Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-1990-01-13-1990January 13, 1990 1 1 CITY COUNCIL January 13, 1990 A SPECIAL MEETING of the City Council was held on Saturday morning, January 13, 1990, at 9:13 am in accordance with the Mayor's Call of January 8, 1990, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed 1990-91 City Budget. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: A quorum being present. Alderman Juliar Alderman Drummer Alderman Davis Alderman Brady Alderman Esch Alderman Korshak Alderman Washington ABSENT: Aldermen Paden, Wold and Nelson TARDY: Alderman Morton PRESIDING: Mayor Joan W. Barr Alderman Wollin Alderman Collens Alderman Rainey Alderman Lanyon Alderman Feldman Alderman Warshaw Alderman Rudy Docket 1-1A-90: Proposed 1990-91 Budget - Consideration of the Proposed Budget for the City of Evanston for the fiscal year 1990-91. A copy of the City Manager's recommended Budget was distributed on December 29, 1989. Budget review sessions have been scheduled for January 13, 20, 27, 1990 at 9:00 am and a Public -Hearing on the Budget is scheduled for February 5, 1990 at 7:30 pm. Alderman Rudy moved that Council resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of further discussion of the proposed 1990-91 Budget. Seconded by Alderman Feldman. Motion carried. No nays. The Council so met at 9:15 am. Mayor Barr welcomed the public to the Budget Work Session and reviewed budget meeting procedures. She announced the schedule of Budget hearings, noting that there would be an opportunity for citizen comment at the end of each meeting as well as at the Public Hearing on February 5, 1990. She announced that citizen comment would be scheduled for 10:45 am that morning because the Council had scheduled a closed session at 11:00 am. City Manager Joel M. Asprooth outlined general budget procedures for the new Aldermen and highlighted several issues which will impact the proposed budget: the elimination of the 50/50 Tree Planting Program; the addition of a $30,000 expenditure to fund a preliminary study which will explore the possible municipalization of electric service; wage negotiations and funding health insurance benefits. The City Manager stated that the proposed 1990-1991 Budget is within the Budget Policy guidelines established by the City Council; the 4.9% increase in the property tax supported portion of the budget is 95% of the average of the Consumer Price Index calculated between September 1988 and August 1989. Also, to keep within that Budget Policy, he is recommending that $900,000 of the State Surcharge Z l�- -2- January 13, 1990 on income tax this year be allocated to the General Fund for operating expenditures. The General Fund expenditure is'a continuation budget. The major problem with revenues is that non -property tax revenues are not keeping pace with inflation or expenditures. In the past several years, the City has used one-time revenues or unanticipated earnings to cover this gap. This year, the City will be using the Income Tax Surcharge to cover this shortfall. He suggested to the Council that the best course that the City could undertake to rectify this problem in the future, would be to advocate in Springfield for the continuation of the Surcharge. Continued use of the Surcharge would help provide needed financial stability in the General Fund. He said that he would review other Funds in detail next week, but that there is little change in any of the Enterprise or Capital Funds for the coming year. No increases in the Water or Sewer fund charges are expected for this year, but an increase in the Water Fund has been scheduled for 1991. He pointed out that the City continues to rely on increasing transfers from the Enterprise Fund into the General Fund to keep the General Fund in balance. City Manager Asprooth touched briefly on economic conditions and said that the rate of inflation is projected to be approximately the same as it was this past year. It is anticipated that interest rates will decline and it is hoped that interest rates will stimulate economic activity. (At this time Alderman Morton was present). Mr. Asprooth said that the unemployment rate was lower, which our expenditures in the General Assistance Fund bear out, but those now receiving General Assistance seem to be the hardcore unemployed. He expressed some concern about the accuracy of revenue projections made in July of 1989, saying that they had been on the liberal side. However, receipts seem to be coming in fairly close to those projections. Major shortfalls have been covered by an increase in inter -fund transfers. Reappropriation of surplus will not be possible this year, as it has not been for several years. Once again the City will wind up in a negative position, but it will be able to operate without borrowing because of the inter -fund transfers. Next year, cash flow will be impacted by an additional payroll. The extra payroll is part of the cycle that happens about every eleven years and will be covered by various inter -fund transfers. He expressed concern that borrowing from other funds has become a habit and