►
From YouTube: Finance and Budget Committee Meeting 6-13-2023
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
Okay,
very
good
call
to
order
the
June
13th
member
meeting
of
the
finance
and
budget
committee.
C
With
the
funding
problem,
continuing
I
also
have
a
10
year
old
article.
That
squarely
puts
the
blame
on
everson's
sizable
unfunded
pension
liability
for
downgrading
evanston's
Bond
rating.
This
spawn
rating
and
relationship
between
Bond
ratings
and
Pension
funds
runs
all.
Whenever
you
read
articles
about
this,
there
was
a
recent
one
about
mayor,
Lori
Lightfoot
in
Chicago
that
when
she
did
something
toward
her
pension
fund,
they're
Bond
waiting
rating
went
up.
It's
a
positive
thing.
C
C
Liability
that
was
the
only
negative
factor
mentioned
currently
looking
at
what's
available
online.
Our
bond
rating
appears
to
be
at
the
top
or
near
the
top
and
looking
at
Moody's
s,
p
and
Fitch,
but
I
have
to
believe
a
sustainable,
fully
funded
pension
plan
could
Propel
us
at
the
top
of
all
three
Bond
ratings,
but
at
a
minimum,
help
prevent
any
drop
in
those
Bond
ratings
saving
the
city
money.
C
It
clearly
boils
down
to
the
more
aggressive
assumed
rate
of
return
that
is
used,
the
quicker
full
funding
and
the
Associated
Tax
savings
are
achieved
on
the
other
side
of
the
coin.
If
there's
an
overly
conservative
approach
to
setting
the
assumed
rate
of
return,
the
outstanding
pension
that
continues
to
grow,
we
never
catch
up.
C
In
this
case,
airing
on
the
side
of
caution
is
taking
the
more
aggressive
approach.
It
determines
the
assumed
rate
of
return.
All
that
can
happen.
If
that's
an
error
is
the
debt
is,
will
be
reduced,
quicker,
look
at
the
city's
website
pension
page
in
the
most
recent
five
years
of
Foster
and
Foster's
Actuarial
evaluations.
C
C
It's
going
to
take
many
times
the
amount
of
money
that
was
withheld
by
going
to
6.5
to
the
pensions
to
pay
back
the
additional
Public
Safety
pension
debt
that
was
created
by
that
action.
Please
please
at
minimum.
Let's,
please
follow
our
actuaries
recommendation
going
forward
and,
if
there's
any
variance
to
our
actuaries
recommendation,
please
make
it
more
aggressive,
rather
than
conservative.
D
And
this
is
just
a
brief
public
comment:
I
am
an
elected
official
of
a
a
unit
of
government
that
receives
the
funds
that
the
city
council
approved,
so
I
would
expect
later
on.
D
If
we
have
a
question
that
I
would
be
accorded
by
the
chair
to
be
recognized
by
the
chair,
the
same
as
if
the
mayor
came
in
or
city
manager,
Stowe
or
any
other
elected
or
appointed
official
to
handle
that
I've
seen
some
discussion
and
I'm
sorry,
duties
have
taken
me
away
and
I've
just
returned
from
the
National
Conference
of
Public
Employee
Retirement
Systems
that
I've
been
active
with
Jason
Franken
has
been
a
speaker
at
that
organization,
as
have
I
and
some
interesting
things
Nationwide
that
we've
done
I've
seen
some
discussion
also
on
the
Consolidated
police
and
fire
funds
and
they're,
probably
that's
probably
a
misnomer,
because
it's
the
management
of
the
funds.
D
All
all
that
will
change
is
the
money
will
be
managed
by
another
group.
There
was
some
question
about
what
are
their
return
rates
or
whatnot?
Those
are
red
herrings.
Those
will
never
never
match
up
and
here's.
Why
number
one?
D
D
Do
you
get
on
your
checking
account
so
that
money
will
cancel
out
the
other
one
also
that
they
are
not
disclosing
the
liquidation
costs
cogfa
recommend
estimated
in
2012
when
the
numbers
were
much
lower,
that
the
recovery
of
the
liquidation
costs
would
take
10
or
more
years,
I
suspect
that
may
be
longer
now
the
taxpayers
are
paying
for
that
in
the
in
the
meantime.
So
whatever
their
return
is,
is
not
a
valid
indicator
for
at
least
10
years,
and
maybe
never
just
because
of
the
the
structural
build
on
that.
E
I
believe
Jason
Franken
should
be
online.
He
had
planned
to
attend
this
evening.
The
Joint
actuary
just
want
to
make
sure
he
got
on
in
case.
We
have
questions.
E
Jason
Franklin,
The,
Joint,
actuary
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
the
zoom
link.
That's
posted
correct
on
the
City
website.
E
A
So
the
next
point
is
approval
of
the
prior
minutes.
Hopefully
everybody
had
a
chance
to
look
at
those
from
the
May
9th
meeting
any
comments
on
those
minutes.
Mr.
A
Okay,
so
those
are
approved,
there
was
a
request
earlier.
A
Maybe
we
could
hit
on
one
thing
very,
very
quickly,
which
is
just
to
the
committee
calendar
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
really
significant.
There
there's
been
a
understandable
requests
that
there'd
be
fewer
meetings
in
in
August.
So
we
would
just
like
to
clarify
on
page
six
of
the
packet,
the
remaining
well
actually
recapping
for
the
year,
but
also
the
remaining
minutes
and
if
we
could
I
think
it
that
does
require
a
vote
correct.
So,
if
everybody's
okay,
if
we
could
just
do
that
vote.
A
E
Time
yeah
I
mean
I,
would
say
December
that
we
can
always
cancel
it,
but
I
would
think,
since
it's
budget
season,
that
we
should
definitely
have
one
since
we're
financing
budget
and
we're
eliminating
August.
We
should
keep
one
in
December,
which
we
can
always
cancel.
That
would
be
my
I
think.
That's
okay,.
A
So,
given
the
nature
of
this
committee,
so
we
we
could
add
that
now
I
guess
so
that
would
be
the
second
December
12th
December
12th.
So
if
that's
okay,
we
modify
this
to
include
December
12th.
