Roll call to establish quorum Vice Chair Chico.
Alderwoman. Cole Coleman Not here. Alderman Moore? Not here.
Alderman O'Shea? Here. Alderwoman Scott.
Present. Alderman Cardona. Alderman Waba.
Alderman Conway. Alderman Viegas. Not here.
Alderwoman. Mitt Not here. Alderman Podo. Chair.
Alderman Napolitano. Alderman Riley. Alderman Lawson.
Present. Alderman Gardner.
Oh, Alderwoman.
Clay Alman. Martin
and Alderman Silverstein is here.
There are 14 members present. We have a quorum.
Who do we have anyone on Zoom? Same.
Um, we have Alderman Moore Alder, um, alderman Moore.
Um, would like to join us on Zoom.
Can I get a motion to include Alderman Moore?
Um, that by Alderman Napolitano. All in favor?
Um, Alman Moore. Are you there?
Alman Moore, are you there?
Okay, we'll come back to Alman Moore.
Um, at this time we'll begin the public comment period.
The period is limited to, um, 30 minutes out
of respect for everybody's time.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes.
We have one person, um, for public comment online,
and that is Sam Toya from the
Illinois Restaurant Association. Sam, are you there?
Yes, I am. Go
Ahead. Good morning.
Good morning. All right. Wanna make sure you heard me?
So, thank you for having me.
Chair Silverstein and members of the committee.
Again, I'm Sam Toya, president
and CEO of the Illinois Restaurant Association.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity
to testify today in favor
of Alderman Beal's proposed video gaming ordinance On behalf
of the Illinois Restaurant Association, I'm here
to voice my support for legalized video gaming in Chicago.
The IRA is a proponent of video gaming in Chicago
and is as a proven revenue generator.
As a matter of fact, we are in favor
of all legalized electronic devices that bring money
to the brick and mortars, municipalities and the state.
According to report from the FTI consulting in 2022,
Illinois generated an estimated 1.2 billion in revenue
for state and local governments through video gaming.
And all this is without Chicago.
Chicago's restaurant is restaurant is currently in crisis.
Many restaurants are struggling as they face years of debit,
higher food costs, supply issues, and staffing challenges.
Video gaming allows the hospitality operation
to offer an attractive source of entertainment
to their customers, boosting revenue and creating jobs.
The additional revenue from video gaming would be a form
of economic relief for our struggling restaurants.
It would offset increase to labor cost, paid leave,
food costs, rent and others.
Video gaming also would add
to local neighborhood entertainment options,
keeping our residents entertained without losing their
businesses to cities outside Chicago.
Our city has 17 wards that order over 30 municipalities.
And of these municipalities, only six Illinois
do not allow video gaming.
According to Illinois Gaming Board, this puts restaurants
and bars and border wards at a competitive disadvantages
'cause they cannot offer video gaming to their customers.
Legalized. Video gaming will also allow struggling
restaurants to look for avenues to expand, as well
as provide additional revenue necessary
to create a new restaurant.
Video gaming could help revive Chicago's restaurant industry
at a time when owning
and operating a restaurant is exceptionally difficult.
We urge you to pass this legislation
to legal legalize video gaming to save our restaurants.
Like I said before, the pandemic, I say this all the time.
The restaurant industry was a industry of nickels and dimes.
Post pandemic. It's become an industry
of pennies and nickels.
And we gotta help our brick
and mortars from the, you know, from the south side
to the west side, to the north side,
to the southwest side, to the northwest side.
It's important 'cause restaurants are the soul
of every neighborhood and our 77 communities.
Thanks for having me.
Thank you. Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
Alderman Silverstein. Alderman Moore.
I was on a phone call. I'm
Thank you Alderman.
You're recognized.
I am against this ordinance and I'm going to tell you why.
All these sin, taxes, alcohol, gambling.
I was in Philadelphia several years ago
and the liquor stores was owned by the municipalities.
So the only way that I would support this, if
the city owned those machines,
Uhhuh, if the city owns them and put 'em there
and all the revenue would go to the city of Chicago,
we have the casino
and that they're going to be competing with the casinos
and they gonna lose money.
So that's why it's very important to have a man, a Mr.
Blakemore caliber here.
Now, uh, this committee used to be chair by,
uh, uh, Madam Emma.
Mitch now,
but it was procurement, these contracts.
And when Carla came in, I advocated for her to come.
But we only get 2% of the contracts in the city
of Chicago go to black people.
And it's disgrace. Four.
I'm the only, it's two people speaking
and I'm the only black one here.
Maybe it's something wrong with Mr. Blakemore.
Maybe it's something wrong with the system.
Our ultimate should be educating, informing,
and enlighten their constituents when they know
better, they do better.
I know better. That's why I'm such a
threat to the system.
This system here is all Democrat.
Uh, one party system. That's no good.
It's like coming a facet or one party system.
Okay, I went red, then I flipped red. Now I'm going black.
I'm going black. The Hispanic, uh, uh, uh,
they say they're in their neighborhood.
It competes with Michigan Avenue for in business.
Well, if they can do it, the blacks can do it too.
These minutes are stolen from me. Stolen label.
Black label made America
rich and reparation.
They'll never give it to us.
We got to take it by any means necessary.
We must stay focused on
our agenda, our agenda.
Know who you are and where you are, and what you are about.
We got to free ourself. The Hispanic t. Got more sense?
Thank you. The next speaker is Patrick
Doer from the Hospitality Business Association of Chicago.
Good morning. Members of the licensed committee,
pat Doer from the Hospitality Business Association
of Chicago here yet again to speak about video gaming.
At Chicago's locally owned bars
and restaurants, our association is only locally owned
Chicago bars, restaurants, and music venues.
So we have are uniquely interested in this issue
of video gaming that has been excluded
from Chicago for so long.
Tavern licenses have declined
by 25% since 20 12, 20 13, with much of
that decline post pandemic,
total on-premise liquor licenses,
including incidental restaurant music venues
are down slightly to 3,653 earlier this month.
A few digits lower than they were pre pandemic.
We have fewer places
and far fewer jobs than we did before 2020.
While the suburbs continue to grow faster
and, uh, in both jobs and locations.
Since COVID, almost every Chicago hospitality business is
already at a competitive disadvantage to those suburbs.
Because we have higher city sales taxes in most
the city council has eliminated the tip credit wage,
which is skyrocketing labor costs
and leading to fewer operating hours
and less scheduled staffing
by your local bartenders and servers.
And we also have expensive paid leave
and paid vacation mandates compared to suburban operators.
Now, on top of that, you can offer state licensed legal
video gaming to supplement your operations.
Makes it very hard
to see Chicago's slow decline in open bars
and restaurants stopping anytime soon.
Since 2019, city Hall
and the State House have legalized a new casino legal sports
betting, including on smartphones
and legal recreational marijuana.
In Chicago, the only industry being told no by City Hall
and the State House are Chicago's locally owned bars
and restaurants eager to participate in
what the state's had for over a decade.
Legal video gaming opponents from the city's casino partner
will likely claim illegal video gaming is an existential
threat to the new casino that all of us, including the bars
and restaurants, are relying on
to shore up the city's pension debt.
There's just no evidence from that,
from both the Illinois Gaming Board
or from the city's own study released earlier this summer.
Juliet and Rockford based casinos are surrounded
by existing video gaming license locations.
There are no new casinos There are performing as well,
if not better than Chicago's.
Joliet has 93 bars
and restaurants with 524 video gaming terminals.
