To the City Council. The meeting will begin shortly.
Please remember to log in your devices. Thank you.
2023 to 2027. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules
of Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the following rules of
conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing gallery or-
The meeting will begin shortly. Please take your seats and register in your iPads.
Thank you.
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 hazard, as determined by the Sergeant at
Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to: one, any pointed objects, including
knives of any kind. Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters.
Four, backpacks, large bags, and sealed packages.
Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by six inches by 12,
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun
guns, tasers, mace, pepper spray, and toy weapons.
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 of 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 Meeting.
Members of the City Council.
Of the public.
The meeting will begin shortly. Please take a seat and log in to your devices.
Thank you.
Of the City Council or any of its committees.
All individuals-
Council, the meeting will begin shortly. Please remember to log into your devices.
Thank you.
Four, backpacks, large bags, and sealed packages.
Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun
guns, tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy-
Good morning.
Ladies and gentlemen, can I have your attention please?
Can I have your attention please?
Silence.
Thank you.
Welcome to today's city council meeting.
The meeting will begin as soon as the mayor enters the room.
So at this time, I'd appreciate if you would take your seats and silence all of
your listening devices. If you have to talk to each other, please use your inside
voices. Please respect your neighbors and respect this room. Thank you.
Of the Chicago City Council Rules of Order and Procedure.
The sergeant at arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for members of the
public. These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing gallery or
room is open for a meeting of the City Council or any of its committees.
All individuals and their belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request. Individuals must remain seated at all times except, one,
when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting set aside for
that purpose. Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the
City Council. Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the judgment of the meeting's chair or
the sergeant at arms may lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly
conduct of the meeting is not permitted.
Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances are
not permitted when in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms
such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant at
arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any pointed objects, including
knives of any kind. Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters.
Four, backpacks, large bags, and sealed packages.
Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by
12 are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun
guns, tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons.
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 of other individuals to view or hear the
proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will be
subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by the sergeant at arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings, 2023 to
2027. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of Order
and Procedure, the sergeant at arms sets forth the following rules of conduct for
members of the public. These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or any of its committees.
All individuals and their belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request. Individuals must remain seated at all times except, one,
when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting set aside for
that purpose. Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the
City Council. Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the judgment of the meeting's chair or
the sergeant at arms may lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the
or-
Somehow it made me smile, though.
Good morning. The council will come to order.
Madam Clerk, please take a quorum roll call.
The quorum is now open. The quorum is now open. Good morning.
Please use your e-device. The quorum is now open.
All right.
I will now call
those who have not used their e device. Alderman Espada? Not present in chambers.
Alderwoman Dow? Present. Alderman Robinson? Not present in chambers.
Alderman Yancey? Yancey is present. Alderman Hall? Saw him. Alderman Hall?
Not present in chambers. Alderman Mitchell? Not present in chambers.
Okay, Alderman Hall is present.
Alderman Beale?
Not present in chambers. Alderwoman Ramirez? Ramirez is present.
Alderwoman Coleman? Not present in chambers. Alderman Moore? Moore is present.
Alderman Curtis? Curtis is present in chambers.
Alderwoman Taylor?
Taylor is present in chambers. Alderman Rodriguez?
Rodriguez is present in chambers. Alderwoman Scott?
Scott is present
in chambers. Alderman Tito Lopez?
Tito Lopez is present in chambers.
Alderman
Taliaferro?
Taliaferro is not present in chambers. Alderman Quezada?
Quezada is present in chambers. Alderman Villegas? Villegas is present in chambers.
Alderman Vasquez? Vasquez is present in chambers.
Alderman Riley?
Riley is present in chambers.
Alderman Gardner?
Gardner is present in chambers.
Alderwoman Mana Hoppenworth?
Mana Hoppenworth is present in chambers. Alderman Espada?
Espada is now present in chambers. Anyone else I missed that walked in?
Anyone else? Okay. The quorum is now closed. 45.
Six. 45.
Very well. There are 45 members that are present. We do have a quorum.
You can please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
Please remain standing for our invocation, which will be delivered today by
Alderman Will Hall.
Let's bow our heads. God, we first of all say thank you for giving us another day.
God, we thank you for strengthening our bodies, and we thank you for the
opportunity to do the business of your people, for this is your city.
You say that the earth is the Lord's, and so God, we ask now that peace rest in
this chamber. God, we pray that you give clarity, compassion, empathy.
May that be on the agenda today. May the decisions that we make may reflect your
heart. And so God, we pray that also you touch both the north side and the south
side, our winning teams. Grant them grace on the mound.
And God, we pray for victory not only there but in here.
We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
Amen. Thank you. You may be seated.
All right, our public comments?
Our public comments.
The council will now begin the public comment period, which is limited to a maximum
of 30 minutes. Each speaker is limited to three minutes.
Speakers cannot yield or transfer their time to another speaker.
Any written comments that have been submitted will be posted and made available for
automatic review. First speaker this morning is Brittany Galt.
Our next speaker this morning is Martin Kozola.
Our next speaker this morning is Brittany King.
Good morning.
Martin Kozola.
My name is Marty Kozola.
We can hear you.
Sorry. Okay. All right, good morning. My name is Marty Kozola.
I'm a 39th Ward resident and an attorney at Impact for Equity, a law and policy
center based here in Chicago. Impact for Equity is a proud member of the Chicago
Healthy Homes Coalition, which advocates for greater protections for Chicago's
623,000 plus renter households. For more than a decade, the coalition has
researched best practices, consulted with subject matter experts around the
country, and convened stakeholders throughout the city, all with the goal of
creating a robust and effective rental registry.
It's exciting to see so many members of city council dedicated to updating their
RTO. There are competing visions for how to do this, PRO and FAIR, and I'm glad
that the alderpeople backing both each proposal have committed to continued
negotiations rather than making a knee-jerk decision today.
I'm especially excited to see that alderpeople in both camps agree that a rental
registry is a necessary tool for our great city to have at its disposal going
forward. However, as folks here love to say, the devil's in the details, and how
this body chooses to create a registry will set the tone for the next generation of
landlord-tenant relationships.
I urge alders to follow best practices set by peer cities.
A rental registry should collect meaningful information about apartments so that
renters know what they're getting into when they sign a lease, including how many
units exist in any given building, where vacant units exist, and which units have
been investigated for violations.
A registry should collect detailed and accurate information about building
ownership and management so that city departments and aldermanic offices know who
to contact in an emergency and when whole portfolios owned by out-of-state
investors are changing hands. And the registry should require a nominal fee so that
whenever departments are tasked with enforcing the registry and the rest of the RTO
can meaningfully carry out their missions.
Anything less would be an unfunded mandate.
I know members of this body are committed to getting this right and will spend the
coming weeks negotiating. I want to once again urge members to follow best
practices when they build the registry because at the end of the day, Chicago's
623,000 renter households, more than half of the city, are counting on it.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker is Brittany Galt.
Good morning, council. Good morning, Chairman. My name is B.
Galt, and I'm running for alderman of the Eighth Ward.
And I fear we have missed the plot for profit's sake.
Keep in mind that a PRO is not about housing affordability, it's about protecting
renters. And while it is a great start, PRO is still a ways off from implementing
housing as a human right. The battle of PRO and FAIR has exposed for the first time
on record that neither the Department of Building nor the Department of Housing
have enforcement mechanisms to hold slumlords and fraud tenants accountable under
the RTO for the last 40 years. And even when RTO counterclaims were raised by
tenants, success in the judiciary is rare.
As a renter and real estate agent who has experienced these unlawful retaliatory
practices, leading to my own eviction in June 2026, it devastated me to learn my
own alderman aligned with FAIR despite over 50% of Eighth Ward being renter
occupied.
It is no fair that landlords are attempting to hijack the tenants' rights movements
by gaslighting housing affordability.
But ask yourself, when has rent ever gone down at renewal?
Landlords have the protection of contract law.
They have the advocacy of national realtors and builders lobbies.
Real estate is an investment and a business.
Like any investment, you are not guaranteed a 10% return.
With the cost of doing business, building, managing housing, landlords might not
make a profit. But profits are not constitutional rights, and businesses are not
humans. Humans have human rights.
Equitable law doctrine mandates lawmakers to create equity where there is
unfairness.
Housing is not a human right when forced homelessness and financial ruin serve
profits over human, owner or renter.
I compel alders supporting FAIR to concede to areas that make sense to PRO and work
with the landlord and builder lobbies to design home rule legislation targeting
forced homelessness, inequity, and housing affordability on the battlefield where
it matters most. Because your fight is not against the tenants that you exploit on
your path to financial freedom. Thank you all. Have a great day.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker this morning is Brittany King.
Thank you for being here, everyone.
My housing journey started in the search for my first apartment, a time riddled
with anxiety because it was the decade post-stroke recovery.
And instead of celebrating an abundant life after stroke, I was stressed.
