Shortly, please remember to log into your devices. Thank you.
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 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 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
kni-
Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Everyone, please have your seat.
City council will start shortly. Thank you.
- 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...
Good morning. The council will come to order.
Madam Clerk, please take a quorum roll call.
Great. Good morning. The quorum roll call is open. Please use your device.
If you're having difficulty, please raise your hand and let us know.
Thank you. I wouldn't want to spend it with anyone else, guys.
Love being here today on my birthday. Come on, what a better way to celebrate?
Here.
David Moore present, Rule 59.
Okay. We'll now call on those who have not yet cast their vote or marked themselves
present for quorum. Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hopkins, not in chambers. Alderman Robinson.
Alderman Robinson, not present in chambers. Alderman Yancy.
Alderman Yancy is present. Alderman Hall.
Alderman Hall, not present in chambers. Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Mitchell is present.
Alderwoman Harris. Alderwoman Harris is present. Alderwoman Ramirez.
Alderwoman Ramirez is present.
Alderwoman Gutierrez. Alderwoman Gutierrez, not present in chambers.
Alderwoman Coleman. Alderwoman Coleman is present.
Alderman Moore, not present in chambers.
Alderwoman Taylor, not present in chambers. Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Rodriguez is present. Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez, not present in chambers. Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Irvin, not present in chambers. Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Taliaferro, not present in chambers. Alderwoman Cruz.
Alderwoman Cruz, not present in chambers. Alderwoman Rodriguez-Sanchez.
Alderwoman Rodriguez-Sanchez, not present in chambers. Alderman Casada.
Alderman Casada, not present in chambers. Alderwoman Nugent.
Alderwoman Nugent is present. Alderman Gardner.
Alderman Gardner is present. Alderwoman Clay.
Alderwoman Clay, not present in chambers. Alderman Martin.
Alderman Martin, not present in chambers. Alderwoman Monae Hoppenworth.
Alderwoman Monae Hoppenworth, not present in chambers. Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Irvin is present in chambers.
Okay, did I miss anyone who is present in chambers? Okay, quorum is now closed.
There are 36 members that are present. We do have a quorum.
The following alders requested to participate in today's meeting remotely
for reasons stated in Rule 59.
Madam Clerk, can you confirm the presence of Alders Rodriguez-Sanchez, Taliaferro,
Robinson, Taylor and Moore?
Alderman Robinson, are you there?
Alderman Robinson?
Okay. Alderman Moore.
Present, Madam Clerk.
Alderman Moore is present. Alderwoman Taylor.
Here.
Alderwoman Taylor is present. Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderwoman Rodriguez-Sanchez.
Alderman Robinson.
Robinson is here.
Thank you. Alderman Robinson is present.
Robinson, Taylor and Moore.
Robinson, Taylor and Moore have confirmed their presence online.
Can I get a motion for the remote participation?
It's been moved. All those in favor signify by saying "I." Any opposed say "Nay."
And being the chair, the ayes have it.
Please add Robinson, Taylor, and Moore to the quorum, please.
Please rise 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.
Thank you. Please remain standing for the invocation, which will be delivered this
morning by Pastor Peace Uduchukwa
Ejika of the City Light Church
Thank you. Well done.
Very good. All right. Good morning, everyone.
Good morning.
So before we pray, I'd like to invite us into an understanding of prayer so that
we unite in heart and mind. Prayer is a divine authority entrusted to each of us to
exercise with unwavering faith, conviction, and love as we bring our
requests before our creator with confidence in his power to actually answer.
Matthew 18:19 reminds us of the power of agreement in prayer.
Regardless of our individual beliefs, I invite us to embrace a shared desire for
wisdom, justice, and love during these proceedings. Let us pray.
Heavenly Father, the creator of the universe, the knower of all things, the lover
of our souls, thank you for the gift of life on today.
And in honor of this gift today, may we align our hearts, our thoughts, our minds
towards your agenda and not our own.
As Daniel declared, we approach you not because of our righteousness, but because
of your great mercy. Great is your mercy and supreme is your sovereignty
over our government and all those entrusted with the responsibility of leadership
and service in this hour. Your word reminds us that power belongs to you and with
you is unfailing love. So as
you have created us in your image and in your likeness, may your spirit of love
prevail. Let your wisdom govern our leaders, let your love guide our conversations,
let your justice shape our decisions.
Let humility overcome any pride, unity overcome any
division, and of course, a focus on the humanity in which we have come
to serve. Let your kingdom come and let your will be done in Yeshua's name and all
those who agree, please say amen. Amen.
Thank you very much. You may be seated.
Please read the call of today's special meeting, Mr. Clerk.
The following call for the special meeting of the city council was filed in the
Office of the City Clerk on Thursday, October 29th, 2026 at 12:56 PM.
Clerk Valencia, we the undersigned members of the City Council of the City of
Chicago do hereby call a special meeting of the City Council to be convened at
10:00 AM on Monday, November 2nd, 2026 in the City Council Chamber in City Hall for
the following purpose and for no other purpose whatsoever.
To immediately consider an ordinance determining the allocation of the concession
payments among the city pension funds pursuant to Section 2.3 of
SO2026-0025407. Respectfully submitted, Pat
Dowell, Alderman, Third Ward. Nicole Lee, Alderman, 11th Ward, and Scott
Waguespack, Alderman, 32nd Ward.
Thank you. This is the portion of the meeting for 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
aldermanic review. Our first speaker this morning is Deborah Hudson.
Good morning.
My name is Deborah Hudson, and I am a senior and retiree.
I live in Chatham, and
I am here today asking the alderman for consideration for
the $75 million from the parking meter sale
to be used for our youth jobs, libraries, and city
services. So that's like tree trimming, the streets.
I retired last year, and
I was born and raised in Chicago, and I want to continue to see
the services be provided to everyone.
We've already gotten the
$363 million pension payment that the city is already making,
and that would be on top of the legally required $2.8
billion pension payment that they're already making.
So we don't need to make an extra pension payment.
The banks and the credit agencies are already happy with the minimum payments that
we're making and with the one extra payment we would make.
So I'm asking you to please support the $75 million
budget that the mayor introduced so that we don't have to do any massive cuts to
the youth jobs, libraries, and other vital services. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker this morning is Karl Gutierrez.
