Committee selects Public Works for zero‑based budgeting pilot RFP, votes 7–0

The Finance & Budget Committee voted unanimously to recommend issuing a request for proposals for a zero‑based budgeting (ZBB) pilot focused on the Public Works Department.

Deputy City Manager Mike Kennedy summarized staff work that identified three candidate departments for a ZBB pilot — Community Development, Parks & Recreation and Public Works — and provided comparative data on revenues, expenses and staffing over recent fiscal years. Kennedy said staff recommended Parks & Recreation for a focused review because that department showed the largest growth in expenses and full‑time equivalents and because Evanston’s parks operation is funded through the general fund rather than a separate park district levy as in many peer cities.

Clayton Black (Finance) and other staff, however, told the committee that Public Works is a defensible choice because of its scale, contractual arrangements, and the potential to discover efficiencies in commodities, contracts and materials. “Using the indicators Mike talked about, we feel like parks and rec is a good bet, but we are certainly open to the committee’s feedback,” Black said; others argued Public Works could yield more significant results because of the department’s size and contracting.

Committee members asked whether to pursue a single‑department pilot or a citywide triage against an uncertain revenue future. Several members said a one‑department pilot can provide practical, quick results and that a separate, faster tranche of work should identify immediate, citywide contingency options should revenues drop. Staff said the RFP cost is currently unbudgeted and that contract awards over city procurement thresholds would be brought forward to Council for approval.

Council Member Burns moved to recommend Public Works as the department for the ZBB RFP; Council Member Kelly seconded. The committee recorded a 7–0 vote in favor (Council Member Wynne; Council Member Neussmann; Committee Member Livingston; Chair Riechus; Council Member Burns; Council Member Kelly; Committee Member McMillan).

Staff said they will proceed with an RFP timetable and return to the committee with proposed scope, vendor cost estimates and a planned schedule for consultant selection. Several committee members requested that the RFP or an accompanying staff process include clear definitions of “essential” versus “discretionary” services and that staff produce a multi‑year (five‑ to ten‑year) capital projection of funded and unfunded needs to inform the RFP and broader budget planning.

Ending: The committee’s recommendation is advisory; Council approval of any consultant contract will be required before work begins.