It's Alderman
Nix.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Committee on License and Consumer Protection will now come to order.
We will begin with a roll call vote to establish quorum.
Alderwoman Coleman.
Alderman Moore is not here. Alderwoman Scott.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Napolitano. Present, Chair. Alderman Riley.
Present.
Alderman Lawson.
Alderman Gardner.
Alderwoman Clay.
Vice Chair Silverstein.
We have nine members present, and we have a quorum.
We have some alders on, virtual-- Alderman
Moore is present for quorum.
And we have Aldermen Sposato, Martin,
Chico and Conway
on virtual. Can I get a motion? Alderman
Napolitano moves to recognize them as part of quorum.
All in favor, say aye. Any opposed?
Alderman Sposato, are you here?
Nick Sposato's here.
Alderman Martin, are you here?
Alderman Martin?
Alderman Chico, are you here?
I am here, Chair.
Alderman Conway?
And Alderman Martin or Alderman Conway, are you here?
And Mitch.
Alderwoman Mitch?
Alderman Mitch is on as well.
Okay. So we will
include these alders
as virtual participation, and we have Alderman Beale and Alderman
Telefarro here as non-members.
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.
The first speaker is Cory
Aronowitz.
Thank you.
My name's Cory Aronowitz,
A-R-O-N-O-W-I-T-Z. Thanks for having me here
today.
For the last 30 years, I've concentrated in commercial gaming and gambling law.
I'm a former legal counsel to the Illinois Gaming Board, and I helped
draft the provisions of the state law that allow for
exempted lawful devices. I'm here today to speak
in opposition to Alderman Beale's proposed ban on,
quote-unquote, "sweepstakes," which is not a defined term in case
law
or in the statutes.I'm here just to give you
some legality from my own experience.
I participate in each and every aspect of what I'm about to tell you,
and we've had an opportunity to submit all this information to
Alderman Beale, as well as some other alders, as well as
Corporation Council.
We respectfully request an opportunity to continue to have ongoing
dialogue. In 2009,
the state passed the Video Gaming Act.
In that act, it became illegal to possess a
game that records or clears credits.
In 2010, the Illinois legislature amended the Illinois
Criminal Code
to exempt games of skill or chance that award cash
or prizes where no purchase is required.
That is subsection B13 to 720 ILCS
528B.
There are 15 exemptions. Some are
specifically enumerated, like the Horse Racing Act, the Video Gaming Act, Sports
Wagering Act. Those are regulatory,
civil in nature.
Others, like insurance or spending
programs
and the subsection I just referenced, are
activities and as a result, the state has preempted
that space.
Notably, it's illegal to participate or operate in a game of
skill or chance that connects to the internet unless that
game
is operated by the lottery or sports wagering.
In 2013, I worked with the Illinois Gaming Board and the legislature to pass an
amendment to the Video Gaming Act that says while it's unlawful to
possess a game that records and clears credits,
it's not if the game device
is otherwise lawful under the criminal code.
So we had in 2010, an amendment to the criminal code that
exempts a specific activity that's preempted by the state.
We then worked with the
Gaming Board and the legislature to specifically include
that specific exemption within the Video Gaming Act.
Since that time, I was involved in litigation involving
the Illinois Gaming Board, where the appellate court came back and said that the
Illinois Gaming Board has-
Thank you.
Your time is up. I'd like to recognize Alderman
Waxbeck as part of quorum.
Our next speaker will be Mays Jackson.
Speaks, miss speaks like, "I've been in prison," but-
Good morning.
Good afternoon. To the Committee on License,
to Chairwoman Deborah Silverstein, Vice Chairman Chico,
we at the National Association of Promotional
Retailers support the intent of Alderman Beale's ordinance.
Alderman Beale is right that this market needs to be cleaned up.
The National Association of Promotional Retailers stands fully behind that intent.
Illegal machines operating in our communities are a problem, and we appreciate
that this ordinance comes from a genuine desire to bring order and
accountability to a space that has gone too long without it.
That commitment deserves to be honored, and that is exactly why we want to get this
right. As we've looked more closely at the ordinance as
written, our organization has some concerns we believe are
worth a deeper conversation, not to stop this effort, but to
strengthen it. There are an estimated 2,500 legal machines
operating in Chicago today, alongside approximately
5,500 illegal machines.
We share the goal of eliminating the illegal operators, but we want to make sure
that in doing so, we don't inadvertently sweep out the legal
compliant, tax-paying, small business owners who have
done everything right. We believe a well-structured substitute
ordinance could accomplish both, remove both the bad actors and
preserve the legitimate ones, while generating up to $70 million
in annual revenue for the City of Chicago through a licensing framework.
The National Association of Promotional Retailers is asking for the
opportunity to sit down with the city to work towards a solution that
achieves the goal of a clean, accountable market, one that also
ensures that our community small business owners are not left behind in the
process. We've been left out too many industries at the starting line.
This is our chance to get it right from the beginning.
We look forward for the opportunity to work with Alderman Beale to make sure that
we do get it right. Thank you for your opportunity.
Thank you. The next speaker is George Blakemore.
Previous call. Didn't kick this back.
Anyway, I can't believe it, that the city
is now relying on sinful
gambling for revenue.
Gambling. So many of our people are
addicted to gambling. The old people,
lonely people, poor people, bringing up this
gambling at the casinos, and now you go to the
service station, they have these machines.
It's sinful
that the revenue that the City of Chicago
is seeking comes from gambling,
and especially in the ghettos,
poor Black ghettos. I was in Fort Worth, Texas.
