Actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, 1. Any pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
2. Banners, flyers or other forms of signage.
3. Food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters.
4. Backpacks, large bags and sealed packages.
Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12, are permitted and subject to search.
And 5. Firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode.
Can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere with the ability other individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings 2023-2027
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of Order and Procedure,
The sergeant-at-arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or any of its committees.
All individuals and their belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
1. When entering or exiting the gallery.
2. When providing public comment during the portion of a meeting, set aside for that purpose.
Or 3. When asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
3. Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior, or speech,
which in the judgment of the meeting's chair, or the sergeant-at-arms, may lead to a breach of the peace,
or disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting, is not permitted.
4. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms, throwing any item,
whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances, are not permitted when in the judgment of the meeting's chair,
or the sergeant-at-arms, such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to,
1. Any pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
2. Banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
3. Food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters.
4. Backpacks, large bags, and sealed packages.
Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12, are permitted and subject to search.
And 5. Firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere with the ability
other individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will be subject to removal
from the remainder of the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings, 2023-2027
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of Order and Procedure,
the sergeant-at-arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing gallery or room
is open for a meeting of the City Council or any of its committees.
All individuals and their belongings are subject to search at entry, or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
1. When entering or exiting the gallery.
2. When providing public comment during the portion of a meeting, set aside for that purpose.
Or 3. When asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
3. Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior, or speech,
which in the judgment of the meeting's chair, or the sergeant-at-arms,
may lead to a breach of the peace, or disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting, is not permitted.
4. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms, throwing any item,
whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances, are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair, or the sergeant-at-arms, such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly
conduct of the meeting. Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited in the gallery. Such items include, but are not limited to,
1. Any pointed objects, including knives of any kind. 2. Banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
3. Food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters. 4. Backpacks, large bags,
and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12,
are permitted and subject to search. 5. Firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices
must be placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a manner
that does not interfere with the ability other individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the remainder
of the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms. City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023-2027. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of Order and Procedure,
the sergeant-at-arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing gallery or room is open for a meeting of
the City Council or any of its committees. All individuals and their belongings are subject to
search at entry or upon request. Individuals must remain seated at all times except, 1, when entering
or exiting the gallery, 2, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting set aside
for that purpose, or 3, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Propane, threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior, or speech, which in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the sergeant-at-arms may lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet,
waving of arms, throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances,
are not permitted when in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant-at-arms,
such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant-at-arms,
is prohibited in the gallery. Such items include, but are not limited to,
1, any pointed objects, including knives of any kind, 2, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage,
3, food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters, 4, backpacks, large bags, and sealed
packages, clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12,
are permitted and subject to search, and 5, firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers,
stun guns, tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small handheld
recording devices must be placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated, and can only be used
in a manner that does not interfere with the ability other individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the
remainder of the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings 2023-2027
pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council.
City Council rules of order and procedure. The Sergeant-at-Arms sets forth the following rules
of conduct for members of the public. These rules shall be in effect at all times, that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or any of its committees. All individuals
and their belongings are subject to search at entry, or upon request. Individuals must remain
seated at all times except, one, when entering or exiting the gallery, two, when providing public
comment during the portion of a meeting, set aside for that purpose, or three, when asked to rise and
be acknowledged by a member of the City Council. Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive, or
defamatory behavior or speech, which in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant-at-Arms
may lead to a breach of the peace, or disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting, is not permitted.
Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms, throwing any
item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances, are not permitted when in the judgment
of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant-at-Arms, such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly
conduct of the meeting. Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, is prohibited in the gallery. Such items include, but are not limited to,
one, any pointed objects, including knives of any kind, two, order please, order. We will have order
in the chamber. Once again, we will have order. Otherwise, we'll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove
you. We're going to start this meeting out on the right foot. We're going to be orderly.
Good afternoon, everyone. The Committee on Licensing Consumer Protection will now come to order.
We will begin with a roll call to establish quorum. Vice Chair Chico, Alderman Coleman, Alderman Moore,
Alderman O'Shea, Alderman Scott, Alderman Cardona, Alderman Waxback, Alderman Conway,
Alderman Villegas, Alderwoman Mitz, Alderman Sposato, Alderman Napolitano, Alderman Riley, Alderman Lawson,
Alderman Gardner, Alderwoman Clay, and Alderman Martin, and Chair Silverstein. There are 11 members
present, and we have a quorum. We have Alderman Scott on Rule 59. Can I get a motion? Alderman
Mitz makes a motion. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Alderman, Alderman, we hear you,
Alderman Sposato. Alderman Scott, are you there? I'm present. Okay, you will be counted for quorum.
At this time, Alderman Coleman, are you there? I don't see her on. At this time, we will begin the
public comment. The period is limited to 30 minutes. Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is
limited to three minutes. We did have to select our speakers via lottery, so we had more speakers than
time allotted, so I have them in my hand. First speaker is John Boska. Excuse me. Sergeant of
Arms, can we make sure that she doesn't have another outburst, please? Thank you.
Go ahead, sir. Good afternoon. My name is John Boska. I'm President of Neighbors of River West,
President Emeritus, 30 years as a volunteer. I'm also Chair of the Casino Advisory Council.
I'm here on behalf of both groups. First of all, I want to speak to development, specifically Bally's
in River West. Over the last 30 years, Neighbors of River West has participated with
Alderman Burnett, we have created well over $600 million in economic value just to the city of
Chicago alone in regards to TIF as well as neighborhood opportunity funds. This money
is coming out of development that was in River West, Fulton Market, which we worked with in the
27th Ward. As we move forward with Bally's here, any pause, any reset, anything that has
happening at that site will have a great effect on development, which is around this casino,
which will greatly affect neighborhood opportunity funds. It will also, River West TIF has been
sunset, but it will also dilute the jobs that are being created by the construction. I want to make
that very clear. At the last committee meeting, the idea was, hey, this isn't about jobs. This is about
something else. Well, we were at jobs. Now here we are at licensing, and we're talking about jobs. We're
talking about a reset. So let's get this right. The other thing is this. At this point right now,
as long as we're talking about Bally's, as long as we're talking about what their financial situation
may or may not be, we have to consider that we're talking about them, and we're not talking about
city finances. We're not talking about our shortfalls. We're not talking about those things.
But yet we're looking at somebody else, a private company that has made a commitment and made an
agreement with the city of Chicago. Right now, this commitment, this host agreement is in jeopardy
because the city of Chicago has made a commitment to allow VGTs. This is greatly affecting River West,
and it will greatly affect the city of Chicago and the movement of all the different developments that
are in the pipeline there. River West has been a catalyst for several decades. It will continue to
be that way, but right now we're diluting that. The last thing that I want to say is this. In regards
to moving forward here, we need to just drop VGTs right now. Just stop it. Just say, hey, throw up our
hands and say, this is a bad idea. This doesn't work. We need to allow Bally's to move forward to
finish their commitment. It's $1.7 billion. Read the host agreement. That includes everything from
jobs, union jobs, and commitments. VGTs and that ordinance does not address any of those things.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Danita Sanders, and as she's coming up, I want to
recognize Alderman Wagsback and Conway as part of Quorum, and Alderman O'Shea, and we also have
non-members Beal, Harris, Dell, Telly Farrell, and Lopez. And Lee and Tabarez, Quinn, and Nugent,
you're here as an ex-officio. Okay. Danita, you're up.
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Danita Sanders. I am the CEO of the Shadnoff-Londale Chamber of Commerce.
Today I'm here because we take pride in offering our businesses workshops, trainings, and certifications.
But we also take pride in having real tangible access to tangible resources. An example of that
is the VGTs. I hear us talk about the relationship that Bally's has, but they don't have one with the
businesses or the chambers that are directly connected to the people that are affected from
this disadvantage. In communities like North Lawndale, we know that this has been approved at
state and city level, but who's missing out on this equation is everyday small business owners.
We want to make sure that our businesses in our community have tangible access to this resource
because it becomes a resourceful gap insurance for our businesses. Economical gap insurance.
We know how to apply gap insurance to everything that we do when it comes to making sure drivers
are on the road completely safe and completely insured. Why do we not have the same for small
businesses within that mindset? To make sure that we cover the gap where the city lacks.
We talk and we hear all day where there's no money, and we know that this particular plan
with VGTs offers that opportunity for small businesses and disinvested communities. You are
either for the small businesses to get access to the American dream for themselves and communities
disinvested, or you're in this for yourself. Please release the licenses for the VGTs in our communities
so we get access to economical development that we see happening in those millionaire suburbs.
We want the same access that we spend inside of our communities as well. Have a good day.
The next speaker is Trent Gatewood. Good afternoon. I represent ATU Local 241 for the Chicago Transit
Authority buses. We're not in disagreement with video gaming, but we are looking at the safety
aspect of it. If we open up video gaming terminals throughout the city, who's going to protect our
bus operators? Who's going to protect the public? We already have a problem with policing now, so the
whole thing with my members and our local is to make sure that we keep the control with valleys or
whatever, whoever come in for the gaming with the casinos in an isolated location. If we expand it
throughout the city, I think we opened up a bigger animal. So we're basically looking out for the
protection and the well-being of the riding public and the citizens of Chicago. So we're an opponent,
I mean, opposition against the VTAs, but we are with having it isolated in a control-safe environment
for the casinos at the River West location. Thank you. The next speaker is Frank Taylor.
Frank Taylor. Hello. I'm Frank Taylor. I'm a lifelong Chicago resident, and I'm a proud union member of
IATSE Local 2. I just don't understand why we're raking good employers like Bally's over the coals.
I mean, everybody's watching this, and we need jobs. Bally's is going to provide thousands of great union
jobs, meaningful jobs, meaningful jobs that will help our members, our families, our communities.
It just seems like with the video gaming, there was no hearing about this. There was no public hearing about
this. It's ruining this project for Bally's, and these are thousands of good-paying union jobs.
It's very frustrating to the union. Bally's has great relationships with unions. We're part of their
casino in New Jersey. It has provided many meaningful jobs to families, and I just wish you guys would
reconsider this video gaming kiosk. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Ben Huizenga. I hope I
pronounced that correctly. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, committee members. Just a reminder that when it
comes to gambling revenue, the black lines in the budget are really red. They look like they're solving
fiscal problems when they're actually multiplying them. Like gambling itself, they encourage governments
to chase their losses. The costs that gambling creates are very quantifiable and supported by research,
which shows the following. Gambling creates crime, violent, nonviolent, felony misdemeanor, you name it,
which come with police, court, and incarceration costs. The math comes out to about $7,000 per
gambling addict per year. Gambling creates job loss and lost productivity. People who are heavy
gamblers gamble, think about gambling, take fake sick days. This all leads to $5,000 lost per
addict per year. Gambling creates bankruptcy, foreclosure, divorce, illness, malnutrition, domestic violence,
child neglect, child neglect, therapy, and treatment costs. Absolute minimum figure here is $3,000 lost per
addict per year. And this does not include suicide, even though, as the former Surgeon General Jerome
Adams recently stated, gambling addiction has the highest rate of attempted suicide of any addiction in the
world. And gambling creates the theft that people do not discuss. Gamblers steal from their employers,
their friends, their spouses, their children, who then cover for them out of affection and shame.
This money goes unreported, but it is still lost, and it's estimated this amounts to $6,000 per
addict per year. Altogether, we get a conservative figure of $21,000 per addict per year. Each electronic
gaming machine, whether slot or BGT, creates an average of $2,000 per year.
addicts. These are rarely people who have existing gambling problems. In fact, many of them are not
gamblers at all and have no idea they are vulnerable to gambling addiction. So for Bally's
Casino, their 3,400 planned slot machines will create about 7,000 gambling addicts, costing
Chicago $147 million a year. For video gambling terminals, using a middle figure of 15,000
machines, we have 30,000 gambling addicts costing the city $630 million a year. If these numbers
sound high or unlikely, consider that excessive alcohol use is currently costing Chicago $2
billion a year. And these are just the costs for active addicts. For people only at risk,
the costs add up to about $6,000 per year. All of this adds up to the casino costing Chicago
$200 million a year and the BGTs $900 million a year. We can do better than this. Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is John Coley.
Good afternoon, Chair Silverstein, members of the committee. My name is John Coley, Jr., and
I serve as the Secretary, Treasurer, and Principal Officer of Teamsters Local 727, as well as on
the Executive Board of Teamsters Joint Council 25, representing 100,000 Teamsters in the state
of Illinois, many of whom live in Chicago. Once completed, Valley Chicago will bring hundreds
of jobs opportunities to our city. Those working the front desk and call centers, slot attendants,
cashiers, gardeners, florists, laborers, valet attendants, self-parking attendants, parking
cashiers, shuttle drivers, dispatchers, custodians, and much, much more. The site will become a focal
point for trade shows, concerts, and countless other events. The Teamsters and other labor unions
throughout Chicago are organizing these workers to ensure that each job is a quality job, where
workers are able to take home good wages and benefits and are protected in their workplace.
Across the country, the Teamsters have fought to ensure that every casino worker is treated
with respect and feels safe in their workplace and then can make their job into a career.
This is all possible by a union contract. We are here today to talk about our concern that the
introduction of VGTs in the city of Chicago will undermine job opportunities at the Valley's
casino site, possibly denying hundreds of Chicagoans from having a job in this union-dense industry.
In every corner of the state, the same results have played out. The introduction of VGTs reduces foot
traffic at casino sites. This slowdown in foot traffic, in turn, leads to reduced shifts for workers and,
in many cases, the elimination of jobs altogether. This reduction in foot traffic also risks potential
revenue that would be going directly into the city budget. As a union representing thousands of public
employees who keep Chicago running and open for business, the Teamsters union does not take the
financial constraints facing the city lightly. However, we do not believe that the introduction of
VGTs across the city will deliver the financial security that some have promised. We strongly urge the members of
this committee and all alderpersons to fight to uphold the host community agreement, as was agreed back
in 2022. We also call on VGTs to fulfill their end of the host community agreement by completing the
construction of their facility and opening the site for full-scale operation within the agreed-upon
timeline. The Valley's Chicago project has an opportunity to bring thousands of workers into union careers.
We urge the members of this committee and VGTs to continue working together to find a
solution that will allow for the completion of this project without delay. Thank you.
Thank you. Then the next speaker is Pat Doerr.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. Chair Silverstein, thank you for this opportunity to
speak about VGTs and Valley's Casino in the city of Chicago.
Many members of this committee have heard me on this topic many times because we are now 10 months
into city council approving these valuable additional revenue opportunities for locally owned bars and
restaurants with over 60 licenses approved by the state gaming board, over 250 more state gaming board
licenses pending, but not a single one approved by the city of Chicago and BACP. And then further,
we get thrown under the bus by the city's overcommitted, underperforming, struggling casino partner
as a source of their problems. VGTs are not Valley's casino problem, despite what our many allies and friends in
labor may be saying today. Their lender during an earnings call last month said, was asked if he's
concerned about VGTs. Their casino lender, who has more at stake than the city or any bar or restaurant,
he is not. He said there are over 17,000 sweepstakes machines in Chicago and they were supposed to be
facing competition from a Hawthorne casino that's not going to happen anymore. If your lender to the casino
complex isn't worried about VGTs, why is this body and why is the city's failing casino partner
Bally's? They got to step it up. They're in the bottom quarter of revenue per admission of every
casino in the state, while Rivers, 12 miles away outside the 45th Ward, is doing double per admission.
They're not good at running a casino and we're getting blamed. The bottom line is we are down 200 bars and
restaurants in the last decade. We're flat to shrinking and employment's down as well. VGT will
help us compete with the suburban communities that are not down and can we please stop being blamed for
the city's casino partner's underperformance? Thank you very much and look forward to a very
interesting hearing this afternoon. Thank you. The next speaker is Sam Toya. Sam Toya, are you here?
Good afternoon, Chair Silverstein and Committee. I'm here today to advocate for small businesses
across our 77 communities. My name is Sam Toya. I'm President and CEO of the Illinois Restaurant
Association. I'm here today to speak on behalf of our members and the broader hospitality community
to express strong support for video gaming terminal operations in Chicago and to urge the city to begin
issuing licenses to qualified establishment. Video gaming is a proven revenue generator. Again,
video gaming is a proven revenue generator. Municipalities outside of Chicago have experienced
significant economic benefits from these machines. According to a report by FTI Consulting, video gaming
generated 1.2 billion in tax revenue for Illinois and local governments in 2022. Revenue from which Chicago
did not benefit because VGTs were not allowed in the city. Recognizing this missed opportunity,
the Chicago City Council acted last year to authorize VGT operations in the city, recognizing it as a
practical way to support local small businesses while generating crucial municipality revenue. That means
supporting our independent family-owned restaurants and bars. While we understand that VGTs are not a silver
bullet for the challenges facing our industry, we do know they can serve as a vital tool for these
businesses. They provide neighborhood restaurants and bars with additional revenue. Stream to help keep
their doors open and support their workforce. It's all about jobs throughout our 50 wards, not just one ward.
Demand for VGT is clear. The Illinois Gaming Board recently reported that 65 applicants across 33 Chicago
wards have been approved. However, this progress depends on the city fulfilling its commitment
by issuing the necessary local operating licenses. Video gaming offers independent neighborhood
establishment a new entertainment option that will drive revenue but also keep patrons from going to
competing establishments in the suburbs. Chicago has 17 wards supporting over 25 municipalities,
many of which already permit VGTs. Let's do the right thing and allow for VGTs to begin operating in the
businesses that want them because we know they will provide essential financial relief, helping business
owners support employees and preserve jobs. Let's protect our small independent restaurants and bars
again throughout the 50 wards, not just one ward. Remember when you're thinking about that,
we need help supporting our local businesses. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Jada
Escarpip. Did I say that right?
