City of Geneva City Council met Oct. 4.
Here are the minutes provided by the council:
CALL TO ORDER
The Geneva City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Burns at 7:04 p.m.
Aldermen present: Tara Burghart, Becky Hruby, Gabriel Kaven, Dean Kilburg, Brad Kosirog, Craig Maladra, Richard Marks, Amy Mayer, Robert Swanson
Aldermen attending by video or teleconference: Mike Bruno
Aldermen absent:
Others Present: Assistant City Administrator Ben McCready, City Clerk Roger Godskesen, City Atty. Scott Fintzen, Public Works Director Rich Babica, Community Development Director David DeGroot, City Planner Chayton True, Finance Director Rita Kruse, Economic Development Director Cathleen Tymoszenko
Attending by video or teleconference: City Atty. Ron Sandack
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by GHS Students Lisa and Ashley.
Mayor Burns announced there was a change to the agenda for tonight’s meeting, and invited Crow Holdings to the podium.
Peter Bazos, Atty for Crow Holdings, requested that the public hearing and consideration of agenda items 12. b, c, d and e (representing all actions scheduled to be considered tonight regarding the Geneva Farms North project) be continued until Monday, October 11.
Burns asked if there were any objections from the Council to this continuation.
Ald. Kilburg felt it was a disservice to the public who were present for the meeting tonight. He asked why the applicant could not have notified city staff and council of this prior to 3 minutes after 7 PM.
Ald. Hruby said she did not support a delay, that we need to focus on this tonight, that everyone was ready to discuss this and it was unfair to everyone to delay due to the ongoing stress over the issue. She asked whether the council would get to vote on whether a continuance would be permitted.
Burns responded that any petitioner has the right to request that their matter be continued and that he was only notified by Crow Holdings at approximately 6:40 PM this evening that it was likely they would be making this request.
Atty. Sandack said that he understood the concerns of both council members and they are valid, but that the petitioner has a right to continue the matter before this tribunal.
Burns asked whether a vote by the council was required. Sandack replied that no vote was required, but that any objections could be noted.
Kilburg asked to hear specific city code or ordinances that would allow a continuance in a situation like this. Burns responded that if a petitioner wants to reschedule or postpone, they have that right and gave examples.
At this point, Atty. Sandack and Fintzen began to research this matter, and Burns noted that the council meeting would wait until that was done. Burns also said that the objections by Ald. Kilburg and Hruby would be noted.
Ald. Kosirog suggested a ten-minute recess while the attorneys did research.
Burns asked if there were any objections to a recess until that attorneys could provide relevant materials.
Hruby felt it was disingenuous to allow one side to be granted a continuance which the other side (the residents) would not be granted under any circumstances. She described how during the PZC process, the residents had asked for more time, but were refused and that the applicant had repeatedly called for a vote to be taken immediately. Hruby added that the city has striven for transparency in government, that delaying this action would shed a negative light on the city and was unacceptable.
Burns said that no further objections to a recess were observed, and the microphones and recordings would be shut off until the council returned.
(NOTE - The meeting was in recess from 7:12 PM until 7:21 PM)
Burns reported that the city attorneys Sandack (virtually) and Fintzen would adjourn to continue their research in the conference room, and that the council would proceed with its normally scheduled agenda in the meantime.
PUBLIC HEARINGS, SPECIAL ITEMS AND PRESENTATIONS
a. Proclaim October 23-31, 2021 as “Red Ribbon Week”.
Mayor Burns recognized GHS students Lisa and Ashley who described their involvement and the goal of the group, which is to help others avoid addictive substance use and to promote a healthy life-style. Burns read a proclamation and presented it to the students.
Ald. Burghart thanked the students and asked them to describe some of the programs available to help other students.
Moved by Ald. Kilburg, seconded by Ald. Hruby to so proclaim.
MOTION CARRIED by unanimous voice vote 10/0.
b. Consider Approval of Special Event Application for “Ooh La La Chocolate Run November 7, 2021.
Moved by Ald. Kosirog, seconded by Ald. Bruno to approve the measure as presented.
MOTION CARRIED by unanimous voice vote 10/0.
c. Presentation on Geneva Police & Firefighters’ Pensions Actuarial Reports.
