Finance Decoder Report

Joliet's Fiscal
Health: Decoded

A city that can't cover what it owes can't freely invest in its future. Strong Towns calls this the solvency principle. By that test, Joliet faces a real challenge: it owes more than it holds in financial assets, and the gap has widened with every accounting era since 2014. The seven charts below show where the math is weak, and the one line that's holding up.

Data: 2014–2024 City of Joliet Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports

The Finance Decoder & #DoTheMath

#DoTheMath means reading a city the way you'd read your own finances: not just this year's budget, but the whole balance sheet over time. The Strong Towns Finance Decoder pulls a handful of numbers from a city's audited annual reports and charts seven indicators. Every budget, project, and growth decision should be able to answer three questions:

01
Sustainability
"Can Joliet sustain today's service levels over the long term?"
02
Flexibility
"How much budgetary room does Joliet have to absorb a surprise?"
03
Vulnerability
"How dependent is Joliet on money from other governments?"

Many cities that run this exercise find a balance sheet gradually weakening. Joliet's has already crossed that line, which makes the Decoder less an early-warning system here than a current assessment. The point of honest accounting is to size a problem while you can still plan around it.

How did Joliet get here?

Joliet is one of Illinois's largest cities outside Chicago, a historic canal-and-rail town of about 150,000 that has reinvented itself as a national logistics and warehousing hub, with the roads, water, and sewers that growth demands. It also carries a long legacy of pension and retiree-health promises to its police officers, firefighters, and staff.

Strong Towns founder Charles Marohn argues that cities go broke for one reason: they take on more long-term obligations (debt, pensions, pipes to maintain forever) than current revenue can sustain, and the bill arrives a generation later. Joliet shows that pattern clearly, because two accounting reforms brought a long-deferred bill into view almost overnight.

Read more

Two lines on the charts below fall steeply, and neither reflects new spending. In 2015, GASB Statement No. 68 required cities to report their net pension liability on the government-wide statements; Joliet's net position fell roughly $326 million on adoption. In 2018, GASB Statement No. 75 did the same for retiree health care (OPEB), knocking off another ~$350 million. The promises had been building for decades; the rules simply made them visible. Separately, 2023 includes a one-time $99.8 million non-cash item: the Houbolt Road Bridge, contributed to the city (we exclude it from the rate ratios so the trends stay comparable). And the biggest factor still ahead is the ~$1.45 billion Lake Michigan water program, which is replacing a depleting water source by 2030 and is a major driver of the city's rising capital spending and future debt.

The Numbers at a Glance

Five numbers every Joliet resident can check, pulled directly from the city's 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). None of them is comfortable, but all of them are knowable, and one is holding up.

−$1.24B
Net financial position
Joliet owes about $1.24 billion more in total liabilities than it holds in financial assets, and that gap has widened in every accounting era since 2014.
$0.33
Financial assets per $1 owed
For every dollar of liabilities, the city holds about 33 cents in cash, investments, and receivables, far short of covering what it owes.
1.1×
Total assets-to-liabilities
Counting roads and buildings too, Joliet's assets are about 1.1 times its liabilities, barely above the 1.0 solvency line, and below it from 2018–2023.
63%
Infrastructure value remaining
About 37% of the value of Joliet's roads, pipes, and buildings is used up. The recent uptick reflects a wave of newly added capital, not extra upkeep.
2.6%
Revenue spent on interest
About two and a half cents of every revenue dollar goes to debt interest, up from well under a penny in 2018 as water-project borrowing grew.

The charts below break it down, grouped by those three questions.

Sustainability Can Joliet keep this up long-term?
01
Sustainability

The Bottom Line: How Far Behind Is Joliet? [Net Financial Position]

Hover or tap any point for the exact figure
What this chart shows: everything Joliet holds in cash, investments, and receivables, minus everything it owes: pensions, retiree health care, bonds, and loans. The result is negative and widening: −$1.24 billion in 2024, down from −$82 million in 2014. The two big step-downs (2015, 2018) are accounting rules putting old pension and retiree-health promises on the books.
Why it matters
A negative net financial position means the city's promises are backed by future taxes, not money it has on hand. Joliet's gap isn't closing; it's the largest in this period.
02
Sustainability

How Many Years of Revenue Is the Gap? [Net Debt-to-Total Revenues]

Hover or tap any point for the exact figure
Net debt is total liabilities minus financial assets. For Joliet it runs about 3.5× annual revenue in 2024: it would take roughly three and a half years of total revenue to close the gap. In 2014, before pensions and OPEB were on the books, it was under half a year.
Read it this way
Healthy cities sit near zero or below. Joliet climbed from 0.4× to ~3.5× as pension (2015) and retiree-health (2018) promises landed and debt grew. (2023 revenue is normalized to exclude a one-time $99.8M contributed bridge.)
03
Sustainability

