Good morning, everyone.
Thank you for your patience.
We're waiting for three more aldermen in order to begin this meeting.
Thank you.
is called to order. We will have a roll call to establish quorum. Alderman Laspata,
Alderman Hopkins, Alderman Hall, Alderman Lee,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman Quinn, excuse me, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Moore, we saw him,
Alderman Curtis, Alderman O'Shea, Alderman Rodriguez, Alderman Cicho Lopez, Alderman Burnett,
Alderman Talia Farrell, Alderman Cardona, Alderman Wagaspack, Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez,
Alderman Villegas, Alderman Cazada, yes, Alderman Villegas,
Alderman Mitts, Alderman Sposato, Alderman Riley, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Silverstein,
Chairman Dowell's here.
We have a quorum.
We have 16.
We counted you, Alderman Moore.
Alderman, excuse me, Vice Chair Conway, Alderman Beal, Alderman Mitchell.
Hold on a second.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Mosley, Alderman Scott, Alderman Irvin, Alderwoman Taylor, and Alderman Vasquez has requested to participate remotely at today's meeting for reasons under the provision of Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to allow these Aldermen to participate?
So moved by Alderman Rodriguez.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
And I want to confirm Vice Chair Conway.
Present.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Here.
Alderman Scott.
Present.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Mosley.
The deal is here, Madam Chairman.
Thank you.
At this time, we'll begin the public comment period.
The public comment period will last for 30 minutes.
Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to three minutes.
Madam Chair, this is Alderman Martin.
I submitted a Rule 59 request earlier today.
Thank you, Alderman Martin.
Chairwoman Zao, this is Julia Ramirez.
I also requested Rule 59, and I'm present.
Right, I counted you in the original motion.
We will add Alderman Martin to the roll.
Thank you, Chair.
Can I get a motion for Alderman Martin?
So moved by Alderman Lee.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
And Alderman O'Shea, we will add you to quorum as well.
We'll begin public comment. We've been informed that there are no callers that have requested to speak today. So everyone is in person. The first speaker is Patricia Patricia Puente.
Good morning. My name is Patricia Puente. I have a concern. On 63rd and Western, there's a building that is three floors. The glasses are falling. People are passing by the sidewalk. This man got hit by one of the glasses. He fell on the floor. These other gentlemen help him get up.
This building has been abandoned for three years.
I called the Elderman's Office, Poland.
I don't remember what district it is.
And the glasses are still falling.
What is going on?
Okay, that's one.
The other one is on Ashland, on 3011 South Ashland, where the orange line is on the bridge near the lake.
there is a lot of garbage.
Rats.
I called it in and they're like,
we don't know sanitation.
We don't know.
Nobody knows.
I had to go directly to Ashland Sanitation
to the rats things.
I begged them if they could do something about them.
Those rats just don't stay there.
They go everywhere.
please let's keep our city clean um the other thing is um what was the other thing i don't
remember right now i forgot but there were three things i feel that chicago is beautiful i get a
lot of comments from the midway uh visitors that come they love chicago they you know they see it
clean they see it this but when i go through the um cta stations and i start seeing all these
garbage and rats going on please let's keep our city clean thank you that's it thank you
Ms. Puente. Our next speaker is Frank Chapman.
Good morning, everyone.
I'm here to speak in support
of the settlement for Dexter Reed
that the City Council
will do its due diligence in supporting this family's
settlement.
I understand clearly why there's some hesitation on the part of some.
It's because the FOP has campaigned against this case and also against the settlement, that is.
And also they are alleging that what the videotapes do not demonstrate or show.
they are alleging that Dexter Reed shot a police officer.
I looked at those tapes dozens of times.
Unless there's a tape that I didn't see, there's no clear evidence of that.
And I was under the understanding that there was an investigation to this effect.
And I haven't seen any results of that investigation.
so I don't think
I don't think this concern is legitimate
and I don't think it should stand in the way of this
city council supporting the family
in whatever they have
in whatever negotiated settlement they have arrived at
with the
whatever negotiated settlement there is between the plaintiff
and the defendant in this case
thank you Mr. Chapman
The next speaker is Taiwan Sims.
Good morning, committee.
Good morning.
So with the budget being 17 point some billion dollars this year with a two point some increase,
I laid on the floor last night because that's why I sleep on the floor.
I'm still homeless and thought about the finances that have been put into the new arrival initiative.
And I wanted to understand it.
So I sat down.
It says as of January this what 2024 or whether 2025 7000 illegals have been permanently housed.
Permanently comprising 2400 homes or households.
The city has resettled, reunited 24,800 migrants or illegals.
As of January, Chicago has permanently housed 7,000 illegals or, as you all name, new arrivals,
encompassing 27 households in collaboration with Catholic charities.
I thought about that.
And I said, wow, but I'm one individual who has been standing at this microphone, speaking
to the mayor, speaking to the chairwoman, and every individual in this room.
How much could it cost to aid an American?
I thought, or is this the push to see Americans out of the city as you all aid and collaborate
with the great collaborator Brandon Johnson to push us to the wayside how long the budget is
increased two point something for what we've already had 830 million dollars considered
to infrastructure if that's going to infrastructure we still have a pension that no one is paying off
Let's see.
So the rising pension obligation is $2.85 billion.
So our elderly and those people that have set up themselves, hopefully for like the
long run, they're not being considered.
And I imagine where all of this money to fund these people is coming from.
Where are you all allocating this money from?
what purses have been dipped in. Because remember, there's still a 982 million
dollar shortfall for this year, fiscal year of 2025, that no one is addressing.
But the pension should be the most important, or the fact that we have
homeless children or teenagers riding in the L, or the fact that Americans are
being discounted here in the city of Chicago. The taxpayers, the residents, civilians, citizens,
Americans, for what reason? And I ask, and I'm going to continue. Thank you, Mr. Sims. I want
to acknowledge Alderman Ciccio Lopez and Alderman Hall have joined us and will be counted towards
quorum. Our next speaker is Jasmine Smith.
Good morning, everyone. I am activist Jasmine Smith with Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.
Y'all know I fight for wrongfully convicted, innocent torture survivors, and police accountability.
So we stand in favor for the Dexter Reeves settlement.
Just want to make a clear to everyone, I second everything that Frank Chapman said,
and we haven't seen proof of what the FOP is campaigning against
and what they're putting out in the media that he shot the police first.
But I want to remind y'all that the tech team that pulled them over
should have never still been on the streets in the first place
with the many complaints that they had against them.
They unlawfully pulled their young man over.
He should still be here today.
If y'all don't vote and pass this settlement,
y'all going to end up having the city's going to have to pay more
because it's just going to go to trial.
So it just makes sense.
Just give them know what the settlement is and agree on it.
I know the FOP is saying what that's going to put out of bed image.
I've talked about it many times why it's not going to put out of bed image
because no one in the city really trusts the police anyway.
Police are not being held accountable for the crimes that they commit.
We have officers, sergeants that's costing the city billions of dollars
for wrongful convictions right now that's still on our force.
We have commanders.
John Foster, he just made the news the other day about a situation
with Superintendent Snellen.
He's still on the force.
We've got Kevin Eberle, a detective, FBI task force.
He's still on the force.
We've got Brian P. Forber that was forced to retire,
But somehow some way he got hired back on the force but working behind a desk
So he's collecting a retirement check all while
20 some plus men are still riding in prison for being wrongfully convicted by these detectives that we supposed to protect now
I'm gonna speak in regards of me caring about police because I have friends that's police officers
We have another cop that just committed suicide, right?
So I send my condolences to that family. I have friends that tell me all the time
what are the many reasons why these officers committed suicide but it never
be put out in the public eye the true reason of them witnessing so much
misconduct so many police brutality so many things that's unlawfully taking
place in their districts that mentally if they are the good guys is just if they
have a conscience it's eaten at them because they don't know which way to go
because it's a stronghold that the FOP has on a lot of people and even people
in this seat that threatened these people for coming out and speaking truth to what's really
going on. So that's part of the reason why they be committing suicide. It's just too much for them
to handle, not just black crime, not just the domestics. And if we're going to talk about what
they're seeing on these streets, how about putting back the mental health facilities that was taken
from previous mayors? We have five, maybe seven mental health centers, all in communities where
it's not really meant to have crisis put them back where they belong and a lot of these cops
won't see detrimental or have to experience things that that's that people losing their minds
y'all act like this is not bad design do the right thing and stop selling people out and stop
being afraid of the fop thank you miss smith the next speaker is uh carolyn rock
good morning
I also agree with Mr. Chapman and Ms. Jasmine.
Some of the things that she and he has said, I was going to say the same thing.
But I also stand in solidarity with the family, which I have been standing with them since their loved one, Dexter Jr., was assassinated by these KKK cops.
They did not identify themselves.
It was already planned.
They followed him for no reason.
They shot at him 96 times on March 21st, 2024.
13 bullets went in him and assassinated him.
He even got out of his car surrendering to the police.
But as he was handcuffed on the ground, he was still shot at.
So we're asking you all to please support this family by passing the resolution to support them.
They're still devastated.
devastated. Their mom is
going through, the sister
is going through, as well as
the father and all of
his family are going through devastation.
So we're asking you all to
please pass this
resolution. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Ruff.
The next speaker is Darren Lewis.
Good morning.
Chicago is facing a serious financial challenge, one that demands bold solutions.
Rising costs and mounting obligations are straining businesses, consumers, and city revenues.
When business slows, tax revenue declines, and when revenue falls, cities often turn to property or sales tax hikes or new fees.
Chicagoans are already paying more for housing, transportation, and food.
How will you ask them to pay more in taxes when every dollar is stretched?
Some may look to Springfield for help, but the state is facing a projected deficit of $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2026.
This isn't just about balancing budgets.
It's about Chicago remaining a city where businesses thrive and families grow.
If it was difficult to find revenue for the budget this year, where will it come from next year?
Two weeks ago, I offered the city a plan to share 25% or $16.6 million with my projected yearly income.
Now I invite you to learn more.
Give me just five minutes after this meeting, I will show you how my service works
and why it will be adopted across the Chicago metro area.
It offers new revenue without added costs to the city or its residents.
Chicago seeks revenue.
businesses like mine seek partnerships. Together we can address financial
challenges while supporting local businesses and everyday people. My
platform is ready, the opportunity is real, let's take five minutes today and
start the conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Lewis and our last
speaker is George Blakemore.
You deserve what you get.
And you get what you deserve.
You get a democratic machine.
You deserve it.
And how many people are here today, Mr. Blakemore?
Maybe 12?
So I am old, old, weak, sick.
I'm enjoying this saga.
Go blue, go red, flip red.
The Democratic machine.
All are 69 in each other.
And you black people, you deserve this.
You deserve exactly what you get.
Go blue, go red, flip red.
Where are the people?