I went to one of these Arab stores or something, then in the back, they had
these slot machines.
Now, how many Black people-- You don't even have service
stations.
You don't even have business to put the machines
in.It's something evil
here. It's something un-American here.
You're advocating for somebody else to come into your community
and are making your people addicted to gambling.
The casino machines here.
But that's not a way of informing, enlightening, and
engaging your constituents. Why would you do that?
The poorest group, and disallow
a liquor license. Your Blacks don't even have liquor
stores.
Now, who going to benefit from this gambling?
The Arabs, the Hispanics, or somebody. Not your Black A.
Up
alpha. Uh-huh. That is alpha if you're going to try
to sue me.
All right now, I'm not the one.
These things protect. But when they had the Black men
a lottery, the Jones brothers was making millions and millions
of dollars with the lottery. What did they do to those Black men?
Ran them to Mexico, put them out.
It's something evil here. It's something un-American here.
So that's why it's very important to bring a
man of Mr. Blakemore caliber to
challenge this.
You getting your money off the blood, sweat, and tears of poor
people trying to get something for nothing. I went to the casino.
I'm ashamed how much money I lost.
How much money.
You can't beat it. You can't win. It's a losing
game. The games that people play.
Oh, yes, a man of my high caliber went to the casino
with my broke A alpha.
Uh-huh, and all my money is gone.
But because
I was supposed to be disciplined.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Our next speaker is Patricia Puente.
Did I say that right? Sounded right.
Thank you. Good afternoon.
I didn't know you guys were going to talk about gambling. I'm retired.
2016, I retire from the Cook County Hospital.
A lot of my coworkers lost their
homes because of gambling, and now they're homeless.
But,
I don't gamble because I saw it.
Okay, but I wasn't here for that.
In Illinois,
there is a noise ordinance code from
1961, Section 27. In
Illinois, if you make noise that interferes with the enjoyment of
life before or after hours, you're
violating a state ordinance. It doesn't
matter if you are a politician or not.
You are not above the law. Just like you guys
say that the president isn't above the law, you guys are
not either above the law.
If you guys want to have a party at 1:00 in the
morning in a parking
lot
after hours, please rent a
banquet hall.
People need to go to work on the next day.
And the reason why I'm saying this is because somebody
from City Hall that wasn't my alderman,
another alderman, gave them a permit
to these Hispanic men to be able
to have their loud music
until 1:00 a.m. in the morning.
Please,
abide by the law
if you are representing it.
Thank you. The next speaker is Tennille Jackson.
Good afternoon.
My name is Tennille Jackson, and I stand before you as the executive director of
the National Association of Promotional Retailers, also known as
NAPR.
I represent more than 200 small business owners across the state of Illinois,
most of them entrepreneurs in Chicago.
These are people who have invested in their communities when no one else
would. They created jobs. They kept their lights
on. They did everything right,
and they need this committee to do right by them.
NAPR is fully aligned with the city's goal of removing illegal sweepstakes
machines from our neighborhoods.
But I'm also here to ask this committee to go further, to license what
the courts have already confirmed is legal, and in doing so,
generate tens of millions of dollars for Chicago
while building real economic equity.
We have a $35 to $70 million solution.
This is not a complicated ask. Ban the illegal,
license the legal, build the future.
Let me say this plainly, NAPR does not defend illegal sweepstakes machines,
not one. We actively encourage their removal.
Illegal operators are hurting our communities, extracting money from Chicago
neighborhoods and returning absolutely nothing.
No taxes, no fees, no licensing, no accountability.
They operate with zero consumer protections, and they've been allowed to thrive in
the very same communities where my members have been fighting for
legitimacy.NAPM-- NAPR members are
not illegal operators. We are the
alternative to illegal operators, and that distinction
matters enormously to the reform this council is
considering.
I want to be direct about what is really at stake here, because I think it gets
lost in the policy language. Illinois' commercial video
gaming industry generates over $300
million every single month.
Three companies control approximately 88% of that market,
and Black ownership in the VGT industry, in an industry operating
predominantly in Black and brown neighborhoods, zero.
My members, they don't want to come into the industry to circumvent the law.
They came to it because they had no other choice.
I've been doing this work for years because I believe that regulation should be
fair. I believe that when courts confirm something is legal,
that should mean something. And I believe that in an industry generating
$300 million a month in neighborhoods like Englewood,
Roseland, Austin, Rogers Park,
it should include the people who live there, work there in those neighborhoods
as owners, not just consumers. The ordinance-- my
members are not asking for charity.
They're asking for the same fair shot that everyone else in this industry
has already received. Illinois
courts say they've earned it. Now, this committee has the chance to honor that.
Thank you. The next speaker is Kishana Harris.
Hello, my name is Kishana Harris,
and I am the founder and executive director of Misty House, a proposed
sanitation center being developed in Bronzeville.
Although Misty House will be developed in Bronzeville, it is ideal to
service the whole Chicagoland area.
Misty House will provide clean shower stalls, private shower stalls,
clean clothes, and hygiene supplies to individuals in need or experiencing
hardship.
By placing the facility across the street from the Chicago Police
headquarters, we are creating a
model blueprint to,
for the next facilities that will be developed throughout the time of this
procedure. We are facing a serious crisis in the
Chicagoland, per se, the United States, but we're here in Chicago.
We have a noted 70,000 individuals that's experiencing
homelessness. We have several bridged and tented areas
where these people are
residing in it. They have no place to shower.
