Public Safety Pension Debt Liability

One of the most burdensome and unacceptable expenses for our residents has been the escalating cost of financing the public safety pension debt, which had been approaching $300M and consuming a significant portion of our property tax levy. I led the historic resolution to fully fund these pensions and finally start reducing the debt. In the first year alone, by increasing the city’s contribution by $4.5M, we reduced the debt liability by over $30M.

For years, the underfunding the public safety pensions was financially reckless.. Our residents are paying upwards of $20M annually just to service this debt—a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. My actions have ensured a more stable financial future for Evanston and, over time, a substantial reduction in costs to taxpayers. If the city’s contractual obligation to the Public Safety Pensions had been met regularly every year, the way the city meets its obligations to the IMRF pensions, instead of paying nearly $25M / year towards the Public Safety Pensions the taxpayers would only pay approximately $6M / year. That’s an enormous difference. This never should have spiraled into this enormous debt. As we now reduce our debt, in time we will also see a dramatic decrease in the amount owed annually to the Public Safety Pensions. This is perhaps the most important and beneficial action to support our residents and their property taxes. I am very proud of my work to reverse that ever growing debt and to pass the historical resolution to fully fund our Public Safety Pensions.

My opponent has attempted to turn the responsible 100% funding of our public safety pensions into a political football, while turning a blind eye to exorbitant discretionary spending, overpriced consultants, and other reckless financial practices. That’s not responsible leadership—it’s a dangerous path we can’t afford to take.

He has shown little concern for the long-term financial health of our city. He opposes the decision to responsibly use a limited amount of excess reserves to reverse the growing pension debt—an approach that in one year alone reduced the pension debt by over $30M. His opposition to responsibly spending limited amounts of excess reserves to pay down our pensions debt thereby significantly reducing this burden, is, again, an example of his lack of diligence to research to understand the city’s budget and expenditures, and sensitivity to the high cost of living in Evanston.

Homelessness and Margarita Inn Shelter

I believe in balancing compassion with accountability, especially when it comes to providing shelter and services for our most vulnerable residents. That’s why I called for clear safety protocols before approving the Margarita Inn shelter. As someone deeply connected to residents in the First Ward—home to more low-income subsidized housing than any ward except the Fifth—I’ve seen firsthand the dangers of failing to hold housing providers accountable for safe, decent living conditions. Many of these residents are also clients of the same nonprofit managing the Margarita Inn, so I know what’s at stake.

Based on my experience in the First Ward and research into successful models in other cities, I requested that one of three safeguards be in place before I could support the shelter to ensure standards of quality living:

1. A mixed-use model, like Oak Park’s Write Inn homeless shelter, which combines shelter space with community amenities like a café that fosters positive engagement and interactions with the surrounding community and reduces stigma. Once Council was considering investing in and supporting a homeless shelter downtown in a historic hotel, I immediately visited the Write Inn in Oak Park and was provided with a full tour and meetings with administrators of Housing Forward administrators (operators of Write Inn) and RISE Center Medical Respite Program. I was impressed with the full program, including the mixed use aspect that brings neighbors into the building and provides the residents of the Write Inn a lovely venue to enjoy coffee and interact with neighbors. I was also impressed by the medical services program located on one floor of the Write Inn. This is an impressive operation providing a dignified and safe living arrangement for the residents of the Write Inn.
2. The nonprofit becoming a Medicaid provider to ensure consistent delivery and accountability of professional services to residents;
3. A strong operating agreement to guarantee accountability for services, safety and quality of care.

The providers for Margarita Inn were not interested in either one or two above (mixed use or applying to be a medicaid provider.). Our city manager hired a nationally recognized legal expert in group housing to craft a strong operating  agreement.  It was unfortunate that neither one or two were adopted, and unfortunately, before the final vote, most all of the measures and  protections were stripped away from the operating agreement drafted by the city’s hired attorney. Still, I stand by my insistence on thoughtful, well-researched best practice solutions that prioritize both residents’ dignity and public safety.

My opponent has chosen to twist my responsible, balanced approach into a political attack—reducing a complex and sensitive housing issue to a simplistic and disingenuous talking point. I will continue to put residents first and advance solutions that are both compassionate and accountable.

Envision Evanston 2045

I’ve led the effort on council to course correct the Comprehensive and zoning plans and slow down the rushed Envision 2045 process. As lead sponsor for the referral that brought Envision Evanston back to the Council in January I garnered majority support to decouple the zoning rewrite process from the crafting of the comprehensive plan and also to allow more time for each. I advocate for meaningful community input before any zoning changes are made. I believe city planning should happen with residents, not be dictated to them by consultants or City Hall.