Something is un-American here.
Now, all of this money, these shelves,
what is that all about?
Black Lives Matter.
No, it doesn't.
You're still on the white man's plantation.
And the tragic thing about it,
you don't even know it.
And you don't even care.
This been going on.
These big-head white men run this plantation.
You can like it or not.
Racism is alive here.
So you black people that was enslaved and brought over here, you still have a slave mentality.
You got black faces in high places selling you out.
So you deserve this.
You don't even know how to get the people to come out.
One, two, three, four, five, six.
Uh-uh.
Where are the black people?
Their brain damage.
On the plantation, you know what the white man made?
On the plantation, and you're still there.
We got black faces selling us out.
So something tragic happened to black people on this damn plantation.
So you get the government, you deserve Chicago.
You deserve the government, you get Chicago.
All Democrats, did they indict?
Did they indict police?
Things going to change.
It's just a matter of time.
So I'm looking at you and I know that you.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
This ends public comment.
The committee has also received written public comments, which were sent electronically to everyone.
we will begin with the approval of the march 2025 monthly rule 45 report this report was also sent
out to everyone electronically if there are no questions can i get a motion to recommend approval
of the monthly rule 45 report motion made by alderman la spada all those in favor of the
motion signify by saying aye aye all those opposed in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and
the motion carries we have a total of nine items on our agenda this morning and we'll begin with
item number one which is a communication transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts
judgments or settlements were entered into for the month of march 2025 that list of payments was
sent to everyone electronically and if there are no objections these items will be placed on file
with the city clerk item number two there are three proposed orders authorizing the corporation
council to x to enter into and execute settlement orders in the following cases
The first case is Nicole Banks as independent administrator of the estate of Dexter Reed versus City of Chicago et al.
Case number 24-CV-3271 in the amount of $1.25 million.
We are joined this morning by Deputy Corporation Counsel Carolyn Fronzig.
Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Council Members.
Good morning, Carolyn.
On April 24th of 2024, plaintiff Nicole Banks, independent administrator of the estate of Dexter Reed, sued the city of Chicago and five Chicago police officers in a federal Section 1983 civil rights action stemming from the March 21st, 2024 fatal officer involved shooting of Dexter Reed.
Reed, a 26-year-old black man, was shot following a traffic stop by the defendant officers near the 3800 block of West Ferdinand in the Harrison Police District, which is the 11th district.
The first amendment complaint asserted Section 1983 claims against the defendant officers for conducting a pretextual traffic stop, excessive force, and denial of medical care, as well as state law claims for assault, battery, wrongful death, and a willful and wanton survival action.
The complaint asserted Monell claims against the city based on an alleged pattern and practice of unconstitutional traffic stops, an alleged pattern and practice of excessive and lethal force, especially by members of tactical teams, and an alleged failure to train, supervise, and discipline officers regarding use of force.
The complaint also alleged claims against the city for violating the Americans with Disability Act by allegedly discriminating against Reed by reason of his alleged history of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Finally, the complaint asserted state law claims against the city for racial discrimination
under the Illinois Civil Rights Act, as well as for responding at superior or an indemnification.
The Department of Law recommends settling this entire matter by paying $1.25 million
to plaintiff inclusive of attorney's fees and costs.
The Department of Law recommends this settlement due to the risk of legal and financial exposure
based on an examination of federal and state case law that governs the claims at issue.
The proposed settlement was ultimately achieved through court-supervised mediation in the Northern District of Illinois in federal court.
In exchange, the plaintiff agrees to dismiss, with prejudice, any and all claims against the city and its agents, including the defendant officers, or which were or could be brought by her estate of Dexter Reed.
As part of the settlement, the city, on behalf of itself and the defendant officers, denies all allegations of wrongdoing and further denies liability.
The parties acknowledge that the settlement of plaintiff's claims is not an admission
of liability or of unconstitutional or illegal conduct by or on the part of the city or any
defendant officer.
Thank you, Carolyn.
Are there any questions by members of the committee?
Before we go to questions, I want to recognize that Alderman Mosley has joined us virtually.
We'll start with Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
thank you chair um can you speak about the history of complaints against the officers involved in
this case um i'm in a public forum i'm not prepared to speak about the complaint history of the
defendant officers i can provide that information to you through the chair thank you um can you speak
about the instructions from the judge uh to both parts around settling the case i'm sorry instructions
by the judge. So the judge, and this happens in pretty much every federal lawsuit that's filed,
the judge recommended, and in this case recommended, that we pursue settlement early in the case
to avoid costs and legal fees that are undoubtedly going to accrue in this case. So we accepted the
judge's offer to meet and go into a mediation in this case prior to a lot of discovery taking place.
What would be the estimated cost of this settlement if it goes to trial? If we will settle, how much would the city could be liable for?
so the cost of defense in this case uh for the monel claim as well as the defense of the police
officers would probably amount to at least five million dollars should there be a verdict against
the city or the police officers on any of the federal claims then the city would obviously
have to pay the verdict as well as any plaintiff's attorney's fees that would they would accrue in
the case and that could also be between three to five million dollars thank you thank you alderman
spazato thank you madam chair uh thanks caroline for the report um obviously i don't obviously i
don't support this and not because the fop threatened me or whatever i mean this to me is
a no-brainer last night i was out to dinner with a very dear childhood friend of mine who was a
criminal defense attorney and one of the first thing he asked me was why about this why are we
paying this family um i know we discussed this i don't have many questions but can you tell me the
racial makeup of the six officers that were involved with sex correct i believe there were
five police officers um i know officer st louis is black um and the remaining officers i believe
are either white or hispanic yeah i thought it was two two two but uh um any officer that was shot
was he black white or hispanic he was black okay okay um that's about it we went over everything
i'm not gonna rough you up over here i know you try really hard um other than if we won this i'm
guessing what cost us zero well we'd still have to pay the cost of the attorneys that will be
defending the lawsuit so but the verdict would be zero correct yeah okay all right thank you
you madam chair thank you alderman spazato alderman uh yes alderman laspada
sorry computer so the point that you raised just now in response to alderman spazado feels like a
a fair one to follow up on what would the what would the estimate or range of attorney's fees
look like for taking a case like this to trial so between the two firms that we have uh we would
have to assign to this case which one represents the officers and one represents the city on the
monel claims against it i think a conservative estimate is at least three three to five million
to up through trial which is significantly more than what the family is willing to settle with
us for, correct? Correct. So it's helpful to understand that because I think a lot of us take,
setting aside whatever personal ideological values we bring to the table, should and ought to take a
fiduciary responsibility to task here. And it sounds like, as you say it, there's no way that
we end up paying less than what is the settlement in front of us, should we choose to take this to
trial? That's correct. Okay. My question that is most direct on this case is, can you speak at all
to the officers in question? Their history is regarding either use of force complaints or
regarding traffic stops in the city? Sure. As I stated before, I don't feel comfortable in a
public forum discussing the officer's disciplinary history. I know that there are several open
investigations, so I prefer to answer that through the chair. Okay, thank you. Thank you,
Alderman Laspata. Alderman Burnett. Vice Mayor Burnett, sorry. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
first of all this is a very uh challenging situation um
that young man initially grew up in my ward um i saw the videotapes
um you know and and just looking at that and not to rehash this but
But, you know, from the views that we saw, you know, I know that brother, that African-American officer walked up to the car over on Ferdinand in a highly gang-infested area.
and he walked up on the side of the guy's car.
You know, I couldn't imagine what was going on
in the young man's head.
He shouldn't have had a gun.
He shouldn't have did what he did.
But if somebody would have walked up on my car
over in that neighborhood,
I don't know how I would have reacted.
I'm just being real with you.
And that's part of me and Emma Smith's area.
And there's a lot of shooting and killing and gang banging that goes on in that community.
This 11th district, one of the highest crime districts in the city of Chicago.
And you have different gangs on different corners, on different corners in that community.
So first thing I saw when I saw that African-American officer go up to the window in plain clothes, you know, I was like, wow, that's deep, right?
But I just wanted to ask a question.
Didn't the federal judge overseeing this case instruct the parties to exhaust all settlement possibilities prior to litigation?
Yes, that's quite common in all federal lawsuits, but in specifically this case, the judge did encourage and strongly encourage all the parties to exhaust that opportunity before we did all this litigation, because as judges are well aware, the costs of defense in these cases are very high.
Yeah. So, you know, it's just hard to talk about this because it's, you know, it's just so emotional.
Representing the community where these kids come from.
so
with a judge saying something like that gives me the indication that most likely if we don't settle
it you know and I know the family members want to settle it they probably want to move on and
get past this if we don't sell it it will cost us more money how much more money you think it
could potentially cost us?
So I would estimate the cost of defense
to pay the firms that we have to hire
in order to defend the case
between $3 to $5 million through trial.
So, and what are we selling it?
How much are we selling it for?
The Department of Laws recommended $1.25 million.
And the family agreed to that?
That's correct.
To me, it's a...
cost efficient for us on our part to settle this.
Because if you hear a federal judge encouraging folks to come up with a settlement,
it pretty much tells you what's happening here.
So I just wanted to say that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Mayor Burnett.
Alderman Hall.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted for those were same questions I want to ask.
So I send my time.
Thank you.
I want to acknowledge that Alderman Mitchell has joined us and is on virtually.
Alderman Lopez, followed by Alderman Cicho Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.
You know, very few times leave me speechless in this room.
But I have to say that this is one of those times when I hear someone vocalize that they don't know if they would do anything different than what this young man did to try to take the lives of Chicago police officers if they were in that same situation.
What the hell is going on in this room?
Seriously.
There are all kinds of arguments to be made.
Pros and cons.
I get it.
some of you want to hide behind being fiscally responsible fiduciary representatives in order
to settle this but to sit here and say that we are going to give license to individuals
to shoot officers when they are pulled over
two days after we had an officer just killed herself and i also want to remind you
each and every one of you, the same year that this shooting happened, where officers pulled over an individual correctly,
not eight months later, we had another officer.
After so many of the public and so many in this room vilified Officer St. Louis and everyone else
for executing their legal authority to pull people over,
we had another officer in November, Enrique Martinez, say that name too,
shot and killed on the south side of Chicago because he was trying to appease the mob rule mentality in a traffic stop.
He said three times, sir, stop reaching, stop reaching, stop reaching.
and was killed anyway.
And I bet the same people in this room would gladly pay his murderer a lawsuit settlement
just as well as they'd pay this one today.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves
for what you are inspiring and allowing in the neighborhoods.
I don't care if you don't like it.
Sometimes the truth has to be told.
and there is a moral imperative that is dying in this city and that is you do not have the right
to kill an officer because they stopped you from breaking the law excuse me ma'am excuse me you had
your chance this is mine i am not lying actually the ones who are lying ladies and gentlemen in
this room are the people who are saying that there was no shooting of an officer we have an officer
who nearly lost his hand because this young man took it upon himself to open fire.
