Good afternoon.
Many on budgeting. Government operations will come to order.
Now I have a roll call.
Established Corman,
vice chair Lee Alman, LA Spotter.
Alman. Do Susan Hall. Altman.
Robinson's. Altman. Yancy's. Here. Alman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Altman Ramirez.
Alman. Quinn Lopez. Doing Oh, you are? Okay. Very well.
Altman Moore. Alman. Che. Altman. Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez. Altman. Scott Alem. Ccho Lopez.
Alderman Burnett is here. It's Al. Ferrell.
Alderman. Cardona. Alderman. Rodriguez Sanchez.
Alderman Conway. Alderman Ramirez.
Rosa Altman. Viegas. Alderman.
Mitch Not here. Alt.
Miss Bedo is here. Alderman Nugent.
You got a fan? Nick? Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Napolitano.
Riley Knutson.
Alden Martin Al Manhattan. Alderman.
Silverstein. Okay.
Uh, I say, uh, Mosley.
Conway's Present. Mosley's Present. Yancy's Present.
La Spota. I just saw La Spota. There you are.
Your sheet's over there. Lesa's present?
Uh, I'm just messing with you. Uh, uh I'm here. Present.
I
Ms. Scott Ferrell.
Nugent Riley.
Alright. We have 28 members present. We have a quorum.
Um, we will go
into public comment.
I'm sorry. We have, uh, rule 50 nines.
Um, we got about 59.
Okay. Signed up.
Alright, the following, Al have requested, uh,
remote participation under Rule 59 Altman.
Monique Scott Altman, Byron Ci Lopez, alderman Rosana,
Rodriguez Sanchez, and Alderman m Mi.
Is there a motion to accept the, those individuals
by Rule 59?
Uh, moved by Vice Chair Lee.
All in favor, Sigma of saying aye.
Any opposed in, appear that chair's ayes happening.
Alder Scott, Chel Lopez, Rodriguez Sanchez
and Mitch, uh, will be available to come via, uh,
rule 59 Alderman. Monique Scott, are you present?
Yes, I am. Okay.
Very well, alderman Byron Lopez, are you present?
Present. Alderman Rosano Rodriguez
Sanchez. Are you present
Here?
Alderman? Emma mi are you present? Okay.
Let the record reflect those who've answered the call.
Uh, public comment at this time will begin public comment
out of respect for everybody's time.
Uh, we have eight speakers,
so everybody will be, uh, limited to three minutes.
Um, and,
and we also have, uh, one virtual participant, uh,
Nicole Frederick, are you on?
She is not present on Zoom.
Nicole Frederick is not present. Okay. Uh, alright.
If you, if you could let me know if she, uh, comes on
before we, uh, conclude.
Uh, conclude today. Uh,
first speaker will be Adrian Alexander, followed
by Jessica Jackson.
Good afternoon. My name is Adrian Alexander.
I'm the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
for AFSCME Council 31.
Our union represents 3,500 city employees who live in
every ward, staff, every department,
and along with, uh,
10,000 other C members who live in the city.
We ask you to vote yes on this budget,
which preserves Chicago's Essential Public Services,
invest in our city
and accomplishes both despite challenging economic
headwinds, without asking city workers
to sacrifice more than their neighbors by absorbing painful
and unnecessary layoffs or furloughs.
The balance budget that you're considering today embodies
months of dialogue
and cooperation meant to further,
to avoid further damage in cuts to city departments
and the services they provide.
Everyone who has worked to get the budget to this point
knows how challenging it's been,
and I'm sure there's many others
that have important concerns that are not represented here,
including our union.
For example, this budget eliminates close to 400
vacant SME represented positions.
Not filling these vacancies will require real sacrifice from
our members who will be called upon to do more
to carry the weight of providing clean drinking water,
ensuring restaurants are safe
to eat in serving at welcoming libraries
and running programs for our elderly
neighbors to just name a few.
In addition, as you know, for years, AFSCME has fought
to expand the number of city operated mental health clinics.
We've also been strong advocates
for rolling out mental health crisis response teams.
Citywide this budget does not open any additional clinics,
and the city will have to modify its plans
to expand the care teams,
but it does make substantial
investments in mental health services.
This focus on strengthening
and preserving public services, making limited investments
where possible while taking seriously the city's structural
deficit is why AFSCME supports this budget.
And that's why we urge you to vote. Aye, thank you.
Thank you. Uh, Mr. Alexander.
Uh, next we'll have Jessica Jackson, followed by Zoe Lee.
Lee. My apologies also for the record.
Uh, I like to recognize, uh, alderman, uh, pat Dowell
and Alderman Chris Tele farro, uh, for purposes
of attendance as well as Alderman
Michelle Harris may proceed, Ms. Jackson.
So, um, there's a scripture that says,
I've been young and I've been old,
but I've never seen the righteous forsaken
or his seed bag for bread.
I think that one of the misconceptions
that was going on in here is that I think
that you all thought that I was begging for something.
That I was begging for you all to do the right thing
and to follow the law when in fact, I was demanding
that you follow probate law, that you follow local, uh,
court rules and procedures,
and you all decided that you weren't going to do that.
I was demanding that Kwame Raul
as Illinois State Attorney General get involved.
He didn't do that. I was demanding that
after Alderman met with the public administrators
and they saw the fraudulent documents
that the public administrators had done,
I was demanding that they followed through
and hold them accountable for committing fraud
and perjury on court documents.
I was demanding
that the law department members do their job.
I was demanding that the internal, the inspector officers
of, uh, uh, the Inspector General do their jobs,
but no one seems to do their job here.
So now we are demanding that the Department of Justice
come in and do a audit on Cook County.
We are demanding that all corrupt politicians go to jail.
We are demanding that everybody
who wanna act like we don't understand
or I don't understand the difference
between the jurisdiction of Cook County, the city
of Chicago, and the state of Illinois.
And to think that, I don't know
that there are several instances where those entities,
all three of them intersect and overlap.
You all wanna act like
you all operate completely independent
of one another when you know that's a lie.
You're sitting here now demanding taxes,
property taxes increases.
The city is gonna approve that while we go
and pay it to Cook County.
So to sit here and act like we don't know the difference,
it's downright insulting.
And that's the reason why you're going to get investigated.
And then you're going to come into the reality that yes,
the Democratic Party is going to answer to somebody.
You're going answer to somebody.
It's going to go from answering to God
for mistreating his chosen people.
And then it's going to go to dealing
with the citizens of Chicago.
Believe that, believe that.
Thank you for your comment. Uh, next we have Zoe Lee,
followed by Cecilia Butler.
Uh, yep. So we're gonna go back to, um,
the Constitution that was written in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania in the summer of 1787 by James Madison,
Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John J
and many other delegates.
The purpose of the US Constitution is
to establish the framework for the federal government,
define its powers and protect the rights of individuals.
It serves as the supreme law of the land, ensuring balance
of power among the three branches of government,
legislative, executive, and,
and judicial, while outlining the rights
and freedoms of citizens.
What is an alderman? A member of a city council.
Aldermans usually represent city districts called wards
and work with the mayor to run the city government.
The city of Chicago has violated the fifth
and 14th Amendment.
In my case, I currently have a federal lawsuit
against the city of Chicago Buildings department,
David Moore, Marlene Hopkins.
Um, also, um, you guys
violated federal laws when it comes to
unlawfully demolishing properties.
But the problem is that in, on the south side
and the west side, the al black aldermans have normalized,
um, unlawfully demolishing our buildings.
