Mic check.
One, two. Mic check. 1, 2, 3. Mic check.
Good morning. And, uh, welcome
to the 2025 budget hearings.
Uh, before we get started, uh, I would like to
offer number one, a moment of silence for Officer
Martinez who, uh, died in the line of duty, uh,
this past, uh, weekend.
So if we can have what,
um, the line of duty this past weekend.
So if we can have a moment of silence, uh,
for Officer Martinez.
Okay. Thank you.
Um, call to order.
Uh, those we have present, uh,
alders Irvin Lee Lata do.
Yancy Harris, Quinn Lopez, OSHE
Rodriguez, Scott Chel, Lopez Burnett, Cardona Conway,
Mitch pdo, Riley Martin Hatton.
Did I miss anyone? And, uh, I have you,
you weren't listening, so, okay.
Rodriguez Sanchez, we have non-member.
Bill Taylor, Cruz,
WAPAC, Lawson, Gardner Howorth.
Did I miss any non-members?
Pro Tim Nugent, I have you.
Okay. Uh,
Knutson, have you?
Okay. Alright.
Just a couple of housekeeping items.
Um, we will on a daily basis, those who are, uh,
here when we gather in, that'll be the order by seniority.
After that, it'll be the order
that you come in, uh, members first.
Then, uh, non-members, uh, will go afterwards.
Uh, the only exceptions we'll make to
that is the chairperson of the committee
of the subject matter will always have the opportunity
to start off with the department.
Uh, other than that, our rules pretty much are the same, uh,
10 minutes on the first round of questions followed by, uh,
five minutes in the second round or thereafter.
Um, those are just the basic house, uh, keeping items.
Uh, alderman Clay, we have you as a non-member present.
Um, today, uh, is the one day
after today, uh, all will begin at 10 with the exception
of Saturday, which will begin at nine.
So we're all on the same page with that.
Uh, at this point, uh, we will have begin public comment.
Our public comment period will last up to 30 minutes.
Uh, each person will have up to, uh,
three minutes for comments.
Um, Alia Farrell,
have you Yes.
First we'll have Pat do
Extra question.
They're gonna basic. I speak to this.
Good afternoon, chairman Erman,
members of the budget committee.
My name's Pat Doer here on behalf
of the Hospitality Business Association of Chicago.
It's a pleasure to see you all again,
and I'll keep this short ahead of what's going
to be very long budget hearings.
The proposed budget includes a $10 million alcohol tax hike
on behalf of the hospitality industry that is adding insult
to last year's injury.
Employment is below May 20, 23 levels in our industry
and has never recovered to January, 2020.
I think everybody in this building
believes we need more jobs.
This tax will not get us there.
Second of all, assessor Kegan's recent property tax
increases are disproportionately punishing my members
with mixed use buildings in your wards.
A factor you're already seeing, uh, take place as several
very prominent Chicago establishments have announced their
permanent closing, including Revolution Brewing in the
35th Ward among others.
And lastly, and again, I will keep this brief, alcohol
and Chicago is largely a union manufactured
and union distributed product.
It comes from union factories on union driver driven trucks,
and you have a multitude
of beverage alcohol headquarters in this city.
Attacks on beverage alcohol increase
discourages the many companies that have relocated here
and penalizes this union product.
Enjoyed by so many of your constituents.
I wish we could have had this discussion months ago,
but I ask that you remove the beverage alcohol increase from
this budget is the wrong message for a mere $10 million
to the many consumers and union workers in that industry
and in bars and restaurants across the
city. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comment. Next,
uh, Gabby Green.
Gabby Green will be followed by May on farm.
Hello all. Hello, uh, my name is Gabby.
I am with the Black Roots Alliance.
Uh, we are a part of the Water for All Coalition since 2021,
and I'm here today to uplift the need
for Progressive Water affordability program
and the pathway to do so through our water
for all ordinance.
We are deeply concerned about
Chicago's water billing system.
In the past 15 years,
water rates have quadrupled despite the fact
that over the same 10 years household income has only
increased 35%.
This has led to thousands of Chicagoans in debt
to the water department,
totaling 421 million in unpaid bills.
We must also address the systematic racism associated
with the Chicago's water crisis and how black
and brown people are having to choose between paying
for groceries or paying for their water bills.
That ain't right. The city's current system
of asking low income families
to pay increasingly unaffordable water bills
is clearly not working.
75% of payment plans are defaulted on
or canceled entirely without action.
Water bills will become unaffordable for even more.
Chicagoans, we need water for all.
In addition to the community need for debt relief,
implementing a more progressive water affordability program
won't impact the city's revenue negatively.
Based on the proposed budget release LA uh,
a couple Wednesdays ago, water revenues are continuing
to increase even with some Chicagoans receiving lowered
water bills through the current UBR program.
The water fund is projected
to have almost $1 billion in available resources for 2025.
Showing there is the funds
and our community has continued to voice the need.
I'm requesting your support and action to pass water for all
because our community members deserve
to thrive, not survive.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
May on Farm, followed by Oliver
Kora Cici.
Thank you. Good afternoon, chairman Irvin
and members of the City Council.
My name is Mayan Fam
and I am the advocacy coordinator at Legal Action Chicago.
But before that title, I am first
and foremost a Chicagoan, a concern one at that
I'm concerned about how water debt
and our current in equitable billing
system has been devastating.
My community, as of 20, 20 17% of meter accounts
and and 30%
of Unmetered accounts have an outstanding water balance.
It is not because people don't want to pay their bills, it's
because their bills are continuing to rise as when they come
to the city for relief.
Many are denied an explanation
or to just to simply pay their bills.
Many of these households have debt greater than their
original water bills, and that's inequitable.
These numbers have improved since 2020 thanks
to the Utility Billing Relief Program,
but they remain worked to be done.
Our current system is inhumane.
Water is the basic necessity for survival.
Families need water to drink, bathe, and wash their clothes.
A solution is long overdue and expanded.
Eligibility criteria for the utility billing relief program
should be a number one priority for the city,
and that the solution is waterfall.
The current eligibility criteria
for UBR ignores a large group of residents in Chicago
who are renters and who are also in need
of this much needed relief.
I urge members of the City Council
and the Johnson Administration to work with Water
for All Coalition as soon as possible to come up
with an equitable solution for all Chicago residents.
Thank you. Oliver
CSA, followed by Vernice Mendez.
Hello, my name is Oliver Kora and I'm an organizer
and environmental justice coordinator with Southsiders,
organized for Unity and Liberation, also known as Sol.
Sol has been leading the water for all campaigns since 2018.
During this time, we have heard from many Chicagoans about
what is happening in their home with their water bills.
We have heard stories about people being unable
to remodel their vacant unit for affordable housing
because of a $60,000 water bill
and spending years fighting with the water department
to no resolve, Chicagoans are being forced to choose
between everyday expenses
and the ever arising cost of water in our city.
The Water for All coalition has been working
with communities across Chicago to demand changes
to Chicago's water system.
After years of public pressure,
those demands were turned into the water for all ordinance.
An ordinance that would finally address the crisis
of water affordability in Chicago
and currently sits in the Environmental
and Energy Protections Committee with a coalition made up
of over 40 supporting organizations across the city.
Countless meetings with Chicago residents
and city council members.
Water for All was created, created
as a comprehensive solution
to the city's rising water costs.
The city has been stalling this solution for years.
Chicagoans need water for all now.
We cannot wait any longer
to ensure all Chicagoans have access to safe
and affordable water.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Bernice Mendez, followed by Taiwan Sims.
Hello, my name is Vernice Mendez.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak once again.
I would like to share that thanks
to the diverse learner response that both of my children
with autism received.
I was able to buy groceries, get them new uniforms
and extra supplies they needed for school
so they can be successful.
Being a resident of Chicago itself is stressful.
Now imagine being a child
or a parent with disabilities lacking support and resources.
Not many take the time to see and acknowledge our struggle.
But the fact that someone has means so much already,
you see where I come from?
We are raised to be strong-minded and willed.
Nothing will ever be handed to us.
My grandma always says, and she's right.
Nothing has ever been handed to us.
They hear us, but they don't listen.
They see us and they don't help.
We struggle to survive in one of the wealthiest countries.
Here I am once again advocating for my children, for hers,
for theirs, for ours.
The system fails on repeatedly.
And yet here we are picking up the pieces.
These programs have
and will provide thousands of families with stability,
hope, and peace of mind.
I hope that one day our youth receives proper help
and surpasses this economy
that has literally been tortured for all of us.
Is it enough? No. But does it help? Absolutely.
It seems like we can never win.
Like the system has been built to make us fail.
Please give our children the tools to succeed.
Help us build them a future because they are our future.
I am truly grateful to be standing here today.
And I hope you're not just hearing me.
I hope you're listening. It takes something
small to makes a difference.
And throughout these months, I have witnessed it.
I work for ADA is McKinley Community Services
and we have done a lot of outreaches to these programs,
helping families, friends,
and people in our communities giving without receiving,
but most importantly, giving them hope
and encouraging them to keep fighting through the struggle.
Please continue to give us hope.
Please continue to give back to our communities
and support these programs that are life changing
and will continue to have a positive impact within
our youth and communities.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment. Uh, Taiwan Sims followed
by Brenda Dixon.
Morning committee. So I
think everybody can breathe a little easier this morning.
Well, the Amer well,
the American people can breathe a little easier this morning
knowing that hopefully the direction in our country, um,
will swiftly change.
Surely. But let's address the budget.
Um, so there's a healthcare service called favorite staffing
that seen the clean that cleaned up
during this migrant crisis to the tune
of maybe $100 million or better.
But I had this, so when I was examining it, I was like,
it was 13,000 immigrants
or so-called immigrants, but illegals here.
And that bill was $57 million.
Now there's 47, 40 7,200
and something illegals in the city.
Brandon Johnson just shut down what, three shelters.
And now he's saying that if illegals do return back
to the city, they will not be housed.
However, Byron Cjo Lopez has made sure
that they'll be housed
by housing the illegals over the Americans.
So hence the homeless Americans still in the room, right?
Byron Cjo. But it says that this, you,
you y'all cleaned up also The 27th Ward and the 25th Ward.
The 27th Ward hosted the most shelters.
The 25th Ward hosted the largest shelter.
And I'm sure that that state, federal
and city funding was being what?
Funneled through the says The homeless
Americans still standing in the room.
And we budget these things like the coordinated entry,
like the HMIS, all of these things that are supposed
to make getting housing in the city of Chicago.
More efficient Americans. Y'all paid out y'all tax dollars.
Everybody paid a little bit into it.
Hence the homeless American
standing in a room at the mic once again.
And I stood at this mic and addressed the mayor
and I asked, how much would it cost
to budget a small war against a citizen
to hinder his life.
So much so to take his children away from him,
to take his finance away from him.
How much would that cost?
Uh, well we have a budget of 16.4 billion
to deal with it work in.
And if I was measly
and vindictive, I would surely, Hey,
we got a little bit to stretch.
That's why we're in the shortfall of a billion dollars. Huh?
More than a billion dollars.
That's why Pedro Martinez chose to take the back door
and try to get on the kids.
Huh? That's C3.
The billion dollars, the two prisons
that's being built outside of Springfield.
All of these things everyone in this room is aware of.
Thank you. Mr. Sams.
Brenda Dixon, followed by Jessica Jackson.
Good morning, our Council members.
My name is Brenda Dixon
and I am a case manager
with the Rapid Rehousing Program at the
Boulevard of Chicago.
I'm here to talk to you about the importance
of the rapid rehousing program
and the benefit that it provides our residents in
and, uh, the Chicago community.
Our mission at the Boulevard is to provide, is
to provide high quality, cost effective medical,
respite care, holistic support
and housing services to help those who are ill
and injured homeless adults, breaking the cycle
of homelessness and restoring their health
and to rebuild their lives.
Every year we serve over 500 hundred individuals
who are currently experiencing homelessness
and we help them gain, uh, the stability they need
to restore their health and rebuild their lives.
We have a 64 bed medical respite care program where Ill
and injured individuals receive
compassionate care and support.
And this program serves over 150 residents each year.
Rapid rehousing programs help individuals living on the
street and in the emergency shelter solve the practical
and immediate challenges
to obtaining permanent housing while reducing the amount
of time they experience homelessness.
A fundamental goal of rapid rehousing is
to reduce the amount of time a person is homeless.
As research has said, prolonged exposure
to homelessness has a significant negative
effect on adults and children.
The longer a household experiences homelessness,
the poorer outcomes will likely be in a variety of areas.
The core components
of rapid rehousing include housing identification, uh, rent
and move in assistance and case management services.
These case management services.
Uh, while the client is housed, we assist them with, uh,
uh, finding a job, getting their GED, whatever stability
that they need, the areas that they may be lacking in
that they need support.
My job as a case manager is to assist in that area.
What we extended the Boulevard is that households connected
to rapid rehousing were able
to exit emergency shelters much faster.
And those who than those who were not 85, 80 5% of those
who exited emergency shelter through rapid rehousing,
they remain housing after one year.
So I really feel that the program is working.
I feel like this is one way that we can continue
to help people who are homeless.
We can get 'em off the street, get 'em housed
and support them so that they can become stable.
There are many reasons why people are not stable.
Our goal is to make sure and assist them in their stability.
So we ask that you continue funding these programs so
that organizations like the Boulevard can continue to serve
and assist people toward housing stability.
Thank you Ms. Dixon.
Uh, Jessica Jackson, followed by Kimberly Saunders.
Good morning. I'm sure everybody's
feeling good this morning.
I know. I am. Trump 2024. That's right. That's right.
That's right. That's right. That's right. Don't be hating.
Don't be hating. It's all right. Trump 20, 20, 24.
That's what's up. Now what we getting ready to do
is we're gonna let you all talk about this budget
and we're gonna let you all do some silly things like vote
to increase taxes, some more vote to increase
property taxes some more.
And as you all move forward with those silly things,
we coming for them seats.
See, that was only the beginning getting Trump in
office to stop the bleeding.
But for all the requests that we made
and the demands that we made that you all continue to ignore
because you thought you could, you didn't have to deal
with the fact that our property is being taken.
You don't have to deal with that.
You just gonna put up a bunch of affordable housing
and make projects all over the city and stuff.
Poverty down everybody's throat about subsidized housing,
low income housing, like people
who own property don't have no say
so in this city when you taking our property
taxes and funneling this.
So go ahead and vote.
Get them hands up so we know exactly who to come for
because it is about Springfield now.
It's about taking this to Springfield now
and getting the Republicans in Springfield
to put some power here in Chicago.
We not gonna keep living like this.
We gonna deal with those courts. Yeah, all that.
You wouldn't do all that.
You wouldn't do all
that was it Conway kindly all that He wouldn't do.
Oh, we gonna go to the Senate for it.
We gonna go to Springfield for it.
Y'all not gonna keep disrespecting us. You thought.
Wasn't nobody listening,
you thought didn't nobody care about black people,
about the American people, about the American citizens,
about the Americans money.
But somebody told y'all wrong and you found out last night.
Get ready. We watching, we watching, we advise some
of y'all come on over here already and save yourself.
Come on over to the Republican party and save yourself
because voting silly.
It's going to get you up out them seats.
Trump 2024 big baby.
Thank you Ms. Jackson. Uh, and congratulations.
Next we
Kimberly Saunders followed by
Um, is you, is
P Ray, is that Patricia Ray Easley?
Okay,
Good morning.
How y'all doing today? I'm Kimberly Saunders.
I'm the deputy of the 27th Ward.
I'm born and raised in Chicago.
I've been a Republican before Trump ran.
My uncle is one of the wealthiest African American women
that got the first home in the Burridge area
and told me, vote not for you guys, but for my household.
So back then, I knew 10 years ago
before Trump came that the Democratic
Party has been planned.
They have taken property from my grandmother.
They have did different things.
So what I have did is when it got out with my Italian
and Greeks who really run the city,
'cause all y'all they puppets
and they have appointed me a development.
So now I'm a developer.
So the last time I was here I was asking you guys
what's going on in Inglewood.
'cause it looks like the projects when I ride up, host it.
There's no reason why it should look like that.
But then I realized we got all these aldermans in that area
that has been misappropriated funds
given property to they friends.
And now guess what? God is revealing and healing.
So I had just recently had brain surgery,
had a nine millimeter tumor.
So the neurosurgeon in Northwestern
said, y'all better be careful.
So I'm trying to find more about this trouble building
initiative fund.
Um, Wintrust has gave me a line of credit
and if y'all know Wintrust, that is a bank that only deals
with people that do the right things.
So I'm one of their top business people.
They have gave me a line of credit to buy property.
What I'm trying to do is bridge this gap
because I wanna build affordable homes to be bought.
Like she said, I'm not trying to do affordable housing.
I wanna build affordable homes in Inglewood
and not the projects.
And if I did do the projects, it would be affordable.
But I need you guys to help me
because I don't know none of y'all name.
It's not that important for me to know
'cause I know the money is not in this room.
So I'm asking y'all 'cause they told me it was a meeting.
I just stopped my day. I wanna know
how do I get in the TBI program?
Because if Wintrust giving me, I can't,
I'm not gonna disclose the money to buy the property.
I would like to get the property
because I know some investors that are not from Chicago
that let me know that y'all been giving them property.
So why is it that they get to get the property
and it's people like me I guess.
'cause I wasn't on the team of getting no grant money.
I never got a grant. I never got anything I did.
I was a part of affordable housing. Why?
I su CHA and one, they didn't pay these people.
They nine $90,000.
That's another thing I sued CPS and one
'cause they was cutting and pasting my kids IEPs.
With that being said, I got a lot of tea that I can share,
but I wanna know more about the TBI
and these programs need to be more aware
for people like myself that I'm willing
to sell a newly developed home in Inglewood for 200,000.
Leave the equity in there for a person to buy it.
And that's how we can build generational wealth.
We don't have to stick everybody
with the low income, the grant.
We need to start creating wealth.
It's no reason for people to be homeless.
Y'all need to stop stealing all this money for y'all cousins
and them that's selling drugs, killing people.
It's y'all people. 'cause I ain't got one blood family
member that ever was in a gang.
Have a nice day.
Thank you ma'am. Our next speaker will be, uh, Ms.
Easley followed by Mr. Blakemore.
Mr. Chairman, members
of the city council, city of Chicago.
I am p ray and I am here wearing my sparkly MAGA hat
with my Trump, uh, sweater on straight from the 37th Ward
because last night my president won.
Okay, we told y'all this was gonna happen.
We told y'all the president lost the state of Illinois
by 223,000 votes.
We all know that that is not a lot of people, which means
that it is time for us to progress
and I have a solution for everybody.
We are in the budget meeting
because President Trump won last night.
He stated that mass deportations are gonna start
January 21st, 2025.
So we're asking for you to take all line items
for migrants out the budget.
They're on their work home, they're about to go.
We don't have to budget for any more food anymore,
shelters anymore, healthcare anymore, anything for them
because President Trump is about to bring the buses
and they're gonna go back out the city of Chicago.
I ask you to please, I know I'm saying this, um,
but I'm damn serious we have to redo the budget
because now we are under a new policy.
There is no reason for us to be trying to plan
for the permanence of these people at all.
When I say these people, I mean the migrants, the ones
who came to our country, uh, illegally.
They're about to go home.
We don't have to dedicate any more conversation to them.
Any more time, any more energy, any more money.
Please go back through the budget and take a pen
and cross out every single thing that was pertaining to them
so that we can give it to agencies like Adas McKinley
that's actually helping the American people.
And then people won't have to worry about budget cuts.
People won't be so angry.
The property taxes won't be so high
because we are about to get rid of a huge invoice
for the city of Chicago and I'm very excited about it.
I also ask you guys
to please temporarily suspend the Sanctuary city ordinance
so that the Chicago Police Department can work in tandem
with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement services
as they work to get this plan underway.
The main thing, when we called ICE live on my show,
black Excellence, our, they said that the reason
that they are not here is
because the sanctuary city prevents CPD
from working with them.
So if that's what's going
to prevent this action from happening in the city
of Chicago, then procedurally we are asking for you
to temporarily, if you want to
suspend the sanctuary ordinance so
that the Chicago Police Department can work
with the federal government to push the policies
of President Trump.
Last night the citizens of Illinois came out
and showed the world
that we are maga like Ju said, this MAGA country.
And we're gonna work with our president to push this agenda.
And that starts by one suspending a sanctuary ordinance so
that CPD can work with ICE.
And two, eliminating all migrant funding from the budget.
Thank you
George Blakemore,
that's our educated black woman.
And, and, and oh, you just lovely
and you spoke so eloquent.
Did you know what's wrong?
All of these black faces in high places
of sending black people out,
we are not gonna get on the Mexicans now.
We are not gonna get on the Chinese now.
We are not gonna get on the whites now we gonna get on the
black one time that young man,
Taiwan say you always talking about the blacks saying
something, uh, uh, uh, eve about the black.
But it's something wrong with them.
It's something wrong with them
and maybe it's something wrong with us that we elected them.
Who would vote for sanctuary? Which one of you will do that?
Okay. Jeanette Taylor. Okay, hall call they name.
All right, right over here.
Look at a, a b in that eighth ward.
I'm getting too excited now.
These black faces of a cell
and your mama load down people.
I'm not talking about this white man here.
I'm not talking about the Chinese,
I'm not talking about these white folk.
I'm talking about these house end.
That's who I'm talking about.
And it's not only here, it's a s food.
They recycle from the county.
Not only Chicago police, uh, ice need to work with them,
but they need to work with Cook County Sheriff first.
Wicker said when they lock 'em up,
do not call, do not call ice.
And also when they get in the hospital and
and try to get medical care and sir, call the police
and drag 'em out and fly 'em right
back where they came from.
It's something evil here. It's something un-American here.
It's something black here.
And these blacks are, are, I love all of y'all.
Maybe y'all don't know better that
that's why you don't do better.
Maybe you'll sell out your aunt, your mom.
What's your background?
Then you hear how that young lady was speaking. She's black.
Then you see, I've never heard y'all speak
eloquent like that.
Why? Because you don't have nothing going on.
You empty boxes up here and they're using you.
But I think they have used you up because we going go red
and we gonna have red black people sitting down here.
Go red, go red.
Anytime you going red, let's go black,
because that's where it's at.
Thank you Mr. Blakemore.
Our final speaker is Justin Justine Russell,
who is, uh, joined Vir virtually.
Mr. Russell, are you, do you hear us?
Hello? Yes, you may proceed. Hello? Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. You may proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Justin Russell
and I'm an organizer with Southsiders Organized Community
and Liberation, also known as Soul.
I was born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
I love this city and its people who are mostly good,
hardworking individuals, many of whom are city employees.
Everybody's just trying to take care
of their families and their loved ones.
A task that is not easy when resources are stressed in
making even basic necessities hard to come by,
especially in an economy that continues to struggle.
Every bit of health makes a difference.
And the water for all ordinance is a relatively small change
that can have a huge impact on Chicago as a whole.
Water for all offers people the chance
to live without the worry
of affording a basic life sustaining resource
and what losing access
to their resource would subsequently cost them.
It also allows the city to generate revenue
as people would be issued bills
that they could actually afford to pay.
This is a rare opportunity for a win-win solution
that requires very little effort.
So what's taken so long
to pass this ordinance at this point?
Anyone delaying this ordinance is actively choosing
to maintain a system that continues
to harm your constituents.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Russell. Uh, that concludes public comments.
Uh, for the record, I want to add Alderman Mitchell,
alderman Moore, alderman Napolitano,
and Non-member Hall Gutierrez.
And tore to the record, um,
alderman Lawson and, uh, alderman Vasquez
will be added as well.
Vasquez, you already on?
The only people I do not have on the record thus far are
Alders Ramirez, Mosley Ramirez, Rosa, Viegas,
Silverstein, Hopkins, Chico, Coleman,
Curtis and Fuentes.
So everybody else is good. Who?
Okay.
I have Ramirez.
Oh, there you are.
Okay. Alright.
Uh, today's hearing, uh, we'll begin with our
director of Kofa.
She will start with, uh, her, um, introduction followed by
the um, finance team.
And then from there we will proceed to, uh, to questions,
uh, director Gray
Chairman Irvin, vice Chairman Lee Outer Persons and Guest.
Good morning. First of all, I wanted to start out, uh,
by reading a letter
that you guys should have received in your packet.
I just wanna make sure that you were aware of it.
It says, I'm pleased to present the City Council Office
of Financial Analysis,
Kofa first budget departmental fact sheet for day one.
Kofa has assembled all departmental analysis into a book.
Right now, graphic services is printing it.
The department highlights included,
are derived from the Chicago data warehouse files.
As you may know, we received these files
after the mayor's release date of October 30th, 2024.
In addition, we have included the LRB report on
the budget management ordinances.
These ordinances are as introduced and likely to change,
but the accompanying budget ordinances typically do not get
the critical attention that they require.
If you have any questions regarding the content of the book
that you're gonna receive in the next couple days,
please feel free to reach out to myself
or Dan Fristo during the hearing.
As we are responsible for processing the book,
we analyze the data to calculate the variance
between the FY 24 revised budget
and the FY 25 recommended budget.
However, the 3% reductions from 2024
to 2025 are not directly visible
because departments were asked
to reduce their projected 2025 budgets
by 3% rather than basing the cuts on their 2024 budgets.
Additionally, the estimated 2025 budget accounts
for cost increases due to contract obligations.
kf, as you know, is an independent entity with the mission
of providing you with objective data.
We'll present financial highlights for each department.
You have already received the overview
and comprehensive budget document.
So much of this information may be familiar to you.
Our goal is to reinforce these highlights
before the question and answers sections of each department.
We look forward to assisting you.
Now we're going to start with our deck.
Okay. Tell me what I need to do
to see the PowerPoint on the screen.
Hmm.
For the record, we'll add, uh, alderman Mosley
and, uh, this's the Alderman Ramirez Rosa as well.
Uh, no wonder yes, they said that was yours. Okay.
No, I gotta do this again.
Also, we'll add Alderman Chico.
Did I miss anyone?
Alderman Bill,
Mr. Chairman, uh, we
don't have a court reporter
for budget hearings.
No, they're recorded. They're recorded where?
Uh, via, via Zoom.
My my assumption is, but they're, they're recorded
and they're played, you know, um, sim similar
to our city council meetings.
Okay. Well, I just know it's typical
that normally we have budget
hearings, we have a court reporter.
We have, we have not had a court
reporter in budget hearings.
Um, we didn't have one last year,
nor do we have one this year.
Uh, because the fact
of the matter is all recorded is now video.
People can see what it is
and not necessarily, there's no specific legal
requirement for that.
And quite frankly, the cost of it was, uh, in my opinion
for the, for what it was used for was just too much money.
So, um, if there was a specific need from a department, uh,
they are able to get copies,
however they pay for them, uh, independently.
Uh, we've only had one
or two departments that have requested transcripts,
written transcripts of their, um, of their testimony
and they, uh, make arrangements with the court reporter
to do that from the, uh, from the video that's done.
So, uh, like I said, we didn't have it last year.
Uh, it was just an unnecessary expense under other
committees may have 'em for other reasons,
but, uh, there's no legal requirement for us to have them
and, uh, and it was, uh, quite frankly books
that just sit there that really don't get any use.
So,
Great job of stalling.
Thank you. Okay, we're gonna start
with the fiscal year 2025 budget recommendation.
This is our deck. First of all,
we're looking at the fiscal year 25 budget by category.
This is for the entire budget,
and I know the font's probably a little bit small,
but you should have a paper copy of it.
It kind of just shows all the different categories
of expenses for our 2025 budget.
As you can see, the final number
for the total appropriations is 18.7 billion.
And then when you deduct the transfer funds
and you deduct a debt, comes down to our 17.3 billion,
which is a number everyone's accustomed to hearing.
So we're gonna look at just briefly, um,
typically we don't go over some of these departments,
but this year we're going to kind of just look at
totally wrong thing.
This year we're gonna look at federal, uh,
finance General 99.
Okay? And for finance General 99, as you can see
for 2025, it's a big number.
It's 7.9 billion, which is about 45%
of the 17.3 billion.
So it's a big hunk of our budget.
And most of these expenses is they're just general.
The finance general is used for citywide expenses, a lot
of personnel expenses and expenses like that.
Um, I know we talked about this in prior years.
Uh, finance general is,
can be somewhat challenging when you look at a department
and try, try to cost out per person
because some of the expenses are in finance general instead
of the the department, but I'm sure that's,
that's something that's being worked on.
If you look at the 9,000, it's kind
of in the middle of the grid.
It says purpose as specified for this year,
it's $5 billion.
That includes a whole lot of things.
Um, a lot of, again, personnel expenses
and a lot of different expenses.
There's also a new account in there, a 9 0 9 a account,
which we're gonna talk about quite often as we go
through the departmental expense sheets.
Historically, this is how finance general looks,
and you can see from 2016 all the way to now,
it's just about doubled from a little over 4 billion
to now almost 8 billion
Budget appropriations by funding type for years.
And we're just looking at a snapshot of years.
22, 23, 24, and 25.
Again, budget appropriation by funding type.
Now we're gonna go to the day one, which is
where we're starting for the office of the mayor, office
of Budget Management, department of Finance
and Chief Financial Officer.
I don't know why that was put on there,
but let's start with the office of the mayor.
We normally don't do this, so we're just gonna go through it
so you can kind of just get a snapshot of what's going on
for the Office of the Mayor.
The total appropriation for the office of the Mayor in
fiscal year 25 has been reduced by 30%.
The decrease is primarily due to contractual services,
travel expenses, and a reduction in account 2 9 0 8.
That's that reserve balance account, uh,
which has dropped from 9.6 million in fiscal year 24
because of the American Rescue plan
to now in fiscal year 25, 1 0.6 million.
Additionally, the fiscal year 25
FTEs has decreased from the revised 24 figure
by three FTEs.
In terms of budget allocation,
personnel services are 14.4 million,
while non-personnel services
are budgeted at 7.16 million.
Again, this is just split out by categories.
It's just two different views of how to look at it
and all this because the fund is somewhat small, is in your
and appropriation by funding type.
Going to the Office of Budget Management,
the total appropriation there decreased by 79%
from 96 point 54 million to 20.4 million.
Again, the purpose of specified account that 9,000 account,
it was reduced by 85% in part
because of that 9 0 9 a account that I mentioned
in the revised FFY 24.
This includes 70 million in the reserve balance
for disaster response in 2025, that's dropped to 10 million.
The total budgeted FTE
for fiscal year 25 is two less than fiscal year 24 revised
from 58 to 56.
Then it goes on to personnel services being seven oh
9 million and non-personnel, 13.4 million.
Again, it's split out by appropriations by the category
and budget appropriations by funding type historical.
Then again, budget appropriations by funding type
for years 22 out through 25.
And last, the Department of Finance, uh,
the total appropriation for fiscal year 2025 has increased
by 6.6 million
or 6% compared to the revised budget from FY 24.
The fiscal year 25 FTE was reduced by 24,
decreasing from 6 63
and 24 revised to 6 39 in fiscal year 25.
In fiscal year 25,
the allocated personnel budget is 52.6 million
and the non-personnel is 58.4.
Additionally, overtime cost for fiscal year 25 are expected
to rise according to the budget from 311,500
to 326,500.
And again, it's appropriation by category,
funding type historical
and budget appropriation by funding type for the out years.
And here's the historical over time,
since we mentioned over time, we wanted
to give you a snapshot of how they're looking historically
and you can see the actual
and the budget, so you can, you can kind
of see the variance on that graphically.
And again, if it's hard for you to see, it's in your packet.
And that's it for today.
Thank you. Uh, director Gray.
Uh, today we've been joined by our
director of budget, our CFO
and our comptroller, uh, director Guzman.
If you could, uh, the three of you,
if you could introduce yourselves as well
as the individuals in the box,
and you may begin with your various opening statements.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, members of City Council.
Um, my name is Annette Guzman.
I'm the budget director
and today I'm joined in the box
by my senior leadership team, Jonathan Ernst,
first deputy budget Director, um, Kevin Murphy,
managing Deputy Budget Director over workforce
and it as well as Matthew Schmitz, uh, managing, uh,
deputy Budget Director over Grants operations.
Uh, Jill Jaworski, CFO.
Um, I'm joined in the box today by North Sheik Deputy CFO,
chip Hastings Deputy Director
and Brendan White, assistant Commissioner and debt manager.
Good morning, uh, chase or Uncle City Comptroller.
Um, I'm joined in the box today by, uh, first deputy, uh,
comptroller, uh, Joel Flores, managing Deputy Comptroller.
Elaine Herman and director of, uh, director of policy.
Uh, Karen Keka
To Chairman Irvin, vice Chair Lee, honorable members
of city council and residents of the city.
Good morning actually. Good afternoon.
Today I come before you
to present this administration's second budget,
a $17.3 billion budget recommendation that was developed
with the input from department heads,
community stakeholders, residents,
and members of city council.
It is often stated that budgets are moral documents
reflecting not only our priorities in the coming year,
but also our vision for the future.
The 2025 budget recommendation represents this
administration's commitment
to investing in communities while also taking meaningful
steps towards correcting our budgetary structural imbalance.
With personnel costs rising at a far faster rate than the
city's revenues, the city is faced with significant choices,
not only this year, but in the years ahead as we seek
to stabilize the city's finances charter path
to sustainability for our pension obligations
and continue to invest in the critical services
and infrastructures that residents rely on.
While the budget recommendation represents a 3.5 increase
to the city's total appropriation year over year,
that increase is due entirely
to increases seen in our grants fund enterprise
and special revenue funds and our pension funds.
The city's corporate fund, which supports the majority
of our operations, will see a decrease of 1.5%
or $85 million year over year.
Working with my colleagues in the finance department,
we approached this year's corporate fund budget gap
of 982 million.
With the goal of closing it
through structural means rather than an over-reliance on
temporary one-time fixes that would only serve
to kick the can down the road.
Thus, to close this year's gap,
this budget recommendation includes over 80%
of structural fixes while ensuring the continuation
of critical city services
through no reduction in the city's workforce.
More specifically, this year's budget gap was closed
by over 400 million in revenue improvements from forecast,
including $208 million in one-time revenues,
the strategic use of the city's fund balance reserve,
the declaration of a higher TIFF surplus netting additional
dollars to not only the city but our sister agencies
and other taxing districts in the county, as well as
through improved debt collection efforts.
This also included $21 million in increases
to existing revenue sources through adjustments to our fines
and taxes, as well
as $215 million in reforecasted revenue projections,
including funding for the M-E-A-B-F payment
and anticipated recovery from fine and fee enforcement.
This gap was also closed
with over $300 million in expenditure reductions from
forecast, including over $43 million in savings due
to healthcare savings and re-forecasting
of the city's anticipated obligations for employee rate,
wage and salary expenses.
Over $248 million in operational efficiencies within
department budgets and finance general, including
through vacancy reductions
and $2.9 million in savings by shifting eligible costs
to grants and the city special revenue and enterprise funds.
And lastly,
this budget does include a $300 million increase
to the prop base property tax levy, reducing the amount
of corporate fund subsidy
to the pension funds while maintaining the city's commitment
to adequately funding our pension funds.
I want to acknowledge that the decision
to implement an in an increase
to our base property tax levy was a difficult one
for this administration to present to city council
and the property owners of this city.
It was not one that was made lightly
or without an implicit understanding of
how such increases are felt differently
across property owners.
So how did we arrive at a $300 million property tax increase
after working to include over $700 million
of revenue increases and expenditure decreases from
forecasts, we were faced
with the remaining $300 million gap, A gap
that is partially due due to the precipitous decline of one
of our larger revenue sources.
To be clear, this wasn't a gradual decline
of a key revenue source over several years.
Rather over the course of one year,
the city has seen a decline
of over $160 million in its personal property replacement
tax, which is the corporate income tax collected at the
state level on behalf of of municipalities.
We anticipate this decline
to carry forward into next year based on data received from
the state, further reducing the resources available
to support operations within our corporate fund.
Thus, it's faced
with this significant decline in a corporate fund revenue
source and the prospect of significant layoffs
and additional cuts to critical city services.
The administration has proposed a budget
that raises the base property tax levy by an amount equal
to the amount the city would have raised had the levy been
increased by CPI each year since 2022.
This increase will support the city's pension obligations
while reducing the corporate fund subsidy allocated
to the pension funds, thus redirecting such corporate fund
revenues to support critical city operation.
I wanna take a moment to provide further details on
what we see as the impact
of not raising the base property tax levy.
We understand the desire to increase the amount
of one-time revenues in this budget
through not paying the advanced pension payment
or sweeping eligible grant funds.
However, those dollars if used,
will no longer be available next year
to support our growing costs.
As you've heard me mention in briefings throughout the year,
our costs grow by at least the rate
of inflation each year due due
to contractual salary obligations
and baked in increases in our multi-year commodities
and equipment contracts.
Thus, it will take ongoing revenue sources
that increase at least by the same rate.
To ensure we are supporting our expenditures.
Without this property tax increase,
we would face a significant reduction in personnel funded
by the corporate fund, thus resulting in a decline in city
services with close to 63% of the corporate fund.
Supporting personnel cost, 78%
of corporate funded positions consisting of police
and fire personnel, and the average salary of a filled
and budgeted position within CPD around $114,000.
To achieve an additional $300 million savings on the
corporate fund, we would have to touch additional positions
and most critically, our public safety infrastructure
In evaluating the cuts needed to achieve such cost savings,
our analysis reflects we would have
to reduce corporate funded positions by another 17%
or 4,134 positions,
but the bulk of that born across our larger public safety
and infrastructure departments.
With over 60% of that coming in the form
of personnel layoffs,
critical city services would be significantly impacted.
Public safety within our communities would suffer
and it would work, make our workers less safe.
Thus, with this budget recommendation, we seek
to balance making responsible position
and programmatic cuts with proposing revenue increases
and the strategic use of our fund balance
and other one-time revenues such as a larger TIF surplus
to lessen the impact of a property tax increase.
This approach is married with our continued commitment
to strengthen our pension funds through the payment
of both the statutory contribution as well
as an advanced payment in order
to lessen the burden on taxpayers in the immediate term
and in the future, while also making modest inve investments
in the priorities identified by Chicago communities.
This budget is the culmination of over eight months
of planning, working
with our departments on the critical operational needs
for the coming year, hearing from residents
and youth during our four public budget forum, meeting
with city council caucus leaders to identify priorities
with in their caucuses and broader communities
and evaluating revenue options for near term
and future consideration and implementation.
This year, through our partnership with the Mayor's Office
of Community Engagement, OBM worked
with the Great Cities Institute at the University
of Illinois at Chicago to begin the 2025 budget engagement
process earlier than ever
before, working with members of city stakeholder groups
to co-design each phase
of this year's budget engagement process, OBM
and the mayor's office hosted over 550 residents at four
round tables, collected over 390 budget surveys
and received over 850 written comments about
what should be prioritized in the 2025 budget.
In particular, this year saw over 200 youth attend the Youth
Engagement Roundtable, where we learned that high
amongst their priorities was expanding services
to persons experiencing homelessness,
alternate response programs, broadband access
to underserved communities,
and most importantly, youth op employment opportunities.
These priorities align with
what we also heard from the broader community
and is why this budget includes increased investments
to strengthen the city's shelter network
by more than doubling the bed capacity to 6,800
and hiring local community based organ organizations
to operate and provide service at the shelters.
This budget also continues to work, I'm sorry.
This budget also continues to work
of expanding our mental health network
with continued investment in the three new clinics open this
year, and dedicating just under $2 million
to create a new dispatch unit within the Office
of Emergency Management and Communications to triage calls
and dispatch services to ensure those
who are in need receive the necessary mental health support
through investments from the American Rescue Plan Act
and the Chicago Chicago Recovery Bond,
the city will leverage one-time funding
and city real real property assets to stand up sustainable,
cost efficient initiatives to connect households
to affordable and reliable home broadband.
Through our neighborhood broadband connectivity initiative
and this budget will assist 30,000 youth obtained paid
employment across career sectors.
This is an increase of 2000 jobs over this year
and over 8,000 jobs since 2023,
and these are just a few of the retained
and new investments this budget supports.
Speaking of the American Rescue Plan Act, when I came
before this committee during last year's budget hearing,
I highlighted the work that my office together
with the mayor's office would be implementing over the
course of this year to analyze the city's ARPA spending
plan, speed up distribution of the funding
to the communities that needed it most,
and ensure that spending deadlines set by the US Department
of Treasury were met.
