Alderwoman Coleman?
At present. Alderman Moore?
Present, Chair.
Alderman O'Shea?
Here.
Alderwoman Scott?
Alderman Cardona?
Alderman Waxpack?
Present.
Alderman Conway?
Thought he was here.
Alderman Villegas?
Be good, Scott.
Alderman Mitz?
Alderman Sposato?
Sposato's here.
Alderman Napolitano's on virtual. Alderman Riley?
Present.
Alderman Lawson?
And Alderman Martin?
And Chairman Silverstein is present.
Well-
I get 12.
Yep.
No.
There are 12 members present, and we have a quorum.
We do have some aldermen on for Rule 49, Alderman
Napolitano, Alderwoman Clay, and Alderman Gardner.
Alderman Napolitano, are you here?
Present, Madam Chair.
Alderwoman Clay?
Alderman Gardner?
Present.
Can we get a motion? Alderwoman Mitz makes a motion
to accept the aldermen
on Zoom for quorum. All in favor?
All opposed?
Alderman Sposato is no.
Alderman Napolitano and Gardner are here, and we will check back later for
Alderwoman Clay.
At this time, we will begin the public comment period.
The period is limited to 30 minutes out of respect to everybody's time.
Each speaker is limited to 30
minutes.Each
speaker is limited to three minutes.
That would make a very long day, wouldn't it?
I do just want to-
Entertaining.
Yes, very entertaining.
I'm handing it over to Vice Chair Chico. No.
With 30 minutes a person.
I do want to say there's a lot of
public comments here today, but I did want you to know that Alderman
Beale's ordinance regarding the sweepstakes
machine is being held today. So you're welcome to continue with
your public comment. And for those of you who don't want to speak,
then we'll skip over you.
The first public comment speaker is Ernest
Sonny Thompson.
Yes.
My name is Ernest Sonny Thompson, and I'm a vendor
from the-
Is that microphone on?
Is it on? Hmm.
Okay.
And I'm a vendor from the Chicago area, South Side and
West Side. Been doing business in the city of Chicago
for over 40 years. Well, actually close to 50.
I migrated here from Mississippi in the early '60s.
I set up shop and went in the vending business, which is
in the early
'80s, I would say, and I've been operating on the South Side of
Chicago. I want to just say just a couple of
important things.
This business, I
worked very hard to get it going, which is
me and my son. We
got
multiple machines all over the city of Chicago.
And the sweepstake game's been very nice to us.
We made a very good living, and we worked hard to get it off the ground.
The one that we have are legal, but there's some out
here, 90% of them are not legal. So if you just let the peoples
just trying to make a honest living, make a honest living.
That's all we asking. Okay.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Cory...
Yes, Chairwoman.
Aronowitz. Aronowitz.
Chairwoman, I pass.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Mace Jackson.
I'll yield my time.
Next speaker is,
I think it's Talee Thompson.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Talee Thompson.
I'm the founder of the West Side Block Club
Association,
and I am a former community engagement manager
with the CSCC, an organization that was created by
former Mayor Lori Lightfoot.
I am also a small business owner.
And the gentleman who spoke,
that is my father.
As he stated, Ernest Sonny Thompson, my father, migrated here from the Mississippi
Delta in the '60s, along with his seven
siblings.
And when he got here to Chicago, as he stated, he started into
business.
Maybe you saw, maybe you didn't see,
my father has one arm.
That is as a result of being in business in one
of the most dangerous communities at that time in our city, on the
West Side of Chicago.
I am in business along with my oldest son,
who is a student at Harold Washington College, on his way to Clark Atlanta
College, and along with my youngest son, who is a
student at Jackson State University.
I am in business for one main reason, and that
is to continue the legacy of my father.
We operate palmy sweepstakes machines
throughout the entire city of Chicago,
mainly on the West Side of the city and the South Side
of the city.
We are requesting and asking, we're humbly asking,
that the city continues to allow sweepstakes
machines to move forward in the legal way that they
are currently. And we are asking the city to take a look
at those machines that are not legal, and to make sure that
those machines no longer operate in our city.
We make money,
we pay taxes in our community.
My father is a deacon at his church, his Catholic church.
He tithes at his church.
I tithe at my church, Fellowship Baptist Church on the South Side of the city.
We give back into our community.
I put on for free, on the West Side and South Side of the city,
free live jazz music events for our residents to
enjoy.
That money does not come from sponsors.
That money comes from the blood, sweat, and tears from my business.
And that is what we are asking, that we continue to operate our businesses
here in this city. Thank you.
Thank you. I'd like to recognize Alderman Conway, who's here as part of quorum.
And we have some non-members, Alderwoman Hoppenworth and
Alderwoman Taylor.
Next public speaker is Elizabeth.
Having trouble with your last name, but from Bally's.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Elizabeth Seever.
I'm the Vice President of Government Relations at Bally's Corporation.
I'm grateful to speak with you today.As history has proven across the state,
granting these VGT licenses will result in a total revenue reduction for the city,
as it will necessitate the renegotiation of the existing host community agreement
between Bally's and the city, putting in jeopardy $4 million worth of
yearly payments. Since VGTs first became operational in Illinois
in 2012, casinos have suffered a 37% reduction in gaming revenue,
with reductions in other sources of revenue from casinos, including admissions
taxes and payroll taxes. As you know, Bally's Chicago has been adamantly
opposed to legalization of VGT licenses in Chicago.
The proliferation of VGTs in Chicago will significantly undermine our historic
agreement with the city. It'll create substantial job losses at the casino, and
despite many false claims in this body to the contrary, will cause significant
revenue loss for the city. We estimate that the legalization of VGTs in Chicago
could result in a yearly total tax loss of $260 million from Bally's
Chicago casino. Of that, the city of Chicago stands to lose roughly $70
million in tax revenue yearly, not including the $4 million payment from the
HCA. In addition, we have learned there's projecting a
17% gap to police and fire pension funding, which could only
be covered by property tax increases or borrowing
per pension code 6-165. Again, many
false representations have been made about the potential windfall VGTs will create
for the city. The facts are clear. The city of Chicago will only retain
5.15% of revenues from VGTs, while in contrast, they get
22.3% from casino gaming. The bottom line is this: casino
gaming is a better deal for Chicago than scattered gaming throughout thousands of
bars and restaurants. The second issue, about which everyone in this room should be
concerned is job losses at the casino resulting from the legalization of
VGTs. Bally's is committed to creating and maintaining 3,000 jobs at
its permanent casino site. To date, Bally's has exceeded its commitment of
500 jobs at the temporary casino with over 700 jobs, a majority of
which are held by Chicago residents from a diverse
background. Like all casinos, Bally's staffs are a casino's to demand, meaning that
a reduction in visitation directly leads to a reduction in staffing.
Based on a 37% reduction in revenue, we project a staggering
750 to 1,050 jobs lost. These
jobs losses will disproportionately impact organized labor, meaning the jobs lost
would be good-paying jobs with benefits that will no longer be available to your
constituents. Finally, there's the issue of public safety.
If VGT licenses are authorized in Chicago, the demand for related public safety
services will increase substantially.
While Bally's temporary casino has hosted more than two million visitors since its
opening, there has not been any increase in crime in the surrounding neighborhood
due to the high level of security presence at the single location.
But with VGTs, which lack the same strong embedded security measures that
casinos provide, there's heightened criminal activity at thousands of small
locations across Illinois.
I respectfully urge this committee to act in the best interest of Chicago's future
by opposing the approval of these licenses. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Pleshette Dean.
Hi, I'm Pleshette Dean, and I live in the 37th Ward.
I am a slot attendant at Bally's Casino and a
United Here Local one member. I am here because the rush of-
I don't think that that microphone is working so well, so if you don't mind just
trying to speak as loud as you can so we can hear you.
Okay.
All right.
Like I was saying, I'm
United Here Local
one member, and I'm here because the rush of implementing
VGTs
put union jobs like mine at risk. Our jobs are
good jobs, with the support of many of you
and the labor movement. Our union workers with Bally's to
make
these
some of the best union jobs in the city.
Our jobs at Bally's offer great wages,
affordable quality union healthcare, a low
cost or no-cost legal plans for legal
assistance in our personal life.
We defined benefits, pensions, and apprenticeship training
funds registered with the Department of Labor.
You should feel great about what we have achieved.
The decision to legalize VGT in Chicago as a part of the
last budget could undo the achievement.
But the choices we make about how to implement the
legalizations matters, too. I'm here today to oppose
the ordinance because we need
our elected leaders to focus on managing the consequences of
VGT legalizations for working people,
not on speeding up the licenses process. Thank you.
Thank you. Then the next speaker is Kimmy Jordan.
My
name is Kimmy Jordan. I work at Bally's Chicago Casino in environmental
services. I am a lifelong Chicagoan.
