►
From YouTube: Finance & Budget Committee Meeting 9-12-2023
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
A
A
Here,
yes,
that
makes
core
just
barely
good
okay,
so
public
comment,
any
public
comment
in
in
person
or
online
this
evening.
C
Okay,
thank
you,
so
I'm
I
have
to
admit,
I'll,
be
looking
forward
to
the
presentation
because
I'm
confused
about
the
water
fund
issues,
particularly.
C
On
page
21
of
33
said
Evanston
plans
to
submit
project
plans
to
the
IE
iepa
for
five
million
dollars
a
year
over
five
years
or
25
million
dollars,
you're
doing
that
for
projects
and
then
the
next
paragraph.
Your
water
fund
goals
is
to
maintain
a
minimum
cash
balance
of
three
million
for
plant
capital
projects
and
one
million
for
distribution
capital
projects.
C
So
that's
one
issue.
The
other
issue
again
is
I,
keep
seeing
2022,
2023
bonds
and
I.
Guess
in
one
paragraph
is
saying
you
have
this
problem
because
we
didn't
issue
bonds,
but
a
key
thing
referred
to
as
if
we're
going
to
issue
the
2022
bonds
or
yet
2023
bonds,
which
your
graphs
tell
me,
you
don't
have
to
do
if
I
understand
them
correctly.
So
my
point
is
simply:
we
shouldn't
have
to
issue
2022
bonds
recording
in
progress,
because
that
Year
is
already
passed.
C
This
kind
of
rolls
into
your
Capital
Improvement
projects
list
E3,
which
I
haven't
been
able
to
get
all
the
way
through,
but
I
guess
I'll
have
the
pass
on
that,
but
I
I
just
don't
think
we
need
the
bonds.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
any
other
public
comments,
All
right
so
we'll
be
getting
into
those
to
those
issues
this
evening.
A
Next
point
is
approval.
The
minutes
from
going
back
to
July
the
July
11th
2023
meeting
I,
don't
know
if
anybody
has
any
comments.
D
E
A
Okay,
good,
so
the
minutes
are
approved
and
now
we'll
get
into
a
pretty
detailed
discussion
this
evening
on
a
couple
of
issues
related
to
the
water
fund,
water
fund,
bonding,
which
was
just
the
question,
and
then
the
capital
Improvement
funding,
I,
think
if
we
could,
since
this
is
in
sort
of
sectioned
out-
and
it
is
complex
if
people
are
okay
with
this,
maybe
we
get
through
one
section:
hold
our
comments
until
the
end
and
then
whoever
is
presenting.
We
could.
A
We
could
ask
them
their
our
questions
at
that
time
and
try
to
let
them
get
through
the
materials
if
every,
if
everybody's
okay-
for
that,
let's
we'll
try
to
take
that
approach,
so
very
good,
we'll
get
going
on
the
discussion
of
the
Waterfront
bonding
for
fiscal
years,
22,
23
and
24.
E
Good
evening,
chair
Livingston
members
of
the
committee,
Daryl
King
Water
Production
bureau,
chief
here,
to
discuss
with
you
tonight
two
separate
issues.
One
has
to
do
with
water
fund
abated
bonding
and
the
other
one
has
to
do
with
the
water
fund
status
as
a
result
of
lead
service
line.
Replacements
costs
to
replace
water
main,
as
well
as
the
recommendation
to
replace
more
water
main
so
I'll
start
with
the
bonding
first
and
then
I'll
go
into
the
lead
service
line,
Replacements
and
water.
Main
discussions
following
that
and
and
so
for.
E
The
bonding
since
2009
staff
has
been
utilizing
a
cost
of
service
model
that
was
developed
developed
by
a
third
party
and
I.
Don't
need
the
presentation
yet
that
was
developed
by
a
third
party
consultant
that
helps
us
to
manage
the
water
fund,
the
revenues
expenses.
All
of
the
things
that
go
into
the
ins
and
outs
of
of
the
water
fund,
and
we
continue
to
use
that
today
and
we
have
some
goals.
One
is
to
maintain
four
million
dollars
cash
reserves
in
the
water
fund.
E
Another
one
is
to
do
one
and
a
half
miles
of
water
main
replacement
each
year,
and
so
during
2022
and
2023
there
was
a
budgeted
approved
budget
amounts
to
to
issue
water
fund
abated
bonds.
During
2022
and
2023,
the
2022
amount
was
roughly
6.4
million,
the
2023
amount
was
originally
4.9.
Bids
came
in,
it
came
in
higher,
and
so
the
actual
need
is
6.9
million
dollars,
so
for
a
combined
amount
of
13.3
million
dollars
for
the
two
years,
2022
and
2023..
E
What
has
occurred
as
a
result
of
that
bonding
not
occurring
is
a
decline
in
the
recommended
four
million
dollars
of
water
fund
reserves,
which
we
which
begins
in
2024,
where
we
begin
to
see
that
negative,
Decline
and,
and
also
for
the
sake
of
this
conversation,
it
doesn't
include
lead
service
line,
replacement
costs
and
things
of
that
nature
we're
just
talking
about
status
quo,
four
million
dollar
reserves,
as
well
as
a
mile
and
a
half
of
water
main
as
as
well
as
other
projects
that
we
do
within
the
water
fund
as
well.
E
But
that's
not
part
of
this
discussion
and
so
on
page
nine
of
33
of
the
packet
there's
a
graph
there.
That
shows
a
summary
of
of
the
results
of
of
not
issuing
the
bonds
in
2022
and
2023
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
shows
in
24
it
goes
negative.
The
red
dotted
line
is
the
four
million
dollar
minimum
and
it
goes
negative
in
24
and
as
we
progress
out
through
29,
it
goes
more
negative.
You
know
roughly
negative
15
million
the
the
graph
right
below.
E
That
is
a
summary
that
shows
had
the
bonds
been
issued,
what
the
water
fund
reserves
would
look
like
and,
as
you
can
see,
they're
a
lot
more
healthier
in
2023.
Although
you
know
that
level
is,
is
well
over
the
4
million
as
projects
begin
and
and
commence
and
are
completed,
you
know
cash
is
being
spent
out.
Those
reserves
begin
to
come
down
and
and
in
2028
it
actually
goes
negative.
Even
you
know,
with
that
those
bonding
amounts.
E
The
the
one
thing
that
the
main
the
main
thing
I
want
to
get
across
is
it's
imperative
that
the
water
fund
be
able
to
demonstrate
a
healthy
Reserve
along
a
healthy
long-term
Reserve
for
from
year
to
year,
and-
and
we
need
that
in
order
to
do
critical
projects
within
the
water
fund,
that
we
seek
iepa
financing
through
and
they
issue
low
interest
loans
less
than
two
percent.
E
But
in
order
for
us
to
to
get
those
loans
to
do
critical
projects
like
the
the
intake
project,
we
recently
replaced
a
clearwell
five
million
gallon
clearwell.
We
use
those
funds
to
do
that.
We
have
to
demonstrate
up
to
a
five-year
or
five-year
healthy
water
fund
Reserve
to
do
that,
and-
and
so
and
in
addition
to
that,
regarding
layered
service
line
Replacements
and
we'll
get
into
that
more.
E
In
order
to
qualify
for
any
potential
forgiveness,
we
have
to
qualify
for
the
loans
first
and,
and
so
that's
even
a
critical
part
in
us
being
in
a
competitive
environment,
to
hopefully
be
able
to
get
some
relief
for
some
of
this
last
service
line
replacement
through
the
state
we
we
have
to
first
be
able
to
qualify
and
demonstrate.
You
know
that
we
can
qualify
for
for
these
loans
so
that
that's
very
important
that
that
we
do
that.
E
So,
for
you
know,
staff
is
recommending
for
2020
to
2023.
Those
bonds
are
issued
and
2024.
We
have
Bond
needs
for
that
as
well,
but
for
2022
and
2023
in
the
amount
of
13
million
dollars
that
we
issue
those
bonds
no
later
than
March
of
2024..
E
Now,
the
alternative
to
doing
that
is
to
raise
water
rates,
retail
water
rates
that
would
affect
Evanston
only
and
but
we
don't
recommend
that
not
for
this
because
number
one,
even
a
even
a
10
percent
and
and
see
the
bonding,
helps
to
maintain
and
helps
us
keep
that
that
healthy
Reserve
that
that
you
that
we
looked
at
on
the
previous
tables
now
even
a
10
percent
increase
to
the
water
rate
generates
a
million
dollars.
We're
looking
for
a
total
for
2022
23
and
24
26.3
total
for
all
three
of
those
years.
E
10
increase
to
the
water
rate
would
generate
a
million
dollars
which
you
know
isn't
enough.
Even
if
we
did
half
of
that
26.3,
we
would
need
to
raise
the
water
rate
130
percent
to
do
that
even
and
that's
still
not
enough
and
and
so
that
that's
not.
Our
recommendation
is
to
to
raise
the
water
rates,
for
that.
I
will
follow
up
with
a
discussion
here
shortly,
because
we
are
proposing
some
significant
water
rates
to
to
replace
lead
service
lines
over
the
course
of
that
plan,
which
is
technically
starts
in
2027.
E
You
know
for
20
years
after
that,
but
we're
replacing
lead
service
lines
now
as
part
of
our
water
main
replacement
projects
and
those
costs
have
gone
up
significantly
for
that.
So
on
page
10
of
33
of
the
packet
there's
a
table
summarizing
the
bonding
the
proposed
bonding
amounts
by
year,
26.3
and
24
that
covers
22,
23
and
24.
E
I'll
get
more
into
the
proposed
water
rates
for
the
lead
service
line.
Replacements
then
previously
scheduled
rate
increases
of
four
percent,
so
this
year
we're
actually
experiencing
a
five
percent
increase
to
the
water
rate.
Now
next
year,
four
percent
for
a
total
of
nine
that's
tied
to
the
seven
new
positions
to
replace
lead
service
lines,
four
positions
at
the
water
plant
and
three
positions
in
streets.
So
that's
that's
already
been
been
scheduled
to
happen.
E
In
25,
there
was
a
a
previously
proposed
scheduled
9.8
percent
that
one
would
be
offset
by
a
9.8
percent
reduction
in
the
sewer
rate
and
and
and
so
the
the
13.1
percents
continue
through
2029
in
2026,
the
previous
scheduled
rate
of
two
percent-
that's
a
typo.
It
should
be
zero
percent
for
that
one
and,
and
so,
but
for
the
sake
of
bonding
the
the
26.3
million
is
what
staff
is
proposing,
occur
and
no
later
than
March
of
2024.