Good morning, Mayor Johnson and members of the City Council.
My name is Karl Gutierrez, speaking on behalf of the Chicagoland Chamber of
Commerce, composed of over 1,000 members of all sizes and industries.
I'm here to express both our support for the ordinance before the council today, as
well as appreciation for the council in calling this meeting and taking action on
this issue. Just over a month ago, to the tremendous credit of the council and its
leadership, 46 members voted to make the best of a notoriously bad situation.
Doing that work took time, but it was born out of commitment to the public, both
present and future, and by that process and outcome, it became defined by
inclusivity and collaboration, and a success story that was badly needed.
Central to that success was $75 million dedicated to directly help another
notoriously bad situation, and done so because it was the right thing to do.
It's for that same reason it was so disappointing to see just three weeks later,
that same funding deliberately misdirected in the proposed 2027 budget.
Beyond specific policy disagreements, it was emblematic of something broader and
fundamentally broken in that proposal.
It's not just the deliberate misdirection of a single payment within the budget.
It's also communicating to the public that the budget gap was $652 million when in
actuality it was $882 million. It's speaking to that same gap as being closed by
76% structural solutions when the actual level was only 56.
It's characterizing programs as having dedicated funding when the revenue for
funding remained under litigation.
It's casting operational efficiencies as reaching $85 million when about 80% of
that is simply moving those payments off the operating fund.
And it's dealing falsely with the public by calling a levy an increase on Big Tech
when it's actually essentially on all rentals in Chicago, which by statute is
required to be paid by the renter with the owner of that property, whether Big Tech
or otherwise, only serving as the middleman to collect that increase and remit it
to the city. And the list goes on. Policy disagreements are one thing, but these
misalignments to the public on something like this is wrong.
We are better than this, and we need to do better than this.
Bringing me back to where I began,
and that is to once again express our support for the ordinance before the city
council today and appreciation to the council and its leadership in taking the
action you have. Both in fact and as a representation of members of the public body
willing to be faithful to the public about challenges we face and forthcoming in
its commitment about how we face them. It's cause for hope, and we are grateful.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next speaker this morning is Jessica Jackson.
What's that?
That's the sound of a Xerox machine making photocopies of your petition.
That's what a cheating election sounds like.
That's what a desperate man sounds like.
You got to cheat for signatures.
Once again, Mayor Brandon Johnson, you make history, once again.
This time for being the first incumbent to ever to have his signatures challenged,
because you got found cheating.
Cheating.
Anybody in this room that signs anything with your name on it
is a cheater, too.
At this point, it should be a law that makes you not even be able to run.
You have completely tainted the mayoral process. You did this.
This is under your watch.
You did it. Just like you made history
by having the lowest approval rate in any mayor in the country.
That big production you had at the last city council meeting with the cameras, the
umbrellas, umbrella chocolate. You had all this full, had people forced to sit on
the third floor. Where they at?
Where are they? How do you go from a complete full chamber to an empty chamber?
How does that happen? Except for people know to get away from
. There's so much crime caught up in that.
What's her name? Irvyn's wife.
No wonder the FBI didn't follow through.
No wonder Irvyn stands behind you in every press conference.
No wonder you can count on him to stand up and go against everybody.
Who else did it? Yancey. Did Yancey do it? Because don't nobody want him either.
Don't nobody want Jeanette Taylor. Don't nobody want Michelle Harris.
These white aldermen in here,
they done already mentally flipped red. Believe that.
We coming for that seat in a way that y'all ain't never seen.
You made the pathway for it. Hey, new general counsel, lock that man up.
He committed a crime. Corporation counsel, he committed a crime.
He's cheating elections.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Adeline Bracey.
Good morning, Mayor, my son-
Good morning
... and other city council members.
Thank you so much for having us.
We're fired up. We can't take it anymore.
Again, my name is Adeline Bracey. That's A-D-E-L-I-N-E
B-R-A-C-E-Y.
I'm in total disbelief that some members of city council are trying to take money
from the Chicagoans who need it the most.
Newcomers and old-timers, who are the elders who've been around since the Daley and
Emanuel days, want to take funds that can be used to fund our communities, and
instead use it for an extra, extra pension payment that is
not necessary.
If you put that $75 million
toward an unnecessary extra, extra pension payment, it will blow a hole in our
budget. It will cost us investments in our libraries,
investment in our youth. We need our young people working, not twerking on top of
cars. They need employment.
We retirees need those investments.
And to my melanated brothers and sisters of city council who look like me,
why are you siding with the opposition?
Think about that. Let that resonate for a minute.
You live in and have authority in your ward over people who look like
you, and those same individuals voted you in office to represent them,
and now you're practicing theft by deception.
You've stolen their votes, and you're deceiving them.
You accepted their votes and promises that you would listen and act on their
behalf, and now you're doing the opposite.
In the words of our dearly departed Mr.
Lou Palmer, "It's enough to make a N***o turn Black."
Never in the history of Chicago have we witnessed a mayor who has tried and
succeeded in rebuilding our blighted neighborhoods.
Work with him. Take pride in what has and will be accomplished.
We're sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Maybe it's time for some of you to retire and let younger and fresher minds do the
work.
In my opinion, you're out of time, and you're out of touch, and we're out of time.
That money is our money, and we won't back down.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments. Our next speaker is Rosie Inwang.
Good morning, to all.
Good morning.
My name is Rosie Inwang, spelled R-O-S-I-E, last name
I-N-W-A-N-G. I am a retiree. I
live in the Seventh Ward, Hyde Park Township, South Shore
neighborhood.
I am retired after more than 36 years in the public sector.
Retirement is a major life transition for many of you, and I speak mostly to
city council members, for many of you will reach one day.
And you know that it is very important that city government do right by its
retirees. And I think today you probably feel that way.
That our city government is doing right by the retirees with the hope
that when you retire, that same thing will exist.
The budget that has been proposed by Mayor Johnson, his budget, does right by
retirees. And I ask why. When we look at $75 million,
and we look at the challenges that our great city is facing,
why would we want to take $75 million and have a large
surplus in that line item on budget?
If it can be demonstrated, if some know more,
I'm not looking at a budget. If that pension line item on the budget shows a
downfall, that might be concerning.
