Ongoing discussions between Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration and aldermen over gaming terminals mark the first significant efforts to amend the City Council–approved budget against the mayor’s wishes at the end of December.

Johnson’s chief adviser, Jason Lee, said that legalizing gambling machines in bars and restaurants across the city “requires more time and careful collaboration,” the clearest signal yet that the matter is not settled at City Hall. “There are several aldermen who are not comfortable with expanding VGTs, particularly with the way it was done,” Lee told the Tribune.

When the budget was passed, all parties agreed that the unprecedented plan—backed by aldermen and quickly approved to avoid a municipal government shutdown—would be a living document. And as talks continue, millions of dollars are at stake.

Aldermen had counted on legalization generating $6.8 million this year when approving the budget, a tiny sum within the city’s $16.6 billion spending plan. Johnson holds broad authority over policy implementation, giving him leverage to compel state officials and vendors eager to see the machines back in operation.

Lee raised several concerns about the current plan, such as the lack of vendor diversity and limited involvement from downtown Bally’s Casino operators and labor groups. He added that aldermen need greater discretion over where machines are permitted in their wards.

“I think there’s a right way to do it and another way that’s not optimal, and if it’s going to be done, it should be done the right way,” he said.

But the biggest issue looming over the push for legalization is the city’s need for a better revenue‑sharing arrangement with the state, he said.

Currently, Chicago would receive only 5% of machine revenues, while the state government would take 30%. The city’s share from video gambling terminals is far below the 20% it receives from casino slot machines.

Even the optimistic timeline aldermen used for their estimates predicted that terminal licenses would first be issued in July. The council projected machines opening in 1,800 locations this year, though state regulators issued only 790 such licenses in Illinois last year and face a backlog of nearly 500 more establishments to review, according to the Illinois Gaming Board.

All Johnson needs to do to finalize legalization and allow businesses to begin the licensing process is notify the state of the city’s plans, said Alderman Anthony Beale. Beale, of the 9th Ward and one of the leading advocates for legalization, accused Johnson of using Trump‑like tactics by failing to move forward.

“There are other ways to negotiate this than always trying to throw salt on everything,” he said. “Do your job, which is to fulfill the obligations of the approved budget, not pick and choose what you want to do; that is not the role of the executive branch.”

Beale argued that Chicago should pursue changes to the state revenue‑sharing formula only after legalization. The machines, he said, would be a lifeline for many small businesses.

Melvin Brooks, owner of the President's Lounge in Grand Crossing, agreed that the money from the machines is “very much needed.”

When he bought the bar two decades ago, his establishment featured a jukebox, a dartboard, and three video game machines. But he removed them, saying they offered no prizes, after city regulators warned him that they could not be licensed and might prevent him from getting approval for the gambling machines now under consideration.

But insurance costs are rising, property taxes are soaring, and the cost of doing business keeps climbing, he said. He now wants to finally add slot machines to his bar.

“You have to find a way to subsidize these increases, and they don’t want to keep raising prices,” Brooks said. “We’re already paying all kinds of fees. Are we in business for the city and only for the city?”

John Canham, Chief Revenue Officer of Gold Rush Gaming, a Hoffman Estates–based video slot machine provider, estimated that Chicago has lost $500 million in revenue since terminals first arrived in the state around 2011. “They’ve left a lot of money on the table. They continue to leave a lot of money on the table,” he said.

He calculated that once operational, Chicago would generate about $36.5 million in annual tax revenue from the machines, assuming 2,000 different locations each installed an average of five machines producing $200 per day.

Although the Johnson administration has warned that such massive revenue—$730 million according to Canham’s estimates—would cannibalize Bally’s Casino earnings, Canham dismissed the concern as “squeaks.” He argued the casino is already being hurt by legally questionable slot machines, common in gas stations on the city’s South and West sides, which skirt the law by avoiding cash payouts, as well as by the abundance of video gaming terminals in suburban establishments just across the border.

The minimal impact Bally’s would face is more than offset by the significant contribution VGT revenues would bring. “It’s absurd that they’re hesitating to allow this after it has already proven to generate revenue. It makes no sense to anyone with common sense,” he said.

Asked whether he worried that the estimated loss of nearly $1 billion from Chicago neighborhood customers would harm city residents, Canham pointed to lotteries and suburban gambling. He said video gambling in Chicago would have an economic multiplier effect by creating thousands of new jobs—collectors, technicians, salespeople, and more—while also supporting small bars.

“I see it as people with discretionary income,” he said. “They’re going to gamble. It’s human nature; people like to gamble.”

But several aldermen have already taken steps to ban video gambling terminals, citing addiction concerns.

“Personally, I don’t want mini‑casinos on every corner of my ward,” said Alderman Jessie Fuentes of the 26th Ward, regarding her ward‑level ban. “Gambling addiction harms families. It harms people’s mental health in our communities. And it can destroy lives.”

Lee did not present similar arguments against neighborhood gambling, contending instead that it harms Chicago’s poor or working‑class residents—a sign that Johnson, a staunch critic of regressive taxes, will not label video gambling terminals as such. Aldermen Walter “Red” Burnett of the 27th Ward and Rossana Rodríguez‑Sánchez of the 33rd Ward also banned gambling machines in their wards.

When asked by the Tribune last week whether he considers video gambling a regressive tax, Johnson did not respond directly, but said that workers want the ultra‑rich and corporations to pay more taxes. “There are a number of taxes that are not necessarily ones I promote,” he said.

Fuentes also voiced concern over the lack of involvement from labor groups and Bally’s leadership in the discussion about legalizing video gambling. She added that she does not trust the revenue projections used for the machines when the budget was approved.

Beale told the Tribune that the budget projections only estimated revenue from licensing fees and excluded the 5% revenue share, making the estimate likely an undercount in the long term.

Johnson’s administration has also noted that legalizing the machines would almost certainly eliminate the $4 million annual payment Bally’s made as part of its host agreement with the city for acquiring a casino. Without that money, video gambling legalization could end up costing the city this year and, at best, generate only a small sum, the administration has argued.

Alderman Brian Hopkins, a strong supporter of the council‑backed budget, told the Tribune there is “a lot of ongoing debate” regarding video gambling terminals. “We recognize that, in our rush to finalize a budget, there were some details related to video gambling that were overlooked and can be addressed,” he said.

Like Lee, he stated that licensing for terminals may not begin this year. However, he suggested legalization could be “inevitable” and added that he does not believe the matter needs to be “studied exhaustively.”