►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
D
Staff
recommends
City
Council
authorized
the
manager
to
execute
a
contract
for
Fleetwood,
Jourdain,
Center
HVAC
and
electrical
improvements
with
central
Lakes
construction
company
in
the
amount
of
a
million
nine
hundred
eighty
eight
thousand
four
hundred
eighty
five
dollars.
This
is
through
a
series
of
bond
funding
from
2016
on
and
I.
I
certainly
do
recommend
approval.
This
is
a
fabulous
project.
D
D
E
A
B
Recommends:
approval
of
the
purchase
of
239
trees
and
planning
services
for
115
trees
from
suburban
tree
consortium
in
the
amount
of
54,000
$367
funding
is
from
two
sources.
The
first
is
a
general
fund
line
item
in
the
forestry
division
budget.
The
total
budget
is
135,000
with
the
current
balance
of
fifty
five
thousand
one
hundred
fifty
two
dollars.
This
is
for
action.
F
A
C
For
the
pension
and
the
police
pension
board,
the
firefighter
pension
board,
the
city
treasurer
recommend
the
City
Council
review
and
approved
the
January
1st
2017
actual
actuarial
valuation
for
usage
of
the
2017
tax
levy
that
will
be
receivable
in
2018
for
the
police
and
firefighter
pension
funding
purposes
for
action.
It's.
G
You
mr.
chair
members
of
the
committee
tonight
we
have
a
brief
presentation
from
our
fire
and
police
pension
board,
as
well
as
from
our
actuarial
consultant.
Mr.
Jason
Franken
from
Foster
&
Foster
I
will
note
tonight
you.
This
is
the
same
memo
format
that
you've
seen
for
those
that
have
been
on
the
council
before
you've
seen
the
same
format
for
several
years.
What
you
don't
see
in
this
packet
is
a
unanimous
or
a
consensus
on
what
we
do
moving
forward.
G
I
believe
it's
both
pension
boards,
preference
that
we
move
to
a
six
and
a
quarter
percent
interest
and,
as
we've
briefed
the
council
regarding
budget
balancing
efforts,
it
would
be
exceedingly
difficult
to
go
down
to
a
six
and
a
quarter,
as
it
would
add,
a
million
forty
seven
thousand
to
additional
funding.
We
have
faced
additional
funding
in
the
past
with
just
that
not
have
faced
that
in
the
last
three
years.
With
the
same
budget
situation,
budgets
are
annual
issues
and
pension
funding
is
a
very
long-term
issue.
G
So
we
have
this
lack
of
consensus
this
year,
but
what
we
have
done
is
provide
the
council
with
a
statutorily
required
report.
We
also
have
a
report
that
says
fund
less
from
the
state
and
even
lower
report
of
this
actuary
used
the
state's
requirements
for
funding.
So
all
that
being
said,
what
you
have
before
you
tonight
is
a
request
to
accept
the
report
and
for
it
to
be
used
in
the
2017
tax
levy
payable
in
2018.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
would
rather,
in
the
time
allotted,
let
mr.
G
Franken
from
Foster
and
foster
speak
with
you
directly
he's
who
we've
hired
for
specific
actuarial
questions
and
then
the
firefighters
pension
board.
President
Darren
Dougherty
would
also
like
to
give
a
short
presentation,
the
start
of
which
you
see
on
your
screen
and
mr.
schoolmaster
you're,
always
welcome
to
speak
as
well.
That
is
at
your
discretion.
H
Thank
you,
as,
as
Marty
said,
my
name
is
Jason
Frank
and
I'm,
an
actuary
with
Foster
&,
Foster
and
I'm,
just
gonna
briefly,
run
through
the
the
results
of
this
year's
actuarial
evaluation.
As
Marty
said
last
year
we
had
used
a
assumption,
invest
return,
assumption
of
6.5
percent.
It
was
discussed
last
year
that
we
they
would
like
to
change
it
down
to
six
point
two
five
percent
this
year,
but
based
on
the
results
of
the
you
know,
lowering
that,
though
there
there
wasn't
a
consensus
on
where
we,
where
we
ended
up.
H
So
just
briefly,
if
I'm
looking
at
the
the
police
pension
plan
last
year,
we
were
showing
a
contribution
requirement
of
ten
point-
two
million
dollars
this
year
at
if
we
keep
the
rate
at
six
point,
five
percent.
It
goes
up
by
a
couple
hundred
thousand
to
ten.
Almost
ten
point.
Five
million,
and
the
reason
for
that
increase
is
just
due
to
mostly
driven
by
the
fact
that
our
smooth
return
over
the
five
year
period
is
less
than
our
six
and
a
half
percent
assumption.
That's
part
of
the
the
reason
we're
looking
to
lower.
H
That
is
to
make
that
more
attainable
target.
If
we
lower
it
to
six
and
a
quarter.
However,
we
have
less
investment
income
and
when
we
have
less
investment
income,
it
requires
more
contributions
from
the
city
in
order
to
meet
all
of
the
obligations
so
by
lowering
it
from
six
and
a
half
down
to
six
and
a
quarter.
It
increases
the
contribution
from
ten
point:
five
million,
almost
two
to
almost
eleven
point:
1
million
the
the
funded
ratio
for
the
year
actually
remains
fairly
constant,
even
at
six
and
a
quarter
percent.
H
We
from
46.6%
last
year
up
to
46.9%
this
year,
so
there
is
a
little
bit
of
an
improvement
there.
Our
unfunded
liability,
however,
did
increase
from
214
million
up
to
221
million
if
we
use
six
and
a
half
and
an
additional
seven
million
up
to
twenty-seven
our
two
hundred
twenty
seven
point:
eight
million,
if
we
lower
it
to
six
and
a
quarter.
The
fire
plan
is
very
similar
and
basically
all
regards
that.
H
The
contribution
last
year
was
about
one
point:
eight
one:
five
million
at
six
and
a
half
percent
due
to
some
actual
losses,
increases
to
eight
point.
Three
five
million
this
year
and
if
we
lower
our
assumption
to
eight
point
our
to
six
point,
two
five
percent:
it
does
increase
our
contribution
up
to
nearly
eight
point:
eight
million.
H
So
there
is,
you
know
over
a
four
hundred
thousand
dollar
increase,
thereby
lowering
our
assumption
to
six
and
a
quarter
percent
in
terms
of
some
of
the
other
metrics
are
our
unfunded
liability
went
from
eighty
nine
point,
eight
million,
even
if
they,
if
we
leave
the
rate
unchanged
and
increases
to
91
point
1
million,
and
then
it
goes
up
to
96
point
two
percent.
At
the
lower
rate,
our
funded
ratio
again
is
pretty
constant.
