City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant-at-Arms sets forth the
following...
Test, test, test, one, two, three, test,
test.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant-at-Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request. Individuals must remain seated at all
times except, one, when entering or exiting the
gallery. Two, when providing public comment during the
portion of a meeting set aside for that purpose.
Or, three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council. Profane,
threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory
behavior or speech which in the judgment of the meeting's
chair or the Sergeant-at-Arms may lead to a breach of the
peace or disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting is
not permitted. Disruptive or distracting actions such as the
stomping of feet, waving of arms, throwing any
item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud
utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the meeting's chair
or the Sergeant-at-Arms such actions are disrupting or
impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards as determined by the
Sergeant-at-Arms is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of
signage. Three, food and beverages, including
in glass or metal canisters. Four, backpacks,
large bags and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted
in color that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by
12 are permitted and subject to search.
And, five, firearms, ammunition,
fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace pepper spray and toy weapons.
Cellphones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode, can only be used while
seated, and can only be used in a manner that does
not interfere with the ability other individuals to
view or hear the proceedings. Individuals or
groups failing to adhere to these rules will be subject to
removal from the remainder of the meeting by the
Sergeant-at-Arms. City of Chicago City Council
Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings 2023 to
2027. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the
Chicago City Council Rules of Order and Procedure,
the Sergeant-at-Arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for
members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or
any of its committees. All individuals and their belongings are
subject to search at entry or upon
request. Individuals must remain seated at all
times except, one, when entering or exiting the
gallery. Two, when providing public comment during the
portion of a meeting set aside for that purpose.
Or, three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council. Profane,
threatening, harassing, abusive or defamatory
behavior or speech which in the judgment of the meeting's
chair or the Sergeant-at-Arms may lead to a breach of the
peace...... or disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting is
not permitted. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the
stomping of feet, waving of arms, throwing any
item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud
utterances are not permitted when, in the judgment of the meetings chair
or the sergeant at arms, such actions are disrupting or
impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards as determined by the
sergeant at arms is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers or other forms of
signage. Three, food and beverages including
in glass or metal canisters. Four,
backpacks, large bags and sealed packages.
Clear bags, not tinted in color that do not exceed 12
inches by 6 inches by 12 are permitted and subject to
search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun
guns.
Right.
(laughs) Right.
Oh, okay.
All
right.
One thing, when I get down, I, old ass probably can't get
up. Get down,
but getting back up.
We'll get you up.
Yeah, Sam, you good at that.
I got you.
Sure. ...
for
my
children.
They should have had this meeting over at the Council
Room and they're trying
to- Not here. I know better than that. Mr. Blakemore. Yeah.
Not there. No, ma'am. No, ma'am. Thank you very much.
I'm a, I'm gonna start holler loud and tell them
uh, they can, they can have this meeting at,
at, at the Council Room
for a little later. And why would they have it at the same
time? You, you say the same
thing over and over, Mr. Blakemore.
(laughs) And these, and them do the same thing over and over.
Who heard of that? Having, having two meetings at the same
time in this little room, 201A. They should wait
where the people can be seated.
They should wait where... Uh, I'm glad to see it like
this. I'm glad to see it like this.
The people allowed them to do that.
They give me a time to talk and show up and show out.
Y'all allow them to do that. You looking at me like I'm crazy.
You the one crazy that got a big chamber room over there.
Who would have the meeting at the same damn time? Look at me then.
You're the one crazy. You're the one.
Y'all is crazy, not me.
Have a damn meeting at the same day, the same time.
How can you go to meet and then look at you, look at you like
sardines. You think you're like them sardines
when you got a big chamber over here.
And the way I'm looking for 50K look.
I'm glad they treat you like an in. You're being treated like an
in. You know what an in means? A neighbor.
Like, I'm playing a race card. That's what's going on
here when I gets this mic. They didn't want Black people to get in this
industry. Marijuana, Indians.
Brother Powell and Harris, advocate for
us. Say it.
Say it. Say
it.
Say it.
I mean that. I mean that. I mean that. Look, take a good look.
I'm looking at how stupid you all are.
You're gonna let them treat you like sardines
when they got a big chamber room over
here? Who would have two meetings at the
same date, the same time? Better than any
bits. Why you don't tell
them? (thumps table) Do you understand what I'm talking about?
Good afternoon, everyone.
Okay.
(laughs)
The Committee on License and Consumer Protection will now come to order.
I will begin with a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice Chair, Chico.
Alderwoman
Coleman. Alderman Moore.
Alderman O'Shea.
I saw him somewhere. Alderwoman
Scott. Alderman
Cardona. Alderman
Wackspeck.
Here.
Alderman Conway.
Present.
Alderman Villegas.
Here.
Alderwoman Mitts.
Alderman Sposato.
Here.
Alderman Napolitano. Alderman
Riley. Alderman
Gardner.
Present via Zoom.
Uh, I, I'm gonna get to you Zoom folks in just a second.
Uh, Alderwoman Clay. Alderman
Martin.
Alderw- Chairman Silverstein is here.
Forgot about myself. Do we have 11?
12?
... stupid-ass for the right
to
screen.
12?
Okay.
Is O'Shea here?
He's not...
So there are 11 members present and we have a
quorum.
Um, we have two alders on remote.
Um, can I get a motion to recognize Alderman Lawson and
Alderman Gardner? Alderman Napolitano moves.
All in favor, say aye. Any opposed?
Alderman Gardner, you just, were here,
correct? Are you here, Alderman
Gardner?
Alderman Lawson, are you here?
Yes. Thank you, Chair.
Oh, and, uh-
Yes, Chair, I'm, I'm here .
... Mr. Essel, and we got you on here.
Okay. At this time, we will begin the public comment
period. The period is limited to 30
minutes. Oh, Alderman Tavares is here as well.
Did I miss anyone else? Okay. So
the, the period is limited to 30 minutes.
We are gonna be limiting, um, the public comment to two minutes
per person, because we have quite a few, um, members that have signed
up. And we are gonna be selecting names, um,
through a
lottery.
So our first, our first public
speaker is...
We
do want quiet here in the room.
The first speaker is Pat
Dorr.
Good afternoon.
Two minutes.
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
With all the speakers, I'll be as quick as I can.
I, on behalf of the Hospitality Business Association of Chicago, I'm here to
say we support 80% of this ordinance.
Uh, you can't buy beer in gas stations in Chicago, but you can buy hemp
candies at all too many of them, in between their illegal video poker
machines and their, uh, Bitcoin
ATMs. That being said, the way this is phrased, with all due
respect to the sponsors, will leave a lot of bars and restaurants that have been
buying these products through the three-tier liquor system.
Our union, um, employed beer distributors will
be stuck with a lot of unsold inventory and major losses right before the
holidays with the rapid fast-tracking of this legislation.
Under state liquor law, if you don't own another store, you're not gonna
be able to transfer this product back to the distributor or sell
it to another store that can still sell it in the suburbs.
Going into the holidays, Christmas and New Year's, if this goes with the 10-day,
uh, phase it currently has, that's hundreds, thousands of dollars for
many of these stores, 'cause these products aren't cheap, even at wholesale.
And we're really not looking to hurt our small retailers going into the holidays
like that. A longer, even just through February 1st-
Thank you.
... delay to phase this out would give those retailers a lot of time to get rid
of that product and not eat that loss.
If it is the will of this body, which understandably, as I go into the gas stations
with all the hemp products and see them there, uh, to ban these products.
Thank you for your time. You have a lot of speakers ahead.
That's our only ask on behalf of our bars and restaurants.
Let us sell this product, not take a major loss going into our slowest three months
of the year. Thank you.
Okay. The next speaker is
Jessica
Jackson.
You have two minutes.
Okay. We're gonna go to the next one, but we will come back to
her.
Next speaker is Todd Harris.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Schlieferstein and, uh, council members for
allowing me to speak. My name is Todd Harris, and I am the co-founder of
Plift and Perfectly Dosed, two Chicago-based hemp businesses.
But more importantly, I'm here as a husband, father, son, and
brother. Hemp beverages aren't just a trend, they saved my
life. They saved the life of my mother, who's battled alcoholism for 50
years. They saved my sister, who's now celebrating two years of sobriety from
alcohol. They are a lifeline for countless of Chicagoans
who are desperate for viable alternatives.
We created Plift because we believe that choosing not to drink
alcohol shouldn't mean choosing to sit on the sidelines.
We wanted to create a dignified choice that allows people to socialize, unwind, and
participate in the community regardless of what, what's in their
cup. This isn't about being anti-alcohol.
This is about being pro-choice and pro-inclusion.I know Alderman
Quinn and I share the same priority, public
safety. We all want to protect the youth, and a ban removes
oversight. We are asking the city to collaborate with us on a
solution that actually works, strict regulation through a three-tier
system, as our beer and alcohol distribution partners have built responsible
businesses rooted in safety. By adopting the three-tier system
framework, similar to how alcohol is regulated, we establish immediate safety
measures of chain of custody, quality control, and age
gating. Most importantly, by a system that ensures these products are sold
responsibly, keep- keeping them strictly out of the hands of children and
preserving access to adults. Beyond safety and regulation allows us
to unlock an economic potential opportunity for Chicago.
Job creation, uh, the regulating of the industry expands jobs across
manufacturing, logistics and sales, additive revenue for our bars,
restaurants, and retail partners.
This isn't about replacing alcohol sales, it's about an additive revenue stream.
