The committee on finance.
Is called to order.
Good morning everyone. Ladies and gentlemen. Today we'll be
holding a tera public hearing for the Humble Park, United
Methodist Church, Redevelopment project for which the city
will issue multi-family housing debt. Uh, the hearing will
come to order and I will take a roll call to establish
quorum.
Vice chair Conway.
Alderman, Le spotter.
Alderman, Hopkins, Alderman Hall Alderman, Mitchell
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beal. Alderman, Lee.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez Alderman, Moore.
All.
Alderman. Curtis Alderman. OSHA.
Alderman Rodriguez, Alderman Scott.
Alderman. Essay Lopez.
Alderman Bernett.
Alderman. Ervin.
Alderman Talya Ferro.
Alderman, Cardona.
Alderman, Wagers back.
Alderman. Viegas.
Alderman mitts Alderman spaz.
Alderman Vasquez Alderman, Reilly Alderman, Knudsen.
Alderman. Martin Alderman Silverstein
Chair Dao is here.
We have a quorum, we have 17.
Alderman, Rodriguez, Sanchez, Alderman, Ramirez Alderman,
Taylor Alderman, Mosley and Alderman, Ramirez, Rosa have
requested remote participation for reasons stated under the
provision of rule 59. Can I have a motion to allow these
Alderman to participate?
So moved by Alderman Harris. All those in favor. Signify by
by saying I oppose in the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it. And the motion carries I'd like to confirm that,
uh, Alderman Ramirez is with us.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Rodriguez, Sanchez. I'm here.
Alderman, Taylor Alderman Mosley, president chair,
Alderman, Ramirez, Rosa Alderman Ramirez. Rosa is here.
Okay, let the woman pass. Yes, I got you Alderman, Ramirez.
Thank you so much. Okay, let the record reflect that uh,
this is a public hearing, that is being held pursuing.
To the requirements of section. 147f of the Internal Revenue
code of 1986, notice of this public hearing was published
on January, 28th, 2025 on the website of the office of the
city, clerk of Chicago.
Let the reporter Mark the screenshot of such a notice as
committee exhibit number 1 for identification.
This is a hearing regarding the proposed plan.
Of Finance to issue the multi-family housing Revenue notes
series 202025 for the Humble Park, United Methodist Church
Redevelopment project here. And after referred to, as the
note, the aggregate principal amount of the note
outstanding at any time will not exceed 10 million.
The proceeds of the note will be loaned to the hpumc
Redevelopment, limited partnership, and Illinois limited
partnership, which we will refer to them as the borrower.
To finance an affordable housing development project which
we will refer to as the Humble Park project.
The Humble Park project.
Consists of acquisition of property at 2120 through 28
North Mozart Street in Chicago, Illinois by the borrower.
and the renovation and adaptive reuse of the existing
Humble Park, United Methodist Church, being the
construction of a 3 story, apartment building containing.
22 rental dwelling units.
The borrower will be the initial owner operator of the
project.
2120 Mozart LLC and Illinois, limited liability company who
we will refer to as the general partner is the general
partner of the borrower.
And Latin United Community Housing Association and Illinois
not for-profit Corporation also known as Lucha. Is the sole
member of the general partner.
The city will issue the note pursuant to its powers as a
home rule unit of government under the 1970 constitution of
the state of Illinois and an ordinance adopted by the city
council of the city.
the note will not be a general, obligation of the city, the
state of Illinois, or any political subdivision thereof.
But will be a special limited obligation of the city.
The principle of Premium if any and interest on the note,
will be payable solely out of the revenue of the Humble
Park project, and other funds, pledged and assigned for the
payment, by the borrower in accordance with the borrow loan
agreement between the city and the borrower.
The note will not constitute an indebtedness or an
obligation of the city, the state of Illinois or any
political subdivision of the state of Illinois within the
purview of any constitutional limitation or legal
provision.
No, holder of the note will have the right to compel any
exercise of the taxing power of the city, the state of
Illinois, the United States of America or any political
subdivision of any of them to pay the principal of Premium,
if any or interest on the Note,
Written comments, relating to the plan to issue this note
must have been submitted by email to the committee on
finance, no later than 10:00 a.m. Friday, February, 7th
2025,
Excuse me, it should have been January.
2025, let the record reflect that no, written comments were
submitted.
Ladies and gentlemen, if any Resident taxpayer any other
interested person attending this hearing desires and
opportunity to express their views for or against this
proposed issuance.
of the note, please do 1 of the following for those
attending this hearing in person, please come up to the
microphone in the aisle when your name is called
Or for those who have called in, on the toll-free line,
please enter number 9 on your phone to notify the host of
the call-in number. And once you are called upon to provide
your comments, please enter number 6 to unmute your phone.
Each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes and we do have a
number of speakers here this morning on this item. So I
will begin to call them. But before we call, I want to
acknowledge Alderman. Ervin.
Alderman. OSHA
Alderman, CEO Lopez and Alderman waguespack have joined us.
And we'll be, and Alderman, Lopez have joined us and will
be counted towards Quorum. I see you Alderman Lopez
sneaking in here.
Um, our first Speaker this morning is Lindsay Joyce.
Good morning and thank you. My name is Reverend Lindsay
Joyce. I'm the pastor at Grace United Methodist Church in
Logan Square. Um and I'm in uh I I stand in support of the
Humble Park project. I have stood in this uh Council
chamber. Countless times I've stood at this microphone
countless times begging and supporting for affordable
housing in our neighborhoods. We need it. This is an easy
and clear. Yes it is an easy and clear lift for this
Council. This is, these are groups of folks who have been
doing affordable housing for decades, who know how to do
it. Uh, and I'm here to say what I see in my neighborhood,
where I Pastor, where I am charged to care for people, um
is that we are in Desperate desperate, need of Housing and
so I just offer my support this morning. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Pastor.
Bima.
Did I pronounce your name properly? No. Okay my uh Pastor
Layla bukama. Um, I am pastor at Lake View, Lutheran
Church, uh, 8:35. West Addison, last June. Um, we broke
ground at our location and we were celebrated with
neighbors, old and new aldermanic representation.
City department heads and um and leaders State leaders and
and departments private investors. Because we were working
project that would enable us to, uh, demolish, our building
and rebuild on that site, 37 C, ha vouchered apartments for
people with disability. Everyone was excited. Everyone
understood how important this kind of a project was not
just because it was affordable housing but because it
represented a partnership of congregations like mine who
were small and at risk of
Being of leaving without leaving something important
behind.
So, I am in favor of that of this project. For all that, it
stands for affordable housing communities, working
together, um, and also the legacy of of folks who have
invested in, in neighborhoods, that are they are no longer
able to afford and also for churches to be an example for
us, as we struggle with, um, the future to see ways for us
to make a contribution, uh, that includes us or that, um,
Is a uh beyond beyond us. So please please, please not just
for this, but for the future support, this project.
Thank you, Pastor. Our next speaker is George Blake Moore.
Project what you heard me?
The city did not enter the agreement because reading its
fundamentals. Did you hear and understand what P de bound
was reading.
At the city. If they, uh, are not allowable, if they don't
pay this note and then when they build these projects, are
they gonna be black worker?
They got Equity, whatever that diversity, equity and
inclusion. How is it going to help black people?
that when they have a a a cha it's getting out of public
housing, the government
So maybe when she read that, you didn't understand, maybe
you didn't comprehend say, the city is not going to back up
these notes.
Reading is fun to me. I understood it very clear.
How many black people going to be working on this project?
How many of them going to be living in this project? But
it's still, uh, is a back way of being financed by by the,
uh, Chicago. She said the city cannot be held for that,
that note. So if it can't be held, why are you holding this
meeting?
Why are you holding this meeting?
I'm not your average black, you see?
Comprehension you you read it and I understood exactly what
you read that you say they're not gonna be held accountable
you must be held. Behold them accountable to make sure our
people are working if if this project billing it living in
it so we have very very poor leadership.
This is why it's very important for a man, of Mr.
Blakemore's caliber to uh, uh to uh uh uh, come to these
meetings. Uh uh uh uh uh, read it again. It says the city
will not be held. And then again you it must be held for
something. You you holding this meeting here.
You think that that I'm a damn fool.
You think that I can't comprehend?
You are hell for something by the fact that the church and
the government are working together.
And are they working together? It's supposed to be a
separation.
Between those 2.
So can you hear those ladies speak and aren't you?
Listening to me? Read this over again, my black brothers
and sisters
It says that they can't be held accountable, but you will
be held accountable because you holding this public meeting
is now in the public domain.
And I am a member of the public and I object to this dog
and pony show.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore, our next speaker is Jasmine
Smith.
Good morning. Um I'm just going to uh because I'mma speak
again on the subject why I'm here, but I I'm in favor of
this community getting the funding because we got funding
the funds. So many other projects. That's so harmless to
our communities, why not fund something and they're
fighting to build. And the community is to place people who
has disabilities. So I am uh, uh activists as a part of the
organization and I speak on behalf of myself and I say,
yes,
And I, um, am in favor of them building in that Community to
help people who needs housing, because if I'm a part I've
hung out over there a few times, it is a lot of displaced
displaced people and we need to put money where people can
be housed other than putting money in places where it
shouldn't be and that I'm going to speak about when I come
back up. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Miss Smith. Uh, our last speaker is
Samuel Guerrera.
Good morning. My name is Samuel Gaara. I'm here as the
Board of Trustees president from Humble Park, United
Methodist Church. Um and I'm just here to say that, I'm
honored that Lucha has taken on the project of continuing
affordable housing for black and brown individuals and
families that Humble Park. United Methodist Church has been
committed to, and although, I don't think that it should
have been such a long and difficult process for us to
accomplish this. I'm glad we finally have the chance to get
it done. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Greer
ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the public hearing on
the proposed plan for the city of Chicago, to issue
multi-family, housing Revenue, note series 2025 and the
aggregate principal amount, not to exceed, 10 million for
the humbold park project.
let the record reflect that the public hearing on this
matter was concluded at 10:28 a.m.
This concludes the tephra hearing for the Humble Park
project.
We'll now move into the Council on the committee on finance
uh regular meeting.
We'll have a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice chair Conway.
Alderman laspada.
Alderman, Hopkins, Alderman Hall, Alderman, Mitchell
Alderman, Harris, Alderman Beal Alderman, Lee Alderman
Quinn.
Alderman Lopez Alderman, Moore.
Alderman. Curtis Alderman. OSHA.
Alderman Taylor, excuse me.
Uh, Taylor's remote Alderman, Rodriguez, Alderman, Scott
Alderman, CEO, Lopez Alderman, Bernett Alderman, Ervin
Alderman, Talia, Ferrell Alderman, Cardona, alderman
waguespack.
Alderman, viegas Alderman mitts Alderman spaz.
Alderman Vasquez Alderman, Reilly Alderman, kuden,
Alderman. Martin Alderman Silverstein
You count Lopez.
Chair dowel is here.
We have a quorum. We have 22.
Members present. So we have a quorum, um, Alderman Ramirez,
Rosa Alderman, Ramirez Alderman, Taylor almond molesley and
Alderman. Rodriguez, Sanchez have requested to to
participate, remotely today, in under rule 59, can I have a
motion for these Alderman to be allowed in the meeting? So
moved by alderman, laspada.
All those in favor. Signify by saying I
Opposed.
And the opinion of the chair of the eyes. Have it Alderman
Ramirez. Rosa.
Alderman, Taylor here, Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Mosley and Alderman Rodriguez. Sanchez president
chair.
Okay.
At this time we'll have public comment the public comment
period.
Will last for 30 minutes, out of respect for everyone's
Time. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Um, we have no
remote callers and our first speaker is George Blakemore
Alderman Mitchell will count you towards horn.
Good morning citizen. This is a very important committee.
It's the committee of Finance.
Everything began with Friday.
So, it's a history of this committee with Burke.
Dealing.
In the finance committee.
So, with these illegal immigrants, uh these black people
voted for the sanctuary. A lot of the black alumen.
Well, both is 1 Thing. What what did the money come in?
Banning.
They got to pay for housing.
They got to pay for schooling.
They got to pay for health care.
They got to a pay now. Who are they? That got to pay. We
set
The Federation of the city of Chicago.
Have put.
Us at risk.
Of going bankruptcy or whatever. They don't have the money.
And guess what? What Mr. Blakemore they hold Democrats.
609 in each other. The Black 1.
The white ones, the Hispanic case all Democrat bullish and
you advocated for for years ago you say come in here. Swamp
a trump and clean up this swamp but for go red.
Before a flip read. Now now why are you doing that
advocating for Trump Mr. Blakemore are you in love with
with the Republican know I won't revenge for these
low-lighted Democrats on my way got freedom land.
Come my black thing.
So I'm I want Trump to clean up the swamp and I want my
people to go blacker than black.
So, black and black and remember this is Black History
Month and Wednesday that a lot of these black people going
to be dressed and dice cheek. Is it and talking black, you
got to live it.
You can't dress it. You got to live there. These are the
worst.
Chicago has the worst.
Ends in the world.
The worst.
Don't talk about Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky,
Texas right here. We have Black Faces in high places.
Selling black people out. You, you're disgraceful, the
ancestors. Hate, you.
All of you.
So, I can't understand where you coming from, you know,
exactly where they coming from Mr. Blakemore. Maybe it
takes 1 to know. 1, are you? Do you have a little in you?
Mr. Blakemore in and you I'm turning myself a bat.
When, you know better, you do better?
I'm proud of myself for that. That's why I know what what
they are and where they coming from the worst, the Chicago
Black.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore, our next speaker is Gaines
Kenyatta.
Good morning, general, public and Council. I stand Here.
Speaking on behalf of fop, Lodge 7 in the 17,000 members
that we represent today. I want you to remember
The number 1, we had 1 26 year old armed offender traveling
on the west side of Chicago, wearing a ski mask and a
vehicle that was eventually stopped by the police.
Carrying a loaded weapon in that vehicle, right? We had 1,
Man deciding and having the intent to kill someone that day
as the officers, came to conduct this traffic. Stop during
their job. This 1 man made the decision to shoot and fire
upon these officers in response. The officer shot back, we
had 1 black police officer, that was struck in the arm,
thankfully only because his arm barely right in front of
his face. Just 1 inch saved his life from being struck in
the head. This officer would have been here today. Had, he
not just recently, had another surgery trying to
reconstruct the arm, that was mangled from this 1 man's
decision. That 1 Man, responsible for the injuries that
occurred on the day of April 9th was Mr. Dexter Reed.
Unfortunately, that 1 man, with that 1 decision to kill
officers as they encroached upon this V.
Vehicle was killed himself.
I want you to know that. No 1 police officer parents mother
their children. They are there to do a job. Do a job that
they entrust their hearts with and they encourage you to
support them. You have 1 opportunity to vote and let the
other offenders of this nation know that it is not okay to
fire upon your officers. You have 1 opportunity to say it
is not okay to go around with a loaded weapon. Intending to
to harm others, you have this 1 opportunity and 1 response
to vote, no, on this order to pay out the Dexter read, I'll
call it family because he is no longer with us.
Unfortunately, his actions led to his demise, and we must
let other criminals know that we're not okay with that.
Make the right 1 decision.
Today vote, no.
Thank you, Miss Gaines. Our next speaker is uh, Jasmine
Smith.
Jasmine Smith with Chicago alliance against racist, and
political repression, fighting, for many wrongfully,
convicted, and tortured survivors, such as my 2 loved ones.
Lester Owen, served 14 and a half years. His brother Ricco,
Clark, served 17 and a half years. That's fine for crimes.
They did not commit. How was this possible? Let me tell
y'all, where yet another generation of corrupt torturous
CPD Detectives.
Following suit of the John Burge and his midnight crew,
Brian, P4 bird 1 of the highest paid sergeants on the force
up until December 10th 2023 when he was forced to retire
because of the movement families and lawyers going public,
making the news, exposing his pattern, in the practice and
police misconduct and the fact that not only him, but his
partner. Detective, John Foster, who is the commander. Now,
over area 5, both are married to States attorneys. That
worked in the very units that convicted, not just my 2 love
ones, but also 23 others, his other former partner,
detective, Kevin Eberly, who is 1 of the head detectors on
the FBI task force for fugitive apprehensive in public
safety. So we have corrupt cops who falsely arrest and
kidnap innocent. People put bogus charges on them. Have
relationships with States attorneys. Who prosecuted these
cases. Then we have corrupt Cook County judges
Just to name a few Timothy Joyce, Angela and Patron and
Sandy J. Saxs whom were previously States attorneys, that's
rooted on cases biasly and with no fair discretion, then we
have this body City of Chicago, 50 Altimas, and 1 mayor 19
Alder. Miss that received the donations, from the Fraternal
Order of Police, we have this body where our public where
some are publicly speaking out on more and more upset with
the city corrupt lawyers on selling. It on cases of police
misconduct that they absolutely have no win in urging them
to keep fighting these misconduct cases. All while we, the
taxpayers are millions of dollars in on foot in the bill,
other than facing the true problem, except in
accountability, that CPD is incompetent in criminals that
unethical dangerous and deadly actors are the true blame
this body need to stand with us in the communities that
have been harmed and utilized by C.
CDs. Stop taking donations from the fop. Get our referendum
out of the rules committee. Putting on the floor to be
voted on and vote. Yes, mayor. Brandon Johnson needs to
speak up in making an announcement to tell these City
lawyers to stop fighting these misconduct cases, this body
can pass a audience to stop a lot of things but y'all
choose not to y'all are sitting back and turning the Blind
Eye to the misconduct. Lastly, meet income in here real
solutions that can possibly save our city.
Millions putting in to CPD prosecutorial and Jew judicial
misconduct. We are having a town hall, March 22nd, an
invite is going out.
From thank you. Miss Smith. Our last speaker is Kevin
Jackson.
Good morning, good morning. Uh, I just been sitting back
observing for about a month now.
I'mma survive or wrong for conviction. I did 23 years in 4
months at the hands of Brian P4 Burg and John Foster.
I was told that I never see the streets again.
Until October 25th. The first district, vacated my
conviction.
now, I stand before you people asking and pleading whether
that's power in the room with these elected officials,
To work to make a change.
Something convinced me to speak today.
I usually just come and deserve.
The elected officials do their job.
But we can tackle this issue around for conviction before
he even take place.
Because 1, when a person go to the police station, there's
a state's attorney that coming up.
It's a police officer there that detectives.
we can stop this if they do the right thing,
while the real criminals are still out there.
I send, I shouldn't have to do 23 years and 4 months. I
watched my auntie, die suffer from cancer, my mother. She
stressed out my sisters
Moving a disarray because they ain't have no big brother
there. It shouldn't happen like that. I'm not bitter. I'm
not coming to this.
To this Council to complain. I just asked that we tackle
the issue.
I suffered in that place.
24 years, and
4 months, 23 years and 4 months.
I'm not the same person. I went in there that 19 and got
out at 43 years old. And if it wasn't for the first
district, I'll still be languishing in prison. Why? Because
of the judges in the State's Attorneys, they can do, right?
I'm not saying every cop is bad cuz we need policemen.
But please.
Tackle this issue of wrongful conviction.
That's all we got to do. The city, won't have to be paying
out. This isn't out millions and millions of dollars.
And the person who is being wrongfully incarcerated, he
won't have to sit in prison.
So you kill 2 birds with 1 Stone.
Again, I'm not complaining at all.
Because we need elected officials. We need this leadership.
But I was hurt.
By doing that time.
Hurt.
Brian pee for a bird. John Foster.
June 19th. I was wrong with you. Arrested with a gun to my
face saying I never see the streets again.
You guys can make a change. It's powering this room where
there's elected officials. I believe in y'all leadership
are honestly do.
but please, let's just tackle this issue before it just
Continued on.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Jackson
Uh, this concludes our public comment period.
uh, the committee did receive several written public
comments and support of the, uh,
Humble Park housing project, which is item number 6 on the
agenda. And that was the electronically to everyone will
now begin with the approval of the January, 2025 monthly
rule, 45 report. This report was sent electronically to
everyone. If there are no questions, can I get a motion for
approval of the monthly rule? 45 report?
So moved by Alderman, Ervin. All those in favor. Signify by
saying I
Opposed and the opinion of the chair of the eyes, have it?
Um, we have 11 items on the agenda, this morning. So we
will begin with item number 1, which is a communication
transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts judgments
or settlements were entered into for the month of January
2025, and this list of payments was sent electronically to
everyone. If there are no objections, these will be placed
on the Omnibus.
As previous committee, Finance meetings have begun with the
settlement orders from the Department of Law. We will begin
this meeting with the law settlements and that moves us to
item number 2, where we have 5 proposed orders authorizing.
The Corporation Council to enter into and execute
settlement orders in the following cases. The first 1 is
cremer versus City of Chicago case, number 22, l-478d
Um, this is a state lawsuit that was brought by plaintiff
kentrell, Kramer seeking to recover damages arising from
his October 27th, 2017, arrest, and subsequent prosecution
for the murder of 16 year old Jeremiah Parker based on
eyewitness identifications made by Jeremiah's Brothers
Lewis, Parker and Nehemiah Parker
The criminal prosecution was ultimately dismissed on
October 3rd of 2019 by nolle Pros because the Cook County
State's Attorney's office. Did not believe that they could
meet their burden at a trial plaintiff. Brings a claim for
malicious prosecution against the city of Chicago plaintiff
is represented by Richard Dvorak, Adrien bleus and Joshua.
Kutnik, the city. Handled this case in-house.
the plaintiff originally filed, a federal lawsuit for false
arrest and malicious prosecution against the investigating
Chicago, Police Department detectives the detectives
involved in the photo array and live lineup viewings. And
the officers from the fugitive apprehension unit, that
arrested the plaintiff plaintiff voluntarily, dismissed his
case and refiled his lawsuit in State Court as a malicious
prosecution, case, claim against the city of Chicago, only
on May 15th of 2022, the parties engaged in extensive
written. And oral Discovery, including deposing, the Cook
County State's Attorneys that were involved in the criminal
prosecution plaintiff also presented a police practices
expert to opine on the investigation conducted by the
Chicago police. Detectives thereafter, defendant City of
Chicago sought summary judgement, which was ultimately
denied because the court,
Found that issues regarding the witness descriptions of the
offender and though photo identification procedures were
sufficient to create a material fact. It issue that had to
be presented to a jury.
Prior to trial the parties participated in a settlement
conference with judge, Nicole patent, she made a
recommendation to the parties to settle this matter. For
250,000, with both parties, accepted subject, to council
approval.
On November 7th of 2016, 16 year old, Jeremiah picked up.
His older brother Lewis from Malcolm X College in his
mother's Toyota, when the 2 arrive at their home on
Lockwood, their younger brother Nehemiah who was then 11
years old, watched from the family's, third floor, window,
a young man, wearing a black hoodie with the hood up
emerged, from the building entrance and began to fight
with, Jeremiah as his brother's watched during the
struggle, Jeremiah was shot. Twice. Once in the arm, and
once in the chest, the shooter picked up the keys to the
Toyota and attempted to start it. When he could not find
the correct key. He fled on foot, Jeremiah died from his
injuries later that evening.
While talking to detectives Lewis and Nehemiah described
the man as black with a short dread or twist hairstyle.
Lewis said the man was in his late teens or early twenties,
5 foot 9, thin with a light complexion and a little
mustache Nehemiah said the man had caramel skin tone, big
nose and lips with a fit build both Lewis. And Nehemiah
said, they did not know the offender the case went cold
until September of 2017. Almost a year following the, uh,
incident.
Jeremiah's mother, Felicia Parker received a tip from a
woman. She did not recognize that control creamer was
involved in her son's death. The woman stated, she did not
want to go to police. So Felicia informed the detective
working with her Eric Torres and his partner detective.