Yes, his loss is unfortunate, but he is the responsible party for it.
You want to settle because you say it's cheaper?
You are sending a message to every criminal,
and you are also sending a message to every officer on the street
that their lives do not matter anymore.
Every time an officer has been killed in the line of duty,
we put together a shirt that says we remember.
Maybe we need to put together a shirt with every settlement that says we will always forget.
Because we like to forget what they are doing, what's going on on the street.
And to come up with these alternative narratives as to what's going on here is shameful.
It's disgusting.
This isn't about a million dollars.
This is about our moral compass, and it is way out of whack right now, because what we should be teaching our children, teaching in our communities, just as we are pushing our officers to do constitutional policing, to do things with respect and regard to community, is also we should be teaching our own how to follow the law, how to act in a traffic stop.
And those are not easy conversations, ladies and gentlemen, but those conversations are long, long overdue.
And yes, I do know what it's like to represent some rough neighborhoods.
I do want to know what it's like to represent communities like back of the yards where you have high gun violence.
And if this has happened in my ward, I'd be saying the exact same thing.
You do not have a right to fire on police officers doing their job.
We need to vote no.
we need to be clear and unequivocal in our moral authority that this is wrong
this shooting also madam chairman caused the city to have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
for the rehabilitation of officer st louis
not too long ago we passed a law here in city council saying that if anyone owes the city of
money we will recoup our losses from that person before we issue that
settlement check the question I have to the law department is this of the
hundreds of thousands of dollars if not almost a million that we've spent on
rehabilitation for officer st. Louis and the other officers involved in the
shooting are we pursuing cost recovery measures against the Reed estate or what
we have paid for the officers injured in his shooting of them the city has not
filed any counterclaims against the Reed estate. Why not? The city hasn't done that.
I'm not at the end. So I'm asking you as the representative of the law department,
we clearly know we have costs associated that he has forced us to incur because of
opening fire on our employees, the city of Chicago police officers in the stop.
Why are we not pursuing cost recovery against his estate before we issue the
settlement check uh if the settlement check is issued i will uh inquire with the corporation
council whether or not that's something she wants to pursue so chairman respectfully i i can say a
word no no no no no no no no i'm i think that the law department needs to do that before
because that is trying to circumvent the law that we passed because to say oh
we'll look at it after we write the check doesn't make sense to me you know
we have costs associated with this our health benefits manager knows we have
costs associated with this law department should be doing this on the
front end as is the intent and the spirit of the law that this council as a
whole voted to pursue for cost recovery before settlements are issued and I
think that madam chairman before this even goes to a vote we should have an
answer from the law department as to whether or not they are actually going
to pursue cost recovery against the read estate and as such I would make a motion
to table this item until such an answer can be delivered to the committee on
finance uh thank you alderman lopez and there was a motion to table until we can get an answer
point of information thank you madam chairman so
so we got to see the video um we don't get to see the videos here right no um and what i was
referring to in that video point of information all right well i just wanted to say a black man
came up to the kid's car in a in a rough neighborhood you said that already that's
not a point of information i'm not saying that it's right to shoot a police officer but what's
your favorite vice mayor um i want to acknowledge alderman hopkins and
Alderman Talia Farrell.
I heard you.
Three on three.
You got all three of them today, huh, Alderman?
We're going to take a vote on the motion made by Alderman Lopez.
Would you repeat your motion, please?
Motion to table, correct?
Correct, the motion to table the Dexter Reed settlement
until we have an answer from the law department
as to whether or not they're going to pursue
cost recovery measures.
Alderman Curtis is joined us
and will be counted towards forum.
I heard that.
So we will take a motion now on tabling this item.
Alderman Conway.
Excuse me, Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Laspata.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Aye.
Alderman Harris?
Alderman Beale?
Yep.
Alderman Lee?
Alderman Ramirez?
No.
Alderman Quinn?
Alderman Lopez?
Alderman Moore?
Alderman Curtis?
There's no abstention, but Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor.
No.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Scott.
Yes.
Alderman Ciccio Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Irvin, also no.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Wagesbach.
Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez.
Alderman Cazada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitts.
Alderman Spisado.
Alderman Vasquez.
Yes.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knudsen.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Chairman Dowell votes no.
Alderman Conway votes yes as well.
Vice Chair Conway votes yes.
Thank you.
No.
Alderman Harris votes no.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Mosley.
the vote is 13 yeses and 16 noes the motion fails
we will move on alderman cicho lopez you're next
thank you um thank you madam chair and um um i think most of my questions have been asked i
just for the cynical clarity.
There's a number of reports
from the Office of Inspector General.
I want to just,
just for the sake of clarity
for the council members,
just if you can say yes or no,
but are there many reports
from the Office of Inspector General
and other independent reports
that CPD uses traffic stops
in a racially discriminatory manner?
Is this correct?
Yes, that's my understanding
of the reports.
It is also true that in some of these same reports,
CPD has been shown to target black drivers with violence
using force and escalatory tactics
against black drivers without justification,
and the rates are much higher than white drivers.
Is that correct?
That is my understanding of the reports.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that most of the questions have been asked.
I think for us as a council, and I see as Vice Chair,
Bernhardt had mentioned as well.
I do think that these are really tragic instances,
and I do think that we've got to look at the fiduciary responsibility of the city of Chicago
by settling these cases and using the recommendations of the law department
rather than speculating of cases like this.
I think it's important that we look at the facts.
And so that's all my questioning.
I believe in support of this settlement.
Thank you, Alderman.
Alderman Mitts, followed by Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Yes, so you know, this is one of those cases I would rather not have to discuss.
It's a traumatizing, and it was at the time that it happened.
And I had seen the video as well.
what I would like to know is
those detectives
were in the area and certainly we were called and
make sure because the residence call is a high crime area
that they were in today.
So was Dexter Reed.
What was the purpose
of the stop?
I believe the
officer, one officer
who I know was interviewed, testified
or provided information to detectives that it
was burnt a seatbelt violation.
If that was
the case, then were
the windows
tinted?
The windows on the vehicle were tinted.
The city, or the officers
counsel made a legal argument regarding an additional basis to her probable cause to stop
the vehicle was the tense of the of the vehicle that is not my understanding of what the officers
articulated but that is a legal basis that we are allowed to make in a in a dispositive motion
before the court and if I if I'm correctly when I saw the video wasn't the detective making us
had stopped someone else right before they exit that stop to go out to Dexter Reed.
Correct. I believe the officers made multiple traffic stops that day.
No, I'm not saying that.
Seconds after a stop, they were already in the process of a stop.
They left that stop, turned around in the street to stop block off Dexter Reese like seconds.
Is that correct?
I'd have to look at the video again.
That's not my recollection of it, but I'm not saying that you're wrong.
I'd have to take a look again.
I'm so sad that the officer got shot that day.
I'm sad that Mr. Reed
felt that his life was threatened
in a neighborhood
where a tenant,
a tenant and someone comes up
with a gun, any black person
already going to fear.
So they didn't know,
I'm sure if Mr. Reed were here, he would say, if I'd have known there was an officer.
And remind that, was these officers in plain clothes or dark clothes?
I'm just asking a question.
They were in plain clothes.
However, they were wearing department-issued bulletproof vests, which would indicate that
they're police officers as well as their embroidered star on their vests.
It's just, it's sad, but the disturbing thing for the community and what we all rationing with, even though one shot was fired at the officer and he got shot,
Did Dexter Reed start shooting out the window?
That is my understanding of the investigation, yes.
And everybody, they asked him to drop his weapon and with his hands up, did he comply?
No, he did not comply.
Well, it's just so disturbing.
It's just absolutely disturbing.
And either way it go, I don't know.
How did we end up with the lawsuit?
Why would the city be sued in this instance?
What was the one thing that the officer did not follow in order for us to have to settle this case?
So if you're asking for a legal assessment as to our risk, I'd prefer to answer that
through the chair.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman.
Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I should never go first.
I always like to be last, so I apologize and thank you for letting me have another bite
at the apple.
First of all, I just want to say, Ray, I'm one of those guys that don't like you and
I don't like Walter either, but I love both of you guys.
So I just want to make sure you both know that.
I love you, bro.
All right.
You know, for 14 years I've been here and I've been here and we need more black officers.
We need more black officers.
We need more black officers in black neighborhoods.
And I tend to agree with that 100%.
Now we got a black officer pulling over a black guy and we're saying the black offender
thought the black guy, black officer was somebody trying to hurt him.
So what is it?
i mean we want more black officers and black neighbors or we don't we just have all white guys
and hispanic guys in black neighborhoods i mean so i i don't get that one but i still love you um
and i brought this up many times before we're talking about these stops
i represent the 16th district we're 28 and a half square miles we have 190 officers the 15th district
well i believe this was the 11th i don't think it was the 15th but this is my analogy the 15th
district is three and a half square miles and they have 220 officers so roughly roughly we have in
the 16th six officers per square mile and the 15th has 66 officers square mile so if the power is to
be at cpd headquarters if you're listening let's do it let's do an experiment let's give the 16th
district 66 officers square mile and the 15th six officers square mile and i could guarantee you
there will be less stops in the 15th district and more stops in the 16th.
So, and lastly, my last question is to you, Caroline.
So we know it'll cost us if we pay somebody.
I'm just guessing us.
If we do it, we handle it.
It will cost us zero.
Is that correct?
Yeah.
I'd love to keep all of our cases in house.
I know.
I know this is a big case and a challenge,
but everybody wants to know what it's going to cost us.
I say it costs us zero.
If we try it,
I have all the confidence in the world in your team,
but I understand you have limited resources, but you know, once again,
everybody, this will cost us zero if we try it. Well, I mean,
you already get paid, so technically it's going to be zero,
but Madam chair, thank you very much.
I promise to never try to go first again. I'll always try to be last.
You're not last. So I'm not last, but you gave me a second bite at the apple,
but I appreciate it.
Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much, Madam chair.
I've got a couple of questions related to the matter.
So I know that there's not much that law is willing to share publicly that might lead to where some of our colleagues have landed.
So I guess I'll try to ask a couple of questions.
I know we no longer have an interim COPA chief now, but prior to any of this, my understanding is there was a pattern in practice of some of the traffic stops occurring in that specific area that might have been a problem.
Was there anything that the COPA chief or COPA has said about those matters related to before the stop occurred?
I'm sorry, are you asking whether or not the former COPA chief said anything about prior patterns and practice of traffic stops in the 11th district?
Yeah, if COPA opined on it at all, because, you know, as some of us saw in the video, there were concerns about the traffic stop to begin with.
So when we have colleagues that are saying the officer did everything right, that's not necessarily the case.
but we don't know if COPA opined on any of that at all.