Finishing my associate's degree and searching for an affordable and accessible
space to accommodate the lovely pink addy I sit in today, I was
instead
involuntarily
finding that I had to update an outdated housing list of access living.
Meanwhile, two years later,
I was again not able to celebrate the blessing of pregnancy as I was considering
the fear of homelessness while expecting my first little sweet potato.
We were forced to double up with family, and then the Too Long to Wait campaign
started in 2018 when Lauren was just six months old because we were,
again, still waiting for affordable, accessible housing.
My one and only love bug, Lauren, will be eight in March.
PRO was a thoughtful piece of legislation created by the voters
influenced most by the city's housing challenges.
I urge you to vote PRO so the city can get back to more pressing matters.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker this morning is Julie Dworkin.
Good morning.
I'm Julie Dworkin with Institute for the Public Good.
Our coalition of tenant advocates was very happy to learn yesterday that supporters
of the two tenant protection ordinances agreed to postpone the vote on both in
order to work out a compromise that everyone can support.
This is a big step in the right direction, but our work is not done.
We don't yet have a final product that will provide meaningful tenant protections
without taking away any existing rights. Here is the work that remains.
We must remove any rollbacks of tenants' rights.
The current version of FAIR would remove the fair notice protection for
owner-occupied two to six flats, which gives tenants ample notice if they must move
due to no fault of their own, while at the same time expanding the definition of
owner-occupied to include anyone with a stake in an LLC.
This would take away a critical right for thousands of tenants, and it's a number
that could grow as new LLCs are formed.
We must create a rental registry that creates true transparency in ownership.
The current version of FAIR allows the name of the owner to be a registered agent,
a technique that was specifically created to hide the identity of owners.
The registry also must come with a fee to create a revenue source to pay for staff
and infrastructure for enforcing tenant protections.
We must create true enforcement of rights by creating a fully staffed bureau with
staff that understand the laws they must enforce.
And finally, we need to rein in move-in fees so that tenants can afford to move
when necessary. We can't allow unlimited costs defined by landlords' opinions of
what is reasonable. We are moving closer together, but we are not done yet.
Renters in Chicago are more than half of the population.
They deserve safe, stable, affordable housing, and we as advocates will not let up
until we have an ordinance that ensures they get that. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker this morning is Tulsi McDaniels.
Hello, everyone. My name is Tulsi.
I'm a community organizer with the Metropolitan Tenants Organization.
Three years ago, I came to MTO with my own housing struggles when my neighbors
chose to form a tenants' union in response to conditions issues and a lack of
accountability on behalf of the landlord.
What we came to discover was that my landlord had more than 20 properties all over
the West Side in the same condition.
When our union met with renters out of those properties by going door to door in an
effort to build a larger tenants' union, we met tenants who were in denial of their
housing issues. Tenants were hesitant to share their repair issues with us because
when they spoke out about it, no repairs had been made.
My neighbors were all facing the same problem in juxtaposition to our landlord, who
lives a very comfortable life in the suburbs, and my landlord provides a
comfortable life for his family off those same tenants through the exploitation of
my community. Never mind the lives of the families on the West Side and the
dysfunction unstable housing causes them.
Now in my work at MTO, I continue to meet tenants who are in fundamental denial of
their housing grievances. Half of my job is telling renters that their housing
issues are not a personal or moral failure.
It is a systemic failure when our housing laws are behind other cities in the US.
Housing experts and advocates have drafted the Protecting Renters Ordinance out of
a need for greater tenant protections in the city and an agency that is funded to
enforce those protections. Because for the tenants that walk into our office, their
housing is actually not their main fight.
Their housing is a feature of the fight they wage as working and nationally
oppressed people.
MTO continues mobilizing tenants across the city and meeting with alders because we
believe in a future with stronger tenants' rights under the Protecting Renters
Ordinance. The opposing ordinance, FAIR, would be a rollback of tenants' rights and
was drafted in response to PRO. How do you draft an ordinance
around housing without housing or policy experts at the table?
We refuse to roll back any tenant protections. No on FAIR, yes on PRO.
Thank you very much for your comments. Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
My house.
One of the aldermen said, "This is my house." You work for the people.
You work for the people. You're a public servant. We pay you.
Your job is to service us. Mr. Blakemore, what is the political
makeup of all these aldermen? All of them are Democratic.
Big Head Trump is not here. I advocated for Big Head Trump to come here
and clean up this swamp. I advocated for that.
All of them are Democrats. Just imagine, you live in a house, and it's all
mamas and no daddies. Or in a house that's all daddies and no mama.
No check and balance. While I'm talking over here, you see that old lady talking to
someone else? Well, why do you say that this is a swamp?
Because so many of our elected officials have been indicted. Criminals.
Criminals. "Well, what is the solution, Mr. Blakemore?
You're just talking loud and boisterous.
So what is the solution?" Term limitation.
You bring your A here for eight years, and you get your A out.
That's one solution, term limitation.
They stay too long, and they become complacent. That's one.
What else?
We need a manager, somebody that will manage this city.
They don't know how to manage. They sold out these streets.
Now they're here to buy them back. There's something evil here.
There's something un-American here And the black ones are a piece of S-H-I.
The white ones, the Hispanic, the Asian, all of them. All of them.
What did Marie Antoinette say? "Feed these people cake.
They're no good." Later on, you know what happened. A French Revolution.
They cut her neck off. It's time for us to purge ourselves of all of them.
Try a little something different. Different.
Because you cannot continue to do this over and over again.
It's insanity. You cannot continue down this road.
Kick the baby out, throw the bathwater out.
And be damned Trump didn't have a damn thing to do with this here.
It's something evil. It's something un-American. And they all Democrat.
They're low-life people. Throw them all out.
I smell something that stink here, real funky here.
You can look good, you can talk good, you can smell good, and you can act good, and
be a piece of S-H-I. That go for me, too.
I can wash this f**k o*f, but you are funky from within. From within.
From within. Throw them all out.
Oh, my
bad.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Speakers are reminded that people of all ages are listening to public comments, and
we ask you to please refrain from personal attacks or using any profanity.
Our next speaker this morning is Jessica Jackson.
So, probably the most disappointing thing I've heard all year
is when you announced that you were running for re-election.
I don't know if it was the worst thing I've ever heard, or if it was the most
unbelievable thing I've ever heard.
The fact that you would have the audacity
to throw your hat in the ring to run for mayor
when your original campaign promises haven't even been kept.
You said over and over again that you were not going to raise property taxes,
yet the South Side and West Side, where most Black people live,
Mayor Blickety, Blickety, Blickety, Black,
got up to 133% property tax increase.
You said that you were going to get crime down,
but again, Mayor Blickety, Blickety, Blickety, Black,
the crime has not gone down regardless of how you put out lying statistics.
Everybody can see with their own two eyes that crime is not down.
Now, the fact that you have sent people after Chicago Flips Red, and you have,
because you're trying to hold on to these people that got contracts and all this,
that, and the third.
Rather than do what you should have done in the first place so Chicago Flips Red
would have never got started. And that would have been if you would have protected
our property, our real estate. You got all these people in here talking against
landlords, talking against property owners, as if we don't have the right
to own property. As if it's some type of crime to pass things down to
our children.
How sick are you? You already got a res-- what is it?
A residential landlord tenant ordinance that you don't support at all, because if
you did, those squatters wouldn't have never been able to squat on me for three
years. You need to hurry up and get out of office.
And the fact that Mary Richardson Laurie is going, nothing could be finer.
She's nothing but a liar. And the fact that Anthony Beale and that Brandon Riley
got up and sung your praises on TV when you're nothing but a liar.
You could have stopped a lot of these cases, and you chose not to, including mine,
including Zoe's. So the next time you think about sending somebody for me,
you better understand this. Threats don't make me stop.
What's going to make me stop is that you settle my mother's case, that you give me
what's rightfully mine. And until that day, I'll be back.
I'll be back the day after that, and the day after that, and you need to get out of
office, loser.
Thank you very much for your comments. Our next speaker this morning is Zoe Ma.
Good morning, members of the city council. My name is Zoe Ma.
I'm an independent progressive candidate for mayor of Chicago.
I'm also a real estate professional and a small landlord who rents out my own
condominium. I'm here today to ask you to strengthen the Protecting Renters
Ordinance with one clear and fair standard.
Limit the small property exemption to only one property index
number, one PIN, with no more than four residential units.
Why four units? Because one to four units properties are commonly treated
as residential properties in mortgage finance.
Properties with five or more units general
fall into multifamily commercial financing. The distinguishing matters.
There is major difference between a Chicago homeowner who
owns a two-flat, lives in one unit and rent the other, and the professional
investor operating dozens of hundreds of rental units.
We should protect genuine small property owners, but we should not
create an exemption so broad that it becomes a loophole for the commercial
landlords and the large real estate investors.
The exemption should be therefore follow three simple rules.
One owner, one qualifying PIN, maximum four units.
And beneficial...