However, what we see is that the $2.8 billion pension
payment
is legal. It's made. On top of that,
the Mayor Johnson budget for this great city goes above and beyond and makes a
supplemental $363 million payment on the pension.
So again, I ask why. Why would we not want to take $75 million
and instead of using that as a surplus, when we know the challenges that we have
been faced in this great city of ours, challenges that we have been faced in
healthcare, health clinics, challenges that we have been faced in education, jobs
for youth. I ask city council members, why not use that money to
supplement and prepare for the needs of this great city?
If we drive down
... certain neighborhoods, our neighborhoods, the neighborhood that I come from.
And I see so many people on the street in need of healthcare.
Couldn't we use that $75 million for healthcare?
If you visited any of our schools in the neighborhoods, and I am really, really
concerned about when I think of-
Thank you very much for your comments. However, your time has expired.
Thank you.
Our next speaker this morning is George Blakemore.
Citizen,
I didn't come to beat up on the mayor.
I didn't come to beat up on the alderman.
I came to beat up on the ancestors. These old Black men and
women, failed to pass the baton on to the young ones.
When you know better, you do better.
This cesspool here,
this is a Democratic cesspool. Nothing going to turn red here.
It's a culture of corruption here.
Nothing will change here because these old Black men and women
my age or a little older or younger, they failed to teach the young Black
that they're young, and they're gifted, and they're Black, and they should tend to
their business. Politics is not your business.
You have no grocery store.
You have no service station. You have no bank, no insurance company.
You are a consumer. Black people have now, they're a consumer.
They don't produce anything because we always have dropped the ball.
I didn't come up here to beat up on Brandon Johnson. Somebody failed.
Maybe all our mamas and daddies and grandparents, if they could see us now.
If they could see us now with nothing,
they'd say, "What did we do wrong?"
No service station, no farming.
Black people have become consumers.
The food that they eat, the shoes on their feet, the toilet paper they use, the
false hair, and everything. We've gotten low. You know why?
We don't love each other. We don't trust each other. We're mean to each other.
The old folks have failed. You always have failed because you going to see the
young ones just fighting up and getting on Facebook, just fighting each other.
We need each other. We got to do better.
And you'll do better when you go get your own little grocery store.
It doesn't matter about no grocery store. It's there.
The food deserts are not in the Mexican neighborhood.
They're not in the white neighborhood. The violence is in the Black ghetto.
Because we have become bad in the Black ghetto.
Big Mama will look at you, and Big Daddy will look at you.
Somebody needs to check these young Black people before they wreck themselves.
And they can't put that on Brandon Johnson.
This is a Democratic cesspool. I voted for Harold Washington the first time, the
second time. I said-
Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker this morning is Alex Goldenberg.
Good morning. My name is Alex Goldenberg. I work with United Working Families.
I'm here to demand that the City Council use the parking meter funds for our youth
jobs, for libraries, for city services.
Using the parking meter funds to go toward an extra, extra pension payment does not
make sense.
We want you to know that we're paying attention to this budget, and there are
limits to the shenanigans that people of this city will tolerate.
The budget has already committed an extra $363 million towards pensions above and
beyond the legally required $2.8 billion pension payment.
We don't need to make an extra, extra payment.
It really sounds absurd when you say it out loud, especially on a microphone.
And the people of Chicago are listening. They get it. They understand.
The banks and the credit agencies, they're already happy with the minimum and the
extra. Fitch is happy. You can't make them any happier.
You're not going to make them any happier.
They're already quite happy with what we're doing.
If we spend $75 million on the extra, extra pension payment, it would mean a $75
million hole in the budget, which would mean massive cuts to youth jobs, libraries,
and other vital city services we can't afford.
We are paying attention. The residents of Chicago are paying attention.
And tomorrow is election day.
Tomorrow, voters in the 24th Ward,
in the 8th Ward,
in the 5th Ward,
in the 21st Ward, are going to get to weigh in on
whether their alderman should tax large corporations in the upcoming city budget.
They will vote on whether or not you should include the equitable employer tax in
the budget.
All we are asking you to do is to listen to your constituents.
What will you do if the results come back and they say 70, 80, 90% of your
constituents want you to do this? Will you still defy them?
The election results provide you the greatest justification possible for you to
support the equitable employer tax.
All we're asking you to do is to listen to your constituents.
Do right by the people of Chicago. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments. Our next speaker is Eleanor Baylie.
Good morning.
My name is Eleanor Baylie. And that's B-A-Y-L-I-E.
Okay, thank you. I am a retired senior on the South Side of Chicago in the
Chatham neighborhood. What I would like to address you this morning is that the $75
million from the parking meters is better spent on funding youth
jobs, libraries, city services, mental health,
and especially senior services. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Zoe Lee.
A lot of y'all come from the South Side. Y'all come from Chatham.
Y'all have the same script, youth jobs.
Y'all taxes went up. Y'all property taxes went up.
Wouldn't you think the $75 million would go to that?
But y'all don't think like that.
Anybody reporting voter fraud in the past elections or the upcoming 2026 midterm
elections or the 2027 mayor elections, President Trump is paying a million
dollars
for the fraud, and we're not playing no more.
Y'all not going to keep cheating and keeping this a socialist, communist,
democratic stronghold. We're not doing that. We're not doing that at all.
Now,
the $75 million that we're here while y'all keep playing
back and forth, Mayor Brandon Johnson already counted $75 million from Chicago's
parking meter deal towards his proposed 2027 pension budget.
But City Council wants the money added on top of existing pension obligations,
potentially creating another $75 million budget gap.
So where is Johnson going to find that money?
More taxes, more borrowing, more cuts.
How much will this actually reduce Chicago's pension debt?
That's how I know y'all don't look at the budget, because if y'all did, y'all would
try. Nobody's asking why they're all getting raises, because that doesn't make any
sense.
And they already have $4 billion in grant money that they have to give out,
and they give it out to the same people.
The same preachers,
Father Pfleger.
They give it out to the same nonprofits.
The Neighborhood Opportunity Grant be the same people. It's all a racket.
It's a RICO. And they have to give this money out.
And y'all sit here and play this game for a few months.
Well, just like y'all pay the people to come in here like that over there.
Some of them are probably not being paid, but the white guy that came over here,
he's definitely being paid from United Working Families to put y'all together, to
come in here and act like y'all are doing something. It's a game.
