Intergovernmental Committee

123 Madison Street Village of Oak Park Oak Park, Illinois 60302 www.oak-park.us Meeting Minutes Intergovernmental Committee Saturday, January 17, 2015 10:30 AM Township Board Room, 105 S. Oak Park Ave. 1. Call To Order President Lueck called the meeting to order at 9:11 a.m. 2. Roll Call Attendees: Paul Aeschleman - Parks Peter Barber - Village Matt Baron - Library Graham Brisben - D97 Jim Gates - D97 Victor Guarino - Parks Clarmarie Keenan - Township Ade Onayemi - Township Andrea Ott - Village (late arrival) Colette Lueck - Village Jeff Weissglass - D200 Absent: Steve Gevinson - D200 Bruce Samuels - Library Others Attending: Teresa Powell - Village 4. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Mr. Baron and seconded by Mr. Gates to approved the agenda. The agenda was approved. 4. Approval of Minutes of 12.13.14 It was moved by Mr. Barber and seconded by Mr. Gates to approve the minutes of December 13, 2014. The minutes were approved. 3. Public Comment Village of Oak Park Page 1 Printed on 3/26/2015 Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Minutes January 17, 2015 There was no public comment. 6. Eisenhower Issues Ms. Lueck noted that the state and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) both have new leadership and that the Governor’s Transition Report singled out IDOT to take a leadership role. This will not necessarily impact Eisenhower discussions, however. Mr. Gates noted that D97 did not have a representative at the recent meeting with Village Hall staff on the Ike, but does have an interest in this important project. He mentioned the January 26 Village Board Study session with presentations from IDOT and CTA. Mr. Guarino reported that the Park District also plans to meet with IDOT in February with a focus on properties adjacent to the Expressway. There was discussion of examples elsewhere of expanded bridges over highways. Mr. Guarino suggested that expansion of park space could serve as a compensating benefit. Ms. Lueck noted that IDOT’s goal is to minimize expansion of bridges but that there is precedent to pay for amenities. The Village wishes to minimize impact on residents and the Village. She noted that relocation of ramps, construction damage and possible sound barriers with the need for streetscapes and park projects. Assistant Village Manager Rob Cole has more information on how to make the case for mitigation. She mentioned that Columbus, Ohio, used little municipal funding as a large developer was involved. There was discussion of the separate meeting of Parks with IDOT and the need for a unified message from all local governments. How and whether members of other governments would participate in the Study Session on January 26 was discussed. Those who attend may wish to speak not in an official capacity but as residents at this meeting. Mr. Guarino suggested that hearing from multiple voices can reinforce a unified message. Mr. Brisben suggested that we craft a unified message to assure that IDOT will interpret comments as being in competition with each other. Others offered suggestions on the best approach. Ms. Lueck noted that the IDOT process was highly legislative with specific rules about what can be considered at each stage of the process and connections to feedback. She suggested meeting with advisors such as engineers, landscape designers, conservatory and bridge representatives, etc. I-Gov might lead on how local governments can track and respond and can demand feedback. She suggested that Rob Cole can advise on Village of Oak Park Page 2 Printed on 3/26/2015 Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Minutes January 17, 2015 this process; results will be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which will finalize the report, after which it cannot be changed. Mr. Gates suggested that while each board will be autonomous, it’s important to work together for the best interests of the community. Mr. Brisben and Ms. Lueck suggested focusing on the overall most important issues to avoid having IDOT pick “winners” and “losers”. Ms. Keenan arrived. Mr. Baron asked if I-Gov should meet with IDOT. Mr. Weissglass suggested that these study sessions will help everyone understand what the issues are; afterwards a joint statement can be issued to IDOT. Ms. Lueck suggested that a follow-up discussion of the IDOT presentations be on the February agenda of I-Gov. 5. Next Steps Assembly Ms. Lueck noted that the next Assembly is scheduled for May with a continued focus on financial issues. Mr. Brisben noted that the moderator of the October event has not yet received payment and there was discussion of this issue. Mr. Gates will arrange for a check to be issued by D97 on Tuesday, January 20 to resolve this, with reconciliation of bills to follow later. Ms. Lueck suggested that Gil Herman be asked to moderate this session with a focus on financing. Mr. Gates asked for comments on the direction of this discussion from members. Mr. Aeschleman recommended managing debt and the debt load across governments and a review of the percentage of residential property tax over time. Mr. Weissglass suggested clarification of the residential tax definition as part of this presentation. Ms. Lueck noted the strong support at the Assembly for follow-up debt discussion. She added strategies to address challenges identified by each government in their presentations with income generation options. She also suggested that the Assembly discuss what is a realistic goal? What can be done? Resident expectations in the whole Village should consider what is possible. Many factors are beyond our control. The goal should be to that tax reduction or stabilization should not exceed the CPI. Mr. Weissglass noted that energy costs have impacted CPI. Mr. Guarino concurred that debt