A
E
E
E
E
A
E
A
All
right
we're
good,
okay,
so
we're
going
to
reorder
the
agenda
bit
in
order
to
allow
Jason
and
make
sure
we
get
the
the
focus
and
I
believe
we
are
under
a
hard
six
o'clock.
Stop
6
30
stop
okay
tonight,
so
we
want
to
talk
about
the
pension
first,
and
so
we
would
reorder
this
and
move
the
discussion
of
parking
and
insurance
funds
and
just
the
description
of
the
totality
of
the
fund
balances
to
the
end
okay.
F
So
I'll
move
discussion
of
item
D2,
which
is
the
draft
Public
Safety
pension
policy.
A
Okay,
yeah
sure
so
we'll
start
our
our
discussion
and
I.
Think
Sherry
was
gonna
start
our
discussion
here.
Yes,.
G
So
we
just
David
and
I,
worked
on
the
policy
and
well
we
we
just
wanted
to
bring
everyone
back
because
I've
worked
on
a
number
of
these
and
that
you
know
the
purpose
of
the
policy
is
to
stand
to
test
a
time
so
that
this
policy
will
live
on
Beyond
us.
So
we
don't
want
to
be
too
specific
with
things
that
would
tie
anyone's
hand
long
term.
So
what
we
try
I
think
the
bottom
line
is
this:
this
committee.
G
We
want
to
fund
this
100,
it's
good
for
Evanston,
it's
good
for
our
taxpayers
and
it's
definitely
what
we
want
to
do.
But
we
want
to
first
set
the
policy,
the
structure.
Then
we
can
determine
the
rate
and
Jack
and
I
are
going
to
work
on
that,
so
the
kind
of
the
goal.
What
we
thought
is
that
we
can
get
this
finalized
policy.
We
were
thought
tonight,
but
we
got
a
bunch
of
comments
right
before
the
meeting.
G
Then
we
could
get
it
approved
in
July,
Jack
and
I
would
do
a
bunch
of
research
talk
with
the
the
actuaries
and
come
with
our
recommendation
of
the
rate.
But
the
key
to
today
is
to
get
this
policy
done
and
really
the
funding
mechanism
of
the
policy,
because
I
think
that's.
We
don't
want
to
leave
any
discretion
to
that.
G
We
want
to
have
this
funding
recommendations,
so
you
know
I
I've,
looked
at
what
again
I
didn't
have
time
to
study
I,
just
looked
at
what
you
said
and
some
of
the
things
I
think
are
a
little
too
specific
I
think
it's
what
we're
all
thinking
and
it's
what
we
all
want,
but
we
want
a
policy
again.
That
is
the
umbrella
that
can
be,
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
give
the
future
city
councils
the
latitude
of
rate
of
contributions,
but
we
want
to
give
them
guidelines.
G
We
want
to
take
all
that
discretion
out
so
I'm,
not
sure
you
know
really
we
want.
We
want
to
get
this
done
tonight.
If
we
can,
we
have
a
hard
stop
at
6,
30
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult,
but
I
think
each
side
has
to
work
together
to
get
this
done.
I
I
think
the
bottom
line
is
we
want
a
policy
and
we
want
a
good
policy.
G
David
and
I
work
long
on
this
David
spent
more
time,
but
we
did
use
a
template
that
that
was
given
by
our
actuaries
that
had
a
lot
of
the
legal
language
and
a
lot
of
things
that
we
think
are
important
and
some
of
the
looks
like
it
was
taken
out,
but
I
think
we
should
go
through
it.
If
we
can
go
through
it
quickly,
come
to
some
consensus,
get
it
to
Legal,
get
it
unposted,
get
for
further
comments
and
then
hopefully
approve
it
at
next
meeting.
G
G
Comment
sure.
E
So
we
would
look
at
what
we
propose
as
an
amendment,
if
we're
in
favor
of
it
or
not,
we
amend
it
and
I
think
that
when
you
talk
about
rate
I
mean
obviously
one
of
the
references
that
we
make
in
here
is
following
the
recommendations
of
the
joint
actuary,
so
so
yeah
I'm
glad
that
you
and
Mr
Mortel
will
work
on
this
and
I
trust
both
of
you
to
handle
that
so
that's
fine,
but
then
so
so
we
don't
want
a
our
objective
is
a
policy,
but
our
objective
is
a
firm
policy
that
fully
funds.
E
So
so
it's
not
just
let's
just
get
a
policy.
We
don't
want
a
vague
policy.
We
don't
want
a
vague
policy.
We
want
a
clear
policy
that
will
that
will
indeed
reduce
this
enormous
pension
liability
that
rests
on
the
shoulders.
The
resin,
so
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
that.
It's
not
just
about
a
policy
so
so.
G
G
Right
and-
and
what
did
we
we
put
originally
in
here-
that
it
would
be
that
that
the
rate
okay?
This
is
what
I
was
confused
on
yours.
It's
the
investment
rate
of
return.
Assumption
will
be
reconsidered
annually
by
the
city
council
as
or
its
designated
committee,
and
take
input
from
the
relevant
relevant
police
and
fire
pension
boards.
So.
E
Cite
the
item
Sherry
I'm,
sorry,
which
three
a
three
a
three
a.
E
E
That
will
determine
ultimately
they
vote
on
it,
but
we
hire
that's
the
purpose.
Why
both
the
pension
boards
and
the
city
together
hire
someone
who's
an
expert
in
this
field
of
pension,
actuaries,
so
I
so
I,
don't
know
why
we
would.
We
would
take
that
and
then
we
would
vote
on
it.
We
always
have
to
vote
on
it,
no
matter
what
anyway,
but
that
is.
That
is
the
basis
of
what
we're
you
know
that
that's
how
we
are
determining
it
not
based
on
somebody
else,
who's,
not
an
expert
actuary.
A
I
A
Boards
and
ultimately,
the
council
to
determine
what
the
rate
is
and
the
actuary
will
review
that
rate
and
determine
if
the
actuary
thinks
it's
reasonable.
The
actuary
does
not
set
the
rate,
and
in
fact,
and
if,
if
I
don't
know,
if
we
can
bring
Jason
in
here,
Foster
and
Foster
is
highly
likely.
Approving
reports
that
use
various
rates
for
the
exact
same
Assets
in
the
pool.