Gregory been saying it's a game.
A game that I love to play because at the end of the day,
yeah, Mayor Brandon Johnson didn't create all of this.
But during his term, he created a mess, starting with the migrant crisis.
So I'm going to be on him because he could have settled my family's case, but
instead, he ignored it. So I'm on it.
Danielle Carter Walsh for mayor.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Margarita Rosa.
Your Honor, there are no further speakers- Very well.
Please stand up so all can hear you. The chair recognizes Alderwoman Cruz.
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to be recorded as present for quorum.
Very well. Please add Alderwoman Cruz.
The chair recognizes Alderwoman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Very well. Please add Rodriguez Sanchez to the quorum.
The chair recognizes Alderman Quesada.
I'd like to be recognized for the purposes of quorum. Thank you.
Very well. Please add Alderman Quesada to the quorum.
The chair recognizes Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
I'd like to be recognized for-
Very well. Please add Alderman Sigcho-Lopez to the quorum.
Chair recognizes Alderman Hopkins.
Add me for purposes of quorum, Mr. President, thank you.
Please add Alderman Hopkins to the quorum roll call.
The chair recognizes Alderwoman Manal Hoppenworth.
I would like to be also added to the-
Please add Manal Hoppenworth to the quorum. Chair recognizes Alderwoman Clay.
Mr. President, please add me for quorum as well.
Very well. Please add Alderwoman Clay to the quorum roll call.
Are there any other alders that wish to be added to the quorum? Very well.
Seeing no other hands.
For reasons stated in Rule 59, Alders Hall and Taliaferro have requested to
participate in today's meeting remotely.
Madam Clerk, please confirm their presence online.
Alderman Taliaferro?
Present.
Alderman Taliaferro is present. Alderman Hall?
Very well. Can I get a motion for the approval of Alderman Taliaferro to
participate in today's meeting remotely?
Alderman Hall.
Can I get a motion for the approval of Alderman Taliaferro to participate in
today's meeting remotely? It's been moved.
All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." Any opposed say "Nay." In the opinion of
the chair, the ayes have it. The chair recognizes Alderwoman Gutierrez.
Good morning, Mr. President. Can I please be recorded as present?
Very well. Please add Alderwoman Gutierrez as part of the quorum.
Alderman Hall has requested to participate in today's meeting remotely for reasons
stated in Rule 59. Madam Clerk, can you confirm Alderman Hall's presence online?
Alderman Hall.
Present. Thank you.
Alderman Hall.
Can I get a motion for the approval of Alderman Hall to participate in today's
meeting remotely? It's been moved.
All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." Any opposed say "Nay." In the opinion
of the chair, the ayes have it. Very well.
Are there any other alders that wish to be added to the quorum roll call or any
other alders online? Very well. As set forth in the letter calling for the special
meeting, the only item up today is immediate consideration of ordinance of
02026-0029681. This is determining the allocation of
concession payments among city pension funds pursuant to Section 2.3 of
SO2026-0025407. In order to immediately consider this item,
we need to suspend the rules. Can I get a motion to suspend the rules?
Here.
It's been moved. All those in favor of suspension of those rules signify by saying
"Aye." Any opposed say "Nay." In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Very well.
The chair recognizes Chairwoman Dowell.
Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues, and residents of Chicago.
The ordinance before us today will formally codify that all future concession
payments and revenues derived from the Chicago parking meter transfer deal will be
legally locked and directed exclusively to additional payments to Chicago's four
employee pension funds. Let's be honest about the history here.
On September 29th, after months of negotiation, the City Council, by a vote of
46 to three, stepped up to pass powerful new terms for the systems transfer to
Stone Peak Partners. During these negotiations, it was made clear that it was
the City Council's responsibility to direct any payments received as part of this
deal towards our pension funds. At the Committee on Finance hearing on September
24th, it was plainly stated that these funds were to be used solely as an
additional payment on top of the baseline and supplemental payments.
The council simply had to decide what the proportions would be to each of our four
funds. This is what this legislation does today.
By creating a framework for dispersal, we are ensuring that hard-fought dollars
are permanently protected. This legislation explicitly states
that these concession payments now and in the future are strictly in addition
to the city's legally mandated statutory contributions and supplementary
pension management policy. Let me be crystal clear on this point.
These parking meter revenues will not be used to replace, offset, or
lower the baseline or supplemental payments.
In fact, our actions today will save taxpayers conservatively
$213 million over time. For those worried about the hole that this
creates in the budget, I stand ready to work with my colleagues to vet and
implement any proposal the mayor puts forth to adjust his budget in response.
For too long, one-off revenues and asset leases have been used to fill immediate
short-term budget holes at the expense of our long-term financial health.
By passing this ordinance, we are drawing a hard line in the sand, not just for
today, but for the future of Chicago's fiscal management.
Securing our four pension funds is not just a statutory requirement, it
is a moral obligation to the workforce that keeps this city moving.
I urge my colleagues to stand on the right side of history, locking this into city
code, securing this additional revenue for our pensions now and for the remaining
57 years of this contract.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. President, I move to adopt the ordinance provided and
would like to open debate or close debate at this time.
Very well. Thank you. So there's a motion on the floor to adopt this
item. Again, 02026-0029681. Does
anyone else wish to speak to this item? Chair recognizes Alderman Conway.
Oh, okay. I think Alderman Moore had his hand up before me if he was looking to...
All right.
I'm fully in support of this, but I want to make sure we have a handle on the
numbers here and what this is going to do.
There's an interesting part in Section 2.2 of this
... ordinance that specifically identifies the new ordinances created about this,
2-32-385. And under that, we have Section
C2, which
allocates the funds based on funded ratio as opposed to the unfunded
dollar amount here. And to totally bore you all,
if we look on page 97 of the ACFR, we see the unfunded liability of each of
our pension funds. For municipal employees, it's $14.7 billion.
That's the one that 45 of you are part of.
Fourth and second place is the policemen at $13.9 billion, firefighters at about $6
billion, and the laborers at about $1.8 billion.
And what this does is it allocates the amount based on the unfunded percentage of
liability. So as a result of that, police and fire each get
$25 million, even though in the municipal employees one, which has a
$14.7 billion unfunded liability, gets merely $12 million.