expressed the hope that the City could wean itself away from doing that, because it might create financial problems in other funds in the future. City Manager Asprooth then turned to a review of major General Fund Revenue items other than property tax. He compared current year receipts and budget revenue projections for the Sales Tax, Utility Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Hotel Tax, license and permit fees, building fees, the liquor tax, fines and service charges. The only major change in revenues from other agencies, is the City Manager's request that the Township increase the revenues they provide to the Emergency Assistance Program. Revenue provided to the General Fund from other funds is almost 5% less in this proposed budget than was the case in the prior year's budget. Surplus earnings in the Parking Fund and the Water Fund were one time transfers and neither are available in the current year. He noted that he has proposed to increase the transfer from the Motor Fuel Tax by $100,000 which will reduce our ability to make street improvements, but will help support various kinds of street maintenance. The transfer will still leave $350,000 in the Motor Fuel Tax Fund. Library revenues are estimated to be higher because of a library fine increase recommended by the Library Board and endorsed by the Human Services Committee. At this time City Manager Asprooth opened the floor to questions. In reply to a question from Alderman Korshak, he said that projections for next year are based on two ordinances not yet adopted (to raise recycling fees and the parking tax). Both issues are before the Administration & Public Works Committee. Also included as recommendations are an increase in fees for the private elm tree program, which has already been endorsed by Council and the 50/50 parkway tree planting program, which was recommended against by the Committee. In response to a question from Alderman Esch about the lost utility tax revenue due to the wholesale purchase of natural gas, City Manager Asprooth said that the City had explored the legal issues and at this time there was no legislative authority for a City to extend the utility tax to the wholesale purchase of natural gas. However, he pointed out that the value of wholesale purchases was declining. In response to a question from Alderman Feldman, he clarified that the tax was not applied to gas purchases outside the state of Illinois. 1 1 1 -3- January 13, 1990 / In response to a question from Alderman large one-time expenditures coming up in respond with a memo. Rainey about whether there would be some the next year, Mr. Asprooth promised to In response to a question from Alderman Morton, City Manager Asprooth clarified that the City was asking the Township to increase its support of the Emergency Assistance Program to $139,000 because the Community Development Block Grant funds available to support that had declined over the last several years. The Township had supported it at that level in 1988. He further clarified that the money would all go for food. There being no further questions on proposed revenues, City Manager Asprooth turned to a review of various departmental budgets. He reviewed budgets for the City Manager's office, the Personnel Department, the Law Department, the Finance Department, the Safety and Risk Management Department, Building Operations, and the Police Department. City Manager Asprooth noted that he had sent a recommendation for capital equipment purchases to the Budget Policy Committee. Those purchases are for essential equipment not included in the proposed Budget, and it is his recommendation that funds for those purchases be taken out of the current year Income Tax Surcharge. Mr. Asprooth reviewed the Fire Department program elements and noted the adjustments that had been made to the department budget. (At this time Alderman Warshaw assumed the Chair.) He stated that he would be coming back to the Council with a budget amendment and a suggested funding source for a manpower study of the Fire Department. The need for such a study was brought about by some difficulties and unacceptable levels of response during three fires on the south side of the City over the last several weeks. A special meeting of the Administration and Public Works Committee, has been called to discuss fire service on January 29. Alderman Morton asked whether the unacceptable response to the fires on the south side were due to the fact the City did not carry out the original Fire Station Relocation Plan. City Manager Asprooth replied that he did not think so, but that the problems encountered were due to other operational issues, which he was prepared to discuss at length at the special Administration & Public Works Committee. In response to another question from Alderman Morton about a full-time Animal Control Warden, he replied that the revenue generated by the activity related to the Animal Control Warden did not cover the cost of a full-time person. (At this time Mayor Barr resumed the chair.) In response to a question from Mayor Barr concerning the difference in cost of