I live in the 16th Ward. I am also a member of United Here Local one
Chicago Hospitality Union. I was hired at Bally's in September of
2023, and we have made these good jobs.
Our United Here members at Bally's have union benefits, union
healthcare, pension, legal service, apprentice
training, excellent wages, all in a union
contract. The contract covers approximately 140 people,
some who look like me, and some who don't.
Black, Brown, white immigrants, Chicagoans, people of all
ages. When the permanent casino open, there will be jobs for many
other Chicagoans.
The pattern is clear. As VGTs have expanded in our state,
casino jobs like mine have declined.
As a city, we shouldn't be trying to speed up a change that will eat away at our
good hospitality jobs and reduce the number of future jobs at
the permanent casino. We should be trying to reduce the
consequences for working people, not rushing to
license terminals as fast as we can.
We work hard to get the Chicago casino right and get hospitality jobs
back on track. Don't undo the work we did together.
Bally's Chicago casino's workers are counting on you. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize Alderwoman Coleman,
Alderman Villegas,
as part of quorum, and we have,
yes, Alderman Dell and Alderman Rodriguez
as non-members.
Chairwoman, Alderwoman Clay is online as well.
Who is that?
Alderwoman Clay.
Oh, Alderwoman Clay is here. Thank you.
Our next speaker is John
Bosca.
My name is John Bosca.
I'm President Emeritus, Neighbors of River West.
That is the neighborhood organization that the permanent
casino is planned to go into and is under construction.
In addition to that, I'm also the chair of the Casino Advisory
Council. I want you to know that I've been a
volunteer for over 30 years
in River West.
We've seen tens of thousands of residential units go
in, an incredible amount of development go into the
27th Ward, and we would love to see that continue and to see
that prosper. Another thing is in regards
to support for the casino on the front end.
Neighbors of River West did not have the opportunity to
sit down with Bally's and to enter into any kind
of neighborhood
opportunity agreement or any kind of
development agreement. It was all at a city level.
So we understand that the impact of this is at
a city level. However, with the
permanent casino, Bally's made a commitment,
first of all, of $40 million, which they paid on the front end of
this. The second thing that they committed to was
infrastructure improvements of $70 million.
If you go over to Chicago and Halsted right now, it's all shut down.
It's being reconstructed, specifically for
the casino. The casino was the catalyst to move this
forward. In addition to that, there was also the River West
TIF. The River West TIF, before any of this got
started, was already producing tens of millions of
dollars. The River West TIF,
which was put in place to do all this construction and everything else,
there's already been $107
million that was taken out of that TIF
and put toward the taxing bodies. The reason why I'm
bringing this up is because Neighbors of River West and the people
around that community right there, that would be west of the
river, we're counting on. We are counting on
the local impact of that for $2 million.
It was stated earlier that there are not problems
around the temporary casino because they already have,
and they're spending that money in regards to safety,
police vehicle, and they have an area around that
casino to protect the patrons and everyone else.
That money is money that we were counting on to be able to work with
Bally's, work with the police districts
to make that area safe.
If this continues on as it is right now,
number one-
Thank you. The next speaker is Brendan
Bashin Sullivan.
Pretty close, Chair.
Oh. I'm trying.
Chair Silverstein, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you today. My name is Brendan Bashin Sullivan.
I'm a researcher with UNITE HERE Local 1.
I'm here on behalf of our members to oppose agenda item number
5-02026-0024090
regarding conditional approval of video game terminal
licenses. We have shared our concerns about the ongoing
legalization of video gaming terminals at many other meetings.
But I'm here to remind this committee that haste makes waste, and that this
attempt to speed up the process will waste city resources by
unnecessarily duplicating work currently done by the Illinois Gaming
Board. Also, because city ordinances can't meaningfully speed
up the approval process at the state level, it could create new and
damaging potential outcomes for license applicants.
Under the current rules, applicants for Chicago location or terminal
licenses are required to submit the relevant state-issued gaming
license as part of their application.
From 2021 to 2025, the Illinois Gaming Board processed a
total of 3,260 establishment license
applications, of which 188 were rejected or not
renewed, a denial rate of almost 6%.
A report by the City Council Office of Financial Analysis noted that the
2026 budgets, expected $6 million in revenue from
VGT licensing fees, assumed that 80% of all eligible
locations in Chicago, or 2,842 establishments,
would seek licenses from the city and state in 2026.
If the Illinois Gaming Board denies those establishment licenses,
at the same rate, 163 will not be granted state
licenses.The municipal code makes the Department of
Business Affairs and Consumer Protection responsible for evaluating city
video gaming licenses. We have not found a city estimate of how much time
and manpower are needed to evaluate one establishment license
application. Under the proposed ordinance, assuming that
2,842 establishments seek approval and one
BACP staff member spends one hour to evaluate each
application, BACP would need to dedicate 164
person hours, or more than four entire weeks, processing
applications that would later be denied by IGB and rendered
ineligible for city licensure. Under the current rules, IGB would
filter out those ineligible applications, and BACP would expend
no resources evaluating them. BACP has
experienced a 6% reduction in budgeted
positions since 2024.
This ordinance doesn't speed up the state's approval process.
It doesn't fix the Illinois Gaming Board's backlog of pending applications.
The only thing that the promised conditional approval speeds up
is the city of Chicago's ability to collect license fees for
applications, and in doing so, it generates unnecessary work for a
shrinking city agency.
The next speaker is Pat Door.
Hello. Pat Door on behalf of the Hospitality Business Association of Chicago,
an organization of locally owned bars and restaurants across Chicago,
and as an all too frequent attendee of public comment, I've rarely had the
opportunity to follow so much spectacular hogwash.
I am asking that the committee today approve item number five, conditional
licensing for video gaming terminals, because it follows on very
successful past steps of this city council.
Specifically, this ordinance does what you did for liquor a decade
ago. You created conditional licensing for incidental and
tavern licensees. They could apply, an alderman could
review the application, BACP could review the application, and
community input could be gathered,
excuse me, before you would go into your construction phase.
It allowed more small businesses to pursue those options
without having to risk expensive buildouts.
It's been a huge success in seeing new bars and restaurants open.
What the proposal and item number five does for you today is extends that to
the city video game terminal licensing.
You would be able, while the IGB takes four to six months, the business
affairs could start renewing the application today, or sorry, upon
passage.
Currently, you have 253 applications pending at
the IGB. As they start getting approved in three to five months,
it's going to all drop with a thud on BACP's desk all at
once and require review. By allowing conditional licensing, as this ordinance
proposes, we can smooth out that workflow
for BACP and more venues will pursue it because
they'll be able to apply for their city license at the same time, and we will see
more applications, more application fees, more revenue for the city.
To the point of the good people at Unite Here, casino
gaming and VGT gaming are very different audiences, but specifically we
shouldn't pass this because IGB is going to deny some applications.
The city gets to keep the city application fee, even if the
IGB denies it. It's not like this is a sunk cost.
The city gets
a license fee and a healthy one for those applications.
But even at the current 6% denial rate at the IGB,
we're talking 12 applications of the 253 in the hopper.
That is not a good reason to hold up conditional licensing for VGT
because the city needs money. And if I may at the end circle back on what the Bally
spokesperson said, they have been wrong on every projection
on how much they would create for our pension funds.
Wrong every year, and by a lot.
I wouldn't trust their calculations at any point on VGT, but I hope this
committee approves item number five today because it will open up a new
opportunity for hundreds of city bars and restaurants that we've
lost over the years to suburban competition with these legal, taxed,
state licensed machines. Thank you very much for your time, and I appreciate your
consideration.
The next speaker is Carl Gutierrez.
Good afternoon, Chair Silverstein, Vice Chair Chico, and members of the License
and Consumer Protection Committee.
My name is Carl Gutierrez with the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, representing
over 1,000 businesses of all sizes and sectors across our city.
I'm speaking before the committee-
Speak up, Carl.
I'm speaking before the committee on the issue of video game terminals,
and to do so in the context of reaffirming our support for a successful development
of the Bally's Casino and to encourage continued policy alignment that protects
this critical investment. In the interest of brevity, I'll
keep it simple and to the point. Last fall, the Chamber spoke before this committee
on the issue of video game terminals.
Our position was, "Before we do this, let's be sure to get this right."
Now that video game terminals has passed, our position is, now that we've done
this, let's continue to work to get this right.
Make no mistake, the Chamber recognizes the complexity of the decisions before you
as a committee and as a wider city body continues the broader discussions around
revenue and gaming policy. We respect those considerations and the shared goal of
identifying sustainable solutions for Chicago as related to revenue or
otherwise.
