Good morning. Welcome to our last day of departmental hearings.
We'll begin today with public comment. We have 14 people set for public comments.
So we're going to do everyone at two minutes per person for a 30 minute period.
We're going to start with Julie Darling. OK, thank you.
You guys are on the first name basis. So Julie Darling, followed by Carol Waitzi.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Julie Darling. Thank you for the introduction.
I've been here before. I want to just say thank you to all the people here today that have come in support of animal care and control.
I didn't come with a perfect speech this morning. I looked at the budget and I will say this.
I really appreciate you finally taking animal care and control seriously.
It has been a problem for quite some time. And in looking at the budget, I'm a business owner.
I fully believe and support people getting paid what they're worth. I do.
However, there is no room now left over for the programs desperately needed like diversion programs, spay and neuter services.
For those of you who don't know, an animal can't leave animal care and control without being spayed or neutered.
And we can't just leave it up to people like Paws to do that heavy lifting for our municipal shelter.
As far as diversion programs are concerned, the last time I was at animal care and control, a woman had to come and surrender her dog because she was moving.
I begged her to find a family member to help and she couldn't.
Two or three weeks later, I got an anonymous message from a volunteer at animal care that said Bella had passed away in her kennel.
And we did everything we could to get that dog pulled and we just couldn't do it.
So we're really relying on you to think progressively and outside of the box.
If you're not going to allow for additional funding, which I get it, I understand we're in a crisis, open up the floodgates so that we can have privatization of funding coming into the municipal shelter.
I understand the corporate fund is the corporate fund, but we need additional funding outside of that fund for the program.
So please, when you're looking at this, I beg you to think progressively and outside of the box.
Thank you for your time today.
Thank you for your comment.
Next, we have Carol Waitsey, followed by Savannah Hyde Seeley.
Good morning.
That's Carol Waits.
That's OK.
Again, my name is Carol Waits.
I am a lifelong Chicagoan, a proud Southsider.
I'm a dog mom and a cat auntie.
I say cat auntie because I'm allergic to cats.
However, that's not stopped me from rescuing feral litters, feeding community cats and working with organizations like Paws, High Park Cats, my neighbor, Abigail and Lena, who are also here.
And other generous neighbors to get them fixed, fostered and cared for.
I personally trapped, well, rather, Abigail has personally trapped at least five cats on my porch this past winter to get them spayed and neutered.
My love for animals started early growing up in Chatham.
Whenever my dad saw us stray, we'd pick them up and bring them home.
We had inside dogs and outside dogs, much to my mom's dismay.
Those lessons in compassion stuck.
Today, I'm a proud woodland homeowner for the last 27 years, still doing my part one paw at a time with my two dogs, Bailey and Tux.
But Chicago, the city of big shoulders, isn't shouldering its responsibility when it comes to animal care.
The proposed $7.52 million budget, just a 1.6% increase, doesn't meet the moment.
Small.
Color cities are doing more because they fund their shelters like they mean it.
In these economic times, families are stretched thin, and as they should, prioritize their humans first.
That reality means more pets are abandoned or surrendered, and the fallout shows up in our neighborhoods, on our porches, and in the hands of volunteers who absorb the cost and the labor the city should be bearing.
When we fund animal care properly, we invest in public safety and public health.
Fewer strays, fewer bites.
Thank you for your comments.
Next, we have Savannah Hindy-Sealy, followed by Carlos Adan.
Good morning.
My name is Savannah Hind-Sealy.
I live in the 48th Ward, work as a veterinarian social worker, and am the assistant director of community outreach at PAWS Chicago.
My ask for you today is this.
Ensure that Chicago Animal Care and Control receives the funding and support it needs to become a fully staffed and fully equipped agency to meet the city's continuing and growing demand for humane animal care.
The reason that this is so important today is because when pets are in crisis, it usually means that their people are in crisis, too.
As a city, I know that we are in a period of extraordinary uncertainty.
We all see what is happening to the social safety nets that our residents rely on to get by, and we know that it will likely get worse before it gets better.
In the coming days, we expect an announcement from HUD detailing nearly $3.5 billion in cuts in reallocation to Housing First programs.
Here in Illinois, that will affect nearly half a million people, most of them who are seniors, children, and people with disabilities, many of them owning pets.
And when families lose housing, when food assistance is reduced or simply cut off, and when people are pushed to the point of making impossible choices, their animals often end up at CACC.
Our animal welfare organizations in the city are doing everything that we possibly can to support this essential city service.
We collaborate, we mobilize volunteers, but no amount of coalition building can replace a chronically underfunded government agency.
CACC cannot meet its mission without the staffing and resources to match.
We are just asking for enough support to do this.
Remember, for every pet, there is a person, and please keep both in mind as you make these decisions.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Next, we have Carlos Adan, followed by Laura Ponce Cesaris.
Good morning.
My name is Carlos Adan, and I'm a proud resident of the 33rd Ward, and I'm the Director of Community Services for PAUSE Chicago.
I stand before you cognizant that many Chicago residents are struggling from the rising costs of everyday items, reeling from the brutality of unlawful immigration enforcement practices, and fearful of losing civil liberties that we hold dear.
Amidst all of this, I must remind us that Chicago Animal Care and Control serves as an invaluable resource primarily for humans.
PAUSE Chicago operates a program called Pet Owner Support, wherein we attempt to create solutions for vulnerable Chicagoans who are facing the last resort of surrendering their pets.
We help them to keep their pets at home.
Beyond the cost of veterinary care or pet food or the need for training support, the number one reason we hear for surrendering their pets is housing.
This means evictions, landlord disputes, costs of pet rent, and additional deposits for animal-related expenses.
This is a very human issue.
While we know that the human-animal bond is strong and vital to the well-being of millions of Americans and, of course, thousands of Chicagoans, CACC is a vital component to that social safety net for so many.
We need for CACC to continue to provide the great services, like intake, for surrendered animals for all Chicagoans, especially those who may not be able to keep their beloved pets, if it's not in their best interest, if it's not the best solution for their circumstances, despite how difficult that choice may be.
They can only do so if funded and supported by our city government.
Staffing vacancies mean reduced care for pets, reduced services for the humans that care for them, and this impacts us all.
While POS Chicago is proud to partner with CACC, I must implore you to approve the proposed budget for animal control as a first step to securing this social safety net and looking beyond and strengthening this resource, too.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Next, we'll have Laura Ponce Cesaris, followed by Megan Quinlan.
Good morning.
Members of the-
Could you pull your mic down so we can hear you?
Thank you.
Thanks.
Good morning, members of the Budget and Government Operations Committee.
My name is Laura Ponce Casares, and I am here today because I deeply care for the well-being of our city animals and the people who care for them.
I am speaking to express my concern about the proposed 2026 budget for Chicago Animal Care and Control.
Once again, we are seeing races going to upper management positions while there are no increase for the staff and volunteers who actually work directly with animals.
The ones cleaning canals, feeding and comforting, and caring for Chicago's most vulnerable companions.
Every year, animals in the city come up short.
The shelter is stretched thin, medical supplies run low, and staff are overworked and understaffed.
And instead of the sustainable funding, the city continues to rely on public to pledge and donate to cover the most basic needs, food, medical care, and even bedding.
This is not fair.
These animals should not have to depend on the kindness of strangers to survive.
Chicago's animals deserve better, and so do the dedicated employees and volunteers who care for them.
If we can find room in the budget for management raises, we can certainly find room to fund the essential work being done in the front lines, the work that truly impacts animals' welfare.
When animals are neglected, it reflects poorly on our entire city.
But when we invest in them and in the people who protect them, it shows that Chicago values compassion, responsibility, and community.
So today, I am asking you to reconsider the 2026 budget and reallocate funds to directly support animal care, medical resources, and the staff who work hands-on every day.
The animals of the city cannot speak for themselves, and so I am speaking for them.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Next, we have Megan Quinlan, followed by Sally Hershwijk.
Good morning.
My name is Megan Quinlan, and I work at Chicago Animal Care and Control.
We are extremely underfunded and lack resources, sustainable programs, and leadership.
Proper funding is a necessity.
The 2026 budget can be a starting point to change.
Chicago's animals deserve this.
Chicago's families deserve this, and the people who walk through our doors, often at their most vulnerable moment, deserve a municipal shelter that can actually help them.
Please help us in 2026 begin to finally build a shelter Chicago can believe in, a shelter that protects both animals and people,
and that honors the human-animal bond that holds so many families together,
a shelter that reflects the compassion, strength, and heart of the city.
Every day I meet people who come to us scared, overwhelmed, and vulnerable.
And when we can't help them the way they deserve, which seems like it's more often than not, it breaks me in a way that's hard to express.
If you've ever walked past our intake line or spent time with the people who come to us with animals, you know exactly what I mean.
It's soul-crushing to look someone in the eye who came to their city for help and feel like you're failing them because the system is failing everyone.
It's also what happens inside the shelter, too.
Watching these animals mentally deteriorate because we don't have enough staff programs to care for them the way they deserve,
to walk past dirty cages that should have been cleaned hours ago,
to see animals sick, pacing, shaking, shutting down,
to see cats curled in the corner of a dirty litter box because they're too stressed to move.
None of this happens because people don't care, and the animals, and people pay the price physically and emotionally.
It breaks you to know an animal is hurting, and a cage just steps away from you,
and you can't get to them in time because you're running from crisis to crisis to crisis.
Because animal welfare isn't just about animals, it's human welfare.
The human-animal bond is real, and for some people that pet is their only family,
their only comfort, or their only stability.
When we fail to support the animals, we fail the people who love them, the people of Chicago.
Most nights I'm one of the last to leave the building, and that walk out is heavy.
When everything gets quiet, you hear the dogs howling to each other,
you hear the meows of the cats and kittens, you see all their eyes following you.
It's soul-crushing to want so badly to help them and to feel like your hands are tied
because there isn't enough time, enough resources, or qualified leadership put in place
guiding this shelter the way Chicago deserves.
Chicagoans should be able to trust us with their family.
Thank you for your comment.
Next we have Sally Hershwork, followed by Rosa Gomez.
Hi, my name is Sally Hershwork, and I represent the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs,
which works to organize Jewish communities of Chicagoland to pursue racial and economic justice.
We strongly support the mayor's Protecting Chicago budget,
which prioritizes people, not just large corporations and businesses.
We support the mayor's Protecting Chicago budget,
the community safety surcharge taxing the largest corporations and the social media tax taxing big
tech for their use of Chicagoans' personal data. These taxes allow more money to be put into
essential safety programs like mental health first response, public mental health clinics,
youth jobs to benefit the community, schools, and housing. These taxes, holding the wealthiest
corporations accountable to Chicagoans, funds programs our communities need without raising
regressive fines or cutting vital services. This moved Chicago towards a more equitable and
sustainable future. Having moved to Chicago in the past year, I have fallen in love with the city and
I have been in awe of how Chicagoans have mobilized to protect each other from violence and harm.
There is a deep care that Chicagoans have towards the city and people, and it is the same care that
inspires our determination to pass this budget, which will contribute to a sustained, thriving,
and safe city. I am asking city council to stand with working families and pass the mayor's
protecting Chicago budget in full. Do not let corporate lobbyists block a budget that invests
in our safety, housing, and climate future. We can lead the way in showing what can be possible when
we have a budget that invests in people, not corporations. Thank you for your time and your
commitment to building a safer and better protected Chicago. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments. Next, we have Rosa Gomez, followed by Mr. Joyce Blakemore.
Hi, my name is Rose Gomez, and I've been doing TNR, which is trap, neuter, return for years,
and that is trapping both friendly and feral cats. It doesn't matter when they're outside,
they reproduce exponentially, and that includes suffering on the street. And you try to assist as
much as possible, but the funds are not available because trappers, including myself, have to provide
the equipment and the resources in order to do this. The appointments, which are TNR appointments,
are not paid for by the city of Chicago. I propose that the city budget includes unlimited TNR,
which is spay, neuter appointments for any and everybody, both friendly and feral cats. It doesn't
matter because once they're outside, they reproduce exponentially. And who is going to contain the
suffering? Obviously, not the city council. You do not contain that suffering. The police do that,
unfortunately. They try to help with what they see on the streets. You've got the police officers,
you have trappers like me. You have rescues that are trying to do as much as possible, but it's an
impossible task because the city budget is not sufficient in order to do what we have to do.
As a constituent, I am not asking for an increase in the CACC budget. I am demanding that this be done
because it is the right thing to do as a constituent to care not only for the fur babies, but that
includes ourselves because we're holding the bag in order to maintain and minimize all the suffering
on the street. Thank you for your comments. Next, we have Mr. George Blakemore,
followed by Abigail Spencer. Good morning. It's very interesting to hear people advocating
for animals. What about the human beings? Some of these people are in love with the animals
and not the people. So what's going on here with this budget is dealing with, I don't know what's
wrong, but it's dealing with these illegal immigrants, getting these resources that your little cat and your little
dog can't get. Those illegal immigrants, that's the big picture. They're getting the goods, the service,
the contracts, the contracts, and the jobs. They're not even U.S. citizens. And the negative effect
that it has on the budget. And to know that we have also men and women who voted for that
in a sanctuary, so-called city. If anybody needs sanctuary, it's the people, the black people
that were enslaved in America. Not immigrants that were brought over. Are we less than the cats
and the dogs? The little furry friends? You know, my best friend was a dog, too. Uh-huh. Dogs are men's best
friends. However, that was an animal. And I guess some of you all consider us as animals, too.
So you'll advocate for the little furry friends, but you won't advocate for the human life, the human
being. So it's very important for us to keep focused on the big picture. Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Next, we have Abigail Spencer, followed by Elena Hausweiser. You may proceed.
Good morning. My name is Abigail Spencer. I was here on October 9th. I'm excited to be back.
I recently had an experience where I was trying to get support for an item that I had been incorrectly
charged for and received an email from the company from their AI chat support saying,
Hi, Abigail. I'm very happy to help you here. I've looked into all possible options, and there's nothing I can do.
This experience was infuriating, and I had to ask the AI to let me talk to a person, which its AI training
compelled it to do quickly because it recognized it could do very little. This level of frustrating
support of talking to an AI that is saying, these are all of the options I have. Unfortunately, I'm not a
person and can't do much more, is in some senses how it feels to see the new budget. We had a wonderful,
comprehensive October 9th City Council meeting filled with so many different perspectives and
experiences from people all across the city about areas that they feel like there is not enough being
done. And yet the budget reflects what feels like an AI level change, a percent increase in
administrative salaries that accounts for inflation and not much else. And while those salaries should
be increasing to account for inflation and paying our staff appropriately, there is a lot more work to be
done. And coming back to this meeting and feeling like so little of it is being considered, I hope
that our City Council does better. I want to echo what speakers like Julie said about how we need
our city to think creatively about this money. I want to echo what other speakers like Carlos have
said about the intersection of issues like housing. And most of all, I want to call on the City Council
to do two things here. First, fail this budget, look at all the areas that people are identifying it is
not enough, and ask within the constraints of the budget, how can we meet more of those issues. But
second, when we have exhausted all possible options within the budget, we need to continue this
conversation outside of a budget increase. Please, City Council members, those of you attending,
continue to come to meetings, continue to push for resolution. There are so many harms.
Thank you for your comments. Next, we have Elena Hochheiser, followed by Abby Tisenberg.
Hi, my name is Elena Hochheiser. I'm here with JCUA, which is fighting for racial and economic justice in
Chicago. I'm here to say that I strongly support the mayor's protecting Chicago budget because it
invests in people, not corporations. It funds programs our communities need, like affordable housing,
youth jobs, and public health without raising fines or aggressive fines or cutting vital services.
And this budget puts working people before billionaires and move Chicago towards a more
equitable and sustainable future. Something I really want to highlight in the budget is
removing vacant police positions. These are taking up dollars in the budget that would never actually
be filled. And then moving this money towards vital safety initiatives in the community is something I
find really important. I'm here with JCUA, but I work with an organization that supports people
that have been impacted by the carceral legal system. And taking money away from policing,
especially positions that aren't being filled right now, and putting that money into social
services and our communities is something that's really, really important to me. Chicago can lead
the way in showing what's possible when we invest in people over profit. I urge you to vote yes on the
Protecting Chicago budget. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comments. Next, we have Abby Tisenberg, followed by Graham Gordon.
Hi, everyone. My name is Abby.
I'm Dr.
I
I am also here with JCUA to express our support for the city budget, proposed city budget.
Some key forms of revenue that are important to me to highlight are the community safety surcharge,
which would be taxing the biggest businesses in Chicago and putting money toward our communities
and safety programs like mental health first response.
I also support the social media tax, which would take big tech for their use of Chicagoans' personal data,
which, among many other things, can go to more mental health resources,
as social media has been very detrimental on people's physical, mental, and emotional health.
I am extremely supportive of the removal of vacant police positions, which take up dollars but are not actually filled,
as well as the surplus TIF funding, which is money currently set aside for projects in particular parts of the city.
And under the proposal, the dollars not used for these projects would be able to go and help fill funding gaps in Chicago public schools.
The spending to highlight that could be funded by this additional revenue created in this budget would be
mental health first response teams, public mental health clinics, youth jobs to help benefit the community
and help keep youth out of trouble, as well as schools and housing.
I am asking the city council to stand with the working families and pass the mayor's protecting Chicago budget in full.
Do not let corporate lobbyists block a budget that invests in safety, housing, climate, and the future.
Chicago can lead the way in showing people what is possible when we invest in people over profit.
I urge you to vote yes on the mayor's protecting Chicago budget so that every Chicagoan can live in a safe, affordable, and sustainable home.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you for your comment.
Next, we have Graham Gordon, followed by our final speaker, Reverend Wallace Gator Bradley.
Good morning.
My name is Graham Gordon.
I'm also speaking on behalf of the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs in support of Mayor Johnson's budget.
I'd like to specifically highlight the proposal to allocate $1 billion of surplus TIF funding to various social services,
including $570 million for Chicago public schools.
I am aware that this is a contentious issue amongst our city council,
and I understand why people feel that these TIF funds should remain in their neighborhoods.
But I speak out in support because I think that right now we are in a time in which the funding to our public schools,
libraries, and other social services that comes from the federal government is at risk.
This year, the Trump administration has cut millions of dollars to Chicago public schools,
particularly as an attack on our programs designed to uplift magnet programs and the social mobility of black students and LGBTQ students.
Federal funds for our schools also are most commonly used for programs like Title I and for disability support,
our special education teachers, and the pensions of our non-faculty employees of the Chicago public schools.
And, yeah, so I strongly support the budget for all of the reasons mentioned,
and I urge that members of the city council set aside their personal trappings and loyalties to their district
to support a budget that furthers the welfare of all students and people in Chicago.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Our final speaker is Reverend Dr. Wallace Gator Bradley.
Yes, good morning, Chairman.
First off, I want to say to God be the glory.
I've learned a lot from listening to the young ladies talk about their pets.
I'm a pet owner, and they're more than animals.
So it's almost like they're part of your family, the humanity of caring about a dog.
And when you spell dog backwards, it spells God.
I'm in full support of this budget, mainly because I read today and heard on the news
that Chicago is the number one city in the country where crime has came down.
I also support this budget because the mayor said that the new revenue will come from just 3% of corporate America.
And then I heard him say, instead of the companies having 100 members or employees, he moved it up to just the companies that have 200.
So I guess that's the 2%.
I also want to say to God be the glory.
And you need this budget to keep on doing what y'all doing with the law department to help stop the senseless pain of lawyers to defend cases that they can't win.
And I'm saying it on behalf of Mark Maxson and Gerald Reed.
Gerald Reed's the next case that just commented to you.
To God be the glory.
Thanks for listening to Gator's Story.
Thank you for your comments.
We will be at ease while we bring our first department in, which is the Department of Administrative Hearings.
Good morning. We'll begin today with our first department, Department of Administrative Hearings, led by Pat Jokowiak.
I'm getting my vowels and consonants mixed up today.
Be that as it may. We'll begin with a brief overview from Council Office of Financial Analysis.
We've got Alex Basinius here with us today, who will give a brief overview, followed by the department's opening statement and introduction of members that are with us today. Go ahead, Alex.
Thank you, Chairman, Vice Chair Lee, members of the City Council.
My name is Alexander Basinius, and I'm a Legislative Budget Analyst with the City Council Office of Financial Analysis,
and I will be providing a brief overview of the proposed budget for the Department of Administrative Hearings today.
The proposed budget for the fiscal year of 2026 for the Department of Administrative Hearings is $8.39 million.
That is a 2% reduction from last year, or a little over $0.17 million.
It is 100% corporate funded.
The spending breakdown includes $3.46 million in personnel costs and roughly $4.93 million in non-personnel costs.
The total full-time employees budgeted for the fiscal year of 2026 is $39.
That is a 0% change from last year.
Here you can see a breakdown of the recommended budget for 2026.
We do see some reductions, particularly in contractual services with a $0.23 million reduction.
And then we also see a reduction here in commodities and materials.
There is a slight increase in personnel services overall.
That, again, is a 2% reduction from the corporate budget.
And a little bit about the historical trends for the appropriations for the Department of Administrative Hearings.
It's hovered basically around $8 million consistently.
There is currently at $8.39 million for the year of 2026.
And looking at historical trends for full-time employees, we have hovered roughly around $42 million this year.
However, we are seeing a reduction at $39 million.
But, however, it has stayed pretty consistent the whole time.
So, at that point, that concludes my introduction here, and I'll pass it all along.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alice.
Director?
Good morning, Chairman Irvin.
To my right is Deputy Director Anthony Rizzo, Jr.
To his right is HR, business partner excluded, Wilgenia Irvin.
Good morning, Chairman Irvin, Vice Chairwoman Lee, and members of the City Council.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and update you on the Department of Administrative Hearings.
DOAA strives to provide the highest level of customer service to those who appear at our courthouses.
As such, several customer service modifications were made during COVID-19 and still continue today at DOAH.
These modifications ensure respondents have easier access to the administrative hearings process.
For example, respondents can file motions to set aside default judgments online.
Previously, these motions could only be filed in person.
Also, those who have pending building code violations can email photos, receipts, paid invoices, permits, and a sworn statement attesting to full compliance.
If the property owner is in compliance, the law department transmits a request to non-suit the case.
DOAH also continues to offer virtual hearings as an option.
In 2024, there were 14,275 virtual hearings conducted for parking, speed, and red light camera cases.
This represented 32% of the total in-person vehicle hearings conducted in 2024.
As of September 30, 2025, DOH conducted 9001 virtual hearings, representing 28% of the total in-person vehicle hearings.
On February 13, 2025, DOH adjudicated its first Smart Streets violation for offenses related to parking slash obstructing bus and bike lanes.
As of September 30, 2025, DOH has heard 405 of these cases.
Virtual hearings are also available for other DOH case types.
In non-parking cases, respondents log into their assigned courtroom and are connected with the city representative for a pre-trial conference.
Subsequent to that conference, the administrative law judge, the ALJ, will enter the hearing.
The Coordinated Advice and Referral Program for Legal Services, known as CARPOLS,
continues to staff a legal help desk at the Central Hearing Facility located at 400 West Superior.
Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2024 and continuing through 2025, DOH and CARPOLS collaborated in ways to increase the public's awareness
of the practical how-to-advice services which CARPOLS offers at DOAH.
Additional signage was posted at our two satellite courthouses located at 2006 East 95th Street and 4445 North Pulaski Road.
Cards which contained the dedicated phone number for DOH respondents to call CARPOLS continue to be distributed by DOH staff and ALJs.
Additionally, effective March 1, 2025, CARPOLS changed its on-site days from Monday through Thursday to Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
CARPOLS noted that this modification better aligns with past in-person consultation trends.
All of these changes have resulted in an 18.6% increase in consultations.
In CARPOLS fiscal year 24, there were 758 consultations compared to 932 consultations
conducted at the close of their 2025 fiscal year on June 30th, 2025.
The Legal Help Desk also promotes equal access and understanding of the administrative hearings process
for respondents who are self-represented litigants at DOAH.
DOH also utilizes the language line translation services to ensure that those whose first language is not English
can fully participate in their administrative hearings.
The top six languages for 2025 are Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Ukrainian, Mandarin, and Polish.
Language line offers translation services in 170 languages slash dialects.
In 2024, there were 3,438 calls, resulting in 36,009 minutes of interpretation,
representing a 33% increase in the minutes of interpretation from 2023.
As of September 30th of 2025, there were 2,802 calls with 29,039 interpretation minutes.
As of September 30th, 2025, DOH accepted 22,740 case filing.
If these filing trends continue through the fourth quarter of 2025, DOH anticipates a 27% increase in case filings over 24.
This will represent the largest number of recent filings since 2019, wherein 440,000...
1,571 cases were filed at DOH. In August of 2006, DOH accepted its first electronic
case filings, that's e-filing, for Department of Streets and Sanitation violations. The e-filing
system has been updated over the past 19 years with the intention of other enforcing departments
being able to e-file their cases. In 24, DOH received the first e-filings for vacant property
cases filed by the Chicago Police Department and public way violations filed by CDOT.
E-filing obviates the needs for staff to manually review paper documents. All documents are now
stored for review on our case management system. In 2026, DOH, in conjunction with the Departments of
Law and Technology and Innovation, are working to bring water debt and other cost recovery matters
onto the e-filing system. Our 26 budget continues for the funding of two students to work year-round
instead of only during the summer breaks. Our past students gained invaluable experiences in the
courthouse and office environment. These interns also serve as our community engagement ambassadors
by interacting with the public at our courthouses and obtaining feedback on their experience.
They ensure that our public comment cards are distributed and remind respondents that they
could submit their comments online. These public comments aid us in delivering efficient and courteous
customer service. We remain committed to increasing the diversity of our ALJ bench to reflect Chicago's
current demographics. DOH's Equity, Racial, Justice, and Inclusion team attend all job and service fairs,
the Illinois State Bar Association's annual minority bar program, to distribute the notice of ALJ
opportunity flyer. The ERJI team continues to implement ideas gathered during the retention and recruitment focus group.
It convenes such as including the ALJ opportunity notice on DHR's job flash. In 2025, our team also visited law firms in Chinatown and Pilsen to personally distribute notices of the ALJ opportunity to attorneys. Additional community visits will continue throughout 2026. Thank you. We're here to assist with any questions you may have at this time.
Thank you. Thank you, Director. We will open with Alderman Lopez. Any others for questions? And followed by Alderman Conway. Okay. Oh, we got off. Okay. Everyone's on. We got it. So, Lopez Conway, Vice Chair, then welcome back.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee. Good morning, Director, and to you and to your team.
I always like when I get to see you here because you are such a champion of providing fair and equal access and ensuring that your entire department is respectful of our taxpayers when they find themselves on
the wrong side of the wrong side of the wrong side of the conversation. So, I just want to first off commend all of you for maintaining that for as long as I've been here. That has never changed. So, I appreciate that.
I do want to talk about a couple things, if I may real briefly.
A few years ago, we required that you have to have representation for our residents to appear. Or was it the other way around?
The corporations? Yes.
Yes. The corporations, during the pendency of some litigation, had to be represented by an attorney.
Do you remember what year that was?
General Counsel?
Pre-pandemic, I think it was.
Oh, it was definitely pre-pandemic.
2018, maybe? Sound about right?
I was in 2018.
Roughly.
Yeah.
Have we done any review to see what the impact of that has been on small businesses and individuals who oftentimes find themselves in that predicament?
Well, I can tell you the small businesses are beyond ecstatic because we had to explain to several of the reviewing courts that a corporation could be a small business.
They were thinking of corporations, large, you know, hundreds of employees.
These were someone that would be a photographer who had their vehicle registered in the photography's business, LLC.
And we had to make it very clear that they also would need an attorney to represent them during the pendency of this.
And then we started with the law department looking at other places like in Cook County where it was only a certain matter, a dollar amount in controversy that they would need to have representation if they were a corporation.
So, and again, through CARPALS, helping out, that's what we started is, pro se, mainly pro se at this courthouse.
So, do we have a rough approximation of how many hours CARPALS has helped in administrative hearings?
We have the number of people, but they also, they're there, you know, seven to eight hours a day on the days they're there.
And the reason I bring that up is because, as you may have heard while we were doing public comment, we have another department that will be up here later where we have outside third parties providing services to augment what's available at our departments.
You know, whether it's PAWS or CARPALS, there's a level of service that's being provided that taxpayers aren't necessarily paying for.
But if we were to try to ensure that there was equity across everybody to ensure they have representation, whether you are incorporated or not as an LLC, what would that cost the city of Chicago in order to provide that?
So that you don't have individuals showing up without any kind of legal representation or support at administrative hearings.
Well, first of all, we do $35,000 from our budget.
That's corporate funded.
And then the Chicago Bar Foundation also provides for CARPALS.
Their current model is they can just give the practical how-to advice, arming these people, the respondents, with information to go in, how to file their motions.
We are working on a project with CARPALS to see if we can go beyond that.
They can't do it, but they're seeing if they could find another agency where a legal help desk, illegal attorneys could actually go into the courtroom and represent them.
That does not exist now.
So it is something that they are looking at, Alderman Lopez.
And I understand that we're talking hypotheticals and future possibilities.
Yes.
And I bring that up because further in your statement, you referenced that we're seeing the highest increase of cases in years, correct?
How many of – so when you have, for example, 220,000 cases filed, how many of those would you say come in with their own representation versus are relying on either CARPALS or no representation at all?
And if you want, you could get that through the chair.
But just anecdotally, what do you think?
Yeah, we –
Third?
No.
I'll turn to my general counsel.
What would you think, Anthony?
The overall majority is pro se.
Yeah.
Okay.
For the people to appear before us.
But how many of those – that's why we use the CARPALS numbers to say how many then we encourage them if we can see that they are not maybe understanding the whole process or the nature of the violation to go to the CARPALS office or to call them.
So – and the reason that I bring this up is that I'm sure many of my colleagues get the same phone calls I do where you have individuals who maybe not have – who may not have the means for a lawyer or are afraid of calling a lawyer or what have you but think that aldermen are their neighborhood lawyers to answer all the violation questions.
But we're trying to – but trying to figure out what is a correct resource that we could use across the board to help refer people because CARPALS is great, but CARPALS is also overworked, and they don't necessarily always have the ability to answer what our residents are asking for.
So just trying to figure out, you know, and look forward to working with you to figure out what we can do in the future to expand the legal advice or assistance options with the city of Chicago.
When we look at all of those cases, that 220,000, is that inclusive of the vehicle hearings and other things that you referenced?
That is – that is department-wide.
Department-wide.
Can you provide through the chair what that breakdown looks like as to – as to what that is by department as well as how many have been thrown out or dismissed as well as how many have been – had judgments rendered with associated fines or fees?
Because I think what wasn't discussed, unless I missed it, how much money in terms of judgment has AH been able to order paid to the city of Chicago?
In 2024, it was $113 million.
$897,960 as of September 30th, $100,014,462.
Do you think we're on pace for the next two months to match what we did last year, or is it down?
Exceed it.
We're going to exceed it.
We will exceed the $113 million.
Is there an emphasis by when it comes to –
Hold on a second, Alderman Dow.
I want her to repeat her numbers and slow down.
Of course.
In 2024, $113,897,960.
As of September 30th, $100,014,462.
Good.
Okay.
Alderman, go ahead.
Thank you.
So I think that when we look at all of the cases that we're seeing, I don't think necessarily that we need to look at administrative hearings as unilaterally just being a revenue-generating department.
Because I do appreciate, and I will say public, I do appreciate when you find people having resolved issues without charging them.
But I think it's also incumbent upon us to see where we could maximize the dollars.
For example, with the Ernst & Young report, we saw that there were a number of violations, which I would imagine appear before administrative hearings,
when it's violations of BACP or others, where those fines and fees haven't been updated in 15, 20 years.
So we probably have the opportunity to continue on pace but raise more money by updating some of the fines and fees that are being administered through your hearings.
If you could provide through us, again, all of those, but also where we see the most need for enforcement in terms of by wards,
where we're having like the highest consistent uptick of issues, if there's a way that you can show if there's a change.
For example, if my ward had 1,000 housing or building issues or vacant lot sanitation issues, and we've seen this year we were only at 500,
are you able to capsulate those areas where we've been able to see changes in the amount of violations
that would maybe give us a preview of either increased or decreased enforcement or increase or decrease in changes in behavior?
Not by ward, but I could tell department-wide.
We know by looking at the figures from 2024 compared to where we were at September 30th, police filings have been up.
There were 20,000 last year.
It's almost 24,000 this year.
Is that all by the department in your hand?
Pardon?
This is department-wide?
This is the department.
Yes.
Can you share that to me, Chair?
We will.
We will absolutely.
No, it's written on it.
The wage garnishment cases, that's sister agency employees inclusive.
956, excuse me, 955 cases last year, 1,828 cases this year.
Vehicle impoundment last year, 5,781.
This year, 5,940.
And CDOT cases.
Last year, it was 4,723 cases.
This year, as of September 30th, 6,454 cases.
So those are-
And how about for giggles?
How's Streets and Sanitation doing?
They're on par.
Last year, I predicted that it would be record filings, and it was at 53,001.
They're on par.
I'm not sure if they're going to hit that.
We have to wait, because they do ownership searches first to make sure, and then there's
probate issues.
I'm sure Cole is listening.
You know he's always listening to what I have to say.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Who did I say was next?
Conway?
I was going to ask for the same figures that Alderman Lopez did, so I don't need to-
I have no more questions.
You're good.
Okay.
Vice Chair?
Thank you, Chair, and good morning.
Good morning.
To you.
I'll do my annual dispense with my favorite commissioner, because she is a daughter of
the 11th Warp.
No, she's not.
Yeah, she is.
A proud daughter.
The Cubs fan, too, I heard.
Dear.
Bite your tongue.
Bite your tongue.
It's hereditary, mom and dad, both White Sox fans.
She can't live that close to the ballpark.
No, no.
And not be otherwise.
Thank you for all the work that you and your small but mighty team do.
You know, just looking at the, I mean, over 200,000 cases, you've got 39 people.
So, you know, you do a lot with what you've got.
And I know that with all of the new ordinances that we're passing, we're adding on to the
workloads.
Can you talk to me about where the $170,000 drop in your proposed budget, like, where does
that hit you?
It's my old 140 account, and that would be for cases for the administrative law judges.
And where we took it from was in the contest by mail.
Looking at trends for the last several years, I believe that we'll be able to absorb that
even in what we're doing for the in-person hearings.
So, and that's people not waiting in the courtroom.
They're just waiting at home for their fair and impartial ruling by the department.
So that's where it's at.
Just a little longer time to have the decision rendered, but at least they're not in a courtroom
waiting to see the judge.
Yeah.
Which I, look, as an older person who has constituents that sometimes find themselves needing to come
before you, it is nice to have the hybrid option because it's take a whole day off of work.
And, you know, if you're a business owner, a small business owner, and you've got to go
to court for something, it's costly to you.
So I appreciate that the city is taking steps to ensure that we make this, you know, with
modern times and technology available to people.
I'm looking at the, speaking of the new things that we're putting into place, I know you mentioned
the smart streets violations.
How's all that going so far?
It's rolled into the same system that we do the speed, the red light, and the regular
parking enforcement violations.
We haven't had, I'll turn to my deputy.
You haven't heard any issues from our ALJs?
It seems to be running smoothly so far.
The city produces photographs along with the violation.
It helps the ALJs make a decision.
So pretty cut and dry.
If you are photographed in the bike lane by one of the smart streets vehicles, then there's
really not a question at the end of the day.
What's contestable, I guess, is what I'm looking for.
Absolutely.
That they were dropping someone off or picking someone up.
That's what we hear.
They're dropping Aunt Esther.
You know, she's 93 years old.
They're dropping her at a doctor's appointment.
And they would explain that.
Sometimes they'd bring the proof in.
This is where the appointment was.
This is where the doctor's office is located.
Things of that nature.
Deputy, do you want anything else besides that?
Occasionally, we'll get a stolen blade or a stolen vehicle or a vehicle misidentified.
Yeah.
I'm assuming that as we have more vehicles online, you're going to be seeing more of that.
But just from an education perspective, you know, I'd like to be able to share with my
constituents, you know, I've already told my children never park in a bike lane or bus lane
at that point with these new cameras that have been outfitted.
But these new things, we can't always assume that everybody watches the news or hears about
what these new laws are.
So I appreciate knowing kind of what some of the defensible positions would be on those
cases.
And as we're seeing more of those, are we dismissing more of these on these bases?
I would imagine that a lot of, if you're an Uber Eats driver, that's not a defense for
you parking in a bike lane to go run into a restaurant, is it?
Okay.
I think in any of the parking, as long as the defense, you know, they substantiate, the
judge hears all the evidence, reviews the city's case, they'll make a decision.
It's the speed in the red light cameras where we see the higher findings of liability because
that photographic evidence is there in addition to some of the parking.
But it's only about, what, 10% of all the, less than 10% deputy of all the citations written
that actually request a hearing?
Okay.
And that's been since we've started hearing these cases.
That's great.
So I've heard anecdotally from some constituents, there's a couple of new cameras in the 11th
ward.
I don't know if you've driven, certainly you have not gotten any of these violations.
Uh-oh, all the members of the president's raising his hand, he's been speeding through
our ward.
I've had questions raised about when the cameras are flashing, like, and if they're getting
tickets for when they are only going maybe four miles over the speed limit.
So when these citations are issued, they are documented with the number of miles over the
speed limit they were going, correct?
That is correct.
And they're also reviewed, even if it, like with red light, you know, they're looking to
make sure on these cases, too, whether students, you know, they're reviewing the photographic
evidence before they send the case, the notice of violation to the vehicle, registered vehicle
owner.
Okay.
Great.
Like I said, I appreciate all the work that you all are doing.
I'll add to, um, I'll pick you.
back off of Alderman Lopez's through the chair request, there's a way for that initial data to
be broken down by Ward. I'd be just interested. The other part of this is that he started to
talk about, and I'll just, again, piggyback off of that, is how we're looking at the cases that
you're seeing and the trends to inform potential policy changes that we need to make.
So I'm thinking of, let's say, streets and sanitations, you know, citations that are
being issued by Ward superintendents. So, like, if we're having a chronic issue of, you know,
call it something mundane, people not taking care of the high weeds on their property, you know,
that may say something to us about, okay, maybe we need to take a different approach to this because,
you know, we have high weeds and there's more clutter in a yard or something that contributes to,
you know, an increase in rat populations. It's kind of gross, of course, but, you know,
what can we do from a policy perspective to try to change the behaviors of people,
not just relying on, you know, fines and fees when we're able to issue the citations for them?
I think definitely input from the enforcing departments. Those are the boots on the ground,
especially, like you said, CDAT, streets and sanitation, to get their intel and figure out
if there's any areas that they would see. I think, as you said, the ward supes,
the city inspectors from these departments would be the route to go with that and get their input.
We'll be interested to see the data when you're able to share it. Thank you very much. That's all I
have, Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair. Admiral Walgespeck.
Thanks, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning, staff.
A couple of questions going back to last year. Last year, we had heard that there were significant
numbers of cases dismissed. What is the range this year, or rate of dismissal,
the range of those dismissals and the average amount for each area?
We can get that through the Chair. I do know that I prepared some, I believe it was Alderman Riley
who had asked for it, but that's just department-wide. And we made sure, because he was asking for the
non-suits and the dismissal, want of prosecution, that we excluded the buildings cases from that,
because a non-suit in a buildings case is that they were in compliance. That's why they non-suit.
So I always make sure that I add that warning on there, that when we do it, we're not keeping
buildings in there. But for all the other departments, we would give that data. So we can
get that information department-wide for each case type, Alderman.
Okay. And last year, we talked about, you know, we saw data that several judges, ALJs, were dismissing
upwards of 80% of their cases. Were those the ones related to buildings, the non-suits, or those
across the board as well? That would be, buildings would be, exactly, that would be a motion city
non-suit because there was compliance demonstrated by the property owner. 80%, I do know for vehicle,
the highest just in the regular parking matters, the non-speed, the non-red light, that would have
been like 60% that would be like a not liable. So not 80%. Could we get some type of breakdown
without, I don't want to know who the judge is, but again, this range of dismissals, for some judges,
is it, you know, 5%, 10%, upwards of 60% seems on a pretty high range for dismissal.
That would, and again, the case type too, like as you highlighted, I think we were talking
mainly like the parking cases. That was something we spoke about last year, I remember, but that's
department-wide, but that changes where it's more of like a 73% for like speed and red light
cases where it's liable, not, you know, not the not liable.
Okay. So whatever you can get for us on the rate of dismissals would be helpful.
Moving over to the Ernst and Young report, which has been widely talked about. In that report,
they identified issues for a lot of departments. I didn't see anything on your department in there,
except one of the areas that we've been looking at is the duplication of efforts by human resource
officers, which creates a lot of efficiencies, inefficiencies, should be efficiencies, and
lack of budget optimization, which we are desperately in need of on this budget. So just looking at your
budget there, and this kind of exists elsewhere, but we have the human resources business partner.
What do they do for your office?
That is Wilgenia Irving, and we were talking about this, and I said, no day is typical. One day, it could be
dealing with FEMLA issues, time and attendance matters. It could be dealing with grievances, scheduling
meetings with AFSCME. Ms. Irving, add some more for me on one of your days, and she is the only person that we have.
For HR.
That's all DHR, correct. In her division, there's the one that handles the invoicing, which is vacant. So
my assistant, my executive assistant, Nancy Takata, is processing our invoices for the judges.
Gina, did you want to add?
She said, yeah, we're also processing payments for vendors, return to works, labor relations issues, as she said, union issues. Every day is time and attendance. And as she said, no day is typical with the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker.
Sounds familiar. Okay. Well, thank you very much for that. Last question. What recommendations, if any, did you make to Ernst & Young, or they were going department to department, they didn't come to yours?
No, Alderman.
Okay. Do you think there are operational efficiencies you could create without even worrying about EY, but within the department?
I think over the years, we have, at one point, we were budgeted, I believe in 2006, for 61 positions. And that was with fewer cases. So when we look at the number of hearings we've conducted, the number of cases we've accepted for filing, and we're at 39.
We do a lot of collaboration, not only with our staff, but also with our union partners, to do cross-training, to ensure that we continue the efficiencies that we have started since I've been the department head, and will continue to do so. You have my commitment to that.
Okay. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate the work that you all do. And thanks for being one of those departments that comes with the data and doesn't mind sharing it with us. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman. Did you have a second, Alderman Lopez? Yeah, go ahead.
Thank you again, Chairman. I just have one quick follow-up with regards to, I know we talk about smart streets and how that's rolling out.
Has any conversation happened with this administration previous with law departments with regards to incorporating smart 311 as a tool for citizens to report issues?
And would that pose any difficulty for your department to be able to adjudicate tickets if someone with their own cell phone were to take a picture of a vehicle, say, parked in a hydrant, parked in a tow zone, and things of that nature?
I know we've referenced this, but are we any closer to making that a reality?
Because it has to be signed by a city inspector who has noticed that violation.
I think animal care and control, I think, when there's been a dog bite, they have to, when the ticket is issued again by either CPD or animal care and control, the complaining witness has to come in and testify to the dog bite or to dog on dog or something like that.
But nothing further, Deputy Rizzo, have you had any further?
There have been some discussions regarding that.
There have been some discussions along those lines.
However, currently, any case initiated in our department is initiated through a science warrant complaint from an enforcing department.
So that would have to be done in consultation coordination with the law department and the enforcing departments.
So we would need some sort of ordinance change to allow for citizens who are verified,
because, again, smart 311 is a verified system that keeps them in our database to be able to basically present evidence to a department,
which would have to then reenlight and bless whatever they provided and then turn it over to you, roughly, in order for that to be a valid.
We would have deferred a lot of part.
We would have to consult with them first before we went forward to anything like that.
Again, 100 percent, we're not even anywhere near there.
But what I'm thinking is that for as many calls as we get and complaints about things,
one of the biggest ones that we always get with vehicle notification,
especially with vehicular stationary ticketing,
is that we have work groups with our district counselors trying to find ways to alleviate the pressure.
They're on CPD to write tickets for hydrants and towing and things of that nature.
So for or bike lanes for my colleagues who like bike lanes like Daniel Espada, you know, if we have the ability to take a picture and submit it to a citizen's reporting group, you know, I think maybe that would probably also increase not only our enforcement, but the revenues generated because then you've got two million watchful eyes out there insuring.
You know what I would when law comes later today, I would pose that question to them.
It sounds like a it's interesting point that you raise.
And I know that, you know, we would.
Theoretically, have to, like, deputize people to do such, because, again.
One thing may be a crime against a person where I can sign a complaint if somebody did something to me individually.
I'm wondering if we could create a scenario where someone could sign a complaint against theoretically violating the rights like, you know, people V, you know, Jones or something like that.
Eagle Parker.
So, yeah.
So I would let's raise that up.
And when Corporation Council comes up, they'll be here shortly.
So we can raise that question in.
Thank you.
All right.
Very well.
Any others for Parliament administrative hearings?
All right.
Well, Pat, it seems like things are moving in the right direction.
Glad to see that you all are adjudicating cases in a more efficient manner.
And looks like, you know, things are continuing to move.
I know that there's been concerns around the non-suiting of of cases.
I do know that the departments are looking more toward a compliance mechanism than a punitive mechanism.
And, again, I think there are some, you know, thoughts around counsel that may need to be a mixture of the two.