Good afternoon. My name is Jada Escarpita. I'm with Escarpita Construction.
We are subcontractor on the Bally's Casino Project.
We have members of the Chicago Regional Carpenters Union,
the Chicago Painters and Tapers Union, and the Chicago Laborers Union.
We have about 100 approximately on the project currently,
and it is to all of their benefit that the project continues
and advances in the best possible way that it can.
I don't know all the ins and outs of everything that's gone on
or is going on with the casino in the city of Chicago,
but what I do know is our experience as a company business with the casino,
we have been paid every invoice that we have invoiced.
We have no dispute with them.
We have actually been paid in a very timely and consistent manner,
actually even better than we do on most average payment terms of other projects.
So we have no complaints with what's gone on, and they've been very fair to us,
even giving the opportunity for over five days to present extra documentation to be added to our billings
so that we can have that go through and be approved.
It is just our wish for our employees and our small business,
we're a family-owned business, for this to continue and progress in a most efficient and progressive way.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Our last speaker is Rick Heidner.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you so much for letting me speak.
My name is Rick Heidner.
I was born in Chicago, born and raised in Illinois by a single mother, started out with nothing.
My mother was a maid.
I want to let you know that I started as a maintenance person, worked nights at 7-Eleven,
ended up buying video games like Asteroids Pac-Man for the 7-Eleven,
and then the family started to franchise 7-Elevens.
Built to J.J. Pepper's food stores and started acquiring buildings.
Started acquiring some buildings and just progressed in life to where we're at right now.
I'm 66 years old next month, have roughly 800 employees through our family businesses,
have about 280 buildings, and I own Gold Rush Gaming, the third largest gaming company in Illinois.
What I want to let you know is the reason I said all those things is because I pretty much can tell you
what it's like to be in any aspect of these businesses.
I know what it's like to work in one.
I know what it's like to pay rent.
I know what it's like to own a building.
With the VGT business, I've been in it since 2012, again, the third largest.
I've been trying to get video gaming into Chicago for the last 12 years.
You know, there's hundreds, I mean, thousands and thousands of illegal machines here in Illinois
with the sweepstakes machine, while the legal ones are not participating.
You're getting no tax, you're getting nothing, and the other part is, as a building owner, buildings get filled.
When video gaming started, there was only 100 cities in and 1,000 out.
Now there's 1,000 in and 100 out.
Chicago needs to come in to fulfill, you know, what they need to fill these empty spaces and get a lot of jobs.
I also want to tell you, and I'm really sorry about this, but, you know, I had several conversations with Bally's as a terminal operator owner,
and, you know, they were very interested in partnering or purchasing Gold Rush.
We had met with them at least a half a dozen times, fulfilled that all the way through,
and they never had a problem with my gaming.
They never had a problem with VGTs.
They anticipated them coming into Chicago and were excited about it.
We had discussions about if they were competitors of their casino or not,
and what we all agreed at that time was is that they basically, you know,
our kind of player, when they want to go out on the weekend, go to a restaurant,
they're probably going to end up at the casino having a nice dinner and enjoying their entertainment with the gaming there.
And then from there, maybe when they go on vacation, they go out to Las Vegas and have gaming there.
So I'm really sorry again about this, but I'm so sick of, you know, the false narratives, the information that comes out.
You know, I think Bally's actually has a different kind of problem.
If you look at their stock today, they basically have a.
Thank you.
Alderman Beal.
Point of clarification.
Madam Chairman, the last speaker, is he still there?
Can he come back to the mic, please?
Yes.
Thank you.
May I proceed, Madam Chair?
Just a little out of order, but I'll give you a minute.
Speak up just a little for me.
Okay.
Mr. Heitner, was it?
Yes.
You said that Bally's attempted to buy your VGT company?
Yes.
We wanted to partner.
We had several discussions.
I met with them, their highest levels of people, at least a half a dozen times over several months.
And again, they were excited.
They were excited.
It just didn't work out in the end.
But there was no problem at all.
And this, you know, this was a couple years ago, three years ago.
But I kept in contact with them after that.
And, you know, they had said if they ever were going to go into this type of business, it would be 100% with me.
And, again, they just had no problem with it.
The offer wasn't sufficient for me.
Well, Madam Chair, Mr. Heitner, do you have any proof of that?
Because people come and say stuff all the time.
Do you have any proof?
Well, I do.
But, you know, a little apprehensive about sharing the information.
But, you know, I did get an offer in writing from Bally's.
And, again, this was after several, several months of meeting with them, talking about the entire gaming industry, both sides, of being, like I said, a terminal operator like myself, which they definitely wanted to participate in, or the casino side.
I do, yes.
I have a –
Do you have – how many meetings did you have with Bally's?
We're going to have to wrap this up after this.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, about six meetings.
I'm sorry?
Six meetings, I'd say.
Six meetings.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Okay.
Hold on one second, Alderman Moore.
We're going to finish up with a little bit of housekeeping.
We have a few more aldermen here.
We have Alderwoman Pullman, virtually.
Alderman Waxback moves to allow her in for part of quorum.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
We know Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Chairman and Committee.
Hold on one second.
Alderman Coleman, are you there?
I am here.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
We also have Alderman Martin is here.
And did I leave anyone else out?
Alderman Hall is here.
They're not members.
Alderman Vasquez is here.
Talia Farrell, I think we mentioned you before.
Okay.
Can we move on to the first item of the agenda?
Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
Alderman Moore?
Thank you so much.
In light of what was just stated, and I know you went out of the regular normal course of business with Chairman Alderman Bill,
and the information that he gathered was important, but I don't want us to be one-sided on this.
And trust me, I don't have a dog in this race.
I think the information that was shared was important.
But I think in this council, we have to have a level of integrity.
And if we allow someone to speak, if somebody, they may not want to rebut or counter what Mr. Heidner said,
but if somebody is out there to do so, it's up to them.
I think we should get an opportunity.
Okay.
Thank you for your point.
We do have a bunch of questions for the people that are here, so we're going to give them a moment to come in.
Actually, before we start with the subject matter, we're just going to do the first item on the agenda,
which is...
The approval of the Rule 45 report for July 2026 and August 2026, which were sent out to committee, Alderman Riley moves to approve.
All in favor, say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and the reports are approved.
Now we're moving on to item two, a subject matter hearing on the current status of the Chicago Casino Development
and the enforcement of the host community agreement between Bally's and the City of Chicago.
No vote will be taken at this time.
We did receive two letters from Jamerson and Ballant Electrical Contractors and Escarpita Construction
that were sent out to committee electronically.
We have since received letters from Chicago Journeyman Plumbers Union,
LIUNA Chicago Labor International Operators Engineers, as well as the Mid-America Carpenters Union,
which I believe we were passing out.
Did we do that, Deb?
Did we do that?
Okay.
Before we start, I would like to just take a moment for everybody here to just introduce themselves.
My name is Kim Barker.
I'm the Chief Legal Officer of Bally's Corporation.
Christopher Jewett, Senior Vice President of Corporate Development for Bally's.
Hello.
I'm George Papineer, President.
Say that again.
Hi.
I'm George Papineer.
I'm President and Interim CFO for Bally's Corporation.
And for those in the box?
Good afternoon.
Fiona Burke from the Department of Law.
I'm Deputy Corporation Counsel in the AERC Division of the Law Department.
Good afternoon.
Ashley Gabbers, CFO.
Thank you.
I'm going to start this off.
I just have a couple of opening remarks and a couple of questions, and then we'll pass it on to members of the committee.
Good afternoon, everyone.
This hearing has been called because one of the largest and most consequential development projects in the history of the city of Chicago has been partially halted, hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, thousands of jobs may be affected, and the public deserves answers.
Today's hearing is not about rhetoric.
It's not about assigning blame before facts are established.
And it's not an opportunity for everyone to deliver campaign speeches, talking points, or legal briefs.
Our purpose is much narrower.
We are here to determine three things.
First, what exactly happened.
Second, why it happened.
And third, whether the city of Chicago and Bally's have acted in a manner consistent with their obligations to taxpayers, workers, neighborhoods, and the host community agreement.
In recent weeks, Chicago residents have been told that portions of the Bally's project are being slowed or paused because of a dispute involving the host community agreement.
At the same time, questions have been raised regarding the financial condition of the project, prior delays, changes to the project scope, and the response or lack thereof from City Hall.
This committee intends to examine all of those issues.
We will begin with the basic facts.
What work has stopped?
What work is continuing?
When were those decisions made?
Who made those decisions?
How many workers have been affected?
What communications occurred between Bally's and the city?
And what legal and factual basis exists for the positions being taken by each party?
We are particularly interested in distinguishing between fact and assumption.
Today, we will seek clarity regarding whether any actual breach of the host community agreement has been identified, whether any formal determination of a breach has been made, and what evidence supports the actions taken by Bally's and the city's response to those actions.
We will also seek to understand what oversight the administration has conducted, what information it possessed regarding the project status, and what steps were taken to protect the interests of the city and its residents.
We're very happy that we have a CFO here, but I do want to be on the record by stating that we asked multiple times for Senior Advisor Jason Lee and the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Christina Passion-Zayas, to attend today, as they've been involved with Bally's project from the beginning, and they are not here today.
Let me be clear, this hearing is not designed to validate anyone's preferred narrative.
If Bally's claims its actions were required by circumstances, it should be prepared to provide evidence.
If the administration claims it acted appropriately, it should be prepared to provide evidence.
And if either side asks the public to simply take its word for it, that will not be sufficient.
Now, we just want to talk about our procedure for today.
Members have a significant number of questions to cover today.
In order to ensure that every member has an opportunity to ask their questions, I am asking all witnesses to keep their answers concise and only responsive to the question that was asked.
The purpose of this hearing is to get answers, not speeches.
That being said, I have a number of opening questions.
What specific components of the Bally's Chicago project are currently under construction, and what components have been paused, delayed, or slowed?
I think I'll start.
I am the chief legal officer of Bally's, and we are pleased to be here to be able to present and to address some pieces of information, misinformation.
And with respect to the portions of the project that have been rephased, I first want to start by saying the host community agreement does allow for a phased development of this project.
And so the actions that Bally's took with respect to rephasing this project are in complete alignment and compliance with the host community agreement.
And I'll start there.
And that has nothing to do with financial positioning or anything else.
It has everything to do with the fluidity and the flexibility that the host community agreement provides to Bally's to develop the agreement in phases.
And with that, I'll start there and then turn it over to my colleague, Chris Jewett, to speak specifically to the question.
Thank you.
Chris Jewett with Bally's.
So currently under construction, we are planning to meet the original phase one requirement, which is primarily the casino floor, event center, and 100 rooms of the hotel in conjunction with the food and beverage offerings.
Where we reset our various components, recall dating back to the negotiations with the city and our plan to always phase this, we had a schedule on the 500-room hotel.
Our original plan was to deliver the full 500 rooms out of the gate.
Evidence of that can be seen if you actually go up into the hotel tower.
There's framing done all the way up to level 28 out of 35.
Drywall completed up to level 15, which would incorporate about 190 rooms.
And finishing of those rooms up to level 12, which is 133 rooms.
So all of that is well above schedule.
Additionally, there's significant components within the project that have been designed and, you know, begun or close to beginning that we've reset.
You know, things like numerous lounges, VIP lounges, cigar rooms, 600-person comedy club, and a 360-degree panoramic level for events on level 35.
So those are just some examples of the items that have been reset.
On what date did Bally's decide to alter the construction schedule?
And when was the city of Chicago notified of that decision?
When we provided the contractors with the notification and subsequent to the filing of our 10-Q,
we did advise, which was the same time that the general public was aware of when we notified the city.
Which was when?
You know, the specific date.
It was August 8th.
How many workers?
Sorry, August 8th.
How many workers, subcontractors, and union tradespeople are affected by the change in construction activity?
A specific number of subcontractors affected, but what I can tell you is
is...
Are you able to hear or you're not able to hear?
Can you hear me?
Okay, sorry.
On August 7th, we had nearly 1,150 workers.
With the reset, there's about 136, if you compare that, month over month, that were part of the reset.
So 136 are?
A reduction of 136.
A reduction of 136.
So a little over 12%.
Has Bally's informed the City of Chicago that it lacks the financing necessary to complete the project as originally approved?
Well, Bally's does maintain that we have capital resources to continue to build and deliver on its obligations under the HCA,
so it really has no impact on future development other than what we're reevaluating as a result of VGTs.
Has Bally's formally alleged that the City of Chicago is in breach of the host community agreement?
And if so, when was that allegation first communicated to the City?
Right.
I'll answer that.
If you don't mind, if you could just say your name before you start speaking so everybody knows who you are.
I'm Kim Barker, Chief Legal Officer at Bally's.
Bally's certainly does have a difference of opinion, we believe, with the City of Chicago in terms of whether or not the legalization of VGTs.
And we also believe other potential forms of gaming not only violate the host community agreement, but the economic underpinnings of it.
We sent a notification to the City of Chicago on June 17th with our position on that.
But I think the most important piece for Bally's at this point, and certainly the host community agreement does allow for this,
is the opportunity to have productive conversations with the City about our difference of opinion on the legalization of VGTs and potentially other forms of gaming.
But again, to restate that our initial letter to the City went out on June 17th, 2026.
And as we sit here today, are there any video gaming terminals currently operating legally within the City of Chicago?
We would not have that information.
Is that something our CFO would know?
I think you'd share for that question.
I'm going to have to get back to you on that.
I know that some are in licensing.
Yeah, I think that's because the answer is no.
So those are the end of my questions.
We're going to take questions from our committee.
We'll start with Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And before I get into my line of questioning, I just wanted you to make something clear to everyone in the room.
You invited our CFO, who showed up.
Who are the other city officials that you invited to attend?
I invited Jason Lee, the mayor's senior advisor, Christine Passion-Zayas, the mayor's chief of staff, and Mary Richardson-Lowell Resent.
And so of the four, one appeared?
Correct.
Yeah.
And how many times did you extend that invitation to that group of individuals?
Not once.
No, for sure not once.
Minimum twice.
Uh-huh.
Well, did they give you a good reason to not appear?
And I said that we required them to be here because isn't the city all about transparency?
Yeah, that's the purpose.
Aren't they involved in all of the negotiations?
And shouldn't they be here to answer not just city council's questions, but the constituents of the city of Chicago's questions?
So, yes, they should be here.
Amen.
So I'm assuming they gave you a really good reason that they couldn't be here today.
Absolutely.
They didn't.
Actually, they did not.
They just said they're not coming.
Not terribly transparent.
No.
As of today, this is, I guess, a question for Bally's, and I'm not sure which of you is equipped to answer it.
But as of today, what specific provision of the host community agreement has actually been breached by the city of Chicago?
So let me start by saying, when we're looking at a legal argument, today we don't believe is the day to have a legal argument about the terms of the host community agreement.
What we're here to do is to have a legal argument, which under the host community agreement does include negotiation and conversations with the city of Chicago.
But certainly what we do believe is that the entire economic underpinnings of the host community agreement were premised on a single license being issued for the operation of the casino.
One license was issued for the operation of the casino.
Correct.
VGTs, when taken in the aggregate and assuming the various projections that could include 20,000 or more positions in the aggregate, are exponentially larger than the positions that we do have in the casino, the positions we expect to have in Bally's Chicago casino.
But the other issue that Bally's continues to be concerned about is that today it's VGTs, tomorrow it could be other forms of gaming.
And so taken in the aggregate, when we look at the premise for the RFP, when we look at the language in the HCA, and more importantly, when we look at the commitments of both the city of Chicago and Bally's,
and Bally's has lived up to its commitments in that host community agreement, and we'll continue to talk about that.
We will talk about that.
Yes.
We are of the opinion that taken in the aggregate, there has been a violation of not just the terms of the HCA, but the economic underpinnings of the deal.
And they are significant.
And that's your position.
Did you raise these objections about the many thousands of sweepstakes machines that are operating currently in the city of Chicago?
Right.
That's not what's in front of us today.
The host community agreement forms an opinion on lawful forms of gaming and the lawful forms of gaming and the actions that the city council and in certain instances the state would take to actually create these new forms of competitive gaming.
So you have no issues with sweepstakes machines?
Not that I don't have issues, but like I said, the VGTs are the lawful form of gaming that the host community agreement looks to in terms of why it is that we're here today.
It's lawful forms of gaming.
Mm-hmm.
And are any video gaming terminals currently operating legally in the city of Chicago today?
I have no awareness.
I would not know.
Well, as you do know, the gaming board has issued some licenses, but the city has refused to issue permits locally, so there are none.
So I'll bring you up to speed on that.
The issue here, why did you halt construction on everything other than the gaming floor prior to any actual harm hypothetically occurring due to VGTs?
Because they aren't legally operating in the city of Chicago today.
Right. First, let me start by saying construction has not stopped.
There continue to be more than 1,000 skilled tradespeople, close to 1,000 skilled tradespeople, and that they're still working to build the city's first world-class integrated casino.
Well, we just heard from your colleague that a number of components of the construction project have indeed been suspended.
So you are doing work on the site, but I believe that's been represented as doing work to deliver the casino gaming floor.
Plus other amenities.
But, again, what I also started with is that the host community agreement does allow for a phased approach in terms of how Bally's delivers this casino.
So what Bally's has done in the reset and communications to our subcontractors and in the conversations that we're having today are consistent with the deal that the city struck with Bally's in terms of how, when, and what it will deliver in any particular phase.
So what we are doing in terms of the reset, including resetting the number of finished hotel rooms that will be delivered on day one, are completely contemplated and authorized under the host community agreement.
Our actions are consistent.
And you're taking this action.
So how many union workers have you laid off or sent away from the job?
You made some press release noise about that recently.
Yeah, we said, I believe, I'm sorry, Chris can answer that.
Excuse me.
Yeah.
Can you hear me?
Sorry.
Prior to the reset and post-reset, there was a reduction of approximately 136 workers between the dates of August 7th and September 3rd.