David Williams of what the woman told her.
Now, kentrell Kramer had no criminal history. So the
detectives created 2 photo arrays, using black men with
similar hairstyle at creamer short, twist in 2016 and
cremer state photo ID. Due to software limitations the
filler photographs were cut and taped to a page with
creamer's photo on it. The pages were then copied, the 2
photo arrays contain the S. Same 6 people in different
order but creamer's photograph is the only 1 with straight
edges in the photo array shown to Lewis.
Photo also had him wearing a black hoodie, the same type of
Hoodie, the offender wore on the night of the murder.
Lewis upon viewing. The photo array administered said he
was 50% sure that he was the shooter after viewing it for
almost 10 minutes Nehemiah, identified Kramer from the
photo array and identified him as well.
But in the follow-up questioning Nehemiah, did not
explicitly say that Kramer is the 1 that shot his brother.
Kramer was brought into custody and participated in a
physical lineup for Lewis at the lineup, Lewis identified
Kramer as the shooter.
Cremer was arrested on October 27th 2017 by officers from
the fugitive apprehension unit. He was prosecuted for
murder and saw October 3rd of 2019. When the State's
Attorney's Office? Dismissed this case as there was no DNA
or fingerprint evidence, tying creamer to the crime, the
DNA test came back largely inconclusive and the
fingerprints did not reveal and identification. The swab of
the victims left. Fingernails came back with 1 contribution
and excluded creamer.
in August of 2024 due to the ISP crime Labs, internal
procedures in responding to subpoenas the data from the
mixed mixture of the DNA samples, that could not be
compared to any known sample due to testing limitations, at
the time were rerun through the new software which was able
to separate the mixtures and exclude creamer from being a
contributor to the samples.
None of that information was available to the involved
detectives during the chronal prosecution or their
investigation. The plaintiff has consistently maintained
his innocence that the detectives use the photo. Array was
unduly, suggestive to the difference in the photo and the
black hoodie. And therefore, no probable cause existed. And
that the officers should have run DNA before trusting the
Parker's identification a year. After the incident, the
plaintiff was held in custody for almost 2 years before his
criminal case was
Dismissed. He was unable to work during that time and
suffered emotional damages as a result of his
incarceration.
Sorry about that.
The plaintiff accepted a proposed settlement of 250,000 to
fully settle all of his claims taking the risks into the
consideration. We, we recommend 250,000 as the best way to
avoid risks with trial and limit the city's Financial
exposure.
Thank you, Miss bronick. Um, want to acknowledge um,
Alderman Hall, uh, who would count it towards Quorum and
Alderman Moore? You as well. We had to take another form.
Count.
And Alderman, not hopping with thank you for joining us as
a non-member.
Um, any questions on this particular case?
Alderman Conway, Vice chair Conway. I I would say, based on
the fact that I don't see the maliciousness on behalf of
the officers here so I respectfully vote. No, thank you.
Thank you. Um, Alderman Lopez
Okay, I have been uh call the question yet. Can I get a
motion for approval?
so moved by Alderman mitts uh all those in favor signify by
saying I I opposed
On. Okay. So that's all the mentality of feral Alderman.
Wag his back Alderman, Conway, Alderman, Lopez, and
Alderman, Quinn and Cardona voting no on this item. Um,
this item passes and will be reported out at the February.
19th 2025, uh, Community, uh, city council meeting. Thank
you, Miss Braun. Thank you. Item number 2, Cervantes versus
City of Chicago case. Number 21c, 5852 in the amount of
690,000, we will hear from Deputy Corporation Council.
Derek Coon.
Good morning, chairwoman Dow and members of the finance
committee.
I'm Derek Coon Chief assistant Corporation counsel for the
employment litigation division of the Department of Law.
This is a matter pending in the federal district court for
the northern district of Illinois. Plaintiff. Daniel
Cervantes was born with a hearing impairment and wears a
hearing aids in both of her ears in 2015, plaintiff of
applied to be a paramedic at
At the Chicago Fire Department.
At the time she had been working as a paramedic with the
private ambulance company for close to 14 years and has an
emergency room technician for close to 12 years.
Plaintiff received a conditional offer of employment in
2019, but was denied medical clearance due to her hearing
impairment plaintiff received a second conditional offer of
employment in 2022 was again denied medical clearance due
to her hearing impairment.
After the second denial plaintiff was granted a reasonable
accommodation, under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Ada, which allowed her to wear hearing aids, while at work
and plaintiff was subsequently medically cleared by the
city. In September 2024, plaintiff entered cf's Training
Academy. The same month has since graduated and is,
currently working as a paramedic for the Chicago, Fire
Department,
Plaintiff alleges that the denial of her medical clearance
in 2019 and 2022 was the denial of discrimination based on
her disability and sex. If this matter proceeds to trial
plaintiff will present evidence that she was capable of
Performing the essential job duties of a paramedic that she
was subjected to shifting medical standards and that her
denials were in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
The Americans with Disabilities Act and title 7 of the
Civil Rights Act.
Plaintiff's lawsuit. Seeks damages, including back pay from
the date. She was originally denied entrance to the cfd
academy in September. 2019 through her admission in
September 2024,
as well as emotional damages and attorney's fees.
The Department of Law recommends, settlement of this
matter. And the amount of 690,000 plus pension
contributions, which are estimated to be less than 40,000.
See if these medical director evaluated plaintiff in 2019.
He relied upon standards promulgated by the National Fire
Protection Association NFPA and found that plaintiffs
hearing did not meet the NFPA threshold based on audiogram
results in a whisper test, the medical director documented.
The plaintiff could not understand spoken commands and
localized sounds both of which plaintiff denies.
Plaintiff will contest the 2019 decision in several ways.
First plaintiff to full attack cfds use of NFPA standards
which are intended for firefighters not paramedics.
The medical director conceded. This fact,
In addition NFPA guidelines, expressly state that they are
consensus standards and independent tests are not conducted
to evaluate their accuracy plaintiff will further present
evidence, that cfds medical director, did not consider a
reasonable accommodation for plaintiff and did not conduct
analysis. Under the direct threat standard. Finally,
plaintiff will rely on her own audiologist, who found her
hearing did not prohibit her from completing the essential
duties of a paramedic for the Chicago, Fire Department.
At 2022 clearance decisions are made by the office of public
safety administration, opsa, medical director, initially
focused on Federal Motor Carrier, safety administration,
standards FMCSA and rejected plaintiff based on those
standards if this matter proceeds to trial. However,
plaintiff would present evidence that opsa, medical
director reviewed the wrong audiogram, and based her
evaluation on the wrong, audiogram that based on the
correct, audiogram plaintiff, met FMCSA standards and that
after, uh, after acknowledging the plaintiff met FMCSA,
standards psa's medical director shifted to NFPA standards
as the basis for disqualification.
Although a reading of the correct audiogram would have led
the medical director to disqualify plaintiff under NFP
standards plaintiff would introduce evidence that the
medical director made statements in her notes about NFPA
not being as analogous.
Additionally, plaintiff would present evidence that the
medical directors deposition that she raised the issue of
plaintiffs inability to wear a respirator as a new barrier
for medical clearance.
Plaintiff would also likely present evidence that she
received positive recommendations from her prior employers,
and that there's no evidence.
There's ever an incident regarding your hearing. While she
was working for a private ambulance company or as an
emergency room technician,
that cfd does not subject currently employed, firefighters
or paramedics to regular hearing tests and that medical
candidates, uh, that male candidates with hearing
impairments were cleared while she was not
Accordingly issues of fact would likely preclude the city
from prevailing on summary judgement and we believe would
be unlikely for the city to Prevail at trial on this
matter.
If this matter proceeds, a trial plaintiff would seek
significant damage as plaintiff to follow back, pay damages
from the date. She was first admitted, she was first denied
admission to see if these Training Academy through the
date. She was admitted in September 2024. We expect
plaintiffs calculation of wage damages to be a size.
600,000 including the value of lost benefits and overtime.
We also expect plaintiff would seek emotional damage as
exceeding 20000 dollars.
If this matter were to proceed through expert, Discovery,
summary judgement and trial, plaintiffs attorneys fees
would likely exceed 750,000 accordingly. We believe
plaintiff, would seek a total Award of at least 1.5
million, including damages, fees and costs.
The parties attended to settlement Conference in October
2024 and subsequently reached a settlement with plaintiff
pending city city council approval for 690,000, inclusive
of fees and costs plus contributions in the amount
plaintiff would have paid into the pension fund.
Had she been continuously? Employed since September 2019? We
estimate the value of these pension contributions to be
less than $40,000 plaintiff is represented by Marney
willenson of willson law. The city is represented, by
Heather Becker of laner mutant based on the risks
associated with proceeding to trial and to limit the city's
exposure, the Law Department, recommends settlement, of
this case, for 690,000, plus pension contributions,
inclusive of attorney's, fees and costs.
Uh, thank you Mr. Coon. I want to acknowledge we've been
joined by Allan Hopkins. We counted towards form. Any
questions on this matter alderman? Laspada?
Hello Alderman. Lawson will count you as a number. Got you.
Thank you chair. Thank you for the presentation, sir. I I'm
just curious and this may be provided through the chair.
but can we get a sense of how many medical denials
cfd makes on an annual basis and what kind of scrutiny, the
Law Department potentially brings to those. I'm just trying
to understand if there's other
potential exposure out there. And if there are policy
changes that we can make that help avoid these kinds of
cases in the future, I do not have metrics for total amount
of, uh, medical denials, uh, which are now made by opsa,
but I can certainly provide that to the chair. I appreciate
that. Thank you, sir. Thank you chair. Thank you.
Any other questions from members of the committee?
Seeing none. Can I get a motion for the approval of this
item? Number 2B,
Motion made by Alderman Lee, recommending due pass all
those in favor. Signify by saying, I I opposed in the
opinion of the chair,
Was there a no Alderman Lopez? We will count you towards
the no Alderman. Curtis. We see you and we'll count you
towards quorum.
Item number 2C, Nicole Banks versus uh, uh administrator
of, uh, Dexter Reed versus City of Chicago. This item will
be held in committee.
um, item 2D Pellegrino versus City of Chicago case number
21 L 7351. And the amount of 3.5 million we're joined today
by Deputy Corporation Council. Margaret mendenhal Casey.
Hello Miss Casey.
Good morning, chair.
A tree branch fell and hit Nicholas Powell. Go on the head,
knocking him unconscious. Nicholas had surgery on his skull
and claims a permanent traumatic brain injury, 4 months
before the accident. A citizen made a 311 complained about
the danger posed by the same tree.
The Department of Law recommends, settlement in the amount
of 3.5 million.
On December 21st of 2020 around 3 p.m. Nicholas who was
then 28 years old was working on his car at 7:15 which West
West Hutchinson Avenue. Nicholas lived a block away and his
car was legally parked on the street. It was a windy day
and a tree branch fell and struck Nicholas in the head. He
was knocked unconscious.
A witness extricated Nicholas from under the tree branch
and called 911.
The average wind speed in December is less than 10 miles
per hour, and on the day in question Gus were up to 33
miles per hour.
On August 10th, 4 months, before Nicholas's accident. A 311
complaint was made about the tree specifically reporting a
large and unstable Branch was loose and at risk of falling
on pedestrians 2 photos. Were attached to the request
confirming, a large Branch hanging in a precarious position
on August 13th. Forestry employees responded to the
complaint on August 25th, the city removed the branch and
the complaint was closed without the tree being assessed
for removal.
Nicholas was transported to the hospital and had a seizure
shortly. After arriving during a CT, scan of the head,
Nicholas suffered a second seizure.
The CT scan revealed a skull fracture and bleeding within
the skull.
A piece of Nicholas's skull was removed, so doctors could
then extricate a large brain. Bleed and total. Nicholas was
impatient for almost a month due to the accident.
Nicholas still requires anti-seizure medication. He is
restricted from driving and has a 10 to 12 inch scar on his
head.
Nicholas is not making a lost wages claim and continues to
work in the same job he had prior to the accident as a
financial analyst. Nicholas claims that he's not as sharp
and fierce. His career advancement will be impacted. There
are between 420 and 260,000. Medical bills in the record.
In January of 2024, the parties participated in the
arbitration where the arbitrator awarded 9 million dollars,
which the city rejected,
Experts in this case, believe the tree was improperly
maintained.
if this matter were to proceed to trial, a jury, could award
damages for disfigurement past and future pain, and
suffering past, and future loss of normal life, past and
future, emotional distress, and past, and future medical
bills. The Law Department, recommends settlements, in the
amount of 3.5 million
Thank you. Miss Casey we have uh, Alderman Reilly who's
joined us and will be count counted towards Quorum. Any
questions on this matter? On this case alderman pisado.
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, Maggie.
I mean, I support this obviously, but
Just the question. I, I don't know if it's, we have an
answer for this, but at what point are things, an act of
nature? Um, at I mean, what's a reasonable time? I mean if
this was called in a week earlier, will we still be here?
If it was? You know, obviously more time, we'd still be
here. But, um, I'm just some things we can only react so
fast. And so, I'm just curious. And if you don't know the
answer, I'm fine. But I'm just curious about, you know, if
if, if this person called us in and, and it was a called in
as an emergency, or was it called in as a dangerous tree?
You know, what was the exact situation here?
Sure. Um, I'm happy to provide more contacts about the
timeline and talk a little bit about what the plaintiff
would argue if this matter were to proceed to trial. So in
terms of the timeline, um, the 311 call that I was
discussing came in on August 10th. Um, and that was about 4
months before, uh, the accident with the tree falling on
Nicholas.
Um, on August 13th, forestry employees went out to the scene
responded, to the complaint on August 25th, the city
removed, the branch, the complaint was closed, and the tree
was not assessed for removal then about 4 months later. Um,
in December of 2020, the tree fell and hit Nicholas. So the
argument that the plan will be making in an attempt to
inflame the jury is that the city knew about this tree via
311. Uh city employees went out on 2 August 13th, and
25th, They removed the branch in question but they did not
inspect the tree in that 4 months later. Nicholas. Um, was
hit on the head. So that's the timeline and the argument
that the planes would make if we proceeded to trial. So the
tree fell or the branch fell, a branch fell.
So the branch on the tree, all right, I'm just so so that
so the city we got a call for a I don't know if it was a
dangerous or an emergency or whatever. We went out there,
we cut down 1 Branch but there was multiple branches. That
should have been done. Basically, that's the argument that
the plaintiff will make, um, and they do have an expert to
support that argument. Um, we did proceed to um, mandatory
arbitration in which our arbitrator heard, the facts of the
case. It's similar to like, like a bench trial. No jury
there. Um, and the arbitrator did award 9 million dollars
which of course the city rejected.
Um, but that's another factor that played in the calculus
in terms of negotiating, this matter and was the tree
eventually cut down.
To my knowledge. Um,
it has not been cut. Yeah, it to my knowledge. Um,
according to the Forestry Department, the tree, uh, Still
Remains at that location.
The tree's been um determined to be alive evaluated as a
live tree, not not dead.
All you have another question, all these specific?
oh,
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, chairman and good morning, members of the
committee. Good morning. Um,
I have.
Great sympathy for this individual, but this is the third
or fourth settlement.
With regards to trees, if I'm not mistaken recently,
correct? Um, we recently had some settlements that pertain
to, uh, lamp lamp poles. Um, so those those, so we we call
them a miscellaneous falling objects. So I guess how many
have how many recent settlements have we had with regards
to?
uh, City service requests going unfilled, unanswered or
inadequately answered
Roughly.
Sure. So, in terms of, uh,
The light pole cases that I've presented, um, last year.
Um, the light pole cases are a little bit separate and
distinct, because there were, uh, private contractors that
went out. Um, and examined the light poles. But from my
recollection last year 2024, I did present to, uh, Fallen
light pole cases.
So, in this situation,
We had.
Actually answered.
Uh, rather quickly uh, by forestry standards.
In my opinion, from what I've seen, as an alderman over the
last 10 years. Was there any weather in December?
For this tree. Limb Came Crashing Down.
Yes, so on the day in question, when gusts were up to 33
miles per hour and the average wind speed is less than 10
miles per hour. So if we were to proceed to trial, the
argument could be made that this was was recalled Force
measure. Um, Act of God, however, the plaintiff will focus
on the fact that um the city went out there were already
issues with the tree. They're expert with testify that the
tree was improperly maintained.
Should have been removed and we did proceed to arbitration
where a finder of fact, akin to a jury, found the city
liable and assess 9 million.
and I,
I know this is not a trade secret, but where was the our
arborist in all of this?
Because the department of the Bureau of Forestry, excuse me
before they trim now send an sends an arborist a tree
expert.
To assess to point out what it's got to go. What's alive?
What's dead?
Before anyone comes cutting.
The the crew follow. What the arborist said.
I'm I'm trying to understand your question. Your question
is, did an arborist um, examine the tree or was an arborist
with um, the tree, uh, Cutting Crew at the time that the
branch was removed in August.
So in August when was it the 8th? When the when the first
call came in for this tree?
Yeah. Uh the the 10th the 10th? Okay, yeah. So
Practice is what a call is made whether 311 or 2 award
office for a tree trim.
The Department of Forestry Bureau forestry. Excuse me,
sends out someone to inspect the tree, to make decisions,
what's got to get cut? What's got to get trimmed? And then
Crews come out to do an execute what the arborist has said.
We don't just simply send a guy with a chainsaw to go hack
limbs off. So did the process, I just described did that
transpire. My understanding is that the branch itself was
inspected in August, but the tree as a whole was not
inspected.
Well.
I believe that.
Without and is there anybody here from streets and
sanitation? Who can attest to whether or not that process
actually happened? Because my understanding chairman is
that every time which is why it takes so long to get trees
trimmed in a month process is that they always send someone
out so that you have someone correctly trimming. What needs
to be trimmed? We don't have anyone here from streets and
sanitation this morning uh, Alderman Lopez. However, if you
you would like the answer to that, question through the
chair, I'd be more than happy to get that to you. Thank
you, I would appreciate that answer, uh, through the chair,
then on this matter, because I believe that if we have
This protocol in place to ensure we're trimming, what needs
to be done more than likely? The crew did exactly what was
requested. And that a
Freakish wind in December cracked. The limb when the tree
was completely Frozen as I would expect it to be and
unfortunately this managed just a victim of circumstance
and not anything. That's a deliberate nature or neglect by
the city. Um, and for that chairman, I will be voting no on
this item. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Lopez.
Are there any other questions for this settlement? If not,
can I get a motion to recommend approval of item and 2D? So
moved by Vice chair Conway, recommending do pass all those
in favor. Signify by saying, I
Opposed.
We will record you as voting no Alderman Lopez and we will
move on to item 2 e.
which is Elizabeth Gaelic as an independent administrator
of the estate of Angela Parks deceased uh versus the city
of Chicago in the amount of 27 million, 20 million of which
will be paid by the city of Chicago and 7 million paid by
the city's Insurance, uh, Margaret menen Hall Casey,
From the Department of Law. Thank you chair. This case
arises out of August 9th, 2020 car, accident at the
intersection of 30th and Wells, where a fleeing offender
drove onto a curb and struck a pedestrian. On the sidewalk
Angela Parks who was in 42 years old, the impact rendered
Miss Park's, a quadriplegic and she did pass away. 18
months later.
the plaintiff alleges that the cities willful and wanton
Pursuit caused, the crash the Department of Law recommends
settlement in the mountain of 27 million with 20 million
paid by the city and 7 million paid by the city's excess
insurance carriers.
Around 11:30 a.m. officer Ricardo teneke was driving a Ford
Explorer. We need notice a Jeep with plastic on the rear
window ran the license plate and learned the jeep was
stolen. None of the occupants of the Jeep, can be linked to
the act of stealing the car.
Officer, TK, followed the Jeep on to 31st Street in the
Jeep. Sped up as officer to any attempted to catch up to
the GP, did not activate lights for Sirens. Nor did he
alert oemc.
While still, on 31st Street, the Jeep turned on to
Wentworth to enter the expressway.
Officer teneke, activated his life and drove into the
opposite lane of traffic to stop the Jeep from entering the
expressway.
The Jeep moved, back to the proper lane of traffic to
continue on 31st Street.
At the time officer herek drove into the opposite lane of
traffic. Surveillance footage, shows 4, cars driving, the
lane of oncoming traffic.
There's evidence in the record that the officer reached a
top speed of 48 miles per hour on 31st Street, between
State, and the South
At 31st and Wells, the Jeep and CPD car. Disobeyed, a stop
sign, the 2 Vehicles, continued on. Well, Street about 500
feet with officer TK's vehicle, filing less than 1 car
lengths behind the Jeep. The Jeep drove onto the curb on
30th Street and stuck Miss Parks. Who had just stepped onto
the curb?
In total after activating their lives, the officer filed
the Jeep for a quarter of a mile and about 45 seconds, GPS
records reflect officer to any traveled at 21 miles per
hour on well, Street between 30th and 31st, at the time of
accident, the officers were no more than 15 feet away from
the Jeep.
The offenders in the Jeep immediately jumped out and began
running officer, TK ran past Miss Parks, who was lying
motionless on the ground, as they traced the or as he
traced the offenders about 35 seconds later officer teneke
ran back to his car and called an ambulance.
The traffic review board. Found officer Tanaka engaged in a
Pursuit that violated the general order and issued a 2-day
suspension attendance at driving school and policy review
with the supervisor.
Miss Parks was transported to the hospital and treated for
neck and rib fractures. She was paralyzed from the chest
down.
On August 11th. Miss Parks was intubated on August 19th.
She experienced respiratory. Failure, leading to an
unsuccessful tracheotomy, which caused her lungs to
collapse.
The following day, Miss Parks was placed on a ventilator.
She could only whisper following the incident because of
the tracheotomy.
Furthermore her permanent catheter also caused frequent
urinary tract infections on October 7th. Miss Parks was
found unresponsive and had to be resuscitated
On July 5th of 20 or excuse me, January 5th of 2021, Miss
Parks, underwent surgery, which required a wound vacuum to
close.
On April 18th, Miss Parks was treated for respiratory
failure.
Then in may, miss Parks, was discharged to her home where
she could only be moved out of bed with the lift. She was
completely dependent on, on, on others for grooming
toileting feeding and movement. While at home miss Parks,
lost ability to move her left hand, and remain fully
quadriplegic until her death.
In October of 2021, Miss Parks, received a blood transfusion
for bone, blood and pressure wound infections. Then in
January of 2022, her condition started to worsen and she
and she was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with
coid a blood infection, ecoli and sepsis.
On February, 4th of 2021, Mr. Parks passed away and the
medical examiner opine that she died from complications
from neck injuries due to a car accident, sepsis from
pressure. Oh, ulcers in Co
Miss Parks remained fully alert awake, and felt pain from
the time of the accident until her passing 18 months later,
miss Parks medical bills, total 2.1 million dollars. Miss
Parks is survived by 5 children Infiniti who was 19 at the
time of the accident and Nija, 16, sillin 14 Ellena, 10 and
Luther 8.
Given the nature of Miss Park's injuries, the Department of
Law notified the city's insurance carriers, the insurance
carriers have their own legal department, who evaluated,
this case, thoroughly the excess carriers and their
retained attorneys reviewed, the evidence and agreed with
the city's decision to settle,
There's a significant likelihood that the city will be found
liable if we proceed to trial. If found liable, the
plaintiff will seek damages for Mrs. Park's, 18 months of
pain and suffering Mrs. Park's loss of normal life due to
her quadriplegia Mrs. Park's, emotional distress Mrs.