And that is violation of the Fifth Amendment.
You just can't just knock down people's buildings.
And but y'all do that
because y'all work with the buildings department
who is running an illegal imminent domain scheme, uh,
to help with, um, the, I don't know.
I I don't even know why y'all do it. 'cause y'all corrupt.
Y'all been corrupt. That's all y'all do.
Corrupt is just y'all name Chicago been corrupt so, so long
and y'all continue to deal with this.
But because the machine is breaking, uh,
as you see, that's why nobody can't help me or Miss Jessica.
'cause we've been coming down here for two years.
I'm pretty sure if Dailey was in office,
our cases would have been settled.
I'm pretty sure if Rom was still here,
our cases would've been settled.
I'm pretty sure if Ed Burke was still the chairman
of finance, my case would
have been settled.
Y'all don't know how to run the machine. Shame.
And that's the problem.
So now y'all just looking stupid and have us come down here
and now the world is watching.
So I'm gonna continue to come down here.
I'm not gonna explain my case anymore
'cause y'all know my case and I have all the evidence.
And you have the disgrace alderman on the 17th ward
that this is his last term.
So I'm not really worried about that.
The PowerPoint I'm gonna do on you, my boy is going
to be historical.
Thank you.
Alright. Thank you for your comment.
Uh, next we have, uh, Cecilia Butler, followed
by James McCoy.
Yes, my name is Cecilia Butler
and I represent the Washington Park Advisory Council
and the Washington Park, uh, residence Advocacy Council.
I am, I wanna give you our elected officials a way
to work on that budget.
And that's get rid of the crap
institutions who have come to you trying to get money
for their projects.
The project I am totally against
and my community is the,
uh, oh God.
Now I'm going dumb.
Um, sunshine Gospel Ministries, they're awful.
They wanna build a community center di
diagonally across from the Washington Park Field House
and, um, Washington Park itself.
I have 28 locations within a mile of sunshine
that should be considered
and why they should not be considered our tax dollars.
This can save the city money.
The Washington Park Field House, SVO Museum,
the Jones Armory Diet High School,
Chicago Baptist Institute, Burke Elementary School,
Chicago Youth Centers, Beasley Elementary, Carter Elementary
Access Tennis Project Hood 66
and King Drive, university of Chicago,
Chicago Charter School.
Just built a brand new athletic campus on 63rd University,
south side YMCA, Obama Presidential Center,
Sweetwater Foundation, Harris Park, Douglas Elementary,
midway Palance, fifth Elementary, Metro Squash,
CICS, Washington Park, future Ties, university of Chicago.
Um, they have a school on 62nd
and Ellis, university of Chicago Medical Centers
and the lab, our Chicago Lab, fossil Lab,
Hyde Park High School, UFC Arts Block,
Washington Park Refractory.
I've named these because they don't,
they do the work.
We do not need a community center across from this
list that I just read off to you.
Why are you wasting tax dollars?
Some of these things, if instead
of raising the money on a plastic bag, get rid of the crap
so-called people
that have put applications in to get our tax dollars.
We do not need a community center
diagonally across from a Frederick Law, Olmsted Park,
or on the other end is Jackson Park.
I gave you the list.
They are all within a mile plus of sunshine.
Thank you for your comment. Uh,
next we'll have James McCoy followed
by George Blakemore more,
Uh, the city of Chica.
Is that something? Yeah, you good.
The city of Chicago is over a billion dollars in debt.
We have less than a month.
You all have less than a month to come up with a budget
to solve this situation.
And what's interesting about this is the fact
that we've been telling you all
where you guys have been going wrong.
And for the most part, most
of you guys have allowed the situation to get to this point
where now you guys want to squeeze the city.
You want to squeeze the resident of more money
as if Chicago is already not an expensive city to live in,
as if Chicago is already not a difficult place
to make ends meet as if gentrification is
already not going on.
As if inflation is already not high,
as if it's already not difficult
for the average everyday man
and everyday woman to feed their children
and to feed themselves.
And you guys, the worst part about it's you all gaslight
and make it seem as if it's the resident's responsibility.
It's your constituents responsibility to look
after your mess.
You all, most of you all allowed this situation
to get like this in the first place.
We've been coming up here all year, two years,
even telling you guys about the problem.
All of the, the, the money that you guys are blowing is not
that the city is not giving you enough money.
You guys are definitely getting enough money,
but you guys are spending it, it is now distributed
to all of these things.
Mostly, uh, illegal immigrants, which is
what we've been saying for the longest time.
And now you wanna squeeze the city of more money,
higher property taxes, um, your parking fees
as if parking's not outrageous in the city.
Streaming service, uh, taxes, bag taxes, just name it.
And there's higher taxes for it.
You guys tried to do the thing,
but alcohol that didn't last.
And for the most part, most
of you all knew what you were doing.
And this is why most of you all need to leave.
This is why most of you all need to get outta your seats.
So what we are going to do on our, uh, Zoe Lee's channel,
what Zoe Lee is going to do, which she has, um,
make him famous Friday at 6:00 PM every Friday,
she's gonna pick a man or an older woman
and she's gonna run down their background.
She's gonna run down what they did
and if they should be qualified,
which I guarantee you they won't be.
So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna shake up this hat right
here, and it's gonna be a name.
I don't know whose name is gonna be,
but I'm gonna shake up this name, this hat.
I'm gonna pull this name. And this is gonna be the person
going to be featured this Friday.
This Friday. Everybody needs to tune in, okay? Subscribe.
Um, and then we're gonna run this down
because the next election, the people who have done well,
they need to keep their seats.
The few peoples, not many of you, the people
who have not done well, you all need to go.
'cause this is not what your constituents entrusted in you.
Nobody elected you thinking
that they were gonna pay higher gas
and all I mean higher, uh, bag taxes.
So the name I picked is Michelle Harris
on Zoe Lee's channel this Friday.
Thank you for your comment. Next, we'll have
George Blakemore followed
by
Carolyn R. Clark
And see how, uh, pastor kicks on me.
You know, uh, the almonds are not the problem.
Uh, we are our own problem.
Something happened to us, uh, on the plantation.
Something very bad happened to black people.
And we have not overcome the legacy of slavery.
And we have fallen in love or fell in love with our enemy.
Like Patty Harris said, she fell in love
with with the enemy.
We don't like ourselves. And I'm putting me in it too.
Us all of us, all
of us, all of us.
Me, you, us and we,
black people have fallen in love with the enemy.
We are looking for somebody else to save us
because you got black faces in high places.
You looking for them to save you to represent you.
Now it is very, uh, I can come right here and
and beat up on you all right here.
But we have, uh, hundreds
and thousands of black people in the community that we got
to preach and teach and help and to, uh, help them
because this couldn't go on with any other group of people.
But someone who has a slave mentality, the Hispanic
advocate for their people, the whites advocate
for their people, the Asian advocate for their people.
Why is it that the blacks don't advocate for their people?
It's a mindset. It's a ma on the plantation.
The master never wanted
to make a strong black man and woman.
That wasn't his objective when he captured
us and brought us over here.
Not to free us, but to enslave us.
And we still have these invisible change are in our head.
So let it go. So you get rid of the democratic machine,
then you get the Republicans in.
Nobody going to like you and help you, but you.
We must become selfish people.
Self preservation is a first law of nature.
We must focus on us and us Lord, for us to be strong
and overcome the legacy of slavery.