And those workers were laid off.
Why?
So it's a combination of resetting the pace of construction or certain aspects of the project being complete.
As you can imagine, having hundreds of subcontractors on site and thousands of workers on site, certain aspects will get completed and those workers will go to other projects across the city.
with their trades. Understood. If no VGTs are currently operating and no court has determined
the city is in breach of the HCA, why was it necessary to slow construction now?
This is George Papner, president and interim CFO. So the VGTs has really impacted the initial
assumptions that we had on this investment model, especially since we have no visibility.
And this is a big part of our concern of where that number would end up. There may be 65 licenses
that are approved now. I heard earlier that there was 200 in consideration. We don't know where that
stops. So that could affect the adding several casinos within the marketplace that we thought
we had a form of exclusivity in. So as a result of that, we're reevaluating everything outside of
the HCA agreement to determine whether it's fiscally responsible for us as a public company
to continue to invest at that level without the type of return that we would expect.
And why are you continuing with the revenue producing casino piece, but slowing the hotel,
the restaurants and the entertainment facilities? Is there a reason why?
Hollerman Riley, we're continuing to meet the requirements of the host community agreement
as I had previously mentioned. We are going to deliver the event center, 100 rooms of the hotel
and the required food and beverage components. The components that are being reset and recontemplated
are being considered all in conjunction with the proliferation of VGTs. We've seen it as have all
of our competitors and other casino operators across the state that existed before VGTs. There's anywhere
from a 30 to a 50 percent impact on top line revenue, which it would be irresponsible for us
to trudge forward with components that are not required until we understand what the landscape looks
like. There's so many unknowns at this point. That's hard for me to understand because we have so
many casinos operating in the suburbs where, guess what's also legal? VGT. And it doesn't seem that
those casino operators raise the same concerns that you did, but I'll take what you say at face value.
Is it true that Bally's entered into conversations with Gold Rush Gaming to acquire them? Is that true or false?
So first and foremost, we look at dozens of acquisitions and potential partnerships and
opportunities annually. I would tell you, and I'm not a lawyer, but every opportunity that we look at,
we do have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. So I can't answer that question.
Yeah. And I think we would not be in a position to comment on any acquisition. So I don't have a
response for you on that. And there is no way that we would be able to disclose something of that
nature, irrespective of who the counterparty is. And if the counterparty were to release you from
that, would you be able to answer that question? No, not at this point. No, because you don't want
to. Okay. I'm going to ask a couple of timeline questions just so we can kind of all be on the same
page here. When did Bally's first internally discuss reducing or slowing or re-phasing, I think
we're calling it, construction activities on the Chicago project? I know that you informed the city
of that in August. But when did you start having these conversations internally to determine whether
or not you were going to re-phase this thing? Right. Our internal conversations, again, is not
something that we would be prepared to talk about. However, the important thing is when did we notify
our subcontractor? When did we start contemplating how we would implement the notification that was
sent to the contractor? And the answer to that is on August 8th. Okay. So we're going to do this
all day, I guess. Can Bally's provide a timeline of project delays, design revisions, financing changes,
and cost increases since winning the bid for the Chicago casino? Are you willing to offer that
information to the committee? Yeah. We'd have to take a look at what reporting is required under the
host community agreement and review it. We will take that request back and get back to the committee on
the request. Was the project on schedule and on budget and fully financed immediately before the
decision to halt the portions of construction? Yes. Fully financed? Yes. And who was the city's
primary point of contact when we were notified of the stop work? Who did you first notify here at the
city of Chicago? So we notified various folks, obviously our trade partners at the Chicago Federation
of Labor and the building trades, as well as the mayor's office. Who in the mayor's office did you
notify? Jason Lee. Jason Lee, who was invited to this committee not once, but twice. Correct. And
declined with no good reason or excuse. Is that correct, Madam Chairman? That is correct.
Great. So we're getting stonewalled top to bottom. Does Bally's have the money in the bank to complete
the full scope of the project today? In the bank. That's on hand. As my colleague has already said,
you know, Bally's maintains capital resources to continue to build and deliver on the obligations
of the HCA. This has not changed. Have you approached additional lenders or investors for more funding
during the past two years? And if so, what was the outcome? So I'll start with, we have had a series
of both public offerings and private placements for investments in the casino. I believe we have
done three tranches, one IPO and then two private placements. So that is how we have accessed a portion
of the capital that was actually required in terms of deliverables under the host community agreement to
allow community residents to have an investment in stake in the casino. And how did that go?
From our perspective, it went well. We have from, I have to go back and excuse me, not for having the
actual figure in front of me. But we do know that we have over 2,000 investors. And in terms of the
original policy perspective behind that, to allow values for everyday Chicagoans to actually have a
stake in the casino, that was successful just from the sheer number of IPO participants who are at the
entrant level for equity investment and started at $250.
Okay. There's, just to add on to that, there's over 1,000 city of Chicago residents that are equity
holders in the project, roughly 1,500 folks that are investors that are Illinois residents, and then
around 2,000 overall, non-inclusive of Bally's.
This is for Bally's. Have lenders, auditors, analysts raised concerns about the economics of the Chicago
development? Do you?
I could handle that.
Well, no, outside of the going concern that was issued in the 10K as a result of our disclosure
related to funding for our Bronx New York project.
Could you repeat that a little bit clearer? I didn't quite hear the response.
No, no concerns.
No concerns.
Outside of what we've already disclosed in our 10Q, which was the recent filing for second quarter,
ending June 30th.
And so you say outside of the 10Q. So let's speak to the 10Q.
Yeah.
Concerned about the 10Q?
Do you want to go in concern?
Yeah.
I'm not concerned. The disclosure in Form 10Q is a mandatory quarterly reporting requirement for
publicly traded companies.
Yes.
Bally's Corporation is publicly traded as well as Bally's Chicago.
The going concern disclosure is a technical accounting requirement that primarily relates
to the status of securing funding in the future.
And in this case, within the 12 months, they look at a 12-month look forward.
And in this case, it had everything to do with the Bally's Bronx project, nothing to do with
the Chicago project.
So it does not reflect anything as it relates to the status of the Chicago casino project.
I want to quote something to you, which is kind of interesting.
You know, as a publicly traded company, we have a series of analysts that follow our company,
both from the debt side as well as the equity side.
So a respected market analyst from CBRE said, and this is in his report.
So it was all – it was issued, and it's public.
And I quote, the going concern language is overblown.
And we have not been overly concerned given the strong prospects of Bally's Bronx and our confidence
in Bally's securing appropriate financing for the project, both debt and equity.
And we have to say, well, I'm going to say, well, I'm going to say, well, I'm going to say, well,
And when was that written?
This was subsequent to the 10Q filing.
And the 10Q was filed when?
The exact date of that would have been July.
Yeah, I'd have to look at the exact date of the project.
And they're speaking to being able to raise future monies.
Is that correct?
12 months, up to 12 months.
Up to 12 months.
Yeah.
But you already have all the cash you need for this project, correct?
This is related to the – this specifically was related to the Bronx.
To the Bronx.
So speaking of Bally's corporate, which I assume that's the mothership that presides over all of your casino interests.
What is your current corporate debt load?
And how does that compare with the company's debt when we selected you back in 2022?
Sure.
I'll repeat it.
What is Bally's current corporate debt load?
I'm speaking to the parent company.
And how does it compare with the company's debt when Chicago selected Bally's in 2022?
I'll have to get the 2022 information for you.
And we could certainly provide you the information.
If you could through the chair.
We would provide information, certainly, which we filed within the 10Q.
We have all the incomes – we have the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flows that are incorporated into that statement.
Well, I'm happy you're agreeing to share that information with us.
Thank you.
Have you sought additional equity or debt financing for the Chicago project in the last 24 months?
Not outside of the equity raises that my colleague Kim has discussed.
And is Bally slowing construction because it lacks confidence in the Chicago market or because it lacks confidence in its ability to finance the entire project?
The answer to that is neither.
I think we've made very clear that our concern around the cannibalization of VGTs and what they can do and what they've proven to do across the state is the true concern here
and why we're actually discussing a reset as opposed to delivering or over-delivering every component and then some that was required in the HCA.
Okay.
And I've just got a couple more questions, Chairman, and then I'll relinquish the microphone.
This is very relevant.
What are the current projected returns for the Chicago casino compared with the original projections that were presented back when we were considering awarding you the casino here in Chicago?
This is something that a number of my colleagues and I raised concerns about during the approval process.
Many of us thought that the projections both for the temporary casino and for the permanent casino were grossly inflated.
And we were reassured by the previous administration that, no, no, no, the temporary casino is going to do gangbusters and we're going to meet all these expectations.
I didn't believe it.
And we've also been given a set of projections for the permanent casino once that comes online.
I'm asking the question about the temporary casino first because I partly know the answer, but I'd like the public to hear it.
So how is the temporary casino doing today versus what was projected in revenues when we first awarded you the bid?
I don't recall what the projected.
But we know it's well underperforming.
Our temporary casino produces more wind than any temporary casino in Illinois.
So from that perspective, in the temporary condition, it's doing very well.
But there are constraints related to the physical size and the location, which limit revenue generation.
And if you if you want to compare it to what our new casino will be, you know, it's really it's highly differentiated compared to a temporary casino.
And I'm not I'm not asking you to compare yourself to other temporary casinos in Illinois.
If we if we nail you down on the numbers you promised us back when we gave you this.
And what are you delivering to us?
And then I'm going to ask our city, our CFO, who is responsible for tracking how that's performing.
So I'm not sure the difference.
I know how it's performing now.
I can't.
You don't know how it's performing.
OK, I know how it's performing now.
I can't recall.
I hear that at congressional hearings all the time.
CFO, would you be willing to answer that question for us, please?
Please. Thank you for your question, Ashley Gabber, CFO.
I'm going to have to actually provide those numbers through the chair just so you have the entire breakdown.
Understood.
But while we wait for that detail, could you at least tell me whether or not they're meeting the projected revenues that were promised us in 2022 or are they perhaps underperforming there?
I unfortunately will have to get back to you on that.
But I will just note that I took this position or I was appointed to this position August 26th.
I completely understand that.
And I'm glad that you're here.
Thank you for coming, CFO.
And I know that you're here just for a little bit of time and you're going to get up to speed.
I have great, great faith in you doing that.
I will provide that.
But it would be helpful for you to have your staff turn that information around.
So I do know it's housed within your office.
OK, thank you.
Alderman Lopez has a point of information.
Thank you, Chairman.
In 2021, Bally's presented to the City Council a proposal that said that they were going to exceed revenue of all 10 existing casinos in Illinois at that time.
Have you exceeded revenue of all 10 casinos in Illinois to date?
That answer would be no.
No, but I highly doubt that we would have said that.
You did.
Especially since Rivers was operating in a temporary facility.
I just think that's unfathomable.
Your proposal was exactly that.
If I can speak and add to that, right, it's a public record through the Illinois Gaming Board what every property does.
I would vouch for my colleague and everyone on our team.
No one ever said the temporary casino would come close to Rivers.
So I would – no.
Well, we're talking about the temporary, sir.
Thank you.
Alderman Lopez.
I wasn't talking about the temporary.
My question was what was promised was that Bally's was going to outperform all 10 existing –
In the permanent facility?
Oh, yeah.
We stand by that.
I didn't understand your question.
Apparently.
So are today's revenue projections lower than those originally presented to the city?
We have not changed our revenue projections.
We do need to better understand what the rollout of EGTs will potentially look like.
You know, there's so many variables about where they'll be, how many licenses.
You know, we've seen projections that could have more than 3,000 locations resulting in nearly 20,000 machines
or the equivalent of five more casinos across the city.
How many revisions have been made to the project's financial model since 2022?
Maybe that's for your acting.
We have not revised the operating model.
None?
All right.
Last two questions, Chair.
Okay.
The project experienced delays, financing concerns, and design modifications before the recent construction slowdown.
Why should we conclude that the current slowdown stems from a single policy issue rather than longer-term project challenges?
So, first of all, when you're looking at a project of this size and scope, there are going to be modifications.
There are going to be changes.
There are going to be, for lack of a better term, bumps in the road.
So that just comes with this is a project that's well over a billion dollars.
We can look at the pace of construction and see that, you know, we are, as my colleague has said, making significant progress on delivering the casino.
The reset is about right-sizing this to the host community agreement.
We have said nothing that in any way would impair our ability to deliver that casino that we're still excited to deliver in either a form or fashion that's inconsistent with the host community agreement.
That will happen, and we are committed to making that happen.
And you had to get an extension from the state, correct?
You needed your deadline extended.
Is that correct?
To continue to operate the temporary casino, we've been very clear that we anticipate an opening date for a project of that size in early 2027.
That is not different.
And, yes, it did require a statutory amendment that other casinos also received from the Illinois Gaming Board and through the Illinois legislature to make sure that they could meet the construction deadline that we would be able to deliver this project to the city of Chicago.
But when you initially won the bid, it was contemplated that the temporary casino would shutter, date certain, and the permanent casino would open seamlessly, correct?
There was never going to be a gap in service, right?
That was dictated both by state law and an anticipated construction schedule.
But, again, looking at the size of this project, looking at the overall construction timeline for not a small casino but a large-scale casino in the city of Chicago, we've performed and we've delivered.
And now-
But with all-
But with all-
And now-
And now-
consistent with the timeline with all due respect though when you were bidding on this project you
committed to a very specific timeline which you have blown right it's not blown sir well it is
you had to get a deadline extension from again looking at the size and the scope of this project
well you knew how big it was going to be when you got the bid any construction project in the city
of chicago at this size experiences a bump in the road and there were other extenuating circumstances
that contributed based on our experience building other casinos in chicago you can say that with
certainty i think hotel towers and large-scale construction projects in the city of chicago
we build all those in my ward and i can tell you there aren't a whole lot of construction delays
when you're properly financed and you have a good plan okay we've never done a casino in chicago before
when you won this bid you made certain commitments to the city of chicago that you promised you'd
deliver on and you've already gotten one extension from the gaming board because you couldn't get
your permanent casino together in time and we all know that you were struggling to cobble together
money we all know you have an incredible debt load and you're trying to blame all of this
on one policy concern vgt where not a single machine is lawfully operating in the city of chicago
today yet there are thousands of sweepstakes machines doing that and you're claiming you have
to slow things down and reconsider the future of the project because of vgt which currently does not
exist in the city of chicago and so we are having you in here today with the attempt we're not getting
very far on getting some honesty and some transparency around this and the fact that the administration
didn't show up they send a cfo has been on the job for a couple of weeks and the two primary players
who are having most of the conversations with y'all decided not to come and it had no good excuse
for avoiding this committee hearing so hooray for public transparency but if i'm a taxpayer in the
city of chicago i'm disgusted the mayor is not doing his job enforcing the hca we're allowing folks to
play games with union jobs people's livelihoods and honestly our police and fire pensions which
require this casino to be incredibly successful and they're already looking for extensions
extend our deadline we're not ready yet and we're well capitalized but we don't have all the money
very frustrating madam chairman and i'd like to go in round two thank you next speaker um
not speaker but next alderman wax back thank you chairwoman off to a rousing start here um could i
actually ask um the uh staff to go upstairs and bring jason lee down here so that he can answer
the questions that we have iga you know in every past administration when the city council asked
somebody to attend a meeting um iga would go up and ask that person to come down um obviously not the
mayor but uh a lot of these questions i think can be answered if if he were here to uh as the primary
point person in the mayor's office to um emily is there a way we could get jason lee down here
it's pretty clear that the cfo is is relatively new jason lee has been handling this from the
beginning and so we would really appreciate to get some of our answers from him directly thank you
thank you um so uh starting off with the mayor's office and i guess you know this is uh maybe a
question that the the lawyer for the city um can maybe answer for us um it was mentioned august 8th
was the first day that the city uh believed that there were going to be construction delays or litigation
and once the city became aware of this what positions did department of law take to prevent
this dispute from escalating into this slowdown thank you for the question alderman fiona burke
from the department of law unfortunately can you put the microphone a little closer yeah uh sorry
unfortunately your question would require me to reveal confidential and privileged discussions which i
can't do in a public forum but i am happy to have appropriate discussions in a non-public forum
yes um i'm assuming that you might have been the person that wrote that letter from that came from
the cfo that we received yesterday um basically saying that uh the city's department of law is best
positioned to represent the city with respect to any of these legal claims um and that the cfo in this
case the person who would answer those questions the principal here uh principal representative for the
administration would meet with us one-on-one to answer any questions so you're basically saying
any questions that we have that are a legal matter regarding this slowdown or dispute cannot be
answered in a public forum thank you alderman yes um any discussions around legal opinions or legal
conclusions would have to be discussed in a private setting so that we don't waive attorney-client
privilege and jeopardize the city's interests yeah i completely disagree with you and i find it pretty
offensive that we're now going to hide not only behind jason lee who can't answer the mayor's policy
questions for him and the position that he should be taking which is to come here in front of us
but now you're saying you won't answer any of these questions from the position of the law department or
the cfo's office thank you alderman yes i cannot answer those with all violating attorney-client
privilege all right um can you tell me how many meetings gonna interject here for one second i mean
you knew that we were having these um meetings and never once up until the day before the meeting
was uh they offered to sit down with us ever expressed to us so here we are in this public
forum and we really do expect some answers go ahead thank you um how many meetings were there
between valets and the mayor's office or department of law of which you were part of these conversations
regarding this dispute before construction was slowed and uh were there any specific
resolutions proposed by the administration without telling me what the legal positions were
did you guys do anything
thank you alderman uh i can't speak for any other department or agency of the city i can only speak
for the law department and i can't answer that question without um revealing confidential information
all right yeah go ahead yes alderman quinn um could could valets answer the question about how many
meetings took place with the administration no i don't think we could um for what reason
and i i will tell you one we'd have to think through it and and and pull that i don't have
that information so since august 8th right when when it was reported that you notified the city of
chicago you can't tell us how many meetings you had with the city of chicago it was it was reported
earlier that conversations have been had with jason lee any any any um conversations um around a legal
dispute that's within valleys um we would also say would be legally privileged and confidential
but that being said i i am not aware um and could not provide an answer as to um how many or with
whom meetings happen i just don't have that information to share with you thank you okay
thank you for that well i mean perhaps one of my colleagues second um did you have a point of
information alderman nugent yes please and thank you and pardon me alderman wagsback um i've just heard
both counselors for both the city and valley say that that it would be privileged and they could not share
conversations that were pertaining to litigation between the city and the casino however i would
assume that if we had an ongoing working relationship with each other we would have a regular perhaps the
question is do we have an ongoing cadence of meetings based on the city and valleys having a relationship
so um you know this is a development project um and i think through the course of over the several
years that valleys has been um developing the project um through numerous conversations with
many different agencies within the city it's numerous and how often i i i i do not have an answer
to that question i can answer you generally that with the development project of this size
conversations happen with different departments just on the progress of construction
and other issues sure and and if we were just to continue this conversation for a moment what does
normal look like how regularly would a city and a casino speak on a project of this magnitude
yeah i i i'm not aware of what the regular cadence of meetings would be but i want to say it's not just
the casino it's a developer um first are you are you able to answer that question yeah i would i would
say it's highly dependent upon uh the scope of work in the department right as as an example right the
city idot c dot is doing construction on the chicago avenue bridge uh just adjacent to us in the chicago
and halstead uh superstructure that's being completely rebuilt that was planned well in advance of our
problem
project. They've asked us for easements on our site. So our folks, the team, the boots on the
ground, I'm sure they're talking on a day-to-day basis when that's needed. There's regular cadence.
