Good
afternoon, everyone. The Committee on License and Consumer Protection will now come
to order. We will begin with a roll call to establish
quorum. Vice Chair
Chico.
Alderwoman Coleman, not here. Alder- alderman
Moore. Alderman O'Shea. Alderman
Scott. Alderman Cardona. Alderman
Waxback. Alderman Conway.
Alderman Villegas. Alderwoman
Mitz. Alderman Sposato.
Sposato's here.
Alderman Napolitano.
Present.
Alderman Riley. Alderman Lawson.
Alderman Gardner. Alderwoman Clay.
Alderman Martin. Um,
President... I mean, I'm sorry, Alderman Nugent is attending this meeting in her
capacity as president pro
temp-
yes.
So
Alderwoman Nugent is, cons- included in
quorum. There are one, two, six, seven, eight,
nine, 10,
11 members present, and we have a quorum.
We have a few people on, virtual today.
We have Alderman Martin, Alderman Scott,
Alderwoman, Alderwoman, uh...
Wait a minute. We have Alderman,
Alderman O'Shea, Alderwoman Scott, and Alderman
Martin. Um, all right, can I make a motion?
Alderman Villegas moves to include them in quorum.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed? Alderman Sposato votes no.
Uh, Alderman Martin, are you here?
Present, Chair. Thank you.
Alderman O'Shea, are you here?
Yes. O'Shea is here.
Alderwoman Scott? Scott is here. Okay.
At this time, we will begin the public comment
period. The period is limited to 30 minutes.
Out of respect for everybody's time, each speaker is limited to three
minutes. Um,
we have Pat Door here.
Uh, good afternoon, members of the License Committee.
Pleasure to be before you yet again on VGT.
Um, thank you. I am not going to repeat my past arguments in favor of City
Council's long overdue, but very welcome, decision to allow state
licensed video gaming. I provided the committee written comments
yesterday. I have copies I'd be happy to provide everyone summarizing the
economic benefits to your locally owned bars and restaurants,
especially since we've lost a third of them in the border wars over the last eight
years, and we look forward to them coming back once they can compete with their
suburban neighbors with state licensed video gaming.
Specifically today, I'm here to speak to agenda items two and three.
The proposed bans on ward level video gaming terminals
may or may not be a good idea, but they will remove
15% of all licensed locations, which would be quite the
fiscal impact
when out of all of the eligible locations in Chicago, and we've already
received over 200 applications into the Illinois Gaming
Board to offer this entertainment, if 15% of those small
businesses are taken out of the mix.
Furthermore, unlike zoning changes or in the past liquor moratorium
changes, it can deeply affect the value of these bars and restaurants.
It is my understanding that none of the 21 applications that have
already applied to the state for this have been notified about these ward level
moratoriums. Um, I'm not saying the ordinance
specifies written notice because I'm not entirely sure it
does, but whether this was a liquor moratorium or a zoning change, these
businesses would've been notified this is on the table.Particularly troubling in
this case with this ward level ban is two of these wards were added by
substitute ordinance, so they have even less time in the 35th Ward or Alderman
Hatton's ward to be aware of this change.
This impacts literally hundreds, over five hundred, small
businesses who are considering whether to offer state licensed and taxed
video gaming. For that reason, we'd ask that this ordinance be held so that
those no- businesses could be notified, or that it receive a no vote
and we revisit it after the proper notification process
for businesses impacted by these bans.
This is an emerging, industry, but it's important to remember,
although some negative naysayers will say it's not being adopted as quickly as
expected, the gaming board's already received over 200
applications to offer this from Chicago
licensees. There were only 214 new
liquor licenses applied to with the city all of last year,
and these VGT applications have appeared in the first, n- nine
days since the clerk notified the, gaming
board that they're legal. For those reasons, this ordinance is being moved
prematurely and we ask that it be held so that the businesses can be notified and
that everyone can receive their feedbacks on this major economic change.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate your consideration on this
matter.
Thank you. Uh, that concludes the, public
comment for today. Thank you to our speakers.
We are gonna get started on today's agenda.
We have nine items on the agenda today.
The first item on the agenda is the approval of the Rule 45 reports for
February 2026, which were sent out to
committee. Alderman Lawson,
makes a motion to approve the Rule 45.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes
have it. The reports are approved.
