Chicago aldermen approved a plan Tuesday to require an even larger City Council majority for the city to borrow money, making it tougher for Mayor Brandon Johnson and his successors to use debt to raise cash.
The council will now need a 30-member majority to issue bonds and take on other debt, a step up from the current 26-vote threshold. Aldermen will have more say over city finances.
Sponsor Marty Quinn, 13th, said it was another sign of the council’s growing independence, and brought the city in line with the Illinois General Assembly, which also requires a three-fifths vote on debt issuances.
“I think we all agree we should have more of a voice in the city’s long-term financial health,” he said.
The proposal — an inside-baseball rules change to the public, but a hot-button issue at City Hall — won approval with a 32-15 vote. Many mayoral allies voted against it, and Johnson hinted later Tuesday he might veto the measure.
Despite the split vote, debate was brief and only two aldermen spoke. Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, applauded requiring “broad consensus” on major new debt.
“The risk we are facing going forward is becoming too tied up in paying the interest on the taxpayers’ credit card that will crowd out our ability to fund parks and schools and roads and police officers and mental health clinics,” he said.
More Top Picks Best Igloo Portable Ice Makers
Aldermen Daniel La Spata, 1st, Chris Taliaferro, 29th, and Andre Vasquez, 40th, left the room and did not vote.
“We’ve got to lock the door when it’s voting time,” Ald. Matt O’Shea, 19th, said when he realized the three were gone.
Their absence made it unclear whether the ordinance has support from a 34-member, veto-proof majority.
Later, Vasquez said he did not vote because he is pushing for another measure to require greater transparency from mayoral administrations on debt plans. He said he has not yet decided how to vote if Johnson does issue a veto.
Speaking at a news conference after the vote, Johnson referred to the measure as “this three-fifths compromise.” He extolled his use of bond revenue as a critical way to invest in Chicago’s most needy and working-class neighborhoods, citing flood-response infrastructure, affordable housing and small-business development funding. Many on the City Council approved bond plans under previous administrations, and his approach has been “more responsible, reasonable,” he said.
He did not clearly answer when asked if he would issue a veto.
“I’m going to make a decision that benefits the very people who need this type of investment to work,” he said. “And those are the families who live on the West and South sides of our city.”
If the mayor chooses to veto, he will only deepen aldermanic frustrations with his financial team.
Some aldermen have tried and failed to put other limits on Johnson’s ability to borrow over this term, including attempts to water down the mayor’s signature $1.25 billion Housing and Economic Development bond in 2024 and stalling a round of infrastructure borrowing in February 2025. Critics said they worried about the backloaded debt repayment schedule and a lack of transparency about how the debt would be used.
The increased threshold also comes weeks before Johnson introduces his 2027 budget during a downslide in Chicago’s standing with ratings agencies and a major turnover in the city’s top financial staff.
New debt issuances are often part of the annual budgeting process, either because the city plans to issue new debt for capital projects or refinance old debt for savings they count on upfront.
Johnson plans to refinance debt to close an expected budget gap for the end of 2026, a move that he says does not require a council vote.
Meanwhile, a letter from 29 aldermen challenging the mayor on debt collection and taxes frustrated some of the signatories’ colleagues Tuesday.
Progressive Caucus co-chair Ald. Andre Vasquez, 40th, griped that “it is not just the administration that doesn’t talk to the colleagues; it is also the other alders.” He stressed that he would not have signed the letter.
More Top Picks Best Wiggle Seats For Kindergarten
“The reason why is when you have an $882 million gap, you’re not going to cut your way to close that gap, and so you have to figure out revenue,” Vasquez said.
Johnson’s budget chair, Ald. Jason Ervin, 28th, wondered: “The only question I have of them is, what do they want to cut?”
Still, he agreed with the mayoral opponents that he is vehemently against a property tax hike — an unlikely proposal for an election-year budget anyhow. But he also said Tuesday he’s against a garbage fee increase, and is skeptical that the city can sign off on a budget relying on future Springfield revenue that isn’t on the books yet.
Johnson also ripped the letter. He argued aldermen acted recklessly by closing the last budget gap with a plan to sell debt for around $90 million that has so far not materialized — and must not take similar action this time.
“What we cannot have is a group of alders who don’t show up with any ideas,” Johnson said. “It appears that you have individuals on City Council that are more aligned and more willing to defend the rights of a corporation than defend the rights of working people.”