Certain departments need to meet once a week, once a month. And how do you document that?
Again, it's highly dependent, if you don't mind me finishing, it's highly dependent upon what the
scope of work is and what the topic is. Good. I'm good. So we've established that we do converse
with each other. And do we track those conversations and communications? I can't
speak for the city. I have a question. Can I interrupt for one second? I'd like to see if
Mr. Jewett can respond to my question, and then I'd like to hear from you as well. We don't track them
as a development team, no. Okay. Interesting. We were told, and we just received an email from
law that every time we have a communication with Bally's, we need to report that to the gaming
board. Does that apply with the mayor's office as well and his staff? It applies to Bally's as well.
And to Bally's? I'd have to check the specific regulation, and I can't speak to what the city's
requirements are. Well, the city can speak to the city's requirements. Can you repeat?
Just a moment. Sorry. Sorry. Lindsay Sonenthal, Department of Law, just here to read
part of the Illinois Gambling Act, Section 5.3J, which does require, sorry, I'm pulling it up here
real quick. Any communication between an official of the host community, which would be any elected
official or any appointed official within, by the mayor, must disclose any communications with any
employee, officer or director of. And I'm assuming that means their staff.
I, yes, I believe we've been disclosing those communications to the Illinois Gaming Board.
So any communication with Jason Lee or with legal should be reported to the Illinois Gaming Board?
The Department of Law reports all communications between the city and Bally's, of which it is aware
to the Illinois Gaming Board.
Go ahead. I can, I'll handle my questions later. I thank you to you, Chairman Wagesback, for allowing me
that point of information. I think it's, it's incredibly revealing of what communications we're able
to, to share today and in which ones are blanketed under the premise of privilege, which I do think
we, we seem to be using privilege an awful lot in this city right now. I can't tell if I'm in a
parking meter hearing or a VGT hearing right now, but I appreciate that, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry, Alderman Wagesback, you can continue now.
Thank you. That was actually a good sidebar. They're kind of figuring out what's happening with that
set of meetings that have been happening with Mr. Lee. So we're not going to get anywhere today on
the types of meetings, the, what the mayor's office did regarding the dispute, how they responded.
But it seems to me that the administration, when they were sent a letter and the rest of us received
a letter on the June 17th letterhead from Valley's, basically saying, you have placed all these
commitments in immediate jeopardy that the administration did nothing. And they simply accepted Valley's
explanation at face value, which I find very troubling that this administration just sat on its hands
and refused to work on behalf of the taxpayers, not just this council, to make sure that when a threat
was made by Valley's to do the slowdown, that they sat down at the table and tried to figure out what to do.
Going back to the idea of re-phasing, what is the actual legal term in the HCA that contemplates re-phasing
at your discretion?
Yeah, I'd have to pull it up, but I can tell you it has to do with the concept of what is
completion, substantial completion. And it allows for various degrees from 75% up to 90% of completion
rates. And the HCA prescribes what that means. And so the reset and re-phasing is based upon the concept
of what is the definition of completion and what the overall percentage of completion rates are and what
is included in that.
One second, Madam Chair. Does this also include a material change?
No, it does not. So the concept of under the HCA is that there are items that are required to be
complete at the permanent operations commencement date. I'd have to go back and look at the specific
provisions of the HCA in respect to the question that you just had. But the re-phase is based upon
the concept of what is and is not deemed complete.
And is there a timeline within that concept of completion?
Yes. Yes, there is.
What is that timeline?
Again, I'd have to go back and look at the specific provisions of the HCA. But the timeline and the
scope and what is deliverable, it actually is prescribed by the HCA.
Okay. I have it in front of me, but why don't you provide that through the chair and let's see what
Valise thinks about that.
Okay. And what we would do is provide the specific language out of the host community agreement.
Okay. Thank you. Another question here regarding the comment earlier from Mr. Papineer about the
slowdown being fiscally responsible to invest without the return we expect. Paraphrasing a little bit
there. When you made this investment and you were looking for your returns, did you contemplate the 7,000
plus sweepstakes machines that were cannibalizing revenue during your projections for your return
on investment?
It wasn't specific. Sorry. It wasn't specifically referenced within any of our modeling. But that's
something that, you know, at some point would need to be handled, whether it's through regulatory or
other government agencies if they're illegal.
So you knew that there were sweepstakes machines in Chicago?
We had no idea of the number.
Right. And also...
You set up a casino and you had no idea there were sweepstakes machines in Chicago?
They're illegal. So I love to keep track of that.
And under the host community agreement, it is competing forms of lawful gaming.
I understand that. But they are competing directly with what he said was their return on investment.
The statistic that my colleague Chris has offered in terms of the impact that BGTs have had
in areas where there are existing casinos comes directly from the Illinois Gaming Board.
And what they do report out on is lawful and authorized forms of gaming. And so those are
the projections that we are looking at. And again, they could go north or south. There's a lot that
we don't know about the rollout of BGTs and what their impact could be. But the focus for us here
and under the HCA are lawful forms of gaming, including BGTs. And as I've said before,
Bally's is concerned about how that might evolve to other forms of gaming that the city council might
authorize that also impair the performance of the casino, our ability to generate revenue.
And I think importantly for us, our ability to continue to generate jobs, which we estimate to be
3,000 jobs, that we will have union paying jobs when the casino was open. We do believe that with the
diminution of revenue, a significant portion of those jobs are at stake. And that's based on the
projections that we look at from the IGB.
Thank you. At any point over the last four years, and I don't recall how long you've been here,
did anyone in valets discuss with this administration
a ban or some type of enforcement of the sweepstakes machines?
The legal enforcement of any form of gaming, lawful or otherwise, is not within the rubric of what
Bally's responsibilities are as an operator, a new operator.
operator, and a developer here. Those would be conversations that the administration would have
with other gaming authorities that are governmental in nature. As a private party, we would not
be in a position to enforce any sort of regulation or lack of regulation of either a lawful or an
illegal form. Sure. I think it's simple to understand that, but I'm asking you if you put
forth a policy position on that to this administration. We have put forth a policy
position with respect to the lawful form of gaming that has been authorized by the City Council and
is contemplated under the host community agreement, which in this case are VGTs and potentially other
forms of gaming. Okay. So you never talked to them about sweepstakes? We talked about VGTs, and we've
been documented on the record in terms of what our position is here. Okay. All right. Well, Madam Chair,
I think that's all I had. I just find it reprehensible that Mr. Lee is having all of these
conversations. He's making policy decisions on behalf of taxpayers of the city and has mismanaged
this entire project over the last several weeks when it comes to the slowdown and when it comes to
the way he has single-handedly managed this project. And I think it behooves him to come down and answer
the questions that all of our colleagues might have on this so we can understand better which direction
the city is going to go, not only on sweepstakes, which this administration has clearly pointed out
as something that they're in favor of, and how they're going to continue to manage this project
after Valley has voluntarily created this slowdown process in order to, you know, through several
indications in these letters that VGTs, they deem to be, they deem VGTs to be a threat and other forms
of gambling like sweepstakes. I think we just need to better understand where the administration
stands on this, and I hope that he can make it down here by the end of the hearing so he can answer
questions. Thank you. I would hope so, too. And yes, and we still, we seem to have lost Emily as well now, so.
Thank you. Do you have a point of information? Yes. Thank you. One bit of information came to light since I
asked my round of questioning. And I know that Bally's is familiar with GLP, which is your lender,
one of your lenders, correct? Is that correct, Bally's? GLP. GLP. I have a transcript from an earnings call
last month of a Carlo Santorelli, who is the senior vice president at GLP, saying that the impact of VGT is
benign in the city of Chicago and that they accounted for it in their underwriting when they gave Bally's
their loan. And I'll read from the transcript. This is from Mr. Santorelli himself. So the VGTs,
quite frankly, were in our underwriting. It's Chicago. It's Illinois. It's a very long,
obviously, relationship that we will have with that asset. So clearly, you can imagine everything and
anything would have been in our underwriting. The thing I will point out is I read something very
recently. I believe there's about 7,000 sweepstakes machines already in that market.
So to believe that this type of gaming wasn't already taking place, I think, would be naive.
Clearly, Bally's is going through some things right now with the city as it relates to how this impacts
some of the agreements that they've previously come to. But in our view, this is the lender for
Bally's. But in our view, this, the VGT concept, was included in our underwriting. And another thing
that was included in our underwriting also was Hawthorne, which seems not to be coming to fruition.
There was supposed to be a casino at Hawthorne. So I would say the puts and takes there are pretty benign
overall. So we're hearing one story of gloom and doom from Bally's, yet the folks paying the freight
here, their lender, says there's no big deal. That's a huge disconnect from two entities that
have a direct interest in having this be a profitable business in the city of Chicago.
And I would argue the folks that are actually putting up the money, have the most risk,
seem the least concerned about this. And they even mention the existence of sweepstakes machines here
already. So Bally's won't answer these questions on the record. Turns out their biggest lender did
during an earnings call just a few weeks back. Very frustrating. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair, if you don't mind, if I could make a couple of comments on that, because I think it's important
for context. It was just a point of information. We're going to keep going because we have lots
of aldermen that want to ask questions. I did just hear back from Emily. And guess what?
Jason Lee is not able to come down. Yes. But Emily is going to take notes and write down any questions
that we may have so that she can get your questions answered. Next up is Alderman Napolitano.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of very, very quick brief questions. I appreciate you
guys coming out today. In your discussions with the city of Chicago, and I apologize because it's
been a while since we've gone through this. Was there any talks that Bally's would be
the sole gaming system in the city of Chicago? There'd be no one else that can come in. There's
no talks of VGTs coming in the future or any other casinos, like basically kind of having a monopoly on
that. Was it a talk or an agreement that was done with the city of Chicago prior to Bally's coming?
Well, one of the things I'll just point out is just the very first sentence of the city's RFP in 2021,
which says that the city is pleased to issue the RFP for the opportunity to apply for the sole casino license
in the city. That opportunity from Bally's perspective was premised on there being one casino.
We have to look at in the aggregate what the positions will be with VGTs if authorized through
the city. The city had not taken the action to authorize VGTs for 16 years. And so when we look at
the history of VGTs and their authorization in the city, the premise of the RFP being a single license,
coupled with the fact that we haven't even opened the doors yet. So I think from our perspective,
it presents a compromise to the ability of the casino to perform. We also don't have a lot of
information about how they will be deployed. We don't have records of public hearings or anything
to figure out from it. Can I stop you there really quick? And I don't mean that rudely as well.
Just backing up to the first portion, the sole license, that can also be perceived as there are
no other licenses. There are no other casinos here as well. So you are the sole as in the first one ever
given out. Or is it stated in the rest of that that you will be the only casino or the only license
ever given out? Right. And I apologize. I'm just trying to. No, no, no, no. Sole casino to us means
the only. The impact of VGTs being in all of the neighborhoods in the city of Chicago and the
aggregate are a multiple of the positions and the potential competition to this casino. And again,
the potential launch of VGTs before we've even opened the doors from the perspective of
revenue calculations and looking at the adoption rates for new players, it does represent two
valleys, a significant compromise to the ability of the casino to perform.
So you're basically going as we are going to be a monopoly here. I mean, for budget purposes and
to invest money, we're going to be a monopoly in Chicago. No other casino is going to open up.
And on the side of VGTs, your outlook is the effect of VGTs. You don't know what it would be
on how it would affect the city of Chicago and Bally's. But my question on that as well is you
operate in multiple cities and at least eight other cities you operate in, there is also VGTs operating as
well. And in half of those valleys is excelling. Some of them it's, their percentages are lower,
some of them they're higher. So there is a model already created, maybe not in Chicago,
but there is another model that is created in multiple cities, in Quad Cities, in Baton Rouge,
in Shreveport, where you are operating alongside VGTs and doing well. And I know it's not Chicago.
Right. I was going to say, I'll let my colleague Chris talk to performance across the portfolio and
also George, but it's not Chicago and it's not the HCA or the host community agreement. And I think that
that is for us a significant distinction, but I'll let others talk. I'll just answer that. So
everybody
market that we contemplate entering into, we understand the situation on the ground.
So in all the markets that you just referenced, they had BGTs.
So that was part of our analysis, you know, before we even entered in that market and
part of the rationale of acquiring those assets.
And I'll leave it at this.
Alderman, if I can maybe just add to that, right?
Illinois has the highest number of machines out of any state, any market that you referenced.
There's over 50,000 machines, right?
You can add another 20,000 in the city of Chicago.
None of those other examples outside of Illinois are even comparables.
So I don't think it's fair to utilize those overall.
Secondly, right, these are all much smaller properties, right?
None of which were anywhere comparable to a $1.7 billion investment, right?
These are all maybe hundreds of millions of dollars overall.
And I'll leave it at this.
And I totally agree with what you're saying.
And it makes a lot of sense.
And I think the frustrating part on our side is you've done your due diligence.
You've looked at where you could maintain as a sole operating casino, where VGTs don't
exist.
But in that mathematic equation that you guys are working, that algorithm you did look at.
And you can't tell me you didn't.
You'll see it here.
You did look at the sweepstakes.
And they're operating.
And that is something you can use as a comparison to show that it's operating.
It can function the same way it is functioning as all these other states or all these other
locations.
But you did look at the sweepstakes machines.
There's no way you didn't look at it.
And it's like my colleague brought up.
It's even in the report that your lenders have looked at it and said it isn't going to
be as drastic or basically could be a moot point to them as a lender, which is the most
important part of this.
And that's, I think, what's frustrating on our side right here is, God, we've got to
be a good partner with you as well.
But we've got to be a good partner with the rest of our city as well and the rest of our
businesses as well.
And a lot of us think that you can thrive as a casino as well as hopefully someday there's
multiple casinos here in Chicago like it happens in Vegas and Atlanta City, coexisting
with each other and making money as well as creating more jobs.
I think our frustration just falls on for you to say this just falls on VGTs and you
didn't look at the sweepstakes is kind of, I don't want to use the word lie because I
think you're an honest working group and I think you have the utmost goal to be a successful
casino, but it isn't being genuine with us because there's 7,000 of these sweepstakes.
And yes, we could use the term legal, but they're still existing.
They're still existing.
And for anyone to do their due diligence and look at a market, you're looking at that.
And I think that we're being disingenuous between VGTs and sweepstakes and how we can
all coexist with each other.
So that's the only question I have.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
I think we're going to start putting 10 minutes on for each.
No, no, you didn't.
But if we want to go home tonight, I think we're going to start limiting it to 10 minutes.
So our next alderman is Lawson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
A lot of my questions have been answered, but I appreciate the time and everything that's
happened happening here.
Let me just – we talked about jobs on the construction side.
There's a reduction of about 12 percent, 136 workers.
What about long-term as far as if the elements that are not completed – that are underway that
aren't completed?
So if you just finished phase one, what is the long-term employee count versus final completion
at the end of all phases?
So, again, this is heavily predicated on what the level of proliferation is and cannibalization
from VGTs.
We've measured and included in the host community agreement, there's a 3,000-job goal target.
That's predicated on completion of all aspects, including the full 500-room tower.
If we were to experience post that a reduction of – pick the example – the average of the
10 casinos across the state, 38 percent, it's north of 1,000 jobs.
So I guess my question is, you're doing the casino.
So any cannibalization of the casino is separate – in your mind, is separate from the hotel,
the 360, the comedy club, all of those things.
So what percentage of your workers are going to be accommodated in phase one per your plan?
I'm not saying, you know, all things being the same with the city, and then what would
be above that with the 400 extra rooms, comedy, all that stuff?
Yeah, so cannibalization of the gaming floor from VGTs will not only just affect the gaming
floor, it will affect all of them.
All right, let me add to my question then.
What percentage of the employees at this facility are dedicated to gaming solely in your current
plan?
Yeah, we can follow up through the chair on that.
I don't have enough.
50 percent?
You ballpark it for us?
It's probably –
25, 10?
Probably a little higher.
Slightly more than half.
Yeah, let us come back to you.
I don't want to miss –
I think that's important to know.
We talked about the temporary casino because the word is that it is underperforming, and
I know we're going to get that number as well, correct?
We're going to get it from the CFO, but the number that I've heard is closer to like
40, 45 percent below projections.