While we are pushing for compliance, we don't want compliance to allow people to just do what they want to do.
And if I get caught, then I'll comply.
So I think we're I think what you're hearing is that you're looking for a mixture of the two.
We want people to comply.
But we also want some level of like, hey, don't don't don't continue down this path of just, you know, just waiting to comply.
So, again, you guys continue what you're doing.
Committee will stand at ease while we bring forward our next department, the Board of Elections.
Morning, everybody.
The committee is going to come back to order here.
And we have the Chicago Board of Elections Commission up next.
We're going to start with a review from COFA.
Director Oda Gray, over to you.
Vice Chairman Lee, outer persons and guest.
Good morning.
My name is Janice Oda Gray, Chief Administrative Officer for the City Council Office of Financial Analysis.
I will be providing a summary for the Board of Elections.
The proposed budget for FY26 is $27.8 million, representing a decrease of $0.64 million or 2.25 percent from FY25.
The Board is 100 percent supported by the Corporate Fund.
Looking at the spending overview, we have non-personnel services spend of $18.52 million.
Personnel services, $9.34 million.
Total FTEs, $122 million.
No change from FY25.
Looking at the appropriations by category, contractual services comprise the largest portion of the Board of Elections budget,
followed by personnel services.
Reviewing the funding at the bottom of the page, the Board of Elections is 100 percent corporate funded, as stated earlier,
and the FY26 recommendation decreased by 2.25 percent.
Historically, the Board of Elections appropriations are cyclical due to the election cycle.
As shown in the graph, viewing the historical data, there was no divorce spending spikes in both
and the
2019 and 2023. Those both were mayoral election years. And the final slide, the staffing.
Staffing levels have remained relatively consistent with little variation since 2017,
fluctuating between 118 and 122 FTEs. The board typically hires temporary staff during election
cycles, allowing the budgeted headcount to remain unchanged year over year. This concludes a COFA
summary for the Board of Elections. Thank you, Director Oda Gray. Next, we're going to hear from
our new Executive Director of the Chicago Board of Elections, Sandra Esferra. Director.
Good morning. My name is Sandra Esferra, and I am the Executive Director for the Chicago Board of
Election Commissioners. Today, I am joined by Board Chairwoman Marisol Hernandez, Board Commissioner
June Brown, General Counsel Adam Lasker, Finance Manager Kimberly Carilla-Walker, Public Information
Director Max Bever, Human Resource Manager Kalandra Rogers, Purchasing Director Carolina Roman,
Pre-election Voting and Logistics Manager Clint Hurd, IT Manager Matt Lynn, Community Services
Manager Audra Lewicki, Election Judges Supervisor Paulina Mishliwik, Polish – Polish – polling
places Supervisor Brandon Pickens, ADA Coordinator Nicholas Esposito, and Districts and Boundaries
Map Supervisor Rick Thurman. We are pleased to present our 2026 budget for the Chicago Board of
Election Commissioners. Next year will be a very busy season, as board will administer the March 17,
2026 primary election and November 3, 2026 general election in Chicago. Manage the related
Electoral Board sessions for candidates, including 11 additional elected seats for the Chicago Board
School Board for the November ballot, as well as begin preparations for the Electoral Board hearings for the
2027 Municipal and Aldermatic elections. While there was no elections in our city in 2025, the board – the
Chicago Board of Elections has been working – has been hard at working with several projects, as well as
preparing for the upcoming 2026 elections. This work included conducting a small canvas – not a small canvas – conducting a
small canvas to all 1.5 million registered voters in Chicago to properly check and update the voter rolls, moving the
downtown early voting super site to a new location at 137 South State Street, at the heart of public transit
accessibility, as well as serving early voting sites to add additional voting machines where possible. Beginning development of a new
Chicago election mobile app to be available on all smartphones and tablets to assist voters with important
information and provide directions to polling sites. Improving the ChicagoElections.gov website, including voter turnout maps, and
improving online vote-by-mail applications. Hosting a Chicago Voter Forum on Saturday, April 5, 2025, at Harold Washington College, where we
welcome voters and community organizations from across the city to provide their feedback, the
creating – and the creating an online survey that received over 6,000 responses. Working with public and private polling
places to survey and improve accessibility, and registering voters and recruiting election judges at events throughout the
year in coordination with our community partners. Our 2026 budget request is critical to satisfactory – satisfactory
administration of next year's elections. The Board acknowledges the challenging financial situation the
City of Chicago currently faces. This is why the Board complied with all suggested budget reductions and has
increased its efforts to find cost savings and zero-based budget savings within our agency. These efforts include
securing a new nonprofit postage rate from the U.S. Postal Service to use for all future mailings,
just this year the Board saved nearly $600,000 in postage fees for the annual voter canvas. Hiring a highly
qualified director of purchasing who continues to identify cost savings and efficiencies in our
procurement process. Balancing voter resources spent towards the increasingly popular and most effective
vote-by-mail and early voting programs. Increasing the internal print and mail rooms instead of outsourcing to
vendors to reduce paper and postage costs. 2026 will be another challenging year for election officials, but we are
ready to meet those challenges heads-on. For each of the above election, the Board will need to recruit and train over
8,000 election workers on the use of election equipment, polling place setup, ballot handling, and related procedures. The
Board looks forward to continuing its direct relationship with Chicago Public Schools and City
Colleges of Chicago to recruit thousands of student poll workers for 2026. For the
2024 presidential election, nearly 2,000 high school and college students served as election judges, representing
nearly one-fourth of our total Election Day workforce. We are proud to say this is one of the highest
percentages of young people working the polls for any city in the entire country. The Board will continue
to promote its vote-by-mail program in 2026, which offers paper ballot in Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Polish,
Korean, and Tagalog. Additionally, we now have over 150,000 Chicagoans registered for the permanent
vote-by-mail roster, and we expect thousands more to continue to sign up for this program. These voters are often the
first to receive their ballots and the first to return them back to the Board. We appreciate their enthusiasm.
The Board is also preparing its safety plans for the 2026 elections. It is essential that our city voters feel
safe and their civic duty of voting remains uninterrupted. In addition to the Chicago City Council, we are
requesting to work with our partners in Illinois State Government, Cook County Government, the Illinois State Board of
Elections, the State's Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Office, and the Chicago Police Department to have a coordinated
safety response for both election days. Looking to next year, the Board of Election Commissioners has
recommended a budget of $27,867,404. This spending plan reflects several items, including administering the March 17,
2026 primary and November 3, 2026 general elections and related Chicago Electoral Board
sessions, preparing for the February 3, 2027 municipal and the April 6, 2027 runoff elections,
including the administration of the Chicago Board Electoral Board hearings in late 2026, recruiting Spanish,
Chinese, Hindi, Gujarati, Uru, Polish, Korean, and Tagalog-speaking poll workers serving precincts that
serve limited English proficiency, assistance and staffing on election day, registering voters and
recruiting election judges at events throughout the year in coordination with community partners,
expanding community outreach and voter education via neighborhood events, hiring fairs and social media,
completing the new Chicago elections mobile app, conducting the 2026 mail canvas to all 1.5 million Chicago
registered voters, maintaining the servicing of all voting equipment, computers and security systems, and
continuing to work towards achieving 100% accessible polling places. To the members of the Chicago City Council, we
appreciate your ongoing support of our mission to administer transparent and partial and accurate elections for the voters of Chicago.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I'm happy to answer any of your questions.
Thank you, Director.
Questions from the body?
Yeah.
I'm sorry?
She did.
I did that last time, too, where I missed it.
It's okay.
We won't talk about it again.
Sorry.
So I've got Sposato, Laspata, Robinson.
Okay.
Conway, Alderman Sposato, why don't we start with you?
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just one simple question.
And I guess it's kind of a budget question, maybe.
So I know we've been recruiting students to be judges.
Is the reason we pay them less to make a couple bucks just to get them involved?
Or, you know, what's the real reasoning?
Because, of course, some areas, you know, you've got people applying left and right to be judges.
Certainly in the Northwest side, we can't get judges.
So I'm just wondering what the reasoning is.
Not that it's a bad thing, and I think it's a good thing, but I'm just curious.
You know, we do pay them, right?
Yes, we do.
We do pay them.
Pay them the same as grandma?
Yes?
Okay.
Yes.
They do receive the same amount of payment to serve as an election judge.
We have a partnership with MICVA Challenge.
However, they are now became a bigger agency.
So we do have, we have hired two part-time staffers who are directly working with Chicago Public Schools and colleges to recruit.
I believe the students are, this is a good civic duty for them to perform.
One, two, one.
One, two, one.
Thank you.
and also earn a couple bucks.
I don't see nothing wrong with that.
Is it an excuse day off from school if kids like to concentrate?
He's saying yes.
I believe, yes.
Some kids take pride in having perfect attendance.
And so I certainly, if the kid wouldn't want to do it,
if they're going to be marked absent for today.
Yeah, I believe our elections are, well, at least the general election is a holiday.
I'm not sure about the primary.
Adam?
The election code expressly says they should not be marked absent
if they're serving as an election judge.
Okay.
Yeah, just a curiosity.
It is somewhat of a budget question because we do have to pay them and everything.
So, all right.
That's it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chair Sposato.
We're going to go next to Chair Mitts, followed by Alderman Lopez when he gets back.
Thank you, and good morning, Commissioner.
It's a pleasure to see you and your staff.
It seems a little bit different from previous years that I've seen the board election come up,
but welcome.
And I wanted to ask you, what are changes that you're looking to implement,
if there's any, and opposed to your predecessors?
What are you looking?
How are you looking to move the board?
And they, with the new technology?
Okay.
So, one of my goals, if not by the end of the year, maybe beginning of the next year,
I've attended a couple conferences where there is a lot of election equipment that is new.
Of course, we're not in the best budget.
We don't have the budget, or the city does not have the budget,
but I am open to look and have our Board of Elections have the most current equipment, if I may say.
That makes sense, because I do know there are dysfunctional machines sometimes when they come out,
and to open up, it malfunctions take place.
So, I'm glad to hear you saying that,
because it do cause a little bit of a backup or inconvenience, should I say,
maybe for those who are trying to.
But, early voting, what are you doing in terms of pushing early voting so that, you know.
Promoting early voting.
So, as I think I mentioned, we are promoting through our social media.
We are sending household mailings before the election to give the residents the three nearest early voting locations.
You have hard copies of some of that information.
I guess I'm making sure that our seniors who are not technical.
Provide a flyer.
Definitely work on a flyer.
And can we get that information out so that we can have a hard copy to make sure.
And let me congratulate you all on promoting the youth for getting involved with elections.
I think that micro-challenge has been at the forefront,
but now I notice high school students, and it's exciting for them.
So, I appreciate the work that you're doing around that.
But any material that you may have or information that we can share early on to help promote,
we need to be excited about voting.
And I want to make sure that I do all I can to get folks excited about voting,
not because of a candidate, but because of the right.
It's really important that they need to know.
So, whether one party or the other, we want people to vote.
Of course, you know, I'm a Democrat.
I want them to go Democrat.
But I also want them to exercise that right because it's their voice.
Let me ask you a question regarding our seniors.
And some of the polling places, when they're open,
is there a rule that people who come in who are handicapped, disabled,
there may be a line, a long line.
And in one of my polling places, there were, can the judges exercise a right for that, allow them to sit?
I know some of them, if they're not shared this information,
and I know we don't have the control over the judges,
but it is something can be mentioned in the training that they are doing toward making sure that they try to make seniors as comfortable as possible.
People with disabilities.
Or even lines outside the door in the cold.
And they're trying to get the vote, but it's kind of discouraging if you want to just allow them to sit inside or until the time comes.
So can that be done, or will you look into it?
I definitely will look into it.
And just to say that if we do look into it and we do train our judges of election,
at the end of the day we don't know whether they're going to follow our recommendations on election day,
but we definitely can implement making the change and making sure that our seniors and anyone with any ADA could pass,
you know, issue, disabilities that could possibly sit or be put to the side.
Definitely can definitely look into that.
All right.
Very good.
Well, thank you all so much.
And are we all good in terms of where are we at on accessibility?
Accessibility?
Percentage.
Percentage-wise, I do not have those numbers because there's been changes from polling place, location changes.
I don't have the correct numbers at this time, but, however, I could provide those through the chair.
Because I'm interested in knowing if there's going to be a polling place change,
I would love to know that early on so that I can intervene to try to help to educate whatever precinct that is that they're holding place have changed.
Sometimes they're not always looking at little cars or whatever come in the mail,
and they get turned around because they go to a place where they used to go.
So we're trying to help to eliminate any confusion that they may have.
Oh, definitely.
We can take note of that.
Brandon, who's here.
Have you ever met Brandon?
I work very well with Brandon.
He works very well with me in the office.
And so we're making sure, but I just want to make sure that it's across the board as well.
Oh, definitely.
Yeah.
Yeah, so just for the record, through the chair request for the polling locations along with the accessibility tags on them by WART,
or I guess by precinct, I guess, WART and precinct.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, thank you very much, Chairman, and to all of your team.
Keep up the way work.
If it's your first time being there, you're going to get a real eye-opening for election time because your department is constantly busy.
And I hope you all realize that, but also treat people with respect.
One thing I find that folks don't have respect for one another, integrity is important, too, in any agency.
So I look forward to meeting with you in the near future, and thank all of you for your service.
Thank you.
I look forward for our meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
I had a couple more people walk into the room, so I just want to make sure I've got everybody that has questions.
We have Alderman Lopez.
I have Laspata, Conway, Quezada.
Anybody else in the chamber who wants to ask questions?
No?
Okay.
So we're going to go with Alderman Lopez next and then followed by Alderman Laspata.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.
Good morning to our friends at the Board of Elections.
A couple quick questions.
Who's the executive director of the Chicago Board of Elections?
Sandra.
Me, Sandra Sparrow.
Okay.
I don't think many of us have had interactions since you've been – when were you appointed?
I was hired in August of 2025.
Okay.
Have you reached out to any of the Aldermen since you were –
Yes, I have.
Because many of us heard that Charles disappeared like a thief in the night, and we've been wondering what has happened since.
So I don't think we've necessarily gotten the amount of communication from you that I think we're used to getting from the Board of Elections.
So I would hope that moving forward in this role that you are able to actually make your presence known better with all of us.
I actually only want to touch on an item in the back of this book with regards to the inclusivity of your contractor data.
When I look at the employee work group by ethnic demographic, I think the Board of Elections does a great job being fairly representative of the city of Chicago, which is no small order in this administration to accomplish within departments.
However, when I look at the spends of your institution, 2023-2024, we've seen some redistribution to try to elevate women and black-owned businesses.
We've seen a rise from 23 – excuse me, from 24 to 25 in Asian-owned businesses.
But in all three years, Hispanic-majority-owned businesses have been a whopping zero.
How is that possible in a city where Latinos are one-third of this city that we can't spend $1 with a Latino-certified business?
So we have hired a new highly – we have hired a new procurement officer, highly qualified this year.
I'm not – I can't recall when we hired her right now.
But I know that she has been doing a great job in reaching out to the individuals that we have in our current list.
Now, if there's a list that you can provide us with minority companies, we would take that list from anybody in this –
Does the Board of Elections coordinate with the Department of Procurement on any of your vendor or contractual needs?
So Carolina just was part of – she was part of – Carolina, can you – I'm sorry.
I apologize.
Hi, my name is Carolina Roman.
So I started with the board a few months ago, and it's been a huge learning curve.
But I did recently attend the procurement symposium, and I was able to connect with some of the folks –
the procurement folks with the city of Chicago and Cook County.
And unfortunately, right now, it's the busiest time for my department, but I do have the intention of reaching out to them
because I want to align our goals more with the city of Chicago.
I do know that the city of Chicago has a minority and women-owned business directory.
And, again, I would like to more closely align with our partner agencies in an effort to improve setting up contracts and awards
and reaching out to minority and women-owned businesses.
Understood.
So I think for this committee and for this council, as we're looking for efficiencies,
I am hard-pressed to sit here – bless you – and hear the department not know how to do procurement in a way –
and, granted, I know you all have been relatively new to the job.
So I'm not going to beat you up for 23, 24.
But I will say that when we're looking for avenues upon which you are going to be spending tens of millions of dollars,
particularly as we prepare for an election year,
that if this is an area where we can create some efficiencies by merging these areas of synergy,
then we should do it.
Procurement has its WMBE list.
The county, which I'm sure with Monica Gordon as clerk on that side,
administering the Board of Elections, has WMBE.
And we should be able to fully tap into that and to ensure that we are –
just as we are ensuring that our polling places look like our communities
and that our youth are able to look like our – our youth election judges look like our communities,
so too should our spending.
Whatever we need to do to address that, I think that is an immediate
because I don't see how, moving forward –
what is the anticipated contractual spend that you see for next year?
Is it only $4 million?
Because that seems very low as we're going into an election year.
So the county is covering the election next year.
Okay.
So as we're planning then for what happens in seven months, which is our main event,
that's not included in any of this as well?
Because I thought you referenced that we have to also be prepared for the petitions,
the hearing challenges, and things of that nature.
So –
So no, we actually have Procurement for 2026 and 2027 because we are –
So then, if I may, jumping ahead, what's 2027's procurement look like?
Roughly.
I'm not going to hold you to it, but roughly it's going to be $30 million?
2027, we're preparing for 2028, so we would then have new contracts for 2028.
Ugh, number?
Roughly.
Because in the 2023 year, which was our last election, we had $31 million in contractual spend,
so we're – if we ballpark it, $35 million.
So we need to make sure that we're ready to go so that we don't have five consecutive years of Latinos being left out.
No, I understand.
Can we –
If I may –
I'm sorry, go ahead.
By the –
No, go ahead.
Through the chair.
I don't have those numbers in front of me.
No, no, it's fine.
I wasn't going to hold you to it.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
I'm guesstimating because I think that if we don't plan ahead, we'll wind up in the same predicament that we're in.
And I don't think any of us want to see that number.
I will just end on a different note with regards to – I know my colleague from the 37th ward asked about ADA compliance when it comes to polling places.
That remains an issue in many wards because in many wards that have historic communities, ADA didn't exist, and yet we oftentimes find ourselves trying to create polling places with venues who are not friendly to us, namely, as of late, Chicago public schools, which is not very welcoming to the board of elections for some reason.
What are we doing to ensure that we're able to expand our reach because oftentimes Chicago public schools are the most modern buildings, relatively speaking, that have the best ADA compliance, relatively speaking?
So during the summer, we have our ADA-compliant officer coordinator who visited 63 Chicago public schools.
Out of the Chicago public schools, 29 are still pending.
The other – the remaining – and I can't think right now off the top of my head how many are already compliant.
I don't have those numbers because those have not been completely compiled to show, but our ADA coordinator was busy this summer visiting the Chicago public schools.
Thank you.
Chairman, may I ask one so I don't have to do a round two?
Sure.
It would be very easy.
Thank you.
This should be an easy one.
With the rise of early voting and things of that nature, we've seen where our polling places have been consolidated and our precincts have been consolidated numerous times.
Does the board have any plans towards further consolidating precincts or towards moving towards larger, more permanent super sites per wards
so that we could cut down on the cost of having all of these polling places, which oftentimes have seen a 50 percent reduction or more in turnout
because of the various voting mechanisms in place as of today?
So that is a very good question.
If I may –
I told you.
It was going to be easy.
So that is a very good question.
We cannot consolidate at this time.
Or I know – I believe some of the older persons have requested to get additional precincts, and I know we need to reduce as well.
This cannot happen until we have another census, if I'm not mistaken.
Adam Lassner, please correct me.
And also after a presidential, we have 90 days to consolidate precincts within the wards.
But are there plans to do that?
We definitely need to – if we need to see if – make efficiencies and reduce budgets, yes, we would need to reduce.
For the early voting question, I do have some thoughts, or I have some thoughts in my head that we could move maybe in 2028.
Again, we are looking to have vendors show us equipment that maybe we could possibly start.
And when I say – have thoughts, it's about vote centers on Election Day.
I just don't know if –
Sorry, it's called what?
Vote centers.
Adding –
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm looking at it.
2028 possibility.
The thought –
of adding vote centers on election day and that's what you're asking me or are you asking me about
early voting both both okay early voting um we could definitely have the conversation if we
could have that uh i believe if i'm not mistaken the conversation left off was left at 10 uh adding
maybe possibly additional 10 however with the budget the city is going through these constraints
i don't know if there will be a budget i can definitely propose a budget i believe there was
one i can definitely propose for 2027 uh vote centers i have some ideas i just have to write
if i may i would love for you to come back to this body to share what your ideas are for modernizing
our elect our election process we've come a long way since paper ballots and i think we've kind of
like stopped post covid um so all of the things that i'm sure you're envisioning probably would
also save us money in the process too so love to hear what you're envisioning moving forward
after we're all re-elected thank you alderman we're going to go to alderman la spada followed
by alderman sicho lopez thank you so much vice chair um thank you so much for being with us today it's
this is a big year to be preparing for so i'm i'm glad to see us doing the work and having this
conversation with you i i did i have two questions um one is broadly under the line item of contractual
services 2025 is a hard comparison year because of course we didn't really have a major election in
20 we didn't have an election here in 2025 but looking at 2024 the last year of our presidential election
it looks like our contractual services are significantly up from that year um 2024 10.4
million in contractual services 2026 recommended 17.8 million in contractual services with i'm looking
at particular increases in legal expenses software maintenance and licensing and rental of property
i'm wondering if you could help us to understand that a little bit better we did purchase new poll
books in 20 no we purchased them in 2023 i couldn't really i'm sorry so i'm looking at page 249
of the budget recommendations book i'm looking under 0100 contractual services and i'm just trying to
understand if i'm comparing presidential elections to midterm elections and expecting costs to be
comparable i'm just trying to understand why contractual services are going from 10.4 million
in 2024 to 17.8 million in 2026 alderman adam lasker general counsel i'm going to address the portion of
your question on legal expenses in 2024 um we we had some electoral board for the first time for
uh school districts in 2026 we have twice as many school districts with those new elections
it's uh you know the elected officials have gone from 10 districts to 20 so we're anticipating a much
larger summer electoral board season with the hearing officers and the you know the judicial reviews
that's that's brand new to us also the office of school board president being elected for the first
time ever in 2026 uh so we'll have that expanded much larger than usual electoral board cycle in the
summer and then we also in the uh november and december we'll experience the electoral board related
to the mayoral and aldermanic and police district council elections and police district council is also
relatively new we've been through that cycle once only once before but that's not reflected in the
2024 budget so there's substantial legal increase legal cost increase because of the new elected offices
and because of the overlap um where we're finishing up the 2026 elections while also starting to
transition into 2027 and we i appreciate that on the legal expenses side could you could someone from
the team also speak to you zero one four nine software maintenance and licensing where we have about
a 900 000 increase and the the rental of property increase that could go to anybody
and you're referring to 2024 i feel like i'm being i i don't intend to be confused i don't feel like i'm
being confusing so like i'm i'm trying specifically to understand increases in the budget in line
zero one four five sorry zero one four nine related to software maintenance and licensing and zero one
five five around rental property both of which have significant increases can somebody help me to
understand that better yeah one this is this is still on page 249 oh i'm sorry we don't have these
249 149 rentals i know i didn't think these were complicated questions so alderman you can pause
this time for a minute please yeah um so we're looking at 149 for software maintenance and licensing
uh what was the other line rental property zero one five five five five kim do you have that
it's under contractual services oh 100 so my name is kimberly carilla walker and our one five five is
our rental of property currently our all of our office space and any space that we utilize additional
space that we utilize during any election uh time frames we have to pay rent for that and that rent
increases each year so there will be a small increase each year and one five five and that accounts for
uh a normal market rate increase that we are charged 149 you're inquiring about uh software maintenance and
licensing is actually a decrease from 2025 i'm not talking about 2026 so um that is the question are you
referring to 2024 i'd like to clarify i'm trying to understand it against major election cycles that's
all so the difference between a presidential election year which was 2024 i will i will re-forward this
question through the chair i did not intend for it to be confusing i'll ask one one final question and
it's kind of related to alderman lopez's question so in terms of accessibility i understand again like why
we've moved to more cps locations and rather than consolidated precincts we have consolidated a lot of
polling places under single buildings i think the challenge of that is that it meets the letter of
accessibility and i i might argue not the spirit of accessibility because if you're going from
a quarter mile walk to your polling place to a half mile walk to a more like congested polling place
it may actually be an experience of less accessibility for the folks who need it i would encourage the
board and maybe this is something that we talk about with our capital spend in the future to think about
accessibility grants that can essentially retrofit for accessibility former polling places so that we
can the word might be decongest um uh some of the polling places that we've put three four different
precincts into a single polling place if that comment is it is that a fair comment okay thank you thank you
vice chair no problem thank you alderman lispato we'll look forward to getting that through the chair and
we'll get uh responses back for you alderman six chel lopez we have you next thank you to your women and
thank you i think um in a time like this with uh elections being wrecked and so many issues in our
democracy this is a very important department i i appreciate the opportunity to talk about it and i think
important that we have conversations um and my my concern again i think reach out because of some
issues of accessibility and all that so first reach out to the to your department on october and 17th
then we missed the meeting supposed to meet on october 28th then i have not gotten a reply since then
so um in terms of in terms of communications you know i do think is important that we especially when
they're about integrity of elections that we respond in a timely manner as you know sometimes and oftentimes
there are things that are happening in a polling location that immediately that demand an immediate
immediate response and we have gotten people that speculate over the election and polling locations
and then there's no no follow-up so my my uh my concern is about the timely manner of responses from
from uh from your department and um you know of course i expect an immediate response but i do want to
bring that to your attention i do think is important especially especially because of the critical
nature of timely responses so i will urge you uh to make sure that we follow up you know and i think
you have the emails i'm not going to go through names or anything like that uh but i do expect that the
department um responds on a timely matter um especially when it comes about
so si
you
consolidation precincts, accessibility, and integrity of elections.
I just got in a response, and I think it was almost a month.
Oh, okay.
So do you know who it was this year, you said?
And who was the email sent to, if you don't mind me asking?
Yeah, so I think first was Chris Turner.
Chris Turner.
Okay.
Christopher Turner, I think his assistant supervisor.
And then there was another person copy, Brandon Peckins.
So I do think it's important, again, I know that we did miss, we couldn't coordinate,
but it shouldn't take this long.
No, that's, yeah, I'm not aware.
Definitely will have my staff look into the email and respond today.
Brandon is actually here.
Brandon?
Okay, so I'm looking at the emails right now, and on October 28th,
you should have a response from Chris Turner.
He said, sorry for the delay.
A few things came up on my end, but I'm available next week.
And then the conversation went dead.
Yeah, so then on October 28th, there was, yeah, the response.
And I did respond, responded on October 28th at 1.21 p.m.
I said, yeah, no problem, next week works.
How about Tuesday or Wednesday?
And then it went dead.
Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Yes, yes, yes.
So, sure, as, yeah, today, please.
But like I said, I don't, I just want to make sure that we're factual here, right?
So I do expect a follow-up on that.
Yes, I will follow up by today, end of day.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Ciccio Lopez.
Alderman Conway, followed by Alderman Quezada.
You know, Madam Vice Chair, my questions were actually the same as Alderman Lospada's in the sense of some of the things going on in this budget.
I know he discussed 0145, the legal expenses.
But all I would do to augment his question is noting that professional and technical services went down, 0140, went from 5.6 million down to 2.7 million.
You know, seemed to have a wild spike in 2025, but also shared the same question he did, that when there was a presidential election, the contractual services were 10.5 million, and now this year they're 17.9.
And what's driving that, what's driving that increase?
It sounds like, I think he's kind of already pushed with that.
And if you don't have any more answers, I certainly want something like that through the chair, because these are some pretty big budget swings on this.
One thing I would like to mention again, my name is Kimberly Carrillo-Walker, is that we did obtain new e-poll books.
So that is a very large increase for our previous budget, which we, that big drop, of course, because that's a one-time purchase.
So at this time, we only would have to utilize like maintenance and software to keep those new machines running.
So it wouldn't be as large as it previously was.
So, so that 0140, is that coming down because you did buy a bunch of new e-poll machines?
040, as well as 0149.
Not only do we have the new equipment, but we have to have this maintenance, the software to run this new equipment.
We have to have professional services from those vendors to come on site and train our workers and all of the things, all those things on that equipment.
Yes.
I have a point of information from Alderman Lopez.
Excuse me.
For those purchases in the software, were those funded directly from the corporate fund or were those actually bonded out?
All of our funds are from the corporate funding account.
Has OBM, sorry, one, as a point of information, has OBM, which allows for the general obligation bonds to be used for the purposes of purchasing equipment and software,
have they ever offered the Board of Elections to use the same funding tools for those purchases instead of using corporate dollars?
Not that I'm aware of.
Thank you.
Back to you, Alderman Conley.
Yeah, so, I mean, I actually think that the answer – I'm sorry, ma'am, what was your name?
Kimberly Carrillo-Walker.
I think Ms. Carrillo-Walker, is that your – I think your response is fantastic.
It was made a lot of sense, and I would suggest that as part of the through-the-chair answer to Alderman Laspata, probably,
is that you made a huge equipment purchase, and that is what has driven an increase in budget in 25 and why it's come down.
So that's all my questions, Madam Vice Chair, and thank you very much.
Alderman Conway.
Yeah, please.
If I may just add, generally, Adam Lasker, General Counsel, remember also our budgets are cyclical based on the elections.
So in 2024, it was the presidential election year, but towards the end of 2024, we had no election to start preparing for in 25,
whereas this coming year, 26, as we reach the end of the year, we're already starting to prepare for the 27 elections.
So I think that can show why there's an increase, generally speaking, in expenses in a presidential year.
The expense is a little higher here in the midterm election year because we're rolling into your mayoral and aldermanic.
So it's almost a leading indicator in the sense that the year before, you're going to have a significant ramp-up.
Correct.
Okay.
That makes sense and does explain why 24, which would seemingly be a big election year, would look small,
and 26 would look a little bit different.
So that is all I have, and I greatly appreciate that explanation.
Thank you, Alderman Conway, Alderman Quezada, followed by Alderman Robinson.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the team of the Board of Elections for being here.
My question is based off of your statement here in regard to safety plans.
I'd like to know, you know, were there any particular notable threats to election integrity and safety in these past election cycles,
and what are the plans in detail for election safety and integrity this upcoming midterm election?
So, very good question.
I'm not aware of anything that's happened previously.
However, as everyone knows, there are a lot of, how can I say, national, I mean, not national.
Trends.
Yeah, national trends where we are aware of, and we are currently hoping to have a conversation with state and city officials
to have a plan for next year's elections, which are in March and November.
However, we have reached out to the State Board of Elections and requested a meeting because at the end,
it's just not the city of Chicago who's having elections next year.
It's the whole state.
So we're hoping that the state takes the lead and starts the conversation, all the election jurisdictions.
However, I know that we need support from state, county, and city officials for the safety of our voters and to keeping our polling places safe next year.
So we hope to join or corroborate with whomever we need to to make sure that our polling places and voters are safe and judges on Election Day.
Got it.
So we have started the conversation, let's just say.
Got it.
So to your team there, to the rest of the team, there weren't any other notable cases in the past fire elections?
No, not that I'm aware of no major safety, no.
Excellent.
And is our only security agency or, like, law enforcement strategy with the Chicago Police Department, or do we also incorporate the Cook County Sheriff or the Illinois State Police?
Is it a collaboration between all law enforcement agencies?
What does that look like?
So you mentioned Chicago Police Department.
We already reach out to them.
They normally support us on early voting during record exams.
They do support us.
We're hearing to hear back from them.
However, we do have a follow-up with them about Election Day safety at our polling places and early voting locations.
So that is a follow-up as well.
And if I may also add, Mr. Alderman, I just mentioned that we've already scheduled with FBI.
We meet with federal law enforcement prior to every election.
We're making it clear that we need to have even more detailed conversations than usual because of the unusual national trends.
We have partners at federal levels watching cybersecurity threats.
As the board's general counsel, I just want to – first of all, I want to thank the city government and the county government for having taken positions, clear positions, on where it's inappropriate for certain federal activities to happen.
That's going to help us because, remember, we don't own or control any of our polling sites, so we need the assistance of our partners like yourself.
And I want to point out the election code does limit who is allowed to be inside a polling place, you know, the judges, the voters, poll watchers with credentials.
Law enforcement is allowed in, but only law enforcement under the code that has an official election-related business or duty, okay?
So we are working with city police department, county.
state police, U.S. Attorney's Office, Illinois Attorney General's Office. We're in constant
communication with and have good relationships with all those offices. Yeah, that's good to
hear, encouraging to hear. And I would encourage, if you all haven't already, to just, you know,
double check and triple check your policies and procedures in the event that federal agents were
to walk into, you know, a polling site. As you know, there are instances of racial profiling
that, you know, the Department of Homeland Security is engaging in as it relates to immigration
enforcement. So God forbid someone is coming in to vote, but then they're arrested or pulled aside
just because they're brown or they look like an immigrant or whatever it may be. So, you know,
our board of elections should be prepared for such thing. And any other unprepared for or not even
conceived of potential threats that the federal government could try to intervene in or, you know,
engage in during election time. So, and we are extremely sensitive to that. And I will
candidly say at this moment, I feel like we are the election authority in the state that's really
starting this conversation on the statewide and federal level. And I just, as I think you understand,
though, we are just an election office. We are not a police force. We do need the assistance of our,
because, you know, as has been mentioned today, we've got election judges who are grandmas and election
judges who are high school students. Right. And we are not going to be asking them to remove
federal agents from the polling places. We need, we need help from, from those who can.
Precisely. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Alderman Cusada.
Alderman Robinson, would you mind if I allow Chair Dowell to go first? Oh, it's okay. Alderman Robinson, go ahead.
Thank you. Commissioner, thank you for being here and your team this morning.
Commissioner, you mentioned that you made calls to this body to introduce yourself. I didn't receive
a call, but I'm just curious, for those of us that don't know who you are, you can give us a little
bit of your background. Sure. So, uh, my name is Sandra Spera. I've been with the board for 32 years.
Uh, I started from a program, uh, Mayor Daley summer, summer program. Uh, I was, I, I, I impressed
the HR manager and the, uh, supervisor, uh, manager of the registration department, and they asked me to
come on board and I joined. Been there since 30, uh, been there for 32 years. I started in the
registration department, so I'm really familiar with record exams. I was a caller and also was a
tallyer. Uh, I then was promoted, um, or actually, uh, not promoted. Well, I applied to, uh, to as
assistant manager to the pre-election and voting logistics department, where, uh, in 2020, I oversaw the
whole vote-by-mail, um, processing of ballots, uh, that was before, that was during COVID. So I am
happy to make you aware if you're not aware who I am. I did process over 450,000, uh, vote-by-mail
ballots, um, counted, processed, opened, and I had a staff, I had staff over, I staffed over 100
individuals, part-timers and temp. Commissioner, that answers some of your questions. That's, that's
great, Commissioner. Commissioner, who do you report to? So I report to the commissioners. I report to the
board. Uh, the board consists of three commissioners. We have two here present. Uh, the third one retired
last, uh, October 31st. Okay. My colleague asked a question, uh, made a comment earlier. We have you
here, 30-plus years of service. I think your predecessor had 40 years of, of, of service.
We didn't know your predecessor left. And so my question to you is, certainly we need you in your
experience. How do we make sure that you stay around? What is the process to hire and or let go
someone in your position? Well, I'm hoping not to go anywhere. I hope you don't either, Commissioner. But
I'm just curious because, again, your predecessor was around for 40 years and we still don't know
what happened to him. Here you are 30 years and we certainly want to keep you. So, you know, we just,
just curious to know what the process is and how do we circumvent that moving forward? Or how does
this body even get to understand the changes in this critical department in our city?
Alderman and Adam Lasker, I'm going to jump in on that because it's actually a bit of a legal issue.
The election code prescribes that the three commissioners who are appointed by the circuit
court, um, they are the ones who, who make the, the selection processes for the executive directors.
The executive directors serve at the pleasure of the commissioners, uh, the commissioners being
appointed by the circuit court. Um, so I think that we've certainly seen that this is an agency
that values internal experience and professionalism. It's had three executive
directors in the past almost 50 years, I think. Um, so, um, but, but what it all comes down to really
is it's up, it's up to the commissioners to determine who their executive director will be.
And the commissioners give recommendations to the, but the two times in the past 50 years or so that
we've had new executive directors, there's been a public, um, posting of the job openings and
applications have come in from all over. And that happened in this time? Yes. All right. My next
question moving on is, can you share, you are here to present your budget? How much of your budget
comes from the city of Chicago? All of it, all of it. So your budget comes from, wait, wait, when you
say, can you rephrase your question again? What part of your budget comes out of the city of Chicago?
So I don't know the specific numbers, but the election code does specify which aspects of
election administration are covered by either the city of Chicago or the County of Cook. And it's
some of it rotates back and forth based on whether it's the local municipal election. The city covers
more for the, uh, federal state and county elections. The, the county covers more. Um, so, and that's all
categorized in the election code is to, to which of the two entities pays for which aspects of that
budget. Um, I, for, for specific numbers, I'd have to turn to Ms. So we could, we could just
make the assumption that your budget comes from the, from this body in the city of Chicago,
correct? And the County of Cook and account. It's very, it's shared. Yes. Reason what I'm getting
at is that your budget comes from the city of Chicago and the County. We had a director that
was let go. No one, no one knew we have a new director. Thank goodness, 30 years of experience.
We don't know this director. Um, or nobody shared with us who this director is when she started. So
I think, you know, where I'm getting at budget comes from this, this body comes from across the hall.
Again, didn't know the past director left. We have a new director, no correspondence to us. I don't
understand how that could be. If again, the budget comes from the city of Chicago.
From a very technical legal standpoint, the election code specifies that the salary of the
executive director is paid by the County, not the city. Um, but I know that doesn't,
that's not responsive to your inquiry about the, the outreach. Um, I will let, I will defer to
others on the outreach of Mrs. Sparrow becoming the executive director, but, um, it certainly was
no secret. We, um, I think the, the broader point here is that this is a over $20 million budget out of
the corporate fund of the city of Chicago. Um, and what you're hearing from my colleagues and myself
here, um, is that to no fault of yours, director, um, I think this is more a statement of, you know,
there's gotta be better communication. You are too important, uh, uh, department and the work that
you do is too important in partnership with us as alders, uh, to not have this kind of communication
be made available. So I don't know if that's an issue with the commissioners, um, or a communications
person or like who, who authorizes that. But I think that now that we've identified, it needs to be
rectified. Um, there, there needs to be some accountability there. I think that's, I'm not
trying to steal your thunder here, um, Alderman Robinson, but that, that's the point I feel like
we're, we're all trying to make. Chairman, you are redirecting, uh, my thunder. Um, and my hope is
that we will clear this up and rectify this moving forward. Uh, commissioner, uh, congratulations. I look
forward to working with you. Uh, and I hope that you will report back to your board or board of directors
um, our concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Robinson. Chair Dowell. Thank you. Thank you,
Madam Chairman. Uh, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but, uh, I will also say that I had had no
conversation with you, no outreach. Um, so I look forward to having some conversation with you in the
future. Um, wanted to ask a few questions. I didn't know that.
There was a county share of the budget, so you're getting $27.8 million from the city.
What's the number from the county for 2026?
I do not have it in front of me.
Kim, do you have the number?
We didn't bring – we did have – we just had our budget hearing,
so I don't have that information in front of me.
However, I can provide that.
Okay, and do you have a unified budget that you could share with us through the chair?
All right.
Thank you.
Secondly, I noticed that you have said that you're preparing paper ballots in these various languages,
and you're doing recruitment for poll workers in various languages, and I do not see –
I mean, in the city of Chicago, we have a large African diaspora population,
and I don't see any languages that are relevant to that population.
I'm speaking specifically of Haitian Creole or French or Wolof or Swahili,
and I think that you need to go back and look at the languages that you are promoting
to give that population that can vote an opportunity to vote.
How long does it take to pay your judges of elections?
I typically get complaints from judges about not getting paid.
Our handbook – well, it's four to six weeks,
and they are informed that it does take four to six weeks.
I do acknowledge that – correct me if I'm wrong, Paulina or Audra – our payroll was late – or not late.
It was just processed at the end – towards the end of the sixth week.
I can't remember what election – what election was that?
And why does it take so long?
It was the new requirement of W-4s.
New requirement of who?
W-4s to be submitted.
It was not a requirement in the past, but now it's a requirement for W-4s.
Was it W-4 or W-2s?
IRS forms you're talking about?
W-4s.
W-4s.
We need – because the IRS had – Kim, can you?
Yes, I'd like to add to that.
My name is Kimberly Carrillo-Walker.
We do advise all of our judges that there's a four- to six-week time frame on this payment.
We are a small group of individuals processing payment for over 8,000 people at one time.
So it does take some time to ensure all of their information is entered into a new ADP system,
which we are utilizing to process these payments, ensuring everything is accurate.
Everyone is getting exactly what they should be paid for their time and their service.
So, yes, there is a delay of four to six weeks of trying to pay all of these individuals,
in addition to other vendors whose services that we have utilized that we are still trying to pay at the same time frame.
And how many staff people do you have to do that kind of input?
It's a team effort across the board of the election.
So as far as printing check or processing for actual printing, we have three people in our finance office,
yet other departments are processing who has worked, how much each individual should get paid.
So once it comes to us, we're doing the finalizations of uploading into the system properly,
things of that sort, to ensure these checks print out properly.
Thank you for that understanding.
And finally, I just wanted to acknowledge Chris Turner and thank him for his work with my ward.
He's been very responsive.
I'm not always, I'm not always responsive, but he is very responsive.
And I wanted to just acknowledge his participation in our election activities.
Thank you.
Chair Bits, go ahead.
Information.
To element of our question about the 68-week plan.
And if you have, you know that it may take you longer, why not start from the beginning saying seven to eight weeks
so that the judges don't expect and then get upset when they're looking for their money.
So I guess that follow-up question to that is, last year there was something new in the requirement of a W-4.
Or do you anticipate that that's now going to be moving forward, the amount of time that you're going to need?
And if it is going to take some additional weeks, I agree with Chair Mitts that it's a matter of communication
and setting that up or making sure that, you know, that the staffing piece of it is in place.
Yeah, the initial process delayed, I'm hoping.
But, yeah, that is a good suggestion.
And we could definitely make that known to our election judges.
Alderman Robinson, do you have a point of information from Alderman Dahls?
I do.
I just wanted to know, through the Chair, if you could please send us the minutes that you were appointed E.D.,
I would be grateful.
Again, the minutes of the meeting that you were appointed E.D.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Alderman Quinn.
Right there.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Director.
My question stems from conversations I have with my local school councils concerning elections and safety.
Can you speak to some of the conversations you're having with Chicago public schools about elections being held in the schools?
Is there talk about maybe canceling school on election days to ensure further safety measure?
Sure.
Sure.
So I did have a meeting with the local school council representatives.
They reached out to us because they do – they are requesting materials from our office to conduct their local school council meetings – I mean, elections in March.
I believe that they're the day after.
Maybe you misinterpreted.
I'm talking about next year, the primary in March and the general in November.
My local school councils are concerned about their gym or their auditorium being utilized as a polling place because of safety concerns,
allowing four, five, six hundred people into the school while kids are at school.
And so has there been conversations by the Chicago Board of Elections with the Chicago public schools about maybe canceling school?
Can you speak to that?
Can you speak to the conversations they're having with the Chicago Police Department to ensure that the kids are safe?
Okay.
We don't want an active shooter situation here.
No, no, no, no.
I misunderstood.
Okay.
You mentioned local school council and that –
Understood.
In my head, we met with them already.
They did not mention anything of that sort other than supplying them with the materials.
However, Adam has been having meetings with Chicago public schools.
Well, and mostly –
And our department people.
I was going to say mostly along with polling places and accessibility because that's who we deal with the schools most often.
I can tell you myself, for every year I've been with the board, we've been encouraging the schools to close on Election Day for sure.
We've been able to get the state legislature to go so far as to close schools statewide on general election days.
That does not apply to the primaries.
It does not apply to the local elections.
I've literally provided a list of all the election dates for the next 20 or 30 years to the school board so that they can – and I'm not joking.
So that's our ask.
We've made that ask year after year.
Yeah, I don't want to ignore that point, right, if it's being discussed at the local school council level about safety and security, right, and it's being brought to my attention.
I have a responsibility to bring it up to this council and say, well, we've got a concern here, and we should talk about that a little bit more.
And if that means, Adam, that we should think about closing school on the primary days, whether it be March or February of 2027 or April of 2027, we ought to have those conversations now.
Because the reality is parents are really concerned about the safety in the schools.
And we all know that elections have grown more tense, and people are more unpredictable.
And so from a safety perspective on our children, we should be having these conversations.
And if it is that the Chicago Board of Elections needs this council to help with the conversation, then we should be ready to do that.
So that's my point.
If you want to amplify our voice on that issue, we would appreciate it for sure.
And security is very – I've got three kids in school.
Like, I get it.
But also feasibility.
The best room in a school to use as a polling place is the gym, but they want it.
Another one that works really well is the cafeteria.
We can't use cafeterias because –
If the kids are in school, they've got to eat.
They can give up their gym for a day, but if we could expand into cafeterias?
Well, if school is closed, then you could expand in the cafeteria, right?
Exactly, yeah.
Right.
And I guess along those lines, the other thought about polling places is maybe looking to do an additional early voting site per ward.
