A day after a moderate and conservative-leaning caucus of alderpeople backed off proposals to increase garbage collection fees and freeze youth jobs, the group included a hike in the city’s grocery bag fee to its alternate 2026 budget. And their proposal still excludes a corporate head tax. The Chicago City Council’s Finance Committee voted 22-13 to advance the revised counter budget to the full council’s consideration.
For weeks, the group that calls themselves the Alternative FY26 Budget Aldermanic Coalition has been laser-focused on finding revenue-generating alternatives to avoid taxing large corporations through a Community Safety Surcharge, also known as the corporate head tax. Mayor Brandon Johnson wants to reinstate the head tax, which was eliminated by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2014, to fund mental health services, youth jobs and violence prevention. His allies in City Hall and within the grassroots organizing community agree.
“One thing I can say about the head tax, although I have my concerns with it, is that it is structural. It’s something that we can guarantee, and that helps,” Ald. Walter Red Burnett (27th Ward) told The TRiiBE after the committee meeting.
However, Burnett did express concern with both Johnson and the bloc’s separate budgets, previously expressing concern for the head tax and its potential impact on restaurants in his ward. Although not a member of the progressive caucus, Burnett was appointed to alderperson by Johnson this fall.
The revised alternative budget proposal raises the grocery bag tax from 10 cents to 15 cents to generate $8.7 million. Other items in the budget include augmented reality advertisements, increasing the liquor tax by 1.5% to bring in $6 million, expanding the congestion fee zones downtown for Uber and Lyft to bring in $39.4 million, and a projected $92.6 million in fines and fees, which includes debt collections and the selling of debt.
According to the 27-member caucus, the revised counter budget only changes 1.6% of Johnson’s proposal and includes “no head tax, full advance pension payment, $46.6M in efficiencies, no garbage/grocery/property tax, business is covering 84% of new revenues and individuals $16%.” The revision also preserved the TIF surplus proposal, which helps to fund Chicago Public Schools, and restored funding for youth-centered Becoming a Man (BAM) and Working on Womanhood (WOW) programs.
Though the revision prides itself on relying primarily on taxing businesses, multiple progressive alderpeople raised red flags about the potential impact of the counter budget on vulnerable communities.
Ald. Anthony Quezada (35th Ward) took issue with the proposal of ads on public property such as light poles, bridge houses and city vehicles.
“I think it’s a horrible use of privatization, of commodification of public space, it’s a continuation of failed neoliberal policies that brought us into this fiscal mismanagement,” Quezada said during the finance meeting.
Ald. Rossana Rodriguez Sanchez (33rd Ward), a member of the progressive caucus, echoed Quezada’s concerns. In her research, she said, certain advertising is being banned in various cities due to its mental and environmental impact.
The revised proposal also detailed opportunity for augmented reality ads.These computer-generated advertisements would be displayed in public spaces that could be viewed through smartphones and other devices, similarly to the popular mid-2010s game Pokémon GO.
Burnett also took issue with the proposal to allow establishments with liquor licenses to become “a casino” with slot machines and video gambling. He oversees a ward that will be home to the upcoming Bally’s Casino, a multi-million-dollar development that was approved during his father Walter Burnett, Jr.’s tenure as alderperson.
“I don’t think the revenue is guaranteed,” Burnett said about video gambling. “I don’t like what it means for mental health. I don’t like what our community has stood for. So that portion of it alone being in the budget is something that we’re guaranteeing and pushing our administration to push forward, is really detrimental to our community.”
Ald. Jason Ervin (28th Ward) also pushed back on the video gambling proposal, voicing concerns that Black people would not benefit from the expansion of video game terminals in establishments that have liquor licenses. Although Ervin is not in the progressive caucus, he is a Johnson ally.
Ald. Anthony Beale (9th Ward), who introduced the proposal, ensured that Black people would reap the benefits of the gambling expansion.
Burnett also took issue with the proposal to sell off the debts owed to the city for services such as ambulance rides, noting that this would add more burden to those who already struggle financially.
“I’d have to do more research. I have to just see [and] understand what that means. So that’s a piece for me that’s a little bit more challenging to digest,” Burnett said.
Ald. Ronnie Mosley is the only progressive who voted in favor of advancing the proposal. He previously separated himself from the alternative bloc when a past iteration of their counter budget included a freeze on youth jobs and increasing garbage collection fees.
In a statement on the alternate budget after the finance committee’s vote, Johnson expressed his opposition to the proposal.
“Not only is this proposal immoral, it is simply not feasible. There is no way to sell off Chicagoans’ debts that would yield that amount of revenue,” Johnson said in his statement. “If passed as is, this proposal would likely result in a significant midyear budget shortfall and leave Chicagoans vulnerable to deep cuts to city services.”
Since Monday’s no-show from the alternative budget coalition, Johnson has referred to the alternative bloc’s proposal as a “secret budget.” The group only presented a statement from Ald. Gil Villegas (36th Ward), detailing the removal of the garbage tax and the reinstating of youth jobs and funding for gender-based violence survivors. City Council members and reporters asked for a copy of the revised proposal, but the full plan wasn’t introduced until today’s finance committee meeting.
Johnson said the plan enhances debt collection on Chicagoans instead of taxing the largest corporations.
“This seems to be in direct contradiction with their expressed desires to shift the financial burden away from working people,” Johnson said.
Beale, a member of the alternative budget coalition, said there was no need for them to show up yesterday because the finance committee met today and presented their proposal.
“It was a gavel in, gavel out. There was no need for us to submit it [Monday] because the meeting was today, so we submitted it to them,” Beale said.
In his statement, Johnson said the Budget Committee will review the proposal in depth during Wednesday’s 2:00 p.m. meeting.
“We will spend the next few days with our budget, finance, legal, and policy teams reviewing these proposals,” Johnson said. “Chicago cannot afford a government shutdown when we are making so much progress growing our economy and reducing violent crime to historic lows.”
Here is the roll call of today’s 22-13 finance committee vote:
Chairwoman Pat Dowell (3rd) — Yes
Vice Chair Bill Conway (34th) — Yes
Daniel La Spata (1st) — No
Brian Hopkins (2nd) — Yes
William Hall (6th) — No
Greg Mitchell (7th) — Yes
Michelle Harris (8th) — Yes
Anthony Beale (9th) — Yes
Nicole Lee (11th) — Yes
Julia Ramirez (12th) — No
Marty Quinn (13th) — Yes
Raymond Lopez (15th) — Yes
David Moore (17th) — No
Derrick Curtis (18th) — Yes
Matthew O’Shea(19th) — Yes
Jeanette Taylor (20th) — No
Ronnie Mosley (21st) — Yes
Michael Rodriguez(22nd) — No
Monique Scott (24th) — Yes
Byron Sigcho Lopez (25th) — No
Red Burnett (27th) — No
Jason Ervin (28th) — No
Chris Taliaferro (29th) — Abstained
Felix Cardona (31st)— Yes
Scott Waguespack (32nd) — Yes
Rossana Rodriguez Sanchez (33rd) — No
Anthony Quezada (35th)— No
Gil Villegas (36th) — Yes
Emma Mitts (37th) — Yes
Nicholas Sposato — Yes
Andre Vasquez (40th) — No
Brendan Reilly (42nd)— Yes
Timothy Knudsen(43rd) — Yes
Matt Martin (47th) — No
Debra Silverstein(50th) — Yes
Samantha Nugent(39th) — Yes
This article has been updated to clarify statements in regards to the use of public property for advertisements.