adding sworn or non -sworn personnel to the Police Department Investigations Division, City Manager Asprooth replied that he would be happy to respond in a memo, but whether the position was filled by sworn or non -sworn personnel, it would still be an additional cost. In response to a question from Alderman Lanyon, City Manager Asprooth discussed how revenue was collected for false alarms, damaged light poles, and traffic signals. Alderman Rainey requested that the City Manager provide the Council with the memo concerning the Loss Fund expenses that had been sent to the Administration & Public Works Committee. She also requested information regarding the impact of police staffing levels on the current year budget and on the proposed budget. She asked what it would have cost the City if full staffing levels had been in place for the entire year. Alderman Lanyon and City Manager Asprooth discussed the impact that various unfilled positions throughout the City had on the budget. The City Manager pointed out that the measure of the net impact of any unspent funds in a given year was cash flow, has been in a deficit position for the last several years. Alderman Rainey referred back to her earlier question and clarified it by referring to the Police Department Financial Summary on Page 105 of the budget. She questioned whether the "Estimated Actual" column would change substantially. City Manager Asprooth promised to respond fully in a memo. N. -4- January 13, 1990 Alderman Esch and City Manager Asprooth discussed the billing out and collection of various fees owed the City. He clarified that there was no central record file of monies owed to the City by those residing at a certain address. He said he would like to develop that capability in the future if money permitted. CITIZEN COMMENT: Jan Schakowsky, 1101 Ridge, a member of the Commonwealth Edison Task Force said that all of the Task Force members were grateful to the Council for approving a request for $30,000 for a preliminary study of the possible municipalization of electric service; supported that recommendation and provided some information about cities that had, to some extent, municipalized their electric service; said that Evanston will be well served by a thorough investigation of the issue; suggested that Council be prepared to allocate additional funds in the future for more intensive investigation; said she didn't think residents of Evanston were keeping their fingers crossed that electric rates would continue to go up so the City, could meet its Utility Tax Budget. George Cyrus, 2929 Central, Chairman of the Chamber Budget Review Committee said that the Chamber joined with Council in wanting the City to maintain its level of services; expressed concern that Evanston is perceived as a community with high taxes and would like to see that perception addressed and readdressed; questioned why the General Fund increase was 7% when the Consumer Price Index had increased by only 4%; suggested line by line scrutiny of the Budget to see if the General Fund increase couldn't be brought into line with the CPI and the property tax increase eliminated; suggested that an increase in water rates be considered and the new revenue generated be transferred from the Water Fund to the General Fund. Alderman Rudy requested that the City Manager send a memo comparing the increases in the General Fund to the total budget and identify which areas in the General Fund increased beyond Budget Policy. Alderman Rudy moved that Council reconvene into regular session. Seconded by Alderman Lanyon. Motion carried. No nays. Alderman Rudy moved that Council recess into a closed session to consider pending litigation. Seconded By Alderman Collens. Alderman Korshak questioned whether it was appropriate to go into a closed session without a finding that the issue under discussion was in fact pending litigation. He cited a Springfield case concerning annexation, in which an Attorney General's opinion construed the Open Meetings Act very narrowly. He said that open meetings are to be the rule and that the public's right to know must be zealously protected. He emphasized that only under very strict and narrowly defined exceptions may the City Council conduct closed sessions. He felt that it had not yet been determined by the Council that the matter to be discussed did in fact involve imminent or probable litigation within the meaning of the statute. He reiterated that it was his belief that Council must find that litigation is imminent or likely in a public meeting and that there must be a basis in fact for such a finding. Mayor Barr said that it was her recollection of the Council Rules that three Aldermen could request that Council go into closed session to discuss whether an item was appropriate for closed session discussion. She asked if there were other Aldermen who supported Alderman Korshak's position. Aldermen Warshaw, Feldman and Esch indicated that they did. Alderman Korshak questioned whether the City Council rule could override the state requirements. Mayor Barr said that it was her recollection of the legislative