Ald. Ed Burke (14) calls for a surprise vote that impacts millions of dollars worth of city contracts (and helps him look tough on business during a bad week of Donald Trump headlines), while Ald. Anthony Beale’s (9) strict rules on ride-share companies passes through committee in about five minutes. Both signal the Mayor was having a tough week winning over aldermen. And after a nearly three year fight and despite pressure from business groups, workers win five days of paid sick leave. 

Correction: Yesterday’s preview of today’s Workforce Committee meeting incorrectly stated the effective date of the paid sick leave provisions. The correct date is July 1, 2017.

An ordinance mandating Chicago employers provide five days of paid sick leave to employees passed the Committee on Workforce Development and Audit without much of a fuss yesterday, though sources say a small undercurrent of backroom dealing was still swirling during the otherwise uneventful hearing.

Attendance: Chairman Pat O’Connor (40), Ald. Sophia King (4), Ald. Anthony Beale (9), Ald. Raymond Lopez (15), Ald. Toni Foulkes (16), Ald. Willie Cochran (20), Ald. Danny Solis (25), Ald. Roberto Maldonado (26), Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30), Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa (35), Ald. Brendan Reilly (42), Ald. Michele Smith (43), Ald. Tom Tunney (44), Ald. John Arena (45), Ald. Ameya Pawar (47), Ald. Deb Silverstein (50)

Proponents testifying in favor of the ordinance described it as hard fought, compromise bill crafted over nearly three years of negotiations with the city, labor groups, and businesses. But just before the hearing, committee members got wind that 11th Ward Ald. Patrick Daley Thompson wanted a substitute introduced regarding collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), based on concerns from local manufacturing companies. Ald. Ed Burke (14) was said to be crafting and introducing that substitute, sources close to negotiations said, in part because it would also benefit local airlines impacted by the new rules. But neither made an appearance at yesterday’s meeting.

Current collective bargaining arrangements won’t be impacted by the new rules until they expire, proponents said. The new rules would serve as a baseline requirement in future renegotiations. Construction jobs are treated differently. Construction employers would be able to opt out of providing paid sick days during renegotiations. In a nod to Ald. Thompson’s concerns, committee chair Pat O’Connor (40) asked why there was a carve-out.

Bridget Early of the Chicago Federation of Labor replied that it was because earned sick time doesn’t accrue for construction workers, who often work seasonally, the same way it would for a retail or low-wage workers. “Through this ordinance, when [construction] CBAs expire, they are not mandated to implement earned sick time, that is because the nature of their contracts vary by affiliate, by trade, what have you.”

Ald. O’Connor encouraged Early and UFCW Local 881’s Zach Koutsky to make sure to explain the construction carve-out and the impact on future CBAs to concerned aldermen.

The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA) were also lobbying the Mayor’s office for changes to the ordinance the evening before the vote. IRMA’s Tanya Triche testified she wanted to simplify paid sick leave provisions for small employers “who have to administer a complicated scheme of paid sick leave that entails multiple benefit start dates, accrual and separately banked and tracked hours to correspond with [family and medical leave].”

Ald. Ameya Pawar (47), a lead sponsor of the odinance, said the attempt was essentially a Hail Mary pass, since both the Chamber and IRMA had been part of the task force that helped draft recommendations. “I think negotiating an ordinance that has already been negotiated, especially when you’re at the table for the last year, I think is a little disingenuous,” he said, calling their complaints unfounded. “I think people like to catastrophize. New York’s doing a good job, businesses aren’t fleeing San Francisco, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, L.A. That’s not to say there won’t be complications. That’s why we have the rule making process.”

As a consolation, of sorts, both business groups will be included in the rule making process, which will take place over the next year. The effective date of the ordinance is July 1, 2017.

Only one alderman voiced reservations. Local business owner Ald. Tom Tunney(44) said while “a world class city needs a world class environment for employees,” he agreed with Triche that small businesses need to be educated on how to implement changes, and that the cost of labor and complying with mandates was growing every year. He estimated labor costs at his own business, Lakeview’s Ann Sather restaurants, have grown from roughly 33% to 43% in recent years.  

“Companies get sick too. We’ve got an ailing small business climate in the city of Chicago,” he said. “This building needs to do a better job on listening to employers and their needs and how we can encourage businesses to open up in all areas of the city.”

Tunney was not present for the final vote. Other aldermen who typically raise concerns on behalf of the business community, Ald. Michele Smith (43) and Ald. Brendan Reilly (42) also attended the meeting, but did not voice opposition.

Despite opposition from the business community leading up to today’s hearing, even the audience was subdued. The only applause came after testimony from Matt Brandon of SEIU Local 73. “I think it’s a shame when we sit here and we have business come in here and talk about plastic bags and cigarettes when we’re talking about the lives of workers who need to be taken care of,” he said, referring to business concerns about recent city mandates taxing tobacco products and requiring stores to provide recyclable plastic bags. “Of course there are costs associated with this type of ordinance, but there are also more serious costs associated with our people when they have to take off sick, go to an emergency room, and can’t afford it. Those costs are passed on to all of us.”

Most of the rest of the day’s testimony was overwhelmingly positive, describing the ordinance as an important baseline that would protect workers and benefit employers in the long run. After about an hour of testimony, Chairman O’Connor said the remaining pink slips were all in support of the ordinance, and asked if anyone in the audience objected to wrapping things up. With no objection, he called for a voice vote, and no one spoke up to oppose. Audience members, many in ARISE Chicago t-shirts, clapped and hugged.

“We feel real good about today,” UFCW’s Koutsky said after the vote. “For it to pass with that little rancor is pretty telling.”

Shelly Ruzicka from ARISE Chicago, a member of the coalition supporting the ordinance, said the focus will now be on informing employees about the new paid sick leave rules, and of the next minimum wage hike raising the city’s rate to $10.50 an hour. That hike kicks in July 1. “We need to make sure workers know their rights,” she said, explaining her organization was fielding calls about minimum wage non-compliance. “I think our office is maybe getting more complaints than [the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection]… We’re actually partnering with the city to see what else they can do to do it better. We think the city needs more resources in order to enforce the laws that they’ve passed.”

Public hearings on proposed reforms to the Chicago Police Department’s accountability systems will be held July 6 and 7, according to the chairs of City Council’s Public Safety and Budget Committees, Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30) and Ald. Carrie Austin (34). The two publicly released a letter sent to members of the Coalition to Follow Up on the Police Accountability Task Force (PATF) yesterday evening, saying with Mayor Rahm Emanuel, they have “collectively decided to provide opportunity for additional public comment” before introducing an ordinance on these reforms for the City Council July 20.

“It is our intention to work together to draft an ordinance that will fundamentally reshape our system of police accountability” that “will reflect the basic tenets of the recommendations made by the Police Accountability Task Force,” the letter reads. “We believe that taking this extra step to engage the public will ensure that the final ordinance language reflects the views, voices, and deeply-held beliefs of Chicago’s citizens.”

Last week, Police Board President Lori Lightfoot joined the Chicago Urban League’s Shari Runner and others from the Coalition to Follow Up on the PATF to call for more public engagement and transparency before any ordinance on police reform is presented to the City Council.

“We’re talking about fundamentally reshaping the entire local law enforcement structure,” Lightfoot told Aldertrack last week. “That is not something that can be done with a few people in the Mayor’s office. People are really interested in this topic. They are willing to give their time and talent to this issue. But you know, this is Chicago, so nothing is simple.”

The Coalition warned that any reform ordinance would lack legitimacy without a public, transparent process, and the city should develop a strategic plan for “prioritizing, further defining, and effectively implementing large segments of the Task Force recommendations,” which weren’t intended to be cherry-picked. “There is no need for this work to be cloistered in City Hall when people all over this City can and should be involved," the letter said. Lightfoot, the President of the Chicago Police Board also expressed interest in the Board drafting its own reform language for the CPD.

