►
From YouTube: Finance & Budget Committee Meeting 5-8-2023
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
D
A
D
D
D
And
that's
so
the
you
can
read
the
further
about
this
on
the
top
takeaway
sheet.
This
is
the
first
page
of
the
packet
I
handed
out
or
see
the
Blue
Ribbon
report
on
the
city's
website.
D
D
This
shows
the
amount
of
pprt
the
state
sent
the
city
in
2022
and
when
that
pprt
actually
came
into
our
coffers,
it's
a
little
over
five
and
a
half
million
in
2022
I
also
added
a
link
for
everybody.
This
is
where
you
go
to
find
it.
That's
where
you
go
to
find
it
and
those
are
our
numbers.
It
takes
a
little
while
there's
thousands
of
these
takes
a
while
to
find
it,
but
once
you
get
in
the
rhythm
of
it,
you
can
go
back
and
go
back
years
and
see
how
this,
how
much
we
receive.
D
D
There
is
a
regularity
to
the
city
to
when
the
city
receives
this
pprt.
It's
almost
about
eight
payments
a
year.
So
far
this
year
we've
received
three
payments,
told
in
a
little
over
1.9
million,
already
there's
five
more
payments
to
come
and
isn't
it
odd.
D
D
D
Let's
keep
in
mind
that
the
Illinois
Municipal
League
clearly
states
that
pprt
was
designed
to
provide
a
revenue
source
for
local
governments
to
meet
pension
obligations
and
pay
outstanding
debt.
Now
there's
another,
this
Illinois
Department
of
Commerce
and
Economic
Opportunity
they
doubled
down
on
that
they
say.
Personal
property
replacement
tax
each
calendar
year
is
for
pension
obligations
of
the
local
governmental
unit.
D
D
The
basic
intended
law
is
to
prevent
excessive
taxation
of
Real
Estate
to
own
fiscal
planning
requires
that
all
revenues,
including
personal
property
replacement
tax
receipts,
be
considered
in
the
levy
process.
It
is
recommended
that
local
governments
make
a
determination
of
the
funds
at
tax
levy
time.
This
is
from
the
Illinois
Department
of
Commerce
and
Economic
Opportunity
about
half
done.
D
And
I
wonder
after
reading
all
this
you
know:
has
City
staff
been
breaking
the
law
all
these
years,
when
the
Pension
funds
did
not
receive
any
of
the
pprt
for
decades
for
decades,
never
got
a
penny,
and
since
2016
through
2022
you'll,
see
a
spreadsheets
on
the
last
of
your
pages,
the
very
last
page,
they
did
start
giving
it
to
pprt
to
the
pensions.
These
straight
off
of
City
budgets
we
took
in
15.8
million
and
the
pension's
got
about
4.2
million
I'd
love
to
know
where
that
other
11.5
went
again
owing
to
these
I.
A
A
D
But
I
do
but
I
don't
want
the
pprt
issue
to
become
a
red
herring.
This
whole
thing
stalls
because
we
don't
know
quite
know
what
pprt
is
going
to.
D
D
Let's
also
keep
in
mind
that
saving
Surplus
money
should
not
be
confused
with
reserves
that
are
held
in
various
percentages
in
at
least
10
other
city
of
Edison
funds.
Besides
the
general
fund,
we
know
how
much
is
in
there.
What's
in
the
other
ones,
and
I
took
this
straight
from
the
budget
today,
there's
10
other
funds
that
have
as
much
as
they
say
a
minimum
of
25.
There's
huge
money
in
these
funds.
Does
anyone
up
there
know
where,
where
it
is
or
how
much
it
is
I
don't
to
any.
D
Finally,
I
want
to
address
how
the
fully
funding
pension
amounts
are
determined
each
budget
year
the
documentation
can
be
found
on
the
city,
everson's
website,
pension,
page
Foster
and
Foster
are
the
actuaries
and
Consultants
hired
jointly
by
the
city
and
the
police
and
fire
Pension
funds.
If
and
if
you're
working
with
them
right
now,
I'd
actually
like,
because
we
pay
for
them
too,
I'd
like
to
know
what
you
work,
I'd
like
to
be
copied
on
what
you're
working
on
there
are
actuaries.
Also
just
almost
done.
D
Back
to
long-term
real
estate,
tax
relief,
there's
only
one
true
path,
and
that
is
following
the
Edison
Blues
evanston's
own
Blue,
Ribbon
report
and
pensions,
and
fosters
and
recommendations
for
100
funding
of
police
and
fire
pensions.
So,
plainly
speaking,
I'm
asking
this
committee
to
move
forward
with
great
haste
to
recommend
the
100
funding
of
police
and
fire
pensions,
not
just
for
2024.,
but
until
2040.
D
G
Evening
everybody
I'm
Dave
Ellis
I'm,
going
to
just
follow
up
a
little
bit
on
Jack's
comments.
You
did
I
thought
he
did
a
very
articulate
job
I,
just
like
again
to
suggest
that
you
fully
fund
the
police
and
fire
Pension
funds.
The
way
I
look
at
it,
I'm
a
shareholder
in
the
City
of
Evanston.
You
know
I've
been
here
a
long
time.
I
pay
taxes
I'm
vested
the
city's
Financial
Health
directly
affects
my
Financial
Health.
It's
there's
no
separation
and
I'm
not
going
anywhere.
G
It
also
affects
every
citizen
and
every
taxpayers:
Financial
Health
real
estate
values,
tax
base
and
all
to
waste
that
if
we
don't
fully
fund
the
Pension
funds,
we're
wasting
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
that
we
don't
need
to
and
underfunding
in
the
interest
rate.
As
I
said,
the
last
time
I
come
and
it's
about
50
000
bucks
a
day.
G
It's
not
fine.
It's
not
fiscally
responsible
I
mean
that's
money
that
we're
paying
that
we're
not
getting
anything
for
as
a
shareholder
if
I'm
paying
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
day.
I,
don't
have
a
problem
if
we're
making
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
day,
that'd
be
great,
but
we're
not
getting
anything
for
that
money.
G
So
I
think
the
council
needs
to
vote
to
fully
fund
the
pension
is
Mr
Mortel
said
to
2040
to
get
this
liability
off
our
backs,
as
I
mentioned
before,
it
could
be
upward
of
a
billion
dollars.
Your
comment
on
transparency
is
100.
Correct
people
understand
what's
going
on,
it's
not
a
good
forecast.
It's
not
responsible,
as
the
council
members,
your
Trustees
of
the
City's
health
and
when
you
take
an
oath
of
office,
it's
to
maintain
the
City's
health
and
well-being
by
as
last
40
years,
we've
pushed
this
can
down
the
road.
G
It's
gotten
worse,
I'm
very
proud
of
last
year's
Council.
It
was
able
to
start
turning
the
ship
in
the
right
direction.
That
was
the
first
step.
I
think
we
need
a
policy
to
fully
fund
it
going
forward
and
at
least
to
be
transparent
about
what
our
liabilities
are
where
we're
at
today,
where
we're
at
next
year,
five
years
so
on
with
the
actuaries
and
with
the
Pension
funds.
That's
all
I
have
thanks.
Thank.
A
C
Council
member
Kelly,
I
Committee
Member
McMillan.
C
A
A
A
Learning
there
I
I
think
to
to
Mr
martel's
point.
There
were
some
higher
Revenue
numbers.
Primarily
it
was
Revenue
that
came
in
sort
of
late
in
the
year
or
early
in
23..
So
we'll
talk
about
that
as
well
as
now
that
we're
a
few
months
in
and
in
light
of
the
additional
revenues
that
we
saw
with
respect
to
22.
A
What's
our
best
current
view
on
23,
and
then
we
will
get
into
this
pension
discussion
where
I
think
everyone
is
saying
the
same
thing,
it's
a
matter
of
how
we
document
it
so
Clayton
Mr
Black,
if
you
could
take
us
through
the
first,
the
first
page,
which
would
be
the
the
comparison
of
the
October
projection
to
the
current
view
on
the
final
final
general
fund
position
for
for
22.
sounds.
J
So
the
first
slide
is
an
update
from
our
April
meeting,
where
we
talked
about
the
general
fund
projected
Surplus
for
fiscal
year,
22.
I'm,
getting
closer
to
final
numbers.
J
Audit
is
still
underway
and
ongoing
and
will
be
presented
in
its
final
form
later
this
summer,
but
at
least
for
now
we're
looking
at
a
26
million
dollar
Surplus
in
the
general
fund
for
22.
I
already
talked
about.
Most
of
this
in
March
April
was.
E
J
No
so
in
terms
of
expenses,
the
general
fund
finished
the
year,
one
million
dollars
under
budget,
which
is
why
the
general
fund
wasn't
included
in
the
budget
amendment
that
the
city
council
approved
last
night,
so
overall
expenses
finished
below
budget.
Most
of
this
was
due
to
salaries
and
vacancies.
We've
documented
that
and
accounted
for
that
in
our
FY
23
budget
to
hopefully
address
that
and
make
sure
that
our
expense
projections
moving
forward
are
a
little
bit
closer.
J
J
You
can
see
beyond
these
other
eight,
we
were
pretty
close
only
off
by
15
000,
but
for
these
eight
there
were
some
pretty
big
variances
most
of
this
due
to
the
fact
that
inflation
continued
throughout
the
winter
months
and
into
2023,
as
far
as
we
can
tell
based
on
early
returns,
so
sales
tax
is
real
estate,
transfer
taxes,
pprt
Recreation
program
fees,
one
that
we
definitely
needed
to
address
this
year.