The City of Chicago made a deliberate
and strategic decision to move forward with a single casino operator to,
among other things, drive job creation and create a dedicated funding stream to
address our unfunded pension
crisis. Our ask is for the city to continue to do the due
diligence necessary on video game terminals and consider whether adjustments are
warranted to ensure consistency and its broader economic development,
fiscal, and other policy goals. We remain committed to working
collaboratively with the city leadership and all members of the city council to
support policies that strengthen our economy, create jobs,
improve fiscal stability, and maintain Chicago's credibility as a reliable partner
for investment. Thank you.
Thank you. And the next speaker is Corliss King.
Good afternoon committee. My name is Corliss King.
I am often referred to as labor leader.
I'm here as a labor member, and I'm here as a citizen of the city of Chicago.
As you heard,
this creates a shortfall in the police and fire pension solution that
Bally's provided. I have not heard, and I'm very concerned as a
citizen, because I do know that the code
requires property tax increases to fill those gaps.
And I have heard nothing about how those gaps are going to be
filled at 17%, other than on the backs of the taxpayers.
We just had a huge property tax increase.
The second thing is, as a labor person, I know promises are important,
and the city made a promise to the casino, to
Bally's, and they're not keeping it.
We are rushing to fill a sinking ship,
and I'm very concerned that the taxpayers are going to bear the brunt of
that. I heard a comment that really broke my heart.
I heard the word hogwash
referring to this issue. What's not hogwash is benefits for
union members, good jobs, stable communities.
What is not hogwash is the people who came here off their job to share
their comments. What's not hogwash is 17% that the
taxpayers of the city of Chicago, property tax owners, people who
invested here, bought homes here, are going to have to fill.
What is hogwash is rushing a process that doesn't have to be rushed.
There's a process in place. We reserve the right and
demand that it be respected. I think instead of
hogwash, we should talk about respect.
Respecting our promise, respecting our city, respecting the fact that
crime is rampant. We all hear about it.
Why are we doing something that could potentially increase crime?
Why not spend the time for the research on the effects of the
most
vulnerable of us in these communities, where you drop a
VGT in, and people are subjecting
themselves to being victims?
Statistically, we just saw the governor of Virginia just veto the same
type of legislation because it impacted negatively
the poorest communities in the state.
We can't afford that here. And I hope that each and every one of you takes a really
strong look at what your motivation is.
It's not enough to say we get to pickpocket the people for the application fee,
whether they go through the process or not.
Our citizens deserve better, and we don't need
to rush into something that can be so harmful. Thank you.
Thank you all for the public speakers today.
That concludes
our public comment period.
So now we are going to get started on today's agenda.
We have 11 items on the agenda today.
The first item on the agenda is the approval of the Rule 45
reports for March 2026, which were sent out
to the committee.
Vice Chair Chico moves to approve the Rule
45 reports. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes have it.
Reports are approved.
Item two on the agenda is
02025-0019931,
an amendment of the Municipal Code Chapters
9-104 and 9-112,
adding specifications for taximeter use and modifying
rules on taxicab equipment requirements and inspections,
license fees, and new service fare rates.
We do have a substitute.
Alderman Waxbeck moves to accept the substitute. All in favor?
Any opposed? In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes have it.
The substitute ordinance is before us, and we have with us
today Commissioner Capafolly,
Chris Jessup.
I'm sorry?
We have a copy of the substitute.
I know it was sent out today.
If we could get copies made, we'll distribute it to you
and...
Are you Esther?
Yes.
Okay. Somebody said you weren't here, but okay.
We have Esther Gutierrez from MOPD,
Chris Jessup.
Rupel
is virtual.
And we are going to ask Commissioner
Capafolly, do you have some words you want to share with us?
Yes. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Silverstein, Vice Chair Chico, and honorable
members of the Committee on License and Consumer Protection.
My name is Ivan Capifolly, and I am the Commissioner for the Chicago Department of
Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, also known as BACP.
Joining me today from BACP is Chris Jessup, Assistant Commissioner
of Intergovernmental Affairs, virtually, Rupel Baba, Deputy
Commissioner of Public Vehicles, and from the Mayor's Office with People
with Disabilities, Esther Gutierrez.
I also want to acknowledge that there are members of the taxi industry present here
today.
I'm here to express my support, BACP's
support, for the proposed amendments for Municipal Code
Chapter 9-112, Taxicabs, and Chapter
9-104, Public Chauffeurs, to address concerns raised by
both the taxi industry and passengers.
While peer cities have made updates to their fare structure, Chicago's current
fare structure has remained unchanged since
2016. In the years since, the cost of living has
increased significantly, and the price of fuel, vehicle maintenance,
insurance, and other operating expenses has risen
steadily.
Without corresponding adjustments to fares, it has become
increasingly difficult for drivers to maintain their livelihoods while
meeting regulatory standards. The
rates which will increase are the calculation of time and distance for
taxi tripsAre approximately a 20%
increase to both. The proposed change to distance
calculation will result in the cost of one mile trip changing to
$2.79 from $2.25. The proposed change
to time calculation will be from $0.25
from $0.20 for 36 seconds of
elapsed time. And after concerns expressed by this body,
and with the support of the industry, the vomit fee will be increased from
$50 to $100.
The proposed taxicab
fare rate structure does not increase the base rate, also known as the
flag pole. It will remain at $3.25.
Additionally, the substitute includes amendments to address unlicensed
activity, overcharging, and discriminatory
behavior. These amendments will reduce the incentive for
fraudulent practices and provide a safe transportation option for
consumers.
BACP, in partnership with the Mayor's Office of People with
Disabilities, drivers and community partners are also
updating wheelchair-accessible vehicles, also known as WAV, taxi
regulations. The proposed amendments include increasing
WAV taxicab inspections to twice a year to ensure a safe
transportation of passengers with disabilities, streamlining the
frequency of the WAV Taxi Driver Excellence Award process to
every other year for efficiency,
deferring the upcoming mandate requiring small taxi fleet owners to place a
WAV taxi into service.
Lastly, additional code amendments aim at improving
fairness, accountability, and operational clarity in Chicago's
taxi industry. In closing, the goal is to ensure that
taxicabs remain a safe and dependable transportation option for
everyone who relies on them. Thank you for your time and for your continued
commitment. Rupal and I,
and Chris, are here,
and welcome any questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Esther, did you have anything you wanted to say, or are you just here
for questions?
I'm here for questions.
Okay. And same for Rupal, right?
That's correct.
Okay. Any questions by committee?
Alderman Riley.
So,
thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Commissioner.
Just so I'm clear, you're advocating for a fare increase, is that correct?
That's correct.
And it's roughly 20%?
20%, yes.
How many tickets have you written to
taxicab medallion owners in the last 12 months?
Alderman, I don't have that information with me right now, but I can get that to
you through the chair. That is-
Post-COVID, would you say that you're writing more or less tickets for
non-compliance, especially with pulling the flag?
This is an area that we enforce quite regularly.
I cannot give you straight numbers, but I can get that back to you right away,
if you allow me to go through the chair with that.
Got it.
This is an area-- we have an enforcement group.
We have a dedicated
team that specializes in public vehicles,
everything public vehicle licensing.
So-
Okay. The reason I ask is that, as someone who
tries to support the taxi industry in the wake of Uber and Lyft,
more often than not,
when I enter into a taxicab, a medallion
vehicle,
I have a driver refusing to pull the flag,
and it's after I identify myself and what I do
that sometimes they'll agree to pull the flag.
Yes.
So I wonder, for the average citizen in Chicago, what their experience
might be.
Yeah. I share the same sentiment with you.
That has happened to me in my personal life, and it's something that this ordinance
is looking to address.
And to be clear, I'm sympathetic to the taxicab industry because they've been
eviscerated by Uber and Lyft.
And
I certainly don't want to do anything more to hurt that industry than this city
already has. And I am sympathetic to the need to adjust
rates so that drivers can make a living.
However, when we see rampant abuse
and flouting of the law,
it makes it harder for me to extend that sympathy towards
voting for-
Mm
... a substantial fare increase. And so could you explain to me
what the new penalties are-
Sure
... that we could expect to be in place to discourage that kind of illegal
behavior?
Not a problem. I'm going to pass that question to Rupal Bhapat. Rupal?
My name is Rupal Bhapat, and I'm a deputy commissioner with BACP.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
We can.
Okay. All right, great.
The ordinance includes raising the
minimum fine for illegal taxi operators from
$100 to $1,000 to deter
illegal unlicensed activity, and the ordinance actually--
clear it's clear that the
taxi meter must be activated when a passenger enters,
and a taxicab
driver must make sure that the taxi meter is
operating for--
So the--
To clarify that.
So that would support enforcement from BACP.
Were you able to get most of that?
If I may, Chairwoman.
Yeah.
Rupal, can you turn your camera off to see if we can get a little bit of better...
Okay.
Can you repeat the answer?
Is this louder?
Can you repeat the answer to the question?
Sure. Can you hear me now?Is this better?