Park's disfigurement her over $100 in medical bills and the
family's grief and sorrow related to miss Park's death as
well as her 5 children's loss of society related to miss
Park's death. The Department of Law recommends settlement
in the amount of 27 million with 20 million paid by the
city and 7 million paid by the city's excess insurance
carriers.
Almond spaz. Thank you. Um, now I, I didn't even raise your
hand. You're used to me, I guess. Thank you for reaching
him before we saw you. Thank. Thank you. Madam chair. Thank
you. Once again, Maggie. Just some some questions on the
settlement obviously.
It's an unfortunate thing. Damned if we do, damned if we
don't we don't chase them and they hit somebody and hurt
them. We're paying. If we do chase them, they hit somebody
and hurt them. We're paying, um, I I know you said that the
top rate of speed was 48 miles per hour, but what was the,
what was the rate of speed when the accident happened? Do
we know that?
The rate of speed at the time of the accident happened was
about 21 miles per hour. Um, and unfortunately even with
those slow speeds, that was enough to injure Miss parks to
the point where she was rendered a quadriplegic
Now she had 3 children, uh I'm sorry 5 children, 3 of them
are adults right now. I I would say and 2 are minors and I
don't know if we have any say. So does this settlement go
to the father does this? How does this work? So is the
father in control of the adult kids get the you know, uh
uh,
You know, a portion of it. I mean, I don't I don't really
know what it makes a difference. I'm just curious because
I'm kind of worried about the the young kids. So um, how,
how does this settlement work? Does it just the whole thing
goes to the father, is that how it works basically?
so, um, due to the fact that there are children that are
involved in in this settlement, uh, the Department of Law
was apprised as to the division of of money, um, the money
goes, the attorneys, do do get an attorney's fee, but in
terms of the, the settlements, the Family itself, it goes
all to the children. Um, the minor children are in the
care, uh, of family friends.
So basically get split up then each kid will get you know
the proportionally a proportion of it then basically, yes.
So once the attorney's fees are subtracted as well as the
cost of litigation. So retaining experts, things of that
nature. Then the settlement medical bills. Thank you, chair
medical bills. Um the settlement will be split between the
500 and a portion of the settlement goes into a structure,
IE and annuity. Um, for regular pay payments to the family
members, so amongst the 5 children, it it split 20% each.
The all 5 are just the 2 minors.
Because 3 of them are adults, now is what I'm saying. So
right, so all 5 of them will have their money placed into
an annuity. Some of it will go into an annuity, um, in
terms of the division of the money all 5 get 20%. Okay.
Thank you Maggie. Thank you. Madam chair. Thank you. Alden
is pisado, any other questions on this matter alderman?
Viegas
Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Um,
I I see that um, above 20 million is where the insurance
kicks in.
um, given
do we know how much we owe outstanding?
For potential. Um,
Awards whether through wrongful conviction, through all
these things and are we at risk at some point of the
insurers, either dropping us or increasing the threshold,
where the city, I'm sorry, where the insurance company
kicks in.
Sure. So my response that through the chair, if you, like,
if you don't mind, unfortunately, that's not my area of
practice, so I don't know the answer to that. Thank you.
Thank you Alderman, vagus. Um any other comments or
questions on this case. If none can I get a motion to
approve this item, Alderman list spotter, makes that motion
of due pass, all those in favor. Signify by saying I I
opposed in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it, and
the do pass, recommendation will be reported out at the
next city council meeting. Thank you, Miss
Casey, thank you chair. Moving on to item. Number 3, is an
ordinance concerning the designation of Municipal
depositories for the city of Chicago and Chicago Board of
Education for fiscal year 2025. Um, we are joined by
Acting commissioner Joel Flores.
Did I see Joel here?
Oh, there you go.
um, and uh, Craig slack, the deputy Treasurer and Chief
Financial or chief investment officer for the city
treasurer who were with us at our, um, subject matter
hearing
Are there any questions from members of the committee?
Um,
yes, alderman.
Thank you, chair. It's not so much a question as a comment.
I, I really want to appreciate the subject matter hearing
that happened last week, the treasurer of the controller,
but particularly those who represent, uh, these financial
institutions and those working to help them accountable.
The presentation was extremely helpful. The commitments,
both in writing and also in practice to equity in lending
by our Municipal. Depositories is very loud.
If, if you didn't get a chance to watch it, it's worth
going back to to see the inequities in net worth.
In the city of Chicago by race.
particularly, I mean, you can
Go back and look at the bar chart, because to see the
number for white Chicagoans on Lower number for Hispanic
Chicagoans. And then for
That's what I'm saying that. Like, when the number for
black Chicagoans is so low, it doesn't register on the
chart. That's a sign that we all have a lot of work to do
and also, in holding our depositories, accountable to the
commitments, that they make to us.
So I'm I'm glad to vote on this today, but let's make sure
that this is a 365 day a year, relationship of
accountability. Thank you chair.
Thank you. Almond this. SP any other comments regarding
this item. Uh, Joel, do you want to add anything to your
subject matter hearing?
No, thank you.
Okay.
Can I get a motion for the due pass of this? Uh,
Item 3.
so, moved by Alderman laspada, recommending due pass, all
those in favor, signify by saying I opposed and the opinion
of the chair, the eyes have it. And the motion carries, the
do pass, recommendation will be reported out at the next
city, council meeting item number 4. From the Department of
Finance is the substitute ordinance authorizing, the
issuance of General obligation bonds to finance
improvements to public, right? Of ways, public
infrastructure, and transportation loans, and grants
acquisition of property construction and maintenance of
public buildings, economic programs and Lead service line
Replacements. There is a substitute ordinance which has
been prepared and sent electronically to everyone. Is there
a motion to accept the substitute some moved by Alderman,
Harris? All those in favor signify by saying I
opposed and the opinion of the chair of the eyes have it.
And the substitute ordinance is before the committee and
will be explained by our Chief Financial Officer. Jill
Jaworski Brendan White from the Department of Finance and
Kevin Schuster from the office of budget and management.
Good morning.
Good morning, how are you? Good.
Okay, while we get the presentation together.
I appreciate your patience.
No, it's the general. Obligation Bond.
It's before all of those.
No, the general obligation.
This 1, I'm gonna go through there. Okay. All right. But I
will. All right, Brendan you're on. You're gonna go through
the presentation and uh,
Our Chief Financial Officer and our budget director.
Anette, Guzman will be here uh to answer any questions.
Brendan
Thank you, chairman and good morning members of the
committee.
My name is Brendan White and I am 1 of the city's debt
managers. I'm here to present to you an ordinance that
would authorize the issuance of 830 million in general,
obligation bonds.
This proposed Bond issuance aligned with standard Municipal
fiscal practice and provides important funding for the
city's Capital Improvement plan.
Municipalities across the country. Brendan could you speak
up? Oh yes. Sorry.
Put some boom in your voice.
My apologies.
Uh so municipality is AC the country issue bonds to fund
these kinds of infrastructure projects because Distributing
their substantial cost over time, ensures that the future
Generations who will benefit from these Street improvements
and other public works. Also contribute to their funding
Um proceeds from this Bond will only be used to fund capital
projects approved in the city's 2024 to 2028 CIP.
The city CIP prioritizes spending on essential Citywide
infrastructure and ensures every Ward benefits through the
aldermanic menu program.
Other CIP Investments include Street. And Bridge repairs
improved Public, Safety infrastructure and Lead service
line replacement.
The 830 million figure represents a not to exceed limit and
allows us flexibility to size the bond issuance
appropriately based on prevailing market conditions and we
expect that all of the projects funded by this Bond will be
eligible for tax exemption.
So oh, can we go back? 1, slide. Or
Did you want to go back?
Yeah, can you go back 1? Slide?
Oh, never mind. There is a slide. I got taken out.
Fine.
Um,
So, to lead this deal. Uh, if we talk about the deal team
lead this deal, we have selected loop capital markets as
senior managing underwriter. There are local black-owned
Investment Bank and uh supporting them. We have strong MB
participation in the rest of the underwriting Syndicate as
well as significant MB participation on the legal and
financial advisory teams.
so, next slide
um, so taking a step back as we plan our CIP, we look at
the 5 year plan, as a whole, and make sure that the
projects earmarked for General obligation. Bonds, are
affordable and fit around our existing debt. So as you can
see here, the debt, we plan to issue in 2025, would wrap
around our existing debt and still allow room for future
borrowing to support the CIP.
Next slide.
So I won't spend too much time on this slide but this just
shows how this particular bond issue will fit in with the
overall Bond calendar for 2025.
In the next couple of months, we, uh, are looking to issue
the first tranche of the housing and economic development
bond, that was approved, last year and to follow that
shortly afterwards with this borrowing to support the CIP.
Um and for the rest of 2025, we have a number of previously
approved bonds, as well as some bonds that we will be
coming back to uh this committee for approval.
Um and at this point, I'd like to turn it over to Kevin
Schuster to talk about the specific projects that this Bond
will fill will fund.
My name is Kevin Schuster. Can you hear me? All right?
It's loud enough.
Hello, hello.
Hello.
My name is Kevin Schuster. I'm with the office of budget
and management.
Um, this table will show the programs that were previously,
funded by similar ordinances in 2021, through 2024,
and then the programs that will funded and that this 2025
proposal
Um as you can see these programs have not changed. Um the
only difference is that the economic development program
that will now be funded by this, as that is um its own
program under the housing and economic development Bond.
Um, another program in the 2025 proposal, that is not in
this budget, but was in the previous iterations, is this
waterways and Pathways? Um, that is because the programs
and projects funded under that program. Um are still
ongoing and there's no need for further funding at this
moment.
So the programs that will be funded in this proposal is the
aldermanic menu.
Which is 108 million, um, which will be 75 million for the
menu projects. It's 1.5 million per each Ward and then 33
million that's going to seed out for supplemental, work to
help um construct and design the menu projects.
Um, the next program is the bridge in Viaduct program,
which is 98.9 million and includes money for bridge
Replacements, Bridge repairs and underpass. Rehabilitation
This will also fund 157.5 million for the construe complete
streets program.
Um, this will fund, um, safety improvements to schools
zones, Park zones, and high crash corridors
Um, this will also fund streetscapes and pavement markings
around the city.
There will be 73.8 million in facility Renovations which
includes and Capital Improvements to fire stations police
facilities and other Citywide departments replacing, um,
end of life, uh, system Building Systems, uh, such as like,
boilers HVAC systems, um, to just ensure that
The facilities in the city are, um, warm dry and safe for
its occupants.
Um, this will also fund environmental remediation and the
Hazardous building demolitions program.
Um, this will fund 64.9 million for The Fleets replacement.
Once Fleet reaches the end of life, um, to FM replaces
those vehicles.
Uh, this will also fund the public safety cameras, which
are the Pod cameras and License Plate Reader cameras.
and,
uh, cfd bunker gear, which is the gear that the
firefighters wear when they enter into burning buildings.
This will fund over a hundred million dollars in lead
service line, Replacements on the private side. Um, this
will be approximately 8,150, Replacements through various
programs, um, such as the leaks and breaks programs or the
Block Level lead service line replacement program.
so fun 19 million in the sidewalks and pedestrian right
away improvements, including the shared, call side Sidewalk
program,
The miscellaneous, Concrete Construction program, which
helps supplement um projects throughout the city and the
concrete work that is involved in those.
And then the Hazardous RightWay sidewalk repair program.
Um, which uh, will remove and replace. Uh, hazardous
sidewalks tripping, hazards, crumbles concrete.
63 million will be for the street, light replacement
program that will uh replace hazardous polls. Um, replace
Street lighting at both the residential and arterial
streets.
This will fund 1002 million dollars for the street
resurfacing program. This is both for arterial streets and
residential streets. Um which also includes the
installation of the Ada ramps on the residential streets
and 20 million dollars for the green Ally program. So
that's that'll be 1. Green Alley Port per Ward.
And the last program is the traffic signals program. Um,
it's 15 million, uh, for traffic signal.
Connectivity um it'll upgrade approximately 60 traffic
signals. Um replace and modernize about 11 traffic signals
and also have 1 million dollars for the traffic signal
battery, backup projects.
Uh, thank you, Mr. White and Mr. Schuster, I will take
questions from members of the committee, starting with all
vice mayor brunette and followed by, uh, Vice chair Conway.
Thank you very much, Madam Madam chairman, um, and and, and
thank everyone for the presentation. Uh, we notice is what
you call the necessary evil in order for us to be able to
do the things that we normally do in the city of Chicago to
service the people in the city just had 2 questions 1 as
far as the bonds go, uh I see that loop capital if we can
turn back to that loop capital is the lead is the prime.
Right. Um, and
my question always to, uh,
any of these folks is,
Are there any African-Americans on the teams? Right are
African-Americans. Getting part of the money, right? So I
want to see even with Bank America and and all these other
folks, I want to see if there are any African-Americans on
the teams who get a part of the who get a percentage of the
money that they make off of these deals. Yeah sure. I mean
we have a number of representatives from the different
firms who are here today. Um I'll chopped up but yeah and
and it's the the teams that they have um all the all the
firms have put, you know, significant teams on um with
with Representatives um, that are, you know, diverse
overall, uh, you know, loop capital. Um, is a
firm and I understand it's an African-American firm. I like
to know, do they have a African-American on the team?
Getting a piece of the dough? Yes, I was wanted to mention
for Loop. Is that the lead Banker? Uh, is
Is also African-American he's here today. Um, in the in the
front row um and uh and has been uh Clarence has been
working on transactions for the city for a very long time
is very experienced Banker. Yeah. I I know plans very well
but so
But and you don't have to do it now, but I like to know from
the rest of them, especially Bank of America are there any
African-Americans on their team, right? Because it's the,
it's the team part where the African-Americans get, you
know, you've been on the teams before 100% talking about.
We can get you the the teams from each of the firms. All
right, so I'd like to know that going forward. Yep. Okay.
The, um, we will get that through the chair prior to our
vote on Wednesday. All right, I appreciate that. And then,
um, also I wanted to ask in reference to the lead lead
Service, uh, that you all had up there. Um,
and I, and I noticed that you took out the, uh, Economic
Development part because we're doing the bond, right? I'm
assuming that's why with the last service. Why do we have
to come up, money? I thought we were getting money from the
federal government for the last service.
so the lead service line program has a number of different
funding sources and um, but the challenge that we have, um,
the the biggest challenge that we have on funding LED
service is that, you know, our major source uh, for funding
for these types of projects is the water Revenue systems.
And the water Revenue. Uh the Water revenues can only be
paid, can only pay for public side improvements, so that
would be when we think about the lead service line,
connecting the water main to somebody's home, that would be
essentially the amount of the line. That's from the main
through the street under the sidewalk to their property.
But then the amount of the line going from there through
their property to the house that's private property and we
cannot use our water uh system revenues.
to fund that including for instance, the federal with the
alone, we cannot use for that and so that private side, we
have to use non-system revenues and that's why we're using
these General obligation Bond proceeds to fund that because
when we're doing that replacement, we're doing both sides
at once. Okay. Fantastic. Well, that's good to know. Thank
you very much.
Thank you. Vice mayor.
Uh, Vice chair Conway.
It's been uh just to say it's been reported that we have a
little bit of a disagreement with the federal government
would be an understatement. How do you
think that the fact that the federal government or at least
the president has threatened to cut off,
Federal funds to the city of Chicago. How do you think it
affects the calculus of how we should be thinking about
this?
Bond offering. And if you want to expand beyond that by
all, by all means.
Um, thank you. Um, alderman. For the the question, did you
identify yourself? New court reporter, thank you. Annette
Guzman budget director. Um, as we you know, discussed in
our briefing with uh city council last week.
Obviously, we take every threat from the federal
seriously and I think that it's incumbent upon us to
prepare for. Um, you know, what changes might happen on the
federal level as we should every single year as priorities
of the federal government shift over time. Um you know the
actions that have happened at the federal level thus far
relate to existing funding, um, which was appropriated by
Congress. And um uh has been awarded to municipality States
and localities across the country. And is currently the
subject of several um um uh uh pieces of litigation uh the
conversation around what could potentially happen in future
year budgets uh under the uh federal government. Um, is an
open question and 1 that we will continue to engage city
council with over the next several months. And in fact,
over several years, I think that it's incumbent upon us to
continue.
Continually think through what our priorities are, um, and
what it is that we can fund through our own, uh, resources
uh, both at the local level state level, um, and and
Foundation level. Um, as it relates to this Capital, uh,
Bond, um, you know, this funding is supported through um,
You know uh General obligation bonds so it's supported
through our debt service payments through our property tax.
um,
maybe it's, uh, speculation but and maybe it's better
question for the CFO. Do you do you expect that this will
have any
Um, effect on the yield that we might get for these bonds.
Uh, yeah, we have to pay. I should say specifically about
the situation with the federal government. Yeah, whether
that will have, I, I don't think it will, um, you know, I
think the issue with the federal funding is, you know, as a
net said, whether um, any of the, um, you know, actions the
executive order actions, um, are allowed to stand. And then
if so you know, what does that mean? As far as you know
longer term funding of our uh Capital Investments That A
That A that occur in the city. Um, and those Federal
know, federal funds are going to uh of course, our Capital
course, our Capital programs cta's Capital program um you
know, and and and and other Capital programs um with our
sister agencies. So, longer term, um, you know, those
executive orders were
Upheld. Uh, you know, we would have to significantly. Um,
You know.
Replan, um, how we're going to make those Investments. But,
you know, currently this is an issue that is not. Um,
it's uh,
you know, it's not resolved and I don't think that Bond
holders when they're thinking about the credit of the city
are uh, that this is I don't think a determining Factor
Um, and that it's going to impact the actual yields.
And uh, our pricing levels on these bonds either. Um,
Great. I hope I hope you're right. Um I did have actually a
question about the uh
Um, uh, budget director, Guzman asked to mention the
property tax part. I a sentence kind of jumped out at me,
in, in section, 2.11 regarding tax levy, it said there is
hereby levied upon all the taxable property of the city in
the, in the years for which any have said, Bonds were
outstanding a direct annual tax sufficient for that purpose
provide. However, that such Levy shall not exceed 160
million dollars in any single Levy year.
Sounds like a property tax increase in here. Perhaps you
can better explain the that to us. Sure. Yeah, 1 of the
key. Um, components of a general obligation bond, in
addition to the pledge of the Full Faith and Credit of the
city, is that there is a tax levy attached to each a
level obligation bond that we issue. Now, we very
carefully. Manage how those levies get extended
Uh, through the budget process.
So each year, um we budget uh an amount of corporate fund
contributions to pay for Debt Service.
And that amount uh, is then the amount of the associated
levies is then abated.
So each year, um and I think we have a we have a slide in
the back, let me get to it. Um, in the
In some supplemental slides here.
Uh, on this slide, this is our Debt Service, uh, from 21
through 27. And the blue band, The Blue part of the stack
bar chart is the property tax levy, and the gray part is
the corporate fund. And so the amount of that corporate
fund contribution, which is determined in the budget
determines, how much of the property tax levy, we need to
leave in place to pay for the bonds. The rest of the
property tax, levies are abated every year. So we make the
deposit and debate the levy and that's how we manage the
amount of property tax. That is actually getting extended.
If?
The budget did not include the corporate fund contribution,
that amount would continue to be levied through the
existing levies. So the the the levy provides a credit
support. But when we replace it with other funds that Levy
gets debated and goes away,
So would would you? Um,
In, would you?
I don't know which 1 of you, it's a better question for,
but would you indicate that this is this is in some ways
already included in the in the 2025 budget. Then is that
would that be fair to say?
Yes.
Okay. Um,
uh,
now noting that we were talking about the previous CIP
bonds. Usually, in previous years, they were talking, they
had, uh, 2 years of menu money in them. Why, and why in
this 1, which is pretty big, at 830 million. Is there only
1 year in in this 1?
Sure this uh Bond we did not do a full 2 years of CIP and
menu um we just did 1 year.
And uh, you know, in the past, a lot of times these have
been presented at the same time as the operating budget and
included that 2 year window.
uh, certainly, um
That if uh, you know, there's a desire to go back to that
approach, there's no reason you know why that can't be
done.
noting on the on the bond calendar I saw looks are going to
issue some
Geo Bonds in. In Q4, I think I saw on a previous slide is
that
would you anticipate another Year's amount of menu money to
be in that offering or
no, that offering is uh using pre-existing bonding
Authority. So we don't um,
We we not coming to city council with that. That's already
been approved. We we continue to have um, some bonding
Authority from prior uh prior uh ordinances that is
available to you.
um,
So the only things we will be coming back to council for
that are on this calendar shown here um is the aviation
bonds for O'Hare and Midway.
Or or is any of this expected? Uh,
are any of the proceeds expected to be used for any grants?
the um,
The CIP. Um, does not include grants but the language
includes it because
In the past. Um, some aldermen have used their menu money,
not for the menu items, but to use, for instance, for a
Park District or, uh, a school's project. And so, when it,
when the money is getting used for another government
entity, then that is in the form of a grant.
So that the language allows for that, uh, uh, and and the
menu and so the menu money, you know, could be, you know,
subject to the that process be used in that manner.
Um, great. Um
you know, it seems between what we're facing from the
federal government, our recent downgrade, uh, we, you know,
just uh, through no fault. I'm not saying there's any
fault, we just raised a bunch of taxes and fees on. A lot
of people in the last in the last budget um not to mention
in the in the credit downgrade 1 of the reasons S&P said
they downgraded it us was due to excessive debt and
liabilities that are the largest of any major US city. So
um I I would only say that uh
I think that we as a committee need to really be asking.
How much do we need of this now? 830 million seems like a
huge, huge authorization. Um,
and,
noting that the that the credit report also criticized, our
lack of spending the fact that we're going to do a 830
million debt authorization without any kind of spending
plan whatsoever. Seems like we are shooting ourselves in
the foot Visa V, the ratings agencies and Visa V. The
people that set us sent us here. So I will um,
uh,
Yield my time but I hope some of my committee members will
follow up on what we can potentially think about in terms
of size and scope of this offering thank you. You have them
respond to that uh because I I think it should be responded
to
Sure. Um so I think the the report that you were referring
to specifically is the standards are is Porsche report is
referring to the long term liabilities of the city and so
that includes pension. Our debt load is not the largest,
um, in the country. But when you look at our pension and
our debt, it is because the amount of pension liability, we
have is extremely outside, um, and it's actually larger
than most States. Um, you know, we talked about that, um,
during the
Our budget hearing, and it's 1 of the, I mean, it is the
biggest Financial challenge that the city has, um, that we
have to continue to focus on, uh, moving forward.
the um,
The rating agencies, uh, in the commenter commentary that
they made post budget, including the, the 2 action that
were taken.
uh, Focus specifically on the, uh, the budget on the amount
of 1-time measurements, um, on the
uh lack of a property tax um on the contentious nature of
the uh, process generally
um, we have given them our forecast on borrowing, and so,
the forecast is already baked in meaning, this bond issue
in future, Bond issues are baked in and they were not cited
as part of the reasons for the credit action. So the rating
agencies do expect that we will continue to be making a
high level investment in the infrastructure in the city.
And that is that is included in um our rating and it is not
something that is specifically uh a negative
And if I could add, um, the the the comment you made about
lack of a spending plan. So we do put out a 5-year, Capital
Improvement plan every single year, um, and the bonds,
whether they're 2 year bond, uh, Authority, or 1 year bond.
In this case, support that 5 year, Capital plan,
I would only say in response that I think a lot of things
have happened since the budget budget season the down, the
downgrade and the threat we face in the federal government
among them. So I hope that we can be, we can be, um,
Uh, judicious here. And how we're and how we're
Looking at this because clearly, I, I think that we see
some troubling times ahead and a lot of the structural
imbalances that our city faces predate. Certainly both of
you me and nearly everybody in this chamber. Um but
nonetheless we are forced to deal with folks that Kick the
Can to us and now uh
And I hope we can find a way to be.