If you guys wanted to dispute that, I'd give you an opportunity now, but that's what I'm
hearing.
No?
Okay.
I wanted to ask about VGTs in the host community agreement.
Are they specifically addressed as something that would not be allowed per the agreement?
The host community agreement addresses, I guess, newly created forms of lawful gaming.
Right.
And so there is a reference not specifically to VGTs, but to other lawful forms of gaming.
But there's no prohibition on newly created lawful forms of gaming.
There is – as I stated before, there is a premise within this agreement that we would
have the sole license, and we do have – you know, I do not want to get into a back-and-forth
legal argument because we really do hope as VGTs that we don't have to get there, that
through productive conversations that we're having with the city council and hopefully with
the administration, we can talk about things other than the specific provisions in the host
community agreement.
We take the position that – and we did articulate this – that there is a violation of the
host community agreement.
I understood.
You said that earlier.
And actually, my question then is for the law department.
Does the law department believe we're in breach of the host community agreement?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
Unfortunately, I can't answer the question.
Moving on then.
Maybe you can't answer this because every time there's an issue with ballots that comes up,
we get an email from ethics or IGA that reminds us that our communications all have to be
disclosed.
So it bothers me that you're not aware of that if you're having communications with
the administration that things have to be disclosed.
The impact of that is that we don't talk to each other.
And I said this to you last week, is that we have no relationship.
You have never called – to Bally's never called to make an appointment with my office.
We see you at hearings when things flare up or where there's a problem.
I would hope you're meeting with your local alderman once a month to talk about construction,
at least doing that.
And I don't want to put him on the spot.
I meet with my hospital that's undergoing construction once a month in their final phases to do that.
So that's just part of being a good neighbor.
But, you know, if – and Law and you guys, all communications regarding the gaming have
to be disclosed to the Illinois Gaming Board.
That is the notice that has come out to us several times.
And so just correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct.
Anytime we talk to Bally's about gaming, we have to disclose it.
Is that a question for me, Alderman?
Yes.
Whoever can take it, please.
That's correct.
Okay.
And are those disclosures made by the city or by Bally's or by both?
They're made by the city.
So the city is reporting every time the mayor's office, the mayor's staff, has a conversation
with Bally's regarding gaming and the development.
The law is reporting all communications of which it is aware.
All right.
And those communications are public in nature, or the reporters are public in nature, or
they held – or they established a FOIA from the gaming board?
I'm going to defer to my colleague.
Yep.
Hi, Lindsay.
Lindsay Sidenthal, Department of Law.
They are held by the Illinois Gaming Board.
I am not familiar with how they view the – whether those disclosures are FOIA-able.
So I think that would be good to know, because, in effect, we're not talking to each other.
You may be talking to the mayor's office, but you're not talking to the city council.
So the law department or board of ethics, it would be helpful to know what we can do and
how we can work together and be more productive, because that's just not happening right now.
And for those of us that have concerns, how do we even get those addressed if we can't
talk to each other about gaming?
Or it's got to be reported, which people are a little iffy on, or even understanding
the nature of reports, what that report looks like.
So I would hope the law department would help us out with that.
Let me – just a couple other things.
I'm kind of all over the place here.
You had mentioned concerns that we may legalize some other form of gaming.
Is there an example of something we haven't legalized already?
Yeah, a casino right across the street from where –
Well, legalized a casino, but, yeah.
And that is another lawful form of gaming.
VGTs are an example.
But, I mean, you've said, you know, beyond VGTs.
It's what I'm saying.
It's what I'm saying.
It's what I'm saying.
I gave you one example.
So another casino would be the only thing, which obviously we're not doing.
Have you built a casino of this size anywhere else in the country?
No, this would be one of our flagship properties.
We have a substantial property in Rhode Island, but not at the size and scope and programming as this facility.
We are obviously underway with another project that would be similar to this project in New York and the Bronx.
Okay. So you mentioned Quad Cities, right, which was a couple hundred thousand versus this being 1.7.
Is this at least twice as big as any casino you've ever done before?
Well, based on today's dollars, it's probably 30% bigger than what we currently have in Rhode Island.
Okay.
I have never seen a development that voluntarily took a pause unless there were problems with money or labor or permitting.
Which you've said that there is not, right?
So what is this costing you to take this kind of pause?
Can we start again with nothing has paused?
This is a recalibration and a resetting of the phases of construction and deliverables.
It actually is a substantive distinction.
But there is a change in the construction schedule and timeline.
There is a re-evaluation of what is required to be delivered on day one.
I understand that.
And that elasticity in terms of the flexibility that Bally's has that it negotiated with the city of Chicago exists under our current agreement with the city.
And that's not my question.
People can recalibrate for all sorts of reasons.
Everyone has a construction timeline when they start a project, right?
Any deviation from that, any time that gets longer, it costs more money.
Or you're doing it to save money.
So my question is, what is the recalibration?
So you're changing the construction schedule.
What is the impact on the budget?
I'm assuming it's costing more.
But I would like you to answer that if you can.
Well, you're correct.
In fact, any extension or a delay in your phasing, there's going to be costs associated with that, whether it's for mobilization or not of labor or equipment.
But in this case, it would have a little bit more of a minimal impact because all the trades are rolling through the property.
So what we did is we suspended some of the construction related to the tower, but we're still finishing the first 100 rooms.
So that hasn't gotten to that point yet.
Well, we could talk about hotel size.
It's tough to service 100 rooms and something like this.
I think for the 12% of workers let go, it's been a big disruption, certainly.
And they would tell you as much.
The letters from them say they're not taking sides.
They want to get back to work.
And so I want to think about that as we're having these conversations.
All right.
I think my last question would be, we've talked about conversations with the mayor's office.
But specifically, has Bally's requested that the mayor's office not or that the mayor personally not take any action on video gaming?
I am not aware of that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Do you have a point of information?
Go ahead.
Just the point of information, I do communicate with the Department of Transportation about all of the construction updates because it impacts the Chicago and Halstead Bridge on a very regular frequency.
That's where I get most of my construction updates from, given that they, as Chris noted, talk to them on a very regular cadence.
In order to respect the laws, we don't communicate frequently.
And when I do, I have disclosed to the Department of Law of all of our communications, which are typically around construction updates on timing and the progress of the casino.
Yes.
Continue.
Thank you, Alderman.
I appreciate that.
And maybe law can weigh in, because my understanding is the disclosure is related to gaming.
What the local alders, so my hospital, I don't talk to them about health care.
I talk to them about the development, transportation, you know, all of those things.
Are conversations that are outside of gaming required to be disclosed just because it's with Ballers?
I'm going to defer to my colleague.
Sure.
Yes.
Lindsay, Senator, Department of Law.
Thank you, Alderman.
The Illinois Gambling Act, subsection J of section 5.3, lists a series of specific exclusions.
So it does say that all communications in any way related to gaming shall be disclosed and shall not apply to communications regarding traffic, law enforcement, security, environmental issues, city services, transportation,
or other routine matters concerning the ordinary operations of the riverboat or casino for the purposes of this subsection J.
Ordinary operations means operations relating to the casino or riverboat facility other than the conduct of gambling activities and routine matters includes the application for issuance of, renewal of, and other processes associated with municipal permits and licenses.
Is that construction, municipal permits and licenses?
Again, I'm getting in the weeds a little bit.
You should be able to talk to your local alder and the city council about construction and have a productive dialogue.
And, you know, if the local alder is happy with that, that's fine.
But there's just some things we have to, like I said in the beginning, we have to better this relationship.
We have to talk to each other more because we wouldn't be here.
And I said to you, you guys have to know how to talk to the council because there's a real disconnect between the administration and the council right now.
On Alderman Lawson, we did have that conversation.
And what I can say on behalf of Bally's is that there's agreement there.
And we always use an opportunity to say we can do better.
And for us to have a path forward, improving the way that we talk to this council as well as the administration,
we think is imperative and critical if we're going to have a path forward so that I'm not in the room and we're not talking legal back and forth.
I could not agree with you more.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thank you again, Chair.
Thank you.
Alderman Moore.
Thank you, Chairman.
I just need to second the level set for myself and on behalf of my constituents in Inglewood, West Inglewood,
Arvin Gresham, and Chicago Lawn.
And just to be clear, CFO, all revenues from the Bally's Casino is to go towards pension for fire and police.
Is that a correct statement?
I will thank you for that question, Alderman.
I will need to verify that, but that is my belief.
Okay.
Is that a question our legal counsel can answer?
Thank you, Alderman.
Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that, but we can get back to you through the chair.
All right.
It wasn't a got you thing, but I will say this.
We got to tighten up, and I know there's been some changes around here, and I want to give you all some, you know, latitude,
but this is a real serious issue, and so we're going to have to tighten up on some things to get some of these things answered
because I'm looking at it in a different lens of dealing with residents who can't afford to buy gas now, eggs, and things like that.
But I always got to look at it from that lens, everything that I do in this council.
How does it impact the least of us?
Everybody going to argue about millions of dollars like one of the gentlemen said.
No disrespect when you talked about the other properties.
That's just a few millions there.
Man, my people want a few thousand, a few hundred.
And so these things are very serious, and this is not to Bally's.
This is to everybody that's involved here, people who want to be in VGT, this council, and to Bally's.
And we have to be making sure that we're looking at the best interests of our constituents, and especially the least of us.
And so with that said, it goes back to the thing of whether it's VGT, whether it's Bally's or whatever, it becomes a revenue thing,
and that's what this is all about, revenue.
And so first I want to know from CFO, what are the guaranteed, if there was supposed to be guaranteed, or project,
or we're going to call it projected, but I'm hoping there was some guaranteed money in there that we're supposed to be getting on an annual basis once all this is done.
I'm not talking about the temporary site because, no disrespect, everybody named Mama knew that wasn't going to work well.
And so I'm talking about the permanent site.
What were those on the low end of projected revenues for Bally's Casino once it's up?
The direct – thank you, Alderman.
The direct and –
Packed payments are $4 million annually.
Quarterly, I believe.
Oh, $4 million quarterly?
Annually.
Sorry, I misspoke annually.
Yes.
Okay.
Sorry, we do quarterly reports tonight.
I get it.
I understand.
Not holding.
$4 million annually that would go towards pension and police would hopefully help us
also not to raise certain taxes and fees.
And this is why I'm getting that.
And this is why this is so important that we get this right.
And my next question is, was it in a contract, a city contract, that we couldn't do VGTs?
And if so, was that contract validated?
That's what I want to know.
So we've talked about the host community agreement, and from Bally's perspective, the economic
underpinnings of that agreement are compromised because of the proliferation and the authorization
of VGTs.
So that is the position that we would take.
But I also wanted to get back to the point that you started with, if I could, which is
about the least of us.
One of the things I don't want to get lost in the conversation that we're having about
revenue, which definitely will impact jobs, is the impact that jobs have already had,
Bally's has already had on employment in our communities.
We are in a position, because of what we do, to be able to take people who are actually Bally's
employees right now, who were formerly unhoused, to now have stable employment with benefits,
with the opportunity to grow into a career.
We can take individuals who have not had any gaming experience.
And through workforce partnerships and what we're able to provide with hands-on training
to, again, take individuals from unstable jobs to stable jobs.
And when we look at our 671 employees, 81 percent of them self-declare themselves minority.
And of that, 45.7 percent of our employees are African-American.
30 percent of our employees are Hispanic.
And about 16 percent Asian.
And so when we're talking about economic impact in communities, I want us to be mindful of
the impact that having a stable employment with an opportunity to grow, with benefits,
the type of jobs that we believe send your children to college, that cannot get lost,
because we have 3,000 more in the offering.
And so when we are concerned about revenue generation, we're also concerned about
our ability to sustain families in this city and to be able to help families grow and prosper.
And that is one of the wonderful things about this casino industry, because we really are
able to skill people up for, excuse me, for the type of growth for their family income.
So please let us not forget the jobs equation here and the impact it's already having for the
least of us.
Thank you.
I'm going to interrupt for one second, and I appreciate what you said.
But I also think you ought to keep in mind the 100-and-something employees that you just
laid off.
They are not working now.
They don't have any money coming in.
No, and we appreciate that.
And I think what my colleague has also talked about is just phasing and construction.
So I do understand that.
What we're looking at is potentially 1,000 jobs.
And so the point I'm trying to make is that we, as an employer in the city, a large employer,
we see the economic promise from the ability to create jobs.
And we're committed to that.
And that's the only point that I was trying to make, that the least of us are thriving at
alleys.
Yes, Alderman Quinn.
Point of information, Madam Chair.
Of the 136 employees, union workers that have been laid off, how many of them are city residents?
I can follow up on that.
I don't have it in my notes here.
Apologies.
If you could follow up to the Chair.
Yeah.
So our run rate is about 50% of our construction workforce today.
So if you want to use that as a ballpark or a barometer, just to give an estimate for today
to try and answer your question.
Thank you.
Okay.
I thank you all for that.
Let me get back on track.
And I heard you talk about the HCA.
So is there a difference between a contract and an HCA, or are they combined?
Thank you so much for that question.
The host community agreement is our agreement with the city.
And so sometimes we say HCA, other times agreement with the city, but we're talking about one
in the same, the base agreement that Valleys Corporation does have with the city of Chicago.
Okay.
And that's the contract, right?
That is the contract, correct.
And just for my clarification, you're saying that contract was, for lack of a better word
I can find right now, was violated, correct?
Um, we, we take the, we take the position.
I, I, you know, yes, we believe that, um, there has been a violation of, um, potentially
a violation of the host community agreement.
But again, we hope that we're not embroiled in those kinds of conversations and that instead
today, the conversation that we're having with, with different levels of both, um, sharing
of information transparency and from, for some of you frustration, um, that we are able to
have more productive conversations going forward on how it is that Valleys can thrive, meet the
city's needs for additional sources of revenue, continue to think about, um, employing hardworking
Chicagoans at the casino.
And in a way where VGTs or any other form of lawful gaming do not impair that.
Question.
Do you all keep data somehow?
I know, like the stores we go shopping, they ask us to put in our zip codes.
Are you keeping data at least at the temporary site of who's coming there?
Cause I want to be hopefully proven wrong, but I don't think I am in terms of my perception
based on who I talk to on the South side, even sometimes on the West side, how they travel
and how they, um, come to places versus, and I guess I'm getting that, um, that when we talk
about VGT, in this case, I got to say sweepstakes cause it's the guy who's playing the sweepstakes
machine that's getting the money from the guy at the counter that we can't prove he's getting
money from is my estimation, my guesstimation, I should say, is, it's not coming down there.
So do you have data to say where, where the people are coming from?
That's whether you're up with people saying you're underperforming or overperforming.
I don't know.
Um, do you have data that, that say where the people are coming from that's coming to the
casino currently?
I'll answer that.
Yes, we do maintain data.
Uh, sorry, we're, we do maintain data on, on our customers, but only those customers
that voluntarily enter into our players club at that point, into your players club into
the players club.
Okay.
So we were able to track, um, or track their propensity to game as well as, you know, what
their, what their profile basically is, what they enjoy.
Um, and, and, and right now I think about 65% of our customers are considered rated customers
where they have entered, entered into the database and we, we understand their, um, we
understand their, their patterns to some extent.
So help me understand, if you look at the profile, which I think you're getting at and kind of
the distance that these people travel, uh, am I done?
No, we got time.
I was interrupted.
Go ahead.
Can I answer the question?
The, the, the, the distance, the prime, primarily we draw from within the 10 mile radius.
So that tells you that not a lot of people come from outside or from the suburbs, but
it's only because of the type of facility that we have, which is not really geared as
an integrated type resort that have all the amenities that you would typically have.
We expect once the integrated resort is open, the permanent casino, that we'll be drawing
from a much larger area, uh, Chicago, Chicago in the vicinity of Chicago and also the suburbs,
but also to some extent, a lot of regional play as well as international play.
And we have the ability to track those customers through databases that we have nationally, which
is through basically all the other States as well as internationally, because we have a
presence there.
Right.
I just want to, you know, I think you're, you're no, my time isn't up.
Yes, it is.
No, because y'all kept the clock going when people was doing, um, what's the name?
And everybody else had a 50 hours.
So no, it's not over.
Yeah, it is up.
So, but you could do it round two.
No, I'm not going to do it round two.
We got to be fair enough at the beginning, but I'm going to still talk with, after you
talk six hours and nobody said nothing, you're going to say, cease the chair?
Yes, that's, he spoke too long.
That's why I had to impose the limit.
All right.
But you're welcome to have a part two.
No, because I got work to do.
And, um, and so I just don't want, you know, I want people to keep in mind, even, even
valleys, look at the big picture of everything.
Um, even to, you know, with the things that, um, Alderman rally, um, brought to light with
your lenders and things like that.
I know you go sign, disclose your agreements and some probably.
Unfortunately, people disclose whatever. I'm in NDA agreements, but it's come out now.
It's out. And we have to, again, look at the big picture and just get the big win for the residents in the city of Chicago.
Thank you. Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everybody. A few discreet questions.
One, I know that there is a reference to about 49 to 50,000 VGTs currently existing in Chicago or in Illinois.
And that being higher than other cities or states. Do you know now?
And if you don't, if you can provide through the chair what those other states are and what the number of VGTs they have is and how that compares to Illinois?
Yeah, we can we can follow up with that. So every state does kind of have their own regulation around these certain states, you know, like Louisiana.
They only allow them in truck stops and they're limited to, you know, a certain number of licenses.
As an example, I think they may be capped at like 15 or 20, something like that.
But just to put that into perspective, other other states like Nevada, there's a number of licenses.
You have to have like a food and beverage operation.
Certain thresholds have to be of food and beverage as opposed to just gaming.
And then you have caps. So they're all a little bit different.
So just to keep that in mind. But we can try and help frame that just to, you know, help better educate.
Thanks. My recollection is that the host agreement calls for, among other things, a four million dollar annual payment.