And we talked about this last year to explore that feasibility as election voting patterns are changing, right?
And more and more people are voting early or by mail.
It may alleviate some of the pressure of getting polling places or hitting that number of accessibility.
So another innovation we've had at the board within the past few years, and Rick Thurman is here in our districts and boundaries department.
We've really modernized and got new software on GIS mapping and our ability to now take election data and put it into our mapping system and analyze, like, where are people going when they vote?
We can look at somebody from your ward who votes in a different ward, not, you know, on a statistical basis.
So we can identify where, like, if we could only, let's say we could only put in 10 new early voting sites, but there's 50 wards.
We're going to put them where they're needed, right?
And based on the data, it's nice that we can analyze that more now.
Yeah, right, right.
I would use, like, West Lawn Park as an example.
That could serve maybe three wards.
So anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.
Appreciate it.
You're welcome.
And I'll just echo, like, I've gotten some of the same concerns, not just from parents at schools, but also principals,
especially given that, you know, it's a polling place.
It's open to the public, and you don't necessarily know if someone is a registered sex offender in the area and being in a school.
So I think that begs the question.
I think it's a great discussion for us to have.
Just because you happened to mention registered sex offender, the election code does prohibit them from voting at a precinct at the school.
So I just want you to include that in the conversation.
Oh, I will.
I'm sorry.
I didn't realize that.
So they're expected to go either early vote or go to a super site then?
Or we can reassign them to another precinct.
Precinct, okay.
I think that was all of the questions.
I'll just end with some of my own comments here.
I will say, you know, I'm sorry.
Oh, Alderman Manah Hoppenworth, why don't you go ahead?
Hi, welcome.
The 48th Ward is one of the higher voter turnout wards, and we have continued complaints about long lines,
and this is very difficult for our older adults who are generally our most, you know, consistent voters.
And so one of the things that happened the last time is that I had to request or I requested for more machines,
and I got it because I had direct access to the executive director.
I don't think I should have to have direct access to the executive director to request something like that.
But can you explain how we should be working with you to address election day issues like that?
What's the best way to communicate with you?
And I do also welcome more conversations beyond this hearing to get to know you.
Thank you.
Just a question.
Were you referring election day long lines or early voting or both?
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Yeah, on election day.
On election day?
Okay.
I mean, truly, ideally, we would love for more people, you know, to vote early, to vote by mail.
We would love to make it easier for people to drop off their ballots.
You know, I think that we talked about curbside ballot drop-offs.
I don't know if that's a thing anymore.
We did that during the pandemic.
Oh, no.
Dropbox was a big – I believe we received over $100,000 through our dropbox last election, a total, over $100,000.
I would definitely like to start the conversation.
I'm not aware of what precincts you're referring to.
I would love to have a conversation to maybe review.
I do, as Adam mentioned, we do have on our web – I'm not sure if they're available or not, but there are maps where it shows how your constituents are voting.
So, I definitely would like to follow up with you or any of the older persons.
If there are concerns, I would like to see what precincts you're referring to.
A couple things.
In November – was it November you experienced the long lines?
There was a lot of new registrars, new voters who were registering.
So, it's – I could speculate that was a lot of the data entry.
That was the holdup.
We could look into –
Are you referring to the same-day voter registration?
Yes, same-day.
I mean, is there a way that you can create a line that is separate from –
That's what I was going to go at is maybe there was a possibility, but we'd have to train our voter.
We would have to actually have enough judges of election, also train them to see if we could have a two-line, one to vote and one to register.
But you are hitting it where my thoughts were, and that includes early voting.
Again, that's a staffing.
I believe it's a conversation I need to have with our staff to see whether we have enough staffing to have two lines, one for voting and one for registering.
Because registering to vote – I actually registered voters on Election Day.
I left my command center to go register individuals, and it took about three to five, and I'm pretty fast.
And it took me three to five minutes to process a voter.
Yeah, and anything that we could – anything that you can – do you feel actually a responsible – or do you feel a responsibility for the percentage of people that actually do come out to vote?
I mean, it's one thing to register to vote, but then there's also the second step of getting them to vote.
And I feel that Chicago could do so much more in terms of voter turnout.
Do you feel that that's a part of your responsibility?
Yes, I do believe it's our responsibility to communicate to the voters when election days are our early voting locations.
How are you going to do that?
That's different than what we have been doing in the past.
And using time on your side, you know, which you don't have a lot of right now, but what is it that you're going to be doing to help us turn out the vote from now until Election Day?
Definitely.
Adam, I mean, Max can talk about communication.
Max Weber, Public Information Director.
I'm happy to talk about some of our communication efforts, but that is a very good question that I think election officials not just here in Chicago but nationwide deal with every single time.
How much can we get people to turn out to vote when our main message is nonpartisan and is communicating information and telling people to vote and to have their right versus the candidates, the issues and things that fire them up?
However, we want to say thank you to the city of Chicago who has increasingly brought us into the 21st century, that we're meeting people where they're at, that we've improved our website, that we're developing a mobile app,
that we're able to make so much of our flyers with QR codes to bring people to their smartphones, but then also work with our community services department to be at more events that way, too,
that they can reach people face-to-face, answer their questions, work with our students, work with our seniors.
Our advertising budget, you know, we're proud to say that 70% of that goes to local, community, or non-English publications.
We know the major publications are already covering the election very well, so we want to make sure that we're covering it there.
We have several mailers that go out every year.
We try not to spam the citizens of Chicago too much, but we have as many emails as we can send out,
letting people know of their vote-by-mail, their early voting options, as soon as those are open, as soon as our applications are open.
We want to make sure that, you know, wherever people are at, they know that it's easier to vote in Illinois than ever,
and they have these three options, and that they can take advantage of any of those.
But when it comes to that turnout, you know, it is part of this frustration, I think, that we're seeing nationwide,
that we have more registered voters than ever.
People are getting past that first step.
They're getting automatically voter registered, and sometimes they're sitting out many of their other elections outside of the presidential election.
So we know this heading into this primary.
We're hoping to also take advantage of a lot of excitement.
There's a lot of candidates out there.
This is going to be a very competitive primary.
We also are looking to grow our permanent vote-by-mail roster list.
So I know a lot of questions that come up today about safety and other issues.
We want people to vote whatever way that they want, but this vote-by-mail program,
as well as our permanent roster program, is always available to Chicago voters so they can automatically receive their ballot,
and they're the ones that already have that ballot in their hand rather than waiting until the last moment
or worried about whether or not they can show up on election day.
So wherever we can, we can try to convert those voters to vote-by-mail so they automatically receive their ballot.
Yeah, and thank you for that, Max.
And you had mentioned, Executive Director, that you have 150,000 people registered for vote-by-mail.
Is there a way that we can find out per ward what our trend is, I suppose?
Certainly. We can provide that.
And I also want to thank you and the city of Chicago.
Thank you.
We're working towards not just registering people to vote, which also I want to shout out to Jane Lau because she's so terrific and she just retired and we will miss her.
But but also, you know, in in Illinois, we have how many different election authorities?
Is it like one hundred and eight and every election authority is different?
Well, everyone in Illinois is looking to Chicago to lead.
And and we really we expect so much more for this department.
And I'm also disappointed that we did not have a chance to speak, executive director, before you came to this hearing.
So I hope we can amend that.
But but truly, this is a very important department.
And I want to understand how we are leading in this moment.
And I look forward to those conversations ahead.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Manaha Benworth.
I've just got a couple of questions myself.
So we know we're going to have a record number of elected school board members.
Does the Board of Education pay the Board of Elections for those?
Any part of that? No.
OK, so that just comes up.
It gets covered through the county and the city, essentially.
OK.
Looking at a question came up earlier about just the community engagement piece.
I also wanted to give a shout out to the community engagement team.
And I know Jane recently retired.
Wow. What a loss.
Not just to your department, but to the city of Chicago and especially to the Asian American community.
Jane was at every single one of my events with the with the voting machine, showing people how to do it.
I hope that you're making efforts to recruit people to work in these jobs that do reflect the community.
It's so vitally important.
And just echoing what everybody else has said here.
Listen, you've got partners here.
We want to be able to work with you.
I think hope that message came out loud and clear.
I know that there are some there's been some turnover and new staff.
We're here for you.
Please include us.
We over communicate with us, please.
It is what I'll what I'll ask of you.
So actually, I would like to extend our extended invitation to all the other persons here to come to our office a week because we do have a lot of new faces in our office as well.
So, yes, I'm open for anyone to come in and introduce ourselves to to to the older persons and also where can we work together?
So, yeah, I'm open to that.
I would I would suggest both.
I would suggest an invitation to an appointment for you to meet with each of us individually will go a long way.
And then as we're available, maybe you can work with the IGA mayor's office to work out some times where, you know, your office can be open for us to come to you.
But I would highly encourage you to make sure you're getting out and connecting with each of us individually.
Thank you.
With that, we're going to stand at ease while we transition to the next department, Chicago Animal Care and Control.
Thank you.
I would suggest that we take our lunch break now.
So we will reconvene here, let's call it, at 1.30, so 45 minutes for lunch,
so that we can come back and start immediately with animal care and control.
Thank you.
I like how that works.
It doesn't go off until after I hit the gavel.
The party was nice to party for something.
Yeah.
And everybody have an upper.
I tell the police what didn't call in.
And the girls respond to the call.
I don't want to shout out.
The girls found.
The girls found.
I see the people.
I don't know when you really can't let's get out.
Get back with feet.
Back with feet.
Get back with me and let's get mongrel.
I tell myself I'm a no-get-angry.
Yeah.
You ready girls for lend them canine?
Yeah.
They tell me, hey, man, it's not the party.
Yeah.
There's a woman in front and a man behind.
There's a woman shout out.
There's a woman shout out.
I've been up here.
I've been here 12 years.
First time I was up there.
Oh, look at the people.
Look at y'all.
Wow.
This looks crazy.
I've never been in.
This looks crazy.
Hey, don't look up.
That's me.
Hey, Lamont.
I'm looking at you up here, boy.
You look very...
Come on.
Good afternoon. We are back in session. Our next department before us is the Chicago
Department of Animal Care and Control, represented by Susan Capello, the Acting Executive Director.
We will have a brief overview from Katie with our COFIT team, followed by introductions and
an abbreviated opening statement from the ED. Katie?
Right. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the City Council. My name is Katie
O'Toole, and I'm with COFA. I will provide a brief overview of the proposed budget for the Department
of Animal Care and Control. The recommended budget for fiscal year 2026 is $7.64 million. This is a
slight increase from 2025 of about 1.6%. The Department of Animal Care and Control is completely
supported by the corporate fund. The majority of proposed budget for 2026 is for personnel,
accounting for approximately $6 million of spending. The Department has budgeted 79 full-time
equivalents for FY2026, and this is the same amount as last year. Here you can see a breakdown of the
recommended budget for 2026. The increase in proposed spending for animal care and control
is reflected in personnel services. Proposed spending declines for contractual services,
and this is due to approximately $12,000 less in spending on professional and technical services.
Looking at historical trends for appropriations, year over year, appropriations for the Department
have increased slightly, though remained around $7 million since 2019. The Department saw its highest
funding levels in 2024 when it received around $7.7 million. And looking at the historical trends for
FTEs, similarly, staffing levels have been fairly consistent, though the Department has seen a small
decline since the number of FTEs peaked in 2023 and 2024 at 82. That concludes COFA's summary. Thank you.
Thank you, Katie. Director Capello?
Good afternoon. Thank you so much for having us here today. My name is Susan Capello. I'm the Acting
Executive Director with Chicago Animal Care and Control. And with me today, I have Armando Tejeda,
our Executive Administrative Assistant and a PIO with the Department. And in the box,
I have Angela Rayburn, our Operations Manager, Arthur Hamilton, our Shelter Manager, and Chloe
Snowden Morgan, our Human Resources Business Partner. So Chairman Irvin, Vice Chair Lee, and members
of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I am here on behalf of Chicago
Animal Care and Control, CACC, a department committed to the welfare of our city's animals and the
well-being of our community. In 2026, CACC's proposed budget increases by $120,492 while maintaining the
79 full-time equivalencies. Dedicated volunteers who have contributed over 19,278 hours through August
30th, a re-entry jobs training program, and multiple partnerships serving both people and pets.
Through improved efficiency, CACC reduced overtime spending by 36% in the first three quarters of
2025. Despite a national surge in shelter intake, CACC has improved live outcomes with measurable
increases in adoptions, transfers, and animals returned to their owners. Intake and euthanasia have
also risen, reflecting continued economic hardship, housing insecurity, and a growing number of unaltered
pets across Chicago. From January through August 25, August 2025, CACC processed 13,209 animals through
intake. Of those, 9,757 were adopted, transferred to rescue, or returned to their owners. Many required
medical care, including surgeries, treatments, and vaccinations. During the same period, CACC received
30,738 service requests through 3-1-1 responding to animal bite reports, injured animals, stray animals,
and assisting other agencies. These figures demonstrate CACC's essential role in public safety,
public health, and the animal welfare across the city. To help keep pets with their families,
CACC opened an on-site pet supply storage unit in 2024 to provide donated food, leashes, collars,
crates, and other essentials to residents in need. We appreciate your help getting the word out.
By mid-2025, public interactions related to this effort had increased by 900 percent,
from 14 households in 2024 to 140 households helped in 2025. We also launched a community liaison program
that empowers residents to support animal welfare efforts directly within their own neighborhoods where
they live and work. Partnerships continue to be central to our success. The PAWS Chicago 360 at CACC program
provides comprehensive owner support, spay and neuter services, over 1,400 surgeries to date,
and adoption enhancements, all at no cost to taxpayers. Friends of Chicago Animal Care and Control continues
to fund critical needs beyond the scope of the city budget, including collars, leashes, harnesses,
volunteer management, laundry and x-ray equipment, and an after-hours crisis care program, which they have
supported with over $1 million to date. We also maintain a strong partnership with Cook County Animal
and Rabies Control, working together on vaccine clinics, rabies testing, intake coordination, and staff
training. This year, we have done amazing work, which includes our first intake volunteer.
This year, we have worked with the
expanded youth programming through Safe Humane Chicago and the Alternative Schools Network,
hosted over 40 group volunteer events, and launched Content for a Cause,
a campaign that brought local influencers to CACC to highlight adoptable animals and raise awareness.
We also introduced an online lost-and-found pet map on our website
and opened Chicago's first 24-hour outdoor microchip scanning station,
both free and accessible to the public.
CACC remains committed to strengthening the human-animal bond
and advancing racial equity across all programs.
We are proud to be part of the 17th District Domestic Violence Committee
and other coalitions supporting survivors of domestic and gender-based violence.
In collaboration with DFSS, the Department of Family and Support Services,
our delegate partners, we work to ensure survivors can seek safety
without having to leave their pets behind.
Likewise, through the Chicago Homelessness Initiative collaboration,
CACC provides unhoused residents with free pet vaccines, pet microchips, and pet supplies,
helping keep people and pets together while connecting them to broader support networks.
Finally, I want to thank everyone who helps share our adoption stories.
With over 2,000 more stray, surrendered, and confiscated animals this year than last,
your support helps save lives.
CACC will continue working closely with rescue partners, volunteers, and the public
to expand adoptions, promote spay and neuter, and ensure pets are properly identified.
Our commitment to Chicago's animals and families remains unwavering.
Thank you for your attention and your continued support of Chicago Animal Care and Control,
and I look forward to your questions regarding our 2026 budget.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions for Animal Care and Control?
Wow.
Quinn has questions.
No, I started to, but then I was like, ah, you know, it's all good.
I'm going to let, let me let Lopez go first.
I know that this is his favorite department, so I'm going to let him do the honors.
Go ahead, Alderman Lopez, follow by Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the committee.
Good afternoon, Director, to everyone from Animal Care and Control.
First off, I just want to ask a question.
How long have you been acting interim?
Thank you, Alderman Sposato.
It will be three years in February that I'm acting Executive Director.
So for three years, two administrations, we have yet to adequately fill this position,
and I just want to say what a disservice it is to you and to your professional pedigree
and experience that you bring to the shelter, because aside from the salary going unused,
you are not making Executive Director pay.
You've been suppressed by a refusal to elevate you,
and that you're still doing the job that the Executive Director would have been doing
for the past three years.
So I hope that as our budget team and our administration is listening,
that they crap or get off the pot when it comes to your leadership,
because I know that you are doing the best you can in the role that they put you in,
but you deserve more than what you've been handed.
So I want to start off by saying that.
Second, we are in a very tough spot, as many of the advocates spoke today,
and as you and I and many of us who deal with animals,
Nick and the Garrido Foundation and Marty does his thing with the pet parades and things of that,
but I want to remind this body that in 2017,
we adopted a no-kill resolution here for the city of Chicago,
which has 11 pillars to it.
Have you as the head of this department had a chance to see what we would have to invest
or spend in order to accommodate the spirit of that resolution,
particularly as it relates to providing expanded low-cost spay and neuter?
I know we do that on a granular level,
but we also know we have many partners that are picking up the slack.
If we were to actually be able to do that to meet the need,
what would that cost?
What would it cost to expand TNR?
What would it cost to be able to do more pet retention efforts and diversionary efforts?
And lastly, what do we need to do to make it easier to become a volunteer or delegate partner?
Because I know that still remains a challenge for us.
Well, that's a great question, Alderman Lopez.
In six parts.
Yeah.
Well, when you put it all together, the cost of, right?
We have not dug deep into actual cost of each one of those categories.
That's something that I definitely want to do.
Something I think we will move up on our plate to get it done so that we can have something in place.
That would really tell us what we truly need to move forward, right?
I mean, as you said it, I mean, right now we're just, we're getting by.
We're doing what we can.
We're doing what we have to do.
We do rely on the community.
We rely on our partners.
We recently held a pet food pantry last week for Chicago residents and all from the support of the community.
We put it out on our Amazon wish list and we have been bombarded with donations that we're able to now pass out to Chicago residents who need help keeping their pets.
So we were able to do that last week.
We serviced over 470 families through our pet food pantry.
It was a great experience.
The weather was great, which made it a great experience.
When we go into the easier to volunteer at CACC, it's not just our department.
All city of Chicago departments have to follow the same rules through DHR.
I don't want to say to make it easier.
There's got to be a different term to use for that.
I think one of the holdups that we have is the training because, again, when people come to volunteer, it's just people, right?
They might own a dog at home.
It doesn't mean they necessarily know how to handle animals that might be under our care.
So there's a full training session in place once their fingerprint background clears, which is pretty quick nowadays.
I'm just going to pat DHR on the back because they're getting me to turn around within a week.
But it's that training process afterwards.
And then in the beginning from the information session to schedule your fingerprints, because you also have to make yourself available to go downtown for fingerprinting.
I'm only off on Thursdays.
I can't go for three more Thursdays.
So I just waited three weeks to get my fingerprints done and now another week to get that clearance.
So there's still a full month delay there, but it's not always on the city or anything.
And I am adamant to say that I'm not interested in taking away any of the training aspects or at our shelter on how to handle our animals.
So that part has to stay in place.
I don't want to put anybody at risk.
Again, our animals are in a shelter.
They're not happy being there.
So that's one thing.
They have totally different demeanors in the shelter as opposed to outside.
As it relates to your budget, and I know this is something that we have tried to work and address together, we see a large influx, obviously, of cats, dogs, and all the regular domestic animals that come in.
There's a price associated with their care, feeding them, and et cetera.
But there's also a growing influx of farm animals, horses, goats, pigs, chickens, roosters, and anything else that flies, flutters, squeaks, squawks, or eats.
Your budget for food as it relates to the department hasn't really changed.
First, does that keep pace with what we have, or is that relying more on donations to make up the difference?
So the donations that come in, we do get farm animal food.
We do get that donated, but it was in our previous contract.
We're currently without a contract for pet food.
We are in the middle of the bid process.
We're going to be joining CPD's contract for that.
So it's an all-in-one, and that is part of the contract to have ability to send over that type of food when we have those animals.
But they don't stay very long in our shelter.
So we have a very good relationship with groups that do take those farm animals from us.
So they're transferred out pretty quickly, or even returned to their owners, because we have been microchipping them.
If they come in, let's microchip them and send them back to their owner.
And now if we scan them, we can return them in the field.
So, yeah.
I believe in 2019, this body passed our ordinance for field return to owners.
What do you see on the horizon that we need to start addressing as well to be as revolutionary in our dealing with animal care and control?
Because as I remember, there was a lot of skepticism at the time when that was introduced, but then it turned out to be a great diversionary tool.
So what do you see that we should start looking at moving forward?
So my thought to that goes back to our outdoor microchip scanning station.
I would love to see more scanning stations across the city of Chicago.
How much did that cost, by the way?
Oh, well, Friends of Chicago Animal Care and Control helped with that.
So it's really cute.
If you haven't seen it, you need to stop by.
I have a very nice gazebo.
So the scanner is underneath the gazebo.
So if you're there in inclement weather, you're protected from the weather.
We have a couple of soils.
lights on there, so it lights up at night if you need to use it in the dark. But friends invested
in that, and we got it on sale at Amazon for just under $1,000. So it really wasn't that expensive
for the whole gazebo itself. Microchip scanners, depending on the type that you get, could run
anywhere from $300 to $800 maybe within that range. But more microchip scanning stations
across the city will allow those residents who are out there finding these stray animals to do
that microchip scan and do the research themselves and return those animals to their owner right
there in their neighborhood without ever having to come to the shelter. So roughly $27,000 would
allow us to put them in every police station and probably save us from... Microchip scanners are in
every police station. So every police district has at least two. My fingers are crossed that they work.
Of course, if they're busy, we're not going to stop doing an arrest or a report to scan an animal.
So I'm thinking the outdoor type, more accessible. There are some people who don't like to go
into police stations. So why not put them elsewhere? Okay. Your office, for instance.
Trust me, we do enough capturing. Okay. We'll look forward to having those conversations to see
what we could do because obviously putting more money into addressing the symptoms is one thing,
but if we could cure it by keeping pets from ever coming your direction is the best way to save money.
And I will just add, if I may, Chairman, the only thing that really concerns me in this environment
where we see more and more animals on the street being captured is the pseudo rescues who are stealing
dogs and taking them to the suburbs to sell them or adopt them out for fees. And we see that in many
of our neighborhoods. I know that's something that's been brought to your attention and the department's
attention. So I would just like to see what we could do to start addressing that because found pets are not
free pets. They are someone's family member and they should be returned home and not taken to
Wheeling or Grundy County to be sold out there. So thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Next, we'll have Alderman Quinn followed by Alderman Dow.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Director. Sort of picking up where Alderman Lopez left off,
but it's just incredibly frustrating that you still have the word acting associated with your title.
Sue, can you tell me how many years of service do you have with the city of Chicago?
So I actually have 34 years of service with the city, 26 at Animal Care and Control.
Yeah, I just find that incredibly embarrassing that someone that has served the city for 34 years is
sitting in an active acting title for three years. I'm sorry. It's pathetic.
Yeah, it's terrible. That said, I'm grateful for all of the work that you put in taking phone calls
on the weekends, after hours, anything that my constituents have ever asked you've been there for.
So I think this body needs to do something about that acting label because it's embarrassing.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn. Alderman Dow? Alderman Dow? You want to pass?
Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi, Sue. How are you?
I'm good. Thank you. How are you?
First, I want to tell you, thank you for meeting with me. I learned a lot about the office you oversee.
And I wanted to ask you, because I didn't know that you had a not-for-profit associated with the department.
Can you tell me a little bit of, let our colleagues know about that not-for-profit, how long it's been in place,
what its mission is, how you utilize it, and whether there's funding associated with that?
Absolutely. Yes. Thank you for that, Alderman Dow.
So Friends of Chicago Animal Care and Control has been around at the city shelter since the late 1990s.
I'm not going to quote the exact year, but it is the late 1990s.
And their main mission is to help the neediest animals in Chicago.
And where are those neediest animals? Right here at Chicago Animal Care and Control.
So they do, more recently, within the last five years, they provide a lot of help with those items that the city does not otherwise budget for.
So when an adopter comes in to take an animal home, we want that dog or cat to be secure.
So Friends of Animal Care and Control provides us with leashes and collars, harnesses, even tags.
And they provided us with a tag machine.
We make a quick little tag to put on that dog before it leaves.
So leashes and collars are a big thing that they supply to us very regularly, all adoptable.
And most of our return-to-owners are going home on those purchased collars and leashes.
In addition to that, they've helped us with emergency type of purchases.
We needed a washer and dryer, an industrial-strength washer and dryer, a few years back.
And they stepped right up and went ahead and purchased that for us, which was a good over $15,000, $16,000 purchase.
But we were able to get that a lot quicker through them as opposed to any other way to purchase it.
Also purchased a new digital x-ray machine that our medical staff uses to x-ray the animals that come in with possible injuries.
So they do a lot of that.
But the main thing on a regular basis are the collars, leashes, and tags.
And then the after-hours care program is something that started in 2018,
where we noticed that some of our animals are coming in after our CACC medical staff leaves,
and they come in with injuries or illness.
Some of them wouldn't make it overnight.
So as opposed to having those animals suffer or euthanizing them that night,
we have or Friends has an agreement with a veterinarian,
whereas our officers will then bring that animal to that veterinarian's office,
who will stabilize and hold them overnight for us to pick back up when our medical staff gets in
and take over the care of that animal.
And they've invested over a million dollars since the inception of that program in 2018.
All right.
So can this not-for-profit accept contributions?
Yes, they can.
From the private sector?
Yes.
Okay.
Someone was here this morning who wanted to make sure we could do that.
And I think through this instrument, you can do that, correct?
Yes.
They do have a website where you can donate directly there,
and their mailing address is there if you prefer to write a check and mail it in.
All right.
And then you and I talked about the City of Chicago Employee Charitable Contribution Program.
Have you applied to be a part of that?
So I sent that over to the Friends board.
I think they recently met on that as the president had reached out just yesterday to say that they are on board with this.
They're getting their financial people to put the application together and send it back.
Because I think that that's something that, you know, with all the volunteers you have and with us in here who are dog and cats.
No, I don't like cats, but dog lovers.
You know, we can help drive some support donations your way.
I think that would be one way of augmenting your budget.
Probably Alderman Lopez alone can raise a million dollars for you.
But I just wanted people to know more about that option, because obviously we're in a tight financial situation here.
I know that you've got a little bit of a bump in your budget, but I know it's not enough.
And we have to think of other more creative ways to try to drive resources and dollars to you.
So thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
On the down, Vice Chair Lee.
Any hold.
Any others for ACC?
Nick?
And the voices.
OK.
Thank you, Chair.
Hello.
Hi.
Acting.
We hate that you're still acting.
Sorry.
We're we're we're we're scheming.
We're we're going to work on this for real.
I know that you're working with very limited resources.
The modest bump.
What's that?
What's that going to get you?
So that bump was actually to increase some of our overtime as we've consistently gone three,
four times in our over in our overtime budget over the past 10, 15, maybe even 20 years.
So there was a slight increase in our overtime budget.
But we also the city also recently settled with Unit 2, which is an SEIU union for their collective bargaining agreement.
And a lot of that is salary.
OK.
I get a lot of calls.
I have a lot of animal lovers in the 11th Ward.
And, you know, people get really frustrated when they're not able to drop off animals.
I know.
So what are the hours that the folks can drop animals off at the at the center?
So for animal intake, CACC is open seven days a week from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Yes.
Seven days a week.
And then if people have animals sort of in the meantime outside of those hours, it's just up to them to keep them until then?
Yes.
Yes.
OK.
Short answer.
Yes.
OK.
Got it.
Yeah.
I think that's really challenging.
I know that, you know, our police district, you know, has occasionally had to hold some animals.
You know, if we have someone that's caring enough to they they stop their car because they see a dog or a dog on the road, they'll they'll do whatever they can to take care of the animal.
But that's essentially four hours a day.
What do you think, if money were no object, and I know that it is,
how do you think that the department could be better run in terms of our services that you're providing?
I mean, we hear a lot also about the number of animals that are being euthanized,
and it feels like a pretty alarming rate to most people.
But I think we don't really talk about what it takes and what we have the capacity to sort of care for,
and even through adoptions, it just seems like a lot of people are taking on pet ownership
and really not understanding fully what that means, and that's where we end up with a lot of extra animals.
Yeah, so going back to the ordinance, we were originally created as Animal Care and Control, the dog pound.
We opened in 1982, and that's basically what we were.
So we were there to collect, and I will say collect because that's what we were doing back then,
vicious animals, animals that bite, and we have to do rabies observation, and stray animals.
So as animal welfare evolves, you know, things change.
People seem to think that, oh, I have this dog and I don't want it anymore.
I'll just drop it off over at Chicago Animal Care and Control.
That is the last thing that anybody should ever think, right?
We want people to exhaust every option they possibly can to rehome that pet themselves,
find a family member, reach out in your neighborhood, find other rescue groups who can help that animal.
Because once that animal walks into our shelter, who has been in your home living in a nice comfy bed
in the living room or wherever that's at for an X amount of time, that's what it's used to.
It comes into a shelter with, I mean, we do give them bedding.
We give them a little bed of food and water, but it's not home, right?
And you have all these other dogs around you barking.
We had 240, I think I'm remembering that number off the top of my head,
dogs in our shelter today, this morning, 240.
How do you think that dog's going to handle this?
Again, owner surrenders are the biggest, I'll just say kind of thorn in my side.
We're not required to take them, but we do because we see the need, right?
But we do want residents to really try their hardest to try to rehome that animal themselves.
And again, going back to the whole thing, keeping pets in their homes with the families who love them.
If you can keep your pet, what do you need me to help you with?
That's why we have our diversion program.
That's why we have help from our partners like Paws Chicago, who will help with spay and neuter.
Some landlords are just saying your dog's not altered, it's not welcome here.
Let's get that dog fixed.
Keep it in your home where it belongs.
And that's really one of the things that I really want to push the hardest,
is keeping pets in their homes with their families.
That's great advice, and we'll make sure that we share that information too.
I'm going to switch gears for a second.
Okay.
What are you hearing about infestations of skunks?
Are you hearing anything?
And is there anything you can do?
Because we have them in, I don't want to say it too loud, but I have them in 11.
And they're multiplying, and it's becoming increasingly a challenge for a lot of my residents.
I'm going to ask Angela Rayburn to talk a little bit about that,
as if anybody heard about it, it's going to be her.
Angela?
Angela Rayburn, operations manager.
So actually, our skunk intake this year is down.
We don't typically get too many in.
So with skunks, I mean, of course, they're our odorous friends, right?
So deterrence.
It's always deterrence.
For all wildlife, there's typically three things we recommend.
Most wildlife is more fearful of humans than you are of them.
So making noise, waving your hands, looking big always deters them.
Then there's also, this is a really big one, garbage cans, making sure food is not in supply.
A lot of times with wildlife, what we see is people will think they're doing the right thing or the kind thing by feeding them,
and that's actually attracting them to the area.
So if it's around a public place like a park or a school, you know, what we'd love to do is get more signage out there,
because we have certain areas, even I would say the 11th Ward, that we know where there's parks that, you know,
people are congregating and feeding.
So just being careful of that.
And then I would say the last thing is brush and, like, shrubs, brush and woods, making sure those are maintained,
because they're good hiding spots for any sort of wildlife.
Like, that's skunks, but it's also general wildlife.
Yeah, I mean, we're getting more calls and emails about coyotes and skunks.
I have another cat problem I haven't talked to you about yet, Angela, but we'll come back to that.
It's not inside a house at this point.
But also, you know, with the TNR programs and everything, I know that, you know, on my block,
we had people that were taking care of the cats.
We don't have a rat problem.
I find that to be rather effective, and I think that there are more people that are interested in programs like that.
Is that something that you could help guide us through, or you can point us to resources?
Like, I'm not an expert in this, but, like, I'm more than willing to work with volunteers from the community
who are interested in being part of the solution rather than, you know, part of the problem.
Yes, to answer your question, absolutely.
So Outdoor Cats is a passion of mine specifically, but also we have been working since last year.
We formed a partnership along with our nonprofit partners that are our rescue partners,
but also have spain and neuter facilities across the city.
So we've kind of banded this group together of six organizations, including Cook County Animal and Rabies Control,
to look at cat populations and see how we can utilize cats.
But it partners with, you know, spay and neuter capacity, all these resources that are needed in order to build, like, a true program, right?
So I would love to start the conversation with you for 2026.
Yeah, that would be great.
Angela, I'll catch up with you and my staff after this, but appreciate all that you guys are doing.
You have a gargantuan job, too.
240 dogs in your facility today.
With 240 dogs in the facility today, what is that going to look like from a euthanasia perspective?
Well, I could ask Shelter Manager Hamilton to talk a little bit about euthanasia and what it might be.
So it's going to be largely dependent on what animals are also leaving today.
So typically we have transports each day of animals that are being transferred out.
As we open later, there will be redemptions being picked up and adoptions.
So it really varies on, you know, when our vets go around, they're going to see what's needed today.
And that would be on top of anything that's already, like, extreme behavior or extreme medical issues that would happen, whether or not we had five dogs in the shelter.
Understood.
Understood.
What's the capacity of your facility for animals?
Art?
So capacity is going to – it means a lot of different things, right?
Like, you could say this is –
Big dog versus, like, six chihuahuas.
They probably take up as much space.
But give me, like, an aggregate number.
Like, what's a lot?
So we have about 225 brick-and-mortar cages for our dogs.
We do have a number of other portable-type cages that – I mean, obviously, all of our cages are temporary, but some are more temporary than others.
And then we also have, you know, about another ability to probably do another 200, 225 cat cages as well.
But like you said, right, if I were to take in a hoarding case of 100 chihuahuas, they could obviously go in cat cages too, right?
So that would just mean I'm using less – I would be able to house less cats, right?
So it's – capacity really in this day and age is going to be more about how you can take care of the animal and not how many you can fit into your building, right?
And, you know, when you're lacking on capacity, but when you see that the animals are not doing well, you know, so like Sue said, we try to keep them out.
We try to push them out as fast as we can to find them back to their owners' adoptions and transfers so that they're not living in the shelter.
Sounds good.
Thank you very much.
That's all I've got here.
Thank you, Vice Chair Lee.
So just for the record, I have Alders Curtis Fuentes, Lawson Esposado, any others?
Walker Speck.
Okay.
We'll start with Alderman Curtis.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
So I just wanted to thank you, you and your staff, for all you do.
You know, I have my pet events every year, sometimes twice a year, and my residents love them.
You know, I just had one a couple weeks ago.
We had dogs everywhere.
Well, the sad part is, is that we had to turn some people back because we didn't have enough medication.
Do you see somewhere in the future where, I don't know, is it because we didn't have enough vaccination or a vet that will actually administer it?
So thank you so much for that, Alderman Curtis.
We partner with Cook County Animal and Rabies Control on all of our vaccine clinics.
We were limited this year, again, overtime cuts, so we had to move our clinics to a midday week as opposed to a weekend.
We're still getting the same number of clients and unfortunately turning people away.
So what I was able to do was Cook County actually provides me with a veterinarian who is required
for those vaccinations and two veterinary support staff, so two vet techs or vet assistants
to help out.
They also provide the microchips and the rabies vaccine itself.
What I do is I applied for a grant this year through Petco Love Lost to receive a donation
of distemper vaccines, and this is all for dogs.
We were unfortunately not able to do cats this year.
So we did the grant for the distemper vaccines.
I was able to procure that, and then we bring all of our supplies.
We bring one of us because we do them ourselves.
We have all of our paperwork that we use and our supplies as far as the syringes and then
the cleaning supplies and gowns and such.
So it's a partnership between us and Cook County, and then on the back end, we enter all of the
information into our database to have a record of the animals' records.
So there is a limit to what we can do.
We've been doing these clinics since 2010, and what we found is one vet could do 100 pets
in a three-hour time frame.
So if I had five vets, I'm just going to put this out, right?
Let's do the math, right?
So if we had five vets, we can possibly do more.
But then again, it all depends on the animal, right?
Because one vet could take 15 minutes on one animal because maybe it's not being cooperative.
So we can increase it if we have more space.
We advertise it a little more and get more veterinarians on board.
So if you're interested in increasing that, I mean, I definitely can talk to Chiquita from
your office and try to come up with a plan.
Okay, great.
You know, way back when, and I'm still trying to find a solution, which we talked about it
before.
You know, we used to, out of control, we used to lend cages out when someone tried to catch
a raccoon or a possum or something in the home.
I've had a couple occasions where a senior would leave home just because, you know, something
came in, whether it had been a raccoon or a possum or something.
And you could only do something if it's in the living dwelling, right?
And what do you consider it?
So that's not just the attic.
Or what about the basement?
I mean, they have to go wash and things like that.
So is it only considered, and if they do any biting, they actually can come right through
the roof and go right into a bedroom.
So what would be your suggestion?
So living quarters is any space in the household that somebody is living or using actively.
Or actively using.
Actively using, right?
I mean, the garage doesn't count unless it's attached and there's an open door to the garage,
but I haven't seen many of those in Chicago.
So, yeah, it has to be in the living quarters.
That's what our license through the state of Illinois, because we have to get a separate
license from the state of Illinois to trap wildlife.
So, and we're going to be trapping and just relocating it out back into the area.
So we can't just take it back and euthanize it.
And when you say we used to do that a long time ago, back in, I'm going to say 2009, 2010,
we were taking in anywhere between, you know, 24,000, 26,000 animals.
And a big bulk of those were wildlife, and we were just euthanizing them.
It makes no sense, because you're removing an animal from its native area, and that leaves
for other animals to come and move in.
And that's not what we want to do.
So, Angela, did I miss anything on the trapping?
Okay.
She gave me the thumbs up, so.
Yeah, those are the things I run into a lot.
I know we've been getting a lot of calls about stray cats that hang around one house or location.
That's because somebody's feeding them there.
Someone's feeding them, right.
And sometimes we could send a war soup and let them know that you may not just be feeding
cats, but other things, or rodents even, you know, just dropping bread or just putting
a bowl down.
You know, they're feeding everything.
Would you recommend citations even for those people?
I know they're trying to do the right thing and feed the cats, but others' neighbors, you
know, really don't like that.
So what do you think a great suggestion would be when they, when that one household bring
in about 20 cats?
But I agree with my colleague on the lead.
See, my neighbor has a ton of cats.
I've never seen a rat, ever.
That actually works.
Yeah, that actually works.
But keeping that cat population under control, I think, is also very important, right?
So TNR, that trap, neuter, release part.
So somebody has to kind of adopt that colony to make sure that somebody is caring for it
and to make sure that they are fixed and vaccinated.
Those cats, even though they're outside, they're doing their job.
They're working.
But getting them fixed and having them vaccinated, I think, is an important thing that everybody
just can't do.
But that's something that we would definitely look into helping with.
Great.
And last thing, and I know you touched on a little bit, staff.
Yeah, so, and we're talking about even if it's outreach or control staff, do you see,
do you have enough?
Will there ever be enough?
Well, you never have enough, right?
Will there ever be enough?
So what we have now, we do have seven vacancies that we're going to be actively working on
once the hire freeze opens up, years are crossed.
So if we can get everybody on board, it shouldn't be a problem.
But, yeah, we are, our staffing is an issue when, you know, it could just take one person
on a leave of absence that could really put a hole into something, right?
So leave of absence, injury on duty, things like that.
I mean, you know, it always affects the department, but we are actively working to try to get people
on board.
And one last question.
What would be that magic number for, you know, more guys on the street?
So for animal control officers specifically, right now we're budgeted for 19.
14 actively working right now.
So I would, like I said, I would love to have those positions, those vacancies filled first,
and let's see where we're at and how much we can get done.
I mean, we are taking in 30,000, over 30,000 service requests, and those are our field staff
service requests.
So, again, I'd really like to get those filled first, and then let's do an audit and see where
we can go from there.
Thank you, Tim.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
Alderman Lawson?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hello, Acting Director.
I'm sorry, just I missed part of that on vacancy.
What is your vacancy right now?
We're at seven vacancies.
Seven.
Okay.
Out of 79?
Yes.
All of your hiring goes through DHR, Bill, right?
You're not able to do any of that on your own?
Well, you have to get your A-form approved through budget, and then DHR has to post, and
then we can do the interviewing and hire, yes.
So start to finish, it's probably six months?
Oh, yeah.
On a good day?
At least.
It's a problem we're having everywhere, but it impacts smaller departments more because
they have less other people to rely on, like you said.
I noticed in your opening statement, you talked about the re-entry jobs training program.
Yeah.
How many people participated, and who paid for it?
Wow, that's a great question, Alderman.
So our re-entry program, we've actually had this program in place since 2010.
With this organization, we do a delegate agency through the Department of Family and Support
Services.
That funding is in our budget.
So that's the $450.
I'm not looking at it right now, but there is a line item in there for that.
So we pay for that annually.
We get 20 to 22 workers plus supervisors, so 20 to 20 participants each day, seven days
a week.
So they do come to the shelter.
They come from 7.30 or 8 a.m. to maybe 12, and they're doing the main cleaning of our
brick-and-mortar kennels in the shelter.
So they're learning janitorial skills.
They're learning their job skills there.
So far, we've hired at least four or five workers from that program, and that's my main
goal, is to get them in that training program, learning the skills, and then hire me on board.
And now I only have to train them halfway as opposed to the full training process.
So it's a great thing to have, and we love that program.
Great.
I'm glad to hear that my police station has a microscope channel.
I don't think I knew that.
I didn't know that.
I'm not sure if many of my colleagues did.
Who are our largest transfer partners right now?
So I don't really – I don't think I have the list of that in front of me with the actual
partners' names, but I will tell you that Paws Chicago is the number one puller for animals,
both dogs and cats, through our shelter on an annual basis.
And they have been for a long time, right?
Yeah, they have been for a very long time, yeah.
But we do have a top ten list.
We love to put it out to center social.
If you've got it, then send that.
I'll ask for that through the chair, and that's it.
If my math is right, your intake is open four hours a day, seven days a week, and you take
in between nine and ten animals per hour.
That's it.
based on the numbers that you have here.
And I just want to put that into perspective for people.
I can't do nine to ten things per hour,
and that you guys are doing that with a small staff is really remarkable.
I want to just commend Armando for the innovative things he keeps city council abreast of.
It's draft pick week.
I had to look to see what this next one was.
Maybe is there a preview of what's to come in November and December?
Or do you want to hold that off and surprise us all?
So in November, our adoption event is going to be this Saturday.
In December, we are partnering again with the Bissell Pet Foundations for Empty the Shelters.
So we'll be waiving adoption fees from the 1st through the 15th.
Awesome.
Send us the logo or that flyer once you have it.
Absolutely.
All right.
Great.
I will also just echo what my colleagues have said.
As someone who's been in an acting role for a long time,
it's very hard to get anything done when you don't have permanence.
And it's very hard on a small department, too, because it's not just the director or the commissioner.
It's the deputy, the managing deputy, the assistants that all deserve some recognition.
So it's something I think we should all be talking to the administration about here and in other departments,
that we've just relied on acting directors for far too long, and it's just not fair.
So thank you for everything you do.
I know you do this because it's in your heart, and your whole team is like that.
And that makes it a very different place to work than a lot of others.
But keep it up.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Lawson.
Next, we're going to have Alderman Fuentes, followed by Alderman Walgespeck.
I'm sorry.
No, here.
I'll go to Alderman Walgespeck.
Good works.
Thank you, Chairman.
Acting Commissioner, thank you for being here today.
Obviously, you've already heard from a lot of my colleagues about many of the different situations we see as problematic at ACC,
but it sounds like you're doing what you can to mitigate as much as you can.
You know, I hear from a lot of volunteers or would-be volunteers who really want to see the bureaucracy kind of shredded
so they can get into the facility to help out in the best way that they can.
And when you look around the city at how people volunteer here, put their time and effort forward,
I'm really proud of the people that call me in our office and do everything that they can on their time off,
or, you know, if they're retired, dedicating as much time as they can to the animals and I think the people that enjoy them.
So one of the things that I was looking at and that we've been looking at is the subject of the Ernst & Young report that came out recently.
And I know your department was not looked at in this report, which is probably a good thing.
But when you look at what they're talking about, trying to find operational efficiencies,
and I know I'm not talking about cuts.
I'm just talking about operational efficiencies that they observed in the rest of the city
and what we hear from our constituents, the volunteers and staff that do a great job.
What could you do better to coordinate and alleviate that workload beyond what you've mentioned here?
And do you communicate that to the mayor's office or the budget department when you hear that from our constituents,
when you hear it from us about the need to get volunteers in there or change some of the processes that really hold people back?
What do you tell OBM?
So OBM hears it the same way we do on a regular basis.
They're in the email threads that we get on a regular basis.
But I will say with the volunteer program, one thing that I guess there's a bit of a failure is that we don't advertise enough
our group volunteer sessions, right?
So we have groups of people who come into our shelter to do volunteer work.
Now, they can't do everything a regular volunteer would do, so they're not going to be hands-on handling the animal,
but they can help out in other ways.
So I talked a little bit about earlier our pet food pantry.
I would love to have people just step up and help out and give away pet food with us.
And they could do that without having to go through all of the trainings and all of the fingerprints.
They're just going to sign our waiver and help out.
We have a weekly or biweekly, I can't remember which one it is, a session where one of our lead volunteers actually brings in members of the public
or even their family members and does what's called in-kennel enrichment.
So they walk through and just, you know, you click the clicker, you get the dog a treat, their learning manners as you go through.
