After demanding that repairs come first, City Council’s Black Caucus is urging Mayor Lori Lightfoot to cancel his guaranteed minimum income pilot project and reallocate the $ 31.5 million to violence prevention.

“We believe that violence is a public health issue and that public safety is a top priority – not just of the administration but of everyone in the city,” said Black Caucus Chairman Jason Ervin. (28th) at the Sun-Times.

“As part of the violence prevention strategy, we think we need to expand services, allowances and the like to basically help steer some of our young people in better directions. ”

Last year, Lightfoot notoriously warned Black Caucus members who dared to vote against its 2021 budget: “Don’t ask me for the next three years” when it comes to capital projects.

This year’s version of the Mayor’s pre-budget meeting with the Black Caucus did not include such threats. And it was much less controversial than the mayor’s meeting last week with a Hispanic caucus complaining about a shortage of Hispanics in leadership positions and demanding that Lightfoot reverse part of his property tax hike.

Still, the Black Caucus is pushing for a series of changes to the mayor’s $ 16.7 billion budget – a budget backed by a massive influx of federal relief – ahead of the council’s final vote next week.

These requests include:

• Canceled the $ 31.5 million program that would send unconditional monthly checks of $ 500 to 5,000 of Chicago’s most needy families for the next twelve months. Instead, the money would be reallocated to “tackling violence prevention through intensive case management, training and employment”.

• Allocated $ 75 million in federal stimulus funds to hotel and motel employees, with “100%” of the money going directly to these employees.

• Set aside of $ 70 million in federal relief for single-family housing.

“Not only is it affordable. It is also a question of habitability. A lot of these properties are not in the best condition, ”Ervin said.

“By setting aside funds for this, it preserves affordability and also creates a better product that can deter some of the negative activities that many SROs are known for. “

• Increase the $ 100,000 awarded to each of the 50 Council members for “micro-grants” to groups selected by the local alderman to $ 250,000 – from $ 5 million to $ 12.5 million citywide. – to finance “the improvement of the infrastructure of social services”.

Last year, Lightfoot was forced to do a lot of trading and changing to line up the 26 votes needed to approve its budget.

She overturned 350 layoffs in favor of borrowing from future marijuana earnings and ordered five days of unpaid leave, but only for non-union employees with six-figure wages.

She sweetened the $ 10 million violence prevention pot and set up $ 2 million in aid to test a pair of pilot alternative response programs for 911 calls related to mental health emergencies.

It also increased the Precious Menus program by $ 1.32 million for each of the 50 wards to $ 1.8 million.

Despite this, the mayor’s plan to raise property taxes by $ 94 million, followed by annual increases linked to the Consumer Price Index, was passed with just two votes to spare.

This year’s budget vote is much less controversial.

The city’s property tax will increase by $ 76.5 million, of which $ 22.9 million is triggered by automatic indexing and $ 25 million used to fund the 2022 tranche of the $ 3.7 billion investment plan of Lightfoot dollars. The rest will be captured in a “new property”.

The question now is whether Lightfoot thinks it needs to make changes to get the 26 votes it needs, or if it can stand still and push through its budget.

“As always, we are working in good faith with city council members to see where we can find common ground, if possible,” the mayor said this week.

“But, the most important thing is that we have to move on. We have a lot of people across the city who have important needs that we must meet now and in the future.

On Tuesday, Ervin was asked if black council members plan to withhold their votes on the mayor’s budget if she doesn’t respond to their demands.

“I wouldn’t put it that way. The conversation is about, ‘Hey. This is what you presented. These are things that we think need to be adjusted and we will meet somewhere in the middle, ”said Ervin.

“We didn’t draw a line in the sand. … We are not there yet. We put something on the table. When we hear from the mayor and have another conversation, we’ll make a decision. “

He added: “It was by no means the shape or form that some people may have felt last year. It was a very positive conversation. I think we will find a way to solve this problem and figure it out. ”