HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-2007-01-22-2007Op EVq�
s
U �0�
CITY COUNCIL * * January 22, 2007
kc
ROLL CALL — PRESENT:
Alderman Wynne Alderman Tisdahl
Alderman Bernstein Alderman Rainey
A Quorum was present. Alderman Holmes Alderman Wollin
NOT PRESENT
AT ROLL CALL: Aldermen Jean -Baptiste, Moran, Hansen
PRESIDING: Mayor Lorraine H. Morton
The OFFICIAL REGULAR MEETING of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Morton on Monday, January
22, 2007, at 8:55 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
City Manager Julia Carroll announced that on Saturday, February 3, 2007, a citywide discussion on "Partnering Toward a
Safer Evanston" will take place from 9:00 a.m. to noon in the auditorium of Evanston Township High School, 1600
Dodge Avenue.
Mayor Morton announced that Yo-Yo Ma, world -renown cellist, was conducting a Master Class on the Cello that evening
at the Music Institute of Chicago located on Chicago Avenue.
Mayor's Veto of
Ordinance 115-0-06 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
A copy of the veto message has been made a part of the permanent record.
COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
Extension and Expansion of Special Service Area (SSA) #4
First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herb Hill announced that there were concerns about the notice that went out setting
forth a public hearing on Ordinance 113-0-06, Special Service Area #4, for that evening and the hearing was postponed.
An amended ordinance would be available in two weeks with a new hearing date. The 60-day period to file objections to
Special Service Area #4 begins at the conclusion of that hearing. A delay of two or four weeks will not affect those who
wish to make their opinions known or participate in a petition drive. If individuals wish to speak, their statements will not
be part of the official notice. However, Council could hear their comments now and inform them of the proper time and
noticed meeting at which they will have a formal opportunity to state their objections or positive feelings about SSA#4.
Alderman Rainey suggested the fact the City made a mistake should not affect those who came to speak. She would hear
the same thing that evening as at the formal hearing; did not think people should have to come back a second time. She
wanted a full explanation of why this happened. Mr. Hill said the concern with the notice was the need for PIN numbers
for other properties to be available to the public. PIN numbers were provided individually, but not collectively. A second
concern was the geographic boundaries of the district and whether it encompasses the area of the City that defines the
needs and extraordinary services of Special Service Area #4. That will begin tomorrow and they hope to have a clearer
definition of the services. Alderman Rainey asked the process for amending the map. Mr. Hill stated there is a newspaper
and mail requirement that owners of record and electors be notified within the district of an expansion of SSA#4. Council
then will convene a public hearing where the merits of the proposition and concerns are discussed. At that meeting staff
will present the extraordinary services that are afforded those who live within SSA#4. At the hearing there will be an
explanation of the revenues to be generated by this tax which is estimated to raise 1475,000 per year for the geographic
area defined in SSA#4.The tax rate, services and geographic scope of the area will be explained. The area is proposed to
be expanded from the original district and the term extended for 12 years. At the hearing the Council will hear merits and
objections. At the conclusion of the hearing, objectors have the right to file petitions with the City Clerk. Objectors have
to be electors and vote from addresses within the district as set forth on the date of the hearing or property owners within
,wy
2 January 22, 2007
the property. If 51 % of all the property owners object and 51 % of the electors who live in the area object, then the City
Council has no authority to adopt the ordinance. If less than 5 1 % object, it is discretionary with the City Council to
proceed with SSA #4. The statutory notice is a legal publication plus a mailing to potential objectors. The mailed notice
will go to the property owners and electors, which is above and beyond the state requirement, and a special notice will go
to all the condominium associations and boards. The geographic area proposed includes many condominium buildings
that were not in existence when SSA#4 was originally created. The final step is the most significant. The extra services
this ordinance provides are for services to be contracted with EVMark, which has been performing these services for the
City for 15 years. If this is adopted, it would apply to the district as defined and a contract entered into between the City
and EVMark to provide those services.