E
And
so
that's
pretty
much
the
the
discussion
that
I
wanted
to
have
about
bonding
and
how
it
has
impacted
the
water
fund
and
the
reserve
levels
and
and
the
impacts
of
that
and.
F
Can
I
ask
a
couple
questions
so
for
22
23?
Why
do
we
have
to
go
back
to
22
because
we've
already
paid
all
the
bills
and
everything
like
that
so
I'm
just
curious?
Why
we
have
to
go
back
and
issue
a
bond
for
2022.
E
Because
not
issuing
those
bonds
still
are
impacting
the
long-term
Outlook
and
and
the
reserve
levels
of
the
water
fund.
So
if,
if
we
don't
issue
the
bonds
which
that
one
graph
showed
it,
the
the
water
fund
reserves,
it's
the
first,
the
first
graph
on
page
nine
of
33
at
the
top
that
that
still
that
still
is
true.
That
still
happens.
If
we
don't
issue
2022
and
2023,
that's
the
result
of
that.
So
that's
why
we're
saying
we
still
need,
but
what.
E
F
E
It
still
would
have
would
have
an
impact
on
a
water
fund
reserves.
Looking
out
it,
we
we
can't,
we
we
can't
say
well
we're
not
going
to
do
it
and
then
there's
no
impact
to
it
that
impact
that
that
I'm
demonstrating
is
still
there
now.
It
doesn't
include.
Let's
say
we
Issue
13.
You
know
for
one
year
that
graph
isn't
here,
but
there's
still
a
negative
impact
to
the
long-term
water
fund
reserves.
E
So
what
what
I'm
coming
here
to
tell
to
to
tell
the
committee
is
in
order
to
get
the
water
fund
to
where
it's
healthy
over
a
long
term
period,
at
least
a
five-year
period
we
need
to
issue
2022.
We
still
need
to
do
it
2022
and
2023
and
I'm
also
recommending
in
2024
that
we
issue
bonds
for
that
year
as
well.
That's
where
the
the
26.3
came
from
it
it
doesn't.
We
can't
get
rid
of
the
impact
by
not
going
back
and
issuing
the
bonds
from
previous
years.
E
D
I
could
just
ask
a
clarifying
question
floor.
Let's
just
clarify
what
we
mean
when
we
say
2022,
bonds
and
2023
bonds.
D
So
my
understanding
is.
We
had
a
capital
Improvement
plan
for
2022.
We
said
this
is
what
we're
going
to
do.
It's
going
to
cost
this
much
and
we're
going
to
have
to
bond
this
much.
We
were
able
so
far
to
front
the
cash
for
those
plans,
but
at
some
point
and
same
for
2023,
we've
so
far
been
able
to
front
the
cash,
but
at
some
point
we're
going
to
have
to
bond
to
help
us
pay
for
it.
So
we
can
maintain
our
cash
balances.
D
F
G
I
I
think
that,
first
of
all,
I
think
it's
very
misleading
the
way
and
staff
continues
to
do
this,
both
with
CIP
this
sort
of
notion
that
there
were
20,
22
and
2023
bonds.
We
didn't
issue
Bots,
we
used
reserves,
we
paid
those
of
that
amount.
So
it
looks
to
me
like
what
we're
saying
is.
We
need
to
have
a
minimum
cash
balance
of
4
million
I'm,
not
sure
if
that's
you
know
State
mandated
or
what,
but
that
that's
what
we're
saying
what
we
that
we
need!
G
I,
don't
understand
the
whole
idea
of
issuing
a
bunch
of
bonds
to
kind
of
recreate
a
slush
fund
per
se.
I
I
think
you
know
we're
happy
to
maintain
it
around
4
million
and
I.
You
know,
I,
don't
see
why
we
would
kind
of
pre-fund
that
that
just
doesn't
seem
like
a
smart
way
of
doing
business.
To
me.
E
Issue
so
a
certain
year,
and
so,
for
instance,
like
in
23
on
that
second
graph,
it
shows
it
going
way
over
the
4
million
and
as
projects
begin
and
and
we
start
paying
that
out,
we
pay.
We
pay
that
down
that
reserve.
It
goes
down
as
as
we
can,
as
it's
demonstrated
on
that
second
graph.
So
by
2026
the
reserve
is
down
around
the
four
million
dollar
recommended
level
and
then
it
actually
in
27
it
it
goes
below
it.
E
The
the
and
the
four
million
dollars
is
not
like
a
state
recommended
amount
when,
when
we
had
a
Financial
Consultant
prepare
the
cost
of
service
report,
that
was
a
recommendation
that
came
out
of
that
report
is
that
we
maintain
a
four
million
dollar
Reserve.
So
that's
where
that
came
from
and
and
that
report
is
was
written
in
2009.
So
it's
we've
been
using
that
you
know
since
then,.
D
Know
could
I
just
as
a
point
of
order.
Ask
the
chair
if
he
could
call
on
us
and
and
and.
F
E
E
13
million
and
that's
because
of
the
the
needs
and
the
projects
that
are
tied
to
the
2024
CIP
for
the
water,
fine,
okay,.
E
D
I
F
I
D
Right
all.
D
Like
to
have
some
questions,
the
first
question
is:
where
does
the
four
million
dollar
number
come
from?
That's
our
policy
I
understand
there
needs
to
be
a
policy
to
maintain
some
minimum
fund
balance.
Why,
for
is
that
a
state
mandate?
Is
it
based
on
some
some
calculations,
some
assume
the
percentage
so.
E
That
was
part
of
the
the
cost
of
service
report
that
the
Financial
Consultant
did
for
us
in
20
in
2009.
That
was
a
recommendation
that
came
out
of
that
report.
That
report
was
was
received
and
placed
on
file.
You
know
with
the
city
council,
so
we've
been
operating
with
that
since
2009.,
so
it's
not
a
state
required.
It
was
it's
a
recommendation
from.
J
Oh
good
evening,
I
sure,
if
you
can
hear
me,
there
were
three
or
four
factors
that
derived
that
four
million
total
part
of
it
is
is
a
water
sales
are
seasonal,
so
there's
points
during
the
winter.
We
don't
generate
as
much
revenue
as
we
do
during
the
summer
months.
So
we
want
that
cushion
we.
We
have
large
projects
at
the
water
plant.
I
know.
J
During
the
the
five
million
clearwell
project,
we
were
paying
out
close
to
three
million
dollars
to
the
contractor
per
month
for
the
work
that
they
completed,
and
then
we
asked
for
reimbursement
from
the
iepa.
So
we
have
to
carry
that
that
payment
to
the
contractor
out
of
the
water
fund
until
we
get
the
money
back
and
as
soon
as
we
get
the
money
back,
we're
probably
processing
the
next
contractors
payment
application.
J
So
there's
there's
this
money
that
goes
in
and
out
the
door
all
the
time,
and
you
want
to
have
sufficient
funds
to
do
that
and
I
there's
one
or
two
other
items
that
they
recommended
that
we
have,
but
oh
part
of
it,
was
to
have
money
set
aside
in
the
in
the
event
of
an
emergency.
So
if
one
of
our
pumps
or
our
large
piece
of
equipment
goes
down,
that
could
be
close
to
750
000
that
we
want
to
try
to
replace
right
away.
J
A
case
in
point
is
when
we
had
the
switch
gear
fire,
we
spent
money
rapidly
to
try
to
get
the
switch
gear
back
up
in
place,
and
and
so
we
had
the
funds
available,
because
we
had
this
four
million
dollar
Reserve
in
the
Waterfront.
At
that
time
we
could
afford
the
emergency
purchase
to
to
get
that
switch
gear
back
up
and
in
service
right
away.
J
So
the
consultant
that
helped
us,
with
the
cost
of
service
model,
looked
at
all
these
different
factors
and
that's
what
came
up
with
the
four
million
dollar
recommendation,
and
that
was
something
that
was
that
whole
report
was
accepted
and
placed
on
file
by
the
city
council.
At
the
time.
D
So
I
guess
I'm
a
little
bit
surprised
if
that
was
2009
for
four
million
dollars
in
2009
doesn't
go
quite
as
far
as
it
does
in
2023.
So
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
you're
not
asking
to
increase
that
amount.
No,
no,
which
would
seem
to
me
to
be
a
reasonable
request
for
you
to
make
it
I'm
glad
you're,
not
so
I'll
just
make
that
statement.
D
I
also
want
to
clarify
that
any
bonds
issued
for
you
know
within
the
water
department
who's
on
the
hook
to
to
pay
those
bonds
off.
Is
it
Evanston
taxpayers
or
is
it
customers
of
the
waters
who
buy
water
from
Evanston.
E
So
some
of
the
projects
that
occur
at
the
water
plant,
the
smaller
projects
that
are
used
that
will
use
bonds.
For
instance,
those
projects
will
go
on
our
asset
list
and
will
be
charged
to
our
wholesale
customers
and
the
revenue
that's
generated
from
that
will
pay
the
debt
service
for
the
bonds.
The
distribution
portion
of
the
bond
proceeds
will
be
paid
for
by
Evanston
retail
rate
payers,
because
the
Evanston
retail
rate
payers
account
for
99
of
the
water
mains
in
our
distribution
system,
they're,
18,
inches
and
smaller.
Our
wholesale
customers
don't
use.
D
E
D
We're
the
same
people
but
they're
a
beta
by
the
water
fund
and
all
that
money
stays
in
the
water
fund.
Yes,
and
we
don't
so
there's
not
an
imposition
on
having
some
taxpayers,
it's
not
like.
We
would
have
to
raise
our
property
tax
rate
to
pay
for
any
of
this
stuff.
No,
we
would
pay
more
for
water.
Yes,.
E
D
The
money's
got
to
come
from
somewhere.
Do
we
we
make
money
on
our
wholesale
customers
correct
we
do.
Can
we
use
that
profit
to
help
say
help
us,
you
know
save
on
on
the
distribution
side.
E
That's
that
already
occurs,
and,
and
so
again
the
the
the
revenue
that's
generated
from
our
wholesale
customers
and
the
profits
is,
is
used
to
to
to
pay
debt
service
on
projects
that
we
do
at
the
water
plant
right,
but
those
funds
are
also
used
to
help
out
with
the
distribution
that
currently
happens.
Okay,.
D
The
pipes
coming
out,
I
was
happy
to
say
yes,
yeah
got
it
all
right.
I
also
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
and
informative
for
folks
to
know
what
we're
spending
this
money
on,
and
that's
not
part
of
this
discussion
here
since
I
spent
a
couple
of
terms
on
the
Utilities
Commission.