And that's something, again, you don't have to go through that whole volunteer process, but we don't advertise that a lot until now, right?
We can't get overwhelmed with that either, right?
So we have to limit that number because we only have a certain number of volunteers who do that.
So there are ways to help.
There's also our community liaison.
I think I talked a little bit about that in my opening statement with our community liaison.
We're looking for people who are out in the communities who necessarily don't have to come to the shelter,
who help on those social media sites really to put the correct word out.
There's so many people out there.
Don't take that animal to CACC because it's going to get euthanized.
Our euthanasia numbers are not as up as people are saying that they are.
I can have Art talk a little bit about our euthanasia numbers if we want to.
But, again, we need people out there to talk more about that and to answer a lot of the questions even that Alderwoman Lee and Alderman Curtis had about the community cats, what to do.
So those community liaisons out there on those websites, the Facebook pages, can really give that information out because we only have one person who does Facebook here.
And today he's sitting right here next to me, so he's not doing Facebook right now.
So we can use help like that.
So without having to go through all of those steps in getting in, we have the opportunities.
Okay.
I guess maybe it's me that sees the disconnect there, but I think we'll work on that with you because we do try to get the word out through our ward.
But like my colleagues, I think we just want to see any chaff kind of cut away so you can get right to the heart of things that need to get done, whether it's the picking up the poop or doing the food for the pantry.
I guess just kind of going on that vein of questions, though, when you look at other cities, do you look at them and say, wow, they're doing this really well and maybe we could improve on this in terms of operations?
Or where do you see yourself in terms of – it doesn't have to be New York, L.A., Houston.
It's any city or any agency, and I've gone to quite a few of them around different states, and I see how they operate.
You know, they obviously have a much lower – many of them have a much lower intake concern in some smaller cities or towns.
But where do you see yourself in improving?
Oh, I would love to be the number one.
I want everybody to copy off of us, right?
So, right now, the one thing that has been coming up over the past few years is the volunteer process.
And I did research on a couple of different organizations, especially down in Florida.
There's a county animal control around Orlando.
They also fingerprint and have a full training program for their volunteers.
It's nothing different from what we're doing.
So, there's a lot of government agencies out there who do require fingerprints of volunteers.
But as far as that, I mean, there's a few organizations that are – I try to look at those that are similar to us, though, to see how it works.
That's where we got our Doggy Day Out program.
So, you can come and sign out a dog for four hours and take them out of the shelter, and you could drive them around in your car, bring them to your office, hang out for the day, and then bring them back when you're done.
So, that's our Doggy Day Out program.
So, we have that.
That gets the animal out of the shelter, reduces some of the stress on them, and helps that animal, again, learn about life outside of the shelter.
So, there's programs like that that we've kind of looked at at other agencies.
That's about – Armando, am I forgetting something?
Can I ask a question on that?
So, like, I come pick up the dog.
I take the dog out, and I bring the dog back, right?
I just – I'm concerned, like – I'm glad.
I hope my daughter's not listening to this.
I would just be concerned, like, what if somebody gets bitten?
I mean, I don't know the nature or the nature of aggressiveness of some of the dogs, and does that pose some level of liability to us by doing such?
That's a great question.
So, these are animals that are already vetted.
So, we've already done evaluation on them.
They are, what would I say, available for adoption.
So, they're already altered, spain-neutered, microchipped, rabies vaccine.
I'm going to knock on wood because I'm a suspicious – superstitious type of person, not suspicious.
Suspicious.
Because I haven't had that yet.
Oh, okay.
All right.
But we have had situations where somebody doesn't bring the dog back, and we just sign it out as an adoption to you because you just adopted that dog.
Okay.
I'm scared to do that because –
I might be I might be one of those. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
It'll be one of those ones that that the dog doesn't come back because my daughter will hold on to it for their life.
Interesting. I mean, I do. I know that you all are trying to innovate and do the best that you can.
It just jumped out at me. But I see if you're going through those specific processes to ensure that this is not, you know,
you're not given a pit bull that you guys just take in somebody. Exactly. That's all.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's perfect. That's perfect.
Our executive administrative assistant, if I could just add, acting director is correct.
We do. If there's something that's working in another shelter, we check and see how we can incorporate it there.
Surprisingly enough, lately, other shelters have actually been contacting us just because our adoptions,
even though, like, it's always gloom and gloom and headlines, our adoptions are actually up 25 percent this year.
Last month alone, our dog euthanasia was down 20 percent. So we're doing good with what we have.
Other places are reaching out to us, but we're always open to bringing that stuff in.
And if I just may, Alderman, too, Carrie from your office, she emails me about once a month, always collecting newspapers for us.
It's a big help. Thank you so much.
You bet. Yeah. We got stacks and stacks of them at the office.
We'll pick them up.
And anything else you need, let us know, too, if we need to run a smaller pantry-type event at the office.
That's fine. I'm happy to do that.
Again, I just – I hope we can continue to get as many volunteers in that want to do this work.
And one last – and the staff do a great job.
Your staff really do.
I know Carrie in the office, she's an animal lover, and where I got my last dog was from – through ACC, through a third party there.
But I think we just want to continue to do everything we can to help, you know, the meager lives that some of these animals have when they come in
and really try to improve them and get them back out to a loving person or family.
And I think I would say, you know, overall, everything seems to be working the right way,
and I do appreciate all that work and effort that the staff put in on the calls that don't work out the way we want.
We know you're trying, and we try to explain that to people when there's a bite situation
or other issues like poo pickup.
And on that note, I'll finish and just ask, can you do a PSA for picking up poop when it snows?
I will work with StreisandSand on that.
Yeah.
Okay.
It doesn't disappear in the snow, you know.
It doesn't.
Fades away.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Alderman.
Welcome back.
Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon, Sue.
It's a pleasure to see you and your staff.
As you know, I asked you my question beforehand.
I told you my question, and all my colleagues piled on about it.
So it's, I believe we were here a year ago saying the same thing.
You've been acting for two years, and now it's three years.
So no disrespect to anybody here, but, you know, we need to get our heads out of our butts here and resolve this.
I mean, you could walk away any day now.
I mean, you're maxed out.
You're working for free as far as I'm concerned.
Not as far as I'm concerned.
It's a fact, you know.
So you could stay home and make more money staying at home than you coming.
But I know it's a passion that you have, as do all your exempts, and you guys work really hard and do a great job.
You know, I had three numbers here to start with, to say, and a number three and a number 50 and a number half a million.
And a number three is how long you've been acting for, which is, you know, somewhat shameful.
We have to resolve that.
50 is how many animals they take in a day over there.
So forget about the 240 badger or whatever.
They take in 50 animals a day, people.
So, you know, you said 10 an hour.
It's more like 12 to 15 an hour they take in a day.
So, you know, you guys do an amazing job with it.
And, of course, the half a million, you saved the budget over the past three years.
Sorry to bring it up to you, but I know you're well aware of that.
So, but I bring up the same thing every year, and it's kind of a budget question.
It's kind of not.
It's just a way to help you with the budget.
As you know, I'm always coming down there with loads of stuff.
And it doesn't just have to be newspaper people.
It could be we always put out there constantly.
We're always collecting blankets and towels and newspapers and corks and toilet paper rolls.
So anything you put out there about animals.
We never really asked for food, but people still do bring it.
But, yeah, anything you put out there, colleagues, about animals, people will respond.
We do have an animal in a month, too.
I'm sorry, an animal in a week in my office that I work with.
Karen, you know, one of your volunteers.
Karen Clark's a friend slash former constituent.
She gives us an animal every week.
We promote an animal in a week.
I'm not so sure that that animal gets rescued, but it brings awareness to the animals that are there.
And hopefully people go on the website and check it out.
And you have a ton, a ton of awesome animals over there.
It's hard, hard to comprehend how people give some of these animals up.
My dog is a rescue.
Hard to believe how anybody gave this dog up.
But we love her and we're happy to have her.
So, you know.
But, yeah, that's really about it.
I mean, just we need to help you.
I say this every year.
You know, we need to blast for you.
We need to collect stuff for you.
You know, just spread the word about whatever.
So, keep doing what you're doing.
I know you're not the only one that works 24-7.
I know a lot of your exempts do that, too.
You guys are everywhere.
And you're all salary, so you don't get overtime or bonuses or anything like that.
So, just me as an animal lover, appreciate all you do.
And keep the faith.
And hopefully, maybe this year we can get that position of director resolved.
And then we can hire a number two.
But it doesn't do us any good if you're number one and you don't have a number two, though.
So, that's another thing we have to work on.
We don't need to just make her number one.
We need to bring in a number two.
So, that's it.
Thank you all for all you do.
Appreciate it.
We'll be there next week with some stuff.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Thank you, Autumn Sposato.
Any others?
Any other questions?
Anything else?
I'm sorry, Alderman Fuentes.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Sue, for being here.
Also, thank you for the hearing and all of the information that you were able to share.
First of all, thank you for the relationship you have with my office, the Committee on Health and Human Relations.
I think the work that we've been able to do together not only allowed us to educate community,
but it does allow us to have critical conversations, right, about what the department is currently doing, how we move it forward.
So, before I ask my question, I just want to thank you.
I think it takes leadership to be able to build that relationship and to continue to invest in it so that we can do the work.
We hear a lot about your acting position, and it's been a while, and you spent a lot of time with the city.
Do you want to be the permanent executive director of the office?
Alderman, Alderman, that is not a fair question to ask her on a public record like that.
I'm going to direct the witness not to answer that.
All right, all right, fair.
But I think if you – I'm not going to rephrase the question, Alderman, but we'll move on.
So I want to thank you for sort of articulating why we see the pay increases in the budget.
Look, I believe folks deserve pay increases.
I believe in supporting our union contracts.
And so I understand that component of the budget.
We do see the operational component of the budget remain a bit flat in the moment in which the economy is impacting families.
We're watching families give up pets at a much higher rate.
I think the incidence of federal agents in our communities, folks sort of being separated in this moment, how that also impacts the ownership of pets.
Can you tell me what we can look forward to in 2026 in terms of the marketing, the work we're going to invest in so that we can get families who are financially stable, who can take care of their pets, to adopt?
And we've seen – everyone has seen the improvements to social media.
What else can we look forward to in 2026?
Because we don't necessarily see the increase in those line items in your budget.
Yeah, that's a great question, Alderman Fuentes.
We worked very hard on our budget.
We try to do what we can within our constraints.
Again, working with our partners, we're looking to do more pet food pantries to make sure that people can – do have the ability to feed their pets.
We don't want them to – we don't want Chicago residents to try to decide to feed themselves or their pets, right?
So we want to help where we can.
So additional pet food pantries is something that's definitely on our list.
And just getting out into the community.
And I think I've been saying this for years is there are so many people out there who still just don't know anything – just don't know what we do.
They might think, oh, that animal control, they come and pick up stray animals.
But where do you go to adopt a pet?
Hmm, I don't know.
Where would I go to adopt a pet?
So, again, getting that word out – and we tried this a couple of years ago.
We had some advertising money that we spent on – with the CTA on the buses.
So we put posters on the bus tails inside some of the buses in more of the areas where we see most of our service requests.
I don't know how big of an impact that was.
I mean, I loved the posters, and I drove all over the city trying to find them.
So that was a great thing.
But as far as impact, I mean, I think we need to become a little more creative.
We've been putting new articles and news reports, again, in those priority areas where we're getting the most calls because we do have certain zip codes, certain wards that we get a lot more calls than we do in others because people just, again, don't know what we do.
doing where we are. So that's something that we're really looking to try to push forward to
and just getting the word out, trying to keep pets in their homes. Absolutely. I do consider
animal care and control a public safety department, and I wanted to ensure that your
vacancies weren't held to the freeze. I was told that they were not. I just want to confirm with
you that your vacancies are not held to the hiring freeze. I have not been able to hire any of my
vacancies this last quarter. We were able to get a couple through, but as of right now, it's the
end of the year, so no, we are affected by the hire freeze. You are affected by the hire freeze? Yes.
We're a regulatory department. We're not a public safety department. My understanding was those are
public safety departments who were not held to the hire freeze. Okay. Well, now I'm going to have to
circle back because I had made a request that the vacancies and animal care and control be not
held to the hiring freeze. I've got that. Okay. Advocates are concerned about animal care and
control not having a medical division manager, and it's not a position that's also funded in the
2026 budget. Can you just walk us through why we don't have it allocated? What is the impact of not
having a medical division manager? And then how are we sort of fulfilling what those duties would be
within the department elsewhere? So I can do some research to see when the last time we had,
we actually called it a supervising vet, supervising veterinarian. So I don't recall the year,
the last time we had that, but we had a very difficult time hiring into that position when it
did become vacant. I think we could have posted it for at least two years. I can get all the timeframes
together for you through the chair, but there were no takers, right? So that title specifically,
supervising veterinarian, required you to be a veterinarian and supervise and manage an animal
control medical staff. There weren't too many people out there interested in something like that.
We never dug in to really see what it can be changed to. So maybe just a medical director of some
sort, somebody with a medical background, but maybe not a veterinarian, but still has managerial skills.
So that's something that we are going to try to dig into this year because we also see that need.
We also see that need where we need somebody to truly oversee that. Right now, I, as the deputy
director, manage our medical division, and it's not an easy task to do. That in itself is a one-person
job. So I totally understand that. And so, yeah, that's something that we have to look into.
All right. And then in 2024, we spent a lot of time and a lot of money on that beautiful lobby
that you have there. Can we talk about the ways that animal care and control can also partner
with communities so that we're bringing community into not just touring the entire facility, but
hosting events in those lobbies? How are we utilizing that space right now?
Well, right now, the front lobby space is used for our adoption processes. So we have a couple of,
we have two rooms up in the front, what do they call them, storefronts. So they're glass rooms where
you can do a meet and greet with a dog. So if you find a dog that you're interested in raining or
snowing outside, you can go and use those rooms for that. Our volunteers use that room with our dogs
when they're doing pictures and videos to post on social media sites. So they use them for that.
We've never had, besides our group volunteer sessions, somebody like an organization, I think
ComEd is pretty much a regular organization that they send 10 or 15 people over once a month,
once every other month it is. And they do volunteer sessions. So they do cleanups and things like that,
but they utilize more our auditorium because I also have a very large auditorium to use.
I've never really thought about hosting a party or a gala there. And maybe that's something we
could think about. Yeah, we could have a Friends of Animal Care and Control fundraise.
There we go. Right there in the lobby. That's right. That's right. Right where we need people to
come give money and adopt some pets. Exactly. Can you remind us how many veterinary assistants,
that might not be the proper terminology for their positions, but how many do we have with
animal care and control today? So I have three veterinarians and we have six veterinary assistants
and one supervising vet tech. Unfortunately, one of those veterinary assistants, I think today's
his last day, he's moving on. So I'll have one vacancy there. Okay, perfect. And do you find with
the current rate of pets that are being dropped off at animal care and control and the rates
of spades and neuters that we are currently conducting, is that sufficient? Would you like
more? Spay and neuter is a conversation all in itself, right? I mean, again, three veterinarians
and six support staff, they all get their days off. They all have PTO. We're lucky when we have a full
set of staff in our medical division. And when they're all there together, they can pound out up to 20 to 30
spay and neuter surgeries, depending on the dog or cat, depending on the nature of the animal,
which would be ideal every single day. I have to rely on partnerships to get extra spay and neuters
done. PAWS Chicago has been one. I mentioned that a little earlier. They, so far within their program,
a year and a half, what year are we in? Yeah, about a year and a half now. They're, they've done about
1,400 spay and neuter surgeries for us, specifically for adoptable animals. And that's something I would like
to dig into more to see how much more we can get done with our partnerships, because it seems to
work out. There are union constraints to that that I'm currently working through. So as soon as that
gets resolved, we'll have a better idea of where we can reach out and what we can do. But our ability
to do more spay and neuters, we have three surgery tables. So that's really, you know, three animals at a
time, depending on support staff, is how much you can do. So that's something that we really have to
look at. Thank you. I appreciate that. The last few seconds that I have, I know that you've talked a
lot about training and the improvements to training. Can you just walk us through what that looks like,
what improvements we're going to see in 2026 and how that supports your staff?
So for training, yes. We actually, again, partner with Cook County Animal and Rabies Control for most of
our trainings, they come either to our shelter or they have something off site where we can send some
of our staff to. We've done several conferences with them alone this year. So it's very nice to
have them as our partner. We also, again, you know, just because of the budget, I really look out for
people who can help that don't charge anything, right? So we have a partner who has reached out to
provide wellness consultation with our staff. And so far, they've come out twice to do that.
We also have a volunteer on staff on board who also provides wellness for our volunteers and is
looking to increase that on a more regular basis. Do you want to talk a little bit about that?
Armando? So one of Armando, I'm our alternative executive administrative assistant. So we do have
had two sessions for our staff. We actually have another one scheduled in two weeks where someone
comes in and just does make sure everybody's kind of like compassion fatigue. Just make sure everybody's
in the right mindset and see what they need from them, basically. Our volunteers have their own.
One of our volunteers, she's great, Donna. Once a month, she hosts a session with the volunteers,
just kind of their own compassion fatigue, a place they can grieve, talk about what's going on.
I did chat with her a little bit yesterday. She's looking to increase that a little more.
So we're 100% supportive of that. She does use our auditorium space for that,
which we're more than happy to supply for them to do that. Fantastic. And just for clarity,
so there's no line item for professional development and training within the budget that you currently have?
So we do have a line item for educational development. We have $3,000 allotted there.
It doesn't get a lot. Yeah, I don't know what $2,000 gets you.
It'll get us one session of something. Okay. But we mainly use that. There are several of our titles
that require certifications for certain things, and we use that for those certifications because
they have to have extra CE each and every other year. They have to get a certain number of CE hours.
So that's what we use that line item for. Okay. Thank you, Sue. Thank you for your work,
and thank you for continuing to do it with the circumstances and conditions that we currently live in.
Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Thank you, Alderman Fuentes.
There are no further questions from the committee. I will thank everybody. Thank you for all of your
diligent work and service to all of you, small but mighty team, and we'll look forward to continuing
to work with you. Yes, thank you, and thank you, everybody. I do invite you all to come out to our
shelter to see it, bring your staff with so they can figure out what we do so that you can answer
those questions for the constituents before they come to us. But thanks again. Thank you.
The committee's going to stand at ease while we transition to the Department of Law. Thank you.
everybody. Welcome back. We now have the Department of Law. We're going to have our COFA overview done
by Chloe, and then we will move over to Corporation Council. Go ahead, Chloe. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Good afternoon, Vice Chair Lee and the members of the City Council. This is Chloe U.T. Maine with
the Council Office of Financial Analysis. I'm here to provide a brief summary for the Department of
Law. For fiscal year 2026, Department of Law's proposed budget totals $47.95 million, representing
a $2.04 million or 4.4 percent increase from previous year. 79 percent of the department's funding comes
from the corporate fund, with the remainder from other local and grants fund. Personnel costs account
for $43.75 million, while non-personnel expenses make up $4.21 million. This department has 418
budgeted full-time equivalent positions, and that is an increase of 12 FTEs compared to last year.
Looking at the more detailed breakdown of appropriation by category and fund, $47.83 million
is from local fund, and the rest $0.12 million is supported by grants. In the 10-year trend,
the Department of Law's appropriations have grown steadily, rising from roughly $38.14 million in
2017 to nearly $48 million in 2026. And lastly, looking at the staffing level, the Department of
Law had 418 full-time equivalent positions budgeted for fiscal year 2026, 12 more than last year. Most
positions, which is about $335, are funded through a corporate fund, and 82 are supported by other
local funds and grants funds. This concludes COFA's summary. Thank you. Thank you, Chloe. We are now
going to have Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry. Good afternoon, Alders, and those who are joining
us. Thank you very much. I understand we're the last of the departments to appear before you. So
first, let me thank you for your patience, your indulgence, and as we get through this last session.
But I am grateful for those of you who have appeared today. I'm going to introduce my statement through
the chair. So that becomes part of the record. And we're going to do a brief presentation as we did
last year for you. And then after which, we'll open it up for questions. At your desk, we provided you
with a supplement of information. It reflects information that was distributed largely throughout
the year. It also reflects the organizational composition presently of the department.
I thought with so many new Alders, as well as some of our changes, it was important that you know who is
in what role so that you have access to said individuals as issues arise relative to your ward
and associated with your constituency. Let me begin with introductions. To my right is Julie Morgan,
the Deputy Corporation Counsel of Administrative Services. We are also joined by Christian Cabanban,
the Director of News Affairs. And Michael DeChant is to my left, working. He's the Administrative Assistant
for the Deputy of Administrative Services, and will be monitoring the monitor, so to speak.
In the...
what is formerly known as the Commissioner's Box, presently known as DOL's Box.
We have Asia Car Favors, our first assistant corporation counsel.
Stand so they recognize you, and then you can sit down again.
Jim McDonald, our managing deputy corporation counsel of transactions.
John Hendricks, our managing deputy corporation counsel of litigation.
Andrew Worsick, our deputy corporation counsel of constitutional and commercial litigation.
Jackie Thompson, he's a new deputy, our deputy corporation counsel of public safety reform.
And I'll mention more about him later.
Elizabeth Mannion, our deputy corporation counsel of risk management and compliance.
Margaret Mendenhall Casey, our deputy corporation counsel for torts.
Kimberly Roberts, our deputy corporation counsel for building licensing and enforcement.
Cecily Porter Adams, our chief labor negotiator.
Stephen Cain, our deputy corporation counsel of affirmative litigation.
David Holkamp, our deputy corporation counsel of collections, ownership, and administrative litigation.
Victoria Benson, our deputy corporation counsel of mass torts and complex litigation.
Christina Haik, our deputy corporation counsel of defense.
Christina Haik, city prosecutor.
Fiona Burke, deputy corporation counsel of aviation, environmental regulation, and contracts.
In the audience, we have Radiatu Kasu, somewhere.
So Radiatu, stand for a second.
I'd like to announce for both staff and the Alders.
This is the new deputy, a corporation counsel for legal counseling.
Also joining him in the audience is Deputy Corporation, Helena Tamrit, Deputy Corporation Counsel of Labor.
Derek Kuhn, Deputy Corporation Counsel of Employment Litigation.
Jessica Felker, Deputy Corporation Counsel of Federal Claims Review, formerly FCRL.
Caroline, I think, is here.
Okay, fantastic.
You can stand, Caroline.
Deputy Corporation Counsel of Special Federal Litigation, formerly FCRL.
Miriam Casper, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Appeals.
Susan Jordan, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Revenue Litigation.
Lisa Misherk, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Real Estate.
Jeffrey Allen, Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel, Legal Information Prosecutions.
Alan Thomas, Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel, Legal Information and Prosecutions.
Shelley Sandoval, Director of Attorney Recruitment and Professional Development.
Michael Nardello, Director of Finance.
Wanda Bates, Director of Personnel.
Patrick Harmon, Claims Manager.
Shumanta Williams, Finance Officer.
Deanna Hawkins, Accounting Technician.
Catherine Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel.
And Ray Santos, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Legal Counseling Division.
Thank you very much to the staff for appearing today.
And let's get through our slides as efficiently as we can.
First slide.
Law Department by the numbers.
We are, as was noted, we have 350 professionals in the department, 247 attorneys, and 103 support staff.
We presently have about 21 vacancies in the department.
Our EEO stats, we are 41 percent inclusive.
And of that, the 100 percent, we are 55 percent women within the department.
Twenty divisions make up the Department of Law.
The vast majority are litigation facing, but we have a strong area of transactional practice.
For purposes of the law department, we are viewed as a full service municipal law office.
We are also now recognized by the Illinois Supreme Court.
They view us as a functional equivalent of a firm.
And, of course, we announced last year that we have now adapted a process where we are covering ARDC fees for all of our attorneys.
But I also want to share with you, we've extended that to those who have formal attorney designations in the operating departments.
So they, too, have ARDC coverage and have the opportunity to get CLE training as a business imperative.
And I'll say more about why that's relevant later.
Who do we serve?
Well, we serve you as aldermen.
We serve all 30 city departments, every board, every commission, the mayor's office.
And on occasion, we get calls from sister agencies who are looking for some guidance from us.
We have – next slide.
We have focused this year and going into next year our efforts around creating more reforms within the department,
making sure that we not only hold ourselves accountable, but we actively engage in accountability across our legal services,
that we do so in a more transparent way, and we're going to spend some time talking about what that means in terms of return on the investment people make,
and us as public servants.
We have – and in furtherance of those reforms, accountability, transparency, and a return on investment,
I'm going to have you think about those as the guiding principles through which this department will be operating for 2026.
And I understand that there are some aspirational components to some of those, but there's nothing wrong with that.
But what we're going to start demonstrating for you today is how we are delivering on some of those guiding principles
and signaling how we plan to deliver on those guiding principles as we work through the 2026 year.
Next slide.
All right.
Focusing for a second on the ROI of it all.
We – as you are well aware, Alderman, we have depended quite heavily on supplementing our staff with outside counsel.
Also, we have done that because we have a relatively small group of attorneys compared to other law departments of cities of this size.
New York has 700.
We have 247.
California has 500 and some – we have 247.
Boston, Denver, they all exceed us in terms of number.
So we use outside counsel to supplement our staff.
So we're beginning the process of taking a turn and bringing work – more work in-house.
To do that, we need to add staff.
So as I signaled at the midyear, unlike other departments, my approach was not to cut staff but to add staff, starting small with the number of 12.
And I wanted to make sure that we started in areas that were dominantly revenue-producing so we understand the budget constraints of the moment.
But we believe by adding these additional staff, it not only allows us to keep the knowledge in-house – it's an important investment – but we also can engender a great deal of cost savings as a consequence.
Pay attention to that last bubble, $1.3 million return on that investment per attorney.
And these are attorneys that are averaging $150,000, $200,000, somewhere in that range for the year.
So that is quite the return on investment, and we are just beginning that process.
As we do that, however, we have to continue to build out how we provide professional services for the department.
We have to continue to – we have to continue – sorry, I'm going to move the mic up.
Alderman Martin, can you hear me clearly?
Okay, excellent.
We have to continue to do that.
We have to continue to provide continuing legal education for staff.
In the management ordinance, you will have made note that we are ensuring, taking steps to ensure that to the extent that an attorney is embedded in a department, they are properly licensed.
They are held to the standards that we need for them to perform at.
And also they learn what's required of them.
Many of the younger attorneys that were embedded in departments may have held themselves out to be an attorney, but they weren't in the proper role.
And in that capacity, they had both personal exposure and professional exposure.
We're bringing that to a close to make sure that these attorneys are within the oversight and, as a consequence, are able to get the training they need as young professionals.
Next slide.
I want to signal for you one of the areas in which we are doing some restructuring.
We began to signal that last year when we introduced to you the Division of Mass Torts and Complex Litigation.
It didn't exist before.
We brought back, returning that, Victoria Benson, and established a new division.
And that division was centered around mass events associated with one or more individuals, common threads, same or similar fact patterns, common threats.
You saw the fruits of that labor this year in the Watt settlement.
It signals the possibilities for the future of the department.
It signals how we're going to go about managing our risk.
And it signals how we're going to go about managing our cost.
That was step one.
The next step, this is all a group that was formerly functioning under the rubric of federal civil rights litigation.
The next step is to have the vision stand on their own.
So now we'll have FCRL, starting in 2026, not go under that moniker anymore, federal civil rights litigation.
We will have special federal litigation division led by Caroline, and the federal claims review division led by Jessica Felker.
And this is the difference between current, largely current CPD-related matters and those that are really aged CPD-related matters.
We're going to provide more of a targeted briefing as we get into next year for the aldermen so that you have a better sense of caseload in particulars.
But I wanted you to know that we're taking the next step in setting up divisions so that we have greater levels of accountability.
It's easier for you to track.
We're also going to be publishing quarterly litigation status of not only these divisions, but all of our litigations starting next year so that you have that information.
These divisions, as all divisions for the department, will be supported by our risk manager, Elizabeth Mannion.
She is going to be engaging across the platform of the department in data collections and analysis, risk assessment, insurance negotiations.
We're going to introduce bill review so that with respect to outside counsel, we have a formalized bill review analysis process.
Next slide.
You're on it?
Okay.
I'm sorry.
He's on it already.
Preceding.
Good.
And we have set up a process where we're going to be monitoring the status of attorney licensing and engagement across the entire city to ensure that the proper professional standards and risk mitigation efforts are in place.
Many of you are aware that we currently have standing meetings now quarterly with every GC embedded in every department.
So, again, we can have consistency across the platform in terms of how we are functioning.
And further, you are aware that we've been introduced through the WOT settlement, structured financing, global settlements, and standardizing methodologies around payments associated with settlements.
Next slide.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
So, what we're going to do from this point forward is begin the process of having varied deputies introduce you to areas of emphasis for purposes.
This is the risk management slide.
Thank you.
You have it?
Okay.
Excellent.
Very good.
And I will introduce first, Deputy of Risk Management and Compliance, Elizabeth Mannion.
They will go through some of the rigors of their division, all, again, tying back to our goals and objectives for the year.
Ms. Mannion.
Thank you, Corporation Counsel.
Good afternoon, Alderman.
Thank you.
Can you hear me all right?
Yes.
Excellent.
My name is Elizabeth Mannion.
I am the Deputy of Risk Management and Compliance.
This division was created under the Corporation Counsel for the purpose of having a centralized division to field areas of risk, to identify those areas of risk, to put in procedures and policies to reduce that risk, and ultimately monitor to make sure that our policies are working, that they are ultimately effective for reducing our legal exposure.
I would like to introduce you to some of the ways that we are doing that in the Department of Law.
One of the techniques for risk mitigation is called risk transference.
This is used through our excess insurance program.
We maintain, as the Department of Law, in concert with the Department of Finance, an excess insurance policy, and we have for the past 20-plus years.
The purpose of this is to ultimately offset the potential payout of a high verdict or award or settlement to the taxpayers, and we continue to work diligently to make sure that we have an excess insurance policy in place each year.
Another new change that we implemented effective November 1st is an enhanced bill review process.
What we have done is engaged experts in the industry as an added layer of review.
We are holding our outside counsel and vendors accountable to make sure that our billing guidelines are being met.
And equally of importance, we are freeing up valuable in-house attorney hours to devote to case litigation and transactional work.
And finally, as you may recall, last year we implemented LIDIFI, our matter management system.
We continue to put into processes ways to track early on exposure across our entire department to make informed decisions on how we handle and ultimately resolve matters.
We have also implemented a new document storage system called BOX.
We have started early phases with our revenue-generating divisions being prioritized.
But essentially, the more organized, efficient, and available the information is across the law department, the better it is for resolving cases early on, continuity of case handling, and ultimately reducing exposure for the city at large.
We are investing in our department of law, and we expect those investments to yield returns in the form of reduction in risk.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Elizabeth.
Now, Deputy Victoria Benson, Deputy of Mass Torts and Complex Litigation.
Thank you, Corporation Counsel.
Again, Victoria Benson, Deputy Corporation Counsel in the Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Division.
Nice to see you all this afternoon.
In June 2024, the Corporation Counsel created the Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Division,
which evaluates and responds to lawsuits involving allegations that arise out of the same or similar fact patterns with the potential for high exposure to the city of Chicago.
The first group of such cases that the division undertook were the lawsuits involving allegations of misconduct against former Sergeant Ronald Watts and former Officer Kalat Mohamed.
In total, since 2016, 185 such lawsuits had been filed.
Between July 2024 and June 2025, the division settled nine of those lawsuits individually.
Next slide, please.
In July 2025, following 14 settlement conference sessions with a federal magistrate judge, a global settlement was reached encompassing all claims made by each of the remaining plaintiffs and each of the remaining 176 lawsuits.
Let's take it.
Let's do the labor manifestly.
Let's do it.
This global settlement resulted in the closure of 64 percent of the reverse conviction lawsuits the city's law department had been defending.
The Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Division has also been created in part to address how the law department's litigation strategies impact the city's potential for exposure.
Matters overseen by this division require analysis and consolidation with one another rather than as individually filed lawsuits.
This ensures consistency in the city's litigation strategy and allows for consideration of the overall impact of such lawsuits as a whole upon the city's resources, including its finances.
For example, where matters require the engagement of multiple law firms to represent different defendants in a single lawsuit,
coordinated litigation plans have been utilized to assess the potential for increased efficiency in defense of the city,
thereby decreasing our outside counsel expenditures.
Such plans include means by which resources can be shared amongst the various law firms and tasks distributed amongst them,
aimed in part at increasing efficiency, which ultimately results in a return on our investment.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Victoria.
Next up, David Holkamp, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Collections Ownership, Administrative Litigation.
No.
No.
No.
Sorry.
David Holkamp, Deputy Corporation Counsel over the Collections Ownership, Administrative Litigation Division.
The Collections or the Coal Division, we're charged with collecting all kinds of city debt for the city,
from parking tickets to fines, fees, penalties, utility bills, taxes,
anything that a city department might issue can be referred to us for legal collections.
On average, the coal division collects about $100 million a year.
Since 2010, we've collected, and city debt referred to us, $2.2 billion, a little bit more than $2.2 billion since 2010.
So far this year, through September 30th, we've collected over $82 million.
That's over $9 million a month, and that reflects an over 18% increase over what we collected last year.
And in monetary terms, that's $12 million more that we've collected in city debt that's been referred to us this year over the same period last year.
Go ahead.
Next slide.
How we've actually done that is through initiatives to hold people accountable on top of other things.
The first thing we did is we, in 2024, Corporation Counsel started the Special Collections Unit.
The Special Collections Unit is charged with holding some of the city's worst landowners accountable.
These are landowners that own hundreds of lots across the city and just don't really care about what they're doing to the city and its residents.
We've filed thousands of cases.
We actually have over 1,000 lots in litigation, active litigation right now, that we are pursuing the owners of those lots and holding them accountable and seeking to collect from those lots.
And we forced sale of over 200 lots so far last year and collected well over a million dollars doing that.
Now, what the Special Collections Unit also does is ensures that when there are lots that are in really, really bad shape, we will seek temporary restraining orders on those lots.
And that's what you're seeing in the pictures here is we ran into court and got a court order requiring the cleaning of this lot, this particular lot that was in really bad shape and got that done really very quickly.
And we've done that and sought to hold individuals that own these lots accountable.
The second thing we're doing is when these lots are owned by shell corporations, we name the individuals behind the shell corporations so we can get at their personal assets, their car, their wages, their bank accounts.
And we have found that to be quite a motivator to get these people to come out of the woodwork and maintain their lots and pay their fees.
And finally, what we're doing across kind of the board here is we're really looking for data-driven collections.
So we have a lot of information on our debtors, and we are going to leverage that information, and we have been leveraging that information this year to ensure that we get the best return on investment of our attorneys
and most use our attorneys as efficiently as possible to make sure that we collect and enforce the laws as effectively as possible.
So that's how we've been able to increase our collections by 18% this year and believe that we'll be able to continue to increase collections going forward into the future.
Go ahead, next slide.
This is a map of where those 1,000 lots, over 1,000 lots are that we have in active litigation right now.
We're pursuing those individuals.
You can see kind of the gravity of the issue we're dealing with, and we're seeking to hold those individuals accountable.
This is just through 2025.
Going into 26, we'll continue to do that, continue to hold these individuals accountable, and collect as efficiently and as effectively as possible.
Thank you.
Thank you, David.
Next up, Stephen Cain.
He's the deputy corporation counsel for affirmative litigation, and much of the federal response litigation is coming out of this division.
Mr. Cain.
Thank you.
Steve Cain with Affirmative Litigation Division, ALD for short.
As the corporation counsel mentioned, part of ALD's role is to challenge federal government actions that hurt the city.
We have already filed 10 lawsuits against the Trump administration.
Many of our cases challenge the federal government's attempt to withhold federal funding that's owed to the city.
We have won multiple court orders requiring the federal government to provide those funds, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.
For example, the federal government froze funding under a program that reimbursed Chicago for costs incurred providing shelter and other services to migrants.
We sued, and two weeks ago, we won a court order holding that that funding freeze was illegal.
Another example, the federal government froze funding under a program that reimburses Chicago and other large cities for costs protecting against terrorism.
After we sued, the federal government lifted the federal government and reimbursed Chicago.
We have done other cases involving the federal government as well.
For instance, we joined the state in suing to challenge the deployment of the National Guard here and won a court order that temporarily stops that deployment.
In addition to our own lawsuits, we have worked with our appeals to division to file more than 30 briefs supporting third-party lawsuits against the federal government.
Those lawsuits have challenged the conduct of federal immigration agents here in Chicago, the withholding of SNAP benefits, attempts to end birthright citizenship and DEI programs, and on and on.
Now, in addition to – yeah, that's – okay, right – ALD is also responsible for filing cost recovery and consumer protection lawsuits against businesses that engage in misconduct.
This year, ALD has generated more than $21 million from cases like those.
These have included cases where we received settlements from vaping companies that sold to minors.
From people who defrauded a city program designed to help Chicagoans struggling to pay rent, and so forth.
And then beyond revenue generation, we filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit alleging that the company Glock sold firearms that are uniquely easy to modify into machine guns.
In September, the court upheld our complaint in full.
And shortly after that, Glock announced that it was discontinuing the guns that we are challenging in our complaint, making our streets a little bit safer.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Stephen.
Next up, Andrew Worsick, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Constitutional and Commercial Litigation.
This is the division that won the case against the Trump administration relative to the welcoming city ordinance.
Thank you, Mary, and thank you, Chairwoman.
My name is Andrew Worsick.
I'm the Deputy Corporation Counsel of the Constitutional and Commercial Litigation Division.
And up on the slide here, you'll see four boxes indicating the impact of the work of our division on the city and its residents.
In our division, our primary role is to defend city ordinances and city policies in lawsuits that raise constitutional challenges to those ordinances and policies,
or challenges under federal or state statutes.
And I'd like to highlight just three cases from this past year falling within these descriptions up on the slide.
In terms of defending city policies, as the Corporation Counsel just mentioned,
we were successful in defending the city's welcoming city ordinance against the federal lawsuit that the Trump administration filed against the city.
In that lawsuit, the federal administration argued that our ordinance was preempted by federal immigration law
and that it obstructed.
the enforcement of federal immigration law. The judge hearing that case rejected those arguments
and held that the ordinance is a valid exercise of the city's authority and that in choosing not
to assist with civil immigration enforcement, that the city is not obstructing federal immigration
enforcement. The city is entitled to make that decision. Second, with respect to protecting city
residents, we defended successfully a lawsuit challenging the city's Keep Chicago Renting
ordinance. That ordinance provides that when a residential building goes through foreclosure
proceedings, the new owner that takes control of that building is required to offer a lease to
existing tenants. And if that lease is not offered or not accepted, then the new owner is required to
pay a relocation fee to tenants. That lawsuit was challenged on various constitutional grounds.
The court rejected that challenge and upheld the ordinance. And that ordinance does many things
in terms of protecting residents in the buildings they live in, allowing them to stay in the housing
that they have, and maintaining affordable housing units in the city. The last case I'll mention with
respect to protecting city revenue is a class action lawsuit that we successfully defeated this year,
which was seeking the return of tens of millions of dollars in fines that the city had collected
in enforcing its distracted driving ordinance. As I said, that was a class action, and it went through
many complicated phases of the litigation process. But ultimately, the city prevailed in that case,
the court upheld our authority to enforce the tickets the way we had been enforcing them.
And ultimately, the city was able to preserve those revenues that it had collected. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Andrew. Next, Christine Haig, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Legal Information and Prosecutions.
In the pamphlet of the material that you have, Christine and David presented with the Streets and
Department and BACP, essentially a roadmap for how to write better tickets so that we have
more favorable outcomes at the administrative hearing level.
Thank you, Mary. Christine Haig, Deputy over the Legal Information and Prosecutions Division.
We'll just call it LIP from here on out.
This division is compromised of two sections. The first section deals with FOIA and the FOIA litigation
here surrounding the city. Year to date, the city has received 48,000 FOIA requests. Now,
that is quite a lot. And the FOIA officers, which are settled in every department, have done a very
good job at responding in those. Sometimes, however, FOIA does end up in litigation. And at this juncture,
my team and I are now defending the city in just 0.1% of those FOIA requests resulting in litigation.
So although we never want to see anything go to litigation such as that, the average numbers are
pretty good for transparency. Moving on to partnering with DTI and city departments, what we've done for
e-discovery. This year, my team and I have implemented something citywide called Logical, which
actually any city employee can get. It is a document review that redacts documents. It's an e-discovery
device that's really easy to use. And we use that to share it between FOIA officers. We use that for
attorneys to review multiple pages of documents. And it's been implemental in the way we've seen
change the course of FOIA over the past year. With regards to training, when I came in as the deputy,
along with my chief, we decided that we needed to do a lot more training citywide for these FOIA officers.
Now the city implements these trainings. We do it every second day of the month for new officers.
We also have quarterly trainings in which we update all the FOIA officers on the new case law.
And if any department wants a specified training to them, we've done one for finance. We've done one
for the treasurer's office. We're happy to do that. So that is something that we really look at with
reforming and making sure we have a good return on our investment when it comes to FOIA litigation.
Now the second part of the division that I want to talk about that we oversee is the legal enforcement
of the city's municipal code. Here we practice in the Department of Administrative Hearings,
the Circuit Court of Cook County, as well as the Traffic Court. We prosecute the municipal ordinance,
and with that, we have had great success. And I want to definitely talk about the Department of
Administrative Hearings this year. Right now, we've garnered 49 million plus in judgments at the
Department as of year to date. That is quite a lot. And I will say that one of those factors that we've
garnered that success is holding corporations accountable at Department of Administrative
Hearings. For example, I will talk about CDOT. We reformed and revamped that call to make sure that
the Digger call, as well as the 811 membership, we're holding large corporations accountable and getting
the kind of judgments we want to see as a city when they need to step up to the plate as well.
And finally, with regards to prosecuting the bus ordinance that was initiated when the migrant
arrival mission was happening, we are currently prosecuting those in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
and we do think we are going to have a favorable disposition for the city very soon.
And just finally, Mary mentioned, and in front of you all have your 101s. This was a very
successful program that we had. We had every 50 wards attend. Every ward soup was in attendance
with regards to streets and sanitation tickets. We talked about the problems with vacant lots
and how to ticket those appropriately. And we really narrowed down of how does it look to write
a good ticket? What do you need to write a good ticket? And I've seen across the board a better ticket
writing and more things that we can use as evidence to proceed as attorneys at DOH. So I want to
thank everybody for being here today, and I will go on to the next speaker.
Thank you very much, Christine. Next up, Jackie Thompson. Jackie Thompson is new to Department of Law,
recruited him as he was transitioning from the federal government. And I will tell you, he has been
invaluable resource as a former member of the Department of Defense. Jackie Thompson now is the Deputy
Corporation Council of Public Safety Reform. Good. Thank you, Mary. And thank you, Chairman and members
of the City Council. For Public Safety Reform, I am primarily concerned with the consent decree.
Many of the members of this council know very well the consent decree, but some may not. And so what the
consent decree is from the basic inception is it is an agreement between the City of Chicago
and the Attorney General for the State of Illinois. Many people think of consent decrees and they think
that they are federal. However, during a previous administration, the Trump administration did not
want to go down the consent decree road. And you'll see that recently they actually got rid of consent
decrees on the federal side. That does not apply to Chicago. That does not apply to our consent decree
because it is between the Attorney General and the City of Chicago. Many people have the misconception
that only the Chicago Police Department is responsible for the consent decree. It is a city document and it
goes across all departments that are impacted. There are 11 lines of effort that the consent decree
covers. Everything from accountability to recruitment, hiring, processing of promotions, and also training.
So, most recently, what you would have seen was the results of the mid-year
IMR, the Independent Monitor Report. That Independent Monitor Report is a biannual report card on how the
city is doing and complying. I want you to consider the consent decree almost like a divorce document.
We are trying to go towards a divorce, but we're, and going toward that divorce, we're trying to get
better so that we have the right separation at the end. The consent decree is a cultural change
for our police department. What you've heard is how many cases we've settled, how many cases are filed
against us, all for the use of force. What this does on the front end is it changes the institution
so that the training that we have, the people who we're selecting, the supervision that we're providing,
that all goes towards making us better constitutional, transparent. And so, we are also holding those
accountable who don't stand up and do the things that we are requiring them to do. So, the consent decree
helps us with reform. It helps us with accountability. It builds public trust because we are transparent in
what we're doing. And it also gives us a return on the investment. But the return on the investment is not
engaging in those uses of force that people may consider unconstitutional or unlawful at the
inception itself. So, as we go through the independent monitors reports, you will see that there was an
increase in what we call
So, as we're highlighting, we're highlighting the
Levels of compliance. There are three levels of compliance. I want you to consider them like three cups of coffee.
You have to fill the first cup before you can fill the second cup before you can fill the third cup.
Right now, there are 604 monitorable paragraphs in the consent decree.
We have 36 that are still in preliminary compliance that we're going to come out of preliminary compliance over the over the next course of report cards.
We have 66 which are in secondary compliance and we have 23 which are in full compliance.
I don't want any member to to to say, hey, I want to do it fast. If we do it fast, we don't change the culture.
Instead, what we get is fast and then we go back to paying the bills that that we're trying to get out of in the first place.
So overall, the the section is being organized such that we have attorneys who are slave to each of the areas so that they can help the city,
help the police department to be able to meet the consent decree, to do it in a way that is sustainable.