My brother died through gun violence here in Chicago.
I'm 29 years old, and I went through a stage
of serious depression,
drug addiction, and homelessness.
So, I have family and friends. I have support.
I was able to regain my dignity, confidence, and reclaim my
well-being through hygiene. And I know how hard
it could be for some individuals to
have access to things that seem so simple to us, the therapeutic value
of a shower.
So just providing access to these private shower stalls to individuals, I
feel strongly that we could see a change in our
homeless system, and we could have more community stability through
housing, job readiness,
just everything pertaining to public safety, public health, and because
we do have individuals that do not click into the facial recognition
service. They're Jane Does and they're John Does.
Once we get them reintegrated back into the realm of society by restoring their
dignity through hygiene to make them feel humane again, they will take the next
step to go into the other organizations that provide
identification service, transportation,
meal service providers, and all of those things in that nature.
Misty House will not operate as a full functioning shelter or a meal service
provider. Only thing we will provide to individuals is private
shower stalls, clean clothes, and hygiene supplies.
Individuals will not be called by the first or last name basis in Misty House
because we are not counselors.
So I'm not being pathetic to anyone.
They will feel humane, they will feel dignified, and they will get the space
and the help that they need. Like I said, this facility will only be a
model for other facilities to come around Chicagoland.
So I would greatly appreciate all of you guys support in this.
I've been working extremely hard on developing this project,
and I just want you guys support behind this.
I would like if this could be entered into the budget of operations
for the entire Chicago-
Thank you for your comment. This concludes our public
comment period.
Before we start with today's agenda, I'd like to just take, have a moment of
silence in memory of Officer John Bartholomew, who lost his
life in the line of duty.
Thank you.
We will start today's agenda. We have six item on the agenda
today. The first item is the approval of the
Rule 45 report for April 2026,
which were sent out to committee.
Alderwoman Scott moves to approve the Rule 45
report. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The reports are approved.
Item number two,
02026-0024076,
an amendment
of Municipal Code Chapter 4-156
regarding prohibition and penalties for violations of
owning sweepstakes machine.There is
a substitute,
and
Alderman Waxbeck moves to accept the
substitute. All in favor?
I'm sorry.
Out. Yes, sir.
We sent it out Monday morning.
I think it was January 1st.
I believe there might be another substitute, so just hold on for one second.
And we're going to recognize Alderman O'Shea for purposes of quorum.
Good afternoon, Chairman. Alderman Lopez is here as well for my item.
We got you, Alderman Lopez.
Okay. So,
where were we?
We are passing out a substitute,
and once this is before you,
again, Alderman Waxbeck is going to move to accept the substitute.
All in favor,
say aye. Any opposed?
The substitute is before us, and we're going to ask
Alderman Beale to explain the ordinance and the reason for the
substitute.
Go ahead, Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee.
The substitute before you today-
Is your mic on?
Yes, it is.
Okay.
The substitute before you today is a simple
change to the original. And what it
boils down to is, it gives the commissioner
the authority to cite
the illegal sweepstakes machines to the
tune of $1,000 per machine
and issue a 30-day notice to the illegal
operator.
After the 30 days, if the department goes back
out on a second offense, it is
a fine of $2,000 per machine
and up to
six months suspension of their business license.
And then from there, if they go back out and after
the third visit they still have these machines,
it is
a confiscation of the machines as well as
a
revocation of their business license.
And so, it's a three-tier approach to get rid of these
illegal operators
that are in our communities.
And I ask for your favorable support on this, and I would
respectfully ask for the right to close after testimony.
I believe Commissioner Capafali
would like to say something.
Go ahead.
All right. So,
good afternoon, Chairwoman Silverstein, Vice Chair Chico, and members of the
committee. My name is Ivan Capafali, Commissioner of the Chicago Department of
Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, also known as BACP.
We're here to speak on Alderman Beale's ordinance, which aims to ban
sweepstake machines here in Chicago.
I want to thank Alderman Beale for sharing this substitute Friday evening.
Given the complexities, we respectfully are requesting additional time
to review, engage
with internal and external partners, and assess implications.
We remain concerned about the broader
operational impact this proposed ordinance may impose, and want to
ensure seamless and lawful implementation.
At this time, BACP is opposing the ordinance at it stands, and we believe
concerns need to be addressed before we can move forward.
Additional considerations that need to be worked through include,
but are not limited to, alignment of fees and penalties with the broader municipal
code and state law, ensuring that regulations are not overly broad
or burdensome, and addressing disparate
impacts on various communities. As always, we are committed to supporting a
policy that involves all stakeholders in the process, and I thank you for your
time.
Are there questions by committee?
Alderman Sposato had a question.
Are you there, Alderman Sposato?
I'm here, but I'm not ready to speak yet, Madam Chair.
Okay. We're going to move to Alderman Moore.
Thank you, Chairman.
If I may just briefly go outside
the lining of this question, only to acknowledge that young lady back there.
I don't see her item on this agenda, but I
definitely would like to talk to you.
I want to commend you for turning your life around,
and trying to help within the city of Chicago.
I don't think that speech should just go
overlooked. So, I just wanted to recognize you.
And I don't know if you're already working with an alderman, since you did mention,
I think, something in Pat Dowell's ward.
I think that's a good idea, but I want to talk to you even
further, and I just commend you for what you're doing.
If we could,
umAnd let me start by saying this.