Oh, we're gonna recognize Alderman Wacksack for purposes of
quorum.
Item number two on the agenda is
02026-0022510,
an amendment of the municipal code section
4-156-962, modifying
license requirements regarding lawful sports
wagering. Um, the chair recognizes Radiatu
Kasa and Justin Edge from the Department of
Law.
Good afternoon, Chairman, Silverstein and
members of the License Committee.
My name is Radiatu Kasa, deputy corporation counsel in the city's law
department. On December 19,
2025, the city council passed a revenue
ordinance with the 2026, budget
package. Article eight of the revenue ordinance
amends the city's sports wagering ordinance.
The purpose of that amendment was to make, online
sports wagering to be subject to the city's, licensing and
taxing regime. So,
this amendment is simply to clarify that
intent of the city council, and it's a very minor amendment
of the code.
Are there any questions from the committee?
Alderman Villegas?
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Um,
is the city of Chicago following
the current pending legislation that's down in Springfield around
the preemption of local municipalities in
taxing, online sports, online sports bet wagering?
Yes, Alderman. Uh, we are following that, and, we are,
responding to that pending legislation.
C- Can, can you let us know what the response has been thus
far?
Yeah, we can, appraise you that through the
chair.
Well, I think, is there a way to update us now?
I mean, some of our colleagues I think would be interested in-
I, I mean i- in general, when there is any state
legislation that preempts-
Could you speak a little louder?
Yeah, sorry.
In general, when there is any state legislation that preempts the city's
home rule authority, our standard position is to oppose such
legislation.
No, and I, and I appreciate, I appreciate that, given the fact that there's about
$26 million that's tied to this, to this, 20- $26
million of revenue that's tied to our 2026 budget.
But, h- is there, besides
opposing this, is there any discussion around trying to figure out
how to kind of replicate what the county has done as it relates
to collecting, taxes on, on,
sports bet wag- sports wage- sports
bet, sports betting, right? Is that what it was?
Sports betting.
Yeah, sports betting. Um, and similar to what the county's doing, the
2% versus the 10.25%?
City council passed an ordinance, in
December, subjecting,
video gaming, no, sports wagering companies to be
subject to the city's taxing regime.
As currently passed, the taxing regime is at, I believe
10.25%,
10.25% of the adjusted gross,
receipt. So that is going to be collected by the city
pursuant to the ordinance that the city council passed.
Right. And so this is modifying... W- What's the, what's this new language?
What is, what is the new language on this?
What does it do versus what was passed?
It doesn't change what-
Could you again speak into the microphone?
Yeah. Sorry for that. It doesn't change what the city council has
passed. It simply clarifies that these online
betting companies are subject to the city's licensing and taxing
regime.
Versus what?'Cause wasn't that part of the agreement?
Yeah. There, there is a contention now by some online betting comp-
companies. In fact, there is a pending lawsuit, that,
basically arguing that they're not subject to our
ordinances. Uh, so we are just clarifying that.
So if there's a pending lawsuit, how does, how does
that, how does that come into play where we're changing the law
versus, while there's a pending lawsuit?
Um, the city concept has been clear.
The point of that ordinance was to start-
I don't think we were very clear if we're here- ... changing the language here.
No, it was very clear, and the intent was very clear, in the
ordinance the city council passed.
These companies are subject to our licensing and taxing regime.
That's clear. I want to emphasize that they are subject to our ordinance.
What we are doing here is just simply clarifying the intent.
Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Um, yes, I'd like to recognize first, Alderman Riley as
part of quorum, and I failed to recognize myself as part of quorum,
so I'm including myself. Um, and
now, Alderman Lawson had a question.
Thank, thank you, Chair. Um, Alderman Vegas touched on this, but the
10.25, is the, is the, what we're assessing,
that's on the companies that are paying on their gross receipts,
correct?
That's, correct, Alderman. Uh, gross receipts of the,
wagers. That means the receipts,
s- minus the amount paid to the-
The payouts.
Yeah.
Right. Okay. The state has a per wager tax as well, or per
wager fee as well, yes?
There, there is a state act. Uh, can you speak to that?
