Well, the Key City Council, many set said, I'm with a key City council committee set to vote on Mayor Brandon Johnson's latest budget proposal tomorrow will be 3rd time be the charm.

>> You know the vote.

The first step, of course, is tomorrow.

But I am tremendously grateful that there are so many members of City Council or who are open to this process and have provided great feedback so far, Judy, to get to the finish line by Friday.

I mean, that look work.

That is certainly the effort of my administration.

I said up, I'm going to do my job present a balanced budget.

Again, I'm grateful to the members of City council who have shown up with a great deal of ideas.

We just say that we have to continue make critical investments without cutting services in Lee.

People often think that support for the people of Chicago.

>> The spending plan comes after older people turned away to earlier pitches that included huge property tax hikes.

The countdown is on the city council has just over 2 weeks to pass a budget or face potential government shutdown.

The plan has sparked intense debate over tax increases, spending cuts and funding priorities.

Joining us now, our 28th Ward Alderman Jason Ervin, who represents neighborhoods including West Garfield Park Austin in North Lawndale 6 Ward Alderman William Hall representing communities like Chatham, Auburn, Gresham in Englewood.

15th Ward Alderman Raymond Lopez, whose constituents include Brighton Park Gage Park and back of the Yards and Alderman Andrea Vasquez from the 40th Ward representing neighborhoods like Andersonville Lincoln Square and Edgewater.

Full House tonight.

Gentlemen, thank you all for joining us.

let's start with you because you're the chair of the Budget Committee.

As we mentioned, the city council unanimously rejected that 300 million dollar property tax hike.

more quietly rejected the proposed 150 million Dollar property tax hike.

Will City Council approved one?

That is 68.5 million dollars.

A Blue City Council will approve the property tax increase.

>> Again, no one wants to cut services.

When you ask people about services.

No one wants to see reductions in services.

However, you also asking.

>> In a vacuum, hey, do you want a property tax increase course going to tell, you know, but again, the fact that people do not want service because these me to believe that we need to find revenue in order to keep the level of service that we All Lopez.

Mayor Johnson has called the budget process Collaborative.

Has that been your experience?

That has not been my experience nor the experience of many members of the City council.

>> Earlier in August, we got this document, which was the budget forecasts and we've had nearly 5 months where we could have talked about this in advance of coming to this point.

That hasn't been the case.

And I think that.

While many Chicagoans want us to continue providing desperately needed city services.

They don't want to feel as though they're being nickel and dimed at every turn or they don't want to see that there's patronage jobs needless management in that budget.

And I think we haven't gotten to the core of that.

The mayor came back with a 3 million dollar reduction in one department after we propose 560 million dollars to get back to 2020 spending levels so there's plenty of room to negotiate still, if the mayor and his team want to come back to the table and have an honest conversation, do you really want to go back to 2020?

Even a council?

It doesn't.

We have to do to show good faith.

Absolutely, OK, you know what?

I think the mayor's office should do that, too, because he's 5 million dollars more than we were back then.

I think people need understand just keep that in mind for a twenty-twenty spending levels levels.

Twenty-twenty spending levels.

I'm going ask as but it's more than 2 weeks overdue.

You're just 22 days until the deadline by state law.

What do you think went wrong here?

Yeah, I I do agree with my colleague as far as the president being collaborative, we ultimately found out.

>> What the budget proposals and be 30th.

I think the council is learning what it means to be a coequal branch.

So voting down one proposal unanimously moving things down.

Now works close to a 5th of what it was.

We just have to be empowered and understand how to actually have these process.

He's improved.

So that's something we're working to do that if you would have talked about this sooner, then it all these questions.

We wouldn't find ourselves crammed at the end of the quarter and figuring out with like 20 days to go how to solve a budget.

And I think people Chicago, one have confidence in city government.

I see this process has been transparent, but it doesn't feel like of the willing transparency.

It occurred because the council pushing back to try to solve this couple of votes expected this week.

Do you feel confident that will lead to budget passage in time for the December 31st?

Deadline?

>> I think I think that different a chairman have a better idea of how how confident want to feel.

But I do think a reality is a budget needs to be passed before the end of the year.

That if we fail to do that, it won't be about one The other people look at city government as a whole and say we're not serving them.

And think that's a place you want to be in alderman.

All you concerns that the city might see its credit downgrade, which would make, of course, borrowing more expensive.

What I'm concerned about his political tactics that end up taking us at this point.

At the end of the day, we passed a billion-dollar bond deal.

>> In the credit score has gone up.

We don't want to lose the train.

We don't want to lose.

The momentum is been a long time since we've done business selling the city in the process.

And so I think that stay in the course of making sure that we make the necessary payments to keep our credit score of the way it needs to be so that we can go to the future of necessary borrow.

I think that's pivotal to this is Bility of the city.

We know a bad credit score looks like matter of fact.

The one of the highest tax bills that we pay for going back.

Half of that money was used to pay bad deals angle.

So we know what it's like to have that credit score in that budget.

I think that we have to look forward to the future.

Isn't the fiscal responsibility but maintaining levels that lets us be a serious business partner in the market.

Although Lopez, as you mentioned, the mayor's latest budget proposal.