Alderman Rainey asked at the time 51 % of electors and 51 % of property owners don't object to the expansion of SSA#4,
could the City Council vote to amend the newly drawn district. He responded the Council may take no action until 60
days after the adjournment of the hearing. At that time, she asked, may the City Council, under any circumstances amend
the map? Yes. The Council may decrease the size of the district but cannot add property to the district.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste asked why objectors have to take a pro -active step to object and why can't the proponents have
to take pro -active steps. Mr. Hill explained the power of the City Council to enact this legislation is based solely on state
statute which sets forth the mechanism for special service areas and for special assessments. The City Council cannot
change the statutory mechanism, which requires a 60-day notice and puts the burden on electors and property owners to
file objections. The Council has no discretion with this requirement. The City will provide extraordinary notice to
electors and property owners to get the message out. People who object must file a petition with the City Clerk. In
response to Alderman Jean -Baptiste, the electors form the petition. As a suggestion, the petition would have in it an
identification of elector or property owner and indicate they object to the imposition of the tax.
Alderman Wollin urged that the citizens be allowed to speak.
Alderman Bernstein asked the number of voters and electors. There are 1,212 property owners and 1,518 electors. Each
petition requires 51 % of those numbers. Mr. Hill noted the City has utilized Home Rule aggressively in other matters, but
there is no Home Rule authority for changing this statute's provisions. Alderman Bernstein asked if Council could
remove PIN numbers within the district. Yes. Mr. Hill said the legal requirement is that the area remains contiguous.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste moved that the City post on the city web site a non -defective and legitimate petition as well as
hard copies in the City Clerk's office objecting to SSA#4. Seconded by Alderman Rainey. Motion carried unanimouslv.
CITIZEN COMMENT:
Stamata Blanos., 1720 Maple St., asked if this matter could be put to public referendum on the April ballot. Mr. Hill said
"no," because there is a state statutory requirement that could not be met. Alderman Rainey pointed out the requirement
to get on the ballot of Cook County far exceeds the requirement of this district on this question.
William Steel. 522 Church St., resident since 1974, spoke as a long term resident and representative of the Church
Condominium in the proposed expanded SSA#4 district. They oppose the expansion and extension of SSA#4 and are
opposed to taxation of residential property for this expansion. SSA#4 was established at the impetus of business by the
City Council for the benefit of the business community. The original location of SSA#4 was dictated by the location of
businesses. Robert Teska, Robert Teska, Inc. noted that virtually all property owners have been commercial property
owners. The original goals were to market and promote downtown Evanston as a place to shop; to provide an
environment in which businesses can succeed, to bring new businesses to the area and to maintain and improve the
physical environment of the downtown. The goal of the current proposal is to assist in the promotion and advertisement
of the expanded area in order to attract businesses and consumers to the expanded territory. The current proposal is for
the benefit of business development. Historically and properly it has been supported by business and should continue to
be supported by business. Based on EVMark's own estimates, the commercial contribution to the Year One Levy would
be $371,000. This increase is more than 48% over the currently capped funding of $250,000. The promotion of
commerce in the downtown area is not the responsibility of a portion of the citizenry of Evanston. The benefits of a
a qS
3 January 22, 2007
commercially vibrant downtown are no different than benefits to neighbors at 1500 Hinman Ave. or former neighbors at
2506 Lawndale Ave. Taxing a portion of citizens for this is arbitrary and unfair.
Lester Shindelman. 1572 Maple Ave., lives in the proposed expanded SSA#4 district and is secretary of his condominium
association; stated they are an EVMark success story. They support the activities of EVMark but the issue is who should
fund EVMark? Proposed funding should reflect 2007 versus 1987 and be fair. Who has benefited from a vibrant
downtown? The number one beneficiary is commercial businesses because they can measure success by revenues. The
board consists of leading businesses here and much of the budget for EVMark goes for marketing items such as
Christmas decorations and downtown dancing programs and brochures. All residents have benefited from such efforts.