Right now, when a non-drinker visits a bar, they might order to tap water by
offering a sa- but by offering a safe, regulated beverage, the venue
captures a sale that it would otherwise missed, as it's a no into
a... It turns a no into a purchase.
(whistle blows)
Thank you. Jessica Jackson, you
have two
minutes.
Go ahead.
I was waiting to get your attention, 'cause that's hard for you to
do.
Um,
I'm here in support of
what's gonna be best for the city
and what's gonna be best for our communities, and
what's gonna be best
for those that are trying to support what this
is. Now, I just know that license and
all that stuff is given to certain groups, certain
people, however they want it. Now, if you
have someone here
that has proven to be responsible and they're asking for what
they're asking for, they need to be granted that.
It should not be that certain people, certain communities get certain
things. Our communities need the same thing
that other communities need. So if you have people that want
to support
these products, keep it safe,
keep it right for our communities, and support those who
are doing good already.
I support Tyrone Muhammad.
I don't know all the ins and outs of everything that he does, and I'm not
gonna say that I do, but I know that he puts work
in. So I support anything that he's trying
to do as it pertains to this. I'm glad that you're
paying attention, Alderwoman Silverstein, 'cause you tend to not pay
attention to things that are not beneficial, particularly for your
community.
And I'm asking that you pay attention to what it is that the people in
here want, and give them the same courtesy that you give the
people from your community.
I'm believing that you're capable of doing that,
and you need to prove that today.
(whistle blows) The next speaker is Tiffany
Ingram.
Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Hello?
Yes, we hear you.
Okay. Uh, Chairman Silverstein and members of the committee, thank you.
I'm Tiffany Ingram with the Cannabis Business Association of Illinois.
I'm in strong support of Alderman Quinn's ordinance to ban intoxicating hemp
products in Chicago. This comes down to three things, safety, alignment
with federal law, and fairness. First, safety.
Right now, intoxicating hemp products are sold across Chicago with no testing, no
labeling, no age verification, no oversight.
Many stores call themselves dispensaries, misleading consumers into thinking these
products meet the same standards as licensed cannabis. They don't.
Other municipalities in Illinois have already banned these products to protect
their residents. Chicago should not be the exception.
Second, federal clarity. Congress has now closed the
loophole, they made it explicit that intoxicating cannabinoids are not
hemp, and were never intended to create a parallel unregulated
intoxicant market. These products are not to be governed as can...
These products are to be governed as cannabis under these state laws, state across
the country are now adjusting to laws accordingly.
Third, fairness and integrity.
Illinois cannabis operators follow some of the strictest laws in the nation,
testing, tracking, security, labeling, and age
controls. Intoxicating hemp sellers follow none of
them. The Quinn ordinance draws a bright
line. If a product isn't regulated under the Cannabis Regulation & Tax
Act of the... or the Industrial Hemp Act, it cannot be sold in Chicago.
This protects consumers, restores fairness, strengthens the
city's long-term revenue outlook as sales shift to regulated
dispensaries. For these reasons, CBAI urges the council to advance this
ordinance. It allows with federal action protects Chicago residents and
ensures that intoxicating products are sold only in the channels designed to
regulate them. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. The next speaker is Eric
Harb.
Hello, everyone. Thank you for having me here.
I'm sorry I've been under the weather.I own a small company
called Marketing Imprint, and we got involved in this
industry about seven years ago, uh, shortly after the
Farm Bill was passed. We were, uh, receiving phone
calls from various manufacturers like Green
Post, Crown Zen, Boonbuzz,
Curvana, and a host of other local
companies that were looking for packaging
and, uh, you know, various labels for their products.
Seven years ago, seven years ago, we started
implementing Certificates of Analysis on the
labeling,
Keep out of Reach of Children, Child-Safe
Packaging, and a variety of other regulations for these
products. Over time, I personally fell in love with
not only these products, but the hundreds of business
owners throughout the city and state who own everything
from smoke shops, liquor stores, convenience
stores, um, and gas stations and such.
These people have families. These people pay
rent. These people work hard. These products have
created millions and millions of dollars of tax revenue
for the City of Chicago over these years.
Uh, we believe, as we've heard several other
pro-hemp members here say, uh, in strict
regulation of packaging requirements,
um, and
first and foremost keeping these products out of the reach of children.
In seven years' time, I'm here as (audio cuts out)
witness to let you know that I have never, up front
time, seen any child in
being in these hundreds of stores purchasing any of these products.
These products are strictly 21 and over, and this would
har- (timer beeps) -ppen if, if we ban
this.
Thank you. The next speaker is Scott
Redman. Is Scott in the room?
Yeah.
Can
you
check one, two?
Hmm.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the committee.
My name is Scott Redman, I'm an attorney here in Chicago, I represent a number of
cannabis businesses that are licensed.
I am also the president and founder of the Illinois Independent Craft Growers
Association, which is the trade association for the licensed
craft growers here in Illinois.
I, I want to make a few comments. Um, we are obviously in support of this, of this
ordinance. Um, there are a right way to do things,
and there is a wrong way to do things, and I feel for Mr.
Harris, I've heard that speech before.
His relatives have plenty of non-alcoholic choices at a
bar. They, if they want a hemp drink, that says they
want to get intoxicated. There are plenty of unintoxicating drinks.
There's also CBD drinks, okay? But if Cliff would like to
survive, they can have it manufactured through the licensed
process that already exists. Last time I heard
him speak, he said he tried that, it was too expensive, and that's the story for a
lot of people. It's too expensive to try it through the license
process. The licenses aren't easy to get, they are available out
there and they've become much cheaper to buy if one wants to buy, far less than Mr.
Tryron has invested in his facility, he could buy a license to manufacture
cannabis. That all said, this has always been
a loophole.
Approximately 25 days ago, maybe a little over a month, the Tenth
Circuit, Federal Circuit reviewed the Wyoming
ban on cannabis and they pointed out, in that case, "The
plaintiffs should have been well aware that the Wyoming legislature might not
continue to look as favorably upon hemp and hemp products.
The state need not provide just compensation every time it adjusts its
regulatory scheme, even if those changes
incidentally impair or even destroy the business of
some." This was always a loophole, they've been warned about this
for years, and there's a right way to do this
and we'd welcome them into the license-
(timer beeps)
Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer
Weiss.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Jennifer Weiss, I own a wellness retail business in Roscoe
Village called Covington's Cabinet.
Our Victorian-style apothecary provides a trustworthy and reliable source
for plant-based products for people and pets, including premium quality
CBD and hemp cannabinoid products.Many of you have met
with me or heard me speak on this topic, because I have been advocating for
thoughtful hemp regulation for the last six years.
It is actually why I started my business.
I built Cubingtons as a response for my desire for common sense
regulation to ensure fully tested and accurately labeled products
when I was purchasing CBD for my dogs back in
2018. Here we are years later,
and we're in this awful situation where instead of the sensible
regulation that so many of us have been asking for and been
suggesting and recommending,
is not being suggested. Instead, we're fighting for the
survival of our businesses. We're also trying to protect consumer
access to wellness products that have become important to so many
people, to so many Chicagoans, to help them with chronic
pain, anxiety, sleep support and so many other
reasons. Most of us in this industry are good faith
businesses. We genuinely want to protect the public and
kids from dangerous products, just like you do.
Lookalike, illegitimate, fake products and those marketed to
kids are the equivalent of nasty moonshine.
They are created and sold by unscrupulous bad actors and should be wiped out for
the plague they are. There are s- straightforward policy
solutions that could be enacted to stop this small but dangerous contingent of
the market. Such regulations would set marketing and age
requirements and prohibit impure, illegitimate, untested and mislabeled
products from being sold to anyone, anywhere.
Not just kids, but all consumers. But the type
of ordinance you all are discussing is not that.
It is a ban. (phone rings)
Thank you. The next speaker is Tyrone Muhammad.
How y'all doing? How everybody in here doing?
So I was gon get... I was gonna talk about how successful our business
is in employing returning citizens and over 20
Black women who have children and Latino women and children as
well. But that don't even matter, because most of the aldermen up here
y'all, I'm talking to y'all, never been to our store,
never, never saw our operation, don't even
care that we employ those. Even some of them wards, they're abandoned, so we
can't employ other people. The very fact and notion that I can look in
this room and see white men talking about preserving cannabis,
when y'all got it wrong. Bill, they got it wrong the first time.
I heard you say that too many times.
Mo' nigga, they got it wrong the first time.
Now here we are in the federal legal space,
being asked to be banned by the lobbyists and lawyers of corporate
cannabis, federally illegal. The
oxymoronic nature of that crap right there.
You not gonna win. In fact, the government gonna create...
Corporate cannabis about to create more problems for the
city. Because I'll be doggoned if you gonna kick our doors in for
60 years and lock us up,
and use cannabis as a tool to fix the war on
drugs, and it should have went to our communities
first. And the people who actually own the dispensaries and partner with
corporate cannabis should look like us.
Instead you're sending our little sister here, looking like a token for corporate
cannabis, to say what we, they ain't gonna accept and what we not.
We ha- we created some of the first regulation.
All you gonna do is create a black market.
We'll have a person on every corner.
Corporate cannabis is gonna lose, the tax dollar revenue gonna go, we gonna build
back the black market that we built, that they took.
Hypocrites. Just like liquor. You can't beat the gangsters in the
streets, so you had to... prohibition.
You had to create legalization of li- liquor.
(phone rings) You gonna ******* create more problems than y'all about to
solve.
Thank you. The next, the next speaker is
Rehan
Mirza.
Hello. Um, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Rehan Mirza.
I'm one of the owners of Kisma, a small family-owned help...
hemp wellness business in West Town.
