Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Committee of the Whole met Feb. 14.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

CALL TO ORDER

At 7:00 PM, Mayor Rotering called the meeting to order and asked for a roll call:

PRESENT: Mayor Rotering, Councilmembers Tapia, Stolberg, Stone, Blumberg, Holleman, Lidawer

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Neukirch, Community Development Director Fontane, Police Chief Jogmen, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Kanapareddy, Finance Director Logan, Fire Chief Schrage, Communications Manager Civitello, Human Resources Manager Taub, Deputy City Clerk Palbitska

ALSO PRESENT: Corporation Counsel Elrod, Deputy Corporation Counsel Passman

SCHEDULED BUSINESS

1. LakeShore Refuse & Recycling Agreement Renewal - Continued Discussion

City Manager Neukirch noted that based on feedback from the Council during the December 13, 2021 Committee of the Whole Meeting, staff followed-up with LakeShore Recycling ("LRS") and she presented information on two new options for consideration. She requested Council feedback on the new options. She explained that following consensus from the majority of the Council, an updated agreement will be drafted and presented at a future City Council meeting for formal consideration.

Councilmember Stone asked how many households were on twice a week service currently and how many were on twice a week back door service.

City Manager Neukirch noted that there are 108 households that utilize twice a week back door service and 317 that utilize twice a week curbside service.

Mayor Rotering noted that 425 were utilizing twice a week services combined.

Councilmember Stone noted that the base fee is paid to LRS, not the City.

City Manager Neukirch confirmed that was correct.

Councilmember Stone stated that there were some individuals that believed the City was being paid that fee but it is truly going to LRS to cover the cost of having the trucks go down every street.

City Manager Neukirch explained that it provides LRS a consistent fee no matter what each household chooses for their service.

Councilmember Stone noted that the twice a week was increasing because it is a more costly service and LRS has communicated that an additional truck is needed in order to provide that kind of service.

Mayor Rotering noted that it is a significant increase for twice a week and the term for the increase is really cost shifting because if 50 or more households drop down to once a week, the contract now is open for renegotiation. She stated that it is well and good to communicate that there is an additional cost for twice a week service but it needs to be called what it is and that is cost shifting; the burden is being shifted disproportionately to the households that are twice a week. She voiced concern with the possibility of the contract being renegotiated if 50 households decide to drop down from twice a week.

Councilmember Holleman noted that what is attempting to be done is incentivize households to drop down to once a week because of how costly the twice a week services are; this may assist those households that are on the fence about having twice a week services, this should be seen a positive.

Mayor Rotering agreed with Councilmember Holleman but noted the importance of the contract being re-opened for negotiation if 50 households change their services.

Councilmember Stolberg echoed what Mayor Rotering stated.

Councilmember Blumberg asked, if 50 households decided they wanted to move to once a week pick up from twice a week pick up, that would trigger renegotiation.

Mayor Rotering stated that was correct, 50 or more households.

Councilmember Blumberg noted that he was unsure as to how impactful renegotiating is in light of the fact that there may be a sizeable enough portion of the population that gives up twice a week where the option is not offered any longer. He stated that he would be comfortable with renegotiating and that it may be a good thing.

Mayor Rotering voiced her concern with cost shifting; they are bearing a disproportionate burden of the cost of providing full City services. She noted that there is an incentive to reduce the number of trips the trucks are making but with the renegotiating, there is potential for everyone's costs to then increase significantly.

Councilmember Blumberg noted his understanding of what Mayor Rotering is saying but if it becomes onerous for households to have twice a week collection, they can then reduce the responsibility by having two garbage cans picked up on one day instead of one garbage can picked up twice a week.

Mayor Rotering stated that she understood that but her concern is that the Council will have to come back at a later date to discuss the increase of everyone's costs because enough households decided twice a week was too much.

Councilmember Blumberg stated the way around that is to not offer twice a week pick up service.

Mayor Rotering stated that was true but then the numbers would be changing again.

Walter Willis, Solid Waste Agency of Lake County ("SWALCO") Executive Director, stated that it was his understanding that the only thing that would be renegotiated would be the twice a week cost and all of the other costs would stay the same because there would be fewer pick ups.