Their 29-unit building, built on land where the State Unemployment office was located, probably pays $250,000 annually
in property tax. That tax, not collected previously, yields about $50,000 to the City. The only way to increase the tax base
is to grow vertically. He thought there was a perception at EVMark that the residents have benefited, but he did not think
that was true. What he saw is that every so often somebody comes by and does a power cleaning. Residents take care of
their own garbage. He thought they would set a bad precedent by paying for extra services. There are no children in their
building who attend school. In 2007 they have a different situation than when SSA#4 was created. He thought in the
1980s there were 150 commercial properties. Today 80% of the properties in downtown are residential. He urged them to
get creative. Perhaps SSA#4 should be limited only to commercial property owners, or all Evanstonians should share in
the cost. He suggested that the best way might be to establish a downtown merchants association and make it a part of the
Chamber of Commerce. He believed in paying his share of taxes and noted that all know that some taxes last forever.
Lvnne Heidt. 1211-C Central St., owns two condominiums in proposed SSA#4 district; stated Ms. Carroll had asked her
why she opposed the special service district (expansion). She has a long history of opposing unfairness and while this
does not rise to the level or civil rights violations, consumer fraud, homelessness or hunger issues (in which she has been
involved). She has long thought that all Evanston condo owners are treated unfairly by having to pay extra for services
such as garbage removal, which homeowners do not have to pay. When she learned of EVMark's efforts to expand its
staff by creating a gerrymandered map where all condominium owners within its boundaries would be forced to pay
additional taxes, and that Council had voted unanimously to set the wheels in motion to support EVMark, she decided as
an owner and a realtor active in marketing condominiums in this district, to do everything she could to put a stop to this.
She pointed out one of the most interesting areas carved out is the northwest corner of Grove and Chicago Avenue, 1500
Chicago Avenue, a building managed and perhaps owned by Farnsworth -Hill, whose manager, Jim Nash, is the current
chairman of EVMark. Her main concern is that downtown Evanston homeowners are paying the highest taxes per square
foot of any other homeowners here. She examined one, two and three bedroom units and a penthouse at several
condominiums in downtown Evanston and compared the square footage and taxes they pay with homeowners scattered in
the nine wards. Only two aldermen, those living on Hinman Avenue and Martha Lane, pay higher taxes than owners of a
three bedroom condominium at 1720 Maple Avenue. She noted the owner of a two -bedroom at 1720 Maple would pay a
higher tax than the Mayor and three aldermen, including the alderman representing 1720 Maple and the alderman living
on Sherman Ave. A penthouse at 1720 Maple, built in 2002 closed in December 2006 at $1.1 million. The taxes are
$39,705 annually. Compared to lakefront properties at 7 Milburn Park, with a tax bill of $24,000 or 907 Edgemere Court,
with a tax bill of $34,000, one gets a clear picture that downtown homeowners do more than their part. She stated that
state legislation enabling special taxing districts was established on behalf of lobbyists and is not in the interest of the
citizenry or City at large. People who have studied this know that it is written so that it is almost impossible to overturn
by petition. She urged Council to throw out this proposal and vote it down immediately based upon the faulty notice.
Otherwise, use Home Rule powers to require EVMark to get 51 % of the electors and 51 % of the property owners to sign
petitions supporting the expansion and extension of SSA#4.
Alderman Rainey explained that their tax dollars pay for condominium and recycling pick up when 75% of the building is
owner occupied, but the association must notify the City. Public Works Director David Jennings stated that a mailing was
sent to condominiums to alert associations to this fact. He would put out a sign-up sheet so people can be contacted.
