Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02_12_05_brw CITY COUNCIL February 12, 2005 ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Alderman Tisdahl Alderman Jean-Baptiste Alderman Rainey Alderman Wynne Alderman Newman Alderman Bernstein A Quorum was present. NOT PRESENT AT ROLL CALL:Alderman Moran ABSENT:Alderman Kent and Feldman PRESIDING: Mayor Lorraine H. Morton A SPECIAL MEETING of the City Council was held Saturday, February12, 2005 for the purpose of conducting a budget workshop. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Morton at 9:10 a.m. in the Aldermanic Library. Alderman Rainey moved that Council convene into Closed Session for the purpose of discussing matters related to litigation pursuant to 5 Illinois Compiled Statues 120/2 (c) (11). 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. Roll call. Voting aye – Aldermen Tisdahl, Rainey, Newman, Jean-Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein. No nays. Motion carried. (6-0) At 9:38 a.m. Alderman Jean-Baptiste moved that Council reconvene into open session. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Morton reconvened the meeting in the City Council Chamber at 9:47 a.m. City Manager Julia Carroll referred to her memo of Friday, February 11, in which she outlined seven items she wanted discussed and hoped would wrap up the budget and CIP budget for this year. 1. Ms. Carroll recommended the food/beverage tax not be implemented and that the 6% liquor tax be retained. Alderman Moran moved that the proposed 1% food tax be eliminated and the 6% liquor tax be retained. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried. No nays. 2. Ms. Carroll noted a few years ago Council implemented parking meter revenue for evening hours downtown. That money historically has gone into the General Fund. In looking at revenue forecasts, revenue projection on the telecommunication tax was increased and they will permanently have that revenue. She recommended they move the $300,000 from meter revenue that was being put into the General Fund and put it into the Parking Fund, which is an enterprise fund and will help offset any potential operating deficits. Alderman Moran moved Council follow the recommendation. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried. No nays. 3. Ms. Carroll noted under expenditures there were line items called contingencies within individual department budgets. Her philosophy is there should not be a contingency in a departmental budget and asked those be cut, which is $72,200. Alderman Moran moved to accept the recommendation. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried. No nays. 4. Staff has provided information in response to the TREE group at the February 7 meeting. She recommended they stay with the staff recommendation to inoculate signature trees. If they do that and lower the cost to $10 per diameter inch, it will add $86,700 to the operating budget to fund the first year of future injections. The $300,000 would be funded through one-time building permit revenues. The survey will be awarded at the February 14 meeting and know they will 2 February 12, 2005 not know the total cost of any program for injections until they have the survey back. They recommend holding $300,000 for the signature program in the budget as a marker until they have final costs. Alderman Newman suggested they continue the discussion because they were in a different position. He found the original numbers were harder to deal with than the revised numbers; agreed the survey was necessary in order to know how productive inoculation is. He thought inoculating all the trees was somewhat doable and they should continue to discuss that. He did not want to make a decision. Alderman Rainey asked if the survey organization would identify what the City has defined as signature trees? Parks/Forestry & Recreation Director Doug Gaynor said the survey would include all parkway trees as well as trees on private property that could infect a parkway tree. All elms in parks will be surveyed. Alderman Rainey asked if the survey would indicate whether a tree is a signature tree. The survey would include size, condition and some other things. It is yet to be determined what a signature tree is. For discussion purpose they have said 30-inch diameter. Alderman Jean-Baptiste asked Alderman Newman what new facts he expected to have in the next few weeks. Alderman Newman said the numbers Council received less than 24 hours ago were different than what they saw on February 7. It seemed the program would cost $1 million the first year, and now is down because they are using the $10 cost instead of $12 cost. They also have the annual contribution at $203,000 instead of mid $300,000s. They were also trying to figure out a food/beverage tax which is gone. They were told last week the $850,000 from permit fees would be available for the startup. He wanted to discuss whether they could inoculate all the trees, but the survey has to go first. The City had 4,963 elm trees in 1995 and ten years later has 3,401. If they accept the premise to let the elms die, as one letter writer suggested, which the natural course is, and if they continue with the sanitation program, eventually there will be no elm trees. The signature program may help. Staff thinks inoculating trees is a good