So with regards to this specific case,
the COPA investigation is still open.
I don't believe that COPA has made any formal findings yet.
Okay. Is part of the reason we're concerned about risk,
the fact that the officers may not have performed
what was a justified traffic stop?
That is one of the allegations in the complaint
that the traffic stop was not justified.
You mentioned that the judge, the federal judge recommended settling, but you also mentioned that they tend to do this for a multitude of cases or it's pretty often.
Can you expound on that a little bit?
Because I think folks might be hearing two things when you're saying that.
Sure.
So lawsuits are filed in the Northern District of Illinois all the time.
judges have very heavy dockets. It's not unusual for a federal judge to recommend that the parties
come to the table early and before a lot of discovery is done because lawsuits are very
expensive and lawsuits are inherently risky for all parties. We may think we have a good case and
we can take it all the way to trial and there could be a verdict against the city and then we
would have to pay additional attorney's fees. No one can predict what is going to happen in this
case ultimately when we try this case if we do two to three years from now. So the judges are
always taking risk into account, costs into account, and knowing that the city of Chicago
is funded by taxpayer money. I think he was encouraging us to explore that option before
we spent a lot of money on discovery in this case and the case became somewhat unsettled
because of the attorney's fees that the plaintiff's attorneys would build up and also in prosecuting
their case. Okay, I appreciate that background. I think sometimes I have a concern that we are not
as serious about the cost, meaning do we track? We've been asking for tracking on the cases that
get settled, how many we take the trial, how are we doing? Are we doing well there or not? And I
believe one of our colleagues might have introduced legislation trying to get that kind of reporting
going. Do we have anything to track how any of this has been going to show that we're actually
saving the taxpayer money by showing comparables, any kind of data associated with it that we could
use to talk to our constituents. Because I think they don't focus on the data,
they focus on the headlines, and the headlines don't tend to cover that.
So we've had a few trials proceed already this year. I can certainly provide you the details
of the outcomes of those trials. There are some that have already been in the media,
but I can provide you detailed information about the trials this year and other years as well. I'm
not sure what exact detail you're looking for. Yeah, I appreciate it. Oh, I think somebody might
have a... Alderman, let me add something. Excuse me, can you just identify yourself? Oh, sorry.
Yeah, John Hendricks, Managing Deputy Corporation Counsel for Litigation. I just wanted to add
something because I believe Alderman Vasquez asked a question about whether we track this
information we do we have a risk management program that is looking at this so there is
information that we can provide and we will we will do our best to to find whatever it is you're
looking for hi i'm glad sorry i'm glad there's a risk management team i think it kind of behooves
us to be able to provide information like that publicly when possible after cases are completed
because again, we end up with bodies that are more at the mercy of headlines than actual data
and savings. And when we talk about the budget and the kind of deficits we're going to see and
how we have to actually be responsible, it does not help us as a city when we're not showing
people why decisions are being made because this one is an incredibly difficult one.
I think it's kind of, sorry, I believe it goes both ways.
If the young man had a gun, had a prior record, that is a problem to make the decision in that situation,
although challenging a split second, also a problem.
But he's not here to face consequences to what actions he took.
Meanwhile, if the officers didn't do the job as they're supposed to constitutionally,
even though others may say different,
that's what accountability is for there as well.
I think for us to be able to discern things,
we just need to be able to show our work.
And so it would be good to have a commitment
from the department of law
to have some of the information publicly available
going forward so we can talk through how we're actually
saving funds in tough situations like this
that are gonna be complicated and could cost anywhere
from five to $10 million more
if we're trying to take it to trial.
So that's fine.
Your point's noted, and to the extent we can provide that information publicly without compromising our position legally, we will do so.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Carolyn, it hasn't been established in this conversation.
Did Mr. Reed shoot first?
That is my understanding of the investigation.
Okay. I'm struggling with the conversation today, and I normally don't speak on these things at all.
There's some overtone about almost a justification for the settlement.
And I could tell you from a personal standpoint, I'm the grandson of a Chicago police officer that was shot in the line of duty.
My father was 10 when he died.
Didn't die exactly because of the shooting, but related a few years after.
I don't want to be associated with any conversation that justifies the shooting of a Chicago police officer.
This is a bad day for Chicago if this is the way the conversation is going to go.
So I wanted to put that on the record publicly.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn.
is there a motion to recommend approval of item number 2a
so moved by roll call called by alderman riley so we will take a roll call on
nicole banks as independent administrator of the estate of dexter reed versus city of chicago
vice chair conway no
Alderman Laspata
Alderman Hopkins
Alderman Hall
Alderman Mitchell
Alderman Harris
Alderman Beale
No
Alderman Lee
Alderman Ramirez
Yes
Alderman Quinn
Alderman Lopez, Alderman Moore, Alderman Curtis, rule 41, you want to state your rule 41?
All right, thank you.
Alderman O'Shea, Alderman Taylor.
Yes.
Alderman Mosley.
Yes.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Cicho Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Talia Farrell.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Wagesback.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez, Alderman Cazada, Alderman Villegas, Alderman Mitts, Alderman
Sposado, Alderman Vasquez, Alderman Riley, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Martin,
Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell votes no.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
The vote is 12
yays and 15
nays. The item
fails to pass the committee on
finance.
Thank you, Ms. Fronset.
Item number 2B,
Mary Ann Pepper or Mary Ann Perper
excuse me versus City of Chicago
case number 2024 L5006
in the amount of $750,000
we're joined by Deputy Corporation
Counsel Margaret Mendenhall Casey
Ms. Franzick if you don't want to stay
thank you Chair
Marion Perper who was then age 65 tripped and fell on a sidewalk.
The city received notice of a height differential on the sidewalk 60 months
before the accident and did not repair the condition before Miss Perper's fall.
As a result of the accident, Miss Perper fractured both of her wrists,
underwent surgery and has scarring.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of $750,000.
On January 30th of 2020, around 8.45 p.m., Ms. Perber was walking and approached the intersection of Wrightwood and Wayne.
As she walked past 1339 West Wrightwood, her foot caught a raised portion of the sidewalk, causing her to trip and fall.
There were no witnesses or video footage of the incident.
The height differential between sidewalk slabs was three inches.
On September 22nd of 2018, Patrick Buford, who lived at 1339, reported the sidewalk defect to 311 online.
Patrick also had tripped and fell on the defect about five times between June 2018 and June of 2019.
In November of 2018, a month after Patrick's complaint, CDOT performed a sidewalk survey.
A few months later, a CDOT engineering tech reviewed the sidewalk survey photos and determined that the defect should be fixed.
The condition was referred to share costs and all dramatic menu.
Retired CDOT assistant superintendent testified that the sidewalk defect was a tripping hazard.
Ms. Pepper fractured both of her wrists.
She called 911 and was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with right and left wrist fractures.
A doctor operated on her wrists. The surgery left four-inch permanent scars on her arms.
She was hospitalized for four days and then was inpatient for approximately a month
as she was not capable of functioning independently with two broken arms.
Prior to this incident, Ms. Perper had multiple pre-existing conditions, including bone loss.
She has a total of $614,000 in medical bills.
the Department of Law recommends settlement in this matter in the amount
of seven hundred and fifty thousand thank you Miss Casey are there any
questions from members of the committee on this one Alderman Lopez
thank you chairman just real briefly you know I've spoken out before about how
these are going to become the next generation of lawsuits to the city of
Chicago did I hear correctly that that was a basically a trip hazard that was
unresolved for 60 months one six 16 16 months okay and out of curiosity how
many more similar type lawsuits do we have on deck that deal with city
service related issues I can answer that question to the chair okay
chairman these give me great pause because we're seeing more and more of
and the settlements are getting higher and higher.
What started with $250,000 for tree limbs
is now $750,000 for trip hazard.
I think that we need to have a conversation
with our departments to see what we're doing
to resolve these matters
because I know that, for example,
going back to CDOT,
who constantly states that they are undermanned
and understaffed if we don't figure out
how to address these city service issues,
this is going to become the new norm.
And then all of these other departments
are going to start to have to require
lawsuit settlement funds in their own budgets
moving forward as well.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
The Department of Transportation's,
I think he's the managing deputy,
did attend the briefing.
And that question came up.
So that's something I think we can pursue
during our budget season.
Thank you.
Alderman Spada.
Alderman Laspada.
No flags.
Flags.
There are no flags here.
I only want to comment to,
I mean, it's a valid point.
It's one that we talked about last month
when we talked about infrastructure bonds in the city.
We use bonds that are voted on through your committee
to repair these kinds of sidewalks.
And thankfully, we're doing that.
I think the public deserves to know
that included in that package is the repair,
as pointed out by Commissioner Carney,
of all the currently identified
hazardous sidewalks in the city.
It doesn't mean that we have a lot of
outstanding inspections to get done,
but by casting those votes,
by doing that work,
we do eliminate these kinds of risks.
So I'm glad that we're actually doing that in the city right now.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman.
Any other questions?
Alderman Riley.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to pick up along where Alderman Lopez left off.
I'd also like to receive that information through the chair that he requested.
But I think he makes very valid points.
Look, the bottom line is the cost to repair hazardous right-of-way is a fraction of these settlements that are coming before us, right?
And what's frustrating to folks like me, I've been here now almost 18 years, like you, Chairwoman, is that I've got parts of my ward.
I'm not going to rattle them off here for opportunistic trip and fall lawyers.
But there are lots of right-of-way locations throughout the 42nd Ward that I've been trying to get remedied for literally 18 years.
and not for lack of effort and persistence.
But we need to really do a deeper dive on our exposure there.
And as you all know in the law department,
we're essentially getting jackpotted for these failing infrastructure and right-of-way.
In a lot of cases, it's because it's, say, CTA property,
or it's a property where no one's quite really sure who's responsible for it.
It could be the state, it could be CTA, it could be the city, CPA, whatever.
A lot of no man's land properties out there too.
And bottom line is I think that the exposure is astronomical.
And if the answer is putting on steroids,
a infrastructure repair program specifically for
these trip and fall liabilities we're carrying around,
that's really good money well spent
because it saves us hundreds of thousands of dollars,
in some cases millions of dollars, on the back end,
after all the lawyers have to get paid.
And so maybe that's a different subject matter hearing, Madam Chair,
but I think that's something all the members of the City Council
need to have a better understanding of,
is exactly how much is out there that we're at risk of getting sued for
and very likely losing.
One of the things, Alderman Riley, that CDOC committed to was, you know, just like when we get our CIP briefings, we get an understanding of the streets where there's been a lot of 311 calls or lights where we've received, they've agreed to add these tripping hazards as some information that we can receive so that if we want to use our menu money, we can laser focus that there.
I mean, that's one thing. But I agree that probably a deeper dive on this is needed.