Sorry.
The beneficial ownership must count.
A landlord should not be able to create 10 four-flats, place each
property in a different LLC, and then claim 10 separate small property
exemptions. The ordinance should look at who actually owns and controlled the
properties, not simply the name of the LLC operating on the deed.
Once a building contains five or more residential units, its tenants should receive
the full protection provided by the Protection Renter Ordinance.
This is not about choosing between landlord and tenants. I understand both sides.
I have worked in real estate for decades, and I'm a small landlord myself.
Small property owners facing rising property tax, insurance, assessment,
maintenance, and repair costs. Those challenges are real, and the city policy
should recognize that. But protecting small property owners should not mean
weakening protection for tenants living in-
Thank you very much for your comments. However, your time has expired.
Thank you.
Our next speaker this
morning is Gordon Demowski.
Good morning. My name-
Good morning
My name is Gordon Domowski. I am a resident of Chicago.
Three years ago, I was one of 125 tenants who lost their leases because
a large property management company bought out five buildings in the Beverly
neighborhood. We organized and were able to assert our rights.
And I'm here to urge you to please pass the PRO ordinance.
The PRO ordinance
is legislation that extends current renters' rights according to Chicago ordinance,
and was built with two years of community impact and feedback from tenants like me.
FAIR, on the other hand, is nothing more than an AI-generated legislative trash
fire, which
only
appeals to the rights of corporate landlords and property managers.
Tenants are left out of this.
FAIR should be consigned to legislative oblivion.
What we need is legislation that not only lets renters know what their rights are,
but also gives them an office that they can actually process these things, and they
don't have to go through the process that I and other tenants had to go through
because we lost our leases for no good reason.
We also need a robust, transparent rental registry that provides information to
better inform both current tenants looking for an apartment and potential tenants
who are living in conditions so they know and can report what their landlord is
doing. So I urge everyone to remember that housing is a human right and to
pass PRO now. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments. Our next speaker is Zoe Lee.
My name is Zoe Lee. I'm the founder of CFR.
And yeah, it is disappointing that you put your hat in the ring.
Again, the main reason why CFR is here because
you ignored my issue. The city of Chicago is
unlawfully demolishing
our properties on the South Side and West Side so they can get that TIF money,
and you ignored it. You had everybody else coming to me, Kennedy, everybody else,
but nobody would solve the issue.
They say money is on my head
because then Danielle will not get out the race.
People on the West Side is threatening her volunteers if they get signatures.
Let me tell you something. You can bring everything out of my past.
I know what I used to do. That's why I know y'all stealing.
All y'all do is launder money all day. I've been watching y'all for three years.
I've been going
with you your whole term. I've been with you the whole term.
That $830 million, I'm waiting to see what it's going to, because it's not going to
lights. It's not going to capital improvement.
Somebody just got killed on Lake Shore Drive yesterday, two days ago, and the
family came to us because there's no lights on Lake Shore Drive.
Each of y'all get $1.5 million
for capital improvements in y'all ward.
The South Side don't even have lights practically anywhere.
The streets say you a conservative vice lord, so crime ain't never going to go
down.
You are. You're okay with the crime. You're okay with our kids shooting each other.
You're a former teacher. It's 22,438
unhoused CPS students, and we paying $26,000 for each.
Everywhere I go, I see a Black elder homeless out here asking for money.
Today after I leave here, I got to go back to Auburn Gresham because there's a
family, an
elder couple, about to lose their home. You don't care about nobody.
So you can play that with that little Michael Jackson voice.
"I'm fighting, I'm fighting."
You're not.
All y'all acting.
But let me tell you something. I'm not in this.
If anything happened to me, Chicago, make sure Danielle get that seat.
Thank you very much for your comments. Our next speaker is Tyrone Mohammed.
How y'all doing? Hey, Mayor.
Morning.
Mayor, I feel sorry for you.
I really do. Just to see all the stuff we've been through fighting.
I know I'm one of the first ones that went to jail when the migrants bus came in.
One of the first.
I hear all this talk about you and the $51 million and Lori Lightfoot,
and I don't hear nothing about them talking about this J.B.
Pritzker, king of Illinois, the $3 billion he put forth.
It's amazing to me. Somebody like me could go to prison, do 21 years for murder,
and get more respect than you getting. That's a problem.
That is sad to me. And anytime we decide to take
matters into our own hands as citizens, we got aldermen who think they shouldn't
even be challenged, think they have a monopoly even on their seat.
And when you do so, certain of them retaliate against you.
Like Alderman Derek Curtis.
This man towed all my cars in front of my-- on the side of my center.
Over $150,000 worth of vehicles.
Well, Lopez, I patrolled your community in them cars.
I patrolled Greg Mitchell community in them cars.
Your community, Sister Scott, Colemans, Jeanette Taylor, all them
vehicles. I've been gang banging all my life, ain't nobody ever took nothing from
me. And you ain't going to take nothing from me using your authority to do it.
And the next time you send a gangster or anybody, I'm going to send them back and
put them on your porch.
You got to stop that. You not a gangster.
You're an alderman, a legislator, and a policymaker. Stay in your place.
Because I support Brandon, you're not going to use your authority
to harass, intimidate, and threaten me.
I will have you investigated. You openly said you didn't do it, and then when
you're upset, you said you had all my cars towed.
Who you think you playing with?
All my life and prison.
You going to-- You know what? Say it louder so the people can hear you.
Because you want to get in the mud with me.
Please continue to direct your comments this way, please.
Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. But I'm telling you, your council members, as the
authority of them,
Sister Coleman, as the only Black caucus, I'm telling you, this guy's out
of order. He's used his authority amongst others, and we're going to have an
internal investigation. I already got something going on.
You going to return my vehicles, or I'm going to be returning yours.
Thank you for your comments. Your Honor, there are no further speakers.
Do we have timing?
Thank you. This completes our public comment period. We have two acknowledgments.
First, Chairwoman Harris would like to congratulate Dr. Peggy A.
Montes on turning 90 years old. The chair recognizes Chairwoman Harris.
Thank you. Dr. Peggy Montes is here with us, and I'm honored to welcome Dr.
Peggy A. Montes, a philanthropic leader,
and a trailblazing volunteer who has dedicated her life to serving fellow
citizens, empowering women and girls, and educating children.
A seasoned cultural, educational, and a woman's right activist, Dr. Peggy A.
Montes is best known as the founder of the President of the Bronzeville Children
Museum, which is located right in the heart of the Eighth Ward community.
This museum is the first and only African American, Black African American
children's museum in the country.
Peggy is the recipient of numerous honors and awards.
I would want to highlight her Chicago State Lifetime Achievement Award because we
all graduated from there. Peggy has also been appointed to numerous boards
within the City of Chicago, Cook County, and even the White House with former
President Bill Clinton. Additionally, she's held several premier board memberships
and recently retired after serving 24 years as commissioner/chairman of the
Cook County Commission on Women's Issues.
I'd like us
to stand today and give a warm welcome and deserving applause for her
contribution.
And finally, wish her a happy 90th birthday.
Happy birthday. Happy birthday.
Happy birthday to my dear Peggy. Thank you so much, Mr. President.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Chair recognizes Alderman Tagliabue.
Mr. President, I'd like to be counted as present for purposes of today's quorum.
Very well. Madam Clerk, would you please add Alderman Tagliabue.
Chair recognizes Alderman Mitchell.
Same, I'd like to be added.
Very well. Alderman Beale, you're recognized.
To be marked as present also.
Very well. Alderman Robinson.
I would like to be marked as present.
Please, Madam Clerk, add all of those individuals to the quorum roll call.
Very well.
Alderman Gardner would like to honor the passing of Chicago Fire Department
Battalion Chief
Sean Kevin. Chair recognizes Alderman Gardner.
Thank you, Mr. President.
On behalf of Alderman Spizzano, Alderman Napolitano and Alderman Nugent,
and everybody here in City Council, I would just like to acknowledge the passing of
an extremely good man. Last week we laid to rest Sean Kevin,
who was the battalion chief of the 18th Battalion.
He was a captain at Engine 76, a lieutenant at Engine 113, fireman at Truck 7,
and he spent the majority of his career as a fireman at Truck 29 serving the Austin
community, your community, Mayor Johnson.
More importantly, he was a father of three children.
Maggie Delaney and his son, Will.
Long-time partner of Jackie, his girlfriend.
He was a loyal friend, a good fireman, and a great father. We lost a good man.
And although he was a resident of the 39th Ward, many people knew him as the mayor
of Merrimac. If you needed something, if you needed a hand carrying in
drywall, you called Sean. If you need somebody to serve on the LSE, you called
Sean.
If you need an electrician or a carpenter, he had a guy.
That's who Sean was. And as proud as he was to be a public servant, to be a member
of the Chicago Fire Department, he was even more proud to be Irish.
He loved his heritage. He loved celebrating St. Patrick's Day.