A
Jason's
responsibility
is
to
review
that
rate
for
reasonableness,
and
is
it
you
know,
within
the
bounds
of
both.
You
know,
upper
and
lower
bound
of
of
what's
an
acceptable
rate,
is
not
the
actuaries
job
to
look
at
the
composition
of
those
assets
and
make
a
pinpoint
recommendation
as
to
what
the
rate
is
and.
G
J
Okay,
yeah,
so
typically
the
way
we
would
we
would
approach.
This
is
that
we
would
look
at
the
the
the
assets.
Look
at
the
Investments
look
at
the
Capital
Market
assumptions
that
are
provided
by
various
investment
experts
from
across
the
country,
and
we
would
recommend
a
range
of
investment
return
assumptions.
Typically
somewhere
between
the
40th
and
60th
percentile,
I,
usually
like
to
prefer
a
narrower
range.
You
know
maybe
the
45th
to
55th
percentile,
and
you
know
those
rates
are
the
ones
you
know
with
within.
J
We
we
did
this
exercise
for
both
the
Consolidated
police
and
the
Consolidated
fire
and
invest
funds
and
Consolidated
funds,
and
you
know,
based
on
that
information,
each
fund
adopted
a
rate
that
they
felt
was
was
most
appropriate
and
and
so
as
as
long
as
that
rate,
that's
adopted
by
the
pension
board
and
the
plan
sponsor
is
is
reasonable.
J
You
know
we're
not
going
to
have
a
problem,
providing
you
know,
results
based
on
that
rate,
different
places
in
some
places
like
to
be
more
conservative,
others
more
more
aggressive,
but
the
rates
do
need
to
be
within
a
a
reasonable
range,
and
you
know
as
long
as
that's
the
case.
You
know
we
can
work
with.
Like
I
said
the
pension
board
and
plan
sponsor
to
you
know
to
come
up
with
a
or
you
know,
results
based
on
a
rate
that
everybody
can
agree
upon.
G
But
if
we're
doing
a
policy
which
we're
doing
the
should
it
be
that
the
actuary
will
provide
a
recommendation
of
rates,
but
it
will
be
approved
by
the
finance,
a
budget
committee
or
the
city
council,
because
I
don't
think
you
are
going
to
come
with
us
and
say
you
want
this
right,
you're
going
to
provide
the
40
to
60..
So
as
far
as
the
policy
goes,
we
need
the
right
wording.
J
Write
yeah
how
the
rate
would
be
determined,
yeah,
yeah,
I,
I,
think
we,
you
know,
I
think
as
long
as
you
say
that
you're
you
know
the
the
parties
will
review.
You
know
annually
the
the
rate
you
know
the
expected
rate
of
return
in
any
any
verbiage.
That
sort
of
gets
that
you
know
to
that
point.
I
I
would
be
comfortable
with
like
I
said:
I,
don't
I
do
not
like
policies.
J
Not
this
policy
does
not
have
this,
but
where
specific
assumptions
are
written
into
the
policy
that
that's
where
you
know
to
me,
it
gets
a
little
dicey
because
then,
in
order
to
change
any
any
assumption,
you
have
to
go
through
the
process
of
changing
the
the
funding.
G
Completely
agree
with
that
I.
What
what
we're
debating
is
one
one
way
says
the
initial
assume
rate
investment
rate
of
shall
be
determined
by
The,
Joint,
actuary
and
another
says.
The
investment
rate
of
return
will
be
reconsidered
by
the
city
council
and
its
designated
committee,
taking
input
from
the
relevant
relevant
police
and
fire
and
I
personally
I
think
you're,
not
setting
the
rate
I
think
maybe
it's
that
it'll
be
determined
by
the
city
council
and
its
designated
committees
with
recommendations
from
you.
E
Well,
I
just
want
to
Cherry
I
think,
there's
a
third
way,
what
you're
actually
proposing,
which
I
think
is
perfect.
What
if
we
were
to
modify
this
to
say?
Instead,
the
initial
assumed
rate
of
return
on
pension
assets
shall
be
reviewed
and
recommended
by
The
Joint
actuary,
in
conjunction
with
the
representative,
from
finance
and
budget
and
representative
slash
representatives
from
the
public
safety
pension
boards.
So
just.
E
G
A
Right
so
I
think
we
should
I
I
would
characterize
what
we
wrote
as
being
essentially
that
but
I
think
we
can.
We
can
work
on
what
we
think
is
deficient
in
the
language.
That's
currently
in
three,
three,
a
so.
If.
F
I
could
offer
if
I
could
offer
what
I
think
might
get
us
there.
I'm
going
by
the
three
three
a
in
our
packet,
which
reads
the
investment
rate
of
return.
Assumption
will
be
reconsidered
annually
by
the
city
council
or
its
designated
committee,
and
take
input
from
the
relevant
police
and
fire
pension
boards.
Let's
amend
that
to
say
today
to
take
input
from
the
actuary
and
and.
E
Just
think
the
first
sentence
and
I
agree
instead
of
saying
shall
be
determined
by
it,
shall
be
reviewed
and
recommended
by
what
you,
basically
what
you
just
said,
Jonathan
so
we'll
be
reviewed
and
recommended
by
representatives
from
the
pension
boards,
but
I
would
also
representative
from
the
finance
and
budget
committee.
That's
what
we're.
G
E
H
If
I
may,
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
concerns
here,
both
from
representatives
from
both
the
Pension
funds,
was
we
weren't
sure
that
the
city
council
really
had
input
from
the
actuaries
per
se?
It
went
directly
to
the
CFO,
who
then
told
the
committee
what
those
rates
were
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
both
the
committee
and
the
council
have
input
from
the
actuary
and
hear
it
directly.
I
think
that's.
F
A
Given
the
scope
of
these
changes,
I
had
hoped
that
we
had
General
consensus
on
the
policy,
given
the
comments
that
we
had
received
back
before
tonight.
But
that's
not
the
case,
so
I
don't
think
we're
gonna.
You
know
under
any
there's
any
possibility
we're
going
to
leave
tonight
with
a
policy
that
we
think
is.
G
E
H
E
H
A
E
E
This
and
I
I
think
we're
all
in
agreement,
then
right
that
that
the
rate
that
would
be
recommended
to
council
to
vote
on
out
of
this
committee
would
be
determined.