And I thank you for that, Chair. I'd go a step further. I would say that those locations that
CDOT has identified as exposure for trip and fall liability and all the ensuing expenses,
CDOT should pay for that. That should not come out of menu. Because frankly,
if we really want to get cute about things here, we could start taking these settlement dollars
out of CDOT's annual budget.
So, I mean, it cuts both ways is my point.
I would say that CDOT owes it to the taxpayer
out of their own budget,
because let's be honest, what's their job?
They got one, repair infrastructure.
They should pay for those things.
Menu is intended for us to accelerate
other right-of-way improvements that are required,
but we're exposed for millions of dollars
in legal settlements.
That's money well spent on CDOT's part.
I agree with you.
I'm just saying that that's use of the automatic menu is an option that we control.
It should be the absolute last resort for something like this.
I think CDOT has a basic responsibility to provide to the citizens for their tax dollar.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman.
Alderman Villegas.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And colleagues, we are going to have a discussion about that because we're going to have a capital hearing.
So that way we can determine where these funds are going.
this body is the appropriator and yet the departments of infrastructure are
telling us where they want to spend the money this is an opportunity for us to
take a look at line item line iteming these investments to make sure that
we're the ones that are selecting the projects what we see is that the
departments the infrastructure departments come to us and talk about
what they see they need what they what they say they need for for their
improvements. So we're going to have a discussion about that. This body also passed a sidewalk
ordinance to coordinate with the utilities. What we saw over and over, for those of you that have
not gone through the people's gas improvements yet, that they would come through, replace the
sidewalks that they damaged, but yet leave another crack one right next door without replacing the
entire block. Now tell me how efficient is that? Because we have to come
back and replace that sidewalk when in fact it could just did it then and
reduce the liability. So we're gonna have a hearing about capital and talk about
trying to figure out how to line item the investments. The CDOT and these other
infrastructure departments get money from the state, they get money from the
federal government, and the reason why we passed the capital bill a few years
ago was to deal with these issues that we face on a daily basis. It was to take a look at those
infrastructure investments that are not the fancy new ones where we're cutting ribbons on. It's the
alleys, it's the sidewalks, curbs, gutter, lighting, the things that constituents come to talk to us on a
daily basis. So we need to have a serious discussion about these investments and it starts in capital
and then it goes to funding, to finance to get funded. So colleagues will be having those hearings
soon because the administration and the departments will be seeking additional bond money in order to
deal with the investments. And that'll be your opportunity to expand on the line items where we
hear the most complaints. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Is there a motion to recommend
approval of item number 2B? So moved by Alderman Cazada recommending do pass. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the do pass
recommendation will be reported out at the april 16th city council meeting item number 2c bryce
summary and amy summary versus city of chicago et al case number 22l 5103 in the amount of 32
million dollars 20 million paid by the city 12 million paid by the city's insurance we are joined
by Deputy Corporation Counsel Margaret Mendenhall Casey. Thank you, Chair. This case arises out of a
May 12, 2022 car accident where a fleeing offender drove into the intersection at Michigan and Ohio
against a red light, collided with another car, and drove onto the sidewalk, striking plaintiff
Dr. Bryce Summary. At the time of the accident, Dr. Summary was walking with his wife, plaintiff
Amy Summary. As a result of the accident, Dr. Summary's legs were amputated. The summaries
allege the city willfully and wantonly, one, attempted to conduct a stop for a non-hazardous
traffic offense, an area with heavy pedestrian traffic, and two, engaged in a pursuit. Mr.
Summary sues for his physical injuries and Mrs. Summary sues for her emotional injuries.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of $32 million for the summaries.
That is $20 million paid by the city and $12 million paid by the city's insurance carriers.
At 8.30 p.m., officers Jaskoziak and Amanula were on patrol at Michigan and Hubbard
when they observed a Mercedes with a dark covering over its rear license plate in violation of municipal ordinance.
The Mercedes was stopped in traffic, not responding to a green light.
The officers positioned themselves behind the Mercedes, and then the Mercedes began to travel north on Michigan.
The officer activated lights and sirens in an attempt to effectuate a traffic stop near Illinois Street.
The Mercedes accelerated, entered the intersection at Ohio Street against a red light, and struck a Chevy that was proceeding eastbound.
The occupants of the Chevy were not injured and did not file a lawsuit.
The force of the impact caused the Mercedes to go up onto the sidewalk and hit Dr. Summary, who was a pedestrian.
The driver of the Mercedes escaped on foot from the scene.
The incident is captured on in-car and pie camera.
In total, eight seconds and approximately 0.1 miles passed between the officers activating their lights and sirens and the accident occurring.
The officers were 170 feet away from the fleeing offender at the time of the accident.
The officers reached a top speed of 40 miles per hour with the fleeing offender at a top speed of 59 miles per hour and the speed limit 30 miles per hour.
Immediately before the accident, CPD was traveling at 23 miles per hour.
The officers submitted an eluding report.
The general orders define a looting as an incident where a driver fails to yield to lights and sirens within reasonable time,
and the officer subsequently deactivates lights and sirens and stops following.
The supervising Sarge and watch commander also believe that it was an looting incident.
However, the traffic unit supervisor reclassified it as a pursuit.
the general orders to find a pursuit as an active attempt to stop a driver who
being given signs to stop visible and audible fails to do so thus a pursuit
report was submitted and ultimately the traffic review board found the pursuit
was in compliance the plaintiffs will attack this finding as the general order
state officers will not engage in a pursuit for traffic offenses the traffic
Review Board recommended a spar for delaying in activating body-worn camera
and both officers received a reprimand. The registered owner of the Mercedes,
Joseph Garcia, was a named defendant in this action. However, the court allowed
Garcia to settle with the plaintiffs for $50,000 and extinguishes liability in
this matter. Dr. Summary, who was 38 years old at the time, was married to Mrs.
Summary who was 35 years old. They have two sons who are currently six and four.
The family lives in St. Charles, Missouri. Dr. Summary is employed as a public
opinion researcher and Ms. Summary works in human resources. Dr. Summary was
attending a conference in Chicago that week and the Summary's were walking to
dinner at the time of the accident. Dr. Summary pushed Mrs. Summary out of the
path of the oncoming car. Dr. Summary suffered crushing trauma to both legs, which required
tourniquets to be placed on scene to reduce massive bleeding. While his most traumatic injuries were
to his legs, Dr. Summary also suffered a fractured spine, 12 broken ribs, and a bruised lung. Dr.
Summary required a series of procedures to stabilize him before ultimately amputating both
of his legs below the knee. Following his month-long stay at Northwestern, he was transferred to
Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and returned home in June of 2022. In December of 22, Dr. Sumery
transitioned from using a wheelchair to a walker with the use of prostatic limbs. He experienced
wound and bone infections, which kept him from using the prosthetics for periods of time.
His residual limbs, the limbs that were remaining after the amputation, were asymmetrical,
which was not optimal for the use of prosthetics.
Dr. Summary developed invagination which is a condition where his skin folds into itself
instead of being smooth.
The invagination caused Dr. Summary to develop painful pressure ulcers which are also known
as bed sores.
Furthermore, Dr. Summary experienced significant phantom limb pain, a common condition where
the patient feels pain in the limb that is no longer there.
in September 23 Dr. Summary went to the ER and doctors discovered a large abscess in his left
leg he was diagnosed with a bacterial bone infection two days later he underwent a procedure
in which the dead damaged and infected tissue was removed and the wound was clean by May of 2024
Dr. Summary ran two to three miles a week lifted heavy weights played with his kids and helped
with homework. However, these periods of walking were severely limited and did not exceed more
than two hours each day due to Dr. Sumery's daily and chronic pain. The prosthetics which allowed
him to be active also exacerbated his pain. When not wearing his prosthetics, Dr. Sumery used his
wheelchair or chose to crawl around the house. His treaters believe he will likely continue
experiencing bed sores, bone infections, and residual limb disfigurement requiring
additional procedures in the future. Ms. Summary claims loss of consortium, loss
of services, and emotional distress as a result of the accident. Loss of services
includes family decision-making, child rearing, and household repairs and chores.
Loss of consortium includes companionship and sexual relations. There is no evidence
that Mrs. Sumery had mental health treatment prior to this accident. The plaintiff used six
experts on this case and the city used six experts. Plaintiff's damages experts argue Dr. Sumery's
ability work is reduced due to his functional limitations and pain. The plaintiff's damages
experts opine that Dr. Sumery's future care will cost $18.4 million and that his loss earning
capacity is $13.4 million. Dr. Summary has $1.1 million in medical bills and $200,000 in lost
wages. Therefore, the Plains' experts place a total of $23.1 million in economic damages in the
record. The City's damages experts place a total of $2.4 million of economic damages in the record.
Given the injuries and the potential medical damages, Department of Law had to notify the
city's excess carriers. The insurance carriers employed attorneys to review the file and the
carriers consented to the settlement. If this matter were to proceed to trial, Dr. Sumnery
would seek compensation for past and future pain and suffering, past and future emotional distress,
past and future loss of normal life, past and future medical expenses, past and future lost
wages and disfigurement. Mrs. Sumnery would seek compensation for loss of services, loss of
consortium and emotional distress.
The Department of Law recommends settlements in the amount of $32 million for the summaries.
That is $20 million paid by the city and $12 million paid by the city's insurance carriers.
Thank you, Ms. Casey.
Questions from the committee members?
Alderman Riley followed by Alderman Villegas.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
and thank you for the detailed summary.
So I understand how the breakdown
of the proposed $32 million settlement works.
So with regard to the people
who actually inflicted these horrible injuries
upon the poor doctor and his wife,
what are they paying?
So the registered owner,
who was a defendant in this case,
paid $50,000 for his liability to be extinguished.
That is $25,000 for Mrs. Summary, $25,000 for Dr. Summary.
The city of Chicago did object vigorously to Joseph A. Garcia
being able to get dismissed from the case.
The city did do background checks on Mr. Joseph Garcia.
We did discover that in addition to owning this Mercedes,
after it was totaled, that Mr. Garcia purchased a Porsche.
Then within a course of two years, he traded that in and purchased another Porsche.
All of that was brought to the court's attention, yet he was allowed to get out for $50,000.
Huh.
What a good deal for the guy who inflicted this horrible, tragic thing upon this family.
And we get to pay for that.
Hmm.
Look, I feel terrible for the victims here.
And I don't doubt for one second they're entitled to every bit of that money.
But here we are again.
Let's go jackpot the city because we settle around here.
That's what we do.
And all that does incentivize more of this.
And sadly, not all of these are frivolous.
But in this particular case, they picked the wrong target.
And I'm not going to get into judge-shaming like some people are doing in politics right now.
But the fact that that was deemed responsible and fair and just to allow the person who's running around buying new luxury vehicles, that's a slap in the face to the taxpayers.
And again, none of this is directed to the law department.
We appreciate what you're doing to fight these things.
