Evanston committee approves 2025 budget amendment after debate over reporting and ARPA use

The Evanston Finance & Budget Committee voted 6–2 on May 6 to adopt an ordinance amending 2025 budgeted expenditures after a staff presentation and extended discussion about transparency and reporting.

City staff told the committee that the city’s practice is to amend expense appropriations in funds where actual spending exceeded the adopted budget and that "a budget amendment does not have an impact on the net surplus or net deficit of any fund," according to a staff presenter. Staff described 12 funds with proposed increases where actual expenses exceeded the adopted amounts and six funds with reductions where budgeted expenditures did not materialize and were rebudgeted to 2026, including items tied to ARPA and several capital projects.

Why it matters: members said the amendment process should help the public and council understand where the city overspent, how overages were covered and whether the city is improving forecasting. Committee members repeatedly asked staff for clearer year‑to‑date actuals, an explicit ending fund balance column on Exhibit A and quarterly forecasting that would flag funds trending toward overrun earlier in the year.

Several elected members and public speakers urged specific presentation changes. Resident John Kennedy suggested that departments provide brief justifications for large increases, saying, "anything above 15% increase needs to get justified" and urged three years of historical actuals and downloadable budget files for public analysis. Resident Mary Rosinski urged a forensic review of discrepancies she saw in the motor fuel tax fund and requested clearer year‑end balances.

Committee members pressed staff on the composition of the overspend. Council member Nussbaum summarized the net overspend across funds as about $7.3 million and said the bulk—about $5.9 million—came from the general fund, pointing to items such as underestimated vacancy‑savings assumptions, overtime costs in police and fire and higher electricity and contracted HR/legal costs. Nussbaum contrasted those overages with one‑time capital timing differences that shifted spending across years.

Council member Kelly advocated for a midyear contingency adjustment process used in other suburbs, saying she would "rather see us following something more like Skokie" where an in‑year adjustment up to a standard percentage avoids year‑end technical amendments and improves forecasting. Staff said their auditors had told them both approaches were permissible under the law and that monthly reports with year‑to‑date revenues and expenditures remain the best tool for tracking performance during the year.

The vote: After debate, the committee approved the amendment on a 6–2 roll call. Members who opposed the measure cited concerns about arbitrary adjustment calculations and a preference for alternative procedural approaches. Staff said they would provide additional detail on which overages were covered by higher revenues versus by fund balance, and reiterated an openness to revising the amendment process if the committee requests it.

What’s next: Staff will provide the monthly reports and the additional fund‑balance detail members requested to help the committee and the public track trends and consider whether a different midyear approach is warranted in future budget cycles.