(Heavy static noise)
(silence)
Good morning, everyone.
Happy Monday.
The Committee on Finance is called to order.
We will now have a roll call to establish
quorum. Vice Chair Conway?
Alderman Laspada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Harris. Alderman Beale.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn. Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore. Alderman Curtis.
Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Mosley. Alderman
Rodriguez. Alderman
Scott.Alderman
Cicho-Lopez. Alderman Burnett.
Here.
Alderman Irvin. Alderman Taliaferro.
Here.
Alderman Cardona.
Here. Alderman Waguespack.
Here.
Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez. Alderman
Villegas.
Here.
Alderman Mitts. Alderman
Sposato.
Here.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knudson.
Alderman Martin. Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell is here. We have 18 in the
room, so we have a quorum.
We have Alderman Quezada, Alderman Mitchell, and
Alderman Hall have requested to participate remotely
at today's meeting for reasons stated under the provision of Rule
59.
Can I have a motion to allow these aldermen to participate?
So moved by Alderman Riley. All those in favor, signify by saying
"Aye."
I already said something before you called roll
call. Um, all those
opposed. Okay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the motion carries.
I wanna confirm that Alderman Quezada, Alderman Mitchell, and
Alderman Hall are present.
Present.
That's Quezada. Mitchell.
Alderman Hall. At this time, we'll be
... Uh, Alderman Nugent.
Madam Chairman, pursuant to my role as President Pro Temp under Rule 36,
I intend to participate and vote in this matter as an ex officio
member. Thank you.
All right, um, Alderman Nugent. Alderman
Cicho-Lopez, we s- have you counted
towards quorum.
At this time, we'll begin the public comment period.
The public comment period will be limited to 30 minutes.
Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to three
minutes. Uh, the first speaker
... Let's see. We have about seven or eight speakers this morning, but the first
speaker is Michael Harris.
Alderman Harris, we have counted you towards quorum.
And, Alderman Moore, we count you towards quorum.
And Alderman Moseley. And Aldermen
Irvin and Curtis, we count you towards
quorum. Uh, Mr. Harris, you can proceed.
Good morning, Madam Chair, members of this august body. I'm Michael K.
Harris Jr. with the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
But today, I speak to you on behalf of the small business owner who pulled me
a- aside last week after his shift.
He said, "Michael, I start my morning doing math, not
business." Before he even unlocks his door, he's
calculating, how many hours can he staff today?
Can he afford the delivery? Can he keep all his workers on schedule next
month?
That's what this budget feels like at the ground level.
Not a spreadsheet, but pressure that starts from sunrise.
And then, there's the worker, the cashier, the stocker, the server, who
told me, "I'm scared my hours are gonna get cut again." When we talk
about taxes like the head tax, I want you to see her face, because while
Chicago frames it as a fee on business, she feels it's a threat to her
paycheck. A tax on the jobs is a tax on people who depend on
those jobs. A bag tax, rideshare tax,
PPLT expansion, and the layering of new fees aren't
abstract. They are costs that fall on families already stretching every
dollar. They are the difference between a neighborhood store staying open
late or closing early because the labor is too
expensive. I've heard some say they're small
changes, but for working families on the South and West Sides, they're not
small, they're daily. And when these cuts stack
up, when these costs, pardon me, stack up, small
businesses start cutting, first hours, then staff, and
eventually the sign comes off the door.
Every one of, every one of us in this chamber has driven past a dark
storefront. We know what that means for safety, for economic
vitality for the block. That's what's at stake, not
theory, but people. We are, we are not
saying the city doesn't need revenue.
We're just saying the budget looks in the wrong direction to find it.
And I want to be clear, this is not a moment for us versus
them, not business versus government, not workers versus
employees, and not downtown versus neighborhoods.
This is a moment for all of us, every stakeholder at the table, to be at the
table, to come together and craft solutions that build a healthy,
vibrant, thriving Chicago, a Chicago where small businesses can
hire, workers can count on hours, families can
afford to live, and every neighborhood has safe, active commercial
corridors. Members of the Chicago City Council,
tomorrow morning, those small businesses will still be unlocking their
doors, still doing the math, and still hoping the city sees them as
partners, not revenue targets. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Harris. Next speaker is Sam
Toya.
Good morning, Chair Dowell and members of the committee.
I'm Sam Toya, president and CEO of the Illinois Restaurant
Association. I'm here to express my opposition to the
proposed budget for 2026, which would devastate the
hospitality industry. To start, we are generally opposed to the
$21 head tax that will exasperate job losses
and force businesses out of the city.
No one will expand here.In our industry, there's only two
things you can really control: food and labor cost.
Restaurants operate on a very thin margins, from
3 to 5%. With the head tax, restaurants will be forced to raise
prices, reduce staff, or close, and that's without the
other fee increases. Regular business license are increasing
300%. Health inspection fees are doubling across
the board. Our industry is in crisis.
In the last five years, food and labor costs for the average restaurant have gone
up 35%. According to The Wall Street
Journal, there were more restaurant bankruptcies in 2024
than there was in any year other than 2020.
These are national statistics. Things are even worse in Chicago.
Between the elimination of tip credit and other mandates, over 100
restaurants were forced to close their doors last year.
We expect that number to be far higher in the coming years.
According to our survey of Chicago restaurants, one in three
expect to permanently close their restaurant as a result of the last tip credit
decrease. All these closures have left thousands jobless.
Between July 1st and December 31st of 2024,
Chicago restaurant industry lost 5,200 jobs.
Yes, 5,200 employees without the means to care for their loved
ones. It's also leaving a lot of empty storefronts.
Look at up and down your streets. Vacancies are popping up left and
right. Our industry is being nickeled and dimed to death.
The elimination of tip credit, increased fees and licenses, increased cloud
taxes, you name it. We can't keep increasing our prices to make up for
it. Customers can't afford it. The proposed
2026 budget will result in more lost jobs.
I encourage all the members of the committee to stand with the hospitality
industry by opposing this budget. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Toia. The next speaker is Carl
Gutierrez.
And while he's coming to the mic, I would like to, uh,
count Alderman Mitts, Alderman Scott, and Alderman
Ramirez towards quorum. You may proceed, Mr.
Gutierrez.
Thank you, Chair. Um, I will keep my remarks brief, as I spoke to this
body last week, only to reiterate the comments last week to
say that this budget is gonna be difficult.
The Chamber is under no illusions of what we're facing.
But we also understand that we have to do this the right way, that whatever we do,
we don't need to do now. We need time to review thoroughly what's,
uh, options are available to do something that is accountable,
that's transparent, that's responsible, that drives growth, and that helps
set us up for success, not just next year, but all years to come as we
continue to wade through the very distinct and important structural
challenges that this city faces. Our ask is,
while we do oppose this now, more than anything else is to hold on
voting and work together to arrive at a responsible, transparent
solution that we can all work together on and move forward with.
We are all in this together. We are a good city and a great city, and we need
to do the best that we can for our people, for our constituents, for our
businesses, and our families. Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. Our next speaker is Amy
Masters.
And while she's coming to the mic, I would like to acknowledge that Alderman
Knudson, uh, has joined us and will be counted towards
quorum.
Good morning, Chairman Dowell and members of the Finance Committee.
My name is Amy Masters, and I'm here today on behalf of the Building Owners and
Managers Association of Chicago, or BOMA Chicago.
We represent about 240 large office buildings in the
city. Our buildings house 18,000 tenants and over
500,000 office workers. Chicago's office industry supports
64,000 jobs, most of which are union.
I'm here to urge you to vote against the mayor's proposed budget.
The head tax, in particular, is a tax on jobs.
It discourages employers from hiring, hurts small businesses, and threatens
workers in every neighborhood. In a city working to recover and
compete, this is the wrong signal to send.
In our industry, service providers like janitorial, security, and building
engineering often employ hundreds.
These union jobs can't be moved to the suburbs, they can't be shifted to remote
work, and they're already under pressure.
With Central Loop vacancy nearing 30%, we've seen
employers downsize, relocate, and cut service
contracts. Our downtown buildings are selling for a fraction of their
pre-pandemic value. They lost
1.5 billion, with a B, in
market value in the last reassessment.
That loss doesn't just affect building owners.
It shifts the property tax burden to others and contributes to those higher tax
bills that building... Um, excuse me.
It contributes to those higher tax bills that are arriving in residents'
and businesses' mailboxes this week.
Taxing essential workers now only deepens the strain
and risks accelerating the very decline we're all working to reserve, to
reverse. Our taxes, other
taxes, like a sharp increase in the personal property lease tax, create
similar problems, hurting businesses and consumers alike.
And making only a partial pension payment, in addition to borrowing to cover
past obligations, including firefighter back pay, risks triggering
a credit downgrade, one that could cost the city tens of millions in higher
interest and further erode our financial standing.
Chicago needs smart, practical choices that keep us competitive and show we're
open for business. If we make it harder for companies to grow jobs
here, they'll invest elsewhere, and that only makes our financial
challenges worse. We urge you to take more time to
get this budget right. That means working with stakeholders, including the business
community, to find better revenue options and cut waste.
Let's build a budget that supports growth, protects jobs, and strengthens
every neighborhood, not one that makes it harder for the people and
businesses driving our recovery. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Masters. Uh, Alderman Rodriguez has joined us and
will be counted towards quorum. Our next speaker is, uh,
George Blakemore.
Good morning.
Morning.
These lobbyists are lobbying for the union.
They come here
every day and advocate for their
members, and that's good.
But who ad- who
advocate for the citizens?
Where are they? I'm constantly telling each one of
your aldermen, all the men and women, to
educate your constituents about
these issues. When they know better, they'll do
better. So everybody here, you have heard these people
speaking about their union, their money.
I'm not. I'm speaking because I want to
have good government. And I see that it's not
here.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Where are the
people? You want them
to be dumb and stupid and
uninformed. You wanna, uh, ed- you should
have a educated, uh,
constituents. Wanting them, wanna, want, you
should welcome them down here.
So there's something un-American that's going on here.
It's a one-party system.
And when this next election come up, it's still gonna be a one-party
system. It's a culture of corruption
here,
a culture of corruption here. And
Trump, uh, can't clean this up. It have
to be a, something, uh, uh, have to happen real
bad in the City of Chicago to, to, to flip
it.
Otherwise, it's gonna go on and on.
All of you voted for sanctuary for
these illegals. Ti- you spent
millions of dollars on them.
And now, it's time for payback. And
now, you're going to big business to, with these head
tax. So I tell all the citizens of our
city, you deserve these people
here. You deserve what you've got, and
you get what you deserve. So the people
are not here. All of these people are, are,
bureaucrat. They're coming for money this minute.
These unions, they getting paid. I'm
not.
When you do- when you know better, you do better.
You want them to be dumb, uninformed, where you can take advantage
of them. And then that's why you try to abuse me when I
come to the mic. I am
somebody, and, and you are nobodies
when you don't have your people.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Our next speaker is Michael
Jacobson.
Good morning. I'm Michael Jacobson, president and CEO of the Illinois Hotel
Lodging Association. Um, as you know, Chicago hotels employ thousands of
residents from every single neighborhood across the city, generate significant
tax revenue for the city, and play a central role in supporting tourism,
conventions, and neighborhood economic activity.
We recognize that the fiscal challenges Chicago faces, and we understand
the imp- of the importance of identifying stable, long-term
solutions. At the same time, it's important to carefully consider how
certain proposals could affect the city's recovery and overall economic
climate. We have major concerns with the proposed head tax, which would
place an additional cost on hiring and actively
disincentivizes businesses from growing and putting more people in
Chicago to work. Even a modest increase in cost can
influence how employers staff their operations.
And in a people-driven industry like ours, that can ma- mean fewer
opportunities, fewer shifts, and, uh, fewer
union workers on the job. Even as of today, we have 6,000
fewer workers in Chicago hotels than we did in
2019. As the city continues working to strengthen
employment and attract major events, we believe that a cautious
approach is warranted. We also have reservations about increasing
the service tax on software, or PPLT, which affects
every business in Chicago regardless of their size or
industry. Hotels rely on software for reservations,
payroll, security, and compliance, just as restaurants, retailers, and
small businesses rely on software for their day-to-day operations.
Increasing this tax raises costs across the board at a time when
businesses are managing inflation, higher operating expenses, and
continued competitive pressure.