It outperformed our River North Casino this last month.
Rockford has 94 bars
and restaurants with 522 video gaming terminals performed
as well as downtown Chicago's Casino.
VGT is not hurting them,
and it won't hurt our casino partner here in Chicago.
With a few seconds left to go, I urge the body
to clarify whether this ordinance applies to taverns or not,
and to give it your favorable consideration
to put us on an equal playing field with all
of our suburban competition.
Thank you. The next speaker is Carl Gutierrez
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
Um, everyone hear me? Great.
Uh, good morning, chair
Silverstein and members of the committee.
My name is Carl Gutierrez on behalf
of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
I'm here today to speak, uh, to the chamber's concerns
with the ordinance before the
committee as currently written.
Before I do, I want to personally thank Altman Beal
and Chair Silverstein for engaging with the Chamber prior
to this hearing and listening to our concerns,
um, which are twofold.
The first has to do with the fiscal impact on this ordinance
as it's related to the troubled, uh, pension, um,
for the police and fire.
But the second issue is what I'll be focusing on right now,
and that is related to the message
that this ordinance would give, um, to businesses that seek
to do business with the city of Chicago.
That is, if you enter an agreement with the city of Chicago,
that agreement may not be honored.
I'm of course, talking about the host benefit agreement.
The city entered with Ballys for the Chicago Casino.
While we appreciate the position of the proponents for this,
um, ordinance as it's re you know, with regard to the issue
of the agreement, um,
the issues raised in our view are essentially
beside the point because the concern that we have has to do
with, again, the message that this gives with regards
to the agreements that city enters with any businesses.
Now, on this specific point I wanted
to highlight one, uh, quick thing.
Uh, that's to say that if there is a belief
that there is a violation with the agreement
that the city feels that there is with Bally's,
that there is a path forward on addressing that.
Um, what this ordinance would do is in fact the opposite,
which is that it puts Chicago,
the city in a clear violation of that agreement.
Um, on this point, I want
to be crystal clear for the committee.
While this is obviously about one company, I could,
and the chamber could be up here speaking about any company
because it same sends the same message, which is that
the city entered an agreement.
The city violated that agreement.
And if you enter into an agreement with the city,
that agreement may not be honored
that Chicago ultimately is not a reliable partner.
And that's not the message we wanna send.
The message we wanna send is that we need to be, um, there,
that there's no better place in the world to live, work,
do business, and raise a family.
There's no better place in the world to, you know,
build, grow, and succeed.
And that is rooted in our credibility as a city, our, uh,
credibility to keep our word, which is why
standing before the committee and asking members
and the council writ large to just find another way.
You do what you have to do.
You do what you have to feel is right.
But find another way to not cross this line
where we are violating our own agreement
and not send a message that that's how we do business.
And whatever changes we hope to achieve this ordinance,
we Oh, cutting in
and out, I'll find another way to solve them.
'cause at what's at cost is our credibility.
Um, with 15 seconds left, thank you for your time
and glad to answer any questions later on.
Thank you. That concludes our Did you
can, can we wait till we address this item? Oh,
Okay.
It'll, uh, public comment.
Yes. Um, that concludes our public comment
and we are gonna move forward with,
um, today's agenda.
We have four items on the agenda today.
The first item on the agenda is the approval
of the Rule 45 reports
for July, 2025
and August, 2025, which were sent to the committee.
Almond Riley makes a motion to approve the Rule 45 report.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed in the opinion of the chairs? The ayes have it.
The reports are approved.
We are actually gonna move out of order and take items three
and four first, and then come back to item number two.
So do we have anyone from, um, alderman Cruz's office here?
So oh 2 0 2 5 0 1 8 4 5.
And ordinance to amend the municipal code lifting subsection
four dash six zero dash two three
to allow the issuance
of additional packaged good licenses on a portion
of diversity avenue, the chair recognizes
Jason from Alderman Cruz's office.
Please, uh, identify yourself for the
Good Morning. Jason Linky,
director of Policy
and zoning for Alderwoman Cruz.
Uh, this is for a, um, tavern.
The tavern has historically operated here,
but was under a moratorium.
So as a, as the ownership changed, uh, we needed
to lift it in order to allow this business to open.
We've had, uh, extensive community, uh, input in this.
Um, alderman was very comfortable with the proposal,
uh, so we asked for your support.
Are there any questions by committee?
Honor O'Reilly moves to pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chair?
The ayes have at the motion is passed. Thank you.
Item number four is oh 2 0 2 5 dash
0 0 1 8 7 5 9.
And ordinance lifting subsection four dash 6 23
to allow the issuance
of additional package good licenses on a portion
of Howard Street.
The chair recognizes Leslie Perkins from
Ulner Woman Hadden's office. Thank
You, chair. Good morning.
Uh, Leslie Perkins, chief of Staff
to Alder Manhattan and the 49th Ward.
We had a business, an existing business
that changed ownership, so we need to lift the moratorium
so the new owner can, uh, get the proper license.
Any questions? Alderman Lawson moves.
Did you have a question? Are you I
Around the clock.
Clicker
Alderman Lawson moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed the opinion of the chair?
The ayes have at the motion is passed. Thank you.
Now we will go back to item number two.
Yeah. Um,
we have oh 2 0 2 5 dash
0 1 8 8 2, an ordinance to amend Title four
of the Municipal Code of Chicago by adding
a new chapter four dash 1 55 regarding licensing
and regulation of video gaming terminals.
There is an amendment to an a substitute ordinance
that was just passed around.
Um, can I get a motion
to accept the amended Alderman Cardenas?
So, moves all in favor, say aye. Any opposed?
Um, the substitute is before us.
I'm going to, uh, turn it over to Alderman Beal to explain
the change and a little summary of the ordinance.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, uh, members of the committee.
Uh, the substitute that was just, uh, adopted, uh,
basically it was just one small change,
and that is to add that 100% of the revenue generated
by VGT goes to support our pension system
To, uh, to, uh, go towards our pension system.
Um, that was something that, uh, you know,
some people talked to me about yesterday.
And, uh, I thought it was very amenable for this body
to adopt that, seeing that we are, uh,
not getting the amount of money from valleys as far
as our pension is concerned.
And this will help kind of plug that hole as well.
And, um, and,
and to show that, you know,
this body is not just moving forward with video gaming
to support our bottom line general fund, uh,
but to support the one thing that is, uh, detriment
to the city, which is our pension system.
And so that is the amendment that, uh, is
before us with a substitute that is before us.
Um, but basically, Madam Chairman, this,
this ordinance is something that, uh, you know,
we've been looking at for some years.
Uh, Springfield is, I think, desperate for us to, um,
adopt, uh, video gaming
because of the amount of revenue
that would be generated from this.
Uh, I, I talked to the state as early as yesterday,
and they said they're, they're open
to talking about potentially changing the formula, uh,
to give Chicago more of the share.
But they say the city has refused to come down
and even ask for a bigger share.
Uh, and so are we to just sit back in this body
and look down the barrel of a 1.2, $1.5 billion deficit
with nothing in sight, um,
or are we to look for additional revenues that don't affect
everyone, like property taxes,
people driving down the street with, uh,
tickets being hit every other day.
Uh, and so this is a, a creative way, I think, in order to,
um, bring the city up to the times with VGT.
And so, uh, one, um, other option that I've heard,
uh, over and over again over the last few days is,
uh, bars and taverns.
We're open to that. We're definitely open to it.