He loved Pearl Jam. He loved traveling, the White Sox, playing golf and meeting
his good buddy, Bill Murphy, at the 19th hole for a cold beverage.
The Kevin family would like to especially thank all members of the Chicago Fire
Department in Local 2
for their friendship and companionship during this difficult time.
I had the privilege to work with Sean for many years on the west side of Chicago.
My words could not adequately encompass the type of man Sean
was.
The Kevin family would like to especially thank Bill Murphy, Mike Price, Larry
Lempa, Dan Lipinski, Phil Miller, Greg Novak, Mark Nothouse, and Vince Duffy
for their companionship during these last couple of weeks.
Please, if it's okay with you, Mayor, if we rise in a moment of silence for Sean
Kevin and the Kevin family.
Thank you, Alderman Gardner. Let's please rise
for a moment of silence
remembering Chicago Fire Department Battalion Chief
Sean Kevin.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
This concludes all of our acknowledgments for this meeting.
We do not have any resolutions. Next up, communications. And there are none.
For committee reports, there are no committee reports today.
For the agreed upon calendar,
Alderwoman Harris.
Thank you, Mr. President. I received from the city clerk, Andrea M.
Valencia, a total of two items from the agreed calendar consisting
of congratulatory, commemorative, tributary resolutions for the following
alderpersons, Alderperson Dow, Alderperson Chico, with three additional
from Alderperson Harris and Alderperson Gardner. I move these in the omnibus.
Hearing no objection, so ordered. Now for new business.
The clerk will begin with the 50th Ward.
Traffic regulations, traffic control signals, and traffic signs, which are referred
to the Committee on Pedestrian and Traffic Safety.
Alderperson Knutson has proposed ordinance for approval of Blues Legacy
Resubdivision, which is referred to the Committee on Transportation and Public Way.
Alderman Vazquez has proposed ordinance for amendment of Municipal Code Sections
2-4-058, establishing Bond Vote Transparency Ordinance, which is referred to the
Committee on Finance. Alderperson Waguespack has proposed ordinance for approval of
the Riverwind Resubdivision, which is referred to the Committee on Transportation
and Public Way. Alderperson Waguespack also has proposed ordinance for support of a
Class C tax incentive for the property at 1825 West Webster Avenue, which
is referred to the Committee on Economic, Capital, and Technology Development.
Alderperson Burnett has proposed ordinance for an honorary street designation as
Kennen Carl Thomas Way, which is referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Public Way. Alderperson Burnett also has proposed ordinance for an honorary street
designation as Paulin and Juanita Soto Way, which is referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Public Way. Alderperson Burnett also has proposed ordinance for
amendment of Municipal Code Section 4-60-023 to allow additional package goods
licenses on portions of West Washington Boulevard, which is referred to the
Committee on License and Consumer Protection, and a proposed ordinance for approval
of the Agni Subdivision, which is referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Public Way. Alderperson Hopkins has proposed ordinance for establishment of
complaint reporting of alleged violations and service requests regarding operation
or parking of bicycles, electric mobility devices, and motor scooters through the
city's 311 system, which is referred to the Committee on Public Safety.
Alderperson Hopkins has proposed ordinance for amendment of Municipal Code Section
4-8-037 prohibiting operation of mobile food vendors on portions of North Well
Street, East Huron Street, North Lake Shore Drive, West Chicago Avenue, and West
Division Street, which is referred to the Committee on License and Consumer
Protection.
Alderpersons Mitts and Harris have proposed ordinance for amendment of Municipal
Code Section 3-50-110 regarding
exemption and
credits for wholesalers, which is referred to the Committee
on
the Budget and Government Operations.
Your Honor, that concludes the presentation of all thematic introductions.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We have no journal to approve today.
We do have some unfinished business. The chair recognizes Alderman Mitchell.
Mr.
President, I'm aware of four pieces of unfinished business.
The first piece of unfinished business was filed by Chairman Dowell and Alderman
Waguespack, and I defer to Chairman Dowell.
Very well. Thank you, Alderman Mitchell. The chair recognizes Chairwoman Dowell.
Thank you, Mr. President. Alderman Waguespack and I filed a Rule 41 notice with the
clerk of our intent to call for a vote on SO
2026-0025407, a substitute ordinance
authorizing the approval of the ownership transfer pursuant to the Chicago Metered
Parking System Concession Agreement, which was deferred and published on September
25th, 2026. I move passage of this item by roll call vote.
Very well. There's a motion on the floor for the passage of this item by roll call
vote. Does anyone wish to speak to this item?
Very well. Chair recognizes Alderman Irvin.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I think many of you know my position on this particular matter, and
I still stand on the premise that we should
take our streets back.
We all know that this has always been couched as
the worst
municipal finance deal in the history of our country.
The irony of this is that
some of the same things that were stated in 2008 are
playing out again
in 2026.
2008, they said it was the deal of the century.
Same thing was said again.
Last time in 2008, there was a false sense of urgency.
Same thing again.
Last time we talked about the city's financial condition,
needing the $1.5 billion.
Same thing again.
Last time we had no independent financial analysis.
Same thing again.
Last time this body had no legal counsel to advise us as
a legislative body. Even though we did have outside counsel, they were
primarily on the transactional side.
When legal counsel was requested, it was denied.
Again, same thing again.
Understand our role in this process is not governed by that contract.
This legislative body's role cannot be
governed by contract. Contrary to what we've continuously been told,
that we have to operate within the confines of the contract.
One legislative body cannot, let me say this, cannot bind
a future legislative body
with respect to any of our police-related legislation.
And when I say police power, it's only the health, safety, and welfare, but also
the financial welfare of the city of Chicago.
We've been told we'd be sued if we don't do this.
We've been told
our kids will be sued. They told everything negative that can happen to us as
related if we don't pass this today.
Again,
if our voice or our role in this process
didn't matter, then why are we here?
Why did the contract say that we had to approve it?
It didn't give us any parameters, but we've been told consistently that we only can
operate in a certain way.
I said this before in finance, and I'm going to say this again.
Unfortunately, we have been trained to believe that we are powerless.
I use the example of an elephant as a child,
as they tie a rope around its leg, that they can't break the rope as a child.
But that same elephant, 20 years later, could very easily break that
rope. But unfortunately, it's not the physical it deals in, it's the
mental. It's that we've been trained to believe that we have no power.
And unfortunately, we believe that.
We have been left on this deal in the desert for so long.
The only thing that I could think of is every time we went to close the street,
they said, "Screw you, pay me." Every time we had a festival, "Screw you, pay me."
Every time we tried to do something for the benefit of the residents of the city of
Chicago, they said, "Screw you, pay me."
And here we are again, getting screwed, and go pay.
Like I said, you leave people in the desert long enough, you give them a saltine,
and they'll think it's a Ritz.
I stand behind this. I think that history will judge us poorly, just as it judged
the '08 council. In years, it will judge us poorly for this as well.
While we've created some level of financial
ability, we've done nothing for the residents in this transaction.
They'll still pay the 35 cents. They'll still be subject to increasing parking
rates. When we have an opportunity to do something to solve that, we chose to cower
down and sell out for $75 million. It's unfortunate, but
again, history will judge us for that in the future.
Hopefully, maybe none of us will be here.
I do want to give accolades to those back in 2008 who stood for this.
It's unfortunate that those same people won't stand again today. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to echo also the comments from Alderman Irvin.
And history seems to have a very funny way to repeat itself.
Same
interest, actually, that said that this was the deal of the century continue to
repeat the same fallacies of today, and we can show with the numbers.
This is a very profitable operation by both companies.
Chicago parking meters will be 3.5 billion richer
because of this deal. 3.5 billion.
Stonepeak will be projected to make $4.6 billion.
The question is: What does the city of Chicago
earns? $75 million in a course of 56 years,
plus no structural change in the privatization scheme
for a mere $75 million paid.
There's no rate protections for Chicagoans either.
So when we talk about the deal of the century,
for whom
and at what expense?
The pressure of this artificial deadline
and a gun in our heads to sign it, it was the very same reason
why Daley
signed a nefarious contract, the worst in the history
of the country.
And yet, here we are again.
The mere 5% profit sharing that we get, let me explain how it works,
because the companies never lose, they will write off
the interest,
the interest expenses, and depreciation.
The risk of the trend for the city of Chicago as public transportation and
changes to our car-centric system may change, will probably reduce their revenue of
$376 million, likely by half, if no more.
So to me,
and today, the responsibility
is with the Chicago that we love and care for.
My responsibility, CDOT's responsibility is with Chicagoans, not with these two
companies. And today, I tell you that these companies
are taking advantage of the dysfunctionality of this council.
They're taking full advantage of that.
It is incredible that we did not allow an independent financial analysis.
Many of the council members who voted for the deal in 2008 probably opposed to sign
it again.
And then I tell you that their responsibility in Chicago in a time of crisis is to
get the best possible deal.
And many think this is a laughable matter.