You
know
I'm
familiar
with
the
types
of
projects
that
are
that
we're
talking
about
here
and
I
will
just
make
sure
that
the
members
of
this
committee
know
that
the
Utility
Commission,
which
meets
monthly,
is
tracking
expenses
and
tracking.
D
You
know
progress
on
all
the
capital
Improvement
projects
in
the
water
department,
so
in
that
commission
includes
you,
know,
engineers
and
Technical.
Folks,
who
you
know,
have
some
experience
with
this
much
like
this
committee
includes
Financial
folks
who
have
some
relevant
experience.
E
And
and
just
to
know,
nearly
70
percent
of
the
the
bonding
amount
is
because
of
distribution
projects.
Water
main
Replacements
lead
service
line,
Replacements,
it's
it's
it's
it's
as
a
result
of
that.
For
the
most
part,
yeah.
D
Yeah
and
then
one
last
question
our
policy
is
self-imposed
policy
is
to
replace
about
one
percent
of
our
distribution
per
year,
which
is
works
out
to
a
mile
and
a
half.
Yes,
where
did
that
number
come
from.
D
I
The
the
city
owns
156
miles
of
water
main
and
water
main,
depending
on
its
age,
has
a
variety
of
end
of
life
terms,
but
in
General
on
average
is
100
years,
so
we're
replacing
one
percent
of
our
system
per
year,
so
we
can
keep
up
with
it.
The
unfortunate
thing
is,
we
didn't
start
doing
that
until
a
substantial
portion
of
our
system
was
already
over
100
years
old.
So
now
we
find
ourselves
in
that
we're
not
particularly
keeping
up
with
the
water
May
breaks
that
are
happening,
but
that
is
the
next
presentation.
H
Thank
you
just
to
get
some
clarification
on
numbers.
So,
in
our
fund
Reserve
policy,
we
keep
a
16.6
Reserve.
We
budget
that.
So
what
was
that
budgeted
amount
for
23?
What
was
the
16.6
that
we
budgeted
for
that
Reserve
in
dollar
amounts.
H
Now
this
is
no
no,
no,
these
are
separate
and
that's
what
I
think
Council
doesn't
understand.
We
have
our
16.6
for
general
fund.
In
addition,
we
have
Reserve
funds
for
11,
11
account
11
funds,
parking
system,
water
fund,
sewer
fund
for
the
water
fund.
A
minimum
16.6
is
budgeted
for
the
reserve,
so
I
just
want
to
know
how
much
we
budgeted
for
that
reserve
for
this
year.
H
J
It
no,
it
would
not
be
in
addition
to
the
16.6
percent.
It's
the
4
million
is
greater
than
16.6,
I
believe,
and
so
again
it
was
something
that
we
we
probably
should
modify
the
budget
document
to
indicate
that
for
the
water
fund,
our
goal
is
to
maintain
a
four
million
dollar
Reserve
rather
than
16.6.
J
H
H
A
K
K
Oh
I'm.
Sorry,
that's!
The
total
of
6.7
million
is
the
fund
balance.
The
required
balance
is
5.8,
so
we
have
roughly
900
000
excess.
K
No,
this
is
higher
because
of
their
operating
expenses
have
continued
to
grow,
and
so
16.66
percent
of
that
is
yeah
yeah.
It
might
be
the
case
as
I
think
a
council
member
news
matters
on
that.
4
million
is
a
static
number
for
13
years,
so
maybe
the
budget
was
a
lot
less
in
terms
of
expenses,
but
right
now
we
need
5.8
million
dollar
and
we
have
a
five
for
a
6.7.
So
we
are
roughly
900
000
over
the
required
fund.
H
K
H
K
H
Okay,
so
we
budget
5.8
and
then
what
do
we
have
currently?
What's
our
total
debt
to,
we
have
iepa
loans
out
currently
for
water.
How
much
right
now
is
our:
is
it
IEP
and
EPA,
or
just
IEP
yeah?
What
is
our
total
debt
right
now
for
water,
for
these
iepa
loans.
H
H
Loans,
we
currently
have
40
we're
in
debt
47
million
on
iepa
loans.
Okay,
okay,
thank
you,
and
can
we
get
a
copy
of
that
2009
report
that
you
referenced
that
set
whatever.
E
H
H
It
just
misleads
the
public,
so
much
they're,
always
asking
which
one
we
didn't
issue
and
we're
very
proud
of
the
fact
that
this
Council,
this
finance
and
budget
committee,
that
we
actually
kind
of
change
the
course
of
the
trajectory
of
just
increased
debt
that
we
actually
brought
down
our
debt
and
so
I
I,
just
I
ask
that
we
stopped
talking
about
2022
Bots
to
council
member
news
from
this
point.
We
manage
with
surplus
funds.
I
know
even
this
year
right
now.
H
As
of
the
report
of
last
night,
there's
a
projection
of
just
in
the
general
fund
of
you
know
at
least
30,
maybe
30
million
dollar
Surplus,
that's
above
and
beyond
our
Reserve.
So
you
know
so
I,
don't
see
any
reason
right
now.
With
that
in
mind,
I,
you
know
talking
about
bonds.
Right
now
doesn't
to
me
make
a
lot
of
sense
when
we're
looking
at
a
minimum
of
30
million
dollars,
above
and
beyond
our
Reserves
at
the
end
of
this
year.
Thank.
L
Yeah
I
thought
I
had
a
handle
on
this,
but
after
councilmember
Kelly's
comments,
I
just
have
a
few
questions
so
still
trying
to
understand
how
4
million
relates
to
what
we
already
set
aside
for
reserves
for
the
water
fund.
So
if
we
were
already
at
six
point
something
or
whatever
it
is,
and
presumably
that
would
continue
that
we
will
continue
to
set
aside
whatever
that
adopted
amount
is
are
we
saying
we
still
need
to.
Your
recommendation
is
that
in
addition
to
that,
we
still
set
aside
four
million
or
I
I?
J
And
I'm
sorry
I
misspoke
it
so
I
believe
councilmember
newsman
is
correct.
That
back
in
2009,
four
million
dollars
was
over
a
larger
number
than
the
16.6
percent
of
the
the
water
fund
operating
cost.
So
now
the
water,
the
16.6
percent,
is
6.7
million
dollars,
which
is
more
than
the
four
million
dollars
that
the
water
fund
is
trying
to
maintain
so
I
misspoke
earlier
and
I
want
to
correct
that.
So.
L
L
E
E
D
E
Is
to
maintain
the
four
million
dollar
cash
Reserve
in
the
water
fund
each
year,
and
so
what
what
I'm
demonstrating
is
that
with,
without
issuing
bonds
that
that
cash
reserve
of
the
four
million
dollars,
not
the
the
six
point,
whatever
6.7
million
the
four
million
from
the
report
recommendation
is
it
begins
to
drop
below
that
minimum
level
in
in
24?
It
it'll
go
negative
25
out
to
29
that
begins
to
bottom
out,
okay,
so
so
that's
what
I'm!
E
J
Well,
well,
we
we
should
correct
that
four
million
dollars
and
make
it
6.7,
because
that's
what
the
16.6
percent
is.
So
it
is
not
an
addition.
It's
either
4
million
or
6.7,
which
is
16.6
percent.
So
what
we're
showing
is
the
4
million,
because
that's
what
our
consultant
recommended
back
in
2009,
but
right
now
the
city
policy
of
16.6
would
be
6.7
million
dollars,
2.7
million
dollars
more
than
what
the
our
projections
are
trying
to
show
that
we
need
to
maintain,
but.
E
So
if
we
were
to
go
up
to
6.7
million,
this
decrease
would
would
be
more
significant.
It
would
be
more
severe
without
issuing
bonds
and
then,
even
if
we
issued
the
bonds,
the
amounts
that
I've
talked
about
tonight,
the
the
drop-off
still
it
would
still
have
an
impact,
because
now,
if
we
were
to
go
to
6.7
million
instead
of
4
million,
it
would
be
more
of
an
impact.
E
L
Have
they
have
the
IPA
or
or
any
of
the
other
potential
funders,
provided
any
additional
direction
as
to
what
they
mean
by
a
healthy?
You
know,
Farm
Reserve
I
see
they
have
provided
some
guidance.
They've
said
what
they
wouldn't
accept.
They
don't
want
you
to
transfer.
You
know
funds
from
One
Fund
to
to
another
in
in
only
kind
of
a
single
year
effort
they
want
to
see.
You
know
long-term
those
longer
a
long-term
commitment
to
maintaining
a
healthy
Reserve
balance,
but
have
they
provided
any
other
direction
as
to
what
they
mean
by
that?
I
I'm
sorry,
they
rely
on
the
City
of
Evanston
to
set
reasonable
Financial
policies
for
the
water
fund,
because
that
is
beta
tested,
essentially
against
the
audit
and
our
bond
ratings.
So
there
are
outside
agencies
that
quote,
approve
our
financial
policy
and
the
healthiness
of
it.
And
then
the
iepa
is
using
that
to
make
sure
that
we
are
complying
with
what
is
the
generally
accepted
healthy
balance
and.
I
K
So
I
do
have
one
more
thing
to
kind
of
support
that
sometimes
you
feel
like
City
just
availed.
The
VP
alone
from
this
is
the
Federal
Loan
for
the
world.
The
big
intake
product,
you
won't
believe,
I
worked
with
Paul,
mayano
and
others
for
almost
a
year
to
get
20
million
dollars
from
our
federal
government.
It
was
last
more
restrictive,
a
lot
more
demanding
than
issuing
the
bonds
because
they
want
to
make
sure
that
Evanston
would
pay
back
this
money.
They
wanted
two
Credit
Agencies
there
outside
rating
agencies
report.
K
We
said:
okay,
we
are
going
to
issue
the
general
obligation.
Can
we
share
that
they
said?
No.
We
want
one
specifically
for
regarding
this
bond
that
you
will
be
able
to
pay
this
back.
So,
even
though
it's
our
own
federal
government
but
yeah,
they
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
will
have
sustainable.
You
know
future
for
the
next
25
years
when
we
are
loaning
you,
the
money.
A
A
and
just
what
the
plan
was
I'd
be
22
and
23
bonds.
We
did
not
do
what
we
did
spending
in
22
and
23,
and
it's
important
that
we
keep
the
Enterprise
funds
separate
from
the
general
fund,
which
is
where
the
large
surpluses
are
and
I
think
general
fund
has
its
own
issues.
We
have
to
deal
with
in
terms
of
what
those
excess
fund
balances
are
going
to
look
like
over
over
time,
but
why
it
appears.