You feel that at nickel and dime Chicagoans with nearly half-a-dozen tax hikes, what would you propose instead?

What would you like to see?

>> Well, I think >> the real problem that we have Brandis is that we don't know what the true costs of government is correct.

We are not able to get a legitimate accounting for what we need to operate.

What we call the city of Chicago's government actually just texting so that we have money to spend as opposed to saying this is what exactly we need and then going from there and nowhere is that more evident in the fact that now 3 times we've seen this we forecast revenue projections to try to create a balanced budget.

You can't keep fudging the numbers just to get to end goal.

that's a timing.

When you estimate revenue in August.

It's one thing when you come back in September, October, more data.

>> You get, you know, sure data right now you're looking at something we're about to go into New Year.

So we would have the best numbers today for says 3, 4 months ago.

And that's essentially what you see.

But our revenue projections are based on a three-year period to say that that dramatically changed from September from October.

30th to the data is chance you're going to last.

You think?

And we want to get 450 million dollars from the state.

It was shorted almost 200 million dollars.

Also make a projection is based on what you have to make projections because it's all you have to walk free with your view as you get closer is not for Jeanne.

As you get closer to reality, you actually get to see what those numbers really are.

>> I think in many cases we're trying to put something together.

And at this point of the process we're talking about ultimately 40, 50 million dollars over 5 billion dollar budget area here.

And again, that generally falls into the corporate fun every year.

So find it difficult to believe that worsened over argued over counts change.

At the end of the day, when we look at this thing in its totality.

So we were hopeful that 100 million to one, 50 to 68, we could get down to 0.

But again, we've had to additional things we started.

We raise the PPL T tax up to 128 million dollars to make that happen.

We raise taxes on parking to make that happen.

So the this isn't this isn't anything new without fans to come up with new revenue do without cutting a single job.

without addressing of those other watching, this is what's happening.

You've got the last quarter.

You've got 2 months of people who have different views on how to solve a problem.

Right?

The mayor proposed one member said this wasn't what we were expecting, but you've got a body of 50 people looking at it differently.

So we don't set ourselves up for success when you're cramming that into a 2 month period.

But one thing we must take in consideration is this.

When you some words, code words like budget cuts, that means people lose their jobs.

>> And at the end of the day less, let me on kind of the some of those are making these proposals of cuts have to test school courage to go to door, say I'm taking your job.

know by the end of the day, those jobs can pay tax bills, you don't pay tax bills, you lose home.

I would so at at the end of the day, what we have to look at is a budget.

This bull fair indeed.

Again, no one's disagreeing on fiscal responsibility.

If a school management taking a different approach, it, but at the cost of people need jobs.

We have people that are trying to make a dollar to 15 says so.

We have administration to put forth budget proposal to keep jobs.

No one wants people to lose jobs.

And I find it very odd that people are proposing budgets that cause people to lose I would disagree with the assertion what I'm trying to find efficiencies budget cuts.

It's not just losing jobs.

They keep trying to frame it you want to get rid of firefighters not the case the mayor's office has.

has grown with taxes.

Payable I find is that taxes pay for cops Texas pay for roads.

You don't raise taxes.

You don't use it right down pay for the salaries.

How do you pay for the will have for the community's into today.

We have to respect the role that Texas plain waiter in a right bizarre as budget as the subcommittee chairman for revenue.

What did you come up with?

came up essentially number one with the system for people propose ideas.

His came its wings.

And what kinds other you asked me a question.

But as we know the answer, you up with nothing essentially weather.

it is going to jump in here because there there is something else that got cut their 90 million dollars in spending cuts being proposed, including reductions in funds for small businesses.

>> And basic income programs.

Alderman Urban, do you think these cuts undermine efforts to support economic recovery and particularly in underserved communities?

That's exactly what it is.

And every time we go back to the table with additional changes, we will >> impact the communities that are in need the most not go to mount.

want to go to Saucon has everything looks beautiful.

Everything looks great.

People are working.

Life is great.

When you go to Garfield Park when you go to Roseman, that's not the case.

Communities in Chicago have challenges.

And if we don't help communities meet the challenges, know, ultimately these these things lead greater problems.

So all the thing I will say is that every time we've come back, we may cuts to guess what those cuts have landed on the backs of people who can least All right.

We've got a minute left over and ask as and hopefully all hall as well.

Do you think this episode, this entire budgeting episode has sort of raised questions about the progressive ability to govern in Chicago.

I think even before the budget process, that's what people are at.

I think the one thing that is clear is that there's a lack of confidence in how the mayor has been moving as well as the progressive movement.

People says.

>> Potentially not being competent, moving certain directions.

And so what we do next, how we solve these problems we engage with each other.

It would change that narrative because there are plenty of people who are progressive who know how to figure out.

But it's we're trying to find efficiencies, try make sure that we all work government that addresses the needs of people that's possible.

And just because people see examples where it's not the case, does it mean to be for every I think that progressive equals people making sure they get jobs, people making work environments are correct.

And people making a living wage and not just an hourly rate.

And I think that that's what sustainable revenue looks like to the future is progressing to sustain neighborhoods.

95 people makes Chicago great.

You put them on our shoulders and we want best of luck to all this week.

Will love look forward to hearing which will