I could hear you, but you were going in and out.
Okay. I apologize. All right. So,
thank you for that question, Alderman.
The
proposed ordinance
increases the minimum fine for illegal
operators from $100 to $1,000 to deter
unlicensed operation. In addition, the
ordinance strengthens or clarifies a taxi cab driver's legal
obligation to turn on the meter and
to ensure that the meter is operational when they're engaging
passengers. The language is not explicitly clear,
but what
the proposal does is to make it plain English that you
need to turn on the meter when you engage into a
passenger.
Okay. Well, and thank you for answering the question.
Does that $1,000 fine extend to a
licensed taxi cab driver who fails to pull the flag?
Or is that only a $1,000 fine for someone operating a cab
illegally without a medallion, without proper license,
insurance requirements, these sorts of things?
So the fine range for violations of the
ordinance are already up to $1,000.
So this is a BAC... And thank you for that
question. BACP does enforce, this is
a regular enforcement against taxi cab
drivers that don't activate meters.
The fine range is already there in
of the municipal code.
Again, we're having trouble hearing you.
Commissioner, do you know the answer to that question?
So this ordinance actually includes, it's meant to
prevent that type of-
What is the fine for not, under your ordinance, what is the fine for
failing to pull the flag?
It's between $100 and $1,000.
Between 100 and a thousand?
Yes.
So what is the baseline $1,000 fine for?
What we're trying-
I thought you represented that illegally operating a taxi cab is a $1,000
fine now.
Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I'll rephrase it. Okay.
$1,000...
It was mentioned in your testimony-
Yes
... that you were establishing a new $1,000 minimum fine for
something. What is that?
If you allow me to look here.
For failure to turn the meter on, Alderman. For failure to turn the meter on.
So it's $1,000 fine, minimum fine for failing to pull the flag.
From $100 to $1,000. The $1,000 will be the minimum fine.
Wait, wait. You just said from 100 to 1,000.
That's what it is right now. It's from 100 to 1,000.
And now it'll be $1,000.
It's going to be $1,000. Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
And again, through the chair, I would like,
for the last three years, the number of citations issued for failure to pull a
flag.
Does this ordinance relax any requirements for inspections
of these vehicles?
No. This one, for the wave vehicles, it actually
increases the number of inspections to twice a year for wheelchair
accessible vehicles. Right now, it's once a year.
Under this ordinance, wheelchair accessible vehicles will be
required to have inspections twice a year.
Okay, and I support that. But what about cabs that aren't wheelchair accessible?
No. Once a year still.
Once a year.
It will remain to once a year, yes.
How many officers do you have assigned to enforcing taxi cabs
citywide?
Specifically, about five.
Sorry, how many?
Five investigators.
Five?
Yes.
And how many-
That are dedicated to taxi cabs
... taxi cab medallions exist in the City of Chicago?
Ruby, can you confirm that number, please?
One sec.
Okay. I'm sorry.
Can you hear me or?
How many medallions, active medallions, do we have right now?
There are approximately,
around... We can get you the exact number, but there are currently around
3,000 taxi cabs that are actively doing,
that are actually doing passenger trips.
There are more taxi cabs that are licensed with potential to do
trips, but right now we're seeing around approximately
3,000 doing trips right now. But we are seeing
also an increase of more taxi cabs coming back into
service as the weather improves and the
hospitality industry and the tourism industry
also increases. It is
seasonal, so this time of year, we usually see an increase.
I see. Yeah. And again, I'm sorry, Chair.
I know you have a long agenda, and I'll take more of these questions
offline, but I'm trying to make a point here.
So according to the testimony we got over Zoom here, about
3,000 cabs are in operation right now.
Yes.
We have a total of five inspectors citywide.
Mm-hmm.
And
where I see the greatest amount of abuse is around special events in the City of
Chicago.
And as we all know, in the summer, we have multiple large-scale special events
happening per weekend. Your inspectors,
they work from when to when?
So we have a Monday through Sunday operation, with Wednesday through Sunday having
longer hours in the day. So we start Monday, Monday and
Tuesdays, regular 9:00 to 5:00, 8:30 to 5:00, and then
Wednesdays and Thursdays from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
And on the weekends?
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.?
Yes.
And we have a total of five inspectors.
Just for that area, Alderman. We have
a full crew.
For taxi cabs.
Yeah, for public vehicles, yes.
Right.
But only taxis.
So if we have Lollapalooza and, say, a game at Wrigley Field,
and a soccer match going on at the same time, we have a total of five inspectors.
We always balance our workforce to cover everything, but assigned to public
vehicles, approximately five bodies, yes.
Okay.
And did you host any briefings on your plans to jack up these rates?
Yes, we did two briefings.
Okay. Apparently, I missed those. All right.
Well, I'll ask the rest of my questions offline, but I'll plan on
voting no on this, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Alderman Conway.
How do these
new rates compare to what Uber has generally charged?
And we talked about the competition we're getting from Rideshare.
How do these rates compare to what Uber's charging?
Yeah. I'll have Rupel do that comparison. Rupel, if you can, please answer.
The problem with Rupel is we can't understand her.
I- I-
So-
... she the specific questions. Um.
Can she-- Is she in the building?
No, she's not.
Oh, I'm not in the building. I'm sorry.
I'm going to try again. This is Rupel Bopit. I hope you could hear me.
I'm trying my best.
Uber and Lyft, and
any transportation network provider, they are not
allowed to do street hails. All their fares are through
their app, which needs to be approved or agreed upon by the
passenger. We don't regulate those fares.
It is difficult for the city to compare
something that we don't regulate.
Okay, what is the
purpose of raising fares? Presumably it has something to do with
competing with those rates.
Oh, thank you for that question. Operating costs have increased.
Taxicabs are the only public passenger
vehicles that can accept passengers through street hail,
so passengers that do street hail or a cab
stands. The rates have not changed for 10 years.
Operating expenses have increased in the last 10 years.
Most other major cities have increased their taxicab fare structure
to align with increased operating costs.
So the City of Chicago, and BACP's proposal is to
align taxicabs.
I'm going to just interrupt for a second.
I believe it was stated in the briefings that the taxicab
industry has been asking for this ordinance. Is that correct?
Yes. Alderwoman, Chairwoman, thank you for that.
I wanted to reiterate to everybody that this is an ordinance that was proposed by
the taxi industry, and BACP is presenting this on behalf of the taxi
industry to the city.
Yeah. Well, for what it's worth, when I
take a cab from home versus an Uber from home, it's like a $5 cab ride
and a $10 Uber ride. And I think that speaks to the
fact that cab fares have fallen behind over the course of the last
10 years, so I think this is something I'm in favor of
moving forward.
Are you done with your questions?
And I yield the balance of whatever time I have.
Alderman Lawson, did you have a question?
Hello. You can hear me great.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of things real quick.
Rupel touched on the taxis are coming back online and somewhat seasonal.
If we have, through the chair, if you can, just a 10-year
breakdown of how many active medallions we actually have at any given time,
because I think it's probably a decreasing number over time.
Another quick question is,
so, I've been in a rideshare that asked to cancel the
ride and do a flat fare. I'm probably not the only one.
We don't have any enforcement on that, do we?
Or what would be the enforcement?
For canceling the-
So I'm in an Uber, and we're going to O'Hare, and they say, "What'd they tell you,
80 bucks? So, let's do 60 instead."
Cash.
Without the meter. So that's what we're trying to-
So this is in a rideshare, though, not in a taxi.
But I'm curious about the enforcement ability we have if rideshares are doing the
same thing.
Everything is complaint based.
Okay.
You can submit all your information to us, and the same group will
investigate-
Right. Right
... an issue.
I appreciate the vomit fee doubling.
I don't think you can clean anything for 50 bucks, but I do think we need a new
name.
I'm not going to-
Let's do that, and it's up to down the road, right? Because it's more than that.
It's
a lot of different things that can go on. If there's food, if there's other stuff.
We have a gas surcharge built into this ordinance, and I believe it's at
$5 a gallon, and that is measured downtown
or in the outer neighborhoods.
Thanks, Alderman. Chris Jessup, Assistant Commissioner.
Rupel, I'm just going to jump in.
It's based on National Consumer Price Index, I believe, and it's based on,
I think it's a three-month period.
Okay.
But it's not necessarily based on any local
region in the city. It's-
So just-
Go ahead, Rupel.
I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm sorry.
In the ordinance, it is linked to, it's actually the
AAA-
AAA
... average for the Chicago area. So it's at the
AAA website specifically for Chicago, and it has
to be $5 above
miles per gallon for one month.
Okay.
So that's already built in,
and that was passed a couple of years ago.
The substitute, basically, there was a clarification on the language
just to clarify that that's when it kicks in.
But there's no change, there's no substantive change to what already
was passed. And the BACP is monitoring gas
prices right now to monitor
in Chicago when they're going up
above $5 a gallon.