The
rate
that
would
be
recommended,
of
course,
Council
would
have
to
approve
it
would
be,
would
be
determined
by
a
representative
from
this
Committee,
in
conjunction
with
our
joint
actuary
and
representatives
from
both
pension
boards.
Are
we
in
agreement
with
that?
You.
F
K
A
I
would
like
to
also
relative
to
raids,
because
I
think
they're
in
the
public
comment
as
well.
It
was
brought
up
the
debate
here
of
between
six
and
a
quarter
and
six
and
a
half.
Those
are
both
highly
conservative
rates
relative
to
the
recommendation
of
7.125
for
the
Consolidated
fire
fund
and
six
eight
for
the
police.
So
I
think
we
need
to
dispel
any
any
impression
that
there's
a
wildly
different
view
on
conservatism
between
the
rates
that
were
discussed.
L
G
E
One
section
so
just
so
we're
clear
and
so
I'm
not
saying
that
I'm
not
saying,
let's
come
back
to
us,
recommend
I,
didn't
say
the
actual,
give
them
the
rate
I.
So
they
will
work.
You
will
work
together.
The
actuary
Sherry
or
whoever
is
representing
this
committee
with
representatives
from
both
pension
boards
and
then
come
to
finance
and
budget
and
say
Here's
what
we're
recommending
as
the
rate
of
assumption,
I,
don't
see
what
the
issue
is
with
that,
and
then
we
would
Mr
Mortel.
C
C
G
C
Isn't
a
some
soon
great
if
you
look
at
all
Maybe,
here's
a
little
language
and
so
I'm
confused
because
I
did
we
have
a
very
nice
website
in
Evanston?
I
was
able
to
look
at
all
these
I
never
saw
a
range
of
recommended
rates.
I
always
saw
a
single
rate
and
you
you
can
hand
those
around
the
and
so
now
is
that
changing
I'm
a
little
I'm
confused
now.
J
That's
not
my
record,
it's
not
necessarily
a
recommendation.
It
was
a
rate
within
a
reasonable
and
within
a
reasonable
range.
That's
the
I
believe
the
pension
boards
recommended
at
at
the
time
and-
and
there
were
reasons
I
I,
think
for
for
recommending
6.25.
You
know
one
one
reason
was
that
the
Investments
were
a
little
different
at
that
time
than
they
are
now.
J
There
were
limited.
The
the
pension
code
limited
the
amount
of
equity
that
could
be
invested
in
and
so
I
believe
that
the
the
Pension
funds
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
them,
but
they
felt
that
you
know
six
and
you
know
six
and
a
quarter
was
was
more
appropriate
given
those
investment
restrictions,
and
that
was
the
rate
that
the
pension
fund
recommended
it
and
I
believe
that
there
was
at
least
some
agreement
at
the
time
between
the
pension
boards
and
the
city,
city,
council
or
some
committee.
J
I
I,
don't
know
all
the
history,
but
there
there
may
have
been
some
wreck
yeah
agreements
to
use
that
rate,
and-
and
so
we
have
continued
to
use
that
rate
in
our
valuations.
However,
we
have
also,
over
the
last
several
years,
provided
the
same
results
using
a
six
and
a
half
percent
assumption,
because
that
has
been
requested
by
hitesh
the
CFO,
along
with
our
the
annual
evaluation
that
we
do
at
six
and
a
quarter.
J
So
essentially,
if
you
know
effectively,
we
have
been
providing
dual
results
over
the
last
several
years,
based
on
six
and
a
quarter
and
six
and
a
half.
G
J
So,
in
our
analysis,
for
each
of
the
Consolidated
fund,
the
50th
percentile
rate
was
somewhere
between
six.
You
know
between
6.75
I,
think
for
for
the
the
Consolidated
fire
fund
and
it
was
a
little
closer
to
seven
percent
for
the
Consolidated
police
plan.
Just
you
know,
the
rates
are
different,
just
because
different
investment
policies
between
those
those
two
funds,
so
that
was
that
those
rates
are
the
the
50th
percentiles.
The
the
range
you
know
was
was
really
you
know
around
six
and
a
half
to
just
over
over
seven
percent
were
the
45th
to
55th.
J
Percentile
ranges
that
that
we
discussed
with
those
boards.
G
A
Process-
and
we
want
to
be
conservative
right
I-
believe
we
want
to
be
conservative
in
fixing
our
rate
and
we'll
come
up
with
a
a
subcommittee
that
takes
all
this
into
account
in
determining
what
rate
is
recommended.
E
F
This
is
by
the
city
council,
or
its
designated
committee
and
I'd
that
language
you
know,
incorporates
future
unknown
changes
to
our
structure
and
take
input
from
the
actuary
and
from
the
relevant
place
and
fire
pension
boards.
I've
added
the.
E
Actuary
and
yeah
I
think.
The
only
thing
that's
unclear
is
the
trajectory
of
these
recommendations.
So
that's
where
I
just
again
specificity
is
going
to
be
everything
because
if
we
just
say
take
input
next,
we
know
because
of
the
past
they'll
say:
oh
city,
council
approve.
We
know
that
we
got
largely
into
this
big
hole,
because
there
were
rate
of
assumptions
way
back
before
your
time
that
were
grossly
overestimated
and
city
council
proved
it
not
because
they
had
a
debate
but
because
it
just
came
before
them.
E
H
E
F
All
just
so
close
here,
I
feel
like
we're
heading
in
the
same
direction
in
the
same
car
and
just
fighting
over
who
has
the
steering
wheel
and
only
one
person
can
steer,
somebody
can
backseat
drive
and
the
driver
can
ignore
them
or
not,
but
only
one
person
can
drive
and
we're
all
heading
in
the
same
direction.
Here.
I
A
few
facts
I
mean
I,
heard
a
couple
of
times
that
yeah
we
never
presented
six
and
a
quarter
to
the
council.
That's
not
the
right
statement.
I
have
presented
six
and
a
quarter.
That's
why
it's
out
there
on
the
website
too,
the
results
at
six
and
quarter
six
and
a
half.
In
fact,
just
for
the
knowledge
I
mean
two
years
back.
