee decided it was no longer practicable to rehab this building because if they chose to do that, it would cost $20 million. Staff would have to move out as the building was being rehabbed, which would be an additional cost. There is no revenue source other than the General Fund from which this $20 million could come. The committee considered where they could get revenue. The City, unlike a homeowner who can save, must tax for its needs. More is needed than they tax for. They need a source of revenue to restore the building or find another building. If this property was offered to a developer, he thought the vote was contingent on monies generated by the land sale and subsequent development would provide cash flow with which they could acquire a structure or rehabilitate another building. Rather than go forward with no sense of direction, they accepted that this building is no longer useful for their purpose. That is not to say it is a wonderful building or that a developer could come in and rehab it for condominiums or some other function that would generate revenue. Since they started the conversation, without asking, several alternatives have come in. He expected the committee to vote on a request for proposal to scour the city for sites appropriate for an efficient office complex the City can do business in. The contract with U.S. Equities was approved. That company has been working on what might be here, so they can give parameters to developers about what would be acceptable. There were several public meetings with residents present. Any proposed development would exclude the park space. Alderman Tisdahl said that haste is an issue. As people walk into this building, there is scaffolding to protect people from falling slate. The issue is not only $20 million, but also not continuing to repair this building because it is time to make a decision to either stay or go. Mayor Morton had read the minutes of April 2004 and understood another meeting was held this month, but did not have those minutes. She had sent a memorandum to Alderman Bernstein stating the burden of whatever is done rests with Evanston taxpayers. She believed taxpayers should have the opportunity to come before Council with a public hearing on this; suggested they let citizens decide whether they want to take on this expense. This could be done by referendum or through the survey the manager suggested, with an item on the survey to find out what taxpayers want because they have to pay the price. The Civic Center land also has the Avenue of the Righteous. The City has an agreement with the Avenue of the Righteous which has trees and stones and is a matter to be considered. She wanted the community to know that without something more specific that she can study, discuss and learn more about this, as she read the information, she had many questions that should be addressed. She saw no reason to rush to judgment. This is a lame duck Council with a new Council to be seated in early May. That Council will carry out the decision they make that evening. As a representative of the entire City, she has rarely heard anyone say they want the City to leave this building. Maybe people don’t say it is because they don’t have the information that Alderman Bernstein has. She believed the decision on what to do with this building should be left to the citizens who pay the bills and once that is established they will go forward. Alderman Newman did not agree that they were rushing to judgment when they had the 1998 Doyle report. Many elected 9 January 24, 2005 officials like the Civic Center building, including him. He likes the location, the setback on Ridge, the look of the exterior of the building and the park. Building a new Civic Center was not high on his priority list to spend taxpayer dollars. Nobody has wanted to move over time. At some point with the Manager/Council form of government, they have to look at what the professional staff is telling them. Facilities Management Director Max Rubin has told them for some time this building cannot be rehabilitated without spending $20 million. They went to Doyle who looked at it, then brought in U.S. Equities. Former Manager Crum and Interim Manager Aiello all said the same thing. This building has had it. They can wish and hope and he would like to satisfy the man with the 1855 house. They have a fiduciary duty – it was misleading to represent this issue to the community that they are going to spend $20 million on a new building. What they discussed was creating a TIF district for this property, which is off the tax rolls now, and would be put on the tax rolls and financed the same way they are financing the new parking garages downtown. They will use the new revenue from the increment to build a new civic center. People who live here now will not pay anything unless they do it the Mayor’s way, which is taxpayers will get a $20 million bill. The Civic Center Committee has met, looked at the reports, listened to professional staff and consultants and has come up with a potential way to use the development opportunities on this site so that citizens don’t have a $20 million bill. He asked why they needed a referendum on whether the citizens would have to pay $20 million, which would be $2 million annually in property tax increase. The seven aldermen disagree on many things and represent many constituents. They are aware of the capital needs of this City. When the taxpayers can be spared and the City can get $20 million in repairs/operational costs paid for without having to raise taxes, they have to look seriously at that. He