J
We
raised
fees
for
residents
by
10
percent
and
by
non
for
non-residents
by
another
30
percent,
so
a
revenue
that's
bringing
in
quite
a
bit
more
than
we
budgeted
as
well
as
building
permits
and
gemt
revenue.
So
these
are
the
kind
of
the
top
eight
impacting
this
larger
than
anticipated
Surplus
in
the
general
fund
for
22..
One.
L
Question
with
regard
so
26.5
million
is
obviously
much
bigger
than
the
14.1.
When
we
were
figuring
out
the
levy.
Can
you
identify
some
areas,
I
know,
for
example,
there
was
one
pprt
payment
that
came
in
in
January,
but
what
accounts
for
that
huge,
like
I
I,
don't
it's
hard
for
me
to
believe
that
over
12
million
came
in
in
January
summer?
So
if
you
could
just
tell
us
why?
How
much
of
that?
Why
that
wasn't?
Why
so
much
of
that
wasn't
presented
to
us
in
during
budget
season,
yeah.
J
So
the
sum
of
these
numbers
here,
these
eight
revenues
is,
is
nine
and
a
half
million,
and
then
expenses
we
over
budgeted
what
we
thought
we
were
going
to
spend
in
expenses
by
3
million.
So
whenever
you
take
that
9
on
the
revenue
side,
plus
the
three
on
the
expenses,
you
get
that
12
million
dollar
swing.
So
it's
these
eight
revenues
and
the
expenses
which
is
mostly
due
to
salaries
and.
L
Right
but
like,
for
example,
I
mean
I
like
the
pprt
was
higher,
in
fact
in
December
than
what
you
were
telling
us,
because
we
could
see
from
this
really
and
that
link
is
great.
Thank
you,
Mr
Martell,
because
it's
not
easy
to
find
that
that
website
and
and
find
the
number.
But
what
I'm
trying
to
ascertain
is.
We
would
like
it's
for
the
taxpayers
for
the
residents.
L
It's
important
that
we
have
a
better
idea
as
to
Surplus,
and
there
should
be
projections
like
what
what
prevented
the
finance
department
from
having
a
better
grasp
on
on
you
know
under
budgeting
by
year
end
so.
B
L
Because
not
I,
in
other
words
I'm
just
saying
like
most
of
that
Revenue
didn't
come
in
after
January
1st,
like
are
you
saying
that
that
amount
really
came
in
I
mean
I,
know
it
all
didn't
because
I
know
some
of
it
was
in
fact
already.
You
know
deposited
into
our
accounts
in
December,
but
but
otherwise
it
would
be
to
suggest
that,
oh
we
didn't
know,
we
thought
it
was
14,
but
then
January
came
and
we
got
this
big.
You
know
13
million
more
came
rolling
in
and
I.
Don't
think
that's
what
happened.
J
So
the
14
was
developed
in
October,
that's
where
we
came
up
with
a
14.1
million
going
down
the
list:
sales
taxes
in
particular,
they
received
three
months
and
I'll
go
through
and
I'll
hit.
Pprt
too
so
sales
taxes
are
received
three
months
in
the
rear,
which
means
as
of
October.
When
we
developed
our
projection,
we
would
have
only
had
sales
tax
data
through
July,
so
we
only
had
a
half
a
year
worth
of
data
and
we
were
assuming
that
inflation,
which
is
really
really
impacting
these
revenues.
J
When
you
look
back
at
previous
years,
we
assumed
that
would
level
off
and
that's
why
we
felt
significantly
short
on
on
sales
taxes,
because
we
were
only
working
with
six
months
of
data.
I
think
that
these
tools
that
we're
talking
about
today
are
helping
us
so
that
moving
forward,
we
do
a
little
better
with
our
projections
but
for
sales
taxes.
We
had
data
through
July
real
estate
transfer
taxes.
J
It
really
that's
one
only
takes
one
really
big
property
to
really
move
the
number
there.
It
takes
one
big
commercial
building
or
office
building
in
December
selling.
That
could
make
up
that
difference,
but.
L
We
can
also
like
I,
asked
for
some
of
the
closing
dates
like
we
know
ahead
of
time.
What's
going
to
be
closing
out
too
and
and
I
think
we
can
do
a
better
job
at
projecting
the
those
the
real
estate
transfer
tax,
I.
D
L
H
A
Helped
in
August,
right
and
and
so
I
think
look.
We've
talked
about
this.
That
I
think
we're
in
a
much
better
position.
Now
we
just
have
to
take
all
the
possible
learning
we
can,
because
the
council
members
Kelly's
point.
This
was
too
big
of
a
miss
right,
I
mean
there's
conservatism
and
then
there's
too
big
of
a
Miss,
but
I
think
we
have
better
tools.
We
have
better,
you
know
we
have.
You
know
your
position
filled
and
you
have
more
experience,
and
hopefully
we
can.
A
J
Agree
to
share
pprt
just
touching
on
that
one.
The
last
two
payments
were
received
in
December
and
January,
so
those
were
the
last
two
payments
for
fiscal
year
22..
So,
yes,
we
did
get
a
really
big
payment
in
mid-December
and
we
got
our
final
payment
for
2022
in
January,
which
was
for
December
of
22..
Those
totaled,
probably
close
to
the
I.
Don't
have
the
numbers,
but
they
were
very
big
payments
and
and
I
know
you
probably
have
them
in
front
of
you
with
the
information
handed
out.
J
Is
we
get
notified
by
the
state
what
our
payment
is
going
to
be
early
in
the
month
and
then
our
accounting
division
works
through
a
rectification
process
throughout
the
month
and
it
actually
gets
recorded
as
an
actual,
probably
two
weeks
after
the
state
posts,
the
payment
online,
so
I'm
just
cutting
teeth
here,
but
the
December
payment
may
have
been
received
and
officially
recorded
either
the
day
or
two
days
before
the
the
city
council
approved
the
budget.
So
it
would
have
been
really
really
close.
H
J
Generally,
when
you
look
at
past
data-
and
you
look
at
Trends-
we
know
when
we're
going
to
get
our
big
payments.
The
big
payments
are
in
December
and
January.
It
seems
also
big
payments
in
May,
maybe
one
other
summer
month
as
well.
So
we
know
we're
going
to
get
big
payments,
but
we
don't
know
the
number
until
it
actually
gets
posted.
E
L
K
Do
the
budget
we
rely
upon
the
number
we
get
from
the
IML,
which
is
per
capita,
that
okay,
the
pprd
for
the
upcoming
year,
would
be
this
one.
The
other
thing
is
I
think
he
touched
on
Clayton
that
sometimes
we
get
notified,
particularly
in
the
last
year,
where
oh
yeah
you're
going
to
get
additional
money
in
PPI.
And
if
you
look
at
the
trend
of
last
five
years,
whatever
last
year
is
the
exception,
and
that
comes
like
say
in
December,
right
after
the
council
passed
there
right.
K
So,
even
though,
like
okay,
you
have
approved
the
budget
next
day,
I
know
or
next
week.
I
know,
I
cannot
come
to
the
council
and
let's
change
it,
you
know,
but
we
just
cleared
and
obviously,
as
we
have
been
mentioning
for
the
last
six
months
already,
we
are
comparing
current
year
pprt
with
the
last
year.
It
is
going
down
even
just
yesterday,
I
think
we
received
the
communication
on
last
week
right
that
there
will
be
a
reduction
of
five
percent
because
of
some
error
at
the
state
level.
K
G
K
That's
like
a
on
the
expense
side,
which
is
like
almost
a
three
million
dollar.
We
thought
yeah.
We
would
have
the
hiring.
We
would
spend
more
on
these
things.
You
know
a
vacancy,
but
obviously
yeah
there
was
like
a
HR
department
was
struggling
to
kind
of
fill.
All
the
positions
there
was
a
labor
short
I
mean
a
budget
manager
position.
I
could
fill
in
after
seven
months.
We
started
the
process
in
jail,
yes,
go
ahead,.
K
What
we
do
is
ppid
is
Ultimate.
Impact
is
just
to
kind
of
I'm
glad
you
raised
that
thing.
Pprd
money.
There
were
like
two
things.
K
One
thing
I
think
he
touched
on
that
the
Department
of
Commerce
says
you
should
first
use
towards
social
security,
imra
police
pension
and
before
it
becomes
that
Department
of
revenues
that
there's
a
one
thing
which
and
I
found
15
years
back
some
worksheet
where
it
says
you
should
give
in
certain
prorated
at
the
time
of
79,
when
this
was
abolished,
the
tax
and
then
pprd
came
into
the
effect
But.
Ultimately,
the
impact
is
same.
K
Why
right
now,
I
put
pprt
money
into
general
fund
right
and
I,
give
around
325
000
to
police
pension
out
of
pprd
and
280
000
to
fire
pension.
So
the
rest
of
money
goes
into
General
food.
If
I
first
use
this
towards
say
in
some
fashion,
priority
toward
fire
pension,
police,
pension,
Social,
Security
and
imrf
pension.
Obviously,
and
then
general
fund
would
go
down
in
revenues,
then,
because
now
the
pprd
use
used
up
giving
to
these
other
funds.