H
It
goes
from
forty
three
point:
six
percent
down
to
forty
three
point,
two
percent,
so
I
guess
in
summary,
before
I
turn
it
over
to
Darren
the
the
assumption.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
change
the
assumption,
but
it
does
if
we
fail
to
meet
our
target
of
six
and
a
half
percent
effectively.
What
we're
doing
is
deferring
contributions
into
the
future.
H
The
investment
consultant,
both
investment
consultants
for
each
of
the
plan
have
suggested
that
if
we
really
want
to
be
realistic
about
what
we
think
is
going
to
happen
in
the
long
term,
we
should
lower
that
lower
that
assumption
to
be
more
realistic.
If
we
don't
pensions
are
pay
now
or
pay
later,
and
when
you
pay
later,
you
have
to
pay
a
whole
lot
more
later,
because
you
have
less
money
in
the
fund
now
in
your
learning
earning
less
investment
income.
H
So
again,
in
summary,
if
it's
pay
now
or
pay
later
in
to
the
extent
that
we
defer
this
reduction
in
the
investment
return
assumption,
it
really
will
increase
the
long
term
obligation
for
the
city,
even
if
it
does
provide.
You
know
short-term
relief
in
terms
of
the
amounts
of
money
that
goes
into
the
pension
plan.
G
H
D
H
I
Good
evening,
I'm
gonna
try
and
keep
this
as
brief
as
possible.
I
know
that
you
all
have
a
long
night
ahead
of
you.
Historically
so
I
want
to
go
through.
My
name
is
Darren
Daugherty
I'm
the
pension
board
president
for
the
firefighters,
sorry,
I,
walk,
can
I
talk,
firefighters,
pension
fund
and
I'm,
a
captain
on
the
fire
department.
I've
been
on
eleven
and
a
half
years,
I'm
in
Evanston
resident
I'm
in
alderman,
bright
lights,
district
I'm
happy
to
meet
with
any
of
you
online
offline.
To
answer
any
of
these
questions.
I
Last
year
we
came
before
you
guys
and
said
we
were
going
to
bring
some
potential
tools
to
address
this
unfunded
liability.
That's
what's
driving
these
increases
in
cost
every
year.
So
what
I
want
to
do
is
give
you
guys
a
real
quick
brief
on
kind
of
where
we
are
and
where
we
think
we
need
to
be
going.
I
So
for
those
of
you
who
hadn't
seen
this
before
article
3
and
article
4
pension
funds,
so
the
police
and
fire
provided
benefits
that
are
commensurate
with
duty
and
service
they
provide
for
non
duty:
disabilities,
normal
duty,
disabilities,
occupational
disabilities.
That's
if
somebody
has
like
a
heart
attack
or
comes
down
with
lung
cancer,
and
they
have
line
of
duty
disabilities,
which
is
if
somebody
were
to
get
catastrophic,
ly,
hurt
in
an
emergency
situation.
I
These
benefits
are
also
the
city's
long
term,
disability
insurance
on
the
employees,
and
that's
one
of
those
things
that
going
forward.
When
you
hear
people
say
like
hey,
we
need
to
close
these
funds.
The
state
legislators
are
fond
of
that.
We
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
that
becomes
an
added
cost
that
the
city
would
have
to
carry
if
that
were
to
go
forward.
So
where
are
we
today
at
a
six
and
a
half
six
and
a
quarter
assumption
the
fires
of
43.2
and
police
is
at
forty
six
point:
nine.
I
If
you
have
a
historical
perspective
on
this,
those
numbers
haven't
changed
all
that
much.
The
reason
for
that
is
we
keep
changing
our
actuarial
assumptions.
All
these
numbers
are
based
on
our
best
guesses
and
computer
modeling,
the
expertise
of
our
actuary,
the
reality
of
the
markets.
Last
year
we
had
to
adjust
one
of
our
mortality
tables
because
we
found
that
was
at
a
date.
All
these
things
have
effects
on
these
numbers.
I
What
I
will
say
to
you
tonight
and
I've
said
it
every
year
that
I've
come
up
here
is
we're
getting
closer
in
line
with
reality.
I
would
rather
tell
you
that
the
pension
funding
is
43%
and
be
close
to
reality
then
tell
you,
it
is
65%
and
be
hiding
a
problem.
We
can
make
these
numbers
look
like
whatever
we
want.
Let's
make
them
look
real.
D
I
That's
where
we're
at
where
we're
in
line
with
I
understand,
madam
okay,
so
interest
rates
are
near
30-year
historical
lows
that
affects
our
returns.
We
have
an
investment
type
restrictions.
We're
only
allowed
to
invest
in
certain
mutual
funds,
we're
mandated
by
state
law
to
not
exceed
a
certain
percentage
of
equities.
If
any
of
you
are
managing
your
own
retirements,
you
know
that
if
you're
sixty
percent
in
equity
and
40%
in
bonds,
you're
not
going
to
get
a
huge
return
up
back
change
is
an
extra
wary
of
formulas.
I
We
touched
on
that
and
basically
these
are
old
funds
and
we're
getting
more
retirees
so
and
then,
finally,
we
have
new
accounting
standards
moving
forward.
The
federal
government
a
couple
years
ago
changed
this
to
where
these
numbers
now
have
to
be
reported
on
the
city's
balance
sheet
or
before
it
was
kind
of
like
hey.
You
guys
have
pension
debt.
Now
it
is
know
you
have.
Pension
debt
and
the
rating
agencies
are
paying
attention
to
it.
So
where
does
it
go?
I
Three
important
notes
these.
This
unfunded
liability
is
on
benefits
that
are
already
owed
to
current
employees
or
retired
retired
employees.
These
benefits
are
protected
by
the
Illinois
State
Constitution
and
because
all
funding
is
based
on
models,
these
actuarial
assumptions
and
change.
The
unfunded
liability
numbers
can
change
when
reality
doesn't
follow
our
models.
So
we
have
a
couple
solutions.
We
have
state,
of
course,
raise
revenue
or
issue
pension
obligation,
bonds
so
stay
the
course.
We
have
two
pension
tiers
tier
one.
Was
everybody
hired
before
January
2011
tier
two
everybody?
After
that?
I
The
tier
two
benefits
are
significantly
less
expensive
to
the
employer
than
tier
one
benefits.
So
as
the
Tier
one
employees
retire,
more
tier
two
comes
in
the
cost
of
the
fund
becomes
cheaper
for
lack
of
a
better
word.
All
our
employees
will
be
tier
two
by
2045.
So
what
that
tells
you
is.
You've
got
two
savings
on
the
far
horizon,
but
it's
not
something
that's
going
to
act
quickly
and,
coincidentally,
a
tier
2
pension
system
is
actually
cheaper
to
the
employer
than
putting
them
in
a
401k
style
program
with
a
401k
match.
I
There's
an
appendix
at
the
back
of
this
presentation
that
actually
will
walk
you
through
all
those
numbers.