thought all who looked at this have been responsible. He saw no need for a referendum because the outcome is if people say they don’t want to build a new civic center and don’t want to go with this recommendation, they will have to spend $20 million to stay here. When they interviewed city manager candidates it was humiliating -- they could not hear because of something going on in the pipes. The heating and air conditioning systems are shot. Staff told them they needed to spend $1.5 million on the roof. Why would they do this when they cannot afford to fix up the rest of the building. Alderman Newman was sorry that the Mayor disagreed. A fair representation to people in the community will gain support, because he thought people would rather develop this site in a moderate way, bring in less intensive development, save the park and preserve the setback on Ridge, than have to pay $2 million in additional property taxes a year. Alderman Newman thought they had a duty to understand the professional advice from every source, and if they don’t understand it, sit down and get an understanding before going to the community with a referendum. They needed to debate it in a fair way. Mayor Morton asked if he was saying the public did not need to be in on this. Alderman Newman thought the public has had every opportunity to be in on this. Meetings have been open. The neighborhood was contacted through flyers and participated and that is why they are keeping the setback and preserving the park. As Mayor it was not proper for her to enter into a dialogue because she does not vote. She was saying that the citizens should make the decision. Until that evening, Council had no discussion on this matter. She wanted the community to know she was not violating their trust and was telling Council what she was hearing from citizens. Alderman Feldman reported that almost all constituents who contacted him were against abandoning the civic center building until they had a conversation and he asked what they knew about it. People did not want Council to spend $20 million when they had a good building. After a brief discussion, their opinions changed. Nobody wanted to stay in a building in such bad condition. They could not see pouring money into a building over years, even if it was rehabilitated. While he conceded the Mayor represents the entire City, if they are the same people he talks with, instead of engaging them in discussion, she is reporting their initial response to her rather than discussing the issues involved. Alderman Bernstein talked to his constituents, even though he represents the 4th Ward, every action Council takes impacts all citizens. He was hearing why the new condominiums are not keeping taxes down and was told don’t dare raise taxes anymore. He thanked Alderman Tisdahl for mentioning the scaffolds that show this is a safety issue. The scaffolds are to keep the slates from falling on people’s heads. They have to leave this building, which is not what they want to do. Alderman Jean-Baptiste sympathized with the Mayor’s position. If he looked at this subjectively, he would not vote to look at alternatives. He understood that it is costing more to stay and maintain than to leave. By the time they get a new building he may not be in office and maybe none of them will be there as elected officials. He spoke with Mr. Rubin, who told him they have to rebuild the heat pumps. He recalled going to Finance Director Bill Stafford’s office and seeing water marks on the ceiling. After reviewing the report, he thought something has to be done. They now are discussing 10 January 24, 2005 the option of getting a new civic center, without going to the taxpayers. U.S. Equities gave a presentation and offered various alternatives and some may end up with a surplus of funds for the City. If the new Council decides to reverse this decision, they can. He said there is a process of getting a new civic center without incurring a cost. In the long run, if it is proven to be different, that is something else. The alternative means they can provide for upkeep of the building. He appreciated the speaker who talked about shoring up his home’s foundation, but subjectively he is tied to his home. That is what is being appealed to now, keeping this building, appreciating its history and its value to the community. If it is going to cost $20 million, they need to look at alternatives. Roll call. Voting aye – Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Feldman, Newman. Voting nay – none. Motion carried (8-0). CALL OF THE WARDS: 2nd Ward. Alderman Jean-Baptiste reminded all there would be celebration of former Alderman Dennis Drummer and his wife Bernice contributions to the community this Saturday at the Levy Center from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. In regard to a $7 million contract for sewer construction adopted that evening, he noted there is a training component to give people some life skills so they can earn good wages. They have found contractors are taking more out than they are giving back. They want to find a way to pay closer attention so that people are trained and hired at more than one project with skills that are transferable. He suggested they also look at other ways to get Evanston residents employed. A number of construction projects have possibilities but Evanston residents are not being hired. He hoped that staff would come back with a proposal they can look at during this budget process and to get more done about getting Evanston residents hired. 3rd Ward. No report. 4th Ward. No report. 5thWard. No report. 