But then when we come to the budget season, we were going to see the pain of
Chicagoans. They'll always bear the costs, while the companies, the big companies
who donate to the same council members,
will gain billions at the expense of Chicagoans in the midst of a crisis.
So for that, my vote in opposition and my commitment to keep fighting for
Chicagoans. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank all the people that were involved
in this department of law, outside counsel, a lot of aldermen who over
several months added
their input to a very difficult deal.
There's no doubt that this was the worst deal in municipal history.
We were in a rush at that time. There was a lot of consternation about trying to
pass a deal that put money on the table for taxpayers to get through a budget.
But I don't blame anybody for voting for it back then, and I don't think I ever
have. I think it was a mistake, and it was a contract.
So what I don't want to hear today is people misleading not just anybody in
this council, but the public as well, people in this room and the people out there
that are listening.
The misleading comments
I find to be almost
reaching a point of not illegality, but unethical
behavior.
And first of all, let me address the issue.
Last year, there was a bid put in by the mayor's office.
There was an NDA put in place, non-disclosure agreement, which said that the city
council could not look at that bid.
We even FOIAd it to see if we could get our hands on it and we couldn't.
But we moved on.
There was an attempt to renegotiate the contract a few months before this final
deal came forward, and that also did not move forward.
But there were aldermen in the room looking at the ways to change that deal.
So there, again, there wasn't quite the rush that we're hearing about.
There was financial analysis done on this deal.
But here's the catch.
This was a 58 years left on this contract.
There's
a binding contract.
CPM through Stone Peak extended the deadline for the city council several times,
and I thought that was a good gesture on their part,
a good sense of negotiating, making sure that we had time to look at the details.
So a lot of us took that opportunity to start negotiating, to work with them with
the leadership of Alderwoman Dowell. We had legal counsel at the table.
To act like somehow it was just a bunch of aldermen cooking up a deal
is misleading at worst. The pieces that were put on
the table, and I've just got to say what they were. They are $75 million.
A bunch of people said, "Hey, we got 75 million.
Let's split it up." We said, "Absolutely not.
It needs to go to pay for our pensions because that's where we have a problem."
The 5% profit share. Yes, there was discussions about that.
Did we want to start a lot higher? Absolutely.
When you go to buy a car, do you get the price that you want? No.
The dealer says one thing, you say another.
At some point, you reach the middle point, and that's what happened here.
Yes, we were given a bad deal back in 2008.
We tried to break it open, and this is what we got. 5% over the next 58 years.
There's a lot of talk about event closures, too, and that was built into this
contract many years ago. We've been able to break that open.
Enforcement protections or enforcement staff protections.
We now have, thanks to Alderwoman Taylor, more options on the table to make sure
that we're protecting that workforce.
LAZ has one of the highest minority
group of workers in the city on all contracts, and that will increase as well.
We looked at data sharing, making sure that none of these companies can share the
data with anybody outside of the city. They don't get to sell the data.
They don't get to send it to Homeland Security, anything like that.
And when I hear talk about that, and you've read the contract, and then somebody
goes out in the hallway and says something different, they're lying,
and that has to stop.
We have issues with EV charging. We're moving in the right direction on that
technology. We're moving in the right direction on the other technology that my
colleague, Red Burnett, put forward.
That's great ideas on how to make this work in the future.
So I just want to say that
this is a binding contract. We have till September 30th to close this deal.
The people who want to disrupt it right now, outside agitators or outside
businessmen who think they're going to come in at the last minute and manipulate
this vote, that's unethical at best.
They shouldn't be doing that. They shouldn't be interfering.
I was sitting there thinking about it last night thinking, "Boy, this is almost
like tortious interference." Trying to manipulate the vote at the last second to
what? Profit personally?
None of us that cut this deal are profiting personally on this contract.
Nobody in this room.
Nobody in this room is benefiting personally.
We signed a contract in '08. If we decide that we're just not going to abide by
contracts anymore, what kind of government is this?
You can throw everything out the door then if you think that no contract is
binding.
Mr. President, if we sat there and said that about the other contracts, we wouldn't
get paid on half the things that we do. Vendors wouldn't get paid.
The whole city would fall apart financially.
So I think this idea that somehow it's an artificial deadline, that's false.
We are bound by this contract. We are bound by our word, we are bound
by the documents that this city signed, and we have to vote on this.
I don't like the whole deal.
I don't like it from 2008.
But this is the best deal that we could get on the table.
And talking to a lot of you,
things are going to change over the next 58 years. That is true.
We're not all going to be here.
Well, I don't know who will be here 58 years from now, but
hopefully we're all long living like the people that we celebrated today.
But the bottom line is this is a good deal.
It's not the best in the world because we were stuck with the 2008 deal.
As Chairwoman Dowell said, we made lemonade out of lemons.
I think we did a lot better than that.
The money that's going to go to the pension payments that we need to make is
important, and that's going to build up over time.
So I would just suggest that we focus on what is in front of us, not misleading
ideas about what somebody else could do here at the last minute.
Because if those people had an idea, they should have brought it to the table a
year ago, and they should have shared it with everybody, and they didn't.
So what we were left with was a very tight deadline, and I'm proud to have worked
with my colleagues on this, all of you who gave input to this deal to say, "Here
are the things that we want to put on the table." There were dozens of ideas that
were put on the table. You are not going to get every single one of those.
A dozen of them is what we got.
And I would suggest that coming back after 18 years of looking at this deal,
trying to find ways to break it open, having lawyers, private lawyers, try to go in
and work on different legal angles. None of that worked.
This is the first time we've been able to really get something out of it
At least since 2013 with some of the hour changes.
So I would suggest that look at the work that was done, look at the leadership of
Chairwoman Dowell, look at where we are today compared to where we were in '08.
This is far better than anything we're going to get.
And I would just ask this whole council to strongly consider
supporting what I think is a great deal out of having nothing, which is where we
were before. So, Mr. President, I want to again thank all the people who worked on
this. It's a long list of people. Everybody in this room who put forth great ideas,
thank you for doing that. And I think collectively, we're going to come out for the
better on this new parking meter deal. Thank you.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Alderman Hall.
Thank you, Mr. President. I stand here to vote absolutely no,
for a few reasons. Number one, in this transaction of over $17 million,
there is no lead African American firm in this deal.
There's no lead lobbyists, there's no lead advisors, there's no lead accounting
firms. There's nothing that says that those who pay the
bills for this city are welcome to make deals in this city.
$17 million in which no one was called to come to that table.
So I stand to say that this is not the city
that we all are dreaming of. It's about the principle and the particular.
The principle ought to be that if 27% of folks in the city are Black, then there
should be 27% representation in the deal.
So what do we say to not only those who are watching, but those across the country?
That you can come to this city, only use Blacks as consumers, but never as
partners. So in the future, we're going to have to raise these parking fines
in order to make this deal lucrative.
In the future, we're going to have to raise the rates to park.
So what do we say to the Blacks who've been paying tickets for years, over billions
of dollars? We attack you to park, attack you if you don't pay.
Sad, but say this is nothing more than taxation and no representation. Thank you.
Chair recognizes Alderman Lee.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise in absolute support of this ordinance.
I am so proud to have been a part of the team that helped to negotiate
this deal, and have nothing but praise for Chairwoman Dowell and her leadership.
This has been an exercise in getting beyond the politics of this chamber,
which we all know happens a lot and
at the forefront of this exercise was the people of the City of Chicago and getting
a better deal for every resident, for every resident's child, and for every
resident's grandchild, for that matter.
For 18 years,
this parking meter deal, these words make everybody wince because we know what a
bad deal it was. And we've got the opportunity today, colleagues, to write a new
chapter.
What happened in the past has happened in the past.
There's really nothing we could do about it until this transfer deal came
through and the responsibility of approving that sale
is with the City Council.
And this council came together on one of those grounds, around reputation, and we
all stood firm together
that this company's affiliation, Stonepeak's affiliation with Omni, was something
that could not be tolerated. And that was the opening that we used in order
to get this deal done, a deal that at least one colleague in this
room, who voted no, who's still in office, my colleague Scott Waguespack, who since
this deal was cut, and for anybody paying attention, has been one of its loudest
critics. And he was at the table with us, and today he's supporting this
ordinance
to approve this parking meter deal that will allow us to write this next chapter.
Does it get everything that we want? We already know it doesn't.
If we had it our way, it would be very different. And here we are.
And I want to applaud Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry, whose last meeting
is today. Thank you, by the way, for all that you've done, because we have followed
your sage advice and your leadership on many other deals when it comes to
lawsuit settlements and the things that you've helped to make sure that the city's
benefiting from. And this is no different.
So I thank you for your leadership, the leadership of your team, all of the city
workers and lawyers that participated in helping to bring this deal to fruition.
For the first time ever, we're going to get a share of the profits.
There is something in it for the people of the City of Chicago for the remainder of
this contract, 57 years. I'm not even that old yet.