While the laborers, which is by far the smallest at $1.76 billion, also gets
$12 million, while police and fire get by far the
most. And I'm sure Alderman Sposato, Gardner, Napolitano, and Chico
appreciate that, but I just want us to recognize the kind of odd thing we're doing
there. And the reason I bring it up is, first of all, compared to $36.4 billion
unfunded pension liability we have in the city, $75 million is a drop in the
bucket. So we shouldn't really... no sense in changing it at this point.
But I bring it up because if the other half of the parking meter ordinance
works out, meaning the 5% of calculated net income, if that turns into a meaningful
revenue stream, we should adjust it so it's allocated based on
the amount of dollar liability and not the percentage.
That's the first thing I want to say.
The second thing is,
when we had this debate and
when this first came up, and I appreciate the excellent work of the committee that
negotiated this, it was clear that this $75 million was clearly meant as a
one-time
little shot in the arm to these pensions.
And it was a bit disingenuous to put it in the budget knowing that wasn't the
intent. But I do appreciate the chairwoman's words that this
puts a $75 million hole in the mayor's budget, and that is something that we are
going to have to deal with in the coming weeks and, frankly, months.
And I appreciate Chairwoman Doll's comments to that effect.
But I want to make sure that we have a somewhat clear understanding of the numbers
that are at play in this ordinance. And thank you for your tolerance.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. For reason stated in Rule 59, Alderman Matt Martin wishes to
participate in today's meeting remotely. Can we confirm his presence online?
Alderman Martin?
I'm present.
Very well. Can I get a motion for the approval of Alderman Martin participating
in today's meeting? It's been moved. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Any opposed say nay. Naming the chair, the ayes have it.
The chair recognizes Alderman David Moore.
Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me just say, I appreciate my colleagues
and everybody that worked on this.
I guess, being in this council chamber, this is really not up for debate, but more
discussion, because as I go through this, maybe some clarification will be
given by others that speak. But as I'm reading and as I read this ordinance, I'm
understanding two things that are being asked here in codification.
One is that the $75 million goes to pension, and that the other, that it be paid
this year. I just want to make for clarification, and if I'm wrong, somebody tell
me. I just want to make for clarification, especially for the constituents of the
17th Ward, based on my understanding of when, based on the briefings that we had
and everything that we were doing around the CPM contract, was that we would get
this $75 million for our pension. I've never, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong,
I've never heard or anything stated or seen anything in writing that said it had to
be in 2026 or 2027. If somebody can present that in writing, I need to have
that in writing. The other part of that, that means there's not a right or wrong
answer. It does say preferred by the council, so it's just up to the council to
vote, depending on where they want that money spent, whether 2026 or
2027, which is not a right or wrong answer.
It's a vote, and we take that vote based on that.
So I just want to make that clarification.
I think it was everybody understand and agree that the $75 million supposed to go
to pension, but I'm seeing that I'm voting on two different things here.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The $75 million goes to pension and to pay it in 2026.
And I just need to clarify that, because if so, then I think that the vote needs to
be separated out. Thank you, Mr. President.
Alderman O'Shea, you are recognized.
Just a point of information. If we make the payment today or in
2026, we save
hundreds of millions of dollars.
That's why the payment would go towards 2026 and not 2027, which would be money
that we would save our children and our grandchildren with this pension liability
we have.
Thank you. Are there any other? The chair recognizes Alderman Irvin.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I am a little
baffled and a little perplexed here.
Let me say this, I do support and believe that we ought to fund our
pensions. Our retirees, firefighters, police officers, everybody
earned those benefits, and we're obligated to make sure that that is happening.
And I think in some context, we got to really talk about the how did we
get here, because we didn't get here, just showed up one day and here we are with,
what was it?
$36 billion in unfunded liability.
Again, this is something that we inherited.
And I think that we've done a pretty good job because we've made different choices.
We've contributed almost $3 billion
in contributions just this year, and we'll do pretty much the same
next year. And as we've done that, that is starting to show results in our funded
ratios. Remember, think about this.
The pension funds have not had to liquidate assets in our term to make payroll.
They haven't had to do that. And so the funds are moving on a positive trajectory.
Everything's rolling. And so the question for us is,
do we add another $75 million on top of an already historic level of
funding into plans that are trending in the right way, but pay for it with
community investments and public safety? Because this doesn't happen in a vacuum.
I'm glad that our chairperson has talked about the hole that this creates in our
2027 budget. But let's not forget the other hole that 30 of you all created,
too, with the $100 million. So now we got $175 million worth of problems, no
solution. $175 million worth of problems.
So let's talk about the chopping block because that's what we really need to
understand when we vote today. Now, just a few days ago, we just heap praise on
Cole Stallings and his team for all the work that they're doing and the resources
that we want to give them. But in the same breath right here, we're going to chop
his legs from under him. Now, we talked about $11.5 million in road control,
forest, and tree stumps. And we know that these services are needed in the
community. These stumps and these parkways have been sitting that way for the last
two years. And again, just because we remove the resources, the
problem does not go away. Again, we just told
the man that we support what's going on, but yet we end up may have to cut
about what is needed to perform what we've asked him to do.
And again, let's talk about the $30 million in unhoused. Again, we cry.
Folks in tents, folks all over the place.
But yet, we may have to cut the very funding that takes that person with a casework
in a place to be, instead of under a viaduct, or the jail cell, in an emergency
room. Again, we complain, but at the same token, we're cutting the same
funding from other people's legs. Let's talk about the libraries, $30 million.
$30 million, and the library on the chopping block.
And now again, for some of y'all communities, kids got places to go.
But where I'm at, it's free internet, some place to be inside, some place to get a
tutor where they don't have it in their local schools.
And again, now we're going to tell these kids to go home. To what?
Again, what sense does this make?
The real two that really baffle me that are on the chopping block
are the investments in community violence intervention.
Again, good people doing good work, that work in some of the hardest and most
challenging communities in our city.
But yet,
for us, they become expendable because, let's say,
the work that they do sometimes is the difference between a conversation and a
funeral. I want you all to understand this.
But again, we want to give another $75 million to a
pension fund. I'm not against taking care of the pensions.
But again, we got pressing needs that we need to deal with.
Now we got $24 million in new investments for our young people for summer jobs.
Something that we know works because half of us had them growing up.