Robert Perlmutter. 622 Davis St., managing partner of Davis Street Land Co., a small retail development firm that
focuses on high quality retail properties. Since 1998 they have been located in downtown Evanston. Their properties
include the Chandler building, 622-24 Davis St., and they own no property on Central St. He has participated as a board
member of EVMark and as a small business owner, he fully supported the proposal for SSA#4. He noted the downtown
a0
4 January 22, 2007
section of any City represents a combination of the community's economic and social centers. He believed the more
vibrant the district, the more contributions it would make to the economic foundation of a community and equally to the
sense of community. Their development activities throughout the Chicago area have provided them with experience in the
strongest downtown districts. This includes Highland Park, Naperville, Wilmette, Hubbard Woods, Elmhurst and Orland
Park. Few of the communities have understood the importance of a professionally managed partnership of the major
stakeholders in the downtown. The creation of EVMark was acknowledgment of the need to bring together major
downtown stakeholders but equally important to organize them with an appropriate funding mechanism. Many years ago
the City of Evanston recognized what many communities are coming to understand about their downtowns. Because of
the City's past leadership, downtown Evanston sits in the strongest position in 20 years. It is a downtown area studied by
other communities that are trying to rejuvenate their downtowns. EVMark, along with investments made by the City, and
zoning regulations have been important factors in Evanston's current environment downtown. One of the most important
zoning regulations was to encourage residential development in downtown. Much of the discussion that evening relates to
whether residential condominiums benefit from the downtown district and whether they should be included in SSA#4.The
issue was probably not discussed in prior years. The concern is why residential users pay for services that primarily
benefit commercial users. A similar concern could be voiced by office tenants in downtown as well. All commercial
entities pay real estate taxes, including taxes to the schools. He believed the vibrancy of the downtown has fueled
residential development in downtown Evanston. Since EVMark contributes to the vitality of downtown Evanston, it is
appropriate that all users share on an equitable basis. The SSA#4 proposed is based upon a percentage of each taxpayer's
assessed property value. In Cook County, residential assessments are based upon 16% of a property's fair market value.
For commercial properties, assessed valuation is based upon 38% of a property's fair market value. Cook County has
determined that it is equitable for commercial taxpayers to pay twice as much as residential owners. He was sure the fact
that residential property owners vote and commercial owners don't vote influenced Cook County when it defined
"equitable." As a commercial property owner, he supports SSA#4 because he believes that EVMark has been an
important contributor in establishing a vibrant downtown, which makes their properties more valuable and also makes his
experience as an office user more enjoyable. This holds true for residential owners, too.
McKelty Kunnineer. 1632 Orrington Ave., spoke on behalf of 57`h Street Book Case and Cabinet. They have used
EVMark for marketing because as a small business, it is expensive and difficult to get their name out. EVMark has
provided them with the tools to get their name before the public at a more reasonable cost. Providing for the community
and services that seem intangible are worth a hefty cost. Evanston has done that and should continue.
Renee Finiecawe. 1580 Sherman Ave., chose to live downtown because of the lifestyle. She can walk to work, shop, get
entertainment and dine in restaurants. She supported EVMark continuing to manage funds to help with the quality of life
downtown, primarily for beautification and keeping things clean. Planters have seasonal flowers and the sidewalks are
power washed four times a year. There is extra garbage pick up. She thought those services are necessary because of the
volume of people including residents, workers and visitors. She told the story of a woman who kept the sidewalks clean
and what it looked like when that woman was missing. She praised EVMark and wanted to see continued attention to
beautification, cleanliness, keeping the downtown vibrant because doing so keeps real estate values up.
Janet Larson., 1501 Oak Ave., 69-unit condominium at Lake/Oak opposed the EVMark proposal because it is unfair.
They pay $269,000 just for assessments annually and have garbage pick up three times a week. She asked the City and
EVMark what behavioral changes have they made to keep downtown clean. She sees overflowing trash cans. She thinks
people working in businesses could go out front and pick up the area once a shift. There could be cigarette butt containers
at various sites such as El and bus stops. In the maritime province of Prince Edward Island, Canada, they have collection
sites all over for used paper towels, plates, etc and compost year round. Many materials used downtown are throw -away
materials. She suggested this be dovetailed with recycling and composting. The movement in Prince Edward Island was
grassroots because they were running out of landfill. There are many models from which to choose.