Responsible and judicious with with taxpayer dollars in a
very difficult time. Thank you.
Thank you, Vice chair. Um, Alderman Lopez followed by, uh,
Alderman wag his back.
Thank you, chairman good morning again. Nope, excuse me.
Nope. Yep. Good morning, members of the committee. Good
morning, ladies, uh, a couple questions if I may, um,
if I may draw your attention to page,
18 of the
notice the
The exhibit.
not the actual not not that exhibit, the 1 that you sent us
the uh, the ordinance has the
The bond form front and back.
Which includes for the sale on page 18 of which section?
2.18.
Bond sales.
Paragraph e.
while we're looking, it says,
Bond sales may be sold as direct purchase Bonds in a matter
and containing such terms authorized by unauthorized
officer, including pursuant to a placement agent.
Arrangement to 1 or more direct purchases.
Uh, such direct purchasers to be selected by unauthorized
officer and such sales being permitted at a price. Not less
than 85% of the principal amount.
Madame, chairman we are once again.
enshrining the highest fees in the nation with selling our
bonds at a 85% at a, at a 15% discount,
we had this conversation last time when we had a billion
dollar Bond. We're having it today with an 830 Bond
authorization. Um,
I actually Madam chairman would make a motion to amend this
on its face. Replacing the 85% with a 92.5% number instead,
instead, cutting the fees in half.
Motion to table your motion. If I could have his motion is
there. The vote is a roll call. Please
Okay.
Yes, alderman.
You have a clarification.
Um, I don't, I don't think people understand what what what
this is. So if you don't mind explaining what this
yeah, they don't know what a clarification because I
understand I just want
at this point of the ordinance, uh, specifically is, uh, in
relationship to whether the bonds are sold at a premium or
a discount. So, for instance, when you sell bonds at a
premium, if you sell bonds at a higher coupon rate than,
uh, than the yield. So you sell bonds, for instance, at a
5% coupon when the yield and the market meaning the sort of
like the interest that you're really paying is 4%, then you
get more proceeds upfront. So you get you could sell 830
million dollars.
And and generate you know 900 million in precedes. The
opposite of that is a discount Bond where you sell a coupon
that is below.
The yield. So for instance, in this example, you would sell
a bond at a 3%, uh, coupon. So you're paying a lower yield
than is the market yield but you don't generate the full
830, you might generate 770, I'm just giving these numbers
as the last 32. These are not, you know, exact numbers and
so the discount
Of that. Not less than 85% is in relation to the notion of
if you sold a discount Bond, uh, typically in the market
today, premium bonds are much more popular but once in a
while a discount Bond, can be the most efficient pricing.
And, uh, that's why that the language is in there, all of
our ordinances include a limitation on, uh, the ability to
use discount bonds,
The um, second.
Sentence in that paragraph.
That dis the second sentence discusses the uh fee.
Which says shall not exceed. Any any fee, shall not exceed
5% of the uh principal amount of the bonds being sold.
Yes. Another point of clarification. Yeah, so so
And I appreciate uh always appreciate uh almond Conway's uh
questions and and input because him being a finance guy.
and his, uh,
question about the federal government and what potentially
could happen with the federal government, that that's not
related to the the point that, uh,
do you have anything else to add to this?
before we take this vote,
No, all right.
Point of clarification and then we need to move. Yes, thank
you. Um, just so that I'm clear. So the the 85% that is
here now that that would be considered a discounted.
Rate for the issuance of the bond. So that means
What, what would what? Uh, Alderman Lopez is proposing, do
to this. In terms of just it would limit the amount of
discount we could sell the bond add. So it would limit the
financial flexibility of the city if there was an
opportunity to achieve more efficient funding by selling
discount bonds.
This doesn't necessarily speak to the commission, the
compensation, that's a separate. That's what the second
sentence. You were just saying refer to. Yes, that's
correct. The second sentence relates to the compensation.
Okay. And that compensation is not to exceed 5%. Is that
pretty standard 5%? Yes, thank you. That's all I needed.
Thank you. Thank you.
Um, we're moving to uh, table.
uh, Alderman Lopez is uh,
Motion.
Vice chair Conway.
Stay with the motion is I have no, like, what's the
amendment in here, Alderman. Lopez could you restate your
motion?
The original motion, Madam chairman is to amend.
Page 18 on its face replacing 85% with 92.5%.
Cutting the discounted rate in half.
Thank you, Vice chair Conway. Oh yes, the table that
alderman laspada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beal. Alderman, Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman. Curtis
Alderman. OSHA
Alderman, Taylor.
Yes.
Alderman Mosley.
Yes.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman, CEO Lopez.
Alderman brunette.
Alderman. Ervin.
Alderman. Tally Farrell.
Alderman, Cardona.
Alderman waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez, Sanchez. I
Alderman Ramirez. Rosa.
Alderman. Vagus.
Alderman mitts.
Alderman pisado.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman. Reilly
Alderman. Kunden.
Alderman. Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Shardell votes.
The vote is 24 yeses 18. Um no the motion fails
We'll move on any other questions, Alderman Lopez.
Nice. Try plenty.
The motion to table the process.
His motion to table.
6. Oh, that was your motion. Okay, thank you. Very
sometimes. The chair needs some help. Here, you know?
Okay. Um, thank you. Well, you have any other questions,
Alderman Lopez? Yes.
Yes, thank you.
And I would have no objection if you would have said my
motion passed chairman I would have been fine with that. I
wasn't gonna say that you can bet your bottom dollar on
that. No objection whatsoever for me.
All right. Well,
going back to the presentation.
I Believe on.
That presentation when it came to aldermanic menu 33
million. That's in addition to menu projects. What exactly
is that for?
I think we'll pass this 1 to commissioner Kearney uh from C
Dot.
Uh good morning, uh Tom Carney commissioner uh Chicago
Department of Transportation. Um so that that 33 million
goes towards um supporting our efforts to deliver the menu
program. So incorporated into that is uh re costs. Um, so
the the survey and design work it encompasses, um,
the, uh, if there's Ada work that, uh, the menu projects
trigger, uh, it also incorporates where we had made that
shift that. Um, there's full width, resurfacing, on water
projects, um, and then there's also a component that, um,
that's how we pay for the structure adjustments that are on
the various, um, streets that get resurfaced both um uh,
menu selections and and um collector streets.
How much of the overall?
Borrowing, when it comes to C dot is going towards
Consultants.
or out, not in-house, but
to engineering consultants and things of that nature.
4 things like traffic studies that and things of that
nature.
um, so
In that 33 million. I believe the amount is uh, 8 million
is goes towards the uh re support services
And of the entire CIP. How much goes towards outside
Consultants?
for um,
If you could get that to me through the chair commissioner.
Yes, I I I would have to I I think if I just so I
understand your question correctly. I out of this, uh, are
you still talking about just menu or are you talking about
the entire CIP? Which includes things like Bridges and and
all those other programs? Yes, the entirety of this 830
million how much is going to towards outside, Consultants?
Okay, engineer work and design and things of that nature.
Um,
I think my colleague already mentioned that we don't
necessarily have a, a breakdown of projects is that
correct? And forgive me, if I if that was
Stated. But I didn't hear that. Was that correct?
The projects that the 830 million is supporting.
Specific project that I think that a lot of that came
through the chair from the briefings, um, it is again, in
support of the 5-year Capital plan. Um, obviously the each
of the buckets that was mentioned to buy. Kevin, um, has
specific projects associated with it. So that information
was the chair to the was mailed to you. Awesome, thank you.
I, I just want to make sure that
The the issue that I have with what was emailed, is there a
certain level of fluidity when it comes to projects?
A particular um I know in my ward, I had 5 things that were
on the map for this year and magically 5 things
disappeared.
It's hard for me to understand how we are.
committing ourselves to plans when something that is
made available 1 year disappears, the next, and especially
when we're talking about putting taxpayers on the hook for
800330 million in.
Projects. When there seems to be other motivations, other
than need involved, in what we're doing.
um, with regards to the lead service line replacements
Is this part of the Geo Bond?
Package.
Yes and the private side. Uh let's service line is there.
Any particular reason why we would not have used the water
departments finding capability to do this?
Yes, the uh, water Revenue, uh, water revenues, and and and
flowing from that, not just water revenues. But
Bond proceeds that are supported and repaid by water
revenues, can only be paid for can only be used for
infrastructure. That is public infrastructure. It cannot be
used for private. And so when the lead service line
replacement is made from the main to the house, a portion
of that is on the public side.
And a portion of that is on the private property and these
proceeds would fund the portion that is on the private
property because we cannot use water revenues for that.
So what I'm looking at Bridges and vioxx complete streets
and some of these green alleys that this will go towards.
Providing in certain Wards throughout the city.
Those are all done with Geo bonds, correct.
Yes.
Is there a reason why those projects aren't shifted to the
water? Because those are actually water related.
um, I don't know if uh Randy would like to address that um,
or you know, I don't know if that's a combination of, uh,
Because many and many patch base and Replacements are are
also.
Geo Bond. But that would be, I would imagine water eligible
in the public way.
Uh Randy. Randy could you identify yourself, please
commissioner, Randy Conner. Commissioner of uh Department
of Water Management if I'm understanding the question
correctly.
Um, ottoman, the for Bridges. That's a part of, of above
ground infrastructure that have nothing as related to the
water system itself. Um, because the water system includes
all the water main, it includes, uh, the public side of the
service, all of our tunnels, the all of our uh, filtration
both of our filtration plants as well as our pumping
stations. Um, as far as the green alleys, um, I would have
to turn that over to C dot. Um, we work with them. When it
comes to the green alleys to understand how they are
managed and how they're going to be cleaned and how that
water is going to be supported going into the sewer system
itself. Um, but that's not something that's traditionally
come out of the water fund.
Is it possible to come out of the water fund?
Uh, the question green alleys know, but anything that deals
with like water sewer catch basin.
No. So that. Well, I'm sorry anything that deals with like
the sewers or catch basins, or that nature. Yeah, that I
think is I like to move on? We got a lot of people that
have questions. I mean I think this is a question. We can
have more discussion on afterwards and so you can get an
Understanding of why it's a capital Improvement and not a
paid for by the uh water Revenue.
All right, we can move on. Thank you.
My next question, then.
Goes back to the third paragraph recital on the first page.
What not for profit? Organizations are we are we providing
money to with this Bond?
And for what purpose?
We are not expecting to. We are expecting this to be used
for capital projects, but, uh, potentially, um,
Some menu items could potentially be used in that regard,
but that's not the intent.
So if it's not the intent, why is it in the, in the wording
here? Um, these are the standard, whereas this Clause that
are included in all of our general obligation Bond issues
um and they capture the range of projects that General
obligation Bond. Spending is usually spent on
so,
We had this conversation. Last time you were here trying to
get 1 a billion dollars in bonds, about updating this
language and here we are still using the same language.
What kind of cultural institutions are being funded by this
Bond?
Where it says, I should say, the very next section
educational cultural institutions who's getting money from,
I think, um, uh Alderman, thank you for your question. I I
I think, um, you know, the language provides the
that has been, uh, you know, asked in the past, a lot of
times, uh, money from the capital fund has gone to pay for
projects for CPS that is money, that would be granted out
to to CPS for that Capital project. We have uh instances
where uh funding has been. Granted for murals funding has
been granted for other types of uh projects uh through
automatic menu. So this is allowing for that flexibility
who's getting what individual is projected to get loans or
grants from this borrowing.
Again this allows for the flexibility in the case that um
you know maybe 1 of your colleagues wants to provide that
out of their automatic menu. Then I would we we get that
information after the the um decision has been made. I
think there's a a
A sentiment to be perfectly honest. That
blank checks.
With no listed recipient or it's not something that this
committee necessarily supports. I can't speak to the past
but I've never
seen where we are now enshrining that we're going to give
uh,
so much of our borrowed money away.
And I think that this entire section should be removed from
this from this recital because it's sets the the
unnecessary tone that we are not focusing on what truly
matters when it comes to infrastructure.
I I hear what you're saying about, it's just what's been in
the language, but so is the 85%. So is so much of what we
keep arguing and discussing and trying to
Get movement on to be reflective of what the modern reality
of what we want. Taxpayer dollars to go towards
um,
so for whatever it's worth, Madam chairman I'm going to
Make a motion. And it's on its face to remove all of
subsection 4 from the third paragraph of this recital. Uh,
and
Update all subsequent, yes Parts in accordance move delay on
the table. Thank you Alderman, Rodriguez. Um,
The seconded by a number of us.
I mean, we want to have the flexibility Alderman as
Alderman. I know, uh, when it comes to our menu to be able
to
To do some of the work that we want to see done in our
Ward. Yes, Alderman. Ervin.
Thank you. Madam. If uh, if the old man wishes to limit his
his flexibility on items in the 154, then let Alderman
Lopez limit his flexibility on items in the 1541. And I
would like to amend his motion to specifically state that
we will not do that in the 1544. If that's what he wants to
see happen in the 15th Ward as relates to not for profits
or or in that in that respect the balance of us. I do
believe, do you accept that Amendment all of them? I
believe there's already a motion to lay my item on the
table, right? So oh now, now you on the 10th leg on the
table. Okay. Okay, it is the rules. Okay, so we don't have
a vote. We're going to, we'll would you, would you withdraw
your table sir? So we can amend, uh, his the motion so that
he can have what he wants in the 15th for
Let's just move. Um, let's just move. Oh go ahead. Um,
Vice chair Conway.
Yes, to laying Alderman Lopez's motion on the table.
Alderman laspada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman, uh, Beal Alderman, Lee Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman. Curtis
Alderman. OSHA
Alderman, Taylor.
Alderman Mosley. Yes.
Taylor yes. Alderaan Mosley Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman, CEO Lopez.
Alderman brunette.
Alderman. Ervin.
Alderman. Talia Farrell.
Alderman, Cardona.
Alderman waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. I Alderman Ramirez. Rosa I
Of them in viegas.
Alderman mitts.
Alderman spaz.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman, Reilly Alderman, Knudsen.
Alderman. Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Cher Dal votes.
The vote is 2812, Alden 282, Alderman, Rodriguez's, uh
motion to table passes.
Alderman Lopez, do you have anything else to waste our time
today?
I'll wait for around 2.
Alderman wag is back.
Thank you, chairwoman. Um, first question is for and I
think you brought it up before but can any of this be used
for the housing and economic development Bond.
Do you want to go?
Well the I mean we have specific Authority for the housing
and economic development Bond. That's not my question was,
can this be used for the housing and economic development
Bond?
You already have Authority for that. I'm asking. If you
could ship it over to you, you could have used for housing
and economic development projects.
No, my question is what is outlined in the housing and
economic development Bond? Was something different. Are you
contemplating using any of this for
To buttress that Bond or to, uh, roll it into that Bond.
And any project subsequent, there's no Economic Development
projects. Uh, that we are intending to use this uh, Geo
Bond proceeds for
Okay.
Um,
Specific to the bond that we've already passed, correct.
I mean that you just kind of said something that was sort
of wide open. I know. I'm I'm sorry, I'm not understanding
your question, are you? I don't understand if you're asking
about this Bond or about the prior Bond, the prior Bond.
Can you restate your question about the
Uh, so we already passed the housing Economic Development
Bond. Yes, and I'm just asking if
You mentioned that you're not contemplating it being used
for other things.
so,
Uh, I'm just asking very specifically if any of these funds
could be then rolled over into projects for the housing and
economic development Bond.
So, you're asking about this bond issue? Yes. Um, uh, this
bond issue, uh, does allow for economic development
projects, but we are not budgeting for any out of this.
Uh bond issue. As you can see, on the 25th proposal, uh
there's no Economic Development projects here. This is uh
for capital projects and for um the projects that uh are uh
determined by the each Ottomans uh, allocation of many
money, okay?
I think because, you know, when you read the, um, whereas
clauses, I know that there was a substitute ordinance that
took out the, uh, certain legal settlements and other
aspects of, uh,
Potential legal, uh, settlements. I think it was. But um,
It's just sort of wide open, that's why I was asking if it
could be moved over. Um,
It was removal of judgments certain settlements and, uh,
other legal settlements. So, um,
when we look at the,
um,
More specific question for C dot when we're looking at the
supplemental Street resurfacing, this was in um the
presentation.
um,
commissioner, I'm pretty sure we moved out of the Ada, uh,
consent decree. But do we have lingering Ada issues that
would be resolved by this funding.
Uh, yes. So Tom Carney. Uh see that. Um, so we we the while
we're we reached a settlement with the Ada in 2006, the
the work, uh, continues. Um, we are still bound, uh, to
follow that. So where there is construction activity that
hits a non-compliant ramp. We, we have to upgrade it to
full ADA compliance. Um what we're also seeing is on some
menu projects. Um we're encountering the earliest
iterations of the, our Ada work. So where you have, um, the
Old Clay tiles or or older iterations, these older plastic
tiles, um, and then that'll trigger, um, some Capital work,
we want to get it towards. Um, the cast iron tiles that we
use now are are much more durable, and a better solution.
So um, when we encounter those, so there's still quite a
bit of robust, Ada.
Work out there. Um, I would say we're
55 60% towards ADA compliance, which is great, but it still
means we got a ways to go. So, um, that's why that still
included a needed for us to deliver the menu. Okay, thank
you. Um, and going back to budget director, um, you know,
each time we have a sister agency come in and ask for
funding, whether it's the park district, you know, very
often it's through Tiff. Sometimes it's the ca or CTA. Um,
have you received any, uh, budget, major budget requests
from any of our sister agencies or an outline of what our
expectations are for them to come in front of us and ask
for funding other than to
and and directly related to this Bond deal.
um, I have not um, generally when I receive requests uh, to
support projects for CPS or park districts, it's in
conversations, not only with the mayor's office but um, um
Alders who are championing those types of projects um or or
in in particular, if they're using menu money to support
those projects as well. Um but as a as a prospect of like
an overarching Capital plan for our sister agencies, I have
not received that.
Okay. Um,
and then chairman, I'll just uh, I have a bunch of other
questions. Let's see if they get uh, asked by some others
and then maybe come back. But my last 1 is um when you look
at the crawl,
um,
issue or S&P and crawl crawl in. The key factors that
portion of the document, that you sent out key factors,
impacting future, upgrades, or downgrades crawl. Says, and
B is there's a if there's a downgrade it's going to be
because of a failure to adhere to established financial
debt policies.
Or financial in-depth policies and see borrowing for
purposes other than capital.
So, you know, this kind of goes back to the whereas Clause
I saw that, you took out the legal settlements, but again
you have uh, loans or grants to assist individuals for
profits. Not for profits other corpses and Municipal
agencies, um, and then use of the proceeds, can be used to
improve health, safety and Welfare and for the rehab of
property. So
When you look at, um, things like 10 million for hazardous
building demolition. Um, you know, is that very specific to
that question? Um, are we getting reimbursed for the 10
million that we are spending for a demolition of buildings
out of this fund?
And that's 1 example. Yeah. Um so I'm going to pass it to uh
commissioner Hopkins from uh buildings. But I will say that
they work very closely with the Department of Law to
recruit, um, because a lot of the building demolitions come
at court order. Um, but I'll pass it to her to give more
um, uh, uh, explanation of that.
Marlene Hopkins, commissioner Department of buildings.
Good afternoon, Alderman. The department of buildings were
first to the Law Department, all properties that are
demolished, that has a demolition order, so that a lean can
be filed against the property in an effort, for the city to
recover, the funds that were expended to cover the cost of
the demolition.
Right. And have we how much have we recovered over say an
annual? Uh, an amount over the last few years. So it
averages Alderman between 5 and 6 million dollars. It
depends on the um,
the city's ability to recover those costs from those
Property Owners or financial institutions, okay, that
sounds good, thank you. Um,
And, uh, going back to that main question. Um,
are we contemplating other?
programs, major programs from this Administration, that
would be paid for, uh, in
Item or Section 8 of the third. Whereas Clause that relates
to exactly what I'm talking about, with croll about
borrowing for purposes other than capital.
No, we're not. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Sharon. Thank you, Alderman. Wag is back
Alderman. Vagus.
Alderman. Viegas.
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for the flexibility,
Madam chair.
Um, around the automatic menu.
The 108 million. I'm yeah, 108,775 million is actually work
the other 33 million.
Is what commissioner?
So it's it's broken up into a few different things. Um,
You know, engine re support, uh, both in the survey and uh,
uh, in the field. Um, it covers where there's, um, full
width, resurfacing to pick up the other half on on water
projects. Uh, it covers the, um, structure adjustments, um,
that we do on the various blocks that we resurfaced. Um,
and it
Up, uh, some Ada uh, work as well.
So I thought the water department, when they did a
replacement that it was a it was sidewalk to sidewalk. Is
that not accurate?
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you all the uh, with this with
the
Water water Rehabilitation on the streets. My understanding
was was that it was curbed, a curve.
Uh, for for uh, for resurfacing is that accurate?
So that was a change. We made with the menu program, a few
years ago that yes it it does now where there's not the
half with anymore but this funding covers that other with
that's not charged to the water fund, okay? And then also
that 33 million is inclusive of you said re fees. So I
would, I would suspect outside, engineering firms, helping
us
Is that accurate? Yes. So this is the consultant resources,
we use for re support. Yes. Okay. Um, all right.
The lead service line replacement. I see that it's a 100
million that's being allocated.
Um,
and I know that I think the previous uh, bite the Biden
administration had put a 20-year
Uh, time limit for Chicago, over for Chicago to eliminate
the lead service lines.
Um, and at the hundred million dollar.
Per year.
Is this the only amount of money that's actually going to
remove lead service lines? Or is this in addition to other
buckets that were
That were um, that were adding to. And the reason why I
asked that question is because
even at 200 million a year for lead service line
replacements,
It would take us 28 and a half years to replace 380,000
lead service lines and that's at today's dollars, which
would be 5.7 billion. So, just trying to figure out how
we're trying to tackle that because we do have kind of like
a Time clock on us, but we don't have enough revenue or
enough resources rather to pay for that. So, um, Alderman,
I think, uh, the CFO has uh, mentioned this in response to
other Alders questions. But the uh lead service line uh
replacement projects in general um have a number of funding
funding sources. Both Federal as well as, um, water Revenue
as well as water Bond. Um, Revenue. So, it's, it's, this is
just the private side because as we mentioned before the
bond Revenue, as well as the water Revenue can only go to
public side um uh projects, right? So the majority of the
private work.
the costs associated with that, is the rehabilitation
So, if we take a look at what the average cost for a lead
service line replacement, it's been it's been commented.
It's anywhere between 15 to 20,000 per household depending
on the size of the front yard.
and from the sidewalk to the to the service line inside the
home,
So that's where the, the bulk of the funding comes from.
And so,
I understand that there's going to be some funding from the
federal government, but the federal government to be real,
they put in 20 billion over across the country.
When we take a look at lead service lines specifically for
Chicago, only on the low end, it's 5.7 billion just for us.
So there's no way we're going to get 20 billion under this
Administration. I'll be like we lucky we get anything that
being said, um,
Besides the 100 million.
Um, if you could through the chair provide the the the the
funding stack as to, how we're going to address address.
This issue, this big liability that starts at 5.7 in
today's dollars.
um and and the time frame that we have with um for the 20
years,
Is that for the entirety of the program or just private
side that you're asking. So let's yeah for let's first line
on the private side, right? Because that's where
this is that's where that we're going to have to find a way
to fund that and then for the CFO along that same line in
the language when we talk, we put out the bond language it
says for the delivery of water, right?
when, when we're
When we're funding, I'm sorry. When we're putting those
bonds out. It's for the delivery of water. Have we argued
that the delivery water doesn't stop at the B box, but
actually stops at the
Person's home, where, where they're where the water's going
to be consumed?