Okay.
But we use the same words.
Maybe I just suggest when we clean up the other language, that if we could use an
actual Chicago city-... data point instead of
metro area. It costs more in the city than it does in the suburbs generally.
And we want them to fill up in the city still, right?
But I think we're getting there. $5 a gallon is not far off if the trend
continues. So I just kind of wanted to put a point on that for my colleagues and
others, that on top of this, I think we're going to get a fuel
surcharge soon.
Well, one last thing. In regard to the meter poll,
is there signage, and I don't know, is there signage in the taxicab now that says
it's illegal
for a flat rate except for McCormick Place, O'Hare, and Midway?
And is additional signage a possibility to address the issues that Alderman
Riley brought up?
Rupal, is there
signage that is required to be in the
vehicle?
Yeah. Yes.
There is fare rate placard information in every cab.
That's required. And when we change, if this
ordinance passes and there is a fare increase, that
placard will be updated to also clarify that the meter must be
activated.
It is currently, there is information in every taxicab
that talks about the meter and also fare and
taxicab driver obligations to the passenger.
When the placard is updated, there will be added clarity
to the meter being on. The placard also includes
311 complaint information for all passengers.
Great. I think that answers the question.
When you've got the new placard, send it to us so we all can see it because
I used to be able to get a cab in Lakeview all the time.
You could walk to Clark or Halsted and Broadway, and that doesn't exist anymore.
So if I take a taxi, it's got to be from the airport or somewhere in the loop.
I don't go to McCormick Place very much.
So there is some sympathy for these guys, especially as costs rise.
So I will be a yes. Thank you.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Moore, did you have questions?
I don't think your mic's on.
Yes. I just wanted to say, first of all, thanks for the briefings.
Welcome.
And thanks for listening. And going back,
again,
so many years since the cab industry
had this increase, but also was
doing the Rahm administration when they were bringing Uber in, we knew that this
would... We talked about this happening.
And then there were several voices in the council,
and I know they were talking about equity and things like that within the
communities, which was important.
But we also talked about the increase in,
like you were seeing with Uber pricing and all of that.
And so, still people also have to rely on some taxis.
And especially people with disability, I'm finding out, and I'm seeing that more
and more
now. As elderly parents are living longer, and
they have to get into accessible vehicles.
It's that taxi industry that we're relying on because the
cost to get someone, if you go to a specialty
service that can drop somebody off
somewhere,
between far city to whether it's the south side to
the west side, or to somewhere in the suburbs
to the south side, it gets up to around, I've been quoted anywhere from
$300 to $700 for a round trip with these specialty
services. And so relying on a taxi to do that
has becomes more important now, but I appreciate you all listening when it
came to me asking for the increase of the vomit fee.
$50 was just too small, and I'm glad you all
listened and doubled that. So thank you so much, and I look forward to
supporting this ordinance.
Thank you, Alderman.
Are there any other questions?
Alderman Cardona.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you BACP for bringing this up to us.
I've got a question. The emblems, I know we asked how many
emblems are still active.
Are you guys increasing the cost of emblems by any
chance?
So the medallions have lost value over time, as
you know.
Right now, they cost around
$5,000 from
$28,000 years ago. Rupal, can you confirm that number?
The price of a medallion. But that's based on the market.
We're not increasing licensing fees or anything like
that for this. This is just
making the adjustments to the-
To the fares
... fares.
Okay.
But if you want to know exactly how much is a medallion worth right now, Rupal has
that information.
Yeah, if you could pass it through the chair and also-
I can say it right now. Rupal, do you have the cost of the medallions?
So,
my understanding, the alderman's question was: Is there an increase in
license fees? And there is no increase in license fees.
We-
The ordinance does not-
No, that's not the question.
We could just get that through the chair.
Yeah.
Just get it through the chair.
It's on average $5,000.
Okay.
But I'll get you that correct information.
All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Alderman Lawson moves to pass. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Alderman Riley
will be recorded as a no. In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it,
and the motion is passed.
Thank you.
Is Alderman Robinson in the building?
Okay. Then we are going to hold item number
302026-0024021Alder,
item number four also is going to be held,
02026-0024076.
So now we're going to be moving on to item number five,
which is
02026-0024090,
an amendment of the municipal code chapter 4-155,
by adding new section
4-155-035 regarding
conditional approval of video gaming terminal licenses.
This is sponsored by Alderman Waxbeck and others.
We're going to have Alderman Waxbeck speak first, and then I believe
Commissioner Capafallo has a statement on that as well.
Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you for giving me a call earlier.
Hopefully, we can work through this today.
Ladies and gentlemen, this
ordinance is pretty simple. It basically allows for an
applicant at the City of Chicago side to
apply for the applicable state license that would be
gained through the Illinois Gaming Board at some point in the future.
That business may seek conditional approval for a
license under this new chapter. The commissioner would be
reviewing it, and
they would have to show evidence of the issuance of a state license to obtain--
of the city license to obtain that state license in the future.
But I just want to also point out,
aldermen are requested and often do liquor
licenses on the incidental and tavern side
quite often.
This is typically done with BACP or the liquor commissioner, with
input from the community, as was pointed out, before we
go into certain phases of doing construction
or build-out costs for certain businesses.
And a lot of times we look at that and we go through those phased workouts,
so that people don't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars
building out, for instance, a restaurant or a
tavern or some other type of incidental
activity to their
business without losing those funds.
And this would simply allow, again, for a conditional
license. If someone fails, then they fail, and the city would
retain the licensing fee.
And that happens often as well. So it is not a novel
idea to have a conditional license in this city.
It's been going on for decades, or at least several years
that I've been alderman. And I would just ask,
as we go through this and get to the end of it, for the committee's favorable
consideration of this item. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you. Commissioner Capafallo, do you have a statement?
Yes. Good afternoon, everyone, Chairwoman Silverstein, Vice
Chair Chico, members of the committee.
Ivan Capafallo, Commissioner of BACP, and I'm here to provide operational
information regarding the proposed ordinance to allow conditional approval
for license applications for video gaming terminals, for VGTs,
in Chicago. If the VGT conditional approval ordinance passes, and
I want to make sure that everybody understands this is a conditional
approval letter and not a conditional license.
If the VGT conditional approval ordinance passes, it would allow applicants to
submit their application and pay the license fee prior to
receiving their state VGT license.
If approved, the applicant is provided with a conditional approval letter, not
a conditional license. The conditional approval letter will be valid for one
year from the date of issuance. Again,
we will not issue a VGT city license prior to the applicant receiving
their state VGT license. And just for
information, as we monitor the IGB data
portal information every morning, as of this morning, there are about
222 pending VGT applications with Chicago addresses
that are being considered.
Finally, I want to express, and this is something that I want to add,
express our concerns that the recently passed VGT ordinance did not
fully account for the operational burdens that it imposed on
BACP. BACP, being the city primary business
regulatory authority, was not engaged during the creation of this
ordinance, despite being directly responsible for its implementation.
This has required this department to build a new regulatory
framework without the benefit of advanced planning.
I just wanted to put that into the record, and thank you for your time.
Any questions or comments from committee?
Alderman Conway.
Yeah. As a question, and I'm not actually sure who to direct this
towards, is,
as was stated in public comment and otherwise, at some point by us
engaging in video
gaming, we are jeopardizing a $4 million payment from Bally's.
My
questions, and I'll throw them both out because they probably have related answers,
is
this kind of the point of no return on that $4 million?
And the second thing is, if so, I remember we
had $6.4 million of video gambling in the budget this
year,
does this process seem to
fill that gap of
presumably $10.4 million, including the $4 million of loss?
And I don't know whether to send that to Commissioner Capafallo or the
sponsor or anyone else.
I guess so, Commissioner Capafallo, you seem right-
Actually, I was going to ask Alderman Waxbeck.
Okay.
Do you know that answer?
Thanks, Chairwoman.
I don't mean to put you on the spot if you don't know. That's okay.
No, it's fine. I think there's been a lot of questions about
the $4 million and if that would be put in jeopardy,
and, I think we've discussed it in the committee before, if I'm not mistaken.
There's some legal procedures that would have to be
taken toAnd I think the law
department brought this up, I think, during budget,
about
if the approval went forward, would it put that $4
million in jeopardy? And there would have to be a legal discussion between the
two teams of valets and the city to decide whether that $4
million,
if it were to jeopardize it.
It doesn't instantly jeopardize it.
It doesn't instantly create the cause for
what some people are saying is that immediate correlation.
They would have to have the discussion to open up the agreement to
see if it would have to be taken any steps further.
And I don't think law department ever effectively
addressed it, but just basically said that, yes, it would have to be
opened without giving that legal basis for it.
Thank you. And I think Alderman Lawson wanted to add something.