So
ultimate
impact
is
that
yeah,
okay,
my
property
tax
levy
for
pensions.
K
Right
because,
at
the
same
time
and
I
think
he
touched
on
that,
the
Department
of
Commerce
clearly
says
that
when
you
use
these
money
towards
the
pension
fund,
you
should
reduce
the
corresponding
tax
level.
You
cannot
do
double
DP.
Did
you
give
it
to
them
and
still
keep
the
levy?
So
that's
yeah
and
and
that's
very
critical.
So
and
yes
again,
we
will
continue
to
improve
yeah
I
mean
again,
I
mean
getting
contradicting
email.
Even
last
month
inflation
is
going
to
go
down
now
there
will
be
a
rate
Cuts
yeah.
E
K
Interest
rates
you
know
and
we
try
our
best
yes
on
both
sides-
expense
side,
level,
income,
even
yes,
we've
missed
I,
would
say
in
a
sense
that
about
the
recreation
revenues
yeah,
we
never
knew
that
it.
We
realized
that
okay,
there
was
some
increase,
but
suddenly
we
came
to
know
that
for
the
out
of
residence
non-resident
it
was
a
30
increase
and
for
the
resident
it
was
a
ten
percent
increase.
So
obviously
that
was
a
big
Surplus
in
that
thing
too,
you
know
sure
sure.
B
K
K
So
the
here's,
the
thing
it
is
not
by
the
state
required.
It
is
the
city
council,
which
kind
of
lasts
as
a
part
of
the
budget
process.
If
we
will
keep
16.6
percent
of
the
fund
balance
or
the
result
so,
which
is
two
months
of
operating
expert,
but
it
is
not
mandated
by
any
state
statute
or
anything.
You
can
go
up
to
10
20
different
communities
have
different
percentages.
I
Yes,
thank
you.
I
have
two
two
things.
One
I
think
a
direct
answer
to
the
question
there
about
who
decides
how
pprt's
funds
are
spent
attached
covered.
I
It
really
well,
but
I
think
that
just
direct
answers,
the
council,
you
know
the
council
ultimately
makes
all
of
those
decisions,
and
then
you
know,
as
far
as
the
reserve
fund
you
know,
I
I
think
we
actually
need
to
have
a
true
Reserve
fund
that
is
separate
of
the
general
fund
just
for
transparency
sake
and
make
it
clear
to
you
know
both
council
members
and
residents.
How
much
money
do
we
actually
have
in
Surplus?
I
And
not
you
know
what
what
you
know
above
what
we
need
to
keep
in
reserve
and
so
I've
long
advocated
that
we
would
create
a
an
actual
Reserve
fund
and
I'm.
So
hoping
you
know,
folks
see
that
as
potentially
been
helpful
here,
that's
something
this
committee
can
get
behind.
L
A
dovetail
on
council
member
Reed's
comment:
I
mean
we
do
have.
What
is
it?
10
funds?
Nine
ten
funds
altogether
and
each
has
a
set
Reserve
fund
amount,
so
16.6
for
the
generalizer
or
general
Reserve,
but,
for
example,
motor
fuel
tax
I
believe,
is
a
25
right
Reserve,
so
they
each
have
varying
amounts
and
I
think
tonight
we're
just
looking
at
general
fund,
so
council
member
Reed
to
your
point.
L
I
I
I
think
the
reserve
fund
is
most
important.
Sorry,
it's
rough
for
the
general
fund.
That's
our
largest
reserve,
the
other
ones.
I
I!
You
know
we
could
figure
that
out.
L
L
J
J
Know
embedded
in
there
or
are
they?
If
you
take
a
look
at
our
monthly
report,
it
shows
the
fund
balance
of
all
41
of
our
funds
and
within
those
41
funds.
If
you
put
that
next
to
the
10
that
have
fund
balance
policies,
you
can
start
to
get
an
idea
of
of
those
11
funds
which
ones
have
available
excess
reserves
and,
and,
as
the
chair
said,
one
of
those
funds
is
and
councilmember
Kelly
actually
mentioned
it.
L
F
I
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
this,
to
to
your
comment
that
or
to
hitesha's
comment
that
you
don't
have
to
put
pprt,
you
know,
amend,
put
it
towards
the
pensions.
My
understanding
in
reading
a
whole
bunch
of
documents
online
is
that
we
are
required
to
allocate
to
the
pprt
to
the
pensions,
am
I
misinformed.
K
As
I
said,
you
know,
I
mean
we
have
two
kind
of
documents.
Right
now
available,
one
from
DCU
Department
of
Commerce
I've
been
trying
to
reach
them
for
last
kind
of
couple
of
weeks.
You
know,
send
them
an
email,
I'm
waiting
for
a
response
that
okay
and
specifically
I
asked
the
Department
of
Revenue
too,
because
they
have
their
own
thing
and
they
say.
B
K
You
have
to
go
by
the
1979
percentage
when
this
came
into
place
and,
as
I
said,
I
came
up
with
one
worksheet
and
I
think
might
have
is
when
we
are
the
actuary
named
Ted
winter.
He
mentioned
something
in
his
report
that
yes,
4.79
percent
of
the
what
he
called
ppid
should
go
towards
the
police,
pension
and
fire
pension.
This
must
be
the
person
that
decided
in
79,
so
I
don't
know
while
DC
says
yes,
you
should
use
the
money
first
towards
the
Social
Security
pensions
like
imrf
fire
and
social.
K
Now,
what
is
the
ultimate
impact
because
I
see
that
different
communities,
you
know,
are
we
trying
to
gain
and
they
all
talk
about
some
percentage
level
so
and
I'm
trying
to
reach
out
to
the
other
communities?
Okay,
what
are
you
doing?
But
what
would
be
the
ultimate
impact
right
now
like
say,
ppatic
goes
into
general
form
right
and
then,
okay,
since
general
fund
has
extra
that
three
million
four
million
five
million
dollar
we
can
kind
of
reduce
our
corporate
tax
levy.
K
Now,
if
you
say
okay,
there's
no,
why
don't
you
give
it
to
the
pensions
and
social
whatever?
Yes?
So
that
means
what
my
general
friend
would
lose
that
revenue
of
three
million
dollars.
So
now,
when
I
try
to
balance
my
corporate
Levy
I
might
have
to
raise
that,
so
it
is
more
like
a
semantics
or
Optics
or
whatever.
But
again
yes,
I
mean
if
you
have
some
certain
ways
and
you
can
kind
of
recommend
something
and
I'm
kind
of
forwarded
to
the
council,
and
we
can
go
like
that.
K
But
ultimate
impact,
in
my
mind,
is
for
the
tax
level.
Every
purpose
is
nothing
right.
L
So
I
just
think
it's
about
priorities
right
it's
about
priorities
and
spending
and
I
want
to
say
also
in
the
state
statute.
It
makes
reference
to.
First,
you
know
that
money's
received
by
taxing
districts
from
the
personal
property
tax
replacement
fund
shall
be
first
applied
toward
the
proportion
share
of
the
pension
or
retirement
obligations.
So
it's
really
those
outstanding
obligations.
It's
really
you
know
both
in
the
state
statute
and
in
the
Department
of
Commerce,
so
I
mean
I.
L
Think
whether
or
not
you
know
we
we
can,
we
can
use
it
towards
something
else
maybe,
but
we
certainly
should
I
think
we've
all
expressed
here
that
we
have
a
priority
this
this
money.
It
is
in
intended
or
recommended
to
be
used
towards
outstanding
pension
debt.
So
at
this
point
we
are
heavily
burdened
with
a
very
large
outstanding
liability
for
our
Public
Safety
pensions.
L
You
know
I
think
absolutely
we
should
be
applying
this
so
that
at
least
we
know
that
we
are,
that
is
that
that
portion
of
money
will
be
going
annually
and
not
only
that
I've
talked
with
people
at
ratings
agencies.
They
said
when
you
do
this.
I
can't
remember
the
term
on
a
continuing
basis
that
that
really
has
a
very
positive
impact
on
ratings
when
you,
when
a
council
passes
an
ordinance
to
say
every
year,
this
allocation
this
this
appropriation,
this
money
will
go
towards
pensions
that
has
a
very
definite
positive
impact
on
our
ratings.
L
K
Couple
of
clarifications
remember
Kelly.
The
first
thing
is
yes:
I'm
working
with
the
even
I
was
emailed
our
Corporation
Council.
Who
is
out
for
so?
Yes
do.
We
have
a
legal
opinion
that
okay?
Can
you
work
with
the
legal
department
or
DCU
or
others?
You
know
and
give
us
the
exact
Direction?
That's
the
one
thing,
so
we
will
wait
for
that.
Yes
and
I
can
come
up
and
even
in
next
meeting
you
can
have
that
recommendation.
I'm
waiting
for
even
Department
of
Commerce.
K
Second
thing
is:
it
won't
change
the
pension
obligation
liability
because
it's
just
matter
of
money
coming
from
which
source,
but
the
amount
Remains
the
Same.
If
the
actuary
tells
me
that
if
this
give
10
million
dollars
for
police
pension,
I
will
give
10
million
dollar
at
100
funding
right.
K
L
But
it's
a
guaranteed
funding
source
and
that's
what's
important
to
rating
agencies.
This
is
money
that
we
will
get
annually
from
the
state.