Hearing times have not been posted as of publication. Later yesterday, aldermen also received a letter from 12 community-based organizations asking them not to move on a mayoral proposal until they “heard the voices of the people in your community and can therefore fairly represent the views of your constituents.” Signees included ONE Northside, Action Now, Communities United, Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, Enlace Chicago, and the Community Renewal Society.

Ald. Anthony Beale (9), the main architect behind a contentious plan to require that Uber and Lyft drivers get a special license from the city and be fingerprinted by an outside contractor chosen by the Chicago Police Department, remains confident he has the votes to get his original plan through the Council, even as aldermen and mayoral staff held last minute meetings yesterday to propose alternatives.

And it looks like he’ll be getting what he wants. One source close to the ongoing negotiations told Aldertrack last night that after a five and a half hour private meeting with all parties yesterday, no changes were made to the original ordinance.

“I think we’re very far apart,” Beale told Aldertrack before the meeting yesterday afternoon, emphasizing he would still meet with taxi, rideshare, and administration representatives to find a compromise. But Beale touted a strong list of co-sponsors and repeated a familiar line: “I’m standing firm on my entire ordinance.” As chair of the Transportation Committee, he could potentially halt consideration of an introduction or substitution from Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Beale is co-chairing today’s meeting with License Committee Chair Emma Mitts(37). He says he will not allow further public testimony today, limiting the meeting to only expert witnesses and a vote. The last hearing elicited raucous calls from the audience–a mix of Uber, Lyft, and taxi drivers–with some shouts at aldermen.

Uber has lobbied its drivers to come out in full force today, asking them to attend an 11:30 a.m. press conference, where they’ll provide food, t-shirts, and $25 for parking. The email to drivers warned, “Under [Beale’s] rules, you’d be required to take time off work to obtain a pricey chauffeur's license, go to class at Olive Harvey Community College, and pay hundreds of dollars in new fees just to get on the road.” The email links to eight steps drivers would need to take to receive a city license, which Uber says would take weeks and require hundreds in out of pocket costs for drivers. This afternoon, Lyft sent out a similar call to its drivers, and is planning an 11:15 a.m. press conference.

But Beale estimates support for his ordinance is stronger than anything the Mayor could drum up. “I’m very confident that I have a huge margin of votes,” Beale told reporters yesterday. As it stands today, 32 aldermen support Beale’s ordinance. 20 out of 29 joint committee members are sponsors.

One alderman, Brian Hopkins (2) requested to be removed as a co-sponsor of Beale’s ordinance on Wednesday. Hopkins didn’t return requests for comment about why he changed his mind. But Aldertrack has been told that Uber is actively lobbying aldermen to flip their votes. Beale’s co-chair, Ald. Mitts, in a rare social media statement on Facebook, wrote on Tuesday: “For the record, I am in support of Ride Share Companies such as Uber and Lyft. They provide jobs and service for the residents of the 37th Ward. I stand behind them and in favor for keeping them in the city.”

According to City Hall sources, Uber and Lyft had been pushing aldermen to amend Ald. Beale’s proposal so that the licensing requirement would only impact full time drivers. Representatives from both platforms have said that at least two-thirds of their drives are on the road only a few months at a time, usually when they’re strapped for cash.

Under the companies’ proposal, drivers who are on the road for 40 hours or more for 12 consecutive weeks would only be required to get the license, which they want to be in charge of administering, not the city. The Mayor’s office was rumored to want full time to be considered 30 hours. Neither company wants their drivers to get city-administered fingerprinting, drug tests, and a background check that would determine if the driver owes money to the city.

But it looks like Uber and Lyft have chosen not to push back on a requirement that would mandate that at least 5% of their fleet be wheelchair accessible.

If Beale is correct about his overwhelming support and the measures pass City Council, a veto from Mayor Emanuel might make him appear to favor his brother, Ari Emanuel, an Uber investor.

Close to a dozen people signed up to testify on a proposed 12-story, 190 room hotel for Old Town at yesterday’s Plan Commission meeting, the only item to get a significant amount of testimony at the quick two hour long monthly land-use meeting. All items that went before the body were approved unanimously, although a few, as detailed below, were deferred; some “indefinitely”.

The Old Town hotel, a collaboration between Chicago-based Condor Partners and Chicago Development Partners, had gone through extensive revisions, according to Fernando Espinoza, a representative with the Department of Planning and Development, who detailed the plans.

Originally, the developers had sought to build a 21-story building at the corner of North Wells Street and North Weiland Avenue. The site is currently home to an old political hangout, O’Brien’s Restaurant, a two-story building which will be demolished, and a three-story mixed use building (retail and residential) and parking lot, which will also be demolished.

According to Espinoza, DPD worked with the applicants to get it down to 18 floors, then a month ago, it was reduced to 13 floors, and yesterday, it was finally brought down to 12 floors (with a mechanical roof on the 13th floor). Developers significantly changed the design of the hotel. Architects at Pappageorge Haymes added hanging pre-finished aluminum balconies to the left side of the building, and varying patios, giving the building a mixed hight. Under the original plan, the 21-story building was at uniform height.

But even with the reductions, several residents of the Old Town community lamented the density, saying it would further snarl pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. One resident called it “grossly oversized”, another claimed “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds” of people opposed the plan, while a third complained that not enough residents were given proper notice, somewhat contradicting the previous speaker who had noted that the hundreds of people opposed the project.

None of the Commissioners had much to say about the proposed hotel, save for Ald. Tom Tunney (44), who said he didn’t think the metal balconies “age well”. The development team countered that they’re using “premium material”, not steel, which has been used on other hanging balconies, and often corrodes over time.

The remaining items on the agenda passed without debate or much public comments. The only other application to receive public comment was a 138-unit, six-floor mixed use building for 2328 N. California Avenue in Logan Square. Due to the building’s proximity to the California Avenue Blue Line stop, the developer, Savoy Development, will only provide 41 parking stalls. But there will be a significant amount of bike stalls: 138. Interestingly, all three members of the public who testified were former residents of the area, but moved to the suburbs.

Other Items that Passed:

• Developer John Kelly’s plan to build an 11-story, mixed-use building with ground floor retail and 175 apartments at 768 North Aberdeen Street, next to the Blue Line’s Chicago Avenue stop. The site in River West (27th Ward) is currently a parking lot. Kelly filed his application in September, before the new beefed up Affordable Housing requirements kicked in. But the developer has agreed to provide “a couple” affordable units on site, and pay out the rest in in-lieu fees, about $1.5 million.
• Developer Sterling Bay’s plan to build an approximately 207,000-square-foot office development at 1515 W. Webster Avenue, a block east of the Chicago River in the city’s 2nd Ward. The site is a vacant lot, formerly the home of the Gurmann Leather Tannery. Sterling Bay has already signed a 15-year agreement with CH Robinson, a transportation company, to be the sole tenant. They will be relocating from another location within the same industrial corridor, the North Branch Industrial Corridor
• Vermilion Development plans to construct a 10-story mixed use building at the site of an abandoned gas station (3901 N. Broadway Avenue). Amenities would include 3,200-square-feet of ground floor commercial retail, 100 dwelling units on the floors above, and parking for 59 cars. The developers told commissioners that they haven’t secured a tenant for the retail component, but they’re looking for uses “supportive of the neighborhood”, like neighborhood amenities. There’s not enough room for a restaurant. Under the 2015 ARO requirements, the developer is mandated to provide 10 affordable units.Vermilion will add three of those units on-site and pay-out the rest toward the affordable housing trust fund.
• A plan from the Park District that would expand the parking lot at the 31st Street beach. The item was held two months ago at the request of newly appointed 4th Ward Ald. Sophia King, who raised concerns that the added parking would only be available for people with harbor passes. King wasn’t at yesterday’s meeting, but she issued a letter of support.