Um, but we gotta see right now, um, on conversations
that I've had, the city doesn't have the capacity
to even roll this thing out, period.
And we've been talking about this for over five years,
and they're still saying that we don't have the
capacity to roll this out.
At what point do we roll it out?
At what point do we look to see what's best
for the taxpayers of the city of Chicago?
And so, uh, I looked at this long and hard
and, uh, the industry has done a thorough scrub of
what this could potentially bring to City of Chicago.
Uh, and the potential for this body is between 60
and a hundred million dollars.
And that is under the current form formula
that is on the books today.
Now, are we going to turn our blind eye on 60
to a hundred million dollars,
or are we gonna look to raise property taxes,
increase ticket fees, increase garbage fees,
or are we gonna look creative to, you know,
do something a little different
that the city has never done?
And so I think this is a great opportunity for us
to move forward, to move this body forward
with trying to address some of the revenue.
And if we can go to the state, um, to show them that, hey,
we have now put some skin in the game
and ask the state to change the formula, uh, you know,
the city has a wonderful lobbying team in Springfield
that can potentially go
and, um, you know, get this formula changed.
So I say, let's put the charge on them to go down
to Springfield and change the formula.
So with that, I, I really humbly ask for this body
to move forward with VGT to bring the city up to the times.
Thank you.
Any questions from committee members?
I know Alderman Riley, you had a question?
I have my hand up. Derman Moore,
You have a question?
Actually, if, um, the representative from the Chamber
could rejoin us, that'd be helpful.
Okay. I
Hello.
Good morning. And, and thank you for your testimony today.
Um, I, I gathered from your testimony that, um, you're here,
uh, I know you're here on behalf of the Chamber,
but the concern is, I assume for a member
Yeah, that's correct. Be is
a member of the Chicagoland Chamber.
But as stated, you know, though,
we're talking about bellies.
I could be up here talking about Starbucks, Walgreens,
you know, Riley's discount.
No, I understand. But, but
we are talking about Bally's, right?
Yeah, yeah, we are, yeah. Is is a
representative from Bally's here.
I will defer to any, uh, Bally's representative to
Okay. I would say kind of a,
an open call. Apparently not.
Um, and I can understand why, why they might not show up.
And, um, in no way am I looking to put you on the spot.
I, I value my, my working relationship
with the Chamber very much.
And I respect the fact that Bally's is a member.
Um, but I think it is
instructive that they aren't here today.
Um, this is something
that would impact their bottom line likely.
Um, there's some debate over how much, um,
but it would be really helpful if they had shown up today.
Um, because I'm not gonna grill you on all the questions I
would've grilled BS on.
Um, so that's the good news.
Um, you know, what we've seen with Bally's, uh, uh,
temporary site has been, uh, frankly,
an unmitigated disaster.
Um, it has not produced nearly the rosy revenues
that we were promised by the previous administration.
Um, many of the people in this room, uh, were part
of a lively debate over whether
or not Bally should have been,
have been granted the city license in the first place.
As you recall, I was one of the vocal opponents who tried
to throw a lot of cold water on this thing.
Um, and there were a number of members of the city council,
some in this committee today, who predicted
that these revenues would be a fraction of
what was predicted, and frankly, we were correct.
Right. Um, one of the concerns that I have about Bally's,
you know, it was raised that, that the city by
entertaining VGT and, and,
and approving an ordinance to that effect, um,
would be a violation of our agreement.
And I think that that's probable. Mm-hmm.
Um, but we have some other
big ticket items coming up related to
that agreement in the timeline.
Um, and I have a, a wonderful view
of the open construction site
where the permanent casino is supposed to be.
And I'm also aware that the state law requires that
that casino be open, the permanent casino be open,
um, one year from today.
Um, there are no structures built on that site.
Now there's a lot of dirt that's been moved around,
and I see some, some new beams have been squished into the
ground, but there's nothing there.
Um, and typically casino build out once you actually deliver
the structure, um, takes many, many months.
Even with the tiny temporary casino in the Medina Temple
that took many months just to install the machines,
get the electrical correct, the security cameras, et cetera.
Um, has Valleys told you, um, whether
or not they're gonna deliver that casino in a year?
Um, I don't wanna speak for Bally's,
but, um, so I'll just leave it
At that. Okay.
All right. Well, it's, again, it's a real shame that,
uh, the city's casino partner didn't show up today.
Um, the revenue hasn't shown up for the police
and fire pensions, I can tell you that.
Um, and the buildings
that would house this casino have not shown up
on the permanent site.
Um, so just lots of not showing up by Bally's.
Um, historically I've been against VGT.
Um, I have concerns, uh, about people
who suffer from gambling addictions
and this being too readily available to them.
Um, but I'm also very sensitive
to the concerns I've heard from a lot
of business owners in the city, uh, who feel
that they're missing out on a critical revenue stream while
their businesses are struggling.
The city is strangling businesses, um, especially those
who serve liquor, um, with all sorts of, uh,
taxes and fees and mandates.
Um, and these margins are thin.
Santoya at the IRA is a hundred percent correct,
and I know that the Chamber
agrees with what I'm saying on this.
Um, so I'm more sympathetic in a lot of areas lately, um,
because the city has been struggling so desperately
to see new investment here.
Um, and so as someone who used to be firmly against this,
I now actually have an open mind, uh,
because as Alderman Beal said, we're,
we're staring down a $1.2 billion budget abyss,
and in a couple weeks the mayor's gonna ask us
to impose a tax on groceries, which comes in
and right about the amount of money this VGT is projected
to, um, generate on an annual basis for the city.
And I think you couldn't find a more aggressive tax
than the grocery tax.
Um, and so folks wanna make the bad decision to go
and gamble, um, on these casino terminals and restaurants.
They can do that in the suburbs.
Um, it's a short carve drive.
And if, if you've got an issue with gambling,
my guess is you're gonna get in your car and go do that.
Um, so look, I I have an open mind,
we'll see how I vote today.
Um, but shame on valleys for not being here.
You know, they call themselves a city partner when it's
to their benefit, uh, when they're hiding behind the Chamber
of Commerce, for example.
Um, but when it's time to talk about developments
with their partner, they are missing an action.
Mm-hmm. Um, so that's very disappointing.
I wanna thank you for being here today, um,
on behalf of the Chamber.
Uh, but perhaps you could communicate back to your member,
they need to better engage with this body, um,
when their fate is being determined.
Um, I think it's irresponsible they didn't show up.
Um, so thank you, uh, for that.
Um, and you know, one thing, I have a question
of the sponsor, alderman Beal, um,
as it's currently written, would this only apply to, um,
incidental licenses restaurants?
That is correct. Incidental and, uh, anyone has a PPA.
Okay. But I'm, I'm definitely open to bars and taverns.
Um, but I would like to at least, uh, get something going
and we can always come back in a minute, amend this
before the official rollout. So
If a bar or a tavern, or sorry, a tavern, um,
If you have a liquor, a license, you're, you're able
to apply for, um, this license?
Well, if you have a, an incidental license, correct.
But not a tavern. If you have a tavern
with a PPA though, you could.
Yes, absolutely. I see. Okay.
Um, and is someone from Kofa available?
So we don't have anyone else that was requested, um,
from IGA to be expert witnesses on this.
I, I just did a, uh, courtesy for you with the chamber,
so there isn't anyone else here to speak on it at the time.
Oh, okay. Alright, well that makes things easy.
Um, alright, Dr. Chairman, that's all my questions
And thank you Carl.