Self preservation is a first law of nature.
Now, something has happened to me, you, us, and we.
When will we overcome the legacy of slavery?
How we gonna do it? Just do it.
Fall in love with that hair, your big nose, your and
Your black.
That what we gotta do.
We overcome legacy.
We must. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Uh, next we'll have Carolyn, uh, r followed by Brenda Ward.
First of all, I would like
to say happy holidays to everyone.
I have not attended a meeting,
but today was very important that I would be here.
And it's not about the budget,
it's about the execution that took place.
October 7th,
Paul Williams
and David Wick was executed
inside of J's fish and chicken.
And I'm here to ask
Alderman Curtis, which he never met with me, to shut
that place down along with some of the protestors.
We are not gonna take this for someone
to come from another country to execute
our community.
I advocate for the homeless. I'm their voice.
I'm here to speak on behalf
of the homeless that they are traumatized
because their friend Dave
and Paul was executed inside of JJs
and one of the protestors were assaulted
by the owner of JJs with one of his staff people, along
with another person that work inside that business.
So I'm here to ask you all to help me to
shut or to boycott JJs fish
and chicken at 78 28
Southwestern because we are sick
and tired of being sick
and tired of being abused, disrespected in our community
where we pay taxes and they come from another country
and kill us and we're not gonna take it anymore.
And on behalf, on behalf
of Jordan Neely's family, he was also homeless
and we're gonna have two seconds of silence
because he was homeless
and the person Daniel Penney
was acquitted, found not guilty.
And we are going to fight to get justice for
that family as well.
So I'm here to let you guys know
that we are going to shut J's fish
and chicken down
and you could tell the 18 ward, which is
Derek Curtis, to stop lying that he's gonna meet
with the community and
Never. Thank you for your
comments Ms. Ward.
Uh, next we'll have, uh, Dr. Wallace Gator Bradley,
First all chairman and as, uh, August's body,
I'm gonna say to God be the glory.
I too believe that this budget need to pass
for whatever little bit that you got to give them
so we can move on
and especially be able to put the
October 22nd, uh,
settlement mark maxim's case.
So if that can be put on the finance committee so
that the finance committee can make a determination
if they want vote for it to be settled.
It's been settled, but you need
to vote for it to pay for it.
And then they go to the four city council.
And also for transparency,
they need to put the Reed,
Derek Reed, since that's been settled,
for everyone to know how much it's been settled for.
The young man was shot 13 times.
Police officers shot 96 times.
I'm glad that they're doing some instead of waiting like
the other mayor hid what happened to Laquan McDonald.
So I just wanna say, I pray
that this body make determination to approve this budget.
Thank you for your comment. Uh, did uh,
Nicole Frederick ever come online?
No, she did not. Okay.
With that being said, that concludes public comment.
My apologies. Uh, I did call your name.
There's no, no question about that.
Who spoke before you then? No, no.
I know Gator spoke Carolyn Ruff.
Okay. All right. Go ahead Ms. Ward. Hi.
Hello everyone. My name is Brenda Ward.
I'm a city employee, 31 years plus.
I work in the Department of 3 1 1 City Services.
My alderman is Pat Dow.
Uh, 3 1 1 Management is taken away our seniority
by changing the Power Watch schedule.
That's the shift I work on Monday through Friday.
The 3 1 1 operators work
for the entire city, all departments.
This is wrong, alderman.
When callers are calling for services
with long wait times, you'll know why.
This Power Watch is to handle the calls during city
business hours when the call volume is the highest.
That's why the Power Watch shift was created 25 years ago.
Okay? And suddenly,
since we've been talking about the budget,
they're using the magnificent word operational needs.
Well, we didn't have operational needs 15 years ago when
we were short staffed.
And guess what? Today we are still short staffed.
Do you know how many employees are at three?
One one call center.
Forty one forty one
on all three watches.
41 total employees at 3 1 1
on the Power Watch shift.
There are 13 total employees that work days
from eight to 4:30 PM
So if management is going to get rid of this Power watch,
when your constituents
and your wards start calling for city services
and it's a hour or more, wait, you'll know why
I've never understood we supposed to be a call center
and have 41 employees.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Uh, ooh, uh, see that we have Alderman Robinson,
um, alderman O'Shea
and Alderman Riley to add
to the Alderman NuGen as well.
Add you all to the role I saw Alderman Bill,
a non-member, he's president.
Anyone that that we've missed for roll? Okay.
Alright, we're gonna go, uh, outta order.
Wanna take items, uh, 10 through 25, which are
transfer, transfer fund ordinance.
First, there's substitutes for items,
numbers
10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24,
and 25 awards.
1 4 14 22 23, 40 49.
The Committee on Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee on
Immigrant and Refugee Rights,
and the Committee on Environmental Protection and Energy.
Gonna get a motion to accept the substitute.
So moved by Alder Manhattan. All in favor SMA by saying aye.
Any opposed independent chair? A depending on the chair.
Ayes have it. Now we have 16 proposed ordinances towards
1 4 10 13, 14, 22, 23, 34, 40, 45, 48, 49.
Committee on Pedestrian Traffic Safety Office
of the Vice Mayor Committee on the Immigrant
and Refugee Rights, and the Committee on Environmental
Protection and Energy, uh, which have been distributed
to all members unless there's, uh, any objection.
I would like to vote all of these together.
And can we hear a motion Move due? Pass. So moved.
So moved by Alderman Dowell.
All in all, all in favor Sigma by saying aye.
Any opposed Pez ayes have in these Due pass recommendation
will reported out at the next city council meeting.
Alright, going back. Any agenda to item number one? We have,
Yes.
Okay. Uh, we've disposed of the first of 10 items.
So, uh, we have our monthly Rule 45 report
for October, 2024, uh, which has been sent to everyone.
If there any aren't any questions, can we get a motion
to approve the report?
So moved by Alderman Lata.
All in favor Second by saying aye. Any opposed chair's?
Ayes have it. And we will, uh, put this on file.
Item number one is, uh,
ordinance 20 24 0 0 1 3 6 7 5.
The amendment of municipal code
titles 2 9 14 16, 17
and 18, uh,
for the 2025 Municipal Code Corrections ordinance.
Um, and then we have a substitute for that.
Is there motion to accept the substitute?
So Movemental spotter all in favors for saying aye.
Any opposed? Chair ayes happen in the substitute is now
before us we have Ray Philip Santos from the Department
of Law here to, uh, answer any questions.
Members may have questions on the,
on the management substitute ordinance.
Going once, no questions.
Alright, if there are no further questions,
can we get a motion to pass the 2025 municipal Code
Corrections ordinance as substituted?
So move Baldman Mosley all in favors saying aye.
Any opposed? Depending on chair ayes have it.
And, uh, the due pass recommendation
to this ordinance will be reported out at our next city
council meeting on Wednesday, December 11th.
Uh, now we'll consider, uh, items two, uh,
which is a de direct introduction in, uh,
item three together.
Item three is the original budget recommendations.
Item two is a series of proposed corrections
and revisions to those recommendations together
with the tax portion.
Uh, before we place these items,
before the committee for consideration
to hear from our budget director, can we get a motion
to apply the text portion to the 2025 budget recommendations
to the annual appropriation ordinance?
So moved by, uh, vice Mayor Burnett, um,
hearing no objections.
Uh, so ordered the proposed annual appropriation ordinance
for 2025 is now before the committee
and will be explained by the Office of Budgeting Management.