Deferrals

The first four items listed on the deferred portion of the agenda were deferred “indefinitely”, while the fifth item, which relates to an amendment to an institutional planned development for the Illinois Institute of Technology was temporarily deferred to the July Plan Commission meeting scheduled for the 21st.

Two of the applications that will be deferred indefinitely, according to Plan Commission Chairman Martin Cabrera, are in the 20th Ward. One is a resolution recommending the acquisition of land from David Fleishman of Terrapin Investments, LLC. He had sought to put the parcels at 6013 South Calumet Avenue and 6048 South Martin Luther King Drive to construct homes. The other item in the 20th Ward, also from Fleishman for residential housing, sought the acquisition of city owned property at 6543-6549 and 6552 South Kimbark Avenue.

A planned development application from JKF Development to build a 24-story, 71-unit condominium building at 330 West Huron Street, which is currently a surface parking lot, was also deferred indefinitely. As was a plan to make a technical amendment to an existing planned development (#499) in the 3rd Ward.

Proposals to build a lime green apartment building for Logan Square, a riverfront office building in Lincoln Park, a transformation of the old main campus building at the Illinois Institute of Technology, and a new 13-story hotel for Old Town are just some of the applications on the Plan Commission agenda for today.

Commissioners will also reconsider a plan from the Park District that would expand the parking lot at the 31st Street beach. The item was held two months ago at the request of newly appointed 4th Ward Ald. Sophia King, who raised concerns that the added parking would only be available for people with harbor passes.

Two of the development applications on the agenda are Transit Oriented Developments (TODs). One, to be located at 2328 N. California Avenue in the 1st Ward, went through significant revisions at the request of neighborhood groups. The developer, Savoy Development, had originally proposed building micro apartments. Now, they’ll be adding 134 units of varying sizes. About 9,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail and an adjacent pocket park are also planned, as are 44 parking stalls. Due to the building’s proximity to the California Avenue Blue Line stop, the developer doesn’t have to include one-for-one parking.

It’s a similar case for developer John Kelly’s plan to build an 11-story, mixed-use building with ground floor retail and 175 apartments at 768 North Aberdeen Street, next to the Blue Line’s Chicago Avenue stop. The site in River West (27th Ward) is currently a parking lot. Kelly filed his application in September, before the new beefed up Affordable Housing requirements kicked in.

Developer Sterling Bay is behind a plan to build an approximately 207,000-square-foot office development at 1515 W. Webster Avenue, a block east of the Chicago River in the city’s 2nd Ward. The site, according to Curbed Chicago, is the former home of the Gurmann Leather Tannery, and Sterling Bay has already signed a 15-year agreement with CH Robinson, a transportation company, to be the sole tenant.

Further north, about two blocks west of the Sydney R. Marovitz Golf Course near the border of Wrigleyville and Uptown, Vermilion Development plans to construct a 10-story mixed use building at the site of an abandoned gas station (3901 N. Broadway Avenue). Amenities would include 3,200-square-feet of ground floor commercial retail, 100 dwelling units on the floors above, and parking for 59 cars.

There’s also an application from Ghian Foreman to amend the parameters of an existing planned development agreement with the city for the Illinois Institute Technology campus in order to add residential units and “other minor site alterations” to the 6-story historic main campus building at 3300 South Federal Street, located in the 3rd Ward. According to the application Foreman filed in February, between 81 and 104 units are planned (the numbers on the agenda don’t match the application). Foreman is also the Executive Director of the Greater Southwest Development Corporation and a member of the city’s Police Board.

A years long fight for paid sick leave regulations culminates in a committee hearing at 10:00 a.m. today, led by Workforce Development and Audit chair Ald. Pat O’Connor (40). The regulations, first introduced in 2014, were the subject of a non-binding ballot referendum in the 2015 election, a months-long examination from a blue ribbon task force, and were further delayed when Ald. O’Connor said he wanted to wait until the end of the legislative session in Springfield. The rules would mandate that Chicago employers provide up to five days worth of earned sick time to their employees.

The ordinance has 38 co-sponsors, the backing of a coalition of labor and interest groups, local state legislators, and support from Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “Credit where credit’s due, the Mayor’s office has indicated that this is something they truly want,” Zach Koutsky, UFCW Local 881’s Legislative & Political Director told Aldertrack yesterday. “Despite the Chamber and IRMA furiously trying to derail it, I think we’re feeling good.”

The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA), both participants in the Working Families Task Force convened by the Mayor to issue recommendations on sick leave, have blasted the ordinance. In an minority report issued the same weekend as the 40 page Working Families Task Force report, the business groups said the recommendations hit businesses already reeling from the city’s minimum wage hike, increased local sales and property taxes, and used “biased assumptions” when calculating the cost to businesses. The working group estimated instituting paid sick leave would lead to less than a 0.7-1.5% increase in labor costs for most employers.

The recommendations are more conservative than the ordinance first pitched in 2014.

Employees will have to work 40 hours to accrue one hour of sick leave (up from 30 hours in the original paid sick leave ordinance), new hires will have to wait twice as long to utilize a paid sick day, and the total number of sick days available would be capped at five, down from nine.

Ald. Ameya Pawar (47) told Aldertrack in April this ordinance isn’t as progressive as he would have liked, but his job was to reach consensus. “I think we came up with a very balanced, and a more pro-business proposal [than the first ordinance]. My own personal politics would lean further to the left on this.”

Last month, Pawar said the issue held as much importance as school funding or reform to the police department. “There’s 460,000 people that don’t have access to paid sick leave, and quite frankly, a lot of us are tired of having to put their needs on the backburner for other issues.”

Ladky, Pawar, and Koutsky have pointed to the Illinois Restaurant Association’s neutral stance on the issue as proof. Sam Toia, the Association’s President and CEO, sat on the task force.

If the ordinance passes the full City Council June 22, it would go into effect on September 20, and would be enforced by the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection.

Important provisions:

• Any covered employee who works at least 80 hours for an Employer within any 120-day period is eligible to accrue leave time.
• Every 40 hours worked will equal one hour of accrued paid sick leave.
• Every year, employees can carry over half of their accrued leave to use the next year (since leave is capped at 40 hours per year, the maximum would be 20 hours. Employers can set their own higher caps). If an employer is subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), covered employees can carry over up to 40 hours of unused paid sick leave exclusively for FMLA purposes.
• Employers would not have to pay out unused sick days.
• Benefits that are negotiated as part of a collective bargaining agreement are exempt.

Tanya Triche, Vice-President and General Counsel for IRMA, told Aldertrack she has been meeting with ordinance sponsors and the Mayor’s office to lobby for changes, even meeting with the Mayor’s staff yesterday evening. While she’s near certain the ordinance will pass today, she hopes there will be changes added to the ordinance before the June 22nd meeting that would simplify the process for employers.

“I think [the Mayor’s Office] has probably learned through Airbnb, through Uber, all these last minute attempts to pass something, if you just take the time to make sure that you’ve heard all the issues, make sure you figure out how to serve both communities… It should at least be written in a way that the employers can at the very least comply and comply without the fear of having a bunch of lawsuits filed against them.”

IRMA would like the city to drop the provision that allows employees to carry over accrued sick time to use for FMLA. Instead, they’d like employees to get all five sick days upfront, and for employers to choose their benefit start date. “When you start accruing, carrying over, banking time separately, that makes things very complicated.” Triche said throughout task force working groups, employers said the city rarely gives them tools to carry out mandates, leaving small HR operations to figure out benefits themselves and leaving businesses vulnerable to lawsuits–a nuance she says is likely lost on aldermen who might have trouble voting against such a popular policy.