Why
do
we
tend
to
issue
money
in
advance?
A
Is
that
a
requirement
of
the
programs
that
we
that
we
would
normally
expect
this?
This
line
here
on
page
9
of
33
to
be
well
above
the
target
cash
balance
and
spend
it
down
over
time?
Why
do
why
did
why?
Do
we
generally
go
above
the
limit
and
then
spend
down
over
time?
Rather
than
just
issue
annually,.
I
There's
there's
really
two
reasons
that
we're
using
a
model
that
looks
at
our
long-term
cash
balance
and
our
fund
balances
and
takes
these
pretty
large
dollar
value
projects
and
puts
them
in
there.
But
when
we
are
looking
at
our
income
for
a
year
on
any
given
year,
if
we're
going
to
do
a
47
million
dollar
project
such
as
we
are
in
the
middle
of
now,
we
don't
raise
our
rates,
47
470
percent,
to
generate
the
money
for
this
year
and
then
lower
the
rates
as
soon
as
the
Project's
over.
I
So
we
are
smoothing
the
rates
over
time,
so
we
can
do
like
a
five
percent
water
rate
increase
and
then
we're
looking
over
ahead
five
ten
years
and
seeing
yes.
That
means
that
we
can
do
some
of
these
large
projects
and
afford
them
without
doing
a
giant
rate
increase
one
year
and
then
taking
it
off
and
then
another
giant
rate
increase,
so
it
Smooths
the
situation.
The
other
piece
is
a
matter
of
cash
flow.
I
I
A
A
I
A
Below
two
percent,
so
it's
highly
preferential
relative
to
current
rates
and
is
that
money
available
for
us
to
invest
in
a
money
market
if
we
draw
it
in
advance,
is
there
restrictions
so
so
this
came
up
in
the
last
meeting.
We
are
investing
at
a
high
rate
now
so
in
many
ways,
if
we're
borrowing
at
two
and
getting
five
percent
on
a
money
market,
at
least
within
a
short
period
of
time,
where
those
rates
are
there,
there's
there's
actually
a
favorable
impact
for
a
couple
of
years.
G
I
A
G
G
K
No
one
knows
yeah
what
would
happen
next
week
next
month,
but
as
of
today,
the
rate
where
I
got
from
the
our
financial
advice.
A
couple
of
weeks
that
weighs
4.2
I
asked
with
the
bank
about
the
byline
about
the
line
of
credit.
If
we
start
tapping
into
that
as
a
temporary
measure,
it
would
be
6.52
well.
A
G
A
F
That
was
kind
of
my
point
was,
we
know
we
have,
we
probably
will
have
to
issue
bonds,
but
what
is?
Is
there
a
number
that's
lower
where
maybe
next
year
we
could
issue
more
if
we
need
it,
because
this
chart
just
has
like
I
just
don't
know
if
we've
done
an
analysis
with
different
amounts.
E
These
were
the
amounts
for
the
sake
of
page
9
of
33
were
just
based
on
issuing
the
the
the
bond
amounts
that
total
13.3
million.
That
was
the
what
what
we
wanted
to
do
in
22
and
what
we
wanted
to
do
in
23.
It
was
just
a
total
of
those
amounts.
That's
how
that.
A
Yeah
so
so
it
seems
like
it
is
an
option
we
could
do
the
we
could
do
the
13.3
and
that
would
roughly
get
us
to
25
or
so
25
26.
We
could
do
another
another
Bond
issuance
in
25.
I.
Think
it's
sort
of
I
take
the
point.
We
want
to
keep
a
minimum
cash
balance,
but
it
just
doesn't
seem
as
clear
that
we
need
to
to
be
three
times
over
our
goal
right
or
more
than
that.
More
than
that,
if
you
include
the
additional
13.
J
H
Accounting
of
all
of
our
funds
and
I
think
to
talk
about
leveraging
debt
on
our
taxpayers.
When
we
you
know
annually,
we
generally
don't
get
it
until
about
April,
and
it's
far
beyond
anything
that
we
we
now
we
are
closer
I
see
in
the
general
fund.
You
know
guessing
that
maybe
it'll
be
about
a
30
million
dollar
Surplus,
but
we
really
need
I
asked
to
have
those
before
tonight.
H
It's
really
important
that
we,
as
the
stewards
of
our
budget,
have
a
handle
on
that.
So
before
we
talk
about
again
issuing
debt
on
our
taxpayers,
we
understand
this
now,
not
in
April
of
the
subsequent
year.
I
So,
just
as
a
point
of
clarification,
this
is
the
water
fund
discussion
it.
It
does
not
matter
what
the
funds
are
in
the
what
balances
are
in
the
other
funds,
if
you,
for
the
purposes
of
the
iepa,
would
like
to
take
money
from
the
capital
fund
and
put
it
into
the
water
fund
great.
Do
it
I
joke
with
satasha
about
this
all
the
time,
however,
legally
you
can
only
take
money
out
of
the
water
fund
if
it's
paying
for
direct
cost
related
to
the
water
assets.
D
H
We're
talking
about
access,
so
I
I
understand
that
we
can't
take
water
from
the
Waterfront.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
that
that
we
as
a
council
and
as
a
finance
and
budget
committee,
we
need
to
have
an
you
know,
a
clear
understanding
of
that
excess
before
we
can
talk
about
leveraging
debt
on
taxpayers
for
20
years.
That's
expensive!
I
Okay,
thank
you.
The
other
piece
of
this
is
these
are
not
abated
by
the
taxpayers.
They
are
abated
by
the
rate
payers,
which
is
a
very
different
because,
for
example,
outside
of
the
wholesale
customers,
the
city's
largest
user
of
water
is
Northwestern
University,
who
does
not
necessarily
pay
property
tax,
but
definitely
pays
Water
and
Sewer.
A
So
so
I
think
we
should
move
on
to
the
next
to
to
the
next
subject.
I
think
we
could
summarize
what
we
said
there.
The
higher
amount
doesn't
seem
like
it
sounds
right.
What
what
is
the
right
amount
would
be
open
to
discussion
somewhere
between
the
13
that
that
wasn't
done
to
refund
the
22
and
23
spending
and
potentially
a
a
lower
number,
but
also
I,
think
we
need
to
be
mindful
that
these
are
separate
funds.
A
The
water,
the
water
fund
need
is
more
of
a
business
that
needs
to
run
on
its
own
and
and
have
and
has
its
its
own
funding
and
also
has
some
very
substantial
Capital
needs
and
separately,
even
in
the
general
fund,
not
the
subject
of
today.
But
we
are
sitting
on
projections
that
show
over
the
next
couple
of
years
those
excess
reserves
could
potentially
be
depleted.
So
it's
a
separate
a
separate
discussion.
So
why
don't
we
move
on
to
the
next
section.
F
E
Yep,
okay,
so
we
can
go
right
to
the
second
slide
there,
and
so
what?
What
we've?
What
we've
also
seen
as
a
result
of
the
requirements
for
for
lead,
service
line,
Replacements
and
and
water
main
Replacements?
The
costs
associated
with
that
is
the
same.
What
the
water
fund
product
projection-
and
this
is
both
water
plant
and
a
distribution
system.
And
again
you
know
we're
seeing
that
that
negative.
That
decrease
occurring
following
during
2027
is
where
it
starts
and
then
2028
on
out
to
2034.
E
Even
it
just
continues
to
drop
out
and
and
become
very
negative,
and
so
again
this
is
maintaining
the
four
million
dollar
recommended.
You
know
the
balance
that
we
we
try
to
maintain
in
the
in
the
water
fund,
and
so
with
staff
wanted
to
do
was
say:
hey
was
causing
this,
and
so
what
we
did
was
we
broke
out
the
the
distribution
from
the
water
plant,
and
so
the
next
slide
demonstrates
the
water
plant
only
and
and
again
the
water
plant.
E
And
so
when
we
broke
it
out,
we
broke
it
out:
three
million
dollar
cash
reserve
for
the
water
plan,
a
million
dollars
for
the
distribution
system
and
no
keep
just
keep
it
on
that
one
and-
and
so
you
know
it's
Meandering
around
the
four
mil
the
three
million
dollars
and
you
know
with
the
water
fund,
we
have
wholesale
customers
when
we
do
projects
at
the
water
fund
and
those
assets
hit.
The
the
projects
are
completed.
Like
the
clearwell,
you
know
in
1934
that
was
a
three
hundred
thousand
dollar
project
in
in
2020
2019.
E
Whenever
that
was
completed,
it's
it's
an
18
million
dollar
project
when
that
asset
goes
on
to
the
asset,
books
and
asset
list,
and
and
now
we
begin
charging
our
wholesale
customers
for
that.
That
Revenue
pays
for
The
Debt
Service
on
that
project,
and
so
this
is
demonstrating
that
the
water
fund
or
the
water
plant
isn't
the
issue
next
slide,
and
so
this
is
the
distribution
system.
E
Only
a
one
million
dollar
minimum
balance
breaking
out
the
4
million
three
went
to
the
water
plant,
one
million
minimum
balance
for
the
distribution
system
and
what
we're
seeing
is
again
that
that
negative
dropping
of
that
that
minimum
balance
in
the
fund-
it's
it's
it's
caused
by
the
distribution
system
and
what's
going
on
in
the
distribution
system,
is
the
the
lead
service
line,
replacement
and
notification
act
that
was
enacted.
E
January
1
2022
requires
that
communities
replace
all
lead
service
lines
in
the
state
of
Illinois
and
and
so,
and
that
also
includes
not
just
on
water
main
Replacements,
but
also,
if
there's
a
leak
or
a
break.
You
know
at
one
point
you
could
just
you
know,
insert
an
install
a
lead
pack
on
the
lead
service,
and
that
would
fix
it
now.
You
can't
do
that
anymore.
E
You
have
to
replace
the
whole
service,
and
so
the
impacts
of
of
that
as
well
is,
is
what's
causing
this
decline
with
the
water
fund
based
on
a
distribution
system.
We
go
to
the
next
slide,
and
so
this
map
here
is
an
example
of
our
water
mains.
Here
in
Evanston,
the
red
indicates
water
mains.
That
are
greater
than
100
years
old,
and
you
know
they're
about
50
miles
of
those
types
of
mains.
The
the
orange
represents
32
miles
and
that's
80
to
100
years
old.
E
So,
as
you
can
just
see
just
by
colors,
it's
a
lot
of
old
water
main
here
in
Evanston
156
miles
of
it
and
so
next
slide,
and
so
the
the
I
already
talked
about
the
LED
service
line
notification
act
that
was
enacted.