We set clear milestones to ensure we accomplish that goal,
including establishing a steering committee consisting
of the heads of the Department of law, department
of Finance, department of Procurement Services, OBM
and the Department of Technology and Innovation,
and created new governance structures
to support all departments in the administration
of this historic federal investment within our city.
We also worked with members of the city council
to understand how best to prioritize this temporary funding
source to support programs
that would directly address the historical disinvestment
experience in communities throughout our city,
which were only heightened by the pandemic.
Armed with a detailed programmatic
and financial analysis of each program,
operational information from our departments
and priorities identified by the mayor
and city council, re relaunch the city's Road to recovery,
ARPA spending plan this spring detailing
how the remaining funding allocated
to community initiatives would be used
to support communities across the city
who are still recovering from the pandemic.
Through these efforts, the city has made significant strides
in getting dollars into the community who need it the most,
and we are proud to say that since June of 2023,
over $314 million of the city's ARPA funding has been spent,
and we are a few weeks away from finalizing all necessary
agreements that will get us to a hundred percent obligation
ahead of the treasury's deadline.
In addition, we recently launched a public website
that helps members of the public learn about the different
resources and programs available through this investment,
as well as track the spin
and programmatic impact of this each initiative.
I want to thank our department heads
and their teams for the time they have put into not only
administering each program,
but the countless hours they put in
with our delegate agencies, contractors,
and staff to ensure these dollars are touching the
community's in greatest need.
I'd also like to thank my partners in the steering committee
and DTI in particular
for their leadership in developing a website that speaks
to our commitment to transparency around the work
that we do today.
As I mentioned, I'm joined in the box
by my senior leadership team, including Jonathan Ernst,
first, deputy Kevin Murphy, managing Deputy
and Matt Schmidt, managing deputy over Grants operations.
We couldn't do this work without the dedication
and expertise of our colleagues in the budget office
who are listening intently not only to this hearing,
but we'll work tirelessly over the next several weeks
responding to inquiries from members of city council,
our departments, and the public.
I want to personally thank each of the members of my staff
and my finance co-leads, comptroller Chase, war Winkle,
and Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski for their support
and commitment to this city.
After you heard from the CFO and Comptroller, me
and my team are happy to answer any questions that you have.
Thank you. Director Guzman, CFO, GKI.
Good afternoon, uh, chairman Irvin, vice Chair Lee,
and all the members of City Council and the public.
I'm honored to be with you here today
to address your question on the mayor's
proposed 2025 budget.
The fiscal plan for 2025 that you have in front
of you is built on key pillars.
This budget allows the city
to continue delivering critical services
that our residents rely on.
It maintains the investments in housing, mental health,
youth employment, and public safety that are critical
to improving our capacity to meet the needs of Chicagoans.
This budget is also built around fiscal responsibility.
Despite the challenges of balancing our spending,
this budget pays our bills, repays our debts,
and supports our pensions.
We will not repeat the failures of the past
by spending money we do not have and bankrupting our future.
This administration will establish a balance
between prudent revenue generation
and robust expenditure oversight.
It is a budget. We places paramount importance on long-term
fiscal stability,
while still directing resources towards historically
disinvested communities.
Let's begin with fiscal stability.
The biggest challenge to the city achieving fiscal balance
is the pressure caused by the city's
debts to our pension systems.
Our pension funds are woefully underfunded.
Chicago has the largest unfunded pension liability
of any city in this country.
$35 billion of our liability to our retirees
and employees is not funded,
resulting in a 23% funded ratio.
Zis debt is so large
that 39 states have smaller liabilities than
what we have as a city.
In a recent report,
our four pension funds were the worst funded local
government funds in the nation
with our firefighters funded the bottom, followed
by municipals, police and laborers.
The city's pension obligations represent approximately
20% of the city's budget.
The city has increased the contribution significantly over
the last decade, and since 2222 is contributing an actuarily
determined contribution to all four funds
as the statutorily required.
Despite the increases in payments,
the pension funds unfunded liability will still continue
to grow without additional funding.
This budget addresses this challenge
by sustaining our pension advance payment policy.
This stabilizes our pension funds so
that their funded ratios stop getting worse.
Our pension funds can now keep their money invested longer
and stop selling assets to pay benefits.
In other words, we have stopped the bleeding.
Making advanced contributions
through 2030 will save the city far more than our
investment, resulting in a reduction
of city pension contributions of $3.9 billion
through 2055.
When we will hit a 90% funding target.
Those funds can be reinvested right in our neighborhoods
where they are needed most
as our payments have increased to where they need to be.
Our bond ratings have improved.
When the supplemental pension policy was put in effect,
we were upgraded by Fitch
and Moody's, which finally returned our
ratings to investment grade.
Those two agencies have also said
that not making the supplemental payment will be caused
for a negative credit action.
We've analyzed the impact of such a downgrade,
and it'll cost us over $400 million in additional interest
for the bonds we have planned for the next five years.
The city already spends millions in additional interest
every year due to our poor credit ratings.
We pay the price for prior poor decisions around pensions,
and we will pay more tomorrow if we do defer our true
obligations to the funds.
Again, we have reserved approximately $700 million from
prior year surplus surpluses
to make the supplemental payments.
Those, those amounts have been used in fiscal years 2324,
and will be used in 25.
These funds cannot be replaced if we spend them
down on operations.
We are already seeing the impact of these investments
as the size of the advanced payment needed
to keep our pension funding stables already going down.
This investment is working.
Our dedication to honoring our commit commitment commitments
to the city's public services remains unwavering,
and we are resolute in our commitment
to work in close collaboration with labor
and state partners to chart a sustainable path
forward for the city's pensions.
We must, and we will continue this path so
that the city's fiscal stability will not be threatened in
the future by unaffordable commitments, and our employees
and retirees will be comfortable.
Their pensions are protected.
In addition to honoring our pension obligation,
this budget includes payment
for the debt service on our bonds.
For many years, the city passed budgets
that deferred payments of our debt
refunding bonds were used not to achieve normal savings,
but to scoop principle and toss it to later years.
There are no scoop and toss transactions
or other debt deferral to tactics in this budget.
We are paying the city's debts
and not adding to a future burden,
but we cannot talk about this budget
without talking about taxes.
The city cannot achieve structural balance
and fiscal stability without having revenues that increase
with inflation as our costs do in order to achieve balance.
In fiscal year 25, we have proposed a property tax increase,
which brings the total levy
to the amount it would have been if the levy had increased
with CPI without this property tax increase of 300 million.
To bring us in line with historical trends,
the city would be required to reduce its workforce by 17%
and would see critical services impacted.
As Mayor Johnson has emphasized, we are committed
to responsible fiscal management.
This means we are going to continue
to seek out structural revenue sources,
which don't put undue burden on the city's already over
extended working class.
Developing a diverse set
of structural revenue sources isn't just
sound financial practice.
It's a cornerstone of effective governance.
Our pursuit of equitable
and sustainable revenue streams will not only enable us
to make crucial investments in affordable housing
and mental health, but will also provide relief
to hardworking families who have struggled
to put food on their table or gas in their tank.
High impact structural solutions will require voter
or state action, or both.
The city has home rule authority, which is meant
to give us the ability to find local
solutions to local problems.
Well, this sounds great. The reality is that almost half
of the city's revenues comes from
so sources controlled by the state.
This includes funds received from the income tax,
the personal property replacement tax, as well
as general state sales tax.
Over the past three years,
we have received on average $1.5 billion
from these sources alone.
So we are limited in our ability
to effectively raise enough revenue to fund city operations.
The revenue raising levers we can pull are the ones you will
see included in this budget.
While for the longer term structural solutions,
we look forward to working
with our counterparts at the state,
the Governor's Office of Management and Budget.
Just as we announced a $3 billion budget shortfall
and fiscal year 26, this is expected to grow
to $5 billion by 2030.
We are not alone in needing more equitable solutions.
We anticipate that this looming fiscal cliff
for the state will lead to some action next year.
We hope to pursue multiple options,
including one I've been touting since this spring.
We would like to see the state close the sales tax loophole
that currently exempt services
and help residents of the state of Illinois
and the city of Chicago who currently pay higher than
necessary sale tax by expanding the base
and reducing their rate.
We will continue to advocate to the state
and other municipalities
through their spring legislative session
for progressive revenue legislation that will pro,
that will provide cities in Illinois, not just us
with revenues that more equitably target higher income
spenders to fund services that residents rely on.
The city has undergone numerous rating upgrades over the
last two years, including two upgrades
during calendar year 2024,
which reflect improvement in the city's finances.
This budget sustains our sound practices
and prudent policies,
and we strongly expect this proposed budget
will maintain our ratings.
The city of Chicago has stable
or positive rating outlooks from each rating agency
across our general obligation water wastewater, O'Hare,
midway and STSC bonds,
and this budget will support those ratings.
The rating upgrades signal the pro the progress
that the city has made in addressing our longstanding
pension and debt obligations.
But most importantly, the rating upgrades are not a feather
in our cap, but rather a path to lower our borrowing costs
as we use municipal bonds
to fund our capital improvement plan, our housing
and economic development bond projects,
and other important investments throughout the city.
The reduction in our borrowing costs frees up resources
for other city priorities through the stabilization
of pensions, diversification of structural revenue sources,
and strategic capital and social investments.
We are transforming Chicago into a thriving hub for living,
working, and investment.
It is our expectation
that these endeavors will be reflected in improved credit
ratings in the future, and more importantly in the fiscal
stability that will allow the city to budget
for our key priorities going forward.
I wanna thank my team nor Sheik Deputy CFO
and Chip Hastings Deputy Director, along with Brendan White
and Steven Maher, assistant Commissioners and debt managers,
and the next person needs only one name,
veggie Assistant Commissioner
and, uh, master of all things P three
and George Adams, who is our resident pension expert, expert
and the rest of my team for all the support they have
provided for this budget and
for the work they do all year long.
I extend my gratitude to Chairman Irvin, vice Chair Lee,
and all the members of this body for joining us today
to deliberate on the 2025 budget.
I eagerly anticipate collaborating with each of you
to forge a financially robust Chicago that will continue
to serve our residents for generations to come. Thank you.
Thank you. CFO, uh, comptroller work.
You can just say Chase. That's fine.
Ra Rare wrinkle. I just want Ray.
Ray Winkle. Okay.
Thank you, chairman. Got it.
It's all good. Go ahead. Very well.
It's happened my whole life. It's all right.
Uh, Good afternoon, chairman, uh, vice Chair Lee
Distinguished members of the Committee on Budget
and Government Operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the Department
of Finance's goals and budget for the upcoming year.
I'm honored to serve you
and the residents of the City of Chicago
and lead a very dedicated team at the Department of Finance,
many of whom are here today.
I would like to highlight some of the programs
and initiatives from the past year
and discuss planned initiatives for 2025
when it first came before you last year.
I outlined a number of areas of focus for the Department
of Finance, chiefly payment processing,
enforcement and transparency.
I'm pleased to report that we've made strides in each
of those areas and are actively working on initiatives
to further our goals in 2025.
As I have stated before,
I inherited an incredibly strong team from former
Comptroller SMA snowy in.
It was this team that first established the utility bill,
uh, billing relief program,
or UBR, which provides low income City of Chicago residents
with a 50% reduced rate on water, sewer
and water sewer tax charges, as well as debt relief
for those who demonstrate
that they can manage the reduced rate of bills for one year.
In 2024, we expanded this program
to not only include single family homes and two flats,
but also three flats, which has, uh, resulted in a nearly
$1.5 million in potential debt relief to Chicago families.
Additionally, we made two other income based repayment
programs permanent, the Clear Path to Relief program,
which provides low income motorists, the opportunity
to reduce or eliminate vehicle debt, uh,
vehicle related debt,
and the administrative debt relief program,
which provides relief for administrative hearings, debt,
including but not limited to violations issued
by the Department of Streets and Sanitation Buildings
and Business Affairs and Consumer Protection in 2024.
We also put forth a plan to attack leak related debt
for Chicagoans surprised by accidental water bill spikes.
This body had outlined to me
and my staff that many Chicagoans have experienced
situations where an unknown underground leak
between their home and outdoor meter caused a massive
spike in their water bill.
In some cases, Chicagoans were being forced to pay tens
of thousands of dollars more than they normally pay.
We heard you and we worked with City Council
to create the Water leak Relief Pilot program launching
officially on January 1st, 2025.
Qualified residents will now have their extraneous water
debt caused by eligible leaks wipe clean.
This program is retroactive to 2023
and will cost less than $2 million
to the city to fully implement.
With this multiple of repayment options now in place,
I feel strongly that we should focus our attention on
enforcement related or to bad actors that continue
to shirk their responsibilities to the city.
Included in this group have been longtime scoff laws that I,
along with the Corporation Council flagged last year
as areas of focus.
These are a handful of individuals usually not living in
Chicago, that own large tracks
of property throughout the city,
and have continuously run up large penalties relating
to poor maintenance and general neglect of their properties.
Given the legal actions are ongoing.
I will leave the details to that work to the subject
to the Corporation council,
but in short, we've had some remarkable success
with these bad actors that have stonewalled the city
for years, even decades.
Additionally, we have noticed a growing number
of individuals that are clearly taking advantage
of the city's generous payment plans.
I certainly understand folks struggling to make one
or two point payments work within the total
history of a payment plan.
However, there have been over 26,000 individuals
that have gone on and off four
or more payment plans since programs were available,
including 67
that have had at least 15 different payment plans,
and even one person with 20
these serial payment plan individuals will no longer be
acceptable within our payment system.
And I have instructed my team to devise rules that will
restrict individuals to three strikes in your out
to three strikes in your out policy.
I'll make sure that these rules are implemented
by the beginning of 2025,
and that violators of this policy will not be tolerated
in terms of enforcement within our
streets operation division.
We have also made large strides to improve our systems.
In 2024, we implemented seven new 3 1 1 categories
to allow constituents to report parking issues citywide.
We have been, uh, uh, which have been used
to improve our predictive enforcement efforts.
Additionally, although delayed
by some contractual discussions, we successfully worked
with CDOT to implement the Smart Streets pilot program,
which will improve bike lane violation and enforcement
and improve, uh, bike
and bus lane safety, as well as it lets us
test an automatic parking enforcement
system for mail ticking.
In terms of cash management
and prompt payment, the Department
of Finance is actively working to pinpoint the root causes
of payment delays and implement measures
to alleviate cashflow challenges.
I'm proud to amount that our average processing time
for contractual payments is less than seven business days.
However, there are areas of improvement,
and we are still seeking
to get all payments under the department goal of 30 days.
We continue to work on improvements
to the 50 50 pilot program
to accelerate payments on certain contracts
and have worked to create more cash advanced programs
that allow for delegated agencies
to access funds earlier to meet their needs.
We have worked with partners
and labor as well as operators like Hire 360
and our city procurement office to come up
with new standards around bonding
and insurance that'll allow for smaller operators
to access more city businesses business
like the lead line replacement program.
We've also started work on a program within the Cut the tape
initiative, which, uh,
which is the creation of the city wallet.
Currently, there is no centralized portal
that covers payments, contracts, license,
and debt within the city.
Even internally, we have to check 11 databases
to conduct conduct a thorough debt check on an
individual when completed.
The city, Chicago City Wallet will allow residents the
ability to make payments, see tickets
or debt owed, managed licenses,
and see where city payments are within the system.
The goal is to have this unified system
that improves both city speed
and transparency within city services.
We've already began working on unifying the data uses
and look forward to making more progress on this in 2025.
In terms of revenue, we are pleased to announce
that taxes collected
by D-F-D-O-F are over the last year are up roughly
3.59%.
We also expect parking tickets
to improve their increase this year with a fuller staff
and improved technology.
However, as this body is aware,
decreases in the state pass revenues, most notably
personal property replacement tax,
have required the financial team to look at cuts
and revenue increases to meet our expenses in 2025.
We're aware that all taxes and revenues have a constituency,
and none of these decisions are easy.
With that said, I wanna outline three of these changes
that you find within your budget today.
Budget proposal today, a change one, a change in the bag.
Concession fee. Concession fees are intended
to be temporary fees components to, uh, sent back
to the retailer to assist with technology
and system changes set, uh, stemming from a new taxer fee.
In this case, a back fee was established in 2017 with five
of the 7 cents collected to the city,
and 2 cents retained by the retailer.
Given the eight years that this fee has been in place,
it was decided to remove the 2 cents concession fee
and have the full 7 cents sent to the city.
You may remember, in prior years concessions, we have done,
uh, similar sunsets
to concession fees across other city programs.
Number two, a change in the parking lot
and valet parking tax that equal, uh,
equalizes the tax rate across all days.
Currently, the parking tax for valet parking
and on weekends is 20%, and the parking tax is 22%.
On weekdays, we decided to make the parking lot
and valet tax 22% for every day of the week.
And three, the liquor tax, which has not been changed
by the city since 2008, was changed
to keep pace with inflation.
The new rates will be 39 cents a gallon for beer,
a jump in 10 cents, 49 cents a gallon
for alcohol, 14% or less.
Exempting beer, a jump in 13 cents a dollar 20 a gallon
for alcohol between 20% and 14% a jump of 39 cents.
And finally, $3
and 62 cents a gallon for alcohol over 20, uh,
20% a jump in 94 cents.
These revenue changes assisting closing the budget deficit
in 2025 and rely on sustainable revenues.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the Department of Finance
and the cash management of the City of Chicago.
I also want to thank my committed team who strives
to improve our services to residents
and taxpayers of the city of Chicago every day.
I appreciate your time, and I'm happy
to answer any questions.
Thank you. Uh, we will begin the questions, uh,
as in the past first round, it will be 10 minutes
if second round is needed.
Uh, that will be, uh, five minutes
on the second round of questions.
Uh, our opening, uh,
person opening questions will be Vice Chair Lee.
Thank you, chairman. Thank you. Budget director.
Hold up for a second. Before you do that, let me add, um,
alders Robinson, ES
and Vazquez, uh, to, to the role as well.
My apologies. Proceed.
We'll try that again. Good morning, and thank you.
Uh, good afternoon, a yes.
Hold up. I I've got everybody down, uh, as,
as you everybody's, uh, on the list.
We'll, we'll get a shot again if you were here when we
gaveled in, we're doing it by the order of seniority.
Uh, so everybody's been assigned a number.
Uh, there was one exception, uh, with vice chair,
and which is gonna follow that, uh, specific order.
So everybody's down. So, my apologies. Go ahead.
Thank you for the third
opportunity to get the time of day.
Right. Good afternoon, everybody.
Um, thank you for all, uh, for being here
and for all the work that you and your teams have put in.
Um, let's just dive right in.
Um, and we're gonna start with property taxes.
Um, I guess, Annette, this might be for you.
Um, what's the total increase of the property tax levy
for 2025?
And I'm looking for a, a breakdown of the levee increase
between the pension gap, um, pension
and gap closing, loss of collections,
new property and debt service.
Can you provide that breakdown? Sure.
Um, so the total, uh, levy increase, um, is three 40,
around three $45 million.
Um, I, I, I think it's a really good,
uh, distinction that you're making.
Um, uh, the property tax increase
that we've been talking about is the increase
to our base property tax levy.
Um, every year. The city's property tax actually does
increase by, um, new property as well as new EAV
and loss for collections.
Um, but the base property tax has not
increased for the last two years.
Um, and so when you add the new property loss
for collections, um, to the increase
of the base property tax levy that we're proposing, it's
around 345 million.
Um, and that includes the debt service as well.
The, uh, the increase
for the base property tax levy will all go to the, uh, uh,
supporting the pension funds, not our debt. Okay,
Thank you.
Um, is the, the proposed property tax increase going
to be implemented in phases over multiple years,
or we, this is, we're talking about a single year
Increase. This is a increase
for a single year.
And are there any plans to include relief measures
for vulnerable groups, such as means testing
or assessed value caps,
fixed income seniors, anything like that?
Um, in, in this, um, in this, uh, proposal, no.
As you know, those types of relief efforts are usually done
and have to be done at the state level.
Um, uh,
and so we ourselves don't have the ability to provide
that level of property tax relief.
And, um, with this $345 million increase in the levy,
um, this is, gets us through this year.
How is this gonna help us for subsequent years?
As we talked about earlier, um, this,
the state's already forecasting a $3.17 billion deficit,
and over the course, I, what, what did you say?
Uh, it's gonna go up to 5 billion at some point.
Um, I think we're in a similar situation
as we're gonna have increase in the cost and everything.
Um, what does this $345 million increase do
for us in, in subsequent
Years? It does a
number of things, and it's in combination with a,
a lot of, uh, uh, things in the budget, right?
So, um, the property tax increase is a structural, um,
uh, uh, resolution, um,
because it, um, it,
it's a permanent increase to the tax levy.
And so, um, each year this will be our
base, uh, that we will have.
Um, but it also is,
is working in conjunction with other measures.
So, as you know, we, um, had a record property, uh,
TIFF surplus this year.
A lot of that, almost a hundred million of that is, um,
expiring tiffs mm-Hmm.
And so the surplus from those tiffs this year, um,
is seen in our budget as a surplus next year will be, uh,
seen as, uh, that new property, uh, value that, um, uh,
we have every single year.
And so in combination with that other revenue enhancements,
other things that we'll be bringing to City Council, um,
next year, uh, as, uh, new revenue options to implement, um,
will help, um, uh, start, uh,
getting us into structural balance.
This will actually severely curtail the out year, um, uh,
uh, budget gap forecast that we presented, um,
earlier this year are, or I should say, mitigate against.
Thanks for that. Um, I, I think we do, in as much as we,
we have gotta get through this 2025 budget, we have
to continue to think about
what the out years are gonna look like.
And, you know, I don't think,
I don't think you'll find one person in this room who's
really thrilled about a $300 million increase
in our tax levy.
Um, and we certainly don't wanna have to be going back
to anybody again, um, in subsequent years.
Um, can we talk about the CPS pension funding gap?
I just need some clarification.
I, I know that, um, I, under, as I understand it, the,
the 2024 pension payment is, has now been accounted for.
We're getting that money back.
Is that being accomplished through the,
the TIF surplus from this year,
or is that coming from a different
source at CPS? Do you know?
It comes from, uh, a portion
of it comes from the TIF surplus this year. Yes.
Um, and is CPS,
so they are covering, they're covering for it, um,
through whatever sources they've got,
including money that we're providing.
Um, does the fiscal year 2025 budget assume
that CPS is also going to pay their one 75 million?
Um, and do we have any insight as
to how they're gonna cover that? Um,
Um, yes. I, you
know, in conversations with, uh, CP S'S board, um,
they have, uh, made that commitment
to make their M-E-A-B-F payment again,
just like we're committed to ensuring that, um, we, uh,
pay our obligations to our own employees.
They've also made that commitment.
Um, we will continue to, um, work with them.
Um, we will continue to look at the revenue options
that we have available that can support that as well.
Uh, in addition, in our conversations
with CPS over the last year
and a half, they've indicated
that when they think about the TIF surplus,
they look at the first 90 million as, uh, amounts
that they're budgeting for, uh, other items.
And that amounts above that are available, uh, to use
for the, uh, me a BF payment.
And so the amount they're receiving this year
of over $300 million is in excess,
even when you subtract the 90 million
of the amount of the ME a BF payment. So
Can you give me the exact amount that we're,
they're getting from TIF surplus this year?
Just so that I have it? The
Total amount is 311 million of which, um,
approximately 11 million.
Joe, can you speak into the mic
that Joel having trouble you?
Yeah. Uh, it's 311 million of which, uh, approximately 11
to 12 million is going to the building fund.
And then it's about 299
or 300 million is going into, uh, CPS.
And that's for this calendar? Or is that for 2025?
That's what they'll receive in the next year? Yes. Okay.
They'll receive that in
approximately February of next year. And,
And for the record, there was an item that was sent out
to all members of the body that shows all of the surpluses
and all of the taxing bodies
and what they, each individually will receive, uh,
from this particular surplus.
Thank you. Was that, I think
that may have just gone out yesterday.
Right. Anyway, I'll move on. Um,
would it be possible for us to get, um,
and I, I don't know if this was something
that I just missed an email chair.
Um, I'm looking for a, a through the chair breakdown of, um,
surplus TIFs for 2025 by TIF District.
So I know we've gotten our own individual ones.
Um, I'm just wondering if we can get, uh,
an aggregate one of all of the,
It's, it's in the packet that each alder received.
So if you, just to break down the packets that, um, each
of you received, um, it includes both your 10 year forecast
for your specific ward.
Um, the, uh, TIF surplus in total across all
of the TIFs that are being surplused specifically, uh,
report of just the TIFs in your ward
that are being surplused.
And then, as the chairman just mentioned at the very back,
it shows you the TIF surplus amount
for each tax taxing districts from the aggregate, uh,
total five 70 million.
Great. Thank you. Um, I'm gonna ask, uh,
I'll probably need a second round chairman,
and let me see if I can get through this here.
Um, looking at expenditures, uh, on union contracts,
does the, the budget account for retro payments to CFD
and SCIU local 73 contracts,
and if so, uh, where in the budget can I find that?
So, um, we, uh, regularly work with the Department of Law
to ensure that we understand
where negotiations are presently
and where they could potentially go.
Um, and so like we, like the city has always done, um,
when they're in the midst of negotiations at the same time
that they're in the budget process,
we have made certain assumptions about, um, um, you know,
where those contracts could potentially end up, um, given,
uh, what we know about contracts that have already been, um,
entered into and signed.
Um, because we have not signed contracts,
you will not see those dollars in the department's budget.
They always sit in finance general
until the contracts are signed.
Contracts are signed. Okay. Um, do we know
what can collective bargaining agreements
for city workers are gonna be up
for renegotiation in the next three years?
Um, I think most of them, um, I think most of them were,
except for the ones that are still open right now, uh, go
through 2027.
Um, and I, I'm pretty sure that the department
of law doesn't want me to say this,
but that means that they're probably gearing up in the next
year or so to, to, to begin.
Um, those, those discussions.
Okay. Um, looking at overtime,
um, can we get through the chair, uh,
if you don't have here, what the total amount spent on
overtime, uh, was this year
with the breakdown by department?
Sure. Um, obviously it's, um, year to date.
Yeah, we don't have the full amount, um,
through the end of the year.
We'll have a way better picture as we get closer
to finalizing the act for audit next year.
But we can definitely get you year to date so far. Yeah.
Year to date's fine. Or even
if it's the end of the quarter.
Um, just curious to see where we are at, uh,
an overtime. And
I did get an answer for your question prior.
Um, coop and AFSCME are up in 20 2007.
2027. Who is AFSCME and who else?
Yep, for 2027 Afscme. And who else? Coop
Are Coop.
Thank you.
That's my time. Yes.
You, you want round two, please will
do Altman and MI Mitchell. Um,
We'd like, like a point for clarification,
which I think would help the body going forward.
Um, with regards to the, to the, to the raise, uh,
in accordance with CPI, um, budget director, you mentioned
that the amount city will have raised a levee been increased
by CPI each year since 2022.
CFO, you said since 2019?
Hold on, hold on.
That's a question that's, that's not a clarification
that we're going pass on that one.
Uh, we're gonna go to your clarification. Go ahead.
And so I just wanted to clarify that there was a
property tax rebate program that was initiated under
the previous administration, uh,
not the Lightfoot administration,
though Emmanuel administration.
And so that might be something that, um,
we could look into in response to Alderman Lee's question.
That is correct. Any other clarifications
before we go to Vice Mayor?
That wasn't a clarification. You was asking a question.
We're gonna go to the Vice mayor, followed by,
uh, chairman Mitt.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
Property taxes were raised from 19 to 22 by CPI.
So it's the same thing. It was just a different
Way of traffic. Did you hear what
I said?
Okay. You owe me some time. Go ahead. Alright.
Um, as part of our measures to close the gap,
good morning everyone, and thank you for your service.
Why did we not reduce more vacancies
or do a reduction in staff?
Thank you for the question, vice mayor.
So we worked, uh, collaboratively with each
of our departments to understand, um, what are the vacancies
that they currently have in their budget
that if they were reduced, would not have an impact on, uh,
critical operations.
Um, as well as critical, um, initiatives that are helping,
um, progress a certain, uh, programs, um, going beneath
that you would start to see delays in services, uh, to city,
uh, residents, business owners, uh, and so forth.
Um, and so again, these were directly, uh, influenced
by the lived, um, uh, operational knowledge
of our departments, um, as relates to
what they know would have an impact.
We also wanted to make sure that we maintained as many
of our positions that would generate revenue.
Um, we don't want to cut off our ability to actually,
you know, meet our revenue projections into 2025.
Um, and so, you know, we were balancing both knowing
that there's a capacity limit in
how much we hire every single year, uh, based on the fact
that we also have attrition within our ranks, um, with the,
the need to, um, uh, reduce, uh,
or I'm sorry, with the need to in, in
and continually ensure
that we're delivering services without having an
impact to residents.
Thank you. Uh, did you ask for concessions from the unions
to help our up close the gap?
We did have discussions with, um, each
of our labor unions, um, as we are always in conversations
with our labor unions.
Um, right now, uh, we only have a few open contracts.
Um, and, and so we don't have, uh, um, you know,
items on the table.
Um, but we, we are, you know, always in conversation
with our labor unions, whether it's about, uh, concessions
or it's about revenue generation.
And then, um, so you have stated that if,
if we did not do a property tax increase,
we would see a further 17% reduction in city workforce.
Can you explain why that would happen?
So when you look at, um, you know, where the bulk
of our costs are, um, on the corporate fund, um,
you have the bulk of our costs sit in personnel, uh,
salaries and wage, um, amounts.
I think it's a, a, I don't have the exact percentage,
but it's over 60% of that amount within the corporate fund.
78% of that is made up of positions funded, um,
for our public safety apparatus, most specifically fire
and, um, CPD, um, it's over, uh, about $1.9 billion.
Um, all the rest
of the departments non CPD departments make up about in
2025, just over $500 million in salaries and wages.
Um, and so when you, when you think about
where do you get $300 million of, uh, savings?
One is gonna be in positions
because that's where the bulk of our
costs are on the corporate fund.
And two, it's gonna be in the, uh, part of our budget
where there is the, the most, um, um, savings,
but also the most cost, um, positions in our corporate fund.
Uh, the salaries and wages are higher on our,
for our public safety, uh, teams just given, um,
how their salary, uh, contracts work.
Um, and so again, uh, that's what we mean
by a further reduction.
We would have to reduce the remaining vacancies first, um,
so that we touch, um, uh, filled positions, uh, last, um,
and so that's where the reduction would, would be.
That's why it's 17%.
How much of the corporate funds subsidize the city
pensions obligation and the debt payments.
Okay. Gimme a minute to look up what it is exactly. She's
Gonna look it up. I don't know if you wanna
go to a different question,
but she'll get you that answer.
Um, this year, the, uh, corporate fund subsidy, uh,
for debt service is, uh, 186.3 million,
and the subsidy for the, um,
pension is, uh,
around 400 million.
Could you hold this time, could you explain,
when you say subsidy, what do you mean by debt amount
and what is and what do you mean by a subsidy?
Yeah. We levy, uh, property taxes for, uh, pensions
and for debt service, but the amount
that we levy is insufficient to cover both
of those, uh, costs.
And so we have to use corporate fund monies in addition
to cover those obligations.
Okay. So, so has the, have the, have the percentage
of the corporate subsidy for the pension obligations
and debt services gone up or down?
Um, it's increased.
Uh, you know, used to be that, uh, 72% of the, uh,
costs were paid by the levy, and now we're at 60%.
So we've gone from an essence 28% subsidy to 40%.
So why not make a small advance payment in 2025?
So the advanced payment is not being
made outta property taxes.
That money that we are, uh, using
for the advanced payment was reserved.
There's about 700 million specifically
that was initially reserved, uh,
to cover the advanced payments from prior year surplus.
Uh, and the whole strategy around that is the amounts
that was reserved would bridge the time in 2026 when the
permanent casino will be open.
And we will be getting significantly more revenues
to go into the pension system so that
between when this started in 23
and in 2030 when we'll no longer be able to do it,
we will be able to make almost all of
that investment solely out of reserves.
So if we don't make the advanced payment this year,
the only way that would impact the budget is if we swept
those reserves and put them into the budget,
which would mean next year the gap would be we'd ha ha
retain that same gap.
So next year we'd have to raise property taxes
or some other revenues by that same amount.
There isn't, it's not coming from ongoing revenues.
There was a specific plan,
and this money was set aside
to do these supplemental payments
and help us save money in the long run.
So if we make the advance payment,
why can't we take the 145 million in remaining opera money
funding to lower a property tax amount?
Um, so the same principle that Jill just mentioned about,
um, temporary dollars to, um, cover an, an ongoing and,
and frankly, an increasing costs, uh, stand
for the ARPA dollars too.
Um, so when we relaunched ARPA in, um, spring of this year,
after evaluating the plan, we, um,
allocated dollars to, um, programs that, uh, we knew
one were hitting communities of need, um,
and that were had a very high likelihood
and success of actually getting those dollars
out into those communities.
These are temporary dollars that were
provided to the city, um, to help communities recover.
The city used about $1.3 billion of the ARPA funding
that it received to approximate the amount of revenue
that it anticipated, um, having lost
because of the pandemic
while its revenue was recovering from the pandemic.
Our revenues have pretty much recovered from the pandemic,
um, except in certain circumstances, um, such as the PPRT,
which is not a pandemic loss, it's a, um, shifting
of policy at the state level, um, as well as the fact that
during the pandemic, uh, corporations were, uh,
were overperforming.
And so, um, using temporary dollars, uh,
that are currently tied up in contracts as well
as supporting, uh, uh, personnel
that are administering those programs.
Um, one, we would have to, uh, you know,
take those dollars directly out of our communities,
which are currently going to those communities.
But two, it's, it's, it's not a, it's not a solution
to the problem that we're actually facing right now,
which is a need, uh,
for a sustainable ongoing revenue source to support our, uh,
growing obligations of pensions.
So this budget includes a $55 million in new investments.
Why are we doing that? Shouldn't we scrap those in order
to lower the property tax?
So, you know, the, uh, the, you know, investments
that are made in this budget were, um, you know,
strategic investments for programs
that are supporting some critical needs
that our communities are facing right now.
Um, the one of the largest investments, uh, of within
that 55 million is for the one system initiative,
I think the city has for a very long time, um,
made it a point to say
that we have not had enough capacity within our unhoused
shelter network to support the need
that we see in our communities.
Um, and that's been a demand for a very long time.
We've only had 3000 shelter beds for a very, very long time,
you know, and through the work that we've been doing
with the, with the state and,
and with the county to understand
how we can support the growth of that network, um, we knew
that, you know, with the infrastructure that we had, uh,
created out of nothing for the new arrivals mission, um,
we needed to shift those resources
and provide for the beginning
of a transition towards expanding our shelter network.
And that's what, you know, $25 million of that, um,
that 55 is going towards is to adjust our shelters,
create more bed capacity to support the need
that we see in our communities.
Secondly, and, and very much tied to, to
that goal is an additional, uh, funding, um,
for the rapid rehousing program, uh, that is administered
by the Department of Family and Support Services.
Um, that program was, uh, expanded during the pandemic
with ARPA dollars, but as you know, you've said,
and others have said, we've seen, um, the ARPA dollars
being put to good use.
This is a program that is extremely successful
and has, you know, received a lot of, um, uh,
support over the last few years.
Uh, those opera dollars are expiring.
And so in order to maintain it at the level
that we currently have, we have placed another, um, uh,
we've doubled the corporate investment, uh, to sustain, uh,
a thousand units, um, be able to, uh,
support an additional 360 units into 2025.
Lastly, um, we have, uh, um,
increased our investment in youth employment.
Um, as we know, we've seen a lot of, uh, success in, um,
having job opportunities
and employment for youth within our communities.
We're gonna be increasing that by another 2000 as we work
to continue to increase the job opportunities that, uh,
we're seeing made available through, um, uh, organizations
and companies outside of the city of Chicago.
We know that, um, having these opportunities, um,
provides not only stability within our communities,
it provides job, um, uh, good job training skills
for students within, um, CPS and,
and outside of CPS, um, prepare them for the future.
So these are strategic investments for,
and these are also things that we heard, um, loud
and clear from community residents at our town hall meetings
and in surveys that we received, uh, throughout the year.
Thank you. Uh, budget director, would you like Round two?
Okay. Very well. Um, chairman MIT followed by,
uh, chairman Harris.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon,
um, director.
I have, um, one question
in this budget that we, is it, is it true
that we only have 5 million for flood victims?
Um, I think that is a, a question that I am gonna have
to defer to the Department of of Housing,
but I do know that they, um, I believe doubled the amount
of funding that we received through FEMA
by an allocation on the new economic housing
and economic development bond.
So they expanded the, the, the funding that was available,
um, because that's on the bond.
Um, and they're making allocations, uh,
based on the $625 million.
I, I don't have the full, um, insight into
how much they are allocating from the bond
to flood assistance.
Well, I think somebody need to get that answer to me
because I don't want to entertain anything.
And we are still struggling from a budget,
and yet you are talking about, uh, shelters and houses
and, uh, my community have been devastated
and displaced from the house they already had.
We're not even talking about a shelter.
So, so I just wanna know, uh,
if somebody can gimme some answer
with my entire ward being flooded and I'm glad to get here.
'cause whoever I need to tell you want my support
and wanna work with me, you gonna have to work
with the peoples in my ward who have been struggling
ever since two years ago.
The little money that's being put out there, $5 million
for five wards on the west side,
with my ward being the only one flooded the whole ward,
including myself, and we only gonna get $5 million.
You gotta gimme another answer.
But let me just ask, um, another question here.
In terms of, um, $3 million that we are getting ready
to do in the property tax.
Um,
570 million going to CPS, is that
how much we got going to CPS 175 millions?
Um, no CPS, uh, through the TIF surplus, um,
which in aggregate is 570 million for all taxing districts,
311 million, uh, will go to CPS in 2025.
Uh, 11 of that is for their building fund. 300
Is for what, what kind of fund
CPS is building fund?
So the funding that they use
to support the infrastructure costs.
Do we know how that money is being spent from CPS?
How do we, do we know how it's being spent?
Yes. When you give the money
to them from TF do you get a breakdown of
what they're gonna lose, publicize or building fund?
I mean, I believe that they published their, their budget
as well as their capital plan.
But again, you know,
the TIF surplus is based on property taxes, um,
that each district receives.
Uh, you know, based on the, the, the, the percentage
of property taxes that, um, is distributed
by the Cook County Treasurer's Office.
Oh, okay. Then what is the, um,
what's your plan two,
if the property tax increase doesn't get passed,
what's plan two for the budget for your department?
I, I mean, I think that this is the conversation
that we're gonna have with City Council about, um, you know,
what cuts we're gonna have in this budget.
But, but it is not any at this point.
You don't have a plan.
It is what the council tell you is that what you're looking
for, what the council gonna tell you
is gonna determine your cuts.
So the mayor has presented a balanced budget for rec for,
um, consideration by city council.
Right. But my question is, if that fails,
what's your plan too?
What's b What's your B plan? Do you have one?
You have one or you don't?
Chairman Mitch? Uh, I just want any, uh, hold on.
Lemme just, you can hold a time. Uh, mayor presented a plan.
Okay. We can either pass it as is
or amend the plan that's been put forth.
Generally there have always been amendments to the plan
that has been put forth.
And then we will either pass that,
if there's enough votes to pass that.
The only thing I do know is that we must pass something
by December 31st,
otherwise government shuts down. It's not like I do.
I do understand federal
Government where you can do continuing resolutions.
We have to pass the tax level.
We have to pass a series of items
before the end of this year.
So we have to figure out what,
what the path forward is going to be.
And that will be on us.
The mayors presented a plan, as always, we will amend
that plan and then ho hopefully subsequently
pass what is amended.
Um, my question, Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much,
but until we'll have opportunity to sit down
and talk about this, uh,
we're gonna be here till the end of the year.
So since you want to take up our time for our holiday
and our Saturdays and come down here for budget hearing,
and I'm just telling you right now,
if I don't get the things that I'm looking for here,
don't expect for me to vote on this budget.
'cause I'm representing my community.
I think, I think we're all in the same box.