I'm here today to ask you to keep hemp legal in Chicago,
with the recent federal bill creating confusion around hemp, the city has
an opportunity to lead, to pro- protect responsible
businesses, protect access to safe and tested
products, and protect the people who rely on them every
day. I want to share a story. Uh, one of our
customers, Sarah,
she has severe rheumatoid arthritis.
She tried everything, prescriptions, injections, therapies.
Nothing gave her real relief until she found our hemp
products. Because of hemp, she can open a jar without pain,
she can go for walks, she can sleep through the night.
If hemp is banned, people like Sarah lose something that genuinely improves their
quality of life safely, naturally, and without
intoxication. Hemp isn't the ene- enemy.
It's a lifeline for thousands of Chicagoans dealing with anxiety, chronic
pain, insomnia, and stress. It's a growing economic sector that
supports local jobs, commercial storefronts and tax
revenue. A ban won't hurt big corporations.
It will wipe out small family businesses like ours, minority and women
owned, who follow every regulation, test every product,
verify every ID and contribute to our neighborhoods.
We also host community events centered around wellness to improve the lives of the
people in our neighborhoods. Chicago has always chosen smart regulation
over fear and opportunity over unnecessary
prohibition.I'm asking you to continue that today.
Please vote to keep hemp legal. Vote for families, for small businesses,
and for the people who depend on hemp for safe, meaningful relief.
Thank you. The next speaker is Eddie
Moore.
Good afternoon. Can you hear me? There we go.
Yes.
Um, good afternoon, members of the committee.
My name is Eddie Moore.
I'm sorry.
That's okay, happens every day. Um, I'm the
legislative co-chair of Chicago Normal, a local chapter
of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and
the co-owner of Swade Dispensary, a licensed cannabis
retailer in the Lakeview community.
As I prepare to open our second location in my own African American
community, I'm here today in support of Alderman Quinn's
intent with his ordinance. The
proliferation of intoxicating hemp-derived products,
Delta-8, THC-a flower, THC-o, HHC, and
similar compounds sold without age verification, testing
requirements, or dosing sta- dosage standards poses
real public health and safety concerns.
These products undercut the regulated market that the State of
Illinois deliberately created for business owners like
myself. However, I respectfully urge the committee
to clarify the ordinance language before
passage. As currently drafted, the definition of
hemp-derived cannabinoid product captures any product
derived from hemp containing cannabinoids in any form.
This language is too broad and could inadvertently prohibit
non-intoxicating products, CBD oils, topicals,
creams, wellness tinctures, that consumers rely on
and that pose no public safety concern.
I don't believe that it's alderm- it's the alderman's intents, but the text does
not distinguish between intoxicating and non-intoxicating
cannabinoids. I'd suggest one of three clarifi- three
clarifying approaches. First, define intoxicating
hemp-derived cannabinoid and limit the production prohibit-
prohibition to those products. Second, establish a THC
concentration threshold that triggers the ban, or third,
explicitly exempt products containing only
non... (phone rings)
Thank you. The next speaker is George
Blakemore.
I believe that it's over 50 people outside wanting to come in
this room, and they're assaulting the bar. Get away from me.
I say, "You gotta open that door and let these people in." He say, "No,
there's no room. Go over to the chamber."
H- how, how you gonna lock this door and not let these people in?
How can you do that? This is our city, our
government. W- w- wait a minute. They're locked
out. They're locked out. They wanna come in here.
So there's no room in here, turn to the chamber.
Turn to the chamber. Having these meetings at the same time, I'm
outraged. Racism.
Racism with this hemp.
Uh, several years ago, Black people couldn't even get liquor
licenses. Now they can get the hemp.
Racism. Tyrone, you didn't play up that game.
You played it a little bit
when they brought, uh, the difference between rock cocaine and powder
cocaine. Racism!
Racism! And you got nerve enough to
lock... 50 people want to come in here.
It's no room for them, turn to the chamber.
Racism is alive here, and you know how they can get away with it
because the people are shallow. Y'all are
shallow. You got to teach them. Get away from me!
Get away from me and stay away from me.
I'm outraged. I'm outraged. And you, all of
y'all, 50 people wanna come in here.
You don't lock the door to the people. You, you let them come in.
If there's no room, you turn to the chamber, and you're gonna have the
same meeting at the same time, on the same date, in the same
place. You white folks are at fault.
You Black folks are at fault. You Hispanic, you Asian, all
of y'all, all of y'all deserve the government you
get, and you get
the... (phone rings)
Thank you. The next speaker is Rubina
Berza.
Hi, can you hear me?
Okay.
Hi. Uh, my name (laughs) my name is
Ruby... CBD in West Town, Chicago as a
CBD... where we pride ourselves on picking the best
lab-approved, clean hemp products for our community to help with sleep,
pain relief, anxiety, and we do so responsibly.
We host many community events that revolve around wellness and have just made it
through two years going on three. This proposed ban on these products will put me
out of business practically overnight and destroy all the hard work I spent with my
family building this small business up.
It's challenging enough to run a business from the ground up, especially in
Chicago, and this ordinance proposed by the City of Chicago will single,
single-handedly destroy my entire business without any regards to our Chicago
community that, that we've worked so hard to, to (...) in West
Town. Instead of being at the store preparing for the holidays,
(sighs) we had to close today just to be here
instead, fighting for hemp products that help many people and pets in our community
that do not want products with the potency sold in
dispensaries.I would hope that the city would take into consideration a small
business like mine when it comes to deciding on this proposed ordinance, especially
right before the holidays. Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is Mark, and I hope I'm
saying this right, Longnecker?
... for, for me. Don't get
me... Get away from me, I'm telling you.
Hi, I'm Mark Longnecker. Uh, I don't have a business, I'm just
a concerned citizen. I've been sober for two years and one month,
and I'm a father of three. I live in Lincoln Park, and hemp
beverages changed my life. Uh, it's...
I drink low-dose hemp beverages, and it's given me an outlet to feel, as other
people have said, part of something, uh, that, you know, part of the- the
tavern culture here in Chicago. Um, it's given me an outlet to be relaxed
and, uh, again, like I said, it's, uh, it saved my life.
Um, so
we talk about the public safety, like the kids that are buying the
illegal... I don't s-... The room is...
If you read the room, the room is full of pro-hemp people.
There- there... No one... I- I don't see the parents of- of the kids
that are here for the public safety. It's fearmongering.
And my perspective as a citizen, again, I'm just a cit-...
I- I showed up today, I got work, I'm just here because hemp beverages changed my
life. The work is to do smart regulation, and
that's what I'm asking you to do. This is a blunt force ban that is coming
in the holidays. I don't know, I don't know any politics, this is my first time in
City Hall. From a citizen's point of view, the work is to
understand the market, put in regulations, and- and- and do
the work. That's what we're asking you to do.
The work is not, "Let's put in a ban." That's my perspective.
Thank you. The next speaker is Steven
Bossiou.
Hmm.
Chair Silverstein, committee members, thank you so much. My name is Steven.
I'm the co-founder of the Hopewell Brewing Company, member of the Illinois
Craft Brewers Guild. Our guild has 53 members in
the city of Chicago. That's 53 small businesses, 53
small manufacturers. This is the stuff our city is made out
of. We stand strongly, strongly with
sensible regulation. This ordinance amounts to
a ban, amounts to a prohibition on beverage.
This country has done prohibition before. We've seen how that ends.
We don't want to go down that path.
The Illinois Craft Brewers Guild has been working actively with leadership
at the state level, with stakeholders on the cannabis side, the regulated
cannabis side, on the hemp side. Everyone wants the same
thing. We desperately need sensible regulation in this
space. The market's here. You can tell by this room.
The customer is there. That's why we're all here.
Prohibition does not erase the market.
Prohibition does not erase that customer. It's still there.
Instead, you put it all to the side.
You encourage those bad actors that you are trying to
remove, you're enabling them, when we need to
regulate the beverages that we already have and the market that we
already have. I urge you, please delay
this vote. This deserves more consideration.
Prohibition does not work. Please delay the vote.
In lieu of that, please vote no today. Please support small business.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Sam
Toia.
Good afternoon, Chairman Silverstein and members of the committee.
I'm Sam Toia, President and CEO of the Illinois Restaurant Association.
I'm here to express my opposition to the proposed amendment that would ban
the sale of hemp products. The proposed ordinance prevents Chicago
business, except cannabis business establishment, from selling
nearly all hemp-derived product.
This means that any hemp or CBD product, including
beverages, would be completely banned from the City of Chicago,
except a cannabis business establishment.
I'd like to start off by expressing my agreement with the alders on the matter of
selling to minors. There need to be serious safeguards in place to ensure no
one under the age of 21 is able to purchase or consume a hemp
beverage. Restaurant and bar staff are already well-trained at carding
patrons who want to purchase alcohol.
We welcome ordinance that would require the same for hemp beverages.
However, an outright ban on hemp will cause serious distress for the
already struggling hospitality industry, not just gas station
and smoke shops. These drinks have become a lifeline to many bars and
restaurants which have struggled greatly since the pandemic and the
elimination of tip credit. Our industry is in crisis.
Wholesale food prices have increased 38% since the
pandemic, and labor costs are up 35%.
These closures affect more than just the business owners.
They're also hurting servers, bartenders, cooks, busser, everyone who
plays a role in the hospitality industry.
These closures have left us with a lot of empty storefronts.
Just look up and down the commercial streets.
The proposed ordinance banning hemp will make things worse for the hospitality
industry. It will completely wipe out independent businesses who rely on
hemp products to keep their restaurants afloat.