Uh, yeah.
Where's the budget break?
Also, we'd like to recognize, uh, alderman.
Rod Sawyer, thank you for joining us.
Yeah, stick stay right there.
We might need an extra vote, so, uh, hang out with us.
Abstain. You can't abstain,
sir, you're gonna leave the room.
Okay. Alright. Alright. Budget director.
Alright, we have our, uh, budget director with us who will,
uh, make a brief explanation
and then take any, uh, questions
that we may have. Director, your honor.
Uh, thank you. And so, uh,
before you for consideration is the 2025 budget.
Um, as we, uh, have briefed previously, uh, this,
uh, budget has, uh, new revenues as well as additional cuts.
The new revenues, um, to fill the budget gap equal, uh,
$253 million while additional cuts, sorry,
$256 million with additional cuts of $90 million
to reach a balanced budget.
Um, we have a number of management ordinances,
which Ray will go over in a second,
but, oh, we already did that.
Oh, sorry, sorry.
Um, so I'll just go over the, uh, budget gap
and how it's being closed.
Um,
Did the code correction first, not the management.
Okay, so the way that the budget's being closed,
so the new budget gap of 300
and, uh, $46 million that is made up of the $300 million,
uh, original gap, uh, the removal of the liquor tax
of $10 million, the loss of telecommunications, uh,
tax increase due to a change in state law of $23 million.
And the restoration of consent decree positions
and additional costs related to the implementation
of speed camera, um, and,
and enforcement throughout the city is another $12.7 million
that is being, um, filled through, uh, $256 million
of new revenue, including the PPLT increase,
a P tax increase, uh, to the base levy, uh,
parking tax increase, uh, to the rate for parking garages
and valet services.
The extension and expansion of the congestion surcharge, uh,
within the downtown, uh, driving zone, an increase to the,
um, streaming and cable, uh, tv, uh, services
and an increase in bag tax.
Um, additionally, uh, re-forecasting of enforcement, uh,
revenue, um, uh, enforcement revenue,
um, of $11 million, parking enforcement increases
of $8 million,
and an additional amnesty program for public way
of $2.5 million.
This is also closed through, um, $90 million
of additional budget cuts, uh, within two FM
of $3 million cuts to debt service due to the recent, um,
uh, uh, issuance of, uh, bonds.
Um, so a reduction to our debt service, a full sweep of, um,
2026 allocations for arpa
and this full sweep of ARPA funding
for the guaranteed basic income program
and the small business sweep.
And, and so that gets us to a balanced budget.
Um, there are two technical, uh,
substantive technical amendments
that I briefed alders on previously.
The first relates to the, uh, loss
of the telecommunications, uh, tax increase of, uh,
$40 million gap, um, $12.5 million to the corporate fund
and $27.5 million for the emergency communications fund.
Um, the, uh, resolution is
to shift about $10.3 million of cost
to the corporate fund from, uh, the public safety office,
uh, which is, uh, temporary in nature as we work
with the General assembly
to restore the language in the telecom bill that's needed
and then to shift another $16.7 million of
eligible technical technology costs to our capital bond.
The second, uh, very substantive technical amendment is the
restoration of consent decree
positions within the police department.
This is 162 positions within the office
of constitutional policing, community policing,
professional counseling, as well as a couple of other, um,
uh, divisions, 162 positions at a value
of one $11.6 million.
Uh, that is being, uh, mitigated by increase in our, um, uh,
uh, enforcement revenue.
And with that, I will turn it back to the, um,
chair for any questions
Chair.
We'll stand at ease, uh, for about five minutes.
Okay? Um, we have, uh, copies
of the change in the amendment have been, uh, made,
emailed to everybody.
However, in the process of printing off copies,
physical paper copies, for those of you, you all
who need them, what I need to know is
how many people want an actual paper copy versus
an electronic copy?
How many pa I mean, we
need 1, 2, 3.
Okay. So we'll have about, uh, 20 copies made, uh,
so we can, uh, move from there.
Okay? And I've given out what? 1, 2, 3.
Alright, I,
Okay.
The, uh, committee will come back to order.
Alright, so let's,
uh, rewind.
Um, okay, item number one
was the municipal code Corrections ordinance
at the time I said there was a substitute.
There is no, there is not a substitute for item number one.
So what we're going to do is we're going to, um,
re revote on item number one as introduced
as there were not any changes to item number one.
Okay? So is there item number one was the
municipal code Corrections ordinance.
That was the first ordinance,
like four pages, item number one.
Okay.
Alright, item number one. Any questions on item number one?
Altman bill, hold on.
Is Mike, go
Ahead. I'm sorry. Things
are moving extremely fast. Uh,
Too quick though. I know you, you're not slow.
Is, um, is this where the change to the, um, uh,
law department and the authority over in the
Management ordinance? No, that's
in management ordinance.
That's a separate ordinance. Okay. Thank you.
This is, that's the code Corrections ordinance. Okay.
Any, any other questions on the code corrections?
Move through Pass Bald and Lopez.
All in favor, second by saying aye. Any opposed?
Any opinion? The chair, the ayes have it.
And this item will be reported out, uh, tomorrow.
City Council meeting. All right, now,
uh, let's go to item number four, which is
what you're asking about, which is the municipal,
um, item.
I mean, ordinance 0 2 2 4 0 0 1 3 6 7 3 was
the amendment of various provisions of the municipal code
regarding organization and functions of city government.
That is the 2025 management ordinance.
Now, for this item, we have a substitute on
the management ordinance.
Can I get a motion to accept the substitute?
So moved by Altman Vasquez.
All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
Any pen of the chairs? The ayes have it.
And the substitute is now before us.
Now we have representatives from the, from budget,
finance law
and other departments to answer any questions
that members may have on the management ordinance.
Alderman Bill, go ahead. Thank
You, Mr. Chairman. I
just want to, um, I'm looking at the language
that was, I think corrected, uh, where the law department
was looking to have jurisdiction
or, um, authority over all city departments, uh,
including the OIGs office
and seven of the management ordinance.
Um, having thorough conversations.
Uh, the Inspector General had grave concerns that
the law department would have authority, uh,
and be able to give directions to them when it came down to,
um, investigations on who can be investigated
and, um, things of, of
that nature throughout the entire city.
And so, uh, I raised that question
and it looks like that part was stricken.
Um, the language wasn't stricken,
additional language was added in to clarify the intent
and the original intent of the ordinance change.
So the, the intent now is to make where we clarified, um,
and I just needed on the record
that the law department does not have any jurisdiction over
the Inspector General's office.
I wouldn't say that the law department has
jurisdiction over the city.
It's an entirety. I guess to the point
that you were bringing, it says here,
corporation Councils authorize to enter into
and execute contracts related to
and necessary for the conducting
of law business of the city.
Not, not investigations.
So I, I would say that the, the,
the Corporation Council does have overall jurisdiction over
departments, but not to the extent that you're at,
that you are raising where they can direct investigations.
Well, I appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman, but you're not a lawyer
and I would like to hear from the law department
Say ditto. That's all.
Phillips ready to caa,
chief Assistant Corporation consult from
the city's law department.
Adam Bill, I would like to draw your attention to page, uh,
seven mm-hmm.
Of the substitute ordinance, subsection G.
And the last sentence, uh, which is added, um,
would address the concern you just raised in
that last sentence.
We added the language, which says
that nothing in this subsection G shall be construed
to alter or limit the powers
and duties of the Office of Inspector General.