Mayor Rotering noted that the households that are currently twice a week would have a greater increase in costs.

Director Willis noted that was the understanding if they lose 50 or more twice a week customers.

Josh Connell, LRS Owner, noted that was part of the discussion. He stated that the work that has been done by staff has been incredible because there are so many options and variations. He explained that there is a big cost contingency because the twice a week service is costly. He noted that he spoke with former Assistant City Manager Sabo regarding an increase to the base fee for everyone if 50-100 households decided to decrease their pick up services. He explained that this could impact residents from $.08 - $.16 per month depending on how many residents changed their services. He stated that what Director Willis noted is what was discussed and where the direction may be going but there is some flexibility. He explained that LRS is attempting to keep its cost structure the same and not have something that will impact the ability to service the community at a reasonable margin.

Councilmember Stone noted that Mr. Connell clarified most of what she was going to ask about. She asked Director Willis if there were other communities that continue to offer twice a week pick up services and back door pick up.

Director Willis noted there are a couple of other communities but a majority of households in Lake County have once a week service.

Councilmember Stone stated it was her understanding that the twice a week service is very costly to LRS and what is attempting to be done is shift the cost to those households that are responsible for having a second truck go all over town and have them pay for that service; it is only about 5% of households that are on this type of service. She asked, if a lot of households change their services, LRS is looking to get rid of the service all together.

Mr. Connell noted in a perfect world, he would like to not offer twice a week service but LRS does want to provide options to all households. He explained that the service is being subsidized by the entire contract and all residents in the community, so it is not completely burden of cost by those utilizing the service but what is being presented is close to what the actual cost of the service is based on the number of residents using this type of service and the time it takes to complete the pickups.

Councilmember Stone stated that everyone is subsidizing the twice a week service even with the increase.

Mr. Connell noted that was correct. He stated that if this was an open market and in unincorporated Lake County, the costs would be much higher, if anyone would even provide the service.

Councilmember Stone noted that staff and LRS have done a great job negotiating this and voiced her appreciation for the management of input received from everyone. She stated that the current proposal, including the compost for every household, balances the interest of the residents and the cost of service. She believed that the City should proceed with the proposal as presented.

Mayor Rotering voiced her appreciation for Councilmember Stone's direction and noted that there were others that wished to provide their input.

Councilmember Tapia agreed about the incentive to have households change from twice a week to once a week and was in favor of the economics of that. He noted that he was also in favor of the organics program and with both proposals being a reduction of impact on the environment. He stated that the City has made a pledge to reduce its carbon footprint and there should be a thought to continue to increase that commitment by tying these decisions that are being made as the City moves forward with these contracts. He voiced that he was in favor of the proposal presented in column B.

Councilmember Lidawer noted that Councilmember Blumberg put it best in regards to the cost shifting. She stated that she would like to impact the fewest people in the greatest amount. She noted that she does not have an issue with the cost shifting that has been presented. She voiced her appreciation for how staff has negotiated and how LRS has really listened to the feedback that has been provided. She stated that if 9% of the twice a week households change their services, it is understandable why there would be some renegotiation. She explained that if there is change, the City is assisting with that change in behavior and there could be an elimination of the twice a week service. She noted that what makes Highland Park outstanding is the ability to provide a list of different services, even if it does come at a cost. She opined on what is being offered and there needs to be a time to understand how households will react to what is being offered. She stated that she was in favor of waiting a year before the organics program is implemented and provided information as to why it would be best. She requested that the City provide more information on the year-round organics program that is currently offered. She noted that she would like to see a shift in households utilizing the current organics program in the same way she would like to see a shift in households choosing once a week service instead of twice a week. She stated that she was not in favor of moving forward with implementing the organics program for all right away.

City Manager Neukirch noted that she understood Councilmember Lidawer's request to wait one year on the organics program but she asked for her preference as to which proposal she would be interested in moving forward with.

Councilmember Lidawer stated that she was in favor of proposal B.