Director Kruse introduced Jason Franken, of Foster and Foster Actuaries and Consultants, who gave a presentation on the pension fund, which included historic and current-year performance, how performance is “smoothed” over a five-year window to temper swings in the market, and criteria for how annual assumptions are adjusted. Franken also noted that beginning next year, all police and fire pension funds will be administered by a state-run board.
Franken answered questions from Ald. Swanson, Burghart and Kosirog about who will handle asset allocations after the consolidation, what the local board will have responsibility for and noted that for the time being, an actuarial will still be needed until the state reporting improves to provide all the information currently provided to the city.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
None
OMNIBUS AGENDA
All Items listed on the Omnibus Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a council member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the Omnibus (Consent) Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
Moved by Ald. Swanson, seconded by Ald. Mayer to approve the agenda as presented.
Roll Call:
AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Hruby, Kaven, Kilburg, Kosirog, Maladra, Marks, Mayer, Swanson)
ABSENT: 0
NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED
*6. Approve Minutes of the Last Regular Meeting on September 20, 2021 (Clerk Recommends Approval)
Moved by Ald. Swanson, seconded by Ald. Mayer to approve the measure as presented. Approved by unanimous roll call vote 10/0. (Omnibus Agenda). MOTION CARRIED
*APPROVE REPORTS
a. June 2021 Financial Report
Moved by Ald. Swanson, seconded by Ald. Mayer to approve the measure as presented. Approved by unanimous roll call vote 10/0. (Omnibus Agenda).
MOTION CARRIED
COUNCIL COMMITTEES
None
OTHER ITEMS AND CORRESPONDENCE
None
10. MUNICIPAL BILLS FOR PAYMENT
City of Geneva Expenditures - 10/4/2021 $ 973,560.42
Manual Check(s) 116,301.52
Utility Billing Refund(s) 837.36
Misc. Refund(s) –
Sales Tax Abatement –
City of Geneva Payroll 743,105.22
Tri-Com Expenditures - 10/4/2021 116,191.60
Tri-Com Payroll 101,909.35
Total Expenditures $ 2,051,905.47
Moved by Ald. Bruno, seconded by Ald. Burghart to approve the bills as presented.
Roll Call:
AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Hruby, Kaven, Kilburg, Kosirog, Maladra, Marks, Mayer, Swanson)
ABSENT: 0
NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED
11. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ITEMS OF BUSINESS
None
12. PRESENTATION OF ORDINANCES, PETITIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND BID AWARDS
12.a. Consider Resolution No. 2021-80 Restating and Granting Conditional Site Plan Approval (Granted by Res. 2020-21) for the Construction of a Mixed-Use Building Containing 60 Residential Apartment Units, 6,014 sq. ft. of Commercial Space, and 63 Off Street Parking Spaces at 609 S. Third Street (SDC19017 LLC)
Moved by Ald. Maladra, seconded by Ald. Mayer to approve the measure as presented.
Director DeGroot described how the Site Plan Approval granted by Resolution 2020-21 expired on August 17, 2021. The owner has requested to restate the previous approval and to extend the deadline to obtain building permits and begin construction by another year.
In response to questions from Ald. Kilburg, the applicant described that reasons for the delay were mainly due to Covid, particularly with delays by IDOT. He added that volatile lumber prices were, at one point, adding $20,000 per week to the cost which caused a desire to wait for that to stabilize, but that now the project is ready to move forward. In response to questions from Ald. Burghart, he noted that demand for apartments has actually risen and that potential ideas for the commercial space include a coffee shop. He told Kosirog that the scope of the project has not changed, that COG staff has been very helpful and the developer is ready to proceed. In answer to Mayer, he said the building will be a lumber-framed construction and that fire sprinklers are included.
Roll Call:
AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Hruby, Kaven, Kilburg, Kosirog, Maladra, Marks, Mayer, Swanson)
ABSENT: 0
NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED
At this point, with the council having completed all remaining business on the normal city council agenda, Burns suggested a further recess while the research by the city attorneys on the matter of a continuance was evaluated.
12.b.1 Motion to Recess the City Council Meeting.
Moved by Ald. Mayer seconded by Ald. Kosirog to recess the City Council meeting.