Also, um, moving on to
Alderman Chairman Silverstein.
Ms. Alderman, I do apologize.
I know I'm online, you didn't see my hand raised earlier
because I'm about to run into a 30 meeting
and I just had a couple questions if I can
Go ahead. Alderman Moore,
Thank, thank you so much.
Um, I'm, I'm trying to understand, um, a couple of things.
One and, and real short answers because I really have to go.
Um, I don't get them confused.
We got Dgt video gaming, that's the money,
and then we got the coupons.
Can someone make sure I'm talking about the right one so
I I know which one is this money or the, the coupons
That go to all Bill?
I don't understand his question.
Okay. We're unsure of your question.
We've talked about this in
committee, there's two different terms.
Um, um, I can't answer that one. Okay,
We'll, we'll Get you that answer Alderman
More. Okay. So, so
right now in the city,
they have the coupon machines where they, um,
generate coupons at the gas stations and bars.
Right now in the city of Chicago, we in the city
of Chicago right now are not doing any gambling
where there's, um, money supposed to be generated.
So I need to understand, do we have to pass
or ordinance in order to, in order to regulate, do we have
to pass a first to say that the money portion is allowed?
Because I don't think that has been done.
That's what I'm trying to understand.
Um, if I can, uh, answer your question, alderman, uh, most
of those machines are, uh,
illegal machines within the city of Chicago.
Um, and so I I think passing this ordinance would kinda
reign those illegal machines in, uh, to
where the city could, uh, potentially go out
and, uh, find those who have those illegal machines in order
to make sure we have people who are abiding by the law
will participate in this program.
Okay. Okay.
I, I'm sorry, I, I, there, so the,
the coupon machines aren't illegal.
W because we can, if we vote
and say we are doing video gaming in terms of the money,
they can just switch those on.
Um, I think Matt Martin is
what we were talking about when we added
additional machines.
It wasn't for gambling for money,
it was the coupon machines.
And my concern was
that even if we turn this on is the participation of,
um, African American vendors in this space, sort
of like it was with, um, um, this whole marijuana thing.
And that's the, that's the concern that I have right now.
I'm not saying we shouldn't regulate it.
I'm not saying we shouldn't get this revenue,
but those are some of the concerns from me right now
to those concerns are fully answered.
I I know it is the road vote on this, but,
and to those concerns are an are answered,
I cannot support it because I wanna make sure
that there's participation in this space.
And I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time
to go more in detail.
And, um, hopefully we can get to that
because I think we do need the revenue,
but I wanna make sure that the participation is there.
I don't want this to get turned on, like, um, the marijuana,
um, um, people lost out.
So I, I just make that statement
and you all can just carry on from there,
which I could stay on longer.
Thank you.
Thank you Alderman Moore.
Uh, next, uh, question is from Alderman Spto.
Thank you Madam Chair. Um, for starters, would it be okay
to ask if the commissioner of BACP
and the liquor commissioner coming
up to answer some questions? I think
Yes, they can. Can you do
that? Okay, thank you.
So before I start asking their questions,
my questions, I'm sorry.
This is something I, obviously being a border ward have been
pushing for, for a long time.
Um, we needed our border wards,
literally my restaurants and bars.
They could go right across the street
and entertain themselves
with video gaming when they can't do it in
my bars or restaurants.
Um, so with that, I came in
and I'm embarrassed to say somewhat, but I've gotten more
and more confused about this, about exactly what's going on
with it and how it's gonna work
and who can handle it and so on and so forth.
So I guess, sorry to put you on the spot, Ivan,
but maybe if you could start even
before I ask any questions, what your plan is for this well,
um, implementation of this
and are we prepared for it at this point?
They're, if we're not, do we need a month,
a year to be prepared?
And the whole bar thing, you know,
my friend told me this doesn't apply to bars.
Then we talked to the liquor commissioner
and then she said upon for a review,
she doesn't think bars could have 'em.
So if you two could answer some questions for me,
I'd greatly appreciate it.
Sure. Hi, uh, good morning everyone. Uh, Madam Chair.
Hello, uh, members of this body.
So I'd like to just go over, uh, in a little bit
of detail about our concerns, uh, as we think
of rolling out this ordinance.
So we are concerned about the significant resources
that BACP
and all the city departments would like, would actually need
to implement, um, this proposed video, uh, um,
gaming terminal regulatory framework.
So based on the impact study
and the draft ordinance, it is clear
that this initiative will require substantial, uh,
substantial investment, staffing
and interdepartmental cooperation.
The current, the current draft ordinance lacks a fa a phase
style rollout, meaning we could face an immediate influx
of applications from all from around 3,327
potential locations identified in the impact study.
This would actually create a significant
increase in staffing need, uh,
for our small business center, which is
where we process our licenses.
And our enforcement team was gonna be handling the high
volume of applications pre-licensing
and post-licensing and complaints.
In addition to that, uh, we think,
and we are re uh, responsible
for critical tasks like application processing,
distance checks on premises, uh,
and on premises, uh, uh, inspections.
And those are the ones that are done, uh, prior, uh, prior
to issuing the license to make sure that the,
there's the required distance from sensitive areas like
schools and churches, for example.
We'll also need a significant investment
to secure warehouse base to store any VG ts that are seized
during enforcement actions.
Um, implemented this framework will create significant
and currently I on, on quantify cost that extends
beyond BACP.
And just to give you an example,
CPD will be a cri a critical partner in enforcing the new
regulations and their involvement will
generate additional cost.
I'm sure that a comprehensive regime will require police
assistance for CRI criminal investigations,
for confiscations and for, uh, other, uh, VGT related crime.
Uh, beyond this operational needs,
the impact study also highlighted broad, broader, uh,
citywide concerns that must be considered.
There is a financial impact, there is a social impact,
and there of course there is a criminal impact.
So as we understand that there is a need
to regulate these machines, we're just asking for more time
so that we can work with our partners
and figure the resources that we need
to securely implement the licensing regime
and the enforcement regime.
Uh, uh, Shannon can answer any questions
regarding hospitality.
Thank, thank you, commissioner.
Good afternoon, commissioner. Thank you. Good.
So as we were talking before this,
my good friend there told me that this doesn't apply
to borrowers or taverns, whatever you refer to 'em,
I guess which part of town you live in.
So does it or doesn't it,
and if it doesn't, is it something we could do
to get 'em?
Or does it need to be rewritten or does it need to be held?
How do you feel? Uh, both. Two questions. I guess.
Does it apply to bars and and taverns slash taverns
or can we re, can we substitute to get them
to be eligible for this?
So under the state act, um, if the city would choose
to authorize BGTs, it would allow
BGTs at consumption locations, which would include
restaurants with incidental licenses
and taverns, which have the primary sale of alcohol.
It includes veteran fairs, places, um, and truck stops.
Uh, as this ordinance is written, it is more limited, um,
and it only allows consumption,
OnPrem incidental activity licensees,
which is the specific type of license
that does not include tavern licenses,
but is means that your, um, primary
activity is something other than the sale of alcohol.
Primarily those would be restaurants.
They would also be bowling alleys, hotels and theaters.
But those are the only three. Oh, and not-for-profit clubs.
Those are the only four, um, plus restaurants,
five exceptions that are carved out in the
ordinance before you.
So it does not address those with PPA licenses.
While a live a theater with live state stage performance,
a bowling alley and a hotel may have a PPA license.
The license, the ordinance doesn't explicitly state
that if you have a PPA license, you will be
therefore eligible for a VGT um, terminal.