Councilmember Stolberg voiced his appreciation for the work and effort that has gone into the negotiations so far. He noted that he understood the concept regarding having an extra truck on the street and where LRS would want to shift not only their own economies but one less truck is less pollution and wear and tear. He asked if there was a big difference in cost between two cans once a week and one can twice a week and if there is a shift that can be done for a household that truly needs that capacity, rather than penalize for twice a week, incentivize to get the extra can to fulfill what LRS is attempting to do.

Mr. Connell noted that this has been built into the agreement since day one. He explained that an extra cart is only $3.25 extra per month.

Councilmember Stolberg noted that it would be a full extra garbage cart.

Mr. Connell confirmed that was correct. He noted that the number of twice a week households has dropped over the last six years because it is mentioned to them what the cost savings would be to have an extra cart instead of twice a week pick up.

Councilmember Stolberg stated that he has never seen that communication and asked if that information can be communicated to attempt to direct households to be environmentally sound and have a cost savings by having two carts.

Mr. Connell noted that there is other information on the invoices that go out three times a year and that could be one of the communication pieces.

Mayor Rotering stated that the City needs to also communicate that information because that option has not been very apparent when discussing garbage. She explained that she has already put in her request for a second can because she will be dropping down to once a week service and voiced her appreciation for that information being provided based on these discussions. She stated that this is a great opportunity to conduct some education and to discuss the opportunity for year round organics if households are interested in that program. She noted that she does feel very strongly, based on the broad economic challenges that households are facing right now, regarding putting a pause on implementing a year round organics program for all households and revisit in a year.

Councilmember Stone voiced her interest in adding the organics for all households now because it will reduce the cost for certain households like those that use the pay as you throw program.

Councilmember Blumberg noted that he was sympathetic to that but there is uncertainty as to the response from those that may possibly be on a fixed income who are less likely to write to the Council. He stated that there seems to be movement towards an immediate goal of eliminating potentially, or making very unpopular, twice a week a week pick up which may be the first step in hopefully what will be continued progress. He noted that there is a tremendous opportunity to reduce the amount of garbage that is picked up but it requires a lot to think about it and education is an important part of communicating the benefits of the program. He stated that he would be comfortable waiting to implement the organics program for all but wants to make sure that the City readdresses it at a specific time where metrics are available.

Councilmember Tapia stated that he is landing somewhere in the middle; he is eager to start now but understands the economic questions as well. He noted that he does not wish to wait for a full year and there should be time for the education piece to be disseminated but again, a year may be longer than it needs to be and suggested implementing in six months instead.

City Manager Neukirch noted that this is a policy question but the advantage of one year is that it will take some time for communication to be put in place and to get it rolled out in order to receive feedback. She noted that if the City waits one year, LRS has committed to holding the costs; feedback would be received by the end of this year and then it would be implemented in March 2023 with the same price remaining in place for the remainder of the contract.

Councilmember Lidawer stated that the one year is very important because it is important to see the numbers increase based on education and knowledge in terms of what is being offered; she doesn't want to cut short the opportunity of growth.

Councilmember Holleman noted that the Council is at a compromise; hold the organics program for a year but not have the conversation in a year and have the organics program automatically be implemented. She stated that the reality is, until you make this part of your daily process, people are not going to adopt it, similar to how recycling was previously.

Councilmember Stone voiced her agreement with what Councilmember Holleman has stated regarding the automatic implementation of the organics program after the one year. She asked Director Willis if it is more about education or providing the bins to the households that will have the biggest impact and how many communities are now composting.

Director Willis stated that education is key. He noted that there is a USDA grant available right now where a lot of content has been created and it has been pushed out to the community regarding the organics program. He explained that Deerfield rolled out a very successful third cart program that includes yard waste and food waste where over 15% of the residents, if not more, are participating in that program. He noted that Lake Bluff and Highwood have a year round program available, as well as 25 other communities that allow a co-mingling organics program. He stated that an opt-in program is very expensive when there has to be a truck to only pick up from 100 households and that is why the cost goes down when it is implemented for all households.