And then to move us to a place where we can actually get a divorce. And it's amicable. Thank you.
Thank you, Jackie. Two more. Maggie Mendenhall Casey, the Deputy Corporation Counsel, TORTS.
Thank you, Corporation Counsel, and good afternoon, Budget Committee.
The TORTS Division defends the city of Chicago in police pursuit, paramedic malpractice, and trip and fall lawsuits.
Currently, we have about 800 lawsuits that are pending.
And this year, we have tried 19 jury trials, with 18 of them being handled by in-house DOL attorneys.
As we speak right now, I currently have a team on trial, and I'd like to take this time to highlight some of the work that's been done by my team over this past calendar year.
In January, the TORTS Division tried a lawsuit where a light pole fell on a car with a plaintiff inside.
And we successfully conveyed to the jury that we were sorry for what occurred to the plaintiff.
However, the city did not have legal responsibility because we did not have notice about the condition of the light pole.
At trial, the plaintiff requested $1.4 million from the jury, and the jury awarded zero.
The lead attorney in this case, Supervising Assistant Corporation Counsel, Allison Anderson,
began working for the Department of Law as a law clerk and has since risen to the managerial ranks.
Her work for the department is a return on investment for the Department of Law as well as for the city as a whole.
Another matter that I'd like to highlight in terms of the department's litigation is a lawsuit in which a motorist
was entered into an AT&T construction site, struck a pile of debris, and unfortunately and tragically,
the passenger was rendered a quadriplegic.
The plaintiff alleged that the city negligently issued permits to AT&T and that also the city of Chicago
failed to remedy or put up knock-down construction signs.
The plaintiff demanded $10 million from the city of Chicago to settle,
and my team doggedly pursued our right to insurance from the construction companies performing the work.
Last month, that matter settled for $229 million, with the city not contributing a dime.
On top of that, the construction companies paid for the city's outside counsel fees.
The Department of Law's relationship with that outside counsel firm is a return on investment,
as the firm frequently secures reimbursement for its fees from third parties.
And finally, I want to talk a little bit about the client counseling that my division provides.
I meet regularly with my client departments to provide counseling,
as well as making sure that the knowledge that I am gaining during these trials is exchanged.
I view every trial as an investment.
On average, a jury trial takes two weeks.
It involves two attorneys being on trial and also one expert, at least, that is funded by the city of Chicago.
I want to make sure that that investment has returns,
and I treat each trial as an opportunity to learn and ensure that the city gets a return on its investment.
After every trial, I meet with the department's general counsel or managing deputy to ensure that I share the knowledge that I have learned
and that we also are learning together.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Maggie.
And finally, Kim Roberts, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Building License and Enforcement.
Kim?
Thank you, Mary.
For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kim Roberts,
and I'm the Deputy Corporation Counsel over the Building and License Enforcement Division, also known as BLE.
Our division focuses on public safety by holding property owners accountable for troubled buildings or businesses throughout the city of Chicago.
Most of our cases are heard in circuit court on the 11th floor of the Daly Center, except for our license discipline cases.
Those are heard at City Hall and Courtroom 805.
Since our division focuses on public safety, compliance is always our goal.
However, under the Corporation Counsel's leadership, we've examined areas where we can improve on revenue generation.
Since last year, BLE has increased revenue by 86%, all while continuing to target large portfolios of distressed properties
and preserving hundreds of units of viable housing stock.
In addition to generating revenue and preserving our housing stock, our demolition unit has saved the city over $16 million in demolition expenses.
Next slide, please.
BLE cases span the entire city, impacting each of your wards.
This chart breaks down how many cases we currently have pending in circuit court by each of your wards.
So I'd like to take this time to thank you for your attention throughout our presentation.
We hope you gain some valuable insight into the many divisions here within the Department of Law.
And as a reminder, each of us are always available to you for any questions or concerns you may have, so please don't hesitate to reach out.
Now I'd like to redirect your attention to our Corporation Counsel.
Thank you very much, Kimberly.
I wanted to take the time this year to highlight some of the divisions so you have a sense of the work that they're doing every day with respect to the operational imperatives that the city has.
And frankly, acknowledge the work that you have inherited, both in terms of your day-to-day obligations as aldermen, but also in light of the heightened changes on the federal side, there are many things that are required of you that simply you haven't had to deal with before.
So I want to take the time to thank you for being responsive when I call, to thank you for rising to the challenges that you're confronted with.
As we as a department have been confronted with said challenges, extraordinary pace at which we're asked to respond to the federal onslaught.
What you've done has not gone unnoticed, and I am grateful.
I also want to take the time to acknowledge the good work, again, of the staff here, both the staff sitting out in the audience, those in the box, those back in their offices, those in the courtrooms, those running transactions and grants.
The city doesn't move in our absence.
We don't make policy, but we inform it.
And we are acutely aware that what we do has an impact on what you're able to do and how the city functions.
We take that seriously.
It is our professional obligation.
And we try to deliver on it every day.
So to the staff, your good work has not gone unnoticed.
I am grateful.
I also want to finally just note a collaborative observation.
This year, unlike my past decades in government, et cetera, I've had to work very closely with departments because of the federal onslaught and at the same time address operational imperatives.
So I want to take a special note here, timeout, to surface the good work of streets and sand that we worked with closely when we trained all 50 ward soups on ticket riding.
The effective work of aviation, the effective work of aviation that we worked with closely as we negotiated the MMI on the AULA and various other obligations.
And I will also want to note Deputy Fiona Burke, stand, please.
And the good work that she performed when we were challenged by American Airlines in court, we won.
And we will proceed with the build out of O'Hare.
So thank you, Fiona, for your incredible work under constrained circumstances.
I want to acknowledge the work of Pat Jakowiak at DOAH.
We can't do what we.
do without collaborating and partnering closely with her. I want to acknowledge the Department
of Human Resources, the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Finance,
who we work closely with weekly to execute on our charge and to assist them in executing on theirs.
I want to acknowledge the incredible work of the Chicago Police Department and Fire Department,
who we work with and provide information to as it relates to patterns that we might see or otherwise
training opportunities, if you will, that might be relevant for the orders they have in place.
I want to acknowledge the work of CDOT, who we work closely with. Lisa Mischer, please stand.
Lisa Mischer is the Deputy of Real Estate, was responsible in large part for what you will enjoy
in the 2027 All-Star Game. A lot of strong work from that division, and we work very closely with CDOT to
bring that to bear. Thank you, Lisa. And I want to acknowledge the Department of Library
library libraries. They came to us. They wanted to provide to CPS library cards for all CPS students,
and we had to help them to figure out how to do that. We did so. But it was through the Department
of Library's dogged determination that we're able to deliver on that. And I call out those departments.
Sometimes when we come for these budget hearings, we speak a lot about who we are,
but we don't speak about how we get things done and with whom we must work to do that. So I wanted
to take the time to acknowledge those departments and again say, I am grateful. And with that,
I open it up for questions. All right. Thank you very much, Corporation Counsel. Questions from the
body. Just a show of hands if you want to be added to the list. Alderman Nugent, Alderman Moore,
Alderman Lopez. Okay. Great. Let's start with Alderman Moore. Why don't you go ahead and go first?
All right. Chairman Dow didn't have any questions. All right. Thank you. First of all,
Corporate Council, I want to thank you and your team. I said this last year, and it just keeps getting
better each year in terms of your just being proactive and keeping us informed. Believe it or not,
this is a very important department. But my take on today, while a lot of people are not here, is
because you keep us informed and you have this open door policy that is very helpful. And you and your
team in terms of giving us briefings, explaining things to us, whether besides just the police
briefings, but anything that we need, you sit down, you go over with us, and you let us know what's going
on. And so your leadership is, it speaks for itself and it speaks in your team and what they're doing. So
thank you and your team so much for what you do. Thank you, Alderman. Just a couple of questions I have
on page two, when we say 70 percent of the participating attorneys were in from underserved
demographics. Do we have a physical number? I always say I like percentages, but I like numbers too,
because I told my mom I won 100 percent of the vote. He said, that was great. Then somebody said,
how many people voted? I say one. And so, you know, 100 percent sound good, but if only one person come out,
you know. So just wanted to know what that number is. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Alderman. I give you Deputy Corporation Counsel of Administrative Services, Julie Morgan.
Thank you, Alderman. Julie Morgan, Deputy Corporation Counsel of Administrative Services. So,
Alderman, you were referring to- I'm going to have to pull the mic up. I'm sorry.
Can you hear me now? Yes. So, Alderman, I believe you were referring to our Summer Law
Clerk Program. And that has been one of our great pipeline efforts to get
young attorneys into the department. And I want to just give you some background before I turn it
over to our Director of Attorney Recruitment, Shelley Sandoval. That program was revised in 2021.
Previously, the class before it had a 20 percent identity from underserved communities. And so we've
grown that number every single year. And this year, we had a great class that represented not only top
law schools in the city, but also national law schools. And when we look at the legal community,
we have still a lot of work to do as an industry on a whole. But this department is committed to
having a robust and diverse law school class every summer. And so I'm going to ask Shelley Sandoval,
our Director of Attorney Recruitment, to speak to exactly the number of the summer law clerks
this year that were from underserved communities. The mic is not on. It's on now. It was on. I think
you turned it off. Hold on a second. Someone's going to come over. Hold on. Nope. He's right
behind you. He's behind you. Hi. There you go. Thank you. Yeah. Our summer law clerk program has
received a student cohort annually. Shelly. Restate your name and position. Shelly Sandoval,
Director of Attorney Recruitment and Professional Development. So our program is 15 clerks annually.
Okay. So of that 15, we say 70 percent participators. So 70 percent of that 15 were from underserved
communities. Yes. Underserved communities, both self-identifying and EEO collected data. Okay.
Thank you. I'll calculate the number based on so I can figure that out. Just so that you know.
So when we talk about a hundred million annually increase, I mean, that is done annually, increase
of funds collections over the last year, but it says collections up 80 percent over the year. So
there was that, was that an estimate or are we doing? Uh, no deputy, um, corporation counsel,
David Holkamp, um, spoke to it earlier. Uh, David, this is your 18 percent figure that he's just
posed a question about. See if it works. Yes. So, uh, David Holkamp, uh, deputy corporation
counsel over the collections, ownership, administrative litigation division. This is not a, uh, it's not an
estimate. We keep, we run all of our stats out of, of, uh, uh, DOF systems. We report those and pull
those down in, in, in our systems and, and run those numbers. And we have an over 18 percent
increase across the board at all our different, if you add up all of our different debt types.
And that, and that amount came up to a hundred million in total? I thought a hundred million.
On, so we're on track to about a hundred, for about a hundred and six million this year.
Okay. Alderman Moore, if I can direct you to the slide there, that's, uh, contextual.
All right. That's page nine. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And now when we talk about,
um, the federal court suits and, and we says, uh, we say, um, we, we, um, what, what, what term was used?
Um, well, we won in those instances and, um, we said we had, um, reimbursements. What did,
in those suits, what do we get besides like the wind? Do they reimburse us all of our legal costs?
Or do we sue for any additional funding for, you know, I don't know, pain and suffering? I'm
just throwing something out there. I don't know. So when the federal government does something
illegal and we, and then they, and then if they overturn it, why do we get our legal fees back,
whether it's outside or, or in house? And two, do we get any, in any additional, um, um,
monies from the suit? I think, uh, Victoria Benson, um, in our recent global settlement relative to
Watts, this might be a good way to illustrate, um, how we, uh, identified other dollars in which we,
uh, recovered assets. Victoria? Thank you, Victoria Benson,
Deputy Corporation Counsel in the Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Division. Um,
I want to make sure that I'm understanding your question, Alderman Moore.
My question is more around the, I think what I was, I heard somebody talk about the, uh,
suiting the federal government. Oh, okay. Let me, uh,
redirect that to Deputy Corporation Counsel Stephen Cain. Oh, all right. Thank you. Uh,
Steve Cain, uh, with the affirmative litigation division. So we do sometimes seek attorney's fees
in our litigation against the federal government. Thus far, the cases have, uh, been resolved on
essentially a preliminary basis. So the court will issue an injunction, uh, preliminarily saying that
the government has acted unlawfully, uh, and then the case continues after that to a final judgment.
And so we, uh,
We have not gotten to the stage yet where we might get attorney's fees or other types of interests or costs.
But we will be asking for those, right?
We have requested that in some cases, yes, that's correct.
So have we filed anything yet against the federal government where we – so all these cases, every federal case that we've filed against the federal government is not complete yet?
That's correct. They are not complete yet.
Okay. And my last question, but I won't have to do a round two.
Go ahead.
This is to Counselor Mendenhall.
When we say – when we're winning our cases and we say a return on investment, what are we meaning when we say return on investment?
Is it a return on investment in terms of – because I think it's just a savings more or less and not a realized savings.
So help me understand that we use that return on investment when we win a certain case.
Sure. I'm more than – there we go.
I'm more than happy to answer that question, Maggie Mendenhall-Casey, deputy for the Torts Division.
When I use the term return on investment in the context of my division, I look at that return on investment and consider the salary that the attorneys are being paid versus what the plaintiffs are asking for at juries.
So with the case that I highlighted about the light pole, that was a matter where the plaintiff asked the jury to award $1.4 million.
And due to the aggressive and successful strategy in defense that was provided by the attorneys within my team, the city did not have to pay any money for that litigation.
So I understand what you mean from an accounting perspective, that it may not be the traditional use of the term, but I certainly look at it as the salaries and the payment for the attorneys within my division and the department as a whole is a good investment.
And just to follow up to that, in those situations, is something like that, have we lost that?
Does an insurance pay for that, or is it a portion that they pay for, and then we still have to pay some out of the corporate fund?
Sure. So it varies.
Typically, and this is all public information, but typically if a lawsuit has a judgment and that judgment is under $20 million, and of course it varies a little bit each year, under $20 million, that's something that's typically funded by the city of Chicago.
It could be a corporate fund or a different fund, depending on the department.
And if it's in excess of $20 million, that's when our excess insurance coverage starts to kick in.
But that's a generalization.
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. I appreciate it so much.
Absolutely, Alderman Warren.
I also want to, just on the ROI notion of return on investment, every division, it will manifest itself differently.
So we have both the intangibles associated with a return on investment, increases in revenue.
Cole spoke to that in great detail.
Cost savings associated with how we go about that.
Victoria spoke to that in her presentation on mass charts.
There's also just the intangibles, and most of that will manifest itself through our risk management and compliance area, where if we are able to manage our processes, procedures better, we save costs.
But we also benefit as professionals, which means by extension, the city benefits.
So that's just some examples of what we mean when we characterize, in a legal setting, return on investment.
And I can probably add it up in here, but let you know it by hand.
From an accounting standpoint, what was the –
Can we get that through the chair?
The net realized, if she can, if she can, the net – if there was a net dollar amount that the – because I want people to know.
Yeah.
The net dollar amount that the Corporation Council brought to the city of Chicago.
Do you have the number?
You can just say it.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Alderman.
I'm Deputy Corporation Counsel of Administrative Services.
So our analysis, based off of most litigation in our department, is for every dollar spent by the city on our attorneys,
it's $2.70 in return, and that is a return on legal investment.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Through the chair – can we get a copy of the presentation?
Absolutely.
Thank you, because that's not what's in the handout.
Okay.
Moving on.
Alderman Riley, followed by Alderman O'Shea.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, Corporation Counsel.
Good afternoon, Alderman.
And thank you for all of your advance through the chair responses that I request each year.
I appreciate your timely response there.
I didn't do that just because you're my alderman, but you are my –
Oh, look at you.
Okay.
I've got to be nice to my constituent now.
So I guess I have no questions, Madam Chair.
I'm kidding.
So, first of all, thank you for the work that you do and to everyone in the box.
It's greatly appreciated.
I have a few questions I wanted to follow up with.
Frankly, I was asking other departments these questions earlier in these sessions.
They all said, oh, you better go ask law.
So they passed the buck to you.
And one of the things I've been focused on for the last several years is this interesting
situation at administrative hearings where a number of the ALJs or hearing officers, whatever
we want to call these folks, we outsource that work to private law firms.
And their lawyers come in and serve as the ALJ or the hearing officer.
And I asked this earlier in budget sessions.
Here's my question.
It's related to conflicts of interest.
And so if you have John Doe from law firm ABC presiding over a series of AH cases, is
that firm, the firm's other lawyers, are they able to then come and represent clients in
front of AH?
Or how do we handle potential or perceived conflicts of interest there?
Christine Haig, Prosecutions.
Yes.
Hi.
My understanding is that the ALJ and the attorney appearing in front of that ALJ should make
it very clear to the city that there is a conflict of interest and then remove themselves
from that and put themselves in another forum, a.k.a.
another room at DOH.
OK.
And that's helpful.
And that certainly seems appropriate.
Do you track that?
Do you track conflicts of interest?
I do not.
The city's law department does not.
I would believe that the people who are contracted are contracted out of the Administrative
Hearings Department.
So I would think that they would know who they're contracting through and what firms they work
out at as well.
For the Alderman, for the law department, of course, we have our own set of conflicts that
we have to run for every firm that does work for the city within the law department.
It is my understanding that the head of Pat Jokowiak, the head of DOH, has her own process
associated with that.
And I would respectfully defer to her.
OK.
Fair enough.
I think I want to put a pin in that because I think it's an important thing for us to
note with certainty how that's handled.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I think they contract the administrative law judges.
So I would think with contracting them through DOH.
OK.
And I'm also a follow up.
And I'm also Alderman.
We'll work to make certain of that.
Yes.
I'm also happy to follow up with her.
And then perhaps together we can pin something back to you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
And then I'm really pleased to see that you engage in a very fulsome training of ticket
ticket writers, whether those are city inspectors or our ward superintendents.
I know that especially, you know, in streets of sanitation over the years, we've had issues
with tickets being properly filled out and making sure that they're able to stick.
And so thank you for taking on that work and really raising it up a level.
That said, one of the things that I've raised during budget hearings historically is this lag
time that occurs between the time that a ward superintendent writes the ticket and then the
law department does a review to make sure that this is a proper charge and to make sure that the
ticket has been properly administered.
And that lag time in getting the actual ticket through that review process and to the violator
used to be many months long.
And I understand that was a resource issue at law.
Law just didn't have clearly enough lawyers with the time and bandwidth to do these reviews
expeditiously.
Have you tracked the lag time between a ticket has been written versus the time it's been
actually sent to the violator?
And I'm talking about things like right of way violations, overfilled dumpsters, you know,
dirty alleys, building violations, you name it.
Thank you, Alderman, for the question.
We not only have tracked it, we have improved upon that.
I was first going to go to David Holkamp of Coal, and then anyone else who would like to
fill in, feel free to do so.
Thank you again, Mary.
David Holkamp, Deputy Corporation Counsel of the Coal Division, on top of what collecting
stuff or collecting debt for the city.
We also do the ownership searches for all of your weeds tickets, your driveway tickets,
all of those things.
That goes through us.
So when.
So when.
Ward Soup writes the ticket, it comes to us, we do the title search and find the respondents, and then it goes to AH for Christine's group to prosecute.
We have over the last year gone – we've made a lot of improvements in that process.
One of the improvements we've done is we are not going and reinventing the wheel every time when we see a ticket.
A lot of these tickets are being issued to the same property, same owner, over and over again, so we don't need to do a title search every single time.
So we've really been able to cut down on that lead time that you're talking about, and we've really been able to get those out within – well, it's cyclical.
So in the summer, it grows a little bit.
In the winter, we get to real time.
Because I only have two minutes, and I appreciate there's a lot of detail to share, could you tell me generally what you've cut it from down to?
About a month.
You've cut it by a month or it's done –
It's down to about a month.
That's fantastic news because it used to be closer to five.
And it was, Ollerman, the ownership database that we had, we were actually approaching it ticket by ticket by ticket.
And as you know, some of your – in your wards, you're writing same tickets, same lots, over and over.
Sadly.
And so we have contracted that process, and that helps –
Which makes a strong argument for more aggressive enforcement and higher fines because clearly not a deterrent.
But that's not something I'll take up with the law department.
Thank you, sir.
And because I do have limited time, I want to ask you about two – I think it's probably best described as – I think they're federal preemption type issues here.
So we see that the deal cut to reopen the federal government involves banning hemp-concentrated products.
That's a component of the budget proposal here is to actually legalize those in the city of Chicago and then tax them.
If the federal government acts as they've pledged they will by amending the Federal Farm Act and makes this illegal, am I correct, am I correct, am I correct in assuming then that is no longer a viable revenue stream for the city of Chicago?
I believe that is what OBM is considering in light of the changes for federal government, but I'm going to also refer to OBM so they can speak more –
They're up next, so that would be great.
Okay.
And so thank you.
I tend to agree with you.
I've asked some other lawyers.
That was the same answer I received from them.
The other piece is also related to the budget, also one that could be a federal issue, and that's related to the social media tax that's been proposed.
Is that something that we can expect to stand up to court challenges which are inevitable?
We believe that it is amusement tax.
We also understand the novel notion as people think of it, but it is an issue that was surfaced by OBM and also EY and others.
So we are positioning ourselves to defend it.
Okay.
The concern there is that if we're going to spend a lot of time in court on that one, we may not realize that revenue.
It is a substantial source of revenue in this proposed budget.
Just to rest assured that since it was not built into the budget and we're likely going to handle a proportional share of that in-house, it's something that we can manage.
Thank you, Chair.
Of course.
I also noted in your supplement book that you talk about zoning violations and how typically zoning violations are referred to DPD to be handled and processed.
That raised a flag for me because many, many years ago when I had more hair, the city saw fit to do away with zoning inspectors altogether.
So who then the city is actually officially deputized or recognized as an expert on zoning violations to the extent that they can actually serve as a de facto zoning inspector,
even though we have nowhere in our city budget, a line item for that function.
I remember the days, Alderman, when we did have that plethora of those zoning folks.
Kim, are you able to respond to that question for the Alderman?
Thank you, Mary.
Good afternoon, Alderman Riley.
I can tell you that we do have zoning inspectors within the Department of Buildings.
There's only a couple.
And the Department of DPD has a zoning administrator who has two investigators working there now.
So they do have experts that go out to verify if there are zoning violations.
And those cases then are sent over to the Department of Law.
In BLE, we file those cases in circuit court.
Very good.
Okay, thank you.
I appreciate the clarification on that.
Now I know who to send violations to.
Okay, great.
Yes, Patrick Murphy at DPD.
I know him well.
And always send out an investigator and also Commissioner Hopkins over at DOB.
And she's been great.
All right, thank you.
I just have two more questions.
I want to, and I guess this one's more of a statement than a question.
It's related to prosecutions and adjudications division and specifically to liquor license holders.
I understand why we have a community meeting process.
It's my understanding that that was initially designed to handle the less egregious violations around a business.
Things like an unkempt storefront or graffiti tags that aren't removed or a broken window or these sorts of things.
Not so much inviting gangbangers to their establishment where there are mass shootings, right?
How do you apply, is there a test that you apply to determine whether someone should be put into a community meetings process versus a straight up revocation process?
Because oftentimes I see chronic violators, as we discussed earlier, gaming the system and falling into this community meetings process, which really is a massive waste of time.
And it really upsets the neighbors who want to see immediate action when an egregious violation allegedly has occurred.
How are you balancing that out?
Because I would argue in most cases, especially when it's a liquor license holder who's making lots of money bending or breaking our rules,
the community meeting process is more like a peace circle, which is not terribly helpful when greed is involved.
I won't comment on the peace circle.
That's my comment.
But on the licensing issue, Kimberly Roberts again, please.
Thank you, Mary.
Again, Alderman, this falls under BLE.
We handle all of the licensed discipline cases.
As far as the community meeting process, however, that's decided internally within the department.
So typically, if a case is referred from the community or by an alderman, BACP decides to do the community meetings.
If they fail, then they send the case to law.
But if you have a situation that you feel deserves a more egregious process, I suggest escalating it to Gerald Dawson.
He's in charge of adjudications.
Or you can always contact me directly, and I can try to reach out to BACP and see if we can expedite for court action.
Okay.
Well, I just want to go on the record for advocating for fewer community meetings and more aggressive prosecution, because one licensed holder can ruin an entire neighborhood, as you know very well from that journey we've been on together.
I do.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you.
And then my final question is related to the – no better way to call it – the gift room.
And I just want to – and I only ask this question because I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of what the Department of Law's role is when the inspector general sees fit to dispatch,
attach either undercover or not, inspectors to some branch of the administration, or in this case the mayor's office itself, to conduct an investigation that is absolutely within the bounds of their responsibility.
What role – I understand that the Department of Law, for example, did not want to allow the OIG investigators into that room unaccompanied.
Does the law department immediately assume the role of defense lawyer for the mayor in that case, or are you there as an honest broker, as a neutral party, just to oversee things?
Because it's my understanding from that particular incident that it seemed more that you were serving as the mayor's counsel and less so the people's lawyer.
To the contrary, it was – as you might recall, over the decades, gifts room or closets or spaces have existed for every mayor – and I go back to Washington – they all had a space.
In this instance, the members of that department showed up unannounced and asked to see a space and multiple spaces because there are items that were not only in a closet but just in multiple spaces.
Not encouraging.
The then managing head of administration wasn't sure how to respond and called me.
I was in negotiations, frankly, on Bear Stadium, and I said, take a pause, ask them to let us make arrangements if they want to see it.
It was the pause that gave them pause and also ultimately afforded an opportunity for us to say, how do we do this better, this process?
So this is in the collective city's interest in what we're talking about.
we try to do as lawyers is as counsel how to create a better process, period. And so we
worked with Asia Carr Favors, my first assistant, worked closely with members of the mayor's office
to identify what would be a proper process and procedure for purposes of A, seeing the items,
be putting them in a place, making them open to the public so that anyone who wanted to have access.
And so we then took it a step further. And as you know, there's never been a scenario where we have
things posted online. We do now so that you know the items and when they arrived and who sent them
and the date on which that occurred so that if anyone has an interest, those items are made
available. We also set up a process so that if there is a scenario where they wanted to visit
and we are requested, and this is true of any operating department, then we can accompany or
we arrange for them to go in. We've done that across many departments for many years, mayor's office,
operational departments. This was viewed as no different. It just took on a different air
because of the concerns of the mayor. And I understand, and I'm not trying to put you on the
spot. Sure. Regardless of who the mayor is in the future, I think members of this body want to make
sure that whomever the inspector general is in the future has unfettered access to all areas of city
government as per the code and the mission of that office. Sure. And Alderman, there is a process
associated with access. And one of the things I work closely with your colleague on, Alderman Martin,
is to create a process. Our challenge was the process was not codified. So now we have a codified
process. That's better. I know it's not. No, it's not perfect. It's not ideal. Perfect. It was not,
but perfect is the enemy of the good. So we have a process now so that people understand what that is.
Not even the FBI can show up candidly and just walk in a space. There's a process.
And we needed to articulate a process. We have done that. And I thank your colleague,
Alderman Martin, from working with me in particular for hours, if not months,
to identify that process, not only for that office, but for the future leaders of that office,
as well as others that are impacted by said office.
Well, look, I appreciate your candid responses to my questions today. On that last point,
I think probably the easier policy for the city of Chicago to adopt is simply to not accept the
gifts at all, not have a room at all, and maybe either auction off these gifts and give the money
to charity or simply have a policy. Hey, thank you for sending us this gift. Take it back. We don't do
that here. Right. The good news, Alderman, is there is a charitable component now built into the
process. Asia Car Favors led that effort. Asia Car Favors, would you just close out on making sure
that Alderman is aware of that? Thank you, Alderman Riley. Asia Car Favors first assistant
corporation counsel. I think we certainly understand that concern. And Mary is 100% correct. I think
where we landed is more transparency. So if you go to the mayor's office website now,
there's an entire page where there's a log, right, publicly available. Quarterly, Deputy Mayor
Lori Lipson's team updates with a video of what's actually in the space. It was relocated to 3M for
proper ingress and egress of the public, things of that nature. And so there's a form on there online now
where 501c3s can receive donations, whether it's blankets or clothing or whatever in that space that
might be beneficial to them. In addition to that, the public is also available to sign up for viewing
there. And I will tell you, up to this point, only two people have signed up and nobody has shown up.
We have six signed up for January, but I think we have landed in a space of more transparency,
to your point, Alderman. Well, next summer, I'm going to be leading tours through there. So get ready.
All right. Well, thank you very much, Corporation Council. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
No problem. Thank you, Alderman Riley. Chair O'Shea, followed by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, Mary.
Good afternoon, Alderman O'Shea.
I wanted to follow up on a couple things that have been brought up, but
when we talk about public nuisance situations,
vacant lots,
high weeds, et cetera, et cetera, under a previous administration, I can remember meeting with the
Corporation Council, and at that point,
there were tickets issued by my ward superintendent on problem blocks, problem houses,
that would take nine months to a year.
So I want to commend your office, getting that down to 30 days, which I believe is lower than any
large municipality that we compared it to five years ago.
That's a huge difference maker in our communities where we have problem blocks.
And I know I wouldn't even rank anywhere near the top 10 in that, but there are parts of my
community where this has really been an issue. So thank you.
I wanted to double back on
the social media tax,
also known as the smart tax.
Are there other
municipalities that have that?
And we are,
just to be clear,
we are confident that that would stand up
if challenged.
Sure. I'm going to have the Deputy
Corporation Council of Revenue Litigation.
Her name is Susan Jordan.
If you can,
the mic can be passed to her.
She is the one who has worked most closely on this issue,
and I think it appropriate that she respond.
Thank you, Alderman.
Susan Jordan, Deputy Corporation
Council, Revenue Litigation Division.
The social media tax is
a unique tax to the city.
It has been
tried in some other jurisdictions,
but has not passed
as of right now.
So it is a new tax.
We would be the leader
on this type of tax.
And
can I ask you
the second part of your question?
It was just
where
are there other municipalities
where we know this
is active,
and do we believe
that this could
withstand
a challenge?
Yes.
We believe the tax
is defensible.
We have authority
to tax amusements,
and we believe
that we can defend it.
Thank you.
I've said this before,
but I
think
in saying this,
I speak for this body.
How much
all of us
appreciate
your work,
the team
that you've assembled,
both here in the box
and the gallery
and those
somewhere upstairs
working hard,
the communication
and the partnership
and the work.
In fact,
some folks
I've walked up to today
who I just know
from emails
and phone calls
to thank,
particularly when it
affects public safety
in our communities.
And I've got
numerous stories
of where your staff
has been helpful.
I just want
to say thank you.
You are a true
professional.
Thank you very much,
Alderman O'Shea.
I appreciate
your acknowledging
myself
and certainly
the work
of the staff.
Thank you,
Alderman O'Shea.
I don't see
Alderman Lopez
in the room,
so we'll come back
to him.
Alderman Nugent.
Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Good afternoon,
Corporation Council.
Good afternoon,
Alderman Nugent.
The first thing
I want to do
is thank you
and thank your
whole team
who has answered
numerous calls
from me,
briefed us
on numerous issues.
Very grateful
and we appreciate it.
I'm assuming
sometimes you must
think our questions
are crazy,
but we have to
take what you say
and be able
to digest it
and then go back
out and regurge
that to our community
to justify
quite often
why we have
supported
or not supported
a settlement.
So thank you.
Thank you for
taking our questions
and having that dialogue
with us.
That's really,
really important
and I really believe
under your leadership,
Mary,
that your team
has flourished
and I think
great things
have come out
of Department of Law.
Thank you,
Alderman.
I want to,
and something
that I think
you guys should
be incredibly proud
of is that
$90 million settlement
that you guys did
for the Watts case.
I think there was
176 cases
you settled.
that's a big deal.
So kudos
to everybody
for that.
That was huge.
Thank you,
Alderman.
There's two issues
I want to bring up
that I don't expect
you to solve
for them today
but I want to put
the bee in the bonnet
so maybe we can get
some movement on it
over the year,
over the course
of the year
because I know
that a lot of this
is out of your control
but in the last
year and a half
I think we've seen
a lot of cases
coming up
with certificates
of innocence
and I believe
that my colleagues
and I want to do
right by those
certificates of innocence
and move forward
with settling cases
with you and your team.
However,
it's not just
the city of Chicago
that has been
a part of those cases.
the state's attorney is a part of those cases as well as the police department in chicago and i
we have taken the entire financial burden of every single one of those cases as the city of chicago
the city of chicago taxpayer um and i just i'm hoping that there's an opportunity to explore
um perhaps other folks that may carry some of the responsibility in these cases with us
um i don't know if you have any thoughts on that um rest assured alderman um that process is
underway i have and i'd love to have a separate briefing with you um to talk through some of those
um shall we say processes thank you i i appreciate that and uh i stand ready to be helpful in any way
um you see fit and i i would guess that there's a lot of my colleagues that would be willing to
be supportive of that um the other issue that i wanted to bring up and i know that it is bigger
than the department of law and probably uh involves intergovernmental affairs and work in springfield
which we would need to do is a lot of times we have settled cases that involve um for example a
police pursuit where an officer sees somebody going through a red light or something happens and they
perhaps request permission to pursue or turn their lights on and they maybe do that for one second
or two seconds and then they turn their lights off and they stop and said vehicle continues on
for another 10 blocks and crashes into a car and perhaps there's a fatality or something happens
and most of the times that vehicle that does those bad things um has no financial resources and if
they hurt somebody the city is completely liable i believe you guys know it better than me is it but
for us turning on our lights i i think we need to do better here um because even when we're doing
the right thing and turn the lights off or don't pursue we are on the hook for millions and millions of
dollars and it's my understanding this would probably have to be fixed legislatively but
can you sort of offer some thoughts on that i can um but i want to turn the attention to uh maggie
jill and um maggie casey i was about to call you by the actor um and have her speak to there's a
specific law that triggers um with your let's say your seven second rule um i think it's helpful for
you to hear about that and then secondarily to hear about the thing that she's doing in terms of
both um maggie as well as elizabeth mannion and meeting with a cpd when they see um certain um
issues um to bring it to the attention of cpd so that they can also um adjust um their process maggie
first speak to the law and then um to your work working with the department of course thank you
corporation counsel and all the women nugent we've had this conversation directly and um i appreciate
you um surfacing this this issue for the body um i hear you discussing two different um laws that
intersect when it comes to the police pursuits the first one being joints and several liability
and we have seen in a number of our police pursuit litigations that the way joint and several
liability works in the state of illinois is that if the city of chicago is found more than 24 percent
responsible then it is on the hook for the entire verdict um and we see that that does have a negative
impact on us within our our litigation um so that's one area of law and the second area of law that
you're speaking to is the the proximate cause jury instruction um where the instruction essentially
says that um if you are a cause um that you don't have to be the most recent um you don't have to be
the largest cause but you can still be a proximate cause um even if you as you alluded to one of our
cases where the police turned the lights on um the fleeing offender went down multiple blocks and then the
accident occurred uh so that's the law in the area and then as to the second question the risk
management and preventative measures that both myself and elizabeth mannion um are engaging in with
chicago police department is i have um at the bare minimum a monthly meeting with the department of legal
affairs um practically what that looks like is in addition to that monthly meeting um i don't have a lot
of pursuit litigation um it's less than 40 and so when i see particular touch points while the
litigation is ongoing um i have a great relationship with the office of legal affairs and can reach out
to them and try to work with them and collaborate for particular fixes within the litigation um when i
spot them um so hopefully to prevent some of the cases from coming in front of this body um but as you
were speaking to the proximate cause as well as uh the joint and several liability those are issues and
elizabeth and i are working with um the chicago police department to ensure when we spot issues that we can fix
internally that we have those conversations um and so the police department and scott spears as well as all of
his team adriana as well our great partners perfect well i appreciate that and again uh thank you to the
team thank you to you madam corporation council and um keep up the good work thank you very much alderman
nugent thank you alderman nugent uh alderman lopez followed by alderman martin thank you chairman and good
afternoon members of the committee good afternoon corporation council team you know i was going to ask if
there's a lawyer in the room but i figured that's probably a one or two one or two joke um first off i just
want to touch base on um a couple things earlier today when uh patricia chokowiak and administrative
hearings were here we were talking about uh the amount of money generated through the administrative
hearings process and she said uh i believe in 2024 it was 113 million as of september it was 100 million
of 2025 on pace to exceed previous um two things that were brought up during that discussion were one
according to the ernst and young report we have a number of fines and fees that haven't really changed
in well over a decade uh is your team working with obm or department of finance to see what we can do to
try to modernize or adjust for those uh fines fees and other items that need to be uh brought into the 21st
century alderman we have worked with obm uh the dominant decision maker uh lies elsewhere um because we
lawyers but yes of course can you provide with us any recommendations that you've shared with them on
what we can look at in terms of revenue generation or modernization we don't do uh recommendations in
terms of a specific fee we don't say you should raise this by x or y because that's out of the purview of
our legal expertise what we do do is give them advice as to whether or not they have a legal path
based on the varied fees uh and fines that they surface yeah then can you share that through the
chair what the legal path would be for some of these thank you um with regards to an item near and dear to
my heart um several months ago alderman uh chairwoman dowell and i introduced an ordinance that deals with
debt checks for lawsuits and settlements um my understanding is that the your department has kind of
put a hold on that so where are we with regards to moving forward so that as we are approving
settlements um here in the committee on finance that individuals who owe us money are not getting paid
before we do i i thank you alderman for the question it's actually an opportunity for me to talk about
the work in that space um you will be um probably delighted to know um that we've actually put that
ordinance the existing ordinance to work it was put to work with respect to the watt settlement so
there's a proportional share that we have um uh negotiated for uh debt uh to the extent that some of
those individuals had existing debt um deducting said debt from the allocations to uh those individuals
for uh settlement purposes now that was a voluntary that was a i'm sorry was that a voluntary debt
check because my understanding is the reason it was introduced was because that was just something
that was done at the behest of the chairman of the committee on finance and wasn't necessarily
something that was a unilateral application for all settlements what we've done is baked it into
our process um so that we're doing debt checks and our uh settlements um there are going to be
some areas where it's more difficult than others um but what we have started the process of doing when
we engage in settlement we make that part of uh the uh settlement terms to ensure that court is on
notice opposing counsel is on notice and we have a path for uh recovering those debts again some areas
where we're going to have some challenge and we have been challenged
in terms of recouping the debt.
One of the, with debt check work, I want to have David Holkamp just take a moment and give you a sense.
I know David is loquacious, but then Alderman, so are you.
Well, I believe that we've had like several last questions at every turn, so I'm fine with that.
I just want David to take a moment to talk about debt recovery.
So, sorry, again, David Holkamp for the Collections Ownership Administrative Litigation Division.
And I've kind of taken the lead on making sure your ordinance or the ordinance that you had introduced and got passed on set-offs is absolutely implemented with the law department.
It is not on hold.
The process is – it goes through the Department of Finance.
It comes back to us with the debt check, and then the checks go out to the plaintiff, and we set off the other debt.
So it is absolutely implemented, and we are working within the law.
So my understanding – and allow me to just – so that we're all clear.
That ordinance was not passed.
It was introduced.
You were – we were looking to do an enhanced version of the ordinance, but the ordinance that you, I believe, and you work with Alderman Dow on, that ordinance allowed us to begin to pilot debt recovery.
And so we have started to do the very thing that Mr. Holkamp gave voice to.
Got it.
So along the same vein, you know, a lot of what we've been seeing with regards to, like, bonds and some of the other ordinances that are a matter of routine, their language has never really been updated.
We've had a number of discussions within committee about why do we have the language that we do, particularly when it comes to oversight or things of that nature.
And the answer I always get from the law department is this is how it's always been.
So are we able to start looking at modernizing or updating the language in some of these routine ordinances that we're doing here in this body to be relevant to the – to quote the treasurer, the values that we espouse here in this room?
I appreciate – Alderman, I appreciate the question.
There is an area of opportunity with respect to modernization, but there are also regulatory obligations that are contained in the language.
I'm going to have the person that you probably have heard from for the most over the decade, managing deputy transactions, Jim McDonald, respond to that question.
Beyond now.
Okay, thank you, Alderman, for the question, Jim McDonald, managing deputy corporation counsel on charge of transactions.
I think you referred to specifically the bond ordinances.
We do not – when we draft ordinances, we are not drafting them with this is the way it's always done.
We are – we draft ordinances in a way to accomplish the objectives that the ordinance is seeking to accomplish.
For bond ordinances, it is to authorize the debt and spell out the terms of the debt that – within the parameters that the city council is delegating to the executive branch to go ahead and borrow that amount – up to that amount of money in the most cost-effective way.
We also – if the council is approved, we're also authorizing within that ordinance how those bond proceeds can be expended and the purposes for which they're to be expended.
And we have changed the ordinance, pursuant to your comments and others, over the years to make sure that we are implementing the objectives of the council, as well as what the administration is choosing to do and seeking the council's approval to borrow that amount of money for those purposes.
I hope that's responsive to your question.
Well, that's usually the answer you give me anyway.
So, yes, I get it.
Thank you.
Switching topics a little bit.
One of the issues that I've always brought up to both our budget team, CDOT in particular, as well as to the law department through three different administrations is what are we doing in terms of cost recovery for city property that's damaged?
We oftentimes see where people have accidents, we have light poles that get taken out, we have bus stops that get taken out, garbage cans, you name it, our infrastructure that we pay for.
And yet I don't recall us ever making a serious push to charge those individuals who cause those accidents for the cost of what is damaged.
What are we doing in terms of city property damage recovery?
David Holkamp?
You're getting David Holkamp, again, for the Collections Ownership Administrative Litigation Division.
So when a department has a cost recovery or property damage, they refer that to us and we do sue the individual that is liable and we will seek to collect that.
We file suits in the circuit court of Cook County all the time on cost recovery matters, exactly like what you're talking about.
And where is that shared with us?
We have the cost recovery specific categories of, you'd like a list of some of that litigation?
So I think what would be helpful, Corporation Counsel, is just as we started the tradition of having lawsuit settlements and judgments provided to us on a monthly basis, if perhaps we could look at having our victories in terms of cost recovery shared to us on a monthly basis as well with the Committee on Finance.
I'd be delighted to do that.
I think that would help us understand as well what we're doing to recoup damages.
Certainly.
How much more do you have?
Okay, go for it.
Part A of one.
No, just kidding.
Of your six-part question?
I already did the six-part question joke, so no, we're done.
Lastly, I just want to ask a question with regards to the growing change in dynamic in lawsuits that the city of Chicago is facing.
And your team has heard me talk about this plenty, how we've seen where the lawyers of the world are beginning to shift their attention away from police settlements, now focusing on, like, the fire department, CDOT, and whatever, where we're seeing a rise in lawsuits for trip hazards and trees and things of that nature.
What are we doing, or what is your department doing in terms of, like, a risk assessment by department?
Because one of the things that I find concerning is that as we talk with other departments who are not necessarily on that plane yet, there's definitely potential for future litigation across multiple departments.
One that immediately came to mind was public health, when we found that we are not meeting the standard for food safety inspections in terms of the numbers of our inspector-to-license ratio, where we literally have to quadruple the amount of inspections just to maintain minimum standards of quality.
Are you providing departments, and OBM, for that matter, with information on what we need to do to assess those risks, mitigate those risks, and to pay on the front end versus opening ourselves up to precedent-setting lawsuits that will create a generation of pain for the city of Chicago?
I appreciate the question, Alderman.
I give you Elizabeth Mannion, our risk manager and compliance.
Get the mic.
We've established a process of being able to track data, patterns, and she, along with whatever the relevant deputy is, will meet with departments to go over data so they can begin to alter any conduct.
Well, let me ask you this then.
Is that something that you can share through the chair?
By department?
What we're looking at?
And if there are any recommendations that we need to do to?
Well, I'm happy to have a conversation.
I'm concerned about putting in writing something that ultimately might be subject to some disclosure and creating a new path of.
So then, if I may, if we could set something up, because I'm sure she's going to answer vaguely.
So I'd rather just, if we could set up some follow-ups to this.
Elizabeth, you can sit down.
Well, he doesn't want vagueness.
And I will set up a meeting so that I can speak with intentionality.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
Chair Martin, followed by Alderman Wagsback.
Thank you, Vice Chair, and good afternoon, Corp Council.
Good to see you.
Good afternoon, Chair Martin.
I have a few questions.
If any of these have been asked by other colleagues, just let me know, and I'll re-review the video.
I don't want to belabor the point.
Sure.
I do want to start out with just a compliment to you and your senior team.
It's an excellent one.
And I don't want to belabor the point right now because I want to get my questions out, but I just want to commend you all for your strong work.
I think your presentation outlined a lot of progress that's being made and just wanted to uplift that.
Thank you very much, Alderman, for that acknowledgement.
And I, too, in your absence, acknowledge working with you to solve for us.
More than one problem. And we came out on the other side hole and better for it. So I want to publicly now thank you and your presence.
Thank you. Without getting into sensitive issues around settlements, I am at a high level concerned that we're seeing in the budget book the same line item that we've had in prior years.
And it's not an invitation to ask sensitive information on the record in terms of what you're projecting. But at a high level, I'm wondering if that figure nevertheless needs to be revisited, given just the arc of things that we've seen in prior years.
Thank you very much for the question. I think the figure is based on an averaging that happens in OBM, but there's also an expectation that there will be settlements and judgments bonding that will occur that will offset that.
So it is a static figure that they continue to carry forward. But I think it's with the vision of having a settlements and judgments bond, and we're going to work closely on with them to execute on said vision, should that be the path that they take.