This
strategy
takes
at
least
20
plus
years
and
will
require
ongoing
increases
in
the
pension
levy.
There's
just
no
getting
around
it
raise
revenue
ongoing.
We
can
just
come
here
every
year
and
say:
hey.
We
got
to
raise
property
taxes,
that's
not
something
we're
really
interested
in
doing.
We
want
to
come
up
with
some
systematic
ways
to
address
this
issue
to
solve
the
problem,
so
we
have
one
time
addition
methods,
for
example,
sale
of
physical
assets.
I
I
Were
we
to
sell
a
physical
asset
in
the
city
of
for
something
like
that,
with
a
purely
hypothetical
value
of
forty
million
dollars,
the
cash
from
the
sale
would
be
divided
between
the
two
funds
60/40,
because
if
you
look
at
the
debt
that
we're
carrying
it's
approximately
60%
police,
40%
fire,
that's
just
the
number
and
beneficiaries
and
the
funds,
and
then
that
money
would
be
put
into
the
funds
and
that
would
allow
income
to
be
generated
through
investments
and
reduce
the
unfunded
liability.
We
could
do
cash
infusions.
I
You
know,
for
instance,
today
we
could
propose
hey
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
ask:
could
you
guys
give
us
another
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
this
year
that
stuff
helps,
but
unless
it's
ongoing,
it
doesn't
really
result
in
significant
cost
savings
going
forward.
We
have
a
proposal
for
something
like
a
fire
impact
fee.
For
instance,
we
could
say
that
any
new
construction
over
ten
thousand
square
feet
because
we
don't
want
single-family
homes
to
fall
into
anything
like
this.
Would
be
charged
50
cents
per
square
foot
on
all
new
construction,
only
new
construction,
not
a
teardown.
I
If
you
tear
down
a
10,000
square-foot
building
and
you
build
a
10,000
square-foot
building,
you
wouldn't
pay
the
fee.
If
you
tear
down
a
10,000
square
foot
building
and
you
build
a
50,000
square-foot
building,
you
would
pay
the
fee
on
40,000
square
feet
excludes
single-family
and
build-out
of
existing
structures,
and
we
estimate
that,
at
the
rate
we're
building
in
Evanston
over
the
last
several
years,
this
could
bring
in
something
like
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
per
year.
That
actually
does
make
a
meaningful
impact
in
the
unfunded
liability.
I
Why
the
fire
impact
fee?
This
is
the
question
I
get.
Why
would
we
put
this
in
fire
and
not
police?
We're
actually
able
to
tie
increased
building
volume
to
increased
call
volume?
Last
year
we
went
up
over
10,000
calls
for
the
first
time
in
2016
and
the
workforce
injury
rate
firefighters
wide
nationwide
is,
you
know,
0.48
injuries
for
1,000
on
fire
emergencies.
We've
gone
up,
3,000
calls
a
year
just
since
I've
been
here,
you
know
we're
potentially
by
adding
volume,
we're
adding
the
potential
for
more
injuries.
I
D
D
D
I
Ma'am,
yes,
so
pension
obligation
bonds
would
create
a
fixed
schedule.
This
would
be
the
city
issuing
something
hypothetically
speaking:
hey
we're
gonna
we're
gonna,
buy
it,
sell
bonds,
issue
bonds
for
the
entire
unfunded
fire
liability,
96
million
that
reduces
payments
on
the
unfunded
liability.
If
the
investment
earnings
are
greater
than
the
interest
rate
on
the
pension,
that's
a
very
long
way
of
saying
if
we
can
borrow
money
at
four
and
a
half
percent,
but
we're
gonna
make
six
and
a
quarter
on
it.
I
Based
on
our
assumptions,
there's
a
spread
there
that
we
may
be
able
to
utilize
for
cost
savings.
This
is
not
new
debt,
I
I
can't
this
is
a
the
best
metaphor.
I
can
use
for
this
is
it's
a
credit
card
balance
transfer?
We
owe
this
money.
It
is
debt.
This
is
not
saying
we're
going
to
create
new
debt.
This
is
restructuring
the
debt.
That's
already
there.
So.
A
A
D
I
would
like
you
to
share
with
us
what
what
is
in
the
pension,
what
people
think
that
we
have
never
given
any
money
to
the
pension
that
always
sounds
like
all
there
is,
is
debt
you
need
to
share
with
us
what
what
money
is
in
the
pension
fund?
What
do
we
have
available
to
provide
to
our
hard-working
firefighters
in
your
case
and
then
whoever
does
the
police
tell
us
that
currently.
D
I
So
let's
see
this
is
basically
what
this
looks
like
in
the
current
method
on
the
Left
we're
paying
two
million
to
the
normal
cost.
That
would
be
what
a
healthy
fund
would
cost
if
we
were
90
percent,
four
hundred
percent
funded
roughly
two
million
dollars.
Again,
these
are
nominal
values,
we
might
say
we're.
Seven
million
of
that
is
going
to
the
unfunded
liability
under
pension
obligation
bonds,
where
looking
to
do
something
like
you're
still
gonna
have
the
normal
cost
of
two
million
dollars.
I
I
This
is
a
long
way
of
saying
this
council
and,
since
2008
has
been
really
good
at
servicing
the
pensions.
We
don't
want
to
go
to
a
time
where
there's
a
council
comes
in
and
says
well
we're
actually
going
to
fund
these
at
the
state
required
minimum
level
that
everybody
knows
doesn't
work
and,
like
I
said
this
council
has
been
great,
I
have
no
qualms
on
them.
I
just
don't
want
to
look
forward
20
years
and
have
a
problem
come
up
many.
I
I
We
have
to
get
at
least
four
and
a
half
percent
on
this
money
to
pay
for
the
loan.
The
money
borrowed
is
locked
in
once
that
money
goes
in
goes
out
into
the
bond
market.
You
have
to
pay
it
back,
it's
gotta
go
in
that
way.
Bond
rating
agencies
are
neutral
to
negative
on
this
approach.
I'm
gonna
be
just
right
up
front
with
that.
They
don't
like
that,
and
the
reason
they
don't
like
it
is.
If
you're
Connecticut
you
can
with
state
law,
change
the
Pension
Benefit
and
reduce
your
costs.
I
If
you're
Illinois
you've
got
a
constitutional
mandate
to
not
reduce
benefit,
so
we
kind
of
don't
fall
under
that
whole
thing
that
for
us
we
from
what
we've
been
hearing
they're
more
on
neutral
on
that
it
may
increase
the
liability
of
future
investment
returns
are
lower
than
the
cost
to
borrow.
If
we
have
a
negative
five
cent
year,
obviously
that's
going
to
affect
returns
and
a
big
bet
doing
the
whole
thing
is
more
risky
than
doing
small
chunks
over
time.
You
know
we
could
do
ten
year,
ten
million
a
year
for
ten
years.