We want to be constructive partners in ensuring that Chicago remains a vibrant,
attractive place for visitors, workers, and
investment. As you evaluate these proposals, we respectfully ask
that the Council consider cumu- the cumulative impact that
on, on the broader economy and on industries that help drive
Chicago's growth. Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to speak.
And we look forward to working constructively with Council as well as our partners
in the business community. Thank you.
Uh, thank you. Our next speaker is, uh, Pat
Door.
Uh, good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the council.
Uh, out of respect for your time, I will not repeat some of the points brought up
by my colleagues in the hotel and restaurant industry.
I would just like to reiterate what I testified too at the end of the budget
hearing last week. As of the current draft of the head tax, they
keep calling it a full-time tax but as written, it will apply to people making
less than poverty wages under the federal poverty line.
It's 700 and f- $7,500 a quarter
kicks you into the head tax as a job.
Nobody in this body can possibly support a tax that regressively
taxes the smallest entry level jobs at the same level as corporate
engineer or corporate sales
jobs. A part-time worker who gets a
holiday bonus in a fourth quarter might get kicked into this head tax
under the current structure. It is unbelievably punitive on entry
level jobs, jobs in logistics, hospitality and
food manufacturing that can be easily moved to the suburbs where we have a glut of
warehouse space.
Beyond that structure of that tax is a point of information
since the Department of the Budget never provided you the list of taxpayers subject
to it, if you go from 200 to 100 taxpayers as
I saw mentioned in a media report this morning, that triples a number of
Chicago-based businesses that are captured by the tax.
I will be happy to provide a list of all the businesses based in
Chicago that would have been subject to this tax in 2020 since the
budget department still never gave you that list they promised
you. And again, out of respect for your time, I will
summarize there at the last one, the hospitality industry, eating and
drinking places generated over a billion dollars in sales
taxes last year for Chicago, Cook County and the
state. This budget including the personal property lease tax that
hits the software we use to collect those taxes
will be squeezing more revenue out of an already shriveled
hospitality industry. We need to focus on growing this
industry not getting more juice from a struggling industry.
And I look forward to working with all of you in the coming weeks unfortunately, on
ways to balance this budget while growing our hospitality
industry and creating those good paying jobs for Chicago.
It was a long three weeks last week. Thank you for your efforts in the week ahead.
And I do sincerely look forward to working with you further.
Thank- thank you, Mr.
Dorr.
Um,
you know, based on, uh, comments that I've heard from my
colleagues, uh, this meeting will stand in recess until December 2nd
at 10:00 AM.
Yes, Alderman Beale.
Um, I move to lay that motion on the table and ask for a roll call
vote.
(inaudible)
Yeah. Yeah, roll call on the recess motion.
Okay.
Alderman Beale, would you repeat your motion please?
My motion is to lay
the motion to recess on the table-
Okay.
... and ask for a roll call vote.
Vice Chair Conway.
Wait a second. Chair.
What?
The- the motion was
made...
so-
Okay.
... so now we
have...
All right. Thank you. Uh, the Corp Counsel has informed me that the motion to
recess takes place over the motion to
table. Uh, wait a minute, let me finish what I'm gonna
say. So we will take a motion on
recessing,
yes or no? Okay.
Vice Chair Conway.
You say no to the recess. Alderman
Laspada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris. Alderman
Beale.
Alderman Lee.
No.
Alderman Ramirez.
Yes.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
No.
Alderman Moore.
Yes.
Alderman Curtis.
No.
Alderman O'Shay.
No.
Alderman Taylor. Oh, sh- Alderman
Moseley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Yes.
Alderman Scott.
No.
Alderman Sicil-lopez.
Yes.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Yes.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waguespack.
No.
Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez. Alderman Quezada.
Yes.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitz. Alderman
Sposato. Alderman
Vasquez.
No.
Alderman Riley.
No.
Alderman Knudson.
No.
Alderman Martin.
No.
Alderman Silverstein.
Uh, what's ex- ex officio Nugent.
Chairman Dowell votes no.
The motion to recess,
to not recess
fails.
I'm sorry, the motion to recess fails.
It's been a long weekend, y'all.
(pause) Hmm? Yeah, we'll take a five-minute
recess and then
reconvene.
(pause)
Yeah, I- I- excuse me, I know we're in recess but I just wanted to
give everyone the vote total so they
know. 24 nos and seven
yeses.
(white noise)
(silence)
S- excuse me, just want to, um, acknowledge that we
are still in recess. We are waiting for the department
heads to come down to take their place for a
presentation.
Carry on.
(laughs)
(silence)
(white noise)
Good
morning. Uh, the Committee on Finance is called back
into session. Um, I want to
acknowledge Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez, who will be added to the
roll, and Alderman Napolitano, who
is not a member but is with us today.
We have, uh, four items on the agenda this
morning. The first item is an ordinance
amending titles 1, 3, 4, 7, 9,
10, 11, 14A, 14B, and
14X of the municipal code and other
amendments which relate to the revenue derived from certain taxes,
fines, and fees. This is a
direct introduction. An updated version was sent
electronically to everyone and is on your
desk. The updated version will be
explained by Budget Director Guzman,
CFO Jaworski, and Comptroller
Belsky, who are here with us in the dais.
Budget Director Guzman.
Good morning. Annette Guzman, budget director for the city.
I'm gonna go really quickly to explain, uh, the revenue
ordinances before you as well as the, um,
Jill Jaworski, CFO, will explain the bond ordinance.
Uh, then the revenue ordinance, there are number of tax, uh,
updates and changes. First is the per- personal property tax lease
increasing from 11% to 15%. The community safety
surcharge, uh, the change here is a tax imposed on
employers who employ 100 or more full-time employees who perform
50% or more of their work in the City of Chicago at
$21
per employee per month. Uh, the social media amusements
tax, um, is a tax on the activity of social media
consumption, uh, based on that social media
business's em- monetization of consumer engagement and data.
That's at 50 cents per active user per month, uh,
for, um, media companies with over
100,000 users. The online sports wagering
tax, um, we currently have a 2%
in-person wagering, um, tax. Uh, this
is being expanded to include online, uh,
sports wagering 'cause that is where the vast majority of the activity occurs and
raising the tax from, uh, to two- $10, uh,
10 1/4%. Uh, the congestion surcharge zone
is being expanded, uh, to include additional areas of our
city with the most congestion from
TNP. The boat mooring tax, um,
(clears throat) is being increased from 7% to 23
1/4 to align with our parking, uh, rate,
um, while maintaining the 7% for nonprofits.
The checkout bag tax is removing the p- penny retailer
commission per bag and in alignment
with the PP- PPLT, the motor vehicle lesser tax
is being, uh, reduced from $2.75 to 50 cents
per rental period. Shifting to our fine and fee
ordinances, um, there are a number here.
Uh, one thing to note is
of the 12, um, fees and
fines within the report that we prepared with
EY, uh, 10 of those fees are included within
the revenue ordinance for adjustment in alignment with that
study. So starting with BACP, there's five that are being
adjusted. The first two deal with limited and regulated business
licenses, uh, shifting that in alignment with our cost of
services as well as peer benchmarks, um, and aligning the
fines related to both to ensure and incentivize
compliance. The commercial boat passenger license,
uh, fee is being, uh, shifted from a range to
a flat fee, uh, with the fine associated with that
license also being shifted to incentivize, um,
compliance. Delivery license is transitioning to a two-year
license, uh, increasing the fee to align with our peers and
moving the expiration date to December 15th, um, with a
staggered, uh, roll-out of that to en- uh, to ensure the
two-year, uh, roll-out period, um, and
shifting the license $100 from
500...... uh, every year to 600 per year, which is
1,200 every two years. And the food license
violation is adjusting, um, upwards to be
consistent with Title IV of the, um,
Municipal Code of Chicago, as well as peer benchmarks.
Uh, it's shifting to streets and sanitation to, uh, related fees
are adjusting, the towing and storage fees, um,
related to vehicle, um, moving viol- vehicle
violations, uh, shifting those to align with our peer cities
and the cost of service. Uh, uh, for the Clerk's
Office, in addition to the biannual increase by CPI of
the vehicle city sticker, they are adjusting the wheel tax on automotive
dealer emblems to account for the different vehicle types, as
well as, um, including two
new, um, authorities under the Clerk, which the first
is to allow the Clerk, um, uh, beginning
at the next time that we do a CPI increase on city stickers to
pause the CPI increase for senior-related city stickers
upon her authority and upon consultation with the Budget
Director, as well as being able to do at least one
amnesty month per year for up to 31 days,
um, (clears throat) upon, uh, consultation with the Budget
Director. For transportation, there's four
adjustments to revenue ordinances.
The first is the commercial driveway permit fee, which is adjusting the
range and adding a penalty for
non-compliance. The canopy construction scaffolding permit
fee is being updated to align with the cost of
inflation, um, as well as the parking,
uh, of work vehicle, um,
I'm sorry, adjust the permit fee for parking of work vehicles obstructing the
public way to align with the cost of services and the cost of
inflation. And the final is to adjust the fine related to
one-call system that is administered by the Department of
Transportation, uh, for violations of excavation and facility marking
requirements. Uh, the range is now being shifted to
$1,000 to $5,000, depending upon the
violation. For the Department of Buildings, there are four
adjustments in the revenue ordinance.
The first is the vacant property registration renewal fee,
which increases the registration from $30 a year to
$350, um, and this is to, again,
incentivize, uh, mortgage owners to put their vacant
properties to productive use. Uh, a number of trade
licenses are being adjusted based on, um, the
cost of service, but also, uh, the fact that these have not been adjusted in a very
long time. And permit fees for homeowner projects are
being reduced while, uh, fees are increasing for residential deconversion
projects. And then finally, for DOB, the annual food inspection
fee is being adjusted to align with the cost
of service as well as peer benchmarks.
For CDPH, the, uh, food violation fine is
adjusting, um,
incentivize non-compliance with our city ordinances.
Um, and for DCASE, the Taste of Chicago vendor payment, uh, section
of their code is being adjusted to allow attendees to pay for
food and beverages directly at booths with cash and credit cards
rather than the paper vouchers that were previously being used.
Um, for the Department of Finance, the Smart Streets Pilot is being adjusted
to allow or to add street cleaning to the list of violations, as
well as expanding the z- the pilot zone.
And then finally, for the Department of Environment and currently the Department of
Public Health, adjustments to the recycling facility fine,
um, shifting the range from $300 to $5,000 depending
upon the violation, to $600 to $10,000 per
violation. And with that, I'll turn it to the Chief Financial Officer to
walk you through the bond
ordinances.
Thank you, Annette.
We have two bond ordinances, uh, in front of you here today,
um, uh, both of these, um,
uh, bond ordinances, um, will provide authority for the next
two years. Uh, the first one we're gonna talk about is the new money
authority. The ordinance in front of you authorizes $1.8 billion
in new money, uh, general obligation, uh, bonds.
That money is $1.3 billion for future CIP
projects as well as $283
million for, uh, settlements and judgments and
$166 million for a portion of the retroactive payments
related to the, uh, recently settled collective bargaining agreement with our
firefighters. Um, typical of these
authorizations, the, uh, the authorization is,
includes the authority to spend as well as the authority to
bond. And so, what we see with the CIP spending is that
there's often a lag between when the authorization is given
and the borrowings actually occur.
That time, uh, is there for contracting,
engineering, all of the pre-construction activities, uh,
need to occur before the, uh, bonds actually have to get sold and
fund the project costs. So if we move to the next slide,
um, we've provided an illustration of how this
works. I know this slide is, uh, as a graphic, it's a
little difficult to follow. Um, but, uh, we've been trying
to find a good way to just illustrate, um, illustrate the
difference between the, the bonding authority and the actual bond
sales. So if we take a look on the left at the hatched
red, uh, the hatched red line, what that represents is
the 2020 and 2021 borrowing
authorization.And as you can see, when you look at the solid
red lines, which indicate the actual bonds being issued, those
start in '23, '24, and we expect to use up the
last of that authorization next year in
2026. So for each of these colors here, it
represents a different authorization, and if we move
forward to the, the black hatched line, th- that's the
authorization of 830 million that was passed earlier this
year for, uh, fiscal 25. And as you
see, most of those bonds are being issued, um, over the
CIP period from 2026 through
2030. There's a few things that, um, get spent
relatively quickly under these ordinances.