was an important topic. He suggested that the tax assessor provide a comparison of CPI to the tax levy over the past 20 years, with the curve for each taxing body. How can we bring the rate down to CPI? Mr. Weissglass asked whether May 2 was the best time to convene the next Assembly. He also concurred; debt and payments are important. The community’s capacity to support services through property taxes should be Village of Oak Park Page 3 Printed on 3/26/2015 Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Minutes January 17, 2015 considered, including income, socio-economic status and overall debt. Ms. Powell concurred that the debt issue and tax burden should be considered and noted that one of the issues beyond local control was wage stagnation, which has impacted the ability of local residents to keep up with rising property taxes. Mr. Barber suggested continuing to seek “low-hanging fruit”, opportunities to cut costs in government and offered several examples. Mr. Brisben suggested that such “low-hanging fruit” options be reported on at every I-Gov meeting to keep this issue before the group. He also recommended addressing tax fatigue, governmental debt with a need to coordinate among governments the timing of future tax levies. Synchronize the desire for more cooperation and efficiencies. He noted that his board appreciated the summary of the Assembly’s recommendations and suggested a similar format for the next Assembly to “check in” on these issues. He recommended reporting on intergovernmental successes. Mr. Aeschleman added that failures should also be addressed. Mr. Brisben suggested that the group needs to confront the “brutal facts” when collaboration fails. He recommended additional slides aggregating the tax burden of households to report out and systematize this process. Then social and environmental issues can be considered, too. Mr. Onayemi noted that the Assembly focused on information sharing and asked what solutions have been implemented as a result. Mr. Aeschleman responded that the focus of the first assembly was to educate officials about the status of finances across governments. Mr. Onayemi suggested that business groups hear also hear this information. He also recommended an effort to get staff members to work together across governments. Mr. Barber agreed and suggested that staff members also examine failures. Ms. Keenan agreed with Mr. Brisben and Mr. Onayemi and reminded the group of its interest in inviting business members to this meeting. Mr. Baron also supports Mr. Brisben’s ideas and suggested that it is too soon to judge the results of the October 25 meeting, which served to heighten understanding by elected officials. He recommended focus without taking on too much at each Assembly. Mr. Brisben and Mr. Onayemi supported further discussion by I-Gov about future referenda and their timing. Mr. Gates responded to Mr. Onayemi’s suggestions that the focus of October 25 was informational, and that feedback from participants was very positive about getting this broad overview. He noted that the May 2 meeting date was during the transition from old to new boards. He recommended addressing low-hanging fruit, deb issues and wages toward a realistic goal for constructive tax stabilization. He suggested asking Realtors what draws people to Oak Park; services that people love should not be cut. Consider the end goal of the Assemblies; we are still educating Village of Oak Park Page 4 Printed on 3/26/2015 Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Minutes January 17, 2015 elected officials. He recommended that we think ahead to plan the next two Assemblies. He cited the Parks/D97 shared facility as a potential missed opportunity. Ms. Ott arrived. Mr. Weissglass suggested that continuing to plan meetings every six months was too often. I-Gov can address in more depth than the full assembly. He noted that planning for the Assembly has pre-empted customary reports from each government over the past few months. Ms. Lueck noted that I-Gov has committed to another Assembly in six months. Mr. Gates recommended going to annual Assemblies after that. Ms. Lueck recommended looking at content and process pieces across taxing bodies and their collective impact on Oak Park. She likes the idea of regular updates which can lead to metrics to measure overall fiscal health. What has been successful? What got in the way when failures occurred? How can we do better as boards? How defensive or open are our boards to this discussion? Mr. Gates summarized possible topics as debt, low-hanging fruit, successes and failures. Ms. Ott offered support for future discussion of sustainability with collaboration on environmental issues. Mr. Gates noted Ms. Keenan’s suggestion of broader involvement of the community. Mr. Aeschleman noted that keep community members were invited to the first Assembly; getting key people involved can help get a better sense of the drivers. Mr. Barber recommended a primary focus on attendance by all elected officials. Mr. Gates recommended preparing a draft Assembly agenda for the next I-Gov meeting. Mr. Gates recommended that both outgoing and incoming elected officials participate in the next Assembly. Mr. Barber suggested the low hanging fruit for table discussion. Mr. Aeschleman recommended that there be a future opportunity for intergovernmental staff discussions to identify such opportunities. This can be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. Lueck, Mr. Aeschleman, Mr. Barber, Mr. Gates and Ms. Powell will work on plans for the Assembly. 5. I-Gov Structure and membership, quorum This item was not discussed. 5. Report from Participating Taxing Bodies This item was not discussed. 7. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. Village of Oak Park Page 5 Printed on 3/26/2015