Roll Call:
AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Hruby, Kaven, Kilburg, Kosirog, Maladra, Marks, Mayer, Swanson)
ABSENT: 0
NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED
(NOTE - The meeting was in recess from 8:02 PM until 8:06 PM) City Atty’s Fintzen and Sandack (virtually) returned to the meeting after the recess ended. The microphones and recordings were shut off during the recess.
12.b.2 Motion to Return the City Council Meeting from Recess.
Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Swanson return the City Council meeting from recess.
Roll Call:
AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Hruby, Kaven, Kilburg, Kosirog, Maladra, Marks, Mayer, Swanson)
ABSENT: 0
NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED
Upon return from recess, City Atty Fintzen reported that he and Atty Sandack had consulted with Atty Radovich, who has been the City Atty for 39 years. Their conclusion was that, historically, if a petitioner asked for additional time it was normally granted. Fintzen said that tonight the Chair had made a ruling based on the historical approach. That being said, their interpretation was that the meeting is the council’s meeting; a petitioner can request a delay but the city council would decide whether to grant it.
Ald. Kilburg asked if he could raise an objection to the ruling of the Chair. Fintzen said that he could, it would need to be seconded and debated and then voted upon to determine whether the ruling of the chair would stand or not.
12.b.3 Objection to Ruling by the Chair to Allow the Applicant to Request a Continuance Moved by Ald. Kilburg, seconded by Ald. Hruby to approve the objection as presented.
Ald. Kilburg challenged the ruling of the chair because he felt there is no precedent. He also added that that a continuance should not be granted, because of it having been requested at the last minute.
Hruby noted that the petitioner has had 11 days since the PZC was concluded, which should have been plenty of time for them to prepare for tonight’s decision. Therefore, to make a request for continuance at this hour was inexcusable.
Bruno felt he would be more comfortable if we did not rush to make this decision and would not support the objection.
Mayer noted that there had been hundreds of emails, and that many questions had been submitted for which answers have not been given yet. She felt it is fair to continue this in order to get more information, and would support a continuation.
Burghart noted that in her 6 years on the Council, she could not remember an applicant asking for a continuance after a meeting had already started. She added that if the council were to grant more time under this situation tonight, she was concerned about setting a precedent such that in the future, applicants could also ask for a continuance whenever they felt like it.
Maladra asked whether if we allow this continuance and the applicant wants to make changes to the proposal, how that would be handled.
Burns and DeGroot responded that it depended on what changes are requested. If changes are made to the annexation agreement, that will be debated during the public hearing scheduled for tonight. If change is made to the PUD or PZC documents, that would require the applicant to go back to the PZC again.
Maladra noted that numerous people have expressed their feeling that this project is being rushed, and that this request for a continuance allows more chance for discussion on it.
Kosirog hoped that the reason the applicant wants the delay is to configure the plan in a way that is more palatable to the community. A continuance gives an opportunity to do this, and as such he upholds the Chair’s decision to grant a continuance.
Kaven felt that if the council had more information about any changes that would be proposed by the applicant, he would probably concede to giving them a continuance. However, since all these people are here tonight, he is comfortable with continuing tonight’s discussion as planned.
Hruby noted that the residents are not asking for more time, that the stress of the situation has been very difficult and that we are ready to at least start this conversation now. She added it feels unfair to grant the applicant a delay now and that doing so is the opposite of impartial. She added that it is ironic the applicant had pushed for a vote during the PZC meetings repeatedly, but did not want to answer questions or discuss the issues. She added that she is against the Chair’s decision to grant a continuance and also noted that October 11 is a holiday and many people have family plans.
Maladra asked how soon the council and public will know what changes, if any, are proposed by the applicant. He made it clear that if he does vote for this continuance, he is not favoring the applicants over the residents.
DeGroot responded that he couldn’t answer because he didn’t know the reasons for the delay or what might be changed, if anything.
Bruno noted that if a continuance is to allow time for changes to the plan, there will be the opportunity for more discussion on the matter. He added that this is a very challenging development for this neighborhood, that there could be changes to make it much better, but not knowing anything is a disservice to the city.
There being no further comment or questions, the matter was put to a roll call vote. Burns clarified what and AYE or NAY vote represented.
