Several members of the city’s Finance & Budget Committee took its chairman to task at their meeting Tuesday, Dec. 13, for sending a letter to the mayor and council members at a crucial point in the budget process stating his opposition to the solution the committee was pursuing on funding public safety pension.

At the meeting, members were critical of chair David Livingston’s actions, and one speaker, during citizen comment, suggested Livingston consider stepping down.

The committee had played a forward role in the historic provision approved Dec. 12 committing the city to a 100% pension funding track after decades of underfunding public safety pensions and incurring millions in unfunded liabilities.

At the end of 2021, police pensions were funded at about 64%. The state requires all municipalities to fund public safety pensions at 90% or more by 2040.

David Livingston, chair of the Finance & Budget Committee. Credit: City of Evanston YouTube

During this budget process, Evanston council members made it clear they would like to move to a path of 100% funding much faster. They also made it clear they wanted to avoid a property tax. Yet, to move the pension funding on a path to 100% funding (rather than the proposed 90%) will require increasing annual pension contributions by an additional $4.5 million.

Livingston had joined committee colleagues in approving the 100% funding recommendation over the 90% funding level.

However, in a discussion at the Nov. 21 City Council meeting where the 100% effort passed as part of the 2023 budget, Mayor Daniel Biss referred to receiving an email that day from Livingston.

The email, Biss said, reiterated Livingston’s opposition to using the full $4.5 million without a property tax increase. The mayor then added, “I’m interested in hearing more options myself.”

‘A better approach’

In his email to Biss and council members, Livingston, writing in the first person, argued he did not believe the proposal to contribute an additional $4.5 million in 2023 was “the right path to take.”

Livingston suggested, instead, that a “better approach’” would be for officials to consider an additional $2 million to $2.5 million in 2023, drawing on either available funding in the city’s General Fund or use of available excess reserves.

He then suggested officials work with pension actuaries on alternative funding paths for both the city’s 90% path and 100% goal, starting in early 2023. In the email, Livingston specified that he had not discussed those points with Finance and Budget Committee members.

“They are my own views. I wanted to get you these thoughts before the meeting tonight,” he wrote, identifying himself as Finance and Budget Committee chair in the email sign off.

In an interview with the RoundTable, on the eve of passage of the budget, Livingston joined city’s chief finance officer, Hitesh Desai, maintaining that “using excess reserves is not a sustainable approach,” and that the city needed a more robust study to develop its glide path to 100% pension funding by 2040.

The public back and forth

In discussion at the Tuesday Finance & Budget Committee meeting, Council Member Devon Reid, 8th Ward, spoke in support of Livingston’s right to express his view, noting he had read the email “and you clearly stated that you’re speaking in your personal capacity. And I don’t think that you give up your rights as a citizen to share your personal opinion.”

But committee member Leslie McMillan expressed concern about the handling of committee communications moving forward.

Kelly said, “I agree with member McMillan that we should agree on how [the information] is going to be relayed, make sure that it is really consistent every time.

“Our public safety pensions should not be made a political football,” Kelly added. “This needs to become a regular line item and we can decide how we do that that, whether it’s from continuing to fund 90% through the levy and we [use] the PPRT [Personal Property Replacement Tax] to bridge that. I think it’s time to bring an end to politicizing the funding of something we have a contractual obligation to.”

Livingston did not explicitly respond to the criticism, choosing to clarify why he took his position.

“If I could just say one thing, and I think I reached out to several of you consistent with the comments from prior meetings. I very much support getting to 100% funding,” he said. “My only concern with respect to this was at least in the first year – and we do have excess reserves to do this in the first year – but it was not backed by any revenue sources.

“That’s your prerogative,” he said to committee members. “I will say it’s going to create additional work for us as we roll forward and we will continue to do that.”

Bob Seidenberg

Bob Seidenberg is an award-winning reporter covering issues in Evanston for more than 30 years. He is a graduate of the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

The RoundTable will try to post comments within a few hours, but there may be a longer delay at times. Comments containing mean-spirited, libelous or ad hominem attacks will not be posted. Your full name and email is required. We do not post anonymous comments. Your e-mail will not be posted.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. In the _1970_ budget discussions, if I recall correctly from sitting alone at the press table, the 18-member City Council spent at least 15 minutes on one item, a new $400+ desk for the assistant city manager. And about the same time on the manager’s assertion that continued under-funding of police and fire pensions would mean bigger troubles ahead. They and their successors apparently have kicked this admittedly difficult can down the road repeatedly, and now it lands with a big thud. I have no idea how fast the current council should or can move on this, but it must move.

  2. Two words: Compound Interest…
    That is the 800 pound megalith in the room. Our community is obligated to fully fund our Public Safety personnel’s pension funds. Since I have been paying attention to such matters (coinciding with being an Evanston property taxpayer) this deficit has grown by more than $100,000,000 to ~ a quarter Billion dollars!
    Kicking the can down the road has only compounded the costs to the community. It’s time to start paying this down in earnest and at a 100% level from whatever funds are available and to minimize the impact on residents/taxpayers.
    If inflation and the latest round of re-assessments weren’t bad enough, continuing to pay interest on growing/compounded interest is not sustainable either. Link all of this to the very costly community project lists, of schools, community centers, civic center and animal shelters (and others already completed WAY OVER budget projects like Crown) and one could easily double the liabilities coming to the the residents and taxpayers of our fair city.
    Where are the civil servants who will act at every turn to protect the financial interests of the community? Maybe we need an independent Inspector General to QC all of the extraordinary spending too.

    Respectfully submitted, Brian G. Becharas