"I think what needs to be emphasized is that there’s no doubt that a number, dare I say the majority of aldermen want some kind of employer paid sick leave mandate. And dare I say, the majority of these aldermen don’t really know what’s in this ordinance."

UFCW’s Koutsky argues IRMA and the Chamber are just using scare tactics, and the ordinance is a good, hard fought compromise. “We’re just making sure we get a quorum for the committee. Attendance is always a struggle. If everybody shows up on the committee, even the folks that are just co-sponsors, we’ve got it,” he said yesterday.

Nine of the 18 members of the committee are co-sponsors of the ordinance: Vice Chair Roberto Maldonado (26), Ald. Ed Burke (14), Ald. Raymond Lopez (15), Ald. Derrick Curtis (18), Ald. Danny Solis (25), Ald. Carrie Austin (34), Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa (35), Ald. Emma Mitts (37), and Ald. Deb Silverstein (50).

Surprising many Council watchers, the Finance Committee approved an ordinance championed by Chairman Ed Burke (14) that would bar companies from doing business with the city if they include forced arbitration clauses in agreements with consumers and employees. Neither the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA), Ald. Burke’s spokesperson, nor the Mayor’s staff were certain that a vote would be taken.

Attendance: Chairman Ed Burke (14), Pat Dowell (3) Sophia King (4), Gregory Mitchell (7), Anthony Beale (9), Marty Quinn (13), Raymond Lopez (15), David Moore (17), Derrick Curtis (18), Willie Cochran (20), Mike Zalewski (23), Jason Ervin (28), Ariel Reboyras (30), Scott Waguespack (32), Carrie Austin (34), Gilbert Villegas (36), Nick Sposato (38), Marge Laurino (39), Pat O’Connor (40), Brendan Reilly (42), John Arena (45), Harry Osterman (48)

"I don’t think anyone was expecting a vote today,” Tanya Triche of IRMA told Aldertrack after the meeting. “We were expecting for the subject matter experts to testify and sort of give the aldermen a good understanding of both sides of the issue and give the aldermen some time to ask the questions. My understanding is that it was going to be held.”

Administration sources tell Aldertrack they were not given advance notice of a vote. It is likely that the Mayor’s IGA staff, and Mayor Emanuel himself, may have been busy lobbying aldermen for changes to Ald. Anthony Beale’s (9) ride-share ordinance to make the regulations friendlier to Uber and Lyft, sources tell Aldertrack. Which explains why mayoral attention may not have been on Burke’s ordinance. Another option: Chairman Burke had planned to call a vote and never notified the administration.

Following the meeting, in an emailed statement sent to Aldertrack, Molly Poppe, a mayoral spokesperson said, “The Administration expressed serious concerns to the Chairman regarding this ordinance, and he has agreed to hold it until we are able to address these issues.” The Mayor’s team wants to look at the potential impact the ordinance would have on current contracts, spending, as well as who the city does business with, since mandatory arbitration clauses are included in almost all contracts.

Burke’s ordinance was first introduced in November. It’s unclear, given the administration's concerns, if the proposal will be amended or held ahead of the June 22nd monthly City Council meeting. Burke’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Yesterday, the measure passed unanimously by voice vote and would take effect within 60 days of passage if approved by the full City Council.

Existing city contracts may be impacted. The main clause in the ordinance: “No business entity shall be eligible to do business with the city if such business entity or any of its affiliates enters into any pre-dispute arbitration agreement with any natural person after the effective date of this ordinance that requires arbitration or an employment or consumer dispute or a dispute arising under any law intended to protect civil rights.”

Matt Link, an attorney with the Council’s Finance Committee who helped draft the ordinance, said after the vote that those companies would be in jeopardy of losing their existing contract with the city only if they entered into any new agreements with forced arbitration clauses after the effective date. But there could be some wiggle room for those city contractors.

The city’s Chief Procurement Officer, Jamie Rhee, could carve out exemptions on a case by case basis. During the hearing, when asked to specify how it would be enforced, Link told aldermen that he didn’t want to speculate, but the language could be added to the statement of financial interest or affidavit, documents businesses are required to submit to the city when they compete for an RFP (Request for Proposal).

Unions would be exempt from the law, as most labor unions use mandatory arbitration as the only way to reach collective bargaining agreements.

The move is unprecedented, as virtually every major company and bank, as detailed in this New York Times investigation, uses forced arbitration clauses in their contracts for things like credit cards, cell phones, cable, internet and online purchases. It was an issue Ald. Brendan Reilly (42) raised when he expressed  concern that the city could potentially find itself unable to find private contractors, or lose competitive options for future bidding opportunities.

“What if, say, all the cell phone providers say we’re not going to do this. Do we then not get cell phone providers...I’m just trying to figure out, do we then lose competitive options or the ability to bid these things?” asked Ald. Reilly, who remained skeptical that multi-billion dollar international companies would change their business practices to comply with a city law.   

Michelle Weinberg, a Supervising Attorney at Legal Assistance Foundation, who testified in support of the measure, responded to Reilly’s concerns, saying, “I can only speculate, but I would guess that the benefit to the company of being able to do business with the City of Chicago...outweighs the negligible impact of eliminating the arbitration clause.”

Other proponents of Burke’s measure like David Seligman, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, and Joshua Karsh, an attorney with Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym, say forced arbitration unfairly stacks the deck against consumers by barring them from filing a class action suit or taking their grievances to court. They pointed to large class action lawsuits against the tobacco industry and Enron to argue that if those companies had the clause buried within their contracts, the plaintiffs would have never made it inside a courtroom. Forced arbitration also keeps lawsuits against companies from the public record and eliminates the right to appeal an unfavorable decision.

If approved by the full City Council, Chicago would be the first city in the country to impose the rule, though President Obama signed an executive order in 2014 directing companies with federal contracts of $1 million or more not to require their employees to enter into predispute arbitration agreements for disputes arising out of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or from torts related to sexual assault or harassment (except when valid contracts already exist).

“I think this is the way change starts. If government can start setting a good example, then I think that’s what we’re trying to do here,” said Ald. John Arena (45).

The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce opposes the ordinance, citing the cost benefits of mandatory arbitration. The Chamber’s attorney David Ritter, a partner in the Chicago office of Barnes & Thornburg, explained that forced arbitration keeps legal costs low for companies, as court battles can go on for years with endless motions and appeals.

“The proposed ordinance would harm our already fragile economic climate by adding another unnecessary regulatory burden on businesses, and do very little to assist those it is attempting to protect,” said Ritter. “Who really wins with this proposed ordinance are the trial attorneys who receive significant legal fees from class actions, while the plaintiffs get very little in terms of relief.”

Hundreds of city contracts would be impacted, and even Chairman Burke expressed his surprise in learning “the extent and the breath” of how many businesses include the clause in employment and service agreements.

“The point is,” said Ald. Burke after reading off a lengthy list of companies that would be impacted, “We’re not going to solve all of the ills, but we can, I think, encourage companies that do business with us not to include mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts if they want to do business with the city of Chicago.”

“Though, it’s safe to say there’s tens of millions of dollars in city contracts that could be affected by this,” responded Ald. Arena.

“That’s the only way you are going to get their attention, through their pocketbook,” Ald. Burke countered.

Council’s Finance Committee meets at 10:00 a.m. today to consider two items introduced by Ald. Ed Burke (14) months ago. The first, originally introduced in November, says no company can do business with the city if that business or its affiliates enters into any pre-dispute arbitration agreement with anyone after the effective date of the ordinance, 60 days after passage. Those agreements are common practice at a number of banks, retailers, and telecom companies, included in applications for things like credit cards, as well as cell phone, cable, internet and online shopping agreements. A lengthy New York Times investigation found the agreements “essentially disabled consumer challenges to practices like predatory lending, wage theft and discrimination.”