The federal government is using the next year to develop a nationwide
policy framework. Let's let them work this out.
Banning hemp beverages will lead to more restaurant closures, more bar
closures, more empty storefronts, and more lost jobs.
Thank you.
(alarm ringing) Thank you. That concludes our
public comment period. Thank you to all the speakers here today.
Wait.
I'm asking for decorum. I'm asking for
decorum.
We are go... We are going to get
started on today's agenda. We have 12
items.
The first item on the agenda is the approval of Rule
45, of the Rule 45 reports for October
2025 and November 2025, which were sent out
to the committee. Alderman Riley moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have
it. The reports are approved.
Item number 2.
02025-0021018,
an amendment of Municipal Code Section
4-4-331 by replacing in its
entirety to prohibit sale of any hemp-derived cannabinoid
product on any location reg- required to be
registered
under the Municipal Code of Chicago, under the Municipal Code of
Chicago except by cannabis business establishments and
repeal
of 4-4-333 in its entirety.
The chair recognizes Alderman Quinn, and we
also have here present today, uh, from Department of Business
Affairs and Consumer Protection, Commissioner Ivan Capofali, Chris Jessup,
Assistant Commissioner, Shannon Trotter, Local Liquor Control
Commissioner, Gerald Dawson, Deputy Commissioner, and
Max Dudo- Du- Dudovich, Assistant Deputy
Mayor. Did I say that right, Max? Du... Yeah, it's close.
Budovich. Okay. We're gonna... We're
(laughs) ... Um, we are going to
start by recognizing alder... Wait, before we start, I want to recognize, as
sh- before she's walking out, Alderwoman Coleman, for quorum, as
well as Alderwoman Clay
and Alderman Garner, I believe you are on, um,
virtually.
I am. Uh, thank you, Chairman.
Thank you. And then we also have here, who are not on committee,
Alderman Beele, and, um, I
said Tobars mostly was here, but I think he stepped out.
Okay.
All right. Um, now, we're at the chair recognizes Alderman
Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, today, I stand in full support of the hemp
ordinance that will ban dangerous and unregulated hemp products
citywide. I know the mayor's administration has
various objections as detailed in a recent letter.
I'm happy to address some of their main concerns here today.
First, let's look at the issue of revenue for the City of
Chicago. We all know the city needs revenue
sources, but are we really going to prop up a shady
industry that sells dangerous and unregulated products to
children?
Sh- Should we carve out industries like microbreweries that built a business on
exploiting a loophole? These are weak and
bad arguments, no matter how you look at them.
Second, the administration raises the issue of having enough
resources to enforce a citywide ban,
except that on number f- November 4th,
BACP mensh- mentioned having a robu- robust enforcement
team to carry out regulation on, on this industry.
In fact, that was a cross-examination of you and the
commissioner, um, November 4th, when you opened up
testimony, um, d- during the budget-making process.
The commissioner's words were specifically, "We have a robust
enforcement team." I'm not sure what happened since November 4th,
Commissioner, other than strong opposition to this ordinance to
protect a revenue source. The fact of the matter is, I
successfully banned these businesses in the 13th Ward, and since
then, many of my colleagues asked how they ca- how they can
do the same in their wards. The co-sponsors of this ordinance
include a full representation of the City of Chicago, banning
these shady operations and something Chicago residents want
to see.
We do need decorum. Please let the alderman speak.
Oh-
Excuse me. If we do not have decorum, I will ask you to leave.
Finally, the administration's comprehensive
regulatory and licensing regime for hemp products
has not passed and is not in place, so that
argument is moot. Here's the bottom
line. There's a strong coalition behind this ordinance that can
move it forward. We believe it's the right move for the City of
Chicago. We believe protecting the revenue option for the mayor's
budget is standing in the way of doing what's right for the city.
I support this ordinance and ask for an aye vote.
When it's time, uh, Madam Chair, I'd like a roll call.
Um, we are gonna go to, um,
our witnesses. We're gonna start with, um,
Commissioner
Capofali.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Silverstein, Vice Chair Chico, and
honor- honorable members of the Committee on License and Consumer Protection.
I am Ivan Capofali, Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Business Affairs
and Consumer Protection, also known as BACP.
I'm here today to share BACP's opposition to the proposed
ordinance which would prohi- probi- prohibit the sale of all
hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoid products in the City of Chicago.
As drafted, the ordinance establishes an expansive
prohibition whose definitions may uninten- unintentionally
encompass a wide range of hemp and CBD-infused
consumer goods. These include beverages sold by, sold by
bars, restaurants, breweries, and packaged goods stores products that have
become essential, uh, essential revenue sources for many local
businesses, particularly within the craft brewing industry.
The ordinance would effectively eliminate the
CBD/THC beverage market that numerous
establishments have relied on to support, um, their
business at, uh, post-pandemic
recovery. While I share the sentiment of the committee, uh, that the
st- status quo around intoxicating hemp is not
acceptable, our department stands firm in the belief that it's
important to preserve the economic activity of good
operators. In addition, the department has significant
economic, operational, and legal concerns regarding the proposed
ordinance. BACP would prefer and has worked on an
approach that keeps hemp out of the hands of kids while maintaining
flexibility to adapt city policy in light of future
guidance from the federal government.
First, it would be nearly impossible to enforce the proposed
ord- ordinance as currently drafted.
The ordinance does not include a rebuttable presumption that pro- that product
labels accurately reflect hemp content.
This would make it difficult, if not impossible, for our prosecutors to succeed
in court if the business contests the citations.
Also, the proposed ordinance lacks authority for BACP to be able to
actually confiscate illegal products without proper
operational, uh... So, and without proper operational
considerations, substans- substantial resources will be required
to conduct citywide enforcement and would divert personnel from
other critical business license compliance duties, such as active
compliance visits, nuisance visits, public safety
investigations, and inspections that re- that are required for new
businesses. Second, feder- federal agencies are expected to
establish nationwide standards governing hemp products,
with final provisions are anticipated to take effect in November of
'26 and preliminary standards expected to roll out in
February of 2026. As these dec- these decisions are
finalized, it is essential for Chicago to engage at the
federal level and work with our partners at the state to ensure that
resulting regulatory framework prioritizes public safety,
economic stability, and resources to allow for local
implementation.
Finally, the proposed ban would disrupt a source of revenue for many Chicago
small businesses and would eliminate a market that numerous establishments have
relied on to support their po- their post-pandemic
recovery. As drafted, the ordinance establishes a prohibition
on all hemp and CBD-infused goods sold at bars,
restaurants, breweries, packaged food stores, and skin
and body care retail shops. This ordinance would lead to
business closures and le- and the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of
jobs in Chicago. Even more troubling,
proponents of this ordinance warn that the passage of this ordinance would lead to
the expansion of a black market of dangerous and unreg-
unregulatable hemp products. Like us, the
opponents of this ordinance support thoughtful regulation that prohibits sales
to minors, imposes purity, purity and labeling
requirements, and preserves the economic, uh, activity generated
by good actors in this space. For these reasons,
BACP urges the City Council to refain- refrain from advancing
the proposed ordinance. Instead, I would like to continue
working with this body to create a regulatory framework that will align with
pending federal standards. And as a first step, BACP stands in
full support of a prohibition of sale of intoxicating hemp
products to minors and has offered the sponsor language to achieve
that goal. Additionally, uh, additional time is needed
to ensure all stakeholders are being engaged around discussions
on further regulations, on packaging standards, location
restrictions, and more. These recommendations would address
immediate public health and safety concerns, allow Chicago to
align its regulatory framework in partnership with the federal government, and
foster responsible local economic activity.
In closing, I urge this committee to reject the proposed ordinance that would
prohibit the sale of hemp,
uh, in Chicago. The ordinance would inflict economic harm, is
operationally unsound, and is premature during, uh, during
federal policy development. I and BACP, uh,
we stand committed, um, to working collaboratively,
collab- collaboratively with the council, sister
agencies, community stakeholders, industry leaders, the small
business community, and state legislators to develop a regulatory
structure that is safe and protects Chicago's small business
community. Thank you, and I have, uh, my time.
And, uh, thank you.
We welcome any questions.
Do any of you on the box have prepared
remarks?
Max.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Silverstein, Vice Chair Chico, and honorable
members of the Committee on License and Consumer Protection.
My name is Max Budovich, First Deputy of Business and Neighborhood Development in
the Office of the Mayor. I'm here today to express operational
and economic concerns regarding this proposed ordinance that would create an
absolute ban on the sale of all hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoid
products in the city of Chicago.
As you just heard, the ban would be exceedingly difficult, essentially impossible
to enforce. Without additional capacity, other key enforcement
priorities for our city would be less resourced in light of this new
proposed citywide mandate. Second,
this total ban would have widespread negative economic impacts.
There are an estimated 200 business locations relying in large part on sales
of these products, generating $10 million in sales tax
revenue to the city every year.We stand to lose this
revenue under a total ban, along with 10,000 jobs at these and
associated businesses in this industry in
Chicago. It is expected that federal agencies will
establish nationwide standards for hemp products in the coming
year, and as such, we must work with our partners at all levels to arrive at
a responsible and implementable regulatory
framework. In light of these considerations, we urge
this committee to not pass this ordinance.
We remain committed to working with the city council and all stakeholders to
craft a regulatory framework that works for Chicago.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any
questions.
Are there any questions from the committee?
Um...
Alderman Conway.