And in fact, you have to, by state law, you have to have
that consumption or a liquor component.
So you need to be a liquor licensee.
You could also be a PPA licensee with a broader scope, um,
such as a tavern, such as a, uh, someone
who has live bands or comedy.
Um, but this ordinance is limited in that scope.
Okay. Thank you, commissioner.
Thank you both commissioners.
So ano another com, uh, question and I guess this is,
or Commissioner Trotter.
So my, my colleague said something
that I think he was wrong about,
but it's something I've been pushing for, for a long time
that the sweepstakes machines are not illegal.
Uh, but they've been begging, they came
to us in this very room about, I don't know, five,
six years ago begging to be licensed and, um,
and we've done nothing about 'em.
So I guess two questions.
I guess the main question is they're not illegal. Correct?
The machines themselves are not illegal.
The, the use of them for gambling is illegal.
So it is how those machines are used.
And, um, I I think everyone would agree
that if we move forward with lawful gambling, we would need
to explicitly outlaw the sweepstakes machines
as they would pilfer from any revenues
as they don't have the integrity checks.
The four tier regulatory system that lawful BGTs have.
Um, and this ordinance does not contain such a
prohibition on those sweepstakes
Machines. Yeah, that question was
a separate question.
So, but we know we have 'em all over the place.
About eight years ago in my ward, one of 'em popped up
and I reached out
and, uh, neither one of you were in position at the time,
but I'm like, all of a sudden this gambling joint opened up
and they checked it out, like, no,
they're not doing anything wrong.
Now. That was eight years ago.
And then we did have meetings, uh, after that
and we were just like, I dunno why we're hesitant to, to,
uh, license these guys and, and,
and we're, we're at a loss of revenue over
there, uh, with that.
So, um, but, um, this, a little embarrassed to say, I,
I got very confused about this.
I didn't really know about this till last night.
And I came in today and, and I'm, and I'm torn about this.
And, um, I would just ask my, uh, esteemed colleague
and friend if, if he would consider just holding this
for a month so we can get some more information on this.
And whatever you decide, I, I'm fine with you.
It'll still be my friend, but I would really appreciate if
you think you could just hold us for one month.
That's all I ask to try
to figure this out a little bit more.
But that's it, that's my questions for them.
I appreciate you all. Uh, thank you very much. Madam Chair
Derman, osha, I'm sorry, before I have a question.
Fine, go ahead. Do you mind? Thank you.
The sponsor asked this question. Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Um, commissioners, uh, you say
that you don't have the resources
to roll this thing out knowing that we have a budget crunch,
uh, and you know, everybody's budget is going
to be decreased.
If you don't have the resources now,
you won't have the resources next year. Correct?
It'll, it'll help us make the argument that we are, uh,
need more resources,
We can work. But how, how
are you gonna make the argument
that we you need more resources When we have a $1.2 billion
deficit and we're asking every department to cut,
It's, it's, it's easier for us
to make the argument when we have
unfunded mandates like this.
Okay. So, so basically you need this ordinance
to give you more leverage to ask for more
Resource. I need the time to
create the regulatory regime
to see how that's going to look.
Okay. What kind of, what kind
of power is gonna go into this?
What, what kind of, how are we going to roll it out?
The license needs to be created.
We have to think about staffing.
We have to think about, uh, distance.
We have to think about sensitive locations.
I mean, it's, uh, the enforcement team confiscation.
We have to get in and, and talk to CPD about this.
This is advice. How,
How long have you known about VGT?
It's been, uh, since I've been with BACP, I know it's,
it's, it's, it's a sweepstake issue, right?
We always refer to them as sweepstake.
'cause we don't, we, we can def we can't tell the difference
between a video t and a Sweepstake machine.
If you, if you ask me, it's very hard to prove that.
Have you all started the planning
and the process to roll this out? We
Have been for many years, uh, having conversations
Many years About this, uh, working.
Of course, this is something that comes down from the state.
I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's a dual,
it's gonna be a dual license, right?
You have to be licensed by the Illinois Gambling Commission
and then apply for a license. So, okay. So it's
A conversation. So, so
you're saying we need
to wait a few more years
before we roll this out. What I would
Like to, to respectfully ask,
if you could give us more time to, so that we can, you know,
create this regulatory framework so that it works
Properly. Well, I, I, I think
that, uh, you know, seeing that how, uh,
things have gone, I think we should, um, support this
and roll this thing out while working with you to implement
It. I think there, there's
definitely a yes.
I think there's definitely a pathway.
We just need the implementation time. Um, yes.
So that's, that's basically what we're asking here is,
is just that we understand that it's important,
but we need, we need time to figure it out
and to work with our partners, uh, outside of BACP
Alderman, osha.
Thank you, chairman. I, um,
I share in the frustration that my colleague,
alderman Beal is expressing this morning.
We've been talking about BGTs in this building
for several years, um,
at at least two mayoral administrations.
Um, and I represent a community, uh, a border wart
and neighboring municipalities like Evergreen Park,
Oak Lawn, SSIP Mart Park, blue Island, Cal Park,
all those towns, border, some part of my neighborhood,
and the restaurants
and the taverns in those communities, uh,
take customers from my neighborhood mom and pops.
If we were gonna go down this road, I wanna,
I would wanna make sure that my
taverns were able to participate in this.
Now, having said all that, um,
an hour ago I saw several leaders in this Merrill
administration in the hallway and in this room.
Are any of them in this room now?
No. No, they're not. Okay.
So we've had this conversation for several years.
We had conversations about a casino for several years,
and then frankly, it was rushed.
And, and to piggyback on the words of my colleague,
alderman Riley, um, it was rushed and it was forced.
And now we have an underperforming casino,
an underperforming casino that doesn't want video gaming.
The other issue we have is the revenue share for the city
of Chicago is too small in its current form.
Getting back to some of the leaders in this administration
that were in this room and in this hallway just a few
minutes ago, I'd like to know
what their plan is in Springfield,
maybe in a few weeks at the veto session.
Because if, if we're gonna go down this road,
I think we need to have a significantly higher take than I
believe it's the 5% we get now for this to be successful,
for this to offset.
Any other issues that this could bring?
I think we need to table this today.
I think we need to bring other people into the room,
and we need to put this on the administration
as we're getting into, uh, budget hearings
about what is the plan?
Are we gonna send a dedicated team to Springfield to talk
to leadership there, uh, uh,
of the many issues we need help with.
But if we're gonna talk about VGT,
but revenue share, uh, format, that formula needs
to change for this to be successful
and for this to make a significant dent
in our pension crisis.
I don't think it's fair to put business affairs
and consumer protection before us today to answer for this.
I I, I think if we were to go down this road, uh,
there would need to be significant planning
and staffing to properly monitor this.
A share in your frustration, alderman Beal,
this could share, this could support my struggling small
businesses, my bars, and taverns
and restaurants that have been significantly
hurt these last several years.
I don't think we're ready for this right now.
I, i, I, I think we need more people in the room talking
about how we get a higher percentage from Springfield.
We need that help. Thank you
Alderman Lawson.
Great. Um, thank you. Uh, Madam Chair.
Um, some of my questions have been answered, uh,
but I just wanted to ask the commissioners,
what are the separation rules so far from a school, church,
home for the aged, something like that?
Um, and is it from each other as well?
I'm gonna defer to the law department.
I don't have the act in front of me.