These mandatory arbitration clauses “[destroy] a core American principle,” Burke’s ordinance says, by requiring a consumer or employee give up the ability to join a class action lawsuit or sue a business as a condition of keeping their job or using a good or service.

But no vote is expected on the sweeping changes.

The ordinance is based on a proposal in the National Consumer Law Center’s (NCLC) Model State Consumer and Employee Justice Enforcement Act. A representative from NCLC, David Seligman, is expected to testify in favor of the ordinance tomorrow (full testimony text).

“Forced arbitration harms consumers and employees, but it harms cities and states too,” Seligman said in a statement. “Companies that use forced arbitration clauses can prevent consumer and employment disputes from becoming public, making it much more difficult for the government to learn if it is paying for bad goods or services or paying more than it should. Forced arbitration isn’t only unfair; it’s also bad business.”

According to Ald. Burke’s measure, thousands of companies are choosing to insert mandatory arbitration clauses into contracts, in an attempt to “shield themselves from court action by consumers over alleged discrimination, elder abuse, fraud, hate crimes, medical malpractice and wrongful death.” The rule would be a continuing requirement for doing business with the city.

The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce is also expected to be on hand to testify against the ordinance, along with David Ritter, the Chamber’s Employment Law Chairman and a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. The Chamber argues agreements are oftentimes faster and cheaper than going to court, and that class action wage and hour cases benefit plaintiff’s attorneys more than individual workers or consumers.

The Chamber is only expecting a subject matter hearing to discuss the pros and cons of the ordinance, and not anticipating a vote today, the Chamber’s Mike Reever told Aldertrack.

The second item, a resolution from Ald. Marge Laurino (39) and Ald. Burke calls for hearings on the student loan debt crisis. It was first introduced in March. The city’s Chief Financial Officer, Carole Brown, and officials from the private sector, City Colleges, CPS, and other local colleges will be called to testify. Illinois ranks 16th in the country for highest debt burden at about $29,000, and debt has doubled for students at Eastern Illinois, Illinois State, Northern Illinois, Southern Illinois at Carbondale and Western Illinois Universities, the preamble states

Ald. Anthony Beale (9) will ask members of his Transportation Committee and Ald. Emma Mitts’ (37) License Committee to approve his plan to strengthen regulations on the ride-sharing industry in Chicago this Friday.

The License and Transportation Committees orignally scheduled a joint hearing for 1:00 p.m. today to consider Ald. Beale’s proposal that would require drivers for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft apply for a special license with the city and get fingerprinted by an outside contractor chosen by the Police Department. Yesterday, Beale amended the notice, rescheduling the meeting for this Friday afternoon. Under the ordinance, at least 5% of all Uber and Lyft cars in Chicago would have to be handicap accessible.

Yesterday afternoon, Ald. Beale’s office told Aldertrack that he plans to advance the proposal without any last minute changes added. Since he introduced the plan in March, two-thirds of the Council have signed up as co-sponsors. And at a day-long subject matter hearing on the proposal held in May, it became quite clear that few aldermen, save for Proco Joe Moreno (1), are willing to defend the way Uber and Lyft do business. 

At that hearing, Ald. Moreno was in the minority when he argued that Uber helps Chicago because it has opened up and diversified the industry, while also providing ease and security for riders. A Yellow Cab driver, sitting in the gallery when Moreno made that comment, stood up to scream “You lie!” before Council security had the man take his seat. It’s unclear if Friday’s hearing will be as boisterous. Ald. Beale’s office says they don’t have a lineup of expected witnesses.

The Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP), the city agency that would oversee the new rules, has opposed the plan in its current form, arguing that drivers for ride-sharing companies should not be subject to the same regulations as yellow taxi drivers, because most are considered part-time. BACP did not respond to Aldertrack’s requests for comment yesterday.

Uber has made a substantial local cable advertising buy in the wake of the upcoming vote, spending $203,855 on more than 4,000 commercials to air on 17 stations, including MSNBC, CNN, BET, ESPN, and the Food Network. The ads are scheduled to run through June 22, the date of the full City Council meeting. The Illinois Transportation Trade Association (ITTA), which represents the yellow taxi industry, has also ramped up its lobbying efforts, donating about $35,000 to aldermen on both committees.

Yesterday, the day after Cook County Clerk David Orr released property tax rates, the Mayor’s Office of Budget and Management started briefing aldermen on potential rebate plans the city could offer homeowners to offset this year’s historic tax hike. Those rebates will offer much less relief and require a lot more work to implement than the homeowners exemption the Mayor tried to pass through Springfield earlier this year. And none of the proposed plans include a way to pay the cost of the rebates.

The average City of Chicago residential taxpayer should expect to see a 12.8% increase on the tax bill set to land in their mailbox in the coming weeks, Clerk Orr estimated. More than half the increase (60%) is due to the $318 million property tax levy that kicks in this year. [A ward by ward breakdown of the median home value, impact of the property tax increase, and tax bill reduction from the homeowners exemption can be viewed on pages 24-73 here, but keep in mind it doesn’t reflect reassessments.]

The Budget Office released details of four rebate plans that have been floated in the months since the budget and property tax hike passed, adapted from those proposals, or a somewhat pared down version of the 2010 rebate put in place by Mayor Daley. [Details of each rebate option and how rebates are calculated here]. Each rebate plan comes with an estimated cost, but no mention of how the programs would be paid for.

“We’re trying to provide an offset for families and seniors as a direct result of the police and fire pensions,” Budget spokesperson Molly Poppe told Aldertrack. “We are trying to focus on the flow of income in middle class families. $50,000 is about the median income in Chicago.”

Ald. Walter Burnett (27) said he was late to the briefings, but “saw all four of them. My main question is, how are we going to pay for it?” Mentioning the recent news of McDonald’s relocating its corporate headquarters to Chicago and the improving area economy, Burnett says he’d like to get a clearer picture of how much the city is benefiting from commercial property taxes as well. “It’s kind of hard for me to make a decision on [a rebate] when I don’t know when all the moving parts are.”  

He and Budget Chair Carrie Austin told Aldertrack they did not hear from the Mayor’s Office on how revenue would be generated from the plans, which range in estimated cost from $10.4 million to $50 million, but Austin and Burnett agreed they’d like to see a plan that would benefit the most people, without hitting others too hard with new taxes or fees.

The plan that could cover the most people, per the Budget Office’s count, is not surprisingly, the costliest. That plan (Option 2) was first proposed by Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa (35), and would potentially cover 237,000 taxpayers: both homeowners and those who rent properties. The average rebate would be $195 for homeowners and $254 for rental property owners, but could go as high as $2,000. Rebate amounts would be determined based on assessed home value, the increase in the city tax rate, income as a percent of the federal poverty line, and whether residents receive social security or disability payments. Under Rosa’s plan, those who owe debt to the city (like unpaid parking tickets) and city employees would be eligible for a rebate.

The property tax rebate proposal first pitched by Ald. Michele Smith (43) and Ald. Proco Joe Moreno (1) also made the list (Option 1). Their rebate plan is limited to only the growth in City of Chicago property taxes due to the police and fire pension property tax increase. Household income is subtracted from $100,000 and multiplied by the growth in the City’s tax rate. This amount is multiplied by the home’s Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) to generate the rebate. The average rebate amount is estimated to be $116.

That proposal also includes a senior supplement for those over 60 years old, who have lived in their home for at least 18 years, and whose EAV has gone up by at least 30% from 2014. But those who receive the Senior Freeze or Home Improvement Exemptionwouldn't be eligible.