I advocate for thoughtful, community-first planning—one that strengthens neighborhoods, enhances livability, and attracts families to Evanston. A plan that revitalizes our downtown through a comprehensive vision—one that invests in the small businesses that make Evanston unique while supporting appropriate development and appropriate increased density, and shared spaces that enhance our city’s vibrancy. A plan that prioritizes smart, block-by-block growth while embracing single-family homes and, in particular, protects small-lot, small-home neighborhoods as a vital part of Evanston’s diversity and future.

Downtown Development
I advocate for crafting a strong, well researched comprehensive Downtown Plan. I support a well thought out urban plan that calls for development, with some increased density, that enhances the attractiveness of our downtown, improves the pedestrian experience, and supports unique local businesses. I call for a plan that supports our small businesses while increasing walkability. I am the lead sponsor for the Urban Design Commission to ensure that new developments add to the attractiveness and success of our downtown.

Neighborhood Zoning
I support a block-by-block approach to zoning reform and caution against blanket upzoning that would lead to increased home prices, raise rents, displace longtime residents, and reduce green space. I do not support blanket upzoning because it is not a housing plan that increase middle and low income housing. I advocate for planning that includes spacing (limited upzoning of lots per block), adding additional housing where appropriate and where this enhances the sense of neighborliness and cohesiveness.

—

Please see my responses below to Mr. Hackney’s misinformed and disingenuous attacks against me.

Regarding Affordable Housing and Evanston’s Recently Revised Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

Mr. Hackney has falsely and disingenuously attacked me for my vote against the regressive changes to Evanston’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO)—changes that take our city backward in terms of affordable housing and integration.

I voted against the revised IHO because it allows developers to opt out of including ANY affordable units on-site in exchange for one-time payments. This weakens our commitment to economic diversity and long-term affordability. Without policies that mandate on-site affordable housing, simply loosening zoning regulations will deepen economic (and racial) segregation and further limit affordable housing options in Evanston.

The City Council’s recent decision was a step in the wrong direction. Previously, the IHO required new developments to include at least 5% affordable units on-site, with an additional 5% funded through payment-in-lieu fees—a total that was already lower than many neighboring communities. Northbrook, for example, mandates 15% on-site affordable units in perpetuity, while Highland Park requires 20%. Instead of strengthening Evanston’s commitment to affordable housing, the revised IHO eliminates the on-site requirement entirely. While it nominally raises the affordability requirement to 15%, it allows developers to simply buy out their obligation, meaning zero affordable units must be included in new developments. 

Some developers may choose to include affordable units in their projects, but under this new ordinance, there is no guarantee that any will be built on-site. Furthermore, because on-site affordable housing is always the preferred approach, and since it is no longer required, developers may now use it as a bargaining chip—offering to include affordable units only in exchange for zoning concessions, such as increased height, reduced setbacks, or other exceptions. This creates a system where affordability becomes a negotiation tactic rather than a standard requirement, ultimately weakening our commitment to integrated, accessible housing.

Quite frankly, this is scandalous for a city that claims to be progressive. This policy is nothing more than a cash grab—prioritizing quick revenue over actually building affordable housing. The payments-in-lieu funds may be used to construct affordable housing someday, somewhere, but history tells us this will likely happen in lower-cost areas on Evanston’s south and west sides, only deepening economic and racial segregation. The best approach is—and always has been—to require affordable units to be built within new developments, particularly in transit-rich areas like Downtown Evanston. Anything less is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of our values.

When the revised ordinance came to a final vote, I fought to strengthen it. After working closely with Deputy City Manager Ruger and consulting with the city’s three union presidents—who strongly support this effort—I moved to hold the ordinance and bring back a stronger version that not only mandates on-site affordable housing but also sets aside units specifically for city employees. My proposed IHO ordinance would:

• Required at least 10% of units be affordable on-site and an additional 5% through payment-in-lieu fees, maintaining the 15% total but ensuring on-site affordability.
  

• Mandated that these units remain affordable in perpetuity, as seen in cities like Northbrook, Highland Park, and Chicago.
  

• Reserved 4% of the on-site affordable units for city employees, so our public servants—teachers, firefighters, and other essential workers—have the opportunity to live in the community they serve.

   

My motion was seconded by Council Member Suffredin. Unfortunately, Juan Geracaris moved to override our hold, prioritizing the passage of a deeply flawed version of the IHO that requires no affordable units on-site. His stated reason? He simply wanted to push it through before April 1st.

I pledge that, upon my re-election, I will immediately reintroduce a new IHO ordinance that mandates at least 10% on-site affordable housing in perpetuity, with 4% set aside for city employees. And I guarantee this will pass. This is a necessary step toward increasing affordable housing and fostering true integration in Evanston. I look forward to making this happen after the election.