One
of
the
council
members
who
is
not
here.
She
asked
why
we
are
not
using
the
state
assumed
rate,
which
was
at
that
time,
seven
percent.
I
When
I
started
here
in
18,
I
think
19
I
asked
Jason
and
I
have
the
email
from
Jason
that
at
that
time,
even
we
were
using
six
and
half,
and
he
said
70
of
the
communities
are
using
around
seven
percent
and
there
was
an
article.
Maybe
someone
must
have
read
that
teachers
retirement
fund
in
Tribune
the
big
article
they
were
using
eight
and
quarter
at
that
time,
and
it
was
a
big
article
that
okay,
you
know
they
are
using
it.
Actually
they
agreed
that.
I
So,
ultimately,
it
is
this
land
sponsor
in
this
case
city
council,
with
the
input
from
the
pension
board.
Then
they
make
the
decision
and,
as
Jason
said
and
it's
the
broad
range
I
mean
as
Jason
mentioned,
they
are
okay,
they
are
the
actuary
for
the
Consolidated
pool
investment
rule
with
6.8
and
7.125
percent,
so
I
just
want
to
put
the
FX
out
there.
You
know
I've
been
transparent,
giving
the
council
and
I
have
the
Excel
sheet.
I
I
can
show
you
for
last
five
years:
six
and
a
quarter
person,
six
and
half
person
and
the
state
return
all
three
numbers,
and
but
yes,
obviously,
the
council
was
reluctant,
even
in
the
budget
document.
Five
years
back.
You
would
see
that
the
language
that
they're
curing
presented
recommended
six
and
a
half
percent
return
in
18
budget,
take
the
valuation
based
on
six
and
a
half
percent,
not
six
and
quarter.
I
A
A
G
E
The
other
thing,
though,
I
add
just
to
dovetail
with
Mr
desai's
comments,
is
why
don't
we
say
and
encouraging
Council
to
air
on
the
conservative
side,
meaning
I.E
lower
rate,
because
we
only
benefit
I'm.
Just
saying
we
encourage,
we
don't
have
to
say,
stick
to
it
so
like
if
we're
debating
between
you
know
and
we
can
go
with
a
lower
rate.
Obviously
that's
going
to
reduce
the
deficit
more
quickly,
so
I
would
just
say.
Maybe
a
sentence
in
there
within
you
know:
encouraging
okay.
A
Let
me
just
step
back
because
I
viewed
a
lot
of
this
policy
was
this
great
base.
Foster
and
Foster
document,
and
some
of
what's
in
your
red
line,
took
out
the
language
that
they
had
in
there
and
maybe
Jason
could
tell
us.
You
know
a
little
bit
more
about
why
they
thought
some
of
that
language
is,
is
critical,
but.
H
A
E
That
one
I
would
say
the
pprt
that.
E
Allocating
100
of
the
pprt
annually
I've
had
long
discussions
with
budget
director
at
the
state
and
and
others.
Where
are
you
with
Section,
so
that.
F
A
F
20.,
let
me
just
what's
the
mechanics
cut,
this
conversation
short
by
saying
I
think
we
all
agree
with
councilmember
Kelly
that
we
want
to
use
the
maximum
pprt
allowable
to
us
put
that
towards
the
our
pension
obligations.
We
don't
want
to
use
it
for
anything
else.
That's
what
you're
saying
right.
How
do
we
put
that
in
words?
That's
wordsmithing
and
the
the
can.
G
F
A
F
A
With
that,
so
we're
in
we're
in
section
four
now
section
four,
because
I
thought
relative
to
Jason's
document
what
we
added
was.
We
want
to
be
100
by
2040..
Everyone
agree,
yes,
I
want
to
be
100
by
24..
We
want
to
have
a
subgroup
wait.
Where
are
you
David
I'm,
just
summarizing
where
we
are
in
total.
A
F
A
Million
dollars
come
from
or
wherever
it
whatever,
that
number
might
might
be,
based
on
each
Year's
Actuarial
study,
and
that
was
what
we
were
trying
to
get
to
in
in
number
four,
which
was
a
cascading
source
of
funds,
building
up
to
the
required
contribution,
and
that
started
with
number
one.
Last
year's
flat
pension
property
tax
levy
not
going
to
touch
it.
That's
our
go-in
case
no
increase
in
the
property
tax
levy
is
the
first
step,
which
is
about
20
million
dollars
a
year.
Currently,
okay,
the
Second
Step.
A
Right,
I
I'm,
just
going
through
our
policy
number
two
was
what
we
just
talked
about:
pprt,
appropriate
or
maximum
amount,
I
think
it's
yeah,
it's
not
a
big
change.
A
Number
three
was
available.
Funds
in
the
budget
or
excess
reserves
is
number
three
right.
We
have
room
in
the
budget.
We
have
other
Revenue
sources.
We
have
other
expenses
at
the
end
of
the
day.
Our
budget
is
either
balanced
or
not,
if
they're,
if,
if
the
budget
has
room
in
it
to
do
the
full
contribution,
then
we're
done
if
it.
If
it
doesn't,
then
do
we
have
excess
reserves
that
would
allow
us
to
make
the
contribution.
A
That's
where
it's
that's,
where
it's
sourced
from,
but
then
number
four
under
our
view
of
this
was
that
if
there
are
no
excess
reserves,
if
there's
no
room
in
the
budget,
if
we're
in
deficit,
if
we've
you
know
applied
all
the
pprt,
then
that
is
when
we
would
trigger
the
property
tax
increase,
as
we've
defined
then
last
resort.
Okay,.
H
So
here's
my
other
health,
my
other
point
to
hail,
to
die
on
what
I
don't
want
to
have
happen
is
I
think
that
we
need
to
somehow
have
in
here
that
these
are
non-discretionary
items.
The
pension
I
think
that
if
you
tie
raising
taxes
and
asset
sales
to
the
pension
that
that's
politicizing
it
in
my
view,
so
I
think
that
you
know.
If
we're
going
to
talk
about
property
tax,
raising
property
taxes
or
selling
assets,
those
should
be
tied
to
discretionary
items
like
a
pet
shelter
like
a
hockey
rink
like
those
types
of
things.