I apologize. Okay. I don't know
If, you know, if, if you wanna just send it
through the chair, shoot me an email, whether it,
whoever, whoever has it, sending
It through the chair would be great. Great.
Thank you. Great. Thank you. Um, right,
we talked about taverns, we talked about PPAs.
Um, do we have any, you know, I know, uh,
the sponsor said 60 to a hundred million a year.
Do we, do we have any sense, and,
and of how many machines we're talking about,
if we're not including taverns, I mean three
to five per licensee,
Including taverns.
We were at approximately 3,300 locations.
If you take out the taverns, we're somewhere around
2,500.
But again, this limits beyond it,
it limits to just hotels, theaters, stage, perform,
or theaters, bowling alleys, not-for-profits
and restaurants, but each, um, of those locations.
So if you estimate at 2,500 with up to six machines in each
Six, okay.
Um, because I, I made a list of things
that I felt were excluded, like DraftKings in my ward,
spectator sports in my ward, participant
and recreation golf courses and movie theaters.
When we did the analysis for the impact study, that those,
those deductions were made,
they did include taverns though, right?
We went under the State Act, the possible number
of locations using the State act, um,
guidelines for locations.
And that was a around 3,300.
Okay. So six times 2,500,
we're talking 12,000.
But, but each one of these locations is gonna require a new
license, a new inspection as well.
Well, an actual physical visit,
Yeah. There would be the,
the distance check at the beginning,
and then there would be the pre-license inspection
to ensure the separation requirements and,
and those other things that are required.
And not just under the ordinance, but under the state Act.
Um, so I guess then my question goes to, if we were
to include this in the budget,
would you view any new positions created to put,
stand this up as revenue generating,
or at least revenue neutral?
Uh, Could they be structured to be that way?
Would be the other question, right?
Absolutely. Yes. Okay.
Um, I think that's it for my questions.
I, I probably join my colleagues
and if we had a little more time here,
get it in the budget, it might make more sense.
Um, and again, I think we have
to talk about taverns too, so thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Alderman Napolitano.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, you know, I have, I have
to agree with, with Alderman Beal on this, um, in, in
2015, when, when I, when I got here, I,
I think this was a discussion
that we've talked about numerous times.
I mean, that's 10 years ago we've talked about doing this
nonstop, and every time we talk about it,
it's always pumped the brakes.
And let's hold off and we gotta get this right.
But we're 10 years into this, close
to over 330 million plus dollars that we've lost
because we're waiting to do this.
Now, the way I look at it, and I, I see all sides of this.
I, I don't wanna rush in anything.
I'd like to get everything right, but we're 10 years
past rushing in anything.
Mm-hmm. Um, we control the legislative side of this
and banned, I think what Alderman Beal's asking for here
and inappropriately is he is asking to
enact this and move forward.
And he is not asking to eat the whole apple at one time.
It's take a bite of it. And to not put too much onto you
by not, you know, we, we can go back and later
and amend who else we want to be involved in this.
I think that's the right way to go about it.
I, I think what the problem is, is
we're blowing this off again.
And the reason why this this really affects me is I'm
surrounded by anywhere between, I mean,
the number can change, but seven to nine different, uh, um,
border communities, suburb communities.
I, I'm losing business across the street,
not blocks and miles away.
Uh, it's across the street.
You're looking at, at, at gaming in, in Niles
and Park Ridge, uh, in Morton Grove, in Norridge,
in Howard Heights, in Desplaines.
Um, the list goes on
and I, I'm, I'm, I can't advocate for my businesses
because it's, it's more lucrative for a small business
to cross the street and open there
because, you know, you're gonna make the revenue you might
be missing out on, um, with help from the gaming as well
as the money that goes back into the city.
Uh, my frustration is this is,
we gotta be honest with ourselves.
We've been blowing this off for a long time in hopes
to get a grand casino, which I'm a huge supporter
of the casino, but these are little bites of, of,
of money and revenue we can bring into our city
and help our small businesses, help our communities,
help our vacancies that we have across, across wards.
Like my, myself, and I won't speak for anyone else's wards,
but I'm driving through 'em on the north side,
on the northwest side,
and even on the south side where we can possibly help some
of these small businesses.
Um, let me back that up.
Not, not only help the small businesses
that are there already, but invite another small business
to wanna come here because it might be more lucrative
for them to open and have the gaming on top of it.
I just asked that. Let, let's stop,
let's stop answering the question
of let's just pump the brakes here
and maybe work harder on it.
I, I, I'm, I'm all, for us agreeing
to maybe one month going forward
or maybe finding another way to, to do this
or agree on it today
and amend it on its face that it's enacted today
and a year later it goes into effect
to give you the adequate, adequate amount of time to,
to service these, this, this large request.
But I, I gotta be honest to my colleagues, I I,
everyone's gotta make their, their decisions.
I, I, I'm, I'm fed up with just blowing it off.
I, I think we're just lying to each other
'cause we don't wanna deal with it.
Um, and, and like a couple of my colleagues mentioned,
and then we're gonna go in this room next month
and ask for more property taxes when we're,
we're blowing off revenue that can come in
and help, help our city, help our pensions.
Um, I don't know.
I, I just think we're looking at this the wrong way.
'cause it, it's just, it's not right. It's not right.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank
You Alderman Martin.
Thank you, chair. Good morning. Um, a few questions.
The first two, or through the chair, if, um,
BACP could provide the, an exhaustive list
of the implementation considerations that you referenced,
some of which you obviously went into detail,
but I think we just need to know at the end of the day, if
and when we do this, what sort of resources will you need,
um, so that we're not having a similar conversation a month
from now or two months from now?
So, uh, uh, uh, to be clear, an exhaustive list, um,
second requesting through the chair, I think this is
for the mayor's office, um, whether the, the current
calendar year they have formally requested, uh,
an increase in Springfield in the revenue share for VGA.
Um, just wanna know, has that been, uh, a formal request
and if so, what sort of written documents,
um, underscore that.
And then lastly, uh, al direct this
to the sponsor, alderman Beal.
Um, and fine, if you want to get this through the question
through the chair, uh, 60 to a hundred million dollars,
just wondering how that figure was reached
and how that compares to what was in the report
that we received a few months ago saying
that there would be a net decrease in overall revenue
to the city due to if this were
to move forward in some fashion due
to less money coming into Valley specifically.
Thank you for that question.
Um, I've been working very close with the industry
and based on the numbers that they're doing outside
of the city of Chicago
and the surrounding areas, uh, they calculated that, uh,
times what Chicago could possibly do.
And that's why you have the range
between 60 and a hundred million.
Um, and it's based off of what has already been done, uh,
and what's coming in throughout the, the state.
Um, on the, on the flip side,
the city has done no due diligence, uh, as far as
what this could potentially bring other than they believe
that it's gonna be a net negative.
Um, so I don't think they've done a deep dive into
what it could possibly, uh, bring in.
And I think they're just throwing out numbers
as a scare tactic.
Understood. Uh,
those are all my questions. Thank you, chair.
Thank you Alderman Conway.
There we go. All right, thank you.
Um, um, what, I don't know who on the committee will know,
but what's the current revenue breakdown
between Springfield and us?
It's like 6 cents for them and 1 cent for us on these.
Does anyone actually know what that breakdown is?
Oh, I don't know. Sure. I don't know if you all, and,
and, uh, Mr.
Dore perhaps. I, I I know I
don't mean to ask you to come forward.
Does anyone, do you either
of you know what the breakdown is? I don't
Have that information. I think we could get
that through the chair for you.