program. In the budget process, after getting the survey and knowing that this will work, but due to the location of private elms it may not be effective. Having that option open and because of the importance of the appearance of Evanston to all, it was worth looking at. Ms. Carroll explained the survey will not be completed by February 28 when the budget must be adopted. The survey will take six to seven weeks after the contract is awarded and completed by mid-April. Alderman Jean-Baptiste asked the manager to give them a sense of available funds to know whether they have more funds to allocate. Ms. Carroll said the information presented was based on projections for all revenues and expenditures. She pointed out on Chart C, the total cost of doing a signature injection program, as staff proposes, which amortizes the cost over three years, because in the fourth year, they have to inject again, projections costing $10 per inch, show total cost first year plus the next three years would be $1.5 million. Using the full injection the cost is $2.4 million, so it costs $920,000 more over that time period. She could not identify a revenue source beyond the first year to take care of that. That was her concern – ongoing cost. That is why staff recommended Option 4 and believe, based on university research, the signature program is the best in conjunction with the sanitation program. Alderman Wynne asked the difference between Chart B and Chart C. Finance Director Bill Stafford said that Chart B uses the same cost as the TREE organization. However TREE did not include the column, amortized annual cost. The annual amortized cost of the signature program is $100,133 a year. The inject all tree scenario has an annual amortized cost of $285,913. They have to amortize the dollars because in year four they have to have the same money to again inject the trees. Mr. Stafford explained the other change was in tree cut downs. On the signature program, a 6% loss was assumed for the first year. They thought there was a good chance they would go down on the rate of loss so that in year’s two and three they had a 3.9% loss rate. The TREE organization had 6% loss in the first year, and a 1% loss in the next two years. Staff does not think that is the case. With a 98% effective rate, they put in a 2% loss rate. Those were the changes. Alderman Wynne noted if they went with the signature program at the end of the three years they will have lost an estimated 298 trees. If they do all parkway elms, they will have lost an estimated 234, so the difference is 65 trees. Alderman Wynne asked why the loss rate was so different on Chart B. Mr. Stafford explained on that chart they assumed all assumptions by TREE were 6% losses each year with the signature program and on inject all trees, they put a 6% loss the first year, then 1% loss for the next two years. He thought it was reasonable that the loss would not be 1%, but 2%. Manufacturers of the fungicide tell them the injections are 98% effective. Alderman Wynne confirmed with either program, they would have to come up with the initial amount. Mr. Stafford explained that once they start an inoculation 3 February 12, 2005 program they have an initial cost, and have to amortize the cost to pay to inject in year four. He said TREE has brought a lot to the debate, but the City has to amortize those costs and in year four, they have to have the same amount of dollars to continue doing the injections. Alderman Rainey said if they vote to inoculate all public elms, they will be committing to a lifetime of inoculating trees every three years. They need to think about it because from time to time they have had budget shortfalls and this is one that they cannot renege on. She noted Alderman Newman had said if they do only sanitation, all the trees would die. She understood that sanitation is really the most effective method of preventing Dutch elm disease and with inoculations is a better plan. If they agree to inoculate all trees, when would they begin a discussion of an ordinance that requires owners of private elm trees to inoculate their trees. She did not think they had to make a plan for private trees now but it would be necessary in the near future. Mr. Gaynor responded that research is needed because when staff comes back with a recommendation after the survey, they will need to know whether they can require private owners to inject as part of an overall package. She thought they could probably require people to inject their trees. However she has heard people say they won’t inject and cut the tree down. She thought a provision was needed in the ordinance that if the tree is healthy it could not be cut down. In the current ordinance, residents are prohibited from doing anything to public trees. Ms. Carroll said if the City requires private owners to inject trees, another policy discussion is needed about whether the property owner is 100% responsible for that cost. Alderman Rainey said the problem is, if there are private elms within grafting distance of public trees that they will spend almost $900,000 to inject, if they inject all trees, they must do something about private elms. Ms. Carroll agreed; said they have to wait until they get the survey. First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill said a key fact is they are talking