Um, one of that is the private side lead service co- the lead
service replacement, uh, program costs.
That's because we have ongoing projects, o- ongoing contracts and projects,
and we're continuously, um, spending that money.
So that tends to go out pretty quickly.
Menu money, often because the projects, um, that are offered on the menu can
be done quickly also moves out faster.
But other projects, uh, bridges being the, you know, very good example, can
take many years before they are completed because they are going to require, uh,
contracting that meets federal guidelines, federal grants, um, and
pulling a whole financing package together that's above and beyond our bonds, uh,
funding package, excuse me, to pay for those projects.
Uh, this slide, it goes through the detailed costs, uh,
for each category under the bond. So these are the categories
that you typically see for our CIP.
Um, obviously the menu money, but also bridges, complete
streets, street lighting, street resurfacing,
vehicles, um, the types of things we're continuously investing in
in order to keep our infrastructure, uh, maintained throughout the
city. Um, in addition, as I noted earlier, the, uh, retro
payment is included here, um, as well as the settlements
and judgments. And those really represent the extraordinary
costs that are above and beyond what we have budgeted.
So we typically budget around $130 million for settlements and
judgments, um, because the Department of Law has been very focused
on, uh,
on settling cases and lowering our costs,
uh, by getting them settled quicker.
Doing the Watts Global Settlement is a very good example of
how dramatic the savings, uh, can be from this strategy.
That's causing us to incur, uh, settlement costs that are above our
budget, um, and instead of increasing those costs all
in the budget this year and spiking up our expenses, we're spreading that
out over a five-year repayment
period.
If we move to the next slide, um, this shows our total debt
service. The blue lines represent the existing
debt service. The dark blue is the general obligation and the light blue
is the Sales Tax Securitization Corporation.
These are the kinds of debt that really, uh, impact our corporate fund.
Uh, our water, sewer in O'Hare, which are paid out of those enterprise funds and by
user charges, are not included in this chart.
The green represents the issuance of the bonds that
will fund the CIP, so inclusive of this, uh,
authorization as well as the other authorizations that
we showed in the, uh, prior very colorful, very colorful
chart. The yellow represents the
repayment of the fire retro, and the purple
represents the repayment of the settlements and judgments.
The last slide I wanna touch on is on the second ordinance, which is
related to providing additional refunding authority.
The ordinance includes $2 billion of authority to allow
the city to do refinancings of existing
bonds for savings. Uh, as you can see in the
chart below, what we have sh- illustrated here is the bonds
that are, uh, available to be refunded because they either have a, they
have a call or a redemption date during each of these years, so you
can see that '26 to '27, uh, we have about, uh,
$1.7 billion in callable bonds that we
can redeem during that time period.
Uh, we're asking for two billion because in addition to
calling the bonds, uh, at the call date, the other thing that we have
been regularly engaged in over the last few years is using a
tender process to buy bonds out of the market and refinance them at
lower cost.
We are in the process right now on a tender, uh,
a number of you have heard about this over the various committee briefings, um,
various committee meetings and briefings.
The tender process that we have going on currently has been very
successful. Um, we have authorization
available to do a STSC refunding, which we are going to
complete this week, but because we've had far more bonds tendered
than we have authorization to refund,
uh, when this, uh, authorization gets passed, we would be able
to, uh, increase the size of our refunding and we
believe we could increase the savings, um, by
approximately 35 million, possibly even more, that we could
achieve. Those savings would go into our 2026
budget. So
this is something that is, you know, critical, uh, for us,
time-sensitive. We will complete the sale
on Friday. We were originally planning to sell on Wednesday, but if we can
get this authorization, we will complete the sale on Friday and be able to
achieve those savings in addition to the $30 million of savings that
we've already budgeted. Um, with
that, um, that concludes the slides that we have, um, for
the, uh, bond ordinances that are in front of you today.
Thank you, uh, Director Guzman and
CFO Jaworski. Um, are there any questions from
members of the committee? Please raise your hand.
We'll start with, uh, Vice Chair
Conway.
Uh, I just wanna make sure I got that right.
So the, so the Community Safety Surcharge Fund is
going back to 100 employees from 200
employees?
Uh, yes. I think in the, uh, ordinance that was,
um, the substitute ordinance that was put forth this
morning, uh, moves it back to, uh,
$121 for, per
employee, um, allowing for us to create an $18
million, uh, small business grant fund.
So, okay, so the-
That was one of the items that I had mentioned on our briefing the other day.
T- t- I'm sorry, I didn't hear that last part.
That was one of the, um, adjustments that I had mentioned we were
researching, um, on behalf of, uh, some of the alders.
So that was, um, uh, one of those items.
Um, I have a, I have a
great number of questions regarding the bond, but I'll yield my time to, uh,
Alderman Riley over there.
Uh, you yield your time back to me.
All right. (laughs)
And I will call on Alderman Riley, um, followed
by, um,
Alderman Laspada.
Thank you. Th- thank you, Madam Chair.
Um, I think
we have enough people here that have heard about the updates, you know, thankfully
for this briefing. Um, it seems to me it makes more sense
for, for me to move to have a roll call vote on the first
item on this finance, uh, agenda item.
We're gonna hold your motion and have the rest of
the... Hold on a second. And have the
rest of... I've got some other people that have questions.
Alderman
Riley.
That's what I thought. He has the legal response, so I'm
just giving you the committee response.
The legal response is that that motion is not appropriate in
committee. We're going to have-
How... Sorry, Madam Chair. I'd hate to move to
overrule the chair.
He's grabbing the mic.
Relax.
Good morning. Uh, Rediet Abekar, uh, Deputy Corporation Counsel in
the Legal Counsel Division of the Law Department.
Alderman Riley, calling the question is not a proper motion in
committee. That is only proper in city council, uh, meetings,
because committees are a place where ordinances and
resolutions will be debated. So calling a question in
committee is inappropriate motion.
Okay. Uh, well then, Madam Chair, I move to overrule the ruling of the
chair.
Uh
...
By roll call vote.
Taken but they are taking
place . Okay. ... president.
All right. Um,
Alderman Riley, would you be so kind
as to allow the other members of the committee to have
their questions answered?
So long as my motion is first entertained
I'm asking you to rescind your motion.
Oh, well, no, I'm not ready to rescind my motion.
Um, I would need strict assurance from you, Chairman, that after
people have asked their questions, that that roll call vote, uh, on that first item
is, is called.
Yeah, we would have to take a roll call vote on the first item anyway because
somebody would probably call roll call.
Well, I just did.
Right, but I want to have people have their questions answered
so when they vote they know how they're voting.
Um, if that pleases my colleagues, I'm, I'm, I'm
not looking to stifle debate or, or prevent there being
transparency around this, so, um, please
consider it renewed upon the end of questions and debate.
Thank you.
Uh, however, since we are gonna have questions then, I'd like to
use my time to ask a couple.
Sure. You were the next up.
Thank you, uh, Madam Chair.
Followed by Alderman Laspada, followed by Alderman
Osh- Moore.
Very good. Um, so
I, I think, uh, the budget team, I'm sure, has read
the front page of the Chicago Tribune this morning,
um, talking about, uh, County Treasurer
Pappas's report showing that homeowners bills,
uh, property tax bills have gone up
almost 17% ,um, after the reassessment, and these
property tax bills have finally been issued four months
late. And, um, one of the key
inputs for that,
uh, massive rise in homeowner property tax bills is because,
um, commercial property in the central business district
has seen its value fall off of a cliff.
And that didn't just happen in a vacuum, it didn't happen
because of, uh, an accounting error at the assessor's
office. Um, that's a direct result of
some of the city's anti-business policies finally
coming home to roost. Um, partly to blame
is, is COVID and, and our slow recovery from the pandemic, but
another piece is, um, some of our, our, frankly
anti-business tax policy here. And front and
center, um, in, in the mayor's proposal is this head
tax. And, uh, I understand that...Um, there's a group in
town that's gonna spend seven figures, uh, to try and convince us that that's a
really good idea. Um, but I can, I can tell you, there's no amount of
money that's gonna convince us that a head tax is good for Chicago
when we are literally reading in every newspaper in town on the front page
today that the reason homeowners are getting socked on their property
tax bills is because our commercial buildings have lost
up to $400 million worth of value since the last
assessment. And the reason why is because they aren't
tenanted. We're seeing major tenants
revising down their, their leases from
100,000 square feet to 20.
And that's leaving a lot of these properties down here that have historically been
full and busy and populated with
workers sitting half empty. And that's what
prompts the, the, the county tax officials to
significantly reduce their assessed value.
And because of Cook County's broken property tax system, when
commercial buildings are found to be less valuable, the rest of that burden
falls on top of homeowners. And my colleagues and I are hearing from
very frustrated homeowners as they finally got their tax
bills. And I can tell you this,
if you want to accelerate
our headfirst dive into a economic death
spiral, pass this head tax. That is
effectively what you are doing
because there are whole swaths of companies that currently have a
lot of employees in the City of Chicago who can easily,
with some accounting,
simply transfer their employees, who work out of backpacks mind
you. You heard of Salesforce? They sort of, they
literally carry-
I don't think
there's- They literally carry ... Uh, uh, I'm getting to the question.
Thank you.
They, they literally carry their offices on their backs, thousands of
them. Can easily be sent just across the border to the
suburbs for their primary work address.
And we don't think that's gonna happen more?
So look at even higher vacancy rates in these big commercial buildings, which means
even higher tax bills for homeowners, an indirect property tax hit
essentially when you connect the dots.
That's what we have here before us today.
And so
given that fact, my question to the budget team is how then is it that you
come in here today,
not with a 200 employee plus head tax, but back to the
100 with a paltry $18 million relief
fund that people can apply for, and hopefully by the good graces of
the mayor get a little bit back.
How can you after reading the news today and reading County Treasurer Pappas'
damning report, how can you come in here before this body and ask us to
consider a head tax? And I guess I'll, I'll leave that to whomever would
like to answer that question in the budget team.
Thank you for your question.
Um, we can have a lot of debates as
to what caused the property tax hikes.
Um, according to the assessor in the report that he put out, and
I sent this to you and through the chair, the
increases on property owners are a direct result, in his opinion,
of the shifting of the property taxes from commercial and industrial
properties to residential properties during the board of
review process. Um, this mayor, uh, was the
one who in... did not include a budget, did not include a property tax
in this budget because as I have noted several times in briefings with members of
City Council over the last few weeks, we have been in conversations with the
board of review. We have been in conversations with the assessor
and saw what the, uh, property tax bills would do
primarily to the south and west sides.
Yeah. But you know, you know, with all due respect Budget Director-
So he did not want to increase the 15% on homeowners-
With all due respect, th- th- you, the same...
th- two of the three folks up there at, at the dais today were
the ones advocating for a $300 million property tax increase last
year, um, with the full force and, and approval of Mayor
Johnson. So how ironic it is here we are today
having a... We're doing the blame game here.
I guess it's between the review board now and the assessor's office.
I'm sure there's some other folks involved with it, how this all came to
be. Um, but it's... If the mayor had it his way, that bill would be even
much higher today.
And so, uh, at the end of the day, politicians are gonna blame each other for these
tax bills, so be it. But the bottom line is,
this head tax is only gonna make things worse.
You even acknowledged that the shift is being put on the homeowners because
commercial properties are paying less 'cause they're valued
less, 'cause they're empty. That's why.
And yes, when people appeal their taxes then you should.
That's what happens.
Alderman Riley, she did answer your question, so do you have another question?
I do.
Uh, it's, uh, page 23 of the, uh,
PowerPoint deck that the team has brought here before us
today. And it's related to the "community
safety surcharge," which is the earmarking for where the head tax is
intended to be spent.
Um,
what exactly is the, the Youth Employment Program line item
at Family Services funded at $49.9
million? Um, who receives those
funds?
That is the city's, uh, youth employment, Youth Jobs Program, One Summer
Chicago, as well as the funding that we provide to our sister agencies
who also employ, uh, youth throughout the city.
And what was that, uh, funded at last year?
Um, it... I believe it was funded at $45 million.
So it's a $5 million increase this year?
Roughly. I can get you the exact number.
And the CVI programs line item, uh, housed at
CDPH, um, that's $11.5
million. What is that paying
for?