Yeah. Justin Edge, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Legal Counsel
Division. So,
on your first point-
Mm-hmm
... the way that our tax
as passed in the revenue
ordinance reads
is adjusted gross receipts
according to GAAP, G-A-A-P,
standards, adjusted gross receipts for
bets placed within the city's jurisdiction.
Okay.
Okay? So that's... And then we put a percentage on that.
This is the same way that the state has their statewide
system structured, although theirs is graduated.
Okay.
Um, and then, yeah. So now as far as the, the
push, as it's sometimes called, or per wager tax-
Right
... it's 25 cents, and it's specifically only
on mobile and internet.
Okay.
And so we have two different kinds here.
We have the in-person betting, which our
10.25% change in the revenue
ordinance matches internet and mobile
applications to the existing
10.25% for in person. We only have one
location currently, but, you know, obviously that, that's what it
matches, so.
That was my next question, 'cause I think that one location is in my ward.
It is.
Uh, the casi- the temporary casino doesn't have any in person wagering?
Or do they as well?
There is currently a Bail- Bally's
application, pending before the Illinois
Gaming Board.
What's on that application, I do not know.
Right.
But it is a pending application to offer an online
sports book.
Excellent. Um, that's really it on my questions.
Uh, this is parity and a level playing field with the one in-
Per-
... in-person location that happens to be at the great 44th Ward.
So, I'll move to pass if there's no other questions,
Chair.
Thank you.
Alderman Vegas.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you just give me an example of what a consumer
would be paying for once the wager has been, been,
been completed? With, including the state
tax, the city tax.
So
in some form of fees that we
do not dictate in any way by our laws, these companies could
choose to create a fee in
which they try to pass on the tax to the individual
customer. But because of the structure of the tax itself on
gross receipts
for the company from bets placed in the
city,
it's not necessarily on the individual
wagerer. Does that make sense?
So-
Yeah. Chairman Vegas, to be clear, the tax is on the licensees, it's not
on the consumer.
So, so just so I'm clear, so I wager $100.
The state is gonna charge me 50 cents, I think is what the ta-
what the, fee is. 50 cents, I think.
The, the, the per wager tax, which
is currently 25%, or 25 cents.
Yeah. In the-
So I, so I'm paying 100, $100.25 to, to, to s- to
go ahead and bet on the Bears to win the Super Bowl.
Um, and then-
Great bet
... then there's a tax- ... that Dra- you know,
one of the s- DraftKings or MGM's gonna pay a tax on
their, all the bets that are w- done within the city of Chicago.
That's correct.
So then you don't think that they're gonna pass that on to the consumer?
That's a business decision which, we have no control
on. But the city's ordinance imposes a tax on the
licensees.
Gotcha. Okay.
Mm-hmm.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Go ahead, Alderman Lawson.
Sorry. So the, the tax is based not just on the amount wagered, but
less the amount paid out, correct?
Did I hear-
That's correct.
Okay.
Yeah.
Right. So it's my 100 bucks minus the 50 I won back.
Yeah.
That 50 left is taxed.
Yeah.
Got it.
At the rate of 10.25%.
Great. That's it. That was just the clarity I wanted. Thank you.
Any other questions or clarifications?
O-okay. All in favor say aye.
Any, any no?
No.
Alderman Riley and Alderman Villegas are nos.
Um, the motion has passed.
Okay, moving along, onto item
three, which is
SO2025-0021968,
Municipal Code
4-155-045,
New, disallowing the issuance of additional video gamings and
licenses in Wards 26, 27, 33, 35,
49.
Um, there's another, ordinance,
O2026, which is item number
4-0023351, an
amendment of the Municipal Code Chapter 4-155 by
adding new Section 4-155-043 to
prohibit issuance of video gamings licenses in the 28th
Ward. Um, we'll have discussion on both of them, but we'll have to take a
vote separately on those. Um, Chair recognizes
Alderman Burnett.
Thank you, Chair. Um, as one of the co-sponsors of item three, we request to
hold the item.
Yes, Alderman Napolitano?
Roll call.
We have a, we have a motion to pass.
Roll call.
With a roll call?
Do we need any discussion, or are we ready to vote?
Um, Madam Chair? This is Alderman Irvin.