about private property, the right of individuals on their property, and what is the right of the City to demand that things be done. What is the extent of the emergency the City is dealing with on a factual basis and the potential success of what they are trying to do to alleviate that emergency. Those are difficult practical questions. In researching the law, the only analogous situation was in 1920 when Illinois towns had the ability to destroy corn crops because of a corn blight in other areas. This was a direct, immediate threat to the crop throughout that would be destroyed without an intervention. There is a practical issue whether Evanston is in a crises situation with respect to elm trees. Then there is the question of what the private elm would do to the public elm. To say they will have an absolute right to go onto private property or require the owner to do something to the tree is impossible, without further factual analysis. Who will be billed for this service? Who will be monitoring it to make sure it meets quality standards? Alderman Rainey said that was why this is so complex and this could be an irresponsible move on the part of the City if they don’t follow up and make sure money is not wasted. Mayor Morton commented that Evanston’s arborist, Paul D’Agostino has been cited for what he has done with the elm trees here and is highly respected throughout the state. She asked what was wrong with the City’s program that they would not continue it. Ms. Carroll said that Mr. D’Agostino is highly skilled and has expertise that all are proud of; did not think there was anything wrong with what has been done. The sanitation program is recommended as one of the best ways to control the disease. There was a request last summer/fall to consider an injection program. The reaction has been to look at an alternative and that is a policy discussion they were having that day. This needs to be considered over the long term because they have to decide to spend ongoing money or continue sanitation or become more aggressive with sanitation. Evanston has been considered a model over the years in trying to protect the forest and will continue that effort. Mayor Morton asked if the only way to solve this problem is a diversion from what is already in place. Parks/Forestry Superintendent Paul D’Agostino said they should not stop what they are doing now. 2004 was a bad year. In 1999 they had a severe jump in the number of elms lost and the following year a severe drop. Over time it evens out. He could not recommend spending money to inject all the elms, when what they are doing is the right thing. They need to move into this slowly. Alderman Moran said they have an abundance of information to determine what option they choose and if they wait two weeks was fine. The differential points of $10-$12 does not change the discussion. They are talking about large numbers and a huge financial commitment if they inoculate all public elms. If Council were to vote that option, it is virtually a perpetual commitment and if stopped, it is a false indicator to the citizenry. The issue has been discussed. They have materials from staff and TREE. He found the analysis helpful; thought the issue was keyed up and he saw nothing 4 February 12, 2005 changing from what they have. Because this is such a major budget issue, he thought they needed to commit to something then. That was fair and tells people what they intend to do. They owe the TREE advocates what the majority vote of Council is. He suggested they move on and commit to a program. Alderman Bernstein asked if they have a survey that identifies all public trees and private trees within the grafting area, what they do with the information, unless they compel people to inject private elms within the grafting area. He asked how long it takes for grafting to occur in trees that are within 50-feet of each other. If a million dollars is spent to inoculate all the public trees, how much time do they have until the roots are affected. Mr. D’Agostino said that could be anywhere from a few weeks to several months. Alderman Bernstein asked why they would spend a million dollars to inject the public trees with the possibility that two weeks later that injection would be for naught. Mr. Gaynor said scouting as quickly as possible identifies the disease. They are successful in identifying disease and removing the tree before it gets to the roots. They are now considering girdling the tree which also can stop the disease from going to the roots. Because they are scouting with early detection they are minimizing the number of trees that would be root grafted but it does not guarantee that every tree inoculated will be 100% successful. Ms. Carroll thought Alderman Bernstein’s issue was if the city cannot deal with privately owned diseased trees what is the point of having an injection program. She asked the current policy when a privately owned elm is infected. The tree is removed by ordinance within 30 days. She thought the key was having the survey data. If Council is inclined to set aside money for an injection program, that can be done, but they cannot do anything about knowing the extent of the program. In the meantime they can work on a program requirement (other than cutting the tree down) and work with the legal department to see what else they