So that has been clarified.
It is clear, and, uh,
this amendment has no intent at all
to infringe upon the powers
and the duties of any other city Department.
Okay? Thank you. I just wanted that on the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Alright. Al Vazquez?
Uh, yes, thank you, chairman.
Just for further point of clarification that point,
if we can hear from the Inspector General, um,
I think there was a conversation to figure out
that language, so for, to confirm for members, um,
if the Inspector General, if it's okay, could speak to it.
That's not necessary.
Well, it is for, yeah, for some people want
to make sure they're confirmed.
Say that again. Some people wanna
know and hear from the Inspector General.
They're okay with the language.
She's right there.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't even know she was here.
You can take the mask off. Thank you Chairman
General Wisberg.
Hello? Hello. I think this will work. Yes. Hello everyone.
Deborah Wisberg, inspector General for the City of Chicago.
Yes, thank you. We have had some conversation about this
language in the management ordinance.
Um, there the language in the substitute does clarify
that the expansion of powers of the Corporation Council, uh,
is not to alter or limit the powers
and duties of the Office of Inspector General. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions? Al Lopez.
Thank you, chairman. And, uh, going back
to the Inspector General, are you satisfied
with the language provided in this, in the, uh,
current substitute?
Um, I, yes, I I believe that clarifies the intention
that nothing in the management ordinance will, um, interfere
with the independence of the office.
The independence of the Office
of Inspector General is critical to its function, um,
and I I appreciate the law department's cooperation
and clarifying that it will not use this provision to,
to interfere with that independence in any way.
Can they use this provision to interfere?
I believe that the clarification suffices, um,
and that the law department, while fulfilling its duty
to prosecute the law business of the city,
will not interfere with the independence of the office.
Does this change give them the ability to interfere?
I don't believe so. As drafted as,
as it has been corrected, I believe
that this protects the independence of the office.
And if, if I, if there are further concerns with how
that is implemented, uh, you will,
you will hear about it from me.
But I believe that the correction in the management
ordinance is sufficient to protect the independence
of the office from any interference under this new language.
Alright, thank you. Any other questions?
Okay, is there a motion?
Alderman Lopez?
Thank you Chairman. Forgive me.
Um, changing subjects to a different portion
of the management ordinance.
Page 28,
I believe that is Article six, mid-year reporting
and annual budget process.
Section eight states as follows.
This article of this ordinance shall take effect only upon
happening of happening of the both of the following passage
and approval of this ordinance
and passage of both the fiscal, uh,
2025 annual appropriation ordinance
and the fiscal year 2025 revenue ordinance
by midnight December 13th, 2024.
So I would like to know with so much effort, uh,
by members of this body to try to bring transparency.
Why are we putting this kind of boot on the next,
uh, of Alderman who want to have collaborative discussions
with the collaborator and chiefs, uh, administration
for the next years moving forward?
Um, that's a question you one may need
to ask the collaborator in chief. That's not,
Well, if you'd like to recess
and bring him down, I'd be happy to.
But in the meantime, this is,
Is that your question? I don't, I
can't answer that question.
Anybody here can answer your question. Who,
Who drafted the substitute Chairman
Corporation Council drafted the substitute.
So then if I could have the Corporation Council explain
why the need for such language, um,
is injected into this document that clearly deals
with trying to create, uh, mechanisms
for oversight and accountability every year.
It's not even quarterly, it's only mid-year.
Why, why the necessary language included in this item
from the corporation Council?
Good afternoon, Ray Phillips, Santos on behalf the City
of Chicago's Department of Law, uh, we were asked to place
that, uh, by who putting that in?
There is a policy decision. And by
Who You could say, go ahead.
By who?
I'm not gonna answer that in
this public forum at this time.
I'm sorry. So the Corporation Council,
which drafted this single
substitute is refusing to answer a question of the body.
Is that, that's your answer.
That is not what I'm saying. I, and
Answer the question, not going to answer
the Corporation Council. This question,
The public forum at this time, the
Question has been asked and answered.
Uh, the Corporation Council is, does not,
for whatever reason, wish to answer that question for
whatever he's, he's stating.
So, chair, chairman, respectfully, what do you wanna do?
This is not, well, first off, chairman, respectfully,
this is not privileged information.
You are Corporation Council for the officers of the City
of Chicago, which is us as well.
So if we are asking a question of who put this in,
it should not be a secret as to who directed.
And Alderman second, if that's what the case is,
then I make a motion to amend this on its face striking
Section eight in its entirety.
Okay, Alderman Lopez, there's a motion, sir.
Uh, all then I
roll call on the motion to lay it on the table.
Okay. Uh, the motion to table is non debatable.
Uh, we will take a roll call on the motion to table.
Alderman Lopez's, uh, motion to strike
Derman Lata Derman Dowell
Auman Robinson Ottman Yancy
Derman Mitchell Auman Harris UD Ramirez
Orman Quinn Orman Lopez
Derman Moore Ottman.
Osha Ottman Mosley
Ottman Rodriguez Ottman.
Scott Emman.
C Lopez Altman Burnett
Talia Farrell Auman Cardona
Ottman Rodriguez Sanchez Aye.
Altman Conway Auman Ramirez. Rosa Auman.
Viegas Autum. Mitch Aut.
Sdo Nugent.
Auman Vasquez Auman
Napolitano Auman.
Riley Reilly Kon. Martin Hadden.
Ms. Silverstein Vice Chair
Lee Chairman Votes?
Yes.
Chairman, this is Alderman. Monique Scott. My vote is no
Chairman. MIT
Chairman. I would like to be,
um, request to be present for the,
determine the quorum and also my vote is no.
Okay. Uh, by a vote of 12 to 19.
The motion, uh, to table fails.
Okay. So you're, you're renewing your motion.
Altman Vazquez, my apologies. You, you had your hand up.
Oh, no, no, I did not. I'm totally
okay with, uh, amending it.
Okay, go team.
Alright, Altman Burnett.
And can you just, um, express
what the motion is fully about? Again,
The motion is to strike section eight
of the management ordinance, uh,
from from the ordinance.
Any questions on the My
correction Section eight of Article six,
chairman Dowell?
Yeah. Can I hear from the law department what the effect
of that would be, if any?
The question The effect again, Ray Phillips Santos,
on behalf of the city of Chicago's department of law,
if I heard correctly, alderman D your question is
what the effect of striking Article six,
section eight from the ordinance will have.
Uh, if this, or if the management ordinance were to pass,
then it would have the same effective date as the rest
of the, um, as the rest of the ordinance,
whereas, yeah.
Manhattan. Um, thank you Chair.
This is just, you know, it's okay.
Before we, before we go to vote on this, I, I will say just
for the law department and for the administration to know,
um, I, I actually do think Section eight is completely,
uh, unnecessary.
Um, and, you know, would express, I, I know I moved
to lay, uh, my colleague's motion on the table,
but it was just to make another amendment.
Um, so, you know, I, I'd ask for a roll call vote on this.
And I think it's a, a wholly unnecessary and,
and frankly a little bit, um, I don't know, uh,
not in good faith, um, for the administration to request
that this be added, knowing that so many
of us have been working very hard on this,
and I appreciate my colleagues who move to get these, uh,
amendments put into the management ordinance.
So, would like a roll call on this
Moore?
Uh, I was misreading something,
so I'd like to revise my vote.
Chairman
Rev vote Or change it?
Change the vote's already done, sir.