H
A
A
A
If
we
don't
have
room
to
make
the
full
pension
contribution,
then
it's
more
important
to
make
the
pension
contribution
than
it
is
to
not
raise
property
taxes.
What
wins
at
the
end,
at
the
end,
I
think
for
this
policy
to
have
any
teeth
to
it.
At
the
end,
we
default
to
raise
the
property
taxes
and
make
a
pension
contribution
right.
E
Core,
but
we
don't
raise
taxes
to
do
potholes
and
I
just
and
I
think
again
the
the
a
mistake
that
done.
We
made
this
mistake
back
and
even
the
Blue
Ribbon
committee,
which
did
Fabulous
work,
but
they
ended
up
having
a
referendum
to
raise
taxes
to
pay
the
pensions
and
it
failed.
You
don't
want
to
again.
This
is
non-discretionary
right,
am
I
not
mistaken
that
there
is
a
referendum
back
in
a
long
time
ago
to
pay
the
pensions,
I
believe
I
believe
they
did
and
so,
or
maybe
Bob
seinberg
remembers,
but
I
at.
K
E
Rate
I
thought
I
thought
there
was
we
don't?
We
don't
want
to
put
this
in
that
position
where
people
become
and
like
we
aren't
against.
You
know
garbage
collection
we're
not
going
to
get.
We
don't
want
to
pit
people
against
that
and
there
are
discretionary
funds.
We
should
always
first
and
foremost
I'm
with
you.
Of
course,
if
we
we
will
always
fund
the
pensions
if
it
means
raising
taxes.
E
Yes,
of
course,
but
but
I
think
we
have
to
have
wording
in
here
to
the
in
the
spirit
of
what
Leslie
just
said,
that
we
will
first,
this
comes
after
discretionary
expenditures.
E
Have
you
know
that's
what
we
raise
taxes
first
and
foremost
for
are
for
things
that
are
discretionary,
not
non-discretionary,
and
that
just
needs
to
be
stated
in
there,
so
that
we're
making
this
very
clear
we.
This
isn't
just
something
we're
slapping
on
top
of
the
budget
some
here.
This
is
an
integral
part
of
our
budget
annually
and
I.
Just
you
know,
wording
that
reflects
that
spirit
is
so
important
because
in
no
way
shape
or
form
do
we
want
the
public
to
think
oh
they're
raising
our
taxes.
F
I
could
weigh
in
here
I
I,
understand
what
you're,
saying
and
I
think
the
fact
that
we
are
adopting
a
policy
that
very
explicitly
puts
us
on
a
path
to
100
funding
by
2040.,
and
this
is
the
policy
of
the
council
that
makes
this
essentially
kind
of
non-discretionary.
F
This
is
Our
obligation
upon
ourselves
to
fund
our
pensions
and
when
we're
doing
our
budget,
you
know
we
have
all
of
our
our
non-discretionary
spending
that
you
know
salaries
Etc,
that
we
have
to
spend
each
year
and
then
the
pensions
and
then
once
we
have
in
pensions
are
on
that
first
list.
F
Before
we
start
talking
about
at
the
animal
shelter
or
the
next
Recreation
Center
or
whatever
other
pet
program
that
some
council
member
in
20,
you
know
32
might
might
come
up
with,
but
we've
adopted
this
policy,
which
puts
us
on
100
percent
and
I,
think
you
know
I
think
the
concern
is
addressed
right
there
up
front
in
the
policy
statement
that
this
is
the
intention
in
direction
of
city
council
is
to
fund
at
100
percent
and
when
it
comes
down
to
where
we're
going
to
get
that
money
from
you
know,
I
reg
I
agree
with
the
chairman
that
if
we
don't
have
a
last
resort
of
raising
taxes,
it
lacks
the
teeth
that
it
needs
like
that.
F
That
is
the
you
know
that
holds
our
feet
to
the
fire.
When
going
through
the
budget
process
like
knowing
we're
gonna
have
to
fund
pensions
at
100
percent.
If
in
2037
we
don't
have
enough
money
to
do
the
extra
projects.
Well,
then
we
don't
do
them
because
we
have
to
or
we
can't
convince
the
public
to.
You
know,
accept
the
property
tax
increase,
then
so
be
it.
We
have
to
fund
the
pensions
first.
F
If
this
policy
does
that
and
so
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with
essentially
with
the
the
wording,
that's
in
our
packet
for
number
four
section,
four
number,
four
okay
I
do
think.
If
I
could
move
the
conversation
along
to
that
number,
five
can.
G
We
just
go
back
to
four
really
quick
sure
so
you're
I
I,
the
one
point
that
I
like
what
you
guys
say:
I
do
think
putting
something
about
that.
It's
a
non-discretionary
budget
item
in
there
because
we
don't
want
someone
just
pulling
the
Layman
pulling
this
up
and
saying:
oh,
the
pension.
That's
why
our
taxes
are
being
raised.
So
there
may
be
a
sentence
we
can
add
to
that.
E
F
So
yeah
number
five
I
think
addresses
you
know
unanticipated
windfalls
and
allows
us
the
flexibility.
If
we
have
you
know
a
10
million
dollar
permit
fee,
for
example,
that
is
we're
not
budgeting.
We
can
use
and
in
fact
we're
encouraged
to
use
at
least
some
of
that
to
pay
down
our
pension
obligation.
A
F
G
A
In
there
it
has
to
stand
yeah
and
really
the
hard
work
in
this
policy
is
developing
a
budget
that
has
enough
room
in
it
that
without
tax
increases,
you
can
fund
the
pension.
That's
where
the
pressure
is,
but
if
a
future
city,
council
or
I
mean
you
can
end
up
in
a
deficit
having
nothing
to
do
with
spending
you're
in
a
recession,
your
property
and
your
sales
tax
drop
by
10
million
dollars,
or
something
on
that
on
that
order.
A
E
I
think
that,
but
it's
that
non-discretionary
line
is
just
so
important
in
terms
of
directing
staff
to
understand
you
build
this
automatically.
So
I
just
think.
That's
really
key
that
so.
H
A
A
A
Getting
so
we
can
take
some
of
that
out.
Okay
for
sure
we
could
take
some,
but
if
that
is
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve
in
that,
for
whatever
reason,
we've
gotten
stuck
with
this
deficit-
that
we
need
to
build
our
way
out
of
over
the
next.