Yeah, thank you. Um, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, I had a... became interested in this, in
this subject
when about two and a half months ago, I had my five-year-old
child say that she wanted to buy what looked like Jolly Ranchers to her, but they
were Jolly Ranchers laced with hemp and I think it's important that we
get... That is a true, true story. And that's why I put
forth, uh, an ordinance that was
in some ways similar to this one. However, I am concerned about the
unintended consequences this may have on products such as
lotion and, and drinks that has been mentioned, uh,
before. Um, I have a few questions
I'd, I'd like to ask. Um, Commissioner, you mentioned something about a labeling
issue. I didn't quite understand...
I didn't quite understand what you were saying with that.
Some of these products are, um... We are very concerned about the way these
products are, uh, advertised sometimes, that they are appeal
to, to young children, so we would like to address that.
That and the 21 restriction.
But, no, but I mean, in your remarks, you said...
You, you said something about-
Oh,
sorry. ... how we can't prosecute it based on the label or something like that.
I didn't, I didn't quite understand.
I was gonna ask you that question. Is that a rebuttable pre- uh, presumption?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, thank you, Alderman, for that question.
Um, so what- You just state your name. Oh, sure.
Shannon Trotter, local Liquor Control Commissioner.
Um, so Alderman, I'm sure you're aware as an attorney that,
um, when these things go to court, you have to establish a burden of
proof. Um, what this ordinance lacks is a rebuttable
presumption that what the package says...
If the package says, "Hemp Jolly Ranchers,"
it lacks a rebuttable presumption that would allow us to
not test the product. So otherwise, what it requires is,
as you know, just as any drug or, um, other
controlled substance would require is it requires us to send it out, get a lab
test, have a lab result to prove that that is an illegal
substance. So without that rebuttable presumption, every
Jolly Rancher that we come across would need to potentially be
tested. The state labs, um, our city labs are not
set up for that currently, nor do we have the financial capacity to do
such. It also does not give us the permission to
confiscate or, um, or seize
any of the, the merchandise. So there are some real evidentiary
issues, and I will just say that as a licensing prosecutor for
17 years only doing licensing cases, I know it is
a lower threshold than perhaps a criminal case, but there still has
to be an establishment of the product being illegal, just as
we would see with, with cocaine or any other substance.
And we would need the lab tests to establish that without this rebuttable
presumption.
Is this... Are these things that can be put into...
Are these like failures of the city ordinance or are they, are they, uh...
It's, it's a failure of the ci- of this ordinance.
Um, the ord- the draft ordinance when we had the proposed regulation did have the
rebuttal pres- presumption. It is something that,
um, we're suggesting in, uh, the regulatory controls that the
commissioner spoke about in his opening statement, along with the over
21, the, um, packaging restrictions not having the
cartoon characters and, and things like that.
It would contain this rebuttable presumption and it would contain confiscation
abilities, um, as well as, you know, additional
restrictions. So again, echoing what, what the sentiment
is of the room, controlled and careful
regulation rather than an outright ban.
Do, um... Now,
uh, I guess it's probably best for Commissioner Capofali, but feel free to
pass it off as you, as you like. You mentioned, um, that you would
like more time, you know, about how much time do you think is
reasonable to give you if this committee wanted to, to do that?
Like how much more time you're looking for is what I mean.
Did you say two years? (laughs)
Whatever time is necessary to actually come up with a good, solid, smart
regulation. I, I'm happy to start conversations right away.
I mean, we have... Yes, so right now we have
a sub to show to you that imposes the 21,
um, and under restriction, under 21
restriction, like right now is ready for your review.
So we would like to start
and ask that you consider that immediately.
Um...
And we have it ready for distribution if you guys want it, uh, if this body wants
to, would like to look at it.
You know, I, um... You know,
questions that I... Well, you know what, I will go ahead and I will go ahead and
yield back the chair. Thank you. Thank you
all.
Thank you.
Alderman Moore, did you have a question?
Thank you, uh, Chairman. First of all, um,
I want to start by just thanking Alderman Quinn for something he did
some time ago, and that was to make sure that, you know, we
had the option-... of banning this in our comm- uh,
wards if we wanted to. I think that was a great, um, first step
because we do have some bad actors, and I wanna make sure that
we, um, tackle that. Uh, w- we know that, um,
some of these things are targeted at kids, but we got a way of doing that when we
see this by banning in our ward. Um, I think going to the
extreme of citywide because, um, for
me, what I, what I've seen, uh, as you all know, when we tried to get,
um, cannabis and we had to get representation with
cannabis, it didn't ha- not happen in, um,
especially African American communities.
And, um, the, the people that I know who have this
businesses and are able to compete, um, from our communities
are doing it the right way. I visited these places.
But we do have problems with certain places and we have to find
that, um, that sweet spot, um, in
terms of making sure that our childrens are protected, but we cannot
throw the baby out with the bath water when we have legitimate
businesses, um, that's doing the right things.
And so, I wanna make sure, um, that we are doing that
without hurting these businesses who, um, could not and
was, uh, pushed out of, um, the cannabis industry.
And so, let's be fair about this. Let's take that time.
Let's sit, have those conversation, and let's find that sweet spot
so that there can be a win-win situation here.
Thank
you.
Are there any other committee members that would...
Alderman
Coleman?
It was six years ago and the vote was 29 against,
19 of us, uh, part of the Black Caucus, and I wish that the same
energy that was shared today, that individuals in this room were here as
the Black Caucus was fighting, uh, for Chicago not to
participate in marijuana, but that was six years ago.
To Commissioner, um, Ivan, how many businesses, whether it's
on-site consumption or, uh, smoke shops, how many
retail business licenses does this affect today?
Um,
so your ... have a ... , right? So,
uh, approximately 200 businesses will be directly impacted by
the... Oh, one second.
S- sorry, Chair Coleman. Uh, I just wanna weigh in.
Chris Jessup, Assistant Commissioner.
I do wanna highlight that the ordinance that we're discussing now doesn't
differentiate between intoxicating and non-intoxicating products.
So, um, we're talking, like, package goods stores all the way down
to a Bath & Body Works or a Walgreens would be impacted by what we're discussing
today.
And what number does that look like?
W- we didn't pull the number of all the retail sh- stores in Chicago.
I'd be happy to do my best to get that to you through the
chair. I just wanna... Again, I just wanna highlight
that as currently written, Target, Walgreens
will be impacted by this. If they have any hand lotion
that has hemp seed oil in it, that would technically be banned
by this ordinance as written.
So, without the known number... if I may, Chairman Silverstein, without the
known number of actual retail establishment, whether that's
intoxication, non-intoxication, retail, restaurant, on-site
consumption, et cetera, et cetera, do you even have a basis
of if... what revenue at all does this
bring for the City of Chicago?
We're, we're, uh... I think what Assistant Commissioner Jessup said is, is
accurate in that we're continuing research with industry on these
numbers. The numbers I cited are, are preliminary numbers
that, um, th- that industry has been, uh, working on.
And we're continuing those conversations to understand the magnitude of the
impact.
Okay. Um, are any of these businesses held...
Uh, is there any accountability measures for social responsibility?
'Cause I know that... I'm not gonna speak for
all of us, but in certain communities in Lawndale, Englewood,
West Englewood, um, we do have bad actors
that serve our community at all.
There's no service of community and no social responsibility.
Y- yeah. Thank you, um, for that comment and, and question, Alderman.
I think part of where BACP is coming from is to address
that exact kind of thought and concern.
So your answer is maybe, maybe, maybe...
uh, or my answer is maybe, uh, made in two ways.
The first is, we do have good actors across the
city, package goods stores, bars, hemp
shops that do enter into things like plans of operation at the request of the
local alderman or the police commander, and they, they, they
might have these products. It may not be their main business model, but...
Um, and then there are other actors, because this
product isn't currently regulated in any way, like the gas station issue that we
discussed in the past, who are just throwing it on their shelves with
no, uh, y- no, no review from, from our department.
So I think we're coming from a position where we all agree that more has
to be done here. Um, but I can't, we can't give you a clear answer
because, um, it's so nuanced and there's so many
different varieties of businesses and business activities that have these
products in their s- in their doors.
So, is it safe to say that, um, if it were not for this
ordinance, this is a very, very gray,
unknown kind of industry and
things are coming to the forefront today.
But in your experience, Commissioner, do you
do... Would you say that aldermen are supportive of the smoke
shops and, and the, um, these businesses that we're speaking of
that we don't even have the number for?
I, I think there's also a desire to restrict where these, uh,
products are sold. Uh-... and it'll, it'll, it'll give
us a better chance to, um, uh, enforce it better
if we have restrictions and we have locations that are
specific, that are allowed to sell this.
And of course, the 21, um, restriction is very
important.
Sorry, Alderwoman Hahn. I'm jumping in again because t- I just wanna re-echo,
uh, what the commissioner just said.
In addition to the substitute that we've drafted to immediately kind of address the
youth access concern, we're actively working in partnership
with the law department, um, on further regulation that would
regulate where this can go. We don't want it in corner stores.
We don't want it at gas stations. And that's been made clear by m- most of the
people in this room and most of the broader city council.
So again, we're actively
working on addressing, um, th- I guess the
proliferation of where this stuff is.
Um, but that's not what we're discussing today, so.
And may I just add, not only corner stores, gas stations, Chicago Park
District, schools, uh, places of worship, these businesses
should not be in any close vicinity.
And then, I'm gonna also remind, I believe there was a law, Alderman Bill, you
are our, our kind of governor, uh, statesman here, but there
is a law that no smoking with liquor
sales a- are allowed in the same establishment,
correct? Commissioner.
Oh, for cannabis consumption?
Correct.