Not on the legal basis. I will leave that to my colleague.
But I just wanted to talk about, right, what we're doing here is we're running
the two processes concurrently so that we know the state
is going to take a decent amount of time, but at least we can have the approvals
here and with the state, so you don't have to go to the state and then wait
through that process and then go to the city and start our process.
And the goal here is to, we've passed VGT, right?
It's in the budget. We need to start to get some revenue from it as soon as
possible or we're going to have more budget problems than we already have.
We're not here to renegotiate VGT, but we're here to figure out how that does work
in an expedited way in our city. And I know there's more rules and things that
probably we need to talk about, and I would hope we can do that with you,
Commissioner. In cooperation and moving forward, I think
that's going to be best for everybody. But the ship has sailed.
We did pass it, and we want to make sure that we're standing it up in a responsible
way, working through the state and whatever rules that we need to in the city,
but it is part of the budget, and that revenue should be anticipated.
I just want to say one other thing. The other reason that I have been pro-VGT for a
long time is because it is something that helps our small business owners.
We have a couple from my ward in the neighborhood today.
I know we're talking about ancillary impacts from the casino.
It's not the same as what we're talking about with our mom-and-pop local taverns
and restaurants. So we've raised all their license fees last year.
We haven't thrown them a bone, and this is something we can do to help.
So thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate my colleagues' support.
Thank you. I'm going to call on Alderman Martin.
Oh, I did have a follow-up.
Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Going on that, so would this ordinance then,
and it's probably best directed to my colleague, Alderman Lawson.
So would this ordinance then allow them to begin operating
immediately once they got the approval of the gaming board?
As long as they had their city approvals in place.
There's usually a little lag in liquor, right, from one to the other.
Sometimes it's a day, though.
So what's going to happen, once you go and get your state license, you come back to
the city, you already have
some of the process already finalized.
So after that, we'll issue your license.
So part of the purpose is to make this a bit more efficient.
There's a few-
Right
... checks and balances that we have to do, that check, minor tweaks, but then the
license we'll issue.
All right. Now, do we have any
projections on revenue stream here?
Only from the budget that we passed.
Okay. So that-
I don't think there's been an update
... if there was anything more updated than that.
Unless... Right. I don't believe so. Right.
Okay.
Madam Chairwoman, I have no
further questions.
I have no further questions.
Okay. Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Chair.
Mm-hmm.
One through the
chair request. Can you provide,
I think you said there were 283 applicants.
222-
22, excuse me
... pending at the state.
Yeah.
If you, to the extent you know, can provide a list
of their address, ward, and/or community area.
Yes.
Don't know what, if anything, you have access to, but that would be appreciated.
Yes. I'll be happy to get that for you.
But for your awareness, all of this information is public on their
website.
Oh, great.
And it has addresses and everything, but I'll get that information to you.
Or maybe it's a simple, "Through the chair, here's the-"
Not a problem
..."here's the website."
Yeah. No problem.
Thank you.
No problem.
Are you finished, Alderman Martin?
Yes. Alderman Moore, did you have a question?
Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Before I get to my questions, I don't know if it's been
said already, I want to wish our
colleague, Chairman
Coleman, a happy birthday. Happy birthday, Queen.
Happy birthday.
As I'm listening to this, and again, I'm always thinking
from the beginning to the end with an equity lens.
First of all, we talk about these machines. Let me start at the beginning.
Who manufacture the machines? Who are the machine
manufacturers of these
different terminals?
There are many manufacturers. I
can try to-
There are many?
... compile a list of-
Please
... the manufacturers and send that to you.
Okay. Get that through me, through the chair.
And then there are something I think I heard
people say terminal operators. Are you familiar with that term?
Yes.
How many terminal operators are there that could
possibly be, or that we know of? I'm sure I could become a terminal operator.
I don't even know if I can.
There are many. I will get that information to you.
That's also a new license that was created as part of the VGT.
So we're licensing the locations, and we're licensing the terminal
operators. But I'll get that information from you.
And it's also available at the state level, so I'll get-
And not only give me the list of these terminal operators, but if you
know what the makeup from an ethnicity standpoint of these terminal
operators are.
I think it was testified one time. I remember Alderman Beale answering that
question,
that there were no minority-owned terminal operator
licenses.That's what I recall from one of the hearings, but I can
double-check that.
Okay. And right now, I don't know why I have
this note from somewhere before, because we've been dealing with a lot of this.
Somebody said it takes three years to get a license.
Is that-
There have been many time frames thrown around,
but the state reserves the right to
do their due diligence to license. It varies.
We don't have an official time frame.
Okay.
And
in order to be a terminal operator, do
they own the machines or do they lease them,
or it's a combination of both?
That's a very good question, Alderman, and I will find out for you.
I don't know if the owner of the companies are also manufacturing.
I'll have to
get that feedback.
Okay. Thank you.
No problem.
Did you want to...
Alderman Cardona?
Thank you, Chairwoman. Circling back to Alderman Moore.
Do we know how many terminal operators have applied
yet for this?
So right now, we're not accepting any applications.
Ah.
No, no, we are building the application
process right now. The state has not processed any of the applications either,
so
we're-
Could you-
... monitoring their website. We're seeing what's been-
Could you assume how many will apply
for this to have these VGTs in their areas?
No.
That's a hard one.
Yes.
But I know that people are inquiring.
Okay.
Yes.
All right. No further questions. Thank
you.
Yes, Alderman Lawson.
Just a quick follow-up on the operator's license.
So obviously, this passed and became effective January 1.
Do we know when the effective date for the terminal operator license will be?
Same time.
So, I mean-
We're all together. Yeah.
I mean-
Terminal operators and locations, we're part of the same license.
Okay, but you have not started accepting applications for either.
Oh, we're going to roll them out
at the same time.
And is there a time frame on that currently?
I'll get back to you on that one, Alderman. I'm not sure.
Okay.
We're still working with the Department of Law to do rules and regs.
We're looking at the application itself.
We're working with a vendor that services
our licensing platform to
build all of that.
Okay.
That's brand new.
All right. I appreciate any updates you can give us on that.
Of course.
Maybe even monthly to this committee, because this is important.
Thank you.
Alderman Coleman.
Thank you, Chairman.
Commissioner, of the 222
applicants, who exactly is... Not
everyone's liquor license is up to date or if they're building code
violations. Who from your office will be overseeing-
This-
... or even vetting the applicant?
Sure. This has been assigned to the Hospitality Bureau,
our local liquor control commissioner, Shannon Trotter, and her team.
Shannon is not here today.
But that bureau has become Hospitality and Gaming now,
so-
Oh, okay
... it's going to be a yes.
Okay.
This
only will be allowed at locations that have a liquor license, so-
How-
... she's going to be overseeing.
How much additional staff are we going to...
Will we-
That's to be determined, Alderwoman.
We're assessing the operational part of that.
This is why I always,
every time I have the opportunity to go into the record and read that this
was done without us at the table, because we weren't able
to think this through. But we are working with OBM,
assessing the workload, and then we'll be doing our
ask soon
for resources.
So, not to bring up, I know that item is being held regarding
sweepstakes, but who's overseeing that in your
office?
Sweepstakes, there's no sweepstakes oversee.
We-
That's right. So-
Yeah.
The permit, the licenses that your office permits, there's no one
who specializes in gaming
or...
So that will be now part of Hospitality.
But prior to that, this is not something that BACP was overseeing.
But right now, there are, I think, sweepstakes
machines that are out.
Yes.
And those operators get a license from-
No.
No?
There are no license for sweepstake operations, no.
I'd like to stay on topic if we could.
So I'm making a point.
Okay.
Because there are licenses that are about $150 that are-
Not for sweepstakes, for machines that say, for example, "Payout," if
that's what you're referring to. The machines that are paying out cash out there,
there are no licenses for that activity.
Okay, so similar to cannabis,
when we had a cannabis czar, I'm very
feel a little reassured that this is going to fall under Commissioner Trotter's
purview. However, I would love for us to consider having
a gaming czar on
behalf of the City of Chicago, for we will have
that one contact, that one person-
Yes
... who is well-informed,
in this area, as this is very new to your
department, to the city,
and even dealing with gaming in general.
I mean, who's our representative for Bally's?
Who's dealing with Bally's Corporation on behalf of our
interests?
Bally's holds a license like any other business right now.
For sure.
So they will be dealing with
Shannon, actually.
Okay.
Yeah. She oversees-
Thank you
... that license through Hospitality, yes.
Okay.
Alderman Moore, you already had a chance.
Do you just have one more question so we can move on this?
Thanks for calling me.
My
statement, because there are so many unanswered
questions, and I remember us being next door.
We were learning more about just VGTs and a knowledge of it.
And I know when we have our caucus meetings,
we try to get an understanding of things, and I just don't recall...
