Evanston’s City Council holds a public hearing Monday night a new city budget that calls for a 13% increase in spending.
The record $449 million budget also calls for a 7.9% increase in property taxes.
The Council won’t vote on the budget Monday night.
But it is scheduled to vote on several fee increases called for in the budget — including a one-third boost in ambulance rates, 7.5% increases in sanitation service charges for 2024 and 2025 and a 17.5% increase in water rates.
The proposed budget calls for spending down the city’s budget reserves by $10 million next year, and exhausting the so-called “excess reserves” by 2026.
The new budget would increase the city’s staff size to levels not seen in nearly two decades, and so far the Council has shown no appetite for spending cuts.
Next Monday, Oct. 30, the Council is scheduled to begin its debate on Northwestern University’s plan to rebuild Ryan Field.
While the overall economic benefit of the new stadium has been hotly debated, one reasonably assured gain is about $11 million in building permit fee revenue for the city.
That’s income — not anticipated in the proposed 2024 budget — that would significantly ease next year’s city budget crunch.
Spread over a two-year construction time frame, stadium building permit fee revenue would more than match the $4.3 million a year the city hopes to raise from the proposed property tax increase.
Whether that will influence any votes on the Council about the stadium project remains to be seen.
Monday’s Council meeting is scheduled to start at 6 p.m. in the Civic Center.
Excellent reporting. Thank you. In 2019 (an economically strong year) the head count was 794 employees. The 2024 head count is projected at 895 employees. When you factor in benefits (health insurance, pension, work comp, vacation) it is VERY likely that the average City of Evanston per employee cost is $100,000 per employee–or more.
Reverting to the 2019 head count would easily save the City in excess of $10,000,000. I strongly suspect there are savings to be had near $3,000,000 if the benefits were closely reviewed as well. District 225 (similar head count to City of Evanston) saved over $3,000,000 changing their insurer while staying fully compliant with all labor agreements. If D225 can do this, there is no reason the City of Evanston can’t do this.
It is an absolute disgrace that we allowed to the head count to get so out of control. We as voters took our eye off the ball by not voting–if I’m correct, voter turnout for Council elections is/was near 35%. As long as we, as citizens of Evanston allow this mis-management to occur, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
This story is being replicated at D65–but readers of Evanston Now already knew this.
All very well said, JPF, and excellent reporting indeed. I especially like the context vis-a-vis the Northwestern debate and the comment that it “remains to be seen” what influence that will have on the budgetary debate. Teed up very nicely.
Reminder that the $11M quoted here is just for the permit fees/construction. The city should say yes to the project and No to the zoning.
The University has made it clear there is no new stadium without the rezoning and allowance for six concerts a year. It’s an all or nothing deal. Let’s get all the benefits this stadium will afford and accept six concerts, which many (most?) people in Evanston and around the Chicagoland area will love.
Just step back a minute. You want to build an $800M stadium and have $16 B (that’s BILLION) in reserve, and you can’t afford $2M/year in maintenance? It’s ludicrous. Build a $750M stadium and use the extra $50M to generate revenue for maintenance. Why is this even still a question?
Does the $11M in permit fees not also come at an increased cost to execute all the additional inspections and approvals that come with such a massive project? I can’t fathom this is pure net profit as this description suggests. Can you please further explain what the $11M in fees does to actually balance the budget? There has to be some cost tied to that right?
If that is pure income at no additional costs to the city, or a huge unjustifiable ROI, then we have other issues we need to address with this city this is so anti-business they would want to effectively require a bribe to do construction here! (But it’s okay if you call it a fee?!?)
Hi JP,
There is some cost to deliver the plan reviews and inspections, but it’s a substantial net gain to the city.
And, given that the City Council rejected the only other large-scale new construction project submitted for approval this year, the Merion Legacy project, and that there are no other major projects currently in the pipeline — just two mid-size affordable housing developments — one could speculate that the city inspectors may have time on their hands over the next couple of years if the stadium isn’t approved.
— Bill
No question that the reporting and JPF are right on. The issue now is to get well qualified and funded candidates for the next election. In the last election we had few good candidates so, while I would very much like to blame the voters, it is hard for me to think that if had a higher turnout we would have had better results.
Perhaps Evanston Now could become a focal point for possible candidates (and believe me, I’m not one).