Leonard Evens. 1580 Sherman Ave., did not believe that SSA#4 should be continued in its present form and it was unfair
to tax residents in downtown. However, he thought EVMark does do things that are beneficial to people who live
downtown. It could be argued that residents pay something extra, but not what they are paying now. He agreed that the
goal of EVMark is to support business activity, which only benefits residents indirectly. The Christmas decorations are
right outside his window. If EVMark continues, there should not be taxation without representation. He understood that
5 January 22, 2007
EVMark's board has no residential representatives. There should be representation proportionate to the taxes that
residents pay. He suggested the present plan be scrapped and that they come up with something more reasonable.
Leonard Lirtzman. 1501 Oak Ave., president of Oakwood Court Condominium. Though they are not in the proposed
district, it's no stretch that if their condominium neighbors are taxed unfairly today, their turn could be around the corner.
They are skeptical and believe this represents a beginning and not an end. The 69 owners at Oakwood Court are against
the EVMark scheme. As taxpayers, voters and supporters of many of Evanston's downtown enterprises, they stand
opposed to this added tax. If EVMark is serious about this mission, they believe it should try to raise money the old
fashioned way. They are marketing experts. Let them create marketing and fund-raising programs. Let them create a
committee of those who benefit most to go out and produce the additional cash flow they need.
Daniel Kelch., 807 Davis St., downtown small business and property owner; EVMark board member, remarked that 15
years ago, when EVMark was launched, the downtown environment had few investments and property owners saw values
languish. One of the many reasons downtown stagnated was that there was no entity like EVMark. There was no
organization of stakeholders who actively supported downtown to ensure that the physical and business environment was
kept inviting and attractive. Downtown is livelier now but that does not mean the responsibilities to maintain it have
diminished. One only has to look at the vacant Barnes & Noble store and, given slight softness in the condo market, to
hear the subtle hint that no matter the success of downtown today, active and constant effort must be made to ensure that
it remains successful both for commercial endeavors and a place that appeals to the residential market and condominium
owners. Everybody with a vested interest in downtown, whether commercial or residential, should want to make sure that
the stagnation of the recent past is not repeated. Why should residential owners support EVMark? Picture 10-12 years
from now: an owner tries to sell a unit and, obviously, wants to realize value. When a residential investor needs to lease a
unit at a profitable rental rate, what kind of impact would there be with no extra trash pickups in downtown? Flowering
plants wilted because nobody watered them. The sidewalks were never power washed. Would prospective owners be
interested in buying if the sidewalks were stained with pigeon droppings? Empty and vacant storefronts? Trash blowing
out of overstuffed containers? What effect does negative curb appeal have on a final residential sale price? EVMark has
the support of downtown's largest property owners. Smart real estate professionals have elected to fund EVMark because
they understand that protecting and growing their investment here goes beyond the immediate four walls of their
buildings. They understand that the extra services above and beyond those the City provides will cost a little extra. That
extra investment to maintain the front yard and curb appeal helps ensure that returns far exceed the small investment.
Sidewalk power washing is not exciting stuff and a service that many people may take for granted (or more likely don't
even realize it occurs). He did not think the City, with its need to cut budgets, will suddenly be able to perform those
services that EVMark does. Downtown businesses and residents have a symbiotic relationship. The businesses need what
residents supply and residents need downtown businesses for the urban vitality and convenient lifestyle that makes
condominium living here so desirable. One will not thrive without the other in the long term. They have a shared
responsibility to keep up their common area, their front yard.
Bob Brower. 800 Elgin Rd., stated that some assumptions are not true --that everybody who moves to downtown Evanston
does so because of the wonderful downtown. He has no objection to EVMark and what it is doing. His building has 245
units and at least a third are renters. Most are either students or professors at Northwestern University. They chose the
building because it is close to campus. Many owners are also professors as well. His concern was the unfairness of taxing.
He stated the tax is discriminatory. There are arbitrary boundaries and somebody who lives two blocks away pays the tax,
while somebody else who lives three blocks away does not pay. A decision was made years ago to create boundaries and
to tax certain people who, in theory, live close to downtown. The argument made earlier is that everyone who benefits
from a superior downtown, benefits from their property values increasing. Everybody should be taxed citywide. It doesn't
make sense to choose which taxes you will pay based upon the benefits one receives. All know that everybody benefits if
children have a good education. Everybody benefits from the suburban transit system. He thought Council has two
options: tax everybody or take the tax away from residents and let the commercial people pay their way.