So.
E
A
Because
because
we're
going
to
be
funding
from
so
why
don't
we
I
can
work
with
Sherry
to
try
to
take
your
comments.
Our
comments
get.
E
Know-
and
we
did
also
in
consultation
with
the
boards-
also
Alex
grandchillek,
who
is
an
expert
in
Municipal
financing?
He
worked
on
this,
so
a
lot
of
this
was
also
his
recommendation
and
he
is
on
the
I
think.
Is
it
the
fire
pension
board,
the
FI
and
he's
you
know,
that's
what
he
does
is
Municipal
financing
pensions,
and
so
a
lot
of
this
was
also
with
his
input.
Just
so.
F
F
H
G
G
G
E
Can't
can
I
touch
on
just
because
I
know
we're
going
to
run
out
of
time
shortly.
The
transparency,
part
and
I
know
there's
a
few
other
areas,
but
one
one
aspect
that
I
feel
is
really
important
in
the
transparency
is
providing
the
public
with
those
charts
that
you
know
at
least
five
years
back
five
years
out,
so
they
so
the
residents
can
see
how,
where
that
pension
liability
has
been
and
where
it's
headed
and
how
we
are
making
it
positive
impact
on
reducing
that
I
think
that's
just
really
important
to
have
those
balances.
A
A
A
Get
Jason's
comments
get
get
additional
comments
from
from
the
police
and
fire
pension
boards.
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
get
to
a
document.
We
think
is
something
we
want
to
vote
on
at
the
next
meeting
since
we're
not
meeting
in
August.
We
do
have
Clarity
I
believe,
aside
from
setting
the
rate
of
what
we're
doing
with
this
year's
budget
for
the
pension
contribution.
A
So
in
some
ways
the
big
benefit
of
getting
this
approved
and
moving
on
is
that
we
there's
other
stuff
we
need
to
work
on,
but
this
has
been
very
important
to
do,
but
we
kind
of
want
to
get
it
pretty.
G
G
E
So
I
do
it
in
just
one
little
tiny:
it's
not
a
big
deal,
but
in
section
two
general
funding
policy
objectives.
The
first
sentence
where
it
says
the
plan
is
to
fund
the
long-term
cost
of
retirement
that
and
death
and
disability
benefits.
We
just
have
to
add
death
and
disability
into
there.
That's.
L
A
I
F
All
right,
D1,
we're
ready
for
the
discussion
of
the
reserves.
F
Okay
sure.
A
So
so
there
are,
there
were
some
roll
forward
schedules
on
what
we
think
our
excess
reserves
are.
Maybe
in
the
interest
of
time
there
are
two
areas
where
we
think
we
might
need
to
transfer
some
excess
Reserve
money
to
fix
fundish
other
fund
issues,
one
being
the
Insurance
Fund
and
they
also
the
other
one
being
the
parking
fund,
although
maybe
the
parking
fund
can
be
just
addressed
by
reducing
a
recurring
inner
interfund
transfer,
so
Mr
Desai.
Maybe
if
you
could
talk
about
what's
the
problem
in
the
Insurance
Fund
and
why?
A
I
A
little
time,
but
the
insurance
fund
is
what
we
call
an
internal
service
one,
so
it
doesn't
have
its
own
revenues.
It
just
gets
the
money
from
other
funds,
one
of
the
things
why
the
insurance
money
has
been
carrying
the
negative
cash.
Well,
it's
for
some
time,
it's
not
last
year
or
year
before
or
some
time,
a
few
big
settlements
every
year.
You
know
more
than
anticipated.
That
happens.
It's
a
wide
operation
in
the
Evanston.
I
So
that's
the
one
thing,
and
besides
that
yeah,
we
had
a
one
case
where
we
paid
a
lot
of
big
legal
fee
and
that's
kind
of
one
of
the
things.
Besides,
the
some
of
the
settlements
which
were
like
higher
was.
I
And
I
thought
when
we
started
in
a
good
faith.
This
thing
we
thought
that
we
could
recover
all
that
money.
You
know
so
that
was
the
purpose
at
that.
Time
unfortunately
didn't
happen,
and
then
the
settlement
yeah
I
mean
some
of
them.
You've
been
there
for
a
long
time
in
the
council,
you
have
seen
some
of
the
big
settlements
you
know
and
more
than
anticipated.
So
that
has
resulted
in
this
thing
and
we
were
just
trying
to
look
at
it's
not
that
Council
has
to
do
that
or
Finance.
I
We
just
wanted
to
bring
to
your
notice,
because
we
were
looking
at
our
budget
policies
which
were
approved
by
the
city
council
and
say:
okay,
Insurance
one
should
carry
this
Reserve.
You
know
based
on
the
claims
payable
amount,
and
so
that's
where
we
thought
that
yep
at
one
point,
I
thought,
okay
and
I
think
I
talked
to
chair.
You
know
that
yeah
we
can.
Let's
just
keep
the
thing,
and
we
might
include
this
thing
again
in
the
24
budget
just
few
months
down
the
road
in
October.
I
You
know
the
parking
fund
is
the
same
thing.
We
looked
at
the
policy.
I
mean
parking
fund,
obviously,
for
the
last
couple
of
years
they
got
some
arpa
money,
but
other
than
that
I
mean
they
were
hit
by
the
kovid
and
they
were
still
not
recovered.
I
mean
if
we
Compare
the
numbers
pre-covered
versus
even
today,
you
know
so.
I
Yes,
they
need
something,
and
obviously
we've
been
talking
to
Lara
with
our
city
engineer,
you
know
what
kind
of
requirements
are
there
looks
like
even
in
the
22
fund
financials,
they
would
end
with
around
1.2
or
3
million
in
one
balance.
So
if
they
want
to
spend
some
money,
sometimes
the
big
repairs
on
structural
repairs
on
parking
garages
and
some
of
the
other
things
they
might
need
the
money
too.
So
it
is
kind
of
a
city
council
adopted
it's
discretionary.
The
Insurance
Fund
particularly
getting
negative
balance.
He
has
Auditors
have
to
report
that.
I
I
Absolutely
why
is
that?