Yes, Alderman Irvin.
These are, both items or, one
item?
I'm sorry, say that again. I can't hear you.
Are these both items or one item? Uh, 'cause I, I sent a note to,
to both you and to Carl to ask that the item be
held, in committee,
for, the one, the item in the 28th Ward, I want it held in
committee.
Um, that's fine. Uh, I didn't get your message, so I'm sorry about
that, Alderman. Um, but there is a motion to pass anyway,
so, we're just gonna take a vote on it.
Wait, you're gonna pass, you're gonna pass a ordinance that I put in, over my own
objection? Uh, this isn't, this isn't traditionally how we've
done business, but
if this is the, if this is what you all are doing, this is a very unusual
precedent for a ward-based matter.
Well, there was a motion to, have a roll call on it.
Who made the motion?
So we're gonna do that.
No, no, no. Who made the motion?
Alderman Napolitano. There w-
Alderman, would you withdraw your motion, sir?
No, I'm gonna keep that motion in. We'll do a roll call on it.
You, you're gonna keep a motion-
We're gonna take a roll call-
... for a council-
We'll have to do a roll call on both
... item over... This is a, this is a whole new era we're in. Okay.
All right. Very well.
Hold the vote. I thought you said doing the first one.
No, we have to take two separate votes because they're two separate ordinances, so
we were just gonna discuss them both at the same time.
But if there's no discussion, we can take two separate roll call votes right
now. Yes, I'm gonna recognize Alderwoman
Clay. All right. For quorum, yes.
Okay, so the first vote is going to be on
SO2025-0021968.
Um, and this is for the disallowing of the issuance of additional
video game licenses in Wards 26, 27, 33, 35, and
49.
Um,
Vice Chair Chico. I'm sorry?
Nay.
Alderwoman Coleman is not here. Alderman
Moore?
Alderman O'Shea.
No. Alderwoman
Scott.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waxbacker.
Here.
Alderman Conway.
No.
Alderman Villegas.
No.
Alderwoman Mitz.
Alderman, Alderm- Yes, Alderman Scott?
Are you there, Alderwoman Scott? I'm here.
Are you a yes or a no on this? I am a no.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Napolitano.
No.
Alderman Riley.
No.
Alderman Lawson.
No.
Alderman Gardner. Alderwoman
Clay. Alderman Martin. Yes.
Alderman Silverstein's a
no.
Alderwoman Harris.
We have...
Uh, on Alderwoman, President Pro Tem Nugent.
All right.
16. There are 16 nos and two
yeses.
And now we'll take, a roll call on item
number
four.
Again, I'm asking that this item be held in committee, Madam
Chair. Um-
I'm sorry?
Oh, this matter failed. Sorry. Thank you.
Um, item four is
O2026-0023351,
which is an ordinance, to prohibit the issuance of
video gamings-... licenses in the 28th Ward.
Um, this was a request for a roll call as well, so we will do
that.
Um, Madam Chair?
Yes, Alderman
Moore?
Mm-hmm.
Um, I believe Alderman Napolitano asked to have a roll
call.
Yep. I, I call for a roll call on that, and I keep my motion in
place.
He did make a roll call, so we're gonna take the roll
call. Vice Chair
Chico?
This is, to
prohibit video gamings in the 28th
Ward.
And again, I'm asking that you guys hold this in committee.
I don't know what the rush is on moving on something that the
alderputty and the alders ask can be held in committee.
Uh, this is unprecedented by this body. Just understand this.
There was a-
I understand there was a motion-
Alderman Napolitano asked to take a roll call-
I understand the alderman made a motion.
I totally understand that, but I have never in my 15
years in council for a ward-based matter to be done in
this manner. So I, I... This is highly unusual.
This is, again, we, we are a body of
members, and we do have some level of tradition.
And I guess if we're throwing all of that out of the window, that
is very, a very different perspective than what we
normally do. So I don't understand the necessary, the
necessity of moving on this immediately.
And again, I'm just asking that the matter be held in committee.
What is the, what is the issue with that?
Well, Alderman Irvin, I know that, Alderman Napolitano did
ask for a roll call, and so we are, um...
And it was seconded by Alderman Villegas, and he, we
asked him to withdraw, and he said no, so we will have the roll
call.