can do. She was asking for direction. Alderman Tisdahl clarified that Dutch elm disease, in fact, sped up in 2004. Alderman Newman said it was not his idea to inoculate trees. The A&PW Committee instructed staff to go forward and look at the inoculation option. He pointed out on Chart A, the difference between the staff recommendation and injecting all public trees. Start up cost is $858,000 for all the trees versus $312,000 for signature trees. They were told last week they could handle the $858,000. Even under the signature option, there is an annual cost of $86,666 which compares to an annual cost of $203,333. The real difference is about $100,000 a year. One option put forward was the homeowner would pay a percentage. He said when they go into an inoculation program, it is not a forever program. If they want inoculations to work, they must be continued. He thought they should inoculate all public trees for three years, then see if the rate of loss has substantially changed. If it is positive keep going. No City program has to be done forever. Staff is recommending an inoculation program. He was aware of the problems with private elms and that was why they had to have the survey. The idea that they have to make somebody chop down a diseased tree and cannot make them inoculate a tree sounded absurd to him. He was not scared away from looking at inoculation. They may find from the survey that injecting all the elms might not be as effective due to proximity to public elms but closing the gap between $203,333 and $86,667 was doable. He thought they could come up with the $100,000, if they believe inoculating public elms will be highly effective. He said it would be a tremendous injustice to the tree group because this group has done a huge public service by bringing this forward. They are probably not totally correct but are doing it for all the best reasons. He thought they could go forward and inject all the public trees, but was not saying that it would be done. The survey has to be considered. In two weeks it would be easy to go forward with the signature program. Alderman Wynne was most troubled by what would be done with the private elms; thought if they went with injecting all elms they would have to exempt city trees within 50-feet of a private elm tree. Mr. Gaynor said if they inject the public elm and there is a private elm nearby, if the private elm was not also injected, effectiveness is reduced. She thought if they did not exempt the public tree with a private elm tree nearby, they were potentially wasting their money. She asked how they arrived at the numbers on Chart A. Chart C had different numbers. Mr. Stafford explained actual costs were on Chart A. On Chart C they amortized the costs. On Chart A numbers were lower because staff believes it will cost less than the original estimate. It is $610,000 over three years instead of $857,000. It is $260,000 instead of $340,000. Alderman Newman was correct. The difference between the options is $116,666 a year. Staff was using TREE’s number in Charts B and C. Alderman Wynne said assuming the loss of trees is accurate, there is a 64 tree difference. Mr. Stafford said they were giving cost/benefit numbers. Under assumptions of TREE, there is a difference of about 200 trees lost. Staff disagrees with those assumptions; don’t believe the cost/benefit numbers hold up. Alderman 5 February 12, 2005 Wynne said in defining signature trees, they used 30 inches and in the inventory there were a number of parkway trees of less than 30-inch diameter. She thought when the survey comes back the actual number of signature trees may increase. Mr. Gaynor said they don’t have a final definition of a signature tree. Alderman Rainey said she did not understand why, if a magnificent elm was within 50-feet of a private elm, that they would not do everything possible to save the magnificent elm. She explained how it really works in real life with a privately owned diseased elm. She related that over a period of three months, a homeowner in north Evanston had a dead elm tree and was cited many times. She was in Administrative Adjudication on a property standards matter when the owner was there and it went on and on. That dead tree sat there for months because the owner could not afford to take the tree down due to loss of his job. She recalled insisting the City take the tree down. The City put a lien on the property and a contractor took the tree down. There is a legal process involved. They don’t call somebody up and tell them to take down the tree and the next day a contractor comes and takes it down. There is reality to consider. Mayor Morton recalled having a beautiful elm tree in her back yard and it got Dutch elm disease. She received a letter from the City giving her some time to get it cut down. She had it cut down and the tree stump remains. Today there is a tall maple tree growing out of that stump. Ms. Carroll said they would pick up this discussion the night they adopt the budget. 