I think collectively,
as this has been stated throughout, that we want to get rid of these
bad actors. But I think we have to do
it the right way to make sure that, again, that we're
not
throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you will, and impacting any
small business. Because we have bad actors in my
community, I'll be the first to say that, and we want to get rid of them.
And so, my first thing I want to see, is corporation counsel
down here? Yes, they are.
Do you all have an opinion on what's the
difference between legal and illegal machines?
Do we have someone from corporation counsel?
Chairman, chairwoman, and members of the committee, my name is Jim
McDonald. I'm the Managing Deputy Corporation Counsel in the law
department.
But if I might,
for that specific question, I would like to bring in my colleague,
Dave Smith, who works in this area, and he can perhaps
be more of assistance to you than I can be on this question.
Good afternoon. David E.B. Smith, Senior Counsel with the law department.
And
could you... Yeah.
We can't hear you, Alder.
I'm just trying to see if our corporation counsel have an opinion on what's the
difference between legal and illegal machines.
Without referring to
specific ordinances,
legal machines are machines that comply with the
criminal code and with our ordinances, and illegal machines are those
that don't.
So,
and Chairman, this will be
at your discretion.
We had a gentleman speaking, he only had about two minutes, Mr.
Corey
Bovonaris,
and it seemed like he worked on this at the state, and he was going into some
detail. I didn't want him to stop because I was getting educated.
Is there a possibility, because he seemed like he know this, is there a
possibility, since our legal team has touched on it,
but you're saying you can't go too in-depth, but I think we need to.
And so, if you don't have the knowledge to go in-depth,
somebody who understands this code, do they have the knowledge to go the depth, and
could we hear from them, Chairman?
Well, I can
respond a little bit to Mr. Aranovicz,
who has
been a worthy
opponent in
many of our cases. And
he has an opinion on the legality of machines,
and we have a different opinion.
Okay. So let me hear your opinion.
His opinion is based on section B13,
the free play option.
The sweepstakes machine companies have
generally argued that because there is the option
of a free play, that this makes
all play of these machines legal.
The city disagrees with that.
There is a
recent appellate court case, Claire,
which disagreed with that
position. It's much like
if you have a casino that gives out free plays on the
slot machines, that doesn't mean the slot machines are not gambling.
So, that's the position we have taken
in opposition to the position that the sweepstakes machine companies have
taken.
Are there machines in the cities that have received city licenses?
There are machines that I believe have received
amusement tax stickers.
That's correct. Issued by the clerk's office.
So, if we're issuing
something from the city, then it cannot be illegal, right?
Because we wouldn't issue stuff that's illegal.
I don't think there's anybody from the clerk to speak about that.
But I believe when people have gone-
The clerk department is here, though, who represents...
But the clerk is the one that is
handling those applications and issuing the amusement tax sticker.
So, when people go into the clerk's office to pay for the
amusement tax, they have
to fill out a form, and I'm not familiar with that form.
It's a process that is strictly from the clerk,
and depending on what they disclose on that form, the amusement tax
sticker is issued.
So, we're not sure
how people are presenting this information to the clerk, that the clerk has been
issued this amusement tax.
But I believe they stopped.
You believe-
I believe they stopped issuing those amusement
tax stickers for the so-called sweepstake machines.
But we don't know for sure.
I don't know. I'm not exact. I'm not 100.
Legal. Do anyone in legal know?
Alderman Moore, we can reach out to the clerk and get that information for you.
Okay. Is it true that any business that operates a sweepstakes
machine is automatically disqualified from getting a
VGT machine?
Well, there would be two aspects to that.
There would be the state approval,
and there would be the city approval.
We can't speak to what position the State Illinois
Gaming Board takes.
And
I think that as far as approval of VGT licenses, the city
largely follows along with what the state does.
You're saying the city would follow along with what?
Generally speaking.
And generally speaking, so when wouldn't they? When wouldn't we?
There could be circumstances
in which the city might
take a different opinion, but I would be speculating on what those would be.
Okay. Commissioner, I think we were in the council chambers, I
think last year, late last year or mid last year, and we had
slides up about VGT, and we went through some of these
things. I don't recall us getting to
the real discussion of what's legal
and what's illegal machines. Correct me if I'm wrong. Did we?
There was a study that was
conducted by a third-party consulting company,
and I don't have that information in front of me right now.
Okay.
Yes.
So I guess what I'm getting at, in an effort to get to where my colleague is
trying to get to, and I want to get there too because, again, I stated
at the outset we have some bad players.
I think we really need... Because given
what Mr.
Bovarnas talked about, given what you're talking about,
it's just new stuff is just coming to light.
Mm-hmm.
And it's not easy for me
right now to just make a decision because, again, I don't want to throw the baby
out with the bathwater, and I think there's more information that
need to be had, or briefings or something, before we make
this final decision. Is that something both you and the
legal department would agree with?
Sure. And that's what I'm asking today.
Alderman Moore-
Okay
... I think we're going to let the committee decide that.
No, I just asked them to-
Oh.
You can decide it, but I can ask the question.
Okay. And I just asked them is that something that they agree with. Thank you.
Alderman Napolitano, did you have some questions?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, a couple of very quick questions.
Based on the statement that was made, that
what is legal and illegal is based on criminal code and ordinance,
does that mean, like, so if it's legal or illegal based
on anybody following the legal codes and ordinance,
how do you follow legal code or ordinance
if you can't apply for these machines and licensing through the City of Chicago?
You're just paying an amusement tax. Is that correct?
Like, who's monitoring this? Like, here, let me
make this simple. We have inspectors that go in and check out,
liquor inspectors. We got building inspectors.