I can't even imagine what that's going to be like.
2% of any future sale, which we fully anticipate this is going to change hands some
more. So we've gotten a better deal, not just for today, but for tomorrow and every
day until this contract is over. We've included things that were not contemplated
in the past, and I'm sure there's going to be things in the future that we're not
thinking of. I don't know what flying vehicles there are going to be and where
we're going to be able to park things in the future.
But it is really rare that a legislative body has an opportunity to correct
something of this magnitude. So my ask to each and every one of my colleagues
today, is to join us together to pass this.
I ask for a yes on this, and we can show the residents of the
City of Chicago that we can put politics aside, and get the best deal that we can,
that we are here for the people of the City of Chicago, especially as we're going
into the season that we are going into now. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. Are there any other alders that wish to speak?
The chair recognizes Alderman Robinson.
Mr. President, thank you. I want to commend
Chairwoman Dowell and my other colleagues for their hard work on this
deal. I want to thank all the city departments as well that are working on this
deal as well. Mr. Mayor, I also want to thank you for your executive
order strengthening minority participation on contracts.
I look forward to, Mr. Mayor, working on a task force to make sure communities like
mine have a part in million-dollar and/or
billion-dollar deals.
Economics, I believe, particularly
African American communities like the 4th Ward, can transform our
communities if we have a bite at the apple.
There is not one industry in the African American community that we're not a part
of, and I believe that we have to be able
to get an opportunity on the front end, not the back end of deals, but the front
end. And so, Mr. Mayor, again,
I appreciate the executive order, but I look forward to, with my other colleagues,
making sure, again, that we are a part of these
multimillion-dollar, multi-billion-dollar deals that this city
is going to authorize. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Alderman O'Shea, you are recognized.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I wasn't going to speak, but I've listened to so much revisionist history the past
30 minutes, I couldn't help myself. I know that's going to shock some of you.
We all know this deal was garbage from the beginning, but we don't need to revisit
history going back to 2008. What we need to talk about is what's happened the past
14 months.
In July of 2025, this administration began conversations
on the parking meter deal.
In fact, they bid not once, not twice, three times.
The last bid, 3.2 billion.
Anybody know how much more that is with the actual sale we're talking about today?
What would that have done to our finances?
Money we didn't have, but a bid that this administration put in
that none of us knew about. Well, a couple of us here in the council knew
about it, but 45 or 46 of us didn't know anything about it.
We started to hear rumblings over the winter.
Nobody gave us any straight information, certainly not the administration.
So on May 17th, Sunday night about eight o'clock, I get a text message
from one of the mayor's allies. "Hey, want to see if you're available to meet after
finance committee tomorrow,
May 18th.
Seems to be an opportunity around the transfer of the parking meter deal for the
city council to weigh in on concessions, and the CFO and staff want to brief a
group of us tomorrow. Let me know if you're interested." Oh, I was interested.
I called around. Several of my colleagues didn't get that text message from the
mayor's ally.
So I took part in that meeting the next day, and it was interesting.
The mayor's leadership team, many of them, some in the room here today, were at the
meeting. And we were told that there's a non-disclosure agreement,
and the chief financial officer couldn't talk to us about it.
They bid $3.2 billion that we don't have, and the chief financial officer couldn't
talk to us about it.
The mayor then followed up with, "Well, this is in the city council's lap.
They have to vote on this."
That was May 18th.
I took part in that meeting, and I called b******t.
Jim Reynolds' name was also mentioned in that meeting, too, which is ironic.
So for the next 19 weeks,
all these people today talking about, "This is a bad deal and we're going too
fast," I never heard from them again.
You know who I did hear from?
I heard from the finance chairman.
I took part in meetings and Zooms and phone calls, as did many of us.
And she took the leadership, she took the bull by the horns, and she put together a
committee. My colleague Alderman Burnett, Villegas, Waguespack, Lee,
and they worked on this.
And they met with finance people, and they met with lawyers, and they met with our
fine corporation council, and they worked on this, and they worked on this, and
they worked on this. And they were transparent, and they shared information, and
they gave updates. They didn't hide behind a non-disclosure agreement.
They didn't say we can't talk about it.
And then a few weeks ago, we brought in Stone Peak.
Now, I know to a lot of people here, Stone Peak, oh, wow, the big, bad Stone Peak.
Well, you know what they did? They came in with several of the leaders from their
company, and they gave us straight answers.
And they told us they would get more information, and they told us they wanted to
sell on the air, which they've done.
They were straight shooters. This administration was anything but a straight
shooter.
And now, here in the 11th hour,
we started to hear last week about, "Oh,
we need to look at this. This is going too fast."
Come on, folks.
We've got a deadline tomorrow.
We've got a deal offered to us, a way to protect the taxpayers, a way to fulfill
our pension obligations. $75 million.
Which, by the way, in a couple of weeks, this administration is going to tell us
they're not going to make the advanced pension payment.
So we really need that $75 million.
It's getting old, folks. It's getting real old.
We've got an unbelievably difficult task in front of us, this $882
million budget gap.
I hope all the people that had the excuses today
want to roll their sleeves up and be a part of the process as we try to put a
budget together that puts us on better financial footing.
I'll be voting yes today, and I want to thank everybody who had a part in getting
us here.
Thank you, Alderman Shea, for your remarks. The chair recognizes... No.
Alderman Burnett, you are recognized.
Thank you, Mr. President.
About a year ago, we found out that the city had an opportunity to buy the parking
meter deal back for an exorbitant price of $3 billion.
And
over the course of months, it came to a conclusion that we weren't going to buy it.
Now, we had the option, and I'm not saying it was good or bad, but we decided not
to go forward with the acquisition of it back into the city's hands.
So be it.
The next step forward was figuring out how do we, as a council, dive deep into what
this contract is and who's going to be in ownership of this asset and our partners.
Over that time, our colleagues found that the company, Stone Peak, who was
acquiring this asset,
had a company that was directly affecting our residents negatively in a way that
violated their civil rights.
Over the course of months, starting in May, that concern became so prevalent,
and it was our responsibility to figure out what do we do in order to make sure
that our partners in the city who are coming into contracts now or who have them
have the same standard
of care for our residents.
And so my colleagues in the Latino Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, rightfully
so, protested this idea that we would work with someone who is working alongside
ICE to detain and ship out our residents.
That is how this whole conversation really started.
It started as an issue of civil rights.
And our responsibility was to make sure that people are enforcing
their duty with regards to our assets and our property.
And so for the course of four months, we tangled with this conversation of what do
we do with this transaction and this contract that everyone knows that was signed
in 2008 was a bad deal. Regardless of if you agree or disagree with
our sale of the asset in 2008, we signed a contract.
And whether or not Stone Peak acquired it or the CPM stayed in the
hands of Morgan Stanley, we still don't have that right.
So what we're arguing today is not about
the ability to buy the asset back because we gave up that right.
What we're arguing is how do we sign into a contract that makes sense for the
Chicago people?
And alongside Chairwoman Dowell and her great leadership with Alderman
Villegas, Alderman Scott, Waguespack, and Alderman Lee, we dug into the details
about preparing Chicago for the future,
getting the money up front for our pension, 75 million bucks that we know we
desperately need. Gaining some control and some revenue share with the asset
that we lost all ability to get revenue from before, 5%.
And 2% going forward for any future sales.
But more importantly,
we engage in this process thinking about how the future changes.
So I'm a nerd, and I wake up in the morning and look at videos of conferences in
the tech world about what's going on.
Everything is about what's happening in the AI world and what's happening across
our country and how quickly things are changing.
In that video, it was reminded or bestowed upon me that between 1870 and
1900, 30 years We went from a society that mainly
got around on horses to then being a society that mainly got around on trains.
This 30-year timeframe, our complete transportation system changed. 30 years.
30 years on from that, we became a society that was dominated by cars.
So we're over here arguing about a revenue stream that is not guaranteed 30 to 40
to 50 years down the line.
So we have to be prepared for all the changes that come
while still making decisions that make sense for Chicagoans today.
And I know for a fact that that money up front is something that benefits
Chicagoans today. But I also know that we worked very hard to make sure that this
contract is something that can help us in the future, and securing opportunities
that help us prepare for a changing environment that we can't predict.
And as long as this council is dedicated to doing the work to make sure that our
minority contractors are participating in the contract as it stands, that we're
preparing our workforce to adapt to the changes in our system and the way that we
get around, I'm sure that we will continue to reap more benefits from the deal at
hand. But we can't change the terms of what this agreement is.
We signed a 75-year contract in 2008. That is what it is.
We gave up the right to buy it. That is what it is.
Now we have an opportunity to work with a partner who has done what we've asked for
and sold a company
that did not agree to our standards. And that's a monumental feat, y'all.
A private company doing something on behalf of a city because they want to do
business with us, with the city of Chicago?
Let's not take that for granted.