Because
in
Insurance
one,
what
we
account
for
is
okay,
estimated
Lively
to
claimed
workers
currently
and
then
health
insurance,
and
then
accordingly,
we
take
the
money
out
of
the
other
funds.
It's
not
an
external
Revenue,
so
it's
always
balanced.
You
know,
and
so
you're
right,
yeah
and.
I
Children
and
I'm
glad
you
brought
now
I
know
it's
in
the
past,
yeah
I
mean
if
the
general
fund
always
needed
the
money.
If
you
look
at
the
last
20
years
history,
so
we
tried
to
take
money
from
here
there
everywhere
to
kind
of
you
know
and
reduce
the
tax
level
that
ultimately
the
goal
was
that
we
look
at
it.
I
mean
parking
fund.
One
piece
of
the
parking
is
the
parking
tax,
which
already
goes
to
the
general
form.
K
I
A
A
I
I
can
bring
it
up
in
24
budget
so
at
that
time,
but
you
have
the
details
that
you
don't
have
to
spend
time.
You
know
yeah,
but
that's
that's
the
goal
yeah
to
have
this
item
discussed
here.
I'll.
G
I
F
F
If
I
am
interpreting
everything
correctly
here,
it
would
be
very
difficult
for
us
to
reduce
parking
prices
without
coming
up
with
some
money
somewhere
else,
because
we
need
the
money
in
that
parking
fund
to
maintain
those
facilities.
Absolutely.
I
I
F
A
Okay
and
then
on
on
page
30
of
30,
this
was
the
recap
of
all
the
funds
and
in
fact
you
can
see
at
the
very
bottom,
the
deficit
and
the
Insurance
Fund
of
4
million
the
small
deficit,
but
parking
fund
should
actually
have
some
cash
in
it
of
three
hundred
thousand,
but
on
this
point,
I
think
this
was
why
we
wanted
to
add
this
to
the
packet.
These
are
all
the
funds.
I
I
What
is
the
purpose
of
the
transfer?
Can
you
just
give
all
those
kind
of
things
some
of
them
have
legal
things
like
SSA
all
the
special
service
area?
You
can
do
that
difference.
You
cannot.
You
know
it
has
to
be
used
within
the
geographical
area
for
the
Tiff
ones
same
thing
with
some
of
the
mft
fund
and
some
of
the
special
Revenue
funds.
Yes,
because
it
has
a
purpose.
You
know
that,
okay,
what
is
this
purpose
internal
service
fund
is
I
said
there
is
no
Revenue
to
them.
I
mean
other
funds
kind.
I
So
they
know
real
revenue.
For
that,
the
only
thing
what
we
did
is,
if
you
look
at
here
originally
the
general
fund
and
Human
Service
fund
Human
Service
fund,
was
part
of
the
general
fund
and
few
years
back.
I
think
the
we
realized
that
Human
Service
fund
has
to
compete
with
the
general
fund
for
the
tax
levy
and
that
could
impact
the
programs,
so
we
kind
of
carved
out
a
separate
fund.
I
You
know
some
of
the
council
members
wanted
that,
and
it
was
a
good
idea
that
okay,
Human
Service
one
program
should
not
be
affected
by
the
tax
level,
so
let's
give
them
their
money
every
year
and
then
the
general
fund.
So
that's
what
happened
yeah
so
yeah.
You
can
work
with
the
Human
Service
fund,
but
I,
don't
know
whether
you
want
to
impact
any
programs
covered
in
that.
A
I
A
Know,
okay,
but
so
taking
this
back
to
the
other
discussion
about
pension
funding.
If
we
get
to
the
point
there,
there
is
no
other
resource
right.
Maybe
we
could
clean
up
a
little
bit
coming
out
of
the
other
funds
or
no
I,
think
that's
something
that
would
be
good
to
understand.
Are
there
some
excess
dollars
within
some
of
these
funds
that
could
Bridge
another
year
or
not?
I
E
Know,
I'm
getting
to
Surplus
right
fund
balances
fund
balance,
but
but
it's
just
to
make
the
point
that
we
we
frequently
we
end
with
Surplus
in
many
of
the
funds
and
we
certainly
can
transfer
we
can
as
Council.
We
can
take
action
to
transfer
funds.
I
I
Okay,
I
mean
I
talked
about
the
parking
fund,
you
know
I
mean
we
have
done
it,
but
I
mean
obviously
the
rating
agencies,
the
external
parties,
the
Auditors,
even
ask.
Sometimes
you
know
you
know
acquaintance.
Can
you
justify
this
million
dollar
transfer
from
this
one
to
this
one?
And
yes
so,
but
some
of
the
other
one
half
of
the
funds
are
the
legal
restriction,
all
those
home
phones,
cdbg,
CD,
loan,
all
SSL,
all
different
mft
funds
yeah
weekend
Pension
funds,
obviously
not.
E
F
K
L
L
E
L
L
F
H
I
Right,
we
are
done,
but
we
are
using
it
for
The
Debt
Service
to
reduce
the
debt
so
because
that
was
the
purpose
when
we
were
getting
the
donations
from
these
people,
they
said
okay
in
the
future,
you
should
use
for
The
Debt
Service
after
the
completion.
So
that's
what
we
are
doing.
We
are
reducing
that
service
Levy
by
using
some
money
for
those
bonds
issued
for
the
crown.
Okay.
A
So
we're
past
6,
30
I
think
it
was
a
good
discussion
here.
It
might
be
good
at
some
point
in
the
future
and
maybe
it's
even
next
year.
If
we
had
another
column,
they
would
just
say:
what's
the
excess
reserves
to
the
degree
there
are
any
because
then
we
could
get
some
visibility
that
okay,
if
we
wanted
to
be
a
little
bit
more
aggressive
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
that
we
can
pay
everything
we
need
to
out
of
the
general
fund.
Maybe
there
are
some
dollars
here
that
we
could
legitimately
move
and.
L
F
I
F
We
have
touched
on
before
and
we
don't
have
enough
time
to
do
it
tonight,
but
for
a
future
meeting,
I
would
like
to
talk
about
our
fund
balance
policies
and
perhaps
increasing
that
from
16.6
to
20
percent
right.
A
So
are
we,
are
we
done?
Okay,
I.