Well, thank you very much.
We need to go back and make some, uh, adjustments,
should I say, to get it up.
Thank you. I don't have any questions. Is
It all right?
Very well. Uh, I would ask, uh,
we please limit your comments in the gallery.
Um, next we have, uh,
again, number two,
please limit your comments in the gallery.
Next we will have Chair Harris, followed
by, uh,
uh, followed by Dow.
Thank you. Um, thanks everybody for being here.
Could you tell me how many fees are being increased
and what are the top fees that are being increased?
The top five, and if it's more than five,
can I have the list of the chairs through all the fees
that we're actually increasing?
Sure. We can definitely get you, um, all the fees
that are, uh, increasing.
You know, we, we presented the, um, revenue ordinance,
um, last Wednesday.
Um, but we can definitely get you that, um,
just really quickly.
I believe it's 10, um, 10 fees that are being increased,
um, as well as fine.
So, you know, what we presented
before city council, uh,
last Wednesday in the revenue package is really not only to,
you know, increase certain taxes and um, fees, uh,
because of the cost of providing those services,
but the ones, the fines that we're increasing are really to,
um, uh, adjust behavior.
Um, and so, uh, I, we can definitely get you a list
through the chair of the specific ones,
but they're largely ones that are in BACP, um, uh, uh,
DOF, um, cdot, uh, the, uh,
city clerk's office.
Um, and I know I'm forgetting one off the top of my head,
but those are mainly the ones that are, that are being, uh,
But I, but I'll give you the DOF ones
right now since I have it.
Alright, so those were the three
that I mentioned in there before.
So that was liquor, um, tax, um, the bag concession fee.
Mm-Hmm. And then the parking in valet, depending on
how you want to regroup those together.
But you could consider those, uh, to separately.
And, and, and
Could you, through the chair get me
that valet parking fee?
We are already feeing them
and feeing people that use the valet,
but get me how much we generate prior
to our increase through the chair. Yeah.
Yeah. I'll provide that for you if you have it.
I think I actually might have it right here. Um,
And that increase is just making the rate the same on the
weekend as it already is during the weekday.
So it's not a total increase,
it's just normalizing both the rates,
But it still gets us some money.
Right? That's what you're saying
It does. Yeah.
I'll get that to you. Okay.
Get to me through the, and then there's
one other item mm-Hmm.
Um, that I wanna make sure you're aware of.
There was a state law change on the prepaid wireless, uh,
collection, um, done in the spring.
We're making a change to match back up with that.
Um, which, uh, just basically it's updating language,
but it will give us additional revenue there.
So it is really a state change,
but that's technically a fee change as well.
Does it get us additional revenue?
It does. And, and just to, if I could highlight,
'cause you asked me which ones were the highest,
uh, the changes that were, I
Wanted the ones that the, the top
that will generate the five top fee getters that generate
additional revenue for the city of Chicago,
the five top ones.
And then if it was more than five, I wanted to know
through the chair who, what those fees are.
And you can get that to me through the chair. If it's more
Of the ones that we introduced are
just generally the top five. The
Top. Okay. No, the
ones, the new ones that we're increasing.
So if we're increasing a fee, I'd like to know what it is.
I'd like to know how much additional, uh,
revenue the city's going
to get from the estimated additional receipts
that we're gonna get from the increase.
Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right.
And for on the, on the TIFs, um,
have we received like the final payment?
Are these for the TIF surplus?
Are these actually, this is all that we get for the year.
We're through the Cook County has sent over
the final payments?
Or will these are like estimated or actual?
So that's for 2025.
So we, we actually send the money to the county treasurer.
Okay. Then the county treasurer distributes it to all
of the taxing districts.
Um, so we have received all of our TIF surplus for 2024.
Okay. It's usually distributed.
The fir we get, we get it in two waves, uh,
in February or March.
Um, as well as in,
It's like, well, it depends,
but there's one small component, sorry,
there's one small component in the summer, and then, um,
but sometimes that can be even in May.
Yeah. So the largest,
So we'll be a year behind on
what we're estimating that we're getting here.
We actually won't surplus this
until the 2025 payments come
In. Yeah. Property taxes
are in arrears, right?
A year behind. Yes.
And so, um, that's an estimate, uh, for
what we will surplus in 2025
because we won't know the final.
Um, it usually always goes up from that estimate.
We won't know the final until all the projects that are, um,
uh, invoicing this year have closed out.
Um, got it. Projects tend to, uh, by the end of the year,
some of them spend a lot less than what was, uh, um,
uh, estimated.
And so that is an estimate, um, that we have, uh, as
of the date that we did the surplus calculation.
So what happens when the tiffs close out
and there's additional funds left? What happens?
All of it is surplus. It still be surplus
by state law. Okay.
All right. Great. Okay.
Tell me, give us the, the parking tickets
and everything.
Tell me what's the amount of money
that we actually collect every year via our parking tickets.
Um, you got the parking tickets and the red light tickets.
So if you tell me how much we actually co
that we're collecting.
Uh, do you want year to date or would you like the,
You probably, you can gimme both. You
can gimme the one. How much we collected last year.
Uh, like as I look at the numbers, some
of 'em are trending a lot higher than they did last year in
terms of the number of tickets that we're writing as a city.
Mm-Hmm. Um, so we've already passed a halfway mark
on what we've issued this year.
So what is our estimated revenue
based on the revenue we collected last year?
So, so yeah. I can go over that real quick with you
and then I'll get you a full breakdown sheet.
Okay. So, um, in general, the parking violations, so
that's subtract the speed and, and red light camera.
Mm-Hmm. That gets us over a hundred million a year.
Um, uh, that's about 10 million up.
We actually expect that to grow a little bit more
because of the smart street at the end here,
which allows us some additional, uh, um,
ways to collect that.
Uh, um, and we can go into that.
Um, the red light and speed cameras are down year over year,
but that's actually expected.
Um, and there's a, there's a made, there's,
it's actually nationwide kind of.
Um, and it's, the reason is, um, the high points
during the pandemic were for red light
and speed cameras were coming in.
People weren't using public transportation.
People were working more remotely and using their vehicles.
Um, as we've gotten more into in-person
and as people have gotten less, uh,
work from home components, we've seen a decline
in those type of violations
because people are driving less,
taking more public transportation.
That's a national, um, trend there.
It's, it's still in the same category
as pre pandemic revenue from those, those areas. Okay.
But so what is it, what's
The So I, I do have the number, um, yeah, sorry.
So for parking, um, year to date, $112.2 million,
that's anticipated to go over the amount collected in 2023.
'cause this is again, as year, year to date 2023,
we collected $141 million, uh, in parking
ticket revenue.
And then, I'm sorry, chair, did you have others? You were,
Those were my, no, I'm sitting here reading documents
and so I'm cur I'm curious as Yep.
To what the revenue is and will be for those.
And, um, the, and I'll go through
and look at what we projected the revenue to be in the,
um, revenue book. But
Thank you. And I do have the,
um, top five tax
and fee increases if you'd like them.
Or we could do it in through the chair. We can do
It through the chair. It's,
it's quite a bit, so I'd like to, you could,
But just, uh, in summary.
Okay. Um, the top five tax
and fee increases in this budget, the alcohol tax, um,
and this is all in the, the briefing deck that we, uh,
sent out to Alders last week.
But the alcohol tax will increase,
we'll generate another $10.6 million, the sun setting
of the retailer commission on the checkout bag tax, uh, um,
increase of $4.6 million, the consistency in rates, uh,
for the parking tax across weekend
and weekdays, $3.1 million.
And then the, uh, c city clerk, um, is increasing, um,
residential permit parking, um, uh, doing it in, uh,
two year tranche.
Um, and in the first year the increase will be, uh, um,
we'll bring in $1.5 million.
Um, that's for the daily residential permit parking.
And then for the annual residential permit parking,
which she's also increasing, we'll net another $940,000.
So those are the top five,
but we can, um, we can go a little bit
more granular if you need to.
Okay, that's good. And then
just give me the rest through the chair.
Um, but I should say, uh, the one
that Chase talked about a minute ago about mirroring our
city ordinance for the telecommunications changes
that are happening at the state level.
And this is again, why we keep talking about, you know,
wanting and needing to work with the state.
Uh, when you think about, um, the level of revenue
that you get those changes to mirror the state,
we will get another, um,
$14 million in our corporate fund.
And another 20, I'm sorry, $12 million in our corporate fund
and another $28 million in our emergency, uh, communication
or 9 1 1 fund.
And so, um, you know, when you're looking at, you know,
the changes that we are making at the city level versus the
changes that we will make in conjunction with the state,
at the state level, the nets are a lot higher.
The net increases.
And, and I apologize, the, uh, the parking in valet,
the total number is, uh, 28.6 million.
That's current. 28. 28.6.
Alright. Thank you. Thank you. No
Problem. Okay.
Very well, uh, next we'll have, uh, chair Dow,
followed by Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you
to the finance committee for the presentation today.
I have a number of questions.
My first one, um, related to the $311 million to CPS,
um, of which 175 million comes back to us. Is that correct?
Correct. Okay.
What assurances are you putting in place, either
through an IGA
or through an ordinance to make sure
that we get our money back from CPSS?
Yes. We are currently working on an IGA, uh, with CPS.
And does that IGA come through the city council?
No, it does not. Okay.
It has to be authorized by the CPS board.
Okay. Uh, all right.
Uh, you know, I feel, uh, that, uh, I load
to support a $300 million property tax increase.
So I am looking for ways to reduce that number in some way.
And, you know, uh, budget director,
we've talked in the past about, uh, you know, some kind
of staffing analysis to reduce the number of managers
in the various departments versus the people
who actually do the work.
And I just wanted to give you an example of one
and ask you to respond, respond to
that in your own department.
Um, in the budget development
and monitoring section, you have eight budget, deputy
and assistant director positions.
And for which there are only 10, excuse me, eight budget
and analysts and three financial analysts,
that seems like overkill.
Would you agree with that?
No, I wouldn't. Um, I think it is necessary
to understand the scope of the work that, um,
happens not only in my department,
but every single department.
When you're analyzing managers to, um, staff,
I would actually say I don't have enough staff.
Um, so you use my department as an example.
You have one deputy that supports, uh, two analysts.
That deputy should have actually like four analysts
or five analysts under them.
Um, they're supporting over 20 departments, um,
in their budgets that one deputy, um,
and those two analysts, um, the assets under management,
um, are pretty significant.
And two of those departments are the Department of Finance,
which, uh, covers, um, all of the revenue of the city,
but also the Department of law, which is responsible
for our, uh, significant, um, uh, settlements
and judgments within our self-insurance fund.
Um, we could be doing a lot more, uh, as it relates
to analysis if we had more people, um,
but we are, you know, doing more with less.
Yeah. And I just wanted to, I raised that as an example,
knowing I would solicit that response from you.
Um, primarily
because I want to see some kind of commitment in this budget
to do the analysis that's necessary to start
identifying people that, uh,
or departments that need to be right sized, uh,
because that's a way of cutting down the structural,
making the structural corrections in the budget
that we, we require.
And I keep asking this, not just this administration,
previous administrations, um, we've asked it
of the police department too, it doesn't get done.
So I wanna see how that can be done, uh,
in this budget, even if we don't pay for it, even if we had
a, uh, outside, uh, foundation
or somebody pay for an analysis like that,
or people that we do business with, like KPMG
or some other consulting firm, uh,
that could help us get this information so
that we can make the kind
of structural changes in our budget that we wanna see.
And, and I share, um, your, uh, concern,
and I also share, I share your, um, your kind
of passion for this issue.
Um, you know, my office, along with the Department
of Human Resources is responsible for the analysis
of organizational structure, um,
that happens at the budget process,
but also new commissioners come in
and they wanna make changes within their departments.
We, um, look really closely at those types of, uh,
staffing structures.
Um, it's why we ask
for org charts from every single department.
We ask for them to, to detail, um,
who is actually supporting.
Chase can even tell you, he's asking me
for more managers, and I keep saying no.
Right. Um, so we, we do that analysis.
I know that there was a question earlier from one
of the elders about CPD in particular.
Um, uh, CPD uh, recently, uh, signed a contract to have
that staffing analysis
and staffing ratio, uh, conducted that, um,
they're required to do.
And so I believe that we're gonna get even more
of an understanding about, um, not only the number
of officers needed,
but also what is the configuration of supervision of
that, of those officers.
So I do share, um, your, uh,
and in alignment with what you're asking.
And, and I can tell you that we do that sort of, uh,
analysis every single time
that we get those requests from departments.
Alright. As, but is,
but do you think it would be,
I don't wanna keep pressing this,
but is there like a
study a some kind of analysis for the entire city
workforce that could be done
and then shared with the council
and with the public so we can see where the changes
or cuts might be?
I, I think that we can definitely continue to work
with city council to, to have that done.
Um, I, I do wanna just make sure that we're all clear that,
um, every single department is different,
every single department and
the work that they do is different.
Um, and we'll put those types
of considerations into an analysis.
All right. Cole, for a second, please.
Um, have any analysis been done at a department level
or at a divisional level by budget staff
or any other departmental staff, um, at all?
We do it every single time that we work
with our departments on their, their position counts
and their position requests.
And so annually, as part of this process, you all perform
that work with the department.
Uh, that information, I think is what, uh,
chairman Dallas is seeking to have that begin to start
that, that conversation.
I mean, that is jurisdiction for this committee.
Uh, so whatever documentation
or analysis that has been performed by you all, if you all
through the chair, can provide that.
So we can provide that to chair dial the members of council.
Um, all right.
Uh, my se other, my other question is, um,
has OBM conducted a furlough analysis to see what type
of furlough arrangements could be made if we wanted
to save $10 million or $50 million next year?
Uh, we have done an analysis on furloughs, um, both, uh,
as relates to non-represented and, uh, union workforce.
Um, as, as you know, uh, you know, the, the levers
of control that we have are on our
non-represented, uh, staff.
We have to enter into, uh, contracts
and negotiations with the union, um,
for things like furloughs.
Um, and so if,
if you're asking me which ones can we directly impact and,
and, and implement immediately,
it would be on our non-represented employees, uh, per day,
we would save about $2 million.
Um, and so to get the kinds, kinds of savings that,
you know, we would need to reduce
the budget gap even further,
we're talking about significant furlough days on a very
small amount of, uh, staff who are the very managers,
um, that you're,
Can you share that, uh, furlough study through the chair?
Sure. Okay.
Uh, next question is, um, can you also provide
through the chair list
of the opera funded programs under contract for 2025
and beyond, including their contract terms
and penalty clauses, um, for early termination?
We can get that. Okay. All right.
Um, Chief financial Officer,
um, have you looked at a revised advanced pension payment
chart for us?
If we were to extend out the point where we begin
to see savings one year, two years,
or three years further into the future
by lowering the advance payment amount this year?
And if we did this,
would we still achieve the overall savings goal
that are laid out for, what is it, 2055?
Yeah, we are in the process of conducting that.
We have Aon doing some work, um, where initial ask was
to look specifically at reducing this year's payment by 10,
20 and 30%.
So they are, uh, doing that analysis,
and we'll get the results of that
to you as soon as we have it.
All right. Thank you. Will that be like
before we have to vote on this budget?
Yes. Yes, it will be.
I was hoping we'd have something today, um,
but we couldn't get it that quickly.
But yes, it will be in time for it
to be a factor in your decision making.
All right. Um, I guess this is
for the budget department.
Uh, I need a better understanding of the rainy day fund
and the unassigned fund balance.
How much currently is in our fiscal year 25 budget,
and where is it located in the budget?
So the, the, the Rainy day fund is
not an appropriated fund.
It's it's fund reserve, which is funding that, um, uh,
is set aside, uh, for a rainy day.
Um, we have not used any dollars in this budget
from the rainy day fund.
We have, um, appropriated $140 million
of unassigned fund balance, um, into this budget.
But I'll let Chase kind of. Yep.
And, uh, and,
and the other part of those, this question is
how do those amounts
that we've set aside differ from general
government accounting standards?
Uh, yeah.
So let me explain the, um, and it's,
and it's the operating liquidity fund is
what is generally considered the rainy day fund here, um,
in the past, uh, last, when that is determined, just
so people are aware, uh,
it's actually dedicated within the AFER timeline.
So that gets, that gets done when the fer is,
um, uh, submitted.
Um, last year was 50 million.
The intention is to be at 55 million for the upcoming fer,
um, to keep growing that component.
Um, those funds are within the assigned fund balance.
Within the assigned fund balance.
There are things predominantly the pension,
supplemental pension payments
that were also assigned in prior years, as well
as some prior year encumbrances
and other smaller type components.
A lot of that is, um, from either prior year surplus
or revenue that came in, in prior years before then.
So things that were, let's say, due in 2023,
but we actually collected 'em in 2024
and weren't allocated in those components.
So that makes up the assigned and unassigned belt.
I appreciate that. Um, I'll take round two.
Very well, uh, alderman, uh, Riley.
Uh, I do have, uh, the questions that you submitted, um,
for, um, for departments.
There have been, they'll be incorporated into the, uh,
to the record as well, um, in the responses there,
there two, but you may proceed follow by the McQuinn.
Thank you chairman. Um,
and good afternoon, everybody on the panel.
Appreciate all the work you do.
And just want to kind of pre-qualify my remarks here.
None of these are aimed at you personally.
Um, just gonna go through your, your budget and try
and get some, some basic answers.
Um, I wanted to kind of pick up where, uh,
chairwoman Dow left off.
Um, and I think her line of questioning was very helpful.
Um, you know, I just to look back kind of historically at
where things stood pre pandemic versus where they stand now,
budgetarily, um, I pulled an old, um, budget overview
from, um, uh, previous administration, actually,
the Eman Emanuel administration is, uh, first term
and took a look at, um, some line items just
to get some perspective and context.
And one of the things that really stood out to me, um,
even if we just look back five years to 2019, right
before the pandemic, um, we were at a,
we had a budget sitting around 10.7
or so billion dollars in 2019.
Um, and here we stand today with a proposed 2025 budget
of 17.3 billion.
Um, roughly 62%, uh, increase, uh,
in about five years.
Um, six and a half, you know, over six
and a half billion dollars, um, in, in budgetary growth.
And it, I I,
I look then at a more granular level at some of the,
even the smallest departments in, in these budgets.
And I see the fact that the mayor's office's budget, uh,
has nearly doubled in 12 years.
Um, and you know, where in 2012,
and we thought this was a bloated budget
for the mayor in 2012, um,
we had 83 full-time equivalents in that, in that office.
And here today we have, uh,
123 proposed for next year.
That's a net increase
of 40 full-time equivalent positions in this office.
And I don't know that the duties
of the mayor's office have changed all that much since 2012.
Um, and, and again, this is one of the tiniest
submissions in the 2025 proposed.
And, um, you know, budget director, I appreciate your,
your rebuffing, uh, chase
and his requests for additional managers.
Um, you know, something I've been harping on,
it's not unique to y'all, um, since I got here, was this,
uh, this question of managers to employees ratio, right?
And, um, in looking at finance, for example, um,
we've got 40% of the managers, uh, have a direct report
of only one or two people.
Um, if you look at how it works in the private sector,
that's usually one manager at every 12
or so, 12 to 14 employees.
And so that stands out again, not to pick on you
a, a very, very tiny tiny com, you know, portion of,
of this massive multi-billion dollar budget.
And so I see these tiny little examples cropping up
and yes, on their own onto themselves, they are not massive,
but all this stuff adds up.
And somehow in a very short period of time,
we're managing a $17 billion plus budget here now.
Um, and so I think taxpayers,
and we've been hearing from them since the mayor pro,
you know, rolled out his proposed property tax increase.
Um, there's not a lot of faith that this body and, and,
and this administration
and previous administrations have done
enough to manage costs.
And I think it's indicative in hearing, you know,
the budget narrative when, when the mayor gave his speech,
and then some of the remarks that were made here today
as a preamble that, hey, you know, gosh, we're,
we're in this really horrible spot.
We gotta go find more money.
And, you know, we've got, we're limited in,
in the revenue streams that we can identify and tap true,
but I didn't hear the same sense of urgency around cuts and,
and efficiencies.
And again, um, I've heard some of my colleagues talk about
what role they think the city workforce has here.
No one's looking to unnecessarily put folks outta work.
Um, and frankly, when I talk about personnel cuts,
I'm talking about managerial cuts.
I'm talking about merit cuts.
I'm not talking about going after frontline union employees.
And so these are my concerns and,
and frankly, the average taxpayer is carrying these
concerns with them as well.
And so, um, you know, being asked to just kind
of shoulder the, the idea of this new property tax increase
and woe was us and we're out of options, I,
I'm not satisfied with that, with that answer.
And, and so, um, you know, many
of us have been talking about how can we, you know,
provide some solutions, some potential ideas
to this administration to mm-hmm, frankly, propose a,
a a budget that actually has a chance of passing.
And, and I would argue that based on
what I've been reading in the press
and in talking with colleagues, um,
this particular proposal does not have the votes to pass.
Um, and so what we'd like to do is, is talk
to you about our pre pandemic spending
2019, for example,
and where we do apply even a, a, a generous three
and a half percent cola per year to that.
What would that number be?
And I could tell you it'd still be billions less than we're
proposing to spend in 2025.
So, alderman, is there a question in this?
I'm getting there, chairman, and I appreciate
you giving me my 10 minutes.
Um, I, I think there's some context important
here for my questions.
Um, has the administration
taken a look at some budget overlays
that would include, um, cuts
across the board to some of the largest departments?
And have you looked at this in two different ways?
One, including public safety departments
and personnel in that mix,
and then excluding them from that mix?
Um, could you speak to that, please?
Sure. Um, thank you for your,
your comments and your questions.
Uh, a couple things that I wanted to just, um, respond to,
uh, within your comments.
Uh, pre pandemic city budget versus today's budget.
Um, $10 million versus $17 million.
I, I think it's important to remember
that the city's budget grew enormously during the pandemic
because of grants over $5 billion of grants.
And we still have this year are gonna see a 4%
increase in grants in the city's budget.
We're gonna see a 5% increase in, in our enterprise funds,
which are water aviation and, um, sewer.
And most importantly,
we're gonna see a 4% increase in our budget
because of pensions.
We're not talking about the corporate fund growth.
We're the corporate fund is actually declining.
We're talking about growth in other funds.
Um, and we will con continue to see
that growth into the future, while we will probably continue
to see declines in the corporate fund.
Um, and so you are seeing some right sizing post pandemic to
what our revenue sources in the corporate
fund can actually support.
We did look at, um, what the cuts would look like for, um,
the corporate fund with CPD included as well
as without CPD included with CPD included.
It's about a 17% cut on the corporate fund
across all of our departments.
The bulk of that is because CPD makes up 78%
of the budgeted CPD
and CFD together make up 78%
of positions within the corporate fund.
If you were to take out CPD
and CFD, what you're looking at is over 55% cuts
in every other department in the city.
That is largely gonna be layoffs, um, to all
of our other city departments.
And the lar the, the departments
that are gonna be impacted the most from non CPD CF cuts are
your infrastructure departments, cdot, D dss,
and, um, two fm.
Can I, and I, can I just respond on the,
for the finance budget?
'cause I think it'll help with this question,
Please. Yeah.
So just to go,
and I cannot speak for, uh, the, all the other departments,
but I think it's helpful to go through what
just our department goes through, uh,
when thinking about presenting a budget to OBM as well
as looking for savings.
So we do what would probably be
called a, a modified zero base review.
Mm-Hmm. Okay. So there's two components
to the starting of the budget.
There's the contracts
that we're currently on the hook for, right?
Things that are multiple years
or things that have those multiple, uh, uh, included.
And then we have the positions that are required
for us based on our obligations.
And for finance, which is different than other agencies.
Those are mostly dictated
through our single year audit determining.
So a lot of the managers that we have these discussions are,
are actually directed to us
because they say in the audit, you need this position X, Y,
or Z, and then there's a discussion on those
components, okay?
Then we build to there on what positions generate revenue.
'cause we're revenue generating entity.
So those tend to be folks that we'd like
to put more investment in,
depending on what their return is.
So like, we're more fully staffed on that side,
on the revenue generating side than the non
generated revenue side.
And then where are we living, um, on,
on the areas that are non gen general revenue,
and are there overtime demands on those folks
that would be better suited from additional personnel?
Or can they handle the current workload?
And then that goes forward as everything beyond that kind
of leads to a cut, right?
So that could be personnel related
and that could be personnel related.
Now, there's some other items in here, um, that do general
that, uh, that are increasing within our budget,
and I can go over those items.
Uh, but that's generally how we come together.
And I know every department takes it very seriously when
generating their kind of budget for cuts.
And, and the last thing I'll say about managers and,
and we're happy to continue this conversation,
I think it's a fruitful conversation.
I think the reality of the situation is, is
that most managers are doing the work of the, the, a lot
of the same work as the people that they manage
because we don't have enough, uh, uh, um, uh, staff
or it takes a long time to hire.
And so, you know, we have managers that are both managing
and doing day-to-day work as well.
I'm assuming you'll take round too.
Yes, I will. Chairman, Thank you much.
Um, alderman Quinn, fellow by Alderman, osha.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Um, can you, good afternoon budget director.
Um, can you speak
to the 2024 budget
and the gap we had? Has that been resolved?
Oh, I was wondering what the question was. Yes.
So, um, yes, we are continuing to monitor that budget gap,
but again, with the, um, a large portion of that was driven
not only by the PPRT,
but largely by, um, discussions around the M-B-A-B-F payment
with the certainty of, uh, receiving that payment as well
as the hiring freeze that went in place.
Uh, we anticipate that, um, the, the gap, uh,
should be resolved, but we are continuing to monitor it.
We're waiting for payroll to, to hit.
It hasn't hit, uh, we're in November.
We're still waiting for August to, to hit.
So again, we are continuing to monitor,
but we believe that those efforts being put in place
have helped resolve the gap.
Okay. Um, getting back to, uh,
all the women, Nicole Lee's questioning about the structure
for not 2025,
but 2026, it will, will the,
the property tax increase resolve that I, I heard a,
a little bit, but it's, uh, about, you know, tiffs expiring
and, and what have you.
Will will this property tax
increase fix the structure?
Looking at 20 26, 20 27,
Looking at out year, um, uh, forecast, it will, uh,
put a significant mitigation against our out year forecast.
We do have things that are happening in 2026
and 2027 that could implicate, um, growing the deficit, such
as the, the grocery tax, um, going away that the city
that the state, um, implemented, um,
we do have an unresolved, um, uh, labor contract, one
of our larger labor contracts that is still unresolved.
We don't know the final number.
Um, but this, uh,
this property tax increase will significantly mitigate the
out year forecast. Okay.
Um, budget director, um,
I'm focused on in the, in the first paragraph
of your opening statement,
with personal costs rising at a far,
far faster rate than city revenues.
Um, what, what's the total cost
of raises this year?
I, I, I don't know the total cost, but, but I can,
but I can tell you is,
but when you look at some of our contracts,
um, some of them are rising by 5%, some of them, uh,
by a little bit more than CPI, uh, 5% is obviously
above CPI, but some of the other ones are raising
above CPI are revenues.
Um, most of them getting back to pre pandemic levels, um,
are rising at a far lower rate.
Sure. One, 1.5 to 2% per
Year. And, and I,
I know my next statement is, is
about optics.
Um, but as I, as I go through the budget book, I
recognize a significant amount of raises,
and I think we're, we're closing in on maybe 40, 50
employees that are 190,000, 200,000.
Um, and optically, it's, it's difficult to ask
for a property tax increase when you have
these amount of raises.
Can you speak to that at all?
Sure. So, um, roughly 89 to 90% of our,
uh, personnel in the city of Chicago are unionized labor,
um, personnel who, um, receive
step increases as well as Colas based on contractual, um,
obligations that have been signed, um, you know,
by city council, um, and prior city councils.
Um, and so the vast majority of
what you're seeing are based on, um,
contractual obligations, uh, within the non-union, uh,
represented, um, uh, I'm sorry, non-union personnel.
Um, after many, many years
of having salary compression in the city of Chicago, where,
um, a lot of our non-union, uh,
employees did not have their salaries growing
for several years, while the people that they
supervised were making more money than they were,
the city embarked on, um, putting salary schedules in place
for, um, non-union employees.
One, because it would help with recruitment,
but also to ensure that we were, uh,
pushing our salaries back to market,
and they were very far under market for quite some time.
Um, and so what you're seeing both on the union side as well
as the non-represented side, is the impact of inflation.
This happens not only in the city
of Chicago, but across the country.
And so our, our wages are, um, being pushed
by inflationary impacts, um, market salaries across
not only our region, but across the country, have gone up
and will continue to go up.
Um, drawing attention to the mayor's remarks, he mentioned
that his, his own budget is going to take a 3% cut.
Can you walk me through where that is? Sure.
It, it appears that, at least in the corporate fund,
that his, his staffing increase, his,
his staffing allotment is gonna increase.
Yeah. So as, as I think even Kofa mentioned, um, uh,
when we, uh, uh, set up the budget for departments
before they ever go in and make budget requests, we, um,
we load the budget with, uh, contractual, um, uh,
pay raises already included.
And as I mentioned before, uh, salaries, um, went up 3%, um,
this year through the cola, as well as the step increases
that, um, happen because of, um, contractual obligations,
but also because our positions are on salary schedules.
And so by its very nature, 2025 startup budget
for every single department is at least 3% higher than
what their 2024 appropriation amount was.
And so it was that startup budget
that all departments were asked to make a 3% cut to.
The mayor's office in particular, um, did see a 3% decline,
um, within their corporate fund budget, just like, um,
we had with other departments.
Um, and their, their, uh,
3% largely is coming from,
sorry, I do have this, um,
largely, uh, reductions in their salaries
and wages of $200,000.
Um, they're seeing a pretty large decline in their cost
for rental equipment and services.
Um, $52,000 decrease in their reimbursement for travelers.
Um, and pretty, um, you know, about 20
to $30,000 decreases in, um, office supplies, uh, uh,
in other smaller items for a total of, uh, decrease of 300,
um, $302,000.
And they also removed, uh, three,
three positions from their budget.
Um, um,
this question is for the CFO.
Um, in your presentation, you talked about revenue,
and you talked about, um, going, uh, uh,
a Springfield initiative, um, that you laid out in,
in the, in the spring.
Um, was the mayor aware of that, uh, agenda
because when he was in Springfield,
all he was talking about is the bears in their stadium.
So can you help me understand, is there a, is there a, a,
a gap in communication with the mayor on revenue?
No, there is not.
Um, you know, the, uh, the initiatives
that we are looking at are long-term plays,
and we are having conversations with folks at the state, um,
and, uh, we are also, uh, you know, looking to team up
with other municipalities who have similar interests.
Um, this is not a question of, you know,
the mayor walking into the governor's office
and asking him to, uh, change the way our, uh,
sales taxes are administered.
Um, it's really about, uh, building a coalition that can get
that passed in the state legislature.
Okay. I, I don't have any, the
Mayor has spoken publicly also about
sales tax for services.
Okay. Um, I don't have any other questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Alam. McQuinn, uh, alderman, OSHA followed
by Alderman Sato.
Thank you, chairman. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.
First and foremost, thanks to the three of you and your team
and everybody else out there that's been working on this.
I, I wanna start off talking about, um, efficiencies.
Where are we at with looking at, talking
to our friends on the other side of the building,
the county, about merging the Board of elections
for the county and the city?
And what would those savings be?
Um, so I have not done that analysis.
You know, I think it's a, it's not a conversation
that we have broached, um,
in our administration with the county.
Um, I would be open to understanding your thoughts on that.
Um, if the city has had discussions with the county, um, I,
I don't recall this being an, uh, you know,
when I was on the county side,
I don't recall this being a discussion that was brought
during my tenure there,
but I, I, I think it's a conversation, um,
that we can definitely look into.
We can definitely run some numbers.
I think that the Board of Elections budget this year on the
city side, um,
Was, um, I don't have it off the top of my head.
Um, I don't have off the top of my head,
but I know that it fluctuates depending upon
what election cycle we're in.
So it was, it was up this year
because of the general election.
It'll be, uh, slightly down next year.
But as you know, currently we pay for a portion
of their costs and the county pays for another portion, um,
of their costs, uh, based on an IGA
that has been in place for quite some time.
I think it's an interesting conversation for us to have.
Um, I'd be welcome
and open to how you think that conversation can go.
I think we need to have, that conversation has come up in
prior budget discussions, but, um,
and now what about, uh, the two animal control departments?
We have a city, we have a county.
Um, we, we should explore that also.
Yeah, I think it's a, i i,
and it's something that we've also thought about.
I know that we've had other, uh, members
of city council who've brought that up to us as well.
Um, and I think this is just a question of jurisdiction.
Um, and if these are, are, are roles
that we strongly believe the city should or should not have,
I know it's come up today, but, uh, we, we,
we've talked about staffing analysis.
Um, I, we, we really need to get into the weeds on
that and take a look at that.
We have 36,000 City of Chicago employees,
205 of 'em make north of $185,000 a year.
More than 3000 of 'em make more than a
hundred thousand dollars a year.
We need to look more at
efficiencies and cuts.
I have read newsletters
or talked to 37 of our colleagues, people in this room today
that have said publicly, they can't support
a $300,000 property tax increase.
Million, I'm sorry,
300 million, um,
Sign us up for the thousand.
Now, now either people are being very dishonest.
Either, either, a lot
Of those people are being very dishonest,
or we have a real problem.
And what I've seen the past hour is
we're still talking about the budget address
that we heard a week ago.
We need to start having conversations about
what cuts, what efficiencies we're gonna look at.
Because be no mistake about it,
there will be no vote on a budget until
after Christmas, folks, it'll happen before the 31st,
'cause no one's gonna get paid, but there won't be a budget
vote until after Christmas
and add me at the top of the list if it includes a
$300 million property tax increase.
I'm a no. We need to do more.
Looking at that, I mean, I, I, I took part in four
of these budgeteer meetings that I didn't volunteer for,
I was asked to be a part of,
and I don't even know what we talked about.
And I'm looking across the room
and my colleagues that were in some of those meetings
with me are shaking their heads.
They don't know either.
I've received over 400 emails, 400
from residents in my community
saying, when is enough enough?
WW we've gotta look at some of these efficiencies.
We've gotta look at some of these cuts. Thank you.
I'm up for round two.
You, you still have five minutes left.
No, I gotta calm down. I, I, I give you that.
I, I've been knowing you long enough.
Uh, alderman Bedo, follow Bauman Lopez,
Chairman, uh, we appreciate your passion, alderman, osha,
as most of us are here.
So, um, well to the group up there,
I appreciate all you guys do.
I know you have a really, really tough job
and, you know, this isn't something you wanted to do.
Certainly not anything.
Certainly, I would guess 45 of us don't wanna do, at least.
So, um, I don't have the answers.
Um, I would hope that maybe, um, which I never asked you
yet, but I, I'm guessing I'll be asking you
to have some small group meetings with a few of us
and bounce some things off you.
But, um, you know, I'm not gonna be redundant about anything
that was said, and I had to slip out for a while
'cause I had some business attend to.
So with that, I just wanna say, you know, thanks for
what you're doing and trying your best.
And, uh, but the whole, uh, $300 million thing,
that's a tough pill to swallow for any of our communities.
I I wasn't keeping track of how many calls or emails we got,
but it certainly was a boatload of, so,
but with that, you know, thanks for all you're doing.
I appreciate you. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Uh, alderman Rosado, I have Alderman
Lopez father by Alderman Faroh.
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
and good afternoon members of the committee.
Good afternoon, everybody up there.
Um, I promised, uh,
the chairman I'd be nice for five minutes.
So that's all you get. Um, is
The other five minutes gonna
Be bad when those five minutes were gonna happen?
But I just said five minutes.
Um, but first
and foremost, I wanted to just join my colleagues.
Um, I can't support Mayor b Brendan Johnson's
$300 million property tax.
I won't support it. Um, but I also have some questions
because I think that we haven't squeezed government
enough to make the case for $1 more just yet.
I have a number of questions. I'm,
I'm not gonna bring up everything that everyone brought up
before, um, because,
but I agree with many of the things my
co my colleague stated.
Um, but we know that
for those of us who have been in this room long enough,
when budget season comes, there's both sides
to an equation, right?
There's what you spend versus what you take in.
And many of us have always seen where
the spending part's easy, more easily defined
than what you're gonna take in.
And we've seen where projections don't necessarily come
true or they fall short.
Um, and we've even seen that in 2020 fours budget,
where we are facing a
$280 million.
How much is it? 2 22. 2 22, thank you.
A $222 million shortfall on the equation
for this year, which I wanna get to as well.
Um, in the
overview, if we may go
to pages 39, where it talks about many
of the estimated, uh, resources coming into
specifically the corporate fund, um, also as, as well
as on page, uh, 45 eventually, you know, we,
we are projecting anywhere
between, in some categories, four
to almost 10% increases
in tax revenues, uh, for next year.
Um, in some of these cases, we fell short on those.
Um, what gives us confidence that these tax fund,
that these tax taxes, whether it's the utilities tax,
transaction tax, transportation tax, recreation tax,
business tax, so on
and so forth, along with all of the permits, fines, fees,
and all that other stuff that's in there as well,
that we're actually going to hit the mark, uh, this year.
So if you go back
and look at the forecast that we presented in September,
the, um, the revenue sources
that you're talking about are actually overperforming.
Um, the areas that are dragging our current year, uh,
budget down are, uh, revenue sources that we don't control.
So the personal property replacement tax,
which actually occurred
because of the expiration of a cap at the state level.
Um, so much so the state also felt that so much so that
during their 2025 budget this year, they reinstated the cap.
And so they, um, understood the impact that
that was having on not only municipal
budgets, but also their budget.
And so that happened, as I mentioned in my comments,
this isn't a slow decline
of a revenue source that we're seeing.
It was a precipitous decline that we saw in one year.
And so, um, we have corrected our outlook for, especially
that particular tax you'll see in, in the, uh, on the page
that you're, you've drawn my attention to, uh, decline, um,
uh, of budget to propose year over year of 37%.
The other ones, um, we have a lot
of confidence in receiving these.
Um, or we, we have a lot of confidence in the forecast
that we've done because we're looking at the trend,
and most of these are ones that we can control.
Um, and we are seeing year over year increases.
So are in saying that these are ones that we can control,
are we making, uh, the assumption
that whether we're changing the rate
or that there's gonna be a high level, a high watermark
that's hit from, is this based on a high
watermark hit this year?
No. So these are, is this based on, so just so you, just
to be clear, um, when it comes to, uh, our revenue sources,
we do make conservative estimates.
We do not put aggressive, uh, forecast in the city's, uh,
budget because we, uh, you know, when we come before you
and we do the forecast, we have various outlooks base
positive negative.
Our, our budget is based on our base outlook.
So, um, you know, likelihood
of us hitting our positive forecast could happen,
but a lot of things have to occur for that to happen.
Um, so we base it on, um, a very conservative, uh, outlook,
um, so that we are likely to hit our targets more,
more than likely not to hit our target.
Okay. Um,
I, I wanna add one thing to that too, which is, um,
you know, just to recognize that you, you are correct
that there is risk in all of these numbers.
Um, you know, we, we, you know, are subject
to whether the economy declines
or we move in a recessionary direction or things like that.
And that would have an impact.
Um, you know, currently with the economic outlook,
we're feeling, um, more, more confident
that we are not going to see a recession, um, in the, uh,
near future than we were, you know, earlier in the year.
So that is a factor as well.
Um, but it is, uh, it, it's an existing risk
with our revenues that, uh, certainly, um, you know,
broader, uh, economic changes can impact their performance.
And, you know, some of these are, you know,
based on things like, uh, tourism
and the number of people that are coming to the city.
And, um, while we've seen an increase in tourism,
those are also impacted by events that go on in the city.
Um, and, you know, which are not necessarily things
that we always have control over, though.
We try to support as many of them as we can.
So one of the things that I know we've talked about in our
briefings and bring up again, is the fact
that there are many options for us to collect revenue.
Um, but oftentimes it feels like we're leaving so much money
on the table, particularly when it comes
to enforcement of many issues.
Um, on page 40, under fines, fees, fines, forfeitures
and penalties, we're saying that we're going,
that we're anticipating nearly a 23 million
or 22 over a $22 million decrease from year 2024.