Has that been made yet? Sounds like maybe not unless it came earlier this year.
And is there a particular time every year where Bally's anticipates making that payment so that we can track on an ongoing basis approximately when we would expect to receive that?
Right. So, first of all, Bally's did make that payment to the city of Chicago and it was delivered yesterday.
So and it is due on the anniversary of the opening of the temporary casino, which actually happens to be today.
And so Bally's made that payment without question, you know, in light of we don't want there to be an end.
We want there not to be an inference that we're not acting in good faith in terms of what our financial obligations are under the host community agreement.
So that payment was made and the city should have received the wire yesterday.
Got it. Has Bally signed a project labor agreement, PLA, with any building trades in the Chicago area?
I guess we have. I think, Chris, you probably know.
Yeah. I believe it was actually prior to submission of the of our RFP response or shortly thereafter.
We actually submitted a signed PLA and we've been operating essentially nearly fully union on site with the trades, you know,
outside of, you know, some exceptions for, you know, sensitive equipment that would, you know, you'd you'd violate, you know, a warranty as an example.
Are there any issues with alleged noncompliance with the PLA?
Nothing that I'm aware of. You know, I know we obviously had a lot of our trade partners here in the room.
Some are still here. So thank you for that time.
We you know, I don't want to talk about competitors, but I would say that we are a great partner on both the building side and the operation side in our industry.
Got it. My last question, I was wondering if anyone from Bally's and or the city can shed any light on in Illinois.
We obviously already have VGTs and casinos that predate, obviously, the temporary casino here in Chicago.
Has there been any is there any data that sheds light on what the impact, if any, VGTs have had on larger preexisting casinos?
Yes. So I believe I don't remember the date of the letter that that I had sent, you know, addressing a lot of the the conversation here today.
I think I sent it to all 50 alders. I think it's on page two.
It outlines that the 10 or so properties that existed in 2011, 2012 VGT.
The first VGT was placed in 2011 in December start.
So I think our benchmark was 2012. And then comparing those properties to 2025, the average impact across the state, excluding rivers.
And I can give you more color here is about a 30, 38 percent reduction across the board for nine out of those 10 properties in terms of gaming revenue.
And that ranges anywhere from recollection, high 20s to low 50s in terms of 50 percent reduction in terms of gaming revenue.
Do you know approximately when you sent that letter to the city council? I want to make sure I track that down.
Yeah, it was I have it in my bag. Give me one second, but I think it was around August 25th.
OK, of this year. Got it. Anyone from the city?
I know our CFO is is relatively new to the job.
Any reason to dispute those numbers or to see maybe there's some additional color to the analysis of that?
Thank you, Alderman Martin, for that question. At this time, I don't have any reason to dispute that, but I reserve my right to come back and dispute that at a later point in time.
Should other information arise?
OK, thank you. No further questions.
Alderman, it was August 24th and I can leave a copy of the letter for you.
OK, no, I'll I'll I'll reach out if I can't find it. But that date alone will be sufficient. Thank you.
We're going to move on to Alderman Nugent and then followed by Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm trying to make sense.
There's been a lot of language used to describe the activity on or about August 8th for our council, for Fiona.
Is the term reset an actual term in the HCA?
Thank you for the question, Alderman woman. If you give me a minute, I can search. I have the contract up.
Yeah, I mean, I've just I've heard I've heard folks talk about resetting an awful lot today.
I was just wondering if that was an actual legal term.
I just did a search and I did not find that word in the contract.
It's interesting. Thank you.
Thank you. I've heard Madam Chair today.
About the reset, a reset, I've heard the term recalibration, resetting, re-evaluation and elasticity, all sorts of terms of art.
What was the other one?
Re-phasing.
Re-phasing. Fiona, do you, in your interpretation of the HCA, do you believe that Bally's is appropriate in using the term that they've decided to do a reset?
Is that a real thing to you?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
Unfortunately, I can't answer a question that calls for a legal interpretation in a public setting.
Sure. You just did a control find of the word reset. You did not see the word reset in the HCA?
That's correct.
Okay. And in Bally's, you just, Counselor, Ms. Barker, I've heard the term reset several times.
Can you share with us where you're finding that in the HCA or where you're using that from?
The term is not as critical as the concept, which is in the host community agreement,
and it revolves around completion and how the HCA defines completion, which does allow for a phased approach.
Sure. I guess I'm just curious why we're using all sorts of terms that aren't completion today to describe why we stopped working in August
and we have a whole bunch of union workers that aren't employed.
Right. Because that describes the action that Bally's is taking to re-evaluate how it delivers, what it delivers,
and when it delivers in accordance with the schedule set forth in the host community agreement.
Okay. Fiona, has the administration sent any type of correspondence to Bally's admonishing them for their decisions made in August,
whether it's on completion, recalibration, resetting, re-evaluation, elasticity, or any other terms of art we've used today?
Has the administration put forth any form of correspondence on this?
Thank you for the question, Aldermen.
I can't speak for the administration.
I am aware of some correspondence between the city and Bally's during the time period the last couple of months.
Can you speak to that correspondence at all?
I'm not aware of that phrase in the correspondence, but there are letters, and I think we could provide them through the chair.
Yeah, I think we'd like to see that.
Madam CFO, I know you're new to the role, but per correspondence with the chair,
you are now our principal representative for the administration of the HCA.
Have you reviewed any correspondence between the administration and Bally surrounding some of the activity from August to present?
I have reviewed some of the correspondence.
I'm not able to say whether it's the full complement.
of correspondence. I'm still waiting to make sure all of that is within my possession.
How do you envision your role in ensuring the city is best represented and protected
with respect to the host city agreement? I think the key portion here is open dialogue
and continued working together such that the city of Chicago has a casino that is open
that brings jobs and redevelopment to that area. And so I and my staff are ready and willing to
continue that dialogue to make sure that we're pushing things along, hitting milestones and
achieving, you know, the project goal of the open casino and the jobs that it is slated to create.
And again, I recognize that you're newer to this role, but who's part of your team as the sole
represent? You're the lead representative for the city now for Bally's. Who's part of your team,
the Bally's team for the city?
Rhett Balmer, who is in the back of the chamber. And then we have we have other analysts who have
been a part of it. I can't actually speak to sort of the historical work of which analysts within my
department have had, you know, some role at this time, but I'm happy to provide that through the
chair if that is something that you would like. Yeah, I would like to see that.
Um, has, is the administration, uh, this is for the CFO and council. Has there been any
conversations or correspondence that you've been privy to that shows the administration
is supportive of, quote, reset, recalibration, elasticity, any of the aforementioned words we've
discussed today? Um, I am personally not aware of any dialogue of that sort.
Thank you for the question. Um, to the extent that that would call for, uh, confidential
communications with my client, I can't answer that in a public setting.
Who's your client, counselor?
The city of Chicago is my client.
Are we your client?
Again, I can't answer that question in a public setting. I would have to talk about that in a
non-public setting. Well, I respect perhaps some of the rationale behind questions you might not be
able to answer. I do think it's appropriate that council should be able to share with us
who the client is. And I think that's important to know whether you're representing the administration
and who the administration is, whether you're representing the city and who the city is,
whether you're representing council, whether you're representing our constituency. Um, clearly
there's a lot of questions today that are going unanswered, but I do think
who the client is here and who you represent is something that should be answered. Alderman Riley?
Um, just before we move on from that point, I think Alderman Nugent brings on a very good one.
Um, corporation council works for the city of Chicago.
The city council is a co-equal partner in government with the executive branch.
Yet, we're getting the same level
of resistance and pushback
in getting answers to our questions
from our own lawyer
as we are from Bally's lawyer.
And I would expect this from Bally's and their lawyers doing their job.
But this lawyer works for us.
And so that's what's been very frustrating for members of this body
is that we're half of the government here in the city of Chicago
and we are being fed a bunch of baloney, if anything at all.
Yet, the administration, who does not show up when you summon them,
sends down our brand new CFO, who just got here,
and an attorney who doesn't have the authority
to answer our questions as much as I know she would like to.
We need to hold this administration accountable.
And the fact that they aren't coming here
and supplying us with answers to our questions
as their partner
is completely and totally unacceptable.
And so I do hope, Chairman,
that you will reconvene another hearing
at some point in the future
to hear from the administration
because the fact that they are being
totally non-transparent in this thing
just breeds more questions.
So, thank you, Cher.
Yeah, that's actually what I did tell Emily
when she came over here to tell me
that Jason Lee wasn't available.
I said that maybe we'll have to have another meeting
when he is available
because we need these questions answered.
Just a couple more questions, Madam Chair.
For Fiona, for our council,
Council for Ballets had said earlier
BGTs could potentially be a violation of the HCA.
Is it the interpretation of the city right now
that we are...
I've heard a lot of people say
potentially, maybe,
but what I'm hearing is
Bally's has unilaterally stopped working
and is unilaterally making decisions,
but I haven't heard that
there's been a next step.
Help me understand,
I recognize you're not sharing
all the legal tricks and trades here,
but does the city think
that Bally's has the ability
to unilaterally stop working
based on RHCA?
Again, I can't answer a question
that would call for a legal conclusion.
What I can say is that
there is written correspondence
that disputes...
that disagrees with the positions
taken by Bally's.
Can you say that again in the mic?
I'm sorry.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
There's written correspondence
that the city disagrees...
I lost it again, sorry.
Well, disagrees with the position
taken by Bally's.
Okay.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Are those written correspondence,
are you able to share them
with the...
with me?
Yes, I believe so.
The Chair?
I would welcome that correspondence
if we can get that through the Chair.
Thank you.
Are you finished?
Alderman Beal?
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Good afternoon, everybody.
My first question is
for our newly appointed CFO.
While you're gathering your data,
can you research
what the commitment
for the temporary casino
was to our pension system
and what has been delivered
year to year
since the inception of the casino?
Yes, Alderman,
I certainly can.
And also give me
what the permanent casino
is supposed to generate
as well.
I'll provide that
through the Chair.
Okay.
Now,
Law Department,
you just stated
that it is your opinion
that you disagree
with Bally's opinion,
correct,
on the host agreement?
No, Alderman.
Unfortunately,
I can't speak to
the Law Department's opinion
in a public setting.
But what I said was
I'm aware of correspondence
from the city
to Bally's
that disagrees
with the position
they've taken.
Okay.
All right.
And you're going to provide us
with that correspondence,
correct?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
All righty.
To Bally's.
First,
let me just say this,
and I've said this to Consul.
It is to our best interest
that you all succeed.
We want you all to succeed.
Our pension system
needs you all to succeed.
So this argument
that we're having now
has really nothing to do
with the fact
that we want you all
to be a good partner
and succeed here
in the city of Chicago.
But we do have questions.
Alderman Riley mentioned
one of the questions,
but I just wanted
to pin it down
that you reiterated
that you all
do have the money
in the bank
to finish
construction,
the full 500 rooms
from beginning to end,
correct?
We maintain
capital resources
to continue?
Use the mic, please.
I'm sorry.
The mic.
Simple answer is yes,
we do maintain
capital resources
to continue
to build
and deliver
on our obligations
under the HCA.
Okay.
So knowing
that you all
have the financial
obligation,
wouldn't it make sense
to finish
the entire project
to start generating
revenue
if you have
the money
on hand?
I mean,
we are going
to finish.
No,
you got to reset
the timeline.
I'm saying
to put those
hundred and so
certain components
of the project,
for sure,
we have reset.
Okay.
But not the entire
project.
As a matter of fact,
under the HCA,
we were to spend
$1.34 billion.
We're going to be
spending well in
excess of that.
Okay.
So my...
Point is, if you have the money on hand, wouldn't it make sense to finish construction to start generating revenue?
Not when there's that much unpredictability as to the proliferation of VLTs in our own backyard.
We haven't heard a number of the number of VLTs that there could potentially be,
other than there's been 65 licenses that have been granted, and there's 200 that are waiting.
And beyond that, we don't know. We haven't heard a number.
Okay. So knowing that you've already, in your underwriting for this project,
it was mentioned that you guys took into consideration VGTs.
So all of that was transparent.
You knew VGTs were a possibility because that came out of your shareholders meeting.
So I think the reference was not to a Valley shareholder meeting.
So I'll start there.
But the projections and calculations versus the reality at the time that VALYs executed the host community agreement with the city of Chicago,
VGTs were not authorized.
They were not legalized.
Today, they are.
And there's a lot of information that is not known.
And in terms of the potential revenue impact, jobs impact, a lot of that is going to be dependent upon what we learn from the city in terms of how it plans to roll this out.
So here is our opportunity to have that conversation with the city so that we can better calibrate and calculate what the actual impact is going to be.
And the resetting is a responsible allocation of resources in light of that uncertainty.
I would add to that.
So just so we're all clear on the timeline, the RFP was issued in 2021 and the HCA was signed in 2022.
That's when we did our underwriting.
The HCA is very clear about any unlawful new forms of gaming, right?
We've established that.
I think we're all in agreement.
GLPI, the financier, they didn't pay for the whole project.
They paid for roughly 50% as a normal finance equity contribution.
They did their underwriting in 2025 when this was on the table or potentially on the table.
Back in 2022, this wasn't a conversation.
So trying to say that we should have included it in ours, we did, that it didn't exist, and that's why it says what it says in the HCA.
Additionally, Hawthorne, just for the record, Hawthorne is only allowed up to 1,200 gaming positions, right?
Or was, right?
They passed on it, doesn't exist anymore.
We're talking about nearly 20,000 new gaming positions.
Those are exponentially different conversations.
So why didn't you guys, when you first started construction, make the city aware of you all's position?
Let me back up.
What is you all's position on sweepstakes machines?
The host community agreement?
No.
What is you all's?
The host community agreement, which is the guiding document between the city of Chicago and Bally's Corporation, clearly provides for, you know, I would say addresses lawful forms of gaming.
So in terms of sweepstakes and VGTs and the implications for Bally's, what we are talking about and what is addressed and at risk in the host community agreement is VGTs.
Because they're lawful?
Because the city council authorized them after the execution of our host community agreement.
So is it Bally's opinion that sweepstakes are unlawful?
That is something that would be an interpretation of law that Bally's is not required to, nor will we speak to.
Our issue right now facing us today and why we're here is to talk about the impact of VGTs and potentially other lawful forms of gaming.
Okay.
So the unlawful 7,000 sweepstakes machines has no bearing on you all's bottom line.
VGTs is what we're here to talk about.
That is something that the city council authorized after we executed the agreement.
And that is what we're talking about in terms of the proliferation, the licensing and how that's going to, how they're going to roll out in the city of Chicago.
Okay.
All right.
Are, is Bally's working with the mayor's office to repeal VGTs?
We're not working.
Let me say this.
I don't know that we're working with the mayor's office.
When you look at our letter that was first sent out, we do reference the fact that, you know, Bally's would appreciate a repeal.
However, I want to say, as we sit here today, what we're really talking about is that path forward, which we know requires us to be sitting here talking to you, not just today, but at some point in the future and with the administration,
we're having a conversation on how, how VGTs intend to be implemented within the city of Chicago.
Okay.
And you all are having that conversation with the administration.
We're having it today with you.
And we hope to continue to have conversations with different parties within the city of Chicago as we move forward.
Okay.
Well, I know you can't answer this next question, but you guys alluded to, and the gentleman testified that you guys had a letter of intent to purchase Gold Rush.
Was it the intent of Bally's not to include sweepstakes machines in order to allow you all time to buy all the sweepstakes machines here in the city of Chicago?
We're not going to comment on that.
Okay.
I didn't think you would.
Well, knowing that you all tried to purchase Gold Rush, that means your opinion on sweepstakes means it should be favorable because you all were attempting to buy them.
We're not going to comment on that.
Okay.
All right.
So when is the last time you all had conversations with the administration regarding work stoppage?
We'd have to check our records to see if any conversation happened at all.
I can't answer that question.
Okay.
Wow.
I mean, it doesn't seem like we're going to be getting far here, Madam Chairman.
But let me just say this, and I'm going to close on this note.
I believe that the DGTs is being used as an avenue.
Well, no, let me back up.
Is Bally's currently trying to liquidate assets?
Bally's is a publicly traded company.
And anything related to our financial statement, excuse me, as a publicly traded company, we are limited in what we can say, when we can say it, how we can say it, and who we can say it to.
And without getting to the specifics of your question, we would be limited under both New York Stock Exchange rules and SEC rules to talk about information that is not otherwise public.
And so with respect to this question and any other question that comes up in this category, we're not going to be able to speak to it.
And that goes back to my point is that I think the sweepstakes issue is just a deflection on what's really going on with Bally's.
And I really wish that you all would have an honest conversation with this body on how we can move forward with Bally's and VGT's coexisting with trying to make sure that illegal machines are not operating.
And I think that will be beneficial to everybody in the city, you all, the city, and the taxpayers, because we don't get any revenue from sweepstakes machines.
We're not getting any tax revenue.
The state's not getting any tax revenue, so that means we're not getting any capital money from the state as it relates to sweepstakes.
And so I would really like for us to sit down and have an adult conversation on how we can coexist with Bally's and sweepstakes and make it beneficial to the people of the city of Chicago.
Because we need the revenue from VGT's.
We need the revenue from Bally's.
And so we need to find that common ground.
And drawing a line in the sand on either side does not benefit anybody.
And so I'm just of the mindset that we need to sit down and work together and make it happen.
Alderman Beal, that point was made by your colleague, Alderman Lawson, as well.
And again, I couldn't agree with you more.
It is a time for us to have productive conversations about how we move forward.
And we are committed to that.
Thank you for the invitation.
Thank you.
Did you have a point of information?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Maybe going forward, like my colleague stated, we can conduct these discussions between counsel.
And we can put that on record so we're all on the same page because going through the administration, we're getting nowhere.
We'll take that back.
And I think, as we've said to Alderman Lawson, now Alderman Beal, we understand that that is a path forward.
And we are committed to that.