E
E
I
mentioned
that
and
the
ACT
will
have
a
significant
long-term
impact
on
the
waterfront
as
well,
because
it
requires
the
replacement
of
11
000
plus
service
lines,
lead
service
lines
throughout
the
city
over
a
20-year
period,
beginning
in
2027,
so
we're
anticipating
having
to
replace
roughly
500
Services
a
year
starting
in
2027,
but
with
our
annual
water
main
Replacements,
we're
replacing
lead
Services
now
as
part
of
that
project,
as
well
as
part
of
leaks
and
breaks
that
occur.
E
We
have
pre-qualified
plumbers,
that
are
that
are
replacing
those
whole
services
and
so
we're
these
activities
are
going
on
now,
because
of
that
that
act
next
slide,
and
so
what
we've
seen
in
terms
of
water
main
replacement
work
that
average
cost
prior
to
the
act
in
2019
and
2021
648
dollars
per
lineal
foot
after
the
ACT
went
into
effect
2022-23.
E
It's
now
up
to
912
dollars
per
lineal
foot
for
water,
main
Replacements,
and
so
that's
a
41
increase
and-
and
that's
that's
due
to
just
the
increase
in
materials
as
well
as
the
addition
of
before
the
city
would
replace
the
water
main
and
replace
the
lead
service
up
to
the
parkway,
the
shutoff
valve.
Now
we
go
all
the
way
into
the
house
and
and
so
that
additional
cost
as
well
has
has
increased
that
in
place.
A
part
in
that
41
percent
next
slide.
D
E
The
the
the
the
cost
of
the
water
main
replacement
so
replacing
the
water
main
those
costs
have
gone
up
significantly
and
then
where,
whereas
before
we
would
replace
the
lead
service
line
just
up
to
the
parkway
valve
the
shutoff
valve
in
the
parkway.
Now
that
additional
cost
going
into
the
all
the
way
into
the
building.
Now
that's
an
additional
cost
now
to
add
it
on
to
the
the
water
main
Replacements.
Are
these
lead
service
line
Replacements
now
that
go
all
the
way
into
the
building?
All.
D
E
Copper
materials
have
gone
up
too.
Those
prices
really
went
up
astronomically,
so
it's
the
materials
and
the
scope
of
work
got
bigger,
yeah.
Okay,
thank
you.
Next
slide,
please,
and
so
I
mentioned
earlier.
That
should
be
156
miles
of
water
main.
You
know:
Evanston
retail
customers,
we're
responsible
for
99
of
the
water
main
Replacements
or
the
water
mains
that
are
in
our
system,
and
then
life
expectancy
is,
you
know,
100
to
120
years.
E
The
heavy
walled
cast
iron,
the
old
water
main
has
a
life
of
120
years,
the
ductile
iron,
the
newer
water
main,
it's
thinner
wall,
it's
a
hundred
years,
and-
and
so
that's
the
life
expectancy
of
the
mains
next
next
slide,
and
so
with
staff
put
together
was
this
table
that
summarizes
miles
of
pipe
in
each
age
category.
So
now
this
is
breaking
down.
E
That
was
121
years
and
older,
and
so
if,
if
if,
if,
if,
if
we
decided,
if
the
city
said,
you
know
what
we're
not
going
to
do
any
more
water
main
replacements,
you
know
until
you
know,
through
2042,
that
number
would
balloon
to
50.7
miles
121
years
and
older.
What
we
currently
do
now
1.5
miles
and
by
2042
it
would
be
26.7
miles.
E
Two
miles
is
18.7
Miles
and
once
we
get
to
3.2
miles
now,
it's
zero
miles
of
water
main
of
that
age
by
2042
and
then
4.8
and
5.5,
the
more
you
do,
the
more
you
get
rid
of
but
3.2
miles
annually
by
2042,
no
water
main
121
years
and
older
next
slide.
Please.
A
Ms
Parks
mentioned
earlier
that
City
waited
a
long
time
before
it
started
replacing
Mains,
which
it's
was
a
newer
system
and
it
makes
sense
but
to
then
do
the
math
to
say
Well.
It
lasts
100
years
and
we've
got
150
miles.
So
we'll
do
a
mile
and
a
half
a
year.
It
doesn't
work
right.
It
was
half,
it
was
50
years
left.
So
it
points
back
to
this
math.
I
I
I
will
say
that
when
we
say
we
know
it's
120
years
older,
we
didn't,
we
don't
have
maps
of
the
original
water
main
going
in
in
1907
the
Metropolitan
Water
Reclamation
District
built
the
North
Shore
Channel,
they
mapped
our
water
main,
and
so
anything
that
was
pre-1907
is
just
1907
to
us.
We
know
that
there's
stuff
that
was
in
place,
20
or
30
years
before
that.
So
that's
one
challenge.
The
other
piece
is
when
you
look
at
how
long
water
main
lasts
the
different
types
of
Maine
based
on
when
it
was
installed.
I
Heavy
wall
cast
iron
starts.
You
know,
reaching
the
end
of
its
useful
life
around
early
2020s,
the
stuff
that
went
in
right
after
World
War
II
reaches
the
end
of
its
useful
life.
It's
a
shorter
length
life
around
early
2020s,
so
everything
is
sort
of
hitting
now
and
that's
what
we're
seeing
for
a
while.
The
city
could
Bridge
it
and
keep
up
with
the
worst
situations.
I
We
only
had
it
very
rarely
a
breakout
situation
that,
like
what
happened
on
Central
Street
about
10
years
ago,
where
we
had
within
the
space
of
two
months
we
had
like
11
water
main
breaks.
We
were
able
to
prevent
a
lot
of
that
from
happening,
but
that
is
starting
to
happen
more
frequently
now
because
everything's
sort
of
reaching
the
end
of
its
useful
life.
C
D
Have
the
the
report
from
the
Utilities
Commission
last
Friday,
total
water
main
breaks
over
the
last
five
years
have
averaged
33.4.
E
F
E
Just
a
note,
also
with
water
main
being
the
age
that
it
is
here
in
Evanston
as
we
ramp
up
this
lead
service
line,
Replacements
what
we,
what
we've
seen
and
what
we,
what
we
know
occurs
is
when
you
start
to
tap
old
water
main,
and
you
start
to
unearth
old
sections
of
water.
Main
failures
can
occur
more
frequently.
So
that's
just
something
to
note.
E
And
so
this,
this
is
a
summary
of
if,
if
we
were
to
go
to
3.2
miles
of
annual
Replacements,
increasing
it
from
one
and
a
half
miles,
this
is
what
the
distribution
system
only
water
model
looks
like
with
the
one
and
with
the
one
million
dollar
minimum
cash
balance,
and
we
can
see
that
it,
you
know,
goes
negative
pretty
severely,
and
so
this
is
with
the
addition,
with
the
additional
or
with
the
3.2
miles
increasing
from
one
and
a
half
next
slide,
and
so
staff
recommends.
E
The
following
future
goals
maintain
a
minimum
cash
balance
of
of
three
million
dollars
for
plant
capital
projects
and
operations.
A
million
for
distribution
projects,
operations,
keep
Debt
Service
expenses
associated
with
the
distribution
system
to
less
than
25
percent
of
the
operating
capital,
maintain
a
water
treatment
plant
and
good
operating
condition
and
replace
a
rehabilitate,
approximately
3.2
miles
of
water
distribution
system
annually,
and
so
in
percentage
rate,
increase
wise.
This
table
here
summarizes
the
the
rate
increases
in
23
and
24.
E
13.1
percent
increase
to
do
more
water
main
to
do
lead
service
line
replacements,
13.1
percent
from
24
to
29.
previously
scheduled
I
talked
about
the
five,
the
four
and
the
9.8
previously
total
rate
increases.
E
You
know
5
17
22
and
then
the
13.1s
then
even
2030,
to
2034
continuing
with
the
2.9
percent
increase
percent
debt
to
revenue.
You
know
it
starts
at
49
and
a
half
percent
and
23
by
29
we're
at
27.9
percent,
and
then
it
eventually
goes
below
the
25
percent
debt
to
revenue
in
2033,
and
then
the
reserves
start
off
at
6.25
and
then
they
they.
It
works
its
way
down
to
that
minimum.
One
million
dollar
Reserve
level
for
the
distribution
system,
starting
in
2026.
D
E
E
It's
not
it's
not
showing
it
on
here.
Next
slide,.
E
Let's
see
I
think
it
is
yes,
it
is
so
if
you
look
at
the
sewer
rate
and
and
in
the
blue,
it
says:
cost
per
thousand
gallons,
it's
easier
for
a
lot
of
people
even
include
myself
to
think
of
1,
000
gallons
cost
per
1000
gallons.
Instead
of
cost
per
100
cubic
feet.
Not
you
know,
so
the
blue
indicates
cost
per
1000
gallons.
And
if
you
look
at
the
heading
that
says
sewer
rate
starting
in
2025.
E
E
E
E
And
and
the
cost
per
bi-monthly
billing
we
build
six
times
a
year,
every
two
months
and
23.
It
starts
off
at
128
and
20
cents
and
and
29
it's
at
2
2
12
15..
If
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
it'll
just
kind
of
summarize
all
that.
D
E
L
D
Know,
looking
ahead
to
you
know
over
the
next
11
years,
at
sewer
rates
actually
going
down,
like
our
sewer
infrastructure
is
about
the
same
age
as
our
water
infrastructure.
So
how
can
we
manage
to
keep
those
costs
flat.
I
The
sewer
rate
is
was
at
one
point
very
high,
because,
starting
in
1990-ish
time
period,
we
entered
into
210
million
dollars
worth
of
debt
in
order
to
fund
the
long-range
sewer
program,
which
has
been
very
successful
in
helping
us
manage
things
like
basement,
backups
and
and
impacts
the
residents
from
storm
water
and
as
that
debt,
it's
all
20-year
debt.
So,
as
the
debt
retires,
we
are
able
to
lower
the
sewer
rate
to
come
down.
I
The
other
thing
that
works
in
our
favor
is
that
when
we
rehabilitate
sewer
main
we're
able
to
do
the
vast
majority
95
or
more
through
a
lighting
process,
that
is
really
pretty
cost
effective
I
mean
it
is
both
environmentally
great
because
we're
not
doing
these
huge
expectations
and
landfilling
dirt
and
all
sorts
of
stuff
like
that.
But
it's
quick
and
the
only
Capital
Improvement
program
we
do
where
the
cost
goes
down
every
year,
for
because
it
is
very
cost
competitive.
D
We're
not
avoiding
the
reality,
it's
a
reasonable
assumption.