Michael Marin. 1770 Maple Ave., was upset about the proposed SSA#4; said Evanston is starting to get a "tax" stigma.
He owns two condominiums; has a one bedroom unit and pays $5,000 annually in property taxes at Optima Views. He
has no children. He was totally opposed to this. Even non -profits, such as hospitals, make money.
W
6 January 22, 2007
John Nolan. 1720 Maple Ave., objected to the EVMark proposal, citing no special benefits to any resident in this service
area. The people who benefit from downtown are the entire community. They hear so much about community here and
about the various parts of Evanston but they don't hear about downtown Evanston. He stated that no Council member
represents all of the people in the center of the City. 1720 Maple has no City garbage pick up. Alderman Rainey was clear
about the rule and apparently there are not enough owner -occupied units in the building for garbage pick up. He stated
they had tried to work with Alderman Jean -Baptiste, who came to their building two years ago, but nothing has happened
to get this fixed. He did not think there was adequate representation for downtown residents.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste discussed his condominium association, stating that his issues were pursued and the leadership of
the condominium chose to use private refuse pick up.
Mr. Hill announced that at the next City Council meeting on February 12, there would be a proposing ordinance to adopt
which will set the notice and hearing date.
CONSENT AGENDA (Any item marked with an Asterisk*)
Alderman Moran moved Council approval of the Consent Agenda with these exceptions: Ordinance 5-0-07 - Yard Waste
Sticker Program; Ordinance 6-0-07 - Sanitation Service Charge, Ordinance 7-0-07 - Planned Development 1700-1722
Central Street, Application Appealing the Preservation Commission's Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for the
Demolition of the Evanston Landmark at 1722 Central Street, West Side Master Plan, and Ordinance 08-0-07 - Special
Use Request for a Retail Services Establishment at 1908 Greenwood. Seconded by Alderman Rainey.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —
none. Motion carried (9-0).
ITEMS APPROVED ON CONSENT AGENDA
MINUTES:
* Approval of Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of January 6, 2007 and the Regular City Council Meeting of
January 8, 2007. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (9-0)
ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS:
Approval, as recommended, of City of Evanston payroll for the periods January 11, 2007and City of Evanston bills for
the period ending January 23, 2007, authorized and charged to the proper accounts:
City of Evanston payroll (through 0l/11/07) $2,174,498.57
City of Evanston bills (through 01/23/2007) $3,086,621.19
* APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (9-0)
*Approval of Change Order No. 3 (final) to the 2006 Water Main Improvements Contract A with Bolder Contractors,
Inc. (440 Lake Cook Rd., Deerfield). The change order decreases the contract amount by $343,747.50, from
$3,873,048.09 to $3,529,300.60. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (9-0)
* Consideration of a payment of $245,000 to DiPaolo company (4350 DiPaolo Center, Glenview) for costs related to the
termination of the Phase VI Contract B Relief Sewer Project. Funding provided by the Sewer Reserve Account.
APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND ROLL CALL (9-0)
* Ordinance 4-0-07 - Increasine Ambulance Transportation Fees - Consideration of proposed
ordinance 4-0-07, which restructures and increases ambulance transportation fees. * MARKED
INTRODUCED - CONSENT AGENDA
a9q
1
11
January 22, 2007
* Ordinance 10-0-07 - Increasine Public Wav Obstruction Fees - Consideration of ordinance 10-0-
07, by which the City Council would amend Sections 7-2-5-3 of the City Code to increase the fees for
obstructing the public way. * MARKED INTRODUCED - CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT:
* Planned Development Time Extension — 645 Custer Avenue - Consideration of Clearwater LLC's
request for an extension on the construction schedule for the planned development at 645 Custer Ave.
City Council adopted the planned development on July 25, 2005 and granted a six-month extension to
the one-year standard limitation that construction begin. * APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION AND ROLL CALL (9-0).