For comm- uh, c- community violence intervention programs that
CDPH has done for several years.
And who receives th- those dollars?
That's a question for CDPH. I believe that they are in the box.
Um, Dr.
Ige?
Morning. Good morning. I'm Dr. Simbo
Ige, Commissioner, C- CDPH. Uh, the community
safety funding for CDPH supports, uh, three
areas of work, the street outreach work, uh, which is
a collaboration with a lot of delegated agencies, um, that
provide mediation services for those in
conflict. Um, we also have-
Is that the CVI program, ma'am? Is that, is that the one you're referring to?
Yes. CVI program.
That, that was specifically my question, thank you, um, for, for answering it.
Um, Madam Chair, I, uh, I, I guess, I
guess this question is, is for you.
Um, I was wondering if, if the administration has
had a chance to, um, complete all of our through
the chair requests, um, es- especially related
to, um, efficiencies. Uh, it was on my
understanding we were promised a red line of the efficiencies that the
administration has identified to date,
and I'm not sure that we've received that yet.
Um, and obviously, that's a pretty important document for us to review
before we can have a really informed debate about the mayor's budget
packages.
Do we have that yet?
We have responded to a number of through the chair requests.
The specific request from Alderman Vasquez, I believe, um, either
was sent this morning or is being sent today.
And also, the, there was supposed to be a forecast of the
impact of cuts by department. Um, has that been
transmitted yet to members of the City Council through the
chair?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Do you know which alderman sent that
one?
(sighs) Who?
Point of information, Alderman Neugent.
I, I believe it was Alderman Lee.
Alderman who?
Lee.
I believe Alderman Lee.
Alderman Lee?
Lee.
Yeah. Th- both of those requests are, I think, credibly
timely, um, and, and necessary for us to
deliberate. Um, so I would put a pin in those
requests if-
You have a point... Excuse me, Alderman Riley.
Alderman Sicha-Lopez, you have a point of information?
I just wanted to get on the record.
You wanted to get on the record for questions?
Okay. All right, you have any more questions, Alderman Riley?
I think you've made your point about not receiving the through the chair request
that you were looking to receive.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Okay.
And just as I, as I relinquish my time, uh, a reminder that I plan on renewing.
I'd like to renew my-
I'm, um-
... my call for a roll call vote on the first item.
... uh, slow.
Um, point of information, point of
order? Yes.
Or a substantive question, and I will certainly wait my turn for that.
But I do have a point of order just to state for clarification is Alderman Riley
was attempting to, uh, restate his motion.
I think it's, uh, it's appropriate to make sure council,
uh, confirms where we're at right now.
Because the practice in this body is when we submit a due pass
motion on an item with a request for a roll call, we
typically proceed to an immediate roll call.
Now, there's no rule that requires us to do that.
In fact, the due pass motion under our rules is a debatable
motion, and that's what we're doing right now.
And I just want clarification that we are in fact in
discussion and debate on a motion of due pass with the
request for a roll call that you've agreed to, Madam Chair.
There was no motion-
... for due pass. I didn't make a motion for due pass.
I-
I heard a due pass motion from you.
I didn't make it.
So again, that's why I'm seeking clarification.
So all of this right now, at your discretion, Madam Chair, you will
allow this to continue as you see fit till everyone gets their, uh, questions
answered and, and the panel has the chance to say everything they want to
say. Upon which time, we will proceed to
the requested roll call on a due pass motion for item one.
I believe that's where we are, and I'd like, uh, council to confirm
that.
Good morning. Uh, Ready Tukasa, Deputy Corporation Council is the legal
council division of the law department.
Um,
the motion made to the body is, uh, a roll call
motion, if I understand it correctly.
Alderman Riley did not make a motion to end debate and, uh,
make a roll call. So as I said,
yeah, a due pass motion, that means it doesn't end debate.
That means debate and then vote on the
matter.
That means... Yeah, I didn't hear what he said.
Can you just res- repeat that?
As I said before, motion to
call the question is not an appropriate motion.
I think we agreed on that point. So the motion made by
Alderman Riley is a motion
to pass, uh, to, to vote on the matter
by a roll call vote. That means after
this body finishes its deliberations, it can go ahead and
vote on the matter by a roll call vote.
Alderman Irvin?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Reatu, uh, Reatu, uh,
how, uh... I have a question. Uh, a superseding motion,
though, would,
would, uh, potentially change the balance of
what Alderman Riley attempts to do,
um, in
pa- moving the pass on the main motion. Is that correct?
Yeah. There is motion to pass the main question by
a roll call vote. Um, that motion would be
entertained after debate is done.
You, you didn't answer my question.
So there, there, there could be a superseding
motion ahead of his motion to call for a
roll call vote. Is that correct?
I did not hear a, the superseding motion.
What is that motion?
Yeah. If there is another motion, uh, then the two motions
will be treated on the procedure of precedence of
motions.
Thank you.
All right. We're gonna move on. Uh, Alderman
Laspada.
Thank you very much, Chair. Um,
I appreciate the conversation. I really appreciate the presentation.
Um, I had a question on page
29 of 63,
3-20-110 on the Community Safety
Fund.
When we were initially talking about this, I, I really believe having a
dedicated revenue f- fund
for these holistic community safety investments is important, and I know
it's important to my constituents.
I'm concerned about the inclusion of
end-community business grants because I, I feel like it
starts to get into a bit of a mission creep in
terms of the purposes of that dedicated revenue fund.
And I, I was hoping you could bring some clarity on that,
particularly in terms of
in both the short term and the long term, how do we put guardrails on this
fund to make sure that it's accomplishing the purpose that it was set
out for?
Um, so that would be through the ordinance itself.
As you're reading, um, the line before you,
the purposes set forth are the only ones that the, the fund
could be used for. I think that the inclusion of the $18
million for the small business grant is related to the revenue
itself, um, and the fact that the funding that is received in
this, in this particular, um,
uh, in this particular, uh, uh, fund would be, would
go towards supporting businesses who are,
um, essentially supporting development within
our city, um, hiring from specific areas of the city and so
forth, which actually does help to drive down, um, uh,
violence throughout the city. But essentially, the way you would put guardrails on
it is through the language in the ordinance itself.
Okay. Um,
does this mean that now the projected revenue generated from the
fund is $118 million or still stands at $100
million? And if it's still at $100 million, how does this
alter the, the makeup of items we were initially gonna
be funding against this?
It's, uh, it's $100 million. Um, initially there was 18 additional dollar,
$18 million additional dollars in this fund for additional CDI
programming. That's now in the corporate fund, um, and
supports, uh, very similar work as this
fund. Um, so this is still $100 million.
The $18 million grant program is, um, is for
the small businesses.
Okay. Uh, thank you for the clarity on that.
I was wondering if we could go to page 10
of the bond ordinance
presentation.
Okay. So my first question
is related to the purple columns,
2024 Housing and Economic Development Ordinance, which we passed
in 2024. But going back the, the
timeline for the... is, is a 2024 to
2028
pilot program and I'm curious to understand how the
issuance of those bonds extends into 2029
and 2030 based off of the current ordinances passed.
The, uh, ordinance, the HED ordinance did not
limit when those bonds could be sold.
And one of the things that we talked about, uh, at the time
was that we would issue the bonds
when the money was being spent. And so the intent was
always that
while there was a general plan for how and when it would be
spent, um, some of those, some of those expenditures
are taking a little bit longer to occur, um, for, for various reasons.
So for instance, green social housing, um, is a good example.
Uh, that took a while because, uh, post the HED
bond ordinance passing, there also needed to be a separate
ordinance that established the, uh,
residential investment fund, um, and allowed for the green social
housing projects. And then after that was passed this year
then, there needed to be, uh, a selection of board members.
The board had to be created and constituted, um, and
is, and, and is now in the process of hiring
and, and moving forward to look at projects.
So the time between the
authorization for the bonds and the actual spending under that project which is a
significant project, about $135 million of
the authorization, there's a, there's a lag time between it.
But once it's moving, it's going to be, you know, moving at a much
faster pace. So w- we are matching as far as the
issuances when the actual expenditures are occurring
and those programs, uh, can continue
w-... uh, past the original period.
So we can, we can continue to fund them under the $1.25
billion of bonding authority, um, into
2029 and 2030.
So am I misremembering that there was
a, a deadline on the pilot
program?
I believe so.
Okay. I can make a point of checking. The 2025...
Looking at the chart again, the 2025 CIP, this is
referencing the bond issuance that we
passed earlier, or ordinance we passed earlier this year?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay. The ordinance that we're being asked to
take up today, how would we see
that... It's, it's a little odd to me to see that not
reflected in this chart. How would, how would we anticipate
the bond ordinance, particularly around capital and
infrastructure, if it approved today,
how would that be reflected in the chart here?
So that would probably get spent from '26,
um, out through 2031, 2032
ultimately. Um, you know, we did talk about adding
in future authorizations into this chart and, you know, they...
You know, when you sort of project out, they are going to generally look level, but
actual spending in the capital side can be quite lumpy.
Um, so for instance, we were talking about bridges earlier.
Um, bridges are projects that take a long time to be
ready to go, but then when they do, there's a big spike in
spending when they're occurring and so you can see
with capital expenditures, one year is lower, one year is much higher.
So that's why we went with the, uh, looking at the past ones 'cause
it sort of illustrates that lumpiness better than...
Projections tend to be smooth going out because we never know exactly
when some of those large projects are gonna have all the necessary pieces of
funding, um, and have the,
contracts ready to actually complete the projects.
Street resurfacings, those kind of things, those are going on more, much more
continuously, but some pieces of the program are, uh, much
lumpier.
Oh, okay. Uh, one last question for right
now. So when I'm looking at the two...
And I think this is on the previous slide that was outlining
purposes, uh, but when we look at 283
million
for settlements and judgments,
this, this, this number exceeded
my understanding of what we were bonding against 'cause my initial
assumption had been that we were bonding for the total
of the global settlement that we passed earlier
this year. But I re-... And again, like, my memory is a
little fuzzy, but I remember that as 90 mill-...
Do I remember the global settlement as 90 million? Is that accurate?
That's accurate.
Okay. So where, where are we getting the 283
million number from?
So the 283 million is a number from the Department of Law and it
reflects the Watt settlement as well as, um,
other settlements that they have been focused on accelerating
and their anticipated spend
on settlements that have not been,
uh, completed
yet.
So this is based off of settlements,
potential settlements, potential global settlements that we have not voted on
yet?
So there is a piece of this that is things you have voted on, and there's a piece
set of things that you have not voted on.
Yes, so we have received this estimate from the Department of Law,
um, and, you know, I think as they have, uh,
briefed you, they are very focused on a strategy of
lowering cost to the city by, uh,
settling cases faster, both allowing the
ultimate settlement and judgments to be lower, but also lowering the
cost of outside counsel, uh, that goes into them.
So their strategy is proactive, and
it's causing an increase in costs above what we typically
bond in the near term, but is projected to save very significant
sums to the city in the long term.
Has the city previously-
The city-
... funded s-... Let me... Sorry, had to pause as I was figuring my
words, but has the city previously
issued bonds to pay for settlements in the past?
Yes. In fact, the city didn't use to budget anything for settlements and judgments.
The city used to bond for all of them and would sell
long-term bonds. Um, one of the...
That is something that has changed in the last few years, and that the city does
budget and spend on a pay-as-you-go basis for these,
incorporating them into our operating costs because they are recurring.
Uh, the only reason we are bonding is because this is a sort of an
extraordinary cost. It's much higher than our typical spend because of the
strategy. Uh, we are, uh, repaying these over
a five-year period. The five-year period is designed to
represent the time,
the minimum amount of time, it would have taken to settle some of these cases if
they were done on an individual basis.
So we're spreading it out over essentially the budgets that would have had to pay
for these costs, uh, as I said, of spiking up the budget
in this year.
Why did we move away from bond issuances for
settlements?
Because settlements and judgments are something that occur every single year, it's
more of an operating cost, uh, than it is...
Uh, it's not one time. This is more one time because of the
size and the nature of it. But when
we, uh, were bonding for all of them, we were
essentially taking just a regular recurring part of our budget, um,
and financing it over a long period of time, which was-...
you know, inefficient and the strategy now of
having, you know, what's been for the last few years has been a $130 million a
year, I believe going to $140 in this year, is to, you know,
address the, the normal costs that are occurring each
year, um, in that ar- in that area.