Uh, it doesn't, it's not allowed in li- in liquor establishments.
Okay. Is your office a- aware that there are
some businesses that smoking as well as liquor sales and
cannabis sales are in the same business?
So-
And have your office been able to regulate that?
We address those complaints when they come from your, from, from all of
you here. Uh, we work closely with the police department to address that.
So when we see, when we come into these locations and we see that there is cannabis
smoking, uh, and liquor mixed, we, we take action.
Mm-hmm. I would recommend you start to take a little bit more action
with certain businesses sooner rather than later.
No problem.
Thank you.
Uh, Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and, um,
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the intent of the ordinance and I think there is
a good intent here. Um, and we've heard from different folks
in, in this industry, this, I guess, emerging industry
that exists in the gray area in the federal law.
Um, I look at some of these products differently.
Um, I, you know, I understand the demand for
the, uh, hemp-based beverages and I
understand that, um, many of the craft brewers are manufacturing
those w- with the intent that they would be served in establishments that are
checking IDs, right? Um, that is, is not
my, my primary concern. Um, we didn't have anyone stand
up, um, during testimony, and I know there wasn't a lot of opportunity for everyone
to speak, um, but no one stood up and proudly announced, "Hey, I'm the
guy
or gal who produces the
Nerds and Doritos
and Sour Patch Kids that have concentrated
hemp in them. I'm p- I'm proud of my business and I'm here to
say hands off." Um, no one really
got up to champion that effort and that's my
primary concern, um, is that these are absolutely being marketed to
children, there are no controls, (clears throat) and to
me, that's the real public safety risk here.
That said, um,
it's my understanding that over the last couple of years, various members
of the city council have
passed ordinances that, in effect, ban the sale of these
products, um, within certain jurisdictions, whether it's ward
based or a regional or geographic basis.
Commissioner, how many of those exist today in the city code?
Um, so we have seven, seven wards that have full, uh, full
bans.
Se- seven wards?
Yes.
Where it's already been n- se- effectively banned.
Yes.
And-
Where there, where there are bans, yes.
W- where there are bans.
And sorry, Alderman Riley, Chris Juszkiewicz, Assistant Commissioner.
I just wanna add that there are three pending and that, uh, multiple sponsors
of those legislations have confirmed to me that they would be willing to revisit
those bans with, with enhanced regulation from the city.
I see. And
f- for those, uh, jurisdictions that are, already have bans in
place, what has BACP done to enforce the city
code?
So again, it's, it's a, it's a, it, their
complaint, so we, we have worked with some of them, uh, and provided them
l- uh, information to pass to their licensees.
We've given them, uh, license information and provided them
with, um, language, uh, for them to send letters
to those, uh, that are, uh, selling it to stop
immediately.
I'm sorry, so just so I'm clear, so-
We have a-
When, when, when, when you receive a report that someone
has a retail operation that are selling these products in a
prohibited area, and I'm not familiar 'cause I don't have one,
um, you send a letter to the business?
We work with the aldermen of the, of the ward.
Okay.
They provide them with language of what can they can, uh, so that
communication comes from their office to the businesses.
R- okay.
But I guess the question is since you're the r- regulatory
wing and also the enforcement wing-
Mm-hmm.
... and it's your inspectors who have the ticket book-
Mm-hmm.
... um, w- what is the penalty that is being assessed to
these businesses that are operating illegally per the city code?
Are they being assessed a fine? Do they have an administrative hearing
date? Are they put into a deleterious impact, uh,
process with the community? Um, you know, I
understand, you know, an alderman sending a letter is nice and all but that's,
that's not regulatory enforcement. That's a letter.
That's not a... Yeah. I, I understand your question though, no.
So what we do is we start with the letter.
We then provide, uh, compliance education, and then we move to
citations.
Okay. And so how many citations have you issued?
Uh, I don't have that information here right now.
I'll, I'll get back to you on that, yeah.
Have you, have you issued any citations?
I, I will have to provide that information to
Have you issued any citation?
I don't have that information with me, uh-
Could someone up there maybe tell you?
... if you remember anything.
I'm not aware of any.
Let me double-check that-
I think I heard, "I'm not aware of any."
Let me, let, let's double-check that information and send it to you.
Okay, Commissioner. Okay. And, and Commissioner, how long, uh, have some of these
bans been on the books here in the City of Chicago?
Uh, about a year.
About a year.
Yeah, about a year.
And no citations have been issued?
I was, I was gonna defer to, uh, uh, Alder Quinn and
Alder Tavares were the first ban, and I believe that took effect in
March of this year. Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Um, and again, uh,
I'm raising this as a tangential concern, it's not specific to this industry, but
generally the expectation is when, when the legislative body here
at City Hall passes an ordinance, we'd like to see it enforced.
And that simply sending a letter, uh, that, that to me does not equate
to, to enforcement. Um,
which I'm asking the question because you communicated to
members of this body that you had concerns about being able to
enforce a, a, a citywide ban. Um,
I'm not sure we've seen any activity to enforce these limited
regional bans. Um, that's of significant
concern to me. Um, uh, I have an open mind about
how to treat the beverage side of this space,
um, and I think that's gonna require some more conversation, um,
but there are, are clearly products in this concentrated
hemp space, um, that are putting kids'
lives at risk. Uh, we don't know the level of concentration of these
products, um, and, you know, younger people are more
susceptible to that, um, and
y- and I don't know, I guess we have one of our nerds producers in the back who's
getting upset. Um, but what I'm trying to get at here
is, is Commissioner, um, I'm concerned
that if we continue to pass ordinances here that require
regulation, enforcement and accountability, um, that you're going
to execute on that no matter whom the mayor is and what that person's
opinion or ideology is on
the impacted product.
Can we get some assurances from you and your office that where
we have the... If people wanna talk about repealing these, these bans or
prohibitions in these regions, that's fair game.
But until these things are repealed, that is the law of
the land, so to speak, in this city.
Um, to hear that ..............................
being aggressively enforced, to me, is a concern.
Um, have we
(laughs) , have you
considered dividing these products into
different categories on how they would be regulated?
You know, a beverage sold at a bar or restaurant where people are
Basset trained and they know to check IDs and, and they can do that
easily, it's just like in any other alcoholic beverage,
versus a convenience store like 7-Eleven or a,
uh, a gas station where perhaps there's less
scrupulous oversight of those products?
We have. We have, Alderman. We, uh, just like, uh, Chris mentioned, we have looked
at, uh, restriction location, looking at tobacco shops
where, um, 80% of, uh, uh, revenue comes from
tobacco or tobacco accessories. We're looking at liquor licenses,
uh, so they can sell, uh, canned, canned beverages.
We're looking at cannabis locations.
But all of that is being considered right now, and that's why we're asking for more
time, so that we can have a conversation about this and land in a
good, solid, smart ordinance.
Okay. Well (clears throat) , uh, we're gonna need to have some follow-up
conversations after today's proceeding, um,
but I would, I would just say that, um, when w- when we're passing these,
these things, we need them to be enforced.
(clears throat) I also understand the nuance here.
The, the concern about non-intoxicating products versus intoxicating
products. I don't think anyone is looking to go after
CBD-based products that are beu- being used
for healthcare and, and beauty, et cetera, uh, for, for
pets and animal. Right? Um, that's not the, to me, the public
safety threat here, right? It's one of these highly concentrated hemp
products that do intoxicate-
Yeah.
... and that kids who don't know better, uh, are gonna hurt themselves.
Uh, that's my biggest concern in this entire conversation.
And also, I-
And also, I just, I just wanna say that at a minimum, we should consider the
under-21 restriction immediately.
That is something that needs to be considered.
Yeah, I mean, I (clears throat) and...
(clicks tongue)
And, and that is, and that's a restriction that I, that I do favor.
Um, eh, why haven't we done that sooner?
This is the opportunity to do it. What we presented last time included that,
so now we should, we should have that conversation and, and it's ready for you to
review.
And I'm gonna, I'm gonna yield back to the Chair here in just, uh, one second, but,
uh, just as a matter of context, that conversation about the ordinance you
mentioned that would have had a, a, a 21 age
check, it also contemplated this being a revenue
stream, and it appears the federal government has
decided to preempt us on that down the road,
um, and so thank God we didn't depend on that revenue stream.
Um, so anyway, p- appreciate you answering my questions.
Um, thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you.
Alderwoman Tavares?
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I, I want to thank the
sponsor of this ordinance, Alderman Quinn, for his leadership on
taking on this issue. I'm a co-sponsor of this ordinance, and I
agree 100% with him on this ordinance.
Unregulated intoxicating hemp,
THC products, they're available everywhere,
in convenience stores and in smoke shops.
Like you mentioned, there have been seven wards....
including the 23rd Ward that have addressed this
issue and implemented a ban, a complete
ban on the sale of these products.
Passing that measure
has resulted in a reduction in the number of
poisoned children and 911
calls. With a federal-
We
need- ... with a federal ban taking effect in November of
2026, Chicago-
We need decorum. We need decorum.
Sh- With a federal ban
taking effect in November of 2026,
Chicago has a limited timeframe to
act. We must act now and pass this
today.
This ordinance, this ordinance extends
the proven southwest side model
citywide.
It simply enforces a clear rule, that
intoxicating hemp products should only be available
in regulated dispensaries. There has
been talk, there has been talk about how the
city can profit from these dangerous narcotics,
but public health is not for sale.
This is not about generating revenue.
It is about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of
children by preventing them from accessing these harmful
products. I strongly urge my colleagues of
the license committee to consider passing this public health
ordinance today because we have seen that it works on
the Southwest side, where I represent the 23rd Ward.