But yet we want to rob those kids of their opportunity because we know
that kids that are engaged, doing work, doing things, are less likely to be
involved in negative activity, violence, come statistics.
And again, we say one thing but do something else.
Again, what sense does that make? What sense does that make?
Now,
right there, that was slightly over $100 million.
And again, these are the critical investments that we continue to talk about our
communities need to be successful, to be good.
But yet,
we want to put those things on the chopping block.
And again, we're still $80 million short because we don't forget about the other
$100 million we said we're not going to do.
So we're still $80 million short and haven't come up with any solutions.
Now mind you, now we had the Ernst & Young study.
Everybody wants to talk about Ernst & Young.
But haven't looked at the biggest expense saver in that report.
Haven't looked at, don't want to talk about that, don't want to talk about it at
all. And again, now while we move on some around the edges, tinker on stuff that
won't bother anybody, when we want to talk about the real issues and concerns that
are going to impact our residents, we shrink like violets.
Now we hear about consolidations, performance enhancements, efficiencies.
But again, we don't want to talk about the elephants that are in the room.
And now we're debating this $75 million today, and I'm saying that we just have to
find the solutions because we can't say that we're serious
without talking about the impact of everything that's going on.
Now, instead of doing this, we want to reach in the pockets of our young people, we
want to close libraries earlier, we want to talk about the basic city services that
we all say,
say that are necessary. But again, now you want to make a
decision that we got to choose between pensions
and so many kids going to the library.
But again, we have this model and it's working.
Now, we currently have a model where the funding from the casino gaming goes into
our public safety pension funds. Why not follow that model?
That the money that goes into those goes directly into those particular funds.
I agree with Alderman of the 17th Ward, if it's 26 or 27.
But we have made historical payments into these pension funds.
And again, we still have yet to figure out how to pay the
difference. Now, was it last year, two years ago, we did something similar.
We threw out a revenue stream and didn't figure out the other side of the equation.
I think it's necessary for us to figure out the equation before we make a decision,
not after we make a decision, because $185 million, when you take police and fire
out, that's a 5% cut to every other department in the city.
So I think we need to understand that this is potentially 5% on top of where we
already are with streets and sanitation, public health, DCAS.
The things that we say make us who we are.
And if you believe your pet project is safe because it's in a fund, I got some news
for you. It isn't. If it's not enshrined in state or federal law, it's not
protected as designed by this body. We set that parameter.
So if you think that your stuff is safe, think again.
I'm challenged
because
we keep playing checkers and everybody else around us is playing chess.
And every move we make, we three moves behind, and the people that end up paying
for this are the people who need the services the most.
They're not in this room because we're going to be all right.
But it's those young people that are in Garfield, those young people in Englewood,
who make the payment for our decisions.
Again, that's one simple thing that I'm going to leave you guys with this.
I got one for you next.
It's to advance the interests of the people that we serve, the constituency.
For me, that's the West Side of Chicago.
Now I know other people may be doing great, but the folks I represent in Austin,
Garfield, Humboldt, North Lawndale, the Village, they need help.
And I have some similarities in other members in this body.
And while the pension funds are moving in the right direction, again, $3 billion
that we've contributed this year, and on track to do almost the same
the next year. The funding ratios are moving in the right direction because that
report that the alderman just talked about, if you looked at it three years ago,
those numbers were higher. Again, we're moving in the right direction.
This is unnecessary to do at this particular time.
And I'm going to close with this one.
I'm going to use one of, what the alderman of the 15 called it, urbanism.
And they said everybody wants to get to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
But let me tell you this. In the city of Chicago, there are some communities that
are living in heaven,
but they're also
advocating for stripping the resources on the communities that are teetering on the
fringes. All of these services are on the chopping block.
I'm not asking anybody to walk away from the pension obligations.
I'm just asking that we be honest about the trade-offs and that we have a real plan
on what's going to happen before we cast this vote.
And again,
it's the people that are not in this room that are going to be impacted by this the
most. It's those kids in North Lawndale, it's those kids on the Far South Side,
it's those kids in Little Village that will be impacted by the decision that we
have not figured out how we're going to balance.
So again,
vote your conscience, but understand that folks are going to lose out in this for
something that we are going to theoretically overpay on.
I don't know anybody that pays two years' rent ahead of time when they don't have
the basics in their communities today. That is tantamount to what we're doing.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. Alderman Sancho Lopez, you are acknowledged.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I want
to reflect today
on the conduct of city council in the last year or so.
And I know some people are going to look the other way, and that people will
continue to hash out that these are all old stories.
But the reality is that I would not bargain with my children's future today to
please any of you.
Because I know the powerful interests that are outside of this chamber that
controls the puppets
in this chamber. I'm tired of coming to city council meetings where the decisions
are already being decided
But a few,
to the expense of most people in the city of Chicago.
And yeah, making people uncomfortable to the people next to me and the side on the
other side.
But as a parent on this city of Chicago, I'll tell you how difficult it is for many
children. I've seen children right now in our city of Chicago to get crumbs outside
of the table to feed their families.
And yet we have a city council that is prioritizing not the pensions of people who
deserve those pensions, but the interest of companies and powerful billionaires
like Michael Sachs. Look how he makes his money and tell me I'm wrong.
How this individual make his money and what he tried to do back in 2015 to secure
even more money his way.
So look at the money, follow the money, and you see the actions of this council.
I am sick and tired of coming to this chamber to decide what was already decided by
a few.
In the budget hearings, I've been hearing how much we need more youth jobs.
We need more youth jobs. I wish as a city council, we have youth jobs in my office.
And then how are we going to pay it?
How are we going to pay for it?
Giving more money to these billionaires who build private stadiums
when deficits in the public schools keep mounting?
It's a damn shame that we allow billionaires that don't have the courage to come in
front of city council to tell them what they're doing.
Those dirty donations have a purpose,
and it's to steer business to private interests while our children starve, when we
don't have money for the unhoused, when we don't have money for the property tax
homeowners who as we speak, were texting me. How am I going to pay for that?
So when we go into the budget hearings making those
commitments, then think about how we're going to pay for it when you already decide
how we're going to invest the money. We're going to make the supplemental payment.
We're making our obligations, but it's about goddamn time
you have some backbone to tell the governor to do something structural and stop
being afraid of those billionaires. All children at all hours.