But
that's
why
also
I
proposed
here
an
equation
so
that
every
year
we
are
full
funding
which
will
also
positively
impact,
but
but
that
when
you
rely
on
a
regular
funding
source
that
you
will
get
every
year
and
you're
allocating
that
you're
property
net
towards
your
debt
obligation
that
that's
up
as
opposed
to
say,
we
will
pay
this
amount.
L
Maybe
we
won't
have
that
amount,
but
this
is
something
that
we
will
get
every
year.
It's
a
funding
source
that
we
can
count
on,
albeit
and
I
would
like
to
say
also
I
do
think
in
the
past.
I
think
now
we're
looking
at
the
IML,
but
clearly
in
the
past
we
weren't
relying
on
those
projections
because
you
under
budgeted
by
so
much
over
these
past
years.
A
You
know,
as
we've
talked
about,
there
were
some
Oddities
relative
to
the
pandemic
and
other
other
things
open
positions
that
impacted
that
so,
let's
roll
forward
a
year,
then
right
because
I
think
we've
we've.
As
that
has
shown
there
is
more
pressure
on
us
to
update
our
projections
more
frequently,
and
here
we
are
in
in
May,
and
this
is
sort
of
in
light
of
what
we
saw
in
22
versus
the
final
22
and
what
we've
seen
so
far
year
to
date,
we're
looking
at
a
new
projection
relative
to
23..
A
So
how
does
this
roll
forward
into
what
we're
thinking
now
with
23?
Also,
in
light
of
the
new
Public
Safety
Union
contracts
that
that
came
into
that
were
approved
earlier
this
year,
so
let's
Clayton,
if
you
could
take
us
through
sort
of
our
first
view,
it's
not
going
to
be
the
last
time
of
what's
the
projection
for
23
I
would
suggest
we
look
at
it
again
in
August.
A
We
look
at
it
again
and
during
the
budget
cycle,
and-
and
we
will
find
a
way
that
we
don't-
we
might
want
to
be
slightly
conservative,
but
we're
not
going
to
have
that
degree
of
variance
between
what
we
really
think
the
current
year
is
and
how
we
roll
that
into
the
next
budget.
So
Clayton,
if
you
could
take
us
through
what
you're
currently
saying
for
the
23
projection.
Okay,.
J
J
This
shows
an
update
of
projected
revenues
at
this
super
early
preliminary
stage,
and
so
as
as
we
mentioned
last
month,
we
could
see
anywhere
between
six
and
ten
million
dollars
in
potential
Revenue
upside.
That's
based
on
really
those
eight
revenues
that
run
the
last
slide
that
finished
last
year
strong.
J
We
also
used
our
projections
from
last
year
to
base
our
budget
this
year.
So
that's
why
we
are
comfortable
thinking
that
some
of
those
revenues
may
be
a
bit
short.
J
Those
in
green
are
the
ones
that
have
been
increased
they're
just
two
in
red
that
I
highlighted
the
wheel
tax
and
the
local
motor
fuel
tax,
both
kind
of
our
only
two
revenues
that
have
trended
behind
budget
in
recent
years.
A
You
combine
can
I
just
ask
yes,
I
I,
just
looking
at
you
know,
22
actual
23
projection,
I
I,
take
it
that
you
have
increased
this
by
six
and
a
half
correct.
It
still
looks
like
a
conservative
budget.
Well,
you
know
a
conservative,
re-forecasting
and
I
know
that
there
is
there's
a
lot
of
year
to
go
we'll
continue
to
to
update
it
specifically
on
pprt.
A
J
Touch
on
the
number
and
then
I'll
let
the
test
jump
in
so
IML
was
projecting
a
I
believe
29
drop.
J
33
drop
in
their
most
recent
numbers,
and
so
that's
in
the
realm
of
what
this
5.5
million
to
3.5
million
is
reflective
of.
Additionally,
we
did
just
get
information
as
a
test
said
last
Friday
that
the
state
made
an
error
in
some
of
their
allocations
and
we're
going
to
see
a
five
percent
drop
in
pprt
and
a
five
percent
increase
in
our
local
government
distributive
fund
payouts.
They
paid
out
PPR
actual
lgdf
money
intended
for
lgdf
through
our
pprt
disbursement,
so
they're
correcting
that
error
as
part
of
future
disbursement.
K
But
and
I
just
want
to
touch
you
on
one
thing
and
stress
that
kind
of
which
is
very
important.
Yes,
we
can
look
into
revenues,
dig
into
that
and
come
up
with
a
better
projection,
but
I
don't
want
ultimately
to
look
just
revenues
in
isolation
because,
ultimately,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
are
concerned
with
the
operating
Surplus
or
deficit.
K
Why
I'm
talking
about
all
the
expenses
are
of
police
contracts?
Fire
contract
ask
me
contracts
all
the
equipment,
all
the
supplies,
all
the
CIP,
almost
every
project
I
was
talking
to
Lara
last
night
during
the
council
meeting
has
an
overage.
So
yes,
it's
good
and
bad
about
the
inflation.
Yes
you're,
getting
all
these
Revenue
sales
tax
and
higher.
At
the
same
time,
you
are
paying
a
lot
more
for
equipment,
the
fuel,
the
CIP
cause,
labor
cost
and
everything
you
know,
including
the
salaries
and
all
those
contracts.
K
J
K
Yeah
so
I
just
kind
of
yeah
kind
of
request:
the
council,
members
and
the
committee
members
here
put
it
in
there.
Yeah
I
mean
yes,
we
can
talk
about
in
the
isil
right
here,
but
when
it
comes
down
to
making
decisions
like
I
think,
a
chair
was
still
referring
to
earlier
before
the
start
of
the
meeting,
just
look
at
the
operating
Surplus
or
deficit.
You
know
that.
Okay,
what
are
the
revenues?
We
are
getting
this
much
higher
than
budgeted?
K
A
And
and
one
more
one
more
question:
I
know
that
there
are
many
hundreds
of
items
in
there,
but
if
you
look
just
at
the
all
other,
we
are
dropping
from
26.5
to
you
know
just
just
under
23..
Do
you
have
a
sense
of
any
of
the
major
items
in
there
or
is
it
just
many
many
items
that
that
are
accumulating
to
that?
So
many.
A
Okay,
I'm,
sorry
to
put
you
on
in
mind.
I
should
have
asked
you
that
before
so
I,
you
know
I
I,
good
progress
on
updating
the
projection
for
sure,
and
we
have
to
look
at
the
expense
side
as
well.
J
J
Terms
of
the
forecast,
so
I
wish
I
could
find
a
way
to
make
these
a
little
bigger
on
the
screen.
So
you
can
see
it
but
I.
It
is
in
your
packet
as
well.
J
So
when
you
combine
the
26
million
dollar
net
operating
Surplus
right
here
for
22.,
with
the
existing
fund
balance
and
the
general
fund
prior
going
into
22,
so
that's
the
31
million
here
you
see
an
ending
fund
balance
at
the
end
of
22
of
57.9
million,
so
very
strong
general
fund
fund
balance
moving
into
23..
The
far
right
column
shows
these
updated
revenue
and
expense
projections
for
23.
So
you
can
see.
J
So
when
you
consider
that
our
budget
had
a
projected
net
deficit
of
10
million,
and
so
we
were
covering
that
with
fund
balance
by
the
time
you
consider
these
additional
revenues
and
the
additional
unbudgeted
expenses
so
far,
we're
still
in
that
realm,
so
we're
sitting
around
9
million.
So
despite
these
additional
expenses,
as
long
as
we
recognize
that
upside
in
revenues,
we're
kind
of
where
we
started
and
have
a
projected
fund
balance
at
the
end
of
23
of
the
48
million
dollars.
J
As
we've
been
saying
since
last
year's
budget,
though
these
numbers
at
the
bottom
speak
volumes
as
to
how
much
this
inflationary
environment
is
impacted,
evanston's
fund
balance,
so
you
can
see
49
37
percent
prior
to
2021.
When
this
inflation
really
kicked
in.
You
can
see
we
weren't
even
meeting
the
16.66
fund
balance
policy
and
you
have
to
go
all
the
way
back
to
the
early
2000s
to
even
see
where
we
were
over
20.
J
J
Are
you
talking
about
this
10
million
right
here?
So
that's
our
budget
for
FY
23,
so
the
budget
that
was
approved
by
city
council
had
a
deficit
of
10
million
when
approved.
Most
of
that
was
the
transfer
to
pensions,
the
three
million
dollars
that
was
moved
to
the
reparations
fund
with
the
additional
two
and
a
half
million
really
covered
by
general
fund
Reserves.
J
L
Maybe
I
think
so
so
I
mean
there
was
because
we
reduced,
which
I
don't
think,
is
a
good
way
to
to
do
this.
What
we
did
this
year
by
reducing
our
last
year's
budget
instead
of
Simply
amending
the
budget,
to
increase
the
amount
for
the
funds
that
were
overspect
I,
think
the
question
is:
how
much
was
overspent
and
I
understand
that
there
was
a
surplus,
but
how
much
in.
L
Right
so
I
guess
that
I
think
that's
the
question
like
the
previous
year
that,
just
in
general
that
we're
gonna
give
the
finance
and
budget.
You
know
we
project
that
this
fund
is
going
to
be
over
regardless
of
the
Surplus
I
mean
that's
a
bigger
problem,
obviously
that
there's
so
much
Surplus
that
we
and
didn't
have
a
handle
on,
but
but
also
assuming
that
we
have
a
better
handle
on
Surplus
and
in
general,
I.