Okay,
thank
you
and.
E
To
add
to
that,
a
similar
thing
happened
when
the
city
invested,
the
200
plus
million
dollars
into
the
sewer.
The
water
rate
was
hailed
so
that
both
of
them
wouldn't
be
going
up.
So
for
20
years
there
weren't,
you
know
significant
increases
in
the
water
and,
and
so
now
the
sewer
work
has
been
done.
Those
rates
can
be
decreased,
but
now
projects
on
the
water
side
are
are
occurring
both
at
the
water
plant
and
now,
what's
going
on
in
the
distribution
system
next
slide,
please.
E
And
so
this
just
summarizing
the
table,
the
average
retail
customer
will
experience
a
66
percent
increase
in
their
annual
water
sewer
bill
from
23
to
29.,
when
the
last
13
percent
proposed
rate
increases
implemented.
The
bi-monthly
bill,
as
I
said,
128
20
to
212
over
that
time.
15
and
the
annual
payment
will
increase
from
769
20
to
12,
72
92
and
again.
This
is
3.2
miles
of
water
main
Replacements.
E
E
and
then
for
community
members
that
qualify
for
the
affordable,
Water
and
Sewer
rate.
It
won't
be
impacted
by
these
increases
summarized
above
we,
we
review
the
affordable
rate
every
three
years.
It's
it's
currently
being
reviewed
by
a
third
party
now
to
ensure
that
you
know
that
rate
stays,
affordable
and
I.
Think
that's
the
last
slide.
A
So
maybe
if
I
could
start
with
something,
it
seems
like
we've
got
a
couple
of
questions
here.
One
is:
is
there
a
desire
to
increase
the
rate
of
water
main
replacement
from
one
and
a
half
to
three
two,
and
do
we
want
to
as
quickly
as
possible,
get
rid
of
the
lead
service
lines
and
I?
Think
that
probably
everybody
here
would
say?
Yes,
we
do
right.
We've
been
under
it's
like
a
pension
problem,
almost
right
that
we
were
under
investing.
A
We
need
to
measure
what
our
problem
is
and
then
I
think
it
was
a
strength
of
this
group
over
the
last
year
to
say,
let's
measure
the
problem
and
come
up
with
a
solution
that
works
Okay.
So
how
do
we
measure
what
we
need
to
spend?
Is
it
fair
to
go
to
3.2
miles
from
one
and
a
half
sounds
like
it
sounds
like
one
and
a
half
was
never
the
right
number.
J
J
A
Like
pension
hole
right,
so
let's
fix
it,
let's
identify
it
and
fix
it,
identify
the
problem
and
fix
the
problem
right.
So
we
need
to
go
up
to
3.2
miles.
We
need
to
take
advantage
of
federal
and
other
funding
to
get
to
replace
the
lead
service
lines
is
as
quickly
as
as
we
can
and
I
know.
If
everyone
has
that
view,
but
separately,
then
how
do
we
as
efficiently
as
possible?
A
Finance,
it
and
and
I
would
also
say
that
there
was
a
desire
over
the
last
several
years
to
not
have
any
increase
in
the
net
Water
and
Sewer
rate
and
I
think
artificially
holding
things
flat
when
we
know
we
have
higher
costs
is
a
mistake,
and
so
we
got
to
catch
up
for
that
we'd
be
in
a
better
place
if
we
had
not
held
those
rates
constant
and
now
we
got
to
play
catch-up
on
that
too.
A
So
these
rates
increases
do
look
high,
not
sure
they're,
the
right
numbers
they
look
pretty
shockingly
high,
but
maybe
there's
other
things
we
can
do,
but
it's
not
surprising
that
people
are
going
to
see
higher
rates
because
it's
been
artificially
held
somewhat
flat
between
water
and
sewer.
We
got
to
make
up
for
that
and
we
gotta
start
replacing
the
water
mains
at
a
higher
rate
that
probably
it
should
have
always
been
done
at
so
we
got
to
make
up
for
lost
time
and
and
years
where
we
underinvested
sort
of
my
my
thoughts.
E
It's
somewhat
of
a
repeat
before
the
sewer
investment
of
200
plus
million
dollars.
The
sewer
rate
was
like
30
something
cents
per
100
cubic
feet
after
the
project.
It
was
well
over
three
dollars,
you
know
three
dollars
and
fifty
cents
or
whatever
it
was
so
it
was
that
same
thing
happened
for
that
project.
As.
A
Well-
and
that
was
a
great
project-
I
would
say
it
stopped.
People's
basements
flooding
I
know
from
personal
experience,
but
throughout
the
the
community.
That
was
a
project
that
I
think
was
was
government
showing
that
it
can.
It
can
do
something
very,
very
well
and
solve
a
problem
that
people
had
so
Jonathan.
D
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
I
was
going
to
make
exactly
the
same
point,
the
analogy
to
pensions
that
we
could
pay
a
little
bit
now
or
it
could
pay
a
heck
of
a
lot
later
and
I.
Just
also
like
to
note
that
the
provision
of
water
and
sewer
services
to
Evans
and
residents
is
kind
of
one
of,
if
not
the
most
fundamental
service
of
government
yeah,
we
do
other
things.
D
You
know
we
provide
animal
shelters,
we
you
know,
we
write
speeding
tickets,
we
maintain
streets,
but
water
in
sewer
are
like
the
most
basic
and
fundamental
of
human
needs,
and
so
we
have
to
we
start
here.
This
is
not
something
that
we
eventually
get
to.
I
think
this
is
where
we
we
have
to
start
yeah,
so
I'm,
fully
supportive
of
increasing
our.
F
Yeah,
because
there
must
be
a
cost
when
these
means
break
I
mean
we
have
to
pay
double
or
triple
for
that.
So
if
we
could
I'm
agreeing
with
both
of
them,
but
just
going
back
to
what
chair
Livingston
said
is
if
we
could
kind
of
do
some
of
this
analysis.
If
we
were
to
go,
you
know,
but
three
miles
instead
of
one
mile,
whatever.
D
F
E
So,
going
from
what
we
currently
do,
it's
about
6.7
million
for
one
and
a
half
miles,
I!
Think
with
the
bids
were
around
about
this
year
to
do
3.2.
It's
like
14
million
14
point
something
million
dollars
to
go
from
one
and
a
half
to
3.2
at
the
current
cost.
L
The
the
3.2
miles
is
that
is
that,
just
that's
not
just
water
main.
That
includes
what
we
talked
about
in
terms
of
lead
line,
replacement
or.
E
E
That
we
calculated-
okay,
yes
and
then
starting
in
2027,
so
that
3.2
miles
will
get
us
to
maybe
in
the
area
of
maybe
300
Services.
Maybe
for
that
stretch
of
replacement
and
then
starting
in
27
will
be
required
to
do
an
additional
200
Services
per
year
to
get
to
that
500
which
we're
anticipating
will
be
required
to
do.
Based
on
how
many
lead
Services,
we
have
no.
L
Can
you
just
remind
me
just
high
level
what
the
state
requires?
What
was
the
Mandate?
What
are
they
requiring
us
to
do
and
when.
E
So
we
have
to
establish
so
the
act
it
went
into
effect,
January,
1,
2022,
all
lead
service
lines
have
to
be
replaced,
so
we
starting
off
with
so
with
leaks,
for
instance,
in
brakes
on
a
lead
service.
You
can't
fix
it
anymore.
You
have
to
replace
the
entire
service.
E
Now,
if
there's
a
situation
where
the
property
owner
refuses
entry
refuses
to
fix
the
service,
we
we
try
to
have
them
sign
a
waiver
saying
that
they're
waiving
their
right
to
this
replacement
that
gets
sent
down
to
idph
and
they
have
that
in
their
records.
For
that,
so
that's
one
thing
leaks
and
breaks.
Then
the
requirement
when
we're
doing
annuals.
L
E
Okay,
okay
and
putting
you
know
possibly
putting
that
into
the
cold
okay,
so
leaks
and
breaks
is
one
water
main
Replacements
before
we
could
just
replace
the
water
main,
replace
the
service
up
to
the
shutoff
valve
in
the
Parkway
and
the
the
property
owner
could
replace
it
on
their
own.
There
was
was
one
time
when
we
were
providing
loans
and
even
grants
in
some
situations,
but
now
you
can't
you
got
to
replace
the
whole
thing
when
it's
Disturbed
as
part
of
that
water
main
project.
So
that's
the
second
thing.
E
E
A
fourth
requirement
was
to
develop
a
lead
service
line
replacement
plan,
that's
due
by
April
of
next
year,
and
so
we
have
a
consultant
putting
that
plan
together
as
to
how
we're
going
to
prioritize
our
Replacements
and
that'll,
be
something
that
eventually
will
come
to
the
Utilities
Commission.
To
take
a
look
at
that,
and
so
we're
working
on
that,
then
after
24
25
26,
you
have
to
resubmit
the
plan
with
updates
and
then
27
is
the
final
version
of
the
plan
and
that's
when
it
officially.
E
Okay,
you
have
this
many
services
that
are
LED
or
galvanized
steel
in
your
distribution
system.
You
have
to
re,
replace
this
many,
so
staff
is
just
estimating
how
many
we're
going
to
replace
by
2027
with
other
activities
and
we're
thinking
we're
going
to
end
up
with
500
per
year
that
we'll
have
to
replace
over
a
20-year
period,
starting
in
27.
L
H
E
So
20
years,
so
as
long
as
so
let's
say
we're
2027
now
and
we
have
to
replace
500
Services
a
year,
we'll
we'll
have
20
years.
In
order
to
do
that,
the
only
thing
that
could
accelerate
it
is
if
there
was
issues
with
our
corrosion
control
and
Evanston
is
exceeding
the
Action
level
for
lead.
Then
you
got
accelerated
and
and
you'd
have
to
we'd
have
to
do
more,
but
status
quo.
2027
we're
thinking
we're
going
to
have
to
do
about
500
a
year
over
a
20-year
period.
H
A
So
I
think
in
summary,
here
everyone's
a
little
bit
shocked
by
the
degree
of
indicated
increases.
We
need
to
understand
those
better.
What
those
are,
but
does
anyone
disagree
with?
We
want
to
increase
the
rate
of
replacement
of
water
mains
and
boy
I
would
even
say.
20
years
sounds
like
a
long
time
from
2027.
A
how
to
how
do
we
even
go
faster
on
the
lead
replacement,
but
not
our?
You
know
what
what's
what's
a
fast
plan?
What's
that
mean
because
again,
this
is
all
money
we
have
to
spend
over
time.
