Ald. Nicole Lee (11) speaks about the $830 million general obligation bond authorization ordinance at a special City Council meeting on Feb. 26, 2025. [Don Vincent/The Daily Line]

The City Council on Wednesday voted 26-23 to approve an $830 million general obligation bond authorization in a divisive vote over concerns about the proposed repayment structure from nearly half the council.

The vote tally is below. 

The bond authorization will be used to pay for projects from the city’s 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Plan and aldermanic menu money.  

The issuance will be used to cover aldermanic menu spending in 2025 at $1.5 million per ward, or $75 million total. Other specific uses will include $33 million for Department of Transportation work, $98.9 million for bridge and viaduct repair and replacement work, $157.5 million to the city’s Complete Streets program, $64.9 million for fleet replacement and $100 million in lead service line replacement.

The bond plan was divisive among the council, with many alderpeople taking issue with a proposed debt service structure that would forgo principal payments until 2045 and cost taxpayers an estimated $2 billion over the entire course of the borrowing.  

The latest, amended version (SO2025-0014841) of the bond plan that was approved specifies the bond proceeds must be used on capital projects within the city. It clarified language that finance officials said was standard — allowing alderpeople to use menu money on park and school district projects through grant agreements — but opponents warned the previous language opened the door for the city to provide bond proceeds to Chicago Public Schools (CPS) for costs like the pension payment it owes the city. 

Finance Committee Chair Pat Dowell (3) argued in a Chicago Tribune op-ed that the notion the city would use bond proceeds on CPS costs was misinformation.

“The insinuation by some that this infrastructure bond issuance would somehow be used to pay for pension payments at Chicago Public Schools is outright erroneous,” Dowell wrote. 

Ald. Brendan Reilly (42) motioned to delay the final vote until May, saying there was no need to rush the proposal through, but it was tabled on a 26-25 vote, with Mayor Brandon Johnson breaking the tie.

“Even if we took a few more days, we can all come back here and do this properly,” Reilly said. “It's the mechanics of the deal. It's not even the merits of the projects that are proposed to be funded by it.” 

While Ald. Nicole Lee (11), who voted against the bond plan, said she appreciated the changes in the latest version, she also said she believed the city didn’t need as large of an authorization as the mayor was asking for, citing $1 billion in unauthorized bonds from previous years. Lee had said “additional conversation” was warranted to possibly get more alderpeople onboard. 

“I think we should take the time to get it straight now, or at least get us in that direction,” Lee said during the meeting. 

A vote on the authorization was also postponed using a procedural motion at last week’s council meeting after a narrow majority of 27 alderpeople voted against sending the item back to the Committee on Finance. Some of those who voted last week against sending the bond plan back to committee expressed skepticism toward the overall plan and voted against it Wednesday, such as Alds. Nick Sposato (38) and Timmy Knudsen (43).

Related: Speed limit reduction voted down, infrastructure bond plan delayed at council 

Proponents — including the mayor and department heads — had argued the borrowing is needed to fund essential infrastructure maintenance and improvements. 

“This funding is needed to maintain the critical public safety and public infrastructure systems that our residents rely upon,” Johnson said at a Tuesday press conference.

“This is a quality-of-life issue,” Ald. Walter Burnett (27) said Wednesday. “Paved streets, safe sidewalks, clean water and quality-of-life issues for everyday Chicagoans — these are some of the basic things that people in our community send us down here to take care of.” 

Ald. Bill Conway (34), who had proposed an alternate bond plan with two ordinances introduced at Wednesday’s meeting, said he also didn’t dispute the need for the infrastructure investments but “we have to be honest about the backloaded nature of this bond structure.” 

“We can fund important projects and invest in Chicago, but we don't have to mortgage our children's future and saddle them with reckless debt to do it,” Conway said. 

But proponents have argued it’s fairer to balance the debt burden by spreading it between current and future taxpayers, both of whom will benefit from the projects.

“Chicagoans need infrastructure maintenance, but they shouldn't be asked to pay for past infrastructure and future infrastructure,” Burnett said. “It would not be fair to current taxpayers to frontload the repayments, as some have called for.” 

Proponents had also argued that the city will pay down 39 percent of the outstanding principal of its general obligation bond debt profile in the next decade and that a shorter payoff period for the bond plan would require the city to spend more on debt service in the coming years and possibly raise revenue. 

Conway had argued a better repayment structure was needed and disagreed with the premise that it accommodated the city’s current debt service structure. 

“The argument that this structure ‘fits within our existing debt structure’ only works if we won't continue to issue general obligation debt to fund capital projects,” Conway said.  

Yet Dowell argued the bond issuance allowed for the “flexibility” to amend or “right-size” the repayment schedule “at any given point ... so that it benefits our communities at its maximum level.” 

Ald. Anthony Beale (9) also said his opposition to the bond plan wasn’t opposition to critical infrastructure maintenance and public works projects. 

“Nobody has ever said we don't want an infrastructure bond,” Beale said. “Nobody's ever said that. But what we want is a bond that is responsible and feasible for the people of the city of Chicago.”

Update: This article was edited at 7:10 a.m. to correct a missing first reference to Ald. Pat Dowell (3).