A more modest version of Mayor Daley’s 2010 plan also made the list (Option 3): the rebate would be a fixed amount between $25 and $200, determined by using a combination of household income and the eligible increase in the homeowner’s city property taxes. Daley’s plan, intended to ease the impact of the 2008 recession, was eligible for homeowners earning up to $200,000. Today’s plan would only impact households earning less than $50,000.

A modified version of what Moreno and Smith introduced was also included (Option 4). It would impact 107,000 homeowners and would cost roughly $12 million. The growth in the City’s tax rate is multiplied by the home’s EAV to determine the eligible increase. The homeowner receives a rebate which varies depending on income.

Poppe says she anticipates the city will use some kind of non-profit partner or outside delegate agency to carry out and promote the rebate program, similar to how the city handles Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) administration. Mayor Daley’s program was administered by an office within the OBM: the Chicago Tax Assistance Center. At its first application deadline, just 36,621 of 200,000 eligible homeowners applied. $35 million was set aside for the program, but ultimately the city paid out just $2.1 million. The program drew its funds from a portion of the city’s parking meter revenues, and was paid out using bank cards rather than checks so the city could avoid accounting for tens of thousands of individual grants.

Poppe could not say whether rebates would be offered on a card or a check, but said some rebates could be applied to pay off debt individuals have to the city.

All of the rebate proposals on the table would last just this year, and would only offset the increase in the property tax due to police and fire pensions. Poppe said there was no discussion of rebates for commercial properties like small businesses. Commercial property tax bills will go up an average of 10% this year, Orr’s office said.

The Mayor’s office will also continue pushing on a doubled homeowners exemption in Springfield, Poppe says. Property tax bills are expected to be mailed out in the coming weeks, and are due August 1.

This conversation is coming later than aldermen called for during the budget last year. A resolution approved in October called for the City Council to consider a city-administered property tax rebate program “Regardless of any action taken or not taken by the Illinois General Assembly… by June 1, 2016.”

Poppe says the budget office gathered input from aldermen and their staffers at yesterday’s briefings and might return with a hybrid proposal or “some type of melding of all the options” to introduce at the June 22 City Council meeting, or possibly at the July meeting.

As Chicago Public Schools calls for a dramatic increase of state funding to fill its projected $1.1 billion 2017 deficit, South Suburban school districts are keeping a close eye on the state’s response as plummeting home values make it harder for them to raise the cash needed to fund basic operations.  

In many ways, Chicago Public Schools’ calls for dramatically increased state funding is a precursor for an even bigger crisis for South Suburban Cook County school districts set to transpire next year, when the Cook County Assessor is scheduled to reassesses the value of those homes. Like CPS, many districts have maxed out their property tax caps, but South Suburban districts are also struggling with rapidly declining property values in their jurisdictions. In these communities, because property values are dropping, breaking the caps to raise local taxes would not be enough to provide basic educational services, making the need for state assistance more likely to make up for their growing property tax receipt shortfall.

School districts in South Suburban Cook County’s Bloom, Rich, Thornton and Lemont Townships, where property taxes make up roughly two-thirds of school funding, have seen overall property values drop significantly since they were last assessed in 2014. This has made it harder for these school district to tax the amount need to fund operations and has left districts to keep budgets lean.

These areas are faced with a multitude of challenges, from declining home prices to an exodus of commercial and industrial companies that typically relieve homeowners of swelling property tax bills.

But when the Cook County Assessor’s Office conducts its tri-annual assessment of South Suburban property values in 2017, the expected assessment drop will confront many school districts with the inability to tax properties at the rate necessary to provide basic funding for schools and local government services.

Depreciating home values especially impact property tax receipts for local school districts, because a district’s tax rate is based on an equation that divides the amount of money the district has requested in their levy by the total value of taxable property within each district, called the Equalized Assessed Value (EAV).

So when the denominator bottoms out due to depreciating home values, the tax rate increases, while total receipts continue to drop. This means homeowners are stuck with sinking home prices and higher tax bills. And school districts are left to cover operations with less money than they need.

One school district, Consolidated High School District 230, located about 25 miles southwest of Chicago and includes Orland Park, Orland Hills, Palos Park and Palos Hills, saw its EAV plummet more than $136 million between the 2013 and 2014 tax years, while its year-over-year tax rate increased by 4.88%.

Another district in Oak Lawn, Community High School District 218, saw its EAV drop roughly $109 million over the same time period, while its tax rate jumped 7.26%.

It’s the same case for Bremen Community High School District 228, a district covering parts of Oak Forest, Country Club Hills, and Hazel Crest, which saw its EAV fall roughly $81.4 million while its tax rate rose 8.63%.

“Cook County is the only county in the state of Illinois that has an upside down tax structure,” said Park Forest Mayor John Ostenburg. As the current president of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, a former member of the Chicago Teachers’ Union, and a one-time State Representative for the 80th District, Ostenburg has been following the debate over education funding for decades.

Ostenburg describes Cook County’s complex tax system as outdated, fashioned around a time when the South Suburbs had a thriving industrial economy. Unlike the rest of the state, Cook County is the only county where commercial and industrial properties are taxed twice as much as residential. At a time when factories were driving the economy, this helped relieve the property tax burden off of homeowners.

But times have changed, and when the factories closed their doors and relocated out of Illinois, so too did much of the retail economy that was dependent on workers spending their wages, and more and more, South Suburban homeowners are being saddled with ballooning property taxes that are outpacing actual receipts. “The South Suburbs had a ton of industry when the system was created, but when all the offshoring occurred, we lost jobs, then we lost retail, then we got stripped of virtually everything,” said Ostenburg.

For example, Thornton Township High School District 205 in 2015 received about $5.7 million less than what it requested in its 2014 property tax levy. For Lemont Township High School District, the shortfall was $7.6 million.

“Those of us who have been active in the South Suburbs over the year have been arguing the state needs to the change the way it supports schools,” said Mayor Ostenburg.

Like Ostenberg, the Community Relations Director for Lemont Township High School, Tony Hamilton, says the tax structure is unfairly burdening homeowners in their district, especially those located in a small pocket of the school district that lies within DuPage County. “When Cook County depresses property values, it puts more pressure on DuPage County taxpayers,” he said, explaining his office, in 2014, received calls from several DuPage residents from Woodridge, Downers Grove and a portion of Darien asking why their taxes rose at such high rates. “A larger portion of the burden is being put on a group that is only a quarter of the total size [of the school district].”

“So, we have two different tax rates for two different counties [that] don’t talk to each other when this happens...DuPage doesn’t know when Cook [County] is depressing its values,” he explained.

To remedy the shortfall in property tax receipts from the Cook County side, Hamilton says the district has been relying on its reserves. “But our goal is to make them last as much as possible...we’ve done more to limit expenditures. No extraneous staff.”

Hamilton said over the last five years, the district has closely monitored enrollment in elective classes to determine which teachers to keep on the payroll, added participation fees for athletics, and tried to keep student and enrollment fees flat.

Lemont Township School District is also heavily reliant on federal aid, as it benefits from a subsidy from the federal government for Argonne National Laboratory, part of the Department of Energy. Since federally-owned property is tax exempt, the federal government reimburses the school district for lost revenue. That money varies from year to year. According to Hamilton, the district could receive between $400,000 and $1 million. “We get about five cents on the dollar of what it would have been if it was residential land. But every year it gets zeroed out and then we have to fight for it.”

Hamilton says the district will be able to open next fall by depending on reserves should the state fail to pass a budget in time. But the district is watching the debate between CPS and the state over the school funding formula. Hamilton’s district receives about $700,000 in state aid every year, about 6-8% of the annual school budget. “That’s a significant amount of money we would be losing...if the formula was changed. What happens at CPS is unfortunately tied to us.”  