And we do need you to succeed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the conversation.
I think I walked in kind of really impartial just to kind of get a sense.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
of everything that's going on. And it's very unfortunate and I think embarrassing for the
city to kind of be in this position where the city council itself isn't getting the necessary
information to be able to move forward. I've got a number of questions just that I'd like to get
answered. So in the HCA, is there any mention to the sweepstakes that even though they're not legal
exist? I'll have to review the HCA in detail, but what the HCA does reflect and discuss are lawful,
newly created, lawful forms of gaming authorized by either the state of Illinois or the city of
Chicago. I appreciate it. I think the reason why that, and it's important you kind of phrase it that
way, if you're talking newly created, then I would imagine there's a premise that the existing
sweepstakes are there. They're not there. So whatever money they're generating or whatnot is
already being considered into how you figure you can capitalize the casino. Is that correct?
That's not what the point, that's not what the provisions in the host community agreement,
excuse me, I didn't mean point, but what the provisions in the host community address
is if there's a change in the economic structure of gaming in the city of Chicago after the execution
of the host community agreement, at minimum, it requires the parties to start talking about how
we address that. And that's where we are right now.
So would you consider the existing sweepstakes becoming legal as a change in economic status,
even though it's just money that's there and being generated, it's just either legal or not?
I think we were asked this question previously to opine on the legality of sweepstakes, and we were
not in a position to do that. But what I would say is, to the extent there is a form of gaming that the
city council takes action to legalize, we would be in that same provision within the host community
agreement. And that is actually the position Valleys is taking here, that today we're talking about VGTs,
we could be talking about other forms of lawful gaming that the city council authorizes at some point in the
future.
Yeah, I think the reason why for me that's a distinction is, one is already existing, right?
The revenues there is in effect some level of competition, even though it may not be legal.
The only thing that would be different if it were legal would be the city would get some level of revenue
from it, but it would still generate what it does. And that currently is happening.
Like, it's currently money that is existing, it is flowing, and I would imagine if you're building what
you're building, you're still taking that into account somehow, because it's not like it doesn't
exist.
Right. If the city did that, we would be having a conversation about the legalization of, you know,
you use the term of sweepstakes, but any form of gaming, once it is legalized, and we're talking
about what the impact is to the city of Chicago, it is not for Valleys to either enforce or opine on the
legality of any form of gaming, when what we're here to talk about is VGTs and other...
Or to have any level of say on what the city does, more than just what you're articulating is
what your response to that would be.
Right.
For clarity.
That's what our response is.
Yeah, I gotcha. What are the... In the HCA, are there penalties for not hitting deadlines?
Yes, there are. There are. And I wish I could tell you what they are, but the HCA,
you know, has built into it both a delivery schedule, what's required, and then concepts
that are very familiar in agreements like this, which is, you know, liquidated damages provisions.
Meaning some level of payment, if not hitting deadlines?
Some level of payment based upon completion. And again, we're coming back to this concept
of completion.
Right. You're recalibrating. And to your point, like, which I understand, there are things that
you believe in the contract, you are expected to deliver and things that are outside of that.
And so you're saying, we're going to deliver the things that are in the contract that we
say we're going to do, but these other things that are not, or we believe are not, are separate.
They're separate and they may be delivered.
Right. There's not the same level of deadline to those because they're not covered by the
contract.
Correct. The HCA gives us a really good blueprint.
I get that. My question is the other point. For the things that are in the contract, if you
guys don't hit those contracts, do you guys give us money?
Right. So.
And if you do, I want that through the chair.
Okay. So I think what we, what we can do is to point out the provisions in the host
community agreement that address what is completion, what is, what is, what is, what is included
in there?
Yeah, I appreciate that. I think the other question I have is, it's kind of the same thing my colleagues
have been mentioning here. It's clear that the administration isn't sharing information
that Jason Lee isn't here as much as we want to call him down requests. It's not happening.
And I think it's pretty shameful to be honest, to have somebody, our CFO who just got here
to kind of take the stand and it looks like take a lot of hits for something she just showed
up for. And our department of law just telling us they can't answer questions. I think for
the general public, if you're a Chicagoan, it should be pretty embarrassing what you're watching
here. And so I would agree with our colleagues that think that you should have some level of
regular briefings or hearings with the city council directly and publicly so that people
have an understanding because I think everything that's happening here, I'll say for myself and
I imagine for our constituents, leads to less confidence into the city government itself
and the values of delivering on what they say they're going to do because there isn't even
the conversations that are necessary. I think Alderman Lawson said it rightly. If we have
developments in our wards, we're having a regular cadence to check in. How are things going? Is
something slowing down? Can we help with something? Are there permits that are being
slowed down that we need to talk to departments? That seems to be something that would have a
regular established cadence just to make sure everybody's on pace. And so the fact that it appears
to us that either it's not happening or that information isn't willing to be shared with us,
and then we're hearing about a recalibration or rephasing or whatnot, that seems to be the crux of
the problem. If we're not even having understanding what's going on up to the point we have to call
for a hearing, that's not good government and it's not anything that's going to have, anyone's going
to have any level of confidence in. So I would say that needs to get done. It's not even being open
to and I'll take it back to somebody. Like we did with CTA, I almost want to write municipal code to say
you have to come here on a regular basis to report to us because maybe that's the only way we'll get
some information. And I think without that, either we're going to be kind of entrenched into the
different sides of this argument or we're just not going to move to the speed that we need to to
get an answer that suffices for everyone. It's also why, shout out to Alderman Riley and why we need
an independent counsel because if our own lawyers aren't going to tell us information, we need our own
actual lawyers. So that's all I've got to say. I would like those answers as far as what any penalties
related to delays would look like. And I just think that if the sweepstakes are already here, they might
as well get legalized and put online and figure out what that looks like. Because if we're only making
$4 million for revenue for the city and we need so much more with our deficits, then maybe we all need to do
some recalibration on what gets us more revenue. And that might have to be looking at this whole agreement
differently. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Alderman Hall.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. A lot of questions have already been answered. I want to ask you this
from an operating perspective, valleys that is, what month in 2025 did you all prepare your projections
of revenue for 2026?
I'll be honest, I'd have to go back and look. I think it's probably September, October perhaps.
I don't recall exactly.
So I would love for you to send that to the chair, the month that you all finalized your
2026 revenue projections. You said approximately September to October. What was the revenue
projection?
Alderman, I'll be candid, right? I'm not close enough to that.
They would have been talking to you.
You can find somebody that.
100%. That's why I said let us follow up so we're accurate.
Okay, cool. I'm looking forward to knowing when did you all finalize your projections for this
year, last year. All right. And so in 2026, last year, did you all project profits for this year,
last year?
EBITDA or net operating profit or net income?
I mean, these are all...
Would you project to be in the black at the end of this year, last year?
In terms of EBITDA, yes.
Okay. One more time. Could you say that more clearly in form, but I can't hear you.
In terms of EBITDA, which is an industry measurement of cash flow, earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization, as a lot of those items that are included before the earnings or
after the earnings, I should say, are non-cash or they're really accounting type exercises.
All right. So I have a resident. She's like 82. She just got into Zoom and she's just, she's tuning in.
So I want to make this real simple for her. When y'all sat down last year, unknown to you, you said you
don't remember when you all sat down, but at the end of the day, out of all of the meetings that you
all had, you all came up with the idea or you were confident that this year you all would be in
the black, right? I believe so. Yes. You believe so, but you don't know. I'm not sure what meeting
you're referencing. I don't think I was in that. So let me just make this simple. Did you all plan
to make money in Chicago? Yes or no? Yes. All right. So you all projected in 2026 that you all
would make money in Chicago, correct? All right. So to that end, in 2026, you all were going to make
money. You sold.
that the casino would be in a black. When did you all decide to, I don't want to use any adjective
to waste my time. When did you all decide to divert from the building plans that you have
for this casino in Chicago per the money that you all were going to project? When did you all decide
to divert away from what you told us that you were building in 2025? Do you mean the, when did we
issue the reset? We issued the reset August 8th of 2026. All right. So about, I think actually
exactly a month ago in a day. All right. So in the reissue, realign, what have you, how many jobs were
cut in this new direction y'all decided to go? So the, as part of the reset, um, in comparison,
uh, again, from August 3rd, they actually told us it was 130 something jobs. 136 is part of
both the reset and the progression of the project. If you compare August 7th to September 3rd. All
right. So what month this year, did you all realize that you all wasn't going to make
the profits that you all projected last year? That that's not relevant to this conversation.
It is. I want to know, when did you all as a company realize that you all was not going to
make the revenue this year that you projected last year? Uh, I, I don't think that's an accurate
statement. We can come back to you on it. No, that's this cover. That's the question I want to know.
When did you all as a company realize that the money that you all said that you was going to make
last year, you wasn't making it this year. When did you all see the numbers wasn't adding up and it was
going to be a shortfall for the company? What month this year? Alderman, if I might ask a question
back to you, are you talking about the temporary facility, the operation of the temporary facility?
Yes. The temporary facility. Okay. I'll answer both questions then. In the temporary facility,
we typically go through a budget process, which occurs during the fourth quarter of the, of the
previous, of the year prior to that actual year of operations. So we would have done that sometime
during September 1 through 1230, 31. It would have been approved by the board. And in, and in the
temporaries case, we are actually considered exceeding the budget considerably compared to where we were
the prior year. So from that perspective, we're actually doing better than we anticipated.
If you're referring to the permanent facility where we made the decision to delay parts of the project
outside of the HCA requirement, we made that decision on and around August 8th when we decided to send the
letter to the, the subcontractors. Gotcha. So as I get ready to wrap up, so in August, there was a
diversion away from the plan that was established at the beginning of this year for the build out
of the casino and just maybe I missed it. If I did my apologies, how much in the plan did our VGT
pass and how much revenue did you all project would be lost if our plan was to be executed this year with
VGT? Yeah. So based on, you know, historical comps throughout the state, the average is around 38%.
It could be north of 50% based on some of the examples of casinos that existed prior to VGTs going
live and 2025. And these are all numbers that are based on public data available on the Illinois
Gaming's website. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. What was the, the collective from Bally's analysis on the data
pertaining to Rivers Casino that they didn't take a dip and they had VGTs turned on around their casino?
What was you all's perspective on that data? So Rivers has two components that I think are
important for everyone to understand. Number one, they were capacity constrained originally. So the
legislation that passed at the state level in 2029 or 2019, the Gaming Expansion Act allowed Rivers to
expand from 1,200 gaming positions to 2,000. Prior to 2019, I think they were in the, you know,
low 400s of gaming revenue. So they were able to essentially expand by almost 60%. Additionally,
Displains is a municipality that has never opted into VGTs. And Displains is a neighbor to Northern
Chicago, as you all know, which is its largest feeder market besides Displains. So neither one of
Rivers' feeder markets have ever had VGTs. Okay. All right. So in concluding, what it seems as if
the issue lies is that you all made promises to workforce community. That promise was broken.
You all made a promise to generate certain revenue to Chicago. That was broken. Opportunities presented
themselves for an extension of VGT and local neighborhoods to help stabilize economies.
And then the red flag came up from you all financially. And then the other things collapsed.
So in concluding, what I've picked up and based off of what you all presented, and of course,
the other information that's going on to the chair, it seems as if overall, Bally's is having a
problem managing money. Because in other states, you all are stopping projects as well. And so the
concern that I have is that workers, A, are being unemployed by you all. B, small communities are
not getting the opportunity to legitimately, because there's people that are never going to come to your
casino. They just don't want to come. They like local, you know, gaming opportunities. They're
borrowing you all's acquisition, which we're interested in knowing what that conversation was
from a company that does small, big business in the communities. And it seems as if there's a gambling
risk that we're taking working with you and not us the other way. And so I'm just concerned about some of
the decisions that you all have made and the people that have now become pawns in the bad decisions that you
all are making financially. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you. Can we respond? Yes, go ahead.
Okay. One on jobs. This project had already created 5,000 construction jobs and 700 operations jobs.
I'm going to let my colleague... We can't hear you. Oh, I'm so sorry. We've already created 5,000
construction jobs, some of which are union and 700 operations jobs. We anticipate 3,000 more.
So in terms of jobs and workforce commitments, we are meeting those. And we're meeting those in
communities that need it. I'm going to let my colleague George talk about the reference to
other projects where... I think your question was around stoppage in those other areas.
Just a quick response to... You said that we stopped other jobs. We have not. And we have not stopped the
Chicago job either. We continue the bill and we're going to deliver everything that we promised under
the HCA. Alderman, I would add to it. I'm just looking at current statistics. For operations jobs,
we committed to 550 jobs for the temporary casino. Today, we're at almost 700. From a diversity standpoint,
we said we would have 60% as a goal for diversity. We're at over 82%. Relative to hiring people with
disabilities, we're at almost 10% when a target was five. Relative to CETA goals, socially economic
disadvantaged areas, where my colleague Kim talked about providing jobs for folks that were housing
insecure. We have a couple of those. These are real jobs and careers. I'd also note that over 500 of our
employees today are Chicago residents. These are the jobs we're trying to protect, right? These are the
jobs we're concerned BGTs are going to cannibalize. So I respectfully hope that those data points are
helpful for you. And those are just examples of this temporary operation. As Kim had mentioned,
there's 5,000 jobs created that we've calculated from the construction, right? That doesn't include
all the other ancillaries that are associated with that. Your time is up. So if you could just...
Yeah, I do want to say that those are some great talking points that you just mentioned.
But what that got to do with the 130-something that ain't got a job now. And so my point is,
because I don't want to go back and forth, the chairwoman has already said that I ain't got enough
time. So you're going to say something and I ain't going to be able to say nothing. We're not going
to do that. So what we do know, though, is the direction that you all are going is putting innocent
people at risk from working. I've already seen from August to now, people ain't working the jobs
that are needed to finish what was said was going to be delivered. So the blame game and the word
slice and the talking points ain't got nothing to do with the folks that's at home right now
looking to go to work. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question centers around a status on the slots at Medway Airport.
So we've had various conversations with stakeholders.
I know some of our team has included, I believe, yourself.
That's not true.
Okay.
Well, that's not true.
In fact, I was blindsided by this when I read about it in October of 2025 and asked the commissioner of the CDA, Commissioner McMurray, about that.
So it must have been one of those secret squirrel meetings with Jason Lee.
No, I'm talking about one of our team members has discussed with you, but if you refute that, that's not true.
I'm saying respectfully, I understand your position.
Our license allows for slots at both O'Hare and Midway.
Our state license allows for 4,000 gaming positions.
In the RFP that we submitted, we were interested and expressed that interest publicly that we'd be interested in putting them in gaming lounges.
This is not going to Nevada where these are wide open.
There's 1,500 machines down the middle of the terminal.
These are small, exclusive lounges.
Think of, call it for lack of a better term, an airport lounge, but you have food and beverage and slot machines.
We would love to continue those conversations.
So question, what's the status?
We are trying to work with the constituency, including yourself and your colleagues.
Again, that it hasn't happened to date and we're going on a year.
We would love to have a conversation.
That's the problem with Bally's, right, is I learn about things in the newspaper.
That's the reality.
Let's sit down and have a question.
We learn about people getting fired in the newspaper.
So there is a trust factor.
And then I read today in the newspaper about Bally's joining forces with the mayor's office on VGT's.
Franz Spielman's article today.
So help me understand joining forces.
What does that mean?
Or can you not answer that question?
I don't know what that means.
I've not seen.
Well, it was written in today's Sun-Times, not Marty Quinn saying it.
I'd have to read it and get back to you.
I've not seen anything about it.
Joining forces on VGT's.
Opening up slots in Midway Airport.
But I'm not aware of it.
I'm learning about it in the newspaper.
So if nothing else, take this as an example that there's a real gap here in trust and communication.
And I'm someone that supported you.
So I would suggest you've got to get your act together because it's pretty embarrassing.
And the fact that you're hiding behind a lawyer today and not answering questions and joining forces with the mayor who's also not answering questions.
Jason Lee's not here.
This is a circus.
It's an absolute circus.
So congratulations, Bally's, for being part of the circus.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Are there – is there anyone – I know you need a round two.
Anyone else needing a round one?
Good.
All in and Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just had a couple of follow-ups.
After the first round of responses, I went and did a little bit of research, did a little Googling,
and actually pulled up the going concern of filing.
It was represented to us by the acting CFO because they got rid of their last one,
that this is because of what's going on with them in New York, that they had to issue this.
When, in fact, if you look at it, they reference Chicago in their statements.
I don't see a whole lot of mention in New York.
And the concern here is that – I'll read this language for the record because I think it's important for the public to know this.
The accompanying unaudited, condensed, consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis,
which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business
and the ability of the company to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
In accordance with a going concern, the company evaluated the severity of the following adverse conditions
that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern
as of the date accompanying financial statements were issued.
One, the company has incurred significant losses and negative cash flows from operations since its inception
and expects to continue to incur such losses and negative cash flows for the foreseeable future.
In this regard, the company incurred a net loss and used net cash in its operations of approximately $56.4 million
and $102 million, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2026.
In addition, the company has an accumulated deficit of $233.3 million
and approximately $7.4 million of cash on hand as of June 30.
As a result, the company has been dependent of Bally's corporation since its inception
to fund substantially all of the company's obligations as they become due
and expects to continue to remain dependent on such funding for the foreseeable future.
The company is subject to a number of contractual obligations and commitments associated with the operation
of the temporary facility and construction of the permanent facility, which includes the total committed costs
that are expected to be incurred to construct the permanent facility of approximately $400 million over the next two years.
I could go on and on and on, but by their own admission, they have a significant cash flow problem.
And they even reference the temporary and permanent casinos in this filing.
Can I speak to that?
No.
I'm just making a statement for the record.
If Jason Lee ever shows up, maybe he can discuss it with us and Bally's.
But we can wait for that to occur.
It needs to occur, Madam Chair.