I think in regards to the, you know, if that legal analysis
like that, um, I would ask, uh, Jim McDonald from D to
answer that.
Thank you. Um for the record, my name is Jim McDonald and
I'm the managing Deputy Corporation Council for
transactions in the Law Department.
To respond to the question.
The.
and that trust in denture and existing bond ordinances for
water, revenue bonds, prescribe that water revenues and the
bond proceeds on the water revenue, bonds can be used for
costs of what's defined as the water system and the term
water system is defined in those documents as including
property that's owned or controlled by the city and used
for the
Distribution of water.
So because the private side LED service lines are neither
owned nor controlled by the city.
They don't qualify under the definition of water system.
That's why water system revenues and water Revenue. Bond
proceeds aren't available to cover the cost of replacing
the private side of the let service lines.
What could 1 arguments?
That lead service line be the materials used in order to
deliver water and as a as a as a fact, um, the um, we have
to get the lead service line out. So that was a that was
something that the federal government said we can we can no
longer use lead but it was put in the system. So is that is
there an argument there? A consular
Well, the argument would be whether whether or not the
operator, the line itself is owned or control.
You are getting the argument that you're positing. Is it
was regulated in terms of the amount, the type of line that
was installed.
I don't think that 1 could make a
Sensible argument to be frank. That would say that because
there was a restriction on the type of line as it was
installed that meant that, that property is controlled by
the city. Within the frame within the definition of water
system in the, in the trust, indentures and the on
ordinances. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you councilor. Again, I'm
just trying to find a way to get get trying to find ways to
find money to do more. It says Madame Sher especially since
we're taking a usual liability and I know that other
municipalities in, in the United States have taken measures
as as Extreme as causing as stating a state of emergency,
um, and Newark New Jersey has replaced all 30,000 of their
land, service lines in a 5 year period. Obviously, we have
10 times
Uh, as much. But nonetheless, this is an issue that
ultimately is facing, um, that Chicagoans are facing on a
daily basis. My last comment, not even a question. Um, is
that obviously, the, the Geo bonds related to Capital, um,
moving forward will will originate in the committee on
economic capital and technology and then come to the
finance committee for funding. Um, because a lot of these
questions that are being posed by my colleagues are
questions that ultimately can be put in the uh economic
capital and Technology development committee. But also what
we hear is that
The the request from the Departments but we haven't heard
really the requests from the calm, the committee members as
to what they would like to see funded. Uh and I think there
needs to be more of a collaboration between the members
that ultimately vote on these types of measures uh and and
the dish and the Departments to figure out where we can
compromise and make sure that we're dealing with the with
the the daily issues that our offices are inundated with.
Whether it's sidewalks resurfacing uh uh curbs and gutters
lighting those in infrastructure projects that when the
capitol bill was proposed a few years ago, was really
geared towards a hundred million dollars for a bridge is
needed. But I question whether or not is the is the city
being aggressive and pursuing funds that us dot or I dot or
are they just looking for the easier which is the funds
that we control? Um, because a hundred million dollar
Bridge. Um,
Hundred million dollars, rather for a bridge replacement.
I, I know it's needed, but a hundred million dollars in the
ward. In the wards are big because then we're able to
really have an impact and demonstrate that the votes that
we're taking for infrastructure. Investments are really are
really panning out for the, for the members. I hear you,
uh, chairman viegas. I appreciate that comment. Um, we do
have a calendar set before us. Um, and so your committee
has a lot of work to do. Thank you, madam chair. All right.
Alderman laspada.
Thank you very much cheer. I number 1, I really want to
thank the whole team for the briefings that they held for
us. Over the last week, they were very informative. Some of
my questions were answered there. Some of them. Uh,
Led to through the chair responses that I, I would like to
speak to now. So, number 1. I, I want to thank the
Departments and also your team and IGA
For getting back to us the MBE wbe dbe commitments and
goals that are embedded in our infrastructure work. So
doing the work is great, making sure that underprivileged
contractors are benefiting from these dollars is just as
great. Uh, and it's worth rolling through colleagues to see
where those opportunities are.
I, I want to speak.
To a couple points. Can we go to the resurfacing slide?
Real quick.
Yes. So, uh, 30 million for supplemental residential
street. Resurfacing includes the installation of ADA ramps.
And I've definitely seen the benefit of this particularly
on Milwaukee Avenue. I will call out the need for replacing
Ada ramps even whether or not adjacent to new streets, I
know the list is out there.
I'm saying this in faith that we can figure out the way to
direct the dollars to those Replacements where needed.
I'm going to read a couple things.
directly through the, from the, through the chair request
Because I want to make sure I'm not editorializing um,
related to hazardous, sidewalks, approximately 1100,
hazardous, sidewalk locations are identified to date. We
plan to repair repair those locations and an additional 700
of the locations into spaded to be identified in 2025, that
is fantastic and speaks to the concern that we raised in
committee and in the briefings
However, as of February 6th, 2025 there are currently 3,078
open service requests in Salesforce for hazardous sidewalk
repair.
3,078 is a large number of particularly because all of
those represent 311 calls that have come in from our
constituents that if not addressed
Lead to settlements that we come back here to discuss.
Some number of years from now. Uh, so I just wanted to
understand
what the timeline is for following up on that 3,078 and
what the capital expend expenditures look like to make sure
that we keeping up on those requests as well.
Commissioner. Um,
Kearney. Yes. Uh so thank you Alderman. So
The 1 thing to keep in mind with that 3078 number is, is
the sidewalks are not static. And what I mean by that is
it's constantly evolving and so, you know, we we will have
have in that 3,078. Some of these projects will get
selected on menu this year by by Wards. Um, we will see
situations where shared costs sidewalk will address some of
those situations. We will see utility work in the
neighborhoods, touch that. And so it's, it's a bit of
chasing, um, and the recordkeeping, so to speak. Um, 1
thing, we did do this year for we're trying to do with this
bond is increase. The dollar amount to 9 million, and we
are programming to our, our, uh, we call them the cic
contractors to. We are capturing older, uh, SRS the oldest
that are out there and we are programming them out, so that
we
Are trying to really um eliminate the oldest that are out
there that are still out there. And then through that
process we we anticipate finding a certain number will be
found complete on arrival. But we're it's kind of a
multi-prong effect. That um the intent is that if I'm
sitting here next year at this time, that that number will
not be that 3,000. We're hoping it'll be significantly
reduced. It's always going to be an evolving number,
I mean with new, sidewalk locations are identified for, you
know, whatever failures occur. But um, we do want to see
that number lower than that 3,000.
Well, I appreciate that sir. We all want to be partners
with you and bring that number down. Also, making sure that
our our bond expenditures recognize the real costs of
working with you to bring that down. So I appreciate the
response commissioner, the only other question that I was
going to raise.
Is again, I'm going to speak directly from the 3 of the
chair requests related to hazardous light pole replacement.
C dot surveys for hazardous and damaged poles on an ongoing
basis each year and installs new polls where needed
hazardous polls. Requiring a replacement have not yet been
identified.
Systemic field. Surveys as part of the approved Bond program
program will locate failing polls. We anticipate replacing
approximately 1500 polls through this Bond funding.
So I I appreciate the 1500 polls. What? Gives me pause?
And why I want to make sure I'm understanding this
statement. Correctly is where it says. Hazardous polls
requiring. A replacement have not yet been
identified.
Its 12 to consider. If a, a list of hazardous polls is not
out there, particularly as we flagged earlier. Like when,
when we're not being proactive in that inspection,
we end up coming back here for the settlements for polls
that fell on folks, so can
um, Can can Clarity or elaboration be added to how and when
we're doing,
Proactive inspection on polls. And if, if there is a
broader number of polls that need replacement. Thank you,
Alderman, Le spotter. I'll uh, commissioner Conway, yes.
So, um, with the smart lighting program which now is, is
been, is a few years behind us through that, that smart
lighting program, there was an assessment done of all the
polls in the city, to identify the worst of the worst. Um,
the smart lighting completed, you know, replacement of the
worst of the worst, then with the initial iterations of the
Chicago Works. Um, we did have money for full full
replacement.
And we progressed, we continued down that list. Um,
With with the next 3 years. So um, we've gotten to the
point where that that is not necessarily. Um
Going going off the list, we've kind of come to the end of
the line. Um, we did have a program where we had identified
a certain, uh, context of the ornamental polls that we're
seeing failures. So we, uh, we've been surveying those
that, that subset of that population. We've pretty much
completed that survey of it. So, right now, it's it's
definitely the Reliance of our, uh, small gangs crews are
are Deo Crews as they encounter things. We we on an ongoing
basis. We do receive, uh, service requests. Um, you know,
from things identified by the either the wards or residents
residents, where, um, polls that that look concerning to
them, or are leaning. Um, so, um, I think it is a good flag
though, for us to look at, you know, what is the next, um,
version of that. Um,
you know, at the time of through the smart line, he was
called the Avari, um, uh, the Avari, um,
Survey of of polls. Um so we we can take a look at that.
Chairman I I hear you sir. So what I
Think I hear you saying is that the inspection conducted
through?
the Chicago Works program a few years ago, the corroded
bases, that we identified through that inspection that we
have.
Replaced. Those is that accurate?
Yes, so the smart lining did. It's it's the numbers that
were identified in the smart lighting. Um I'd have to go
back and get that number and then
from there then we went first 3 successive years of going
to the next tranche off those lists but that that database
I want to say is now from like 2017 2018. So it's it's not
really um, useful to keep going off that. No, but that is
the elaboration exactly that. I was seeking. Thank you very
much, sir. Thank you chair. Thank you Alderman. What uh,
waspada.
Um, Alderman, Lee, followed by Alderman, Taylor, followed
by Alderman Hopkins.
Oh, it feels like a budget hearing today. Um,
Um, thank you, chair. Um, I have a, I have a few questions
here. I'm going to start with, um, just the the slide about
the MBE breakdown. Are there. Are there firms with
Asian-American? Uh,
Vendors that are work in this space. I I don't know enough
about them just asking some questions here, um, or do we
know if there's a the asian-americans, uh, that work for
these firms that are working on these projects as well?
Um, so in regard to uh Asian-American firms. Uh I know for
for instance, like on the underwriting side that we do not
have any firms that have, uh, they're in our pool, you
know, they responded to the request for qualifications.
So uh, it's not something. I'm I'm not aware of any but um,
um, you know, we have discussed this internally, um, and
um, are going to continue to do research and see if we can
identify any firms and encourage them to respond. The next
time we do, uh, an RFQ, um, we do certainly have, um,
asian-americans that are on the teams that are, you know,
working for us. Um, but I, you know, would certainly, um,
we're hoping that over time. We might be able to identify
more firms in the space. Yeah, I'd love to work with you in
procurement. Um, and with the community to understand where
there's opportunities for more work, um,
To do work with the city. Okay? So that answers that
question. Um, I know that there's a a substitute that's
been introduced here. The dollar amount is still relatively
the same though, still around 830 million dollars. Um, and
I know that several items were taken out in terms of
eligible uses can someone talk about, um,
Why the the dollar amount has remained the same if we've
taken out some potential eligible uses as well?
the dollar amount was the original amount that was
identified through the capital uh process through looking
at the projects in the CIP that needed to be Advanced for
which we didn't have any spending Authority for, Okay? So,
The dollar amounts are the same, it was driven by CIP the
inclusion. Previously of those items would have if they
remained, would have given us the opportunity to
potentially use some of the the funds from these bonds for
a different purpose, other than projected, um, CIP stuff.
Correct. Okay, just wanted to understand that. Um, I
promise I'm getting somewhere with this, um,
so,
This year's Bond um, covers uh, 2025 menu, um, as well as
um, green alleys just, it seems for 1 year. Um,
Do we anticipate that we're going to have then have to
issue another General obligation bond to cover? Um,
At least the menu and these green alleys again, um, in 2026
and subsequent years.
Yes. Okay. And why did we decide not to do a 2-year versus
the the last couple that we've done 2021 to 2022? Looks
like it was done together 2324 together. And then this
we're just doing the 1 year. Yeah. We've had some requests
to um instead of doing very large uh um authorizations that
covered multi-years and lumped multiple types of bonding
Authority together to break them out so that there was an
opportunity to uh examine them in more detail. Uh, We've
also received a lot of comments about why are we not doing
it the other way? So I think this is something we're going
to take a look at and, you know, solicit input. Um,
To, uh, determine if, uh, this is the way we should move.
Can going forward, or if we should, uh, go back to
Doing an authorization. That would be done around the same
time as the uh, budget. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and
through the chair, can someone please provide um, for the
last 2? So since the 2021 to 22 and 23 to 24 uh a breakdown
breakdown of, um, how the CIP funds were spent by Ward. Um,
I think we, if, if that's not already available,
I think it'd be helpful for us to just kind of understand
where this stuff is going, um, because we haven't increased
the amount of menu funding for Wards. I don't know when the
last time that was increased. I haven't been around all
that long so I could look to some of my colleagues. You
haven't missed anything. I haven't missed anything. Um, but
yet every year, the the, the menu prices have gone up. I
just noticed on the on the presentation here that a green
alley is now 400,000. Um,
And it was 280 not all that long ago. Commissioner Kearney,
can you talk about the the rationale for the price
increase?
Uh, are you specifically about the alley reconstructions?
Yes. So we're we're constantly work to try and get a better
uh, cost about what they're really coming in at it. Really
depends on a variety of factors, you know, some of these
alleys can be extremely long, some of them can be wider.
wider. Um, some of them, depending on, you know, which part
city and the subsurface, if it's Clay or not depends on how
much. Uh, if we have to add catch basins to make it work,
we certainly and, and the water department, like the
locations, where we can handle water issues, through worse,
concrete, or permeable, pavers, and we're not adding, uh,
more to the network. Um, so it just it really, it really
varies the location the location Ward to Ward. Um, and so
really, you know, we're trying to get that the price
adjustments, reflect what the true costs are.
what we're seeing it's it's more of that as opposed to
previously was more of a generic
We think it's 660 uh square feet times. This is what the
the you know cost per square foot is type. They were trying
to get more towards what the actuals are reflecting. I
think that's fair.
Where we had an alley, that was a little longer than
standard. So we paid we paid the difference, right? So
you're trying to it was a lot longer, but yes. Um and if I
I might, um, share 1, um, just to, you know, I never like
to, uh, miss a moment to make plugs for transparency. Um,
but the budget office released last year, a new CIP
dashboard, uh, which reflects every single CIP project,
The funding for that project geoloc where the project is by
totally missed that. I'm so sorry. It's okay. Uh, we'll,
we'll re-up that so everyone has access to it, you can
literally zoom in on your reward to see every single CIP
project. Amazing. Okay, that's perfect. Um, so no need for
that request. Um,
4 million dollars, insured cost sidewalks. Um, that is I'm
assuming just for 1 year as well, is that right? Yes. Um,
because in 21 and 22, if I just look at what was spent
previously, that was 51 million on average in each year,
then the following Bond, we did uh, 32 million per year.
Why are we going down solo?
Cheer cost sidewalks is a very popular program among
constituents and that's seems It's a first come first serve
program. It just looks like we're going to have even less
to go around.
Kevin Schuster with the budget office. So the shared shared
cost, sidewalk bucket has not decreased that's going to
remain 4 million as it has in the past.
Um but you're right. The sidewalk and pedestrian RightWay
has decreased. Um that's the reason for that is there are
funds remaining from those previous authorizations.
So instead of just asking for money, that we know we are
not going to spend in a reasonable amount of time, we're
going to use some of that salvaged funds and then this will
carry us through this year.
Do we anticipate? We're going to have more Salvage in this
proposal too because this is meant to fund projects. Going
out through through to 2028.
It depends on the the project. Um so it's really like a
work of art with the timing of Contracting, the design
phase and construction over these multi-year projects. So
in some instances like Bridges it might look like we have a
lot of Salvage but those are programmed and encumbered to a
project that might not be delivered for 2 more years.
Um, where other projects like sidewalks where?
You know, the construction of a new sidewalk doesn't take
as long as a bridge. We have a better understanding of what
that salvaged is going into the next year.
Thank you. Um look we all want infrastructure projects
done. Um, there's no, there's no doubt about that, right?
We, we all need streets, and potholes filled and, and new
alleys, and everything. Um,
yeah, I think you you're seeing all these questions because
we are in a
Precarious position lately, uh, between, uh, our budget,
the downgrade, and what's going on at the federal
government. Um, and, and while you know, we've got all
these questions about the 830 million. Uh,
1 might even argue like, why shouldn't we be be borrowing
more? If we think that, you know, the the rates are going
to go up on us. Anyway, that's, I'm asking a rhetorical
question at this point. I'm just sort of making my last
comment here and I'll, uh, I'll stop asking questions
chairman, but thank you, uh, for answering the questions. I
appreciate it.
Appreciate your questions, Ally, um, Alderman, Taylor. And
after Alderman Taylor, we're going to take a 5 minute uh,
recess. So that our court reporter can stretch your
fingers.
I'll make a quick cheer woman Alderman, Taylor. Yeah, I had
question. Can we go back to the the lighting part of the
presentation um, through the chair? I want information
about the lighting program because we're spending a lot of
money for lights. That seem to
Not work or have all of these issues. So, through the
I would like to see the number of service requests on the
smart lighting program um number of issues and problems and
how long it kind of takes to fix.
Thank you Alderman, Taylor. Oh, um, commissioner Kearney
did you get that?
Yes. Okay we we'll stand at ease for 5 minutes um while we
let our court reporter relax for a minute and we'll be back
in 5 minutes, that will be 104.
Finance committee is called back to order.
We?
will we will start with, um,
I don't see Alderman, Hopkins Inn in the chamber, so we'll
start with Alderman Scott.
You don't Alderman, Scott. You don't have any questions,
okay?
So we'll go back to Alderman, Hopkins to start this uh,
questioning off.
Yeah, thank you madam chair. Um,
Actually I had 2 questions. Alderwoman lie uh got the first
1 for me so thank you colleague. Uh going back to a
slide that detailed um some of the bridge and V prepares
that were scheduled uh it mentioned
The language, uh, stood out to me because it said
approximately 8 Bridges, um, which is curious, I mean,
bridges are easy to count. It's either 8 or it's not it's
maybe it's 7, maybe it's 9, uh, but I was wondering if we
could, uh, delineate,
Those 8 bridges, that would be funded from this Bond
issuance and uh, confirm that. None of them are currently
in the existing CIP program. That these are 8 new Bridges
being added.
Thank you Alderman, Hopkins. Commissioner
Kearney.
so if I, if I understand your your question Alderman it's
It's that these aren't.
Funding that it was in the previous.
Is that what you're asking? That's what it seemed. It
wasn't. Like it was an earlier 1, but that's what it seemed
to imply by saying. Approximately 8 Bridges would be funded
from this Bond issuance. As opposed to the others that were
previously listed uh, that we've seen in the 5 year Capital
plan.
Yeah, so I I mean with regards to the bridge repairs. This
this is what we're like envisioning using the funding for.
But we constantly work to identify other funding sources
depending on how the repairs go. Um, sometimes we, we will
need to utilize Tiff for these repairs. Sometimes we'll be
able to, depending on if it's, um, something that we can
leverage other, you know, like it'll leverage other funds
from the state. So it it's kind of like placeholder type
things for the repairs. Um, but certainly, if we can find
ways to utilize other sources, we use those so that that
Bond money doesn't need to get triggered. All right, thank
you. That's all I had Madam chair.
Thank you Alderman. Hopkins, Alderman, Curtis followed by
Alderman, Ervin.
Uh, thank you. Madam chairman uh,
Couple of my questions already been answered uh especially
when it comes down to uh Street lighting the paving and and
Adas.
Uh and this this question is is probably for um, C do
commissioner uh will this Bond also include uh like our old
uh uh WPA streets.
Yes.
That that was it. Thank you, madam. Chairman, you still got
those WPA streets, still got those WPA streets. All right,
um, Alderman, Ervin, followed by Alderman Vasquez,
Think about the chair again. Uh, this um item. Um,
is um,
What's the right word here? Uh I would call this routine.
Um and I think that many of these uh questions are are
There's nothing new here. Uh, ladies and gentlemen. Uh,
this is routine item that we've dealt with over the years.
Uh, the infrastructure needs of the city. As many of you
all know are great. Um, I know that we need to understand
what's what's happening with these funds. Um, I'm just
Just trying to understand the detail and the the level that
we we are are nothing has changed. Our menu program has
been what has been for the last few years there's been
always a a charge, uh, administratively that we have not
paid, that has been also been covered. So many of these
items are are fairly routine. And what it is that we are,
are looking to, uh, fund. Uh, this year's number is not out
of line with what we funded in past years. Um, this is been
part of what we, uh, do as Alderman, uh, is looking to
legislate and appropriate dollars to bring back to various
communities. So, um, I would hope that we can pass this,
um, and I'll move forward if they're, you know, any, any
additional questions. Um, um, we've had briefings on this
and, and hopefully, uh, you get your questions answered,
but there's nothing nefarious here. This is a fairly
routine item for us and I and I'm hoping that we can uh you
know, dispense of this and uh and and regular matter. Thank
you.
Madam chair.
Alderman Vasquez.
Thank thank you. Uh, chairman. I appreciate it. Um, as I do
my colleagues points I think
Uh, some of the things that are coming up for a number of
us.
it may feel routine, I understand that, but I think when we
look at
How things have been playing out in this Council.
We look at how the public is looking at the job that we're
doing.
They have concerns. And so I think us raising those same
concerns that we share.
Among a different. Uh uh a number of things, is a fair
thing. We did get the briefing. So I do appreciate the
answers on a number of of the items. I think, my first
question I have is related to the third wear as clause.
Um and I'm trying to find the actual copy on me right now,
but I know there's a part that um speaks to loans or grants
given to individuals.
Uh nonprofits. Uh we we've been down this path. Yeah. Twice
with 2. Different Alderman and have resolved. This
So if if we were resolved, we wouldn't have people trying
on it.
We voted on it. So do you want? Can we like
yeah, I I want what's an example of an individual that's
going to get a loan or a grant.
yeah, and example would be like the program to help rebuild
rebuild, um,
Uh, stairways back. Porches on homes.
uh, those kind of
Uh, small.
Uh, Grant programs. That's not we're not paying for that
kind of thing. But just to give you an example of what is
the kind of program that
Has been done in, you know, prior uh, prior Capital
programs that involved, uh, grants to individual has that
in the past been an individual. I mean, it's normally like
a company or something. Right? No, no, there was, there's
been. Yeah, there's programs to that was for individual.
Home repairs. Okay. So I, I guess this would help so that
way. No 1's doing another amendment, a a breathe. If you
could do the chair provide examples of each 1 of those
categories that has been done before. Uh, so that's
individuals.
Uh non for-profit organizations or cultural institutions.
Just if you get the last
Let's do 4 years of what that looks like. Just to be able
to better inform the examples. Again, we've got a lot of
concerns just about ambiguity because we've been through
this budget process last year. Now, everything everyone
does. We're going to double check and try to look. Do with
a fine tooth comb there shouldn't be anything wrong about
asking. For those things, it leaves it, where some of our
folks are not resolved, um, okay, uh, I guess,
Uh, next question. And I know it was asked as well about CPS
spending Park spending. Can we get a breakdown similarly,
The Last 5 Years of any of these funds that have gone to
CPS or Park District I think as we talk about the fact that
CPS is going to, it's going to have its own governing body,
body, it's going to have an elected governing body. It's
be able to pay for its own stuff. We should be able to know
able to know how much of our dollars are being entangled
with the agency. That's just a fair thing to say. We have
our own deficits that we have to solve for
We then have budget coming up. We have CPS
to the point where
a $300 million loan is being proposed to pay for a debt.