Understood. I think whether it's in the coming weeks or going into next year, I'd like to revisit that point, because I know we've had some conversations about the Watt settlement and what that could portend moving forward and understanding maybe the most fiscally prudent ways outside of the law department to set aside funds to take care of those settlements, I think would be prudent, but in a different venue.
Understood, Alderman, and I've made a note of your interest because we will have other variations of that. And it's as we approached Watts, we did a series of one-on-ones or one-on-twos to make sure that you were aware of the basis for that approach.
That worked very well for us. It helped to elevate the level of understanding. We're going to be replicating that to make sure that any alderman that has an interest in a briefing and can ask specific questions around the strategy has an opportunity to do so.
Great. Thank you. With regard to the proposed hiring freeze, are any positions in DOL impacted, attorney or otherwise?
There is an area of impact. What we did with the OBM is we created a strategy and we created a category called critical hire. So in advance, I met with OBM. You can tell I heard the word freeze. I said, not me. That goes to others. But I also wanted to have a balanced approach.
So what we did is we went to them and said, we won't come to you with every category of hire. But we will come to you when we think they're categories that we believe are critical.
Critical for us to be able to show up and represent in court. Critical for us to be able to have the expertise we need on hand. Critical for us to be able to execute on transactions.
With no exceptions. With no exceptions. They agreed. And we work very closely with them to identify those hires. We send the list over to them. We go over why it's important. We put that in writing.
And then we created a process that's worked quite well for us through this freeze that has existed to address budget issues.
Okay. That's good to hear. And then last question for today from me is I was hoping if Ms. Mannion, with your permission, might be able to speak to any of the proactive tracking that she has done that can be uplifted publicly.
Because I know we've had in, I think, this third straight budget hearing talking about some of the important work in terms of risk mitigation.
So if there isn't anything that's too sensitive to discuss publicly, I'd appreciate knowing some of the work that's in the rear view.
I do think Elizabeth Mannion, our Deputy Corporation Counsel for Risk Management and Compliance, can speak at a high level.
I also think there's an opportunity for you in particular, given your obligations as chair, for us to also take a deep dive.
But, of course, that would have to be offline. I'll give you Elizabeth Mannion.
Good afternoon, Alderman Martin. Thank you for your question.
And thank you for the opportunity to share the really exciting work that risk management is doing.
So, as you are aware, we implemented our matter management system last year.
With this matter management system, we've created categories for tracking, such as allegation type, client department, driver of a vehicle, plaintiff, defendant,
virtually all the key categories that we should be tracking in order to find out if a trend is occurring.
So, in response to your question and in response to Alderman Lopez's question earlier, I am working very closely with the TORTS department.
And we are identifying these categories, and we hope to pilot them in Q4 for reports to going to the major infrastructure departments,
such as streets and sanitation, CDOT, and Department of Water.
So, we're really looking forward to sharing the trend analysis to the goal of good risk management is not just reducing existing risk,
but that you'll never see the risk that could occur.
Agreed. Well, if it does make sense to have both Alderman Lopez and I together for that conversation, I would welcome that.
That's all I have. Thank you again, Corp. Council. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Chair Martin.
Next, we're going to have Alderman Wagesback followed by Alderman Sigcho Lopez.
Thanks, Chairwoman. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Alderman.
First of all, I want to say thank you to all your staff who work with us very closely on a lot of different issues.
I know not all of them are fun or, you know, easy to work through, whether it's late-night liquor licensees,
and I think my colleagues have touched on quite a few items.
I was wondering if I could go back briefly to what Alderman Nugent was talking about with the joint and severed liability law that was passed
and the approximate cause injury instruction law.
I thought last year we were talking about the fact that I thought one of them was said to be if we were 1% liable,
we were on the hook for the entire settlement amount.
Was that the approximate cause injury instruction, or what are we talking about there?
Margaret Casey?
It's not on yet.
Uh-oh.
Still.
There we go.
Maggie Mendenhall, Casey, Deputy for the Torts Division.
Thank you for that question, Alderman Wagesback.
I'll add a little bit more clarity.
I didn't want to do a super deep dive, but since you've invited, I'm more than happy to opine.
So there's a difference in the law in terms of how economic damages are treated, medical bills, lost wages,
and non-economic damages are treated.
So loss of normal life, emotional distress, pain and suffering in terms of 1% versus 25%.
So if a defendant is found 1% responsible, they are on the hook for all of the economic damages,
all of the medical bills, all of the lost wages.
And so where we see that being particularly impactful are cases with catastrophic injuries
where a person has survived and is looking at a lifelong of medical care.
In that case, if the city is found 1% liable, they're on the hook for all the medical bills.
All of the lost wages.
When we talk about the 25%, that is referring to non-economic damages, loss of normal life, pain and suffering.
Okay.
Thank you.
I think when we've talked about it before, maybe it was so quick after a settlement hearing
that maybe we didn't have time to dive into it.
Thank you for the explanation.
When we're looking at a couple other things here, the global settlement issue,
what are the financial implications of taking on these global settlements where we're setting aside funds now?
And I just want to go through something real quick with you.
So we got a couple bond issuance documents just a short while ago.
One of them, it's the 2026 cap bond.
And this one says, you know, it's in the best interest of the city to have amounts in there required to pay retroactive wage increases
for collective bargaining, funding of judgment centered against the city, certain settlements or other payments required to be made by the city
as a condition to the resolution of litigation or threatened litigation,
and C, such escrow accounts or other reserves that shall be deemed necessary for any of those said purposes.
So here's kind of a compound question.
So exactly, if you can provide through the chair exactly how much is to be paid for all retroactive amounts for collective bargaining agreements,
i.e. fire, and break that down through the chair.
All the judgment amounts that would be used for, for instance, Watson, Mohammed, and perhaps Guevara,
which I saw you on TV, as I mentioned earlier, and all other settlements as mentioned in that document.
And then if you can answer now, what is specifically meant in this document by tapping?
into all such escrow accounts or other reserves that shall be deemed necessary to pay for any of
those said purposes. Thank you for the question, Alderman Wagespeck. I'm going to have the
managing deputy of transactions, Jim McDonald, once again opine because he would have assisted
with said document. Thank you for the question, Alderman. Again, it's Jim McDonald, managing
Deputy Corporation Counsel for Transactions. The language in the ordinance is intended to be
encompassing, so it's not a separate category, but so that we can cover if there are judgments or
settlements where an escrow is negotiated as part of that arrangement, that we have clear authority
to have the bond proceeds not only pay for that settlement itself, but pay for the ancillary
agreements or arrangements that may be part of that settlement. It's not intended to be separate
from the settlements or the judgments that are intended to be funded out of the bond issue.
Okay. So when I'm looking at this, I think it's a good idea. As you stated, you had worked on it.
What do you expect the – does this impact the lifetime interest costs that we would incur
borrowing this much to pay for these settlements?
By the lifetime interest costs?
We don't have to ask budget.
Yes. And when you say lifetime interest costs, I assume you're saying what's the interest rate
we'll be paying on the bonds we're issuing for that purpose. Is that –
Yes. Well, not just the interest, but the principal. And I'm assuming we're going to get
the repayment schedule today. So I don't think that's your job, but –
I agree with that.
Did you write it up for them?
I drafted the purposes for which the bonds were to be issued.
Okay. So you're off the hook.
Stop talking, Jim. Stop talking. Stop talking.
Yeah. Because I just – I think, again, as a policy issue, I think it's a good idea. I'm just
wondering, as taxpayers, we've looked at a couple of deals now on bonds where we are kicking
the can down the road on the interest payments for – correct me if I'm wrong, colleagues – for
quite a few years. I think it was seven or eight. And then to 2045 on principal payments.
This is for the last bond deal. So my – I am curious to know, if we're going to start going
down this path for some of these larger global settlements, what is the impact to taxpayers?
And I think taxpayers deserve an answer, maybe not from you, but from OBM on the cost of doing
it this way, as opposed to, you know, through the corporate fund on an annual basis. You don't
have – I mean, you can answer that, but –
That – we'll defer that question to OBM. But I will say the following, and this is something
that I know you know intuitively. The savings that we engendered as a result of the global
savings – global settlement, significant. If we do – if we pay this 90 in two trunches
in 2026, we didn't have to pay anything in 2025. The savings to the city is hundreds of millions of
dollars, as opposed to the past approach of taking these cases one by one over the course
of a five-year or so period. So I will speak to that, but I'll let OBM speak to the technical issue
that you raise around structure.
Okay. Thank you. And could I have one more question if you don't mind?
Actually, I have about 10 more, but just kidding. Now, just sticking to the payment of these other
settlements over the last few years, I've tried to look at the excess insurance program or the
amount that we pay there, who the contractor is. Can you give us an explanation about where we are
situated with excess insurance? Are we still under the amounts that we need to be or reaching a peak
with the excess insurance company where they're – because we've heard rumors that they're saying
enough is enough with Chicago, with these settlements. Maybe they ought to go look for somebody else.
Alderman, please don't believe the rumors. Elizabeth Mannion, Risk Management and Compliance.
Good afternoon, Elizabeth Mannion, Risk Management and Compliance. Thank you for your question,
Alderman Wegesbach. The city of Chicago is currently under an excess insurance policy. In fact, we are
secured for the next two calendar years for our first layer of insurance. So no, we are not in jeopardy of
losing our excess insurance. In fact, we continue to work very closely with our broker to find
the most favorable markets to get the best rates for the city. Elizabeth Mannion worked diligently with
the former comptroller and some of the current staff in the comptroller's office, negotiated – helped
to negotiate those terms to ensure that we at least have two years and running on the insurance.
Okay. Thank you very much, Liz.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well done. I think with that, I had some other questions, but I think they are generally answered
by everything that you've talked to my other colleagues about. So again, thank you to all your
staff for your excellent work. And we really do appreciate it, even when tensions kind of rise on
some of these settlements and, you know, we're looking for a different path and looking for policy
explanations. We all want to hear them to make sure that our judgments and our votes are sound when we're doing
this. So again, I appreciate all that work that everyone puts into it.
Thank you, Alderman Wagesbeck.
Thank you, Alderman Wagesbeck. We've got Alderman Sigcho Lopez, followed by Alderwoman Lenny
Manahop and Worth afterwards to close.
Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you, Corporation Council, for being with us today.
Thank you, Alderman.
My question, and I think that you have it on your statement, is about the newly created Special Federal
Litigation Division that you have. If you can just expand a little bit about the efforts that you have
taken, I know that unfortunately, I think the city also has to recover a lot of costs associated with
this really shameful operation that just departed from our city, but the damage, the damages, the amount
of money that we have to put in resources to recover from trauma to children that has inflicted.
Unfortunately, we also have resources even for Chicago Police Department and many other issues that we
continue to deal with. So just a little bit of your efforts, and I do want to add that as a potential
area where perhaps we need to find a way to recover from the damages that our city had incurred because
of inadequate, irresponsible federal intervention.
Alderman Sigcho Lopez, we are completely aligned with respect to that issue on the damaging.
We did do a presentation earlier, but I think it's important, there are more aldermen here,
that we do a quick recap in terms of the litigation. I would like to have Stephen Kane opine.
And have you pull up slide 13 again, so that he has an opportunity to go through slide 13 and 14,
followed by Andrew Worsick very quickly, if you can do a brief statement. And then finally,
in the audience, we have Miriam Casper, who has done Yeoman's work in terms of the appellate work,
because what you probably noticed, Alderman, is a pattern. We win in district court, they appeal.
So Miriam's group steps in immediately, files that appeal, and then in some instances,
they're going to the Supreme Court of the U.S. We will meet them where they stand and continue to
challenge and uphold the values that the mayor has espoused and that we have to live by in terms of
the constitutional principles. Stephen Kane.
Thank you. Steve Kane with the Affirmative Litigation Division. As the Corporation Council mentioned,
we have filed 10 lawsuits against the federal government since January, and we have repeatedly
won court orders in those cases. In terms of the federal intervention, number one, we stood with
the state of Illinois in suing over the deployment of the National Guard and won a order temporarily
stopping that deployment from occurring. We also recently filed a brief supporting a third-party
lawsuit challenging the conduct of the federal civil immigration authorities here. And that case has
resulted in a victory for the plaintiffs of preliminary injunction. We are always looking at potential
options in this area, and we're happy to discuss any of those offline. I want to be careful not
about not talking about potential litigation here, but happy to discuss that with you.
Andrew Worsick.
Thank you for the question, Alderman. Andrew Worsick, I'm the Deputy Corporation Counsel of the
Constitutional and Commercial Litigation Division. In contrast to Steve's group, which files lawsuits
against the federal government, my division defends the city when we are sued by the federal
government. So my division defended the city in the lawsuit challenging.
welcoming city ordinance as being preempted by federal law, federal immigration law, and we
prevailed in that lawsuit. So we stand at the ready to defend the city if and when we should
be challenged again by the administration. Miriam Casper, slide 27. Good afternoon. I'm Miriam
Casper, deputy of the appeals division in the Department of Law. Thank you for your question.
As my colleagues stated, they either prosecute or defend the lawsuits. When it comes to the
appeals division, we do both. Whatever side the city's on, we will defend or continue to prosecute.
Right now, we have two of the matters that are in our division. One involves the deployment of
the National Guard, and we continue to work with the state to defend the injunction that was ordered
in that case. The other appeal is to defend Mr. Worsick's victory in the welcoming city
case, and that appeals in its initial stages, but we're going to work hard to defend that.
And we've also participated in a lot of amicus work in cases where the city is not a party
to speak up for the city's interests, and in particular, of late, the conduct of federal
agents against Chicagoans. We did help prepare a brief in that case, submitted as a friend of the
court. Thank you.
Thank you, Corporation Counselor. I appreciate the efforts of the city to recover some of the
damages, the costs, and making sure that our city doesn't lose any funding that should never be
withhold from the federal government. My other question may be in line of the damage to Chicagoans,
and I know that there are lawsuits, personal lawsuits being pursued and so far. I'm really
concerned about child endangerment. That's a resolution that the city council passed in last
city council. I'm concerned about the behavior of some of the representatives of federal government
when it comes to human trafficking and other issues. We've seen, especially in the last few
weeks, a lot of children have been in danger. As you know, state law prohibits completely child
endangerment. It's sad that we have to reemphasize that. But in terms of damages, especially against
children, and knowing the vulnerability of some of these families, is there any way that we can use
them? I see other municipalities, Berwyn, Evanston, Skokie, and I see the least will continue as we've seen
one-year-old children being maced when we see minors being taken to federal custody without
justification. I'm talking about U.S. citizens. So how can we, on top of the efforts that you're doing,
making sure that we force the federal government to respect the state and city law? I mean, it's sad
that we have to say this, but when we see the behavior that we continue to watch as elected
officials, I think there comes a moment where we have to hold the line, when we see human trafficking,
when we see sex trafficking, when we see minors in danger, how can we talk about public safety
when these are children that are being in danger? I've seen it with my own eyes, where encouraging
people, of course, to file civil lawsuits. But given the vulnerability, I would like to ask
Corporation Council to look at some of the resolutions that we have passed so that we can
take some of these measures protecting especially children in our city. We are certainly looking at
those items, but I actually would like for you to have a session with Stephen Kane because there are
pursuits that might be relevant, and you might have some additional information
that informs the thinking of affirmative litigation. We will set up that meeting.
Thank you. Then finally, I think Alderman Martin kind of alluded to that, but I want to add,
in terms of the vacancies in the department, just in terms of, you know, just want to be very clear,
are there specific areas, specific parts? I know you have multiple divisions. I know that you have
created this position. I mean, have there been shifts on positions also within the department?
What is the current vacancy, and, you know, how will that be affected in the current budget?
Certainly. Thank you for the question, Alderman. We have 21 attorney vacancies presently. We certainly
have shifted some line items around to accommodate the growing work in response to the federal
government. We have requested and received additional line items going into 2012. As I noted in my mid-year,
earlier, and I note now again, earlier, and I note now again, our strategy has been not less,
but more. We're going to need additional attorneys, OBM, DHR, the mayor's office, et cetera, agreed that
that that is an appropriate approach because we need the bodies to respond to this federal onslaught,
and we have received that. We also have received additional attorneys to service us in collections
area. We have done yeoman's work with respect to collections. I think we're at 84 million just in
one division alone. We believe we're going to best that number by the end of the year,
and if we have additional attorneys to service that area, we can increase our collections significantly.
So we have worked closely with OBM, and we've received additional staffing. We have shifted line
items internally to respond to the moment, whether it's in constitutional and our pursuits or whether
it's in our affirmative litigation pursuits, and frankly, we have work in our torts area. We have
support. We have hired an individual to help with other categories of risk mitigation,
and certainly pursuing mediation specialists we've hired. So you will see a highly specialized,
evolving department in addition to the talents that already exist.
Thank you, Corporation Counselor, and I appreciate especially the emphasis in terms of civil rights
and the civil rights division to make sure that we look at the different aspects of litigation in
the city and especially efforts around police misconduct and ways to address that in a way
that is fiscally responsible and fair to the victims as well. So thank you so much.
Noted, Alderman. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Sigcho Lopez. Last question goes to Alderman, excuse me, Alderwoman Lenny Manal-Hoppenworth.
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Court Council.
Good afternoon, Alderman Hoffman-Hoppenworth. Thank you. I was curious. Thank you. Thank you for providing
the slide to us, the slides to us. I was curious if in the slide, maybe I missed it. Is there a slide
that shows the, and thank you for also talking about the risk mitigation program. Is there a slide in
there showing different departments and how much liability we've had per department? Alderman Sigcho
Lopez just spoke about police, but there's also water and also streets and sand you mentioned. Is there
a slide that shows the different departments that shows the different liabilities? We don't have a slide
that shows every department that we work with because we work with all 30. I mentioned, I highlighted
some of the departments because frankly, it was more than a, it evolved to more than a simple
counselor to client relationship and it evolved to a collaborative relationship. So I wanted to take,
I wanted to take the time to highlight Streets and Sand and DOA and CDPH and DWM and Streets and Sand and
BACP, fire, CPD, et cetera, because we have worked very closely with them in response to the federal
onslaught, in response to operational imperatives. And it took on a, we could not have achieved the
things that we're being acknowledged for without their collaborative work. So there was no department
that we didn't have a touch point with, but those departments, oh my goodness, they have just been
exemplars. Thank you. And thank you for all your work to protect Chicago. It is a small comfort to us
as we are trying to get through this moment, all of us together. I wanted to ask about, well, my,
my constituents ask me about the police misconduct investigations and, and what they want to know
is why it's, it takes so long to, to resolve cases. And, and tell me if I understand it right.
So department of law is, is tasked to review COPA findings. Is that right? And then prepare
disciplinary recommendations. And then also coordinate with CPD, coordinate with the police
board, and then also work with the union timelines. I mean, all of this is a process and I, I'm just
wondering how are we, and thank you for your presentation to really point out the ways that
we're getting a return on our investment. I think that that is really a great.
perspective, but what are the specific resources that we're allocating to accelerate the resolution
of these cases? Because we want families to have resolution, and that also includes the officers
that might be involved. Can you speak on that a little bit? Thank you, Alderman, for the question.
You've actually afforded me and these closing questions an opportunity to highlight another
deputy. Deputy Helena Tamrat, who runs the Labor Division, handles the very area that you just
surfaced questions around. I'd like for her to respond. Helena? Thank you so much for that question,
older women. So Helena Tamrat, deputy of the Labor Division. So the process is, if there is a
disciplinary recommendation after COPA has done it. Helena, can you put the microphone closer?
Okay, thank you. So once there is an investigation done, it could be either by COPA, or it could be
by BIA and sometimes OIG. So once an investigation is completed, and if the recommendation is for
termination or a lengthy suspension, which means over 365 days, that file comes to the law department to
draft charges for separation or the lengthy suspension. So the superintendent requests that
charges be drafted. It is the Labor Division's responsibility to draft charges in that instance.
Our processes, we do a very thorough review of the investigative file. So this would be, it could be
body-worn camera footage, witness interviews, it could be lab results, it could be video. So the entire
investigative file, we do a complete review, and then we determine the strength of the case.
We determine the availability of witnesses, we determine the credibility of witnesses, and we determine
the likelihood of success. So what we do is we would draft charges unless it is necessary to recommend
that additional investigation be done, or in some instances, we would recommend settlements depending on
the evidence that we've reviewed. So that's the process that we undertake. In most instances, we do draft
the charges, and the charges are filed at the police board. I'm speaking specifically for police officers.
For police officers right now, as you know, there's pending litigation between the city and the police
union about whether officers who are recommended for separation and lengthy suspensions should have public arbitration to
resolve that. So at the moment, for these types of cases, we have about 26 cases, I believe, pending at the police
board. The majority of them are waiting for litigation to be completed. So right now, the issue being litigated is whether or not
officers can have public arbitration. So they have the right to choose between going to the police board or an arbitrator, but the
question about whether or not that would be public is being litigated. Right now, there's a petition for leave to appeal.
It's in front of the Illinois Supreme Court. Our appeals division has that case. They're expecting a decision sometime in November.
So until that happens, the cases impacting police officers are in a holding pattern.
So that has caused a delay for cases impacting police officers for discharge and lengthy suspensions.
So I guess your question is, how do we accelerate resolution? For those specific cases, we do have to wait for the process to be
completed, meaning for the Illuminary Supreme Court to decide if it takes a case.
For other types of cases, we are having hearings at the police board for those few officers who chose to go to the police
board. I think we had about six officers since 2024 who elected to go to the police board. And so we're handling those cases
at the board. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. A little frustrating because we are in a holding pattern
there. I guess the last thing I just wanted to do is say thank you again for your work. I'm glad to see that
we're on a positive trend towards the compliance for the consent decree and also just thank you to your team
in an office, a ward office like mine in the 48th ward where it's very dense. We have a lot of questions
for law about land use and ADA compliance and so many other issues. And thank you to Asia for being very
readily available for so many different issues. I do appreciate your entire team, including the ones
that are here every day, Ray and Lindsay. And yeah, thank you. Thank you for all your work, Corp Council.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Alderman. We appreciate it. Hi, I'm Alderman Irvin.
Hello. No, very well. Any other questions for the Department of Law? Well, first off, I just have
one item, really two items. You are Corporation Counsel. What does that actually entail and mean?
Thank you, Alderman, for the question. Corporation Counsel serves as the chief legal officer for the city of
Chicago. All legal decisions flow through my department and we advise and provide advice and
counsel to both Alder Corps, mayor's office, the 30-some-odd departments, boards, and commissioners,
as well as general officers of the city. That is both by state statute as well as by municipal code.
And in that capacity, you essentially represent all of us. Every one of you. And in cases where
there are conflicts, you bring special counsel or other people in. That's correct. The special counsel
designation is reserved for individuals that we hire to represent the city and certainly to represent
interests for scenarios like conflicts.
And I was noticing in your presentation about which is very nice, and I think you kind of lay a lot of
things out. You have a litany of individuals or groups that represent us.
That's in very specialized areas. And that's the general practice that you all follow if there's
something that we can't do in-house.
That is true. I have a roster of outside counsel. We put on a once-a-year open house so that we invite
others to make sure we have the supporting expertise that we need. My focus is on further developing
the expertise internally. We now have 20 divisions of the law department, each with their own expertise.
And this is really important for purposes of municipality of this size.
All things aren't created equal. So a person who holds themselves out to be a lawyer is not necessarily
the appropriate lawyer for certain all matters. So we have to ensure that we have the talent in place
to respond to the specifics on a case-by-case, transaction-by-transaction base.
And in this year's budget submission,
are we becoming more or less reliant on outside counsel?
Less. We have a 10% differential compared to years past,
and we plan to continue to chip away at that. I think I noted at mid-year, and I noted again
today, our goal is to reduce our outside counsel spend over time, and it will take time. Again,
comparatively, we have 247 lawyers. New York has over 700. L.A. has over 500. Boston, Denver,
and other cities have more than we do. In order for us to meet the moment in terms of the outside
counsel spend, we've got to bring in talent. The talent is out there. They want to come.
We have to create a means and method for that.
arrived. That's the only way to drive down outside counsel costs. We're never going to
rid ourselves of it, but we can drive that number down. We exhibited that, our ability to do that,
even on the Watts case, where within a seven-month period, we spent $5 million on outside counsel.
That goes away. Preceding that, over the course of holding those cases, we spent $20 million.
That goes away. If we continue to do that strategically, we can reduce our outside
counsel spend, and that's the path that we're on. Okay. That's a matter in your projection.
What is potentially a reasonable spend, and how long do you think it's going to take you to get
there on the path that you're on now? We probably, going into next year, we may spend, I think we end
this year at $40 million. We're projecting next year we'll be in the $30 million. We haven't been
in the $30 million in this department in decades. Okay. And we'll continue to move it down from there.
Okay. Again, I think the work that we've seen over the past years that you've been here,
and I think you also bring a perspective, having been here before and in previous administrations
and knowing and understanding where the light switch is, you get a little better knowledge of
some of the inner workings of departments and can better address some of the concerns and risk
management issues. And again, I just want to thank you for what you have done to not only save the city
money, but to actually train up a new generation of talent. As we see so many people that we have
been accustomed to seeing as they begin to reach retirement age, we've got to bring in a new core
of individuals. And again, just glad to see that you're moving in a direction that's going to build
the bench for the department for the years to come. I think that given the circumstances,
you've done great work and the Watts case is definitely an example. And we hope there are
more of those things that we can do to save the taxpayers money. And my final question is,
do you have the appropriate number? You talk about the transition that you want to make. Do we have
the appropriate number of vacancies and positions to make that happen? We have 21 vacancies. We're going
to aggressively pursue hiring those vacancies. We have 12 additional individuals that we've been afforded
through the OBM process. We will aggressively pursue hiring said individuals. It is likely that
for the following budget year, we will come back to you strategically, but look for opportunities to do
additional strategic hires. But I think in terms of where we need to be, those numbers are very solid
in terms of trying to fill the 21 and adding to our coffers with an additional 12.
All right. Very well.
Oliver and I just want to take the time to thank you. I know you've been doing Yolvman's work
through this process, the budget process. Both you and Vice Chairman Lee have together worked the floor,
as they say, in the room, and that has not gone unnoticed. I have staff here through every one of those
sessions. That's our job. You've been working through those sessions. I understand that to be your job,
but I also understand the additional pressures that are being visited upon not only you as chair
and the vice chair, but every alderman in this current atmosphere. We're feeling it. Some of us,
frankly, might take a little bit of pleasure in being able to thrive in it. I want to say you've thrived in
it. And so I want to acknowledge your work. I want to acknowledge the vice chair's work. I want to
acknowledge the work of the alderman who, frankly, just based on the things that we're confronting,
those of you who've had to be put in the late night hours, I'm aware of it because I get some of
your texts and calls. And I'm here to support you. What you do matters. You're making a big difference
in Chicago. And I couldn't be more grateful to serve alongside each of you. So thank you.
All right. Well, thank you for joining with us. We will also, before you go, I lost my train of
thought, but the team has always been helpful. They take us out of hot water when necessary that we put
ourselves in. So Rayatu, thank you for your help and work in this division. I know we are
like herding cats or whatever is sheep or whatever it is that the term is utilized. I know you're
dealing with 53 different personalities on any given day. And some of us have more than one. So
um, so thank you for, for the work that the, uh, corporation council division gives to us. And
again, thank you, uh, corporation council, uh, Richardson, Laurie, uh, for the work you're doing
on behalf of the city of Chicago with that, the committee will stand at ease while we transition
to our final component. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you.
I was just kidding.
Good evening.
And welcome to the final session of 2026 Budget Hearings.
We have before us our team from Nance and Budget, our Budget Director, our CFO, our Comptroller,
and heads and deputies of various departments for subject matter necessary for the presentation that the financial team is about to present.
But without any further ado, I'm going to turn you over to our Budget Director.
Director Guzman, you may proceed.
Thank you, and good evening, honorable members of City Council.
Thank you for allowing us to come before you to talk about the budget ordinances that make up the budget presentation introduced by the mayor in mid-October.
I am honored to have beside me my partners in crime, the City CFO, Jill Jaworski, and the City's Comptroller, Mike Belski.
In addition to that, because we are talking about the ordinances that make up the budget, including revenue management and other ordinances, we have...
Thank you, so much...
Thank you.
Before you, again, a number of our commissioners, as well as their staff, to talk about the revenue ordinances, management ordinances, and so forth that are in front of you.
So we have representation from the Mayor's Office, the Business Affairs and Consumer Protection Department, the Department of Streets and Sanitation, Department of Procurement Services, the Chicago Department of Transportation, the Department of Buildings, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the City Clerk's Office, our Cultural Affairs and Special Events Department, our Department of Environment.
Department of Law and Department of Human Resources.
So today's presentation, this doesn't work.
As soon as we get this working, I will advance the slides.
You want to just bring it over here?
You want to bring it over here?
No, because I got it disconnected.
So just press the button.
Oh, there.
Now it works.
I know.
It's important.
Thank you.
So we'll.
Okay.
Yes, I'll go through this quickly.
So we'll talk about the revenue ordinances.
We'll introduce the bond ordinances before City Council to support the budget.
Our management ordinances.
We have a couple of additional ordinances, and then I'll turn it back to the chairman for questions from the body.
So speaking first on the revenue ordinances, we'll talk about the various tax ordinances that make up the budget.
So the personal property lease tax, which is a tax imposed on the lease, rental, or use of rented personal property or non-possessory computer leases,
is proposed to go from 11% to 15%, which supports the corporate fund.
The community safety surcharge, the community safety surcharge, is a tax imposed on employers who employ 200 or more full-time employees who perform at least 50% or more of their work in the city of Chicago.
The rate will be charged at $21 per full-time employee per month for over 200 employees.
That funding will go inside the community safety fund to support vital and critical community safety investments.
The social media amusement tax, or the smart tax, is a new tax that's being proposed on the activity of social media consumption based on social media businesses' monetization of consumer data and engagement.
That is a new tax proposed at $0.50 per active user per month over 100 users that live in the city of Chicago.
That will be collected in the Protecting Care Fund to support vital mental health and behavioral health investments and operations in the city of Chicago.
The online sports wagering tax, we currently have a sports wagering tax on in-person bets placed in the city of Chicago.
As we have noted to members of city council in briefings, the vast majority of gaming that happens actually happens online.
And so we are expanding the sports wagering tax to include taxes imposed on the adjusted gaming receipts of licensees engaged in the business of sports wagering in the city of Chicago that's online.
So that tax will be going from a 2% in-person in-person wagering tax to $10.25 on, again, the adjusted gaming receipts of those licensees for both in-person and online sports wagering.
That will also support the corporate fund.
The ground transportation tax, we are proposing to expand the downtown congestion zone to accommodate the most congested areas of the city of Chicago,
which in your slide deck and in the appendices, the map of the expanded zone is reflected,
which also overlays with the city's transportation network, which provides those who live in those areas alternatives to help ease the congestion that we see in those areas of the city.
The boat mooring tax is a tax imposed on the mooring and docking of any watercraft for a fee in the Harbor River or other body of water within the city of Chicago.
That is proposed to go from 7% to 23.25% to align with the city's parking rate.
However, nonprofits will remain at 7% that also will be collected within the corporate fund.
The city's current checkout bag tax, the proposal is to remove the $0.01 retail or commission that has remained in place this year.
That will also be collected within the corporate fund.
And then finally, the motor vehicle lesser tax is proposed to be reduced from $2.75 on the daily or weekly per-period rental of a vehicle in the city of Chicago.
Going from $2.75 to $0.50, also supporting the corporate fund.
Moving to fines and fee ordinances, a number of these are fines and fees that were reviewed as part of our annual user fee analysis,
as well as the work that my office did with departments and EY over the course of the last several months.
And so working with our departments, looking at peer benchmarks, as well as the cost to provide the services that these fees support,
we are moving a number of fees and fines, increasing them.
Starting with BACP, there are five fees and fines that will be increasing in 2026.
The first is the limited and regulated business license fees with the limited business license,
which is a license on specific businesses within the city of Chicago,
moving that from a range of $250 to $500 to $1,000, also within the corporate fund.
And for regulated businesses, I'm sorry, the fee is $250 going to $500.
The fines are also moving to ensure compliance with the business actually applying for
and getting the license to be able to do business in the city of Chicago.
For the regulated business license, depending upon the type of regulated business you are,
going from $250 to $1,000, also supported by the corporate fund with the fines that are supported,
that are lined with that particular license also going up.
The commercial boat passenger license and fine currently goes from a range of $75 to $350,
going to a flat $600 that is done every two years with, again, the fines shifting as well
to accommodate for the increase in the fee.
Livery licenses, transitioning to a couple of things are happening.
Transitioning to a two-year license, increasing the fee to align with our peers,
and moving the expiration date for those licenses to December 15th.
The license is going from $500 a year to essentially $600 a year,
but since it's paid every two years, that will be $1,200 every two years, also within the corporate fund.
And then finally, within BACP's fee increases, food license violations,
and this is to adjust the fine to be consistent with other Title IV fines within the municipal code.
The range currently is $2 to $1,000, depending upon the violation, moving to a range of $400 to $5,000.
Moving to the streets and sand, two fees are being adjusted, our towing and storage fee.
The towing fee is collected for vehicle violations,
as well as the storage fee is collected once vehicles are towed and stored within a city-owned lot.
On the storage fee, moving from a standard violation of $25 per day to $50,
and for heavy-duty vehicles, from $50 a day to $100 per day.
For towing fees, moving from a standard vehicle of $150 to $250 for the tow,
and for heavy-duty from $250 to $350.
For the city clerk's office, the biannual CPI increase for city sickers is scheduled to occur in 2026,
but there are two other things that are happening with the ordinance that's before you.
The first is to allow for an amnesty to be conducted by the city clerk at least once a year for $30.
31 days at the discretion of the clerk after consultation with the budget office.
In addition to that, any time that the CPI increase is scheduled to occur, the clerk would be able to pause the CPI increase for the city stickers on senior passenger vehicles, senior small trucks, and so forth.
Again, upon consultation with the budget office, but at the discretion of the clerk.
Moving to CDOT, we have four fees and fines that are being adjusted.
A lot of these are, again, in alignment with the study done by EY and not only coming closer to where our peers are,
but also to cover the cost involved with the permit fees related to the service being provided.
So the commercial driveway permit fee is being adjusted from a range of $100 to $2,000 to $120 to $2,400,
and we're adding a 10% annual fine for noncompliance.
Secondly, the canopy construction and scaffolding permit fee, which hasn't changed since 2019, moving from $2 to $800 range to $3 to $960.
Parking permit fees, this is for fees related to the parking of work vehicles, obstructing the public way to align with – this is moving to align with cost inflation.
There are – it's a tiered structure, so there's numerous of the fees that are shifting.
And then finally, one call, which adjusts the fine and penalties for violations of excavation and facility marking requirements,
going from $0 to $10,000 fine to a range of $1,000 to $5,000.
As it relates to the Department of Buildings, vacant property registration renewal, which we have briefed members on,
this increases the registration renewal fee for mortgages, going from $30 renewal to $350.
A number of trade licenses that are permitted by the Department of Buildings are being adjusted to align with benchmarks.
A number of permit fee adjustments are being made with the revenue ordinance under the Department of Buildings code.
This reduces fees for homeowner projects, while increasing fees for residential deconversion projects.
And finally, for the Department of Buildings, the annual food inspection fee.
This adjusts the license fees to align with peer benchmarks, going from $100 – a range of $100 to $550, shifting that to a range of $200 to $1,100.
For CDPH, we have one fine that's being adjusted related to food violations, and that is for the noncompliance with the food license ordinance.
The current rate is $0 to $500 violation, shifting to $0 to $525.
For D-CASE, this is aligning the work that they have been doing over the past several years to allow those who attend the Taste of Chicago to pay for food and beverage directly at booths with cash and credit cards rather than with physical vouchers.
For the Department of Finance and CDOT, the Smart Streets Pilot Adjustment, which will be adding within the revenue ordinance street cleaning and a list of violations, as well as expanding the zone for the pilot.
And then for the Department of Environment and currently CDPH, the recycling facility fine, which fines recycling facility operators who are not in compliance with city ordinances, shifting to – from a range of $300 to $5,000, depending upon the severity of the violation, to a range of $600 to $10,000.
And with that, I'm going to pass it to our CFO to walk us through the bond ordinances that support our budget.
Thank you, Annette. Good evening.
We'll, again, try to move through this relatively quickly given the late hour.
So this year, we have two bond ordinances that are going in front of the council.
One is for new money and one is for refunding purposes.
The new money authority is for $1.8 billion, and that is a two-year authorization.
I think we have a typo in this.
It says $1.3, but it's $1.8 billion.
The authorization includes CIP projects, and within that, it also includes the menu money.
We'll talk a little bit more about the flexibility there.
And it includes settlements and judgments, as well as retroactive payments for the recently passed contract with the firefighters.
The bond authority is not likely to get used for several years, except for certain projects that we are able to generally move much quicker,
which would be one of that is the private side-led service lines, and the other part is the menu money.
If we flip to slide 10, this is a little bit of a hard slide to read, and I recognize when you do a graphic and it's not immediately obvious what it means,
it's maybe not the best, but we've been trying to struggle with how to make sure we articulate how there's a difference between the bond authority and the actual spending.
And so what we've done here is we've color-coded the authority since 2020, and that's in the hatched lines.
And then in the solid lines, in the same color, is the actual spending from that authority.
So I'll start with red, the 2020 and 2021 CIP authority.
You can see the first year spending from that authority was in 2023.
It's spent in 24, some in 25, and it's expected to be done in 26.
And if you look at each one of these, you sort of see that pattern.
If we look at the 2022 CIP, we see first spending in 25 and finishing in 28.
And that pattern continues, and so the 2025 CIP authority that we got earlier in the year, you see that spending out over several years.
And this ordinance, this authority will do the same.
If we move to the next slide, this is a listing of what the $1.8 billion totals as far as spending authority.
Now, of course, these are initial numbers.
You know, some of these things may change over time as the CIP moves.
We are looking at, again, $1.3 billion essentially in CIP projects.
We do have $166 million for the fire retroactive payments.
We have budgeted $283 million for settlements and judgments, including the Watts case and others.
And this is the aggregate of the new money authority.
One thing to note inside the ordinance, it does talk about grants and loans,
and we have language in there that makes it specific that that can only be for projects in award directed by an alderman.
And the idea behind that is grants and loans can only be done for menu money projects and nothing else.
So we want to be clear of that restriction that's in there.
Can you repeat that?
Yes, so in the ordinance, there is, within the allowable purpose, it does say grants and loans.
And that is, but then further on, when you look at Section 2.19, it specifies that that can only be for grants and loans within award where an alderman,
the alderman directed that spending by writing.
And the idea behind that language is to say, if you have a project where that would be necessary as part of spending your menu money,
you have the flexibility to do it.
But otherwise, this isn't granting the city any powers to do grants and loans from this funding.
So we're trying to make it as tight as possible to allow menu money flexibility but not broad authority otherwise.
The last slide is an illustration of the repayment for, one, our existing debt service for our general obligation bonds in the dark blue,
our sales tax securitization bonds in the lighter blue.
The yellow is the financing of the retro payment.
The purple is the financing of the settlements and judgments.
And then the green is the financing of the CIP, which is inclusive of this authorization as well as the prior authorizations that will be spent over that five-year period of time.
Lastly, our final slide.
On the bond ordinance is on the bond ordinance, which authorizes refunding transactions.
So we are asking for $2 billion of authority to be used solely for refunding for savings.
So when we do a refunding transaction, it's a refinancing of existing debt.
So we use those funds to pay off the existing bonds and issue bonds at lower interest rates to lower our debt service costs.
The bond authority on this is specific that that is the only purpose it can be used for, cannot be used for additional projects.
This graphic illustrates the amount of bonds in each year which can be refinanced.
So between 26 and 28, there's $1.7 billion of bonds that can be refinanced at what we call their call date.
And then there's, as you can see, quite a large number in future years.
The $2 billion allows us an authority if we were able to refinance all of those bonds for savings and also give us the opportunity,
if we would like to do a tender transaction, to purchase some of the bonds that are not able to be called yet.
And that's another way that we've been generating significant savings on our refinancing transactions over the last five years.
And with that, we can move to the management ordinance presentation.
Thank you.
So really quickly, we have a number of management ordinances that are also before City Council for consideration and passage.
The first is the Phase 2 of the consolidation of the Department of Environment,
which consolidates regulatory authority and duties of environmental divisions under the Department of Environment.
Secondly, under the Chicago Department of Transportation, we have two main management ordinances.
The first is, again, related to one call, which aligns CDOT's one call system with existing state law and implements additional measures to make that ordinance more effective.
The second has to do with commercial refuse containers, which changes the billing cycle to monthly.
For BACP, we have a number of ordinances.
The first is to shift their labor division due date for their annual report, moving the publication date to September 1st,
and clarifies that the reporting period for that annual report is from July 15th to the succeeding July 14th.
It also removes the requirement for first-class mail notices for license denials if the recipient already receives email notifications from BACP.
There are a number of definitional cleanups, removing ambiguity around covered employees in the minimum wage ordinance.
It standardizes the retaliation charges in Article 2 of Title VI, and it makes explicit that BACP may issue rules for all of Article 2 of Title VI.
Moving to the Department of Finance, we have under the Administrative Debt Relief Program, it adds violations pending a state offset to the list of exceptions for administrative hearing violations.
It ensures under the Smart Streets Program, that with the new RFP that is being in the midst of being processed, moving to a new vendor, that there's no lapse in service from the existing vendor under the pilot program to the more permanent program vendor.
It clarifies the Department of Finance's billing practices for estimated water bills, and it allows for parking enforcement aides to issue violations for noncompliant license plates for vehicle owners who are trying to block or distort their license plate numbers.
For the Department of Finance, we have a cleanup change under CDOT's ordinance, which allows indemnification provisions in lease, right of entry, easement, and other agreements where the CDOT commissioner is authorized under the code to execute.
It clarifies job titles of attorneys and responsibilities within the city of Chicago's departments that are prohibited from the outside practice of law as city attorneys, and it makes a code cleanup change by removing an obsolete tax on tour boat operators.
For the Department of Public Health, it moves the frequency of meetings from monthly to at least once a quarter.
The Department of Procurement, it authorizes the CPO to prequalify contractors as responsible bidders for contracts on city-owned real property and for infrastructure repairs or improvements for water and sewer, infrastructure, and roadways.
The police department's ordinance is being updated to allow for a number of modernizations to occur, including implementation of overtime controls, monthly reports to city council, and quarterly hearings on OT usage before the Joint Committee of Police and Fire and Budget.
The joint report from the Joint Committee of Police and Fire and Budget requires a joint report from the Joint Report from the Police Department, Budget, HR, and Law on civilianization and additional opportunities of positions within the police department to civilianize.
Quarterly updates from quarterly updates from the CIO and comptroller on the implementation of the city's new timekeeping and payroll system before the Joint Committee of Budget and Technology.
And monthly updates to and quarterly reporting on the progress of implementing an early warning system by the police department.
So we have three additional ordinances that will also be before city council.
Our normal code corrections, which removes typos and section references for repealed ordinances and corrects other references throughout.
Our annual salary resolution ordinances, which update the salary resolution for title pay grade assignments and salary schedules to comply with requirements under various collective bargaining agreements.
It updates and ensures compliance with leave benefits granted under law and by ordinances.
And the personal day carryover provision is being updated to establish parity within defined caps for employees beginning in 2026 for carryover in 2027.
And then finally, our annual motor fuel tax ordinance and intergovernmental agreement, which we signed with the county, which is an annual ordinance reflecting how the city uses or plans to use its MFT allocation from the state, as well as the contribution that the city makes to the CTA from $3 million in proceeds in MFT collection.
And with that, Chairman, I will turn it back to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Before we go to questions, just a couple of items as it relates to the bonding.
The bond, the GEO bond you intend to do as it relates to the refinancing of things, is part of this bond going to be taxable, part of it non-taxable?
So each of the ordinances allow for bonds that are tax-exempt or taxable, so it depends on the purpose.
Now, the vast majority of the bonds that we issue are tax-exempt.
The refunding bonds specifically, in fact, both of the bonds can be general obligation or STSC.
It's not – either one can be used within the aggregate authority.
So when we do refunding bonds, if we're refunding tax-exempt, it is on a tax-exempt basis.
We sometimes have certain opportunities to refund bonds that are not yet ready to be refinanced, meaning they're not the call date in advance.
Sometimes it's advantageous to do it taxable in advance.
Very rarely do we do that, though.
But if we have taxable bonds that we are refunding, most of the time we have to refund them as taxable bonds also.
We've had some exceptions over the years where we could refund taxable with tax-exempt, but usually if it was already issued as a taxable purpose, it normally has to stay that way.
And then the point of the retro pay for firefighters, would that be a taxable or tax-exempt transaction?
That is expected to be a taxable transaction.
Taxable for that portion of the overall bond.
That's right, just for that portion.
So we issue that at the same time as capital.
We would have a series that was taxable and a series that was tax-exempt.
And also the amortization schedule for that component would just be the three years, even though it's part of a larger tranche, it would – it of itself would just be a series of bonds for just that particular function.
That's correct.
Are there any other sets where you are – have of the components are taxable versus non-taxable?
And, for example, the settlements and judgments, what is the amortization schedule set for that?
That's for five years, and that would also be taxable.
Okay.
And the balance of the transaction, though, would be tax-exempt?
That's right.