There's
a
payback
once
we
you
know.
If
we
get
it
done
faster
and
costs
are
only
going
up,
but
I
think
we
don't.
We
don't
have
enough
information
on
what
the
cost
implications
are
here,
but
I
think.
D
L
I
guess
one
more
question
chair:
if
I
may
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
but
the
water
increase
is
that
you're
recommending
would
allow
us
to
meet
the
500
services
or
whatever
you
said.
Yes,
okay
and.
A
Is
that
the
last
I
I
mean
do
we
we
can
discuss
I?
Think
we
kind
of
did
right,
we'd
like
to
do
we'd
like
to
do.
We
don't
think
we
need
to
on
the
first
piece,
do
as
much
bonding
on
the
front
end
and
we
do
less
what
gets
us
sort
of
not
as
front
end
loaded
on
the
bonding
and
then.
Secondly,
we
agree
with
the
the
program
we
I
think
we
don't
fully
understand
the
the
water
increase
rates
and
that's
really
for
the
is
that
for
the
utility.
K
K
All
right,
I,
don't
know
yeah
so
and
I
think
I
shared
this
thing
about
the
bond
the
market.
You
know
this
is
like
a
this
is
about
the
line
of
credit,
the
one
I
say,
but
I
just
summarized:
by
line
15
million
dollar
line
of
credit
30
days
so
far,
plus
120
current
rate
would
be
6.52
estimated
monthly
interest
cost
would
be
81
000,
true
interest
cost
and
jio
bonds
based
on
the
numbers.
4.2
percent
I
mean
yeah.
J
K
We
could
have
like
around
three
and
a
quarter
or
something
current
interest
on
the
city
checking
account
around
five
and
a
half.
K
It's
not
I
mean
I
think
it
was
in
our
previous
finance
and
budget
committee
presentation.
It's
not
yeah
and
was
I'm
just
repeating,
and
so
then
the
next
slide
is
about
the
bonds.
I
think
the
last
Barn
sale
was
August
23rd
2021.
It
was
for
14.4
million
dollar
and
the
other
thing
yeah
since
the
last
bond
issue,
what
we
have
paid
off
in
the
principal
amount,
10.7
million
in
21
11.4
in
22
and
as
of
this
December
2023
in
a
couple
of
months,
we
will
pay
around
roughly
12
million.
K
So
total
is
around
34
million
dollar
total
principal
payments
and
there's
one
more
yeah.
This
is
just
yeah
kind
of
comes
up.
What
would
be
the
impact-
and
this
is
again
based
on
a
15
million
dollar
bond
issue-
that
what
would
be
the
impact?
You
know
you
would
see
that
15
million
the
roughly
the
7.9
or
8
million
would
be
the
interest.
Total
debt
service
is
22.5,
average
annual
Debt
Service
around
1.1
million
for
the
next
20
years,
and
you
can
see
the
impact
based
on
the
projected
area.
K
What
would
be
the
increase
on
100
000
home?
It's
10.75,
200
021,
and
then
it
goes
all
the
way
up
to
the
million
dollar,
which
would
be
a
hundred
and
seven
dollar.
Because
of
this
50
million
dollar
Bond
increase.
A
H
A
I
I
No
go
back
okay,
so
thank
you
committee
for
having
me
here
to
discuss
this
currently,
where
we
are
with
our
2024
proposed
CIP,
is
that
we
are
actually
planning
on
Monday
to
introduce
the
topic
to
city
council
and
then
on.
The
proposed
CIP
would
be
adopted
as
part
of
the
budget
next
slide.
I
Overall,
our
current
capital
Improvement
program
is
shown
as
111
million
dollars,
which
is
significantly
more
than
is
typical.
There's
a
couple
of
things
that
are
driving
this
one
is:
we
have
an
extremely
large
project
just
with
the
intake
project,
it's
a
47
million
dollar
project,
so
that
is
definitely
skewing
things.
The
second
is
per
the
request
of
the
previous
the
city.
This
current
city
council
has
requested
that
they've
shown
more
the
needs
of
the
capital
program
and
that
they
would
help
this.
I
The
capital
program
is
funded
through
a
lot
of
different
mechanisms.
Some
of
them
are
related
directly
to
assets
like
the
water
fund.
Some
are
related
to
geography
such
as
cdbg,
Community,
Development,
block
grant
funds
or
tax
increment
financing.
The
thing
that
is
always
the
by
far
most
discussed
item
in
the
capital
program
is
what
is
related
to
General
obligation
debt
again,
the
current
program
shows
32
million
dollars,
but
that
is
in
excess
of
what
could
actually
be
completed
by
the
current
staff
that
exists
for
the
City
of
Evanston.
I
I
33
million
or
36
percent
of
the
entire
Capital
Improvement
fund
Improvement
fund
next
slide,
but
when
we
look
at
parks
and
facilities-
and
this
is
something
that
we
have
brought
up
with
this
committee
previously
this
summer,
what
you
see
is
that
our
parks
and
our
facilities,
Capital
Improvement,
is
entirely
reliant
on
debt.
We
have
a
little
bit
of
excess
funding
that
is
coming
to
the
parks
program
currently
this
year
through
a
grant
that
we've
received,
but.
I
It
is
definitely
something
that's
been
expressed
by
this
committee
and
I
really
would
love
to
work
with
the
committee
to
figure
out
how
to
manage
debt,
because
there's
a
lot
of
consequences
to
this
graph,
not
the
least
of
which
is,
if
we're
going
to
limit
the
amount
of
debt
that
the
city
enters
into,
then
we
limit
the
amount
of
funding
that
can
be
spent
on
Parks
and
Facilities
Capital
Improvements,
and
that
has
caused
an
underfunding
for
the
at
least
the
last
20
years,
in
both
parks
and
Facilities,
because
we
were
working
to
limit
debt,
which
is
a
very
responsible
goal
next
slide.
I
So
we
have
three
challenges
this
year
with
our
Capital
Improvement
program
and
you
just
spent
a
good
amount
of
time
discussing
challenge
one
which
is
our
cost
related
to
water
made
and
Lead
service
line
replacement.
So
I
won't
go
into
that
next
slide.
Parks.
We
have
a
chronic
underinvestment
in
parks
that
has
occurred
because
of
our
desire
to
limit
debt
issuance.
So
we
are
working
this
year
to
to
redesign
how
the
capital
and
pro
Improvement
program
for
Parks
is
laid
out
in.
I
We
are
separating
it
into
Community
parks,
which
are
just
large
community
Parks,
like
we
see
at
the
lakefront
or
James
Park
that
get
a
ton
of
use,
but
they're
not
really
related
to
the
neighborhood
that
they're
directly
located
in.
We
have
neighborhood
parks
and
we
have
these
Legacy
parks
that
have
been
under
invested
to
the
point
that
they
are
literally
just
crumbling.
Everything
in
them
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
then
we
have
non-legacy
infrastructure
improvements
that
aren't
related
to
our
main
project,
our
main
parks
that
are
falling
apart
next
slide.
I
I
So
when
we
look
at
the
capital
Improvement
program
for
Community
Parks,
these
are
the
part.
The
types
of
projects
that
we
are
looking
at
doing
again
I
would
caution
the
committee
to
not
get
too
hung
up
on
the
numbers
prior
to
going
into
a
prioritization.
This
is
the
identify
the
staff
identified
needs
and
also
includes
requests
from
the
parks
and
rec
board.
This
was
presented
to
the
parks
and
rec
board.
I
I
Legacy
parks-
and
this
is
the
part
that
I
really
want
to
focus
on
in
discussion
with
this
committee-
is
that
we
have
11
parks
that
have
gone
more
than
26
years
without
any
real
investment,
so
parks
are
made
up
of
a
collection
of
assets.
Playgrounds
typically
have
a
life
of
15
years.
We
have
50
playgrounds
in
the
City
of
Evanston
and
we
do
not
get
anywhere
near
close
to
doing
three
playgrounds
a
year
in
our
current
spending
of
on
Parks,
but
court
tennis,
courts
and
basketball
courts
have
a
different
length.
Life
Pathways
have
a
life.
I
What
we
tend
to
do
is
wait
until
a
park
completely
falls
apart,
and
then
we
address
the
worst
Park
we
have
in
that
next
year.
Cip.
Maybe
we
do
two
parks
in
a
good
year
and
what
that
means
is
we
have
a
few
parks
that
are
really
good,
because
we
just
invested
and
completely
rebuilt
the
park
from
scratch,
and
then
we
have
a
lot
of
parks
that
are
pretty
poor
condition.
I
I
would
like
to
get
away
from
that
kind
of
investment.
I,
don't
think
that
serves
the
residents
of
Evanston
it'd,
be
better
to
just
have
a
bunch
of
parks
that
were
sort
of
middle
of
the
road,
good
condition
and
not
really
great
parks
and
really
bad
Parks.
But
to
do
that,
we
have
to
change
our
spending
model.
The
unfortunate
piece
is,
we
still
have
these
11
parks
that
are
sitting
out
there.
That
needs
to
be
completely
rebuilt
next
slide.
I
So
our
the
strategy
that
the
staff
is
proposing
and
has
developed
with
comments
from
Parks
and
Rec
board
concerned
about
the
state
of
our
parks
and
people
on
this
committee,
who
have
also
made
comments
about.
Why
are
we
spending
so
much
to
rebuild
a
park?
Well
we're
spending
that,
because
the
park
is
completely
crumbled,
but
there
is
a
better
way,
as
has
been
pointed
out
by
a
lot
of
people
in
the
community,
which
is
to
just
do
smaller
projects,
as
things
start
to
go
downhill.
I
Unfortunately,
to
do
that,
we
would
now
need
to
begin
that
kind
of
investment,
even
before
you're
done
with
the
Legacy
Parks,
because
there's
a
whole
generation
of
parks
behind
the
Legacy
parks
that
will
become
the
next
Generation
if
we
don't
start
investing
in
them,
so
our
neighborhood
parks
these.
This
is
a
list
of
the
staff
proposed
needs
for
our
neighborhood
parks
and
it's
now
divided
into
Legacy
Park
improvements
and
the
non-legacy
stuff.
I
That
has
just
been
requested
for
a
variety
of
reasons
and
again,
I
I,
don't
know
that
the
staff
has
the
capacity
to
execute
all
these
projects.
I
think
that's
something
that
we
have
to
work
out,
what
we're
actually
going
to
focus
on
in
the
next
year,
but
this
is
the
list
of
needs
and
I
will
state
that
we've
put
every
Legacy
Park
in
the
five-year
program,
but
I
think
that
that's
going
to
be
very
challenging
both
from
a
staff
resources
and
from
a
funding
perspective
to
do.