These are all concerns and when they say, hey, well
Chicago, you should be paying for it. We understand that
entanglement
As this continues and we want to make sure that they as a
governing body can make their own decisions. Raise their
own Revenue, vote on their own things, it makes sense for
us to have Clarity on that Alderman. The entanglement that
you're
With CPA.
it's normally occurs when
Women might have a particular project in the award related
to the menu.
It's those kind of projects, it's not the city government
giving money to CPS to augment their capital. I mean that
that kind of does both, right? So when something happens in
our Ward, a school needs support. They need to get
something done. They come to us, we go into the menu and we
go, hey, we're going to fun. That's those are City funds.
We've decided to put towards the other a
Agency, and we do it because we're looking out for our
neighbors and want to make sure those schools are
supported. If I, however, CPS is at a point where they're
going to start raising their own funds, have to go to
Spring Hill Springfield to figure out their revenue. Vote
on it. We should know that. So we can put our funds towards
other things, our neighbors are asking for because every
year, we put in 3 million 5 million worth of requests,
we're only able to do 1 million. So yeah, it would make
sense. Even in that instance, for us, to be able to
delineate and learn as Alders to be able to make better
decisions as they're able to fund their own things. I, I
think that's a, a good point, you know? And I've had
several conversations about um what the shift towards a
fully elected school board for CPS looks like um I think
that you know, they're not fully elected and they're not
fully disentangled from the city and it's a question of,
how do we get there? I think the language a lot of the
language that um has been talked about today has been added
to the bond ordinance. Not for our own flexibility but
largely for um more flexibility on the alderman.
Menu. Um, I think that if this body decides, um,
collectively that they would like to limit that level of
flexibility, I think that that's something that we could
have conversations about. Yeah. And, and just for this
isn't for amending anything, this is more. We need to be
knowing these numbers on a regular basis to be more
informed for the conversations, right? Like, you know,
we've got um, an ordinance that's in rule 41, calling for
CPS to do quarterly hearings, we want to better have these
conversations about the numbers, the figure. So when it
becomes a fully elected board, we're not just shooting from
the hip either and so I think just asking for that
information would be helpful.
Um, thank you for that.
Um,
I there was 33 million dollars that are related to menu but
not projects. Uh and this is
I just had a conversation with the commissioner about this,
something that's related to, like, estimates and surveys,
uh, because they need to find out what projects they're
going to do, and what the cost is, right.
Nobody in city council, none of us elected have any
guidelines on how many surveys to ask for how many, how
little surveys to ask for. So, we're in effect, Running Up
That tally and spending more money there. And so, what I
would ask of the Commissioners if you could
Kind of share what that experience may have been like and
provide guidelines so we know hey here's how many traffic
surveys are average. Yeah, maybe you're asking for too
much, here's too many estimates that you guys are asking
for because they don't necessarily materialize. So do the
chair, would you be able to provide guidelines for us to
know?
Within what boundaries we could do to kind of keep things
tighter.
Yes. Um I would like to um highlight though, in the menu
packet it does outline that by certain date. We ask for
words to submit up to 3 million in projects. That's that's
the Sweet Spot. We're looking at. So it it does outline up
to 3 million and that theoretically should give you enough
projects. There's certain number that won't clear all you
see but it should give you plenty. That will clear. It's
it's where we run into challenges where that 3 million is
blown past. Yep, I guess.
To 11, you could answer.
Out of 50 of us. What's the average amount if you're asking
for 3 million when it's written down? Um, I'm good. But I
don't know that off the top of my head,
okay, if if you could, if if possible to share in that
would be helpful as well, like I said, just to make sure
Because sometimes we're putting stuff in the hopper, that's
not going to get done in the next year or 2. And I think it
may lead to more costs without us. Looking at how we can
better balance it out, put you all in better position too.
So um thank you for that. Uh last
Point or question, I have.
Is relate is actually through the chair. So
we all don't have the same.
Equal-sized words words that have the same amount of wear
and tear.
Um,
but each 1 gets doled out the same amount of money when
we're talking menu.
Write 1.5 and like our smallest board and our largest Ward.
And I, I think it's not a fair way to share the funds. Um,
I was just talking to, to my colleague Alderman, Reilly
over here.
And I was like, well don't tell us it's not the biggest
Ward, but the wear and tear downtown gets is different than
what you see in Lincoln Park or Andersonville or other
places. And so
What would be helpful?
Is.
Establishing rubrics and knowing how much we're all
spending in relation to the size of the ward and to the
wear and tear in the ward.
Would you all commit to working on that over the next year?
Not necessarily changing with the money's going yet?
Otherwise, I think we need to go there, but at least
identifying where we rank on the size of the ward and wear
and tear. Because we all sit in for our own CIP meetings,
we all know we want to improve it, but we're not thinking
in relation to the rest of the city. And if we're best
utilizing the money,
So I guess I'll leave it up to everybody involved. Would you
all commit to providing us? The information of where we all
all rank related to size and wear and tear of the wards.
They've always committed to that. Um, it's more so
Have they done it? 50 of us, huh? It's more. So, the 50 of
Us coming together and agreeing that we're going to move in
that direction. The Department's always been willing to
provide that information.
Well, any information that I just never seen it. I brought
it up a couple times. I've never seen a rank. I want to
know where we're at? Based on the 50. Are we top largest
top. Smallest top born, top knot for that point. I again
their words in the South and West Side Way larger than 40,
where there should be, getting more proportional funds.
We're okay with figuring out how to do that properly. So so
can I just ask a point? I'm sure. Hey, can I just ask a
point of clarification? I agree Alderman. OA is your um is
your request relative to all Dometic menu or the CIP is in
total?
Related to menu related to menu because the menu is only a
portion of the the CIP, right? I I was going to ask for the
CIP for a full map but you all have the website showing
where the CIP projects are. And so that actually is a
really good job and I'm glad that IG was able to show me
that and you all put together. Thank you for that. But for
menu specifically, I think it's fair and hey guess what if,
if I rank higher on the wear and tear maybe I want a larger
share but we don't know that, we know our individual Wards
and we're all going to fight for everything we can we're
not looking in relation how it affects us.
City and we all drive everywhere. So thank you. Thank you
Alderman. Oh, I guess do the chair if you could send that
information since it's easy to provide a ranking of size of
the ward and also wear and tear of the ward.
Best to worse for either the categories due to the chair
sent on a document.
Yes.
Thank you very much. That's all I got.
Alderman. Reilly
Thank you, madam chair. Uh, and I had just, I wanted to
address 2 things that came up in the hearing just very
briefly, just so the record is straight. Um, you know, it
was it was suggested that the bond rating agencies have
issues with the city of Chicago.
Because we failed to raise property taxes in the 2025
budget.
Um, and that is not what the bond rating agencies have
said. Um, their concern is that we made a number of 1-time
fixes.
Uh with uh budget gimmicky rather than um you know making
structural changes and structural changes can happen in a
couple of ways. It's not just about taxing the people of
Chicago to death. It's also about finding cuts and
efficiencies and we've heard the mayor say over and over
again, he doesn't believe in those things. Those don't run
well with his ideology. Uh, but to say that we're in a bad
position with the bond rating agencies because we didn't
jack up property taxes is false.
Um, so I just want us to be honest about that. There was
also suggested that this particular item in front of us is
routine. And I'm not going to uh, dispute that fact. This
is something as an exercise. We go through every couple of
years. Now it looks like we're going to be doing it on the
annual basis, um, but I would argue our routine in this
building
is why our city budget is a disaster, uh, and the bond
rating agencies are constantly hovering over the city of
Chicago.
Threatening more downgrades and so routine doesn't
necessarily make make this okay um and so I think it's good
that my colleagues are asking questions about this we
should
Um, had we not asked the number of questions we did about
the budget, during that process, would probably be looking
at a hund million dollar property tax increase right now.
Um, so to the actual, um, ordinance
um, I I think that um, you've heard loud and clear, and
obviously, it's not going to be resolved today, um, that we
need to look at revising, the boilerplate language we use
in our whereas Clauses in the resolution that that that
supports and is attached.
To this ordinance, another 1 I have to do that today um but
I think that is a midterm goal um, before us, I think we
should look at at at tightening that up a bit and look if
there are Bond issuances where we need more flexibility in
that language related to individuals nonprofits has been
brought up here a few times. Um, that boilerplate language
should belong in in those Bond ordinances, but not
necessarily all of them. Um, and so that would be something
I would request. Perhaps chairman, we as a committee could
work on with the administration moving forward.
um,
I understand the need for flexibility but um there's a
nervousness in this body about too much flexibility. Um too
much leeway being given to the bureaucratic departments
with these large sums of money.
um, I also wanted to just talk a little bit uh, about some
of the different uh, buckets um that this program would be
funding and could we pull up the uh that there we go. The
the budget of authority. Uh yes page 5. Um
I again, um I'm not going to take issue with us doing this
year at a time, you know, with a 2025 proposal versus a
2-year uh, proposal. Um, I do think that that helps to
improve transparency and dialogue between the council and
the administration, um, but oftentimes, when we see a shift
in format like this, it kind of begs. The question are we
hiding it?
Anything, right? Um, and if you look at what we're looking
to spend out of the 831 million. Um, if you look at how
this is annualized, some of these line items go up
dramatically,
um, so I'll give you an example. Um, complete Street, uh,
2324 budget, we allocate about 243 million dollars. Uh,
we're proposing 157 and a half for 2025,
If you were to put that into a 2 year Transit, you'd expect
that to be around a 300 plus million dollar expenditure um
um, which is substantially more, um, than this body has
approved previously. Um, likewise we're seeing that also
with, um, you know, Bridges and viaducts. Complete streets,
Etc. Um,
Am I correct? Is there a reason I guess? Why, why are we
doing this 1 year at a time now.
Again, not complaining, but just trying to understand the
rationale.
Yeah, the uh the reasoning behind that was to address some
concerns about um doing it uh for larger time frame, which
and doing multiple Bond issues together, which didn't
necessarily allow for uh, what some people didn't feel
allowed for enough examination um of each of the different
Bond transactions. Okay? So it doesn't have anything to do
with our concerns about
How the bond market May react to this particular offering
that if we went with a much larger number, we might not be
getting such a great deal for the taxpayer or was this
really about transparency? Yeah. No. That's unrelated
because, uh, for instance, you know, when the city
authorizes, a much larger, uh, Bond transactions, it's rare
that they are all sold at 1 time. Usually that
authorization is used uh for multiple sales.
So um you know the the timing of when we actually sell
bonds is related to the expenditures having been made. So
for instance this Bond uh will authorize spending on the
categories that are here and that will start off with the
planning work, um, committing to any contracts that needed
to be made. We can't do those contracts until we have this
spending authorized. Um, and then projects will begin. We
will probably initially fund. Those with cash, we have on
hand, we may then use our line of credit to reimburse the
cash and then sell by
Bonds to pay down the line of credit. So that's that's 1
path. And uh, so we don't necessarily like gift
authorization and walk out and sell all the bonds right at
that moment. It's more about. When is the money actually
going out the door? Um, and, and so we're not trying to
necessarily time the market, but we are trying to be
thoughtful about not borrowing money and having it sit when
we haven't spent it yet,
it's more about that time if you borrow money and it sits
for a year and you're paying the interest rate on the bond
and you're earning Less in the you know where we have
invested with the treasurer. Then we have you know a a
Negative Arbitrage. It's costing us money to have borrowed
ahead and we're we're primarily focused on avoiding that.
Yeah. And no argument with that, that's responsible. Um
also through the chair, I think I think a number of of my
colleagues have been asking for a bit more detail related
to
Um these various buckets and then in in in your narrative
narrative, for saying the complete streets program or the
bridge replacement program, um, we do have a level of
For example, the bridges, we've got approximately 8 Bridges
as ottoman Hopkins brought up. Um, I assume that we know
which 8 Bridges, we're talking about
Right.
Yes. Okay, so it would be helpful to get a list of those
bridges. Um, and likewise, uh, the 2 under pass, um, rehabs
that are to occur in the city of Chicago would love to know
where those are located. Um, we have so many underpasses in
need of help. I was shocked to see. We're only going to be
putting money towards 2 of them.
So through the chair that would be helpful, um, that those
location. Can you uh excuse me, all the room, Riley. Can
you address the? Because I raised this issue with you, 2 on
The Underpass. Could you just tell my colleague, what you
told me about the underpasses? Yes, so um, first off the,
the locations that you're requesting aldermen are in that
response to the chair, um, that we had sent to a chair
chairwoman Mandell so that I believe was sent out to the
council, um, with regards to the The Underpass, uh, rehabs.
Um, so we could continue to work on those. It it's quite a
bit of, um, engineering front end. So this is, this is, um,
the next 2 locations that that need funding. We do have
some that are in the pipeline this year. Um, so this is
kind of keeping the assembly line going of those Viaduct re
rehabs picks and roadway and sidewalk under those veedu.
Okay? And then all the other thing was that some of them
are not.
The done by the city some of them others. Yes. Thank you
for reminding me that yes. So so this the
We're repairing what is ours? Which is public right away,
so roadway sidewalk, um the you know, support columns and
beams that in in various veedu with pretty gnarly. That
structural that belongs to the railroads and as we've
talked about you know there's there's quite a bit of
frustration that the railroads aren't always the best
Partners at um being proactive that, you know, there are
some major projects they are doing um, and some Southside
neighborhoods but um, I think everyone, uh, would like to
see a bit more, um, in the way of the railroads addressing
that. But those structural column things are not our
jurisdiction to repair.
Okay. Uh thank you for the response and then the 102
million for supplemental Street resurfacing. Um, that
that's a lot of money and I I, I believe that that those
projects would be at seed dots discretion and I would
assume that there must be some priority list that's ranked
by need or urgency. Um, does such a list exists.
Yes, um, yes, those locations so that 102 encompasses. Um,
the uh, arterial resurfacing work that we're doing that
City funded it incorporates the uh, collector Street
program. Um, and both of those programs are based on
condition, uh, indexes as well as requests receiving from
the wards and then we we factor in some other, um, things
to do a rating.
And we have those lists. Okay, through the chair, if you
could before, uh, next week, city council meeting. If you
could get members of this committee that list it would be
very helpful. Yes. Um, and along the same lines, maybe this
should become
Kind of standard procedure. Before we vote on these sorts
of things because we do need to have a, a certain level of
detail to understand like, what exactly we're funding.
Um, the same goes for the street light replacement program.
Um, both the Hazardous polls and and the residential
lighting program I understand 108. Blocks have been
identified, you know, through the chair. Um again
preferably before city council um could we get that list as
well? Um, Broken Out by aldermanic Ward.
Yes, so that that residential polls though, that's those are
the requests that are selected by the wards through their
menu, okay? But the Hazardous poll replacement program is
not, is that correct?
Correct. Those are identified. Those are not whole blocks
taken out. Those are locations. Those are polls. We know,
are at risk of falling over right? Those are more polls
specific. So again, the information that you do possess
that that isn't, you know, coming to you from older manic
requests, but the stuff you guys know as an agency. These
are dangerous polls, you know, for all sorts of liability
reasons, we need to get these things swapped out. Um that
would be a helpful list I think for everyone to to have.
Um, and I just had a couple more questions here. Um, you
know again sidewalk it was more that seeing these smaller
numbers for a couple of these line items made me a bit
nervous, um, sidewalk. Uh, and and pedestrian right-of-way
improvements. Um, we see the last 2 year funding, um,
allocation was around 64 million, but for 2025, we're we're
only doing 19 million dollars.
And then likewise with with traffic signals. Um, we saw 81
million dollars allocated for 2324.
um, yet for 2025, we're looking at just 15 million and as
someone who, uh, we all do and each of our Awards, but in
the central business district, I know, chairwoman Dal can
can relate Hopkins. And and, and Conway, um, we have a lot
of trip and fall. Uh, situations down here. We have
horribly degraded sidewalks and we're getting Jack potted
by enterprising young trial lawyers,
Who are dragging us into court and nickel and dming us on
trip and falls. And while I think a number of the automatic
officers, do a really good job.
Putting in requests to get these things repaired quickly to
avoid lawsuits.
Um, I want to make sure that we're keeping Pace with the
need. Um, this isn't just because everyone would like to
have pretty new sidewalks.
We're losing a lot of money as a city, by settling out
these things. And these are substantial claims that we're
having to pay and much. Rather us have safe sidewalks than
us getting our butt kicked in court every month and so um,
commissioner I guess this is for you um are we going to see
the same pace of of sidewalk repair and replacement under
this scheme? Then we have in in the previous 2 year budget
schemes. We've been approving.
So, short answer is, yes. I mean we we were strategic um,
with this um, with these funding lines. Um, has Kevin had
alluded to, you know, we looked at, um, these various
categories and saw which, which categories still had, you
know, so to speak money on the table from the previous
Bond. Uh, it's, it's not anyone's intention just to ask for
more money when you haven't spent, what's good already out
there. Um, I will say that, you know, the amount of
concrete work we've been doing in the last 3 years far
dwarfs, what we had been doing the previous 3 5 7 years. So
um we do look to continue up that pace um
and as I said earlier, in answer to another question, I
mean, 1 of the things we're doing is trying to clean up
those old Sr requests because that does speak to, you know,
the concern of uh of, you know, the trip and fall cases.
Yeah, that and that's a significant concern. I mean, we are
getting sued on the regular. Um, so thank you commissioner
and then I again, I don't want to
Freak out on necessarily, but I see we've got is this
again, we have money on the table for waterways, um, and
Pathways because we're putting no money into that in this
particular Bond request. And, uh, obviously there's a great
need there as well.
Yes, it's, it's spending out the money. That was previously
allocated. Very good. Um, and then my final question and
again, I guess this is for you. Commissioner, I'm not
trying to pick on you. Um, is that
this is something that we've talked about since I've been
here and you know over the last 18 years, we've seen the
city do a really good job for a while and then not so much
and that's coordinating.
The utility work that occurs in the right of way when the
city has to go down there, right? So oftentimes is to
replace a water main. Um, but you know,
City upgrades to infrastructure. And we've got it open. We
invite all of our Utility Partners to come in and do the
thing they got to do.
whether it's Comcast with their their data lines or its
AT&T or people's gas whomever,
Um, and coordination used to be pretty solid and then
suddenly, it's not been so great. We're reopening streets
over and over and over again. It happened to my War too
often.
um,
When we do invite the utilities to come into that. Right of
way. We've got it open for a water project. Are we still
assessing those utilities the same regular permit fee for
being in that right away doing that work even though we
opened it up.
Or are they kind of getting a freebie going in there
because we've already got it open?
Um,
Typically though when their project comes around like
they're they're not there at the same exact time. So when
they, you know, we try and coordinate them beforehand and
then they would concrete cap their work in advance of the
other utilities. So when they
Are in that when they need that footprint and they need to
request that permit and that opening fee, they're paying a
separate permit fee where they're going to get their bigger
cost savings is. If it's if it's a coordinated project they
won't have to do restoration.
If that makes sense, that's usually where their major cost
savings will come in. Okay. And again, I'll take this
offline. It's not, it's not for today, um, but I think it
would be helpful whether it's through the transportation
committee or or through years Madam chair,
to have a broader discussion about
How we're balancing those costs um, you know, the utility
companies that go in there and do this work. I mean they
make a lot of money off of what they've got down in that,
right away and having been an executive for 1 of those big
utilities. I know exactly how much money AT&T was making
off that infrastructure. And so I want to make sure we're
still charging commensurate fees, even if we've got that
thing, open for a water project, again takes a little bit
of the pressure off of the city and the taxpayer puts it on
the utilities who frankly can can afford it and more
importantly. Um, when you're charging the utility for every
bit of work, they're doing in the right of way, they're
going to be judicious in how often they come, and ask us to
tear it up.
Right? When they know they got to pay for it.
Maybe they don't need to do that project right away which
is disruptive and again can be a waste of tax dollars. So
um Madam chair. That's it for me. But again, um those those
those lists that I've requested through through your office
before the, the council voter important to me and if they
could be distributed to the committee members, I'd
appreciate it. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, Alderman.
Reilly, I want to be responsive to something that you said
regarding the boilerplate language on the con on the um,
whereas Clauses. And on the ordinances, I will see.
Say that Jim McDonald has been uh open to looking at
Antiquated language. In fact, he be moved out of it. Some
language that Alderman Lopez had previously identified and
also language that um the committee on finance, attorney
also has suggested. So I think we could ask the Law
Department to look at the general ordinance to see if
there's other ways to modernize it or tweak it a bit. Um so
I want you to know that I heard that can I get a motion to
approve item? Number 4 so moved by vice mayor brunette,
recommending do pass all those in favor signify by saying I
I all those opposed
Alderman Lopez. You'll be identified as a no, on the due
pass, recommendation. Oh, and Alderman Conway, vice vice
chair Conway. And, and, uh, Alderman, Hopkins also
identified as know, and that will be reported out at the,
uh, next city council meeting where the dup pass
recommendation will be presented.
Item number 5, thank you very much for spending a lot of
time with us today.
Miss Guzman and Mr. Warski
and we're going to move on to item number 5. The Department
of Housing in ordinance, concerning the execution of a tiff
Redevelopment agreement with Oak laravel LLC for the Mixed
income housing development located at 955. North Larrabee
Street in the 27th. Ward this is for an amount not to
exceed $14 million in Tiff and we're joined uh, for this
presentation by Anna Booth. The financial planning analyst
for the Department of Housing,
And we also have representatives from uh the developer grin
Shore Michaels.
How are you? I know this. I saw you sitting back there.
You've been here all through the whole meeting.
Um, can I get uh Alderman Hall has requested remote
participation for reasons stated under the provision of
rule 59.
um,
Alderman Harris has moved that he can attend. This meeting
all those in favor. Signify by saying I oppose and the
opinion of the chair of the eyes, have it Alderman haul.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you.
Testing.
Just pull it closer to.
Thank you, chairwoman dial and members of the committee for
the record. My name is Anna Booth from the Department of
Housing in attendance today. From the development team is
senior vice president of Bren Shore development. Michael
Ron and regional vice president of the Michaels
organization. Greg Olsen from the GC side. We have
President of William a Randolph, construction, Anthony
ricciardi and principal of jll Construction Services Inc.
Jerry Lewis also in attendance is director of development
at Cha Alum, Curry and Cha project manager, shabal Liu.
So, before you today, is the Oak and Larrabee transaction,
which is to be located at 9555 North, Larrabee Street in
the 27th, Wards near North Community area and near North
TIF district. The area is also known as Cabrini and the
alderman is Walter Bernett Junior.
The developer submitted an application in Ida's 2021
funding round for 9% tax credits loan and Grant funds and
the City of Chicago's 2021 qap funding round for Tif
financing.
The action is to request Finance.
Comm the action is to request finance committee to approve
and refer the Oak and Larrabee transaction to city council
for approval to authorize the execution of a tax increment.
Finance, Redevelopment agreement with Oak, Larrabee LLC for
for the use of 14 million in Tiff and to designate Oak
larby, LLC, as developer for the project known as Oak and
Larrabee, as I made mention to be located at 955 North,
Larrabee Street in the near North uh, community area.
The Developers for this proposed. Transaction are Bren Shaw
development, the Michael's or organization and the Cabrini
Green. Local advisory Council Community Development
Corporation for ensure Development, LLC was founded in 1994
by principals, David, Brent, and Rick Shino and to date
brenshire is active in 17 States and currently manages a
portfolio that exceeds 11,000 residential units,
The Michaels organization was founded in 1963. Michael
Levitt is the sole member
Michaels has developed mixed income, mixed use structures
in 39 States, plus Washington DC, and the US Virgin Islands
producing over 58,000 units across 633 communities.