Think
the
idea
of
respecting
a
budget
I
think
it's!
L
L
We
got
to
mend
it
really
fast
because
we're
gonna
get
audited
because
that's
the
way
it
always
feels
I
think
we,
you
know
I
know
interim
city
manager,
Kelly
gandersky,
agreed
to
that
when
I
held
it
over
previous
year
asked
when
there
was
an
11.5
million
over
expenditure
that
going
forward,
we
would
be
apprised
first
instead
of
five
months
afterwards.
So
I
also
have
one
question
with
that.
30
with
this,
the
31.
J
J
L
J
J
We
were
projected
to
spend
10
million
more
than
we
took
it
in
revenues
and
that
10
million
includes
the
four
and
a
half
million
for
additional
contributions
to
pensions
and
included
the
three
it's
accounted
for
through
the
three
million
dollar
move
of
real
estate
transfer
taxes
from
the
general
funder
reparations,
which
meant
we
were
really
only
covering
about
two
and
a
half
million
of
general
fund
operations.
With
that
57
million
dollars.
J
L
But
that
10
was
Surplus
money,
though,
that
we
spent
so
I
think
that
has
to
be
added
in
so
for
transparency
sake,
I
mean
that
money
that
we
put
into
the
reparations
that
was
from
the
Surplus
budget,
as
was
the
additional
payment
towards
the
pensions
I
mean
in
terms
of
having
a
realistic
idea
of
really
where
we
ended
the
year.
I
think
that
has
to
be
I,
think
I.
J
K
A
I
Sorry,
yeah
I'm
sorry,
plans
of
information
for
councilmember
Kelly.
The
reparations
money
did
not
come
from
surplus
funds
that
came
from
these
real
estate
transfer
tax.
A
That's
how
it's
reflected
here,
it's
it's
a
fundamental
part
of
the
current
year
deficit
is
10
in
23
or
9
through
the
current
projection.
That
includes
the
incremental
four
and
a
half,
so
it
it
is.
It
is
reflected
in
in
the
fact
that
the
current
year
budget
is
is
in
deficit,
nine,
but
there's
plenty
of
Reserve
given
where
we
ended
22
to
pay
that.
So
it
really
I
think
we're
just
talking
about
a
semantics
between
the
two
years.
L
It's
just
about
transparency,
though,
for
the
public
to
say
it's
57,
not
47
how
we
ended,
because
we
did
allocate
some
of
the
Surplus
I
think
it's
everyone
wants
to
know
like
when
we
budget,
if
we
budget
300
million,
but
in
fact
we
only
spent
200
like
the
public
should
know
that
and
that's
why
I'm
saying
so,
the
money
we
did
take
and
yes
I.
Your
points
taken,
councilmember,
Reed
I.
Remember
now
that
that's
for
23
transfer
taxes,
but
the
pension
payment
did
come
out
of
the
year-end
Surplus
councilman.
K
Just
the
clarification,
how
did
things
work?
The
council
approved
four
and
a
half
million
dollars
for
23
budget
as
a
part
of
23
budget,
and
why
did
the
council
approve
that?
Your
point
yeah
that
okay,
we
have
a
healthy
Surplus
as
of
22
projected,
and
so
let's
budget,
four
and
a
half
million
dollar
extra
for
23
payments,
the
tax
levy.
So
it
was
a
budgeted
in
23,
because
22
budget
was
already
adopted
a
year.
K
Funded
and
that's
why
the
the
Surplus
goes.
Why
is
it
a
major
decision
to
give
four
and
a
half
out
of
the
general
fund
because
it
has
a
healthy
fund
balance
and
it
was
expected
to
close
the
22,
the
healthy
fund
balance
so
just
like
what
happened
in
reparations
that
okay,
let's
transfer
three
million
out
of
transfer
text,
correct,
okay,
but
yes
again,.
G
K
L
I
Oh
yes,
point
of
information,
I,
think
conference
Kelly
we're
we're
all
staying
the
same
thing.
I
Yes,
you
were
correct
that
it
was
taken
from
or
that
the
reasoning
for
us
in
our
2023
budget
allocating
this
100
annual
funding
was
because
of
yes,
that
14
million
dollar
Surplus
2.22,
but
it
was
not
budgeted
for
2022
right.
This
is
a
2023
expenditure,
so
that
is
why
it
is
listed
in
the
20.3
budget
and
not
2022,
which
I
think
is
what
I'm
hearing
you
said
right.
L
I'm
just
saying
that
we
need
to
have
a
full
accounting
of
a
year
and
surplus
get
closer
to
it
because
we're
way
off
and
that
needs
to
be
included
when
we
decide
to
allocate
expenditures
in
the
subsequent
year
based
on
Surplus.
That's
still,
nevertheless,
is
this.
It
represents
Surplus,
so
we
can
say:
oh,
we
got
a
50
million
dollar
Surplus
we're
going
to
take
25
and
instead
of
issuing
a
bond
next
year,
we're
going
to
use
that
Surplus.
But
it's
still,
we
need
to
have
a
a
more
accurate
accounting
of
our
Surplus.
A
Let's
go:
let's
go
to
the
next
page
now,
if
we
could,
because
this
this
is
on
to
that
point
of
given
the
final
Surplus
position
of
23,
how
is
that
being
used
in
the
current
year?
Yes,.
J
So
bottom
line
general
fund
great
position
going
into
23
and
we've
been
able
to
use
the
fund
balance
at
the
end
of
22
to
cover
a
number
of
things.
We
use
the
10.1
million
to
balance
the
general
fund,
we've
covered
overages
on
three
CIP
projects
that
came
in
over
budget
due
to
inflation
and
we've
been
able
to
cover
higher
than
budget
wage
increases
for
police
and
fire
also
included
on
this
list.
J
There
are
several
items
on
the
horizon
that
may
come
back
to
this
Committee
in
some
way
shape
or
form,
one
which
I
guess
won't
come
back
to
this
committee,
but
ask
me
contract
negotiations
underway
still
waiting
on
an
estimate,
but
it's
likely
going
to
be
higher
than
the
four
and
a
half
percent
wage
increases
that
we've
included
in
our
budget.
We
continue
to
see
projects
come
in
over
budget
last
night.
J
Another
project
came
to
city
council,
the
Main
Street
project,
which
utilize
general
fund
reserves,
and
we
anticipate
that
trending
content
Trend
to
continue
I'm,
given
where
inflation's
at
next
items,
pensions,
which
I
won't
get
into
quite
yet
and
then
and
additionally,
the
transfer
a
potential
transfer
to
CIP
fund
per
fund
balance
policy
in
order
to
reduce
And,
Delay
Geo
bonds.
So
over
the
last
two
years,
we've
had
23
million
dollars
in
maturities,
Upper
bonds,
and
we
haven't
replaced
that
with
any
new
debt.
J
J
J
Yes
and
then,
additionally,
at
the
bottom,
we
have
a
couple
potential
transfers
per
fund
balance
policy,
so
the
Insurance
Fund
and
the
parking
fund
are
two
of
those
11
funds
that
that
do
have
fund
balance
policies
and
both
of
them
are
well
below
what
that
Reserve
balance
says
they
should
be.
So
if
we
were
to
follow
our
fund
balance
policy,
we
would
move
seven
million
dollars
to
those
funds
immediately
out
of
the
general
fund
reserves,
but
we're
opting
to
continue
having
some
of
these
discussions
before
we
make
those
types
of
decisions.
J
So
this
is
the
best
way
to
show
it,
because
this
general
fund
forecast
does
account
for
all
of
those
expenses,
and
so
this
projected
column
shows
that,
with
those
items
that
have
been
approved
so
far,
we
would
be
sitting
if
23
projections
hold
true
with
a
49
million
dollar
fund
balance,
and
you
can
see
down
here.
26
million
of
that
49
million
would
be
considered
that
excess
Reserve
above
the
16
I'm.
F
J
J
I
imagine
they
would
all
be
subject
to
our
purchasing
policies,
so
anything
over
twenty
five
thousand
dollars.
The
city
council
would
get
approval
on.
If
it's,
if
it's
not
budgeted,
you
know
you
could
the.
B
A
So
everything
in
green
has
been
approved,
correct.
You
said
already,
so
our
real
decision
items
have
to
do
and
you
we
kind
of
went
through
quickly
if
we're
going
to
bond
this
year.
I
think
that's
that's
a
more
significant
discussion
that
probably
we
would
have
in
the
August
September
time
frame,
but
I
think
a
key
point
that
you
brought
up.
We
did
not
do
a
bondale
last
year.
A
As
everyone
knows
this
year
we
have
approximately
10
million
dollars
of
maturities
as
well,
so
that
would
end
up
being
about
a
25
million
dollar
use
of
available
liquidity.
If
we
don't
do
any
bond
deal
this
year,
so
we'll
want
to
get
your
analysis
as
to
why
we
want
to
do
a
bond
deal
but
I
think
having
substantial
maturities
without
replacing
that
with
debt
and
actually
seeing
the
debt
drop
is
putting
a
lot
of
pressure
on
the
general
fund.
So.
A
The
capital
fund,
so
I,
don't
think
that's
a
discussion
for
right
now,
but
we
have
had
every
year.