It's, that's done. Okay.
Oh, it finalized.
I didn't know you put it in motion. Okay.
Well we didn't, the motion to table was the only vote
that we've taken thus far on this matter.
So we're going to move to a vote on the removal
after everyone has spoken.
Who, who's wishing, who's wished to speak.
Alright, any other questions on Alderman Lopez's motion?
Okay. Um, all in favor of
Alderman Lopez's motion signify by saying aye.
Any opposed? If there's nobody opposed,
what do we need a roll call for?
I'll just, it was it. Okay. Alright. Very well.
Motion, uh, motion passes.
Um, section eight, uh, section eight
of Article six is stricken
and that won't have any impact on this.
No impact. Okay. Very well.
Alright, any other questions on the management ordinance?
Uh, with no other questions there? Motion to move to pass.
So moved by Alder Manhattan.
You want all in favor? Signal? I was saying aye.
Any opposed? Any opinion?
The have it
and item number four will be reported out at
tomorrow City Council meeting.
Alright, we'll go back to
everyone have copies that needed.
Alright, back to item number two.
Okay, item number two is a direct transmittal.
We have accepted, originally accepted One Amendment.
Now there is a Second Amendment, um, to item number two.
Uh, and item numbers two
and three will be considered together as a series
of proposed corrections
and revisions to those record recommendations together
with the text portion.
Uh, before we place these items for consideration
and hear from budget director Annette Guzman,
can we get a motion to apply the text portion
of the 2025 recommended budget recommendations
to the annual appropriation ordinance?
So moved by Alderman Burnett. All in favor. Second.
Goodbye by saying aye. In your polls. Dependen chair. Aye.
Avid. And now we have a combined item two and three
before US Director
Guzman, we don't have what?
The agenda? That's number
two. It's
All one now. Got
It. Okay. Thank
you.
Um, so before you is, item number two is the text portion,
which are the budget resolution for the, um,
2025 budget year.
And number three is the, um, amendments
to the appropriation ordinance.
Um, before you, uh, there are two changes
that were made in the, um, item that came
before you earlier this morning, uh, of removing fund, uh,
additional funding to the, um, housing committee
and the, uh, police and fire committee.
Any questions on the amendment on MCC Conway?
Are there any other changes besides those two?
Uh, um, the change, uh, uh,
removing $80,000 from those two committees and
50,000, 31,000.
Are there any other changes from the previous
amendment to this amendment?
Um, so the, uh, the $80,000 removal, uh,
balance three turnover
Is, is that a no No, it balanced through turnover.
Yeah. So there is a decrease in turnover
to balance the 80,000.
Okay. So, but other than that, no other changes.
No other changes, sir. Thank You. Thank you
Alderman. Uh, Riley,
then fellow Alderman La Spota.
Uh, thank you Chairman. You know,
there are are a couple other areas in the
appropriations amendments that I,
I had a couple of questions about.
'cause honestly, I didn't know that they
were, they were in here.
Um, and I see the Office
of Budget Management is seeking to add
data analytics budget,
an assistant budget director in charge
of data analytics. Is that correct?
Yes. What's that person supposed to be doing for us?
Our data analytics division is the division that runs all
of the, uh, data performance workforce management analysis.
Um, develops all of the dashboards
that are presented on our budget website, as well
as the data that goes on Our open data portal, uh, works on,
um, a number of, uh, analytical, uh, items for the, um,
for the city and will be also working on the new, uh,
mid-year reports that are due as well as the analysis that,
um, is being asked of the, of the office
of budget and management to perform.
So for example, the data request that I sent you,
that this person would work on that
And that you received Yes.
Could have used that person this year.
I have one other question, chairman.
It's related to the city treasurer's, uh, budget here.
I think a a number of us stumbled onto this
as we were reviewing the other errors in this ordinance
and it, it, it was a surprise to many of us that out
of the city's water fund, which is an enterprise fund, um,
a security detail is being paid
for in the treasurer's office.
And I understand that it's slated
to receive a pay increase under this amendment.
Um, at what point in time did the city treasurer receive a
security detail paid for by the water department?
Was that in last year's budget? Is that when it started?
I don't know if this is a question
for the budget office chairman.
Um, I'd have to go back to see when
that detail was first placed in her office,
but this is not a change from year over year.
Okay. So this was already being paid for out
of the enterprise fund, which
for those folks listening at home,
an enterprise fund is supposed to be spent only on, uh,
water related issues.
Um, so this must have been added last year.
At what point do we have a conversation about increasing the
treasurer's allocation for this security specialist
who's paid for with our water fund?
It's actually, um, a change, uh, to part-time positions.
Um, she has switched her detail from full-time to part-time.
I see. And, and so, um, I see it's budgeted hourly.
Does that mean there are multiple members of that team?
There's two members. Two members. Okay. Uh, thank you.
Thank you Chairman
Tsa.
Thank you very much. Chair.
I just had two clarifying questions on page
40 of the substitute under for payment
of bonds from 156.7 million
to 143.5 million.
Could you help me to understand
that change CFO?
Yeah. CFO question. Yeah. Or Jaworski. Yeah.
Thank you. Um, Jill Jaworski, CFO, um, we, uh,
sold refunding bonds last week, general obligation
and sales tax securitization corporation bonds
that this body authorized us to do about, um,
six weeks or so ago.
And, uh, that sale was very successful
and we were able to through, through the sale
of those bonds, lower our debt service for next year.
So that's a 13 million in change in savings
that we have in fiscal 25.
And that's what's re that is reflected in the budget.
Alright. Very, very helpful to understand.
Thank you for that. Um, only other question for me is on
page 16, office of Public Safety Administration
for professional services
for information technology maintenance striking 4.1 million,
add 14.4 million.
Can someone speak to that change? What page? 16?
Uh, this is page 16.
Yes. So, um, as part of the, uh, technical amendments
that I mentioned earlier today, um,
when the state law changed last month, that, um,
took out our language in the telecom bill.
Our revenues for the, um, emergency communications fund
as well as a portion of that
that comes into the corporate fund, um, was reduced
because of the, the change at the state level.
Um, $12.5 million in the corporate fund
and $27.5 million in the, um, early, uh,
emergency communication fund.
And so the increases that you see in OPSA is, uh, a shift
of, um, and this is in your, uh, briefing deck as well.
A shift of 10, um,
$0.3 million from the emergency communication fund
for various contracts into the corporate fund,
which we consider to be a one-time, um, shift as we work
with our state legislators to get that language back into
the um, uh, state bill.
And, uh, we shifted $16.7 million off
of the emergency communication fund into our bonds, uh,
because they're eligible tech technological costs.
Got it. Thank you. Budget Director. Thanks.
Chair Al Lopez.
Thank you Chairman. And again, good afternoon.
Members of the committee, uh, to everyone here.
First off, let me just say, having to try
and go through 78 pages of amendments, uh, with
fairly few hours notice is incredibly disrespectful
to this body, even though even if it's
allowable, it's not right.
Uh, second, um, on page 24
of the amendments under BACP,
there is $250,000 increased
for delegate agencies.
What does that increase for?
The increase is for, um, funding to support a, um,
uh, driver resource center, um, as part
of the management ordinance that was also just, uh,
passed out of this body.
And a driver resource, TNP driver resource center,
I'm, I'm sorry, A TNP driver Resource Center. Oh,
For, okay.
The following page. Animal care and Control.