Why is that?
You might have, I'll start
and then you can, you can add, so a, a a couple of things.
Um, one, you know, this is also reflective
of us looking at trends over time and,
and being more realistic about, um,
where we think we're gonna hit.
And again, this is a very conservative estimate.
Um, there are some things that have occurred in, you know,
the, the outcomes of, um, administrative hearing cases
that has lowered our fines over the last few years.
Um, but also, you know, this is a realistic, as you know,
uh, um, view of how over time, you know,
your fine, um, um, uh, revenue does fluctuate.
And, and on some level we don't base our budget on
collection of fines.
And so, um, you know, we're just matching
what we're seeing happening in the trends
for fines and forfeitures.
And there's this, there's a specific, uh, one with this
that you might remember from last year.
There was some specific scoff laws
that had very large dollar amounts
that we were going after this year.
And the corporation council when she comes up here, can
probably better give you an indication.
'cause I know those are ongoing, those are like one time
revenue sources for fines and fees.
We don't expect to continue to go to that same
'cause once you've collected that money, it's gone.
Right? So, uh, that, that is a little bit
of a difference from last year to this year.
One of the things that seems
to always be a perennial issue is, uh, other municipal debt
to the city of Chicago, namely as it relates
to our water and things of that nature.
Where are we with what is owed to the city of Chicago
by our governmental partners around us,
One to talk?
So we have been, been, uh, it's a great question.
Uh, we've been in ongoing conversations with, um,
I mean, I think the most prominent one that you're aware
of is probably the city of Harvey, that we've had
that discussion as well with Dalton
and other, uh, municipalities.
Um, there is a bit of a challenge with some
of these collections, uh, in that, the,
the areas of, of that has struggled
to pay us have a declining tax base.
Um, so asking them to pay
a large amount at once, um, is not really feasible.
We have discussed payment over time, um,
and we have, you know,
varying confidence depending on the suburb.
Harvey particularly has struggled since the nineties.
Do we know what the, to the number is that's owed?
Oh, I can get you that roughly.
It's over 30 million I think in, in total. Um,
On an annual basis or just No,
No, no, no. Just overall they
owe us in. Okay. In perpetuity. Yeah.
Or in, in the past. Okay. Um,
If you could provide through the chair.
Yeah. Uh, who owes us what
and where they're at in terms of their payment plans.
Just to clarify that, do you want the suburbs that owe
the payment annually, um, from all the suburbs,
or do you want just ones that are backlogged and
All those that are in arrears.
Okay. If they're, if they're paying their bills, fine.
But if they're owed, and
If I could just, um, mention one more thing, Alder
Alderman Lopez, um,
'cause I just wanna make a clarification about
what you're reading about in fines and fees.
Um, so when we, when we write the numbers in the budget,
we're writing it budget to budget, not budget to actual.
Um, and so this $22 million decrease is actually truing it
up to what we are, what we should be budgeting
for this amount.
325 million is actually more than what we collected,
um, in 2023.
So again, we are right sizing the budget
appropriation amount to what we actually, uh,
believe is gonna get collected, which is still more than,
um, what we actually collected in 2023.
And then, um, thank, thank you to Jill.
So, uh, Harvey, it's, uh, 37.2 million, um,
and they're, they've made 7.1 million payments to date,
so they still owe a delinquent on the 37.2.
Um, robins, it's 19.1 million.
Uh, they have not paid, uh, anything up until this point.
Dalton is 4.9 million
and they've already paid 2.5,
so they owe 4.9 on top of that.
Oh, can you hear me? Sorry. Yes.
We, and then, uh, 1.4 from Riverdale, they've paid us 1.7,
so in total delinquent, that's 62.6,
and we've received 11.3. We get that.
Thank you. Thank you. Yes. We're on two, please.
Is that the round you're gonna be nice in,
or, I was nice for the record.
I was nice.
We appreciate it. Yeah, that's how
Alderman, uh, Alder, uh, chairman,
totally Farrell followed by Cello Spotter.
Um, first let me, let me just say thank you to, um, each
of you, um, for all the hard work that went in, um,
to present in this budget, um, to us today.
And, um, um, I just have a couple very brief questions.
Uh, with regard to the new healthcare facilities,
I believe we're, um, we're opening two,
which will make a total of seven.
How are we funding, how are we funding those?
As well as the, the, uh, behavioral health dispatch teams,
uh, that'll be implemented this year
as well, if I'm not mistaken.
That's currently in a pilot program,
but we are going to be fully implementing it in
2025, correct?
Yeah, so the, um, the mental health facilities,
there's three that, um, were reopened this year.
One, the Rosalyn Mental Health Clinic,
and then two additional clinics that were co-located in
existing city spaces library, a library,
and I cannot remember where the other one is,
but, so three reopened.
Um, partially they're all braided funded.
So you have a, uh, combination of corporate funding
to support the staffing and infrastructure costs.
Um, you also have grant funds that support,
uh, some of that work.
Um, and it's a combination
of a lot of different grant funds.
Uh, the 9 1 1 alternate response team is currently
supported through ARPA dollars.
Um, and they have, um, they have transitioned
to fully public health, uh, response, uh,
no longer corresponding with CPD.
Um, and that is important, uh,
because the, um, the, uh, paramedics that support
that team are now, uh, gonna be fully housed.
And, uh, within the Department of Public Health's budget,
we used to, um, support them
with paramedics from the fire department, which,
as you know, um, uh, reduced the number of paramedics
that were, uh, available for other types of work.
So now that's a fully public health response.
They're continuing to hire, um,
and have done, uh, a lot of work to hire, uh, uh,
up those teams, uh, this year. And we can
Do that. Okay, thank you. Um,
I un as I understand from reading, um,
the Sun Times or Tri, I forgot which one it was in, uh,
that since the hiring freeze, we've hired
approximately 268 people.
Um, 100 of those, uh, from exempt personnel, I believe,
with the police department.
Um, another 168, uh,
approximately 168 have been from, um, other agencies.
Um, how does that impact our budget when it comes down to,
um, savings, uh, with 168?
And, and then how long are we looking at this hiring freeze
being implemented and, and how does that impact the budget?
Sure. Thank you for the question.
Um, and I, I'm, I'm, I'm glad for the opportunity
to clarify, um,
because I know that there's been a lot
of articles about this particular item.
Um, and I think it's really clear to understand
that the hiring freeze was placed on the corporate fund.
Um, but there were exceptions to the hiring fees,
namely public safety, so police
and fire revenue generating positions.
So Chase didn't wanna keep him from having the ability
to hire the very people
who would actually collect our revenue.
Uh, the board of elections was, um, exempt one
'cause they're a separate authority, but
because we had an election yesterday, uh, yes.
Yesterday, um,
and so, uh, the hiring freeze went into place September 9th.
We had, um, a number of positions on the corporate fund
who had been, um, in the process.
So anyone that you saw hired, um, like between September,
October, those were offers that were made months ago.
People had made hiring decisions, had moved to the city
of Chicago and so forth.
So those were not subject to the hiring freeze.
And that was pretty clear in the memo
that we sent out to departments.
The other part of this is, a lot of the hiring
that has actually occurred is exactly what I said
and sent out to the departments, um, uh,
focus on hiring positions that are on other funds.
So a lot of the positions that you saw in the article
that came out from WBEZ Water,
that's not on the corporate fund, aviation.
Not on the corporate fund.
So the bulk of the hiring that's actually occurred has
not happened on the corporate fund.
And so, um, again, the hiring freeze it has in place.
Uh, it is, it is, uh, um, allowing us to save a lot
of dollars, um, and towards our deficit.
Um, we will have more final numbers
as we get closer to the end of the year.
But effectively, a lot of the hiring
and almost all of the hiring on the corporate fund has
ceased except for the ones that I mentioned before.
Okay. And, and I think there was a matter of, uh,
the information being made public as to, um,
'cause I didn't know that, uh, as, as a result
of the corporate fund versus the other funds as well, um,
who could be hired from those funds and who cannot.
Uh, I think the last thing I wanted to, um, um,
raise is are, are we seeing tangibles,
uh, from our committees?
Like I noticed we're spending 500,000, um,
on our reparations committee.
Uh, are we seeing any tangibles come out of committees like
that, that whereby we're spending 500,000
continuously each year?
Um, and if not, uh, where can we, uh,
'cause I certainly, uh,
before I finish that sentence, I I can certainly understand,
uh, my colleagues' positions
because it's my position as well that we really need
to look at prioritizing our investments, uh,
where we're spending money
and where it could be cut, for example, uh, just to, uh,
to name a few, um, the 500,000
with the recreations committee, the additional, um,
the additional 40 million under the one one
Shelter, um, initiative.
Um, and, and so many others.
I, I understand that there's even a 20,
an additional 20 million with one summer Chicago are,
are all of these things necessary, um, in the midst of a, a,
uh, $300 million property tax increase?
Are they necessary? Um,
and can we scale back on some of them?
For example, um, we've been employed about 28,000 youth over
the summer, which is, is, is, um, applaudable and,
and I, I certainly applaud the mayor's office for that.
Uh, it continues a program to help keep our res,
our youth engaged.
Um, but is there a need under fiscal crisis to increase
that number, um, by 2000?
Um, is there a need if we're not seeing tangibles
or seeing any, um,
any solutions, uh, with regard to reparations, uh,
the reparations committee, is it, is it absolutely necessary
to continue these expenditures, um, in 2025
or can we somehow cut back on some of these expenditures?
Because again, 300 million is a lot of money to, uh,
and a heavy burden, uh, to be placed on our property owners,
um, in the midst of a, I believe, a property tax increase
with our board of education and,
and perhaps even one coming from the state next year.
So how do we cut back on, um, providing some of the services
that, that we see in our budget?
Uh, thank you. I think it's a,
I think it's a great question.
I think it's, uh, you know, the type of question
that probably Chase and I would, uh, um, sit
and think about and, and talk about.
Um, it's a very academic question.
Um, I think that the $500,000 in the restoration committee
and what are we seeing from that work?
Um, one, you know, that that funding is, uh,
in our cannabis fund, so not in our, uh, corporate fund.
Um, and, uh, you know,
that committee was established in June.
And so through the work of the Office of Equity
and Racial Justice members of City Council, they're working
to establish not only the committee,
but also hire the consultant. And I, I don't have any,
But are we seeing tangibles from that, though?
I understand they're working, but are we seeing Yeah,
I I will say that, um, preparing, uh, and,
and providing reparations, that is,
that is long time. Oh, of, of
Course, I'm Not, if you look at, I'm not doubting it.
If, if you look at Evanston years of the work for
that reparations committee, you look at out west
in California years, state of Illinois, the work
that they did through their reparations committee, which,
uh, ended up with, um, you know, the cannabis fund
and other things, those are years
and years of work from committees.
And I think that, that we're at the start of that work.
Uh, this $500,000 isn't a new $500,000.
It's, it's the $500,000 that was allocate,
our special revenue funds carry over their
funding every single year.
So this is the money that will go to the consultant
that will, uh, work with the reparations task force
over the course of next year to really, um,
identify the goals, uh, and set up the milestones and,
and kind of what the, the work of the committee will be.
As to your second question about the investments that, uh,
this budget includes, you know, I, I, I think
that we do think that these investments are necessary.
We do think that, you know, the, the ones that we have,
that we have, um, made the investments in, were strategic,
um, you know, rapid rehousing that has received, uh, a lot
of, um, uh, positive feedback into
how it is improving the lives of those who go through
that program, provide those wraparound services,
and ultimately stabilize their lives so
that they are sustaining
and making decisions on their own about how
to be sufficient.
Um, the, uh, the funding
and the unhoused network expansion, we already know that,
um, we need even more beds, right?
We need more than, uh, an increase of 3,800.
But again, I know I'm about to get cut off and I apologize
'cause I just wanna say one last thing.
Um, and I only have 12 seconds.
Um, I understand the necessity of those,
and I understand the importance, um, and how you prioritize
and how the mirror is prioritized.
But I also, um, also believe
that we don't have the resources available to do that.
And, and that's very difficult to swallow,
is it's almost like, um,
buying caviar when you can only afford spam.
And by the way, I love spam,
but the problem is we are spending beyond our means.
And, and so although we see things that are necessary
and things that would promote the wellbeing of the city, um,
there's nothing wrong with delaying some of these programs
and the effect that they could cause
because of our fiscal crisis.
So, uh, with that chairman, I, I thank you for the time, um,
and thank you as well.
Um, on Madam Budget
Director. I'll just say one last
thing. Okay.
Um, there are, um, costs
to not making investments as well.
Um, and we just wanna make sure that we're balancing
what we would see as the cost or the harm
and not making those investments with making the investment.
Have, have we rolled? Oh, oh, oh. Hold on.
Last question. Ten second
Question. No, I can't,
we can't do it to you. Uh, we let you roll.
You want, we can sign up from round two now. We west side.
I, I understand. We are.
So let's, I, I, I think, uh, let me just say this.
Uh, there have been, we talk,
you've talked about investments, um,
and we, we we're talking about it in the context of looking
for increased revenue, um,
of the investments that have been made.
Uh, what impact, if these were, if these investments were
to be backed out, would it theoretically have against, uh,
a tax levy, which ultimately means how much
of these new investments are being, uh, either paid
through or complimented with corporate funding?
So of your new investments that you have, how much of
that is corporately funded versus either some other fund
that is not, uh, generating a, a, a negative to our,
um, taxing situation?
And if you can't answer that
or you got a general answer, that's fine, but,
or, or through the chair.
But that's, I think, the heart of what he's getting at.
You talk about investments at the same time
we're asking for revenue.
How much of that truly is impacted on our corporate revenue?
Um, so if I, if I am understanding the question,
so the 55 million is, is all in corporate dollars, right?
So this isn't, uh, a combination
of corporate plus other funds, however, they are.
The, the, the increase is supporting programs
that are braided funded,
so have funding from other funding sources.
So our unhoused network, for instance, currently 3000 beds
is funded, uh, largely through grants from the state.
Um, the, uh, you know,
the state is, uh, putting additional dollars in,
they're giving the city another 38, 30 $8 million
to support the transition to a larger shelter network.
But that was through a lot of work on the part of the city,
uh, the county, the state, as well as community members
to push in that direction.
Um, the city has not, um, itself, uh, funded,
uh, the shelter network.
And so this is the city, uh, saying, you know,
we're putting our, uh, a little bit of skin in the game
to ensure that we are, we're moving into a place
where we have more shelter beds available for the unhoused
or those who are in, um, who need shelter.
Um, and so again, this doesn't, this isn't coming out
of like a property tax increase.
What it is, is the property tax increase allows, uh, for us
to free up dollars that are in our corporate fund for
everyday, um, operations and services
provided to, um, the city citywide.
Okay. So the, the 55 million number is the
increase in what we have put corporate dollars behind
to help supplement some of the other funds.
Now, are any of these programs 100%
funded with corporate dollars?
No. So like the rapid rehousing program is supported
through, um, uh, both corporate
and arpa as well as other, uh, funding.
Um, had we not, um,
added the additional 7 million in corporate funding,
we would see a de decrease in the number of people
that would be able to be supported
through rapid rehousing in 2025.
Okay. Thank you.
Uh, I think, uh, Tam La Spota, you're next,
followed by Rodriguez.
He's not here. Uh, followed by C Lopez. He's not here.
Uh, Cardona are you here, Rodriguez? I'm sorry.
Your seat's over here. I'm sorry.
You're, you're next after LaSpada.
Thank you very much, chair.
I appreciate the work that went in today.
I, I think none of us can fully fathom
however we feel about the budget, the level of work
and staff hours that go into it.
So I just wanna say that and express my gratitude
right at the outset.
Um, I have a few questions to ask.
So one relates particularly to automated enforcement,
which is something that my committee has taken up quite a
bit over the past year or so.
In our municipal code chapter nine dash 1 0 1 dash 0 6 0,
it states that revenues generated from automated
enforcement has to be maintained in a separate account
that can only be used for this four specific purposes
outlined in the Illinois vehicle code.
Currently, it, it does not appear that we do that.
It appears that those automated enforcement funds go
into the corporate fund.
Am I misreading that?
Am I misreading either our budget or the municipal code?
Because I I feel like it's one or the other.
They, um, and that actually is more of a budget question.
Uh, uh, in terms of automated enforcement, I mean,
we collect them to be than within a separate fund.
The question was, um, should those be held separately?
Uh, could you state the question again? I'm sorry, but
Just to say like, so our, sorry.
If we could have quiet in the back. I'd appreciate it.
Thank you. Um, our municipal code states
that they should be kept in a, a separate account
for those purposes.
It appears that our budget puts automated enforcement
revenue into the corporate fund.
I'm trying to determine if I'm, uh, what am I trying
to say correctly interpreting the municipal code
correctly, reading the budget.
And if that conflict is there, why is it
I, I'd have to go look at the ordinance
to appropriately respond.
Um, I, I, even though I'm a lawyer, I,
that's the typical lawyer answer.
I'd like to go back and look at it
and then I can provide a response to you, um, as to
how we currently budget and, and,
and, um, deposit is in compliance with Okay.
The ordinance itself,
If Okay. I,
I appreciate that.
I mean, if I am reading the code right, I would
really appreciate the budget reflecting
that separate account for automated enforcement.
I, uh, this can be through the chair,
but as we've talked about the, the danger of Moody's
and Fitch negatively impacting our credit,
if we don't make a supplemental pension payment on top of
what we're doing, can that be
provided to us in writing so
that we can better understand their feedback?
Um, yes. Are you looking for the analysis
that we did about the 400 million in costs
or are you looking about for, um, like the
feedback from their reports?
Well, specifically CFO, like I, my, I wanna make sure
that we're acting fiscally responsibly.
I have concerns around our ability to afford
the supplemental pension payment, even
as I don't wanna take actions that I know will
negatively impact our credit rating.
But if that's the case, if that's what, as you said Moody's
and Fitch have communicated to us,
can you provide their feedback to alters through the chair?
Yes, we have, uh, we have their rating reports
where they've made these, uh, statements,
and so we can, uh, absolutely, uh, provide, uh,
provide those or I think probably
what we'll do is put a summary together of statements.
Okay. I appreciate that. For the record, I,
I've asked the c I've asked the financial team
about the potential elasticity of that, um, change.
And so we're, we're trying to evaluate all of that to see
what room, if any, is, is there,
Okay, So, so real quick, uh, just
for your first question and apologies for the delay.
Um, so it's,
there's four specific purposes outlined under the vehicle
code that those can be used for.
And they are going to those four actually.
So, um, the safe pastures round school no longer exists,
so there's no funds for that. Uh,
I, I, I hate to cut you off.
I know the purposes. My question is related
to the municipal code
that states it should not only go towards those purposes,
but be kept in a separate account like
that. Do you hear what I can
Yeah, we'll, we'll get You that too.
Okay. Appreciate it. Sorry. Um, my next question is related
to our revenue projections.
So I, I'm glad
to hear about the improvement in our revenue productions.
I think the improvement was by up to about 215 million.
But to see, uh, a revision of that magnitude
over the course of 60 days from August 29th
to about the 30th was striking to me.
It, it, it feels particularly striking
against the state gambi report
that suggests much more modest revenue
improvements for the state.
Can you speak to our understandings of Chicago's
economic forecast that led to that significant
of a revenue projection improvement?
Yeah, so the bulk of that is the M-E-A-B-F payment, uh,
certainty, uh, to receive that from CPS.
So the one $75 million payment, uh, from CPS.
In addition to that, um, between the forecast
and the time that we published the budget, um,
we got more certainty from our department of law
around anticipated settlements
that the city will receive next year, um, that are, um,
this is a very conservative estimate of what that amount is.
Um, and then finally, um, between the forecast
and, uh, the budget pass, uh, the budget introduction, um,
we, uh, um, uh,
increase the real estate transfer tax amount that the city,
uh, is expected to receive in 2025, um, purely
because of the, um, changing
of parameters within one of our enterprise zones.
So we are changing the parameters so
that the city actually receives
that real estate transfer tax we don't currently receive,
it's the, it's the Fulton market area of the city.
We currently don't receive that real estate transfer tax
because all of those dollars go back into
that district in order to incentivize development there.
The enterprise zone has worked in that part of the city.
Um, so we're curtailing, um, that, that enterprise zone, uh,
to exclude that area,
I think I grasp. But on
the M-B-I-M-B-A-M-B-E-A-F,
it sounds like that if that's the bulk of it,
it sounds like it's less so that our revenue projections
improved and more so that
that expenditure was taken off the table.
Is that a correct interpretation?
So the, it's a revenue, um, projection
because, um, uh, we receive it at, in the form
of revenue from CPS in order
to pay the full amount of the M-E-A-B-F payment.
Um, as has been discussed, um, I think during the,
the hearing on, uh, Alder Woman Taylor's, uh, committee, uh,
CPS began making that payment, um, in 2020, um,
at increasing amounts every single year.
Um, it's kind of been frozen at 1 75
because we understand their, uh, fiscal reality.
Um, and despite the fact that that amount that they
should contribute is actually much higher than that, um,
so the city is still shouldering a good chunk
of CP S'S me ABF M me a BF payment despite that.
But, um, as Jill mentioned earlier,
we'll be entering into an, uh, IGA with, um, CPS,
um, shortly, uh, which will, uh, provide that payment,
um, in our 2025 budget.
Okay. I appreciate that.
I'm not, it's never quite clear which day is the day
to ask specifically about the office of the mayor budget,
but this feels like the most appropriate. So it's,
It's germane for this, for the, for the, for this
Group here. Well, let's,
we can dig for a second.
So I know we're talking about 3% cuts in the corporate fund.
I will say, when 2024 revised says 12.3 million
and 2025, recommended says 12.5 million,
it's hard for me to read that as a 3% cut
unless I'm missing something.
But my better point is related to the office of policy.
So the office of policy is going from 10
staff members to 20 in 20, 25 to five staff people.
A as far back as I can see, I've never seen
the Office of policy.
This having such a low staff level.
I'm curious and concerned about how that relates
to the mayor's office ability to analyze
and support policy
and legislative measures, both by city council,
but also by the mayor's office.
Um, so, uh, as it relates to 3% cut, um,
the mayor's office did achieve 3%.
Um, as, as I mentioned earlier as, uh,
Kofa mentioned earlier, um, the 3% cut is
to the 2025 startup.
So when we load the budget for all departments, it's loaded
with all of the salary increases already
baked in to their budget.
So step increases as well as, uh, the cola, uh,
that they received, um, this year.
And so our budgets are already increasing, some
of them increasing by more than 3%.
CPD as an example, they actually increase by 5%
because of their contracts.
So their 2025 startup budget is already 3%
and sometimes even higher than 2024 appropriation.
And so we asked 'em to cut from 2025 startup budget.
And so the mayor's office achieved that through decreases
of $200,000 in their salary and wage account.
They got rid of three positions, as well as cut some
of the salaries of their vacancies.
Um, and then they also went through
and cut a number of their
non-personnel accounts down as well.
So they achieved about $302,000 decrease in their budget.
Office of Policy. Obviously, we work with departments
to understand what their, um,
goals are within their org structures, um, as well as, um,
you know, give them the flexibility to determine,
this isn't just the mayor's office, it's all offices,
how best to operate.
Uh, the mayor's office still has a pretty significant number
of policy people within their departments.
They're now in each
of the divisions within the mayor's office
that focus on a particular policy area.
Things that are general policy, obviously we'll go to the,
um, the department, the office of policy that is set it up
by the Deputy mayor, but if there's a,
there's a policy in a specific area, it goes to
that area of the mayor's office.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.
Thank you. You round two, or are you good?
You're good. I, I have childcare responsibilities
that will keep me from around two. Thank you.
Thank you. Um, I think we had Alderman Rodriguez followed
by Alderman, uh, CCHA Lopez.
Thank you kind, sir.
Um, thank you, Mr.
Chair. Just a couple of questions. First.
This possibly would be, uh, through the chair request.
I'm just interested, um, in the workforce
and curious, um, how many
of our workforce in the city of Chicago earn, uh,
about $70,000
or less, uh, just talking with some advocates around, um,
what they determine as the housing wage.
And I'm just curious as to the extent that we have,
uh, city employees that are making less than around $70,000.
I just wanna get a feel for that.
So if we can do something to the chair,
unless someone has anything they wanna say to, to that,
I, I don't know it off the top of my head,
but we can definitely get that for you.
Okay. Now, two, two questions.
Um, I'm looking at page one of the, um,
budget recommendation book.
Uh, and I'm particularly looking at some of the fluctuations
on page one as they pertain to the comparative statement
of corporate fund revenues by major sources.
Um, there's, there's three, uh, line items
that I had particular interest on.
Um, I think you've discussed the PPRT quite extensively,
so I think I get that pretty well.
Uh, the two that I was looking at
that I wanted a little bit more explanation on, uh,
and I'm not sure if my colleagues have seen this as well,
but just to get a feel
for what's going on under the local non-tax revenues, the,
the line item around leases, rentals, and sales,
and the other on interest income.
I'm wondering how you're deriving these numbers
and why the significant fluctuation from,
from previous years?
So, um, particularly, uh,
we have a lot of revenues.
You want to ask the next question while
they look for that one.
It's really the only one I got, so, you know, oh, okay.
Well, yeah, I'll do everything else,
you know, um, in person.
But this, I mean, I, I looked at these fluctuations
and I was, you know, this is significant.
Right? Um, and I'm just curious as to what's driving those.
Um, I look at all the other line items.
They seem pretty consistent, minor fluctuations,
the most significant, as I stated, the PPRT,
which we've discussed in depth over the last several months.
But these other two items, just very curious about them.
Um, you know, in previous years, the PPRT,
we estimated significant amount of money and fell short.
That drove a lot of last year's, um, shortfall, if you will.
So I'm just wanna make sure we're not doing that again.
On the, um, on the interest income, um, we are actually
estimating, um, about, uh,
$58 million this year.
We are estimating to receive about 42.
In 2023, we actually received 95 million.
So again, you're looking at budget,
we're actually basing our budget on trends on actuals.
And so, uh, it was underestimated in previous years,
and we're making that correction with, with this budget.
Can I, can I support that a little bit?
Uh, when she comes up,
you can thank the city treasurer a little bit as well.
Um, so this is a little bit from changing some policies,
um, on how concessions work within the phone.
So we're actually earning some interest off of
her correct investment, uh, procedures.
So some of that is her returning some money to the city.
I mean, this just seems rather drastic.
3.5 million to 58 million.
It is. Uh,
So I I, can we get a little bit more
than that? I mean, uh,
Yeah. Yeah. So,
um, uh, without taking up all of your time,
uh, there is a, uh, this is only question go, go forward.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so there is a, a standard,
um, yearly when you're determining your interest earned
based on your fair market value of assets, some
of the assets are.
So that has to be determined every year on dec January 1st.
And then we determine if the, if there was a sale
of the assets of the portfolio, um, whether
or not, um, that would be a loss or,
or revenue increase, those sort of things.
Um, the treasurer's office has a lot of things
that are short term,
and then some things that are long in a lower in,
in a rising interest rate environment,
you're gonna have problems with your long term prior, uh,
um, paper.
Um, technically it's underwater,
although we'll never lose money on it
because we never actually have to sell
that before it happens.
So what that ends up doing is it hurts some
of our concession funds, like, um, the Skyway funds
and those things where we don't touch the principle
where we touch the earnings,
but even though we were earning off of that,
it prohibits us from touching them by moving them
to a segregated, shorter term fund that allows for more cash
to come out of that as was intended by the city council.
Is there a subsequent decrease in another
line item because it has been No,
No, it's earnings.
It's it's actual earnings that, that's,
that we're getting, it's,
It's moving away from a situation where, uh, the,
the interest earnings gonna be measured solely
by doing a mark to market analysis Yeah.
On the value of the securities
to putting them into an account where
we can look at the earnings more on a cash basis as opposed
to the value of the securities.
It's, it's purely new revenue,
it's earnings off of investments.
Is there any other new revenue that's
2000% over what we got last year?
'cause we should look at that. I'm just kidding. No, the,
This is kind of a special situation.
I, I like to learn more about this. We could do that on
The side. Yeah. Happy, happy to have a,
that
One. Yeah. Um, the,
I told you I didn't have any more questions,
but I got a six minute Riley comment.
Uh, just kidding. Um, and
You had a question about Lisa's
Yes. The other line item, please.
Um, so again, you know,
what you're looking at is budget to budget.
The missing piece on this chart is actuals.
And so again, um, we have been doing a lot of work, uh,
looking at the past, uh, looking at trends, um,
to match our budget to
what we actually believe the city is going to bring in.
Um, leases are, uh, variable, um,
and they're depending upon, um, land sales
and things like that, uh, that take place every single year.
Um, and so this isn't really a decline year over year.
It's actually matching, uh, more appropriately
what our actuals are every,
So, so it sounds like a realization of the line item
that has fluctuations every year
and you're just determining what's happening this year.
Yeah. And it just so happens
that this year is higher than last year
or lower than last year, then
Yeah, we Objection is at any rate.
Exactly. Okay.
Uh, on the other line item, I'd love
to get something in writing to, to,
to understand this a bit more. Right.
And I'm, I'm happy to sit down with you too as
Well. Okay. Wonderful.
The only thing I'd say, chairman, and I,
and I I will be brief on this,
it's just on the previous, uh, questionnaire.
And as far as the supplemental payments on the pension
payment, look, we do not want to saddle the next generation,
um, with continuous, uh, accumulated
that, that spirals into what we're facing now.
So we've gotta make tough decisions
and we gotta do, so, uh,
now obviously we're gonna be negotiating this budget, um,
but I want to be clear that this supplemental payment,
as I know it is one that's extremely important, uh,
to achieve fiscal responsibility in our city.
You guys are gonna have to make a great argument here
to my colleagues on why that's important,
because folks are looking at it.
Um, I get it.
It's somewhere where we've gotta invest more
and I want to make sure, uh,
that we all have those arguments
and understand why it's so very important.
To be honest with you, I don't think my colleagues
and I have had full understanding as of yet.
So that's gonna be incumbent on you to articulate that.
Or else folks are gonna continue down the line
that's been going down in this line of questioning,
and I'm assuming subsequent
speakers will speak to that as well.
So, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Uh, chairman, CFO, if you would, uh,
just give a quick, um,
understanding 'cause I, I think it is something that, uh,
people are eyeing
because it seems like it's something that is not
necessary when you say supplemental, it's something
that's not necessary that happening right now,
but I think that, uh, I, I do agree with, uh, my colleague
as it relates to the cost of not doing it.
I think it's something that has not been fully e explained.
And so if you would take, take a few minutes to, uh, to do
that, I think that would be helpful.
Sure. Absolutely. Um,
and I, I think you're a hundred percent right
that this is a very confusing topic.
Um, you know, and, and it's correct.
When you say supplemental, it sounds like extra.
Uh, but we're in the position that we're in today where
our F funds are so underfunded
and our payments are so high, not
because we didn't make the required contributions, but
because the required contributions were set too low.
So the city has always complied with state law
and met the required contributions,
but over time,
the state law formula number one was based on, uh, payroll.
It wasn't based on what the pension funds needed.
It wasn't based on an actuary analysis of
how many people are retiring, when are they retiring,
what are the payouts gonna be, what are disability payments.
It was just based on a percent of payroll.
So there was a disconnect between the calculation
and the calculation formula for the deposit
and the actual need from the funds.
So on top of that, the funds had some major losses, uh,
when there was the financial crisis, uh,
in oh 1, 0 2, the tech crisis.
And then when there was the recession, uh,
the real estate crisis started oh 7, 0 8 0 9,
they had some significant losses.
Then third, the state increased benefits
over time and didn't change the funding formula.
So when the state increased benefits, the needs grew,
but there was no additional money coming in.
The city understood, going back a long ways
that it was not putting in enough money.
These funds went from being 90, a hundred percent, some
of them over a hundred percent funded
while the city made the required contributions.
And as they got worse and worse funded, they were
task forces and reports made, um,
outlining what needed to be done.
Uh, I think it was in 2012,
there was a big report that was put out.
You know, at that time the city was paying 430, 440 million
or so a year into the pension funds,
and it showed that the deposit needed
to be essentially double that 900
and some million, close to a billion dollars.
You know, where we are today is where we paid last year,
2.7 billion.
If we had paid that amount that the funds needed back then,
instead of saying, well, we're only gonna pay
what state law requires,
we wouldn't be paying the amount we're paying today.
But every year the decision was made to only do
what the state law required.
Even though we watched the funding ratios go down from,
again, somewhere over a hundred, the worst funded was fire.
Um, they were more 60, 70, and we've watched them plummet.
You know, now our worst funded are 20% our best,
which is also our smallest fund.
Laborers is about 40% funded.
So we've seen this, these funds tank in the amount
of money is going in.
We had a significant surplus, uh, in 2022,
and that's when the policy was established
to start putting in additional money.
And that's when about 700 million at that time was reserved
for these advanced pension payments.
And the way that the policy was created was to say, okay,
every year we're putting in money.
And, you know, the state did change your laws, you know,
and the state did require us to put in a lot more money.
So we're not putting in 500 million anymore.
Obviously we're putting a lot more than that,
but the amount the state required still wasn't enough
to stop the funds from getting worse every single year.
So the calculation is based on how much money do we have
to put in so that we don't grow the unfunded liability.
We just stay, even the, the internal term
that we use in the department for this is tread water.
We're not going up. Well, we're not going down.
We're just, this is the amount we need just to tread water
so we don't get worse.
And essentially what it's doing is it's allowing the funds
to take the money they have and keep it invested.
Because every year as the funding's been insufficient,
the funds have had to go and sell their assets.
And so when you've got money invested long term, you want it
to be invested long term, but you gotta sell it
to pay your bills every single year.
You're just watching your, your savings go down, down, down.
But also you might be selling in a really crappy market.
You might be losing money when you sell.
'cause you can't ride it out
and wait till stocks go back up again.
And that's what was happening in the funds.
So they're just having to sell continuously every year
just to pay the benefits.
And so the investment returns are shrinking and shrinking.
And then with the money they have,
they don't wanna invest it long 'cause they have to sell it.
They might lose money. So they keep it shorter,
they put it in bonds and things like that.
Well, if you look at the discount rate, you know, the,
these funds need to achieve around seven, 7%.
But you know, if you've got it in bonds, if any
of you have money investing bonds, you know,
you don't get 7% right now, you could be getting four or 5%,
but if you go back a few years, you were only getting one
or 2% not that long ago.
And for a long time, you're only getting one or 2%.
So again, not making enough money on the investments.
So this is calculated to say, how much do we put in
where the situation doesn't get worse?
And over time, we're gonna see, we're gonna get to
where we now start growing, the amount of funds that we have
where our liability is shrinking
many years faster than if we put,
weren't putting in this extra 270 million a year.
First year we put in two 40 last year, 300 this year,
two 70, putting that in is gonna bring it
to 2030 when we actually cross over
where we start growing our funds.
It would've been many, many years
later if we weren't doing this.
And because we've got this money staying in there,
being invested, it's gonna save us $3.9 billion is
what we're projecting in future contributions.
So it's really about not, it's, we don't think
of it as like supplemental.
We think of it as actually just what we need to put in.
It's only supplemental to what the state requires us
to put in, but it's really what the funds actually need.
Because as they get lower
and lower, our bills just get higher and higher.
And these pensions, not only is it of course,
the right thing that we pay the workers who've invested
their lives working for the city and earned a pension,
but it's also constitutionally pro protected.
So we know there's people in this room who think, well,
I don't care that much about it.
It doesn't matter. We still have to pay it.
And there have been many lawsuits over this
as governments have tried
to amend their pension plans in Illinois,
and they, every single time the courts say, no, you have
to pay it no matter what.
So this is our debt. We can't get out of it.
It's like a student loan. You can't discharge in bankruptcy.
Do you wanna pay your student loan off when you're 40 or 30,
or you wanna pay it off when you're 65?
This debt we can't get away from.
And if we don't put in that extra amount,
it's just more and more money in the future.
So it's really just baseline.
What we ought to be putting in is, is how we're calculating
that and we can provide backup numbers
and data and everything to show you.
Okay, thank you.
Um, we've been asked to take a break for the engineer, um,
Kamal, can you tell us how long of a recess you need?
Is that how long you need? Is that how long you need?
Oh, uh, we will, uh,
we'll, we'll return, we'll return at four o'clock
and if we need longer, uh, we'll, well, hell, I'm just, man,
Four o'clock is good.
Chairman, this is Kamal. Sorry, I I missed
It, dude. I killed all There
Are bathrooms on multiple floors.
Alright. All right. We'll split it. Uh, 4 0 5.
Recess to 4 0 5
Decreases.
The rates went up. Oh, the rates went up.
Yeah, rates went up today.
That's why we wanted to get that deal done for the election
because we do not know what's gonna happen.
All right. We are, uh,
back from a brief recess.
Uh, we will start back up with
Alderman Ccho Lopez followed by Alderman card.
Oh, I'm sorry. We we're gonna wait, I gotta wait for,
I gotta wait for Annette, I'm sorry.
Okay. Where's Annette? I'm sorry. Who?
Okay. Okay.
Okay. Alright.
Alright, we're back, back in recess. Alright.
Looked up and forget.
Oh, I'm ready, ready to go.
Oh, hi.
Huh. What happened? What?
Okay, Y'all go back, y'all ready? We go. Oh, let you,
I take my cord back.
Um, then you, I gave you your core back a while ago.
This is Brendan's cord.
Y'all good?
Okay. Committees are back the order.
Uh, as I stated earlier, we'll have, um,
chair Lopez followed Alman Kona.
Thank you. Um, chairman Irving.
And, um, thank you to all the, uh,
all the people testifying today.
I think it's important that we, we find solutions
and, um, I agree with the assessment
that we have kicking the can down the road for way too long.
And, um, also important to assess clearly
and analyze our options, which will include certainly
participation of the state of Illinois.
Um, but we think what we have in front of us
and what is the jurisdiction of the city of Chicago,
why we're not moving forward
with other progressive revenue options in 2025.
Um, I think there have been a number of,
of those we have been in the, um, in conversations,
but four of the ones that I've seen coming up more often
are the head tax that was actually part, part
of our budget up to 2015, a congestion tax,
the video gaming
and ultimately a financial transaction tax seems like,
you know, we wanna address
and we're concerned about financial markets.
You know, I think that they also
should contribute the first share.
Um, thank you for your question.
I mean, I think one of the big things, concerns
that we share with, uh, you
and with many folks in this room is a desire
to have more progressive revenues.
Um, of those specific things.
There's several reasons why they're not in the budget today.
Um, the head tax is one that, um, the challenge
for us is timing.
And, you know, when the head tax was previously in place in
the city, um,
we were talking about a time when the loop was full
of workers and the normal pattern was
for folks to be commuting from the suburbs into the city.
Um, post pandemic we're living in a, a very changed world,
and the return to office rate, I think is around about 60%,
but it hasn't moved a lot.
Um, this last year it got to a certain point
and it's, it's not moved too much since then.
We are hearing a lot, um, in the news
statements from different, um, employers saying
that they are gonna move back towards less remote work
and requiring people to be in the office.
Um, we have hesitated to move forward
with the head tax while we are still trying
to get people back in the city.
And, uh, the concern is that it's gonna be harder
to, uh, get people
to come back when we put a head tax in place, as opposed
to if you impose it on people who are already here,
they're not as likely to leave.
So I think it's a subtle dynamic,
but we don't really think
many businesses will leave over it.
But we are concerned they won't come back
and we're still in the mode of trying to get people back.
That is why we have not moved forward, um, with proposing
that, uh, tax, the financial transaction tax is one
that, uh, is not feasible.
Uh, financial transactions, uh, are actually going on
electronically and, uh, New Jersey tried
to impose a financial transaction tax, uh, a number
of years ago, and the exchanges that were based there, uh,
actually moved their activities to Chicago for a week
to demonstrate that, uh,
there would be no transactions to tax.
They would simply move 'em somewhere else.
And the same thing would happen to us if we were to try
to impose a financial transaction tax,
we'd watch those transactions just move to another,
uh, jurisdiction.
So, uh, it's not something that has a, is
feasible from a technical standpoint, um,
and would likely require state action, uh, congestion tax.
Um, something we're actually very interested in digging
in and looking at.
Um, New York City, uh, is the closest
to doing a congestion checks.