And if we did have a briefing just on this, I just don't-- Did
we? No.
And I think we need to get into a briefing.
I don't want to be on the wrong side of this either way.
But we didn't have briefings on here, and there's questions I'm bringing up that
can't be answered. And I don't know if there's a
hurry. I think that should happen.
I'm going to just make a motion to hold this
item.
I
think the sponsors would like to have a vote on it, so we are going to
have a vote.
But there's a motion-
Mm-hmm
... to pass already?
I don't think that was a motion to pass. I'm making a motion to hold it.
Could I have legal up here?
Nothing in this already, huh?
Think we're just starting it wrong.
Oh, does he lay it on the table?
He need to pull me out.
Make a correction, the motion to lay this on the table.
The motion to lay on the table is improper on committee, so we
can vote on a motion to hold.
Okay.
Thank you.
Is that your motion, Alderman?
Yes, it is.
Pass.
Right now, I'm just going to ask for a voice vote on this.
Those that want to hold it.
Roll call.
Oh, want a roll call? Okay. Alderman Riley asked for a roll call.
So we are voting to hold it. So yes means we're holding
it, no means we're not holding it.
Vice Chair Chico.
Alderwoman Coleman.
Alderman Moore.
Yes.
Alderman O'Shea.
No.
Alderwoman Scott.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waxback.
No.
Alderman Conway.
No.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderwoman Miz.
She's not here. Alderman Sposato.
No.
Alderman Napolitano.
No.
Alderman Riley.
Yes.
Alderman Lawson.
Alderman Gardner.
Alderwoman Clay.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman-
Silverstein.
Chairman Silverstein is a no.
Silverstein.
There are 11 noes and three yeses.
The motion fails. Now we're going to take a roll call on this motion,
on this ordinance.
A roll call vote? Oh, voice vote? Fine.
Alderman Moore
would like a voice vote on this. All in favor say
aye. Any opposed?
Riley.
Anyone else?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Okay,
go back to...
Chair.
And Alderman Robinson, are you here?
Chairman, I am.
Okay. Then we are-
Okay, then we-
... going to go back to-
Okay.
We're going to go back to item number three,
which is
02026-0024021,
amendment of the municipal code section 4-60-073,
increasing the number of maximum lake vendor liquor
licenses issued during any license period from
23 to 30-
29
... from 29 to 32.
Chair recognizes Alderman Robin-
Substitute.
Oh, we have a substitute.
Alderman Cardona moves to accept the substitute.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have
the substitute before us, and the chair recognizes Alderman
Robinson.
Chairman Silverstein, thank you, and to committee, thank you for this
opportunity. You have a substitute today in front of you that
adds Rainbow Beach and 12th Street Beach.
This is an ordinance that I have brought before you
alongside of a-
Alderman Yancy,
as we are trying to add two concessionaires
to the Park District. This is a ordinance that has also
been
approved by the Park District. And again,
the thought is that we want to make sure that our concessionaires are
successful in the summer months and have alcohol.
But the only way that we can do that is through an ordinance that I've brought
before you today. Again, adding these two
concessionaires, to allow them to have liquor on the beach.
Certainly open for any questions that the committee may have for me. Thank you.
Yeah. Alderman Robinson, just a question.
Have you discussed this with some of the other aldermen that are along the
lakefront?
Yes, I have.
Yeah.
So this would be
Alderman Yancy,
as well as Alderman Mitchell,
are supportive of this ordinance.
I think that's only two. And we have some
aldermen sitting here on this committee that have not been discussed, and
I'm actually going to call on Alderman
Riley
to address that.
Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to remind my colleagues that the Lakefront Venue Liquor
License
Ordinance has been on the books since 2012, and has since
that time been limited to 29 licenses.
There are more than three wards that
make up our lakefront,
and the practice has always been that conversations should occur with all of the
aldermen on the lakefront before we act to amend the
Lakefront Liquor Ordinance. There's a reason why we limit these,
and
I think that it would be helpful if Alderman Robinson
were to have a dialogue with the rest of those aldermen who represent lakefront
wards before we go, and for the first time in 14 years,
add new licenses to the lakefront.
And so it's more of a
courtesy to colleagues than anything else, and I know that there may be some
people here who feel otherwise,
but this ordinance was put in place for a reason, and it's to make
sure we have ample dialogue for all users of the
lakefront. That's my request. Not that we kill
it,
but that the aldermen who represent the lakefront wards have a chance to
understand it and agree with it.
Yeah.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Riley.
Alderman Silverstein.
Conway.
Yeah. And
reiterating all those same points, I make a motion to hold this item.
Alderman Lawson, would you like to-- There has been a motion to hold.
So I would just say, this ordinance is specific to the two
additional locations being added at Rainbow Beach and 12th Street Beach.
There are a number of locations that are specifically called out in the ordinance
itself, two or three of which are in my ward and have done
exceedingly well once we added them, and have become great builders of
community. So, because this is not in my ward,
but it definitely is impacted on the South Lakefront, I would be
in support of this. I think time is of the essence if we're talking about standing
something up for the season, which is starting next week in
some ways,
but would defer to my colleagues on it. I would be a yes on this.
I-
Well, there is a motion to hold it, so-
I would-
... Alderman Dow, would you like to say something?
According to the motion, I would say time is of the essence, and we should move
this if we're comfortable with these two new locations. Thank you.
It's actually from 29 to 32. So that would make three new
locations.
It says 29 to 32.
That's...
There was a substitute this morning.
Oh, there's a third?
Yeah. The reason that we're asking to add
on additional liquor licenses because the North
Lakefront has developed quicker
than the South Side Lakefront. Now, if you want
to limit the number, you want to give up some
locations so that businesses on the South Side
can have liquor licenses.
Speak back.
This is a way to accommodate some
exciting locations on the South Side of the city at
Rainbow Beach and at 12th Street
that have not had the benefit of having a license.
And so
I
think Alderman Robinson can speak to this, but I think his
thinking was, we're going to let the North Side aldermen
keep their liquor licenses. We're just trying to
increase opportunities
for communities that have been
disinvested in, marginalized, and have not been able to
develop at the speed at which the North Side has
developed.
So I would ask that you not hold this, because it does not
impact the North Side
at all.
Chair.
Yeah.
Alderman Riley.
Look, I'm trying to make a point here, and I am not
questioning whether or not these licenses are appropriate.
I'm not suggesting the South Side shouldn't have licenses.
But if these are such wonderful ideas, why they weren't socialized at a
minimum with the members of the committee, but at least with the members who are
covered by this ordinance. That's a courtesy.
So I'm not suggesting that we should say no to these.
I'm dismayed that these-- Clearly you've had detailed
conversations about these licensees, but others among
us who represent the lakefront have not. That's all.
And once upon a time, when the Park District was on different leadership,
they made sure-That the sponsoring alderman reached
out, as a courtesy, out of respect for their colleagues, to
discuss that business plan. And so I'm not suggesting one bit
that this ordinance shouldn't be touched or expanded, but
we're expected to do a basic level of outreach as
alderpeople, especially when we're dealing with sensitive issues like
liquor on our lakefront, where we have issues from time to
time. And so that is my request of the
alderman, and perhaps he could schedule a briefing with those of
us who represent lakefront wards while we allow this to proceed.
But I think it was poor form to press forward without
at least touching base with other impacted
lakefront aldermen. That is the point I'm seeking to make here, and that is the
only point I'm seeking to make here.
Okay. Before we have any continued discussion on this, there is a motion
on the floor to hold. So-
Chairman Silverstein, may I comment?
One second, please.
As a point of order, I would say there's nothing in this ordinance that prevents
the two extra licenses from... They could go from
right by the Lincoln Park Zoo. There is nothing that blocks the two extra ones into
Rainbow Beach and 12th Street Beach in this.
If there was simply an ordinance that was add two
licenses to Rainbow Beach and 12th Street Beach, then that would be
fine, but that's not what this says.
Okay. So do you withdraw your hold, or would you like to vote on
hold?
I will withdraw it so we can have some more conversation on what this
actually is saying.
Okay.
Vice Chair Chico.
Thank you, Chair.
I too have not had any conversation with Alderman Robinson
about this.
Something I would like to kind of delve in deeper to and have a conversation with
him. I had concerns
at my beach
in the last couple of years, so it's something that I would like to address.
Any other alders want to speak on this matter?
Julia.
Alderwoman Coleman.
Maybe on consideration, because it sounds like there will be a
substitute to this, Alderman Robinson, but I just have a
question about the placeants. I believe that's
57th
and High Park. I believe it's in Alderman Yancy's ward.
Were you all considering expanding that recreation?
While it's not off the lake, but it's...
This is strictly lakefront. Okay, never
mind.
Alderman Robinson, the two locations that you mentioned,
as Alderman Conway said, they're not specifically addressed in this ordinance.