We are losing two certified veterinary technicians
for just a VE two, uh,
and augmenting them with veterinary assistance.
Is there a reason why we're going from certified technicians
to just veterinary assistance?
Uh, this was a change that was requested by, um, uh,
animal care control, uh, based on the ability to,
um, uh, hire quicker.
Um, uh, uh, this type of position.
Is there someone from animal care
and control who could address
what the impact of this will be?
I do not believe we have someone from a CC with us today.
Right. Um, further in, even though it says page one again,
uh, there's a
$200,000 increase in violence prevention
programming. Where is that going to?
I'm sorry, what page are you on?
It's, it's listed as page one, but it's more towards the
Oh, are, is this the grant fund? CDBG?
I think that's, yes. Yes.
Um, so these are changes that were, um, uh, done with, uh,
public health and, and DFSS as it relates to their, uh,
grant funding from the federal government under hud.
Um, and this aligns with their multi-year, uh,
delegate agency contracts that are funded
through this particular grant.
Is this connected to the following pages $200,000 in,
in reduced mental health clinic funding? Yes.
So, um, the CDBG fund, uh, covers a number
of delegate agency contracts across a number of departments
and, um, this is rebalancing to actually align with their
existing delegate agency contracts.
Are there other re rebalancing amendments in here?
Um, yes, there are, um, uh, rebalancing, uh,
within DFSS, um, as it relates
to their agreements as well, um, with senior services.
Um, let's see,
And I guess as you're looking director Yeah.
Do these re rebalances, uh,
impact service delivery
or are they just being classified in different manners
but still providing the same service? They
Do not, um, affect service delivery at all.
It is rebalancing to align
with the actual delegate agency contracts
that are multi-year in nature. Got
It.
Um, though it's not in this,
uh, we are on the hook
for $175 million from CPS again this year for
non-teacher personnel.
That's the amount that they owe to us. Yes.
And for 2025, we're paying that again, that's
The amount they owe to us.
The 1 75 is the amount that they owe to the City
of Chicago in payment of their portion of MABF,
Which we pay in advance and then get reimbursed.
We pay in advance, they reimburse
It. So that was in 2024,
we paid in advance
and we are still waiting for that reimbursement.
Yes. And they, and
They'll be paying and we have the same arrangement
for 2025 scheduled.
Well, well, okay.
Um, lastly, I know, uh, we started this meeting delayed
because of pages five
and six, which were the committee budget, uh, increases.
Um, thank you for taking them out.
Uh, the other question I have is with regards
to the position of Vice mayor, the fact that
that is $432,000 for a nons statutory
position in, why is that so high?
That is the same amount it's been since the 2020,
uh, four budget.
And there are matters, um, with regards
to funding a position that do,
that has no statutory function other than being a
placeholder in the unfortunate event
of an opening on the fifth floor.
Why is that level of staffing required,
which almost would be the equivalent
of the third largest committee if it actually had some sort
of responsibilities associated with it?
The, uh, vice mayor does step in, in, um, in, in the state
of the mayor in many occasions
and does attend, uh, events as well
as other meetings on behalf of the city.
So the duplicity of having photographers both
for the vice mayor, the mayor, drivers for the mayor,
the vice mayor, and all of that,
that was in a government
efficiency that we thought we could work on.
I think that in many occasions there are, um, uh, needs
to, um, be in the community
and to provide, um, information to those
who both live in the city of Chicago as well
as do business in the city of Chicago.
Both the mayor serves that role
and the vice mayor in his state as well.
Alright. Thank you Chairman.
Thank you. Any other questions? Hold on.
Viegas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Budget director as it relates
to the, uh,
one seventy five, a hundred seventy 5 million from CPS.
Given that the new law takes into effect in January 25,
what are we doing to make sure
that we decouple ourselves from that whole process?
Thank you for that question.
Um, alderman, so, um, I think
that there are a couple of things that we're doing.
One is through the department of law, we're working to, um,
have the statute that the state statute
that requires the city to be the, um, the, uh,
payer, uh,
or the, the one that contributes to the fund changed
because we know that we have employees from two different
employers in that fund.
And so that is, um, a, a, a big thing that we're looking
to get changed out in Springfield is to have the,
that one word from city to employer changed.
Um, and the secondly, you know, we're continually working
with, um, uh, the Board of Education to, uh,
uh, identify those areas of, um,
entanglement, um,
and help them think through the ways in which, um,
they can begin to, uh, continually, uh,
disentangle from the city's, um, uh, uh, financial support.
Uh, you know, they have their proposals on the table.
I think that we have to look at those as a city
and understand what is a, you know,
what we can and cannot do.
Um, and I think that'll come before this council as well,
So. Right. So right now,
um, the spring agenda
for the city will, one of the items
that will be on there will be to clarify the statute
and make that correction Correct.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Any others?
Before I go back to Alderman Riley,
second round, alderman Riley.
Thank you, chairman. I just, I wasn't planning on speaking
to the Vice Mayor's appropriation,
but since it was brought up
and since there was some conversation about the duties of
that quote unquote office having served
as the city's vice mayor under Mayor Emanuel, um,
I can tell you I happily executed those duties
with a staff budget of exactly $0,
didn't have a driver
photographer, any of that kind of stuff.
Um, you know, all of these, these, these special trips
to the ward and all these sorts of things
that are mentioned in the Vice Mayor's duties, um,
that's superfluous and frankly, voluntary.
Um, if you look at the definition of the position,
that position is only relevant in the horrible occurrence
of something being visited upon our mayor,
whether it's an illness or worse yet death.
Otherwise, it is simply a symbolic title.
Um, and there are no duties to be performed,
certainly not $400,000 a year worth.
And so to hear the Office of Budget Management
defending those expenditures
after trying to look us straight in the eye saying
that they found every cost efficiency they could in this
budget, I find that laughable and dishonest.
Um, and I mean, no, no disrespect
to my colleague Alderman Burnett, um, who I have a lot
of respect for and I like as a friend.
Um, but we're talking about trying
to balance the budget here,
and you all are about to ask the taxpayers
to pony up a whole lot more money.
Yet here we are, we are catching these, these extra staffers
for some of the mayor's good buddies who serve as chairman,
uh, that you snuck in here.
And then thankfully some of our colleagues caught
that you had to go and remove.
You know, we learned the water department's
paying for security details.
Now, you know, God knows what else is buried in here.
Uh, but to tell us that, I'm sorry, a,
a ceremonial office like Vice Mayor requires, uh, staff
and photographers and, and drivers
and these sorts of things is nonsense.
So let's be honest with the taxpayers and enough of this.
Thank you chairman. Thank
You Alman Riley. Any
other questions? Alright, with that being said,
is there a motion roll
call on what?
Yes, sir. Move, do pass.
Move do pass by, uh, alderman, uh,
LA spotter on the roll call vote
all the spotter
on Arta Robinson.
Arta. Yancy Orman Mitchell
Harris Ora Ramirez.
Orman Quinn Orman Lopez
Orman Moore Orman.
Osha Orman Mosley.
Em Rodriguez Scott.
No. Che Lopez?
Yes. Alman Burnett.
Alia Farrell Alman Cardona.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez Aye. Oman Conway.
Altman r Ramirez. Rosa
Viega au mi
No.
Emis Pdo Emman Nugent
Emon Vasquez Emman Napolitano Emon Riley
or Nuon or Martin Em Manhattan
Or the Silverstein?
Vice Chair Lee Chairman Irving Votes. Aye.