All right, same two teams play today play tomorrow.
Okay?
Vice Chair Chico.
Alderwoman Coleman. Alderman
Moore. Alderman
O'Shea. No. Alderwoman
Scott.
Alderman Cardona.
Abstention.
Alderman Waxpack.
Alderman Conway. Alderman Villegas.
Alderwoman Mitz. Alderman Sposato.
Sposato is a no.
Alderman Napolitano.
Uh, Madam Chair, this is not the first time this has happened.
This has happened before-
To you in particular
... so, to me in particular, so precedent has been set a long time ago.
So I'm also a no.
Alderman Riley. No. Alderman
Lassen.
No.
Alderman Gardner. Alderwoman
Clay.
Alderman Martin. Yes. Chair
Silverstein. No. And President Pro Tem Nugent.
Yes.
Yep.
There are 14 nos and three yeses. This matter has
failed.
Moving on to item five,
02025-0019931. This will
be held in committee. Item number six is
02026-0023381,
an amendment of the Municipal Code Section
4-60-023 parentheses
15.111 to allow additional package good
licenses on portions of South Hermitage
Avenue.
Is there someone here for-
Well, if you gonna hold-
... Alderman Lopez's office?
You can hold what you wanna hold now. Is that, is that the game we're playing?
I just wanna make sure we're all on, on the same page.
Alderman, Alderman Irvin, you haven't been
recognized for this committee.
Okay. Thank you very much. You all have a great
day.
Could you please state your name for the record?
My name is Mark Alvarez.
Proceed.
All right. Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Mark Alvarez, and I am here on behalf of Alderman Raymond
Lopez. I am here to testify on this item
today. Last month, this item was heard before the
Business License and Zoning Committee of the 15th Ward.
It was then approved unanimously by that, committee.
We ask for favorable consideration of this item
today.
Are there any questions by committee?
Alderman Sposato moves to pass. Uh, all in favor say
aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes have it.
The motion is passed.
Thank you, Chairman.
Alderman Coleman is recognized for purposes of quorum.
Moving on to item seven is
02026-0023144,
Amendment of the Municipal Code Section
4-60-023 parentheses
16.149 to allow additional package good
licenses on portions of South Ashland Avenue.
Chair recognizes Alderman Colm- Coleman.
I don't know if your mic is on
Thank you, Chairman Silverstein.
I do ask for this committee's favorable vote
for,
this particular item. This has been a historic
forty-year business. The owner is
unfortunately, deathly ill. The business has
just deteriorated, both interior, exterior.
There is a new operator who not only has,
vowed to make the investment, but just recently met with Seventh
District, our CAPS sergeant, as well as business liaison
to make the proper investment. As a matter of fact, the business will be closed for
the next nine months to totally regut-- remodel not
only the interior, exterior, and bring an investment here in the
sixteenth ward. This will not be a liquor store that sells groceries, but it is a
grocery store that just so happened to sell alcohol that has
historically been in this community for over forty years with a brand
new, brand new start and certainly a refresh for my
community. Thank you, Chairman.
Alderman Riley moves to pass. Are there any other questions?
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have
it. Motion is passed. Item eight,
O-two-zero-two-six dash
zero-zero-two-three-two-one-nine, amendment of the Municipal Code
Section four dash six-zero dash zero-two-two parentheses
thirty-two point forty-eight to disallow additional alcoholic liquor
licenses on portions of Northwestern
Avenue. Chair recognizes Alderman Wagspeck.
Uh, thank you, Chairman. And, as you stated, it's to not allow additional
licenses for the specific section between Melrose and School on Western due
to significant deleterious impacts, such as
summary closures, and other instances caused by existing
liquor licensees. So we're asking for the committee's favorable consideration of
this item. Thank you.
Any questions by 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.
Item number nine is O-two-zero-two-six dash
zero-zero-two-three-one-eight-eight.
This item will be held in committee.
This concludes the agenda of the Committee on License.
The m-- passed matters will be reported as a recommendation to pass
at the next City Council on March eighteenth, twenty
twenty-six. There being no further business before the committee,
Alderman Conway moves to adjourn.
Hearing no objections, so ordered, the meeting is adjourned.
Thank-