Councilmember Stone noted that this is the flipside of the twice a week pick up, where the number of households is almost similar, but you raise the cost of the twice a week because it is an expensive program to run but for the organics, if more households participate, it is more financially sound for the hauler. She stated that the other thing to note is that the organic matter that goes into the landfill gives off methane but if it is in a compost facility, it is being broken down in a different way and it doesn't give off the methane gas; the compost program is much better in terms of climate action.

Councilmember Lidawer noted that there are five times the number of houses doing twice a week compared to composting in terms of subscription and that is big in terms of 500 versus 100 right now. She stated that she would be in favor of moving forward but it is incumbent on LRS and the City to educate and ensure that households understand the program. She noted that she was not in favor of committing a year from now but having the placeholder is great so that the cost does not go up; she wants to see how the education assists the community.

Councilmember Stone stated that the 100 number may not be correct but there is 110 households on the subscription yard waste service and then there are other households who put it out with a sticker and that number is not available.

Mr. Connell noted that was true because they cannot differentiate between those that are using a sticker for just yard waste versus those that are using it for a combination of yard waste and organic material. He stated that it is more than 100 but they cannot pinpoint the exact number.

Councilmember Stone asked if there was a sense as to how many households are putting out any sort of organic material on a regular basis in addition to the 110 households.

Mr. Connell noted that was a hard number to track because they would have to have someone go to each household and look.

Councilmember Stone noted that she was not asking about yard waste versus food waste but rather the number of households that are putting yard waste, food waste or a combination of those out.

Mr. Connell stated that he may be able to find that out, there is a little bit of data on that.

Councilmember Tapia stated that he agreed with Councilmember Holleman in regards to waiting a year to have the organics program implemented but then having it implemented without further discussion.

Councilmember Blumberg agreed with Councilmember Holleman as well; it is an excellent compromise.

Mayor Rotering noted that there has not been a consensus on proposal A or B at this point.

City Manager Neukirch summarized that the City will wait one year but then go ahead and implement the organics program after that one year.

Mayor Rotering stated that she was interested as to where members of the Council were with proposal A or B.

Mayor Rotering took a straw poll and there was a consensus to move forward with proposal B.

Mayor Rotering agreed with Councilmember Lidawer that there needs to be a better understanding of where things are in a year and she was not comfortable committing to the organics program a year from now. She stated that she supports composting but that she has concerns about increasing costs. She opined on the importance of educating. She stated that there is the big possibility that the Council will be renegotiating the contract in regards to the reduction of households with twice a week services.

2. Requirements for Replacement Windows, Roof and Siding Projects

City Manager Neukirch noted that this topic, Requirements for Replacement Windows, Roof and Siding Projects, was brought forward by a number of elected officials. She noted that tonight's discussion would be in regards to permit requirements for various replacement projects.

Councilmember Holleman noted that it would be helpful if Community Development Director Fontane could provide an overview and how this topic came up in the first place in order to have a proper discussion.

Community Development Director Fontane provided information as it relates to permitting requirement for the replacement of windows, roofs and siding projects.

Mayor Rotering noted that the Building Code changes and previously the City went through the Code to clear out numerous variances that the City had to the Building Code in an effort to streamline the process. She stated that it was her understanding that there are permits required for a number of things and they change throughout time but asked what is the protocol for deciding when permits are going to be required versus not; and how is that information communicated with the professionals in this field. She asked if there was a City protocol in place.

Community Development Director Fontane noted that it is essentially construction related permitting; when work is being conducted that will need an inspection or check of work, that guides the policy in requiring a permit. He noted that there have been some explicit changes made to the 2020 adoption of Building Codes in order to expand an exemption and list of exemptions for certain roof changes, and siding changes that don't involve a structural element. He stated that this particular matter of replacing windows was not included as an exemption.

Mayor Rotering noted that for lighting you do not need permit but structural impacts you do need a permit and asked if that was the macro.

Community Development Director Fontane stated that it depends on what you are doing but if you are just replacing a light, no, you do not need a permit; there are certain things that fall below permitting requirements. He explained that lighting would need a permit, for instances, when someone is doing a renovation, an addition to a home, or a change or new structure because that is part of another construction permit, multiple disciplines are looked at.