They didn't have to do that, but to do work with us, it was a requirement, and
that's something that this council
enforced
in an unprecedented manner. So I think we should be very proud of how
far we've come as a council to make sure that our partners are held to the same
standard that we hold ourselves to.
But we should also be very proud that we are trying to fight for a better future
for the city within this contract and making lemonade out of lemons.
So I thank the chairwoman for her tremendous leadership on this, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Thank you, Alderman Burnett, for your remarks.
Alderwoman Hale 德 , you are recognized.
Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise to stand in support.
I will be voting yes on this.
In 2008, the five, and Alderman Waguespack will correct me if I'm wrong
because he's the... I think the five people who voted no, they were all part of the
progressive caucus.
We're here in a space where I think there was a 40, was it 45 to five vote,
something, or 40 to five, and five people were absent.
I would love, I know we have some people who are voting no.
I would love to see us actually beat those numbers.
This should be a unanimous yes, in my opinion.
I think that seeing the opportunity that we
have to do something a little bit better for Chicago, but also
what Chairwoman Dowel, Alderman Lee, Burnett, Waguespack, and
Viegas have done.
They really did put the city of Chicago first in this.
We've heard it in the briefings. We see it in the final deal.
What is it? Chicago doesn't have a mayoral problem. We have an aldermanic problem.
We got the T-shirt. I know when I first decided to try and be
an alderperson, that was a huge consideration of why would I want this title,
right? Why would I want this title?
I lived in the city through that parking meter deal, through school closures,
mental health clinic closures, terrible decisions.
I sat outside the fifth floor and held protest signs.
I did not appreciate aldermen or Chicago City Council, and I thought the body of
people before I was in it were making total terrible decisions.
And it was a rubber stamp council. I've been in this body now, this is my second
term.
Times are changing, and this body is necessarily actually changing with it.
I think what we're seeing in our decision-making process today, not just in the
vote, but the debate, I think in the work of colleagues that have brought this
opportunity to us, we're seeing maturity in the city council that I
hope is a trajectory that continues.
We have really difficult decisions to make, and we oftentimes don't have enough
time to make them. And it is nearly impossible to gather consensus with 50
minds. And so sometimes we have to trust the delegated power or
the people who just step up actually to take on the role.
And I trust these five colleagues in the work that they've done and the intentions
that they brought to it. I trust our corp counsel
here on your last day with us, and the team of people who put this together.
And so I just want to lift you five up.
I want to lift up everyone who participated in this.
I want to lift up our Latino caucus colleagues
who really pushed on the sale of Omni, and it's great to sit here and have that
press release from this morning that it's done. So thank you all.
So to our constituents, 49th Ward constituents, but also the residents of the city
of Chicago, I know that we get ugly in here sometimes.
I know that we're entering budget, and we're going to fight, and we don't always
agree. But I think that your city council and the vast majority of the people in
this body are really acting today, even if they're not supporting it.
They're acting in what they think is the best interest of the city.
And I don't know that that was fully the case in 2008. Going to be honest.
There was a different council, a different mayoral structure, a different
relationship, and a different deal.
But we're here, and even for folks who are in this body who maybe supported that
deal before, we've all lived through it, and we've all learned.
And that's one of the best things that we can do.
So I am proud of us as a council today.
I'm proud of our colleagues, and I hope you all will join me in voting yes as well.
And putting Chicago first for a deal that we are stuck with for another 50 plus
years is terrible.
I don't feel the good nature. I don't necessarily share my colleague Alderman
Burnett's opinion on the good nature of the corporation who wants to do business
with us. They kind of had us over under a barrel.
We didn't really have many choices here, and I want to be clear about that too.
And I'm also glad that they extended those opportunities for the discussion.
So, thank you to our colleagues. Thank you, Chairwoman Dowel, for your leadership
on this. And thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Alder. The chair recognizes Alderman Viegas.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Then our final-- Okay. Alderwoman, sorry.
Alderman Mike Rodriguez and Alderwoman Pat Dowel. No, you're good. I'm sorry.
I was just talking out loud. Please continue.
Thank you, Mr. President. I stand to stand in support of this
transaction, this ordinance.
I agree with some of my colleagues that this is the worst deal ever,
US history. I sit on some national boards, and this is the deal that often city
council members from different municipalities say do not do the parking meter deal.
But this is a contract, and what we're trying to do is make a virtue of a
necessity.
And I think that when we take a look at what we've been able to accomplish
in a transparent way, goes contrary with what the administration tried to do.
I look at the fact that this administration entered an NDA, and I look at the
corporation, the CEO, not advising the board of directors that they were about to
embark on a potential $3.2 to $3.3 billion deal,
which was $600 to $700 million more than what currently Stone Peak is purchasing it
for,
without any discussion.
And then hiding behind an NDA,
and then having the Stone Peak executives say, "Hey, we released the city from the
NDA," but the city's still hiding behind the NDA.
I just look at the hypocrisy and I think about the folks that are talking negative
about this contract, and I wonder if this administration even wants it to be done.
Because if you think about the people that are talking about it, key allies to the
mayor, and thinking about
the fact that his transaction didn't go through.
But here, the body, once again, is stepping up to do the work.
I have to wonder, is there an ulterior motive here?
And so,
this has been a tough decision. I want to thank my colleagues from the Latino
Caucus for bringing up that issue.
As much as I tried to include more language around the Welcoming City ordinance
into the transaction, we do have the opportunity, through the reputation clause, to
take a look at holding this firm accountable.
The fact that we know that these types of transactions are not going to last
throughout the 58 years, that there's an opportunity to benefit off another
transaction fee and to continue potentially building on the ownership that was put
in place, I think, puts us in a good position.
Listen, 1.15 billion transaction
with minimal discussion from that administration, this body has learned a lot from
it. And I think that we've set ourselves in a position now moving forward that this
body's going to continue to evaluate all the contracts that are there to make sure
that we're having as much discussion around it and seeing what's for the benefit of
the city of Chicago. So, a lot of hard work, a lot of meetings.
I want to thank my
colleague, Chair Dowell, for assembling this team.
Nicole Lee, Waguespack, and especially Walter Burnett, the newest member,
who really has a background in this industry and was really someone that we could
lean on to make sure that we were putting forward
good questions, but then making sure the responses were valid.
So, and I want to thank corporation counsel as well as the outside lawyers for
helping us navigate this. This was a tough deal.
We're going to continue to try to build on it because we know, again, like I said,
these transactions do not last the life of the term.
But this puts us in a better position.
And the fact that Police and Fire have reached out already,
and some of the other
entities that receive pension funds, or pension dollars rather, to say that they
appreciate the fact that the $75 million is going to go on top of the advanced
pension payment, also signals that we're going to keep our promise to them.
But also, I hope, indicates that,
to the credit rating agencies, that this is a good step forward in trying to deal
with this huge liability that we have.
So again, I want to thank my colleagues for
working together. I want to thank all my colleagues for asking questions during the
briefings, and trying to put us into a better position.
So with that, I'll be voting yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman, for your remarks. The chair recognizes Alderman Dowell.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I guess the one thing, a lot has already been said.
And I just want to say that nobody said that this was the deal of the century.
What we said was this was an example of a municipal finance deal
that was bad.
But
I believe that the deal that you are going to vote on today is ten
times better than the deal we voted on in 2008.
In June, we were staring at a contract that had zero benefits, no benefits
to the city. Zero.
And
we were also looking at a situation where we felt that trust was broken,
and this was just sort of thrown in our laps.
And I want to acknowledge the people who worked on this.
A lot's already been said, so I just want to acknowledge Alderman Lee,
Alderman Waguespack, Alderman Villegas, and Burnett for working on this deal.
I want to also acknowledge Alderman Taylor, Martin, Fuentes, Vasquez,
Hadden, and Riley, who actually had suggestions that got reflected in the final
contract. I want to thank Mary Richardson Lowry and her team of Jim
McDonald and John Hendricks and Mark Rotari from Jones Day,
and Veggie and Chip from the finance department.
And I want to thank Audrey Wade, the staff attorney with the Committee on Finance,
for all working together on this in this process.
We worked long and hard on this deal. We worked a lot of hours.
We risked our respective reputations and the negotiating position of the city, and
this was the definition of high stakes.
I think through gritty and nuanced negotiations and by facing the hard-hitting
truths, I think today we delivered to all of Chicago a better deal than
we delivered in 2008. And we'll continue to fight for
other improvements. I want to say to Alderman
Lamont Robinson and Will Hall, who brought up the point about
no minority involvement on the front end of this deal.
This was a company coming from outside of Chicago, doing work in Chicago, and we
included in the document requirements for MBE/WBE
participation and a yearly audit to make sure that they follow what they
agreed to. And join me, join us in
making sure that that happens. So I support this idea of a task force.
And I guess with that, Mr. President, I renew my motion for a roll call vote and
ask my colleagues to all vote yes.
Thank you. There is one more person that wishes to speak.
The chair recognizes Alder Vasquez.
Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want to reiterate more than what our colleagues
had mentioned. I just wanted to thank someone who wasn't mentioned here.
It's reporter Gillian Brockell, whose story in Mother Jones helped us really get an
understanding about the company that was part of Stone Peak at the time, and I
think led to what clearly was an opportunity to create a table and have
negotiation. I think but for that information, there wouldn't have been any
possible negotiation or leverage.
And without our colleagues, led by Alderwoman Dowell,
we wouldn't be here. I think we all feel a tremendous weight related to the 2008
deal. There's a tremendous weight even voting on this one, knowing that objectively
it's an improvement to what's already been written in the contract.
But I do want to thank Gillian again for that work because it
allowed us to have the conversation.
I am also in support and want to thank our colleagues who held strong in making
sure that our votes were reliant on an asset being divested and us getting the
information about it yesterday, that that is what is happening going forward.
I want to thank our corporate counsel as well and would also urge our colleagues to
vote for it as it showed that the alder may not always be the problem, sometimes
they're the fix. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you very much for your remarks.
Members, please use your e-vote application to vote at this time.
Please use your e-device. The voting is now
open.
All right. I will now use the e-device or will now call for a voice vote who did
not use their e-device. Alderman Calafaro?
Calabro is a yes. Alderman Riley? Riley is a yes.
Alderman Gardner?
Gardner is a yes. Alderman Clay?
Not in chambers.
Right, Gardner is a yes. Anyone else I missed?
Okay, let me get that in. And voting is now closed.
46
There are 46 yays, three nays. This motion passes.
Alderman Mitchell on a vote to reconsider.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider.
All those in favor of the reconsideration of this vote signify by saying "I." Any
opposed, say "No." This motion fails.
The second piece of unfinished business, I believe we have.
The chair recognizes Alderman Mitchell.
The last two pieces of unfinished business are filed by Alderman Villegas, and I
defer to him.
There's one before that.
There's one before that?
The second piece.
Oh, the second.
Yes, my apologies.
The second piece of unfinished business was filed by Alderman Quinn, and I defer to
him.
Very well. The chair recognizes Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Rules of Order procedure of the City Council, City of
Chicago, I call for a vote on
020260026270, which was deferred and published
at the city council meeting held on September 23rd, 2026. Mr.
President, I ask for a roll call on this item.
Very well. There's a motion on the floor for this item, the roll call vote.
Alderman Conway wishes to speak. Chair recognizes Alderman Conway.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I first want to start off by thanking Alderman Quinn for
bringing forward this ordinance and for your many years of service to the city of
Chicago and your many years of service to the 13th Ward.
And I think this will be a great capstone to your legacy here in City Council.
Can I get a little round of applause for Alderman Quinn?
Thank you.
Maria, try. It's tougher.
It's okay. Please.
Anyway, our debt load is really a silent killer on our budget.
This year, we're going to spend about $2 billion on debt service, and that number
will increase next year. By the way, remember in '08, we sold the parking meters
for $1.1 billion, so I hope that puts $2 billion in perspective.
The risk we are facing going forward is becoming too tied up in paying the interest
on the taxpayer's credit card that will crowd out our ability to fund parks and
schools and roads and police officers and mental health clinics.
And to put that $2 billion in a little more context, we all love streets and
sanitation, right? Bureau of Sanitation, Bureau of Rodent Control, Bureau of
Street Operations, Bureau of Forestry, Bureau of Traffic Services.
Big part of the bread and butter of what we do in this chamber.
The total budget for all of that is $350 million a year.
So we will spend on debt service this year six times that amount.
We will spend six times as much as we will spend on streets and sanitation.
And so much of our borrowing has been pushed into the future, which will make this
problem worse in the years and decades to come.
Now, to be fair, most of the fiscal challenges we face today are based on
terrible financial decisions involving debt issuances and heck, asset sales, that
predate our time on this council or on the fifth floor.
But this fiscal mess is now our responsibility.
We all need to work together, the mayor and across this council in the coming
years, to confront these challenges, exercise fiscal discipline, and avoid passing
even greater burdens onto future generations.
Now, we all know that borrowing is sometimes very necessary,
but significant new debt should require broad consensus.
And this ordinance, which helps establish a
60% threshold, helps ensure that we make these decisions carefully and
collectively. And 60% is a good compromise to ensure that some vocal minority
can't make unreasonable demands, but that new debt issuances are broadly agreed
upon. So I am proud to support this ordinance, greatly encourage anyone to vote for
it, everyone to vote for it. And thank Alderman Quinn again for his putting forward
this ordinance, his leadership, and his service to the city. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
You're welcome. He still has time left on his term, by the way.
Are there any other alders that wish to speak to this?
The chair recognizes Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Good afternoon.
I've introduced an important ordinance regarding the city's bond rating and overall
debt structure.
I'm proposing a simple change that the City Council must approve any bond or
debt-related ordinances with a three-fifths, 30 votes, as opposed to a simple
majority, 26.
This measure passed the finance committee with a vote of 21 to nine.
But before I dig deeper into the ordinance, I want to be clear about what this
proposal is about.
The long-term health of the city. That's it.
That is the entire basis of the proposal.
This ordinance is about sound policy and doing the best for our residents.
This proposal does not apply to one mayor.
This is a long-term plan that would apply to all Chicago mayors moving forward.
As you know, I'm a strong proponent of a more independent city council and have
been promoting ways to enhance our independence for the past several years.
Utilizing a three-fifths vote as opposed to a simple majority allows more voices to
be heard and counted in addressing critical issues like Chicago's health and
the future.
Of course, this isn't a new concept.
A three-fifths vote is required in the Illinois General Assembly on all
debt-related matters.
It's a smart and solid practice that I believe the city should also adopt.
I see this as a win for the people of Chicago.
I also see this as a win for the City Council in gaining its independence.
I think we all agree we should have more of a voice in our city's long-term
financial health. Mr. Mayor, I renew my request for a roll call. Thank you, sir.
Very well. Are there any other alders that wish to speak to this item? Very well.
Seeing no other hands, there's a motion on the floor for the passage of this item
by roll call vote. Members of this chamber, please use your e-application to record
your vote at this time.
The voting is now open. The voting is now open. Please use your e-device.
The voting is now open.
If you need support for your e-device, please raise your hand.
I will now call those using the e-device. Alderman Espada?
Not present in chambers. Alderman Burnett?
Alderman Burnett is a no. Alderman Calafaro?
Not in chambers.
Alderman Vasquez? Not in chambers.
Alderman Riley?
Riley is a yes.
Anyone else I missed?
Okay, anyone walk in? All right. The voting is now closed.
32-15.
There are 32 yays, 15 nays. This motion passes.
Alderman Mitchell on a motion to reconsider.
Mr. President, move to reconsider the vote.
All those in favor of the reconsideration of this vote, signify by saying "I." Any
opposed, say "Nay." And in the opinion of the chair, this motion fails.
Alderman Mitchell on the last two items.
The last two pieces of unfinished business were filed by Alderman Viegas, and I
defer to him.
The chair recognizes Alderman Viegas.
Thank you, Mr. President. After conversations with my colleague stakeholders over
the weekend, at this time, I do not intend to call for a vote on either
S02026-0027202 or
SO2026-0026554 in order to afford
this body a little bit more time to find common ground on a path forward.
Very well. Thank you, Alderman Viegas.
Alderman Mitchell, any further unfinished business?
Mr. President, I'm not aware of any further pieces of unfinished business.
Very well. Miscellaneous business, Alderman Mitchell.
Except for the ordinance set the date and time for the next meeting, I'm not aware
of any miscellaneous business.
Very well. For the date and time of the next meeting, Alderman Mitchell.
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Chicago-
Handed this up to the ordinance to the clerk. Is that correct?
Setting the date and time of the next meeting? Very well.
Thank you, Alderman Mitchell, for doing that.
Madam Clerk, please read the ordinance.
Sorry, it was too fast. Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Chicago,
Section 1, the next regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chicago
shall be held on Wednesday, October 14th, 2026, beginning at 10:00 AM in the
council chamber on the second floor in City Hall, 121 North LaSalle Street,
Chicago, Illinois.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Alderman Mitchell.
Section 2, the ordinance shall take effect and be enforced from after its passage.
Gregory Mitchell, Alderman, 7th Ward.
Alderman Mitchell.
Move passes unanimously.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Shh. Just a second, please.
For the omnibus, Alderman Mitchell.
I move that matters in the omnibus be passed by a voice vote.
All those in favor signify by saying "I." Any opposed say "Nay."
In the opinion of the chair, the I's have it.
On the motion to reconsider, Alderman Mitchell.
I move to reconsider the vote.
All those in favor of the reconsideration of this vote signify by saying "I." Any
opposed say "No." This motion fails in the opinion of the chair.
Now for adjournment, Alderman Mitchell.
If there's no further business before this body, I move that we adjourn.
Hearing no objection, so ordered. The meeting is adjourned.