5. The Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Carroll noted Alderman Newman asked to add $150,000 to the James Park project for fencing and backstops. She recommended they not borrow more money and asked they defer another project. Alderman Moran confirmed that the fencing/backstops were not in the CIP. He said the CIP process is good but sometimes frustrating because they all see needs. Line items three or four years out are needed. He is a big baseball fan and would like to see this done but thought they have to give some deference to what was planned. Canceling a project the community is expecting to see done will have an impact. He thought the fencing/backstop project should be in the CIP program and urged they adhere to their commitments. Ms. Carroll said the park they were deferring was Sargent Park (cost $138,000). In the CIP, construction is scheduled to start in 2006 on Sargent Park, which would be deferred one fiscal year if they do the improvements at James Park. $6.5 million is what they have committed to borrow and they don’t want to change that. Sargent Park is located at Reba and Elmwood in the 9th Ward. Alderman Newman said deferring Sargent Park came from the City Manager; understood she wants to stay within the $6.5 million budget. Council heard from the Little League president and he was sure there was support for this on Council because the amount of Girls Little League softball and peewee baseball has increased due to the expansion and renovation of James Park. They have two excellent fields that are not safe because they don’t have the proper back stopping and protection for kids sitting in the dugout. When he suggested this he did not want Sargent Park not to go forward. He suggested that what was going on at the library was not appropriate. He would not defer the Little Leaguers and girls softball because the library has plenty of money. The library has a $2.1 million endowment. He could not recall receiving any information previously about the endowment. The City is still paying on the bonds to finance the library which was built in 1991 with 20 year bonds. Now the library is saying the children’s library, when they had a nationwide search for an architect and put years into the design, the children’s library is not adequate. He thought they have gone forward and come up with a plan. The improvements are good, but the library is sitting on $2.1 million. The library should put their money in. There is no need to defer the baseball fields. He does not want to defer Sargent Park and agreed it was good policy not to borrow more. Ms. Carroll also has in the memo a discussion about where the $200,000 will come from – the CIP or the library’s endowment fund. He thought there would be votes for the baseball field and understood why the library wants to keep the endowment. He was surprised the library is asking citizens to pay for bonding twice for the same building. Alderman Rainey said the reason they want the backstop and improvements is the same reason the library wants to improve the children’s library is due to a change in demographics. People want a more enhanced children library which has nothing to do with the baseball fields and Sargent Park. There are differences among the people who will access these two benefits. She does not know what neighbors around Sargent Park are saying; knows that neighbors around James Park are thrilled with this expenditure. The more use is made of that park the better it is for the south end of town. She urged that they not knock out Sargent Park. Nobody has championed parks more than Alderman Newman. Alderman Rainey asked the manager to find money to cover the James Park improvement and Sargent Park and urged Council to support both. 6 February 12, 2005 Alderman Moran agreed with Alderman Rainey that they should not bump a park project; thought the library was a separate issue. For somebody to come and ask for $150,000 was a disruption of the process. If they can find the money, he would vote for it. Alderman Jean-Baptiste thought aldermen should be able to make determinations of what is needed at different times. Sometimes projects are on the table for a period of time. He see the streets are getting to be like ravines. He too would separate the library discussion from the James Park expenditure. As the population shifts they expect to satisfy needs. When they discuss the library, they need to discuss source of funding including their endowment. Ms. Carroll said she sensed Council wanted to keep the $150,000 in play for James Park and she will look at the CIP and report back on February 28. She could not commit to finding the money. Alderman Rainey said that the 9th Ward has few city parks and this seemed the wrong way to do a wonderful thing. Alderman Tisdahl said having coached softball for 13 years she was delighted there were teams at James Park and it was appropriate to respond. Alderman Newman reminded people of the process and that they have made adjustments at budget time. He recalled Alderman Moran asking for $40,000 for a parking study which was put it in the CIP. He noted the CIP budget is developed by staff and goes to Council where priorities are weighed. He went to the library because it could be funded other than by bonds and is a three year project; Sargent Park can go forward and so can James Park. If they work responsibly with finance and the manager’s office, they can add things. He said baseball improvements had been discussed. Ms. Carroll was not saying that Council members could not change the program. She asked Mr. Gaynor for a substitution because they need fiscal discipline when they put a program forward that says so much money is needed. She was calling staff for sticking to what they submitted. She had asked for a substitution. That does not mean that is what they have to do. She believed there was some interplay on the library and did not have the ability to make a decision on the library’s endowment which needs to come before the Human Services Committee. 