Meanwhile, Park Forest has been slow to recover since the Great Recession, says Mayor Ostenberg, as it was one of the hardest hit regions. The village of about 22,000 people saw roughly 700 homes go into foreclosure, he said. Some of those homes, about 70, fell so far into disrepair that they had to be demolished, and the village is working with Habitat for Humanity to repair some of the more livable foreclosed properties.

This has left the tax burden on a smaller share of homeowners. According to Cook County Clerk David Orr’s property tax update for 2015, residents of the Village of Park Forest have the second highest property tax rate in Cook County at 36.834%. “There are not enough dollars to go around. The [property tax] rate keeps going up and up and up,” Ostenburg explained. “I know people spending more on taxes than their mortgage.”

Ostenburg has been trying for years to push the state legislature to use state income tax revenue to fund schools as a way to provide some relief to smaller school districts where property values have been on the decline.

“The only solution to the problem of school funding in Illinois is to take the dependence off the property tax and take it from the income taxes,” he said. “If funding was based on income, then if I make more I’ll pay more.”

Ostenburg is pushing for the state to create a pilot program that focuses on alleviating the financial burden of local school districts, especially at a time when state and federal assistance has been unreliable.

“The critical thing in the South Suburbs is that we need to attract more business and industry in the area. The burden falls on homeowners, and there are fewer people participating,” he said. “Homes can’t fund the entire burden of schools and municipalities.”

The pilot program Ostenburg envisions would incentivize businesses that relocate to struggling townships or villages to offset the property tax burden by lowering the tax rate for those businesses.

Ostenburg called Gov. Bruce Rauner’s suggestion that CPS declare bankruptcy “outrageous” and has signed a letter drafted by Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Office calling for a more equitable share of school funding. The letter, Ostenburg said, was brought up at last week’s meeting of the Metropolitan Mayors Conference. Mayor Emanuel’s press office tells Aldertrack that the letter hasn’t been made public yet, because they are still gathering signatures.

An intergovernmental agreement between the city and the agency that oversees McCormick Place and Navy Pier to employ off-duty police officers for security at private events received a significant amount of pushback from a few aldermen on the Public Safety Committee as they expressed worry that the city would foot the bill for any police overtime incurred.

While the agreement between the city and the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA) eventually passed in committee, with Ald. Chris Taliaferro (29), a former police officer, as the sole no vote, Committee Chair Ariel Reboyras (30) had to temporarily recess the meeting to iron out some of the issues with aldermen, MPEA officials and the police department.

MPEA was seeking approval to reinstate and amend an agreement first approved by the Council in 1996 that lets the agency hire off-duty Chicago police officers for private events or conventions at Navy Pier. Currently, MPEA employs about 35 plain clothes police officers, but not all work at the same time. The amended agreement would give those officers the option of wearing their uniform while providing security, in addition to extending the terms to McCormick Place.

Michael Merchant, Director of Governmental Affairs for the MPEA, said officers working at Navy Pier are considered MPEA employees, paid by the pier authority at $30-an-hour and hired under a 1099 form as “independent contractors”.

According to Merchant, customer advisory boards, which organize shows and conventions at McCormick Place, requested the extra security. “They asked us if there was something we could do to engage the Chicago Police Department to be present at some of the shows. They are willing to pay these officers for their services,” he explained, adding that the convention operators would pay MPA. In turn, MPA would compensate the police officers.

But Ald. Willie Cochran (20), a former police officer, took issue with the fact that the city would bear the cost of compensating an officer for overtime incurred for court appearances should the officer arrest anyone while working security for the pier. “The city should not have to take the burden of paying any expenses associated with officers working in the capacity for the Pier Authority. Why would our budget have to be challenged on that when you have a budget of your own?” Ald. Cochran asked.

Police overtime has been a huge sticking point for aldermen during budget negotiations, as the police department has, at least in the past two years, underestimated overtime expenses by tens of millions of dollars.

Ryan Nelligan with the Chicago Police Department said the bill would go to CPD, because once an officer has “taken police action”, they’re on-duty and covered under the police contract. That Fraternal Order of Police contract includes a clause detailing how much officers must be compensated for court appearances. Merchant added that the agreement aligns with CPD’s secondary employment policy, although Ald. Cochran questioned why no one from the FOP was on hand to testify.

Nelligan explained that the agreement between the Pier Authority and the police department is unlike other intergovernmental agreements the department has with the Chicago Housing Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority, mainly because MPEA will have to take out a $10 million liability insurance plan to cover uniformed police officers. The City and CPD are listed as co-insurers. But as soon as any of those off-duty police officers takes police action, whether it be an arrest or firing their gun, city liability kicks in, Nelligan explained.

Ald. Cochran, Ald. Taliaferro, and Ald. Carrie Austin (34) also expressed concern that hiring preference would be given to officers in the First Police District, where Navy Pier is located. A former police commander from that district, George Rosebrock, heads security at Navy Pier. But aldermen questioned the fairness of giving those officers priority. Ald. Taliaferro, who had to go to another committee meeting, requested that Chairman Reboyras defer the item until that issue was clarified. Reboyras, instead, chose to recess the meeting for five minutes so aldermen could convene privately with Merchant and Nelligan.

When they returned, Merchant clarified that officers from around the city would be invited to apply. He added that they had specifically mentioned the First District because of its proximity to Navy Pier.

Meanwhile, Eva-Dina Delgado’s appointment to the Police Board went through mostly without a hitch, as Chairman Reboyras made a point to bar any discussion on specific police reforms or the mayor’s task force.

Although, Ald. Harry Osterman (48), more than once, urged Chairman Reboyras to make sure the ongoing discussions over police transparency remain open to the public and asked for him to hold another hearing similar to the one held last December in the wake of the Laquan McDonald video release.

Referencing a press conference Police Board President Lori Lightfoot, who is also the chair of the Mayor’s Police Accountability Task Force, held last week calling on the Emanuel Administration to do a better job of including the public in the ongoing debate over police reforms, Ald. Osterman asked that Reboyras invite members of the Task Force to the Council Chambers for a public hearing on their report.

“I strongly believe this committee needs to take a leadership role in these efforts in a very open and transparent way,” Osterman said. “Reforms that do not have a lot of transparency or conversation and back and forth with members of the bodies that have to vote on this, I think, will lead to bad public policy.”

And Delgado, a registered lobbyist for People’s Gas and a longtime Daley administration fixture, was still asked to weigh in on the ongoing debate over police reforms, as she’ll be sitting on a Board in charge of making recommendations of disciplinary action for officers found of misconduct.

“You’re right that we are at a critical juncture at the city where there are going to be lots of conversations about what police accountability should look like, and I think that’s a conversation that has to happen, of course, here in this chamber as part of your roles, obviously. And having some community input on that,” she said.

Both items are expected to be reported out at the June 22 monthly City Council meeting.

The City Council’s Committee on Economic, Capital and Technology Development approved a designation of blight and a property tax break for a parcel of land near McCormick Place to facilitate the construction of a new 466-room Hilton Hotel.

According to Brad McConnell, a Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Planning and Development, the site at 111 East Cermak Road had already received a designation of blight in 1999, when the 24th and Michigan TIF district was created. But the Cook County Assessor’s office requires that a property can only qualify for a Class 7(b) tax incentive if that designation was made within the last ten years.

Gliding down the James R. Thompson Center escalators, former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn arrived for a lunchtime meeting in the food court in every way you would expect Pat Quinn to do so. It was hot, so he lacked a jacket, but wore his shirt unbuttoned two buttons. Carrying a thick accordion folder he says hello mildly but with a firm handshake.