And I know that those outcomes are outside of your control.
What I'm saying out loud is for the record, we're here too often under these circumstances
where it's clear the responsible party is getting off the hook and the folks that we
all represent here, the taxpayers, are picking up the tab.
And all this stuff, all these settlements we pay out, there's an opportunity cost there.
Kind of going back to the broken sidewalks.
That's money that could be used to advance goals and fix big problems.
And we're spending it needlessly on this stuff.
So, again, I understand a big part of this is limiting our liability and assessing risk.
I appreciate that.
But some of my colleagues and I think that although some of these votes may be symbolic,
it's an important message to send because we don't want to continue to be this prime target
for a small group, thankfully,
of opportunistic attorneys
seeking to cash in.
You know, this is a bit of a cottage industry,
and that's not good.
We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars here
over the course of the year.
And that's money I think the taxpayers
would much rather see invested in their communities
and public safety and parks and schools and those things.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll be voting no on this item.
Thank you, Alderman Riley.
Alderman Villegas.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Did I hear we had excess insurance carriers?
Do we have more than one insurance company that's helping us pay this, anything above $20 million?
That's accurate, Alderman.
for any year that we are insured.
Typically, there are multiple layers of insurance
and multiple insurers involved.
Has that number of 20 million,
does that continue to go up?
You know, anything above 20 million?
What was that number five years ago?
To my knowledge, I believe it was 20 million.
I'm just asking because when we talk insurance companies you take a look at the liability
specifically around cases like this or wrongful convictions at some point
they're going to look at us as a as a bad client so I'm just curious as to
how high is that number but it seems like you just testified at five years same number
Madam Chair, where do we pay for this?
How do we pay for these settlements?
Settlements are typically included in our corporate budget for the Department of Law.
So through the Chair, if you could, well not through the Chair, but Madam Chair, could
you provide that number, what we budgeted for this year, what that total amount is for
settlements?
I will.
Thank you.
All right, that's all my questions.
Thank you.
I just want to, Ms. Casey or Mr. Hendricks, these cases that are also paid by the insurance companies, the specifics of those cases are reviewed by those companies?
That's accurate.
Alderman LaSpada followed by Alderman Wagespac.
Thank you very much, Chair. I just wanted to speak on a point that was raised around responsibility. To the public who may be listening, the question may be raised, as I think it has in the past, where our responsibility comes in cases like this.
Can you talk about what proximate cause means and how that implicates the city in litigation like this?
Sure, I'm happy to answer that question.
Just give me a moment.
I would start out by just saying that broadly, the way that our current proximate cause law is structured is not particularly beneficial for the city of Chicago.
So, proximate cause is defined as a cause that contributed to the plaintiff's injury.
It's not a defense to say that another actor also caused the injury if the city is additionally
a proximate cause.
The city can be a proximate cause even if it's not the last cause.
The city can be a proximate cause if its actions combine with another cause, which result in
the plaintiff's injuries.
so as you can see from that of course if we were to proceed to trial we would
make the argument that the sole proximate cause the only person who
should be held responsible is the fleeing offender however the jury
instructions say that there can be more than one proximate cause and that's why
from a risk management perspective we are seeking to settle this lawsuit
Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Alderman Waggisback, followed by Alderman Moore.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you for your work on this case.
It's pretty horrifying to hear what happened to Dr. Summary and his family day of the incident
and then obviously since the accident happened.
So first of all, I appreciate the work that you all have done on this,
including objecting to the judge for releasing Joseph Garcia from liability here.
Who was the judge on this case?
There were a number of judges that were involved in this matter.
However, the ruling regarding Joseph A. Garcia was made by Kathy Flanagan.
That's correct.
okay and what was uh judge flanagan's rationale for allowing him to be released from the case
more if you could specifically of course i'm happy to go a bit more into that so the the applicable
motion in this case would be what's called a motion for good faith finding and anytime a
plaintiff wants to settle with a party in the matter the plaintiff or has to or excuse me the
the co-defendant so Joseph A. Garcia has to file a motion go to court and say
judge by me putting up this 50k it's fair it's in good faith and please allow
me to pay the plaintiff 50k and extinguish my liability to anybody else
stemming from this incident including the city of Chicago and typically the
case law in this area is that when an individual puts up policy limits and
insurance that is typically going to be found as good faith extinguishing the
defendant's liability to anybody else involved in the incident. The City of
Chicago made the argument that sure judge if you want to extinguish Mr. Garcia's
liability to the plaintiff that's fine but this 50k should not extinguish Mr.
Garcia's liability to the city of Chicago. We performed the background check on Mr.
Garcia and brought to the judge's attention, as I've already mentioned, that
Mr. Garcia purchased three luxury vehicles in the course of two years.
That demonstrated that he has independent wealth beyond his policy
limit and insurance of 50k. However, the judge ignored the city's objections and
and granted the motion for good faith finding, therefore extinguishing Joseph A. Garcia's
liability to both the plaintiff as well as the city of Chicago. And just a bit more because I
know you're a lawyer as well. The kind of rationale, you're not, oh, I thought you were,
my apologies. I don't practice. I make sure you know that. Yeah, exactly. No, no, no,
I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
But just a little bit more to follow up.
And the idea, the rationale about it is that, well, the city gets to, if the city went to trial,
and say there was a 40, 50 we've seen on amputee cases, double amputee cases,
recently an $85 million verdict, then we get to subtract out the $50,000 that Joseph A. Garcia paid,
and therefore it's fair.
So I hope that clarifies a little bit about the rationale that the judge provided on this.
When you look at an insurance policy, and maybe this is too far down that path,
but the judge looks at it and says the insurance policy says this.
Does an insurance policy look at it as an accident versus the cause or the origin of the damages?
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure.
I'm not phrasing it the right way, but when you have insurance on your car and you have an accident,
they look at it and they say, okay, it'll pick up this amount because it was an accident.
Maybe it wasn't caused by you.
Maybe it wasn't.
But in this case, it was clearly caused by Joseph Garcia.
So the judge didn't feel that the judge felt it absolved the insurance carrier of having to pick up more of this simply because it was an accident?
Or what kind of policy was it?
Sure. So I can add a bit of clarification there.
The registered owner of the vehicle was Joseph A. Garcia.
The fleeing offender was never detained.
they were able to escape on scene and the the identity of the fleeing offender is still being
investigated okay I can project as to what the insurance companies may have been thinking which
is just simply let's extinguish our liability now we can get out for 50,000 which is peanuts
compared to what the potential exposure is on the table okay the well I think
that's I think that's all you could do on this case so I appreciate again what
you attempted to do here it's very frustrating to hear that judge Flanagan
felt that it wasn't necessary to take it a little bit further and hold mr. Garcia
accountable mr. Garcia is a resident of the city or Cook County or he's a
resident of Cook County I'm not sure if he's a city resident okay and so his
liability is completely extinguished from this unless unless we find the other
defendant and potentially fine well could he be brought back into this case if we find the
defendant the defendant says there's other liability there there's other issues with
mr. Garcia's allowed use of the vehicle so to go back to your earlier question yes in fact Joseph
Garcia is a citizen of Cook County as well as the city of Chicago. In terms of
any civil liability against Joseph Garcia, if an investigation was concluded,
it was determined that Joseph Garcia in fact was a driver, his civil liability
would still be extinguished. However, his civil liability is separate and distinct
from his criminal liability, which is not extinguished by this settlement.
Okay, so if there's potential criminal liability there, what is the statute of limitations,
or is there one, if he was connected to this incident?
Sure.
What would you do as the law department if that came out?
So as a law department, so the criminal liability would be on the state's attorney to prosecute.
Ultimately, the decision to bring criminal charges is within the state's attorney's purview.
It's been quite some time since I was an assistant state attorney.
My recollection is that the SOL generally on felonies is three years.
However, there are exceptions.
questions yeah okay well thank you very much for those answers I appreciate it and um I think you
all tried to do the best you could on this and it's unfortunate that um this incident and this
happened to Mr. summary but um I would vote in favor of this thank you very much thank
you chairwoman thank you Alderman uh Alderman Moore's questions were answered by your questions
Alderman Waggis back. So we'll go to Alderman Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm going to
apologize if I just missed this in the conversation. But just going back to Mr. Garcia. So
it was whoever was driving the car fled. So we don't know who was driving the vehicle.
It's still being investigated. Still being investigated. But and Mr. Garcia was,
he's the owner of the vehicle. That is accurate. And was it reported stolen?
No, it was not. Not to my knowledge.
That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lee.
Seeing no other questions, is there a motion?
Oh, Alderman Sposato.
I'm sorry. Sorry, ma'am.
He laughs again, huh?
Yeah. Well, this was just a quick question.
Byron, can you slide over a little?
Maggie, I'm sorry. I didn't ask it.
The quick question is, we're not sure if he was driving or not,
but is he legally, does he have to tell us who was driving,
if he's like his buddy had it or no we can't get that from him i'm sorry i didn't hear the last
part of your question so we're not sure if he was driving his own car or not so legally can we ask
him that can we say you're liable because it's your car if he said no i wasn't driving to prove
it does he am i asking the question understand him yeah i understand the the question that that
you're asking um you're basically asking can we interview him and ask him if he um is a driver
if he is not the driver um certainly that's a question that that could be asked i um
it it would be upon him if he wanted to answer it or not especially given the uh civil and criminal
context that legally if he takes the fifth and we say okay your car you're you're you're liable
i go down the uh the the the um the toll road if it's my my friend's using my car i get a ticket i
can't say no it wasn't me it was my friend give him the ticket so so that's
kind of a line of the question sure so I think that they're the criminal
investigation is ongoing in this matter all right and ultimately if we ask
questions that doesn't change the fact that his liability at this point has
been extinguished by the judge all right thank you Maggie thank you madam chair
Thank you, Alderman Sposato. Can I get a motion to recommend approval of this item?
So moved by Alderman Moore, recommending do pass. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed, Alderman Riley, you'll be recorded as being opposed on this settlement. Is there any
others? Seeing no others, the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next
city council meeting. Thank you all from the law department. Happy Friday.
Moving on to item number three from the Department of Housing, a substitute ordinance authorizing
the continuation of the single room occupancy SRO loan program, the continuation of the
grant agreement with the Community Investment Corporation, CIC, and renaming the program
to the SRO Preservation Fund.
There is a substitute ordinance which has been prepared and sent electronically to everyone.
Can I get a motion to accept the substitute?
So moved by Alderman Rodriguez.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And the substitute ordinance is now before the committee and will be explained by Aja.
I got it right this time.
Aja Bonner, Assistant Commissioner in the Department of Housing.
Aja.