Mayor Rotering asked, when permits are required, how do contractors know when a permit is required.

Community Development Director Fontane stated that when a contractor is hired, they review local Code amendments to ensure they are doing the permitting correctly. He explained that they will also call the Building Division or stop in the office to inquire about permitting requirements.

Mayor Rotering asked if there were other communities that required a permit for window installation.

Community Development Director Fontane stated that there are other communities that do but not all require a permit for replacement windows but if windows are changing the frame, a permit is definitely required.

Councilmember Holleman noted that what happened previously was that the City moved forward with aligning itself with the Illinois Building Code but what came as a surprise was by doing that, there was an impact to the processes in place that was not evident when it was approved. She explained that the City went from not requiring a permit for these types of replacements to one day now needing to have a permit to do the work. She noted that information was not provided as to how the approval was going to impact and change processes for residents. She stated that the permit being required for replacements is a cost that the homeowner is going to have to absorb along with the already high cost for the replacement itself. She noted that now the City is requiring a permit so staff can conduct an inspection to note that the homeowner did in fact install the efficiency rating that is required when in fact, most of the windows will meet that rating already. She asked what the loss would be to the homeowner should they purchase something that is below the required efficiency rating; their energy bill will be higher. She stated that we have educated consumers and contractors that understand the requirements. She voiced her concern with this new permitting requirement. She stated that she would like to see this rolled back and repealed.

Councilmember Stone noted that the City approved the energy Code and the contractors should have an easy time complying with it because it is a State wide requirement. She stated that she does not believe that the Council needs to micro manage the staff on this topic and if they feel the best way to ensure that homeowners are getting what they are supposed to be getting in terms of windows, that additional cost is a small one.

Councilmember Blumberg stated that he was not comfortable with the licensing process either and he would like to see it repealed as well. He believes that we are at a point where window companies are selling high efficiency windows. He stated that it is easier to educate contractors than it is to educate homeowners; the onus of paying for a permit falls on the homeowner where now we are attempting to educate the homeowner and he believes that to be misplaced.

Councilmember Lidawer stated that she does not believe this cost to be inconsequential. She noted that what the City is learning is that this is becoming more onerous on the homeowner. She stated that obtaining a permit for replacing windows can become very expensive for the homeowner.

Councilmember Holleman asked what the average cost of the permit would be for a homeowner.

Community Development Director Fontane explained that the average permit cost was $217 and the median cost was $295.

Councilmember Holleman noted that is was between $200 and $300 for a permit, plus the cost of staff time to administer the program.

Community Development Director Fontane noted that the cost for administration was included in those numbers, there were no additional charges.

Councilmember Tapia added that the homeowner has to go through the hassle of completing the paperwork for the permit as well. He agreed with the comments that were made by Councilmember Blumberg in the fact that the market place has caught up with providing efficient products. He stated that he was in favor of reducing paperwork and extra costs in order to make things easier and more streamlined for residents.

Councilmember Stone noted that she wanted to make sure that homeowners are getting what they are paying for, which is something the permit fee would enable.

Community Development Director Fontane noted that however the Council directs, staff is always looking to be aligned with the Council if this is something they do not wish to continue with. He explained that the other option could be charging the base permit fee, which is $75 and the process can be changed so that it is a certification only, similar to the roofing permits, but if a certification is not provided then an inspection is schedule.

City Manager Neukirch stated that if there was an interest in not moving forward with the permit, educational information can be on the City's website.

Councilmember Stone asked for clarification that the requirements for energy efficiency is not going to change but just the requirement of a permit.

Mayor Rotering and Community Development Director Fontane clarified that the requirements will remain the same in regards to energy efficiency.

Councilmember Holleman stated that she would strongly support going back to the old system. She explained that the sales people that are selling the windows are providing the efficiency information up front, which aligns with the requirements from the State of Illinois. She stated that she does not believe it is the role` of the City to ensure that the homeowner is making the right decision. She noted that for years, there has not been a fee for windows, doors or siding and she would like the City to go back to that same system. She voiced her approval for pulling back the permit fees for this type of work.

