26-02-2025
City Council approves Mayor Brandon Johnson's $830 million infrastructure bond deal
The City Council narrowly approved Mayor Brandon Johnson's controversial $830 million bond deal to finance neighborhood infrastructure improvements, despite complaints that a back-loaded repayment schedule would inflate the total cost to $2 billion by the time all of the debt is paid off.
Under the plan approved by a 26-23 vote, the city would not make any principal payments until 2045, making only interest payments for the first 20 years of the 30-year borrowing plan.
The mayor and his supporters have said the bond deal is needed to pay for various necessary infrastructure projects, including road and bridge projects, renovations to city buildings, replacing city vehicles, new street lights and traffic signals, replacing lead service lines, and aldermanic "menu" projects in each ward.
However, critics have called the back-loaded structure of the bond deal financially irresponsible, and have argued the total amount of money being borrowed should be reduced, while also changing the structure of the deal to begin making principal payments immediately to lessen the overall cost.
"This is about being fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' money every single day," Ald. Anthony Beale (9th) said. "This is fiscally irresponsible. The people are asking us to do better. The people of Chicago are paying attention. You can say people ain't paying attention of what's going on down here anymore. You better not say that, because people are paying attention,"
The 26-23 vote to approve the deal came only after the mayor had to cast a tie-breaking vote to avoid pushing back a final vote on the plan until May 21.
Initially, it appeared the City Council was going to proceed with a vote on the deal without debate, but after critics blasted the mayor for moving forward without hearing from any aldermen, the mayor reversed course and agreed to allow debate "as a courtesy."
Once debate was underway, Ald. Walter Burnett (27th), Johnson's vice mayor, said approving the bond deal was a "quality of life issue."
"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 sent us down here to take care of. Some of our communities can't wait. In fact, some of our communities have been waiting for a long time. Some more than others. Maybe some aldermen have the luxury of putting off infrastructure maintenance, but our community needs these investments now," Burnett said.
However, Ald. Bill Conway (34th) said because the city would be making only interest payments for the first 20 years of the deal, the overall cost will rise to about $2 billion, with taxpayers on the hook for $137 million a year for the last six years of the deal.
Noting he and his wife are currently raising three children between the ages of 2 and 5, he said that would mean "they will be in their 30s and on the hook for an irresponsible decision I cannot stomach making for them today."
"No one disputes that many of these investments are essential. However, we have to be honest about the back-loaded nature of this bond structure," he added.
Some of the mayor's had claimed the bond deal could be used to balance the budget at the Chicago Public Schools, an allegation the Johnson administration rejected. Nonetheless, before the bond deal passed, the mayor's office agreed to amend the language of the bond deal to clarify that the funding can only be used for infrastructure projects.
Conway and Ald. Timmy Knudsen (43rd) had introduced their own proposals to reduce the amount of money being borrowed under the deal, and speeding up the repayment plan. Conway said aldermen shouldn't simply be forced to choose the mayor's plan or nothing.
"Why are we acting like this is somehow our only option? Your vote is a no on this plan, not on any plan. Simply put, 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. If we're committing $2 billion over 30 years, we can certainly take three more weeks to craft a responsible proposal that meets our city's needs without compromising its potential," Conway said.