If the lender, GLP, as we established earlier, factored VGT, the threat of it, into its underwriting for your funding,
why is it that you're, by your own definition, not ours, why are you considering VGT to be a new casino
that is a threat to your bottom line when the folks funding your operation didn't see that as a concern
as they spoke to investors?
First, I want to address your point on the going concern language, which is not in Bally's Corporation's 10Q.
It is in the 10Q for Bally's Chicago, Inc., and actually that going concern,
because of the level of dependence between Bally's Chicago, Inc. and Bally's Corporation, has actually been there.
Bally's Chicago, Inc. is funded through Bally's Corporation.
Are you here today on behalf of Bally's Chicago or Bally's Corporation?
We represent Bally's Corporation and actually Bally's Chicago, which is the securities issuer
for the equity interest in the Chicago casino.
So I just want to be clear on which 10Q you're actually reading out of.
Sure.
The 10Q with respect to Bally's Corporation, as my colleague has already mentioned,
The going concern there really is about the funding resources available for the Bronx project
and does not and is not focused on Chicago.
Okay.
So the scary 10Q was really related to the Chicago operation specifically, not the corporation.
The 10Q that relates to Bally's Chicago highlights for our investors the level of support that is required
as we're building this casino from Bally's Corporation to Bally's Chicago, Inc.
That will vastly change when Bally's Chicago opens the doors and revenue is generated at an entirely different level.
And I'll let our chief financial officer do that.
That's actually funny, and I appreciate you making that clarification.
I think it underscores the fact, though, that the temporary operation is underperforming.
You're having to subsidize that operation.
It's clearly not profitable.
And so it's been mentioned as one of the factors that is resulting in Bally's Chicago relying upon the parent corporation for funding.
I'm not saying it's the only reason.
Your point is well taken that as you're building the new facility, the bigger company has to help subsidize that.
But I think it does reveal the temporary casino has not met the expectations or projections that you all provided to this body some three years or four years ago.
And so I just wanted to call that out because we were conflating two different 10 Qs here.
Thank you for the clarification.
It actually helps prove a point.
That's a concern for me.
The other thing I wanted – the last thing I wanted to bring up is related to the host community agreement itself.
And I went back and reread it after we – because we've been talking about it a lot here.
And under project incentives and the direct impact fee specifically, what are the conditions that could arise that would put that at risk?
And in my read, nowhere in here are VGTs called out specifically.
Now there is some vague semi-squishy language that I'm surprised lawyers –
agreed to um that references new gaming um but it's referenced as uh it certainly reads more
like a competing casino than it does vgt and again vtt is not ever specifically called out here
um and so the way i read this is that your legal department is interpreting the hca in a certain
way and perhaps ours does not um i'd love to know where our stands but they're not allowed to tell
us anything apparently um is is there actual am i missing something in the hca where where vgt is
specifically called out and highlighted as a violation of the agreement um again i hesitate
to get in um into the ground of contract interpretation but i'm going to tell you what
our position is when you look at the three components one of them called out expressly
as a new casino and the other is newly authorized lawful forms of gaming of which vgt's would fall
squarely within that provision and so bally's does take the position um that the legalization
and proliferation of vgt's within the city of chicago um is in contravention of the host community
agreement its economic underpinnings and the circumstances under which valleys bid for this
deal but i i i have said over in in in different ways to different questions um that that's not where
we want to get stuck that we really want to have a conversation across the board and and i think it
has been pointed out to us that we need to do better with respect to this council but that's the path
forward um but vgt's are absolutely contemplated as being a newly authorized form of gaming that would
threaten the um performance of the chicago casino um and that is what brings us here today and that
is valley's position that's why we're here so your position is a bit different than your lender
um i'm speaking for valley's corporation understood and we've heard from your lender they don't seem to
see it as a big threat to your business when they underwrote your lending um thank you madam chair
yeah i don't need a response chris thank you thank you any other questions
okay well that concludes our subject matter hearing madam chair can i ask i i i i know that in um
in the the process here um we didn't give an opening statement i did prepare one that um
addresses more fulsome and i'd like to enter it into the record and present it to the other members
of the council so that they have the fulsome well you can give it to me and i could provide it
i will promise you a cleaner version of this okay um and um great thank you i do want to thank you for
being here today um it's very disappointing very embarrassing very insulting any adjective you could
be here today to answer our questions and that every single question that we asked
these city attorneys um we were not able to be answered and so as alderman riley suggested
and as i said to emily um we might have to have another meeting where we could sit them down with us
and have those questions answered because transparency is what it's all about there's a lot of frustration
going on and we need those answers those questions answered um so stay tuned more to come thank you
yes we do have more on the license committee
thank you um yeah okay we are going to move right along to item three on the agenda
which is oh two zero two six dash zero zero two six seven seven five alderman o'shea here nope
okay next is gotta wait your turn okay we're gonna wait for him to come back um item four and five
are both and in the first ward oh two zero two six dash zero zero two five eight one six amendment of
municipal code section four dash six zero zero two three parentheses one point six six to disallow
additional package goods licenses on portions of west florenton avenue and oh two zero two six dash zero
zero two seven one six nine amendment of the municipal code section four dash six zero dash zero two three
parentheses twenty seven point eighty six to allow additional package goods licenses
on portions of west grand avenue after i read all that let's hope that nicholas
oh okay good phew um could you state your name for the record
yes indeed thank you madam chair and members of the committee for the record my name is nicholas
zettel i'm from the first ward aldermatic office uh on behalf of alderman la spada so uh on the matter
of the fullerton ordinance this is a pretty straightforward package good moratorium we had
previously lifted a package good moratorium for a um transfer of a long-standing for a long-standing
package good store um it was just a regular old transfer everything went great we have no complaints in
the community and there's some other commercial spaces filling up so um we put the uh the package good
moratorium back down as a matter of just managing um moratorium in the first ward i'd be happy to
answer any questions from members of the committee and alderman la spada would ask your favorable
consideration any questions from committee alderman riley moves to pass all in favor say aye any opposed
in the opinion of the chairs the ayes have it the motion is passed could somebody try to find alderman
o'shea and see if he's here moving on to item six seven and eight in the sixth ward 02026-0027185
02026-0027270 02026-0027297 amendment of the municipal code sections 4-60-022 and 4-60-023
to disallow additional alcoholic liquor and package goods licenses on portions of the sixth ward chair
recognizes alderman hall thank you so much madam chair um essentially the area that we uh identified
uh has been a oversaturated with too much liquor b uh we have over the last three years built a
community engagement process that all zoning matters all licensing matters put in the hands of the
community and so as we look at reimagining our corridors uh where residents literally live next
door and sometimes above we want to make sure that they are well aware of and have voice and
democracy in the process of liquor licenses thank you are there any questions from the committee
alderman apolitano moves to pass all in favor say aye any opposed in the opinion of the chairs the ayes
have it moving on to item 902026-0027472 amendment of municipal code section 4-60-023 parentheses
8.41a to allow additional package goods licenses on portions of south stony island avenue chair recognizes
alderman harris thank you madam chairman um i'm asking for favorable consideration for this was an
expansion of a business and they needed to open a moratorium and two so they can expand their
business any questions alderman riley moves to pass all in favor say aye aye any opposed any opinion of
the chairs thank you the item is approved thank you item number 10 uh do we have alderman cruise here
okay okay i'm gonna skip item 10 for now do we have someone here from alderman conway's office
okay good then we're moving on to item 11 and 12 which is 02026-0026831 amendment of municipal code
section 4-60-023 parentheses 42.585 to allow additional package goods licenses on portions of south
jefferson street and west jefferson street and 02026-0027178 amendment of municipal code section 4-60-022
parentheses 42.530 to allow additional alcoholic liquor licenses on portions of west randolph street
north jefferson street and west washington boulevard chair recognizes olivia simon uh thank you chair
north jefferson street and west ishington edge of west our county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county county
Thank you.
item is to allow packaged goods licenses for a new location of L&M Fine Foods, which currently
exists in the 47th Ward, but they're opening a new location in the 34th Ward. We've met with
them and support that expansion. And then the second item, item number 12, is for a consumption
on-premises license for a new restaurant that's going in over at 565 West Randolph. We've met
with them and have no objections to that as well. Any questions from committee? Alderman
Moore moves to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the
ayes have it. The motion is passed. Item number 13, 02026-0027186, Amendment of Municipal Code
Section 4-60-023, parentheses 42.548, to allow additional packaged goods licenses on portions
of West Washington Boulevard, North Canal Street, and West Madison Street. Chair recognizes Alderman
Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is to allow for a grab-and-go market inside two North Riverside.
It'll be limited beer, wine, and seltzer products. And I'd appreciate the committee's favorable
consideration.
Any questions? Alderman Martin moves to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion
of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed. The next 19 items, number 14 through
32 on the agenda. I might need some water for this. Designating precincts of the 15th Ward
as restricted residential zone prohibiting additional shared housing units. The chair recognizes Alderman
Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. Good afternoon. These represent a series of
ordinances prohibiting shared housing in the 15th Ward throughout the entire ward. And
it is supported by all residents of my community. And I ask for your favorable consideration.
Any questions? Alderman Riley moves to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion
of the chair, the ayes have it.
Thank you. Appreciate your support.
The next 19 items, numbers 33 through 51 on the agenda, designating precincts of the 23rd Ward
as restricted residential zone prohibiting additional shared housing units. We have a substitute
ordinance on all of these items. Alderman Martin makes a motion to recognize the substitute.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The substitute
item is before us. And the chair recognizes Alderman Tabaris.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for hearing these items. This is in support. A lot of my
residents are in support of these items with temporary rentals, prohibiting temporary rentals
in my ward. And we have been working very consistently on prohibiting temporary rentals in other precincts
of our ward. We're just doing this to be consistent for the entire ward. And I ask for the support.
Any questions? 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. Is Alderman Taliaferro still on?
Madam Chair, yes. Madam Chair, yes, I'm on.
Okay. So items 52 and 53, 02026-0027438 and 02026-0027441, designating precincts of the 29th
ward as restricted residential zone, prohibiting additional shared housing units. Chair recognizes
Alderman Taliaferro. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as my colleagues have stated, this
is an attempt to prohibit shared housing rentals in the 1st and 19th precincts. We met with multiple
community residents and each support the restriction of shared housing in the 1st and 19th precincts.
As for this committee's favorable consideration, and appreciate you for allowing me to appear
by electronic means. Any questions? Alderman Martin moves to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed.
Items 54 through 84. 31 ordinances designating precincts of the 41st ward as restricted residential
zone prohibiting additional shared housing units. Chair recognizes Alderman DePolitano.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do, too, support this ordinance in hopes to limit the short-term rentals
in the 41st ward, and I'm looking for your most favorable consideration on this.
Any questions? Alderman Riley moves to pass. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The opinion of the
chairs, the ayes have it. The motion is passed. Okay. Last one then on the agenda, item 85.
It is, what is, OR? Correct. Okay. OR 2026-0025473, an order directed to the Department of Business
Affairs and Consumer Protection to formulate a plan for one-stop shop business licensing and permitting
portal. We have a substitute. Alderman DePolitano makes a motion to accept the substitute.
All in favor? Any opposed? In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. The substitutes
before us, and the chair recognizes Alderman Martin. Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon,
colleagues. I want to start off by acknowledging that every person in this committee and across
City Council recognizes that our small businesses contribute so much to the fabric of our city,
and that if you're in Chicago and you have a big idea or a passion project, that we want to make sure
that we're doing our very best to make that happen, and that we shouldn't tolerate the possibility of a
new restaurant, a new favorite coffee shop getting stuck behind a loading page as they're looking to
open for the first time. And that's why I believe it's so critical that we continue to be committed to
bringing our city government technology into the 21st century, because literally the software that BACP
is being asked to operate on predates Y2K, if you can believe that. I mean, they need some help. And so
the idea that this order seeks to lay out is that we should move towards a one-stop shop business portal
to make it as easy as possible for our new small business owners to seek out a business license.
This is something that's come up in numerous conversations that I've had with advocates across
the city. And I won't at this late hour, unless people need to know, underscore all the problems
associated with our current system. But we know that states like Pennsylvania, cities like New York City
are moving in this direction to figure out how we can streamline the back-end processes to make it
easy, quick, and cheap for businesses to open up. We know that the state of Pennsylvania in particular
has seen their corporate license review timelines fall from eight weeks to two days based on similar
things that they've adopted. And so I think we should be pushing and supporting our city departments
to do just the same. So what you have before you is an order that directs the BEND team in the mayor's
office, that's the business economic and neighborhood development team, to work with BACP and a number
of other departments to develop an implementation plan. Not jumping right to the finish line to say,
do this, but instead say, what would it require in terms of resources and personnel to do a one-stop
shop portal as we work to recreate BACP's IRIS system, which, as I mentioned, dates back to 1999.
So this portal would allow, among other things, to apply for and renew licenses to request inspections,
coordinate with city departmental liaisons, see personalized application and inspection status
information, and access inspection requirements and guidance. We also have made some changes to the
initial order, in particular, having a deadline for this implementation plan set for the 28th of
February of next year to make sure that the departments have adequate time to work with
the BEND team to put together an implementation plan as we get into the heart of our annual budget
season. Lastly, I want to express thanks to Abby Sullivan, who's here from the BEND team, Chris Jessup
from BACP, representatives from all the departments who touched this work, who were kind enough to sit
down with our team and figure out how we should workshop the initial order, as well as outside of
government, the Small Business Advisory Council has been hugely helpful in socializing this with
businesses and business advocates across the city. Over a dozen local chambers of commerce support,
Illinois Restaurant Association, Woodstock Institute, the list goes on. But I'm grateful for everybody
within and outside of government that is supporting this endeavor. And with that, it's happy to answer
questions people have and would hope for the committee's favorable consideration.
Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to applaud Alderman Martin for bringing this forward in the form of a
council order.
This is actually something I pursued under Mayor Daley.
This was something we've been looking for for quite some time,
and other priorities have come up since.
So I'm glad that you're picking up the mantle on that,
and I hope when we pass this that the department can do some good work
to help us streamline that.
While we're at it, I want to also flag this for BACP and others.
Just as useful as having a one-stop shop for getting licensed and open,
then eventually we also would like to get to a one-stop shop
for your billing from the city of Chicago
so that if you have right-of-way obligations that are annual,
if you have to renew certain licenses on an annual or biannual basis,
that you can do that all at once and get it all on one bill.
What frustrates business owners in the city,
especially small business owners that don't have a lot of regulatory compliance staff,
is that they're having to chase these bills throughout the year.
If we could just get them onto one piece of paper and say,
okay, here's all your obligations for the year.
People could plan accordingly, and frankly, we'd get our money sooner as a city.
We have these revenue and cash flow issues.
So let's add that to the mix as well.
Maybe we can do a council order on that next month, Alderman.
But thank you for bringing the ordinance forward.
I support it, and I move to pass.
I think we had one more question.
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good evening now, members of the committee.
Does Bally approve of this ordinance?
Just wanted to bring them back up for good measure.
But in seriousness, thank you for your efforts.
It's not often times that we have technology that goes back to our AOL days,
but it'll be glad to get rid of some of this antiquated way of doing things.
But I do have one recommendation or suggestion, and I'd be happy to join you
and our colleagues over there with regards to aldermanic notifications,
because oftentimes it is that part that is what is adding and dragging to the already gruesome process.
And if we could start looking at things from an affirmative response standpoint,
where unless an alderman gives a no within 10 business days,
then the process should be able to continue for that business,
because oftentimes that is exactly where the bottlenecks happen in many wards,
where they're trying to chase down one of our colleagues for several months
just to get authorization for a public way of use or for something else.
I think 10 business days for all of us in this era of emails and text messages
is more than plenty for us to be able to say yes or no and move on.
The department already has automated systems that send us notifications almost every month,
but an alderman is still required to make a decision.
So I think that if we're trying to make things easier,
the best way to cut the red tape or to bring us into the 22nd century
would be a positive response standpoint from the department
and happy to engage in those conversations moving forward.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And I'll say, unless our folks in the box want to add,
it could also be something that we discuss at a hearing
after the implementation plan is shared with this committee and city council,
because I think that that could be a component of one of many that this portal envisions.
And we could also at that time see, well, what's already in the works,
what's happening in terms of those notifications,
and then talk with our colleagues.
I'm sure there will be differences of opinion.
But if we can see, hey, we all want to roll in the same direction,
and it's going to be helpful writ large if we move more to that approach,
I think that's very wise and sensible.
Election year, anything's possible.
Any other questions from the remaining people in the committee?
Alderman DePoletano moves to pass.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
And he knows, in the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it,
and the motion is passed.
And before everybody else leaves, we do have Alderman Cruz on.
If we could go back to hers really quickly.
When is she?
Alderman Cruz, are you there?
I am here, Chairman.
And I just want to say thank you for the opportunity.
I know it has been a long hearing for all of you,
but I want to express my support for this ordinance to be able to help Blue Moon Market.
Blue Moon Market and Moonwalker have been great neighbors, so I'm glad we can help.
Okay.
I'm going to read it into the record.
You've already spoken, and then we'll vote.
Okay?
Sounds good.
Okay.
02026-0026550, Amendment of Municipal Code, Section 4-60-023, parentheses 31.13,
to allow additional package goods licenses on portions of West Belmont Avenue.
There is a substitute, so Alderman Martin 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 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.
Presuming we couldn't find Alderman O'Shea.
Okay.
Then this concludes the agenda of the License Committee.
Past matters will be reported as a recommendation to pass at the next City Council on September 23,
2026.
There being no further business for the committee,
Alderman Napolitano makes a motion to adjourn.
You're hearing no objection.
The order of this meeting is adjourned.
Have a good day.
You're hearing no Jose.
During a weekend, the fact is organized and was Woman to win and she takes a while.
Then I'm going to Open the Open the campus.
Could you review my class?
respecto by getting your hands,