The Cabrini Green Lac, Community. Development Corporation
a not-for-profit entity formed in 2005 to provide housing
and services to the residents of the redeveloped Cabrini
Green area and since its Inception, the Cabrini Green Lac
Community. Development Corporation has partnered with real
estate development, firms and private businesses to assist
residents in obtaining training and employment
opportunities.
The developers formed Oak larby LLC, a single purpose
entity for the benefit of this transaction.
The architect is Papa George Haynes. A firm formed in 1981
by principals George Papa George and David Haynes whose
Services include everything from architecture to zoning
analysis and a portfolio. Inclusive of housing retail,
restaurants office and educational buildings. The GC will
be a joint venture between William a Randolph and jll,
Construction Services Inc,
William a r Randolph was founded in 1958 by Mr. Randolph,
who retired in 1991 and sold the company to Anthony
ricciardi, senior,
Mr. Ricciardi passed away in January of 2020 and the
company is now owned by Anthony ricciardi, Junior, Eric
Hanley, Jennifer V vigili and Julie Halprin. There are
approximately 35 employees at the gernie, Illinois office
and William. A Randolph is known for his commercial
construction. Some of the developments they've completed
have been office, institutional Hospitality retail and
Healthcare facilities. Additionally, they have partnered
with jll Construction Services, Inc, to complete a couple
of CVS locations, a Walmart, Super Center Raven, apartments
and 2 hotels freehand. And Sophie. All of these
developments are located in the city of Chicago on the
South Side West Side in River, North areas.
JL construction is an MBE firm formed in 2008. That is a
specialty. Contractor specializing in 11 trades and
services that includes, but is not limited to project
management and coordination. Scaffolding demolition,
concrete and earthwork jll has worked on several projects
in the Cabrini area, the first 3 phases of Parkside of
Oldtown.
And the Marshall Field Garden Apartments to name a few, the
construction and permanent lenders are CIBC and idle.
Respectfully and syndicators are Hudson. Housing
Corporation for the 9% low-income housing tax credits and
clock tower for the donation tax credits.
Property manager will be Michael's management affordable.
And the development team's attorney is Applegate and Dorne
Thompson.
So, Oaken layer, B is a cha plan for transaction, that will
consist of the new construction of a single 7-story.
Elevator building that will house 78, mixed income, rental
units 54 of which will rent to Cha and afordable households
at the 30%, up to 80% area median, income levels and the
remaining 24 rent to market rate. Households unit sizes,
will range from Studios up to 3 bedrooms with square
footages ranging between, 448 to 514 for Studios 747.
7 to 892 for 1 bedrooms 1,000 to 100342 for 2 bedrooms and
1,513 to 10650 for 3. Bedroom units.
Other amenities will include indoor and outdoor Community
tenant spaces on the first and second floors, a fitness,
center 39, indoor, parking spaces, and 45 indoor bicycle
spaces.
Further breakdown of the units show that 12 will rent to
households at the 30% area, median, income level 29 at the
60% area median, income level and 13 at the 80% and Below
area, median, income. Level, there will be a total of 10
Studios, 271 352, and 633 bedroom units, the average area
median income for the near North Community area. Is 114,790
HUD sets, income and monthly rent limits on an annual basis
and income limits are normally updated. In April. Rent.
Limits are normally updated in June income. Limits are for
the Chicago Naperville and Juliet, HUD Metropolitan, fair
market, rent areas, and a portable rents paid by the tenant
is based on the tenants income and not on Market,
comparables.
The maximum rent for each to find affordable income level is
published and listed. According to the building
construction, type number of bedrooms and household size.
Rent per square. Foot is not considered except that HUD
housing, quality standards, and Chicago zoning, and
building codes set minimum room and unit sizes.
Different Federal funding development and operating support
sources. May have different maximum income and rent
restrictions
The cha tenants will only pay 30% of their income towards
rent and the cha subsidies will cover the difference.
Total development cost for this transaction are
approximately 52.9 million and the city will provide 14
million in Tif funds which accounts for 26% of total
development costs.
cha is to provide approximately, 10.9 million in loan
funds, accounting, for 21% of total development costs and
Ida will provide the 1.5 million and 9,000 low-income
housing tax credits, which will raise Equity of 13.5
million for the benefit of the transaction. Additionally
Idol will provide the permanent first, lender funds of
6,270,000 and 2.3 million in Grant funds both Ida and the
city will provide Illinois, affordable, housing tax,
Tax credits also known as donation tax credits. The tax
credits are discounted to 50% of the donated value. And in
this transaction, the cha land is viewed as the donation
and 50% of the land value which is 2.1 million will be sold
to generate 1,935,900 of equity for the benefit of the
project.
Other sources will consist of
Deferred developer fee and general partner Equity of 100
dollars required for the use of the tax credits and then on
the call side of the cost 73%, are comprised of hard
construction costs.
As mentioned, this transaction will be located in the near
North Community area and will sit on the Southeast corner
of Oak and larby streets. Oak is the East West Street and
Larrabee is the north north south street. All the land is
vacant cha land and Cha will enter into a long-term ground.
Lease with the developer at closing, this development will
be located between 2 main thorough fairs Division Street is
is to the north. And Chicago Avenue is to the South. It is
also an ETI neighborhood with Transportation available, to
the east west, north and south, and many amenities within a
half mile radius of the proposed site. There are divvy
bike, rental stations at Division and Larrabee Oak and
Larrabee and
South on Larry, where West Kingsbury Street, fees into
Larrabee Street. There are also dedicated bike Lanes on
Division Street, north of the site on Clybourn Avenue, West
of the site on Hollister Street and East of the site on
Orleans Street.
So the next couple of slides are renderings of the proposed
building this 1 that you see here. Uh they are standing on
the northwest side of Larrabee looking Southeast so you get
the opportunity to see both Oak and layer B Streets.
And then this rendering is looking from a western uh angle
looking East. And you can see the main entrance will be
located on Larrabee Street out here at the
bottom left corner.
public benefits are that 37 of the 54 affordable units will
rent to Cha public. Housing households, 10 affordable units
will rent to households at the 30% and 60% area median
levels. And 7 of the units will be non- tax credit work for
each units. The workforce units are critical to these mixed
income developments as they help to house, tenants and
households, whose incomes may be too much to qualify for an
affordable or Tax Credit Unit, but not quite high enough
for a market rate unit. So they fall into that Deadpool and
we catch them with the workforce units.
The 37 cha public housing units will be converted to rental
assistance. Demonstration better known as rad units. Post
closing this conversion allows the cha units in mixed
Finance developments to convert to a long-term Section 8
contract under rad after construction completion.
Conversion to rad ensures the Section. 8 platforms. Provide
long-term stable rental assistance to the development, as
well as ensure long-term affordability for residents since
the tenants.
Will continue to pay only 30% of their income towards rent
and the Section 8, assistance will cover the difference.
Other benefits are on the construction side. There will be
that joint venture between William a Randolph and JL,
Construction Services Inc, approximately 100 temporary
construction, jobs will be provided and 2, and a half
full-time. Jobs will also be provided Oak and larby will
receive Enterprise Green community certification.
Alderman, Bernett supports the development and has provided
support letters. The most recent 1 was provided about a
week and a half ago.
So to refresh the requested action is to request finance
committee to approve and refer the Oak, and Larry
transactions to city council for approval to authorize the
execution of a tiff. Redevelopment agreement with Oak
larby, LLC for the use of 14 million in Tiff and to
designate Oak larby, LLC, as developer for the project
known as Oak and Larrabee to be located at 9555 North,
Larrabee Street in the near North Community area. Again,
there are members of the development team and attendance as
well as cha staff to answer any questions. You may have. I
thank you for your time at this at this point.
Thank you, Miss Booth. Um,
I know I've said this to you before, but I'm going to say
it again again, publicly I enjoy when you give a
presentation because you are so thorough. Um, and uh,
Interesting.
Thank you. So I will open it up for questions and have vice
mayor brunette. Uh, close.
Vice, mayor. Bernette. Thank. Thank you very much. Uh, first
of all, I want to thank Anna. Uh, she's sharp, you know,
she comes from Cabrini Green area. Oh, she does. Yeah, she
does that explains it, that explains it. But, uh, um, I
want to thank the department of planning also, um, the
the state, uh, all of the other funding, um, bodies that's
involved with this. Um, in order to crazy thing is,
A growing up over here. I used to run through that lot when
when I was 5 years old to get caps from my cap gun, I was 5
years old. My mama whooped me because I took my milk money
to go buy some caps, right? And, uh, that lot has been
baking.
For over 50 years. So it's refreshing to see a beautiful
building going up there. That's going to be mixing, come
and it's going to allow folks who lived in the area who may
have had to move over almost over 25 years ago to be able
to come back, uh, to the community. But also move into a
building. That's going to have amenities. I'm also happy to
see that, uh, they're in partnership with the, uh, Lac CDC,
which is residents from the community are going to have a
stake in this development, which is uh, give them. Uh you
know when they have a stake in the development they they
appreciate
It more and they take care of it more. So I'm I'm also happy
to see that um,
That, um, the uh, general contractor's partner with
African-American contractor who grew up in our Ward and,
um, I'm just in full support of this. I thank everyone
that's been involved. Uh, and I ask for everyone's support
on this. Thank you. Thank you. Vice mayor. Uh, Alderman,
Rodriguez's hand went up after you started speaking. So
Alderman, Rodriguez, oh I'm so, so sorry. Um, Alderman, I
just think this is a great project. Congratulations really
quick question, just in, in relation to the right to return
residents. Could someone just speak to that a little bit
more? I'm just really curious 25 years by the way while you
do it again, showing people that this type of stuff can
happen in booming areas and it should happen in those areas
as well.
Is uh, maybe alarm Corey.
Hear me.
Good afternoon, everyone. Alum. Corey director of
development with the Chicago Housing Authority. Um, so the
right of return families for Cabrini is actually down to
only 88 families and those are families who were originally
living at Cabrini as well as cha families who chose Cabrini
as their first second and third um, option to return to
redevelop sites.
Does that answer your question?
Thank you. Okay, thank you. Um,
motion made by Alderman. Ervin, recommending dup pass.
All those in favor. Signify by saying I
Post and the opinion of the chair of the eyes have it and
this motion will be reported out at the next city council
meeting. Thank you, miss boo very good.
Item number 6 from the Department of Housing and substitute
ordinance. Authorizing the issue in of City Loan and other
financial assistance to hpumc Redevelopment limited
partnership for the housing project located. At 2120
through 28 North Mozart in the First Ward.
with us today, we have
Miss Missy show, uh, to give this presentation. Thank you.
Good afternoon, chair Dow, and members of the committee for
the record. My name is. Excuse me, hold on. We have a
substitute ordinance, that was prepared and sent
electronically to everyone Alderman. Li moves that we
accept the substitute, all those in favor. Signify by
saying, I
Opposed.
and the opinion of the chair of the eyes have it and we
have the substitute before us and Miss Shin from the
Department of Housing will give the presentation
Thank you, good afternoon, chair, Dao, and members of the
committee for the record. My name is Isaiah financial
planning analyst from Department of Housing and presenting
the Redevelopment of the HMO Park. United Methodist church,
located at 2120 through 28, North moza Street in the Logan
Square community area. The project is supported by the
first world element, Daniel laspada.
the request for the city council is to approve the
execution of the substitute ordinance for the full
financing of the project. The issuance of Doh multi-family
program funds, including grants from Chicago, recovery plan
and a loan from Doh soft funds. The issuance of tax exempt,
bonds and Illinois donation tax credits for the benefit of
the developer to finance, the acquisition and construction
of the project.
The subject property is located at the southwestern corner
of North mo Street and West Shakespeare Avenue. The
majority of the subject property encompasses, approximately
8,300 Square ft and is developed with an irregular shaped,
partial 3 story, mixed use structure.
the southern portion of the building is being utilized as
the Humble Park, United Methodist Church, the Central, and
the northern portion of subject building contains 12
residential units and several community and storage rooms.
Hpumc Redevelopment. Limited partnership will be the owner
Latin United Community Housing Association AKA Lucha will
be the lead developer project manager and the Soul member
of the general partner. The architect is canopy
architecture, plus design. The GC selected is a joint
venture composed of green construction, and the total
construction beimo bank is the lender of the construction
mortgage. And MEF assignment Corporation is the investor
partner of the project.
The purpose of the project is to acquire and rehabilitate
the existing church building along with its attached
apartment building. The church is its identified in both
the Chicago historic resources survey and the Illinois
historic and Architectural resources. Geographic
information system construction will include a substantial
rehab of the existing 12 unit residents and the Adaptive
reuse of the church structural space to create an
additional Apartments.
The owner of the property is now Lucha SP Holdings, LLC a
holy home, have subsidiary of Lucha and it will be sold to
the owner entity
The existing external structure of the sanctuary space will
be preserved. And in order to adapt the sanctuary into
Apartments will require the creation of a floor structure
to support the second floor of apartments.
The unit makes include 8 Studios 8 1 bedroom units, 3 2
bedrooms and 3 3-bedroom units units. Will serve low-income
families and individuals from 15% through 50% Ami.
5 units, set aside to serve individuals who qualify for
permanent Supportive Housing units.
These are individuals experiencing or at risk of
homelessness with a disability. The other 17 units will be
open to the General Public.
The development will be financed with various sources from
City of Chicago with tax exempt. Housing revenue bonds
being issued to raise approximately 7.6 million equity for
the benefit of the transaction 2 trenches of Grants from
Chicago, recovery plan for permanent Supportive Housing,
and the decarbonization purposes as a total of
approximately 2.6 million dollars.
Approximately 4.7 million loan from Department of Housing
multi family program funds.
As well as Illinois's donation tax credits to generate
141,000 equity.
other funding sources, will consist of a grant from hard
Community Project funding a grant from fhlb affordable
housing programs, a grant from state of Illinois a grant
from Comet or GP equity, and the defer, the last developer
fee,
the total development cost will be around 20 million, which
10% of the cost attributed to the land acquisition of the
existing building
67% of the total cost will be attributed to the hard cost
and contingency and the rest. 23% for soft cost and
developer fee.
The development of the church WIll rehab existing 12 unit
residents and create 10, new affordable housing units to
the community expected to create over 100 temporary
construction jobs and 1 permanent job. The developer will
comply with the requirements of Chicago's affirmative
action ordinance and the city residents ordinance.
That concludes my presentation, thank you for your
consideration. I'm joined today by Lincoln standard Lillian
pay and Alex.
Uh countering from Lucha and Andrew gear. The principal of
blue Eddie Community advisors we're glad to answer any
questions you may have today
Are there any questions for members of the committee?
Aldwin Riley.
Thank you, madam chair, close almond.
Um,
So, we have a total project cost of just north of 20
million.
Uh, how much is the developer putting into this project?
How much is the?
The developer partner.
Developer fee. You mean know how much is the developer
paying to fund this project?
Before 2.
Developer team, Lincoln standard.
Hello. Chairman, Dow and the members of the committee for
the record. My name is Lincoln standard
I'm the co-executive director of Lucha name again, I'm
sorry. Linkin standard. Okay, thank you. Uh, co-executive
director of Lucha, thank you for your consideration of this
project. This morning to respond to the question about
developer contribution.
In the process of uh, raising support for this project. Uh
Lucha has obtained grant funding from the state and the
federal government uh from our Representatives showing
broad community support for this project. Those are some of
the resources that we are bringing to the table. In
addition, we're committing to deferring developer fee to
close Gap in the project. Uh, and then obviously there's
there's a great deal of tax credit AC.
Those are typically the ways that Equity from a developer in
a a nonprofit developer in particular in an affordable
housing. Transaction, enter the deal.
Okay. And so the 1
Point 1, 130 developer fee will not be collected then.
So a portion of that will will be deferred uh and recouped
through operations of the of the project down the road.
So you're not receiving any developer fee for this project.
That's not correct. Uh,
As part of any for like any housing transaction, um, our
costs are recouped in the form of developer fee. We we do
intend to, to take that. We've been investing time effort,
resources into this project for
About 7 years or so. We're really excited to bring it to
the table. And those are those are what how a nonprofit
like Lucha, that's how our operations are supported and how
we're able to uh carry out affordable housing development
into the future.
And when this project is, uh, completed and delivered.
Uh, who will control the asset.
And we will be the the sole owner. We will maintain it as
affordable housing. I do want to mention that in Lucha's
history.
We've uh developed owned managed 198 units of affordable
housing uh since about 1988 when our mission began and we
we acquired our first building through that time. Period.
100% of our units are still affordable. We've not sold any
of our buildings. We've found a way to keep them all, uh,
thriving to keep the most serving the families of the
neighborhood, and carrying out the mission.
okay and again I'm not I'm not picking on you I I just when
I look at a 9115 thousand dollar per unit cost I'm sure
this is an excellent project and I have faith that almond
lpat has been responsible and shepherding this through the
through the process. However, um, every time we get an
affordable project in front of this committee, it seems
like that per unit cost goes up and up and up. And unless
that kitchen is gold-plated. Um I'm not understanding why
we're getting crushed by these costs. That's why I asked
about developer fees typically that's 1 of the culprits.
And in this case I don't see that being a big chunk of the
the issue here.
um,
but this is frustrating because we see folks delivering
Market, uh, rate units for a fraction of that cost. And why
is it when we're trying to develop deliver affordable
housing for the public good, we're getting soaked. I mean,
this is insanity. Um, how can the city better control these
costs? And I'm not blaming Lucha or any of the folks that
execute these projects, right? That number is nearly
indefensible. I mean, it's not
um,
we're going to let Miss Shen start the answer and I know
all of them in the spot and I briefly discussed this
because we knew this question was going to come up. So he
will also have a response Mission. Yeah. Uh the first
reason is the acquisition of the existing Church costing
dollars. Um and also this project is a smaller scale 1 only
providing 22 units.
Uh compared to other large project uh projects. So the unit
unit per unit cost is higher, as well as the church
building is a historic building, uh, both in Chicago and in
state of Illinois, uh, information system. So we experience
longer and um, in environmental review and it also cost
raise the cost.
Of the spa. Do you want to add to that?
I would be very glad to hear. So let's dig into that
because it's absolutely a problem. And I think in a lot of
ways, that's why commissioner castagnait is now at the helm
of this department and
Do you do you mind, if I address your question in, in your
mic time? No, please do. Because I I would say the first
word is no, stranger to these Church to residential
conversions. In fact, the church that I got married in 11
years ago, is now a luxury apartment building on Logan
Boulevard.
That project and another 1, that's being proposed in the
ward. I will fully admit have lower per unit costs than the
1 that is in front of us and
none of the to me none of the blame for the high per unit
costs. Here can be leveled at Lucha we've ever set our
community meeting on this. Oh and I think we were 2 3
months in to the co pandemic. We passed the zoning change
for this before. Vaccines were available. That gives you a
sense of how far back this goes talking about the hard
costs on this 2 reasons why we have these higher costs is
number 1. We do not require market rate developers to pay
prevailing wages or use union workers. This project is 100%
Union
Would it be cheaper if they weren't paying prevailing wages
for sure? But that's not the kind of development. We're
looking to bring forward here.
Part of the blame for the hard costs. Here is also
responsible to the way the I'm just gonna take some shots
here and because they're honest ones the way, the state
historic preservation office
Treats a property like this. This is not a Landmark
property, but the state has treated it, like it would be a
Landmark property. The levels of a view that they bring in
only come into account again, not if it's a market rate
development, but if they're receiving state or federal
funding,
state or federal funding, both of which is the case here
that also delayed this project moving forward which
increases the costs
The Department of Housing.
even if you're talking about an Adaptive reuse project,
Essentially asks things to be designed to the level of new
construction. Anyone who has gone into a building that is
more than 100 years old. Probably knows what the floors
are. Like in that building.
and I think we as a city and the Department of Housing in
particular
Needs to figure out how to provide.
For safe and useful affordable housing.
that also,
Creates Fair leniency, sometimes in building standards
because we have put Lucha over the barrel when it comes to
designing and redesigning and redesigning this project in
terms of the soft costs.
They were asked to go forward with the least competitive
funding source that the city makes available which is 4%
tax credits. Exempt bonds,
It generates less Equity it is just as costly to use for
the developer. It's less costly for us to hand out as the
city.
So this adds to the cost if, if the city at some point had
said we want to put in more direct funding. We know that
that would have taken tens of thousands per unit off of the
cost of this development.
This is the reality that we find ourselves in and like to
be factual y'all, if we don't use these 4% tax credits,
these tax exempt bonds.
We just see that authority to Ida. We do it every year. So
like there's actually very little cost for us as Council in
funding this project.
For the developer fee. Any number over 6, digits is a high
number. I understand that. But for the 5 years that they
have already put into this project, I feel like it is fair
to be compensated for 5 years of work. When there's still
another year of work ahead towards getting this building,
put together, I'll and I'm not even leading leaving in like
the decarbonization piece in here. This is going to, this
is only the second multi-family affordable project in the
city's decarbonization pilot.
both the residents of this building and also Lucha are going
to benefit greatly from the decreased energy costs that
residents are facing uh, as a result of our investment
here.
That that is all of the defense that I would put in for why
we see these per unit costs. And also, and maybe this is a
conversation for chairman Co Lopez, and I down the road to
think about, critically with nonprofit developers, what can
the city be doing to lower these per unit development
costs, but thank you, I'll come back to you to close.
Optimum Riley. Oh, you have a point of clarification. Yes.
Thank you. Chairman I I don't need a round of questions
after just for the point of clarification, it's something
that struck me, is, we look at the per unit cost, but we're
not looking at the per unit cost for the city. Meaning
there's state and federal funds that are all being included
in that cost.
I guess my my question was how much is the city putting in?
And maybe that's a better way for us to look at it when
we're doing the presentations, that's all
Thank you, Alderman. Reilly
um, thank you chair and I'm I'll wrap it up. Um, I I
appreciate uh the detailed explanation from Alderman
laspada um and I understand where these costs are coming
from now. But again, I think as we're trying to and it's
it's an important priority. Um delivering more affordable
units throughout the city.
Perhaps we need to take a tougher look at at the criteria,
we're using to select sites. Um, if we're going to be
taking obsolete Church structures that are protected under
historic preservation at the state level. We know there's
going to be a lot of costs baked into that, on top of what
you'd have to do to deliver a more dense development under
new construction. And so again, um you know Tolman
vasquez's point we we should have a breakdown of what the
city's paying versus others at the end of the day.
Almost the entire project is being paid for either with
federal state or local or a combination of the 3. Those are
tax dollars. We're all paying those taxes to the feds the
state and local. Um, and so, no matter which set of taxes,
you care about more 915,000 per unit is inexcusable. Um,
and I would say that, um, when we talk about some of the
market rate, stuff being, um, delivered, let's not blame
our friends, as an organized labor for these costs Ottawa
and DOW yourself and my enemy and others here in the
central business district, most of our big projects are uh
covered by project labor agreements. Um nearly every
project delivered in my ward is done with union labor. Um
yet they're delivering units for nearly half the costs that
this project would. So let's not put this on organized
labor. Well, a lot of them are not adding affordable
housing in their deals. So that's
Fine. But that's not organized. Labor's job. Their job is to
deliver the product, which they do expertly. Um, we can put
more pressure on developers. But again, um, affordable
units, an affordable unit looks just like a market rate
unit.
But the fact that the affordable unit costs twice as much
is not because we're using union labor. So we need to do a
deeper dive on this. I understand that a can be
frustrating. I've dealt with them too.