Okay. Those are all my questions for now. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Laspada. Aldermen Taliaferro and Taylor have
joined us under Rule 59. Can I have a motion?
So moved by Alderman Irvin. All those in favor,
signify by saying, "Aye." Opposed?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and Alderman Taliaferro
and Alderman Tet- Taylor
are counted towards quorum. Alderman Moore followed
by Alderman O'Shay.
Point of information, Alderman
Lopez.
Can we confirm that those two members are present online?
Uh, yes. Alderman Taliaferro?
Alderman Taliaferro's present.
Yes, I see your hand raised. And Alderman
Taylor.
Alderman Taylor.
We'll come back to her. Alderman Moore.
Thank you so much, um, Chairman. Um, first of
all, um, e- e- let me start with
the good stuff. I, I appreciate this
administration-
Thank you, Alderman Taylor.
I, I appreciate this administration for
improving from last year a- and reaching out, um,
to members of the council. I think in mid-year we asked for some
revenue ideas. Um, I don't know what everybody submitted.
I, I never saw 'em. Uh, unfortunately, I never asked for them.
Um, I know one of mines was, um, the
light poles and doing advertising on 'em, and we can...
You know, but I just want, whether it was considered or not, that's not the debate
here. I just wanna... Uh, uh, you're not always gonna get everything you want, but
I want, just say, I wanna thank the administration, uh, for reaching
out earlier this year. For myself, and I'm talking about wha-
I think is, um, a- pretty much a good budget
that this mayor has laid out and this administration has laid out, um,
with exception of, for me, um,
the, the head tax in terms of, um, more conversation
around it. Um, I'll be the first to say, um,
those that have it needs to pay more.
I'm gonna be the first to say that. But what I don't wanna do is impact small
businesses, and I would like further, to have further conversation
about this to make sure that that's not happening, and hopefully we can get
there because I, I, I give the great example of
the, um, uh, uh, McDonald's operators, but it can be any other
small restaurant, and it's happening with, when we take, think about, you
know, the $15 minimum wage, um, then furthermore, I
found out, you know, um, the- these restaurants
gotta give people cost of living, um, adjustments, people like
McDonald's. And that's why, when I go to the restaurant now, you only
find one person at the counter these days in, in, in the
city for the most part. And so it'll become a fast food restaurant.
It has now become a slow food restaurant in some cases.
But also, some of those people who have all-year-round jobs because now
they're having to get laid off
are now getting in line to get a summer job in cases.
This is real. Uh, uh, but with that
said, um, I think there can be some more conversation around this.
If I had to vote on it today, I would have to vote no, um, because there
more, has to be more conversation.
Now, let me get to the other part,
and a- again, without talking to everybody, I don't know what a, the pressure point
is. Um, the grocery tax, which people
were paying already, which the governor made himself
look good, in my opinion, to say, "I'm eliminating it." And then people are
like, "Oh, yeah. He eliminated the grocery tax." Um, but then
if we as a city can pick it up, we're talking about
one, 1%. If you go out there and spend $100 on groceries, now you pay
$101. That's the re- that's, that's, that's what we were
paying anyway, and it was taken away, um, through the state, and all we
were supposed to do was put it back.
And so what I'm saying is that, so wherever this vote land, I, I, when I'm
doing chairman, I gotta, my constituents gotta know why I voted.
Um, and so, um, that's something we can look at, but there's a
political part to that too. I know people don't feel comfortable with that, but we
were doing... I can't twist people arms, but I think that's something we can live
with and, and then come back hopefully and
get in the room with these business people to see where they can pay
more. And so, and so-
Alderman Moore, I would like to ask if you have a
question. I know that you wanna explain to your constituents.
I think we can do that when and if this thing hits the city council
floor.
Okay, Chairman. That's fair.
Uh, uh, please ask questions.
No, that's fair, Chairman. And I didn't think about that.
And, and, and for the sake of time, um, if that gets to the city council
floor and it, and it's not satisfied, I'll do that.
So, but I think I got everything out, and, um, and we could talk about
that further. I'm gonna respect that time. But thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Moore. Alderman O'Shay.
Thank you, Chairman.
Uh, for the last 90 minutes, those of us who showed up on
time have been patiently waiting.
Uh, it's, I've now gotten three texts from colleagues in this room they're being
called into the Conway Room to get more pressure.
I renew the motion from my colleague in the 42nd Ward.
This is nonsense. We got commissioners running departments,
wasting their time sitting around down here.
Can we get this vote done now? Can, can we get to my colleague's
motion? This is a joke. They're calling people out there right
now to delay this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman O'Shay. I have four people left on this list
and I'm gonna go through, as I said, to give my, uh,
colleagues an opportunity to ask whatever questions they have.
Alderman
Waguespack.
Um, thanks Chairwoman. Um, and I agree with my colleague there, but
um-
So you have a quick question?
Yeah. I, I actually, I'll just, I have a lot to say too, but
I'll say one thing. I'm really offended by
you people sending the bond repayment schedule at
9:34 this morning. That is
unnecessary and it's unethical, and it just
shows that your fiduciary, uh,
obligations are either being ignored,
um, or in some way, I think, diluted by waiting until the
last minute to send that along. That's number one.
Um, number two is a question, Chairwoman.
How many schools get a dollar more as a result of the package that we're voting
on today?
We didn't hear the question. Can you say it again?
He's asking how many schools get $1 more
from the votes... You're talking about the TIF
surplus?
Uh, TIF surplus, um, and specific breakdown
per s- by school by school, um, throughout the city for how much they're
getting back through the TIF.
We don't allocate per school. That is done by CPS, but the TIF
surplus is being provided to CPS is,
um, $554 million.
Okay. So we didn't ask CPS specifically what they were spending it on?
CPS, uh, has its own board of education that votes on their
budget.
No, trips to Vegas cost more than a dollar, Alderman.
Um, okay, thank you very much.
Thank you. Alderman Hopkins, followed by Alderman
Sicha-Lopez.
Madam Chair, I'll be brief as well 'cause I know we're getting close to the vote.
Uh, I just wanna refer back to, uh, page 23, the breakout of the community
safety surcharge, uh, or the head tax, which is really probably a more
accurate name for it. Um, s-
particularly with, uh, regard to the allocation among the Department of Family
and Support Services, uh, are, are the funds that we provide
as grants to nonprofit entities, 501 (c) (3) s, et
cetera, uh, are, are those funds audited on any type of annual
basis?
Um, they're part of our, um, ACFA, if, if that's what you
mean. Um, so we do an annual financial audit.
If you're asking for programmatic audits, um, to the extent that
we, um, provide them funding through a grant, they are part of
our single audit, and each department is responsible for
reviewing the performance metrics, operational metrics that they
set forth in their own contracts with those delegate agencies to ensure
that they are abiding by the terms of their contracts.
Okay. And do we p- uh, publish those results?
Is there any kind of consolidated website where we could look at the performance
metrics and the evaluation? It's a lot of money to spend, it's a lot of money to
give, uh, to, to neighborhood-based associations,
uh, a- and, and I think it's fair to, uh, to try to assess,
um, if they're actually performing, uh, and, and doing the things we expect and
need them to do.
Uh, I don't know, off the top of my head.
I don't know that we have anyone from DFSS here with us.
I know that, uh, they do provide, um, a pretty
robust, uh, uh, report each year on One Summer Chicago in
particular, which is one of their largest programs.
Um, as it relates to their violence reduction programs, I don't know, um,
if they have a comprehensive website with all of their, uh, community
safety or other types of, um, uh, programming that
they, that they do.
(clears throat) Alderman, we, um, as, as the budget director mentioned-
Can you please identify yourself Council Member Belsky?
Uh, Mich- Michael Belsky, City Controller.
Um, we have three, three, um, uh,
d- divisions that do our accounting.
One is for the general fund, the other's for our enterprise funds, and
then for grant funds. And we do a, what's called a single audit for the grant
fund. Um, and what we're auditing
is, um, not just the spending of the money, but
compliance with any of the grant terms.
Uh, e- you know, as far as timing and the sort of program that had to
be funded and i- in many cases, uh, there's also a
requirement for, um, measuring impact.
So that, that is done and that is a publicly available
document just like the ACFA, uh, up on our
website. So we're happy to provide that to you otherwise.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Hopkins. Alderman Sicha-Lopez?
Thank you, um, thank you Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to have a
conversation. I think that we should have these, uh, important
conversations that take our time.
I mean, I just heard earlier on our colleagues wanted more time, but then we rush
to have conversations. This make no sense.
So, and if anything, I think there are communities out there who are deeply
impacted by this. And I think we represent very different communities, obviously.
And I, for one, I do respect the leadership of Black women who are sitting in front
of us. So I'd ask some decorum at the very minimum to respect
the, the, the Chairs. I know that some of you it's being a big ask, but
I do appreciate the history of this because if the same
individuals who are so outrage, so outraged for something
didn't happen, had no problem voting for a $600 million
property tax increase. And I remind you,
that's you, Mr. Riley.
Hey, hey, hey.
So, but again-
Yeah.
... what I wanna make sure is that, what I make sure is that we understand that
what is on the line, because when the corporate head tax was phased
out, that's exactly what happened.
Then who is going to b- blunt the burden of all of this is gonna be working
people.I, for one, don't think corporations need more advocates.
They already have a great advocate with Donald Trump.
So we do need to figure this out, and I'm gonna take my time.
And be very clear. My question around the corporate head tax,
is this a tax that the City of Chicago one, had had it?
Since when had it? And if we adjust it for inflation, what will be that
tax
now? Because this is something that has been in existence, and the reason why
was phased out was extremely harmful for people in
the City of Chicago. Those property tax bills that my constituents get
are a result of that. So if I can ask, if I can ask that
question.
Uh, thank you for the question. So the corporate head tax, uh, was put in
place by, um, Richard Daley back in the
1970s, um, and it was at, uh,
$3 per employee for corporations
with 15 or more employees. Um, over time, that,
that threshold changed and it got to about $4 per
employee. Um, (clears throat) and I believe it was
50 employees, uh, corporations with 50 or more employees.
It was repealed in 2011 with a sunset,
um, in 2012.
Um, uh, and what we are proposing is to
reinstate the, uh, version of that as the community safety
surcharge, um, at $21
per employee for, uh, companies with 100 or more
employees who work full time in the City of Chicago, at least
50% of their time. Um, and the reason why it's $21
per employee is because if the tax had been in place and had
increased by inflation since, uh, it was first rein- uh,
instituted in the 1970s, it would be $21
per employee today.
Yeah. So if I- if I get this clear, so this is a
tax that was phased out
under an administration that raised property taxes by
$600 million
because the holes that we will have to fill will come from working
people. Make no mistake about it. Uh,
my other question in terms of the, um, the
alternatives. Um, I know that there's been conversations with
the, you know, re- reputable accounting firms about what the options
are. And I echo my colleague, Alderman
Moore's questions, and also when the state
constantly talks about
phasing out prop- phasing out the grocery tax, phasing
out, um ... Or opposing the corporate head tax, then what
other alternatives have we gotten from the state?
I hear oftentimes here in this body that we keep kicking the,
the, the can down the road. And I do think that this is something that the state
and city should figure out, but in terms of what are the alternatives that we have,
because those gaps are significant, if you can remind us what would be the grocery
tax gap and other gaps that we have, because I think that will
explain why we have to look at corporates to do the fair sh- do
the fair share of taxes.
Uh, thank you for the question. Um, uh, first, as we have
mentioned, I think we gave several presentations in the revenue sub-committee
last year and this year. Um, we are in a
very, uh, constricted place, um, uh,
constitutionally at the municipal level as to what we can
raise as relates to revenues. Um, and, and, and we're not the
only ones. The City of Chicago just happens to have the largest budget.
Um, we are, uh, limited. We can't, uh,
we can't tax occupations, we can't tax income,
um, and we only have certain types of home rule authority, so we are
already in a very limited, uh, uh, sort of framework
in our ability to raise revenue in order to provide services
to constituents. Um, over the last couple of years,
a number of things have occurred at the state level, um, in
addition to the passage of bills that have dramatically increased the
city's pension costs, one of which was passed in,
um, Springfield this year. Um, they've also
continued to pass bills that, uh, reduce the
revenues that come back to municipalities like the City of Chicago, including
the grocery tax, which they never received any revenue from.