We got retail inspectors. We have inspectors that go after businesses and make sure
everybody's operating above board and properly.
Who's monitoring this?
Who's going in and monitoring this?
I can speak a little bit about that.
So we are receiving complaints, and I am actually pulling data
right now. We don't get a lot of complaints about this, by the way.
I have to be very clear about that. And I can give you just a quick
example. In 2025, we received 21
complaints with the word sweepstake in them.
21 complaints for the entire year.
In 2026, so far, year to date, about 13.
Richard, can I stop you for-
Yes. Sure
... and I apologize. I didn't mean to cut you off.
No, no. That's fine.
My question's not based on people complaining.
Yes. Mm-hmm.
It's based on what is legal or illegal or what-
Yes
... gives you the ability to operate or not operate.
Yes.
Like, we, across the board in the City of Chicago, you have to go
upstairs at one point or time and get your licensing-
Yes
... permitting, and make sure that you're paying the proper taxes-
Mm-hmm
... for this, not just an amusement tax-
Sure
... to operate almost anything in this city.
So based on no complaints coming in, who is going out, sir, and
monitoring that this is illegal-
Right
... and should not be done
compared-
We
don't have a structure for that right now, so that's why I'm trying-
Gotcha
... to ask time now, so that we can build that
and, you know, with the
sponsor's ordinance. So right now, we don't have a structure
where we go proactively monitoring these machines.
So wouldn't it be better to
push forward with my colleague's ordinance,
put it into place so that we have some
diagram or bylaws of how we're going to operate this, and then come back when we
have stuff in place and start going through it and say, "Hey, where do we need more
help? Where can we do this? Where can we help you?" Than just
leaving it, because this doesn't exist anywhere in the City of Chicago-
Right
... where we leave anything unmonitored.
Right.
I mean, I've got complaints in my ward for stuff that
when they do, "Hey, you have to shut you down.
Your sinks aren't clean," or, "It's not the proper trap here," where nobody's
going in and doing this at all. I mean, the fairness.
And
based on this, no one monitoring it, and it's illegal or illegal, or it's all
illegal,
who's benefiting from this? Like, how does the city as a whole
benefit for this? Whereas on the other side, we're looking to implement the
VGTs, which isn't what we're talking about here right now,
and that's monitored by the state and by the city,
and
whoever the operator is, and there is a
fee going out to everybody. The operator's earning, the state's earning, and the
city's earning. And based on
these-sweeps.
Right.
Who is benefiting from it?
So Alderman, that's a very good question, and I've engaged with the
sponsor since he put out the
substitute a couple of times, and I think there's
great conversation going on right now. We're just not ready to move yet.
I think there's more. There's a lot of question marks coming from this
committee.
I have them, too. The law department obviously have some issues, too, that we want
to resolve before we move full speed ahead.
I don't think it's fully baked yet.
That's all I'm asking, for a little bit of time so that we can continue the
conversation with the sponsor and other
stakeholders, so that we can have something that is meaningful and is good to
enforce.
And I'll end with this. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just end with this last thing.
Commissioner, I'm a big fan of yours, and I will always be a big fan of yours.
Thank you.
And I think a lot of us in the room are.
And I guess it's just topic related right now that gives where the frustration is.
I've been in this position now for a short period of time.
It's coming up on 12 years. For 12 years, I've been asking to
push VGTS because I get destroyed by my surrounding
suburbs. And nobody wants to have the conversation.
Nobody wants to go into making the system better work for the City of
Chicago, as well as how we're competing with our surrounding suburbs and
our businesses that are losing-
Mm-hmm
... an enormous amount of money and closing down.
And nobody has done that for 12 years, right?
This sweepstakes has been going on for a long time.
Mm-hmm.
And nobody has monitored or done anything about this as well.
It's like
we're going in circles here, and I'm trying to be fair to you, sir, because I know
this is not just something we snap our fingers it's over and done with.
But one way the city could've benefited from small businesses
and wards that are border wards to the other side, where
nobody's really benefiting from it at all, and I
have to support my colleague here and hope that we put things in place
today and maybe go back and amend later and make it better and more palatable for
everybody, but there's no rails. We're
all over the place on this. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, and well said.
Alderman Scott.
Hello.
Thank you, Chair.
I have a few questions.
So as my colleague stated, that
there's no one to
manage those. How do you manage the complaints now?
They're assigned to our enforcement team. They go to the location.
They make the observation. They record the findings,
and then that's basically it.
And so nothing-
There's no enforcement, no.
Nothing.
There's no-
Enforcement
... enforcement. No tickets issued.
We combine that inspection with other inspection.
Once we're at the location, we look for other things,
but there is not enforcement
specific to that.
So how much revenue, if
the sweepstakes machines are gone away, how much revenue is that
taking away from the city?
I can't answer that question-
So all this-
... Alderman Scott
... coming back and forth, and you all haven't gathered any kind of
analysis to
show how this removing the sweepstakes
machine could-
I don't have that information right now.
I can definitely try to find.
And if...
I have to support my colleague on this, but I do have concerns
that, and that's something that I'm sure that we have to take up with the
state, of how some small businesses, preferably the
ones that are African Americans, how this would affect their
businesses. And so that's important to me
because we do have a lot of sweepstakes
machines in communities, and that helps support some of the small businesses.
So, I don't know if this is taken lightly
from your department, the administration, but
we are not acting in a time-
Yeah
... or a deficit to say that this is revenue that can possibly be
collected.