I'm fighting for mine and the children of the city of Chicago.
You do as you please, because I know those donations keep coming. Thank you, Mr.
President.
Thank you. Alderman Riley, you are recognized.
Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues.
Heard me say it before, but I wasn't going to speak today until the last two
speakers did, and now I will.
I think it's unfortunate that our budget chairman is trying to revise history here
today by talking about all of the work we collectively have done to
spend down our massive multi-billion dollar pension liabilities.
Yes, we have made progress in that area, and it's because the state mandated so.
These massive balloon payments that we're making in the billions of dollars, that's
not under our own volition. That was the state of Illinois forcing us to do it, and
frankly, it was the right thing to do.
So let's not take credit for other people's work.
And while we're talking about not taking credit for other people's work, we
collectively shouldn't talk about how we negotiated a revised parking meter
deal that realized a $75 million windfall for taxpayers when
the meter operators did not need to give us a cent.
That we does not include our budget chairman.
Yet, he's talking about finding the $75 million
that we can spend. Well, we, those of us who actually negotiated on the parking
meter deal revision, always, and I'm speaking of Chairwoman Dowell, Alderman
Waguespack,
and others in the room, Alderman Lee.
We made it very clear day one that if we were able to secure this windfall, this
money would be dedicated to paying down pension obligations in addition to the
good work this body has done, not just through the state mandate, but also the
supplemental payment, which has gotten us better ratings from the rating agencies.
And what we know from talking to experts, this $75 million on top of all that is
going to save us over $200 million by doing it this year.
And I would also remind folks about some Chicago history, some unfortunate Chicago
history. In my first year on this body, under the Daley administration,
I watched 50 aldermen essentially lied to by an administration to pass a parking
meter deal to get permission to finalize one.
And I am one of the aldermen, one of the 45 who was hoodwinked
into voting for that horrible deal
because we were promised if it was not a good deal, we could get out of it within a
few years.
We were also promised that money would not be frittered away.
We were also told by financial experts it was a great deal for the city of Chicago.
It turns out all of that was untrue.
But the worst crime in all of that, and I'm thankful for having voted against the
subsequent budgets that spent away all of that money, that over a billion dollars
in proceeds. That was exactly the same kind of thing that's being proposed here
today by this administration. Rather than using that money, that windfall,
to pay down future liabilities and save taxpayers lots and lots of money in the
future, it's being proposed to spend all at once on balancing next year's
budget for that money to be gone forever.
So we've been presented with a false choice here.
Talk about how we are supporting the libraries.
Well, not all of us did that either last year.
The budget chairman voted against the library levy last year.
And now suddenly, libraries are front and center and in crisis.
And so again, I wasn't going to get up and talk today.
But after hearing that particular speech, and typically, I have great admiration
for the speeches my colleague delivers.
Today,
I had to get up and correct the record because that was just a step too far.
So the real choice here is basically spending $75 million all at once on next
year, and then it's gone for good. Or making the prudent decision and building
upon the good progress this body has made
in paying down our pension liabilities, which are in the tens of billions of
dollars. Make this $75 million payment applicable this year
and realize hundreds of millions of dollars in savings in the future.
That's the choice. All this other stuff we're hearing here is rhetoric and noise
and shocker, it's an election year.
So we are here to do a responsible thing today despite being told we're the
boogeyman, being accused of working for evil interest in the ether.
This is good fiscal responsibility.
And what a shame it would be if we did not learn from mistakes that aldermen here,
there's only a handful left of us, that we made all those years ago.
I certainly learned from it. I learned not to ever, ever trust an administration or
their financial team when they're telling me they pinky swear it's true.
I learned to go check the math and double-check the math and triple-check the math,
and that's been my record ever since.
The only vote I've ever cast on this city council that I regret during my time in
office, the only vote I regret
because I was lied to and I believed people when I shouldn't, and I didn't check
the math myself. Well, I've checked the math on this.
This is a good deal for the taxpayers today, and it will be in 10 years from now.
And people will thank us for making this choice rather than burning up this money
in one year to balance one budget at a time when many of us are seeking
re-election. So do the right thing here today and vote for this.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. President.
Alderman Monique Scott, you are recognized.
Thank you, Mr. President
I don't speak much, and I wasn't supposed to speak today.
But I heard some very disingenuous statements,
and it doesn't rest on my heart easy.
We sat here back in September, and we negotiated a parking deal, money that we were
supposed to receive that we wouldn't have received in the past parking deal.
So we were making history. And to turn back and say what we're doing now, we're
taking from the libraries, we're taking from our youth, we're taking from the poor,
we're taking from homeless, we're taking from the 24th Ward, North Lawndale.
That $75 million was never in the deal for my community.
It was in the deal for the people that probably live within my community that work
for the City of Chicago for their pension payments.
The things we say make us who we are.
This was just stated by my colleague. The things we say make us who we are.
So if we lie about what that payment is for and who it was supposed to be for, then
we're not making the things we say who we are.
We're making it all about an election and a lie.
And so this doesn't go well with having people come up and speak and say what we're
taking away from them. No. 43 to three negotiated a parking
meter deal that would support our pensions. 43 to three.
Three of my colleagues did not support that.
So I can see why they don't support the $75 million going to the pension, and
that's okay. But we're going to do the right thing as a body, and we're going to
vote for the $75 million to go to the pension because that's what we said.
So the things that we say can make us who we are.
And the things that we said we were going to do, we're going to do.
And so today, I hope you do vote your conscience.
I hope you do, do the right thing and vote for the $75 million to go towards not
what our financial team said, because we didn't give them the order to take that
money from us in the first place. This was supposed to go to our pension.
We didn't negotiate it to go to the libraries.
We didn't negotiate it to go to any other parts of the budget.
So to come up like it's a shock and we're taking and we're being selfish and
greedy, that's disingenuous, and that's not who I am, and that's not who we are.
So the things we say should make us who we are. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other alders that wish to speak before I turn it over?
The chair recognizes
Alderwoman Head.
Thank you, Mr. President. I joked, I told my colleague, Alderman Lopez, I was only
going to speak if he spoke, but just kidding.
I was going to talk anyway. Because on cue, I'm going to stand up and I'm going to
do that thing that I do and say, "Hey, guys, come on.