Okay. I mean, I, what I was asking is the, I think
that's probably something we, there's a discussion
of whether we can work with Springfield to change the
formula, and I think it's pretty clear that we need
to be taking a proactive role, uh, acting on behalf
of the city in an intergovernmental affairs capacity
with our, with our Springfield representatives.
Uh, I think that's true across a number
of a number of issues.
Um, but I am interested in how the report that came out in
that, in the VGT, in the VGT hearing and,
and how it was flawed in a way, um, and, and,
and what, uh, either the sponsor
or others think, um, think, you know, how like
where the flaws existed in that.
'cause it seemed to be an, an independent report
that identified some real problems
with the revenue projections.
And I don't really know, um, what they are in
that, in that issue.
I do share, I do share, uh, as Alderman Peel's frustration
as Alderman Napolitano mentioned, that this is something
that we've been working on for years long
before, uh, long before I got here.
Um, uh, so I am interested in, in certainly trying
to hold the executive branch's feet
to the fire and moving something forward.
But I would be in favor of, um, you know,
waiting at least giving at least a, a month on this as I,
I feel like we've certainly put BACP, the mayor's office,
et cetera, on notice here that we intend to do something
or in, in, um, if that's not palatable,
to change the effective date to something that's a little,
little further off.
But that's all I have now. Thank you.
Thank you Alderman Spto, did you have another question
Chair? Um,
I forgot one question
and I didn't mean to put you two on the spot,
but I don't know who can answer our question.
So, uh, but there was one, well, uh, something was said
by a Bailey lobbyist.
And is anybody here from law?
Because this is another thing
that's bothering me about the violating
of a contract, so I don't know who he is.
Um, so is there anybody from law
here that can answer the question?
Is there consequences for that?
Is there severe consequences? Is it, do we lose money?
I mean, are, are, we certainly know we're gonna make money
on, on the, on this video gaming.
We certainly know US Border Ward people have
been pushing for, for a long time.
Um, but is there anybody from law here, uh, Madam Chair
that could answer some.
Got you, Brendan. Okay. Okay. All right.
So thank you. All right.
I knew you were here, but I didn't, you know, so, um,
so my question is the gentleman who said
that we're violating a contract,
are we violating a contract?
And if we are, what are the consequences?
Is it, is it a financial, do we don't, do we not get,
do we not get our, our their same share?
Uh, could we be sued? Can you expound on that a little bit?
I don't, you know, I think you
understand what I'm trying to ask.
'cause I'm not sure myself
what I'm trying to ask. So, right.
Uh, Lindsay Sonal, department of law, um, just to,
to note Alderman, um, I can write down your question
and try to answer this all through the chair,
and I will write down a, um, you know, I'll try to an,
I'll get everything, uh, to you through the chair.
Uh, the department of Law was, um, not, I informed
by the sponsor that this was going
to be on the agenda today, so was unable to, um,
all have a, have a representative here. That's fair
Today. All right. Thank you.
Uh, Madam Chair.
So, just, um, one other thing.
I just wanted to, uh, deliver a message about
the benefits of holding.
One month I would renew my ask
again, if we'd hold it one month.
This will enable BACP, very similar to finance
with the parking enforcement aids,
that they're a revenue generator,
even though they cost us whatever they cost us per, um,
parking enforcement a person.
Um, they, we make a ton of money off of 'em.
So maybe with you had people, then we could implement this
and our bars and restaurants could get rolling here
and they can make money, and we certainly
can make money for the city.
So that's another way I'm looking at it.
Similar to a parking enforcement aid deal with BACP.
Once again, my plea one month, that's all I ask.
I support you, you know, not just because you're my friend,
because this is something I've been
pushing for, for a long time.
Something we certainly need,
certainly my bars and restaurants want.
I'm literally across the street from four suburbs.
Two other suburbs are literally blocks away from me.
My businesses are getting killed.
And as Alderman Theano also said was, it'll encourage people
to come here because they'd be like, why should I come
to Chicago and open up a restaurant, a pizza joint,
whatever, a bar when I could literally go across the street
and open it up and get video gaming.
So once again, thank you everybody. I thank you Alderman.
Renew my plea for just a one month hold on this.
I'm gonna go back to Alderman Riley
and then Alderman Scott.
So I know, um, someone had a question.
One of my colleagues had a question about the,
the revenue distribution.
Um, so the total tax rate for VGT is 35%.
The state's portion is 30% of the net income,
and the local portion is 5% of the net income.
And then the remaining 65% is split
between the terminal operator
and the licensed establishment that hosts the machine.
So, just so everyone knows, that's the, those are the facts.
Um, you know,
Peanuts, I, I'm sympathetic to my colleagues
who are saying that we've kind
of kicked this can down the road for quite some time.
I, I think I've probably helped kick that can, um,
based on my kind of historic opposition to VGT, uh,
in the city of Chicago.
Um, but we are in a unique set of circumstances here.
Uh, we're in a fiscal crisis.
Um, and when I'm looking at the other options being slowly
leaked to the press, you know, other taxes on the table,
not the least of which a property tax, um,
I do agree with Alderman Beal.
We need to leave no stone unturned when it, when it comes
to finding alternatives here, um, I do think
that the city's take of the revenue share is woefully low.
Um, I, I would probably have a, a greater appetite
for this sort of program if it was doubled to 10% from five.
Um, that's real money on the barrel.
Um, I also, if we could get a commitment from the chair,
um, would not be opposed to Alderman Satos idea of giving a,
uh, giving this four weeks.
Um, I don't mean kicking this down the road indefinitely.
I mean, let's come back on a date certain
and, and see what we have.
I, I, I have some ideas to add to this
to help improve the ordinance.
I'm a bit concerned
that we put all the rulemaking authority
on the administration.
Um, and it's not
because that rulemaking falls under the commissioner
of BACP, who I respect and,
and have a good working relationship with.
But because the administration, at the end of the day, um,
the mayor's the boss, and if the mayor's not
with this program, the rules could be promulgated in such a
way that it, it's manufactured to be a disaster.
And, and so I would like the, the city council to
flesh out the ordinance more so that the rulemaking is
limited really to implementation and enforcement.
Those are the things that BACP is expert at opining on, um,
rather than, um,
filling in all the cracks in the ordinance themselves.
So I think four weeks would give us that opportunity.
I, I also would want to have a better understanding of, um,
how we would regulate this and enforce it,
and what are the penalties for violations?
Um, how do we make sure people are being paid out lawfully?
Um, make sure that people don't have too many machines
or maybe half their machines are
legal, the other half are not.
Uh, that kind of stuff.
But, um, again, um, alderman Beal has been a,
an effective advocate on this.
And he has my attention,
and I have an open mind on this now, where
before I was vehemently opposed.
Um, so just a few thoughts. Madam Chair.
Thank you Alderwoman Scott.
Thank you, chairman Chairwoman.
Um, so it seems to be some kind of, um,
discrepancy, uh, with this ordinance.
Uh, and for me, looking in, uh,
because I did not create this ordinance, uh,
we're looking at it from a, a, a point
where we can bring revenue to the city of Chicago.
Not to create havoc, but to bring revenue. Is this early?
Um, is, is this an early call
of this res re uh, of, of this ordinance?
Yes, it might be, but it's a way to get things started for
so many years of, I've here, my colleague states since 2015.
This is something that we've been trying to do,
but if you put it in place, this will get it started.
Uh, and, and not to,
um, offend anyone.