After settling in at a quieter table, Quinn chit chatted a bit, but was excited to talk about his new effort to create an elected Chicago Consumer Advocate and to set a term limit for Chicago’s mayor, beginning in 2019. He brandished a dogeared copy of the Illinois Constitution, wrapped with a rubber band and full of underlined passages. For half an hour, Quinn expounded on his new referenda, his opinion of the performance of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Gov. Bruce Rauner and what he's doing to fill his time out of office.

The following is transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Aldertrack: What spurred you to do this referenda now?
Quinn: I’ve always been interested in Article VII, the local government article, because I want to see more initiatives and referendum statewide. You can pass a constitutional amendment for that, and I think we can.

But a city council can enact its own local initiative process, so this is already existing, it only pertains to certain subjects, the manner of selection and creating an office. You can do binding initiatives on this. I’ve been interested in this since I was in law school.

Do you think Rahm Emanuel is doing a good job?
I don’t want to get into too much into the personalities and performance. I believe in the policy, whether Emanuel is mayor or someone else is mayor. I believe that two four year terms, consecutive terms, is sufficient.

But you could have written this so it could take effect in the next one. You very specifically said in 2019.
Because the current office holder is on his second elected term.

You could grandfather him in for one more.
But I think the two term, two consecutive terms is the proper way to go. A number of communities in Illinois, twenty, have used this to have various things in terms of term limits on their mayor. And most of them are consecutive four year terms. And there’s another factor, probably even bigger, the big cities of America, the ten biggest, only Chicago doesn’t have term limits on its mayor. New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Houston, San Diego.

Your spokesman said you’re not ready to roll out supporters just yet. How are you going to put together the organization to put together a 100,000 signatures, let alone the 53,000 good signatures you need.
Keep in mind our goal is to get 100,000 names and take as long as necessary to get it.

So it doesn’t have to be for the November 8th ballot?
Having been around Illinois politics for a while, sometimes there are politicians who keep you off the ballot. You might have heard of that.

This goes on the ballot at least 92 days after the filing of this petition, so when we get the names, then we’ll put it–we’ll file. We’re not going to be in a situation where our adversaries perhaps try to keep this off the ballot by trying to hog the ballot.

Has this sort of thing been done before? The Fair Maps Amendment team, they were really hemmed in by the time period, and the first time around they had a hard time–
That’s a different part of the constitution, which I have used as well. Since 1980. There, there is a specific deadline, you cannot have, you can’t do the 92 days. You must put it on a General Election ballot. That’s Article XIV. That’s different.

I’m curious to know, what do you think of the fight going on between Michael Madigan and Governor Rauner? You had issues with Madigan too.
Obviously I ran against Rauner, and many of the things that I, more than many, of the things that I predicted he would do, he has done and made a mess of things. I am very disappointed in the performance of Rauner as governor. People like Jim Edgar, who is in a different party than mine, and he supported Rauner, have the same disappointment. The first job of the governor is to get a budget, and not to engage in alibis about why not.

Is it possible we could go a whole Rauner term without a budget? Is that conceivable?
I hope not. But our state has the highest unemployment rate in the country now. We’ve had six straight months of higher unemployment. When I left office, we had 25 straight months of unemployment rate that was stable or declining. Never rising. Now it’s up. And I think it’s in due part to poor leadership by the governor.

You’re basically the template for the populist politician in Illinois. I think you’ve done that on purpose.
I believe in it. It’s not hard. This was on the ballot in Chicago in 1982 [pulls out old flyer for Citizens Utility Board initiative]. Chicago had a referendum on CUB, it passed overwhelmingly, within a year it because the law in the state of Illinois. So I was the guy who got it on the ballot, and I believe in it.

Thinking as a populist, is Rahm Emanuel doing the right thing spending so much energy on something like the Lucas Museum, versus school funding and the police force?
Yeah. There are core priorities like safety, education. This thing they’re having at Crain’s? [The Crain’s Future of Chicago Conference] What was missing? Fighting violence, good education, economic development–what’s missing? Democracy. What Chicago is missing, is giving voters more opportunity to call the policies they think are right. To me that’s a big problem. In other words, if you empower and strengthen the voice of voters we’ll have a better city, right now it’s too top down. That’s why term limits are so important. They’re the ultimate of campaign finance reform. You can just incumbency to raise money for their election.

So is the Lucas Museum the kind of thing a mayor should be expending their energy on? 
To me, that wouldn’t be my top priority. But that’s his, I guess.

Have you reached out to Rahm Emanuel to talk about [the referendum]?
On this one, I haven’t talked to him directly. But imagine that time will come. I think he would be well advised to support this. Believe it or not, quite a few municipalities who have come together on this, twenty all together, have put it on the ballot by themselves, without a petition. Some had to have a petition. This is a good policy. Two consecutive elected terms, then you step out. Worked for George Washington!

You’ve got an office in River North. So what else are you spending your time on?
I volunteer for everything I can. I was called the Broadband Governor, I do a lot with high speed internet for schools and hospitals. Wrongful conviction. I did quite a few clemencies when I was governor, one of the last ones was a man named Tyrone Hood, who was in Menard 22 years for a murder he didn’t commit, I pardoned him at the end. I got involved with folks who, our criminal justice system, you can’t make mistakes and put innocent people in jail, so I worked on that and I’m going to do the food bank walk this weekend and I do a lot of work for veterans. They’re called Gold Star Veterans who lost a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan. Last year I went to The Cell, for a baseball game, we had a suite, and we did one for the Cardinals, for the fans there. So we had a Gold Star family group at a Cardinals game.

Have you been doing and private legal work?
No.

Have you been taking private clients or advising anyone, that sort of thing?
No. I believe in volunteerism. I do believe in petition passing. I got 150 names yesterday.

What’s the likelihood of the passage of an elected school board by 2019 for Chicago?
In some ways, our petition helps it. If things aren’t moving on stuff like elected school board, which is a perfect example of why we need local initiative. People voted on that in an advisory way. But how did they get it on the ballot? They had to go ward by ward.

Right now the bill passed the House, I asked Madigan to be for that, he looked at me like there was a man from the moon. Now he’s for it, bless his heart. Some people have a change of heart. Now it’s up to [Illinois Senate President] John [Cullerton] to call the bill, and it would pass if he did, but John and the Mayor are pretty tight.

So you think Cullerton will hold on it?
I think the Mayor has got to realize, the longer he blocks the elected school board the bill that passed the house, the more people that are going to sign on the petition.

How many candidates for mayor do you think we’re going to see for 2019?
I hope a good number. I think it’s healthy to have viewpoints.

What do you think of Donald Trump?
He’s a charlatan. In a lot of ways, the guy who ran for governor against me, used some of the Trump techniques in 2014. Insulting, calling people corrupt. He called his three Republican opponents in the primary corrupt. That kind of stuff. When you attack the character of your political adversaries, it doesn’t lend much to civility, which is very important to run a democracy. [Former Republican Governor Jim] Edgar said that last week.

Is the Fair Maps Amendment going to pass?
I’ve been involved in a number of cases in the supreme court level on that part of the constitution and initiatives. I think they have some drafting challenges in their proposal. THey way it is drafted. Two years ago it was not very well done. And I really feel looking at it, they are going to have survive a court case.

So you think it will be knocked off the ballot?
Because of poor drafting. You gotta read the cases.

Are we going to see Pat Quinn running for Governor or Mayor?
You’ll see me passing petitions right now. [Interrupted by two construction workers saying hello. “Good seeing you brother!” one says.]

So, are we going to see you running for Mayor or Governor?
I’m not even thinking about that. If you want to do an initiative and I do on this, you really need to put a lot of heart and soul into that. When it’s time to run for office, I’ll think about that when that time comes. Right now this [taps initiative petition] is the time.

Are you going to be fundraising for that?
I made a contribution, a loan. We have enough money to get started. I believe in this. If you invest in it, your own money, that’s really underlines you believe it.