Could Joliet Cover Its Bills Without Selling Anything? [Financial Assets-to-Total Liabilities]

Hover or tap any point for the exact figure
Strip out roads, pipes, and buildings. Count only liquid resources (cash, investments, receivables) and divide by total liabilities. Above 1.0, the city could cover everything it owes without touching a physical asset. Joliet sits at 0.33 in 2024: about 33 cents on the dollar.
So what?
Joliet would have to borrow or sell to cover most of what it owes. The ratio fell from 0.68 in 2014 toward 0.25–0.41 once pensions and OPEB came onto the books, and it has stayed there.
04
Sustainability

If Joliet Counted Everything, How Covered Is It? [Assets-to-Liabilities]

Hover or tap any point for the exact figure
Now count everything (roads, water mains, buildings, plus cash) against total obligations. Below 1.0, liabilities exceed assets. Joliet was at 3.8× in 2014, but just 0.78–1.14× every year since 2018.
What it tells you
Even counting every road and pipe it owns, Joliet barely covers its liabilities, and was below that line from 2018 through 2023. That's a thin cushion for a city this size.
Flexibility How much room does Joliet have to adapt?
05
Flexibility

How Much Life Is Left in Joliet's Infrastructure? [Net Book Value-to-Cost of Tangible Capital Assets]

Hover or tap any point for the exact figure
How much useful life is left in Joliet's roads, pipes, buildings, and equipment, compared with what they cost to build? About 63% remains in 2024, and unusually, it has been rising lately, after dipping to 59% in 2021.
The one bright line, with a catch
This is the indicator holding up, but read it carefully. The recent uptick isn't extra maintenance; it's a wave of newly added capital (water and sewer investment, plus the contributed Houbolt Road Bridge) lifting the average. The big Lake Michigan build still to come is largely debt-financed, lifting this line and the debt line together.
06
Flexibility

How Much Revenue Goes Straight to Interest? [Interest-to-Total Revenues]

Hover or tap any point for the exact figure
Of every dollar Joliet collects, how many cents go to interest before a penny of principal is repaid? About 2.6 cents in 2024, up from well under one cent through 2018.
Why it's rising
Still modest, but the direction matters: interest has climbed as the city takes on more capital debt, much of it for water and sewer. Rising debt service competes with the maintenance and pension funding the other charts say Joliet needs. (Total interest, governmental plus water/sewer.)
Vulnerability How dependent is Joliet on outside money?
07
Vulnerability

How Much Revenue Comes From Outside the City? [Government Transfers-to-Total Revenue]

Hover or tap any point for the exact figure
What share of revenue comes from outside Joliet's own taxes and fees: state-shared sales, income, and gaming taxes, plus grants and contributions? It swings between about 29% and 37%.
The vulnerability
Nearly a third of revenue depends on other governments. State-shared and gaming taxes are volatile: gaming alone fell from about $17M before COVID to under $8M in 2020. Reliance on money the city doesn't control is a real risk. (2023's one-time $99.8M contributed bridge is excluded here.)

Joliet doesn't have a hidden problem.
It has a visible one to fund.

Six of the seven indicators point the same way: Joliet owes more than it holds: assets barely cover liabilities, only about a third of what it owes is backed by financial assets, and the gap has widened with every accounting era since 2014. That's a difficult position, and it's better to state it plainly.

The one line holding up is infrastructure: about 63% of the value of the city's roads, pipes, and buildings remains, and it has risen lately. But that uptick is a wave of newly added capital, not extra upkeep. The Lake Michigan build still to come is largely debt-financed, the same kind of borrowing that pushes the debt and interest lines the wrong way. It buys an essential future water supply; it doesn't shrink what's already owed.

The good news is that none of this is hidden anymore. Pensions and retiree health are on the books; the numbers are public. The work now is to fund the promises on a real schedule, publish a yearly repair number, and weigh every new commitment against what's already owed.

And be wary of "we'll grow our way out." Expanding the tax base brings revenue now, but also new roads, pipes, and staff to maintain forever, and Joliet's incentives (its TIF districts and business-district allocations) can divert that new revenue for years. Growth helps only when each project and incentive is shown to cover its own long-term cost. That arithmetic, not the size of the boom, is what moves these lines.

Hungry for more?

See what the city publishes, run the numbers yourself, or learn the method behind this page.