Thank you very much. Good morning, or now afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Dow and members of the
committee. For the record again, my name is Asia Bonner, and I am the Assistant Commissioner
of the Asset Management Division at the Chicago Department of Housing. I'm here today to discuss
the SRO preservation, which was a pilot DOH launched in 2022, for which we are now seeking
reauthorization i'm joined by members of my team that work on sro among other matters michelle
pinard and alejandra sanchez as well as managing director of lending at community investment
corporation philip moore who will be available to answer questions about cic's role in this program
so once again the requested actions today are to approve the extension of the sro preservation fund
program to approve the expansion of the amount of funds that can be granted um also to approve
naming cic as the grantee or delegate and finally to approve the renaming of the program from sro
preservation loan fund to sro preservation fund you're gonna have to do this oh multitask
apologies for that so now um as background again the sro preservation fund program was launched as
a three-year pilot in 2022 now sun setting this year on the point of the fourth requested action
previously stated which was to approve the renaming of the program the original ordinance
referred to the program as the sro loan fund or the sro preservation loan fund but since the city's
disbursement of the funds is not an actual loan but rather a grant that supports a loan reserve
fund administered by cic for reporting purposes we are now referring to this initiative as the sro
preservation fund dropping the word loan from the program title through the sro preservation fund
program the city of chicago partnered with cic to create an investment and refinance tool to assist
existing and potential owners of sro buildings the fund helps to support the financial viability
of sro buildings by reducing debt and operating costs for owners while maintaining low-cost
affordable housing options for city for the city's most at-risk residents so you can really sort of
think of this program as a mortgage write-down fund and currently owners of sro buildings apply
directly to cic to access the program assistance owners must propose rehab plans for rehab plans
and either demonstrate that they have adequate financing for the project or apply for financing
through cic's existing lending pool qualifying applicants are selected on a first come first
serve basis and cic guides owners through full underwriting through the full underwriting process
with the goal of stabilizing the building long term in this partnership between the city and
cic the city is the investor in the fund program and again cic administers the application process
monitors construction progress and manages the disbursement of the loan pay down the city and
cic meet monthly to review pipeline progress and fund disbursements in the three years since
passage back in 2022 15 million has been granted from the city to cic to provide funds to sro owners
in 2024 the department of housing earmarked 25 million in hee hed bonds to fund the sro preservation
program over a five-year time frame that would be structured as annual disbursements of up to
$5 million per year for five years as funds are available.
So this body may recall that as a part of the department's campaign to secure additional
funding with what is now known as the HED bond program, DOH published the Housing and
Economic Development Bond booklet in June of 2024 and specifically called for the continuation
of the SRO Preservation Fund program earmarking up to $30 million to plug a gap in 2024, so last
year, and carry the program forward for the next five years. So that's what we see here in the
screenshot of that publication. A few things about how the fund is structured. The fund will cover
up to $15,000 per SRO unit with affordability restrictions sized according to the level of
assistance as shown in the chart. The more assistance requested, the greater percentage
of affordable units required, and affordability requirements for requests exceeding $15,000 per
unit is determined on a case-by-case basis. In general, affordability is held at 50% AMI,
or what is roughly $981 based on 2024 rent restrictions that include no payment of utilities
by tenants. So in general, that is sort of the AMI tier applied, though the owner may opt for
80% AMI or rents that would be charged at $1,570 according to 2024 standards.
um and if they apply the 80 percent AMI then they must also offset that with 30 percent AMI units or
units that would charge five up to 590 dollars in rent and then ultimately the affordability
restrictions are held in place for 15 years the assistance is structured as a mortgage that is
forgiven in equal parts over the course of the term the end goal of all of this is to improve
living conditions in the building for the benefit of the tenants while also ensuring the building
is sustainably operable with greater marketability to new tenants and in turn increase higher
occupancy as we know often sometimes sro struggle with high vacancy which then informs the cash flow
of the building and so the purpose of these funds is to shore that up improve make improvements in
the building and attract more tenants maintain high occupancies in the building all right
so now let's take a retrospective look at what was done during the pilot phase so these last three
years there are currently six sros in the pipeline for the preservation fund totaling eight million
248 295 dollars this has the reach of a total of 380 units with 192 units restricted at 50
ami or below i'll note that the sro located at 2611 north sawyer closed and received full funding
the others are at various stages of construction with the project at 920 west wilson near complete
will likely close this month and um soon thereafter the the sro at 5327 south cornell is expected to
complete as well so how did we get here the department earmarked back in 2022 15 million
dollars for the initial three years and dispersed those funds as was available and so i need to
emphasize as available because this was a pilot program funds were not always available consistently
over the three-year period and so there were stops and starts in the disbursement between the city
to cic also note that at any given time 10 of the funds are restricted and held as a construction
reserve loss fund so it's money that we can't necessarily access for the benefit of individual
projects we have that there sort of as a just in case so with the starts and stops we had a gap in
in funding in 2024 and we were not able to resume uh funding until the passage of the hed bond
late last year so this in turn slowed down program marketing and pipeline development but with the um
with our ability to secure those bonds we expect to move forward with the program
program pending approval of reauthorization of this ordinance here.
So the fund consisted of all the sources that contributed to the fund in the initial pilot
phase.
$8.75 million came from CRP funds and then another $1.9 million came from AHA funds and
then as I said at the end of last year $4.3 million was sort of backfilled with the HED
again for a total of 15 million dollars
so here we have a map of the current six ro six sro projects in the pipeline spread across six
different wards and I want to take this opportunity to talk about sro operators and the unique niche
that they occupy first of all it's really really hard work sro properties are challenging to
operate and are not necessarily the same as what you know from the multifamily affordable projects
that come before this committee on a regular basis or even traditional market rate multifamily
development. This is a very specific population that serve. They run on extremely tight margins
and it takes a particular skill set to effectively carry and operate a SRO building. So it's really
important as a part of our review process and and cic's underwriting process to identify
prospective sro buyers or operators that have experience in actually operating sro properties
so as we work to rebuild our pipeline we appreciate any and all leads or introductions
to experience sro operators across the city we certainly want to see more projects in our pipeline
well distributed across the city we have found that word of mouth is the most effective way of
sharing this information and we rely heavily on our partnerships that we forged through the sro
working group which meets quarterly and includes membership from sro owners and operators as well
as tenants and advocates and other lending institutions so in fact it was the work of
this working group the sro working group efforts back in 2020 and 2021 and the outreach that we
were able to make with owners and collect a survey and engage in focus group discussions that helped
conceive this very initiative and so we certainly um we'll be looking for other opportunities to
renew that kind of focused attention in the sro community get additional feedback and find ways
to expand um where these projects are coming from that end up in our pipeline
and so to that end to give you a picture of where we know sros to be and to kind of bring you into
the the wonderful puzzle that is some of this work the map that we see here shows um the distribution
of what are registered sros in the city a total of 37 buildings with roughly 3008 units
the challenge of maintaining an exhaustive inventory of sros is first they are privately
held buildings for the most part unregulated with multiple not mutually exclusive ways to define
what an sro is uh so there is a requirement for sros to license or obtain a license with the acp
um we cannot make owners do that um i think there are reasons why owners choose not to there's
mainly financial reasons um there's a cost associated with obtaining a license you are
required to have the fire department come out and do testing the results of that test might lead to
additional costs associated with fixes needed in sro buildings which largely often have condition
issues that would lead to that kind of outcome and so uh there's not um there there's a limited
uh reach in terms of getting sro owners to in fact register with the acp but that is one way
that we're able to track what sros actually exists in the city then we get to how do you actually
define an sro the city's municipal code is very specific um and it it says a dwelling unit within
a single room occupancy building that is used or intended to be used as a sleeping quarters or
living quarters with or without cooking facilities and that contains not more than
one habitable room consisting of not more than 250 square feet of floor area excluding from the
calculation of floor area any kitchens having less than 70 square feet of floor area so that is sort
of a you'd like to advance sure okay so point here is there's a lot of ways to think about sros
it's challenging to maintain a an exhaustive inventory of it but that is certainly a priority
of ours and why that's important is because we are looking for ways to expand our pipeline
increase our pipeline and make sure that we get full coverage and get these needed resources
in the hands of owner operators of sros
those so this is just a short slide showing the overall process application process again largely
administered by our partners CIC it starts with an application process the Department of housing
is involved with ongoing monitoring and compliance to ensure affordability terms are honored
this again just refers to the maximum rents which I spoke to earlier at 50 AMI and 80 AMI or 30 AMI
and um tracking is something that we continue to do um two ways that we sort of think about
it as tracking by a funding source that's going into the loan fund so at going forward it'll be
tracking all HED bond projects. But then additionally, we do
sort of a project by project tracking in partnership with CIC
as a part of sort of our monthly convening, monitoring the
progress of these projects. So once again, requested actions to
approve the extension of the SRO preservation program, to
approve the expansion of the amount of funds that can be
granted to approve naming CIC as the grantee delegate, and to
approve the renaming of the program from SRO Preservation Loan Fund to SRO
Preservation Fund. Thank you, Ms. Bonner. Alderman Mitts. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think this is a great
opportunity to keep affordable housing in the City of Chicago. I wasn't aware that
that your department was working on this ordinance,
so I want you to know there's an SRO
in my ward at 501 North Central.
It has been very challenging.
However, we have a new owner
who just purchased the property.
Myself, along with my colleagues,
Congressman Davis, State Rep. Camille Lilly, and myself sit down with them because there's a lot of maintenance and a lot of work that has to be done.
But I think that in partnership with the city, that we can make sure that this building is kept up to part where it can fit in with the community as a whole.
and we want to do everything that we can
because it certainly needs a lot of work
and I'm grateful for the owner to
purchase it. However we got here
I'm glad we're here because it was a challenge and
don't want to see 200 some people
living out on the street when there's a building there
that you get some time landlords that's not doing what they should be doing,
but accepting rent have a tendency to have a negative effect.
But we want to turn that around, so I would like to reach out for,
or have your staff to reach out to me so that we can work on this issue simultaneously together
as the state and the federal government come in to help.
We had secured funding for it at one time, but they changed the owner of the building at the time who was in charge of the SRO.
And the funds could not, the new owner could not receive those funding.
It had to have went to a not-for-profit.
So we want to continue to work on that.
and I need your help in doing so.
But I think this is a great program
that we need to preserve
for especially for affordable housing
and where people can be able to utilize.
So thank you, Madam Chairman.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Move to pass if no other one.
I'll call.
I'll have you renew your motion
after Alderman Villegas.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Was this initially supposed to be a loan fund?
Were we expecting to recoup some funding back or was it just the name of it?
No, it was never structured as a loan fund where funds would be dispersed from the city to an owner as a loan.
It was always meant to be a mortgage pay down program where we would be diverting funds into a reserve account.
And then CIC would be using that to pay down the mortgage that an owner would bring forward.
So we have no.
We provide the funding.
We have no equity stake in this investment.
That's correct.