They spent, I believe about 10 years in total building up
to putting that into place.
And they received approval from the Federal Department
of Transportation, um, all levels of government.
And then the, uh,
governor pulled the plug on it earlier this year.
Um, indications are that she's saying
that she'll let it move forward, uh, shortly, probably now
that we're past the election,
she'll probably let him move forward very quickly.
Um, you know, we, uh, do need
to invest the same kind of time
and effort into coming up with a plan.
The one challenge we do know we have is that in a cost
basis, it's more difficult here.
Um, you know, New York is, uh, doing, uh, lower Manhattan
and up through parts of Midtown is what's included
in their congestion zone.
Obviously they're at island.
And so, uh, they don't need to, uh, put tolls on
as many streets to collect, uh,
to collect that congestion tax.
Uh, we are not an island
and so we would need to do a lot more infrastructure,
which would, you know, the capital investment would eat
into, uh, some of the value.
But I think it's an area that's, uh,
definitely something we need to look into.
I suspect it will take years for that to occur,
but, uh, I think it's a very good idea.
And you had a fourth one and I the video game?
Oh, video gaming tax. Yeah.
So we have a, a, um, a consultant that, uh,
we've hired, we're just in the, the, um,
the final stages working with law
to get their contract put into place to examine, uh,
video gaming and determine, uh, whether we think
that's something that would add value to the city or not.
Um, you know, there is a, there is a bit of good bit of data
that we've been educated on showing that it would, um,
very significantly impact the casino.
Um, there are communities in Illinois
that have casinos and video gaming.
Um, and so there's data out there, um, that, uh,
demonstrates that we, uh, get about 20% tax off
of the casino and it would be about 8% off of VG ts.
And so you need a lot more VG ts than gambling, uh,
at, at slot machines in a casino to make up for that.
It's also a very long, uh, road to implementation.
On average, it takes communities about 10 years
to install the VGT terminals.
Um, so it's a, a relatively, uh, slow pace.
I mean, we've looked at, if we were to do that
and be in the range of what other communities have done,
for instance, in our first year,
we would probably only see somewhere between 200,000
to, you know, 2 million.
So it would be somewhere in that range.
Um, the reason the range is why is
because we also need Illinois Gaming Board approval
for each of the terminals.
And we've seen communities,
small communities take 10 years to build up.
Uh, we are much larger. And so, uh, we're not sure
how the gaming board would be able to respond, uh,
to our request, but that continues to be something
that is in process
and that, uh, we are hoping we'll have a full report from
our consultant, um, uh,
within a, you know, two or three months.
Thank you. And we certainly, I think it is important
that we, uh, talk about the importance of corporations
and financial markets to contribute to the city.
Uh, oftentimes, you know, it is perceived that they are, um,
also contributing when we see that this is the practice of,
uh, loopholes actually are very
costly for the city of Chicago.
This year alone, it's about $160 million
for the US as a city.
I think that we gotta look at the prospect of, uh,
federal government in charge
of the same individuals is gonna be, uh, a reason for us
to be creative, but also, um, really,
really critical on the sectors of the private sector.
Um, are you in favor of the property tax relief
or other, like the payment in lieu of taxes, for instance?
We do have, um, big, uh, um,
big industries that, you know, are, have significant, uh,
resources in there's of endowment
and land, uh, university of Chicago, for instance, one
of them, but billions of dollars of endowments and, and,
and land that I do think, uh, it is their responsibility
of everybody in the city, not only to benefit
by the amenities and the um, resources that our city has,
but also contribute to a city that, in my opinion, has pay,
um, and has continued to pay with the small homeowners,
small businesses that make the fabric of our city.
We are blue collar city, blue coral city,
but unfortunately, you know, our budgets the still continue
to be balanced on the backs of working people.
Property taxes are not the option.
And I do think I would like to see Pilot, you know,
and other programs that we can look into it.
So we truly are all contributing of first share.
Yes, I mean we certainly, uh, do intend
to start conversations with some of the major institutions
that are here in Chicago.
Um, you know, we don't feel that it's appropriate to go
after, um, small, uh, not-for-profits,
but you know, we do have several large higher
education institution.
You mentioned University of Chicago.
They're of course one of them, um, that, uh, we do intend
to start conversations with about pilots.
Um, I think we agree
that when you're looking at institutions
that have multi-billion dollar endowments, um, that, um,
this is not, and they,
and they're don't have to pay property taxes.
It's, it's not like a church not paying property taxes.
It's a very different kind of thing.
These are very well-funded institutions.
Um, so yes, it is our intent to pursue that.
The challenge that we have is we have no stick.
Um, so, uh, you know, if
for instance there was state legislation threatened that
would take away their right to not have
to pay property taxes, that would be a stick
that might get them to the table.
Um, that's not, that's not know something
that we've seen in the past.
Um, we've looked at other jurisdictions
who have had some success getting pilots
and, um, we've seen that generally, uh, it takes them years
of negotiation to get them.
So, uh, we are going to start that process.
We do agree that it's, um, it's a challenge
to have large wealthy institutions
that do not pay property tax.
Uh, but we don't really have a timeline for when
that would be successful.
Um, we know that it will, that is the kind of thing
that will, that will take time.
Thank you Jamel. I'll get a round two. Thank
You. Round two very
well. Uh, and, uh, Cardona, is he here? Both.
Okay. Uh, alderman Cardona followed by,
got a list here.
Actually you are next after him. Alderman Nugent
Start.
Okay. Thank you Chair. How you guys doing?
Hopefully you guys are doing fine.
Um, I got, um, I just wanna say thank you for, um,
being here and especially having
this conversation with budget.
Um, do you know if I know,
I know we got these grants, could you through the chair,
break down the grants that we give, um, that people apply?
Uh, reason why,
because like Alderman Tele Farro said like, um, we listened
to the mayor's budget address
and he wants to increase like, uh, one Summer Chicago
and things like that to 2000, um,
or other grants that come to play.
I was wondering if there's a way you could break the grants
down and how, what the portion is,
because I know some of these grants probably are running
through Harpa, is that correct?
Or how are these grants being, um, treated?
Um, so we, uh, the City
of Chicago gives out grants in a variety
of different funding sources.
So some of the grants that we give out to delegate agencies
and, um, recipients of grants are from our corporate fund.
We also serve as a pass through
for both federal grants and state grants.
Um, like some of the dollars that we get from the, um,
from the, the state goes to CPS.
So, um, it's a variety of, of different funding sources.
Okay. Um, did you guys look at the grants?
Um, did you do like any practices
of eliminating certain grants or just reducing the grants?
Well, so we don't wanna reduce grants
because that's free money, um, that we receive.
Um, uh, as it relates to, uh, did we look at grants,
we did look at both grants and special revenue funds,
and we did shift some of our corporate funded costs
onto eligible grants onto, um,
eligible special revenue funds.
So we, we, we did that, um, analysis as well.
Okay. Hmm.
Um, another thing that we talked about, I know we,
we talked about the liquor tax.
Um, do you feel that the liquor tax,
um, budget is suffice for this?
Or should we add more to the liquor tax?
Um, obviously, uh,
we can have a longer conversation about should we add,
add more to that particular,
this was controlled based on not CPI,
but actually, um, a measure of the inflation
of alcoholic beverages average.
So I think that's a good place
to start when you're talking about an increase in revenue.
And obviously this one's been a while Mm-Hmm.
Um, I wouldn't necessarily recommend beyond that, uh,
because you, you, you don't want to hurt.
You know, obviously there's impacts on every
change to revenue source.
Um, there would be, um, further impacts if we were
to raise it beyond that.
So that's why it was recommended at that level. Mm-Hmm.
We could certainly have a conversation whether
or not that should be higher or Okay.
If there are other items like that.
The reason I say that, because I know, um,
as you could hear, all of us, we have an issue
with the property tax increase.
Yeah, of course. Um, and I'm not for it,
and I don't think you guys understand the magnitude
of this property tax increase, happy next year.
Reason why, because it's like a trifecta.
So everybody knows how gambling is,
you could gamble trifecta and things like that.
Next year's tax bill is almost like a trifecta
because we have the assessor reassessing our properties.
On top of that, you're gonna hold, if this goes through,
implement a 300 million on top of that, you're gonna have an
increase in the levy of CPS.
That's three into one.
And that, so my question is, what is gonna be the tax levy?
Do you know what the tax levy in 2023 is?
You mean what our current tax levy is? Mm-Hmm.
Um, like it's 300 million less than
what we're, we're we were proposing for 2025.
So if you look at the tax bill, it's 6.99
and if you calculate the reassessment
with all the other stuff, just in my neighborhood alone,
a two flat is going from five to 6,000
to 10,000 in property tax.
Even more. My residents can't afford that.
And then I'm just thinking about even residents
that live in, in, uh, in, um, in Hyde Park
or Bronzeville or even back of the yards,
or even in Pilsen alone,
those families are not gonna be able to stay
because they ain't gonna be able to afford
to stay here or live here.
So you, we have
to think about the unintentional consequences of
property tax because in my, my residents in Hermosa
and Belmont, Reagan are not gonna be able to stay there
because of this one, the reassessment
and two, the 300 million property tax.
And I could just imagine the west side,
even in the south side residents how, how,
how things are gonna be get ongoing with
because it, people are not, can't afford it
because of their income and they're already struggling.
So we need to do a better way to figure out
how we could substitute that 300 million with other cuts.
And I think it's beholden to, to all of us to figure out
how we're gonna do this together.
Because I definitely, even if it, I definitely would not,
not even think of imposing a property tax
because I already know what's gonna happen.
Do you know what the percentage would be?
Let me, it's already 6.99%. Go
Ahead. Hold the time. Let
me, let's, let's have a,
let's have a level set conversation about assessments.
Um, depending upon the rise
of assessments for everybody,
if everybody's assessments are rising at the same rate,
then the mitigation is, is about the same to everyone.
The question that we need to understand,
and I don't know if the data's fully available yet now,
my understanding is that they're just wrapping up the
triennial is to see what impacts in certain neighborhoods
do the, will the assessments have
so we can have a better conversation to say
that the assessment has gone up from X to X plus two.
And if everybody else goes up at X plus two,
then there is no rise or, or, or sync to that.
So I think in order
to have an intelligent conversation about assessments,
we need to understand in totality what has happened
to people's assessments, not just one person's assessments,
because we have to look at everybody's in, in their totality
so we can understand what impact any type
of attacks increase could have on a specific parcel versus
what the general, uh, what the general sense of that is.
Now we've asked for information for everybody's ward
so they can particularly understand what the proposed
increase will look like, what below
that may look like based on 25% median
and 75% of values in a particular, uh,
in a particular ward.
So you can get a full breadth of what
that looks like across, uh, various, uh, various, uh,
communities in your specific wards.
Some of us aren't. I'm geographically spread,
so I know mine's gonna be wide.
Some who are in one neighborhood may not be as wide,
but it's just trying to understand what that impact has,
because you're right with
reassessments there will be change.
The question is how much change is
yours relative to your neighbors?
That's what's gonna make the difference
and all how all of this pans out.
So let's, let's just get that data so
that people can understand what that actually will look like
for them individually, uh, in a,
in a greater sense across your community. So
I understand chairman, but I've been, you know that,
I know that you know that, but I've been doing a,
I've been doing tax appeals
and I've been seeing in my neighborhood going 20
to almost 50%, which is unheard of,
and I could imagine by where, where your residents are at,
what the percentage is when you guys
got the reassessment letters.
So I'm just thinking ahead, down the road,
what's gonna happen to the city
because what's might happen is we're gonna have a bunch
of foreclosures and we're gonna probably have,
most likely we'll probably have another housing crisis in
our hands with this whole property tax.
So we really gotta really, you know, double down
and reconsider how could we fix this?
Meaning not impose, I mean, we can't,
we can't change the assessment,
but the 300 million that he's asking for, we need
to figure out where we could cut
and then also, uh, save those 300 million so we don't have
to impose a property tax on the city
of Chicago on the residence.
I'm done. I think there's one other just
aspect of the reassessment.
Um, you know, Fritz Ka did release, um,
some information about the reassessment at the end
of last week, which showed
that he was increasing assessments on, uh,
business commercial properties, uh,
significantly more than on residential.
Um, now I, as you mentioned, there's an appeals process
and certainly we'll see a lot
of appeals that will come out of that.
But sort of the initial indication on that is that
that would mitigate some of the burden on residential.
I'm done. Good? Yep. Okay.
All, uh, president Pro Tem Nugent is Martin Martin year
after, uh, chair Martin year after President Pro Tem Nugent.
No, no, it's Nugent. You didn't come in on time.
You're last this, see, is this them? Okay.
Okay. Uh, thank you Chairman.
And, uh, thanks to everybody up in the box
and that's been here today.
You know, I clearly, the central theme of the day is
that this $300 million tax increase is not palatable to me
or my colleagues and Chicagoans.
And they've been very vocal
and, um, their disapproval for this.
And I think it's incumbent on us as a city to come up
with efficiencies and look
for other ways to come up with this money.
And I think you're, you're hearing that today.
Um, something that I've been talking to you guys a lot about
is ARPA and the ability for revenue replacement through ARPA
and for whatever reason, um,
you guys don't seem to wanna do that.
And we had a hearing, a budget hearing on September 5th,
and we talked about revenue replacement that day.
Uh, at the time, um, I believe we were right
around 280 million.
Our gap is at 200 hundred 23 million.
And so in your remarks, budget director, you know,
it says we're a few weeks away from finalizing all necessary
agreements that will get us
to a hundred percent obligation ahead of the deadline.
I'd like you to share with us
what you have an obligated yet.
And I actually think we need to discuss that
and see if there's potential to use that for,
for revenue replacement instead of obligating it.
We, we have to make some decisions.
We have, we have to offer alternatives to our communities.
And just something else I I wanna bring up
that I think is really important for my colleagues is,
so roughly 280 million is unspent overall in arpa,
the budget is 5 75 0.96.
Expended is 2 95 7 3.
And and the reason I'm bringing this up is we have access
to the ARPA dashboard.
Right now, I'm just pulling through some
of the programs on the dashboard
and no particular preference on these.
I'm just pulling up examples.
Family Connects program 17.4 million, unspent,
14.89 million unspent from management
and administration, 30 million unspent in
small business support programs.
Only 0.15 million of the 10 million allocated
for stabilization housing has been expended.
Meaning it, it, it's been unused.
Now many of these programs are great programs, like they're,
they're excellent programs, but we have to spend the money,
and I'm, I'm bringing this up not
because of the merit of these programs,
but about being financial stewards.
And to the best of my knowledge, we can move
unspent obligated money to another S-L-R-F-P project,
an approved project and revenue replacement is approved.
So I have to know why aren't we looking to ARPA for some
of the revenue replacement?
Um, so, uh, I think thank you for the question,
um, for a number of reasons.
One, uh, the, the spend dollars that you're looking at, um,
are spent as of a certain date.
Um, a lot of these programs, um, have invoices
and, um, uh, um, I would say invoices that have been, uh,
not all been paid or gotten through the system.
Uh, the, uh, they're also multi-year programs, right?
So part of the unspent dollars are the 2025 allocation
that is based on contracts that have been signed.
So just like any grant, you have a person
that is on the grant, um, while you might have budgeted in
that current year for their salary, you're also budgeting
for their salary in year two and year three,
because they're managing the program.
So is the, the m and a program is all people is,
and so we're talking about people salaries
and people who we are gonna lay off if we don't pay them.
So, and so I also, I just,
I just wanna make sure I'm answering your question.
Um, and so while it hasn't been spent, it's
because we're in 20 24, 20 25 hasn't occurred yet.
And so those, those are the dollars
for those programs in 2025 to be spent down.
Could we not potentially make some hard decisions
and shave some money off of some of those programs?
Like for example, the stuff
that you have not submitted to Treasury yet.
You have the opportunity right now to play
with a little bit, don't you?
Uh, when you say submitted to treasury, what do you mean?
So, it's my understanding that we have this deadline
with treasury of 1231 of this year,
and, um, there's like paperwork that we have to get
as a city into the treasury to confirm
that we've obligated the funds.
But until you, until you send that,
that money is not officially obligated. Is that correct?
Um, based on how our, uh, financial system works, uh,
uh, that is correct.
It it's based on our financial system,
not necessarily on contracts.
So I think it would be incumbent on us,
on the, the budget team to see, let's see what that is.
I we're, you're asking so much of Chicago right now.
I, I guess I don't understand why we wouldn't look
to a revenue source that legally we are allowed to use
for revenue replacement.
These are, these are funds that are gonna expire in 2026.
I've heard from the budget office that, that,
that we shouldn't, um, we shouldn't use
for revenue replacement because these are programs already
existence and they're already going,
well in 2026, they're gonna end.
And I, I, I'm not confident that the groups,
all the groups that are getting the funding,
potentially some, but not all of them have the capacity
to continue on after this funding.
And so we're just putting off the inevitable.
I, I, I firmly believe we have
to look in ARPA for revenue replacement.
And I, I think you guys owe us the numbers to see what,
what we have to offset this horrific
financial crisis we're in.
Um, the second point to your, uh, question.
Uh, the other reason why we do not believe
that this is a viable source, uh, to support, um, uh,
dec uh, mitigation of our gap is
because this is temporary funding.
The same reason why we wouldn't look
to the advanced pension payment,
which is also one-time funding.
Um, these are ongoing costs for the city.
And so once these dollars are gone, we have
to still solve the problem, which is the increase
of our expenditures against a revenue source.
The original plan for arpa, the $1.3 billion that was used,
um, and uh, uh,
spread out across three years at declining amounts was
because it was Trek tracking the, um,
the eventual recovery of our, uh, revenues.
Over time, our revenues have largely recovered.
And so using a temporary funding source against, uh,
ongoing costs is actually
delaying the discussion for another year.
So I would respectfully push back on that, though.
If it is a one-time revenue source,
we're in dire straits, why wouldn't we use some
of this money that we are allowed to use
for revenue replacement to help us?
I don't, the only people that I see that are taking the,
that are bearing the brunt of this crisis are taxpayers,
homeowners, property tax.
We haven't, I haven't seen beyond us as alderman, uh,
offering 3% cut on our individual
staff or on our committees.
The only thing I've seen coming is a property tax.
I have not, I have not seen cuts anywhere else.
And I guess I just don't understand why we wouldn't look
to a funding source that actually allows
for it In the actual description of arpa, I,
I think it's actually irresponsible of us not to use it
as revenue replacement.
I think that there's over $300 million
of cuts in this budget.
Um, I think that, you know, uh,
alderman Quinn asked the question earlier of
what does the out year forecast look like
with the property tax included?
And I, I, um, mentioned that, uh,
it dramatically mitigates against out year, uh, budget gaps,
uh, by increasing the, uh, amount
of one-time revenue sources, uh,
to mitigate against this gap.
We are actually, um,
literally gonna have the same question next year.
Um, and the gap will be larger.
I'd like to see through the chair, uh,
sooner than later exactly
what we do not have obligated in arpa in
what we are theoretically looking to use those funds for.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Um, so, um,
we have to let, let me, lemme,
I'm gonna temper this a little bit.
Um,
I follow Alderman Riley's conversation about
position elimination or looking at ongoing obligations.
What you're asking for is a one time issue
that doesn't address the expenditure of conversation.
What we, we, what we can't do is deal
with the one time and end up back in the same conversation
12 months from now.
I think that we have to, if, if we're serious about
cuts, we've gotta look at ongoing expenditures
versus ongoing revenues.
Because by design, the ARPA stuff will go go away,
revenue and expense.
So it's like if we're, if we're looking at expense cuts and
or revenue enhancements,
the one-timers aren't gonna solve
the challenges that we face.
And as a CFO has stated,
our greatest rise in expenditures been around debt
and pension obligations, and which is another form of debt.
So while I understand what you're, what you're saying it,
it's, it's not a structural solution.
And so we've gotta think I understand what you're saying
and I'm not trying to discount what you're saying.
Uh, however, and there's a whole other battery of,
of questions, which is gonna be a philosophical debate
that the council will need to have around how are we going
to spend dollars?
Because in order to get to where you're trying to go,
if it's to a reduction of $300 million, it, it,
it only can come from reoccurring expenses
or the opposite, you're gonna have
to have reoccurring revenue.
Those are, that's what we're facing with. So, go ahead.
Understood. And, and,
and with all due respect, we're looking at everything.
And I think every year during budget season, we have
to look at everything, whether it's efficiencies,
sometimes we look at, um,
and I'm not saying we're looking for furloughs.
I'm just saying we have to look at everything.
And we have this here.
Sometimes we look at consolidation, loan savings,
refinancing, and those are all one time for that time.
I don't think this is, this is special.
It's just, it's an option.
And this is really our, this is a terrible budget.
I just don't understand why we're not looking
at this option.
It's, it's there and we should be looking at it. Well,
Again, there's a larger, what I,
I'll call a philosophical conversation
because it might work for you to get rid
of certain opportunities
and programming that are p supporting,
but for some colleagues it may not be.
So that's the philosophical conversation that again, that's
what, that's why we're here to, to, to have,
and I just wanna make sure that we're looking at this
with our eyes open
and not in a, not myopically
where we are look thinking about something
and we don't think about the consequences of it.
'cause every everything we do has a consequence.
And we need to understand
that in this, in this conversation.
That's all that I, that's all I wanna say. Sure. In that
Relation. Sure. And, and I respect that and
I respect, uh,
the ARPA projects in my colleagues communities.
And I've heard from most of my colleagues who think that,
um, the tax increase is just not palatable.
And so I think, I think we have to have conversations
as colleagues that maybe we shave a little on every project
just a little bit, just like we've all shaved from our
staff and our committees.
It's just a conversation.
And, um, again, with all due respect,
I don't know why this particular program
and the conversations with budget have received
so much pushback, um,
when I've asked these questions since
September 5th, actually earlier.
And they've been in my emails with respect to
what my priorities are for the budget.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Debate. That's good stuff.
We're gonna roll with it. So, chair, uh, Martin,
followed by, uh, chair Hatton.
Thank you Chair. Uh, afternoon everybody.
We've got a few quick hitting questions. Just to clarify.
Um, uh, with regard to the TIFF surplus,
I see some potentially conflicting things in the budget
document in terms of what the city's portion will be.
It sounds like we're gonna get a hundred 0.1 million,
but then there's also a part in the budget document
that talks about like this,
plus this equals a balanced budget
of 54.1 million increase in tif.
So what's the right number
that we can take back to our residents?
So obviously we've got a hundred million,
but are you saying that that like 54 million is on top of
what was in the current fiscal year TIF surplus?
Um, no. The, uh, the total surplus currently estimated
to be received by the city of Chicago is $131 million.
When we do our forecast, we make an assumption of
what our TIF surplus will be every single year.
Obviously, it's, uh, well ahead
of the time in which we calculate the surplus.
And so, um, when we got to the time of,
of closing the budget gap
and we had the estimated calculation, it was $54 million in
what we had in our forecast.
So it's an additional amount of surplus than
what we had in the forecast.
Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.
Um, with the 247.6 million in operational efficiencies,
do you have a quick bullet list that you can tick through?
Because I've, I've, I've got a, a meeting tomorrow
with residents and they're gonna ask me what,
what gets us to that number.
Yeah. Um, we actually
provided this to you and through the chair.
Okay. Um, if I can bring it up, uh,
if you just gimme one second. Uh,
That's all right. Uh, if it
was through email, I will look through, um,
obviously hard to keep track of everything,
but if it's coming through email,
if it's already come through, then I'll find it.
I think it was provided, but, um,
we can definitely make sure it gets
to you if you haven't gotten it.
Okay. That's great. If someone from your
team could just resend it.
Yep. Um, uh, by the end of the day, I'd appreciate it.
Um, with regard to property taxes
and CPI, if we had taken the CPI last year,
what would that amount have been?
So for current fiscal year 2024,
Um, I think it would've been, so CPI
around this time last year, it was above, uh, three.
It was around, um, I think it was around 4% last year.
I gimme one second
And I'm gonna expand on your question.
We didn't take it last year, the year before, the year
before that, is that correct?
No, we've, we haven't taken since the last
Two years. Haven't since 2022,
Haven't 2022.
So we missed what, two years or one year? Two years in a
Row. Two year,
Yeah. Ffy 23
FY 24.
Uh, so CPI last year was, uh, 6.5%.
If we had taken it, it would've been 60 million.
60 million. And then what about this year?
Like an approximate number?
'cause obviously there are different ways to crunch it.
Oh, I'm sorry. 120 million CPI detail was,
Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong sheet.
Um, so we, if we, uh,
for we fore went when we didn't take CPI last year, um,
or sorry, this year, $120 million in 2025,
uh, CPI is 3.4, um,
and it would be, uh, six $70 million.
Okay. Um, what's an overall number in terms of the amount
of money that you're proposing we would spend
on debt servicing?
I, maybe that was a variation of the answer.
Uh, a question that, um, vice Mayor Burnett asked,
but in looking at the budget document,
I know we've got general obligation servicing, we've got,
uh, STSC, like what's an overall number?
If someone were to ask me how much are we proposed
to spend on debt servicing overall
In all, or from, uh, support from the corporate fund,
Um, maybe differentiate between the two.
Okay. Corporate fund and then overall,
We'll get that for you right now.
Yeah. Just give a second to look it up. Yeah.
If you, if you wanna move
to your next question while we look it up, you can
Hold the clock while,
while you ask, uh, look for that answer.
You said your first numbers were one 20,
the other one was 67 70.
And then that's next year. That's next
Year This year. And last year,
Last year would've, uh, 2023
That we didn't take it in 2023. Right?
Right. So you're asking if we had taken it in 2023, right.
Um, 119.
Okay. So 1 19, 1 20 and 70. Is that a fair?
Okay.
Yeah, it looks like, um, total debt looks
like it's about $650 million in debt service.
Okay. 25, maybe 6 75.
I have it on a graphic, not a table, but it's around
There. Okay. Six 50 or 6 75
SPO
And Sales Tax Securitization Corporation,
we don't in the budget show STSC debt
because in the budget, what we show is
the pass through revenues.
Our sales tax is collected, it goes
to the sales tax Securitization Corporation,
they pay the debt, and then we get the balance back in.
Okay. So it doesn't show up as debt, uh, it shows up
as a balance of revenues.
But if we take what the actual debt from SDSE
and the debt for geo, which does show up,
that's 6 56 75 inch.
Okay. Um, then
with my remaining time, I mean, it may elicit a response,
but I just have some, some observations.
One, in terms of CPD
and public safety generally know it's been reported
that the Reform Management Group, which shrink by 10%,
and I think this is largely
or exclusively vacancy eliminations, uh,
CPDs Training Division shrink by 27%.
The professional counseling division, uh,
is 2020 9% shrinkage, um, office
of Constitutional Policing and Reform by 57%.
The Office of Community Policing shrink by 61%.
Um, have real concerns with that.
Uh, we had a high profile individual, Bob Boy, who was fired
for expressing reservation about a similar approach
that was taken last year.
And I worry that we're getting into the habit
of rubbernecking between what superintendent fact did versus
what his preces, his successor did.
And then we're back and forth and back and forth,
and we're, we're just not cutting it when it comes
to modernizing our public safety institutions.
And our, our budget challenge is not withstanding,
which are obviously very significant.
I understand the exercise here.
I do worry that it's pennywise
and pound foolish when we talk about the overall cost
of consent decree compliance.
'cause we're not getting it done.
And I very much am worried
that this is gonna have us take a step
backward, not forward.
And we're not just talking about checking boxes
on a spreadsheet.
Some of this stuff is very complicated, very nuanced work.
And when we're talking about staffing analysis, specifically
with CPD, we had al we had identified, uh, a,
a third party vendor to do
that staffing analysis a year ago.
Uh, we passed an ordinance that specified a timeline.
It's taken at least four months longer
to simply execute a contract that was signed
on November 1st.
I, I have very little, if any, confidence that
that staffing analysis will be completed
by this time next year.
And so if we can't even get something like that done,
that was a requirement,
is a requirement in the consent decree,
it leaves me feeling very dubious that we will be able to do
that for other departments.
So don't feel good about the state of
where things are right there with other revenue ideas.
Pilots been talked about congestion fees, video gaming.
I know, and apologies if it didn't, you didn't mean it
to come out this way CFO,
but he said, in an intend to start conversations
with people, uh, I think specifically about pilot, part
of the frustration that you're hearing from a lot of us is
city government overall.
Both the mayor's office
and city council have not prepped our communities
to consider a 300 million property tax increase,
especially when over decades.
That was something that was deliberately set up
to be a dirty word, a dirty concept, um,
in an irresponsible way to be clear.
Uh, but that's the situation we find ourselves in.
So this time last year, there was a lot
of self-congratulation
around having no property tax increase being proposed.
And I think that you see a situation where,
as you all know better than us,
we budget over a multi-year period of time, right?
You all are looking at out year projections.
And from my perspective, the budget proposal
that's been shared isn't in line with that.
And so when you hear Alderwoman NuGen
and others say, well, how can we figure out some ways
to get on this ramp, um, to take the structural solutions,
embrace them as as chair?
And you've rightly acknowledged, I think this is a huge step
as opposed to a series of modest steps, um,
that people are expecting from government right now.
And so, um, you know, when we push our budget, uh,
cycle back a few weeks,
even if it just feels like a few weeks,
that's meaningful for a lot of us.
'cause we schedule our entire year
with this in mind based on what we're doing personally,
even though obviously we're gonna work till the end
of the calendar year, calendar year to get this stuff done.
But that interrupts a lot of our other work.
And so, I mean, chair,
how many people are currently in COFA right now?
Two, that's, that's just not a situation
where you could say, in good faith, guys,
we put together this budget proposal.
If you don't like it, then you come up
with your other ideas chair.
I have tremendous respect,
and I said this last year for how we're ramping up cofa
two people there plus individuals in the budget committee.
Beyond that, plus the civic Fed CTB
and others, that doesn't give us the sort of resources
and timeline to come up with alternatives, uh, that I think
to our satisfaction help us fill
that $300 million gap easily.
So we are where we are right now,
but I think it's really important to identify these process
and system frustrations.
'cause I'll say candidly, I don't think
that when we were having these conversations last year,
and we all have I think, some responsibility to embrace with
that, that we had in mind, oh,
we're gonna have a $300 million property tax increase
and let's talk about stuff in those round numbers.
So we are where we are. I think we've gotta do better.
And I hope that as we find ways to craft a revised budget
that will hopefully not lead to a credit round.
Credit rating downgrade won't lead to people being worried
that they're gonna de be displaced.
Like Alderman Cardone among others have emphasized that, um,
we're working efficiently
and we also find new ways to work
with one another next year.
'cause I do think we need to take some
of these in bite-sized chunks
and figure out different ways
that these pieces fit together.
Um, so I'm sure many
of you up there will have some responses to that.
It wasn't framed as a question,
it's just my musings based on what I continue
to hear from residents, what I hear from colleagues
and the real frustration that people have as we come up
to a very, very tight, uh, timeline.
Is there a response? You, you feel free?
No, I appreciate everything you said.
Um, I think that we come in a spirit of collaboration.
Um, I think that there have been some change circumstances
from the time that we had these conversations last year.
Um, you know,
I keep mentioning there was a large decline in our revenue
that we did not anticipate. Uh, last year.
The budget deficit is the exact same.
It's off by just a few million dollars.
So like nice round numbers are are quite
similar to your team's credit,
Right? But, but again,
that,
that budget deficit did not include a huge decline
in one of our revenue sources.
Um, that was something that occurred this year.
Um, also, you know, we did go after revenue.
Um, we were anticipating having a more sustainable source
for homelessness for, for instance.
And so, um, there are things
that have changed since the time
that we had this conversation last year.
Um, and again, as I said in my opening comments,
this was not something that we, we, uh, um,
felt, uh, particularly excited about coming to city
to council to present.
Uh, we knew that this was gonna be a tough one.
So we, we fully acknowledge that.
Um, and we are open, um, and willing to collaborate
and acknowledge, uh, that collaboration with city council.
You alderman. Good?
Okay. No, round two. All right.
Alder Hadden, uh, followed by Nuon.
Dude, I told you you're at the end.
You're like, you were fourth after we finished.
You're, ah, it's good. I'm just, you know.
Alright. Maybe some of your questions will get answered, uh,
before anyone won't have to go through
that much. Go ahead. Uh, Maria,
Thank you Chair.
Um, good evening everybody.
Um, one, can I, uh, this is just a point of clarification.
This is from, um, Nugent's round of questions.
I know there was some back and forth, um, with you chairman,
but that through the chair request is gonna be met.
Right? Just to be clear, this was on the, uh,
so programs scheduled, uh, to be funded through ARPA dollars
for 2025.
That, that did make it
through a, through the chair request, right?
Yes. The braided funding? Correct. Okay. Awesome.
Um, um, I, you know, not a ton of questions.
I'm just gonna start with some just requests.
Um, so one, I know that in the briefings that we had,
and also just in information you guys have presented
with us, you've talked about different revenue sources
that you've gone after, small adjustments
and things, um, whether they be
surcharges or fees that we've got.
Um, could you provide a list?
I, I'm assuming you guys went through some kind of exercise
that probably identified every single surcharge kind
of tax thing that we had power over.
Ah, look at that. Excellent.
Let's see what you're bringing me.
But I was gonna say, do you have a, a document
that shows Mm-Hmm.
Perfect. Um, just for the record,
I'll say the comptroller gave me the secret document
that no one else can have.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'll make sure that, Um, so this is a,
a tax rate summary document.
Thank you for that. So in addition
to the tax rate summary document, I guess, um, could you,
um, uh, what I would love to see is what
that tax is generating for us right now.
And if you guys went through the exercise of seeing
what revenue could be generated with, uh,
any changes to that.
Yes, we can, we can definitely, um, provide you,
'cause you're asking for how much we currently get from
each, how much we'll get
with the changes that we've proposed,
How much do we will get with changes that you've proposed
for those that you have proposed change.
But also, I'm assuming there are some of these
that weren't changed, right?
Yeah. So, uh, you know, showing, uh, if you did any revenue
exercise to look at a potential
change that would be helpful.
And, and this is just in the spirit of the same spirit,
I think of a lot of these questions of, you know, if,
if we are gonna be the ones generating the amendments here,
um, and we're gonna need to be able to go through
and have this data to kind of do it.
So that, that would be very awesome.
Um, and then I know, um, uh, CFOI know Jill,
you said you guys are working on the information about the
10%, 20%, 30% reduction on the advanced pension payment.
So thank you for that. Um, this will,
this would probably be sat, this question will be satisfied,
I think by the, the, through the chair request,
but I did, I wrote this down earlier, was just wondering
how much additional revenue we are generating
with the changes to our alcohol taxes.
10.6 million.
Thank you. Um, all right.
Thank you for that. Um,
and then another one, I know we got some of those
through the chair request for the briefings.
Um, I did catch that, um, I know we talked about in one
of those requests, it was like the 2024 through September
to date revenue generated by the casino is 11.3 million.
And then you guys gave us the responses to what we're, um,
projecting for revenue from the permanent casino in
2026 and 2027.
Are there any, uh, projections for casino revenue for 2025?
Yeah, we actually, uh, have revised our,
our projection down from where I think the projections were
that were provided by the former administration to,
based on, um, where we're seeing the actuals come in.
And that's based on the activity
that's occurring at the casino up until,
I think last month we had the second high highest attendance
of casinos in the entire state.
Um, but there's some things about the casino,
the temporary casino that are different from other casinos
in the, in the state such that, you know, all
of the other trappings that you usually see at a casino
that would kind of compel people
to stay a lot longer are not in the temporary casino.
So we've revised down our, um, our, uh,
revenue projections for 2025.
I think in the previous years they had it at 35.
We revised it down to 16.5 for 20. Okay.
Which lines up with what you're saying we're getting
for actuals this year, if you're, yeah.
Okay. Um,
and then, let's see, this might be,
this might be my last question.
I'm gonna be easy. Um, uh,
this is about the, the house share charge.
So I know like for gender-based violence, can you repeat
That? The
house share charge, uh, surcharge specifically, um,
and I'm sorry if someone asked this while I popped out
for a tea refill.
Um, but I know that we are looking at, you know,
we some requests, uh, to look at raising
that surcharge from like 2% to 4% to look
for additional funds for our gender-based violence work.
Just wondering, did you all consider increasing
the housing surcharge?
And, and if, if it was, why, why don't we see
that in this current proposal?
Um, so, you know, there's, I can't remember the last time
that it was raised, but there are, you know, for any
of our revenues that we look at,
we look at the economic environment that we're currently in,
and, uh, there's a lot of, um,
shifting going on in the home share environment
where we're actually seeing, um, tourists
who are trending more towards being in hotels,
which is why we see our hotel tax going up a lot more, um,
over the last several years, um,
than we are seeing home share.
And so, um, looking at the sensitivity of
that market right now, and if it could absorb, um,
and increase, uh, to that, to that, um, to that tax.
Okay. Um, and then I lied, I have one more question, um,
but a pretty straightforward one.
Um, have you guys, I know, um, uh,
chairman Vasquez was, uh, helped set up a few meetings
for us over this over this week with some of our, um,
advisory groups in the city,
but has, have you guys have this finance team
and budget team, have you guys met around this budget
with like the center for, you know, with Civic Federation
with, you know, BGA with the, you know,
the different centers for kind of tax
and government responsibility?
Have you met with any
of these groups in developing this budget?
Um, not specifically, uh, in developing this budget,
we have, we have, I think we've met
with civic fed like three times this year.
Um, we have had specific conversations
with the BGA on aspects of the budget,
but not in presenting our budget proposal to them.
Um, you know, uh,
we also did read specific Fed report when it came out.
We didn't, we got it a day before they released it.
We, some
of the suggestions actually caught us a little bit off
guard, given where the Civic fed has been on the city's
budget in prior years.
Um, and so, you know, some of the things
that they had in there, um, were things that, uh,
we felt were not palatable just given
that they didn't actually resolve our structural imbalance.
And so, uh, again, we got the report the day
before it was, was released.
Um, none of the things that they put in there were things
that they had mentioned to us in prior conversations
that we've had throughout the year.
Okay. Um, I'm sorry.
And who knows,
I might end up using my time, but I won't leave around too.
Um, uh, thank you for that.
Um, uh, I know we we're going back
and forth between one time, uh, you know,
one time revenue options and one time expense cuts.
Um, I'll, I'll just add my voice to my colleagues in saying
that, um,
our constituents deserve everything to be on the table.
Um, and I think that while I appreciate
the really difficult task that you guys have year round, um,
as you come to us for a relatively short period of time,
you know, for us to be weighing the budget, um, I will say
that I don't think you have to tell us,
I don't think you have to tell us anymore.
Hey, that's only a one time thing.
I think we, you know, we get it.
Um, we understand it's not gonna fix everything,
but this TIFF surplus is a one time thing too.
We're not gonna necessarily have the same amount
of tiff surplus all the time.
Um, and I think that, um, I've appreciated the materials
and even all the information over arpa things
that you've shared with us, um, over the last few months.
I feel like there's a lot more info and transparency, um,
and the information that we're getting,
but it doesn't change the
difficult decisions that we've gotta make.
And so we should look at all the options.
I think we want the information to be able to do that.
Um, and I'll say that, you know, I'd make a request in
through the chair as well around the state strategy.
So there are a lot
of one-time fixes already presented in this budget
because of the structural issues that we've got.
Um, we acknowledge that.
Um, and unfortunately that's what we're looking at.
But I know you've talked about, you know, other revenue
and estate revenue strategy and different things.
Um, I know for myself
and my constituents, I don't wanna make this decision on
whatever budget amendments we present
or budget we end up, uh, coming to that we are looking
to pass, um, so
that we can keep government running for next year.
Um, I don't wanna go back to my constituents without saying
that we're gonna do this.
Um, but I also don't have a plan for 2026.
So, you know, I'm thinking,
and a lot of my decision making on this is gonna be,
what else are we doing?
And I need to know what our revenue plan is
January 1st, 2025.
Right. Um, so
that we're not left in the same position next year.
Um, so just, you know, through the chair,
if there's anything you can share with us on kind
of the state revenue things, um, so
that we can include those in these
discussions, I would appreciate it.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you. Uh, chair Hatton who said
that you weren't using your 10 minutes, but
You got me here too late.