They just collected it on behalf of municipalities.
Um, so that was phased out and will be phased out at the end of this year.
We stand to lose $80 million a year, uh, from the phase out
of, of, of that, uh, tax. Um, and the funny thing
is, if you ... If, if we locally decide to put the grocery tax in
place, we're not collecting it. The state will collect it, as they will for
a- about 600 other municipalities throughout the state.
So they're not shifting
how the tax is collected or how it is
implemented. They're just choo- they're just shifting who has to take the vote
on implement- uh, um, instituting it.
The second thing is, over the last several years, um, the
personal property replacement tax is, um, a tax that
was put in place, uh, during the 1970s once the
city-
Excuse me. Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to point out that it is against our rules to
be lobbied on the city council floor and that Jason Lee is continuously pulling
people over the bar to talk to them about-
Um, you don't know what he was saying to Alderman Sposato, so-
... who's not wishing him a
happy birthday. ... you've made your point. Thank you, Alderman.
Um, who else
... Who was just talking?
I was.
The director.
(laughs) Yeah.
Who's, um ...
Sorry to keep interrupting you. Uh, as I said-
It's okay. Uh, the personal property replacement tax, which was a
tax that was taken away from municipalities to
levy, um, corporate income tax, um,
under our own authority and placed at the state level in order
to make it a consistent tax throughout the entire state.
Um, over the last, uh, 15 years, the state has
continually, um, taken diversions of that replacement tax
which is meant for municipalities, um, for its own budget, um,
not just to cover the cost of, um-...
the cost of, uh, collecting and administering those, those
dollars back to municipalities, but to cover their own budget gaps.
Um, and lastly, the last one you asked about was the local
government distributive fund, which, um, used to be a 10%
distributive share to all municipalities.
That was lowered, um, several years ago to 6%, and has only, um,
increased, um, uh, marginally over the last several
years. If you take all of that together on an annual basis, the City of
Chicago is losing about $230 million.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the point I'm trying to make was that the state has
certainly put a lot of burden on the city with that ability for us to raise our own
funding. I do think that for us to talk about the structural solutions,
we certainly gotta do what we did this year, which is have a delegation, and I
appreciate the members of the City Council that went to Springfield.
One thing that I think we cannot do is to fail people in a moment where we have
families going hungry, literally on our streets.
We have people who need us to come a solution is to offer no
alternative and to kill any kind of alternative.
So, I urge our body just as I urged Governor
Pritzker, let's have a conversation to talk about new
revenue because offering no solution and killing
alternatives, it is indeed irresponsible.
But, uh, I look at the leadership of this body to work together for
those who are right now experiencing extreme poverty
that cannot afford more property taxes.
And I, for one, I'm not gonna be lectured by someone who's talking
about high property taxes but don't feel it.
We certainly feel it.
Thank you.
And certainly coming from a regime like Michael Madigan, I feel
that is inappropriate. Those are the problems and we wanna change it now.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Alderman Citro. Now, you...
A point of information, Alderman Riley.
Madam Chair, as, as per the norm, my colleague from the 25th Ward has
misstated many facts. The first one being that I voted for Rahm
Emanuel's $587 million tax increase.
My point of information is that this man owes this body an
apology for misstating the truth.
Thank you.
Never voted for that tax increase, Byron.
Point of information taken. Alderman
Vazquez, followed by Alderman
Beale.
I mean, how do you, how do you follow that act?
All right, so, uh-
Follow it.
I will (laughs) . Thank you, Madam
Chair. Sure. I'll start this right
now. Uh, there are a number of us who have no issue trying to figure out how
business is gonna put some skin in the game 'cause the deficit is as big as it is.
There are a number of us who, even if we understand that business should, think
that it is irresponsible as hell to have this amount of debt, this amount of
borrowing, this amount of deficit coming in future years.
So, although people want to frame it as about being pro or against the ad tax, some
people like responsible budgeting that our children don't have to pay for later.
There were plenty of people who thought they had a great idea when they sold off a
parking meter to solve a debt. I don't want to see it repeated, so
I've got questions based on the bonding.
What are you guys gonna spend the money on?
'Cause, uh, I just found out last week, I and members of this council for the first
time found out, that whenever settlements aren't paid for with
appropriations, that we're borrowing money to pay them, separate from the Watts
deal. But we found out about other money being borrowed.
So again, which I asked last time, how much interest are we paying on the money
we're borrowing to pay back settlements?
Uh, let me pull that information for
you.
Separately while you're doing that, how much of the GO money is gonna be used to
pay off settlements compared to other projects when you're taking out that much on
a bond?
I'm sorry, could you ask the question again?
Yeah. So if we're borrowing all this money and it's under a lump sum of different
reasons to do so, what percentage of that money is gonna go to pay off
settlements, and what interest is going to pay off settlements?
Because again, and I, I know you guys said it like the Monday before,
members of this body were not clear at all that that's what's happening with the
money.
You could do the math.
The, uh, amount of, the amount of settlements is $283
million. Um, the, uh, annual interest cost
on that is $9.6 million is what we're projecting at this point.
And is that, that's for, like, basically a year?
What's the length of time that you're saying that
on? It's for a, a five-year repayment period, so interest and then five years.
So it'll be about $60 million.
Yep.
Um...
Uh, point of informa- point of information.
It is... So based on, based on the debt payment schedule that was provided this
morning that Alderman Waguespack referred to, it was
283.3 million of principles the CFO stated, but it was
the, I mean, it amortizes, so the total interest was
41,768,000,
not 9,000,000.
I'm sorry, I'm just going off my notes here.
I will dou- I'm, I'm looking, I will look at that, uh, file right now.
I'd love it if in advance.
That's the total for five years to be clear.
Yep.
Alderman Vazquez, continue.
Yep, absolutely. Well, um, I'd like, also like to know what controls are in place
for decision-making. I don't want to get to the point where we're finding out of
where we're borrowing money without the council having a way in, especially for
coequal branches trying to figure this out.
So what controls are in place and how are decisions made as far as money being
borrowed to pay off settlements?
So, um, the, uh, uh, as far as using a, a bond
to do it?
Yeah. How did, how does that get decided 'cause we know the body ha- uh, doesn't
even know it was happening.
S- so any bond authority that we have used to, uh, pay off
settlements as, as Jill said earlier, one, this, this council and
this body routinely approve bonds for that purpose.
And so there were bonds available to use.
So that's the authority, the bonds itself.
So my, my question and what I would like changed is per settlement where this is
happening, the body having to know about it, being reported out, and having to
figure out some level of decision-making by a coequal branch.
So, um, the ones that are before you, um, this one
bond that's before you for the 283 is based
on the forecasting that the Department of Law has
done, um, around the settlements that they are bringing forth
to aggressively sh- um...... uh, settle out cases
from decades ago. Um, so we, we get that, that
information from the Department of Law and I think that they were before you last
week around their budget, um, and their approach to their
operations for the coming year. Um, I would, I would have to defer
to them about the, the, the cases that they are anticipating would
be of... within this-
Okay.
... bond, bonded authority.
Yeah, just wanna-
Um- ... put that on the record. I've got-
And Alderman, uh, all the settlement orders come before
the, uh, uh, Committee on Finance before they
are actually acted upon. And I think that question you have about
how
they are to be paid, you know, should be raised at
that time.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman, and, and forgive the intrusion, but with regards to the
question that my colleague just mentioned, on page four of the
bo- bond ordinance, Article
II, Section B says, "The city's ability to issue bonds from time to time without
further action by the City Council..." Isn't that the answer to his
question as to how you're able to borrow without City Council-
No.
... after this is approved?
That's incorrect.
So then you do come back for all bonding issues?
The bond itself, and, and Jill can speak to this, the amount that's
available for settlements and judgments is reflected in the bond
itself.
But that ordi- I don't wanna take up his time, but that ordinance,
the, the recital herein is that we accept it as true that you don't have to
come back once we approve this ordinance for $2 billion or $1.8
billion. And I know this... The Finance Committee has asked numerous
times to have that relooked at and reviewed and removed, and it's
been tweaked slightly, but I think to the c- to our colleague's point,
when you borrow billions and you have that
available to you, shouldn't you be coming back before City Council as you start
meet- metering out what it, meting out what it is that you're trying to bond out
for?
Yeah, so the- there's, there's two different ways that, uh, authorizations can be
provided for bonds and one is an authorization that is a multi-year authorization
like this, and one is a, uh, bond-by-bond
authorization, which would require if you did a bond-by-bond
authorization for, um, City
Council or Finance Committee to probably meet and vote on, in any given
year, between
six to 10 times on individual authorization.
Given the high level of activity at the city, the amount of bonding we do, for
instance, in this quarter alone, we're issuing five separate bond issues.
Um, that is not something that has been felt to be practical in the
past. Um, and so the authorization outlines all of the
items that it may be spent on. It gives a maximum amount.
Um, we do report back with each bond sale to,
uh, the finance chair, um, what we were
selling, um, what for, the team, various details like
that. And no bond sale can proceed unless it receives
the, uh, signature of the finance committee
chairperson on the bond purchase agreement.
But... Thank you, but to my point-
Th- thank you.
... does it say it comes back to
Alderman Vasquez, please continue.
Thank you. Yeah. If through the chair you can provide more detail on that answer,
that'd be great. Um, uh, a- as far as taxing the rich, and some people think, some
of us don't wanna do that. Uh, how much money do you get for every increase of the
PPLT if it's 1%?
Um,
so the increase from 14 to 15 was $82
million. It changes depending upon each increase because you
start to have to factor in consumer, um, and, and
corporate behavior.
If you could, to the chair, provide reasoning to not increase it further.
Um, I'd love to hear that since people wanna make it framed as though people don't
wanna tax the rich or whatever. Whatever reason you guys don't wanna do it, if you
could put it on paper, I'd appreciate.
Uh, and then I got f- couple, two, I'll make it quick.
Uh, the Smart Streets Pilot program, why is it not citywide
already?
Is someone from CDOT here?
No. Uh-
Oh. Uh-
I re- I... I mean, I can, I can just speak to-
Sorry, but-
... um, you know, the, the, the current program first of all in- includes
technology. And, and the technology's
relatively new, so
I wasn't here, but the council approved, uh, about a
year-long, uh, test and we just limited it to bike and bus
lanes.
Yep.
Um, and that resulted in, um, you
know, I think
26,000 violations raised to the date
about 700,000. And i-
based on
aldermanic complaints and just logistics of
having an adjacent area, so we, we're, we're proposing to
expand it, uh, by 125%,
um, and adding violations like street sweeping,
um, and, and, um, we're, we are getting
two new vehicles. There's four right now from CDOT and
from, uh, Department of Finance, and, you know, we're
projecting net of cost to g- to realize $6
million. Um, I think it's a matter, it's really a matter of
resources, uh, and, and the ability to
manage and implement it. Um,
it... There is a cost associated with it, you have to buy, buy-
Time's
up. ... vehicles and then you have to administer it.
So, um, you know, if the council wants to provide us those
resources, um, we, we would expand it.
But I would, I would say that
the other thing we're doing is we have these no-cost, uh, pilots under
the, under the Smart Streets ordinance, um, that we've looked
at from other cities where they're actually of stationary,
uh, stationary technology that picks up, uh,
meter violations. And that's something we, we have added this year to Smart
Street. So, so I would think, um-It's
sometimes smart for government to operate incrementally
and perfect, uh, what we're doing.
And so I think this expansion will allow us to do that, but also by keeping an
eye on new technology. Um, you know, it m- it might
be at some point in time that we do not have parking,
uh, enforcement personnel or vehicles.
Uh, AI might be able to pick up a lot of the (laughs) violations.
So if we get too invested in it, we might have
sunk costs and not have the opportunity to take advantage
of, um-
I, I appreciate the answer. I just think that government, and definitely
this government, has not shown itself any level of quick when any level of
technology's involved. We had a, a pilot and expected it to start a
year after it started. That was a couple of years ago now.
And so not having anything up when you were talking about cameras on vehicles, when
you guys are asking for money to pay for...
We could pay for cameras on vehicles that just generate more revenue.
It's the same when we look at investigators that generate revenue, or DOF, or
anything else. The fact that we're not looking to do that and expand it citywide
off the top is embarrassing. Not towards you.