City Manager Neukirch stated that she would like to get some feedback from the Council. She explained that there have been 34 window replacement permits since February 2020, when the permit requirement was put in place and asked if there was an interest in refunding those fees.

Councilmember Stone noted that if the work was done and an inspection took place, then the fees should not be refunded at this point.

Councilmember Holleman disagreed and suggested that the fees be refunded. Mayor Rotering stated that maybe refund half of the fee that was paid.

Councilmember Holleman stated that it was a service that was not needed. She asked if any of the windows were not permissible under the City Code or did they all meet Code.

Community Development Director Fontane stated that two did not upon inspection but the issues were fixed and they are now in compliance.

Corporation Counsel Elrod stated that the City should be careful in treating them differently; it was the law in place and the Council has the right to repeal but the repeal should be prospective. He explained that if an applicant wants to petition for a refund on a case by case basis, the Council or City Manager can consider that but he recommended not making it a legislative decision.

Community Development Director Fontane noted that window replacements would be exempted from permitting going forward, that is what he is hearing.

Corporation Counsel Elrod noted that action would have to be taken on that.

Mayor Rotering asked if there was any data that would inform the Council as to how many window replacements took place last year because there was no nexus to the City. She stated that all of those homeowners that replaced windows without permits, don't have the extra cost but the homeowners that did follow Code and get a permit that is now deemed as unnecessary, are out the cost of the permit.

Councilmember Lidawer stated that it was the law and they complied.

Mayor Rotering noted that those that followed the law were now being penalized but the ones that did not, didn't have to pay the permit fee. She stated that was not a reason to make policy decisions, she was just providing the facts.

Councilmember Blumberg stated that it isn't as much that homeowners were penalized, a decision was made, and a lot of laws change that have a financial impact on what people might have done differently or might do differently going forward. He noted that, based on what Corporation Counsel Elrod has stated, allowing a homeowner to petition on a case by case basis would be a better way to the refunding process.

Corporation Counsel Elrod set the record straight by noting that a mistake was not made. He explained that the City made a legislative decision and the Council has the right to reconsider that decision and repeal those actions; that is what is being discussed tonight.

Councilmember Holleman noted that the City is not requesting to repeal the decision to align with the Code and the Council was comfortable with aligning with the Code. She stated that the Council never gave a blessing to add a permit fee. She explained that administering the fee was an administrative decision that was made by staff, which was a logical and sensible one based on what they were doing to move forward with the process. She clarified that members of the Council have stated that they do not agree with the administrative process and added that she wanted the repeal of the permit fee to be for windows, siding and doors; those three items were added this year that were never included in the permit fees before.

Community Development Director Fontane noted that it is not siding. He stated that he agrees with everything that Councilmember Holleman has stated but there is an exemption that is included in the Code for siding; siding does not affect the structural element and there are no fees charged for that type of work. He explained that what wasn't included was an exemption for window replacements with no opening changes. He noted that staff will discontinue doing it as a matter of practice in the meantime. He noted that in terms of roof replacements, there has always been a requirement of a permit with a certification from the licensed roofing contractor to ensure they are licensed and to confirm they did the work in accordance with the Code.

Councilmember Holleman suggested that the Council allow City Manager Neukirch to rule on the appeals for a permit that would no longer be necessary without bringing them to the Council.

Community Development Director Fontane noted that it was a cost of about $3,500 per year each year, totaling about $7,000-$7,500 in total.

CLOSED SESSION

Councilmember Blumberg moved the Committee close its meeting to the public, pursuant to the following cited sections of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2(c)), for the purposes of (i) potential litigation (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11)). Councilmember Tapia seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote, the Mayor declared the motion passed.

At 8:17 PM, the Committee recessed the public portion of the meeting to meet in Closed Session.

At 9:32 PM, the Mayor reconvened the open session of the Committee of the Whole Meeting.

Members Present: Mayor Rotering

Members Absent: Councilmembers Tapia, Stolberg, Stone, Blumberg, Holleman, Lidawer

City Staff Present: Communications Manager Civitello

ADJOURNMENT

The Committee provided the Mayor the authority to adjourn the meeting. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:32 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2648&Inline=True