You got me here too late, chairman. Alright. But I
Think you, So I, I, I told you I didn't wanna be here
the day after the election either, but we're all here.
Oh. Are you giving me a snicker?
Am I getting hangry or something on the commercial?
Very well, uh, Tim, me, uh, alderman Kon, I don't see him.
We're gonna go to, uh, Alder, uh, Conway.
Yeah. Huh?
It's all right. We go back.
Yeah. Where are you? I'll, I'll, I'll get to you.
Go ahead. Good, good. Go. Yeah, I mean,
Well first, I mean, first thing I appreciate the
conversation we're having on ARPA funding,
and I wanna start off by thanking the 27 people
that signed onto my ordinance last January
that would've given us more oversight on the ARPA funds.
And I also appreciate the 23 of y'all that didn't, A lot
of you pretty much probably wish you had at this point,
but, um, because we could use that to take care
of our supplemental pension payment, which
of course has a ripple effect for years to come.
Now I have nine minutes of nice great questions.
Can I just respond?
We can't use ARPA for pension payments.
Just wanna be really, we can't use
ARPA for pension payments.
Okay. But we, I mean, money's fungible, right?
I mean, we could put it in one place
or another in that, in that regard.
We cannot use it for pension payments at
All. Okay. We could use
DeRay something else in the budget
that would then use those dollars
that would've helped for that.
We can, I mean, we go back and forth. Okay.
We can use for a whole host of things in our budget.
Tomato, tomato, let Move on.
Tomato, tomato, it's 145 million tomatoes.
That's a lot of tomatoes.
And here we are going to the taxpayers asking
for $300 million because we didn't have the,
or 27 of us had the foresight to understand that.
And unfortunately it didn't, uh, didn't work out that way.
But now I have nine minutes of nice questions.
So, um, 8, 8 42. All right.
So, um, and these are,
and most of 'em are all follow ups too.
So when Alderman Burnett asked about the,
on the closing the gap slide, which was,
which was very helpful, um, the 140
and you mentioned earlier the 140 million that,
that's from the unassigned fund balance.
Are we changing anything about the way
we're accounting for that?
I'm happy to bring this up. I'm sure you know it by heart
'cause you've talked about a few times, but
No, uh, and I'm happy to go into further detail
'cause it's a little bit, uh, complicated on that.
But there's actually, uh, there's a prior,
there's some prior fund, um, that is being utilized there
for, for a purpose that is for its design.
Um, so that was some savings we found in prior years, uh,
unassigned fund balance.
But it's not changing our risk.
It is not. No, no, there aren't. Mm-Hmm.
The, um, the Alderman Lopez asked, uh,
about the 215 million
of improved revenue projections is what's driving that?
Is that fees or is that something else?
Or is that the economy?
I don't think it's gotten better, but who knows?
No, I, I think you're looking at my slide deck
and I think it's like two slides later.
Okay. Yeah, it's, Yeah, I know,
I think it's like two slides later where we go into
what the two 15, um, equals, but it's okay.
Largely, um, the M-E-A-B-F payment, uh, coming from CPS, um,
we got further, uh, reforecasted, um,
analysis from the Department of law, uh, related
to anticipated settlements and fine and fee recovery.
Okay. Okay. Uh, for 2025, based on, uh,
where we are on specific litigation as well
as recovery efforts by the department of law.
Um, and the last item I believe is, um,
uh, real estate transfer tax.
We are, um, revising one of the enterprise zones.
Um, we're taking away some of the parameters, um,
which is largely in the west, uh,
west loop Fulton market area, which will allow us
to actually now get that real estate transfer.
So, um, then the, uh, the 300 million that,
that says reduction of, uh, corp subsidy of pension,
I thought the 175 was in that.
Am I mis clearly, I'm mistaken then. What is that?
The accurate reduction of corporate fund subsidy is, uh,
right now, uh,
because as, uh, the CFO had mentioned earlier, um, we,
we levy a property tax currently to pay for our debt service
and our pension, uh, obligations,
but our levy doesn't pay, uh,
doesn't fully satisfy those obligations.
Uh, right now it's less than, um, uh, 60% mm-Hmm.
Um, and so because our levies don't cover those full costs,
our corporate fund revenue is used to supplement, um,
and pay for the, the
Full cost. But this, but this was
an expenditure decrease.
Maybe I, maybe I'm just not understanding it. Okay.
They're no longer having to use our corporate fund
to pay into our pension fund.
So that is expenditure decrease. So it's, it's no longer,
But this isn't part of the CS ps this isn't part
of the CCPs part, no.
Oh, okay. Okay. Um, great.
Um, uh, one fee
that's kind of come up in some private conversations is the,
is the garbage collection fee of nine 50 a month.
Um, you know,
it's significantly less than surrounding townships.
It's was there, was there, um, yeah, I mean, thoughts on
That? Yeah. Um, uh,
definitely came up.
Uh, and it is one of those items that, again, uh, it, it,
um, I know that
that also has an impact on homeowners, obviously.
Sure. Um, and can add up over time.
But it was, it, it is something that was looked at
because it is significantly less than let's say, Oak Park
or, or one of those places.
Um, and would be, uh, we'd be willing
to have a longer conversation about that.
Right. Yeah. I ob obviously, if we were to,
it's nine 50 a month
and it brings in like $70 million, so if you doubled it,
which is still light, then you,
it's another $70 million give or take. Yeah.
And we looked, we looked at, we looked at that, um,
we looked at the cost of that service.
Um, and, you know, the, the, the full cost, um, would be,
we'd have to raise it to about $34 a month.
Um, which is, you know, if you look at,
I know you've probably looked at what the surrounding
Well, I read everything, doesn't mean I understand it.
So that's why I come for education. It's dollars.
Yeah. So if you're looking at, um, if you're looking at
what that would be annualized, it's about $400 per household
If you took it all the way to 34 though.
Right. Right, right, right.
But at nine 50 a month, it brings in,
it brings in like 70, is that right? I, that
That's correct. Sounds
About right. Okay. Yeah,
I think I read it in in, um, um, um,
and for the CFO,
quick question on the advanced pension payment is,
is the number of the,
is the supplemental payment amount chosen
to be a number so that the,
that the liability does not increase in size?
Is that how that number is chosen?
Yeah, it's calculated so
that the unfunded liability does not increase.
Yep. I'm sorry. Yes.
It's calculated such
that the unfunded liability does not increase.
Okay. Uh, thank, uh, thank you Mr. Chairman.
I yield the remainder of my three minutes in a very
efficient questioning, and thank you.
And I do thank, I think you three, by the way,
even though I b***h like, like I complain a little bit.
The FCC, uh, I think you three are, are
among the three finest people that work
for the executive branch of our city.
And I really want to thank you
all for your hard work on that.
Thank you. Uh, Altman Conway,
I had, I I just had the Snickers.
It hasn't kicked in yet. It, it is gonna give it a minute.
It'll, it'll kick in. It'll kick in in a minute.
Uh, so we're gonna go to, uh, alderman Scott, and then
after that we're going to mix in, uh, our non-members
that were on time with the balance of our members.
I got you. I haven't forgotten about you. I got you.
So, so, uh, so, uh, Altman Scott,
after you are a member, but you were late.
Uh, so we, we do want to, uh, well, that, Hey,
hey, wasn't there, I'm the, uh, again,
um, Altman Scott, followed by Alderman b
Hello.
Thank you guys for being here.
Um, I have a few comments and then questions.
Um, I know, you know,
if you hear from my colleagues,
nobody supports the $300 million,
um, Tax revenue.
A and you know, sitting here
and you're listening to everybody
and everybody's giving their thoughts
and their, their questions, you know, in this meeting,
we still have not come up collectively of, you know,
Conway just gave an example of how we can add to the, the
adding more money to the trash.
And that was kind of like, in a soft, subtle way,
turned down any revenue, you know,
all money is good money in this case.
Um, and it seemed like that was turned down the arpa,
someone just offered that as a solution, not as a a a a,
not as a, a fix long term,
but a fix of how we can not do the $300 million this year.
And that was turned down.
So what I would like to know is how can we,
aside from the three, aside from the taxes,
what other ideas did you all have
that probably wasn't put in the budget, that we can
work collectively together to try to, uh, garner additional,
um, revenue that doesn't have to nearly
that make us go to the taxes.
Was there any other ideas that you had?
You got a whole team sitting in the
box, bunch of smart folks.
So I, I know that it was some other ideas
that we can possibly work together, uh, to try to, you know,
have a, a equitable budget that everybody agrees on,
and that we get to a collective, um, you know,
a a 50 plus council member vote.
'cause right now it doesn't look like, you know,
it's gonna gonna pass because of that.
And so how can we work with you
and continue to work with you to make sure that this passes?
Thank you all. The women. Scott.
Um, I, I apologize if you, um, feel
that, you know, questions
that are being presented are being turned down.
Um, I think that what we're trying to provide is, um,
an analysis of, uh, what those options
mean for our budget,
not only this year, but into the future.
Um, you know, I think part of what we are reacting to is,
um, the continued use
of one-time funding in the city's budget.
Which is why I,
I think on some level we find ourselves in the position
that we find ourselves in having
to have the conversation every single year.
Um, you know, from our perspective,
we did a lot of this analysis.
We kicked a lot of these ideas around,
we looked at the garbage tax.
Um, for a lot of constituents,
the increase in the garbage fee to truly pay for the cost
of the service is more than
what a property tax would be for them.
Uh, a property tax increase.
Um, and so, you know, we did a lot of pros and cons
and, you know, this is the budget that we presented
because we thought it was the best path forward, not only
to fix structural issues with our budget,
but to also ensure that we're still able to provide, uh,
services without critical cuts.
I think that, you know, from our perspective, you know,
there are a lot of conversations we could have about,
you know, you know, to this extent, do you wanna raise fees
and taxes even more?
Do you, are there cuts that you think are palatable
to be made in the budget?
I think that those are all ideas and,
and options that are on the table.
Okay. So I got a question last year.
Historically, the revenue detail was, um, in the overbook
and the overview book, uh, it showed actual revenues
received and not the appropriated amount.
And so can you explain why the 2005 budget only shows the
appropriated amounts?
Um, so the revenue detail in the, the budget book, uh,
the actual amounts for 2020 for actually still year, year
to date for 2023, um, we are still, we're working
with the Department of Finance to ensure
that our internal system, our CBS system,
which holds the budget, actually
reflects the correct amounts.
Um, there was a lot when we looked at it,
we don't really understand how former administrations got
to those numbers, frankly.
Um, and so we are still working to make sure
that our systems actually reflect what we, um,
uh, are seeing in our audit.
So right now we're showing budget to budget
because essentially that is, um,
what the budget book is supposed to show.
The fer has the actual num the actual final numbers in it.
So we're showing budgeted numbers
and we leave the fer to provide the, the,
the actual numbers, uh, at the end of the year.
So example, so if, if you budgeted 10 million
and in 2004, um, just say like for
parking, um, and,
and we collected 40 million, then how do we know
what actual revenues that we collected if we're not showing,
um, you know,
actual budget numbers? So we still,
We are showing the budgeted numbers.
Um, uh, the act for the end of year audit for the city is
where the audited numbers, uh, exist for,
for all of those revenue sources. And
I, Yeah, but you'll never know, like it that,
so if it's 10 million
and you made 40, then we don't actually know
what a $30 million is.
'cause we're not showing the exact budget numbers.
So we're showing the budgeted numbers.
I mean, we're not showing the appropriate
numbers appropriate.
So we're showing the budgeted numbers.
What we're not showing in this particular book,
the budget book is the actual numbers as they're in the,
which is the, where the audited numbers. So you
Have to look at two books to see that.
So, so it's in the other, yeah. Okay. We,
And that's, and I can we have that
Okay. That was
the purple you
Got. Yeah. Yeah,
That's it for me.
Is it? Yeah, that's it for me.
The point on that, but the,
the Afro is la is the previous year's numbers, right? It's
The, it's 2023, Right?
So yeah, 2023 to 2025, which I relevance to that.
But I, we, I understand your point
and maybe a projection, uh, which is again, a projection
to the end of the year, potentially mitigate what you're,
uh, what you're thinking about, um, and, and doing.
So we do it, we do have year to date. Alright.
Uh, so we're gonna mix in a few more people.
Uh, alderman Bill, you're up, uh, followed
by Alderman Mitchell.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
And I think, uh, alderman Scott
for yielding her last three minutes
to me that she didn't use.
I appreciate that.
You gotta to watch the east, south side cast.
Good afternoon. Uh, no,
it's the west side you gotta watch.
Trying to get, Hey. Hi. All right.
Okay, let's just get right into it.
Um, can you give us a little more specifics on actually
what Alder and Scott was trying to allude
to What's plan B if you don't get a property tax increase?
What's plan B?
What's Plan B mm-Hmm.
I think that that's what the conversation
with City Council is about, is this is,
we presented you the, the mayor's plan.
Um, it will be through conversation
that we get a balanced budget.
Okay. So can you gimme any idea
what you would think a plan B would look like?
Um, what I would, because I don't know, you know,
what people are willing, willing to cut,
what revenues people are willing
to increase over the ones that we have.
I would say that I would encourage city Council
to look at ongoing, uh, structural solutions, um, uh,
as a priority.
Um, that we, uh, you know, we've already put, um, you know,
$140 million of one time, uh, funding in this budget.
Um, we think that's an appropriate amount, uh,
for this year, uh, or for next year.
I, I would just encourage us to continue to look for
structural solutions or we'll be in the same place
with the same very conversation next year. Okay.
Well, knowing what you know now, uh, last year
to forego the, uh, CPI, uh, do you think
that was a good idea to forego that from last year, knowing
that we're doubling it and bringing it back to
where it would've been?
So was that a good idea to do that?
And I think hindsight's always 2020.
I think that, you know, um,
we were in a very different place from a revenue perspective
with, uh, um, one of our revenue sources being a lot, um,
higher than it, uh, uh, is forecasted to be in the future.
Um, we were also in a different place where we went
after revenue source that, uh, we thought was progressive
and was gonna help this budget, um, year.
And so I would say at the time, uh, based on what we knew,
uh, this was not something
that we anticipated needing this year,
But you knew that we had a big pension payment
that was gonna be due and, um, that was a given.
So what, what did you anticipate happening that we forego
that, you know, we just dismissed that,
but at the same time, you know, we came back
to the trough two
or three times for additional migrant money.
So the, the funding for the pension payments
that was already reserved in the budget,
and we are just following through
with the plan that existed.
So, um, the property tax increase that, um,
you're referring to is not, is not being made
to support the supplemental pension payment.
Um, you know, again, the amount that we're looking
for, not only obviously is the CPI increase if we had taken
it over two years, but it's also the amount of money
that we would've received if our P-P-P-R-T hasn't gone down
as much and, um, had the revenue, um, uh, source
that we had put before voters gone through,
we would've raised another a hundred million dollars. Okay.
Um, knowing based on projections, uh, we kind of knew
around March that we had a problem.
Uh, why didn't we institute furlough days
and a hiring freeze back in March when we saw
that we had a potential problem?
Why did we wait till September?
So the, um, the uh, deficit
that we're mostly, uh, experiencing right now, um,
and as we had mentioned in the forecast, was driven
by mostly two things.
Not only the PPRT,
but also the, um, at the time
that we did the forecast uncertainty
around the M-E-A-B-F payment.
We've resolved that now.
And so, um, the, the we,
we usually don't get the MABF
payment until the end of the year.
And so that wasn't at the time in, in March,
we weren't ha having an outlook
of not having that by the end of this year.
So it wasn't driving down our revenues, um,
against our expenditures.
So in March we didn't anticipate, um, this gap.
Okay. Um, hmm.
I mean, it's kind of hard to see
with a whole team of people.
You gotta, there's a lot of a lot of smart people over there
and we couldn't, uh, foresee that.
Um, I mean that, that's a fundamental problem that I see.
Um, the TIFF payment, the TIFF suite, um,
why don't we just send CCP CPS the 320 million in order
for us to get the 1 75 back.
Why are we going above and beyond
and trying to bail out CPS in anticipating of their
raise in their new contract?
Why don't we just send them 1 75? Is
That, why don't we send them to three 20 in order for us
to get the 1 75 back,
The three 20, If we sweep one 20 that goes back,
we would, that are account to their 1 75 for us to get back.
So they're receiving 311 million from the TIF surplus
That's with the projected TIF surplus.
I'm saying why don't we send them three 20,
which under the formula will be 1 75 their portion for them
to send us that 1 75 bag
Under the formula we're sweeping 570 million
and they're getting 311 million.
If you wanna add $10 million to the budget to give to CPS,
that would be something
that maybe folks would consider. Um, but we think
I'm 11 million, I think you're missing me.
Why are we sweeping 570? Okay.
Which is going to give them 3 10, 3 20.
I'm saying let's only give them three 20 in order for us
to get 1 75,
You know, 3 3 20 in order to get them 1 75 Absolutely.
Based on their formula. Yes.
So I think, you know, we always have to remember that our
TIFF surplus calculation is based on state law.
Um, we have, uh,
19 TIFs expiring in 2020 at the end of this year, uh, 13
that are definitely expiring.
We have six that are up before city council for extension.
Mm-Hmm. And so that is putting, um, that are,
that automatically is $90 million.
So we do our TIF calculation based on a formula
that's by state law.
So we can't just keep money, uh, if
that's not allocated to a project.
So, um, this is based on unallocated dollars
that are in our TIF districts, um,
and expiring tiffs to which we cannot keep the dollars for.
Okay. Well I think that's a fundamental problem
because if you look at the TIFF sweep from last year
and the TIFF Sweep projected for this year,
that's a almost a billion dollars,
if not a little over a billion.
That's a lot of projects that we could be using in order
to create jobs
and opportunity to help us grow the city by bringing jobs
and opportunity into the area.
So are we not doing enough in this city to bring projects,
um, in order to, um, spend that money?
Um, I, I would have to defer your,
that particular question to, um,
our infrastructure departments,
but also the Department of Planning and Development.
Um, 'cause they're the ones who work, you know, hand,
hand in hand with developers,
but also city council on projects
that are earmarked for TIF dollars. Okay.
Well apply The formula,
You know, of the TIFs that were,
of the monies that were swept outta the tiff.
Uh, there, that was nothing.
There were no current projects that were canceled
and there's no economic development project are canceled.
Like the projects were canceled.
That's my, that's what I'm saying. That's a problem.
I think we need to be creating projects to spend that money
so it wouldn't be swept in order to grow the city.
We, we, we're not gonna cut our, we have to grow out
of this problem that we have,
and the only way we're gonna grow is to continue to build
jobs and opportunity in this city.
And if we keep sweeping the one tool that we had,
but now we have the 1.2 billion,
but how, how much have we bonded so far out out
of the 1.2 billion
that was voted on? How much have we bonded on?
We're using cash on hand. We're gonna,
Okay. So we haven't bonded
any of that money yet. We're gonna bond
In probably January. Okay.
All right. Well,
We have a lot of cash at the city.
We can do that. That's typically what we do, is we fund,
we fund projects and we reimburse, reimburse ourselves.
Okay. One of the advantages,
So help me understand how in the last four years,
our corporate budget has gone from 12 billion
to 17 billion.
Uh, the corporate budget hasn't.
The corporate budget is, uh, around 5.6 billion.
The total appropriation, which is across all of our funds,
is 17.3.
Um, I think, I can't remember
who asked the question earlier.
Um, but that, um, largely the increase,
especially the year over year increase in next year's budget
is a hundred percent, uh, based on grant revenue,
our enterprise funds and our special revenue fund increases.
Um, our corporate fund
is actually going down year over year.
Okay. But overall, we have grown our budget from 17,
I'm sorry, from 12 to 17 in the last four years.
Yeah. The federal government has actually pushed a lot
of dollars into municipalities
and states over the last several years, both from, uh,
COVID-19 aid, but then also through, um,
very large infrastructure, uh, grants.
So, so a lot of that money is covid money,
money that's come from a lot of
It's also infrastructure. So we've
been relying on that instead of preparing for
that money not to be there.
So now the rooster has come home to Roos,
and now we're, you know, looking at raising taxes,
Fine Fees. I
actually, I think you make a really good point.
Um, I don't think we're relying on it.
Um, so the infrastructure dollars are
for infrastructure work.
Um, a lot of that's going to departments like cdot, um, uh,
some of it's going to some
of our other infrastructure departments.
Um, I actually think that we're, we're actually in alignment
with, you we're very clear in our assignment,
in not relying on one-time funding to support our budget,
which is why our corporate fund is actually going down.
Um, because we understand
that we have to live within our means.
Um, and we're now seeing where our revenues,
where they are currently today and much more,
they're gonna increase as we put
and bring more revenue sources online
to support our growing costs.
Would you like a round two, sir? And three, two and three.
Yes, sir. All right. We'll put you around
for the third if need be.
Altman Vasquez, uh, followed by.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ramirez. Uh, I'm sorry. No.
Um, alderman, uh, Moore was next.
Thank you. I greatly appreciate it.
Um, uh, I, I think that most of our colleagues, um,
were articulating a sense of frustration, um,
not necessarily, or not only with Mayor Johnson's, uh,
budget with the $300 million property tax increase,
but also the lack of a real process.
And I, I appreciate that even though it's being presented
as though there was, there was this spirit of collaboration,
us not getting information until October 31st
to vote on a budget at the end of the year.
Isn't collaborating a budgeteer process
where no one had information to tell us anything
and we weren't able to get information back,
is not the spirit of collaboration.
Since last year, actually, since
before this term, I've been saying
that we need a working group of ALS
to work all year round knowing
that these issues are gonna happen.
It's not in the spirit of collaboration
to keep us out of it.
Also, the information that the departments send
to the administration at the end of July,
they give you the data and the information.
We don't receive any information from
that time at July 31st, all the way to October 31st.
So it's not in the spirit of collaboration to say, Hey,
we'll let you know what the budget is,
and when we finish, by the way,
we're gonna push it back two more weeks.
We're gonna have an address.
We're not gonna let you know beforehand.
We're gonna embargo the information
to the press, let them know beforehand.
And then you guys will find out
when we do the budget address.
That's not the spirit of collaboration.
And when we're all bringing up different ideas and sources,
and we're being told, well, here's why that's not feasible,
it is also not in the spirit of collaboration.
When we think about other sources,
when people bring up ARPA funds
and trying to use that to actually stop gap
to create a bridge to keep us afloat
until we can figure out more revenue,
and we're being told, well, that's not something we do.
It's only a onetime thing. TIF surplus is a onetime thing.
Refinancing is a onetime thing. CPIs not a one-time thing.
And it was something that, that last year, a number
of us said, we need to keep it. That was removed.
Is there a question? Yeah.
Can we actually get collaboration?
Because what's going on right now is an
administration presenting a budget.
And now as the mayor had said in a q and a, I did my part,
and you're expecting us to help solve this problem,
but when we're bringing up solutions, we're being told
that they're not feasible. So let
The problem is ask a question.
Yes. You said you had a question. So asking,
What does collaboration actually look like in your view?
Um, I do think that, you know, we, uh,
put together those, uh, meetings with the budgeters
as a way for collaboration.
I think that there's some work to do there, um, to make sure
that everyone feels comfortable sharing their ideas, um, in,
in the area of, uh, um, productivity.
Um, but I, I do think that that was, um, our way of, uh,
having members
and leaders of city council work with us on ideas.
Um, and I think that there is an area for improvement there.
So to that, to that point through the chair,
if you can share any information
through the budgeteer process that led to any level
of any ideas, same as
with the revenue committee, anything at all.
That's an idea we would appreciate through the chair.
I've gotten more through the chair questions I like
to ask. Um,
Hold on. Uh,
could you, um, repeat your question?
What, what are you, what are you asking for?
If through the chair you could share any level of note
or documentation of any ideas that were shared at all
with anyone at the budget tier process
that would be appreciated as well as any notes related
to the subcommittee on revenue of
what actual ideas were presented
and how they were vetted, what ideas we had
for other revenue sources, what ideas for cuts, if
that could get sent to the chair as far as the things
that weren't put on this budget,
but were considered, that would be what I'd be asking for.
Okay. Um, I'd also like through the chair,
the percentage of budgeted position from 2024
that were going have gone unfulfilled
for more than, uh, six months.
Right. So everyone's got these vacancies,
they're not filling them if it's longer than six months.
I'd like to know the list of what those positions are
as we're looking at it.
Um, I'd also like through the chair
any vacancies that have been just
persistent throughout time.
We know that there's obviously revenue that
or turnover that's factored in,
but there's also vacancies that aren't a part of turnover
that has been sitting and languishing there.
That to know what those positions are, uh, would be helpful.
Those are corporate you're asking in, in the general fund.
Mm-Hmm. Yes, please. Corporate fund. Okay.
Yeah, that would be helpful.
Um, I guess, uh, another question I've got is, uh,
there's a nine oh a re 9 0 9 a reserve balance.
That's a new kind of concept that's in this budget
that we hadn't seen in prior years.
And so we've got people looking through data, they're kind
of perplexed as to, um,
what the intent is, what the concept is.
So could you better like, explain to us
what the reserve 9 0 9 a means?
Yeah. So that is, um, oh, I'm gonna kick it over
to my grants manager, uh, managing deputy
to answer that. Please
Identify yourself for the record.
Matthew Schmitz, managing Deputy Budget Director.
Um, thank you all I Ma Vasquez. Yeah.
So one of the things we noticed, um, is, you know,
with grant funds, because they often run over multiple, uh,
fiscal years, and they often come at a variety
of different times throughout our fiscal year.
Uh, the feds are on a different calendar than us, uh,
the state's on a different calendar than us.
We often include large carryover balances from prior years
that tend to distort our revenue figures that we anticipate
to get, um, in this budget cycle.
And so what we tried to do is we tried to create, um,
an account that allowed people for analysis purposes
to easily kind of set aside, uh, carry over funds
that are already kind of earmarked
and reserved for expenditures that are happening, um,
and really focus on the itemized new expenditures we're
proposing based off the grant money we anticipate receiving.
Um, so that was, that was trying to be done in an effort
to kind of make it more transparent to say, this is
how much grant money we actually get every year, instead of,
you know, conflating it
with the money we've been carrying it over for, for years.
Gotcha. Thank you. The other thing
that came up is like this concept
of like negative appropriations.
There's like some line items that are negative numbers,
like, so negative 21,000 for like an expense.
I, is that kind of similar, like some counter expense?
Like I just don't understand the logic on some of it
that would be helpful as we're looking through budget.
Sure. So that, that,
that essentially is tantamount to like a turnover number.
So you, you, you, you should only see those for, um, uh,
I believe it's account triple oh six salary provision.
Um, which, which, uh, accounts for when grant positions are,
uh, expected to attribute out
or delays in hiring into those positions.
Um, we, we, we factor that in, um, uh,
to the net cost against the grant. Okay.
Thank you. Yeah. Um,
so cofa, I'm trying to go through this.
COFA is and power powered by Municipal Code have access
to the Chicago budgeting system, FMPS
and other parts of the budgeting process
to do their own financial analysis for your council.
Uh, when we reached out, uh, to cofa, they're like, well,
we kind of have a couple days as well.
We just received it. Kind of similar, what's the process
for COFA to access the data from OBM, uh,
and has that been requested?
What's typically the timeline for cofa getting
that information so they can make their assessments?
Can I start one sooner? 'cause uh, I hope this is clear.
They do receive the pre information with the too, which is,
which is also what OBM is receiving to help them
with their decision making.
And they get it at basically the same time that Okay.
O BM does. So I don't, I, they might not see that
as being the same similar things,
but I just wanna make that clear too.
Okay. And then, which is July-ish.
So that's the same time when they get the department ones,
they all get kind of the same time and access? Uh,
Yeah. And we sit down with them.
Okay.
And there's some conversation.
The reason why I ask that is we're, we're
where we are now, but in future years, knowing that
that's the timeline, I, I would, I would like, as part
of the management ordinance requested hearings
with Kofa when they get that information.
So they're also sharing with some of their analyses as well.
Because again, we were kind of left in the dark until how,
you know, October 30th.
And in a way that doesn't help us on
when we're trying to make decision making.
Um, last question I've got for the first round
is in the mayor's office, there's about $3.8 million
for special programs without any
specificity on what that's for.
Would you be able to say what that There's that,
and there's also a restoration committee
that I'm wondering if that's the reparations committee also.
So that is, okay. The special
$3.8 million in the mayor's office,
I believe is in the cannabis fund.
And those are, that's within the Office of Reentry
for the grants, uh, that they will be, uh, uh,
putting out, um, next year.
Okay. If you could send, are those grants already kind
of thought through their there details
or a list of what those grants are that we could see? Yeah,
They are thought through. Yeah. If you could
send that through the
charity, I'd appreciate it.
Um, then I'd, uh, I've got more, so I'll,
I'll wrap up and have her around too.
Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Moore.
Thank you Much. Although Chairman Alderman, I was,
you almost missed out.
Alta been Ramirez. Oh, you want her? No, no, no. You good?
You're, you're next then her.
All right. Uh, thanks so much.
First of all, um, if I'm looking at the LRB um,
report and I'm looking at,
um, page four,
What If, if it's a report,
I might not have the report that you're referring
To. Okay. That's okay. But I just
want the, uh, point out
and the notes on the refuse collections effective July 1st,
remove the requirements
that a senior receive a senior property tax freeze
to be eligible for fixing reduction in refuse collection.
Uh, I just want to thank you all for, you know,
doing that prioritizing
Of that. Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.
We've had that conversation
last and looking for our seniors.
I, I, I really appreciate that. And then on,
Actually think Alderman Card gave us that
Last year. Thank you Alderman
Cardona.
And then on, uh, page, um, two,
um, again, the right sizings for the, um, senior,
everyone on the, except for, um, the seniors, um,
over 65 that you all are protecting, um, from that increase.
So I wanna say, um, thank you to that as well as thank you
for all the various important reports, budget director, um,
that help us, um, identify not only tif um, information,
but the tax information that you had prepared.
So we can break down and, um, show our, um, constituents.
I just wanna say thank you and your team, um,
for those efforts.
Um, Kofa on question one, on your book on page
18, um, I had it in front of me.
Let me get it going. Unless I'm reading something,
unless I'm reading something wrong.
I get to page 18
Kofa Report. Which report?
Kofa where she, where Kofa go. There they are.
I just wanna understand, you said, uh,
department on finance ing overtime, cost
of ffy turn I expected to raise by
4.8% increasing from
31,500 to three hundred and twenty six five hundred.
Is that a miss, miss? Right.
Because it said if increasing by 4.8%, that's,
and then you put those numbers there.
So I'm lost. 'cause that's more than a 4.8%. Yeah,
It's six. It should be 6.6.
I think.
I, I'm not sure. I don't, I don't have the report in.
Oh, I was, I was talking Kofa
'cause it's their report and that's still here.
6.3 now that's why I went to page 18.
I just wanna know if that was a typo or,
or if I'm reading it wrong. Al
Alderman, are you asking for the increase in the finance
budgets percentage from,
It's that oh, 27 Department of Finance overtime cost
for FFY 25 are expected to rise by five point
by 4.8% increasing from 31,500
to 326,000.
That's not a 4.8% increase. Am I reading it wrong?
I I, none of us have that report, so, uh,
No, no. That's why I'm asking.
Oh. Oh. It's, that question is not for us. Thank you.
Hold on. We'll, uh, hold that, hold
that thought and we'll respond.
She'll, they'll respond to that.
But go to your next question.
Okay. Thank you. It's on, uh, page eight, um, 18.
So you can, uh, look at it.
I just wanna make sure that I'm not
need being anything wrong.
And on the LRB, um, that bag tax,
it said it removes the 0.2 commission
'cause it was already 7%.
What does that mean? We're gonna get the full seven now
or are we getting five and four?
Yeah, so we, so it's a concession charge.
So we have done these in prior years.
Um, so of the 7 cents, so it's 7 cents, right?
That is charged for the bag fee. Mm-Hmm.
Five of those cents have been going to the city
and 2 cents have been going to the retailer.
As you, you may have remembered in, I think it was 2008
or 2009, some of those concessions, like
around the morph fee and things like that,
there were something similar to help them transition.
Those were sunset,
those would be doing something similar. So the city would be,
So we getting our full 7%?
The full 7 cents. 7 cents. Okay. That's what I want.
The, uh, and then I wanna be clear on the, uh,
LRB on page three, uh, number four
and five, I talk about the whole sale, um, fee.
That's just, that's just,
and I wanna be clear, that's just penalties, right?
That's not, that's not an
additional fee that they have to pay.
Those are penalties, right?
What, what are you wholesale retailers?
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. That's
Just, it's penalties, right?
If they don't follow certain
On the, It's the wholesale, sorry, the,
the one you're talking about is, uh, right sizing
that particular fee
because, um, there is a difference in what, um, we charge
to wholesale and, um,
retail establishments based on square footage.
So that one in particular is just, um, um,
making it more, um, consistent.
Okay. So
it is a license
fee is doubles the license fee
for wholesale food service from six 60 to 1320.
Okay. So then it cuts ahead, uh, general business fine.
So is it a fine
or are they, is there actual fee doubling
Are you looking at? It's two different,
it's two different
ones. So the, so we got
Wholesale food, I'm sorry.
License fee is one where we are increasing the fee
to 1320 from six 60 per year.
And that is to ensure that, um, uh,
we are level setting both the
businesses engaged in wholesale with the businesses, uh,
and retail food license.
The business license fine
that you're talking about is a compliance, um,
item from BACP.
Um, where they are seeing, uh, businesses who,
um, I don't have that one.
Businesses who essentially don't pay the fine, I mean,
don't pay, uh, the fee that they're required to
because the fine is it, it it's set at such a level
that's almost the same as the fee
that they'll just pay the fine.
And so in order to get the fee paid
and the information that we need
and ensure that businesses are actually complying
with our ordinances, make it harder and,
and penalize them for not doing, um, the paying the fee.
And I believe the other item too,
to mention there M-B-A-C-P can elaborate this is,
we were also very low on those compared to some other cities
Low on those compared to some other cities, both
Licensing and fines.
But there's going, but the license fee is doubling from
6 60 13 20.
And what if, and are we just saying it's wholesale
or is we, are we going to base it on square feet?
Because I, what if you got a place that's wholesale,
but it's the size of a,
It's based on the, uh, size of the, um, uh, uh,
the square footage of the wholesale, uh, retail, uh,
wholesale establishment.
So I don't have the square footage.
Um, sorry, it's, yeah, it's based on square footage,
but I don't have the actual square
footage in front of me right now.
Yeah. Get that for me. 'cause then the square footage,
the prices, the fee's gonna be different then it should be
if it's based on square footage.
'cause I just wanna make sure we're not
hurting some of the businesses.
Um, and the currently
Based on square footage, just, just so you know, it's,
it's just that it's only six 60 per
year per that square footage.
We're increasing it to 1320.
Okay. And I think somebody answered my question about the,
um, the $345 million, um,
um, tax.
And that brings us, you're saying that brings us in line
with what CPI would've been, right?
Am am I right at
This by 2025, what we,
what our property tax levy would've been? Right.
Um, how much revenue from cannabis did
we get this year?
I didn't, I didn't get to ask that in my,
So we normally get around, um, 4.5 good years,
$5 million a year in cannabis.
Um, we, we both get, uh,
funding in excise tax on our cannabis,
which goes into the corporate fund.
And then on the cannabis regulation tax, uh, it's about,
it's about 4.5 million
For year. So in total, is
we still looking
around 5 million with all that?
I actually have this, just gimme one
second. I actually, I have
A, well, they're, uh, while they're looking for that,
the number that you brought on the Kofi sheet was actually a
typographical error.
It should be three 11.5
and not 31.5, just, which is compute to 4.66.
Right. Thank you. I just want to be Thank you, chairman.
So, um, on the excise tax part of the cannabis fund, we,
uh, get about $5.7 million a year, uh, 5.5 to 5.7.
We're expecting 5.5 next year on the regulation tax.
Um, we get about 4.6.
The 5.5 million will be deposited in our corporate fund.
The 4.6 is deposited within our cannabis fund.
So in all the city raises about $10 million a year in
Cannabis. And what are, and, and,
and then is Cannabis Fund, what would you
what we do, we use that money for?
So based on state statute, it is, uh, it has to be,
it's narrowly construed, right?
So it's usually, um, uh, the, the eligibility
for the funding that goes into our cannabis fund, uh,
really has to be used, um, to mitigate against the harm
that, um, um, uh,
mitigate against the harm
of incarceration and things like that.
So a lot of the programming that comes out of
that is why it's in the Office of Reentry.
It's why the funding is being used for, um,
the reparations and restoration committee.
So we go through a lot of work with our department of law.
We'll talk about that after. I'm gonna cut you off,
we'll talk about that online so I can know
what we could be using it for.
Oh man, that went quick.
You like a round two, sir? I guess so.
Alright. Round two.
Uh, uh, Altman Ramirez, followed
by Alderman Walker Speck.
Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
You know, I'm gonna actually follow up on the Cannabis
Regulation tax fund
because I did have a question about that.
Um, is that through the R three process? The R three board?
Uh, does our funding come from the R three?
Yeah, it comes, no, it comes from the sale of cannabis.
Um, it's through, I can't remember what state statute, um,
authorized it, but our, our funding comes directly, uh,
through the sale of cannabis.
So it's not through the state.
It's a specific tax just for the city?
Uh, no, it, it was auth,
obviously it's authorized at the state level.
Right. Um, so you have, uh, cannabis distribution that,
that can happen across the state.
Um, we have authorized licensees in the city of Chicago
to establish businesses.
And, um, uh, I believe,
I think this is when we collect ourselves is, or
Yeah. But there's a lot of
restrictions on cannabis, um,
through the, and it's the recreational, um,
uh, cannabis act.
I believe in that there's a fixed amount of dispensaries
that can ever be in the city of Chicago.
So it's a stagnant amount of money.
So it's not really, uh, it doesn't really grow beyond that.
So are we kind of maxed out to that potential,
Uh, Money?
And the reason why I bring it up is
because it seems like it's funding a lot
of the priorities that the mayor has.
It's, and so this would be a source to fund that. Uh,
And I, and I'm not trying to dodge the question on this.
My understanding is there are a few more dispensaries
that can come that the state is issuing licenses for.
Once we reach that cap though, that's kind of
until a state law changes the,
and that comes from the state.
Got it. Okay. Okay.
And, um, in speaking of the state, since veto session
is coming up and overlaps with budget, is there any plan
to sort of move forward
during veto session on any potential funds with the state?
Um,
Yeah. So we,
um, have, uh,
been talking regularly with the governor's office.
Uh, we are, um, in the midst of putting together, um,
uh, proposals.
Um, but as the CFO mentioned earlier, a lot
of what's gonna have to happen at the state level is gonna
have to have a coalition behind it.
Um, they're in pretty significant, uh,
financial, uh, straits as well.
And so, uh, based on how their, um,
budget session went this year, um, they know it's gonna need
to have a pretty big coalition
to get things passed through their journal assembly.
So that's the work that we'll be doing over the next,
um, several months.
Um, also generally from the feedback that we've received,
we don't expect there to be revenue items
that will come in the veto session.
Yeah. And, and just to put a finer point on that,
as you might know, there's a higher threshold
in the veto session for a passage of anything.
Right. Um, so
that's why traditionally it's been more difficult
to see large revenue items go through at that time.
Got it. But discussions will obviously be occurring.
Okay. And then I feel like my colleagues have asked
questions around this about just are there any other taxes,
um, without state approval
that we can pass through the city?
That has been considered
Yeah. That, that was
one of
The requests that is that what did that Alder woman had in
Had that she could be passed along.
Okay, great. We'll make copies and get it there.
So that was kind of what Alder
woman had and was getting to.
Um, I had a question
around the Clear Path Relief program Yep.
And the work being done there.
And curious about revenue, n revenue that's generated
through those parking violations.
Uh, when you ask revenue wise, what do you mean?
So re revenue generated
through parking violations per board.
Oh, yeah. And you know, whether, I guess the Department
of Finance is making sure that they're following up,
doing the community engagement to make sure people are
Yeah. So we have,
uh, an advertising budget for the CPR,
and then you might know, and we've
been to your ward at this Yeah.
Where we have the flyers and those sort of items.
We try to go to the community events, um, uh, you know,
the alderman let us know about a lot of those as well.
And then, um, we have it online portal as well.