* Ordinance 9-0-07 — Maior Variation Reauest for 800 Brummel/142-144 Elmwood - Consideration
of the recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a major variation for a multi -family
residential use at 800 Brummel/142-144 Elmwood. * MARKED INTRODUCED
Alderman Jean -Baptiste moved to Suspend the Rules to adopt an ordinance at the same meeting at which it was
introduced. Seconded by Alderman Wynne.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —
none. Motion carried (9-0).
Alderman Jean -Baptiste moved approval of Ordinance 9-0-07. Seconded by Alderman Wynne.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —
none. Motion carried (9-0).
* Ordinance 117-0-06 — Amendment to Preservation Ordinance —Consideration of the
recommendation from the Preservation Commission, introduced January 8, 2007, to amend the City
Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Section 8, Subsection (G) to make the Planning & Development Committee
the receiving and final decision -making body on Applications to Appeal Denials of Certificates of
Appropriateness by the Preservation Commission.* ADOPTED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION &
ROLL CALL (9-0)
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
* Approval of the Youth Engagement Program - Consideration of a recommendation to approve the
Youth Engagement Program as submitted.* APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA MOTION AND
ROLL CALL (9-0)
APPOINTMENTS:
Mayor Morton asked that the following appointment be introduced.
Jared Davis Parking Committee
2303 Dempster St.
Mayor Morton asked that the following appointment be confirmed:
Harland W. Oates Ladd Arboretum Committee
2 Arbor Lane
For term ending January 30, 2010
* APPROVED - CONSENT AGENDA
8 January 22, 2007
REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
ADMINISTRATION & PUBLIC WORKS:
Ordinance 5-0-07 - Yard Waste Sticker Proeram - Consideration of proposed ordinance 5-0-07
amending Section 8-5-3(E) of the City Code to establish a charge for the collection and disposal of
yard waste.
Alderman Wollin moved that Ordinance 5-0-07 be marked introduced.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —Bernstein, Rainey.
Motion carried (7-2).
Ordinance 6-0-07 Sanitation Service Charee - Consideration ofproposed ordinance 6-0-07 amending
Section 8-5 of the City Code to eliminate the recycling fee and replace it with a monthly sanitation
service charge of $5.00 per household.
Alderman Wollin moved that Ordinance 6-0-07 be marked introduced. The motion was seconded.
Alderman Rainey noted this is a $5 monthly charge to have refuse removed, so residents' water bills will have a $10
charge for garbage collection. People come here and fight cleaning of downtown and she feels for them, but thought they
were stooping low to charge this after the property taxes that people pay. She hoped citizens fight this.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay— Bernstein, Rainey.
Motion carried (7-2).
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT:
Ordinance 7-0-07 — Planned Development 1700-1722 Central Street
Consideration of the planned development proposal for 1700-1722 Central Street for a mixed use
(residential/retail) project consisting of 48 dwelling units, 11,250 square feet of first floor retail, 100
parking spaces, and a total building height of 48 feet.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste moved that Ordinance 7-0-07 be marked introduced. The motion was seconded. Motion carried.
This item will be returned to the committee.
ADDlication ADDealing the Preservation Commission's Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for the
Demolition of the Evanston Landmark at 1722 Central Street. - Consideration of the application
appealing the Preservation Commission's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for
demolition of the Evanston Landmark at 1722 Central Street.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste reported that this item was held in committee.
West Side Master Plan - Consideration of the recommendation from the Plan Commission to approve
the West Side Master Plan.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste reported that this item would be held for a special Planning & Development Committee meeting
on January 29, at 6:15 pm., in Room 2200.
Ordinance 8-0-07 — Special Use Reauest for a Retail Services Establishment at 1908 Greenwood
Consideration of the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation to approve the proposed application to
operate a dog daycare and training center at the subject property.
201
9 January 22, 2007
Alderman Jean -Baptiste moved introduction of 8-0-07. The motion was seconded. Motion carried unanimouslv.
Alderman Jean -Baptiste moved to Suspend the Rules to adopt an ordinance at the same meeting at which it was
introduced. The motion was seconded.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —
none. Motion carried (9-0).