I
We
could
do
the
whole
thing
in
one
in
one
grab.
So
what
we
are
here
tonight
asking
for
is
that
you
direct
the
city
staff
to
basically
begin
formal
investigations
into
these
options.
We'd
love
to
come
back
to
you,
guys
on
a
third
Monday
in
February
or
March
or
April,
with
this
whole
thing
totally
fleshed
out
for
each
of
these
options.
We
have
model
or
software
that
can
show
us
the
effects
of
extra
payments
on
the
pension
funds
and
whether
it's
the
price
of
stay.
I
G
Members
of
the
committee.
Another
reason
that
these
are
sometimes
viewed
negatively
is
the
actions
of
the
entity
after
the
bonds
are
issued.
The
bonds
are
issued,
look
we're
80
percent
90
percent
funded
and
then
the
entity
doesn't
follow
normal
funding.
Again,
you
have
to
issue
the
bonds
and
then
stay
with
the
program.
So
that's
what's
seen
in
the
case
of
mister
schoolmaster,
stated
the
state
of
Illinois
issued
26
billion
and
then
then
put
in
what
they
were
supposed
to
over
the
next
several
years.
G
So
then
it
does
not
help
if
you
take
the
one-time
and
then
fall
off
of
what
you
also
need
to
do
routinely
and
that's
why,
as
mr.
Gordy
pointed
out,
the
normal
costs
have
to
stay.
The
two
million
can't
go
away
because
of
a
lump
sum.
Payment
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
the
reasoning
behind
that
negative
outlook
was
how
people
executed
this,
not
necessarily
the
idea
in
and
of
itself.
I
So
we
we've
put
together
a
committee
with
mr.
Lyons,
both
pension
board
presidents,
both
pension
board
investment
managers,
our
actuary
one
of
the
other
fire
trustees
and
we've
been
chewing
this
stuff
over
for
a
couple.
You
know
I
think
we're
at
about
a
year.
Actually,
with
a
lot
of
these
ideas,
we
would
really
like
the
city
support
to
view
these
fully
and
give
them
a
fair
hearing
in
each
case,
because
we
want
to
be
part
of
the
solution
with
this.
We
don't
want
to
keep
coming
up
and
saying
hey
look.
I
H
D
So
you
see
therein
lies
the
problem.
I
mean
that's,
that's
why
it's
hard
to
bump
us
up
over
the
four
hundred
thousand
this
year,
because
those
of
us
who
live
here
are
having
a
real
hard
time
getting
through
this
budget
year
and
so
I
I
certainly
can't
support
another
nickel
on
our
tax
bill.
Not
another
nickel
and
I
certainly
would
be
willing
to
take
a
look
at
selling
the
garage.
However,
we
all
know
what
it
costs
when
a
garage
is
privately
owned
for
people
to
park.
D
There
just
take
a
look
at
the
garage
down
on
Sherman
Avenue,
that's
privately
owned
or
the
garage
over
on
Davis
Street,
that's
privately
owned.
You
know
if
I
have
to
park
in
either
one
of
those
I
you
know,
I
just
kills
me
because
I
know
the
one
down
the
street
is
like
the
our
first
hours,
free,
etc,
etc.
So
it's
rough,
that's
really
rough!
That's.
I
Something
we're
aware
of
I
mean
I'm.
An
Evanston
resident
I've
lived
here
since
2004
I
enjoy
living
in
the
city
and
I'm
very
aware
of
what
the
tax
bill
in
the
city
looks
like
we're.
Also
very
aware
that
the
these
pension
funds
live
and
die
with
the
city.
You
know
we
want
to
be
a
livable
space.
We
want.
D
To
be
managed
and
the
percentage
of
the
pension
on
our
tax
bill
is
growing
and
growing,
and
growing
and
growing,
which
means
our
fees
and
mines
and
licenses
and
all
the
other
charges
from
the
city
have
to
grow
and
grow
and
grow
as
the
pension
percentage
of
the
tax
levy
grows
and
grows
and
grows
than
all
the
other
fees
and
rates,
etc
have
to
grow
and
grow
and
grow.
We're
having
that
trouble
with
our
garbage
tonight.
D
A
E
G
But
these
are,
these
are
the
options
if
you
will
so,
for
there
are
other
options,
but
there,
beyond
our
control,
for
instance,
is
President
dirty
unnoted,
you,
the
yes
there's
401
style
options,
but
those
are
according
to
state
statute.
We
do
not
get
to
determine
the
funding
mechanism
or
the
benefit
level,
but
those
are
things
that
the
council
can
lobby
for
that.
Anyone
can
lobby
for
what
you
have
in
front
of
you
is
what
we
can
do
under
current
statute.
G
The
the
neither
of
the
boards
are
asking
for
a
six
and
a
quarter
they're
asking
that
move
forward,
but
give
us
the
chance
to
look
at
all
of
the
options
so
that
we
don't
have
that
says.
Mr.
Doherty
pointed
out
very
clearly
that
next
October,
we
don't
say
we
kick
the-
can
down
the
road.
So
it's
1.5
million
2018
because
we
didn't
do
it
in
2017
and
that's
the
that's
the
request
which
I'm
supportive
of
because
it
actually
provides
the
council
with
strong
footing
of
the
path
you're
doing
could
be
the
best
stay.
G
The
course
could
be.
The
best
issuing
different
debt
could
be
the
best
selling
an
asset
could
be
the
best,
but
you
won't
get
that
out
of
ten
slides
in
a
PowerPoint,
and
we
have
a
couple
of
folks
here
and
investment
consultants
and
things
of
that
nature
that
we
would
want
to
show
we've
get.
We've
done.
Some
probability,
analyses
lots
of
things.
We
knew
we
couldn't
do
it
tonight,
but
we
wanted
to
get
permission
to
move
forward.
So
it
wouldn't
be
a
surprise
when
we
bring
it
back
sure.
A
I
guess
my
you
know
in
file
wild.
My
one
question
would
be
I
would
love
to
see
what
other
cities
are
using
this
model
I
can
appreciate
the
example
of
transferring
credit
card
debt,
but
I'm
sure
it's
much
more
complicated
than
that.
So
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
understand
that
process
and
allman
ready
any.
D
G
It's
not
as
if
the.
If
you
look
at
who
saves
the
most
out
of
all
staff,
it
would
be
the
fire
in
their
own
457
plan,
there's
a
real
goal
to
be
properly
funded,
both
inside
this
pension
fund
and
out.
That's
why
you
see
them
here.
They
want
to
take
responsible
actions,
but
we
will
share
that
specifically
what
the
statute
says
and
that
there
aren't
any
municipalities
that
are
I'm.
Ruff
had
a
few
municipalities
that
were
outside
of
IMR
F,
that's
the
Illinois
Municipal
retirement
fund,
Morton
Grove
was
one
them
and
they're
in
it.