6. Ms. Carroll said there would be one-time revenue of nearly $1 million from Sherman Plaza building permit fees. They have allocated $300,000 to the tree program, leaving them with about $700,000. She recommended after talking to Public Works Director David Jennings, that they pay for a study to update what it will take to get the streets maintained in an ongoing fashion. It has been four-five years since the last street study, and she recommended this be done so that with next year’s cycle on the CIP, staff can give an updated picture and Council can determine how much money to allocate to the streets. Alderman Moran moved approval. Seconded by Alderman Tisdahl. Motion carried. No nays. Alderman Tisdahl wanted to be sure there is money in the budget for garbage cans which have become an increasing problem in the 7th Ward. Alderman Rainey discovered recently that rental buildings above four units converted to condominiums have been overlooked for refuse and recycling collection. None were receiving those services. She has begun a campaign to include them. About 40 people from eight buildings attended a meeting about these services. She noted that is cost to the city and wanted to be sure the budget reflects increased numbers. Ms. Carroll said staff would respond. Alderman Rainey said they have spent hours talking about trees and other items have been overlooked to the detriment of the community. They have not discussed the impact of the sewer tax on the community which she called, by far, the most regressive tax. She asked the City to look at the 5% rate increase scheduled for March 1 and to see if it is necessary for the full year. She wanted to give people a break over the summer months. Her family pays a $250 water bill every other month during the summer because they try to maintain the parkway grass. She knows some are not affected by these expenditures but for many it is difficult and far outweighs the burden of the property tax bill. She asked Ms. Carroll the impact of all the new construction on the sewer tax; thought they may have more money due to new users. She asked to hold off the 5% rate increase for six months and add the 5% increase in November. Ms. Carroll said she has looked at this and staff has discussed this increase. She recommended and staff had included in the Sewer Fund budget a cost-of- service rate based study. She said it was not appropriate to automatically raise rates. They have to look at whether costs are being allocated appropriately among institutional, commercial and residential users. Now there is just one rate base which is not a best practice in the industry. They could defer this rate increase for six months until the rate study is done. Alderman Rainey thought the entire community would be grateful. Ms. Carroll stated that a cost-of-service rate base 7 February 12, 2005 study for both water and sewer was necessary. Alderman Rainey asked for a memo on what the study is about. Alderman Newman clarified that the manager would support deferring the sewer rate increase for six months. Ms. Carroll said it is a cash flow issue with the debt service but it would not hurt them to do a full blown cost-of-service rate study and look at where revenues and expenditures are allocated and looking at a rate differential among users. Different users create different flows to the waste system. Sewer users should pay based upon their use. There are also ways not to include watering the lawn. If they get a good consultant, they can frame the issues, meet with Council, then consider whether a rate increase is needed, and if needed how much, and how rates are allocated. Alderman Jean-Baptiste said as they address various needs, a sector of young people in the community do not go to the library and don’t play baseball in the parks. Many of them are hard core and fall through the cracks. He has discussed a proposal with Ms. Carroll to look at their organization to ensure that youth services are addressed. At the last Human Services Committee meeting they had a communication that youth services would be on the agenda. He suggested as they go forward on the budget that they find a way to put a youth employment and skills development program in to intervene in the lives of youth to give them a different direction. Hopefully some suggestions will come to Council on this. He also wanted to get more Evanston residents hired on major construction projects. They have to make it happen and at the end of the year evaluate whether it is happening. He hoped before they end budget deliberations, something is on the table to address these issues. Mayor Morton recalled at one time the City had someone hired for youth services. She thought it could have been eliminated due to budget problems or that it was transferred to the police department. Alderman Jean-Baptiste remembered when the Levy Center was a youth Center and there was a Youth Commission. Alderman Rainey asked Ms. Carroll for a report on the