When you go to go do your payment, whether it's through Kios
or, or anything like that, you can try to sign up for one
of those payment plans if you,
if you have the eligibility for Mm-Hmm.
Um, and then if you call in, um,
and this also happens when there's collections too.
Um, the collections, uh, component will remind folks
that there are these programs in case they're eligible.
Okay. So yeah, we do get, um, out of all of the programs,
UBR, um, CPR
and a DAR, uh, the administrative one is the,
is the least popular,
but it's also the least amount of that kind
of debt that we have.
TPR is very popular because of the fix-it defense,
and the, um, you get your, your ticket wiped if you kind
of show that component.
So, um, yeah, we,
we think we have pretty good coverage on it,
but we'll keep going around the wards and everything.
Got it. Um,
and so my next question is really
around like third party contracts.
Mm-Hmm. And just like, is, are there any numbers, like a lot
of my colleagues were talking about scaling
down different departments.
Are there, is there any way to scale down like 30 part third
party contracts and the
amount of money we're spending there?
Do you mean vendor contracts or? Yeah.
Um, so these all support, you know, work
that's being done in the, in the city,
whether it's our jock contracts with our infrastructure, um,
with two fm or it's our contracts for, you know, um,
consultants to do our audits or things like that.
So, you know, each of these items, you know, based on the,
the conversations that we go through every single year
with our departments are contracts that we have budgeted
for the critical services of the city.
So are you asking if we can scale them down?
We we can stop doing things?
Um, I think that that's part of the conversation
that we would have with City Council.
Um, and we'd have to understand the implications of that.
Um, but also, um, you know, I would say, uh,
the contracts are naturally, um,
in the budget they increase based on the contractual
terms every single year.
So it's just really a question of, you know, in our mind,
what are we not going to do?
Yeah. And this is similar to a line
that Alderman Riley was, was down on
how we build our budgets, um, on a department level.
So I'll say for us, we look at, okay,
what are all the contracts that are coming due?
Do we need this? Right?
Um, and that's basically the first question to it.
Um, for us it's a little challenging
'cause a lot of our third party contracts
are actually revenue generating.
So like, um, the LA contract for parking meter now, not,
not the actual them organizing it,
but the, the like, uh, weekend, uh, ticketing
and those sort of things, those obviously generate money.
So that would be a, a difficult one to get rid of.
But yeah, we consider that every year about
what's coming due.
Um, last year we got rid of one
because it was no, no longer needed.
Okay. Awesome. And then my last question is around, um,
and I hope this is like the right folks to ask,
is just the environmental impact.
So if we have contracts with folks, with businesses
that are violating, are we making sure
that we're following up about those violations
and getting fees as it relates to environmental impact?
I, I think this is an area that, um,
chief Sustainability Officer Angela
Tovar is very focused on.
I, I don't, I, to be honest, I don't have a lot
of information on exactly how, um,
those enforcement actions will take place
under her authority.
But I know this is an area that she's spoken about
and, uh, you know, this might be something that is raised
during her, her budget hearing. Okay.
Okay. That is my questions and my time.
Thank you Alderman. Uh, alderman, uh, Walker Spec followed
by the young man, alderman Moes.
Thanks chairman. Um, appreciate all the work all
of you and your staff are doing.
Um, know it's a long day,
but, um, these are good conversations to start out with.
Um, I personally find it very hard to, uh,
trust the mayor's budget
after so many fiscally irresponsible actions over the past
year after hearing about this property tax hike.
Um, my constituents, both the residents
and the businesses went through the roof
and, uh, frankly, they find it near impossible
to support any kind of property tax hike coupled
with the reassessment that's coming,
unless they see some, uh, fiscal responsibly, uh, driven
cuts or changes in local government.
Um, you know, and I heard the mayor say the other day,
you know, lean in and sacrifice some more,
hitting them with this increase.
And, um, basically telling them to accept it,
otherwise threatening further damage
to public safety if they don't.
And I think that's just irresponsible.
And I think anybody sitting up there saying that, um,
doesn't understand what's going on in this city at this time
to say, take it or leave it.
Um, when I heard, uh, a couple
of my colleagues also talk about what's happening in
Springfield, you talked about coordination, budget director,
I don't think we should be talking about coordination.
Um, you know,
the mayor was on a mission this entire past year
with the Bears and the White Sox,
and sorry fans if you're one of 'em.
But, um, saying that they are the priority of this city
and made promises on behalf of the taxpayers
that he can't keep and that we could never afford,
never afford what they're asking for.
So one can only sit there
and wonder, um, why the mayor's promising the city Treasury
to a couple of teams, prioritizing them over taxpayers.
Uh, so I don't think, again, coordination is the key here.
I think the mayor should tell Springfield
and tell the teams we don't have money
to play ball for them.
So if you're going down to Springfield, please take
that off the list of things that you're asking for.
It's just become absolutely ridiculous
to have this conversation continue on
and make promises to sports teams that we can't keep.
So that's number one. Um, going to the questions now
that I'm glad a lot
of colleagues have asked over the last few hours, um,
a simple one is going back to this interest income, um,
you mentioned it was $95 million for 2023 Budget Director.
Um, I could not find that in the book.
Was that under a,
a different item within one of our books?
The 95 million? Yes.
That's the actual amount of interest we received, not
Budget. That was in 2023.
That's the actual amount in 2023 that we received.
Okay. So if it's in the book that it's, um,
and I checked prior years, I went back to 2010 trying
to figure out what that average was.
It was about, say, $4 million over the last 14 years.
Um, I'm just, if you could provide that
through the chair, that would be helpful.
'cause I did not see anywhere in any of our budget books
where yeah, it was 95 million. Uh,
The explanation on that I think we're already
providing through the chair.
Okay. Uh, and I'm happy to also sit down with you on that as
Well. Okay. And it,
I know you won't. And, and as I mentioned
earlier, 'cause it was asked,
it would be in the er be audited, that's
where spending tables are.
That's where our actuals are
reflected at the end of every year.
Um, the, uh, budget shows the budgeted appropriation.
And you're right, for the last several years, based on
how we were recognizing interest income, it was really low.
But changes that were made at, in the treasurer's office,
um, uh, allowed for us to actually recognize
that interest income and
We'll, we'll go through this.
Okay. Yeah, I think it should be
reflected if that's the case.
'cause otherwise I think that number just,
it looks a little misleading.
Um, on the proposed budget, uh, we have a total
of 2.85 billion in contributions
to the four pension funds on page 48.
And then we see, um,
and that was a $101 million increase over 2024.
But then a little further down, you have it at 2.919 billion
I think on page 1 75 and maybe 48.
Is there, um, is that just the typo
or is that, um, what would the actual number there be?
Which book are you in?
Um, lemme see if I can find it here. Uh, overview.
Um,
Could you say the page numbers again?
Page 49, I believe The,
It sounds, uh, the 2.9 is the, uh,
statutory contribution plus the advanced
contribution. What was the other number?
Yeah, it says the Propo 48 says the proposed budget
includes total of 2.85 billion in
contributions to the four funds.
But then I think it's, uh, page one 40.
What did I say there? Sorry, 1 48 maybe
What? Well, two pages
you said 49 'cause that's grants that's on
1 75. Okay. Yeah,
It says 2.919 billion.
So I don't know if that was just a typo
or if additional funds came in and we missed the other
and it is in the 25 book.
No. Okay. So are you, hold on.
Are you on A PDF versus the actual book?
I'm on A PDF. Alright.
Look at the bottom where the star is
and tell us what page that is. 'cause you, you on
The, oh, no, no, not no, I know what you mean.
Uh, no, it's, um,
Yeah, you got them books Andre created. Just trying
Here come here, come here, come here.
It's fine. Hold on. 48
Page. Oh, it's 48. It's
48. 48. Oh man.
Oh, 48 is blank or something.
Thought it was somebody else.
Do you mean page 57?
That man takes his job. Seriously. Look at that.
He is, he's looking at the pages.
Uh, it says 48 on the actual book.
Yeah, I think your, uh, page 57 is the,
is the table in the budget overview, um,
that shows the summary of proposed expenditures,
pension funds with a 24 budget and a 25 proposed.
And the 25 is 2.919 million.
Yes, that's correct. Yeah,
Hold on. Uh,
you can stop the clerk get a point of order from, uh,
alderman, uh, Lopez.
Thank you Chairman. I just wanna commend, uh,
the comptroller for coming directly
to our seat to answer questions.
I don't think I've ever seen this in 10 years, so thanks.
We, we, we've been here a bit, so I figured that would say
Some time.
I don't have any snacks over here, so.
Alright, so, uh, alright.
I think we're on page 57 in the overview book.
Is it, have these little bars on it? Is this it?
Uh, if that's the printed version,
hold on, let me go back up.
Alright. No, no, it's page, it's on the PDF, it's page 49
and then 48 for the, oh, you're right.
Yeah, the bar is up there, but it's off set by full page.
That's the, we're on the same page then page 56
and 57 in the, uh, actual book, physical book.
And then what was the second
page that you were mentioning?
Uh, I think it's on page 49 also.
My, my apologies that thing's, so 50, you're right.
Uh, J chairman, it's 57 for the chart
that says 2.919. Correct.
Okay. And what was the other page you were referencing?
Yeah, it's 48 on my PDF, but that
Would be, uh, you know, what I think you're talking about
is in, are you looking at the chart?
'cause on 56 there's a, uh, stacked bar chart
and it does say 2.850 versus
the 2.919.
Um, so we will,
I'm not sure off the top why there's a discrepancy there,
but we will figure it out.
Okay. Yeah, that's, if that's all it is, that's great.
My apologies for not getting the book out. That's
Okay. Um,
But I'll take a second. Thank
You for noticing.
Um, and then, uh, let's see,
I don't know if this was asked yet,
but do we have a estimated settlement cost for this year?
And that would include police, which is typically, you know,
pretty significant if we have the Guevara cases coming.
Um, I know in there it says, um, 51 million
for routine payments.
Um, but we also have, uh, potentially
that $120 million parking meter payment that
for the loss in arbitration.
Um, so I didn't know if those were included in the budget.
Um, yeah, uh, if you look on, in your book
on page
180 6 in finance general,
Yes.
Um, payments for judges,
which includes settlements and outside counsel.
Um, $51.6 million.
Correct. But the meter arbitration was 121 million.
And, um, the GAVA cases we've been told could be
potentially in the tens of millions.
So that's, and that also says, um, in separate
document routine payments,
Uh, we are continuing to, uh, uh, fight that,
uh, parking, uh, meter litigation, uh,
as well as we are actively taking steps
to mitigate the potential damages.
Okay. Um,
and then just sort of a general policy question,
as the chairman was kind of talking to earlier, um,
you know, obviously we're in, we're gonna be, uh, dealing
with the different presidential administration.
Have you guys started talking about
how grants are gonna be affected for both infrastructure,
healthcare and other items over the next year or two?
Hold on a second. Second, second. Your mic is annoying.
Uh, thank you. Matthew Schmitz,
managing Deputy Budget director of our grant operations.
Um, yes, you know, with any administration, uh, we try to,
uh, gauge kind of the levels of funding that, uh,
we'll be coming to the city.
The good thing about a lot
of the infrastructure money we've received over the,
under the bipartisan infrastructure law is a lot of
that money, uh, has actually flowed to the city
through commitments already.
Um, uh, but of course there's always a risk that, um,
the administration changes its priorities.
Uh, the one thing I will say is, you know, the city went
through four years under a Trump administration, um,
and we actually didn't see significant drops
in, in federal funding.
Um, there, there were some caveats to some
of the grant awards and some conditions that we accepted
that, you know, we'll have
to be cognizant of this time around.
But as of now, because Congress does appropriate the funds
and, and there's a lot of bipartisan
and support for a lot of the, uh, especially formula funding
that comes to the city, uh, we don't anticipate, uh,
any dramatic declines, but of course that that could change.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Uh, alderman Mosley Europe,
uh, followed
by Cruz Cruise.
There you are. Alderman Cruz, you're after Alderman Mosley.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
And thank you all so much for being here tonight.
Uh, definitely want to shout out the, uh, budget director
for spending so much time with the 21st War.
You came down and gave a very,
very detailed in depth presentation about the process, um,
and illuminated some things, uh,
and just gave so much of your time and talent.
So thank you for that.
Um, one of the things that we didn't get to talk about at
that meeting meeting was the property tax.
Uh, and so this
proposed budget would hit the 21st ward, which is very hard.
We have a lot of the city workers
and adjacent workers that live in our ward.
Um, and then also a lot of seniors who say,
even if it's $10 a month, I just can't afford it.
Um, so I wanna be committed
and working to find any better solutions.
Um, one thing that I hear time
and time again is new revenue sources.
So I, I think we have something coming on that, uh,
would love to look through those things, um,
to find out answers.
Um, I, I do wanna ask, when we talk about the investments
that we are making, do we know
what those investments are offsetting in terms of costs?
Like what are they preventing?
Have we, um, put a dollar amount to what
that would've cost us if we didn't make these types
of investments, uh,
but would still have to have some financial
costs associated with it?
If I, if I am understanding your question correctly, like
what is the cost of, of, of,
Of not doing cost,
Not doing more shelter beds, what's the cost of, um,
not doing rapid reh?
Is that what you mean? Yes. So actually, uh, DFSS does have
analysis on, um, what the cost to the city, um, is.
It's obviously, it's, it's not a direct cost, meaning,
you know, we're not paying for a vendor, things like that.
But there is cost in, you know, uh, increased use
of our law enforcement.
There's increased paramedic, um, uh, usage.
There's increased hospitalization.
Um, there's increased, uh, work
that our infrastructure departments have to do,
street cleaning, things like that.
So, uh, they have done some analysis of what the cost
of not making investments would be, especially, uh,
when it comes to the homeless, um, population.
Um, so that would be something I would definitely encourage
that to be asked during their budget hearing.
And this may be another question for DFSS, just about
how are we prioritizing, um, Chicago Native citizens
and the one system making sure
that they get priority for the beds.
Um, also wanna know, uh, controller is, are there,
or have there been instances where
residents properties have been taken
because of past due water PA bill payments
or overdue water bill payments that their
Property has been taken?
Not, not that I know of. Not by the city,
No. There are
situations in which property has been
sued or, well, hang on real quick
for other litigation reasons against the city,
but not typically water.
Understood. And I know we have a pilot program
that's starting up in January, right?
Uh, for leak relief. Yeah. And it goes back to 20 23 20.
It is a pilot and we'll be providing information
as we go ahead on that, um, throughout the year.
Got it. And one of those things that, uh,
I think we did talk about in the, the town hall meeting was,
um, city workers who have outstanding debt to the city
that we looked at that number.
And, and I know we talk about the clear path, um, is,
is is there some assistance
or strategy around recuperating, uh, some of those?
Yep. Um, we, and I had tip to the Corporation Council.
So, uh, traditionally they've had one day, uh, a week
or one one day within the month on, on wage garnishments.
And they've upped that to five to be able to process these,
um, to get to a point
where people are either on a payment plan
or if they're particularly avoiding
that they get garnished from their wage.
We are down to under a million in terms of, uh,
what is owed to the city outstanding right now from
city workers themselves.
Now we are exploring other areas for our sister agencies,
CTA and CPS, which do still owe us a decent amount of money,
but we are actively exploring this.
Great, great. I just wanna express my willingness
to be a partner here.
Uh, again, um, the, the, I think we wanna look at
and turn every stone
before we start talking about property taxes increase.
I know that we need something structural and so forth,
but just want to make sure that we are exploring all options
together, um, so that we can go back
and have, uh, conversations with our communities
and get their inputs.
So thanks so much.
Thank you. Alderman. Uh, no, round two, I'm assuming, uh,
other Cruz.
Thank you, chairman. Thank you.
The, uh, budget director, uh, CFO controller
and everybody in the box.
Um, you know, as I wanted some echo something, um,
other member Martin said, and he said, we gotta do better.
And absolutely we have to do better.
We owe it to our residents
and we have to take tough choices.
And the tough choice should not be just a 300 million, uh,
property tax increase, and we have
to look at different options.
It cannot be on the backs of our homeowners.
And when we talk about, you know, if,
if we don't do the taxes, then we're gonna have a 17%, uh,
workforce reduction.
What does that look like?
What have, is there a breakdown of
what departments would that be?
How many positions would that be in order for us
to make a decision?
Because we're just saying we don't wanna create fear,
we wanna provide facts.
And what is that facts? So I would like to request
by the chair, or do you have that information with you today
where it shows what are those departments?
How many positions would that be?
That will equal the 17% of work workforce reduction?
We do have that information.
It can definitely provide it through the chair.
Um, just to, uh, add a little bit of additional flavor onto
what you're asking, um, it would impact every position,
every department in the corporate fund.
So no, no department would be spared.
Um, the reason why we say
that it's predominantly gonna impact
public safety is just given the percentage
that public safety makes up within the corporate fund.
It's 78% of the budgeted positions.
And so, um, we can definitely get you through the chair, um,
you know, every single, uh, position.
Uh, if we were looking at it, uh,
to impact every single department, what that would be, um,
if we were to say that, no, uh,
we're not gonna hit public safety,
we're just gonna do non-public safety.
We could also show what that looks like as well.
And I, I, I believe there is other options just not
besides public safety, um,
but also, you know, things as overtime.
Do you have the overtime totals
For each department?
Yes. Um, yeah, it's, I mean, it's in, it's in their, the,
for the department that are over have overtime,
it's in their budgets.
Do you mean what we budget or what, what actually is?
So what we are at as of now,
Um, as of today, um, I'll get that for you if you wanna,
um, go to your next question.
We'll, we'll, my team will get that for us.
Okay. I think that, I mean, that is important for us
to have, um, you know, based on if this is correct
by an article, um, you know, just from January, from June
of 2024,
we're approximately $250 million in overtime.
It does highlight all of the departments, forest Police,
fire, water, aviation, street
and Sanitation, cdo, um, OEMC and so forth.
So I think those are informations that we gotta
evaluate all the different pockets.
Also, um, earlier somebody asked a question about the
furlough analysis.
How does that look like too?
Do we have a scenario of percentage wise?
Um, I know the, the
better a government association give us a total of non, um,
non-union, um, city employees.
Like how much is the revenue?
But is there any way we can get like percentage, is it,
you know, based on a number of percentage, this is
how much it will be the, uh,
revenue save if we were to do furlough?
Can you work on that analysis as well?
So, um, uh, yes.
I, I can't remember who asked the question earlier,
but 11% of our workforce is non-union.
Um, and so if we applied a furlough day to that 11%,
and that's, that's to every non-Union employee.
So we're talking everyone, right? City council, everyone.
Right. Um, that would be about $2 million a day.
Okay. And what about, walk me through, have,
did you evaluate all the other services
that haven't seen an increase in years?
I know the, um, the city clerk is doing an increase
for something that, you know, has been years
that have not been an increase.
Um, did we look at store vacancy, uh, fees
and we look at other things
and if we have, what are those things
and what is the projection?
I'm sorry, could you ask the question one more time? So
What are some, have you evaluated all the services ever
since they haven't seen an, um, increase, um,
in charge for a long time?
We talked about garbage collection, for example.
Um, if you did, what were some of the things
that were evaluated
and if we were to increase it, what would be the revenue
that will be generated by increasing some of these fees?
Yeah, we, we looked at, um, um,
as Chase mentioned earlier, we looked at, um, the, the fees
and, um, items that we can control.
Um, and we took a lot of things into consideration, such
as when was the last time we, um, increased it
or when did it come into effect, um, as a a means to,
to understand if it was something that should be, uh,
evaluated for, uh, the 2025 budget.
You know, one thing that we also are, are thinking
through is, um, that some of these things would come online,
um, not in 2025,
but future year as we need to, to probably implement some,
uh, cost investments to ensure that they can, can come on,
um, online and can be collected.
So we are thinking about this in multi,
in a multi-year phase, not just in, you know, what,
what are we gonna do in 2025?
Um, so we did evaluate, um, a number of the city's revenues,
um, uh, with, with that in mind.
And, uh, as, as was requested earlier, there was the list
of the dates when they were last, uh, touched.
I believe that's being sent to you through the chair. Okay.
And I, I think that might be the form
that had, uh, Alder had
Just general. Yes.
Okay. Um, also earlier, um,
Alder remit talked about what is plan B base?
That was early on during the conversation, the base.
What colleagues have asked information you have
provided, what are some of the things
that you'll make would like, you know,
are considering to make an adjustment?
So it is not the $300 million increase.
What are your, you know, are you willing to work?
What are some of the ideas that you're willing work based on
what was said earlier, earlier on during the conversation?
Yeah, I mean, we're definitely willing to work
with city council understand, you know, what, uh,
you think are viable options.
The, the only thing I had mentioned earlier is that I'd,
I'd encourage us to think about, uh, options that, um,
help to correct the structural imbalance, um, so
that we don't have to have the same conversation next year,
um, about the same thing.
Right? So, um, you know what, whether it's cost reductions,
uh, expenditure cuts, um,
additional revenue increases in certain areas,
I think that that's all on the table.
Uh, to your point, knowing about the structural imbalance,
knowing that, what are some of the changes
that the administration has done
so we're not being reactive.
Like now knowing that, what are some
of the things have been implemented to be,
to have that structural
Right. Thank you for the
question. Um, so, you know,
we did the round of cuts to our department budgets.
We did reduce the city's position count, um, departments.
Uh, there's a, a, a range, uh, departments cut 3% somewhat
beyond that out of their corporate budgets.
We shifted costs onto grants
and special revenue funds, um, uh, to ensure
that we could still provide critical services.
Um, we, uh, you know, worked with, uh, uh, CPS,
the Department of Law, all of our departments
to look at revenues to increase it
by $400 million from forecast.
Um, so those are the things that, you know, we've done
and we're open to additional, uh,
conversations about other revenue sources to increase,
especially if they're ongoing revenue sources.
And we're open to um, the discussion about, um, uh,
exp expenditure cuts.
Um, you know, if you, if you feel any hesitancy,
at least from my part, I can't speak for my colleagues,
it's, it's the, the, the options on the table
that are truly one time in nature
because it just puts us in the same place
to have this conversation next year.
Okay. For the comptroller.
Um, earlier on you talked about some, you know,
how do we improve some depth collection.
Um, what are some of the ways
or technologies that have been implemented to enhance
the collection efforts?
Um, well, technology wise, uh, when we're, I,
I think that's, that's more around, um,
solidifying our debt checking
and those sort of things around a unified system.
But that helps us across, not just with collections, um,
what we've in improved on,
and really, I want to make sure that the department of law
is, gets their flowers here too, is streamlining
the communication between what needs to go in front of, uh,
administrative hearings, what needs to go in front
of the courts, um, what is the quickest path there,
and if we have any allies to assist in that process.
So it might be the, the,
the feds might be a little bit stronger at being able
to bring down an entity that owes a lot of money,
and then we would get a benefit from that
because they have a little bit more en enforcement that way.
Um, so there's a lot of those different techniques
that I know the Department of Laws
is specifically focused on.
And then from our standpoint, it's prioritizing things
that are, are large, that we know where folks are
that have been particularly, um, uh,
you know, bold in there, trying
to avoid the paying the city.
And, and we can go into specifics too. Those,
Okay. Can I
get round to,
We will sign you up for the deuce.
Um, Lawson's not here.
Clay Howorth is, uh, she's good.
Alderman Gutierrez, you're up.
Okay. Cool. Learning. That's right.
Your questions have already been answered.
Have they been answered? Okay.
Alman Chico. Good.
Alman, Chico, you've gotten much.
Reverend Doctor, Reverend Doctor,
Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman. Um, my first question is, chase, what is the, um,
currently with the sweepstakes machines
that are in the gas station, so forth
and so on, does the city get any revenue from those
placements and what have you?
No, these fall into kind of a gray, well, let me give,
we get sales tax, obviously from anything that's selling,
uh, things that acquire sales tax.
So in theory potentially,
but these fall in a little bit of a,
a gray area within state statute on, uh, sweepstakes
and, uh, um, bingos
and things like that, charitable type items.
Um, so we don't, um, and it's something that,
So quick question. Do we have
room to revise that? Like,
I believe we would need to change state
statute in order to do that.
Okay, cool. So that's a state issue.
Quick question now I know they're breaking the law.
I done called them a couple of times
with these sweet stakes machines that are turning the, um,
the cash register until they cash out,
which is completely illegal, which is what's the fine, um,
that we rendered to the business if we catch
them doing this illegally.
I think that's A-B-A-C-P question uhhuh,
or it might actually be CPD, uh, I can try to get that for
You. Yeah, if, if we could
get that number, um, back on
what it is that we charge as it pertains to the fines
for those who are operating these illegal.
I just wanna go on record to say that essentially at the end
of the day, we not getting no money for these machines.
Hey, be they operating them illegal
and see they're doing it in poor black
neighborhoods especially.
And gas station owners are not only
operating illegal casinos,
but they're creating also a safety hazard.
So this is not safety, I'm just putting that in your,
um, mm-Hmm.
In your situation. Um, what is the cut that we get for, uh,
potentially video gaming?
When that does, when they figure it out? What,
Uh, video gaming is, I think 8%.
Um, and it,
and remember, they, those individual video gaming locations
have to go through the gaming board.
Yes. And that does take time.
So currently, if and when that does make sense,
we are only slated to get 8% of the revenue from that Right.
At this point in time. Okay.
Alright. Um, let me see. Oh, man.
Um, currently to do, what does the, the percentage
that the city gets from the state for our current casino?
For Our what? For our current casino that we have,
what's the revenue share that we get
from the city percentage wise?
For, For the, the casino that we have now?
Oh, for the casino? Yeah. What's the revenue cut? I believe
It's 15. Um,
I'd have to check with Jill on then.
Is it 15? I think it's 15.
Jill done went on a break. Okay.
I ain't mad at you, Jill, have you yet?
I'll get it to you. I think it's 15%.
Alright. Um, what was your question again?
Uh, what's the, the percentage that we get from the casino,
the city as it pertains to revenue. Oh, okay.
Oh, you mean like, um, the percentage? Percentage? Yeah.
Cut. I think it is in, we'll get it. Is it 20? Yeah.
Well, we have it and we'll get it, we'll get it to
You. Okay, cool. Thanks. All
right. Um, yeah, that part.
So when we look at, um, essentially the, uh, the tickets
that we, you know, boots, all of that good stuff.
Um, the question I have is what you mentioned this earlier,
I think you just alluded to the fact that we are down
to about a million with collection from the city employees
and then other agencies, so forth and so on.
Lemme ask you this, the collection
process, could you go over that again?
The city is leading the way in
that collection process, right?
Yeah. So if, if you're a city employee, um,
and I mean like a city employee, not our sister agencies.
No, I get that part, but I'm saying the collection
process, do we outsource that to a company
to assist the city?
Or is this city employees that are in the process? If
It gets to collections, it would be outsourced.
A lot of them do not get to collections
because we can do wage garnishments, uh,
given the situation.
Now, there are a lot of other extenuating
specific circumstances, but most of the time, if it gets to
that point, it'll be a wage garnishment.
Obviously we are cutting the payroll checks,
so it's easy for us to take that.
Gotcha. For sure. Um, in this process of, you said
that if it gets outta control, essentially, do we use any,
um, outside, uh, companies
to assist us in debt collection via?
We do. Okay. Um, so we have a,
it's actually an Alderman Burnett's ward, a debt collection,
uh, uh, group that, uh, has been very, uh, very
Helpful. Do we know the name of
it for the record?
It was just there. Uh, what is, what are they?
Uh, 27th World Collection Tex. Sorry, Bintech.
I wanna make sure I say that
'cause they've been very good partners.
Okay. So Mintech, um, uh, in, on the west side,
and then there are, within the Department of law,
I think five law firms that assist them.
So five law firms assist in collecting outstanding debts.
Yeah. But I believe those contracts are under law. Got
You. Um, mid Texas is
underneath
Us. Got you. Okay. Cool.
Do we know of any
of those companies are minority owned? Yeah.
Bin Texas. Okay. Alright. Alright. Um, quick question.
The, um, when we were talking about the,
um, different, uh, retailers, um, that are, you know,
up in arms about the bag tax Sure.
And, you know, the voluntary for Yeah. Switch.
So we get the whole 7 cents.
Now my question is do we have any enforcement in place
or is this just volunteer like that they add
that to the end of the bill? Like
What's the purpose? I mean,
I mean, we do check, uh,
and we have had, you've probably seen them in the newspaper,
some settlements where, uh,
and a large grocery stores were not providing the back tax
and they had since paid this.
Some of those were honest mistakes.
Some of those I would argue or not.
Um, so we do have enforcement that we Okay,
Cool. So in the, um,
we got these Road to recovery plans, um,
in particular in the sixth ward, 29, uh,
people based programs, 8.7, estimated investment,
17,000 people health.
I see. The, the policy pillar, the department
and then program, the department, did they outsource
the, these programs
to like community groups and non-for-profits?
Or were these implemented by the actual city department?
So on the graphic, it has the policy pillar, the department,
and then it has the actual program
and then the amount that was invested.
But the actual program, is it ran by the city
or was this like partners that we connected
with through a grant, or?
It depends on which program you're talking about. Gotcha.
There are some programs that are, um, administered
through a program administrator.
Um, and so we'd need to know specifically which,
which program you're talking about.
But that's what I was mentioning earlier about all the
contracts that we have signed and put in place.
These are, these are supporting
community based organizations.
These are supporting personnel that do work in the city
of Chicago that administer these grants and, and so forth.
Gotcha. Okay. Um, couple of more questions.
Trying to stay within 10, if we would've, uh,
stayed the course with the CPI, um, what would the raise
property tax raise be would've been
rather the last two years?
Um, so, uh, uh, we would have reached the same point, um,
that we're proposing in this budget had we, uh, raised
by CPI, um, over the last two years, including this year.
So we'd be around 2.1.
Um, right. So we would've raised about $308 million.
Gotcha. Okay. Had we
Done All right. Um, when
we talking about, uh, the, the hiring freeze,
the different personnel, so forth
and so on, um, do we offer,
and I'm just curious, do we offer retirement packages?
Like, you know, when you see corporations that you know
to save money, they offer you walk away money?
Do we offer that as a city?
Uh, I, I believe it's been done in the past,
and I'm actually gonna pass it to my managing deputy.
But one thing to keep in mind, um, as it relates to, um,
those types of, uh, packages is
that it also hits our pension funds at the same time.
Ah. Um, and they would, you know, see a, just as much
as we would be offering a, a severance, they would also have
to, um, you know, begin paying out, um, in pension, uh, uh,
pension for those who have separated from the city.
But Kevin,
Hi.
Hello. Kevin Murphy, managing deputy Budget Director.
Um, there was one instance around 2009, 2010,
where the city offered a one-time kind of bonus payment
for employees that were leaving City Service, um,
and were retirement eligible.
Um, early retirement initiatives, uh, the state has
to pass in order for there to be a pension based
ERI as we call them.
Um, and so that's happened in the past.
Um, it wasn't necessarily, uh,
uh, cost effective for the city.
As it gets more people into the pension rolls,
our obligations for pension payouts, uh, increase.
And we also lose, um, kind of reliable city sources, sources
of, you know, uh, people that have legacy knowledge, uh, in
how to run these programs and work our systems. And so,
Okay. Gotcha. So in
concluding we get 15%
cut from the casino from the state
that we currently have. I,
I, Oh yeah. Jill is back.
We'll, we'll get that number too. You
Okay, cool. Um,
question,
What is The percent, what is the cut from the casino?
Uh, the percent that we get? Yeah.
Um, it'll be about, uh,
20% when the permanent casino's open.
I think right now it's more in the 17% range.
I'll have to double check that,
but it's a sliding scale. Gotcha.
Okay. Um, nothing about the, the sweet stakes machines.
We haven't, we don't get any revenue from that,
from the state, right?
No, because it doesn't fall within
The law. And then
time on that
One. Do we have the ability
to license the machines
under home Rule authority?
Oh, you beat me too. Under the
Sweepstakes. Oh, I'm sorry.
No, but no, you, the chair.
That's what you're supposed to do.
Uh, I believe we looked into this, but I'll double check.
Okay. And that, that was gonna be my question,
that if we are not getting any revenue from these actual
machines, then do we have a runway to put, you know,
licensing in place licensing fee per machine at
the locations that they're at?
Yeah, it's currently a gray area.
Uh, but we'll look into that whether we could.
So the gray, the gray being Gray area, meaning
Jam it take 20 seconds. Thank you.
It doesn't fall cleanly under the law.
Okay, cool. Thank you so much.
Alright. Everything about this stuff is, they call it,
uh, call it gray.
Uh, let see here.
We've had, uh, almond Taylor's not in Alder
Men, Alder person.
Fuentes.
Thank you Chair. Uh, thank you all for, for being here.
It's been a long day. It's about to be seven o'clock
and we're still on round one.
Uh, have we, first,
can you tell me if we increased the garbage fee
to about the 34 something dollars that you're talking about,
what is the revenue that's gonna be generated?
What would be the revenue generated?
Um, if we, uh, uh,
increase it'd be about 150 million
Mm-Hmm.
And then have we considered, uh, uh, putting in,
uh, vacancy, tax
Vacancy on a vac on vacant lots? That is
Correct. Um,
That's an, that's an idea that, um,
is, uh, something that different departments are starting
to discuss because it has, uh, various implications.
And so, um, uh, we definitely need to involve housing
and DPD involved in a conversation about that.
But that is something that we intend to, um, try to
advance and see what opportunities there could be there.
Do we know how many vacant
lots we have in the city of Chicago?
I, I don't, No, I don't. Not do not. DDPD
Has that information.
Have we had conversations
with DPD about the revenue ballpark
that we would receive if we imposed a vacancy tax?
We've just had some initial conversations about the
concept of doing it.
Um, but it hasn't, we don't have detailed analysis
or anything like that, but it is something that
within the city, there are folks
who are interested in looking at that
and seeing if there's an opportunity there to, um,
uh, incentivize development
instead of, you know, individuals
who are sitting on land paying very little taxes.
If we were to implement a vacancy taxes, about
how long would it take for us to generate revenue?
Dunno. Okay.
I know that we're, uh, proposing increasing the liquor tax.
What about tobacco and cigarettes?
Uh, certainly something we are open
to having a conversation about.
Um, we, uh, just for your,
for, for cigarettes in general, um, that, that has kind
of a lower yield than, than the liquor side,
but we we're happy to have a conversation about those rates
or anything else that,
Um, and, and just as a note on the cigarette tax,
that is a declining tax
and it's been a declining tax for years.
Um, you know, we are anticipating, you know,
receiving about 14 million from that, uh, in 2025.
It's around roughly the exact same amount
that we anticipate receiving this year.
Um, and so that is, um, um, your
probably quintessential syntax.
And so raising the tax actually will probably lower the
amount of revenue that we receive
For, for instance, the liquid nicotine.
Um, price is very high
and that has kind of extincted
that revenue source entirely from,
from the city, which is a good thing.
We wanted that obviously gone,
but you'd have a similar effect.
Appreciate, uh, looking at supporting important programs
that don't generate, uh, revenue.
Given what we saw this morning as an election result, um,
would you all consider increasing the domestic violence home
shared acts the 4% so
that we could support domestic violence programming given
that we may lose some of those grant dollars?
Yeah, I think we're open to, um, any options
that you guys wanna put in front of us.
We're willing to do the research, um, to just understand
how the market would absorb that, but absolutely. And
Then let, could we talk about process?
I know you're here today and then we're going hear from a
lot of departments in which we have questions
specifically about their programming, some of their cuts,
how they came to the numbers that they came to,
but for revenue ideas, what is going
to be the process in which we engage with you all, uh, to
actually amend the current proposal?
Um, so if you're, if you have an idea, like even today,
give it to me and we'd run with it
to get you the information back that you
and the rest of the city council need.
So I would just say reach out to me.
Um, and I, if you have a group of people
that wanna reach out to me, if there are individuals
that want to reach out to me with a proposal
or, Hey, have you looked at this, we will look at it.
Okay. Awesome. Thank you, chip, that's all from you.
Other questions haven't been answered.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Has everyone had a round one?
I think I've gotten everybody
going once.
Okay. Round two.
Um, I have Vice chair Lee,
alderman Moore, alderman, osha, alderman Burnett,
alderman Riley, alderman Beal, uh,
signed up for round two.
Al Vasquez. You want round two? Okay.
Anybody else want round two Lopez? I apologize.
Mr. Lopez, any other
Please? First
Seat Lopez.
Just try to keep Cruz.
Any others?
Okay. Alright.
Uh, we will begin round two with, uh, vice Mayor Burnett.
Oh, Uh, Mr. Chairman.
So first of all, I just wanna say, um, that organization,
Mintech, that collection organization is an organization
that has, uh, returning residents Yep.
Doing the collections on the west side.
So I just wanted to mention that,
but I had a couple of questions,
and I'm trying to get 'em all out real quick.
Um, why are we not moving forward
with the progressive revenue options in 2025?
Head tax, congestion, tax, video, gaming,
financial transaction tax?
And then also I heard, um, are we in favor
of property tax relief
or other ideas like payment in lieu of taxes?
And then I wanted to, my last question is, is if
we don't pass this budget on time, on at the timeline,
then what happened right then?
What would, what would happen to us financially?
What would be the, the consequences for the city?
So, questions one and two have been,
uh, asked and answered.
Uh, Larry, last question has not been, uh, asked.
And so, uh, I'll let you all handle that one.
Um, so I, I,
the first thing I would say is it's never happened in the
city of Chicago that we haven't passed a budget on time.
Um, it's, it's a, it's a gray area, you know, uh, um,
we, we currently have the ability to, um,
and we do every single year, uh, continue to pay
this year's bills into next year, just given how our, um,
when we get invoices in usually happens after December.
Um, but, you know, we have it, it's a gray area as
to whether or not we'd be able to pay contractors.
Um, it's a gray area as to whether
or not we'd be able to actually abide by our obligations.
So it's just, it's never happened before,
but we know by state statute we're required
to pass a budget by December 31st.
I will, I will say, um,
and obviously it's more
of a legal question than a budget question,
but as somebody who is working, um,
at the state comptroller's office during the time period
where we had two years without an on a past budget, it was
quite brutal, um, from a, uh, vendor
and services standpoint,
but also became very expensive for the, uh, state.
So much so that we're still paying off for it.
So it is still, it'll cost us more money, in essence.
So the other two questions you asked, are you answered all?
Yeah, I mean, just to answer really quickly, the,
the progressive, uh, taxes that you mentioned, um,
financial transaction tax as, as, uh,
Jill had mentioned earlier, this has been,
this has been tried in other area,
other places in this, in the country.
And, um, those transactions happen electronically.
So companies are able to easily move, um, if those types
of, uh, taxes are in place.
And so we would, we wouldn't, we wouldn't gain the revenue
that we think we're, uh, we would gain, it would just move
to a different jurisdiction.
Um, the head tax, um, uh, we are in the midst of kind
of a transition in, um, uh, hybrid working.
And so, uh, we, we still haven't seen the level of return
to office, um, that we would like to see in order to, um,
you know, implement attacks like that.
Uh, because it's, you know, again, uh,
the head tax really is for the use of our infrastructure
for those who come in and out of the city.
Um, and so, you know, a lot of companies are starting
to think about putting, uh, uh, more policies in place
that require more in-person time in the office,
but we aren't there yet.
And so that one really is about timing
and we're gonna continue to monitor the, the industry
to see, you know, is there a better time for us to put
that in place without, um, uh, uh, frustrating the effort
of that type of revenue source.
Um, video gaming, we are in the midst
of doing a study on that.
Um, but as has been mentioned by the chairman, um,
our video gaming percentage, that, that's set by state laws,
8%, our gaming at the casinos,
we receive 20% of that revenue.
And we wanna make sure that we aren't cannibalizing
a, a, a revenue source.
We get more revenue from,
from a revenue source we would get, uh, uh, less from.
And then I think the last one you mentioned was congestion.
Congestion. We are looking into that.
Um, but the lead time on that is very long.
It takes a, a lot of capital investment on the part of the,
the jurisdiction that puts that in place.
There aren't many in the United States.
I think New York is the prime example
and they still haven't implemented it yet,
but it took them about 10 years to get to the point
where they were ready to implement your question about the,
uh, property tax relief.
We are in favor of property tax relief.