We can figure this out together."
I will be supporting this ordinance, and I'm speaking more for the public, the
audience, folks who took the time to come and share their concerns on this today,
as well as constituents of the 49th Ward.
When I voted to support the parking meter deal that colleagues arranged,
it was my understanding that we were going to use the $75 million as an immediate
additional pension payment. So I just want to put that on the record.
I think a lot of us did understand that.
And $75 million could do a lot for additional program needs,
and also it would just be a one-time piece.
We have, unfortunately, been in a position in this city, for a few
cycles, and we join a lot of cities in this, where
because of changes in funding at the federal level,
how that's impacting things at the state level.
We've been in, since more than my time here, I'd say we've been in about a 20 year,
at least, decline in the amount of needed funds we're
getting for important services. Federal government's not doing as much, you guys,
and so cities are having to do more.
Those gaps that we feel in our communities,
the neighbors we see sleeping in tents in the parks,
the neighbors who are seeing cuts to their SNAP benefits, the Medicaid cuts
that are coming in January, the inflation and the way that grocery bills are
one and a half to three times more than they have. We're all feeling the pain.
And so as someone who regularly, and this time as well, champions the
funding for our housing, for our homelessness, for our seniors, for our youth,
for our food assistance, for gender-based violence, those are all going to be the
things that I push for again, this budget, and make sure that we prioritize.
But the reality of the situation is the $75 million
wasn't intended to, and it's not going to help as much.
It's kind of like getting a little $200 tax return or I don't know, maybe you won a
little 150 bucks on a scratch-off.
It is some unanticipated money that it's like, hey, are we putting this towards the
credit card debt?
Or are we going to use it
to buy some shoes that the kids need? Right? I don't want to trivialize this.
They're all needs. They're all important.
And the savings that we will get, these are the hard decisions when we get that
extra money. It's hard sometimes to be like, can I rearrange the budget to address
those needs in another way? Can I hold out a little bit longer?
Can we stretch our dollars? Because if I can put this towards, the small amount,
towards the debt right now, it is saving me future dollars. Right?
So future Chicagoans are going to hurt a little bit less by doing this.
And in the scope of our budget, it's a fairly small amount.
I do appreciate,
Mr. President, our finance chair and everybody who's willing to work on this.
I know that ultimately, in addition to your proposal and your administration coming
up with some different ideas based on what we do today, it's also going to be up to
all of us. Because the proposal before us did count on this for some funds.
And if there are things that we want to support, we are going to have to
collectively work to meet this gap.
So both things can be true, just to kind of ground us in that, but especially for
our public who might see this, right?
And I think to some degree, maybe you guys have been told that, "Hey, this is $75
million extra that we could be doing important programs with."
I don't think that's true, and that's not how it was designed.
And the savings we're going to get for the pension payments for the
retirees, we don't get this opportunity much, and I do think that it's a really
smart plan. While we can decide to do it now, to also put
additional revenue towards the pension.
We are in this mess because of decisions of previous generations.
And with an opportunity, even a small amount, it's like making a little bit of that
extra payment. The decision we're making now is not only going to help us with
immediate savings in the next year, but I actually believe this is a really smart
plan. Within five years, 10 years, think about what kind of impact we could be
making on our pension debt. And while it's hard, while we're feeling the pain now,
this is the best decision. So that's why I'm supporting it.
And I look forward to working with colleagues as we move forward on figuring out
how we still meet needs and our priorities for the 2027 budget. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other alders that wish to speak before Chairwoman Dowell
closes?
Alderman Irvin, you are recognized.
I do want to clarify a particular point that was made.
My position is that we do not,
not make the pension payment. It's just the point of when it is made.
I think what was proposed was designed to make that payment in '27 versus
'26, understanding what those dynamics are.
So if you misinterpreted my statement, that is what it intended to be.
That is what it is. That is what I stand on. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Chairwoman Dowell to close.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I just want to say that
the intent was to
pay an extra pension payment, and that's what we are going
to do.
The decision to do it in 2026 actually is better for us
financially than it is to do in 2027.
This whole thing about
that the house is burning,
when you have a lot of debt,
sometimes you have to eat beans while you're paying off the debt.
And so I think we are doing just that, Mr. President.
We are trying to get our fiscal house in order.
That is what I think this legislation does, and we will have to
decide together what other
$75 million or whatever else goes into the budget.
Look forward to working with you on this, and look forward to hearing what you have
to say about that. And with that, I would ask my colleagues to vote affirmatively
for this budget, I mean, for this ordinance, and I call for a roll call vote.
Very well. That would've been nice if we were passing the budget today as well.
Certainly, we'd then appreciate it.
There's a motion on the floor for the passage of the item 02026-0029681
by roll call vote.
Madam Clerk, please make the e-vote application available at this time.
I wish each alder please record your vote at this time.
Okay, the voting is now open. Please use your devices.
If you're having difficulty, please raise your hand.
He was approved earlier. He was approved the first time out. Just so we know.
Approval.
And I didn't do anything.
Okay. I will now call on those who have not yet cast their vote. Alderman Robinson.
Robinson, yes.
Alderman Robinson is a yes. Alderman Hall.
No.
Alderman Hall is a no. Alderman Moore. Alderman Moore is a no.
Alderwoman Taylor.
Yes.
Alderwoman Taylor is a yes. Alderman Taliaferro.
Yes.
Alderman Taliaferro is a yes. Alderwoman Clay.
Oh, sorry, it's not on my end. Thank you. Alderman Martin.
Martin is a yes.
Alderman Martin is a yes. Alderwoman Manah Hoppenworth.
Alderwoman Manah Hoppenworth is a no.
Did she get those in? Okay, voting is now closed.
There are 44 yays, six nays. This motion passes.
Alderman Mitchell, on a motion to reconsider.
All those in favor of the reconsideration of this vote, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed say no.
This motion fails. Alderman Mitchell, on a motion to return back to the regular
order of business. I move that we return to the regular order of business.
All those in favor of returning back to the regular order of business signify by
saying aye.
We are now returning back to the regular order of business.
Alderman Mitchell, on a motion to adjourn.
There being no further business before this body, I move that we adjourn.
Hearing no objections, so ordered, the meeting is adjourned.
Thank you