Generally, all of the categories that are allowed under the – for all the other purposes are tax-exempt.
And the time period that we are –
paying the bonds back, do they match with the, for lack of a better term, the depreciation or
the life expectancy of the assets that we're financing? Yes. So in the tax example world,
they're governed by IRS code. And that does include a calculation of the average life of
the asset. And you cannot exceed 120 percent of the average life of the assets that are being
financed. And so that is correct, that it is limited by that. And we are, do we fall at 100 or 120 in
those respects? You know, it really, it depends on the type of asset that we're financing. So there's
certainly plenty of assets we actually do well under 100. So for instance, things like buildings
have a very, very long life. And so we're not financing them up to the term that would be
considered their average life or doing it for a shorter term. Okay. And my last question is on
the parameters for the refinancing or refunding. You are, you pegged at 3%. And is that 3% of what?
So the debt service. So the, the debt service on the refunding bonds, the new bonds must be at least
3% savings over the debt service on the prior bonds. If we don't hit that threshold, we won't do the
refunding. So if it generates, it's the debt service, new debt service is 2% less. We don't
consider that to be enough to execute the transaction. We'll wait. And for a market where
we can get better, better pricing. Now, most of our financings are significantly higher savings
than that. That's just the minimum under our policy. But we're really trying to achieve
more than that when we're looking at which bonds we want to refund.
And is that inclusive of the cost of the transaction?
Oh, yes. That includes all the cost of issuance. Those get rolled into the debt service. And so
they're all, they're all included ultimately. So assuming you sort of compare debt service to debt
service, it's, you know, all the costs on the original transaction are also baked into the debt
service on the prior bonds, and they're all baked into the debt service on the new ones.
Okay. All right. This is what I have for now. A question on Ryland.
Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, budget team. I just have a few questions. And first, a comment
on the Smart Street pilot. You want to find millions and millions and millions of dollars
like that, add to the pilot enforcement of loading in a traffic lane.
When I conceived of the pilot, when we passed an ordinance a while back, that was the primary
objective was to go after that bad practice, because we see that playing out millions of times
an hour throughout the central business district. And these are fleets. And these guys pay these
tickets without even blinking. So I would argue that the fine should be huge to drive compliance.
But two, the enforcement should be aggressive. It has a paralyzing effect on traffic downtown,
and it is a blatant violation of our city code. So just just flagging that for you as an idea.
Thank you. Also, another quick housekeeping item. About three weeks ago, I had requested
a comprehensive list through the chair of all the non-union positions scheduled to receive salary
increases. Have you delivered that yet? We delivered it. Yes.
Okay. Chairman, if we could make sure that's distributed to members. And then I just also,
speaking of three weeks ago, I asked, and I think this was you, Jill, I asked you whether or not you
had any basis to believe that our reduced pension payment would result in a downgrade. And you said
that you couldn't predict what will happen. And then last week, S&P all but guaranteed that we would.
Will you be updating the budget to address or prevent a downgrade from happening?
The change in outlook from stable to negative indicates a one in three chance over the next two
years, it would be downgraded. It does not almost guarantee it.
As a, you know, if I were a gambling man, that's, those aren't great odds.
I'm just pointing out the difference.
That's fine, Jill. I'll, I'll accept that.
Has the administration charted out or gamed out various scenarios related to the imposition of the
now revised head tax, the corporate head tax, as you call it, I'd call it the job killer,
in the very likely event that a number of major employers will likely exit the Chicago market.
And I, I ask about that, not so much just to cast some doubt on the projections for the head tax and
what it'll generate, but more importantly, what that means for revenue streams from the personal
property lease tax, various business licenses, our local distributive share of the, of the,
of the income tax. Um, have you gamed that out? I mean, obviously, for example, when, when the city for,
for many years, almost every budget was ramping up the tax on cigarettes and vapes, they would build into
that equation and the understanding that some folks would change their behavior. In this case, the head tax,
as we've been told by some, some companies and small businesses will likely force them or make, give them the
ability to pick up and leave, um, or shift where their workforce is housed and located. Um, we have a
number of global, um, consulting companies like, you know, the Lloyd or Ernst and Young, um, who have
folks that literally live out of backpacks and, you know, they, they have shared workspace at their
headquarters. Um, but they have this shared workspace throughout the region. Um, what is to say that,
you know, one of these companies just says, okay, our 3000 consultants no longer work downtown,
they work in Deerfield. Um, so have you mapped out the potential revenue hits that we're going to see
our other revenue streams take when we lose major employers? Um, so for any revenue projection that we
do, we do build in, uh, to the best of our ability, uh, behavior changes, uh, uh, that we anticipate the
market might, um, have, what I would say is, um, you know, when this tax was in place, uh, up through
2011, 2012, um, you know, the, the, the thing that you're talking about businesses making decisions to
leave or jobs, uh, being lost in the city of Chicago because of the tax didn't bear out. Um, and so
what I didn't hear that last, it did not bear out, not bear out. And so you're making an assumption
that no one's going to leave. What I'm saying is that what we have seen as relates to decisions
that businesses make around the investments that they make in cities, um, that it's not based on
this tax. And so what we are doing is we're still involved in conversations. We're still listening to,
um, you know, members of city council. We're still involved in conversations with business leaders
and business community. And so like with anything that is proposed in this budget, um, you know,
we are open to conversations. Understood. So, but did, did you actually build into this budget
some assumptions based on lost headquarters or personnel headcount being shifted from within
the city boundaries to a nearby suburb where they also have corporate offices? Has that been
factored into your, your equations? And if so, do you have some work you can show to us?
I, as I mentioned to the best of our ability, this, this tax and the forecast that we have,
as, as we've noted in several conversations is based on the corporations that paid the tax when
it was last in place. And so we use data based on the tax being in place to forecast the, uh,
the revenue stream, um, as it relates to whether the decisions that, uh, businesses make,
as I've mentioned before, the data doesn't bear out that this is the tax that, um, that is the
deciding factor for them. Well, it'd be helpful if you could just through the chair to provide us
with, um, what models you're using to determine that in fact, this won't have a negative impact on
where employers house, house their employees. Um, cause I'm hearing something quite to the
contrary from the business community, the folks that actually employ folks. Um, but my real concern
here is that we do have a number of headquarters here, um, that have very, uh, highly mobile,
uh, employees who literally live and work out of backpacks. Um, and so shifting, you know, a,
a shared desk from downtown to a suburb is, is not a difficult thing for these guys to do. It's in
the counting sleight of hand. Um, so I just wanted to flag that for you. Um, and I respectfully disagree.
I do think that this tax will have an impact. And my greater concern is that as a city that had great
success, um, stealing headquarters from surrounding suburbs and neighboring states throughout the
region, this will have a chilling effect on our ability to continue to do that. And because we have
had historically a diverse economy with a great talent pool and amazing universities, we've been in a really
attractive, um, location, uh, for headquarters to consider coming to. And the concern here is that
this head tax shouldn't be looked at as the old one that companies used to pay here. That was four bucks
ahead. This is.
And with all the different incentives, neighboring states and bigger cities, big cities like ours are offering to people to relocate.
I look at this as an obstacle and something ultimately, though, while well-intended, could have a disastrous consequence for our ability to continue to grow as a city, certainly when it comes to workforce.
My final question is related to the social media tax.
We had law up before you, and I asked Corp. Counsel Lowry about this.
We discussed this tax, and we've already read op-eds and read reports in the local news that a number of major users and platforms are promising that they will litigate.
Do we have projections on how much that litigation might cost the city?
I haven't had a discussion with the Department of Law about that, and I'm not sure if she provided you a response to that, but I'm happy to have that discussion with Corporal Counsel.
I would encourage it because it likely does have a fiscal impact.
I don't know the magnitude, but because it's been virtually promised, we should expect that's coming and factor that in, I think, to the proposed budget for 2026.
That's all I've got, Chairman.
Thank you.
Thank you, Autumn.
Vice Chair Lee?
Thank you, Chair.
Welcome back, folks.
Snacks up in front in case you need it.
You like us so much.
I do.
I mean, I feed everybody.
I want to go back to the head tax for a second, and I know y'all are open to conversations.
There's many things kind of moving right now, but can you give me – because I met with a group of business owners in my ward this morning, and, you know, as of this morning, we heard about the 200 employees versus the 100.
I happen to have a produce provider in the room with me, and he said, I have 202 employees.
What do I do?
Do I lay off the two people?
What if I want to – if I pick up three more restaurants, I'm going to be short people?
It's a low-margin sort of business.
And then the questions came, you know, I have an office in a – I have a suburban location.
Do I have everybody work out of there?
Can you give me just at the high level kind of – and I know nothing is set in stone yet, but just based on what – how you've modeled it so far, it's 200 or more employees that work 50% of the time or more in the city of Chicago.
Full-time employees.
So full-time employees, FTEs, that work 50%.
So if you're in a hybrid situation, at least three days a week in the office.
And how do we determine where they work?
So we're relying on companies to self-report this information, or – I'm just wondering how we get that information.
Sure.
So the – so first, we have to determine if the employer is subject to it, right?
So that's the first test.
And the statute sets out pretty clearly who is considered a resident from an employer standpoint.
As it relates to the employees, how much time they spend in the city of Chicago, it's – it's – it's – if they're obviously in their office, their employer is located here and they go to the office.
Also, if they – if they work from home in the city of Chicago, that is included as well.
So the statute also gives the comptroller the ability to set rules around apportionment of hours related to the employee as well.
Yeah, we would expect, as we did in the past, to use a tax return and assume that these companies that are doing business in the city of Chicago are going to be honest on their tax return.
And if not, there are legal consequences for that.
So – and I'm sorry, I haven't necessarily read a corporate tax return before.
So they report their – that's very –
Well, we had a – we had a, you know, a regime in place for collecting this tax before.
And we would go back to that and use that as the mechanism for requiring companies to file their returns.
And we would expect the information that we're requesting in those returns would be accurate.
So number of employees, the amount of time they're working in Chicago.
So that would all be asked for in the return.
And like any return, even an individual's tax return, if you're not being honest and you get audited, you'd be subject to whatever the law provides.
It could be fines and – or losing your ability to do business, so.
Right.
So I know we asked – several of us asked for a list of companies that this applies to.
I don't think that we've received that yet.
I know that the percentage of the companies is a small number, but we also want to know the total number of employees this would apply to as well.
Because this – the application of this tax would be the same for, you know, the grocery store worker or this produce driver and, you know, a lawyer making $600,000 a year at a downtown law firm.
You know, I have many concerns about this head tax.
Not necessarily that people are going to flee, although I do think that when it comes to the decisions, this is going to stifle growth.
And that is the resounding message I got from business owners that I've talked to, whether that was a tech CEO or someone that owns a produce company or, you know, I've got the union stockyards in the ward.
So that's a lot of the folks that I talked to today.
And these things, well, you know, we can talk about how it's only affecting so many people.
It's going to hit people in a lot of different ways.
And in some of the cases, it is – I might just be better off just moving my whole operation to the suburbs.
I want companies to be able to stay and maintain the jobs here in the city for all my residents, as well as to grow potentially.
And I think that, you know, Chicago needs to think more about how do we grow our way out of the situation that we're in versus the taxes.
I'm going to –
Let me – let me – one second.
Can you all talk about this list that everyone keeps asking for and the issues with that so that we can kind of clear the air on the who and all of that type of stuff?
Sure.
Thank you for the question, Chairman, and also Vice Chair.
So because the list is based on tax information and, as Comptroller just mentioned, is based on companies who file tax information and financial statements with the Department of Finance,
we did consult with the Department of Law about being able to release that list.
We're not able to under law.
We are working with the Comptroller and the Department of Law to determine what we can provide to city council.
But the list that you've asked for, we are not allowed to release because it contains tax information and confidential information.
That's the first time I've heard it.
Thank you.
I mean, that's a reasonable enough explanation.
I do hope that you're able to release some information, even if it's in the aggregate, number of companies, number of employees that that's based on.
And you're pulling tax data, current tax data for prior companies that fell into this category.
Is that what – is that what I'm to understand?
So what we would – what's been – so obviously because no one is currently paying the tax, an update to the list that we have from 2012,
we can sort of get at it the best we can, but it won't be a complete or a list that is accurate per se or complete.
So what we're talking about is the list of companies the last time the tax was in place, which is based on actual tax information,
is what we would be able to – what we would be able to provide if we weren't limited by the law.
So it wouldn't be a list of current people or current organizations who would be subject because we would sort of be guesstimating at that.
We would want to be able to release something that is accurate for a number of reasons,
but based on the fact that it's tax information from the Department of Law, we are prohibited from releasing that list.
I understand all of that, and it still makes me wonder, you know, how we get to the numbers.
I mean, so we're using – basing it on the last time we had the data.
I'm wondering, have you updated it with more current numbers just based on publicly available information?
I mean, companies will publicize.
I have 10,000 employees here, 400, whatever that is.
I believe this was asked through the chair of my office, and we did provide a response to it.
I can make sure that we re-up it to you.
I have the document.
I'll find it in here.
I'm sorry that I asked that twice here.
Okay, with my last minute, can we talk about settlements and judgments from the bond?
How did we come up with $283.3 million?
That estimate was provided to us by the Department of Law.
Okay.
I thought we asked that question earlier, and they deferred the question back to you.
So I don't want this to be a circle for you, so I apologize for that.
So, you know, we have to –
work with the Department of Law to understand what they anticipate will be settlements and judgments that they're going to be bringing to the city council over the course of time.
And there's there's there's it's a science, not an art, because it's reliant upon judges.
It's reliant upon the timeline. I'm sorry. Yes.
Thank you for always keeping me correct and honest, Chairman. It's been a long day.
It's an art, not a science. But maybe it's a science, not an art. I don't know.
But we it's, you know, judges and court timelines are at the whim of a judge when a party is ready to settle.
So it is it is our best estimate. And so we work with the Department of Law to make that estimate.
But this is really about the extraordinary global settlements that they'll be bringing over the next year or so to city council.
That will really reduce the city's long term liability and not only the amount that potentially could be per settlement, but also reducing the cost of of legal legal counsel fees.
Got it. And that I understand that the city continues to budget for settlements and judgments in the same way we have in the past.
So this is the amount that is estimated to be above what is normally budgeted.
We're not taking what we normally budget and financing it instead.
This is amounts above as as.
No, thank you for clarifying that. I think that's important.
So embedded in this is the 90 that we've already settled on for the Watts case.
Right. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Jill, when the GEO debt rating report came out in November.
The report said that we had a one in three chance in the next two years of being further downgraded.
And one of the there were like three things that they said they were looking at.
One was to reduce the amount of one time solutions.
And I guess my first question is, to what extent in this budget compared to the budget that we're in now,
have we reduced the amount of one time solutions?
Is there a percentage number you can give me?
So the amount of one time solutions in this budget is approximately 40 percent.
And what was it in 2025?
I think it was around 32 percent.
I would say one of the things you can look to, Chairwoman, this year's budget included about seventy four million dollars in ARPA funding to support our ongoing costs.
We're not doing that. That's no longer the case for 2026 or beyond.
So there there are a number of things that we've done.
You know, I know that we had a whole hearing on this on Monday, but a lot of the things that we're starting on the cost saving sides will begin to bear fruit in year two, year three, year four,
which are structural in nature and reducing our costs.
So that's another way that we are reducing reliance on one time measures is by actually reducing costs and the cost of government.
OK. And then it said the failure to increase our fund balance.
What is our fund balance now and what do we anticipate our fund balance to be at the end of 2026?
So do you want to take that?
I'm sorry.
So our fund balance is composed of several components and consistently after the infusion of cash from ARPA, it's been around, I think, 360 to three hundred and eighty million dollars.
And, you know, we have we have we have a portion of it that manages to determine what speed I can see.
Can you hold it? The chairman's nose blowing is very loud.
OK.
Really?
Well, you can or you can speak up a little bit.
Yeah.
I got jokes. All right.
So we expect to be in that range.
And I would I would just say this about the rating agency.
So when you have an outlook change, that means 18 to 24 months, something's going to there could potentially be a change.
There's a lot of latitude.
So you have you start with the rating category.
You have a plus, neutral and minus.
And then you have outlook changes and those are stable, negative or positive.
And then you have something called watch, which is much more immediate and we're not under a watch.
And I think one of the things the budget director is trying to express is that they look when they look at a credit, they look at a variety of factors.
And and ratings are supposed to be prospective in nature, meaning looking out three to five years.
It's one of the reasons why rating agencies ask for three to five years of past budgets and financial statements.
So some of these recommendations that have come in on cost management and the EY study will happen over a number of years.
So when the rating agencies evaluate us, they're not going to focus in on just one factor, they'll take those new things into account.
OK, but my question, Mr. Belsky, was what is the current fund balance and what do we anticipate our fund balance to be at the end of 2026?
Well, the the assigned fund balance will will be consistent with what it's been over the last few years of about three hundred and sixty to three hundred and eighty million dollars.
And you expect that to hold for the rest of the year.
OK. And then it says to hold on.
Let me let's take a step back.
The fund balance, what she what she's asking is you got the assigned fund balance.
You have the unassigned fund balance.
It's not a part of the assigned fund balance, the reserves.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. What did you say?
Reserves are not part of the assignment.
OK, so we have.
OK, but the unassigned fund balance essentially has been wiped out.
Now, the IGA with Chicago Public Schools will bring our unassigned fund balance to what?
So with the agreement that was signed with CPS, we anticipate receiving the 175 in 2026 for our 25 budget, which will right now, based on the forecast, we're looking at a surplus of between 20 to 30 million dollars.
But again, we've put a lot of cost saving measures in place this year, so it could be higher than that.
OK. So at the end, when we close the ARPA, the ARPA, not the ARPA, but the ARPA, they keep changing the name on it, but the finance, the year, the year, the ACFR, thank you, thinking of CAFR, the ACFR will essentially show us with a unassigned fund balance of 30 million plus, give or take.
When the ACFR is done, you know, yeah, I mean, obviously, we're you know, there's still a lot of uncertainty around where the revenues will come in by the end of the year.
But we're hopeful, given the cost saving measures we put in place this year, as well as the fact that we now have the CPS signed agreement that the ACFR will show a surplus for the year.
OK. All right. Thank you.
All right. And you just reminded me on that. Well, let me finish this.
What? OK, hold on. Hold on. Go ahead.
Because I got lost. I was OK when she asked a question and he said around three hundred and eighty million.
But then when you all started the conversation, I still don't know what that number is.
So there are different components to the fund balance. You have the reserves, you have what's assigned and you have what's unassigned.
So in total. So she's asking a total. We just can't give a total based on what the question she asked.
So last year, the unassigned fund balance was zero.
And I think it equaled what we did not get paid by CPS.
And I think what's being represented is that we do have an intergovernmental agreement and we're expecting to get paid by CPS.
So that unassigned fund balance should be equal to that amount we received.
We're pretty close to it.
But that's being counted for twenty twenty five, correct?
Correct. So. Right.
So my question is, at the end of twenty twenty six, what do you anticipate that number will be?
What's not budgeted would be available, which is about thirty million.
We haven't done the forecast for twenty twenty for end of year twenty twenty six yet.
All right. And I think the third thing they pointed to was not increasing the advanced payment.
Now, in the last few days, you've increased that number.
Is that correct?
Yes, there's been discussions around.
Thank you.
In a way, I forget how much an anomaly becomes the franchise message so that we can use that number.
Increasing that number modestly to get to a full 50 percent of the funding.
We were at 46 percent before.
So, you know, again, we view that as, you know, a really positive indication of the city's commitment to the funding, even in a year in which we – a commitment to making the payment, even in a year when we don't have any committed funding for it.
And let's keep in mind, hold our time, keep in mind that the amount that was set aside to pay that is gone.
The, you know, the amount under Lightfoot's executive order, we use surplus money to do that, which now no longer exists.
And we are literally taking dollars out of the – out of our regular operations to make a payment that's above and beyond what we're required to do.
So just to put that in perspective of what we're actually committing ourselves to do and what, you know, what the grand scheme of that look like and that funding source no longer exists.
I'm not arguing that.
I just am trying to ask some questions.
The TIF surplus, has that number changed at all?
Are we still going to be at – what was that number, $1 billion?
The amount of the surplus hasn't changed.
The conversations we've had over the last month with members of city council, helping them be able to understand the reports,
understand how the TIFs replenish, also around projects that they're interested in ensuring dollars are secured for.
Those are the conversations that have been happening.
Okay, so that number stays the same.
Correct.
Jill, what's – from the STSC refinancing, what's the expected savings, you think, from this refinancing?
So we've been – you know, we sort of – when we started with the financing, we were thinking we'd get about $10 million of savings
that would be accrued to this fiscal year, 2025, and about $30 million to the 2026 fiscal year.
It looks like we might get a little higher than that, possibly even up to $40 million, but we'll have to see.
Today was – market fell – sold off a little bit today, and, you know, we'll have to see where it is next week when we actually do the sale.
But, you know, we've been sort of planning on – expecting about $30 million in next year's budget.
Okay, and how much debt is outstanding in the STSC now?
Give me a moment to look that up.
There is currently $5.6 billion in STSC principal outstanding.
500 – oh, God, my pen broke.
526.
5.6 billion.
Got it.
I guess my last question is, are we issuing both the GEO and the STSC refunding bonds at the same time?
Right now we're only issuing STSC.
We're not doing any GEO in this sale.
Okay, and Jill – I mean, not Jill, Annette, in the finance general, there is $197 million-plus in scheduled wage adjustments.
What is making up that total?
Thank you for the question.
And I'm actually going to send it to my managing deputy over workforce to answer that question, Kevin Murphy.
Thank you, Kevin Murphy.
Hi.
Could you turn on the mic right, the public comment mic?
Sorry.
There's another mic over.
Yeah, there you go.
That's good.
It's my stand-up routine here.
Hi, Alder.
I apologize.
Could you repeat the question?
Yes.
In finance general, there's $197-plus million in scheduled wage adjustments.
I'm trying to figure out what is making up that total.
Thank you.
Kevin Murphy, managing deputy budget director.
The finance general includes in the 0003 account for scheduled wage adjustments includes –
I'm sorry.
Can you speak up?
Yes.
Sorry.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Thank you.
So, in the 0003 account, finance general for scheduled wage adjustments, it includes the payment for the local two contract.
That will bring funds up to the 2026 rate that was negotiated in the most recent agreement that was ratified, as well as funds for outstanding agreements.
We have certain contracts, specifically with the PBPA, there are three bargaining units that are still in negotiations that may have increased costs associated with that in 2026, as well as retroactive costs for implementation of the Unit 2 agreement with the SEIU and IBW units, as well as the non-represented COLA increases.
Do you know how much the non-represident COLA increases amount to?
For the corporate fund, it's approximately $6 million, but we can get it through the chair.
Okay.
And just as a note, we shifted this year for the first time, which will continue into 2026.
The non-represented COLA increases actually occur in July.
That aligns with the date that the COLA increased for prevailing rate employees within the city of Chicago.
So, that actually does save the city money.
It saved us money in this year's budget and will save us money in next year's budget as well.
Thank you very much for that.
My time is expired, Mr. Chairman.
Do you have anything else?
I'll come back if I do.
You sure?
Okay.
Very well.
Autumn McQueen.
Chair.
Good evening, Budget Director.
Can you touch on how the most recent decision in Washington centered around hemp is impacting the current budget?
We're still in the midst of analyzing that decision, but as you noted, when I went through the revenue ordinances, it did not include the hemp, or sorry, the management ordinances did not include the hemp regulatory framework.
Obviously, we are disappointed because, you know, just because Washington puts that in place doesn't mean the activity is going to stop in our communities.
And, you know, so we're still analyzing that legislation to better understand what role the city can continue to play to ensure that we are ensuring that those types of products don't reach our kids.
And remind me again, how much money did you sort of have forecasted from hemp?
In year one, $10 million.
And, Jill, just want to make sure I got this right.
The additional supplemental pension payment is up, or it's 50%.
What was the actual increase?
So it's now up to $130 million total.
So that represents 50% of?
Of the $260 million that we had calculated.
Okay.
Yes.
And then just going through my notes, Budget Director, in your initial presentation before us, you had mentioned there's $3.5 billion in TIFs.
Is that right?
I'm sorry.
Could you say that?
That's what we have right now in our TIF account, $3.5 billion?
That's correct.
And is it accurate that we make about $1.3 billion every year?
So this year we made about $1 billion in our TIFs.
Next year we are forecasting based on data that we've received to see that increase to $1.3 billion.
So every year it's increased by about $300 million.
Okay.
Yeah, that's accurate in my notes.
No further questions, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn.
Next we're going to go to Alderman Moore, followed by Alderman O'Shea.
Thank you, Chairman.
Question on the...
land sale, Office Consolidated Land Sales and
Existing Leases. Just to be clear
for any confusion out there, that does not
include any vacant land, correct?
Are we talking about what's in the budget? Yes. No, it includes both
the termination of leases as well
as the sale of vacant land. That's owned by the
city. That's owned by the city. So is it a, help me understand
is that a codified ordinance that we're talking about that we're just selling
certain pieces of city-owned vacant land and has that
been broken down? Because I'm trying to understand where
it is now. So let me give you an example and you tell me what the
difference is. So I have city-owned vacant land in my ward
and right now if we want to do development we
either talk to developers or we put out RFP. At that
time, they either answer RFP or they come
with a plan and then we decide to sell that land. It comes through city
council, we vote on it. Is that taken away at all?
No. So, you know, for any procedure that currently happens
in the city that still occurs by that procedure. So all
land sales go through the housing committee first and then comes before city
council once passed out of the housing committee.
Right. So there's nothing that we're codifying
just for the record that says it gives the authority to any
administration to sell city-owned land
without coming through council.
So, again, this is the, you know, we do land sales every year. We
actually forecast land sales every single year in our budget.
Goes through, DPD brings those before the housing committee. Every year
prior as we're developing the budget, we work with DPD to understand what
land sales will be bringing in the coming year to understand, you know,
conservatively what we should be including within the budget. So we've worked
with them this year and they provided us a number to include within the budget
based on what they'll be bringing to the housing committee first next year and
then for approval and consideration by city council.
Okay. Thank you.
That's it.
All right. Thank you.
Alderman O'Shea followed by Alderman Nugent.
Good evening, finance team.
I'd like to start out talking about the head tax.
In the original proposal, it was
$100 million could be generated
for companies of 100 or more employees.
And then
earlier this week,
it was altered to
companies with 200 or more employees.
And then
this afternoon,
colleagues that were in meetings were told we were,
there was discussions today about going back to 100
or more employees.
And now we're here and we're back to 200 or more employees.
Are we going to stay firm at 200 or more employees for the head tax?
I think that for, you know, the things that we're proposing in the budget,
we're engaged in conversations with members of city council,
listening to them, understanding what their concerns are,
taking suggestions, considerations back to our team,
understanding what we can do legally,
and also understanding what the impact of changes to what has been proposed
would be to the revenue.
And so if we're going to stay at 200 or more employees,
how many businesses in the city of Chicago do we think could be
affected by that?
So that changes the percentage from the 3% that was
reflected in the original proposal down to 1.5% of businesses in the city of
Chicago.
And how many employees will that cover?
Again, we don't have
updated data on the number of employees by
employer in the city of Chicago.
Our estimates are based on the forecasted number based on when this tax was last in place.
So are you saying the biggest source of revenue we have
in this budget proposal,
we don't even have accurate numbers and we want to vote on this
within the next couple days?
That's not what I'm saying.
And this isn't the largest revenue source in this budget.
What I have mentioned, we are able to do estimates based on information that we have
and we're pretty confident in the numbers that we've provided city council and that we've put
in this budget.
Are there any exemptions, grocery stores, restaurants, et cetera?
Non-profits are exempted from the head tax, those with under the current proposal before city council,
those with 200 full-time, under 200 full-time employees.
But as you know, based on how our state law and the state constitution is crafted,
we cannot impart taxes on specific occupations.
And so we can't exempt out industries in any of our taxes unless we are given the direct authority
to do so from the state.
Fourteen years ago, two of my colleagues, Alderman Tunney and Alderman Riley,
worked with a prior administration to remove the head tax.
And in one of our initial budget hearings a week, two weeks, three weeks ago,
it was mentioned that the estimates were coming off of workforce numbers during the Emanuel administration.
Was there any adjustment in your numbers based on the fact that since 2012 the world has changed
and since the pandemic, we have more and more companies working remotely?
And how would we adjust such a thing?
Sure.
As I had mentioned, you know, we do our best to factor into every revenue projection that we give
to city council factors like the ones that you're talking about.
So, you know, we're always conservative in our revenue estimates because of the things that you're talking about.
Behaviors might change.
Obviously, companies are always looking for tax avoidance and so forth.
And now companies that have employees that start coming in two days a week,
which should be under the 50 percent threshold.
How do we account for that?
As I mentioned before, you know, on some level for any revenue that we estimate,
this is any revenue that we put before you.
There's certain things that we can account for and certain things that until it happens,
you know, and the behavior dictates changes that we can account for.
So we have put before you a revenue estimate that factors into our best ability,
the behavioral conditions that we think will take place in the city.
Okay.
I'd like to switch gears.
I'd like to talk about the capital improvement plan.
We have CIP is now at $18 billion.
$3.9 billion of that is in the bond portion.
How will we pay for those bonds?
What will that revenue source be?
Sure.
The bonds are currently paid for out of a combination of property tax levy
and corporate fund contributions for the bonds that are issued as GEO STSC.
Excuse me, GEO STSC is paid for out of sales taxes.
The aviation bonds are paid for out of revenues from the operations of the airports
and the water and sewer bonds are paid for from the water and sewer charges on the five-monthly utility bills.
And if by chance we are downgraded, what could those costs go up to?
We had gone through that at the prior hearing, but let me pull up the memo again.
So we – I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong paragraph.
Give me a moment.
So we had looked at the amount that – in the prior memo we had looked at the amount of bonds we expected to sell through 2028,
which was $4.3 billion, so relatively close to the number that you were talking about,
and that a downgrade would mean increased borrowing costs potentially of around $450 million
over the full term of those bonds until they matured.
Not $450 million through 2028, but $450 million through their final maturity.
Not $450 million through 2028, but $450 million through their final maturity.
We will review it.
Thank you very much.
So in closing, these numbers don't add up.
I think we really need to go back to the drawing board on some of these things.
I think we need to find more efficiencies.
The level of borrowing we're talking about, the amount of pressure we're going to put on the next generation, when none of us are here,
I'd really like to see and I'd really like to be a part of being a group that could talk about more efficiencies and avoid this job-killing head tax and this crushing borrowing.
Thanks, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Nugent, followed by Alderman Martin.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman, and thanks for the group for being here tonight.
I think it's very helpful.
We have lots of questions.
Just first, a clarifying question.
On page 5 in the paperwork you guys gave us tonight, the PPLT is at $416 million.
It's also up to 15%.
I'm assuming that's a new change.
We've gone up a percentage.
Yes, this represents a change from the introduction.
Okay.
It says it's $415, maybe $416 on this page 5, but then in the report on page 22,
with the increase to 15%, it projects to generate $312 million.
What is the projected?
That's a typo.
It's $416 million.
Okay.
Okay.
We'll get you an updated copy.
Okay.
What is the revenue source we're going to use to pay for the bonds?
I'm sorry, could you say that?
What is the revenue source we're going to use to pay for the bonds?
So the general obligation bonds are paid for with a combination of property tax and corporate fund dollars.
The STSC bonds are paid for through sales tax.
And the ordinance in front of you is for GO and STSC.
Aviation bonds are paid for from revenues from the operation of the airports, water and sewer,
from the water and sewer utility bills.
Okay.
I know Chairman Dahl had asked when she was up about the TIF, the TIF surplus.
When the budget was introduced, we had the TIF surplus at what was the number we had it at?
One billion.
Just one billion flat.
It's not flat.
I'm rounding.
Has the number changed since the initial budget address?
Have we worked with aldermen and given TIF?
Have we adjusted the surplus?
The amount of the surplus remains unchanged.
We have been working since the introduction with alders to review their TIF surplus reports,
understand their projects, ensure that the projects that they have in their wards have been encumbered.
Can we, if there's been any adjustments to any aldermen's TIFs since the budget address,
can we have that through the chair?
Once we have the final, you know, appropriation, the updated TIF estimates will be provided to city council.
Okay.
So based on the meeting we had Tuesday with EY, I thought it was a very good meeting,
and I thought there was a lot of really good suggestions on efficiencies,
and there seemed to be some things that I think folks in the box and up front seem to think could have potential for efficiencies.
Have you guys gone back and talked about any of the things that we brought up on Tuesday
and considered implementing them, or are they implemented in any of what we're seeing today?
So thank you for the question, Alderwomen.
We have spent – I just had this conversation with the head of the Civic Committee.
Of anyone who has read the report, read the data, spent time with departments, going over, analyzing scopes of work,
work priorities for next year to implement the savings that we have in this budget, it's me.
Hours and hours of time with our departments.
As we mentioned in our briefings with city council, of the 100-plus recommendations, 76 are reflected in this budget.
As EY noted, their year one doesn't mean 2026.
It means the first year of savings.
A lot of the 76 recommendations that are being implemented as priorities within 2026 with our departments
will take time to start to realize those savings.
But has anything been – have you guys gone back to the well since Tuesday and changed anything?
We spend a lot of time working on the recommendations that we put before you.
I'm unclear of what additional recommendations you are referring to, but I'm very happy to have that conversation.
Well, I think we talked about – we talked a lot about procurement.
We talked about fleet.
I think PM and sort of how we're dealing with our fleet.
I think we talked about organizational.
I think it was a number eight in the EY analysis, I think, how we're organizing.
I'm going to say it over and over again.
We have to look internally.
I don't think it's – the difference tonight from what I saw from the last time we all met was puppy to small dog and happy to glad.
We went from 100 employees to 200 employees on the head tax, and it looks like we went from 11% to 15% on the PPLT.
We have the highest PPLT in the country.
We don't even compare to other countries – or, excuse me, other cities in the country.
They don't – they don't even – most of them don't even have this.
They have taxes.
It doesn't look like this.
And I think that the head tax is a macro gut punch, and then the PPLT is – it's going to hit all of our neighbors.
It's Microsoft 365.
It's Google Workspace.
Like, this is going to hurt our neighbors.
This is going to hurt Chicago, and it sends a message that we're not a good place to do business in, and that's not the message that I want people to hear.
So I really – I look at that EY document like a North Star right now, and I am very uncomfortable with the fact that nothing seems to have changed since Tuesday.
So, one, I want to acknowledge the point you made that, you know, the PPLT doesn't exist in other cities.
You're right that, you know, the city of Chicago is different from peers and taxing structure.
A lot of our peers have a city income tax.
We don't have that, right?
If you're asking me, have we re-forecasted the amount of savings that we will get from the 76 recommendations that we have and that we are implementing in this budget,
the answer is we are confident in the numbers that we have put in this budget is what we'll be able to achieve conservatively in 2026.
But there's a lot of work that has to be done by our departments over the course of next year to begin to realize all of the savings that are in the EY report.
Again, a good majority, over 50% of what are the options in that report are being implemented starting in 2026, all of special events.
There's about eight or nine of the recommendations from organizational analysis.
The one procurement recommendation is being implemented in 2026, and you have both the chief – sorry, the comptroller and the procurement head that can talk about that.
So the overarching recommendation for procurement is to implement category management.
That in and of itself has a slew of sub-options and sub-implementation that goes in that.
But that is a fundamental shift to how we do procurement in the city of Chicago.
I understand.
Just two other things I just want to – I have concerns about any new spending.
I think the head tax revenue or the money that comes in from head tax, can you tell me again what we're going to be spending that on?
It's hard.
I don't know if it's because I can't see your mouth.
Sorry.
The head tax.
What are you spending the head tax money on?
Oh, 200 employee threshold, $82 million.
No, what are we spending it on?
Like what are you – I believe there was parameters of what you want to spend that – what you're dedicating those funds to.
So the fund is the special revenue fund that's restricted in use that can only be used on investments related to community safety.
So within that fund, and I believe it's in the appendix on slide 23, reflects that it's going towards GBV investments,
violence reduction programs, youth employment programs, youth intervention programs such as My Shy, My Future,
our community violence intervention programs, victim support program, neighborhood activation program within CDPH,
trauma-informed training and capacity building, as well as –
I got it.
I have the list now.
Thank you.
Are any of those new funds?
The one not new, some have increased dollars related to them to handle the fall off of ARPA dollars that also enhanced those programs during the pandemic.
Could you –
Could you –
Could you –
Could you –
Could you –
Would you be able to share with me which ones were increased with the loss of ARPA?
Sure.
Chairman, may I ask one more question?
I know in the Department of Environment, I believe that we are transferring CDPH employees over to environment,
and that is just a shifting of employees.
Yes.
I don't know if the commissioner would like to talk.
Did you hear me all doing that?
But are we adding additional employees into the department that are not just direct transfers from CDPH?
There are three net new positions.
Okay.
I want to be candid and on record.
I have concerns adding new employees when we don't have any money.
I just think it's really irresponsible.
It's not that I don't think the Department of Environment is a good thing.
I really respect the work that you do.
I just can't ask our communities to step up and pay all these fines and fees,
and then we're just spending more money internally.
We've got to do the opposite right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate it.
So if I might, this budget reduces within the corporate fund over 130 positions,
and net across all of our funds, we've seen a reduction in positions in the city of Chicago and have, frankly, for the last 10 years.
Let me ask this question.
We hear efficiencies.
We hear if we were to remove essentially what you all have, or $82 million in revenue and have to make $82 million in cuts,
what does that look like?
So if you're talking about it from the perspective of positions, by and large, the way that we would get to $82 million,
you'd look at where are your costs?
What is the driver of your costs in your budget?
The largest or the most expensive salaries and benefits in the city of Chicago's budget and 58% of our corporate fund from a position standpoint is CPD.
So in order to get at that level of cost savings, there's no way to do it without impacting CPD.
The next largest part of our budget is the fire department.
There's no way to get at that level of cost reduction without hitting our fire department.
And I am remiss to say things like this in front of my colleagues who are sitting here with me,
but the next three largest areas of our budget are CDOT, Streets and Sands, and Finance.
The smallest portion of our budget is actually 30 departments in the city of Chicago.
I would argue against fire because of their contract.
I mean, if you cut fire people, you're going to increase overtime, right?
So you're looking at core services, which is the basis of any municipal organization, police, streets and sanitation, transportation.
And out of those amounts, I mean, are there, have those have departments, and I've asked this, of departments, what does, does that mean that a pothole goes from X to X plus five?
I mean, what does that, what does that actually mean?
I mean, we talk about these things in kind of lofty terms, but I think there needs to be some understanding as to what does that actually mean?
What does that mean to Ms. Jones?
Does it mean that she gets her garbage picked up every other week?
What does that mean to Ms. Jones?
Does it mean that, you know, the pothole doesn't get filled for, I don't know what the average time is now, or the tree debris doesn't get picked up?
I mean, I think we need some clarity as to what does removing certain pieces of revenue equate to, we don't make widgets here, we deliver services.
What does that mean?
Thank you, Chairman.
So this is a great question, because this is one we pose to our departments, as we put before them target reductions.
You know, we asked them to do target reductions that do not impact service provision.
And that's what they provided over $200 million worth of reductions in their budget in the corporate fund.
And others was more than that, because we actually made some targeted reductions on other funds as well.
But, I mean, you have, you know, every major head of a department right in front of you, but it would absolutely mean a decline in service provision at the level that's currently being provided.
You know, streets and sands, it would be not being able to do garbage on a weekly basis.
It would be not being able to cut trees down at the rate that we cut them down now, or street cleaning finance, which I know a lot of people rely on to get checks out
and vendor payments to contractors that are residents of our neighborhoods, we wouldn't be able to push those out at the pace that we currently do.
CDOT, which, though they are on other funds, do have positions on our corporate fund,
and are the departments probably that your, other than streets and sands and police and fire, CDOT is the department that your residents probably see the most in their day-to-day lives,
would not see sidewalks done.
And I know this was brought up in the Capitol hearing yesterday about sidewalks and streetlights and poles, street, I'm sorry, traffic lights being replaced and maintained.
It would not happen with a reduction in, additional reduction at the level needed to plug, you know, the head tax,
do a full payment of the, of the advanced pension payment and so forth.
Can, can, I got you, Matt, Commissioner Turner, how long does it take to get a pothole filled in the city of Chicago right now?
Commissioner Turner, CDOT, I have to, I have to pull up that number on the SLA, but I can get that for you.
Okay.
20 days.
Okay.
I mean, I mean, these are, these are real questions.
Commissioner Stallard.
Oh, he's got, I'm sorry.
You didn't respond.
I'm sorry.
My apologies.
Oh, okay.
Well, so my question.
Testing.
Okay.
My question is if.
Yes, sir.
How much money would you save if you picked up garbage every other week?
We're still picking up the same amount of garbage.
It'd be a severe health and safety issue.
I didn't ask you that.
I just asked you how much would you save if you picked up the garbage every other week?
I'd say zero dollars.
You say zero dollars?
Zero dollars, I'd say.
How is that?
Well, we're still, we're still picking up the garbage.
The same amount of garbage we're picking up.
It's just good go every other week.
So I'm, I'm not understanding, I guess.
What if you, what if you had half the laborers that are picking up garbage today?
What if you had half of the, half of the laborers?
How, how do you, how does that equate?
How many laborers are involved in the operation of picking up garbage?
We put up 291 trucks a day and we're averaging right now about 31 person trucks.
So that's roughly 550 people?
Yes.
So again, if you had half of those people, you're still saying it costs you the same thing?
I wouldn't be able to pick up that amount of garbage every other week with that manpower.
It would, it wouldn't be possible because we'll, I can fill an alley in certain neighborhoods.
I can fill a truck.
I'm sorry.
I can fill a truck in certain neighborhoods on four blocks.
I'm aware of that.
But again, if you're talking about manpower, I, I, I couldn't put, I couldn't quantify that number
because there would be so much garbage in that alley that we wouldn't, two people wouldn't be able to pick up that amount of garbage
in an eight hour period.
Oh, I'm just, I'm just trying.
I understand.
I can give a perspective on that.
For example, when we worked together to get us to the 30 crews for forestry,
for example, it took approximately three years to trim a tree with 14 crews.
We worked together.
We got 30 crews.
We're trimming 90,000 trees a year now.
So I couldn't even imagine what those alleys would look like every other week.
Neither could I.
I'm just asking a question.
Alderman, I'll say you had a question.
I just want to be clear.
When I talk about efficiencies, I'm not talking about garbage pickup and potholes.
I voted for increases in the past to add more bodies to work in those two departments.
Now, we've talked for two years about animal control.
We got a county.
We got a city.
We got a county health.
We got a city health.
We didn't have a Department of Environment for how many years, but now we do.
We didn't have an OPSA.
We've created that.
I don't know where the efficiencies are.
We're still paying cops to sit behind desks.
And when I'm talking about efficiencies, that's what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about picking garbage up every two weeks.
And I don't think anybody in here has ever talked about that.
But I'm talking about making difficult decisions when we're asking taxpayers on a more than
a billion-dollar deficit that next year is going to be a billion-six.
And all these discussions we're having, they're going to take years and years to implement.
Well, we should have started implementing them two years ago.
How many departments do we still not have through-the-chair answers from?
And there's people in this building that want us to vote on something on Monday.
That's what I'm talking about when we talk about efficiencies.
Thank you, sir.
I'll respond to that.
Even with those efficiencies, you still don't hit the number.
Even with those efficiencies, you still don't hit the number.
You don't get the number, but you're telling Joe Taxpayer out there,
who's tired of getting his ass kicked, that we're trying, we're trying to streamline,
we're trying to save money, we're trying to stop raining our spending.
Not this.
Well, I guess the numbers, the numbers don't lie.
The numbers don't lie.
The only way you get to those numbers is to cut services.
We deliver services.
And I agree with you, yes.
Could there be some level of efficiency?
And I believe everybody in this room knows and understands that.
But that's not an instantaneous action.
And it's an action that has been built up over generations.
That now we are here and we're dealing with these things from pensions.
I mean, quite frankly, are the largest increases that we've seen
have been in personnel and pension costs.
We can't continue to give out 5% raises and not expect any revenue to support that.
Come on.
Let's be real here.
The only way you get to the numbers that people are talking about is to make service cuts.
Now, granted, could some level in the middle of middle management be removed?
Possibly.
And we still are at now, what, 70 million?
At some point, you're going to get to the bone.
And I don't know if residents really want us to go that deep where we begin to impact services that they rely on.
Now, I know that these are difficult decisions and these are difficult conversations.
But every person that I talk to says, hey, we don't want cuts in CPD.
We don't want cuts in streets and sanitation.
We don't want cuts in CDOT.
We want to preserve and move forward and move in a downward trend on violence.
We want to.
Everybody wants to do everything.
And you know what I'm about to say next.
Don't say it.
I'm going to spare y'all this one time.
But no, I'm going to spare it.
I'm going to spare it.
But I'm just I'm just trying to I'm just trying to at the end of the day, this equation must balance.
It must balance.
I'm just I'm just trying to understand.
I mean, when we say efficiencies, that's a that's that's that's that's cold for service cuts.
And I don't think anybody's signing up to cut services.
That's all on a Martin.
Thank you, Chair.
And good evening, everybody.
I have a few quick through the chair requests slash confirmation.
So one through the chair, can you provide the written ask that the mayor's office shared with state leaders prior to the fall veto session?