G
D
D
D
G
A
very
legitimate
request,
once
any
any
entity
is
willing
to
take
over
a
going
concern,
so
I
could
not,
and
Robert
Crown
I
stood
before
you
and
said:
here's
how
it's
going
to
work
just
that
at
the
last
council
meeting
for
what
will
happen
with
operating
revenues
and
things
of
that
nature.
When
we
proposed
the
the
parking
garage
solution,
that's
something
that
communities
look
at
all
the
time.
Monetizing
an
asset
and
again
we've
seen
how
it's
been
done.
G
I
get
I
would
say
incorrectly
to
the
south
of
us
where
the
the
money
was
that
Chicago
monetized
the
parking
system
and
then
did
not
necessarily
use
all
of
the
assets
to
the
best
of
their
ability.
Long
term,
if
you
monetize
an
asset,
it
can't
go
into
the
the
operating
fund
to
pay
for
salaries.
That's
just
not
a
long-term
solution
and
that's
not
what's
being
proposed.
It's
a
big
asset
to
take
care
of
a
big
liability,
not
operating
costs.
A
C
Thank
you,
I
just
was
going
to
say,
I
support
you
all
moving
forward
with,
and
you
know
more
thorough
analysis
did
you
bring
back
at
another
time
and
also
just
wanted
to
think
I'm.
Sorry,
I
forgot
your
name,
but
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you've
put
in
I
appreciate
that
you
came
here
saying
you
don't
have
a
solution
but
you're
looking
to
make
one
that
does
not
further
the
tax
burden
for
our
citizens.
So
I
wanted
to
appreciate
that
Marty.
G
Know
that
the
council
would
busy
the
next
Monday
after
Monday
after
Monday,
we
would
hope
to
get
to
the
council
on
a
third
Monday,
so
that
you'd
have
the
time
to
devote
a
half
hour
to
an
hour
to
the
subject
and
have
experts
like
mr.
Franken
also
investment
advisors.
You
need
to
hear
from
experts
on
this
and
it
could
even
be
Moody's
or
pfm
our
investment
advisors
as
well,
so
that
they
can
all
come
together
for
a
joint
report.
So
I
would
look
for
the
it
could
be
the
it's
going
to
be
difficult.
G
The
earliest
would
be
the
third
Monday
and
in
November
and
I,
just
don't
see
that
so
I
see
the
third
Monday
in
January
as
okay.
Once
we
accept
the
this
year's
funding
right,
we're
done,
but
the
the
group
might
have
thought
that
last
year
at
this
time
sure
so
I
want
to
try
and
get
that
commitment
of
a
January,
February
3rd
Monday.
That's.
D
D
H
G
G
H
One,
the
1
million,
seven
thirty
one,
that's
the
amount
that
the
members
are
putting
in
okay
for
the
police
plan.
They
put
in
nine
point
nine
one
percent
of
their
paycheck
and
in
fire
is
nine
point
four
five:
five,
so
that
amount
the
contributions
member.
That's
the
amount
that
the
member,
the
active
membership
of
the
pension
plan
is
contributing
to
to
the
fund
and.
G
Mr.
chair
I
apologize
that
we've
taken
up
so
much
time,
but
I
appreciate
everyone's
questions
and
willingness
to
look
at
this.
It
is,
as
we
know,
a
very
large
issue,
it
almost
19
million
dollars
and
we
will
be
back
with
you
as
quickly
as
possible
and
should
you
have
any
questions
after
the
please
provide
them
to
me
and
if
anyone
would
like
to
meet
with
the
actuary
to
go
through
the
report,
I
can
arrange
that
with
any
new
members
of
council.
That
would
like
to
understand
how
an
actuarial
report
works
so.
A
G
D
G
G
We've
already
have
a
contract
for
that.
We
already
have
a
contract
for
that,
but
if
we
have
a
substantive
bill
for
the
analysis
that
would
come
to
a
and
PW
and
if
we
need
to
put
something
together
right
now,
all
of
these
folks
have
been
working
within
their
respective
contracts
as
advisers,
etc.
But
we
go
into
this
level
of
detail.
There
will
be
additional
costs
and
I
will
bring
that
to
the
committee.
G
A
A
D
We're
being
asked
to
approve
an
agreement
with
muni
code
Inc
to
provide
a
centralized
cashiering
system
to
the
city
of
Evanston.
It's
a
cost
per
credit
card
transaction
model.
This
means
that
the
city
will
only
pay
an
expense
when
a
credit
card
transaction
occurs,
which
is
fifty
five
cents
per
web
or
agent
payment.
Total
estimated
expenses
is
three
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
so
right,
yeah
I
think
so.
Move
approval.
B
A
D
C
G
G
Two
costs
referred
to
the
passport
portion
that
came
to
you
less
than
a
month
ago,
that
part
of
it
and
this
part
of
it.
These
two
together
will
be
combined
to
have
a
lower
cost
than
the
Duncan
system
that
we've
been
using
for
the
past
ten
years,
and
we
think
that
this
is
going
to
provide
us
with
a
lot
more
flexibility
and
a
lot
better
experience,
including
a
lot
of
technology.
G
That's
going
to
help
people
who
wish
to
pay
in
a
variety
of
ways
and
we're
talking
about
a
lot
of
things
as
far
as
our
operating
costs.
This
will
reduce
our
operating
costs
right
away,
but
it
also
gives
us
more
flexibility
about
our
hours
and
where
people
can
pay
and
how
they
can
pay
and
it
will
go
beyond
just
parking.
So
the
Muni
code
is
for
all
of
our
cash
for
somebody
who
comes
in
and
was
paying
a
permit
how
it
comes
down
to
collections
from
the
permit
desks.
Okay,
so.
C
So
I
have
that,
if
you
could
just
tell
me
we're
so
this
system
costs
us
about
317,
300,
300
16
thousand
a
year,
so
there's
fifty
seven
thousand
I
mean
fifty
seven
on
what
am
I
looking
at
fifty
seven
is:
what
is
that
that.
G
G
C
So
one
more
quick
question:
so
these
fees
that
are
on
page
207
do
you
think
that
we
can
ago
she
ate
them
down,
because
so
it's
I'm
thinking
I
think
most
of
my
bills
online
right,
so
it's
55
cents
per
payment.
If
I
pay
using
my
bank
card
online
55
cent
print
pay
and
brings
my
credit
card
online.
So
assuming
we
want
to
have
people
pay
online
more,
maybe
is
there
a
way
we
can
try
to
negotiate
these.
G
Are
lower
than
what
we're
paying
currently
and
I
can
provide
that
I'll
provide
it
a
more
succinct
manner,
so
we
have
negotiated
down
from
what
we're
currently
paying.
Okay,
that's
were
part
but
I'll.
Ask
the
question:
I've
been
asked.
That's
right!