We talk about how the machines are illegal, but we give them a
sticker.
Mm-hmm.
We need more support from
the administration, the ACP, to put these people online to
make them legal and to make sure that African Americans have the
same right and equitable investment that
others will have. And so that's important to me.
And we have to make sure that we safe...
I don't know if this is just going on deaf ears, but this
is something that we've been working on since last year, and we still have no
resolution, and that's kind of disappointing.
And
I wish that it was something more that can be done so that we could-
I appreciate the comment. And the only thing that I'm asking right now, because you
bring very good points that need to be considered and discussed,
is for a little bit of more time so that we can have those conversations.
That's all I'm asking.
So-
That's what I'm asking
... I think when we was,
was it in September, October when you first-
And he asked for more time?
Yeah.
So I'm just, like a timeline. So realistically, a
realistic timeline would be-
Yes
... great to show the-
I would love to work with the sponsor to get that timeline.
I got this, I received this,
and I appreciate that, Friday evening, and we've had some
conversations over the weekend and yesterday and
this morning, and I want to make sure that we are in sync here.
This is not something that I...
This is a big deal, right? So we
have to make sure that we're having those conversations.
So-
Because once this goes in the books, amendments are very difficult to
do. So we want to make sure that we get it right the first time.
So in your department, whoWho handles the
sweepstakes now?
That goes to the enforcement team.
Just the enforcement team.
The enforcement team.
So there's no one legally that handles the-
Since the VGTs were passed, we have
added another function to our hospitality bureau,
which is led by the liquor commissioner.
And they are going to be handling the licensing of VGTs, all of that.
But right now, because there's no license for sweepstakes,
it's assigned to the enforcement team for
investigation.
So have you all looked at past cities or states that are doing this
that we-
All of that is happening right now.
So that's why we're asking for a little bit of extra time, so that we can conclude
those researches.
And
the hospitality,
is it a particular person in hospitality that's working on it?
You can always come through me or our local liquor
commissioner, Shannon Trotter, always available.
Everybody knows her here.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderwoman.
Thank you. I'm just going to reiterate, and again, I also very much
respect you, Commissioner, but we have been talking about this for quite some time.
I understand, and the sponsor and I
have engaged in conversations
more meaningful recently.
Alderman Waxman.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Commissioner, good afternoon.
Afternoon.
When you were starting off,
you mentioned that you have partners that you're working with.
Could you name those partners?
You're talking about on my statement?
Yeah, just in general, you had mentioned that there were stakeholders after you had
said there were partners.
Well-
So who are we talking about here?
The ones represented here. We have to work with the state.
Yeah.
CPD is also a big part of this, and when I have conversations with them
around this, I know they have concerns about these machines. City clerk.
There's a few
organizations and people that need to be included in these conversations.
Okay. Could you provide, through the Chair, a list of all those
stakeholders and partners that
would be part of communications and
planning or policy proposals for
any of the gambling issues that are before us today?
Sure.
Including everything from the partners
to the alignment of fees, penalties, or whatever it might
entail.
Mm-hmm.
And I'm just listening to my colleagues.
I think it's part of the same issue here, is that we seem
to
drag these things out for months, if not years.
I too have been here for quite some time and watched as we don't really put
together a policy that should've been done some
time ago. When I look at the hospitality industry
in my ward, and I look at how an inspector
can find microscopic dust and fine them for that,
or a piece of ice or something that is out of place,
I find it hard to believe that we can't find sweepstakes machines that are illegal
or operating illegally.
So
I know that there's many different aspects to this, but I feel
that we need to hear a very clear and concise policy
position as of today from the city, including your
department and those other stakeholders or partners within the city.
I'm less worried about the illegal machine operators because
whether they have legal standing or not, it is the city that has
to set the tone-
Mm-hmm
... and the laws for what we're going to do here.
And I think the position that some people want to take today
about,
essentially with the ordinance that's before us, is an important first step because
it would set the tone that seems to be lacking from
the legal side of what we've been asking for, for quite some time.
So
I know that Alderman Beale's going to close here with a broader
policy position that we'd like to see.
But please provide all that information through the Chair for us, and-
Mm-hmm
... if we're going to work, we have to really step it up here, the same way that we
do for what we do to the hospitality industry on a daily
basis. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you.
Alderman Sposato, are you ready to comment or question?
Ready, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.
Are you hearing me okay?
Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
Just want to take everybody back to about 10 years ago.
Well, first I would just like to say I appreciate all the speakers on this,
and I might be one in only or very
few members that support both VGT and the sweepstakes
machine.
10 years ago, and I'll take it back to the very room that we're in right now, we
had a hearing on this, and these people, not the particular people that were here,
not the lady from NAPR, or Corey, or Maze Jackson, but
a group of these video state
vendors were begging us to license them, and somehow, some way,
under three administrations, we were never able to license them.
And whether it be a $1,000 a year permit sticker for it or whatever,
I believe we make nothing off of this as a city.
I believe alls we make is it keeps our businesses running.
I text one of my friends that has one of them.
I know he always tells me he makes a few bucks with the video sweepstakes machine,
so I don't know what his definition of a few bucks is.
But alls it is, is basically just some chump change to help the business move
along, a little source of income.
I believe, certainly, like my border ward colleagues, that once we have
the VGTs, I don't see many people keeping the sweepstakes
machines. But until then, I don't see any reason why to
shut them down and stop a revenue stream for our
businesses. So-So I support them,
and unfortunately one of my
close allies, I will not be with you, Anthony, on this one.