So this spring to help close the city's FY 2026 budget gap.
I'd also like through the chair, if you could list any EY related recommendations, you expect to work on implementation for in 26 and hope to realize savings in 2027.
And if you could also identify the point person and city government associated with those areas.
And then, you know, we might take votes as soon as Monday, at least with regard to the outstanding EY related through the chair requests.
Can you commit to get those to us before 10 a.m. on Monday?
Yes, we're working really hard to get all of the through the chair requests finalized.
The request you made.
I'm just going to stop you there because I have some more questions.
Yes, would suffice.
Go ahead.
Let her finish.
Alderman, let her finish.
I got I got to know you don't need around for that.
We know people are working hard.
Sir, just relax.
It's OK.
We're going to get there.
Go ahead and answer the question.
I think I was going to say your request related to the EY recommendations that are implemented this budget.
Alderman Riley and Alderman Vasquez also asked that through the chair.
So it is coming.
We'll get that to you.
OK, for this one hundred sixty six million in back pay, how much interest would be paid to service the debt for that?
Yeah, give me just a moment to look that up.
Retro, we're expecting the average annual interest to be about six million dollars a year.
And under our geo structure, we generally have to capitalize interest for the first year.
So total about 30 million in aggregate.
30 million on top of one hundred sixty six.
Yes.
And same question with regard to the 90 million in the Watt settlement.
We didn't break it out for just that one particular that one particular settlement.
But, you know, that would be probably I would say about 18 million or so over five years.
Mm hmm.
No, that's over five years.
So no, that that's not really correct.
It'd be probably more about 20 little over 20 million, I'd say low 20s.
OK, following up on a point, I think Alderwoman Lee had asked about CPD related lawsuits every year since FY 2020.
We've budgeted eighty two point five million dollars in twenty twenty four.
We ended up paying one hundred sixty two million this year.
I think we've already obligated two hundred sixty six point eight million.
Why are we continuing to use the same number?
So, again, you know, there are a couple of factors that have really increased the amount of the settlement costs above and beyond the eighty two million.
And just for clarification in the budget, there's one hundred and forty million dollars for settlements in twenty twenty five.
And so as it relates to the specific amount for CPD, there's certain things that are driving that above the budgeted amount.
One, courts are reopened.
There was a tremendous backlog in cases during the pandemic.
And so those are getting settled out.
And frankly, you know, to the extent that, as you know, courts, you can't always predict when a court is going to finalize a settlement or case is going to be finalized.
And the other thing that is driving the cost above and beyond the budgeted amount is the fact that the Department of Law is being more aggressive in trying to settle through these global settlements.
So my question isn't about the drivers.
It's why are we not being more honest about the fact that we are spending significantly more than eighty two point five million dollars and we're still holding on to a number that's six years old?
I think that we I think this budget does reflect that.
So we have included additional dollars in the budget for those extraordinary costs where in the in the bond.
That's that is exactly why we are proposing the bond ordinance to support those extraordinary costs above and beyond.
So the bond ordinance is you're conceiving of it would cover costs that have yet to be incurred for.
settlements and judgments that we would we would enter into next year you asked me why aren't we
being more honest and transparent about the costs of settlements and judgments my response to you
is that for 2026 we worked with the department of law to understand why the costs are going up so
much and what those drivers are and because of that their approach to getting these cases settled
quicker to reduce the level and liability to the city of chicago means that there's going to be
higher extraordinary costs than normal to the city of chicago over the next several years and that is
why we have presented a bond to city council to support those extraordinary costs of settling
those a lot quicker than normal so is for next year are you anticipating that a bond would cover not
just um the 90 million dollars spread over five years for watts but other cases as well as in
jill's presentation she mentioned that the bond is uh for settlements and judgments the line item i think
is 238 million dollars um as we have noted uh to city council um the department of law is bringing
cases uh through this new form of global settlements to not only discharge uh backlog cases from decades
ago which are extraordinary and are hitting our budget now um at a higher rate than normal um but
also to lessen the liability over the long term for the city of chicago for the bond authority um over how
many fiscal years um would the would this cover in terms of projects uh for which part of the bond
authority settlements and judgments or the cip the 1.3 um is the 2026 through 2027 authority for the cip plan
how much interest on the bond would be paid over the entire life
of it sorry can you ask that one point three billion um in the bond which would cover fy 2026
and 2027 what's the approximate amount of interest that would be paid putting aside credit rating
downgrade possibilities sure um the interest on that um is uh we are estimating to be 1.025 billion
dollars when would the first principal payment be made uh first principal payment uh that we
are modeling is in 2035 um with full amortization in 2047 for bonds we issue
in 26 and 2036 to 2048 for 27 for the 830 million in spending authority that we authorized earlier this
year how much of that has been issued to date um let me check with my team on the exact amount
uh we have issued just a modest amount i want to say around 60 million dollars i'll double check on
that that was for uh led service lines private side um and for some many money okay um my last question
is about the care pilot program so we heard from dr ige um a few weeks ago that cdph's plan
is to either discontinue or significantly diminish how the care team pilot currently works so instead
of responding to non-violent mental health calls to 9-1-1 it would be primarily proactive street
outreach with some uh occasional response to 3-1-1 related calls that's a significant departure from
how we set up the care program to begin with i'm wondering why that's being proposed or or not even
proposed planned because we're not voting on the specifics of that shift i think dr ege is in the
room if i'm not mistaken um torres managing uh deputy commissioner we can get you that information
through uh through the chair okay is my characterization broadly consistent with your understanding of the
um plan changes to the care program there is uh some you know chef that that uh there were considering
um but we can provide more information through the chair okay your actual question thank you
thank you that's all for now well why can't you all answer that i i i know what the answer is
um it'd be good to know more why we're changing it um
um and i understand the lack of utilization of the program but the vast majority of the positions
aren't filled so i if we're talking about the need to use um i think this is smart dollars um
really technically arpa dollars now but smart dollars once arpa runs out i i don't think we've
had a really robust and honest conversation with the entire council about how we are fundamentally
changing the care program particularly when the whole idea behind that program is taking calls
away from cpd that aren't the highest and best use of their time so if we're essentially saying
no you're going to go back to responding to those calls and we're going to do like proactive street
outreach which to be clear is good work but not what we had intended with cares no that's a fair
statement i i think and i think from the superintendent's testimony um i would uh liken it to uh uh like
work uh work rule type stuff this is my work this is my lane and it doesn't seem like the police
department is uh wanting to give that up for some for some reason i think you're right in what the intent
um is and and i i know we had talked about there was if i remember correctly the co-responder
model third office a co-responder and now now what i i think your your point is well taken related to
this shift in um policy uh on that and uh does probably deserve some more conversation so is the
co-responder model still in play or i don't think so i think we shifted to an exclusively
non-law enforcement responder model oh somebody got some okay very well come on let's add something
hello okay hi everyone jung yun chief of policy for the record thank you for that question um we
in conversation with the operational team cdph the steering committee that put together the mental
health support system expansion report um have been in continued conversations on how to best utilize
that program and so yes the co-responder model is no longer in place um and there are limitations to
the type of calls that can be dispatched to the care team so any threat of violence is something
that is not sent to the care team and so what we were finding is that there was um some extra
capacity of that team and continued need outside of crisis response and so what the team has been
doing and building out is more of that city-wide mobile mental health network so that they can respond
when an alder calls and says hey i see someone you know who could maybe use a wellness check
in my ward can you come visit and so it's responding to both added capacity as well as the needs that
we're hearing directly from aldermen and community members as a way to make sure that we are best
utilizing those hours and so it's not that we are um not doing the crisis response but that in the times
when there's not a crisis also dispatching people to respond to other types of mental health
needs yeah i don't know that that is consistent with what dr ige shared and it's also a pilot that
with so many vacant positions there are times where it has to be dispatched to somebody else because
literally there's not a team out um the hiring just recently started it was non-existent for many
months and i just i i think that with us having set up that program i think we should be in a
position to provide more direction about what we would like to see because if it essentially isn't
set up for success doesn't operate during evenings or weekends i don't know personally that i'm
comfortable of just kind of shifting towards something else without really doubling down to
say do you have all the resources and the guidance and the structures that you need to do what was
initially envisioned absolutely and again we're committed to continuing this dialogue and figuring it out
one of the issues we learned is that it was very difficult to retain and hire because of the time
limited arpa funding and so by moving it to the corporate fund for this next year we're signaling
our continued support so that we can go for this next year and then it's the corporate fund but it's
refunded by arpa dollars but it's on the corporate fund and so that is a signal that this is not going to
this program won't expire in a year so that's going to make it a lot easier to hire and fill those
positions because you know your job's not going to end in one year okay thanks uh miss uh yoon can you
tell me how much how much is this program um
uh
you
budgeted for in 2026?
I believe it's $3.3 million.
Okay. Can somebody see if
Dr. Ige is available and if she could potentially join us virtually?
Hold on one second. Is she virtual? We'll try to get her.
All right. Hold on. Autumn Newton? First. Sorry.
Who's on first? Let that happen first.
Ms. Hume? Yes?
I thought somebody, you intimated somebody had a response over there.
Oh, I thought Dr. Ige was going to respond. Is Dr. Ige virtual or no?
No, no. I'm asking. Can somebody get
Dr. Ige to join us? That's all I'm asking.
Okay. They're working on it. All right. We're going to come back to what you had.
We'll come back to that. Then I can do, I do have a point to move.
Go ahead. Just when Chairman Martin was
asking about settlements a minute ago, we settled a lot of cases this year. I just,
I was trying to figure out, are we financing these, these settlements or are we paying them
from the corporate fund from 2025?
The amount of the settlements that are above the amount that was budgeted to be paid out of
the corporate fund in 2025 is part of that financing number that I gave you. It's, it includes those
that exceeded the budget.
What's the, what, like, where are we with exceeding?
You know what? We'll have to double check where we are to date on 25 with exceeding the budget.
We can get that back. We can get back to you with that.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right. Alderman, I'm sorry. Go ahead, CFO.
Alderman Martin, the other question you'd asked previously was how much of the 2025
geo bonds have been issued, and that's $75.9 million.
Say that number one more time, please.
The part of the, the amount of the 2025 geo bonds that has been issued is $79.9 million.
Okay. Thank you.
Excuse me, $75.9 million. Sorry, I misspoke. Yes.
Alderman, welcome back.
Thanks, Chairman.
Give me one second.
So just a couple of three quick questions first.
On the social media tax, did you say three weeks ago you said you were going to provide
the Department of Law's analysis on this?
Have you provided that through the chair already?
I think that what I said was we would talk to the Department of Law about what could be
provided, as you know, and I don't know if you, did you ask?
No, you actually said you would.
No.
Might have switched later, but you said you would.
Talk to the Department of Law of what could be provided.
You know, with anything in the same way that we deal with our settlements and judgments,
anything that is the basis of litigation or that reflects our litigation posture would
not be something that would be able to be provided publicly.
I really don't think that's relevant here.
Other cities or the other states that have gone down this path have provided that publicly,
so I don't think that's a really good argument here.
How about the advanced pension impact?
Three weeks ago we said we wanted to see what that was.
Have you provided that, the long-term financial impact of the reduced advanced pension payment?
Was that in one of the through-the-chair requests?
I know we responded to all of them.
I think it was in the first day of questioning.
Yeah, let me look.
Okay.
Well, you can provide it through the chair if that's possible.
So on the head tax, with the new modeling, have we undertaken what the tax breaks were under the Trump administration
administration for the new list going up to 200?
Have we taken into account – I'm sorry, I cannot hear you.
So three weeks ago there was a question about how many businesses,
over 100 employees, receive tax breaks under the Trump administration.
At the time you said you didn't have that level of modeling.
Have you undertaken it since then?
We do not receive other – outside of the tax information related to the taxes that businesses pay to us,
we don't receive information regarding the taxes that businesses pay the federal government.
Okay.
It's interesting because that's been sort of the slogan of the budget.
So in the new bond ordinance that we got a few hours ago, just a question on how that's written up.
So in one section, 2.1, I think it's on the bond cap, it says the –
it's in the best interest of the city that the city's ability to issue from time to time should be done without further action by the
city council at various times.
Why are we further diminishing our power in this ordinance?
Well, what the ordinance does is it gives authorization to issue the bonds.
Are you asking why you're giving authorization to issue the bonds?
I'm asking why you don't have to come back to the city council at any time to issue the bonds under your sole authority.
Well, I mean, and if we – you know, if you did it differently, you could not give the authorization,
and then we'd have to come back and ask for the authorization again?
Do you have to go to the finance chair?
Well, I guess I don't fully understand your question.
What is the sort of alternative that you're thinking of?
Well, I think in years past, the finance officer would go to at least the finance chair and have them look at whatever tranche was being issued.
Are we doing that here?
Oh, we do definitely share with the finance chair all of our issuance plans, and we do, you know, discuss them.
I think, you know, Chair Dowell has some very specific questions about the SESC refunding that we are in process on
and we'll be selling next week, and that's reflective of the briefings and the material that we provide her and her staff.
Okay.
And then I'm reading a little bit further.
So we could do 40-year municipal bond issuances for infrastructure and facilities, right?
Yes.
Okay.
Have we done it before for operations, short-term operations?
40-year bonds for operations?
40 years.
I don't recall ever seeing one that was 40 years.
I'm not aware that we have for operations.
That's right.
We haven't.
I think, hold on, let's be clear.
There's the amortization, even though it may be part of a plan that has a longer runway,
the component that's dealing with, for lack of a better term, operational, like the settlements,
the retro is a much smaller time frame.
I think one is three years, the other is five, if I'm not mistaken.
That's correct.
Okay.
Sure, that might be true, but basically, you know, reading it, it says the length of the
term could be up to 40 years.
So anyway, if you could get a good response through the chair, that would be helpful.
And then are we going to get the amortization and repayment schedule before we vote on this
thing on Monday?
Yes, we can share that.
I mean, that was shown in the presentation, but we can provide that further.
What page was it on?
It was in the first section, or the second section after page 12.
So, okay, so we got the chart, but...
Yeah, we can provide more detail if you'd like, like in a table.
Yeah, typically, I think we get a little bit more than just the chart.
So whatever you could do there, that would be helpful.
Sure, we'd be happy to do that.
I do want to also say that, you know, you're asking about the operations in the long-term
amortization.
You know, we obviously are looking at a much shorter-term amortization for the settlements
and judgments and for the retro.
And, you know, it's not really my position to tell you you could make an amendment, but
I wouldn't have any problem if the ordinance specified that for those financings, it had
to be for that period of time.
So I, you know, we're very intent on that.
There is no intent to do long-term bonds for those costs.
Okay.
When we're looking at the EY report, there were 22 departments and offices that we had key
findings for.
And I think there's a lot of objection here to how much of the EY report is being implemented,
you know, for the quick fixes versus long-term.
What, um, what were all the other departments tasked with doing in the other office?
Were they tasked with the same thing of saying, hey, find cuts, find efficiencies, work as hard as you can to get them into this budget, or did we just focus on EY?
Because during the last few weeks of talking to some of the other departments, they had no conversations with your office, or they said they weren't part of the EY report.
Were you asked to make cuts? Were you asked to make other deep-cut efficiencies or deep efficiencies?
The answers really weren't there in terms of what we expect with this big of a budget gap.
Well, you have almost every department in front of you today.
Every department was given a target, and every department made cuts based on those targets.
The EY report is separate and apart from the targeted cuts that departments were required to make as part of this budget process.
The EY report was to understand what drivers and costs, as well as revenue opportunities, exist in the city of Chicago,
and that is what has been provided not only in this report but to city council.
So, and maybe I missed it, stepping out for a second, but were you going to do a list of recommendations based on FY26 savings
and whether they were being implemented in 26 versus the future?
Was that a detail?
I think I've been asked that question probably five times, and I've answered probably five times that there's a through-the-chair coming to that very, very request.
Okay.
Well, I think, Chairman, you know, it's pretty clear to me just listening to the room today that with the way this package has shifted over the last few days,
I just see an over-reliance on taxes, fees, new borrowing that's through the roof.
We've never seen this kind of borrowing before to fill this $1.1 million gap, billion, excuse me.
I don't think we're hitting enough on the efficiencies, whether they're in the EY report or not.
And EY, it's pretty clear that there's a lot more that we could dig out of this report and put into this budget.
So I think what we've been tasked with from our constituencies is get the efficiencies, get the cuts,
and I would just say we should go back to the drawing board.
You know, we're being told we're going to vote on this $18 billion package on Monday,
that we're going to vote on a revenue and management package on Monday.
And I think it's pretty clear from this room, and this is not even half of the council, what are we doing here?
I just don't know why you want to rush this thing through when we've got plenty of time,
as we had in the past, to go back to the drawing table and say, dig deeper in these efficiencies.
I'm a little surprised that 50 aldermen aren't here to ask questions.
That's their prerogative.
But we're talking about one of the largest budget gaps we've ever had.
We're going to have a massive one next year, and we're just making little tweaks here.
So I would suggest that we go back to the drawing table, shelve the management ordinance,
shelve the revenue ordinance, shelve the bond deal for the next couple, three weeks,
until we can come back to the table with alternatives to this package that the mayor keeps throwing at the constituencies
who have come back repeatedly and said, enough is enough.
Thank you, Chairman.
So what do you want to cut?
That's a real question.
I've got plenty of cuts.
I've got plenty of efficiencies.
They're right here in the EY report.
These guys have to dig deeper.
And it's not –
The budget is in the council's hands.
I'm not going to get into potholes and picking up trash.
That's not what this is about.
It's about management going back to the table and saying, get this job done.
I don't –
My constituents aren't sitting there saying, hey, this is a great budget.
Go ahead and pass it.
I agree with you.
There has to be other cuts.
Only thing I'm asking for –
And I'll put them on the table.
The only thing I'm asking for and have been asking for,
if people believe that they don't believe that the revenue is supported,
then this equation must balance.
It must balance.
I agree.
But I've heard very little about cuts.
Again, the budget is in our hands.
And if it is our desire as a council to make cuts,
then put the cuts on the table.
I can do that.
I will do that.
And ask him for that for months.
No, no, no.
We have put up several things for this budget director and CFO to get the job.
In mid-year, I've asked for him.
Nobody's responded.
I've asked for him from day one.
Nobody's responded.
And here we are at this point.
Again, we do have time to do that.
But, again, nobody wants to put that on the table.
So, again, if you want to put cuts on the table,
I will gladly listen to any ideas that people have as it relates to cuts.
Do you have any other questions?
No, sir.
All right.
You have an answer?
Go ahead.
Go ahead, CFO.
Aldrin, you had asked about the cost of the pension advance.
The cost of that is $10.6 million annually for the next 32 years.
It's probably actually – this is a calc we did before we added the additional amount this week.
So it's probably $10.5 or $10.4.
But when we calculated previously for the question, it was $10.6.
And we did confirm that we did provide a through-the-chair on this also.
And one last question there.
Do you model for downgrades, potential downgrades on that?
No, that's separate because that's essentially the amount of money,
the impact of it not being invested in the funds and, therefore, us having a contribution amount that reflects that.
So putting the – the advanced pension payment benefits us by putting that money to work in the funds
and, therefore, ultimately lowering our total cost overall.
So it's unrelated to cost of capital on our bonds.
No, I think he's asking, as it relates to a potential downgrade,
what in basis points and financially that will cost it.
Is that what you're asking?
Sure.
We had gone through that earlier, and I'm happy to look that up again as well.
Through-the-chair is fine.
And thank you to CDOT for getting their through-the-chair request in finally.
It just popped up a few minutes ago.
Okay.
Appreciate that, Chairman.
Thank you.
I want to go back to Alderman Martin's point around care and the change in methodology.
Dr. Ige has joined us.
And so could you pose your question again so that Dr. Ige can provide us a little more comprehensive answer?
Yeah.
So my question is –
Dr. Ige, I'm sorry.
Dr. Ige, are you hearing us?
Yes, I can hear you, Chairman.
Okay, thank you much.
Thank you much.
So go ahead, Alderman.
I'm concerned that we are shifting the care program away from one that's primarily responsible to responding to nonviolent mental health calls to 911,
and instead one that is doing proactive outreach with a little bit of response to 311 calls.
Thank you, Alder.
At my hearing, we shared a document that showed the service map for care.
So care is a 911 first responder program, and our plan is to make that citywide.
The other components are complementary to care, they do not replace care, so in addition to care, proactive encampment outreach is also happening,
and that is in collaboration with DFSS.
It does not replace care.
It is an addition to care.
So we also responded through the chair with our staffing plan, which is we have eight care vans now.
We have posted those positions.
We are going to backfill the vacancies, and our goal is to ensure that care is citywide.
We already have two citywide vans right now.
So in 2026, we will be able to cover all districts through 911.
In addition to that, we will have encampment teams, not care teams, but encampment outreach teams in collaboration with DFSS that will also be doing mental health support.
So all of this is consistent with the mental health equity expansion report.
That was developed by the task force that was commissioned last year.
So everything we're doing with CARE is consistent with that plan and the report.
So I don't understand how we can hold the same number of positions year over year and move citywide and then significantly expand the scope of operations
when I don't hear anyone saying there's a significant reduction in nonviolent mental health calls to 911.
It seems like we need to double down on responding to those calls, which requires continued collaboration with CPD, OEMC, and CDPH
before we say we're not adequately using all of the time of the existing teams.
Because really we're talking about like 13 positions that are currently hired.
So why not double down on figuring out how to better respond to the existing 911 calls
before we talk about expanding to encampment outreach and 311 calls?
Yes, we are doing both.
It is both and.
So the 911 calls, there are five call types that are eligible for CARE.
So responding to all of those eligible calls is a priority.
So that is happening.
However, we also know that with 988, 988 is receiving 17,000 mental health calls a month.
So that is also a pathway that has now developed to respond to mental health crisis calls.
In addition to that, if people are calling through 911 asking for mental health response, we want to also respond to that.
And finally, we know that there are mobile crisis teams.
There are 15 mobile crisis teams that have now been funded by the state that started in January 2025.
So collaborating with them is also a pathway.
So our approach is to ensure that there is no wrong door.
If you're coming through 911, we're there.
If you're coming through 211, we're there.
If you're coming through 311, we're there.
And if you're coming through 988, we're there.
And in addition to all of that, knowing that those with severe mental illness who are in crisis are often don't have insight into their conditions.
Over this summer, we did 1,000.
We were able to reach 1,000-plus people through encampment outreach.
So that is also another layer of support that we're providing.
So regardless of the pathway where people in crisis are coming to us, we want to be able to respond.
It just seems that we're relying on third-party contractors who are the ones who are receiving a lot of these funds to do the things that we were envisioning the care team to do.
I think that the question is, like, who is the we?
Initially, we said the we is going to be primarily the care teams, and then we're going to use that to figure out other calls for service,
like parking issues, and we're working through that pilot right now.
But it seems like we're just saying, oh, well, there are other entities that can do this, and we see in CDPH another need that has not been addressed.
So we're just going to shift the care individuals to do non-care-related work, which, to be clear, is important.
But I worry that we're just leaving this void, hoping that third-party contractors are going to pick up the slack.
And part of why we created the care team at the outset was no knock on third-party contractors,
but we were able to provide, I think, certain things, especially around health care benefits and even pay at times,
that was better than the third-party contractors.
I worry that we're shifting these resources around, and we're not ultimately going to get the sort of city-led response that was envisioned.
Thank you, Alderman.
We are not shifting the resources.
To clarify, the care resources and the advance that we have will be fully staffed.
So there is no shift in care resources.
However, looking at the data that we have, there are 12,000 admissions for severe mental illnesses in the city of Chicago just for depressive disorders alone.
So in total, there's more than 20,000 preventable hospitalizations from severe mental illnesses.
So with the shift in Medicaid and the lack of capacity in the hospitals to manage these illnesses,
we have to expand the safety net for people with severe mental illnesses.
Now, from the data we're receiving, the calls that come to 911 are usually from a third party.
Somebody's seeing someone who's dysregulated and calling 911 to come to their rescue.
What we have seen on the ground is that those who have severe mental illnesses, you need to build relationships with them,
and you need to do more proactive outreach to where they are.
So we want to use all the tools in our toolbox so it is not taken away from the care model.
It is complementing the care model because the need in Chicago is huge in terms of severe mental illnesses,
and we want to be responsive, especially for those in encampments, those who are on the streets.
They are not the ones who are going to call us on 911, but we also want to be there for them.
Those who call us through 911, we also will be there for them.
Thank you for the response on that.
Just a point of information to the budget director.
What's the cost of this expansion citywide?
Of the care?
Yeah.
So, again, it is currently budgeted at $3.3 million in 2026.
Six, as we work to fill the positions in 2026, we will continue to discuss with CDPH what additional expansions are needed.
Right.
Okay.
So you said $3.3 million now, right?
But then you have positions that you're going to hire into.
So that's the budget.
So even though positions are vacant, we budget for the full amount of positions.
So that's the full amount.
Okay.
We're going to go to Alderman Burnett, followed by Alderman Manor Hoppenworth.
Thank you, Chair.
Again, thank you all for being here.
You mentioned we had around 160 vacancies that we're not filling in totality based on this budget.
Is that the rough number?
Around 130 that were reduced out of the budget.
Around 130.
And from what I recall from the last presentation, it was around 100 that was in transportation.
95, and that's across more than just their corporate fund.
Gotcha.
So to Chairman's point, we are still impacting services at some point in this budget, for better or for worse.
When it comes down to the capital improvement plan, can you all walk through, for me, these bonds?
I know, do they incur interest at issuance, or is it when the funds are used?
So it's when we actually issue the bonds.
So because it takes time for a project, we have design phase, we have construction phase, and construction phase can last for quite some time.
The city shifted a while ago to supporting our capital infrastructure work through our letter of credit.
And then once the spending actually occurs in a substantial amount on the project, we issue bonds.
So we're not issuing bonds and having them sit with no spending happening.
Gotcha.
So we're waiting until it's actually ready to go to be spent so that when the bonds are issued, they're spent,
and we are recueing or getting the benefit of the dollars that we're going to pay off of right away.
Yeah.
And the CFO talked about this, I believe, during our budget hearing,
but our letter of credit facilities are at a lower interest rate than the bonds are.
So I understand.
I understand how we've always worked.
21% is where it currently sits in terms of our bond funding in terms of the total capital improvement plan.
Do we know where that compares to from the last capital improvement plans?
Sure.
I mean, so, you know, the capital improvement plan of $18.1 billion is not that different from what we published last year.
The increase in our capital improvement plan year over year is largely because of aviation
and the very large projects that are – I think it's called the TAP program that's happening at the airport
with the modernization, the additional terminals, and so forth.
So the plan in and of itself, we're actually – the two-year bond program, 26 through 27,
is actually lower than previous bond issuances, as you can see on the slide deck that the CFO put together.
It's actually smaller.
I understand that it's lower on an absolute basis,
but in terms of a percentage of how much we're spending using debt funding, where does that stand?
Yeah.
So, again, our bond, GEO bond, STSC bonds, as it relates to a percentage of the full funding,
we can get you that –
that, you know, what's the—
that, you know, that's safer, that's complex, and that's what we're most about it to be coming up as people,
we can—
There is a team of
of these…
you know, what it is in the current amount versus, you know, what it's been in prior years.
But that's actually, if you look at the totality of our capital plan, it's a small percentage of
the capital plan versus leveraging federal dollars, state dollars, our aviation and water funds.
I get it. And I really would just like to understand for my clarity's sake on
where we're insuring new debt, we're issuing another 800 million in bonds.
Where, how does it set up in previous history, right? Because we're still paying for some of
these bonds, which kind of leads to my next question, which is how long is the average
tenure of these bonds until we pay them all off? Because I see that there's an option to refinance
them. Is that the typical route in which we go into paying these bonds? We just refinance and
continue to push it down the line? Or do they close out? And how frequently do we close them out
completely? So when we refinance bonds, you know, our focus is on refinancing them for savings and
not extending the debt service. So we stay within, you know, we stay within the same, you know,
maturity range. We don't increase debt service in any year. So, you know, some years, the debt service
will be lower. Some years, it might be the same if we want to structure the savings into certain years.
But we do not go up on debt service. We do not extend in term.
And what is our track record in paying down these bonds in totality?
So right now, we have about, I think, 45% of the GO and STSC bonds are due in the next 10 years.
So we are, I'll double check that number in a moment. But, you know, we are paying down our debt
on a very rapid basis.
Okay, it will be awesome through the chair if we can see what that schedule of repayment looks like
over the next five years. Again, we're coming up to this point to the chair's point to Annette's point.
We have a billion this year of a shortfall. It's going to be a bigger shortfall next year.
Understanding the debt service piece could be something that could possibly be something we
address. When we talk about that it's 50%, I think was a quote of one time
fixes versus 50% structural. Is that, was that correct, what I heard earlier?
Correct. No, it's 60%.
60% structural, 60% structural, 40% was one time. And can we match with that? I know 60%,
40% structural in terms of revenue. Can we talk about how much of the costs are one time
and percentage basis as well? Yeah, it was actually in one of the, through the chairs that I provided
as part of my budget hearing. I can re-up that. It's on, it's also on my website. I don't have the
exact number of one time versus non one time, but we can definitely re-up that. And I also want to
correct the record because I've heard it a number of times today that we're going to have an even
bigger gap next year. The point of structural versus non-structural fixes is the structural
actually carries over year over year. So when you're talking about 60% of the fix within this
budget is structural, that's going to carry over into next year. That's roughly almost $660 million
carried over year over year. And so that's the type of thing that actually decreases your budget
gap in, uh, uh, out years. So next year, we're not looking at a billion dollar budget gap. We're
looking at a much smaller budget gap in 2027. I understand. And thank you for the clarity. Um,
it would be nice through the chair. I wasn't on that through the chair, you know? Um, so it'd be
good to understand. Sure. And just for anyone who wants to know all of the, through the chairs are on
my website as well. So you can always look there, um, for every single department through the chair.
Awesome. Good to know. Uh, can I add just one other piece of clarification too? I know that there
seems to be a, there's a lot of concern about how much bonding is for the CIP between, uh, 2020 and
2025, we average 700 million a year in authorization for borrowing for, uh, the CIP. And this authorization
is for 650 million for each of the two years. So it's actually, uh, down from what the, uh,
the five-year average has been. That's good to know. Again, I think about it. Alderman Quinn noted
that some people might not be here. I might over the next 30 years. Uh, I hope not. I'm not here 30
years later, but it is still going to be something that we as taxpayers are going to have to deal with
on a long-term run. And what we're seeing around the country is a lot of these, uh, a lot of the debt
coming to haunt municipalities. So I just want to understand the clarity on how we're paying down
these systems, uh, especially when we're talking about increasing revenue. And if we have to think
about more structural changes, possibly as if a CPI increase, uh, to real estate taxes would be a fix
there, but it's more part of the conversation. So thank you for presenting that information and for
passing through that information through the chair. Thank you, uh, Alderman Burnett. Just as a point
of reference, all of the through the chairs are both on OBM's website and the committee's website.
Uh, generally the through the chair request goes to the individual that requests it. Um, and then it
is also posted for general consumption. So just as a point, but all of the, uh, through the chairs are
posted on the OBM website, as well as the committee's website. This is a point of reference. All right.
All right. Why? Go ahead. Go ahead. I haven't looked at it yet. Is it posted by question date and question?
I mean, by department and question and question. Okay. All right. Alderman Manor Hopperworth.
Thank you, chair. Good evening, everyone. I had a question about the unassigned one balance. If you can go
back to make sure that I have it right. So right now there is nothing in there, but we plan to put
something in there after we get repaid by CPS. Is that right? Yes. So, um, last year, uh, because we
did not receive a reimbursement for CPS for the $175 million, um, uh, pension payment for the MABF,
um, our assigned fund balance went down to zero. Um, had we received that we would have, uh, closer
to $175, $180 million in our unassigned fund balance. But, uh, to the point that the chairman
was making earlier, when you put all of our reserves together, that's just one aspect of
the city's reserve. So I don't want people to leave this meeting thinking that the city does not have
reserves. The city has pretty robust reserves when you add all of them up. The 380 that the comptroller
talked about in over $500 million in our asset and Skyway concession reserves. Okay. So is that the,
is that the, about the goal that we want to be at? Obviously we want to ensure that we have sufficient
reserves to weather, um, downturns in our, um, uh, revenue sources, which is the point of a reserve.
Um, and, uh, you know, not having anything in our unassigned fund balance is not helpful in that
regard. I mean, this, to be frank, the city for, for a number of years until around 2017 had about
$0 in their, uh, their, their fund reserve. And so over the last, over the last, uh, several years,
the city has increased that amount. Um, and during the pandemic significantly increased that, but it
was largely only, um, uh, put in an assigned fund reserve for the purposes of paying the advanced
pension payment. So we are at the level that we were in 2019 in our, um, in our, uh, uh, assigned and
unassigned fund reserve. Got it. And then do we have any dedicated revenue streams to feed
the unassigned fund balance? Um, so the dedicated, um, so to go back to why we had such a large
assigned fund balance, uh, post 2019, it was the funding that was set aside for the pension payment,
um, that was spent down methodically in accordance with an executive order and a pension advance
policy that was put in place by the Lightfoot administration and carried forward under this
administration. Um, and so for, for our perspective, the way that you build up your fund balance every
year is through surplus. And so again, we work really hard to mitigate our costs, uh, which you
saw both last year, as well as this year. Um, I think last year we had about $300 million less in
expenditures than budgeted. Um, and we're targeting to, to do a similar or even more this year. Um, and that
will create the level of surplus that we're hoping can help to replenish the, the fund balance, um,
unassigned fund balance in particular with the, um, agreement that's now in place with CPS to actually
pay the 175 that goes a very long way to ensuring that we end the year, not in a deficit, but with a
surplus. Got it. Thank you. And then I had a question about, well, the head tax, how is it going to
affect? We don't, we don't have big businesses in the 48th where we have a lot, a lot of small
businesses. And so I'm concerned because of the changes that we had. Well, we, each of the
departments were tasked to, to make cuts, I believe. Is that right? Like six, six, six, 6%
every department. It was proportional based on their proportion within the corporate fund.
Okay, so BACP was tasked to do the same exercise, and how much was cut from?
I don't have off the top of my head how much each department was asked to cut and how much they cut.
I will say the vast majority, we were really good.
The vast majority of departments came in at the target that we gave them, including CPD.
So we can definitely look to see how much in any particular department that you are interested in, how much they actually cut.
Yeah, I just want to address the idea that we're not business friendly in Chicago.
And everyone, including the businesses in my ward, they want more businesses.
And so with the addition of more fines and fees and taxes, can you help me explain to people in my ward,
including my local chambers of commerce, who are very concerned because we have many small businesses,
and we want more businesses, we want the existing businesses to survive and to thrive.
But if we put more fines and fees and taxes on them, I just need to be able to explain in simple terms how this budget is good for them.
I know a lot of people like to refer back to the report that we put together with EY,
but one thing that that report also does is it helps to confirm what we, in a lot of our business,
a lot of our departments, including BACP, already knew, which is our city, as it relates to fees, permits, things like that,
we are woefully under our peer cities in how much we charge.
To be frank, our fees are based on how much it costs us to provide that service.
So when we're talking about the employees who have to sit and review business applications,
talk on the phone with businesses about their applications, where they need to change,
or maybe they didn't apply correctly, those are real people doing real work to process applications on behalf of our businesses
so that they can actually do business in Chicago.
And we don't require a permit for someone to do business just because we want people to have permits, right?
The city council passes ordinances that businesses have to be in compliance with for the safety of the people who frequent that business.
And so the salaries and wages, the technology, the work that it takes to process a business application, it costs money.
And what that EY report shows, especially in our business license permits and fees,
is that we are woefully under what the same types of businesses who do business in New York, L.A., Philadelphia, Seattle, Houston,
we're woefully under.
So those same businesses or the same types of businesses are paying higher amounts for those to do business in those jurisdictions
than what we are currently charging.
And I think that that's important for us to recognize and sit with.
We have to be able to run a city.
We have to be able to provide that service.
We have to be able to ensure that the very ordinances that are put in place by this body
can be carried out for the safety of the people who frequent those businesses.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
I just want to remind folks that, you know, small businesses, especially mom and pops,
you know, every dollar that you spend there, 70% of it stays in the local economy.
And really, localism is what we are saying that we value and promote.
So I hope that we continue to figure out ways to make our processes more efficient so that we can get the revenue
that we need to pay people to do the jobs and also to increase small businesses in Chicago.
Understood.
And I think that we are equally aligned with you in that desire and equally aligned in actually doing the work
to streamline our processes and make our work more efficient.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Manor-Hoffenworth.
Alderman Curtis, you have anything?
Alderman Coleman?
Yes.
I have a pulse a little bit on counsel, but if this package is not accepted, what is the alternative?
We continue to be open to the recommendations, options, and suggestions that are put forth by this body.
Before December.
What's your date?
Chairman?
We must pass a tax levy by the last Tuesday in December.
I don't know what that date is.
If somebody pulls out a calendar, they can tell me.
I hope it's not Christmas.
But the last Tuesday in December is the 30th.
So that is our absolute drop-dead date is December 30th.
Anything else, ma'am?
Our accountant.
Ah, okay.
That's all?
Okay.
Vice Chair?
Just a quick through the chair.
I know just following up on what Alderman Manor-Hoffenworth was just asking for.
Can we get through the chair all of the scenarios that were submitted by the departments for their potential cuts?
I know you said you could supply it for whatever department she was looking for, but I'd like to see it, if it's possible, for what everybody submitted.
I think we can provide some items to city council around what departments submit.
But I have to be frank that we work really closely with our departments.
Some of the things that they submit need a little fine-tuning and tweaking.
Some of it isn't always accurate.
So I am reticent to provide something that isn't exactly what, once we work with our departments, actually is what makes it into the budget.
Yeah, so, I mean, you've heard a lot of us ask for today just, well, I think we have to take a really balanced approach to the budget.
You know, I'm not suggesting that anything comes off the table at this point, but part of what you all have access to is different from what we have access to in terms of just information.
So, you know, I hear the chairman saying, like, so what are the cuts, what are the efficiencies?
We don't have the real ability to do that without some of this information.
So I really encourage you to provide as much as you can.
I know you're going to provide whatever you will do, but I have to get that on the record to ask for it because we're struggling here.
And I think there are many of us who want to – we're here at almost 9 o'clock.
There are people here who are willing to put in the work to do it.
But so help us help ourselves, I guess, is what I'm asking for.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Any other questions?
Anything else?
Alderman Fuentes.
I should go back to sitting in my original seat so you can see me.
My apologies.
Well, thank you all for being here.
I know it's late.
We're rounding out at about 9 o'clock, and we're still tackling budget questions.
And I appreciate the commitment to getting us through this.
Director, you answered Alderman Burnett's question about the positions cut on the corporate fund.
Can you just, for clarity, tell us how many people being laid off are going through union reduction in the force,
and how many cuts on the corporate fund and any other fund through this budget?
How many people are being laid off or how many cuts?
Correct.
There's no layoffs happening in the city of Chicago.
We do have some restructuring.
We do have, as we do every single year, those who are on grants that we receive from the federal government or the state that expire.
And so, as we do, as we say, with any grant-funded position subject to receiving additional funding or replacement funding to support the work if it's still needed.
So, just like we have every single year, we do have some grant-funded positions that are ending at the end of this year.
So, there are folks today that got layoff notices.
They may have been ARPA-funded, right?
So, those dollars are expiring.
How many folks won't have a job after this budget cycle?
All of those people who received those notices will have a job.
How so?
So, the notices that you're talking about are related to a restructuring of a department, so positions no longer exist in that department.
The reason why they will have jobs, we're very, very intentional about understanding any type of restructuring that could impact someone's work.
And so, we can, based on their collective bargaining agreements, there is a certain process that we are required to undergo that both allows them to be put into equally graded positions of equal pay.
And so, we've done that analysis, five people in the entirety of this, in the entirety of the city of Chicago's 36,000 employees.
We know what positions they are eligible to go into based on their collective bargaining agreement.
We have over 100 of those positions available.
Okay.
And the individuals who got those notices?
Are we in communication with them about the positions that they will be eligible for?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
Alderman Cardona?
Thank you, Chair.
So going back to Vice Chair Lee, hopefully through the chair we could get those cuts by each department through the chair.
Hopefully by tomorrow or tomorrow evening by the latest before we start thinking about coming into Monday and voting on this.
Because I think it has to be very transparent that, you know, that what you did in each department, what cuts and efficiencies did you do in each department so we could be aware of what's going on as of how the budget is formed.
But most of my questions are answered.
They were asked, but I do want to share, Chair, Vice Chair Lee, about those, what are the cuts for each department, what the process, what they went through, and what efficiencies were made.
Okay.
All right.
Vice Chair?
I just want to say something that I didn't get to say earlier.
Y'all know we're all here.
We want to work on it.
But I really don't like that we're being forced to – it looks like we're being forced to vote on this on Monday.
I'm nowhere near ready to do that.
I was offered a sit-down with the mayor, and I have not made the appointment yet because I wasn't ready.
I needed to get through these hearings.
And we just got the CIP, and I know it's lower on average than it was for the last five years.
That's great.
But why do we need to borrow so much in general?
Well, it's late, and it's the end of the day at this point.
I'm really reticent to – I don't want to have to vote on this next week.
I think we need more time, and I would challenge anybody who has been coming to these hearings and looking at all of the empty seats that we've spent enough time looking at what's going on with this over-billion-dollar deficit that we have to close, and we know we need to do that.
And if we don't take the time to really set ourselves on the right path, I'm really concerned about what the future is going to hold.
You know, I've been concerned about out years since three years ago when I got here because we knew this was going to be over a billion dollars this year.
We're not asking – we know what the real deadline is.
We need more time to sit down and work together to do that.
I just – now, I'll go on the record of that.
I'm not going to be ready to vote on this on Monday, and if this is what we're forced to, I know where I'm going to be.
And I don't think that's a productive conversation at the end of the day on behalf of the people of the city of Chicago.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions, any other comments?
All right.
Well, you're going to put your Michael Jackson outfit on?
Well, first off, I do want to thank our director, our CFO, and our comptroller for coming back again
to answer our questions.
I do know the hour is late, but just to let you know that we do appreciate the answers to the questions that have been given.
Also, to our illustrious executive management team in the box and out in the audience, we thank you for your participation this evening as well.
And for everything that you all have done in this process to help us get to this point.
I know we are not finished with it, but we're finished with this component of the process where we've had the departments to come before us and answer questions.
I'm sure there will be more things I'm sure there through the chairs that also will be continued to be submitted for as we move, continue to move forward in this process.
Also, we want to thank the staff from Council Services that has been with us throughout this process, Mabel, Javis, Lance, Ms. Franklin, Carson, Tiara, Margaret, Ms. Hicks, and also Ms. Bryant.
Also, the officers that have kept us safe and sane, Sergeant Dewey, Sergeant Malm, Sergeant Whitlock, Officers Bale, Harper, Zapata, and Garcia.
We also want to thank the staff from LRB that's been with us.
Mike, he's still here.
And also our staff from COFA that's been with us the whole time.
Director, Oda Gray, Katie, Chloe, and Alex.
And then I also want to thank the staff of the committee who has also, you know, been with us throughout this duration.
Some up here with me and others in the office who've been processing all of the through the chair requests and getting the information as we receive it back from the various departments.
And believe it or not, our reporters are still here with us as well.
So thank you for thank you for hanging out with us as well.
And finally, I want to thank our reps from Corp Council who have kept us in bounds, Riatu and his team.
And congratulations on your promotion to Deputy Corporation Counsel overseeing us in this division as well.
And then who else?
We've got also our two Deputy Assistant Corporation Counsel's, Ray Phillips Santos.
Where's Ray at?
He's still back there?
Oh, he's over there.
And then Lindsey, Christopher, and Justin.
So they're all in the back.
So we want to thank them for their diligence with us.
Did I miss anybody?
First off, and also let me do this.
Let me thank Vice Chair Lee for keeping us sane and keeping us fed and stepping up when necessary.
So I appreciate your help and your support to get through this process.
So if I'm not, did I miss anybody?
I did the staff, but I did not mention Sergeant Alvin Starks, Sergeant Armour Alvin Starks.
I did the team, but I forgot him.
And he's been, you all seen him walking around with a cane.
So he's been here with his stick rolling with us.
And I'm sure these folks, they probably want to thank us because we kept them here all night.
And that's our folks from 2FM, Mike, John, and Mike Olsen.
And they kept them here.
And I'm sure they'll have a happy Christmas or Thanksgiving, one of the two, fairly soon.
And also the staff from IGA, even though they drive us up a tree sometimes,
they are here all the way through this process.
So the team, Mateo, Bianca, Kennedy, and who's that over in the corner?
She's hanging out over there.
Emily, Emily, lose my phone number.
Well, she burned up her phone, man, burned up her phone.
But be that as it may, just thank you to all that have made this particular process and all the teams.
There'll be no more food at lunchtime.
But we're still going to power through this process.
With that being said, Alderman O'Shea, I'm not hugging you tonight, man.
Now, we could do a group.
With that being said, the committee will stand.
Is there, hold on.
Is there, I need a motion to adjourn.
All right.
Vice Chair Lee makes a motion to adjourn.
And all in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed, any opinion, chairs, the ayes have it.
And this session of our 2026 Budget Committee is a hearing has hereby been adjourned.