I
will
ask
the
question,
because
the
question
will
be
your
approved.
If
right,
there.
C
A
D
A
B
That
City
Council
authorized
city
manager
to
negotiate
and
execute
a
five-year
condominium,
refuse
collection
agreement
with
the
optional
for
one
additional
three
year:
extension
to
lakeshore
recycling
systems
for
the
collection
and
dispose
of
condominium
refuge
for
a
2018
unit,
price
of
$6.25,
resulting
in
an
initial
annual
cost
of
four
hundred
twenty
three
thousand
dollars,
and
this
is
for
action.
Second,.
C
A
C
Recommend
City
Council
authorized
the
city
manager
to
negotiate
and
execute
a
five-year
residential
yard
waste
collection
agreement
with
the
option
for
one
additional
three
year:
extension
to
Groot
industries
for
the
collection
and
disposal
of
residential
yard
waste
and
food
scraps
at
the
unit
prices
indicated
in
the
table
below
for
an
initial
annual
cost
of
six
hundred
fifty
five
thousand
one
hundred
thirty-four
dollars
and
ten
cents.
This
is
for
action.
A
A
A
J
And
then
this
goes
in
conjunction
with
the
other
tables
that
were
in
the
packet
as
well,
but
this
is
a
spreadsheet
that
shows
the
impact
to
the
solid
waste
fund
if
we
were
to
move
with
the
first
option
worst,
which
includes
both
property
tax
increase
and
service
charge,
increases
just
trying
to
explain
some
of
this
in
row.
31
were
shown
the
the
deficit
balance
of
$800,000
in
column,
C
and
D
were
talking
about
2018
the
expenses,
as
shown
in
column.
C
are
the
expenses
based
on
the
contracts
that
were
just
approved.
J
J
J
Revenues
based
on
the
service
charges
increases
that
are
proposed
on
page
227
and
they're
in
different
amounts,
so
it's
difficult
to
say,
but
it's
a
9%
rate
increase
basically
for
residential
refuge,
a
3%
for
condo
service
and
then
the
yard
waste,
depending
on
whether
it's
a
cart
for
stickers
that
revenues
there
as
well.
So
if,
if
this
takes
place,
we
have
additional
revenue
of
three
two
hundred
five
thousand
coming
in
and
approximately
four
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
coming
in
from
the
service
charge
increases
we
operate
at
of
revenue
and
478
thousand
dollars.
J
That
would
decrease
the
deficit
in
this
solid
waste
fund
to
just
over
$300,000
in
columns,
C
and
F.
We're
talking
about
the
projection
for
2019.
There
are
no
service
charge
increases,
we're
projecting
only
a
half
a
percent
property
tax
increase,
and
that
shown
is
at
two
hundred
and
five
thousand
dollars
in
row.
Four,
there
is
an
increase
in
our
expenditure
shown
in
column,
F
or
I'm.
Sorry,
no
here
everything
and
all
of
our
expenditures
are
proposed
to
go
up
two
percent
that
would
include
in
the
contract
that
we
pass
tonight.
J
The
rates
and
just
adjust
annually
anywhere
from
one
and
a
half
to
three
and
a
half
percent
based
on
the
Consumer
Price
Index
I
deliberately
sing
at
a
two
percent,
so
we're
showing
the
increased
cost
expenditure
to
provide
those
services.
So
we're
trying
to
get
an
accurate
portrayal
here
with
the
half
a
percent
property
tax
increase.
We
believe
that
we
will
have
an
operating
surplus
at
three
hundred
two
thousand
dollars
and,
as
a
result,
solid
waste
fund
deficit
reduced
to
19
thousand
dollars.
J
We
are
showing
the
two
property
tax
increases
that
were
completed
in
2018
and
19,
no
new
property
that
tax
increase
in
2020.
But
you
can
see
in
through
here
that
we're
projecting
higher
revenue
because
again
we're
projecting
a
sanitation
rate
increases
and
those
are
shown
on
page
on
table
two
on
page
228
of
the
council
packet.
J
So,
overall,
at
the
end
of
2020,
we
project
that
would
be
about
$36,000
in
the
pie
for
the
solid
waste
font,
so
yeah
I,
guess
this
is
the
recommendation
that
I
have
when
you
look
at
we're,
currently
transferring
a
million
fifty
five
thousand
dollars
from
the
general
fund
to
the
solid
waste
front,
and
that
equates
to
about
a
two
and
a
half
percent
property
tax
that
that's
taking
place.
Now.
Under
this
scenario,
we
would
have
a
total
of
one
percent
property
tax,
a
half,
a
percent
and
another
half
percent
over
the
three
year
time
period.
A
J
J
J
C
I'm
sorry
jumped
in
you
know
called
my
name,
so
it
has
a
property
tax
increase
of
half
a
percent
and
it
has
I
will
call
it
an
out-of-pocket
increase
as
well.
So
like
I
have
a
calculator
here.
If
you
have
the
95
gallon
cart,
your
rate
goes
up
about
a
dollar
fifty
five
a
month
according
to
your
calculations,
and
that
includes
you
factored
in
for
that
CPI
increase.
Yes,.
J
Is
correct
and
when
I
can
summarize
all
these
when
I
get
to
attachment
for
Wow
and
I
was
hoping
to
get
through
to
three
options?
First,
to
make
sure
that
everybody
understood
what
the
options
were,
Thanks
so
option
two
would
be
to
raise
revenue
using
property
taxes.
Only
no
sanitation
charge
increases
again
we're
proposing
the
reduce
the
transfer
from
the
general
fund
by
three
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
every
year.
So
it's
it's
currently
over
a
million
dollars.
J
It
would
be
seven
hundred
thousand
in
2018
three
hundred
fifty
and
2019,
and
then
none
in
2020
using
property
tax.
Only
I
propose
a
one
percent
property
tax
increase
in
2018,
a
second
one
percent
property
tax
increase
in
2019
and
then
a
third
one
in
a
half
one
and
a
quarter
percent
property
tax
increase
in
2020.
J
A
third
option
that
I
looked
at
was
just
to
do
service
charge
rate
increases,
and
this
one,
in
my
opinion,
did
not
work
at
all.
The
the
rates
have
to
go
astronomically
high
and
even
at
the
end
of
2020
we're
still
one
hundred
and
ninety
thousand
dollars
in
the
hole
on
the
solid
waste
fund
balance.
So
you
can
see
with
the
similar
to
the
first
year
it's
four
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
coming
in
it's
the
same
rate
increases
that
I
proposed
under
option
one.
J
There
were
no
rate
increases
proposed
in
2019
on
option
one,
but
that
would
bring
in
another
thirty
nine
thousand
and
then
in
the
third
year
we'd
have
some
significant
rate
increases
again.
It
would
bring
in
three
hundred
thirty
two
thousand
so
I
would
not
recommend
option.