Not
only
do
we
have
expenses,
but
we
have
bomb
maturities,
and
so
there
would
have
been
over
a
two-year
period
right.
You
said
25
million
dollars
worth
of
maturities,
correct,
so
I
don't
think
anybody
is
is
considering.
We
need
to
do
25
million
dollars
worth
of
issuance,
but
to
have
25
million
dollars
worth
of
maturities
that
just
come
out
of
available
liquidity.
That's
a
lot
can.
E
A
A
L
Are
high
and
I
think
we
should
be
giving
firm
Direction
with
regard
to
just
because
we
have
you
know
bonds
maturing,
whether
we
want
them
to
roll
over
at
a
high
rate
or
not
I
think
we
have
to
discuss
this
soon
sooner
than
later,
so
I
I
would
yes,
I
agree.
I
want
us
to
come
move
forward
with
recommendation
for
a
firm
plan
to
fully
fund
our
pensions,
but
I
also
think
we
should
discuss
sooner
than
later.
K
The
deal
in
first
week
of
September
and
why
we
do
it
in
September
so
that
it
kind
of
is
within
90
days.
So
we
can
do
some
current
refunding
too,
but
right
now,
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
benefit
to
do
any
refundings,
so
we'll
see
that
next
month,
I
think
the
Lara.
Our
city
engineer,
is
planning
to
come
here
to
this
committee,
with
the
proposed
CIP
for
2024.
K
K
Obviously,
the
council
wanted
that
mayor,
who
kind
of
mentioned
last
year
too
that
when
you
come
up
with
the
budget
in
October,
and
then
we
talk
about
some
of
the
heavy
things
you
know
like
debt
and
CIP,
we
rather
have
early
start.
So
that's
what
we
are
doing
this
year
cips.
So
we
want
this
ideally
kind
of
CIP
settled
in
by
the
time
we
come
up
with
budget
in
October
first
week,
and
that
gives
a
committee
a
good
chance
to
kind
of
go
over
the
projects
and
the
funding.
F
F
F
You
put
people
in
the
in
the
position
of
thinking,
hey,
there's
all
this
money
to
play
with,
but
if
we
could
get
closer
we
could
really
kind
of
have
a
better
understanding
and
our
we
could
give
our
council
members
really
good
data
and
and
kind
of
give
them
a
much
better
perspective
on
what
it
is
they're
spending
on
and
and
if
where
they
are
in
terms
of
their
reserves,
I
think
without
that
kind
of
discipline
it
we
don't.
We
seem
to
have,
but
it's
just
difficult
to
see
how
this
is
sustainable.
F
And
then,
when
we're
talking
about,
you
know
yeah
25
million
dollars
of
debt
rolling
off,
but
at
a
much
lower
interest
rate
I
mean
that's
just
that's
just
a
a
wheel,
a
hamster
wheel,
that
if
we
get
on
where
we're
issuing
debt
at
much
more,
you
know
expensive
levels
and
then
having
debt
roll
off
at
much
less
level.
Yeah
I
I,
just
don't
see
how
that's
sustainable.
L
Right
and
I
also
think
just
I
agree,
I
think
it.
You
know
these
huge
surpluses
that
we
don't
find
out
about
until
much
later
does
not
lend
itself
to
budgetary
discipline.
And
what
happens
is
oh,
you
know
we
can
spend
an
extra
1.5
on
the
shelter
because
we
have
this
extra
money
and
that's
what
happens
is
we
start
to
overspend?
Because,
oh
guess,
what,
as
it
turns
out,
no
worries?
Because
we
had
you
know
25
million
dollars
extra
and
it's
not.
L
And
so
this
is,
this
kind
of
you
know
doesn't
again
doesn't
lend
itself
this
system
of
finding
out
months
later
that
there's
this
huge
Surplus
that
it
just
allows
and
it
lends
itself
to
overspending,
and
so,
whereas
maybe
our
residents
would
prefer
that
we
levied
lower
or
maybe
we
spent
on
something
else,
but
it's
kind
of
becomes
very
unwieldy
when
it's
presented
this
way
so
I
hope
we
can
be
much
more
accurate
this
year.
G
A
Good,
so
the
the
final
topic
that
we
wanted
to
talk
about
tonight
was
where
we're
headed
on
pensions
and
if
I
could
just
start
by
saying,
as
we
said
in
other
meetings,
I
think
we
have
a
unanimous
view
that
we
want
to
fund
at
100
percent.
We
have
the
numbers
from
Foster
and
Foster.
Now
it
gave
us
a
revised
path
to
100
funding
by
2040..
A
These
numbers
will
have
to
be
regularly
revised
because
there's
you
know
both
sides
move
the
liability
moves,
the
assets
move
based
on
unexual
returns,
but
we've
I
think
we're
in
a
good
position
now
to
really
have
a
a
better
view
on
what
is
the
expected
contribution
path
to
get
to
our
mutual
goal
of
100
funding
by
2040.,
so
it
took
a
while
to
get
to
these
numbers.
They
had
to
be
revised
because
of
the
the
new
Union
contracts.
A
This
is
the
best
current
View
and
when
they
do
a
formal
Actuarial
study
for
next
year
and
24's
contribution
will
get
somewhat
different
numbers.
But
now
we
have
a
a
better
view
of
over
this
path.
What
is
the
where?
What
are
the
expected
contributions?
And
we
can
think
about
how
do
we,
how
do
we
directly
link
those
to
revenue,
sources
or
or
general
fund
available
sources,
so.
H
Point
of
information:
these
numbers
are
based
on
the
current
Public
Safety
contracts,
the
new
contracts.
H
But
but
the
I'm,
sorry,
the
we
still
have
one
contract,
which
is
that's
under.
G
L
Yes,
but
no
I'm
with
you
what
I'm
just
curious,
there's
no
I
noticed
that
six,
the
6.25
is
that
now
we're
it
just
seems
like
why
don't
we
have
estimates
with
6.25,
because
that
has
been
the
and
I
thought
that
was
still
the
recommended
rate
of
assumption
from
our
actual.
L
Half
right,
but
that
hasn't
been
the
recommended
amount
and
so
I'm
recommending
that
we
go
by
what
our
actuary
recommends,
which
is
I,
believe
6.25
still
Mr
Mortel.
Do
you
know
if
it's
6.25
right
here
6.25?
So
we
should
I
mean
the
numbers
that
we
presented
are
the
numbers
that
I
have
and
went
over
were
based
on
the
6.25
I.
K
K
And
a
half
for
the
last
few
years,
six
and
a
quarter
is
the
recommendations
from
the
pension
boards.
Their
thing
I
think
I
mentioned
in
the
memo.
You
would
see
that,
like
a
larger
picture
at
the
state
level
that
they
are
using
6.8
and
7.125
for
the
pension
and
police
pension
and
fire
pension
at
the
state
level
for
hundreds
of
Pensions.
So
even
when
I
talk
to
and
I
think
the
Foster
and
Foster
is
the
actuary
for
the
state
investment
pools
and
they
say
yeah.
These
numbers
are
better
kind
of
yeah.
K
K
A
Of
which
they
but
yeah,
so
it's
not
fully.
K
Transition
into
that,
but
what
would
happen
is
when
I
was
talking
and
looking
at
some
of
the
other
things
they
would
run
their
Actuarial
report,
the
investment
pool
for
each
City.
You
know
and
come
up
with
the
required
contribution
so
for
the
fire
pension
I
saw
that
yeah
for
some
of
the
Cities
who
kind
of
Started
from
the
very
beginning.
Fire
was
a
little
late.
You
know,
so
we
don't
have
that
actual
report
yet
from
them,
but
in
the
long
run
that
would
be
the
norm.
K
D
S
I
can
speak
to
this.
The
council
does
not
set
the
Assumption.
You
do
not
set
that
that
is
set
by
our
joint
actuary.
That's
who
sets
it.
They
recommend
6.25
I've
got
it
right
here
in
this
document.
That's
what
they
recommend
now,
the
council.
Yes,
they
could
go
to
any
percentage
they
want,
but
I
want
it
to
be
very,
very
clear
attention,
you're,
not
an
actuary.
These
guys
are
actuaries,
they're
trained
in
it.
They
know
what
they're
doing
but
excuse
me
there's
been
a
lot
of
false
information
that
I've
had
I.
A
Signed
the
overall
tone
could
improve
I
think
it
could
improve.
There's
too
much
accusation
in
all
of
our
discussions
that
there's
a
conspiracy
that
there
that
people
are
hiding
things
that
they
don't
know
what
they're
talking
about.
We
need
to
set
that
aside,
because
I
think
people
are
doing
their
best
with
the
information
they
have.
We
can
improve
on
the
clarity
of
the
data,
but
I
just
wish.
We
could
get
away
from
any
sort
of
accusations.
D
L
D
A
L
I
would
like
to
know
why
6.25
who
requested
these
numbers,
like
I,
have
numbers
with
6.25
so
Mr
Desai?
Did
you
choose
not
to
get
the
numbers
with
6.25,
because
I
see
that
the
the
estimates
were
given
are
not
based
on
the
actuaries
recommendation?
It's
only
6.5
and
I'm,
not
you
know,
I'm
not
going
to
say
which
one
I
you
know
generally
I
would
want
us
to
air
to
go
with
the
actuary.
Trusting
his
judgment
as
an
actuary,
but
I
see
that's
not
even
one
of
the
the
assumptions
that
that
you
requested
a.