Alderman Jean -Baptiste moved approval of Ordinance 8-0-07. Seconded by Alderman Wynne.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —
none. Motion carried (9-0).
CALL OF THE WARDS:
2"d Ward. Alderman Jean -Baptiste expressed condolences to Denise Martin and family on the passing of her husband.
He hoped they could find a way to move forward on Inclusionary Housing after the Mayor's veto and invited her to work
with aldermen in writing an ordinance.
3d Ward. No report.
4`h Ward. Alderman Bernstein thanked Robin Synderman-Pratt who has resigned from the Housing Commission after
passage of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. She has served the City well and will be missed.
51h Ward. Alderman Holmes encouraged residents to attend the Saturday, February 3 meeting on Partnering Toward a
Saver Evanston at ETHS from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
6'h Ward. Alderman Moran welcomed Jared Davis to the Parking Committee, noting Mr. Davis was a friend of his son
Brendan. He noted Harlan Oates became a resident at the Presbyterian Home and welcomed him to the Commission on
Aging. Alderman Moran expressed disappointment in the Mayor's veto and asked her to fax a copy. It was also ironic
they were saying good-bye to Robin Synderman-Pratt. He noted her expertise and that of colleagues in both housing and
affordable housing issues. She work for the Metropolitan Planning Conference is highly respected and she is an agent for
positive change. Evanston has been lucky to have somebody recognized throughout the region, and to have Hoy
McConnell, who is the executive director of Business Men and Professionals for the Public Interest (BPI), which has
made history in open and affordable housing issues throughout the region. Many people who know what they are doing
have worked on this. He found it almost tragic that the Mayor would assign support for her veto to the Kretchmer Report,
which ignored a vast amount of data that was provided to the author on thousands of affordable housing units created
throughout the United States through inclusionary housing ordinances, many of which are much more aggressive than the
meek version that Evanston passed. They need to find ways to go forward. He has many who say to him, Evanston is a
beautiful place, but I cannot afford to live there, or someone says that they have lived here for decades but cannot stay.
He stated they must find ways to keep Evanston -Evanston.
7`h Ward. Alderman Tisdahl thanked the Police Department, which, came to the 7`h Ward meeting on crime prevention.
Chief Nilsson and four deputy chiefs were present. They did a wonderful job and the community did a great job of
expressing concerns. She thought they will work better in the future as a result of the meeting.
81h Ward. Alderman Rainey thought it important to note that among all the elected officials the vote on Inclusionary
Housing was 5 to 5. If they want to keep Evanston affordable they cannot add $10 to water bills for garbage collection
and cannot add $1.75 for yard waste bags. People who rake up their leaves will have to pay this fee. She found it
hypocritical to say an affordable housing ordinance is needed so that poor people, low and moderate -income people can
live here, but the minute they buy property, there are monthly charges from the City.
91h Ward. No report.
�b2,
10 January 22, 2007
1" Ward. Alderman Wollin also was disappointed with the Mayor's veto; made a reference to the Plannine &
Develop_ ment Committee to come un with a leeally bindine inclusionary housine ordinance for affordable units. She was
willing to start over and stated the City has to have something in principal that they can live with that accomplishes
something. This ordinance would not have resulted in grand numbers, however, it was a beginning. She asked for a copy
of the Mayor's veto. She reminded all of the Youth Summit on Tuesday, February 6, 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center.
At 10:50 p.m., Alderman Bernstein moved that Council convene into Closed Session for the purpose of discussing
matters related to personnel pursuant to 5 Illinois Compiled Statutes 120/2 (c ) (2). The motion was seconded.
2. All meetings of public bodies shall be public meetings except for the following:
(1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees
of the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity.
Roll call. Voting aye — Jean -Baptiste, Wynne, Bernstein, Holmes, Moran, Tisdahl, Rainey, Hansen, Wollin. Voting nay —
none. Motion carried (9-0).
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Morton asked for a motion to adjourn and the
Council so moved at 10:55 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.
1
1