6th Ward. No report. 7th Ward. No report. 8th Ward. Alderman Rainey noted the City was currently in a snow emergency; commended Public Works Director David Jennings and staff for an outstanding job of snow removal. She noted it would have been better if, over time when there is more than four inches of snow, they were more consistent in employing emergency snow removal measures. In the past when there was a snow emergency the City would sound a siren. After 9/11, coupled with complaints from people who lived near sirens, Evanston stopped using them. There also was a request/suggestion by a higher authority after 9/11 to stop using sirens. However, Skokie is using sirens and because of the Skokie sirens, she thought there was some compliance at the south end of town. People were confused. She thought half the people here did not realize the City was in a snow emergency. People don’t look at Channel 16 where the snow emergency was finally announced, was not announced all weekend or don’t get City e-mail. How were people supposed to know? There is no consistency. She made a reference to the A&PW Committee to consider use of sirens for snow emergencies. She noted that snow emergencies are rarely called and the inconvenience of hearing that siren after 10 inches of snow is minor. On relocating the Civic Center, said she manages a message board that is viewed by people who live all over Evanston. She has a survey on what people think about relocating the Civic Center and will forward all the responses thus far. There was no outcry about leaving 2100 Ridge and a great love for this location. The first 10 suggestions for a new site are on the City’s list. There are two important criteria in site selection. One is that the Civic Center be easily accessible by public transportation and that it be accessible to hundreds of people who run in and out quickly. Good parking is necessary. She had huge problems with a Civic Center downtown due to parking. She had a whole stream of consciousness wanting them to consider an alternative location in a neighborhood on an access street such as Dempster or Oakton going east/west. The reason they felt that was so much attention had been paid to downtown and not enough 11 January 24, 2005 attention had been paid to outlying areas. There were several suggestions about 1800 Sherman. Alderman Rainey added that people who responded to the survey said the sale of 2100 Ridge has to pay for everything for a new Civic Center. Alderman Jean-Baptiste recalled about 3-1/2 years he suggested establishing a radio station - Radio Evanston and Max Rubin had looked into that and found a cost effective method of getting some kind of radio service here. He referred this back to the City Manager to see how far along they are on this. Ms. Carroll asked if Alderman Rainey wanted a staff report on use of sirens. Alderman Rainey said the committee should discuss it. While Evanston obeys some ruling, Skokie uses sirens. She would like to revisit this at the A&PW Committee. 9th Ward. No report. 1st Ward. Alderman Newman thanked Council for making the right decision on the Civic Center. He said the Levy Center had to be relocated and cost $9 million, which is being paid for by development in the Research Park. What they propose for the Civic Center is that taxes over a 23-year period will pay for a new Civic Center, so current taxpayers will not have to pay. The new taxpayers who come will pay for this over time. He thought they did a service to Evanston residents by building the new Levy Center where the increment paid for it. He welcomed new City Manager Carroll and said she will find out nobody wants higher taxes, do not want to eliminate any services and, now, nobody wants any growth. He made a reference to the A&PW Committee on the issue of businesses that let patrons bring their own beer or wine. saying this has to be regulated. There is an establishment on Clark/Sherman that invites patrons to bring their own alcohol. It also invites minors and that is not working out well. He understood staff was working on something and he looked forward to that being dealt with quickly. Currently there has been a lot of growth downtown with many new buildings. They have tried to come up with a process and it has not exactly worked in getting buildings built the community wants to see. They had a situation that evening, where a year ago the staff and Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee directed a developer at 1228 Emerson to go in the opposite direction of what Council was looking for. This developer has worked on developing a glass building and it was not in line with what aldermen think the community wants there. They took the advice of the Plan Commission on 1930 Ridge and everybody hated it. This developer has responded to what the City has been telling him. They need to have Site Plan work in conjunction with Council and that is not happening right now. He believes some members of Site Plan need to be at the P&D Committee meetings. Jim Wolinski and Arthur Alterson are there but they need Carolyn Brzezinski and more architectural input to get them to what they are thinking. Their thinking did not fit with neighbors or P&D Committee members, so this developer was misdirected. They will try to get that going in the right direction next Monday evening. They need to look at the process and how it is not working. He wished Mrs. Carroll the best of luck. There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Morton adjourned the meeting at 11:03 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 Clerk's office.