K
Couple
of
things
Civic
have
been
using
six
and
a
half
as
adopted
by
the
city
council.
Ultimately,
yes,
the
pension
boards
are
actually
recommends,
but
the
city
council
makes
the
decision.
It's
not
my
decision.
K
L
H
L
Have
given
us
the
option
to
ask
him
to
at
least
provide
the
100
funding
at
the
rate
that
the
actuary
that
we
both
use,
the
city
and
the
pension
boards
use
and
by
the
way
I
just
also
want
to
say
David,
you
know,
emotion
is
an
information
and
I'd
like
you
not
to
scold.
People
have
taken
time
out
of
the
day
to
come
here.
L
Incredible
amount
of
work
that
Mr
Mortel
put
together
for
us
I
mean
that
that
is
I
can't
even
imagine
the
number
of
hours
and
as
a
as
somebody's
serving
the
public
when
people
are
frustrated.
That's
information
to
me.
That's
that's
information
that
we
now
have
a
very
precarious
liability
for
our
Public
Safety
pensions.
Our
front.
You
know
our
First
Responders.
Now
almost
over
a
quarter
billion,
please
don't
score
gold,
our
Our
First
Responders
when
they
come
out
here
and
do
all
this
hard
work
and
present
us
with
packets
because
they
feel
frustrated
again.
L
K
Let's
just
try
to
keep
the
tone
a
little
bit
and
a
little
bit
higher
I
mean
I've
been
transparent.
What
I
inherited?
We
see
this
six
and
a
half
few
things.
Look
at
the
every
Year's
report,
like
Actuarial
report,
which
I
put
it
on
the
website
comes
to
accounts.
It
has
both
numbers,
six
and
a
half
and
six
and
a
quarter
percent.
K
If
you
look
at
the
two
I
always
ask
for
that:
okay,
what
are
your
numbers
so
faster
and
faster
provides
the
number
based
on
six
and
a
half
percent
and
six
and
a
quarter
person?
If
you
can
look
at
the
last
three
years,
report
posted
last
four
years
report.
Second
thing
is
I
talked
to
the
Foster
and
Foster
of
our
own
activity,
as
well
as
the
activity
for
pension
fund
and
I'm.
Like
I
noticed
that
okay,
you
are
using
6.8
and
7.12.
K
He
said
with
this
consolidation
of
the
funds
we
expect
to
earn
more,
so
we
are
comfortable
as
an
actuary
for
the
investment
pool
to
use
6.8
and
7.125
So.
Based
on
that
I'm
like
okay,
we
can
stay
with
six
and
a
half
and
he
was
comfortable.
Even
I
have
an
email
from
him
that
more
than
70
of
the
funds,
pre-consolidation
use
six
and
a
half
percent
or
higher
rate
of
it.
K
H
That,
if
I
could,
if
I,
could
ask
a
question
here,
how
frequently
would
it
be
indicated
to
revise
that
assumption?
Well,
we're
talking
about
just
let's
just
clarify
we're
talking
about
a
long-term
assumption,
we're
saying
over
20
years
the
rate
of
return
for
each
year
would
be
six
and
a
half
percent.
K
H
Not
we're
not
changing
that
number,
because
interest
rates
are
up
this
year
and
they
go
down
next
year
and
we
change
this
assumption.
You
know
every
year,
but
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
be
locked
into
an
assumption
for
20
years.
We
could
revise
it
as
time
evolves,
but
it's
not
something
that
we're
playing
around
with
every
time.
Every
year.
K
Absolutely
and
if
you
can
look
at
the
City
of
Evanston
history,
we
used
to
be
at
seven
percent
seven
and
quarter
person.
Then
we
came
down
to
six
and
three
quarter.
Then
we
came
to
six
and
a
half
and
when
you
compare
these
numbers
with
the
corresponding
comparable
municipality,
whether
you
take
algae
in
Naperville,
Schaumburg,
Joliet,
Buffalo
group
and
Good
Financial
conditions,
they
were
using
higher
than
that
number
right.
When
I
have
the
article
from
five
years
back
where
teachers
retirement
fund
was
using
8.125
and
we
were
using
six
and
three
quarters.
L
But
it
was
the
exaggerated
assumptions
that
really
snowballed
us
to
where
we
are
with
this
huge
debt
obligation.
Right
now
is
because
of
exaggerated
assumptions.
That's
what
in
large
part,
got
us
into
the
big
mess
we're
in
now
back
in
the
early
2000s,
so
we
do
have
to
be
careful
with
it.
Every
time
whenever
we
do
when
we
overestimate
our
assumptions,
it
can
set
us
back
and
and
so
I
just
so,
that's
I
understand
that
with
it
with
the
state
consolidation
that
they're
expecting
better,
you
know
better
returns.
L
A
We
could
ask
hitesh
and
I
talked
to
Jason
about
the
variables
we
wanted
in
this
study.
A
It's
not
a
big
item
to
ask
him
to
run
it
at
six
and
a
quarter,
but
the
fact
is
we're
already
at
a
substantial
discount
to
the
state
funds
and
what
is
a
reasonable
discount
I
think
we
can
monitor
our
actual
performance
for
several
years
and
say
how
close
is:
are
the
state
funds
getting
to
what
their
assumed
rate
of
return
is?
So
if
the
is
it
the
fire,
that's
at
seven
and
a
quarter
or
is
it
the
police?
So
six
and
a
half
is
already
a
substantial
discount.
A
What's
the
exact
right
number
I
think
we
need
more
data
to
say,
I
I
think
again
we
give
or
the
boards
give
guidance
to
the
actuary,
I
think
Jason
would
say.
Any
of
those
numbers
are
are
fine
with
him.
It's
our
judgment
that
he
would
then
use
to
build
into
the
projections
and
the
calculations
on
the
funding.
It
is
not
up
to
the
actuary
it's
up
to
the
sponsor
it's
up
to
the
boards
to
determine
ultimates
the
the
council
more
than
anyone
else
as
to
what
numbers
we
want
to
use.
A
L
A
It
reasonable
we
can
ask
Jason
but
again
to
what
hitesh
said.
Most
communities
are
much
closer
to
those
published
rates
than
we
are
we're
being
conservative,
I.
Think
being
conservative
is
where
we
want
to
be.
Do
we
need
to
be
six
and
a
quarter
versus
six
and
a
half
I
think
we
have
other
other
items.
We
should
all
get
to
resolution
and
we
could
maybe
refine
with
some
data
over
time
is,
should
we
be
at
six
and
a
quarter
or
six
and
a.
B
Okay,
because
I
was
on
that
board,
but
it's
what
we
could
do
is
maybe
twice
a
year
we
could
get
their
performance
reporting,
so
we
can
start
to
get
an
idea
of
how
they've
done,
because
they're
invested
in
a
lot
of
things
that
we
couldn't
do
in
a
smaller
pension.
They've
got
private
Equity.
They
actually
buy
real
estate
directly,
as
opposed
to
pools.
B
So
I
do
believe
that
they
probably
will
do
a
little
better,
but
I
think
that
we
could
do
six
and
a
quarter
six
and
a
half,
but
I
think
our
due
diligence
would
be
once
or
twice
a
year
to
get
their
performance
and
I
know
the
executive
director
there
and
I
I
would
think.
If
we're
part
of
their
plan,
we
could
get
that
so.
K
B
K
A
Yeah,
so
we're
running
out
of
time:
okay,
okay,
we're
running
out
of
time,
I
think
that
one
we
have
to
think
about
how
we
want
to
document
this
in
a
policy
but
council
member
Kelly,
you
had
some
language
that
I
that
I
think
we
all
need
to
better
understand
in
in
your
proposal,
in
your
recommendation
and
I.
Think
it's
pretty
fundamental
as
we're
kind
of
running
out
of
time
here,
but
again,
I
think
everyone
agrees.
We
we
want
to
be
at
the
100
numbers.
No
one
disagrees
with
that.
A
I
think
the
part
of,
and
we'll
figure
out.
What's
the
right
amount
of
pprt
again,
whether
it's
coming
out
of
general
fund
unrestricted
funds
or
directly
out
of
pprt
it
it
we
want
to
hit
the
total
contribution,
regardless
of
of
what
it
should
be,
but
you
mention
here
that
of
the
remaining
balance
and
I
guess
it's
after
pprt
up
to
90
percent
of
that
just.
H
L
Firstly,
recommending
it's
100
funding,
I
think
that
number
one
we've
all
agreed
upon
number
two,
that
we
appro,
that
we
have
a
recurring
appropriation
of
the
pprt
money,
so
100
of
it
and
again
there's
a
benefit
to
that
as
my
inquiries
with
some
of
the
the
state
rating
agencies.
So
it
also
just
assures
a
regular
routine
chunk
of
money
and
it
will
vary
from
year
to
year,
but
we
know
that
that
would
be
going
to
since
it
is
intended
and
again
probably
legally.
L
Currently
we
we've
been
living
at
about
90
percent
of
our
of
Our
obligation
through
the
property
Levy
I
would
say
that
we
love
it
up
to
because,
as
Mr
Desai
pointed
out,
as
I
pointed
out
last
time,
it's
possible
that
there
will
be
years
when
we
maybe
even
this
year,
that
the
pprt
would
actually
dip
below
a
90.