I know you just got here, so I don't mean that personally.
But if we're not looking at actual ways to get revenu- revenue, and that's not a
tax. You know what you could do, if you don't wanna get ta- uh, taxed by it?
Don't block a bike lane. So the fact that you could literally do that, or speed
cameras, and figure out ways to get revenue for people who just violate the
law, it just, it's a problem. So the last thing I've
got is, uh, the vacant property registration renewal fee. How high can you go?
Is there a limit?
So, um, I'll let, uh, uh, Commissioner Hopkins no- uh,
weigh in, but for all fees, we can't, um, go above
what are the cost of, uh, providing the services.
So we always have to be mindful of that-
Sure.
... uh, as negating, um-
Yeah.
... point. But I'll turn it over to Commissioner
Hopkins.
Good afternoon, Alderman. Marlene Hopkins, commissioner for the Department of
Buildings. Can you repeat your question for me, please?
Absolutely. So, and I, and I'll frame it.
For years, a lot of us in this body have said, all these
landlords that keep these vacant storefronts and get a write-off off of
it have not been held to account. So I do think that raising the rate for the
renewal, uh, the registration renewal fee for that makes sense.
I wonder how high we can raise it, legally, 'cause they should be maxed
out if there, if it's not... If it's more than $350, they should pay more than
$350, I guess is my question.
So for this particular category, it is for the
mortgagees. So the mortgagees are the actual ones that hold the
note for the mortgage. And when they start their
foreclosure proceedings, they are not monitoring the properties to
determine if the individuals that were residing there have left.
So when we go out to do our inspections in response to a 311 request
for vacant and open buildings, we are finding that a
third of the registered initial registrations are coming from
mortgagees. So they're not being responsible in
monitoring their assets. And so, um,
as a result of this, you figure the manpower, th- the time for
the inspector, the cost to board and secure the building.
As budget director stated, we are looking to bring the fees in
line with our actual costs. And we will continue to do
evaluations of the various categories of regist-
regri- required registrations and we'll, you know, act
accordingly and work closely with the Budget Department.
Okay. If you could, through the chair, send any kind of information on the
evaluations, I think us knowing that would be helpful.
And I, I do appreciate the work. Um, that being said, there's a lot
more work that needs to be done on this budget.
Um, my hope is that we're able to figure out a way to land on something that's
responsible. I think we need a full pension payment.
I am gravely concerned that we're
doing what councils in the past have done, and that's tried to solve a
problem for one year that leads to much larger problems in future years.
We know next year's gonna be even harder.
And so I know that it's not easy for us to make the tough decisions, but they're
necessary. Uh, thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, I just... Alderman, I wanted to add to my answer that, that
to your point, is we just, uh, installed cameras on
six CTA buses that we'll be, um, picking up files-
How long did that take?
... for bus, bus and bike lanes.
How long did it take for six buses?
Um, um, pardon me?
You said we just got six buses with cameras on it, right?
I'm trying to figure out how long that took.
Six CTA buses.
Yeah, how long did it take? Was it a month? Was it two years?
Uh, um, we just, we actually just, we just entered in an intergovernmental
agreement, and, uh, it's being started being
tested in, uh, October of '25.
Okay, thank you, Alderman
Veal. I think, yeah, it's amazing. We need to go fast.
Um, Alderman Veal, followed by Alden...
Oh, not Veal, Alderman Beal. Excuse
me.
(laughs)
Um, Alderman Casada.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just got two quick, uh, questions.
Um, you know, during CDOT's, um, hearing, I asked for
information that I have not received yet about, uh, all the
finances, um, that were spent from that, uh,
particular department by ward. Um, is there any anticipation of
that?
Um, CDOT's, through the chairs, were sent to the budget committee, um, a week
ago.
Okay. Was that included?
Uh, we can go back and ensure that it was, but like I said, all the CDOTs
were sent a week ago.
Okay. And secondly, my other question.
You know, we talk about, you know, all the things that we're saying that the state
doesn't allow us to do in order to raise additional revenue.
Do we need the state's authority to, um, make cuts and
efficiencies?
No.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Alderman Casada.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to, um, everyone who's presented thus far.
Um, my question, um, to go back to the corporate head
tax. Um, in
2011, when we, we still had the corporate head tax at its full
rate, um, does the...... Budget director know
how much money we were generating at that point?
Um, what was the revenue we were developing, we were generating with the former
head tax?
Um, I think it was around $40 million, but I can get that for you,
um, uh, after today's meeting.
And was that earmark toward anything, or is that just going to our
corporate budget?
It was in the general fund.
General fund, okay. And so we're looking at $21 today, that's the
proposal, uh, at 100 employees and
more, and we're looking to have that go towards
a, an initiative that our major industries have been saying is
their number one priority, is having community safety. Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay. So I've heard some concerns that folks have with, you
know, the 100 employee level, um, some folks have
floated the 200 employee level. If we go up to tw- 200
people at $21, we would generate $83 million,
correct?
Yes.
Now, has there been conversations or has there been an analysis done
by, uh, by budget around whether or
not we could... or what it would look like if we actually raised the
amount per employee, if we raised the amount of
employees that would be taxed? So, instead of $21 for
companies with 200 employees or more, has the department done a reven- uh, you
know, a revenue analysis of if we raised that to $30 and what that would
generate?
Uh, we have not done that analysis.
Okay. And then, do we have an analysis of
the amount of companies or businesses that
have over 200 employees?
Um, so we currently, um, you know, as I had mentioned
in the hearing, I think... (laughs) I've been in so many hearings at this point,
uh, last week. Um, we don't receive,
um, data currently, uh, within our departments
that have employee data as of today.
The data we have is the informa- the tax information from when
the, uh, tax was last in place. And as you know,
um, businesses have grown, they have more employees today.
Right.
So we can do... And, and we can estimate what employee,
um, uh, bases are for companies here in Chicago, but
because we don't receive that information absolutely directly
from those corporations, we would only be, uh, providing
an, um, uh, a, a, a guess.
An
Mm-hmm.
So when we start, um, when we start taxing folks through a head
tax, we would actually start generating that data and we would have a better
analysis of how many employers there are that have that many employees,
et cetera, et cetera, correct?
Correct.
Okay. That's really good to know. 'Cause I think that, uh, you know, the, the
compromised $21 level, um, which doesn't ama-
uh, you know, account for the amount of tax breaks that corporations have
been given, uh, over the past number of years through Trump's tax
breaks, uh, would give us a really good analysis as to how many corporations there
are that, that could pay in their fair share.
Um, a question that I have for you, uh, Budget Director is, do you know how much
money in, uh, profits, uh, Google made last
year? Their 2024 profit margin?
I, I don't know that information.
They made $100 billion. Um, do you know how much
money Google gave to, uh, Trump's ballroom this
year?
I do not know.
They gave them $22 million. Um,
do you know what building is being built right across the street from City Hall?
Uh, Google's, uh, Chicago, um, headquarters.
Yeah. They're building a big, massive headquarters.
Um, they have a lot of money. Um, they can pay a corporate head
tax. Um, on their website, um, do you know how many employees
they state to have in the City of Chicago?
I do not.
18... They say north of 1800, so let's say conservatively they have
2000 employees. Uh, at a $21 head tax, they'd
be paying roughly $500,000 a year.
Um, it would take them 44 years to pay, um, the
2020- the $22 million that they gave to Trump's
ballroom. Um, I th- I find that really interesting and,
um, I agree with, with what my colleagues have been saying thus far, and I
think it's really important that we have a very clear analysis and that we have the
courage to stand up to the amount of wealth and income
inequality that has been taking place in our city and our country.
Um,
I would like to know, um, do you know how much money in profits JP
Morgan Chase made last year?
I don't.
Well, I- They made $57 billion. Um, do you know how much money
Bank of America made last
Alderman Casada, Alderman Casada, Alderman Casada, we're not going down your full
list of 20-something companies.
Yeah.
You've made your point. Do you have any other questions?
Yeah, I wanna know if we do not pass a corporate head tax, what would happen to the
initiatives that we are seeking to pass
that, that City of Chicago needs, the data proven, um,
initiatives that have improved safety in our city?
What would happen if we don't pass a corporate head tax, Budget
Director?
Um, so unless this body, um, either, uh,
finds cuts, uh, of the equal magnitude
or another revenue source, uh, those programs would
be in jeopardy of not happening in 2026.
Got it. Um, based off your conversations with department
heads, um, how much more cuts can they make at this
time?
Um, with, uh, uh, without service
provisions, none. Um, uh, service interruption, none.
We would have... We would begin to start to see a
significant service, uh, uh, interruptions.
Um, in order to cut from the corporate fund, um,
the equal amount, uh, that we're talking about for the, uh,
community safety fund, you would not be able to do it without touching police
or fire.
Got it. Um, have my colleagues sent you any lists of services
that they'd like cut from their ward?
No.
Interesting. Nor I haven't either because my
constituents are, you know, uh, one, they deserve the
services that they currently have and they want to maintain that.
So I'm not interested in cutting any services and I'm
surprised to hear that some of my colleagues do but they haven't communicated that
yet. Um, so that's fascinating. Um, I think that we need to
stop playing games and we need to stop just trying to make the mayor look
bad, and actually work on passing policies that are sound,
um, and that are good and that are gonna help our communities stabilize at this
time, uh, where there's so much instability. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Uh, thank you Alderman Quezada. I, I don't take
kindly to the stop playing games thing. We're ...
none of us are down here playing games.
Um, we're here doing the work of
our, of our constituents and we don't ...
we are not monolithic. Um,
Alderman Irvin.
Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Spirited debate
today. Um, I, I think actually, and, uh, Alderman
Quezada did ask a few of the questions that, um, that, that I,
that I was going to ask. Um, ultimately, we,
this body's just gotta make some decisions.
Um, are we going to, uh,
reduce expenditures? Um, we
say efficiencies, but efficiencies at this point in
time amount to service reductions.
Um, are we gonna make those service reductions?
I think the budget director's been very clear about the
changes that would be required would result in service reductions.
Uh, some of the questions I, I ask and I, I don't wanna pause this question
'cause it, I didn't get an answer to it when we had the conversation last
week. Uh, how much time does it take us to fill a
pothole?
Good afternoon, Aldermen. Um, Craig Turner, Acting Commissioner for CDOT.
Uh, seven to 10, seven to 10 days to fill a pothole.
Seven to 10 days? Now, if we moved that service to
20 days, how much would that save you?
Uh, far as savings, I mean, the numbers still be the same,
um, but it'd just take a little longer to get it done.
Ho- how could the number be the same if, if we're pushing it
out? Help me to understand that. H- how would the number be the same?
Well, we'll still have the same number of potholes, so therefore, I mean, we'll
still have the same ... it'd just take a little longer with, you
But if you had ... I'm the most ... I'm saying, if you had, i- if theoretically
if you had less people, it would take you longer to get something done,
right?
Yes, if we had less people, we'll take longer to get things done.
Okay. So if you had half the people filling potholes
today, number one, how much would that save you and how much longer would it take
to get the pothole filled?
Um, I have to look into that for you to, to do the, the
calculations on it. But-
Is it, is it double? Is it triple? I mean, what is it?
I mean, what is it? I mean, and you're ... but just ...
I mean, I'm just asking in a, in a professional opinion, what do you, what do you
think that might be? If we took half, we can save half
the money, right? But tell us what you
think the service, uh, level agreement would look like
then.
He doesn't have a number, Alderman-
Well-
... Irvin.
Well, I asked a question a week ago
and I haven't gotten an answer.
Well, we're
Because that's what we're talking about here.
We, we're talking about reduction of expenses.
We're talking about reduction of expenses and we need to know and understand
what the impact of those reductions and expenses will be.
And for us not to know if we go, if it's gonna take us 10 days,
20 days or 30 days to fill a pothole if we reduce expenses, again, is
for, is uh, is us shooting in the dark.
So again, if we are talking about reducing
costs, we need to know what that means to Ms.
Jones. We need to know if we say we're going
to reduce costs on filling potholes, we need to let Ms.
Jones know that it's gonna take 30 days to get the pothole filled.
Can I, can I give you some perspective if that's-
Sure.
... if
that's okay. I'm, I'm out. I'm, I'm ho- somebody got something to say.
Yeah. So just within the corporate fund, uh, salaries and
wages amount to $2.6 billion.