Three
I
just
wanted
to
propose
it
and
show
you
what
the
what
would
happen
here
attachment
four,
which
is
on
page
235
of
the
council
packet,
indicates
what
happens
when
we
do
this
and
I
selected
four
different
type
of
property
owners.
J
Owner
number
one
has
a
property
with
the
market
value
$200,000.
They
use
a
ninety
five
I'm,
sorry,
sixty
five
gallon
cart
and
ten
yard
waste
stickers
a
year
and
so
currently
they're
paying
on
it
and
twelfth
dollars
annually.
For
that,
and
then
this
shows
what
the
increase
would
be
over
time.
So
I
mean
it
does
go
up
and
then
this
option
for
this
person,
you
can
see
that
raising
the
property
taxes
would
be
better
than
using
both
property
tax
and
sanity
sanitation
charge
increases.
J
These
numbers
in
its
last
column
is
just
a
reminder
where
the
solid
waste
fund
balance
would
be
at
the
end
of
2020.
Once
these
were
imposed
so
again,
alternate
number
three
shows
it
to
be
the
most
expensive,
and
yet
it
doesn't
help
the
solid
waste
fund
for
property
owner
number.
Two.
They
own
a
market
value
house,
a
four
hundred
thousand.
They
use
a
95,
gallon
refuge,
cart
and
again
for
option.
One
is
the
increase
of
both
property
tax
and
sanitation
charges.
J
J
Owner
number
three
has
a
market
value
home
of
six
hundred
thousand
dollars.
They
use
a
95
gallon
refuge,
cart
and
yard.
Waste
cart
they're,
currently
paying
to
forty
as
well.
The
difference
between
option
owner
two
and
one
or
three
is
the
value
of
their
home.
So
you
can
see
it
goes
up
here,
but
then
this
shows
that
if
you
own
a
house
over
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
or
more
than
having
the
mix
of
property,
tax
and
sanitation
charge
increases
to
their
benefit.
J
In
this
case,
and
then
owner
number
four
has
an
eight
hundred
thousand
dollar
market
value
home
sixty
five
and
a
ninety
five
gallon
cart
and
yard
waste
cart,
they're,
currently
paying
about
three
hundred
and
thirty
six
dollars
a
year.
It
would
go
to
about
450,
but
again
the
cheapest
model
here
would
be
for
them
to
have
the
property
tax
and
the
sanitation
charge
increases.
So
I
believe
I've
presented
everything
that
the
aldermen
have
asked
of
me
right
now
and
I
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions
that
I
could
to
the
best
of
my
ability.
A
Thanks
Dave
some
are
you
had
a
quick
question
for
you
so
for
the
challenge
for
everyone
in
the
room?
That's
just
walking
in
we're
talking
about
the
our
sanitation
fund.
The
challenge
is,
there's
always
going
to
be
an
increase
in
our
sanitation
costs
and,
at
the
same
time,
we're
trying
to
reduce
the
debt
that
you
laid
out
in
so
Marty.
In
the
one
illustration
that's
showing
the
tax
increase
over
three
years,
I
think
I
asked
at
the
last
presentation.
A
You
know
we're
going
to
have
to
do
a
lot
of
education
around
this
either
way,
but
is
there
a
way
to
to
have
this
listed
on
our
taxes?
So
people
can
understand,
because
this
is
the
one
thing
that
if
we
do,
if
there's
a
vote
to
go
down
this
path
of
the
tax
increase
or
the
blend
I
would
like
to
know
if
we
can
show
that
list
it
out
on
our
tax
bill,
with
the
understanding
that
in
three
years
it's
going
to
go
away.
G
And
in
this
case
two
things
we
may,
we
can
always
ask
the
county
that
we
would
like,
and
the
way
that
we
ask
the
county
is
how
we
prepare
our
ordinance.
So
we
prepare
a
separate
ordinance
and
the
ordinance
would
say
for
the
specific
purpose
of
solid
waste
collections,
a
tax
levy,
and
it
would
be
so
city
of
Evanston
solid
waste,
and
that
would
there
would
be
the
tax
amount
they're,
usually
reluctant
if
you've
seen
a
tax
bill
they
get
longer
and
longer,
but
we
do
what
we
can
by
how
we
pass
our
ordinances.
G
We
have
been
able
to
add
things
over
the
past
a
few
years
as
we've
broken
out
the
library
in
different
ways,
general
assistance,
so
we
would
ask
I,
do
not
want
to
leave
you
with
a
misapprehension.
The
tax
increase
doesn't
go
away
after
the
third
year
at
some
as
the
costs
for
either
the
contract
or
the
wages
for
internal
staff
go
up.
Those
have
to
be
met
with
a
a
revenue
source.
We
can
provide
a
longer-term
look
at
this.
This
was
just
three
years
already,
the
you
know.
G
The
print
gets
small
just
going
out
three
years,
so
those
fees
will
change
continuously
into
the
future,
failing
a
deflationary
period
where
wages
and
contracts
go
down
or
a
technology
change,
if
there's
a
way
to
change
how
we
pick
up
or
finally,
that
residents
also
can
manage
their
costs
on
this
by
lowering
the
by
all
going
to
sixty
five
gallon
right.
So
then
their
costs
have
dropped.
D
In
addition
to
the
fact
that,
by
putting
it
on
the
tax
bill,
those
who
deduct
and
their
federal
taxes
can
deduct
it,
it
is
fair,
but
when,
when
we
talked
about
raising
the
rate
for
parking
etc,
people
said
oh,
no,
that's
regressive,
that
that
was
not
regressive.
You
don't
have
to
get
a
parking
ticket.
You
don't
have
to
get
a
ticket
for
parking
in
front
of
a
fire
hydrant
those
texts,
those
fee
increases
were
not
regressive.
However,
these
these
fees
are
regressive.
D
Everybody
has
to
have
garbage
pickup,
everybody
has
to
have
I,
believe
recycling
pickup
everybody
has
to
have
those
kinds
of
things,
so
this
I
believe
is
regressive
and
everybody
gets
their
water
bill
and
these
fees
are
put
on
your
water
bill.
I
I
believe
that
we
should
leave
this
exactly
as
it
is
what
it
is,
what
it
is
I'm,
not
crazy
about
that
phrase,
but
what
we
have
already
on
the
books
is
fine.
Any
additional
charges,
I
believe,
should
be
spread
across
all
the
taxpayers
in
the
city,
because
I
never
called
the
fire
department.
D
Absolutely
never
fire
safety
fire
service
is
absolutely
essential.
In
this
community.
Everybody
pays.
Sanitation
is
absolutely
essential.
Everybody
should
pay
this
this
charge.
These
additional
charges
should
be
spread
all
across
the
city.
We
should
all
pay
whether
a
person
has
to
have
a
large
cannon
or
a
small
can
whatever
service
they
require.