progress on potholes. Some streets need immediate attention. She inquired whether the City rents the asphalt machine that heats asphalt. Public Works Director David Jennings said the City owns two pothole machines. One is called the Hot Box, where coal-mixed asphalt is mixed up and used by patching crews. The other is a Hot Patcher which is not used year round. The Hot Box is used 12 months year and is in use now. Citizen Comment: Junad Rizki, 2784 Sheridan Road, thought some aldermen were tired of the elm tree issue, which is monopolizing meetings. Council brought it on themselves because the issue was brought up months ago. He still believed it was cheaper to inject all the public elms. How the Department of Forestry operates was glossed over in the memo and the impact of all the tasks outlined. He passed around a copy of trees that had been cut down. He wondered why they need a survey of roads after five years. He pressed on a street light in the parking lot and his finger went through the metal. Mr. Jennings explained that the street lighting Mr. Rizki referred to is a parking lot light and not part of the general street light system. Mr. Jennings said they are testing light poles on Ridge Avenue. Eight have come down in the wind, so they are concentrating on testing the strength of lights in that area which have a completely different construction than those in the parking lot. The parking lot lights are older than the street lights by close to 20 years. Tom McSheeh, 131 Clyde Avenue, was upset to see two aldermen leave after sitting for two hours. He said the life span of an elm is 150 years and many reach 300 years. Evanston does not have that many elms over 100 years. He advised them to look at the total benefit and cost of trees. The Department of Energy issued a report that said trees cut about 25% of household costs. Water use and shade is another factor. A buffer for noise pollution is another benefit. Trees provide energy savings from wind and shade. Trees remove pollution from the air. Trees add to the economic value of real estate. Trees have a psychological value. Beauty is another benefit. When added up that is about $1600 per tree of value that the City is not putting into their numbers. He stated that Evanston has $54 million in public tree value; hoped they would do an educational campaign in the schools Joel Fondell, 1718 Dempster Street, before moving to Evanston worked for the U.S. Forest Service in Tsongas National Forest in Sitka, Alaska in the Fish & Wildlife Division as a tree trimmer. He cut down hundreds of acres of healthy trees. The forest was primarily hemlock, spruce and cedar with alder in areas logged in the 1960s. He did this to eliminate an overgrown canopy to allow a healthier forest to come up. This provided a better habitat for the forest and stabilized the 8 February 12, 2005 stream beds for fish. It allowed habitat for deer and sunlight to come through the canopy to permit younger trees to take their place. He helped speed up a natural process. He watched the movie The Lion King with his daughter and the message is the circle of life. Things die and others come and take their place. To help the natural order, it is okay to let nature take its natural course. He said a sensible course is to take the staff recommendation and inoculate some of the trees. He loved what Mayor Morton said about the maple tree growing out of the stump in her yard -- allowing nature to take its course by letting some elms die and be replaced by healthier trees that are less susceptible to disease. Marcia Kazurinsky, 1037 Sheridan Road, said three years ago neighbors got together and inoculated all elms on their block. She was concerned about the city taking over and inoculating those trees. She got 100% participation on her block. She noted a tree was injected in September and asked if it was done by the City or a private owner. She was concerned about keeping track of trees that have been inoculated so a tree is not inoculated twice. She called a tree contractor who told her to report the inoculations which she did. She noticed trees up the block with 17-inch diameters and wondered why they were not chosen to be inoculated or if they think only a 30-inch tree is valuable. She has a simple solution to holes in garbage cans. Their garbage man told them to put moth balls in their garbage can and they have never had a rodent chew through the lid. She suggested the Sanitation Division put out a flyer advising people to put moth balls in panty hose in their garbage cans and they will have no more holes. Ann Boss, 1508 Oak Avenue, said she would let other speak about the quantitative issues regarding the trees. She would speak about quality of life. Since moving here five years ago Evanston has been in a constant state of change. While the change and development is good, she hoped they don’t overlook preserving some of the natural beauty in Evanston that is its charm and beauty. She urged Council to preserve the character of Evanston and its quality of life by inoculating all the public elm trees. She thanked them for the time they have taken with the trees. Patsy Benveniste, 800 Ridge Avenue, Director of Education and Community Programs at the Chicago Botanic Garden, is not an arborist, horticulturist or botanist. She knew to make an analogy between