But
I just think we can have both of them.
And we,
Commissioner, we as a city, these people, once
again, are begging us. If you talk to the lady from NAPR and Maze
Jackson, they will tell you, "Please, we want to be licensed.
License us. Make it legit." We know we shut nobody down who has these
things. We know we have very few complaints.
So let's just
figure this out and license them for now, and take it from there.
So, I appreciate the opportunity to speak,
but I can't vote in support of this because I don't want to
hurt people in the pocketbook, whatever little
amount of money they're making. And thanks for the
opportunity to speak, Madam Chair.
Alderman Beale, would you like to close?
Alderwoman Coleman.
Thank
you, Chairman
Silverstein.
Commissioner, I just want to clarify to my colleague,
so by 30th is the removal date, because I believe our
council will be May 20th. So we're looking at 10 days after May
30th, and we're looking at June 30th to 31st
as the official 30 days,
the first fine of $1,000.
Now, Commissioner, I know you have asked for another
extension for
more time to, I guess, get prepared for this, because this is happening.
But I also want to bring to your attention that you know, but just for the
record, in 2021, there were
1,999 amusement park
licenses, if you will, or what do you call them?
Amusement devices.
Stickers.
2022, 2,032. '23,
1,094. '24, 2,500. So we're looking at
an ongoing trend. In 2025, that number
doubled to 5,282, and
in this quarter alone, we're looking at
4,775 machines, just in the first three
months of this year.
I do believe that there is an ongoing trend,
and we need to work
now.
I don't think that another extension is going to do.
We're seeing the trend, and if we're going to help, and I just want to
highlight, if we're going to consider an amnesty program for
Black operators that have participated legally according to the
state statutes, I want to make sure, I know it's aside of this,
but for those that have participated,
based on the Illinois state statutes, I want to make sure that there is some
amnesty. But
there are bad actors, and we see them clearly, and for you to
say that we have not received any complaints, are you speaking of from
your businesses, or are you speaking of the police districts on the south and
west sides? Because they are a problem at 7th District by
the day.
So I don't know where those numbers are coming from.
If you're just speaking of who you're dealing with on a daily basis, but who we're
dealing with on the daily basis, I've had a mass shooting, and folks
hid behind the Sweet Stakes machines on 51st and Damen.
You're providing a lot of good information, and that's why I'm sitting
here again, asking for an extension.
And actually, let me take that back.
Not an extension, just a little bit extra time so that we can
figure this out together. That's all I'm asking.
And so with
if and or when this passes-
Mm-hmm
... this will be under the purview of the fine and
violations. This is going under Commissioner Trotter, who was-
This is going to come to, this is BACP,
and we're asking the police department to join us
also,
as for the enforcement piece.
And how large is the-
They enforce the entire code
... is the enforcement piece or-
That's what I'll-
What division of CPD do you work with for enforcement?
We usually work with the vice unit.
Vice.
Yes.
Okay. No further questions.
Oh, one clarification. Who is considered any other
person violating?
What is other
in the violation of penalty?
Would these be individuals?
Okay, outside of businesses. Okay. Thank you, Alderman Beale.
Alderman Moore,
for just
a few other questions, please.
Testing. No, it's not a lot of questions.
Because I want to get
to where I'm getting with my colleague, Alderman Beale
here, with these bad actors. But again, don't want to
hurt.
What I want to first do is ask Alderman Beale, at the request
of our commissioner and of our attorney, would you be
willing
to hold this for
at a time at your discretion?
All right.
Alderman Beale, would you like to close?
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee.
We've heard a lot today as it relates to
sweepstakes machines, but I just want my colleagues to know one
thing that's crystal clear.
The state of Illinois, the Illinois Gaming
Authority, does not recognize sweepstakes
machines.
They will not legalize
sweepstakes machines.
And so,
if this body were to try to legalize
or
permit a license to a industry
that is regulated by the state, the state will come down on the City of
Chicago.
And that is why the City of Chicago has not licensed these machines,
and they have just chosen to issue stickers
on these machines.
A gentleman testified earlier that there are about
2,500 so-called legal machines. If that's the
case, why do we have over 5,000 machines with stickers on them?
That doesn't make sense to me. And so,
what we have is
this body pass VGTs,
and then we're looking to basically
make the system fair for everyone.
If these sweepstakes operators would like to become
legal, that is not our responsibility.
That's regulated by the Illinois Gaming Board.
So if they want to become legal, go to the Gaming Board.
There's not one other city in the state of Illinois
that has legal sweepstakes machines.
Chicago is the only entity right now that's allowing
sweepstakes machines to operate without
the authorities coming down on them.
We're turning a blind eye on an industry that
has taken advantage of the South and West Side under the
guidelines that these are Black and brown businesses.
Why did they come to the South and West Side? Because it's easy.
It's easy to come into our communities and operate
illegally.
That's why I cannot turn a blind eye to
an industry that has taken advantage of the community, where
the City of Chicago hasn't gotten one benefit
from sweepstakes machines,
one iota.
Not one.
Now they're saying,
"Regulate us.
We're willing to pay 30, 50, 70 million."
We can't get that money because the state will never regulate them.
The state will never authorize them to be legal.
That's why it's important that we move forward to
legalize the industry. Now that we've moved into the
VGT category,
it's very important that we legalize the entire
system across the City of Chicago and not give
one an advantage over the other.
Because right now, VGTs, you have to have a liquor license
or a restaurant.