Thank you. Alderman Beale.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I just got a couple of questions for the commissioner.
Commissioner, right now, how many wards have a total ban on
this product?
Seven with, uh, three pending.
Okay. Out of those seven that have already, um,
gone into effect, how many enforcements have you done in those
seven wards?
Alderman Beale, we already discussed this. You may have stepped
out. I'm sorry. I must have stepped out, I'm sorry.
Uh, Alderman, I don't have that information with me right now, but I can
tell you that it, uh, not many.
Not many? Okay.
Um, we, we, we take... Our enforcement approach is it's a
education first and penalties later.
Um, you know, of those, those seven wards have, uh, bans.
That's the dec- we've taken that approach.
Okay. Well, let me just say, um, Commissioner, um, the,
one of the problems that I have is your
department has the resources when
it's something that the administration says, "Pass this." You say
we have the, we have the resources, we can make it happen, roll it out, let's
go. But when it's something that we are trying to do
to protect our communities, it's hurry up and
wait. Everything is hurry up and wait.
Now,
we're on the ground trying to do what's right for our communities.
We're fighting to save lives in our community.
Mm-hmm.
If you all were serious about this particular
product, you would have done something over two years
ago. The state tried to act on it, things happened in
the state, it failed. We tried, now we're trying to do it,
y- you're trying to do something to stop it.
The federal government has already stepped in.
So what's going to be different in
November
than what we're trying to do in 30 days?
What's going to be the difference?
We don't know what's going to happen, uh, between now and November.
I mean, these, those conversations are pending.
We don't know if that's gonna, this is gonna end up in a full ban or there's gonna
be, uh, regulation or the- there's gonna be,
uh, uh, authority that's gonna come down to the state or to the
municipalities to, to, to regulate this. We don't know what's gonna happen.
Okay. But the federal government passed, um, a law to ban
this as its current form, correct?
There are, um,
there, uh, so there's a February date where the FDA has to
define, uh, cannabinoid products and what a container is,
uh, by February 26th. And then by November 26, of
26, there should be more information, uh, available.
Right now, we don't know what's gonna happen.
Okay. So-
So a full ban of this magnitude
is unprecedented to Chicago. We never seen something like this before.
The way it is presented right now is gonna take a lot of manpower
for the ent- for BACP and whoever else is gonna be enforcing this.
I'm guessing CPD will be also enforcing this.
To go a- after the entire city, chasing these products,
confiscating these products, without preemptable, uh, uh, presumption,
irrevocable presumption, we will have to test everything to see if it's hemp or
not. So we're trying to
meet you in the middle here, work with this body to find a solution that is
something that we'll, that we can do.
Okay. So knowing that the health commissioner is saying that this is something
that's harmful to kids, okay, and we want to
not do something to enforce to protect those kids.
So how can we, with good conscience, sit here and say, "Let's keep this
going, let's tax this," but at the same time,
people aren't being harmed? Help me understand that action.
Tha- That's why I'm urging this body to consider the under-21
restriction right away.
That's not gonna stop the problem that we're dealing with right now.
So keep it on the hands on the... Right now. Okay.
Uh-huh.
It'll, it'll, it'll keep it up a bit.
Commissioner Paolantiano has a point of information.
Uh, uh, on what my colleague, Alderman Beale, had stated, um, you're
stating that there's no enforcement capabilities be- uh, the magnitude
of this.
But today you're proposing a ban
at the, the 21-year-old level, which you would have to enforce
too. So...It's the same-
But th- this is-
You'd have to
This is the way it-
... the same enforcement-
Sure.
... at that, that you'd have to do citywide.
It, it, it's, you're, you're comparing two different things here.
It's, it's referring to the 21 and under restriction will be at, at locations that
are already licensed by BACP. So, if we go to a gas station and they're
selling these products, they will have to card.
We're, we're already going to these, uh, businesses, you know.
Uh, they have, they're our licensed businesses. We regulate them.
We go, we, we check for tobacco, we check for...
We do license premise checks. We're already going to these places.
What the ban is going to do, it's gonna ban all the accent, all,
uh, uh, um, products. It's, it's more than, than
what we're proposing for the 21.
No, I,
If you want to keep it out of the hands of kids, I think the 21 is a good start.
I get that, Commissioner. I, I totally get that.
And, and I think that's a, it's, it's a great step, but besides
that enforcement on 21, you're still going to
have to enforce it on everyone else that's not abiding to that
rule. Out of the back of a car, out of a back of a, of a, a
liquor store, out of the back of, you know, anywhere else.
You're, the, the magnitude is still just as
big. The entire-
A full ban, a full ban is more than that, Alderman. That's, that's what I'm saying.
Yeah.
A full ban is more than that.
We're gonna go back to Alderman Beale.
Thank you. Thank you, um, Alderman. I appreciate you on that one.
Um,
so
knowing that this is harmful to kids-
Mm-hmm.
... and their health issues, they're hurting the community, why
not ban it and then work towards what should be legal and not
legal and then bring that before us? Okay.
And what do we do with the good actors in the meantime?
Well, you know what I'm going to-
What are we going to do with the good actors-
You,
you might- ... in businesses that are doing the right thing?
But-
Are we gonna, we're gonna close them, we're gonna lose them?
But-
That's, that's my only concern. What are we do, we're going to do about the
businesses that are trying to do the right thing?
Once again-
Are we gonna, uh...
Let's, let's protect the people first
and then let's move forward. Well, okay, first of all-
Okay.
One more time.
Um, excuse me, this... We need decorum here.
This is a conversation between Alderman Beale and the commissioner, and I would
appreciate it if everyone would please, um, respect
that. I know you're very passionate about this issue, but please
stop the interruption.
So my problem, Commissioner, is the kids. We need to protect the kids.
Mm-hmm.
I'm for regulation.
Mm-hmm.
However, the federal government is looking to close this
loophole.
Sure.
And until then, I'm in favor of closing all the loopholes here in the
City of Chicago-
Okay.
... until we hear from the federal government. Thank you.
No problem. Thank you.
Thank you. Now, there has been a roll call called for this
issue. Um, I myself, um, would just like to
say that, um,
I don't think this ordinance is perfect, but I do agree with my
colleagues that our kids are the most important
thing. Alderman Spiza-
uh, did... Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand.
Okay, I'll get back to you in a second.
Um, and I, um, am very concerned, as I said, in budget
hearings to you. If one child loses their life because of this,
that's too many. And we need to, um,
for the safety of our children and our community, I think this is
important. That being said, I, I know that there's a lot of you here that are very
passionate about this. And I would encourage my colleague, Alderman
Quinn, to have some talks with you, um, to see
if, um, there is anything else that can be
done to this ordinance before it's taken to the City
Council. Um, with regard to your
21-year-old limit, I agree with my colleagues.
We've been talking about hemp for a very, very long time.
This could have been introduced months and months and months ago.
So, we don't have another two, three months to wait on
this. Um, and I'm gonna let-
Just-
... Alderman Sposato ask his question, and then we're going to do a roll
call.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I apologize.
I, I thought there were some people ahead of me still.
So, um, I have to say, this is a rare time I
came to a meeting not knowing what I was going to do.
Um, people were pulling on me all over the place.
I wanted to listen to hear what was going on.
Like, I see our media friends right now, lurching,
listening. If you, if you vote to ban it, you're voting to
destroy small businesses. If you allow it, allow it to stay, you don't care
about little kids taking drugs and everything.
So, so we're really all in a tough situation.
But after listening to what I heard too today,
I'm gonna have to be a no, and I don't need you to applaud me.
I heard some good passionate conversation.
I believe the legit people are here.
I don't dispute there's bad actors out there.
I like to believe there's no bad actors in my ward.
I didn't ban it in my ward, and, and I, and, and it's not out of the question for
me to do that. But certainly, um, some people
need this product, and I'm probably one of them.
I wasn't really... uh, I'm a guy in chronic pain.
Um, I never tried it. Maybe I should try it.
Um, so 24/7 pain. Um, I
heard some passionate testimony how it's changed people's lives, and I, I, I don't,
I don't doubt it one bit. Um, but once
again, I, I wish we could pause this. I wish we could take a little bit more time.
Doesn't sound like there's an appetite for that, but at this time, and I'm not
saying I could be a yes at another time, but right now, at this time, I'm a
no. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. We're now gonna take a roll call.
I don't know if I officially, uh, counted Alderman O'Shay as part of the quorum, so
you're now included. Um,
Vice Chair
Chico.
Alderwoman Coleman.
Alderman Moore. Alderman
O'Shay.
Alderwoman Scott.
Alderman
Cardona.Alderman
Conway.
No.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Sposato.
No.
Alderman Napolitano.
Alderman Riley.
Yeah.
Alderman Martin.
Um, for those on remote, Alderman Lawson, are you
there?
Alderman Gardner. Oh, I skipped you, didn't I? Alderman Gardner.
Aye.
Alderwoman Clay.
Alderman Silverstein is a yes.
10-5. 10-5.
Um, hey.
Sposato.
Conway.
Hears that ..........................
Alderman Lawson, are you there?
Yes, I'm a no.
You're a no?
Mm-hmm, yes. Thank you.
12, 13,
16, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
Who's our say way? I got Clay.
Hm?
Martin's a no. All right, we're just doing the
math.
Think we need more
nos.
10 yes, six nos. The motion
passes.
Uh, we need... Thank you very
much, and we will continue on. And
congratulations, Alderman Quinn.
Continue on with the next item on the
agenda.
(?) .
The next item on the agenda is
Alderman Moseley here?