We
should
all
pay.
We
have
a
road
and
problem
in
this
town,
the
more
we
spread
this
across
everyone.
It
is
fair,
it's
just
absolutely
fair
and
and
to
say
that
$19
added
to
an
annual
tax
bill
is,
is
regressive.
D
D
Guess
we've
probably
bargained
I'm
counting
on
our
staff
as
bargain
bargaining
as
best
they
could,
with
brute
it
seems
that
most
of
the
charges
across
all
of
the
bidders
with
pretty
close
and
group
seem
to
have
done
the
best
job.
So
that's
why
I
support
going
to
the
going
to
placing
additional
costs
on
the
on
the
tax
bill?
D
We
don't
we
we
pay
for
other
people's
recreation.
I
know
that
the
skaters
at
robber
crown
are
not
paying
for
all
the
costs
of
the
ice
rinks
and
the
ice
maintenance
and
robber
crown
I
know
that
I'm
not
fight
I,
don't
care
that
I'm
paying
for
that
I
think
having
ice
at
robert
crown
is
a
real
amenity
and
makes
this
a
more
livable
city.
I
know
that
I
know
that
maintaining
the
baseball
fields
is
not
being
completely
covered
by
people
who
play
baseball.
I,
don't
play
baseball,
but
I
don't
mind
paying
for
it.
D
I
know
that
the
people
who
commit
crimes-
or
you
know,
have
traffic
tickets
they're
not
paying
for
everything,
I,
don't
mind
paying
for
the
police
department,
I'm
not
benefiting
from
a
pension,
I,
don't
mind
paying
for
it,
so
that
we
are
making
people
pay.
Every
penny
to
have
their
garbage
collected
is
not.
We
should
all
pay
for
it.
So
that's
why
I'm
supporting
totally
putting
it
on
the
tax
bill.
G
Okay,
alderman
Rainey
I
do
I.
Do
you
referenced
negotiations?
I
think
the
team
did
an
excellent
job
better
than
I
did
three
to
four
years
ago.
They
got
2%
they're
about
some
of
the
cause,
and
after
one
and
a
half
to
three
and
a
half
and
then
had
a
decrease
this
year
in
the
rate
so
I'm,
very
supportive
of
them
with
their
efforts
this
year.
G
H
A
C
C
Guess
so
I'm
looking
in
the
back,
because
that
one
is
fine
but
I'm
looking
here
when
you
give
us
the
actual
cost
for
the
market
value
of
the
home,
and
then
with
that
one
percent
increase
for
taxes
on
228
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
So
that
is
you
get
no
sanitation
charge
on
your
water
bill.
If
we
go
this
route
right,
it's
all
looked
into
your
property
tax,
no.
C
A
G
A
D
A
D
A
B
A
E
D
A
C
F
Thank
you.
My
first
comment.
We
all
know
the
city's
in
deep
financial
trouble,
six
billion
in
the
hole
I'm
a
little.
You
know,
I
won
Alderman
tonight,
suggested
selling
libraries.
You
know
I
met
I,
think
most
citizens
are
not
going
to
tolerate
a
fire,
sale,
mentality
of
our
parks,
our
assets,
because
we're
in
trouble.
We
are
in
trouble
because
City
Council
members
misused
money
here
they
misuse
money
on
plenty
of
things
like
bars
on
Howard
streets,
the
night
we
were
told
basically
that
we
had
a
budget
problem.
F
This
council
approved
one
point:
four
million
dollars
for
a
theater
for
private
use.
That's
why
we're
in
trouble
here
and
we
have
employees
that
really
do
nothing,
nothing.
They
have
jobs
that
are
really
useless
and
we
have
other
employees
that
we
need
things
that
need
to
be
done
and
they're
not
getting
done
here.
So
you,
council,
members,
have
a
lot
to
do
mr.
stone
back
the
numbers
he
presented.
He
claimed
one
of
the
numbers
was
a
was
us
a
source
of
revenue,
that's
a
transfer
from
the
general
fund
that
went
against
recycling.
F
That
wasn't
that
for
that,
just
on
the
his
numbers.
He
presented
and
as
I've
been
speaking
about
the
mess
of
the
water
department
for
so
long
I
mean
basically,
what's
going
on
there
they're
transferring
3
million
and
3.4
million
dollars
out
of
that
fund,
they're,
putting
it
into
the
jet
from
the
general
fund
into
the
general
fund
of
this
city,
and
then
I
was
told
at
one
time
that
was
to
cover
expenses
and
things
now
in
the
new
budget.
We're
being
proposed
we're
adding
more
money
out
of
the
water
fund
to
cover
things.
F
So
it's
there's
a
lot
of
double-talk
here
with
things
that
going
on.
We
need
to
get
to
a
bottom
of
a
lot
of
things
going
on
with
this
budget.
Council
members
have
a
responsibility
to
ask
a
lot
of
questions.
These
guys
are
not
really
managing
the
money
they're
in
a
potato
panic,
because
the
budgets
in
so
much
trouble
because
they've
misused
the
money.
It's
a
very,
very
serious
problem.
The
taxpayers
are
going
to
pay
what
you
just
heard
for
these
pension
people
they're,
basically
asking
you
for
a
three
and
a
half
percent
property
tax
increase.
F
F
Tell
you
that
you
gotta
bet
told
you
that
immediately
because
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
stomach
in
any
way
on
top
of
the
other
tax
increases
and
Robert
Crowne,
they
haven't
told
you
that
the
real
number
there
either
that's
going
to
be
another
three
or
four
percent
they're,
just
pretending
next
year,
we're
borrowing
a
little
more.
So
we
have
a
lot
to
talk
about
here
and
the
council.
Members
really
need
to
ask
a
lot
of
questions.
Ask
a
lot
of
questions
above
budget
memos
and
I.
F
F
They
do
not
know
where
that
money
is
going,
how
it's
being
allocated
I,
believe
Evanston
residents
are
paying
excessive
fees
to
basically
because
the
other
customers
aren't
paying
their
share
and
I've
said
that
numerous
times
and
I've
asked
for
an
analysis
of
that
bring
an
independent
auditor
to
look
into
this,
and
you
know
we're
not
gonna,
sell
our
assets
off
our
parks
and
things
we're
gonna.
Look
at
this
thing.
Closer
and
I'll
have
more
Council.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
See
that
we
don't
have
anyone
signed
up,
we
have
two
items
for
discussion
and
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
on
the
committee
requested
or
if
their
staff
present,
we
can
hold
these
items
over
to
our
next
meeting.
Given
the
time
in
the
number
of
people
in
the
council
chambers,
perfect,
all
right,
look,
I'm,
sorry,
all
of
and
rainy
I
really.
A
D
A
C
No
well
one
thing
about
the
no
actually
I,
don't
I,
wouldn't
move
to
adjourn.
Okay.