That's the only places they can go.
But I guarantee you, there's not a
sweepstakes machine in a liquor store or in a restaurant, because they're in
your gas stations, they're in your 7-Elevens, and
all the other little corner stores within our community, going unregulated.
And so I'm sympathetic to the people who are
potentially going to be harmed by this, but they've made a lot of money over the
years.
Think about how much money they've made over the years by not being regulated,
not paying fines, fees, taxes, nothing.
They've made a lot of money,
and we haven't made a dime here in the City of Chicago, but yet we want to raise
taxes on the backs of the people in our community.
How do we do that?
And so,
I have a level of respect for the commissioner,
but every time we move forward with either VGTs or sweepstakes, everything
is hurry up and wait. I need more time. Hurry up and wait.
But if the mayor brings something before us, we need to hurry up,
and we're not going to wait.
Well, this is important to us in this body because
we're losing money,
and we have a deficit over $1.3 to
$1.5 billion
this coming year in 2027,
and we need to get these machines up and going
where we can help ease the burden off of the people here in the City of Chicago.
So I ask for my colleagues' favorable support on this
issue. I think it's very important that we move forward with,
like my colleague stated, setting the guidelines on how we move forward.
And if these people want to become legal, it is not our fight.
Go down to the Illinois Gaming Board and make the fight there, because
that's where they regulate gaming here in the state of Illinois.
Thank you, and I recommend do pass.
Roll call.
All right.
Go online.
I'll
bring
the floor and
make a motion.
Yeah, he moved to table a motion.
Right.
Do a roll call on the tabling?
Yes, we're going to do a roll call on the tabling.
So if you want to table, say yes. If you want to continue and vote on this,
say no.
Alderman,
let's see. Chairman Silverstein is a
no. Alderwoman
Coleman?Alderman
Moore.
Alderwoman Scott.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Wagspack.
No.
Alderman Napolitano.
Oh, no.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman
Gardner.
Alderwoman Clay.
And on.
Alderman Chico, are you there?
Yes, I'm a no.
You're a no?
And we have Alderwoman Miz.
Are you there?
Alderman Sposato.
Madam Chair, somebody had their mic open. I had a hard time hearing you.
This is a no to table, a yes to not table?
Yes, that is correct. If you would like to table it, you need to vote yes.
No.
You're a no?
Yes. Yes, I'm a no.
Okay. Alderman Miz was a no.
So,
we have
11 nos and two yeses.
The motion fails, and we will proceed with the
vote.
Will you make a motion, Alderman Riley, to-
Move to pass.
Alderman Riley moves to pass. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed?
No.
We have Alderman Sposato, Alderwoman Clay, and Alderman Moore as a no.
The motion passes,
and we're going to move on. Congratulations.
Okay, we are actually going to go to item number five and six,
at a request of Alderman Riley.
We have
O2026-0024893,
amendment of municipal code section
4-60-022
(42.178) to
disallow additional alcoholic liquor licenses on portions
of East Erie Street and East Ontario.
And we also have
O2026-00284893,
amendment of municipal code section
4-60-023
(42.605) to disallow
additional package goods license on portions of North State Street
and East Huron Street. Chair recognizes Alderman Riley.
If you could talk about both of these, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm simply looking to
re-impose
prohibition on additional alcoholic liquor licenses
on these two
streets. We had lifted these to allow for new businesses, and now we're simply
re-imposing them for the protection of the neighborhood.
Appreciate an aye vote.
Move to pass, Chairwoman.
Alderman Wagspack moves to pass on both of these. All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes have it, and both
of these items have passed.
We're going to go back now to item number three,
which is
O2026-002424913,
amendment of municipal code section 4-60-022
(11.111) to allow
additional alcoholic liquor licenses on portions of South Ashland
Avenue.
Alderman Lopez, are you still here?
Good afternoon, Chairman. Yes, I am.
Okay, great. You're on.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm asking for the committee's favorable consideration for this item.
It will help us with
bringing in a new business to a vacant storefront.
They have met with my community's business license and zoning committee, have our
full support, and I ask for your favorable consideration on this
matter, and happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Any questions from committee?
Alderman Napolitano moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes have
it.
The motion is passed.
Thank you, Committee.
You're welcome.
Alderman Taliaferro, are you on virtually?
Hmm.
He told me he was going to do rule 4059.
We're going to give him a minute to see if we can locate him.
Hello, Chairman. I apologize for that.
My
button got all messed up on here. But anyway.
That's okay. I'm just going to introduce the ordinance, and
then we'll have you speak on it.
Thank you.
This is item number
O2026-0024480,
amendment of municipal code section
4-60-023
(29.95) to allow
additional package goods licenses on portions of West
Chicago Avenue. Chair recognizes Alderman Taliaferro.
Thank you, Chairwoman and members of the committee.
I ask for your favorable consideration in
allowing for the seller of packaged goods for a,
actually, the first minority or woman-owned,
Black woman-owned
full service grocery store on the West Side of Chicago.
We believe that this is a wonderful opportunity for Chicago Avenue
as well as the business owner, and again, I ask for your
favorable consideration on this matter.
Any questions? Alderman Wagspack moves to pass.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the
Chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Thank you, Chair.
This concludes the agenda of the Committee on License.
The passed matters will be reported as recommendation to pass
at the next City Council on May 20th, 2026.
There being no further business before the committee,
Alderman Clay makes a motion to adjourn.
Hearing no objections,
so ordered. The meeting is adjourned.