intent of the rule, whether it was in the nature of a confidential document or whether it was in the nature of a confidential discussion of a problem, that Council could go into closed session to discuss whether or not it should remain confidential. She reminded the Council that there was a motion on the floor to go into closed session and said that the closed session would be used to discuss whether the matter cited for pending litigation was an appropriate discussion for closed session. Roll call. Voting aye - Juliar, Drummer, Brady, Morton, Washington, Wollin, Collens, Rainey, Lanyon, Rudy. Voting nay - Esch, Korshak, Feldman, Warshaw. Motion carried. (10-4) During the course of the Roll Call, Alderman Warshaw questioned whether the mayor had misinterpreted Alderman Korshak's intent in using the three person exemption. Mayor Barr ruled her remarks out of order. �II �J 1 L -5- January 13, 1990 1 1 Alderman Rainey questioned whether the last vote could be reconsidered. Mayor Barr said she thought it could. Alderman Collensread from Rule 21.1 and -said that she felt that this kind of motion could only be reconsidered at the next meeting. Mayor Barr concurred. Alderman Rainey said that the rule precluded her right to ask for a reconsideration and requested that the Mayor reconsider her ruling. She said that she felt it was a violation of the Open Meetings Act to discuss closed session in closed session. City Manager Asprooth said he thought the motion would still have to be to go into closed session to discuss imminent probable or pending litigation. Alderman Rainey said she thought that the issue under discussion was whether or not the vote to go into closed session could be reconsidered and she reiterated her feeling that the Council rule precluded her right to request reconsideration. Alderman Rainey moved to reconsider the vote to go into closed session. Seconded by Alderman Korshak. First Assistant Corporation Counsel Hill said that the only basis under which you could go into closed session were: pending, imminent or probable litigation, land acquisition or personnel. State statute does not allow you to go into closed session to discuss closed sessions. However, state statute does not say whether the finding of fact (whether litigation is pending, imminent or probable) needs to be made in open or closed session. It was his opinion that you make the generic finding (i.e. probable, pending or imminent litigation) in open session and vote on that basis and find the specifics of whether the litigation is pending, imminent or probable in closed session. In response to Alderman Rainey's question about reconsideration, he said his reading of the rule was that it could not be reconsidered at the same meeting at which the original motion was made. Alderman Collens suggested that Rule 21.1 be sent back to the Rules Committee to be rewritten because it does apparently preclude the reconsideration of a vote to go into closed session. She suggested that the rule could not be changed on the floor of the present meeting and therefore she felt that it was appropriate to make the reference to the Rules Committee. Alderman Feldman asked for clarification whether the Council could go into closed session based on Rule 8.4. Mayor Barr said that it was her understanding that the rule was not in violation of the state statute and allowed Council to go into closed session to discuss whether something could be discussed in closed session. Mr. Hill said that he felt that the rule applied to different issue, one that deals with paperwork. He also said that the Attorney General's opinion given to him by Alderman Korshak was only an opinion and he could find no litigation connected with it that would make it binding. He reiterated that the only reasons to go into executive session was for pending, probable or imminent litigation, land acquisition or personnel. Alderman Feldman said that it clearly indicated to him that we could not discuss in closed session whether or not the issue at hand was appropriate for closed session. The Mayor said that her interpretation differed from his. At thistime Alderman Drummer left the meeting. Mayor Barr ruled that the Council could go ahead with the reconsideration of Alderman Rainey's motion, since reconsideration of a vote to go into executive session was not specifically mentioned in Council Rule 21.1. She pointed out that it would require a vote of 2/3's of the Aldermen to overturn the original vote. If the Council upholds the vote, according to Mr. Hill's opinion, the Council can go into closed session to discuss the factual finding of whether this is an appropriate matter to be discussed in closed session. Roll call vote on Alderman Rainey's motion. Voting aye - Esch, Korshak, Washington, Rainey, Feldman, Warshaw. Voting nay - Juliar, Davis, Brady, Morton, Wollin, Collens, Lanyon, Rudy. Motion failed. (6-8) Mayor Barr referred Rule 21.1 back to the Rules Committee for more exhaustive review. The Council recessed into closed session at 11:25 am and adjourned from closed session at 12:33 pm. KIRSTEN F. DAVIS CITY CLERK 01 9 1 1 0