I
However,
if
we
do
not
do
all
the
Legacy
parks
in
the
five-year
program,
we
will
get
to
a
point
where
we're
just
removing
the
playground
equipment
out
of
the
parks
and
until
we
can
get
to
doing
something
about
them
next
slide.
And
then
this
is.
This
is
new.
We
have
not
historically
just
had
broad
categories
of
regular
investment
into
parks,
and
this
is
probably
not
the
right
level.
This
is
what
we
could
possibly
get
done
in
the
short
and
with
our
current
Staffing.
I
But
this
idea,
this
concept
is
what
we
need
to
get
to
where
we
are
gradually
transitioning.
Our
funding
from
Park
rebuilds
to
regular
investment
in
the
various
items
located
in
a
park
so
I
think
that
is
more
or
less.
If
we
could
going
there's
a
summary
of
the
CIP
I
have
listed
the
challenges
we
have
a
lack
of
funding,
we
have
a
lack
of
staff,
I
will
say
just
to
implement
the
process
right
now.
I
We
have
had
a
number
of
projects
that
were
identified
on
this
year's
Capital
program
that
we
were
not
able
to
implement
because
we
lack
staff.
We
currently
basically
have
one
FTE
of
people
working
on
Parks,
Capital,
Improvements,
a
half
ft
with
Landscape
Architects,
and
then
we
actually
utilize
some
of
our
transportation
staff
to
try
to
do
some
work
in
Parks
also
because
of
the
needs.
I
So
we
are
recommending
an
additional
landscape
architect
be
put
into
the
budget
just
to
keep
up
with
our
current
needs,
but
also
to
begin
implementing
sort
of
this
more
revised
way
of
investing
in
parks
and
doing
that
type
of
work
without
utilizing
Consultants
to
do
it.
But
having
that
be
in-house
staff
work
another
which
is
another
goal,
that's
been
expressed
by
the
parks
and
rec
board,
and
this
committee
or
people
on
this
committee.
So
if
we
go
to
the
next
thing,
so
what
we
really
desperately
need
is
guidance
on.
I
What
is
what
can
the
city
bear
in
terms
of
a
debt
issue?
What
is
the
level
that
we
can't
can
spend,
but
also,
where
are
these
new
funding
sources
or
what
could
be
developed
as
new
funding
sources
to
pay
for
Parks
improvements,
because,
as
long
as
we
tie
ourselves
to
debt
being
the
only
way
we
pay
for
Park
infrastructure,
we
will
not
be
able
to
catch
up
with
the
park
infrastructure
we
have
unless
the
city
wants
to
leverage
a
lot
of
debt.
D
D
I
The
next
thing,
as
we
go
through
is
the
facilities
thing
and
I
have
actually
talked
about
this
somewhat
previously
skip
to
the
next
slide.
We
have
six
facilities,
of
which
two
we've
started
to
address
and
four
we
have
not.
We
are
dramatically
underinvested
in
these
facilities
over
the
year
and
now
puts
us
into
a
bind
next
slide.
I
So
we
are
structuring
a
similar
plan
for
facilities.
We
have
50
facilities,
we're
spending
the
vast
majority
of
our
effort.
Frankly
on
emergency
projects
at
these
six
facilities,
while
we
neglect
the
remaining
facilities,
and
so
if
we
do
not
start
changing
the
way
we
do
business,
we
will
just
have
more
facilities
that
are
in
Dire
Straits
next
slide.
I
I
We
should
be
doing
solidifying
the
building
envelope,
so
we
don't
have
water
leaking
in
doing
renovations
when
facilities
wear
out
and
they
get
beat
up
by
the
the
love
that
they
get
from
our
users
fixing
those
up
so
that
they
look
good
and
are
have
utility
to
them.
So
this
is
the
sort
of
thing
that
you
can
review,
but
in
the
future,
but
we'd
like
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
don't
necessarily
spend
all
of
our
money
on
Legacy
facilities
next
slide.
And
so
then
that
looks
like
again.
I
These
are
probably
not
the
right
numbers,
long
term.
They're
I
think
what
we
could
possibly
do
this
coming
year,
but
they
get
to
the
point
where
we're
really
doing
things
like
roof
improvements,
modernizing
the
lighting
to
LED
in
compliance
with
carp,
and
also
because
it
saves
US
money,
Ada
next
slide,
and
so
you
can
see
that
again,
we
don't
really
have
the
Staffing
to
implement
this.
This
is
the
identified
needs
of
what
could
possibly
get
done
in
this
next
year,
but
we
probably
can't
do
it
all.
So
we
are
not.
I
We
are
requesting
basically
some
additional
money
for
a
seasonal
position
to
of
an
architect
to
help
us
out
part-time
in
the
budget.
Just
because
we
have
been
had
the
architect
one
of
our
two
architect.
Positions
has
been
vacant
this
year
it
looks
like
we
might
be
able
to
get
it
filled.
We
have
a
candidate
we're
working
with
to
bring
on
board,
but
it's
created
a
backlog
that
we
are
not
really
able
to
address
all
of
the
emergency
projects
we
have
going
on
in
facilities
right
now,
so
to
get
through
that
backlog
next
slide.
I
So
again,
looking
at
this
recommended
levels
of
debt
issuances
and
if
new
funding
sources
can
be
identified,
next
slide,
there's
a
bunch
of
other
stuff
about
other
CIP.
If
you
go
through
this,
when
you
have
an
opportunity
to
look
at
it
after,
it's
posted
you'll
see
that
really
what
we
do
is
for
most
the
other
sections
of
CIP
we're
leveraging
other
funding
sources
that
are
not
debt
and
debt
provides
matching.
Funds
are
when
we
just
don't
get
a
that's,
not
something.
I
I
Other
Transportation
I
think
next
slide.
Just
skipped
along
here.
Next
slide
next
slide.
So
here
we
are.
We
have
previously
done
some
review
of
this
with
the
finance
and
budget
committee.
We
definitely
need
to
solidify
what
the
debt
issuance
is
going
to
be
for
this
or
alternate
funding
sources
for
the
stuff
that
was
supposed
to
be
funded
by
debt.
I
I
would
anticipate
that
unless
you
are
way
better
than
I
think
you
already
are
that
you
we're
going
to
need
to
address
this
over
the
next
year,
not
just
for
this
budget,
but
looking
at
things
in
a
long-term
process
and
I'm
really
excited
about
working
with
you
on
that,
and
then
our
net
next
steps
this
year
we
are
doing
more
presenting
the
CIP
to
boards
and
getting
feedback
from
it.
So
we
are
planning
on
going
to
the
environment
board
still
as
well
as
the
city
council.
I,
think
that's
the
last
time.
I
I
had
not
put
them
on
the
calendar,
but
we
certainly
can
discuss
that
and
I
think
that's
the
end
of
the
presentation.
G
Just
a
request
for
clarification,
one
of
the
things
you
said
you
know:
we've
sort
of
put
off
spending
and
maintenance
on
all
these
facilities
and
the
parks,
because
we
wanted
to
reduce
debt
over
the
last
20
years,
but
that's
done
nothing
but
go
up
over
the
last
20
years,
so
I
I,
guess
I'm
a
little
confused
by
that
statement.
Where's
the
money
gone.
I
In
the
time
that
I
have
been
the
city
engineer,
we've
spent
approximately
each
year
10
million
dollars
on
debt,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
in
the
last
seven
years,
costs
have
not
stayed
static.
Prior
to
that
this
was
this
was
a
huge
increase
over
what
was
done
the
previous
10
years,
and
we
have
not
really
begun
to
address
our
biggest
concerns
and
so
historically
I
think
a
lot
of
the
choices
about
what
to
tell
the
council
even
and
present
to
the
public.
It
was
not
everything
was
shown.
I
K
I
mean
we'll
see
the
numbers
yeah
I
mean
we
have
ups
and
downs
as
we
pay
the
debt
but
yeah.
We
have
issued
the
bonds
and
used
it
for
some
other
purpose.
Maybe
yeah
and
some
of
the
things
which
were
always
kind
of
put
on
on
the
back
burner
were
the
vehicles
some
of
the
Sparks,
because
these
parts
is
still
considered
kind
of
a
voluntary
is
not
a
critical
thing
and
obviously
there
were
so
many
other
things
like
on
terms
of
contingency
and
some
of
the
other
projects
which
required
immediate
funding.
H
Need
to
wrap
up,
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
one
thing
that
we
definitely
need
to
address
is:
are
those
line
items
for
maintenance
and
upgrade
of
our
Parks
I've,
seen
other
budgets
where
they
have
regular
line
items
for
equipment
and
repairs,
maintenance
and
upgrade
I
think
our
Greenways
is
understaffed,
I
think
we're
just
unable
to
keep
up,
and
we
shouldn't.
You
know
put
this
off
till
we
get
to
the
point
where
we
talk
about
issuing
debt
for
something
that
should
be
regular
annual
light
items
with
some
fluctuations.
H
J
D
Close
thank
you
for
putting
in
this
work.
D
I
think
we
are
starting
to
turn
a
corner
and
head
in
in
a
better
Direction
I
think
we
need
to
think
very
carefully
about
how
we
can
more
efficiently
spend
money
in
parks
and
and
everywhere
else,
for
example,
too
I'm
glad
that
you're
talking
about
Staffing
up
internally,
because
I
think
one
opportunity
we
have
to
spend
money
more
efficiently
is
to
bring
some
of
the
work
in-house
rather
than
hiring
Consultants
I
think
we
can
probably
do
more
for
less
if
we
staff
up
properly
and
I,
also
like
to
look
specifically
at
parks
about
our
our
public
engagement
process,
which
is
fantastic,
but
we
might
be
able
to
take
some
fat
out
of
that
process.
I
I
do
feel
that
if
we
look
at
more
regular
investment,
we
are
going
to
do
a
playground
equipment
replacement,
not
an
entire
park.
It's
a
lot
easier
to
go
and
have
a
meeting
and
say
Here's.
Three
styles
of
playground
tell
us
what
you
think,
but
when
you're
talking
about
the
entire
park,
there's
a
lot
of
things
on
the
table
and
that's
part
of
why
we
have
such
a
robust
public
engagement
process.
D
H
And
I
just
want
to
add
also
for
all
of
our
facilities
to
have
more
regular
line
items
so
that
we
aren't
and
then
could
you
share
this
with
us
with
the.
B
Jess
was
I,
just
posted
it
on
the
financing
budget
website.
Okay,
great.