Do you have any comment on that?
Yes. Let me first say that Alderman Riley is
absolutely correct, and I do take responsibility for
not speaking to my North Side colleagues.
I will absolutely do that and make sure that I
get on that today. That was not a slight
of my colleagues on the North Side.
It was me trying to, as Alderman Dial
mentioned,
add liquor to these two concessionaires
that fortunately would not be able to
pay rent to the Park District or be successful without
this.
And we all know
the revenue that is needed at this time.
So again, wanting to make sure that we have
concessionaires that were successful, that is why this is brought before
you. Separately, as we get into the summer months, it's also very important
that these folks
have these licenses in place. If not,
they will have to do a day-to-day license and/or not have
a license at all, which we could lose these concessionaires.
And so, again, I would ask that my colleagues work with me.
Take this on face value that I was not slighting anybody.
It was an error on my part that I will agree to, but
I will make sure that my colleagues understand what we're trying to do.
And if I need to pull in my other colleagues and other Park District, I will.
But I would ask that this is moved today, so we can move this
forward, and I will get to work on this ASAP.
Okay.
May I ask a question?
After speaking with
some of the alders here that have not yet been spoken to,
I would suggest that you make sure you reach out to them before we have
city council on Wednesday.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Yeah. I was going to ask a question of the sponsor.
Is it
the sponsor's understanding that the
ordinance before us only adds
locations to Rainbow Beach and 12th Street Beach?
Because it looks like, in reading this, that it's up to two locations in a variety
of places, that may not already have two locations.
I'm not sure. But is it the sponsor's understanding that that's what this
ordinance does, that it only adds locations at Rainbow Beach and 12th Street Beach?
Or am I not reading it right?
Alderman Conway, it is just to those two beaches.
Okay. I
don't think that's what the ordinance says, so I'm not going to
renew my motion to hold. But if there is perhaps a substitute before
council on Wednesday that clarifies that and ensures the language matches
the understanding, that would probably be helpful.
And after that, I will move to pass
Okay. Alderman Conway moves to pass.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chair is the ayes have it.
The motion is passed, and
I'm sure I will hear from
Vice Chair Chico,
Conway, and Riley before city council to make sure that they're
satisfied with this ordinance.
Moving right along to
item number six on the agenda,
02026-0023370,
an amendment of the municipal code Title IV by modifying
various sections regarding Wrigley Field special club fees,
alcoholic liquor operations, and adjacent
area rooftop hours.
Chair recognizes Alderman Lawson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I promise this is the last item I'm going to speak on
today. This is a very specific ordinance for the Wrigley Field
adjacent area, the rooftop district.
The rooftop business is a bit hit and miss, and they all have large
spaces that are unused unless there is a game or concert
happening.
What this ordinance does, it allows them to use those spaces within their current
occupancies for up to 25 events per calendar
year. Each event will be noticed with a minimum of
seven days to the local police department or liquor control commissioner and my
office. And we are also increasing the license fee,
which has not been done in some time but does include their liquor, food,
PPA, and other licenses, to the standard
4,400, similar to other liquor licensees in the city.
So again, it's very specific. It's a bit of a pilot.
But we want to give some more opportunities for this unused space in the
neighborhood. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I ask for my colleagues'
support.
Any questions from committee?
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed?
Oh. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for making me go back to that.
I'm going to say Alderman Martin moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chair is the
ayes have it. The motion is passed.
See, it just seems like it's just-
Okay. Moving on to item seven, which is
02025-001757.
An amendment of the municipal code chapter 4-156
by adding new article,
eight, establishing regulations for alcohol manufacturer
accessory event license.
There is a substitute.
Alderman Wagstaff moves to accept the substitute. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chair is the ayes have it.
The substitute ordinance is before us,
and the chair recognizes Alderman Martin.
I believe he's going to be moving to re-refer this to zoning.
That's correct, Chair, and good afternoon, everybody.
This was an ordinance that a number of you who have breweries or distilleries or
wineries, I've talked with you about working with the Craft Brewers Association in
particular to find additional ways for them to generate revenue,
particularly when a number of breweries have closed in recent
months. We've talked with the craft brewers and with BACP.
There is a substantial rewrite of the ordinance,
essentially a different approach such that instead of
proposing to create an accessory event license, there would be
a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance,
and modify their PPA process within
that ordinance only as it pertains to indoor events at
breweries, distilleries, and wineries.
After talking with the law department and LRB, we believed it would
be appropriate, given the rewrite, to re-refer it to zoning
since it now proposes to change the zoning ordinance,
and would hope to receive your favorable consideration on that re-referral.
Thank you.
So Alderman Martin, you make a motion to refer to the committee-
I
... to the committee on zoning?
I do, yes.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair is the ayes have it.
The motion is passed. The ordinance will be re-referred to the committee on
zoning. Moving on to item 8,
02026-0023807, an
amendment of the municipal code section 4-60-022
(2.206) to
disallow additional alcoholic liquor licenses on portions of West
North Avenue in Alderman Hopkins's second ward.
The chair recognizes Jackie from Alderman Hopkins' office.
Jack. Thank you, Chair.
Oh, sorry. It looks like a Y here. Sorry.
No problem. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee.
I'm here on behalf of Alderman Hopkins to request your favorable
consideration of this item.
There is an existing ordinance moratorium in this part of the ward.
This is an update to reflect current boundaries after the last
remap.
Thank you.
Any questions from the committee?
Alderman Cardona moves to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Item number nine on the agenda,
02026-0024047,
amendment of the municipal code section
4-60-023
(26.83)
(27.97) and
(36.37) to allow additional alcoholic goods
licenses on portions of West Grand Avenue.
Chair recognizes Alderman Villegas on the 36th Ward.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's to disallow.
To disallow additional package goods.
Thank you.
Isn't that what I said?
You said allow.
Oh, sorry.
No problem.
It's been a long day.
Yes, ma'am. I understand. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.
This is just an opportunity to take a look at putting
forward a moratorium on liquor licenses
along this corridor. We want to make sure that there's some community
feedback, and also we want to make sure that we're not saturating an
area with liquor stores.
And I ask for favorable consideration on this ordinance.
Any questions by committee? Alderwoman Scott moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
The motion is passed. Finally,
number 10.
10, yeah.
Yeah. Oh, not finally. Sorry. Not finally. I'm doing really well today.
Item 10 on the agenda is
O2026-0024057,
amendment of the municipal code, Section 4-60-023
(46.10) to allow additional alcoholic goods
license on portions of North Sheridan Road in Alderwoman
Clay's ward.
There is a substitute.
Alderwoman Clay, are you still on?
Jess was-
Is Jess here?
I'm sorry.
Jess left.
Okay, we're going to move to item 11,
and we'll see if somebody from Alderwoman Clay's office comes back.
Item 11 is
O2026-0023801, an
amendment of the municipal code, Section
4-60-023
(48.46) to allow additional alcoholic
good licenses on West Devon Avenue.
Let's see, Alderman Mona Hoppenworth from the 48th Ward.
Chair recognizes Alderwoman Mona Hoppenworth.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee.
This is a long-established store in
the 49th Ward that's moving across the street to the 48th
Ward. I do have a letter of support from Alderwoman
Maria Hadden, who's had no issues with this business.
This business also got approval from two block clubs
and has the support of the Edgewater Chamber of Commerce, and I'm here to
ask for the committee's favorable approval for this ordinance to lift the
moratorium.
Are there any questions from committee?
Alderwoman Waxback moves to pass. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Alderwoman Clay, are you on?
Chairwoman, I am here. So sorry about that.
That's okay. So we're going back to item 10 on the agenda,
which is
O2026-0024057,
amendment of the municipal code, Section 4-60-023
(46.10) to allow additional
alcoholic packaged goods licenses on portions of North
Sheridan Road.
We do have a substitute. So before he leaves,
Alderman Cardona moves to accept the substitute. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
The substitute is before us, and the chair recognizes Alderwoman
Clay.
Thank you so much, Chairwoman Silverstein.
This request you all is to allow a small
local business called Uptown Deli
to actually sell packaged goods, small packaged goods,
and this allows us to extend
the ability to do that on a stretch of Sheridan.
We have consulted with the 48th Ward, our
neighbors to the north of us, to make sure that this is allowable,
and they have no
issues with it. This small business owner has been
operating
really successfully on the corner of Lawrence and
Sheridan for a few years now, and allowing
them to sell packaged goods will just extend the reach
of their business. So asking for your favorable support.
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.
This concludes the agenda of the Committee on License.
The passed matters will be reported
as a recommendation to pass at the next City Council on April 15th,
2026. There being no further business before the committee,
Alderman Martin moves to adjourn.
Hearing no objections so ordered, the meeting is now adjourned.
Have a great rest of your day.
Da da da da da da da.