L
As
you
pointed
out
last
time,
we
might
have
to
lower
that
protect
that
one,
maybe
89
so
I,
don't
want
to
stick
to
90.,
but
should
it,
for
example,
not
should
it
should
it
not
approach
90
should
it
fall
short
say
cover
only
you
know
we
still
have
to
make
up
a
little
bit
at
that
point.
I
would
say
that
we
would
take
it
out
of
the
Surplus
or
or
Reserve,
and
then
finally,
the
fifth
one
which
I
hope
we
can
all
get
on
board
on
is
when
we
have
a
large
Surplus.
L
It's
not
locking
us
into
this,
but
that
we
give
real
serious
consideration
to
funding
at
105
percent.
So
when
we
have
I'm
not
saying
we
do
it,
but
it's
something
that
we
would
consider
during
the
budget
season
when
we
have
that
kind
of
surplus.
Do
we
want
to
spend
it
on
this
or
do
we
want
to
put
it
in
relieving
some
of
that
pension
debt?
So
that's!
That's
it
in
a
nutshell.
A
A
So
another
thing
Foster
and
Foster
gave
us
which
I
thought
was
a
great
start,
was
a
model
funding
policy
that
hits
on
almost
all
of
your
points
right
about
how
it
really
is
unfair
to
the
Future.
It's
unfair
to
us
now
that
we're
having
to
deal
with
this
deficit
right
and-
and
so
it
deals
with
all
those
sorts
of
issues,
and
why
it's
important
for
any
city
council
to
take
this
seriously
and
get
us
back
to
the
100
sort
of
sort
of
funding
level
and
I
I.
A
Think
that's
a
really
good
document
to
try
to
put
in
the
specifics
for
us
that
we
could
approve.
We
could
have
people
come
in
and
you
know
give
us
comments
on
it,
but
we
could
develop
it
over
the
next
month.
Take
in
some
comment
look
to
approve
it
as
soon
as
we
as
soon
as
we
feel
fully
comfortable
with
it
and
take
it
to
the
council
and
really
give
the
the
council
full
guidance
on
how
we
think
this
is
your
work.
A
This
works,
what
their
obligation
is
for
the
future
or
our
guidance
for
the
future
and
take
your
ideas
take
you
know
our
group
group
thoughts
and
get
this
into
a
document
that
legal
can
review
and
we
can
vote
on.
I
think
we
all
want
to
do
that.
We
all
have
the
same
goal,
there's
different
ways
to
ensure
the
contribution
you
went
through.
You
know
some
some
here.
A
Maybe
we
can
socialize
some
of
those
individually
over
over
the
next
month
or
so
and
say
here's
our
view
of
how
we
think
the
funding
mechanism
should
work,
because
I
think
that's
one
thing
about
the
Blue
Ribbon
committee's
report
that
could
have
been
more
specific
where's
the
money
going
to
come
from
and
that's
our
hard
part.
We
want
to
Define
where's
the
money
coming
from
pprt
property
tax,
excess
reserves
and
what
happens
when
none
of
that
is
enough
at
what
point?
A
F
I,
just
as
a
point
of
interest
of
those
Five
Points
was
there
anything
that
gave
you
particular
pause.
A
A
A
L
I
think
we
want
to
be
very
careful,
I
think
where
the
Blue
Ribbon
committee
actually
may
have
made-
or
some
of
the
offshoots
of
it
might
may
have
made
a
little
mistake.
So
we
might
be
very,
very
careful
that
we
don't
make
up
that.
We
don't
politicize
this
and
and
the
way
you
politicize
something
that's
so
that
we
so
fundamentally
are
obligated
to
is
by
saying
we're
going
to
raise
taxes
to
pay
for
this.
So
I
think
we
want
to
be
very
careful
that
we
don't
make
it
a
political
football
funding.
Our
pensions.
H
I
think
I
think
that's
a
really
good
point,
but
I
also
want
to
point
out
what
Mr
Martel
said
earlier:
that
property
tax
increases
should
be
considered
as
a
last
resort.
That
was
one
of
the
recommendations
of
the
Blue
Ribbon
committee
and
to
have
property
tax
levy
appear
as
basically
option
number
two
isn't
kind
of
congruent
with
that
recommendation.
Even.
E
H
If,
even
though
I
think,
maybe
what
you
mean
here
is
up
to
90
percent
it,
it
would
not
necessarily
impose
an
increase
correct,
but
I
think
we
can
maybe
just
be
a
little
bit.
A
More
clear
about
that,
and
maybe
we
can
work
on
some
language
to
say
that
is
the
last
resort,
but
and
we
need
to
decide
if
you
get
to
the
day
where
your
choices
between
an
incremental
Revenue
Source,
like
a
property
tax
increase
or
staying
on
the
path
and
funding
the
pension
at
a
hundred
percent
which
do
we
say
the
city
should
do
I
think
this
group
would
say
we
should
make
the
contribution,
even
if
it
requires
a
some
degree
of
tax
increase.
But
I
would
also
say:
that's.
That's
the
council
member's.
A
You
know
so,
let's
work
on
the
language
of
the.
What
are
the
priorities
going
down
to
that
last
resort
and
what
what
would
we
recommend
happens
in
that
eventuality?
We're
sitting
here
now
because
of
a
lot
of
reasons
we
talked
about
earlier
at
a
very
healthy
Reserve
number,
so
likely
we're
going
to
get
through
several
years
before
we
would
get
to
that
decision.
Point
of
there
are
no
remaining
excess
reserves.
What
do
we
do
right.
B
I
have
three
really
quick
points.
One
is
I
went
to
Claire's
session.
B
The
education
and
I
do
I,
would
love
to
do
a
Community,
Education
and
and
bring
I
think
you
spoke
and
Foster
and
Foster
because,
like
you
just
said,
David,
if
we
fund
now
that'll
be
a
less
burden
later
on,
I
also
did
look
at
the
isby
I
found
that
and
they
earned
8.3
the
last
10
years,
7.3
the
last
five
years
and
7.2
the
last
three
years
granted
it
was
a
very
good
stock
market,
but
interest
rates
are
up
now,
so
I
do
think
a
six
two.
B
Five
six
point:
five
is
probably
in
the
range
and
thirdly,
just
because
I
did
work
on
the
investment
policy
for
a
long
time
with
isby.
You
don't
want
to
be
too
constricted
with
the
policy
we
want
to
have
enough
in
the
policy
that
that
decisions
can
be
made,
but
you
don't
want
to
make
it
so
you
know
so
tight
that
if
there's
a
variance,
people
will
feel
that
they're
not
going
against
the
policy,
so
I
think
we
need
to
have
language
like
the
last
resort.
B
We
can't
say
never
raising
property
taxes,
language
like
that.
We
have
to
have
a
little
flexibility
but
I
think
once
we
do
the
education,
it
would
be
very
good
and
maybe
even
we
have
like
a
little
book
or
a
little
education
piece,
because
this
is
a
big
part
in
all
people
hear
about
is
the
state
budget
and
the
edu
you
know
the
the
school,
the
school
pension
plans
in
the
city
and
people
get
very
worried.
So.
A
Can
I
recommend
that
perhaps
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks
that
Sherry
and
I
take
a
take
a
stab
at
amending
that
Foster
and
Foster
provided
funding
policy
and
we
we
we
circulate
it
appropriately
and
taken
people's
thoughts,
but
I
think
that
what
is
the
key
here?
What's
the
priority
for
funding
right
and
because
I
guess
I,
you
know
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
big
differences
on
any
other
point
in
this
in
this
group.
So.
L
A
A
A
Do
we
want
to
invite
comment
on
that
draft
that
we
would
then
maybe
take
in
and
and
amend,
further
and
vote
on
in
July
or
do
if
we're
comfortable
enough
with
the
draft?
Maybe
we
could
vote
on
it
in
June.
I
certainly
want
to
move
on
to
other
things,
but
this
is
our
biggest
issue,
and
if
we
could
truly
put
this
away,
it
would
be
very
fundamental
and
then
we've
got
capital
projects
and
all
sorts
of
other
stuff.
We
would
love
to
get
to
I.
H
I
would
suggest
you
know
preparing
a
draft
at
the
committee
level
sharing
that
draft
for
public
comment
making
any
revisions
that
we
want
to
make.
Based
on
that
comment,
and
then
that
recommendation
goes
to
council
with
the
stakeholder.
Engagement
already
haven't
been
done.
H
L
You
know
I've
been
on
the
phone
with
David
Harris
he's
the
director
of
the
Illinois
Department
of
Revenue
and
I
just
want
to
say,
like
all
the
documents
it's
in
the
statute,
we
could
all
read
the
statute.
It's
I
mean
even
he
was
like
I
filled
him
in
on
some
information
like
about
the
the
Commerce
department.
So
I
would
just
say
it
is
all
right
here,
I,
don't
think
and
I'm
happy
to
share
the
link
to
the
Statue.
The
state
statutes,
I
I.
A
And
ultimately,
it
all
comes
out
of
the
general
fund
right,
that's
where
the
money
is
gonna,
you
know
come
from
and
to
your
point,
a
sustained
path
that
we
stick
to
to
fully
fund.
This
is
what
is
going
to
make
the
debt
rating
agencies
happy
so
well
we're
doing
it
for
the
right
reasons,
we're
doing
it
to
ultimately
drop
the
required
funding
the
required
contributions,
because
we
are
fully
funded.