Of that, 58% or 1.5 is
CPD. Of that $2.6
billion, um, 19 or 20%
is CFD at $500 million.
Uh, Streets and Sands is about 3.5 and only
$117 million. Uh, 2FM
is $92 million or 3.5%.
DOF is 1.6% at $42
million. All remaining 30
departments in the City of Chicago, all of the
others, is 12.3% at $300
million. That's why I keep saying, if you're going
to do this, the only way to cut, you
have to hit CPD.
Okay.
Well, let me tell you this. I'm not signing up for that one.
I'm just, just letting you know. I'm not signing up to
further or reduce, uh, public safety.
I'm not, I'm not signing up for that.
Nor am I signing up to kill summer jobs for kids
in the City of Chicago. Nor am I signing up to reduce community violence
interruption and prevention in the City of Chicago.
Nor am I signing up to reduce expenses on gender-based violence in the
City of Chicago. Nor am I signing up-
Chairman.
... to reduce-
Chairman,
Let me ... I'm, I'ma get to my question, if y'all let me.
Just get to it.
I'ma get, I'ma get-
Please. ... get to my question. Okay. So you talked about the, the corporate head tax
reduction, and if you ... if that is removed from the budget,
then those programs that have been delineated, uh, for
that would be e- essentially e- eliminated?
... um, unless another revenue source or if, uh, cuts
are identified.
Do, do you have another revenue source or anything that, that,
that, that the department has identified that would, would, would alleviate
this?
Um, not that, that we have put forth.
And, um, we haven't received any in
response either.
Okay. So, w- we... No new revenue to the
table, no expenditures to the table,
reductions to the table.
Uh, d- can we pass a budget that's not balanced?
No, not by state law.
Okay. The other thing, uh, we, we must
pass-
Excuse me, Alderman Irvin.
...
Alderman Vasquez, you have a point of clarification?
Yes. Uh, (clears throat) last week, I asked through the chair for a list
of, um, uh, efficiencies that, uh, Ernst &
Young, uh, provided that the city did not go with and a reasoning as to
why. I don't think I've received it. I was wondering if it was sent.
Um, if it hasn't been sent, it'll be sent today.
Okay.
But as I said before, s- of the 100, we have implemented
or are beginning to implement 76 of those.
Yep.
Not all will achieve savings in year one.
Yeah. I- the only reason I bring it up is when it's being presented that we didn't
bring this up or something, like, we were asking for this.
We would like answers, so thank you. That's all, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Alderman?
Um, let me just, let me just say this, um,
at the end of the day, this comes down to a value question, uh, for,
for us. Um, I'm gonna say it, I,
didn't say it last time. E- so everybody wants to get to heaven,
but nobody wants to die.
Again, it's ever so true and, uh, it also
goes back to a point, uh, uh, in the book of Joshua, it says, "Pick today whom you
will serve."
And the question is, are we gonna serve the residents of the city or are we gonna
serve folks downtown? It's just that que- it's just that
simple. You gonna help Google out or we gonna help
Grandma? We gonna help the stock market or the
supermarket? I'm just being... It's just that, it's just that
simple. Because again, the people in my community saw
great increases in their tax bills, right?
So again, some of you all that were talking about, "Hey, we need to hit the button,
hit the, hit the gas-"
Uh, d-
Where they at today? All right.
... Chair. Chair.
Thank you, Madam. May- oh, I'm sorry. My apologies, Madam Chair.
Thank you. You are sounding like, uh, Re-
Reverend Irvin over there.
I am. I, uh, I, I was at church (laughs) .
I was at church yesterday.
Alderman Scott?
Just, uh, I have a question. So it's $100
million, uh, that we're going after for this,
uh, for this revenue for-
Community ser-
Yes.
... safety surcharge. Yes.
How, how can we, um, how can you assure us
that we're gonna get that $100 million? Is it...
What's the, like, how do you go after the corporations to get that $100
million? And how do you know exactly it's gonna be $100 million?
So, as, uh, we're, uh, uh... This was a question that Alderman Riley asked as
well, and we provided the information through the chair, but we are pretty
conservative in our estimates because of, one, we don't have the
updated tax information, um, to know how many employees
every single company has, so this is based-
Excuse me. Can I get some quiet in here?
So this is based on, uh, dated information.
Um, and this is the number of what the corporations who, um, were in the
City of Chicago at that time. So we are being pretty conservative.
Uh, how do we go after the dollars? Well, one, they're required to spend, to,
to pay it, um, if this ordinance is passed, like they did in
the past. And to the extent that, um...
And there's a lot of different ways that the Department of Finance's revenue
division, um, can know if a company is supposed to pay something and they're
not, so they audit and then they enforce if a company is not
paying, like they do on all of our taxes.
That's it.
Uh, uh, oh, Vice Chair Conway, you only get this
'cause you're the vice chair.
Thank you. And I, I am only going to, I am only going
to, to ask a question. You know, I, I have no aphorisms
like, "Everyone's afraid to fall, but nobody wants to climb." I have
nothing like that to add in. (laughs) But
I, I (laughs) , and I love it. I love it. No, no love? All right. It's a question.
I will leave it to a question. You know, I, I d- and it's kind of a point of
information off Aldermen Waguespack and Vasquez.
Um, I, I'm just looking at the debt payment schedule that was sent out this
morning. I just wanna make sure I'm reading it right.
It looks like, for example, in the, in the 2029,
uh, capital and infrastructure plan for 2029, that would be...
Would that be interest only payments until 20
through 2048? Is that... I just wanna make sure I'm reading...
Uh, no, that's not correct.
Uh... Oh, you're looking at
the, an issuances model in 2029.
Y- yeah, I was looking at the debt payment schedule sent out this morning.
It looks like 2029 CIP, for example, there's no...
It's all interest only until-
Yeah.
... 2049. Same with-
So, you know, when we, when we model these, these things are gonna change based
upon things like whether we do refundings or not, achieve savings,
create pockets where we can amortize things earlier.
So in the initial, uh, financings that we're looking at, '26,
'27, we're amortizing those, um, over about a
20, 21-year period where we're starting to, uh, make
payments in nine years and financing the whole thing in, in 20
years. And that's being done in '26 and '27.
Um, you know, we're modeling, at this point initially, some of these, uh,
later deals as wrapping around those.
Right.
That is not necessarily, you know, also, you know, gonna be the case, just like the
deal- the bonds we did in this year, where, um, you know,
we, we initially modeled a wraparound, but we, you know, ultimately took
advantage of where we could amortize the bonds shorter
and built in, uh, more principal repayment in the, in the
near term.
Well, I mean, even looking at the 2027 one, it looks like that,
that is interest only until-... uh-
2036, so a nine-year period.
Yeah. Is that... I'm just wanna make sure I'm reading that right.
Mm-hmm.
Okay. That's-
But we, we, we would certainly be happy to amortize the bonds much
earlier, um, and it would increase the, uh, cost of the
budget.
Yeah. I have, um... I said I'd only answer questions.
I, I have grave concerns about the, the back-loaded nature of this,
in that regard. But I, I will make no other statement than that.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your indulgence.
Thank you, Alderman Conway. Uh,
Alderman Irvin?
Thank you. Uh, are there any other, uh, speakers
here?
No.
Uh, with that being the case, I'll move to, uh, lay Alderman Riley's motion on the
table. And if that is successful to recess this committee until the date and time
that you set forth at the beginning then.
Call.
Is, is that a superseding motion?
It
is.
Okay. Okay, so we will have a roll call on Alderman
Chairman Irvin's motion.
Um, I've been... I, I will acknowledge that that is a
superseding motion.
Um, would you repeat your motion
for the body? And then I will call for a vote.
Uh, my motion is to lay Alderman Riley's
motion of move-due pass on the table.
And if that is successful, then to move to recess to the date and time
that you set forth, which I believe was... Can I... A, am I...
Can I explain? She asked me to explain.
If you want to say something after that, you can have the floor to do that.
Or I have the floor now, sir. Again, uh, as...
Oh, let me start over then. 'Cause I, 'cause I lost my train of thought.
Again, my motion is to lay Alderman Riley's due pass
motion on the table. And if that motion is
successful, to have a motion to recess to the date and time that you
initially set forth, which I believe was December 3rd at 10:00 AM.
All right, so we'll take the first motion first.
And I know that-
That's fair. I'm, I'm okay with that.
Now, again, if that's successful, then we'll move to the second one.
Okay.
All right. Thank you, ma'am.
So the... What we're voting on is to lay, uh, Alderman Riley's due
pass motion on the table. I will call the
roll. Vice-Chair Conway.
Alderman Laspada. Alderman
Hopkins.
No.
Alderman Hall. Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beale.
No.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez. Alderman
Quinn.
No.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
(sneezes)
Alderman Curtis. Alderman O'Shay.
No.
Alderman Taylor.
Yes.
Alderman Moseley. Alderman
Rodriguez.
Yes.
Alderman Scott.
Yes.
Alderman Sicha-Lopez.
Yes.
Alderman Brunette.
Yes.
Alderman Irvin.
Yes. Alderman Taliaferro.
Yes.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waguespack.
No.
Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez.
Alderman Quezada.
I.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Metts.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez.
Yes.
Alderman Riley.
Yes.
Alderman Knudson.
Yes.
Alderman Martin.
Yes.
Alderman Silverstein. Chair Dyle votes
yes.
Uh,
Ex Officio Nugent?
No.
Let me count. What was it?
1818, Todd?
No.
19 yes, 19... Uh, the vote
was 19 yes and 18
nos. The motion passes.
What's your second motion?
My second motion is to recess.
Hold on a second.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Yes. It's
eight... Yeah. Constantine, you
can't count. Six, seven,
eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18. It's 1818. The motion
fails.
Alderman Lopez.
I renew Alderman Riley's motion.
Alderman Riley, can you repeat your motion?
Yes, Madam Chair. I move due pass on item one of the Finance Committee
agenda.
Okay.
Here... (clears throat) I heard the roll call.
I'm getting ready to call it. Uh, Vice-Chair
Conway.
I can't hear you.
No.
Alderman Laspada.
Can y'all speak up?
Yes. Alderman Hopkins.
No.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beale.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn. Alderman
Lopez.
Alderman Moore. Alderman
Curtis. Alderman
O'Shay.
No.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Moseley. Yes, and- E... Alderman Taylor, you're
yes?
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Moseley.
Alderman Rodriguez. Alderman
Scott. Alderman
Cechia-Lopez. Alderman
Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Yes.
Alderman Taliaferro. Yes. Alderman
Cardona.
No.
Alderman Waguespack.
No.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman
Quezada. Aye. Alderman
Villegas.
Alderman Mintz. Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez. No. Alderman
Reilly.
No.
Alderman, um, uh, Knudson.
No.
Alderman Martin. Alderman Silverstein.
No.
Ex officio Nugent.
No.
Chair Dowell votes no.
(?)
There are 10 yeas and 25
nays. The motion to do pass this
recommendation, item number one,
fails.
Y'all relax. Relax.
There's a motion on the, uh, floor to
adjourn. Vice Chair
Conway. Alderwoman McDowell, that was a
no.
You were a no on the f- Well, the vote's closed now,
Alderman.
Uh, Alderman Laspada. Motion
to adjourn.
Alderman Hopkins. Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell. Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beale. Alderman Lee. Alderman
Ramirez. Quinn.
No.
Alderman Lopez. Alderman
Moore. No.
Alderman Curtis.
Osh- O'Shay. Alderman O'Shay. Alderman
Taylor.
(sighs) Alderman Moseley. Alderman
Rodriguez. Alderman
Scott. Alderman Lopez. Cechia-Lopez.
Thank y'all for having this conversation with us.
Alderwoman Taylor's a yes.
Okay. Alderman Taylor got you this time.
Alderman Burnett. Alderman
Irvin. Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona. Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman
Quezada. Yes. Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mintz. Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Reilly.
Alderman Knudson. Alderman Martin.
Alderman Silverstein. Ex officio Nugent.
Chair Dowell votes yes. It is, uh,
33 to 2.
Yes. Aldermen...
Chairman Irvin.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With that being said, we're gonna, uh, to two o'clock today
for the budget to be canceled.
'Kay. Committee on Finances
not com- is closed.
See the (inaudible)
On... This was
the budget
vote.