Um, but we need to, we need to ratchet these down and let's
not just blame it on 1 group or another. This is
inexcusable. I'm going to support the projects. We need
affordable units, but this is something we need to work on.
Thank you. Thank you, chair, Alderman, seicho Lopez, and
then Alderman, Lee.
Thank you. Uh, thank you chairwoman and just uh um just to
to add with some of the comments and all the spot. I mean,
certainly in insights like this is, is, is complex to find
a good fit. Um, I think that the fact that we in, in places
of worship are able to find an affordable housing, is
extremely difficult to do. I'm glad that there's a fee, is
a wide range of, uh, funding that is being discussed. For
this particular project is not only the city, but I agree.
I think that we, um, we will got to look and I take on
Alderman, Lepa in the housing committee on ways that we can
reduce the costs. Um, and, and, and it's not only on labor
but we know a number of things when we want to preserve,
um, the historic, uh, facade and also my
Maintain the I use that is amicable for the community. I for
1, I have a few of those sites and and it takes time, I
mean, I commend them for finding a, a solution and I take
on that effort on that challenge to work in the housing
committee on reducing cost and finding a way uh to follow
to find a balance between historic preservation,
affordability and a good use is extremely complex. And not
many of our colleagues have that and I take on that, I am
happy to support this project. I look forward to working
with my colleagues here, and in the housing committee on
ways that we can reduce costs. I think that this is, um,
um, um, this is a challenge for all of us and I commend for
finding a use on this in, in a tough situation in the city,
um, like my commitment to finding ways to reduce the cost
as it looks in. In this spreadsheet, we will commit to help
and ways to do that. Thank you.
Alderman. Lee.
Thank you chair. Um,
I uh I agree with a lot of the sentiment that's already
been shared today. Um seeing a 914,000 dollar per unit cost
cost is it's really hard to choke down. Um, and if we look
at just what the city's paying the the city's portion of
that, I think totals 17,576,823. Um, just for everybody's
edification that's 798,946 per unit um, question for you.
And this is just part of my ignorance on this.
Um, the ordinances under no number 2, issue up to 10 million
dollars in tax exempt bonds which will generate 7 million
uh, 633,189 of equity. So we'd be issuing bonds. Um taking
out debt. Then in order to get 7.6 million in equity, is
that right, right?
Okay, so
I just don't understand tax exempt, bonds and how they
work. I mean, so when I hear bond, that means we're, we're
taking out some sort of debt. Are we paying interest on
that debt?
I'm just trying to get to how us taking out 10 million
dollars in debt, only creates.
7.6 million dollars in equity.
So that's Equity is generated uh, in from the syndication
of 4% low income.
Uh housing tax credits and it's not 1 dollar credit for 1
dollar Equity. There's a discount
So, it's a it's discount and I'm I'm not trying to be
difficult.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for the record. Again, my name is Jim McDonald.
I'm the managing Deputy Corporation Council for
transactions in the Law Department.
These bonds are not uh the same kind of bonds as we just
discussed with the general obligation bonds.
The shorthand name for these bonds that we often use, is
Conduit bonds.
so, this is essentially
Thinly, disguised bank loan.
Where the city issues the bonds to the bond holder.
we take the bond proceeds, the cash we lend that in this
case, to Lucha,
We promise the bond holder.
If Lucha pays us back on the loan, we made to Lucha Bond
holder. You get paid back.
If Lucha does not pay us back.
On holder, you cannot come to the city and ask for
repayment.
This is not a debt of the city, this Bond.
It will not show up in our annual financial statements.
As a debt of the city.
it is a
Mortgage, it is a revenue Bond, that's only payable from
those sources that are pledged.
For the repayment of that Bond, the city's full faith and
credit the city's property taxes. And other taxes are not
pledged to repay these bonds.
We issue these ponds from time to time for projects like
this?
Why do we do this? It gives 2 benefits.
Besides a 4 week. We we we demand and the tax law requires
that this is for affordable housing.
So we get affordable housing out of it.
The interest rate on this Bond.
For Lucha's benefit is lower than if they simply went to
the bank and borrowed.
Because the bond is a tax exempt Bond. We will ensure Lucha
will ensure that it jumps through all the Hoops under the
Internal Revenue code.
so that the bond will qualify as a tax exempt Bond, and we
will have them promise US that when we issue the bond,
that will give them a lower interest rate than they would
if they just went and borrowed because if you offer your
lender tax-free money that you will that they don't have to
pay income tax on the interest payments. They get
they will demand a lower interest rate than if they had to
pay income tax on the interest payments. You are giving
them
The other thing is Miss Shin mentioned is the federal tax
law allows the project to automatically get a 4% low-income
housing tax credit.
Not the 9% credit, which we get a limited amount every year
to allocate.
The 4% credit does not require an allocation it
automatically attaches to that building. So Lucha as they
mentioned earlier, can take that 4% tax credit and sell it
to a syndicator at which will bring in equity. That's the
amount of the equity that Michigan was referring to the
equity, that's derived from that 4% tax credit.
It's very complicated. These deals are very complicated to
put through. We are cobbling together. Lots of different
funding sources to make them work.
And it's not the system. You would design if you were
designing a system from scratch.
But it's the system we have. Okay? Thank you, Jim. It's a
little bit like money.
The, the the, the low income housing tax credit Equity,
piece of it. We're we're not actually, the city is not
providing re we're not providing 7 million dollars for
that.
Okay.
That helps me a lot. That's all that, that that really
inflates the price if you okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
Thank you very much chair again. Like, I I appreciate a
spirited conversation around how affordable housing gets
built and really to think critically about the steps, the
city, the state, and the federal government can be doing
over the next year, even to bring down those costs in this
moment, though, in the reality that we have,
to have a case where a church building rather than being
torn down is being developed as a 100% affordable, deeply
affordable low to zero emission housing that is within 2
blocks of the CTA. That there's something powerful in that
they're really upends. The Narrative Narrative of what
housing is looked like in Logan Square for a long time. Um,
with that said, I I would move due pass on this item. Okay,
motion made by Alderman laspada. Recommending do pass all
those in favor signify by saying I opposed and the opinion
of the chair, the eyes have it. And the do pass,
recommendation will be reported out at the next city
council meeting. Item number 7 is an ordinance concerning
the Redevelopment agreement with and issuance of tax
increment, financing funds to Franciscan Outreach for the
acquisition and Rehabilitation,
Of the property located at 258 through 2538 West, 21st,
Street and amendment. Number 4 to the Western agna tax
increment, Redevelopment area.
Project and plan in the 25th, Ward.
We have with us uh Meredith mure.
from the Department of Housing, who will give the
presentation,
good afternoon. Uh, thank you chair dowel and committee
members. I'm happy to be here today to present on The
Franciscan Outreach. Non- congregate shelter project, uh,
which is seeking, uh, Tif funds to support the project
today. We have with us uh the team from Franciscan
Outreach, including Robert Simpson, the executive director.
Uh, Jim Kramer their board chair.
Jason Brown, their owners representative and Liz Butler
their Council from Taft?
Yes, can you hear me?
Great, I'll speak up. Um, so the project at hand is 25508
through 2538 West 21st Street. This is a building in the
Western and Ogden Redevelopment area in the South London
community area and the 25th. Ward
Uh we are seeking funding and a tiff request from the
Western Ogden TIF district.
Uh, and we are seeking the use of up to 15 million dollars
in Tif funds uh, for this project and to designate
Franciscan Outreach as a developer for the project known as
Franciscan Outreach, non- congregate shelter to be located
at 258 to 2538, West 21st Street in the South Londale
community area.
the proposed project is the Adaptive reuse of a vacant
formal, former industrial building to establish, 84
non-congregate, shelter, beds, 36 Flex congregate, beds,
and space for on-site Community, uh, community space and
supportive services for residents experiencing
homelessness.
Units. In the non-congregate portion of the building will
be dormatory style units with a mix of 1 to 4 beds in each
unit that share uh restroom facilities. Each bed will be in
a private sleeping room and each unit will have shared
bathrooms among those in those sleeping rooms.
the congregate portion of the building will consist of 2,
18 bed spaces with shared bathrooms, that will allow
Franciscan Outreach to accept walk-ups for shelter and to
flex up. Their capacity in cases of extreme weather or
other emergency need for shelter.
The property in question is a series of 4 buildings that are
connected um the largest being the farthest east building
that will serve as the non-congregate shelter portion of
the facility. The center portion portion buildings being
the intake space and congregate area and the Far West
the Far West portion of the building serving as uh space
for uh other Supportive Services, and partners to come on
site and provide care to residents.
The neighborhood context is on the screen this uh building
uh is uh on 2 sides, surrounded by railroad tracks. Um, is
directly behind um
Uh, grocery store and other. Um, amenities um, and is close
to the pink line on several stops.
the building, you can see the series of 4 buildings in the
bottom image on the top, you see the largest portion of the
building to the, to the east, as I mentioned, the building
has been primarily vacant for a number of years, just 1
small portion on the Far. West End is least um, to a, a
film company.
And that leases ending.
The interior of the building is primarily um empty space and
the goal of the project um is to take the empty space and
create the non-congregate shelter units and the 2-story
portion of the building and then the Supportive Services
case, management, and community space, previously mentioned
in the other portions of the building,
Sources and uses are on the screen. Uh, Franciscan Outreach
is bringing their own Equity along with. Um uh private loan
loan to the project. The city is providing tax exempt bonds
through our Chicago recovery plan funds for non-congregate
shelter and we are seeking to leverage, Tif funds to
support the project to be able to do this total interior
rehab of the existing building, um, for the total
development cost we just over 25 million dollars.
the breakdown of those costs is um, about 12% of cost,
going towards the acquisition of the property. Almost 80%
of costs, going towards hard costs and contingency and the
remaining uh 10% of the project going towards soft costs.
The timeline for this project is that we're seeking Council
approval, uh, in uh, this month.
We're aiming for the redevelopments agreement to be
executed in March if possible with construction to start
and construction to take just about 12 months looking for
completion um in q1 or Q2 of 2026.
The development team. Uh, Franciscan Outreach is uh, the
proposed developer owner. They were selected through, Do's,
non- congregate, shelter acquisition program RFP. Um, as a
finalist for this program, they have partnered with lbba as
architect um and Walsh as general contractor with a loan
from if
Eagle capital projects is serving as their owner's rep to
support them in the construction work.
Franciscan Outreach will manage the property as the shelter
provider, upon completion and Taps and Hollister is the
attorney representing them.
Public benefits for this project are broad. We are uh
seeking to rehabilitate and under underutilized and
majority vacant building to establish much-needed shelter
in Chicago. Um, including the majority of that being non
congregate shelter. Uh, this will include Client Services
Community State space. Um, and other amenities, uh, to
serve people who are experiencing homelessness,
Um, the building will achieve 50 points on the
sustainability Matrix per dpd requirements.
Um, and this will establish uh will it will retain 12.5.
12.5 full-time jobs, uh, for Franciscan Outreach, and
create an additional 15 full-time jobs, as well as uh, 40,
uh, estimated temporary construction, jobs during the
construction period.
uh to and to in conclusion uh we are looking for your
authorization to execute the uh tax increment, financing
Redevelopment agreement, with Franciscan Outreach for the
use of 15 million dollars in tiffs in Tiff, which was
approved at tick in, uh,
July of this past year and we're looking to designate
Franciscan Outreach as the developer for the project known,
as Franciscan Outreach, non- congregate shelter to be
located at 258 through 2538, West 21st Street. We are happy
to answer any questions. I am happy to answer any questions
along with the team here and I'll also mention that Kim
Howard. From the Department of Family and support services,
who fund the ongoing operation for the shelter is here. Um,
who can help answer questions as well? Thank you. Thank
you. Miss mure, uh, Alderman Vasquez. Yes, thank you very
much. Um, thank you all for the presentation. Um,
As somebody who's looking to do 1 of the non congregate
shelters in the 40th Ward. Clearly I'm invested in the
program doing. Well, it's great to see this happening and
to service money folks.
Um,
who's operating the the actual non-congregate shelter
wanted to Acquired and built?
Franciscan Outreach is both the shelter operator and the
owner that is how we structure the RFP for this program and
then how are they being paid to be able to operate?
They're uh can you want to answer that?
Sure. Uh Kimberly Howard. I'm a director with the homeless
services division at the Department of Family and support
services. Um can you
Speak up and go slowly for the court reporting. Absolutely.
Uh Kimberly Howard. I'm a director with the homeless
services division at the Department of Family and support
services. Um, Franciscan is currently a delegate of the
Department of Family and support services for shelter
operations. Uh, we currently fund them for several shelter
programs at roughly 4 million annually.
And so that's 4 million for the number of shelters. How
much would it be, I guess for this particular 1?
So we are actually issuing an RFP uh this year as part of
the cdga process. So we will be selecting programs for
operations, beginning, January 1st, uh, 2026 through this
year's RFP, um, currently, uh, for the annex program, which
will be sort of moving into this new facility, uh, they're
funded at a 29 per bed rate, uh, for 70 beds, uh, since we
anticipate, you know, they will be expanding bed capacity.
That's something we'll be looking at, um, in this RFP,
okay? And then that's
What's the length of time? That would that would go on the
reason why I'm asking just because I'm I'm doing a whole
lot of context. Here is when we're looking at these
departments, uh, we're looking at the federal government
potentially gutting, different departments. Those of us who
have non- congregate shelters, want to make sure that the
funds are there to operate these in future years. And so
wanted to know how to what the commitment is on that where
we can confirm that to know that the money is there and
isn't going to get gutted later.
Yeah, absolutely. So dfss will award funds in line with the
overall sort of OBM timeline, um, for cdga which will be a
3-year contracts with the option for um, 2, 1 year
extensions. Okay. Yeah. I threw the chair dfss can then
follow up with similar kind of like funding tracks, where
it's coming from. How long for all of the non-congregate
shelters that are part of the program. I'd be greatly
invested in having that information.
Thank you very much. You do the chair request. So like
I'm on my game today. You know what I mean? Sorry.
Uh, okay Alderman. OSHA
Thank you, chairman.
Uh, I just like to, uh,
speak a little bit about Franciscan Outreach. Uh,
The work they've done in marginalized communities,
providing critical services.
Food and shelter.
Uh they're a Beacon of Hope in communities. Um, I myself uh
uh, don't serve a community that has that need. Um, but I
know the communities, they go into and I know the people
that operate Franciscan Outreach
um,
wouldn't it be great if we had more organizations like
them? Providing this important work? Uh, this is really
exciting to me and and
Really, appreciate their work and and this is something we
should all really, really get behind.
Thank you Alderman. Noah
Alderman, seicho Lopez to close. I'm sorry, Alderman.
Ervin.
Thank you. I I just wanted to uh thank all the teacher
Lopez Francis and the current location is actually in the
28th for, uh, the slightly. I thought the new location was
actually going to. It was also on my water. It's about 50
feet, outside of the war. And I'm a grateful that all
receipts are Lopez is graciously. Allowed them to move into
that area over on 20.
What is that 19th Street or 21st 21st Street? Uh, and again
uh, the Tif and everything, uh, primarily is coming from
us. But again, just want to thank almond Lopez for uh
taking the man. Thank you.
Alderman Lee. How many thank you chair? How many units? Um,
or how many beds for a shelter? We count by beds and it's
120 beds, 80, that's all. I want to congregate 366.
Alderman, sichel Lopez, thank you chairwoman. And um, I want
to thank the department Meridian and the team as well as
as Francisco Outreach, uh, for working with our team and
the community engagement process, that was quite lengthy.
So appreciate the the um, the patients and collaboration
uh, to make sure that we have this, uh, important service
in the community, the transitional housing. Um, we hope
that serves as a, as an example, perhaps where other areas,
um, that, um, truly can partner with the Department in, in
a time where we need to to have more housing options, I
want to also thank both Alderman and, uh, Irving as well as
other women Scott both, who also uh, supported with letters
of support, the use of Tiff for these important. Uh
proposal. And I tell you that this this model in terms of
transitional housing, that gives dignify space and people
people to be able to get back on our feet. We are familiar
with Franciscan Outreach. They being in our neighborhood
for almost 4 decades in pilson. And, uh, we believe that,
This is an example of collaboration between neighboring
words and the 28th word, the 24th and the 25th to serve the
most vulnerable. So I'll ask my colleagues for a favorable
vote on this item and thank you chairwoman. Thank you
motion made by Alderman. You want to say something?
Alderman, mitts Alderman? OSHA recommending do pass all
those in favor. Signify by saying I I opposed and the
opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and this do pass,
recommendation will report it out at the next city.
Council meeting. Thank you, Miss Muir. Um, you've got the
next 1 though, Department of Housing uh item number 8, an
ordinance concerning the expenditure of tax increment,
financing funds for the rehabilitation of the former
Diplomat, Motel to house The Haven on the, on the Lincoln
located at 5230 North Lincoln Avenue in the 40th Ward. Uh,
Miss mure,
Thank you very much. Good afternoon again. Meredith me your
Department of Housing. Thank you, share dowel and committee
for being here.
uh, this is
Uh, for the Haven on Lincoln about Contracting Authority,
the address is 5230, North, Lincoln Avenue in the 40th,
Ward with Alderman Vasquez. Um, we are
Introducing today. Uh, what is a, a technical ordinance,
uh, to authorize the Department of Housing to enter into,
or modify a contract with a general contractor that
utilizes Tiff and other funding sources to rehabilitate
5230, North Lincoln Avenue, a city-owned building to serve
as the Haven on Lincoln.
Uh, we're we'll be planning to use 5.5 million in Lincoln
Avenue Tif funds which has been approved by the Tiff
investment committee. And do will additionally, leverage,
CRP bond funds to fully Finance the construction.
The proposed project is the city acquisition and Rehab of
the former Diplomat, Motel located at 5230 North, Lincoln
Avenue and 2. Uh, 2500 West Farragut Avenue in the Lincoln
Avenue Tiff in order to complete the Adaptive reuse,
Renovations for the building to be to be used for the Haven
on Lincoln. A cdph stabilization housing pilot aimed at
providing physical and behavioral health and housing
support for people experiencing homelessness.
Units in the building. Will be mo Motel style units with a
mix of uh 1 and 2 beds per unit to house up to 40 residents
at once.
On-site Services, space clinical and case management space
community space and green space in the current south
parking. Lot will complete the site rehabilitation
Here is the neighborhood context. This is on Lincoln just
north of foster, um, right across the street from Tony's
Fresh Market, um, with a Walgreens on the corner and
Swedish Hospital just down the street.
Currently the building is set up as a motel, um, in a sort
of t-shape to the building.
The proposed rehab will, um, fully uh, renovate. The
existing motel rooms will convert a portion of them into
space for intensive services to take place on site. It will
will fully and fence the exterior of the property and will
create a resident facing. Um, healing Garden on the south
current parking lot. Um, whilst maintaining the north
parking lot for, uh, staff parking, for all of the service
providers will be on site.
Sources and uses are on the screen. This is a 14 million
dollar project uh, inclusive of acquisition. Um, we are
leveraging majority of the costs, uh, or funding sources
through tax exempt, bonds from this Chicago recovery plan,
we are leveraging additional Tif funds and a small cdph,
quarantine and isolation grants to fund the project. Um,
20% of the project uh, was comprised of acquisition costs,
acquisition did take place. Um, mid-year last year.
Construction costs make up the bulk of the work, uh, at
about uh, 72% of project costs and soft costs make up the
remainder.
Uh, so as mentioned that the acquisition has already taken
place. We are looking for city council approval this month.
Contract execution has not yet happened, but will be
happening shortly. Um, and this, uh, ordinance will allow
us to either amend as needed or modify that contract. So
that construction can start uh, quickly. Hopefully this
month and be completed before the end of the calendar year.
again, this is a project where the city of Chicago is the
owner of the property. We uh, contracted through Master
Consulting agreement with Gensler to complete the design,
and who will be supporting construction oversight.
We are intending to enter a contract with executive
Construction, Inc, to complete the renovations, and the
operator, uh, will be Volunteers of America. Illinois,
under, um, delegate agency contract with cdph, once the
renovation is complete,
Public benefits of this. Project is the rehabilitation of
an underutilized building to establish a 40 bed, pilot
program that provides housing and health care services
services to Residents. Currently cycling through
institutions including our homeless Services System, um our
uh justice system. Our um
Uh, emergency room system and other similar systems.
The Haven on Lincoln will create a new pilot housing
program that fills an existing Gap in the housing
Continuum, it will create housing opportunities for
individuals who have struggled to find or maintain housing
due to a history of co-occurring disorders and system
cycling. The Haven will serve as a short-term transitional.
Housing opportunity, though not time limited. Um for people
who are both uh currently experiencing homelessness and
have a history of cycling through systems in order to help
them to stabilize and transition into permanent housing.
Again, the requested action is to authorize the Department
of Housing to enter into or modify a contract with a
general contractor that utilizes Tiff and other funding
sources to rehabilitate 5230. North Lincoln Avenue, a
city-owned building to serve as the Haven on Lincoln.
Uh, we have uh the use of 5.5 million in Tiff Lincoln
Avenue. Tif funds has been approved by the Tiff investment
committee, as of April and November 2024 and do will
additionally, leverage. CRP bond funds to fully Finance the
construction. I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Miss mirror almond n.
You've been sitting here and I haven't acknowledged you.
Um, as being a me, a non-member here with us today. Thank
you.
Um, any questions on this? If not, I would like Alderman
Vasquez to, uh, close
All right. Uh, thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman. Um,
copy paste, the the, through the chair from the last, uh,
agenda item, that's why I asked for all of them. I think we
just want to make sure the sustainable, uh, I'm immensely
proud of the work that's been done by the Departments to
get this to where it currently is. We've got a number of
Motel along Lincoln in the 40th award that we've been
looking to repurpose through different, um, means
To be able to do this without and have services on site for
For folks who have substance use disorder uh mental health
disorder, and they need the support to have that kind of
clinic on site and provide, folks, that Dignity of having
their own unit and services to, to go with them on their
Journey, as they transition from being unhoused to finding
more permanent housing.
Is something that we need to be doing more of. And so, our
goal is to make sure that this is successful and that it
multiplies out in different Wards. We also have a, um,
Referral process. So that way, if folks are unhoused within
the 40th Ward we have a pathway to make sure that they can
find housing first, and foremost as needed. I think it
provides a solution for all of our Wards, um, and
absolutely support it. And would also ask for our
colleagues to be in support as well. Thank you very much.
Well congratulations, I want to say that at the at the
addition of the healing Garden. That was a nice touch.
Um, Alderman lie, he moved to pass. I do.
Okay. Uh, all those in favor, signify by saying, I
Oppose and the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. And
the due pass recommendation will be reported out at the
next city council meeting. Thank you, Miss mure, thank you
very much, appreciate you item. Number 9 is a proposed,
ordinance order authorizing. The payment of various small
claims against the city of Chicago. This was a direct
introduction and everyone received the list electronically,
they're being no objections. I'll place these on the
Omnibus. Item number 10 is the proposed order denying the
payment of various small claims against the city of
Chicago, also, a direct introduction. And that list of
payments was sent to everyone electronically. And if there
are no objections, these will be placed on the Omnibus
item. Number 11 is the proposed order. Authorizing
charitable solicitation on the public way, permits for a
mordia foundation Citywide, a direct introduction here
today for April, 23rd 2025
To April 26th 2025 and if there are no objections, the
permit is approved and this will be placed on file with the
clerk.
There being no further business before the committee. Can I
get a motion to adjourn?
So moved by everybody today. Um, Alderman, M, Martin, uh,
all those in favor signify by saying I oppose and the
opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The committee
meeting is adjourned, thank you.