Mosley, sir. Altman Mosley.
Alderman Mosley Votes? Yes.
Mosley. Aye.
Alderman Roberton. Alderman Roberton votes? Yes.
Motion passes. 17 to 16.
All right, item number five.
Item number five is Ordinance
20 24 0 0 1 3 6, 7 6.
The expenditure of the portion
of motor fuel tax funds allocated to the city
of Chicago for 2025.
Annette Guzman from the Office of Budget
and Management is here to answer any question.
Committee members may have any questions on the Motor fuel
tax allocation ordinance.
Seeing none, alderman do has a motion move to pass.
All in favor Second by saying aye. Any opposed?
Any opinion? Cha ayes have it.
This, most this matter will be reported out at our city
council meeting on Wednesday, December 11th.
Item number six is Ordinance 22 4 0 0 1 3 6 7 7.
An intergovernmental agreement
with the Chicago Transit Authority in Cook County
for the allocation of foot motor fuel tax.
Again, Annette Guzman from the Department
of Budget Management is, should answer any questions.
Any members may have. Any questions?
Altman Viegas.
Mr. Chairman, is the budget director
gonna make a presentation on this?
First,
It's the annual IGA that we enter into with the city of,
um, the Cook County
and the Chicago Transit Authority
to allocate the $3 million from our motor fuel tax
revenue to the CTA.
Is that per, is that by statute
or ordinance? How, how's that?
Um, it is, uh, pursuant to, um, uh,
sorry, looking at the wrong thing.
Um, it is, no, it's pursuant to, uh, the authority of this,
of this body to provide a portion
of the, uh, motor fuel tax.
The CTA. And
What's the, what's the requirement
of the, what is that money to be?
Sorry. Sorry. It's pursuant to state statute. Gotcha.
Um, does it also explain
what that money needs to be used for
The IGA?
Yes. Um, the funding, uh, will be used.
Just gimme one second. Um,
it's, uh, just as for transportation purposes,
and it's, uh, subject to, um,
the purposes set forth in the reach,
the Regional Transportation Authority
Act, that is the state statute.
And then, um, are they required at some point
to talk about the appropriation,
uh, how they're gonna spend that money?
Or is it just a blank check? And then
I, I think that this body would have the authority to, to,
to ask them exactly how they used
that money over the, the past year.
But it is regulated by state statute. Gotcha.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on MFT on Vasquez?
Uh, thank you. Uh, and I apologize.
So we're, we're talking about CTA
as far as what they would do with the funds?
That's what my colleague was asking. Correct.
Um, just wanna remind folks
that we do have quarterly hearings of Ville Carter
and the Transportation Committee thanks
to legislation that was passed.
Feel free to ask him next time he gets on the microphone.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Any other questions on this portion of the MFT?
Okay, with that being said, uh,
Salary resolution, Honor Mitchell moves to pass.
All in favor saying aye. Any opposed?
P The chairs, the ayes have it in this matter will be
reported out, uh,
at the next city council meeting on
Wednesday, December 11th.
Kay. Item number seven is resolution
20 24 0 0 1 3 6 7 8.
An amendment of regulations governing administration
of classification plan
and employee benefits
for classified position set forth in the annual
appropriation ordinance regarding salary, schedule,
automobile allowance, holidays, vacation, and sick leave.
Uh, Annette Guzman, uh, from OMB is here
to answer any questions,
any questions on the Sally resolution?
I'm actually going to pass this to, um, Kevin Murphy,
the managing deputy, uh, uh,
budget Director for any questions.
Thank you. Uh, alderman State Council Committee, uh,
Kevin Murphy, managing Deputy Budget director, OBM.
Uh, the changes is resolution. Um, uh, do a couple things.
One is, uh, under authorized leaves of absences
conforms language to the, uh,
various bereavement leave acts passed by state law,
the Family Bereavement Act
and the Child, uh, bereavement Act,
um, extended Bereavement Act.
Um, it also codifies current city policy
regarding bereavement leave for city employees.
Um, and then under section two, uh,
that updates Schedule A, which is a listing, uh,
that DHR provides to assign titles to pay schedules.
Um, it's an annual update
as they do that work throughout the year.
Um, and then section three is an update
to all the pay schedules based on the collective bargaining
agreements, um, and, uh, pay schedules
that exist for city employees.
Thank you. OTT O'Reilly.
Thank you Chairman. I just, just, just so I'm clear, um,
so this particular ordinance would be, uh,
voting on includes the new salary schedules, AKA, um,
salary adjustments, or No, just the titles and
Director? Yes. Um,
that's correct.
Um, the annual, um, reconciliation work that DHR does
to add titles to, um, schedules as well as the,
um, update to all
of the salary schedules based on collective
bargaining agreements that are in place
And only related to collective bargaining agreements.
So this is only for non-management Union employees,
or is it for all employees?
It's inclusive of all pay schedules.
So not just the unions. Correct.
Correct. Thank you.
Any other questions? Okay.
Uh, with that being said, uh,
hr h HR Al will say you have a motion.
Do you? Alright. Alder Miller spot a move. Do pass.
All in favor signaled by saying Aye. Any opposed?
P Chair, the ayes having this matter too
be reported out on tomorrow.
Uh, before we conclude, uh, want to acknowledge,
I know this has been a, uh, a unique process,
but I do want to acknowledge our, our vice chair, uh,
for her assistance
and help throughout the process when we had our hearings.
Also, the all to all of you all who
provided, uh, lunches for, uh, our period of time here
for the hearings.
Also, our people in City Council services who've been
with us throughout this time as well.
Our Sergeant at Arms, Alvin Starks,
the Assistant Sergeant at Arms, uh, Javis McCall
and Anthony Harper, uh, Mabel from, uh, council Services.
Michelle Evans, Margaret Diva, Linda Bryant, Arby Ruiz, uh,
Patricia Hicks and Sharon Franklin.
Also, uh, director Annette Guzman
and her team are, uh,
assistants from our gentleman in the booth from two fm, um,
Michael Smith, Chuck Evans, Jonathan Bondy,
and Lloyd Ramsey.
Also our, um, connection to the rest of the world.
Uh, Mansur Kamal, thank you for your help, uh, in,
in bringing us, uh, keeping us online as well as from, uh,
depart Department of Technology
and Innovation, uh, Alex Langley.
Uh, also the officers from the Chicago Police Department,
uh, who have, uh, worked to keep us, uh, safe.
All of the unit 5 44 City Hall officers on the first floor,
as well as, uh, officer Binion and Officer Jones.
And finally, for our, uh, not second to last, our, uh,
housekeeping staff that has, uh, worked very hard
during our time to keep us clean.
Um, Dolores Corona, Isabella Lopez and Maria Alvarez.
And, uh, finally, uh, to the, uh, IGA team that is, uh,
kinda kept this thing moving.
Uh, I know it's been a bumpy ride,
but, uh, uh, at least we're to this point now where we can,
uh, conclude the, uh,
20 25, 24 25, uh, budget hearings.
And, uh, look forward to seeing everyone on tomorrow.
With that, uh, alderman Mitchell. Have a motion to adjourn.
So moved. Uh, all in favor, second of all, saying aye.
Any opposed? I'm sorry, man.
Y'all, my apologies.
Uh, Dan and,
and Janice from, uh, Kofa, thank you, Altman do for,
uh, bringing it to my attention.
Thank you much.
Oh, I did. I I acknowledged him. Yeah. During the reset.