Averting a historic government shutdown, Mayor decides not to veto budget that ‘hurts working class’
Concerned about causing the first ever government shutdown in Chicago history, Mayor Brandon announced Tuesday, December 23, he will not veto a budget that will force Chicago residents on the South and West Sides who are still reeling from property tax hikes to pay more property taxes in addition to shopping bag fees at the grocery store.
The City Council passed the budget Saturday, December 20 by a 30-18 vote. The budget will also have debt collectors pursuing residents who owe the city money from overdue water bills, parking and speeding tickets.
The approved budget was the City Council’s alternative to Mayor Brandon Johnson’s $16.6 billion budget, which included a controversial head tax and advanced pension payment.
Mayor Johnson’s announcement came nearly a week before a state deadline that requires Chicago to approve a new budget by January 1.
In announcing his decision to not veto the budget, Mayor Johnson said, “Today I want to announce I will not veto the budget approved by the Chicago City Council. I will not add my signature affirming the budget as presented. In this moment I will not add the risk and speculation of a government shutdown to the profound worries Chicagoans face.”
The city’s budget problem was another critical moment in Mayor Johnson’s first term that will help define his legacy, and perhaps future, as the city’s 57th mayor. For the second consecutive year, Johnson’s proposed budget has failed and raised questions about his ability to solve the city’s chronic budget deficits. His latest budget angered Chicago’s business community by taxing the rich to help plug the city’s $1.2 billion deficit.
As reelection campaigns are set to begin in 2026, Johnson must accept a budget he believes will cause more financial strain on struggling residents at a time after his plan to tax big companies failed at City Hall.
Before Tuesday’s announcement, Johnson remained unclear about whether he would veto the budget, which would have required the City Council to come up with 34 votes to override it.
“Well look, I expressed my concerns about how this budget that ultimately went forward today…state law requires us to pass a balanced budget. Again, there are some significant concerns that I have and quite frankly it troubles me with concerns that it is actually balanced with an attempt to sell off debt, to send debt collectors to working people. I don’t think this is a principled approach of how we balance our budget and it’s something I have to think about. Negotiations are still prevalent, this process is not over yet, members of the City Council will have more time to look after a proposal.”
Last week, Johnson said, he was concerned about poor people being “harassed and berated by debt collectors, that is not the right approach.”
There was confusion on Saturday as to why the City Council took a second vote on the budget after passing it late Friday.
Alderman David Moore (17th) at Saturday’s meeting said he received several calls from confused residents in his ward about the second vote. He said the first vote was to approve the revenues portion of the proposed budget while the second one was for the spending part of the budget.
About 10 Black aldermen voted to pass the budget at Saturday’s special hearing, despite objections from the Chicago Black Voter Project, which supported Johnson’s budget that includes corporate head tax.
Alderman Pat Dowell (3rd) as chair of the Finance Committee, urged other aldermen to support the proposed budget.
“It’s not perfect, but it is a good budget, and one that we can work with. And if we keep involved post-2025 and work together as a collective, it’ll be good for the city of Chicago,” Dowell said.
In his newsletter to 5th Ward residents, Alderman Desmon Yancy said he voted to pass the budget because he opposed Mayor Johnson’s head tax and his overall budget proposal.
“It takes our financial reality seriously, avoids reckless borrowing, protects core services like libraries and youth programs, and rejects false choices between fiscal responsibility and public safety.”
Alderman Anthony Beale (9th), who supported the budget said legalizing video gaming citywide is good idea.
“Once up and operational, it could bring us between $65 and $100 million a year. That’s a lot of money. I don’t see Bally’s [casino] bringing that kind of money into the city,” Beale said Saturday, later adding that he believed it would be three to six months before the machines are up and running across the city.
Under the 2026 budget, residents will pay a small property tax increase that will go towards vacant library staff positions and security guard roles after Alderman Daniel La Spata (1st) sponsored a last-minute measure in the proposed budget. The budget will also raise the shopping bag tax to 15 cents from 10 cents after it was raised from 7 cents in 2025.
Homeowners in Black neighborhoods on the South and West Sides are still reeling from Cook County property tax bills they received this month. Those neighborhoods have been hit the hardest in the city, with many residents paying a 20 percent increase in property taxes to 133 percent for residents in West Garfield Park.
Under Chicago’s new budget, residents will also pay a 1.5 tax percent increase on retail liquor sales. For passengers taking Uber, Lyft and other ridesharing services, there will be an expanded congestion fee zone. The budget will also legalize video gambling machines citywide.
There is no garbage tax hike in the new budget, but some Black aldermen have concerns about the city selling its debt to a collections firm that will generate at least $90 million for Chicago.
The budget the City Council passed replaces Mayor Johnson’s budget, which included a head tax on companies in Chicago and an advanced pension payment. Last week, Johnson introduced a “compromised plan” that kept the head tax, advanced pension payment, and a casino at Midway Airport in lieu of legalizing video gambling machines citywide.
But selling the city’s debt remains a concern.
“This budget relies on revenue assumptions that are uncertain, unstable and unsustainable,” said Alderman Jessie Fuentes (26th).
“It assumes revenue will materialize without sufficient evidence, and it pushes real costs into the future through one-time fixes. That is not responsible budgeting. It’s wishful thinking.”