Um, and I think that that was a question
and a referendum, uh,
a question on the ballot this yesterday,
um, payment in lieu of taxes.
We are beginning those conversations
because we do understand that there are organizations that
have large endowments that are currently, um,
don't have to pay property tax.
Thank you. Okay.
Um,
your question on, uh, they didn't answer this,
but I, I'll just go ahead.
Um, and when we pass, uh,
bonds, do we include a levy in our
bond ordinance?
Yes. When we do a general obligation bond,
there is always a property tax levy
for the debt service associated with it.
Okay. But because we support the bonds with corporate fund
monies, uh, some of those levies get abated every year.
So when we deposit money from the court for fund
to the debt service fund, we abate, uh, the levy,
a proportionate amount of levy associated with that.
And the abatement is in our revenue,
in our revenue package.
That's done in finance annually, generally. Is that correct?
Yes. Okay.
I did not, I won't go into the second part then. Okay. Um,
vice Chair Lee, followed by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you Chair. Um, I had to leave for a little in bit in
between, so if my questions already been asked,
just please let me know that you've already answered it.
Um, on the,
the gap for this year, the deficit, um, that's being closed
by the CPS payment for the 1 75. And what else?
The hiring freeze as well as savings that we have, uh,
been realized, um, in other spaces at the budget. Okay.
Um, and do we know it,
has the CPS board been briefed on that yet?
I just, I know that they just got put in, um,
and I'm, I'm just not aware
that it's been on their agenda yet.
So from a timing perspective, we're all assuming
that it's going to happen, but if it doesn't happen within a
certain amount of time, but what are we facing?
Uh, the CPS board has been briefed
and, um, there is a draft, uh,
intergovernment agreement that's being worked on
For, for this year and for next year?
Yes, altogether. Perfect. Thank you.
Um, and then on the, um,
on the liquor tax, um,
can somebody talk about why it's on this like sliding scale
and not just like a uniform tax across the board?
Uh, oh, I'm sorry.
Um, the question was on the liquor tax.
Uh, why is it, uh, on a sliding scale
and not just like a uniform
Tax? Why isn't
it present? Uh, that's historically
how the tax has been presented as a unit base, uh,
based on the types of alcohol
and percentage of alcohol. Um,
So more expensive on wine than beer, right?
Uh, yeah.
I mean it's, it's, so it's, it's, it's beer,
non-beer liquor, 14% or less alcohol, 14% or,
and great.
Less point. But I think the summary is,
it's a historical fact and
Run the numbers at all to see what we'd do better on,
Uh, in terms of, yeah.
What would you be looking for?
Well, like if we did a uniform tax across the board, sure.
That was more favorable, then it would be,
I would assume simpler to implement as well.
Um, I would, I would argue in a lot of taxation periods,
uh, especially when they're unit based, um, something
to consider would be a percentage of the sale.
Uh, um, so, uh, that being, that they wouldn't have
to change over time within inflation
because they're keeping track with the prices
of the day. Okay.
Um, I have two and a half more.
Oh, I got through that fast.
Um, I might not use all five of my minutes here.
Um, 'cause these are just through the chair, um, uh,
requests on vacancies.
Can we get a breakdown by department of the vacancies
that were eliminated in this budget
and the length of time those position had been vacant?
Yeah, that's been asked. That was asked.
That's asked. Okay. That's coming. Um,
and then, uh, breakdown by department
of the number of funded vacancies. Uh,
That one Too. That one
too. Okay, great. Using less time here.
The funded vacancies are actually another in the book.
So what I'm wondering is just like
how long these vacancies have been open,
because I know at any given
point somebody could be going and coming.
What I'm trying to get is, are these vacancies
that have been aging, like we've carried
These vacs? Yeah. That question has
been asked. Yes. Okay.
Um, and then the last one here, um, can someone talk about
how much money's been saved through the cut the tape effort
and how much revenue's been generated?
That has not, That hasn't been asked.
Um, uh, uh, my office isn't tracking that.
Um, but that would be a good question.
There are several departments that are involved in that, um,
effort including, uh, department
of Public Planning and Development.
So I think they're the main, um, department
that would be the ones who'd be able to provide you that,
uh, as, uh, as well as, um, the Department of Water,
the Department of Facil, fleet, and Facilities Management
and Department of Buildings.
Alright. I'm gonna use the full minute.
Um, 'cause I just thought of something else picking up on
what, uh, alderman Fuentes was talking about in terms
of the 2% home share surcharge.
Chase, when you and I have talked about this in the past,
um, and I think we were all in the same meeting in this one.
Um, can you talk a little bit about what's being done
to ensure that we are actually collecting this tax?
Is, I've been given some indications that, you know,
maybe one provider over another isn't necessarily collecting
and paying us the tax.
'cause there's, there's several different platforms
for home shares.
Uh, I mean, we are, we are actively working to make sure
that everything is collected through that and that,
and part of that chase, Mike, oh, sorry.
And, and part of that is, is using our collections groups
as necessary for, for those different providers.
Great. Uh, last question on the liquor.
Do we know, um, have we given any consideration of
what this is gonna do to people's
tips for their wages as well?
I mean, like, if the price of liquor is going up, you know,
what's the impact going to be on people's earnings?
At the end of the day,
The impact on the, the price going up is pennies.
So I, and we did not do an analysis Okay.
Of what it would, how it would impact wages.
But these are, uh, these are like pennies on a six pack
of beer kind of thing.
Thank you. Thank you. Vice chair.
Uh, AMI Lopez, all Alderman Moore.
Thank you. Uh, thank you chairman
and good evening everyone.
Uh, to quote, uh, back to school, I've got one question
that has 16 parts in it, so I'll make this very quick.
Um, these will all be just through the chairs,
but I just wanna run through them so that you know what I'm,
and I'll send them to you so don't
bother having to write it down.
You don't have to write it down. I'll email it to you.
And then, um, first off, um, if we can,
what were the 20 20 20 25 salary increases
for all non-contractual, full-time employees per department?
Um, how many full-time positions are being transitioned from
grant funding, arpa, what have you
to the city's corporate funds?
Slow, slow down. Slow down, slow down.
Uh, it's gonna be emailed. Oh, okay. Alright.
I, I'm, I just said I'm gonna run
through it 'cause I got, okay.
Um, how many full-time employee positions are being
transitioned from the corporate fund to other tax funds,
such as all the enterprise funds and things of that nature?
Um, again, what are we doing to increase per, uh,
collection for permits, fees, fines
and all that across all departments?
Because I know that's not just you guys.
'cause there are other departments that also collect
that don't necessarily share our same vision.
Um, how many outstanding property liens?
Property liens are active in the city of Chicago by Ward?
Because we have a lot of things where people aren't,
people aren't paying and we're putting liens,
but we're not really pushing them for collection.
Um, something that was discussed in the briefings,
what are we doing to recoup damages against city property in
terms of going after people's insurance
when they hit a street poll?
Why are we continuously paying for that?
As well as what is the cost for all the damage
that we've seen that we could recoup for?
Um, do we have the authority to create a specific levy
for pensions and the ability to securitize
that to deal with that.
Uh, 72, 60% change
that we talked about five hours ago in terms of
what we are able to pay directly in what we're subsidizing.
Um, what, what are the programmatic spending increases?
I know we talked a little bit about
that with some of the ARPA stuff.
Um, but what are there those spending increases
and the associated funding sources for that,
whether they are one time or corporate
or things of that nature.
Um, if you can provide the 20 22, 20 23
surpluses by department.
And what are the anticipated surpluses for this year,
if any, for 2024?
Uh, what is the itemized breakdown of finance?
General 0 1 0 0 cross all funds?
What is the breakdown of pro projects canceled, uh,
to create the TIF surplus by ward?
If you don't mind. Um, something we haven't talked about
that I remember from the ROM era is what are the savings
that we've been able to generate from the
biannual telehealth requirement
that employees are supposed to do?
Are we meet making any savings?
And if not, is that something that we need
to continue or look at?
Uh, ending, um,
what savings have tier one retiree healthcare reductions
generated for 20 22, 20 23?
And what are we anticipating for 2024?
Uh, conversely, what preparations are being done, uh,
in anticipation of tier two
and tier three pension obligations?
Are we going to be in the same boat
or are we doing anything specific on those fronts?
And then part 16, how are water sewer vehicle tax,
emergency communications, special events, hotel finance,
general 9,900 pension reimbursement funds
to the corporate fund allocated
and spent on, um, that one, actually,
since I've got 90 seconds, if you could, uh, just, uh,
share some illumination on when those specific funds, uh,
reimburse us for pension obligations.
What, what do those go to?
Are they earmarked on one side of the ledger
and then eventually replaced?
Or does that actually be, become a surplus in
and of itself once we are reimbursed,
that gets shuffled somewhere else?
When you say other funds, do you mean the
city's other funds or,
So for example, um, Yes, goes does leave Yes.
Like the water fund? Yes.
Yes. So well, these are all reimbursements to the, well,
these are all reimbursements to the corporate
fund from those various funds that I've mentioned.
So when those specific waters sewer,
what have you reimburse the corporate fund's pension, uh,
obligations, is that something that is incorporated into
what we are paying or is that something that gets put in
after we've already front loaded from the corporate fund
and then is put
as a surplus somewhere else and reassigned there? Yeah,
The pension fund payment is broken down by
every place that it's coming from.
So the part that's coming from the corporate fund, the part
that's coming from water sewer, O'Hare midway,
so all the enterprise funds.
So it, it, it's broken down exactly where it's coming from
and that's all done on an allocatable basis, um,
based on employees, uh,
and who are participants in those funds.
But can I ask, is your question,
is the corporate fund fronting the payment
and then gets reimbursed by the other funds?
Yes. Um,
So is it, if I may, chairman
No, you're a, no, I know what you're asking.
If the corporate fund makes the payment,
takes the full basis of that payment
and then gets, get the money, comes back to the, uh,
comes back to the corporate fund
that's used for general purposes.
That's what you're asking. Correct.
Is it a hundred dollars plus minus 50
or is it 150
that's actually going towards a pension payment?
Correct.
Um, from a cash flow perspective, that flow,
I believe does go from the corporate first
and then gets reimbursed through the additional funds.
Although that has, uh,
we have looked at making adjustments to that flow.
Thank you. Did that answer your question?
It it, do I have a follow up to that?
But I don't wanna take other people's time? Well,
No, I, I, I think what you're, I think what you're trying
to figure out is, is that money
that's coming into the corporate fund being
used for some other purpose?
Theoretically, theoretically the quote unquote cash is
because the payment has been made.
Right. And then the money comes back, which is essentially
what is owed by the other fund to the corporate fund.
So cash wise, yeah, it's a different boat of cash per se.
However, it is for an, it's, it's the repayment
of an expense that was due to the other fund.
Right. So my question then would be the follow up to
that would be as we look at, uh, in the corporate fund, all
of the advanced payments that are listed at 227
or whatever it is, as opposed to fronting
that from the corporate, can you use the reimbursements just
to make that supplemental payment, uh,
instead of having to front load both
and then get paid reimbursements from the funds later
that disappears somewhere into the abyss
six months down the road?
And however you wanna answer that,
Uh, the short answer to that is yes,
from a cash perspective, but I'd, I'd want to
Work. We could talk more
about that off. Yeah,
But I'm throwing, I know Where're up there.
I know where you're going with it.
Um, and it is something that we,
we can talk further about too. Okay.
Thank you. And I'll send this laundry list to you now
T more.
Thank you chairman. And when our first budget, uh,
if you wanna call briefings,
when we were getting into the budget, it, the $150 million,
um, for migrant housing was in there.
And that was a package that you
all were gonna share with us.
Um, is that still in the budget
or where is that 150 million now?
Uh, no, it's not in the budget.
There's no funding in the budget for migrant mission.
So when we said that at that time, it changed
When you said, I'm sorry, when you
Said what? So we had a conversation
and there was a packet and it, and,
and that that helped us and it showed, um,
during the budget briefings, um,
when we were first told we were gonna have a close
to a billion dollar budget deficit.
Mm-Hmm. $150 million in migrant housing was there,
um, I'm just asking what happened to that. Right. So
That's all I'm asking. So at
the time that we make forecast, it's based on
what we know at that time.
Um, at the time that the forecast came out, um,
we were still in conversations, uh, with the state,
with the county, uh, understanding
what was happening at the border, um, and so forth.
And so at the time that we made the forecast,
we carried forward the budget from this year into next year
for the migrant mission
because we did not know fully, um,
what the transition was gonna look like at the
time that we made the budget.
After having, um, uh, the conversations that we had
with the state and the county,
we transitioned to the one system.
So there's no funding in this budget for migrant mission.
So then therefore the deficit should be reduced
by 150 million then
In the 2025 budget. Yes. Yes.
So it was reduced,
The gap was reduced.
Uh, yes. Part of the, uh, cost, uh, savings,
which I think someone asked us for through the chair for,
is the removal of the one 50 in, um,
cost for the migrant mission.
Okay. Because I don't You all never shared that pack.
'cause I can't remember what that number was.
I thought it was the same number.
So you're saying it was 150 million?
Um, more, but it put us at a billion dollars.
So we're still at 900 and something.
So 9 82, the 9 82 budget gap, uh,
was driven by a lot of different expenditures.
Um, it in, it included, um, the cost
of the migrant mission in there.
Right. So let's stop right there.
And then if so, if it's no longer there,
it should be 9 82 minus one 50.
Yeah, I mean it's 9 82 minus a num.
A number of things, including the migrant mission department
cuts, vacancy reductions, um, uh, cost efficiencies plus,
um, revenue, which brought the gap down even further.
Oh, what's the gap now? I thought we were still at 900
and some million where were
At. Oh, we presented a balanced
budget.
Hmm. We presented a budget that was balanced.
So there's no, there's no gap in, in what we presented.
No. We got a deficit that we are trying,
that's why we're raising taxes.
Uh, we have a budget gap, um, which is a gap between,
uh, the dissipated revenues that we expect
to receive in 2025 and the cost of our expenditures.
That's what we presented in September or, um,
and we've been working to reduce that gap.
So what we presented to city council is a budget
that does not have a gap in it.
Okay. Maybe if I, I, I think
what you're asking is did we get down to 300 million?
And then that's why there's a
property tax increase of 300 million.
'cause there was 682 million
of other measures that were taken.
Okay. Maybe I just need to see the
In in the, do you the, uh, they send out this, uh,
closing the gap, um, piece in the briefing that we had
in under expenditure decreases, there were,
there were four categories.
One was personnel savings, which was 42.7 million
operational, uh, savings, which was 2 47 0.6 million.
That one 50 is a part of the 2 47 0.6 million.
Okay. Alright.
So, and then my, um, final que where I got two,
but, um, I wanna make sure we, as we're dealing with, and,
and I'll be bringing this up in, um, animal care control,
I mean in, um, board of Elections,
but I know you all asking them to cut,
but we have to work with them
because when we minimized, uh, cut a lot
of precincts out in the previous administration, uh,
some people went from 41 to 29.
That's because a lot of people early voting, um,
we're gonna have to make room
because our, a lot of our residents are complaining.
Um, because because of early voting,
the long you got longer lines, now you, we,
and we can't have them suffer.
So we have to, I know we want places to cut,
but we can't hurt our residents.
So we need to go back and look at that
because we may need to add, um, another, um,
location in terms of early voting, um, per ward
because you got seniors literally out there standing.
Um, because what happens is election day is not
as crowded anymore.
And that's why they reduced and they saved money that way.
Some years ago, uh, I forget whose budget
that was, help me out chairman.
But, uh, whoever budget that was,
I don't know if it was under Lori
Lightfoot, I think it was, it was under Ron.
So, so under that budget they saved
because they closed all of, they reduced the number
of locations on election day.
But now these lines are longer
and we gotta at least think about
the seniors standing out there, um, uh, for hours and hours.
And we may have to put polling locations, uh,
for early voting, at least add another per ward so
that they're not standing out there.
So that we, we gotta look at,
when we talk about cutting their budget,
The question that you need to ask
and that you need to send this
and phrase it to the board of election is what is the cost
of adding an additional early voting site in each ward?
That's the question that you want to ask
and what that cost looks like. And
Then we go from there. From
the budget. Exactly. Thank you, chairman.
Alright. And, and just to be clear,
we didn't ask the Board of Elections to cut their budget,
what you see in the Board of Elections every year,
it fluctuates given what election cycle we're in.
So the decreases that you're seeing next year is
because they're not, we're not having
a general election next year.
There's also, um, board
of Elections has seen increases in their budget
because of other costs.
Um, uh, the, um, onslaught of mail-in balloting,
um, has actually caused increases in their budgets in other
places because of just the, you know, amount of printing,
the amount of, um, uh, postage and other things.
So their budget fluctuates year over year,
but also in areas where you've seen declines
because maybe they, um, you know, closed polling locations,
they have increased in other, because they have a lot
more mail-in balloting.
But just so you know, this budget,
we did not ask Board
of Elections to cut their budget. Thank
You. Thank you Chairman.
Alright. Thank you. Uh, alderman Moore, uh, alderman Oay.
He's not here. Alderman Ccha Lopez.
Thank you, uh, chairman.
Um, ju and just a clarifying point,
and I, I know that you touch
and you talked several locations about the, uh,
supplemental pension payment.
And just to clarify, the $400 million that you mentioned,
is these over the next 30 years?
Or this is savings over the next five years?
What is the cost? The higher cost?
I just want for clarity understand
what are the savings that you're talking about?
Yeah, I think the savings, I'd have
to double check the analysis, but I believe it is over 30
years and it's from borrowings over the next five years.
Okay. So, but these are savings over the next
30 years, correct? Well,
It's a cost, actually cost.
It's not a savings. It's cost cost
Over the ne next 30 years.
Thank, thank you for clarification.
Um, I mentioned this
because I think that all the options
that we have un le unfortunately limited to
what the city can do in the short term seem to be between,
um, one time savings or one time, uh, fixes.
There's really not a lot of options
for what I'm hearing today.
We got the TIF surplus, you got, you know, efficiencies
or property tax increases.
Um, I think like for communities like mine, again, I will,
you know, I think that we will need coordination
at the county and the state level
because for exception changes
or any kind of changes to that,
if we wanna talk about equity within that,
it is not within our jurisdiction.
Is that, is that correct? If we want
to implement a property tax increase increase
that is somehow, I think some colleagues talked about,
that can mitigate effect
of low income homeowners versus the high earners per se.
That is not within the preview of the city.
It's not within the preview purview of the city
to, to, to do what,
How, how the $300 million is going to affect people.
I mean, this is a blanket $300 million property tax increase
that will hit disproportionately,
The effect is impacted by, uh,
the prop individual's property value of their home.
So the higher the property value is, the higher the, uh,
tax they're gonna pay and the lower
the property value, the lower the tax. Mm-Hmm.
So in terms of the sustainable options,
and I think that when I push back on some of the colleagues,
I think sustainable options
that we don't really have a lot of options here.
They have to go through the state and I, I,
unless I'm, I'm missing something here, right?
I think yesterday there was a referendum
that unfortunately was not, did denied a lot of, get a lot
of coverage, but a surcharge on people making more than
$1 million to me makes a lot more sense than a property tax
increase that I'm telling you has been disproportionately
affecting time after time.
Majority of homeowners, longtime homeowners in my
community, we got the highest.
To me it's, is is just a no brainer
that we must talk to Springfield.
Um, you know, about these kind of options as well.
I don't think the state itself doesn't have options either.
Their looming deficit is about $3 billion.
What we are projecting in this particular surcharge
is about 4.5 billion.
So I think would it make sense that we do one time fixes
for this, including, again, I will push back
that we will not, I mean with all respect
with creating agencies, um, these same credit agencies
were okay with bail out to banks.
Something that was very costly
for small homeowners when it come
to foreclosures and other issues.
So my question is are one time, one time fixes
that give us time to talk to the state, county
and all that, something that we will be willing to consider.
'cause all the options in front of us are not good options.
I, I think, um, the conversations with the state are long.
They're not things that are gonna go in place,
um, you know, in one year.
And the, uh, uh, you know, they take time
to ramp up even when they are, uh, implemented.
And so, you know, something that we would talk
with the state about, you know, in their session,
their spring session, uh, probably would,
wouldn't have an implementation date, uh,
until 20 26, 20 27, 20 27.
So these are not, these are not short conversations.
Um, and, you know, they, they will take time. Mm-Hmm.
I think I would just say these conversations are needed,
you know, even though it'll take, you know, time.
Uh, because sustainable revenue, I mean, we need home rule.
If we anything wanna raise our own revenue,
we'll need some changes here.
The constraints here are major
and I think that all options should be at the table.
Um, and finally, um, again, the one LA thing
that I will request, I do think that, I know
that we look at efficiencies within, um,
certain departments, right?
There's certain departments that maybe need to be audited,
you know, in terms of chronic vacancies, right?
Uh, Chicago Police Department for instance.
I do think that we do need
to make sure safety is not compromised,
but there are chronic vacancies that time
after time keep coming in front
of us are not going to be filled.
And I do think that we have a responsibility to make ethical
and accurate decisions here. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. I I want to, uh, you, you raised a point
that I think we need to, uh, dive into a little bit,
especially with, uh, vacancies and,
and I'll, uh, pose this question.
Um, you all account for vacancies
and they're there, but there's also the fact that,
and let's, let's use the police department for example.
Uh, the police department has x numbers of vacancies
and there is a math problem that you all look at
to figure out what actually is going to get filled
and what do you do when you understand what's going
to be filled versus what's on the book.
So I'm guessing you're talking about turnover.
I'm don't know what, how you want to answer, you answer.
Um, so thank you, chairman. Yes.
We, um, have a formula that we apply
to every department based on, um, what we think, uh,
will get filled throughout the year as also
what we think will, um, become vacant
because of attrition throughout the year.
And it's a, a formula that we apply.
Some departments have a percentage increase
because they tend to take longer to fill their positions
or they have a lot of attrition.
So, um, you know, CPD has attrition.
Um, some of our, uh, infrastructure departments that have,
um, uh, a a lot of uh, uh, laborers has a lot of attrition.
And so they tend to have a higher turnover amount just
because we know that their positions, uh,
are gonna go vacant longer than
other departments in the city.
So we do take into account, um, how
long we think a vacancy will be vacant so that we just,
we don't have money just sitting in the budget going unused.
There. There are, there are times though,
when we do our audits throughout the year
that then the auditors will state that this position needs
to exist for x, y, or Z reason.
And that might take a while for us to hire.
Um, but it has remained there because of that reason.
Can I ask you a question? The moral
of the story is you go after vacancies.
The vacancies are kind of accounting
for when you start cutting.
When you cut vacancies, you're not gonna have a really
that much of a budgetary impact.
Ultimately, if you wanna start cutting,
you gotta go past vacancies 'cause they're already there.
You're gonna start cutting bodies at, at
to have any real impact, uh, on that.
Uh, Altman. Riley's not here. Altman Vazquez.
Hello Dan. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, uh, great.
I'll just get into questions.
Um, kind of a follow up on the, on the last one,
which is more CPD related, uh,
over time we clearly year over year, it's always the thing
we talked to the officers
and the number one thing they tell us
is they don't know why they're working.
All these events parades, everything else.
So could we not as a city, just as a policy,
say we're not doing it.
If you're doing an event, you're paying your own security,
maybe there's a police liaison in
a way that brings down over time.
Is that possible or not? I
Think that's a great conversation for us to have.
And I know that through the leadership
of the mayor's office, um,
and members of city council, including Alder Woman, Dow, um,
Hopkins and others, this is an area that we're looking at.
It's not just CPD
where we're ha currently having overtime costs, um,
based on an event that might be happening in a neighborhood
or even event that got a permit.
Uh, through D Case it's Streets
and Sands, sometimes it's water.
Um, it is, um, uh, OEMC, right?
So we have a lot of departments that are being pulled in
to ensure the safety of our communities
because that is paramount for any event that we, um, uh,
a permit for the city of Chicago.
Is that ultimately the safety of both residents, visitors,
um, the community in which that event is happening does
fall on the city of Chicago?
Sure. So I think one of the things that, you know,
we have a working group, um, that started this year, uh,
to look into what is the true cost of our departments, um,
and how do we translate that into a cost for an event?
Whether it's, we're not doing it,
we'll just have liaisons there, or we'll do it,
but you gotta pay us for it.
So these are the things that we're looking into,
but we absolutely agree with you.
So I think something to figure out is, and,
and this isn't necessarily a question,
but just put out there as like, and,
and not exclusive to this administration,
is we talk working groups till we're blue in the face
and we don't get the results after the working groups.
So I think that once we'd start,
start putting those together,
being very clear on when the deadline is
to get these things done so we can just make the change
and signal it would be important.
Um, next question I got is so similar
to the garbage collection fee not being on par
with surrounding townships, uh, or up to inflation.
Are there other identified levies
that are similarly not adjusted for inflation
or at parity with surrounding areas that we could just say,
Hey, you know what, we're gonna level set
with everybody else in a way that could bring more revenue?
Are there other forms or sources?
Um, we will get you that list.
Um, I think, um, there's obviously a lot of dynamics in
that other than just saying, okay, Oak Park charges this,
we charge the same thing as Oak Park.
Um, we have to look at a lot of dynamics in, in
that we can get you the list of, of ones that, um,
we've looked into that, um, aren't
Okay Surround, you know, up to the same as our
Surrounding. Let, let me say this be
be careful what you ask for.
I'm asking for not a $300 million property tax.
So I'm pretty comfortable asking for the other stuff.
I'm, I'm just, yeah, I I think that you,
you may not quite understand.
If you look at, uh, let's you put the Oak Park out there,
do you know what Oak Park's tax rate is? Mm-Hmm.
No, It's double hours.
I mean, I'm just saying, that's why I say be careful Sure.
What you, what you ask for.
And I think that as far as tax rates are concerned,
we actually have the lowest tax rate in Cook County Um,
so while you want to get on par,
par is not the same.
True. That's why I'm, that's why I'm saying yes.
Be careful what you ask for. That's
All. Yeah. I think that, I think this again,
speaks to the spirit
of collaboration, that if we talk about it throughout the
year, you won't have this many number
of auditors asking for it now.
But yeah. To your point, so we could get more understanding
on the context, that's absolutely fair.
Even on special events.
Again, be, yeah, be careful what you ask for. Yeah. I
Got you. Um,
so, uh, so there's personnel that's been hired from,
that have been hired from grant funds.
Um, are there any of those that end up getting benefits,
salary adjustments, and everything else from local
funds separate from the grants?
Like you bring 'em on board with grants
and then they end up being
effect a larger cost for the city?
'cause we're taking out the corporate fund.
Um, we don't just shift positions onto
the corporate fund from grants.
Um, we work with our departments pretty strategically
to understand if they're asking us
to take something on the corporate fund from a grant, why?
So in this budget, what you will see is that we did shift,
um, uh, about 13 positions, uh, within CDPH,
from grants to corporate.
Um, those were almost all environmental positions that are,
uh, one filled position.
So they're, they, they're existing people,
but, um, they do, um, huge parts
of our environmental regulatory work, um,
that were supported by revenue loss, um, um, through arpa.
Okay. And so, um, those were conversations
that we had early on with CDPH about, that's actually, uh,
man mandated work that we are, we have to do it, um, helps
with the certification that CDPH does. So, go ahead.
Got it. Sorry, I'm looking at the clock.
Uh, got last question I got.
So, uh, obviously we had an election,
I think before the election.
A lot of us may have been someone anticipating a level
of hope as to revenue
that might have been coming from the federal government.
And so I do think that, that some of the subtext on
what you're hearing when we're asking about changing the way
we look at this budget is more saving as opposed
to putting money out there, is the idea
that we're not gonna be getting funds from
the federal government.
When you talk about CDPH, which is largely grant funded,
if those things are gutted, we have to make adjustments.
So I guess my question for you all is two-parter.
When you were thinking through budget, did you anticipate,
hey, maybe this election is gonna go this way
and we're not gonna see these funds.
And if not, now that that's occurred, does
that cause any changes in what you're looking at the budget?
Well, that's actually been asked and answered.
Uh, could you give us Okay. My apologies on that.
Uh, deputy director,
Uh, Matthew Schmitz, managing deputy budget director.
Um, uh, yeah, as we responded to alderman August buck, um,
under the Trump administration, the first time,
the city did not see a dramatic change in federal funding.
A lot of federal funds controlled by Congress.
Um, and, uh, a lot of federal funding to states
and local governments are bipartisan, uh,
because they support a lot of different jurisdictions.
So, uh, at this time, despite the rhetoric, we,
we don't anticipate any serious decline in federal funding.
Um, of course that could change,
but as of right now, we, we don't anticipate it. I,
I'd say we need to start doing
more, anticipating for that.
'cause these guys now we know who they are.
They got better teams executing for them.
We need to make sure. But thank you
very much for that. Thank you, Richard Chair.
Thank you
Mr. Mr. Mr. Bill Alden.
Bill, thank you very well, Mr. Mr. Mr. Irving.
Alderman Irving, seven 30.
Before we get started, I just want to, for the record, um,
that all former president, soon
to be President Trump did sign an executive order
to withhold funding to all sanctuary cities.
And so we can probably expect you less than another
executive order on that.
So just wanna say that for the record. All right.
Uh, just real quick, we can, we can shoot through these.
Um, can you give me a list of how many fleet cars
and who has authorization
to drive fleet cars on a day-to-day basis?
Um, you know,
As far as get to that list? Yes,
Absolutely. Okay. Thank you.
Uh, next, um,
I know we talked about the casino revenue.
Um, you're projecting 11 million for this year.
How do we get from 11 to over a hundred million, 107 for 26
and 129 for 27?
Um, that's a huge jump. How, how are we projecting that?
Yeah, so the projection
for this year, I think is 16 million.
Um, 11 million collected year to date, I believe. Okay.
Um, the difference is the permanent casino.
So, uh, permanent casino's gonna open in 26.
And, um, you know, we've, we're fully expecting
that we're gonna have significantly more revenues.
One of the things that we've learned from having the
temporary casino is that it were heavily impacted
by the casino not having all the other amenities
that other casinos have, entertainment, restaurants,
hotel, that kind of thing.
So the actual attendees at the temporary casino, the number
of people who go is about 80% of the original projections,
but the revenues are about 50%.
And comparatively, when we look at the temporary casino
where there's other casinos that in the state,
people spend about half the amount of time in the casino
here, then they do another one.
So we think when we have the casino that's the full package
that Bally's intends to offer
and is required to under a contract,
it will be a, a significant improvement.
Okay.
What'd you say? Hold, hold, hold. All right.
Let's, let's get this out the way. Alright.
The point of information is main is, is
to a parliamentary point.
So I will come back to you after he finishes, but
unless you've got a parliamentary point,
I'm gonna rule let you're outta order.
Okay. But I will come back to you Altman bill. Alright.
Um, how much are we putting aside for the fire department,
uh, settlement as well as the parking meeting settlement?
Are we putting money in this budget aside for that?
Um, for the CFD contract, I think, uh,
I can't remember who asked this before.
Yes, we are reserving funding in our budget
for the contract negotiations to,
to continue and go forward.
Um, as I have, uh, mentioned
before, um, we have as a base, um, uh,
the ability to make some forecasting based on the fact
that FOP has already signed their contract.
And there are me too clauses, um, within that contract, uh,
within the CFD contract.
So we have a base and we have
provided, um, uh, a forecast based on that base and,
and room for negotiation. Okay.
All right. Um, also
with reopening up these three mental health clinics,
can you give me a breakdown through the chair on how much,
um, we are spending on each mental health facility
personnel, how much it costs us to do the rehab, you know,
everything to beginning to end as far as, uh, the cost
as related to getting those things open?
Yes. Um, also, uh, since September we've,
we've hired over 409 people.
How do we hire 409 people with a hiring phrase?
Could you give a short one on that?
That one's been asked and answered, but people
Don't answer. Um,
so the hiring freeze was on the corporate fund. Mm-Hmm.
Um, and, um, a lot of the positions
that have been hired into, uh,
since the hiring freeze went into place, um,
a were public safety police fire, which we did not freeze.
Mm-Hmm. Um, a lot of the positions
that were reported on in the news, uh, through WBEC, a lot
of those positions are actually on water, um, um, uh,
aviation and other funds
that were not subject to the hiring freeze.
We also didn't put a hiring freeze on positions
that are revenue generating
or that were required by mandates, such
as our consent decree positions
within the police department.
Okay. Um, so,
Okay. So why
is it that, uh,
superintendent Snelling has not gotten authorization
to hire his number two
and number three positions that are still sitting vacant?
And he said he's waiting on budget
to sign off on his number two and number three.
I, I would have to go look into that,
but I do not think that that's sitting with me.
Okay. Well, I think you need to look into that right away.
'cause he's trying to fill his number,
I think it's number two and number three spot.
And, um, they say that that's being held up, uh,
with the homeless homelessness population.
How much money did you add to the homeless population?
Uh, so money to the homelessness programs? Mm-Hmm.
Um, so in this budget, um, overall, um,
the new investments that we're making are the $40 million,
um, for the one system initiative
and, um, uh, $29 million for rapid rehousing.
But in all, let me just get you the entire homelessness
budget because it's
in all our homelessness prevention budget.
Uh, just on the, um,
homelessness investments is about $204 million, which is,
again, $40 million than last year.
When you add into that all of the infrastructure investments
that we make, uh, through DOH, uh, for things like, uh,
shelter improvements, non congregate setting, um,
and so forth, it's a total of $365 million.
Okay. So 300. So you added to that a total of,
Uh, within the just homelessness investments Mm-Hmm.
Which is operational about, uh, $40 million.
40 million, but total citywide
with all the other departments going to that,
Including infrastructure investments.
So capital investments, it's a total of 365 million.
Okay. So that's a whole lot more than 150
that was taken out of homelessness.
So you've moved that money over to do other things,
but we're still basically taking care of a population
of people on a large level.
But you're not calling it, um, you know, the,
uh, the migrant crisis.
You're just moving that money
and putting it under homelessness
and calling it something else under a new initiative?
No. So, um, I can get you this breakout. Mm-Hmm.
That's not what we did. The one 50 was completely taken out
of the city's budget.
The amount in operating, uh, investments
to homelessness went up by $40 million.
Okay. So you're saying with all the people
that we have right now, that we are still housing, which
that number is how much?
So currently the cell, uh,
you talking about the new arrivals,
The new arrivals, homeless, uh, the whole Right now,
how many people are we housing right now under, um,
our housing program?
So our current unhoused shelter network is 3000 beds.
Mm-Hmm. Um, we're, uh, currently have, uh,
about 44,000 new arrivals still within city shelters.
Another, um, 600 to 700 within state shelters.
Um, so in all, it's over 7,000
that are being housed in the city of Chicago.
Okay. And that's gonna be enough, enough money to
get us through the year for that,
The money that we have set aside
for the one system initiative for our beds, uh,
plus the state grants that we are receiving. Yes.
Okay. All right. Well, you said the same thing about the,
um, 75 and the 90 and all the other money.
So I think your, your numbers are off on that last year,
and they're gonna be off again going into next year.
Thank you, Mr. President. Chairman. Mr. Irv,
I was debating on calling you something else,
but I said we, it is getting late, so I'm, uh, I had, I want
to be, uh, yeah, I, Hey, you know, I, I can dish it in,
take it, so it's all good, as you said, Mr.
Pretty, Tony, you know, the rules
of the game, but we gonna get it.
Right. So, any other, uh, any other, uh, questions?
Uh, okay. And she rises.
Alderman, manna, h Penworth.
Thank you, chair. Um, thank you for your work.
Uh, comptroller and CFO and Budget director.
Thank you Chair, and those in the box.
Um, I am glad to hear that, um,
people are talking about consolidation of our Board
of Elections County and state.
I, uh, as, uh, alderman OSHA mentioned, um,
I also am glad to hear that you're considering, um,
the home share tax to increase it to 4%, to, uh, to
as, uh, alderman Alder mentioned,
uh, so that we can address our domestic violence issues.
Um, a lot of the ARPA funds that are going to the 48th ward,
we did an analysis
and we saw that a lot of it is
going towards domestic violence.
So it's, it's really essential and needed.
So thank you for that. Um, uh,
the 48th ward has been hit hard
with the property tax assessment,
so it's gonna be a very hard sell.
Uh, so I, I would like to also add my voice to those
who have concerns about this being the primary way
that we're gonna close this budget gap.
Um, and I'm also at the same time concerned about cutting
police, um, civilians, um, and vacancies,
because also, I don't actually know, um, what,
where the workforce is being, um, deployed.
A as alter Dowell mentioned, I would love
to see a workforce, um, analysis and study.
Um, I hope that is forthcoming.
My community has been hit with a, um,
uptick in gun violence associated with, uh, youth,
especially around schools.
And my community wants to see
our officers on the street with foot patrols.
And, um, so I, I think that would be very difficult
for me to justify.
Um, but I also, again, would like to see an analysis.
Um, and so I am grateful
that we're talking about different ways, um, to,
to fill this budget gap.
I have one question about, uh,
and I'm not sure if this was already asked,
but can you comment on the possibility
of adjusting the city's jet fuel tax
to align with inflation?
Is that something that was discussed
That has not been asked?
Uh, we can have a discussion about that.
Uh, I would, uh, just state that there are FAA, uh,
rules around, uh, increasing, uh, the tax on jet fuel.
So we are restricted by federal, uh, law,
but I, but I can get you the numbers on how
that would look. Would look.
Okay, thank you.
And then, um, I understand that we have to work
with Springfield, and you did discuss, uh,
and mention a couple times about a, a coalition.
Can you, can you talk more about that?
What do you, what do you mean by that?
The coalition? Mm-Hmm.
Um, I think maybe what you're referring to is
that on major initiatives, like I think the one that we're,
have been most focused on is expanding, um, sales tax
to services so we can broaden the base and lower the rate.
Um, we're not going to get that sold in Springfield
with the legislature without other communities,
other municipalities who are supporting the same thing.
So the, that's not a change that would happen just
because Chicago's lobbying for it.
You know, we need to work with other communities
and, uh, uh, so that there's a, a broad basis of support.
Do you, do you mean other
municipalities outside of Chicago?
Yes. And how, how, how does one do that?
How does a city do that?
That's something we're gonna be working on next year.
I mean, uh, you know, we have
relationships with a lot of municipalities.
Um, we're gonna be sitting down
and showing them the analysis we did.
We've spent a lot of time working on it.
Um, and, you know, going over
what we believe the benefits are, uh, not just to us,
but the benefits to the entire state.
It's also, um, cities,
counties also would benefit from this as well.
So building that broader coalition, um,
we've already started talking about how, um,
to present this more broadly, uh, to, um,
civic organizations and things like that.
So it's, it's, it's kind of building a drumbeat
around why this is a necessary move
for not only the city of Chicago, but the state. Thank
You. And,
and I, again, I wanna appreciate your work.
Um, this is not easy,
and I like that we're talking about
how we can create structural change so
that we're not having the same conversations
over and over again.
And, um, I look forward to working with my colleagues, um,
towards creating a, a working group, um,
because I, I don't think that has
that ever been created in Chicago, I'm not sure,
but, um, I think that's absolutely necessary.
So again, thank you, chair.
Thank you. Okay. Any, anything else? Oh, I'm sorry.
I apologize. You're correct. Go ahead.
What was your question? Thank you. Just
On what Autumn
and Bill was talking about with the, uh, request I made
through the chair and I was just figuring with the 11, um,
million dollars in terms of the casino,
and it was late in the year, so I, I I, I thought
that number was more or less close to
what we were gonna be bringing in.
And you said that we, um, forecasted 60 million.
We're not gonna get to that 60 million
1 6 16.
Oh, I thought you said 60. Oh no. Gosh, no.
That's why I was like, man, that's a big difference. Okay.
No, we were really having me smoking some stuff over here.
Thank you. So I'm good.
Then when you said 60 million, I'm like, oh,
that's a way off between November to Thank you. I,
I wish.
Okay. Uh, with that being said, committee will be at ease
until 10:00 AM tomorrow.
We will lead off with, uh, MOPD, followed by CDPH,
followed by Chicago Commission on Human Relations, followed
by the Department of Buildings,
and we'll conclude with the department and family
and support services.
So see you all at 10:00 AM Sorry,
committee's at ease until 10:00 AM tomorrow.
Did You talk to him.