We have an ordinance in place
because this affects me in my ward
where cars are not supposed to be on lots,
but cars are still on lots.
So this doesn't mean that the ordinance is gonna stand
as it is today, but it's a way that we can get it started so
that we can bring more revenue to the city of Chicago.
And if the B'S revenue is 4 million, but this rev,
but this ordinance will bring in over,
how much did you say, bill?
How much will this ordinance bring in if
it's done correctly?
Right now, the potential is
between 60 and a hundred million,
I think 5 million to 60 to a hundred million.
We trump whatever bies was gonna
give to the city of Chicago.
So I think that this is a working way that you can work
with your elected officials, um, the law department, BACP,
so that we can bring this into fruition so
that it can bring revenue for the city of Chicago.
In many other states, this is being done.
A revenue is being bought into the city of, of, in,
into the other cities that have these gambling, uh, modules
and these restaurants and bars so forth.
So I don't think that this is everything
that we've put into place always have always been able
to be monitored and altered.
And so why not get the ball started if
we haven't done this since?
How long have you said 2015? Why not get the ball start?
Well, why not get the ball rolling?
I mean, it's just a trying to rubber stamp something
and not make sure that it's real.
I agree with my other colleagues going back to the drawing,
sure that this is something that we can
adequately do in a responsible way,
that we can bring more revenue.
But it shouldn't be a fight.
It shouldn't be a fight from the administration.
This should be a, I don't want my groceries taxed,
but if you gonna spend your own money to gamble,
and it can go back and we can roll it over,
this is your own money.
People that gamble to bring back into the city of Chicago.
If, if I may add to, to that, um, um, go ahead, Adam.
Chair. If I, if I may, um, I, I'd like to just say
that we are committed to sit to sitting down
with the sponsor as early as tomorrow,
but we are respectfully requesting that we do, um,
that we get a, a 90 day, uh, extension rather than 30.
So I'd like to put that on the table
so that we can consider this.
Um, we can start working with the sponsor right away.
We are committed to that, but 30 days, uh, we would like to,
just to request 90 days,
I, I believe the sponsor just said it is
90 days in the ordinance.
Is that correct?
Alderman? Cardona.
Thank you. Chairwoman.
Um, got a, is it possible we could amend for PPA?
'cause I know there's a issue with the PPA,
uh, alderman Beal.
Um, um, I'm, I'm definitely open to, um, any amendments
or substitutions.
Um, but I think at this late juncture, uh,
we still have three months
and I'm, I'm, you know,
I give this committee my full support
and word that, uh, over the next three months,
there's an effective date of January 1st on the ordinance
that if we need to amend it, make changes that we do
that before January 1st.
Thank you. I, What I was saying is to,
to revisit this ordinance, uh, in, in 90 days,
not to pass it today.
And, and just to revisit it again in 90 days.
My next question, Oh, go ahead. Go
Ahead. My next, my
next, um, statement is, um, hearing law, um,
it's not a breach of contract.
It would just say will be open in good faith.
That's what's written in the, in the contract.
Uh, good faith and negotiations will, um, uh,
to re renegotiate the host of community agreement, uh,
agreement with the VGT to be legalized.
So, um, they would renegotiate in good faith if this is
passed and it's 4 million a year,
and if we pass this, we'll make 60 to a hundred,
which is way more.
So, um, hopefully we could all come to,
to a safe space and, uh, pass this
and give BACP time as well.
But we all have to work together
to make this very successful
and, uh, create revenue for our pensions
that will go to fire and police.
Is that correct, sir? It's going to the pensions,
Right? 100%.
We'll go towards pensions. You correct. Okay.
That's all. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you Alderman. Riley,
did you have one more thing to add?
Yes. Not to prolong this, uh, hearing chair.
Um, we obviously need to hear from the,
the mayor's government affairs team for Springfield, um,
and not really hear from them,
but we need to explain some things to them.
Um, fall Vito Sessions right around the corner,
we're looking at a $1.2 billion budget
deficit in the city of Chicago.
The clock is ticking.
The fiscal year ends on New Year's Eve.
Um, we can't string this conversation out another 90 days
before we then get to the task of passing something.
My appetite for this is for this particular fiscal crisis.
We've lived through a few here during my time.
This one is massive. Um, and
because I'm desperate to avoid all sorts of other
horrible revenue schemes that would absolutely chase
business out of the city of Chicago
and a whole lot of residents, I'm willing to entertain VGT.
But I think, you know, the time is of essence,
if we're gonna do this, it needs to be for this budget
that applies to next fiscal year.
Um, and so I, I'm not sure
what IGA is doing in Springfield these days, um,
but I hope they have, uh, some bandwidth
for this fall veto session
because this would be one
of the areas they could be spending their time helping us,
their partners in government, um,
with our local budget problem.
Um, I also would like to take the opportunity over the next,
you know, few weeks to talk to my colleagues to see
what else we'd like to see in a substitute here.
Uh, but I'm willing to make a, a leap of faith here
and advance this out of committee as a
assigned to this administration.
We're serious about this
and we need to have a real serious conversation
now, not in a few months.
Um, and we need the governor affairs team to go
to Springfield and prime the pump
for a more favorable revenue scheme
that benefits the city taxpayer on this
particular technology.
Um, and so that said, I'm, I would not,
I can't believe I would be saying this
today, three months ago.
Um, I'll, I'll support this moving out of committee
to advance this conversation
with the hopes we can double our revenue
that we currently get
and really make this component of a, of a,
a comor a component of a budget fix for fiscal year 2026.
Um, and so that said, uh, Madam Chair, I move to pass.
Thank you, alderman Riley.
Um, I believe we are going to take a vote on it.
Um, can you go fast? Alderman Lawson? Yeah,
I agree with nearly everything Alderman Riley just said,
but I believe it would be better for us to defer
to a date certain in October,
whatever the license committee is set for October.
I think there's a lot of things we could work at
and come back with something
that is productive and we can all get behind.
So I would move that we hold this to the October meeting.
Alderman Politano, did you have anything?
I just wanna ask something
very, very quick, and I apologize.
Should have asked this sooner to the chief sponsor Alderman
Bill, in your research,
and I've know if I've done research, has this failed
anywhere else that it's being done? Uh,
Not in this state. I,
I don't think anywhere in the country.
No, it's failed.
Okay. Alderman Riley made a motion to pass.
So, um, I would just like to say I agree with my colleague,
sorry, alderman.
Um, bill, we have been talking about this
for years and years and years.
So the city should have been ready for this, especially, um,
in such a budget crisis that we have right now.
This is an opportunity to bring revenue to the city.
So we are gonna call for a vote.
Um, we are voting to pass.
Um, alderman Riley asked for a roll call.
Vice Chair Chico.
Alderman Moore. Are you still there? Alderman? OSHA
No.
Alderwoman. Scott. Aye.
Alderman Cardona Alderman Wax spec.
Alderman Conway. Alderman s Spto?
No, just you wanna hold it on so it's a no.
Alderman Politano. Aye. Alderman re Aye.
Alderman Lawson. Alderman Gardner.
Alderman Clay. No. Alderman Martin. No.
Alderman Silverstein's A. Yes.
There are eight yeses. Six nays. The motion.
Um, the motion passes.
Um, thank you very much for this debate.
This concludes the agenda of the committee on license.
The past matters will be reported out as a recommendation
to pass at the next city council on September 25th, 2025.
There being no further business before the committee.
Alderman, OSHA, um, moves to adjourn
hearing, no objection.
So order the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much.