We need to find Alderman Moseley. Until he gets here, we will
move along.
Is Alderman Hopkins here?
He's
Okay. Hold on one
second.
Okay.
How about...
..........................
Okay, we're waiting for
Moseley.
For 15 years?
He said... Yeah. I thought it was about the
application. So you got that.
Good. Now she got out again. Great.
Should
we- We'll
see.
Skip on Hopkins here either.
We're gonna move along, um, to item number five, and
we'll come back to the others. Um,
02025-002324,
an amendment of the municipal code section
4-60-022 parenthesis
3.61 and 4-60-023
parentheses 3.65 to disallow additional alcoholic
liquor and packaged good licenses on portions of 47th Street
in the Third Ward. The chair recognizes Brian Friedman from
Alderman Dowell's office. Please proceed.
Thank you so much, Chairman. And thank you to the committee for considering this
item today. My name is Brian Friedman.
I'm from Third Ward, Alderman Pat Dowell's office, asking for your support for
this ordinance. There's an existing moratorium on 47th Street.
Uh, we're just trying to expand the area east of King Drive, uh, to
encompass that area within the existing moratorium.
Uh, this ordinance does have support from, uh, the neighbors and the block
club. So we just ask for your support today. Thank you.
Any questions from committee? Alderman Cardona moves
to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Thank you, committee.
And we're gonna move
on to item six, which is
02025-0020507,
an amendment of the municipal code section
4-60-022 parenthesis
13.388 to disallow alcoholic... additional
alcoholic liquor licenses on portions of South Central Avenue in
the 13th Ward. The chair recognizes Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,
this is placing the ban on a stretch, uh, along Central
Avenue. Um,
uh, the mori- laying down the moratorium around Cen- uh, along Central
Avenue, um, redeveloping this area and, uh, it's becoming more
single family dwelling. So I appreciate the, um,
positive, uh, positive, uh, outcome on this
item. Thank you.
Any questions by committee? Aldermans...
Oh, Alderman Sposato moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
The motion is passed.
Um, Alderman Lopez, are you on remote?
I am here, Chairman.
Okay then, we're gonna move on to item number seven, which is
02025-0020317,
amendment of the municipal code section
4-60-022 parenthesis
15.90 to allow additional alcoholic liquor licenses on
portions of South McDowell Avenue.The chair
recognizes Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the committee.
I ask for your favorable consideration of this item, lifting the moratorium on
South McDonald so that we could allow for the transfer of license between an
existing, uh, longtime establishment in the Back of the Yards
community.
Any questions from-
I'm happy to answer any questions.
(clears throat)
Any questions from committee?
Vice Chair
Chico moves to pass. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
The motion is passed.
Thank you, committee.
You are welcome.
Moving on
to...
Here.
She's al-
Is Alderman Cruz remote?
... recently ????? and Cruz's office is online.
We, we actually req- If you're online, we require the alderperson to be
online.
Okay.
Can you grab her?
Yeah. Let me see if I can grab her.
Okay. I'm gonna go back to item number three 'cause we see Alderman
Moseley's here, um, and that's
02025-0021076,
an amendment of the municipal code section
4-4-331 to prohibit the sale of
cannabinoid hemp products in Vincennes
corridor residential area. Chair recognizes
Alderman Moseley.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Uh, asking for this committee's favorable
support. We've had incidents in our ward where, uh, youth have
had access to these products, um, and we are working
to, uh, eliminate that cause. Um,
this impacts, uh, are really... are getting at some of the incidences
that we've had with grocery stores or gas stations, convenient
stores, um, that have been selling to schools, uh,
both elementary and high school. And so, uh, due to
those extenuating health concerns, um, in
abundance of caution, I'm working to, uh, prohibit it from
our ward.
Any questions from the committee?
Alderman Napolitano moves to pass. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
The motion is passed.
Still looking for somebody from Alderman Hopkins. Oh, you're here. Okay.
So we're gonna go on to number four, which is
02025-0020642,
amendment of municipal code section
4-60-023
(42.215) to allow
additional package good licenses on portions of East
Huron Street and North Lakeshore Drive in the Second Ward.
Please state your name for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Uh, Brian Paleran, staff assistant to Alderman
Hopkins, here to speak on his behalf in support of
02025-0020642, a partial
lift of a package goods moratorium in the Second Ward, encompassing the south
side of Huron Street from McLeod Court to Lakeshore Drive, and the west side of
Lakeshore Drive from Huron Street to Eerie Street.
The purpose of this moratorium lift is to attract a grocery tenant to vacant
commercial space in the ground floor of 680 North Lakeshore Drive.
This specific area of Streeterville, one of our city's most densely populated
neighborhoods, where many residents live car-free, is without good immediate
grocery options. Alderman Hopkins requests this c- committee's favorable
consideration. Thank you.
Any questions from committee? Alderman Conway moves to
pass. All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Thank you.
Do we have Alderman Cruz present?
Yeah. She, she's listed as an attendee at the moment, but, uh, she's
available.
Oh, okay.
... move her to a panelist.
Um, can we get somebody to move her to a
panelist? Okay. I'm gonna keep
moving on.
Yeah. I
am- Oh, are you there? Okay.
Yeah.
Ah.
I'm sorry.
So item number eight on the agenda is
02025-0020664,
amendment of municipal code section
4-60-022
(30.37) to allow additional alcoholic
liquor licenses on portions of West Diversity Avenue in the 30th
Ward. Chair recognizes Alderman Cruz.
Thank you. I ask, um, the body for favorable consideration of
this, um, item. It did pass in September,
however, um, this is to correct, uh, an error on
the ordinance and I ask for a favorable consideration.
Any questions from committee? Alderman Spada
moves to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Item number nine on the agenda is
02025-0020502,
amendment of municipal code section
4-60-022 (30.3)
to allow additional alcoholic liquor licenses on portions of West
Fullerton Avenue in the 34- 31st Ward.
Chair recognizes Alderman Cardona.
Thank you, Chairwoman, and, um, good afternoon, um,
committee on license. Um, I'm asking for the committee favorable
consideration of lifting this moratorium on Fullerton Avenue to
allow a small business restaurant to, um, serve
liquor in their establishment and, um, and
revitalize, uh, that portion of Fullerton Avenue by doing this
in, uh... doing this, uh, at this moment.
So, um, I'm asking the committee favorable consideration, uh,
at this time. Thank you.
Any questions by committee? Alderman Na- Napolitano moves to
pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
The motion is
passed.Do we
have anyone here from the 33rd Ward? Okay.
Um, item number 10 on the agenda,
02025-0020843,
Amendment of Municipal Code Section
4-60-022
(33.44) to allow additional alcoholic
liquor license on portions of North Elston
Avenue in the 33rd Ward. The chair
recognizes Abraham S... Say your last
name.
Espino.
Okay, go ahead.
Uh, hi, my name is Abraham Espino. I'm the neighborhood and business service
coordinator at the 33rd Ward. Um, we are
requesting the favorable consideration of this lift.
Uh, we did some community feedback, community input, community presentation to
gauge, uh, feedback and opinion on the lift of this
liquor moratorium to allow this business to sell alcoholic
beverages on premises. Uh, we got overwhelmingly
positive support for it, so we're requesting the favorable
consideration.
Any questions from committee? Alderman Conway moves to
pass. All in favor, say, "Aye." Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
The motion is
passed.
Okay, we're gonna wait for Alderman Riley for item 11 and go
on to... Oh, you're here from
Alderman Riley's? Okay. Then we'll go back to item
11,
02025-0020521,
Amendment of Municipal Code Section 4-60-023
(42.394) to allow additional
alcoholic packaged goods licenses on portions of North
LaSalle Street in the 42nd Ward. Uh, could you please state your name for the
record?
Yes. Uh, good afternoon, Chairwoman and, and the committee.
My name is Grayson Tyler. I am the executive assistant to Alderman
Riley. Uh, he had to step out, but I'm here in his, uh, in his
absence. Um, this matter is to lift the packaged goods moratorium at
the corner of LaSalle and Haddock Place for a new French market sandwich
shop at 222 North LaSalle. The market has
agreed to a plan of operation, and the alderman, uh, requests your considerable
favor, uh, for this matter. Thank you.
Any questions from committee? Alderman Sposato moves
to pass. All in favor, say, "Aye." Any
opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Thank you.
Last item on the agenda is item number 12,
02025-0020303,
A one-time excep- exception to Wrigley Field night game
ordinance to allow for Chicago Cubs to hold Major League
Baseball game on July 17th, 2026.
Alderman Lawson... Oh, is not available, so we have
Isaac-
Troncoso.
Yes, that's exactly what I was gonna say.
All right.
Please, go ahead.
Uh, thank you. Good afternoon, honorable chairwoman and members of the committee.
Um, this ordinance is essentially following the All-Star break.
Um, the Cubs typically, every year, request to play a night game that night to give
them more time to rest for the hopefully many players that will be playing in the
All-Star game. And Alderman Lawson would request your favorable
consideration.
Um, yeah. Does anyone not wanna let the Cubs
play?
Mo- move to pass. (laughs)
(laughs) Alderman Conway moves to pass.
Um, all in favor, say, "Aye." Any nays?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Thank you.
This concludes the agenda of the Committee on License.
The passed matters will be reported as a re- recommendation to pass at the next
city council on December 10th, 2025.
There being no further business before the committee, Alderman
Sposato makes a motion to adjourn.
Um, hearing no objection, so ordered, the meeting is adjourned.
Thank you all so
much.
Oof.
Yeah, 8:30. Monday, yeah.