Roll Call:
AYES: 4 (Ald. Burghart, Hruby, Kaven, Kilburg)
NAYS: 6 (Ald. Bruno, Kosirog, Maladra, Marks, Mayer, Swanson)
ABSENT: 0 MOTION FAILED
Kilburg noted that a one-week continuance to October 11 will cause a conflict with the Committee of the Whole and SPAC meeting already scheduled for that date. He would further like the applicant to explain what the reason for the delay is for.
Atty Fintzen said the applicant does not have to answer anything regarding their reasons.
Kilburg responded that he would like the applicant to come to the podium and explain their reason for requesting a continuance.
Peter Bazos, Atty for Crow Holdings said we will not be seeing revisions to the plans, that they would like to address concerns, but are not certain if they can.
Kosirog suggested that the continuation be rescheduled for two weeks, instead of one week, for a date of October 18.
Burghart agreed with an October 18 date.
Peter Bazos, Atty for Crow Holdings said the applicant had no objection to the October 18 date.
Ald. Hruby asked for a show of hands from the public if they were in agreement with an October 18 date for the next meeting. The majority of those present raised their hands.
Burns thanked the public for their understanding.
Atty Fintzen clarified that a vote by the council would be for a date certain of October 18, 2021 to continue public comment and Consideration of Agenda Items 12.b, c, d, and e. (representing all actions scheduled to be considered tonight regarding the Geneva Farms North project)
12.b.4 Motion to Continue Public Comment and Consideration of Agenda Items 12.b, c, d, and e. (representing all actions scheduled to be considered tonight regarding the Geneva Farms North project) to a Date Certain of October 18, 2021
Moved by Ald. Marks, seconded by Ald. Swanson approve the measure.
Roll Call:
AYES: 10 (Ald. Bruno, Burghart, Hruby, Kaven, Kilburg, Kosirog, Maladra, Marks, Mayer, Swanson)
ABSENT: 0
NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED
12.b. Consider Ordinance No. 2021-27 Authorizing the Execution of an Annexation Agreement By and Among CHI Acquisitions, L.P. and the City of Geneva
(Deferred until October 18, 2021)
12.c. Consider Ordinance No. 2021-28 Annexing Certain Territory (Parcel Nos. 12-01-100- 004 and 12-01-100-45) to the City of Geneva.
(Deferred until October 18, 2021)
12.d. Consider Ordinance No. 2021-29 Granting a Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone Parcel Nos. 12-01-100-004 and 12-01-100-45 from the RR Rural Single-Family Residential District to I1 Light Industrial District Upon Annexation.
(Deferred until October 18, 2021)
e. Consider Ordinance No. 2021-30 Granting a Preliminary/Final Plat of Planned Unit Development and Subdivision for the Development of a 278,000 sq. ft. Warehouse Distribution Facility.
(Deferred until October 18, 2021)
13. NEW BUSINESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Kevin Moscianl, resident of Geneva, asked that any additional documents from the applicant be delivered by October 11, in order to give the public time to review them, and asked where the documents could be found.
Mayor Burns noted his understanding is that any additional changes will be separate documents but that the original documentation from the applicant will remain unchanged, and explained that new materials cannot be posted until city staff reviews them. Burns also reviewed where and when documents would be posted.
Ald. Kilburg asked if the city can ask the applicant to provide new documentation by October 6 so that council and residents have time to review it.
Burns noted his concern that requiring this could set a precedent that the city which could require all future applicants to provide documentation early. Kilburg asked to reconsider.
Hruby asked for the documentation to be provided by October 11, so residents would have a full week to review and understand the information. She added that the applicant was being treated with more consideration than the residents.
Burns noted that any documentation submitted by the applicant needs to be reviewed by City Staff before it can be distributed to the public (via the city website), and that would take time.
Peter Bazos for Crow Holdings said they would submit any new documentation by October 11, but that no significant changes would be expected.
Asst. City Administrator McCready reported that no one was waiting to comment via the online system.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, moved by Ald. Marks to adjourn the Geneva City Council meeting.
MOTION CARRIED by unanimous voice vote 10/0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:48 PM.
https://www.geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_10042021-1836
Alerts Sign-up