natural succession in the Sitka forest and what is happening in Evanston was invalid. What happens in nature is not what has happened in Evanston, which has a planned and developed environment built by humans. The elms planted here were planted by humans for humans to live with. She asked that Council do cost accounting on this issue that does not come down to only discrete numbers for the next three years but to look at the aesthetic, environmental and human costs that are involved in the decision. She asked that they set an example as a leading, progressive community in doing what the national administration has failed to do with the environment. Mimi Peterson, 748 Wesley Avenue, said she reviewed her earlier statements made in 1997to the A&PW Committee and in 1999 asked for accountability in the budget relating to parkway tree maintenance and the community’s concern for the parkway trees. The issue was the tree trimming cycle and how money was budgeted. After two years of meetings and memos Council decided to spend one million dollars on a nearly non-existent tree trimming program to a six year cycle. There was little discussion of where that money came from. While her initial concern was sparked by care of her own trees, along the way she learned there were larger issues regarding the use of public funds and transparency in the City government. In meetings this past summer, well attended by the public, Alderman Feldman was quick to agree that they must find the money to do the tree program; and often says that the budget is a reflection of community values. He is correct. TREE was formed in 2000 to try and preserve the character of the Evanston community by saving the historic elm trees. They have worked with City staff on a plan to rescue the elms. She asked what is the most fiscally responsible thing to do. How can they use tax dollars for the best use? TREE has often demonstrated how, when they use money in a different way, money and trees can be saved. Too much time has been wasted in preparing memos which is a distraction to this important issue. If they do only the sanitation program, according to an August 12 memo, that would cost $2,135,000 to cut trees down. TREE asks the City not to continue to remove trees but to use the money the City has wisely and pro-actively, and preserve the character of the community while they save money and trees. Virginia Mann, 3004 Normandy Place, was not sure which numbers were real and which were not. She was sure TREE numbers were real. She corrected a statement made earlier. A 2% loss rate when they talk about 3,299 trees and injecting those trees for a three year period, they will lose 66 trees, not 132 as staff has suggested. All issues raised apply to the full injection plan and the signature injection plan. Currently taxpayers spend $3.8 million on forestry and $600,000 on elm trees to deal with Dutch elm disease. They have heard they should let trees die and take their natural course. If they 9 February 12, 2005 wanted to do that it should have been done a long time ago. The city has spent far more than $10 million to save the trees. And unless Council changes its policy, the City will probably spend another $10 million in the next 20 years to continue a process that is not working. The City has lost 20% of the trees in the past four years at a cost of millions. That is what has brought them there. TREE is asking for fiscal responsibility; with limited dollars they ask they be spent wisely. The bottom line is in Chart A, with a difference of $117,000 in actual dollars out. The difference is hundreds of trees saved and the quality of life which others have talked about. She asked that all the elm trees be saved. Jonathan Perman, Evanston Chamber of Commerce, agreed with TREE that fiscal responsibility should be exercised. The Chamber applauds advocates for maintaining and improving an urban forest that is long lasting and beneficial to this community. A beautiful urban forest enhances the value of businesses and residences. He thought it was important to look at the historical context of this debate. The Evanston Forestry Department through the years has been cited as an innovator and as one that is at the top of the list for forestry, in the techniques and technology they use. The concern this year was brought about due to what appears to be an anomaly in the number of trees lost in 2004. They need to remind themselves that a consistent number of trees have died of Dutch elm trees. He did not think in one year that they have entered into an era of tremendous loss of trees. Given the analysis of Mr. Hill, when the City is not able to require private property owners to immediately remove trees and cannot go onto private property to inoculate trees, they need to come to a decision about how private trees will be dealt with before they go down a road regarding the public trees. He applauded City staff and City Council for the time they have taken with this issue. He noted that the sanitation method has proved to be effective to keep up an urban forest and to look carefully before they take an approach of inoculation of all public elm trees. There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Morton asked for a motion to adjourn. The Council so moved at 12:07 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.