Before voting on privatization contracts, what will you do to ensure that they deliver the maximum return and best service for city residents in the long term?

City Services

I believe privatization contracts should have an annual review provision, wherein the private entity
must meet benchmark align with service expectations.

Privatization and contracting out are matters to be handled on a case by case basis, depending on the service or program involved, the overall cost and benefit to the City as a whole, including the cost, the impact on the delivery of services and the impact on the potentially affected employees. Across the boards legislation is inappropriate. There should be accountability to the public whenever a public service is rendered.
I oppose privatization that is aimed solely at reducing wages and benefits of the workforce that provides the services.

No response provided

I will conduct or order a detailed investigation to analyze the over all benefit or detriment of
such an arrangement. The investigation will should incorporate financial factors like Cap
rates and the time value of money, social factors like or Chicagoans going to be put out of
work by such a deal, and economic factors like how this lost asset effects the future

I completely oppose the privatization of public assets.

I would always vote no on Privatizing a city good

I have seen no evidence to support
claims that privatization returns anything of value to city residents – reduced costs, better
service or otherwise. The negatives, however, are plentiful – e.g., steadily rising costs,
loss of good jobs, complaints lost in a black hole, little control over service quality. The
best we can do is improve transparency, oversight and accountability.

I am a co-sponsor of Privatization Transparency and Accountability
Ordinance, which establishes a process to provide for public input and City Council review
of any proposed City privatization plans. I achieved a national reputation for my stand on
stronger oversight, more transparency and thorough advance cost-benefit analysis
regarding privatization of city assets. I was one of a handful of aldermen to oppose the
Midway Airport and parking meter deals precisely because of the flawed process. I also
opposed the red-light cameras. As noted above, I even favor the revisiting of several
hurried privatization transactions on both legal and benefit grounds.

Once again, I would set a criteria that (1) we have enough time as a Council to review the
contracts and investigate the impact to the City’s budget, and (2) that the revenue
generated be allocated to specific areas of the budget.

I am skeptical of privatization schemes in general, especially after the parking meter deal. I would
question whether the private company can genuinely provide the same quality service at the
same cost, whether any savings come at the expense of workers’ wages, and whether the
services will be available on an equitable basis to all residents who need them

My priority is to protect the working and middle class people of my ward from deceptive
practices. However I believe that creating a level playing field for all citizens goes beyond any
boundaries. All proposals should be thoroughly vetted with all area legislators, residents,
community members and civic organizations

An independent review board should audit all service agreements and vendors should submit a
list of clients.

Stephen Niketopoulos IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

I would meet with Labor to discuss their concerns and projections

Having deep experience in developing and evaluating long term­service contracts, I have the experience to know what to look for from private companies. I speak their language and can collaborate with them to define the right measurable criteria for success

I believe in transparency and accountability and know that these two things need to be improved within our city. In order to receive maximum return we must make sure that privatization is only used when necessary and ensuring that these contractors are held to the highest standards.

I support efforts to establish stronger oversight of any proposed privatization deal that
include independent impact studies and public hearings to ensure that any deals do not
come at the expense of service quality for city residents.


Susan Sadlowski Garza IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

candidate's responce

The Office of Financial Analysis, once staffed, will need to thoroughly investigate all privatization proposals and measure them against the criteria I mentioned above.

Enough time for proper analysis must be given before any such decisions are made and I would
utilize my own network of numbers crunchers as well as encouraging the caucuses to hire an
independent company to perform an outside analysis

Ensure we have multiple independent analyses done by different firms who use different
assumptions. Also, I think it’s important to have adequate time to review contracts. We also
should always have 3-4 different contracts with different offers

No response provided

Carlos Ramirez-Rosa IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

I am adamantly opposed to privatization, we have seen how city services suffer when we place a private
corporations’ greed before the needs of our residents. Our city’s residents need quality city
services, not more privatization schemes.

Michael E. LaFargue IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council


Privatizing assets or services would not be the first thing I would do. Should there be a proposal
to privatize, this should be carefully studied from all angles. Convincing me, based on the
examples we have already seen, would require a lot of extremely strong arguments.


Before voting I will perform due diligence and resource comparison to make sure that all viable
possibilities have been exhausted in order to make an informed decision.

No response provided

I’m against any privatization contract

Before voting, I would do my due diligence by researching the process at hand by reviewing
contract/ measures proposed in order to make an assessment and later decision that is in the
best interest of city residents.

Michael E. LaFargue IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

Before voting on privatization contracts, what will you do to ensure that they deliver the maximum
return and best service for city residenPrivatization is the lease or sale of public assets or the contracting out of public services I will not
vote to privitize union jobs in Chicago? Privatization at become another name for patronage.
I can support a privatization decision making process that is open, transparent, and accountable
to the public. I do not agree with privatizing union jobs.ts in the long term?

I will never vote for privatization contracts for any city infrastructure or city services.

Joseph J. Moseley II IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council


I support an independent review process for proposed privatization contracts. I believe it’s critical
that evaluations of privatization proposals value long-term effects, not just short-term. I also think
that it’s important that all privatization contracts be scrutinized for value—not just savings, but also
service quality, working conditions, and wages, among others.

I would seek a moratorium on the sell/privatization of city assets (i.e. parking meters, airports, skyway, etc.)

No response provided


I will seek independent financial analysis of such deals to ensure that the calculated benefits and
returns of such arrangements are truly reliable. I will fight for oversight of the private company’s
administration to ensure that the services are being performed appropriately, and will fight for
contractual terms that give the City maximum flexibility to get out of contracts that are not
working for the City or its residents.

See my answer to
Question 34 above

Public hearings, analysis by the Council’s financial ombudsman and input from public policy
advocacy groups.

Chevette A. Valentine IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

A comprehensive study of previous
projects, a thorough review of their records of success and failures, track record
examination of previous projects.

Public hearings, analysis by the Council’s financial ombudsman and input from public policy
advocacy groups.