We provide our resources as a grant to CIC.
And now you're asking to make this program permanent or is it an extension of the program?
It's an extension at this stage.
Because I'm looking at this and seeing how social housing plays in this space as well.
Because we're constantly giving funding through TIFFs for affordable housing and then now these funds for SRO.
At some point, do you see?
So this is, SRO provides a unique mix of housing or creates a unique housing option for very low income people.
I don't foresee a scenario where the participants of this program would be in a position to repay the city for funds or, you know, be in a sort of positive cash flow position.
They run on extremely tight margins.
So that's not really the intent of this program.
This program is more intended to make sure that people who need deeply affordable housing have a place to live.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Alderman Mintz makes a motion of due pass.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And the due pass recommendation will be reported out at our next city council meeting.
Ms. Bonner, thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman. Item number four is also from the Department of Planning and Development. It's an ordinance concerning the authority to enter into and execute an intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Park District for allocation of tax increment financing funds from the Midwest TIF District for improvements at Douglas Park located at 1401 South Sacramento in the 24th Ward.
We do have a letter of support from Alderman Scott and letters of support from Alderman
Irvin and Alderman Walter Burnett.
We're joined by Beth Riley from the Park District.
Ms. Bonner, did you forget your phone?
beth o'reilly let's move okay good afternoon um melvin introduced me good afternoon i am beth
o'reilly with the park district i'm the deputy director of managing over the capital and grant
section of budget office park district i'm here today to request your approval to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement that would provide the park district with 4.7 million dollars in
and TIF assistance to renovate the lower level of Douglas Park Fieldhouse.
The work will consist of masonry replacement, tuck pointing and repair to eliminate water infiltration,
door replacements, opening of walled-up windows, locker room replacements,
restroom reconstruction, and various other interior improvements.
Once the building envelope is sealed, the obsolete floor plate will be opened up,
and the space will be available for new and enhanced programming that will be explored after
a robust community process go on to the presentation
so this again is in the uh this project is douglas park use the mic please in the 24th ward
at douglas park is a huge park um
notes here sorry
uh douglas park is uh one of our bigger facilities it's configured as a citywide park covering 162
acres. The facility was constructed in 1927 and has 57,000 square feet. This is the current
condition of the lower level. These pictures are really depicative of the existing conditions. The
dance studio is just really shoehorned. It's all basement level work. The workshop is really
unique for the park district but it also has a lot of water infiltration in the open area you can
see here the floor plates are obstructed with old facility uses there's still like coal rooms and
things like that so once we get in there and get a structural engineer in there we want to remove as
many obstructions as possible the shower and the changing rooms will be changed this is the ramp
to the pool so these doors will be removed and welcoming into the shower area from the pool
this is the kind of hard to see the existing lower level layout with the divided rooms and squares and
we hope to open it all up this purple area on the perimeter illustrates where we are seeing water
infiltration so that is the first course of businesses to dry and tight this building up
we are seeking 4.7 million dollars in tiff funding we have a million dollar grant also coming into
this for a total budget of 5.7 as you can see most of the work is building envelope and interior
redevelopment and reconstruction um to make the 5.7 million dollars the um hope is that up in this
little curve area that overlooks the um mini golf is all blocked up so we're hoping to open up some
windows into the walls and create more light and bright and improve the airflow through the building
um the lower level is our focus i think i pretty much went over all of this um it's an amazing
structure we've been putting a lot of money in the upper floors we recently completed the cultural
center upstairs with the auditorium it has a couple gyms it's outdoor pools so
it's now time to button up the the rest of the building
that concludes my concludes your presentation alderman viegas followed by alderman rodriguez
uh thank you madam chair uh through the chair could you provide how much uh funding
see park districts received through the latest tiff surplus uh that the city that the city
council passed and then what's your total capital plan outside of tiff or any other grants
outside of tip so what what does the part district have for yes um about 35 million dollars this year
okay and based on market conditions when we go we're hoping to get 35 million gotcha so if you
could provide that through the chair um the total amount and then also the tiff surplus
that was there, how much did you receive of that?
And also add grants.
There you go. Thank you. And grants.
Which is your total infrastructure
funding.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
That's kind of a complicated thing, but we'll
find something and we'll put it.
TIF surplus, you receive a portion of it.
That's easy. Our budget is easy.
grants, state, DCO,
county,
foundations, anywhere.
Okay, I'm going to do grants
that we've been awarded in
24 and so far in 25
because it's a moving target.
Thank you. Alderman Rodriguez.
I just want to congratulate
Alderman Scott on this.
It's a historic building
and a very good project.
So I just wanted to
congratulate her and the community and move
to pass at the appropriate time.
I think Alderman Scott did not want to speak on this.
No, I did.
I'm sorry.
You did?
Okay.
I do.
I'm sorry.
I text you back.
All right.
Alderman Scott, it's on you.
So I just want to say that this is a long time coming because, you know, these buildings
are pretty historic and it's really hard to maintain the building without some type of
funding from our city partner.
from the city to the Chicago Park District.
And, you know, our children are swimming in the pools
and, you know, to come down
and have to get changed in a basement
and the basement looks like a horror movie.
I think that this is exemplary
of how we can help our city agencies.
And I appreciate Beth
and the rest of the Chicago Park District team
being thoughtful of putting this project together.
Thank you, Alderman Scott.
Alderman Rodriguez, you move do pass.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it
and the do pass recommendation will report it out
in the next meeting.
Constantine, I don't know that this presentation
for the 22nd Ward is coming up.
Item number five,
from the Department of Planning and Development
ordinance concerning the authority to enter into and execute an intergovernmental agreement with
the chicago park district for the allocation of tiff increment tiff funds from the little village
industrial corridor tiff district for improvements at petrowski park located at 4247 west 31st street
in the 22nd ward we're joined again by beth riley beth o'reilly
this hi uh good afternoon um i am here today to request your approval to enter into an
governmental agreement that would provide the chicago park district with eight million dollars
in tiff assistance to construct an enclosure around an existing outdoor pool at piotrowski park
additional work will include expanding the pool deck improving access to the locker room
which will also be renovated uh as the deck expansion will impact an existing water playground
that too will be relocated to another area of the park when as part of this project the project is
located at 4247 west 31st street in the 22nd ward and is located within the little village industrial
tiff so piotrowski is the medium-sized park this is the existing floor plan from the site plan
so the pool is outside we had a previous pilot project with an in sort of like an inflatable
temporary enclosure to try to winterize this pool that went on for a few years
not very successful um it did not make the didn't withstand the winter let's just say so we're
coming up with a new solution uh this will be the first time we're enclosing an outdoor pool to try
to get year-round use um and you can see that the pool is here it has an existing deck that will be
expanded the plan is uh it's pretty swift this is the existing condition of the locker room uh needs
an upgrade um this is the on the far right you can see the access from the pool right now you
from the pool you have to cross through the field house to get to an accessible area to get down to
the locker room so this will they're working at designs right now it's about to go out for a real
structural to figure out how to make this uh transition uh better safer definitely accessible
for those that need assistance this is the existing water playground that will be moved
and this is the existing outdoor pool area as i mentioned we are seeking eight million dollars in
tiff we have a 1.15 other source we have a million dollar hud grant and 150 000
dollar dceo grant to help fund this project with a total budget of 9 million 150 000.
uh the pool enclosure and the expansion of the deck picks up most of this expense um and the
locker room and accessibility upgrades also pick up 1.5 million of the budget so this is the
schematic again we are going out for full design this is a schematic rendering of what we might be
looking at here um the locker room areas to be improved again we're making the locker rooms
accessible a year-round pool use this community is really into swimming we're anticipating 1800
participants in a year-round programming once we get this up and going the alderman has been
extremely supportive the community is so excited about this project and i'm available for any
any questions. Thank you, Ms. O'Reilly. Alderman Rodriguez, I have a question. The HUD grant,
under what program did that $1 million come from? I'll ask Chewy. I don't know.
Ah, okay. That's an unusual grant. Community enhancement. No, it was, so each congressman
gets to dedicate funds towards projects in their district. This is one of the projects out of many
that he chose to invest in.
Thank you.
It's on you.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Get off that guy.
Come on over.
Yes, very good.
Oh, excuse me,
I'll let you close,
but I see that
Chairman Irvin
has his hand up.
I do have one question,
and this is a little selfish.
it absolutely does and i'm trying to figure out why you don't have a little
deck or a little uh a little station or concession stand for uh home run in in your uh project so
that's all well that sounds like a uh inside joke here alderman rodriguez thank you madam chair um
You know, Petrowski Park holds a very special place in my heart.
At the age of five, I started baseball at this park.
My first real full-time job, actually part-time, was there at Petrowski Park.
And I met Senator Villanueva there when I ran my summer programs.
She was a volunteer.
She was right across the street from the park.
and we started, you know, our organizing and work together as young people at the park,
although I was a little bit older than her. And most recently, my daughter, a couple years ago,
just finished t-ball at Petrovsky Park. And as Alder Chair Irvin just stated, right across the
street from the original, the one and only best pizza in the world, Home Run-In Pizza,
on 31st Street there.
I remember countless times winning
and sometimes losing baseball games
and demanding home run pizza from the coaches thereafter.
But the fact is, is that our community utilizes this park.
It's one of the most used park,
even though it's a minimum sized park,
one of the most used in the city of Chicago.
The 1,800 swim participants aren't actually a projection.
That's the number of people who are programmed in that space
when we did have programming there.
It's the only public access pool
in the youngest community in the city of Chicago,
Little Village.
The fact is that since 1996,
we had a temporary fix in that space.
It was supposed to stay for 10 years.
It actually lasted until 2010
and then needed to go down
because it wasn't working anymore.
This inflatable temporary dome, if you will.
It looked like a salt dome.
Yeah, it looks like a salt moment for all intents and purposes is.
And it essentially stopped working a couple of years ago while wore out its use.
The fact is, is that this community is in desperate need and clamoring for this.
Our Little Village Quality of Life Plan names this effort as one of the top priorities for the improvement of the neighborhood.
We're pulling $8 million from TIF, 100%, in the 22nd Ward, the industrial TIF that we're pulling this from,
and in $1 million in funds from our congressperson, Jesus Chiria Garcia.
Small grant as well, but vital grant from DCEO, from our state representative, Edgar Gonzalez, and state senator, Selena Villanueva.
The fact is, I want to thank our congressman, our state senator and rep, our Cook County Commissioner, Alma Anaya,
all of our sports faith youth development programs in the community in last chicago chicago boxing
club urban warriors beyond the ball new life centers all with the with great programming who
support this project who written letters of recommendation for this project but most
importantly yesterday i was with our special recreation parents we may have one of the biggest
special rec programs in the city of chicago and those parents have been clamoring for this effort
and yesterday, Madam Chairwoman,
I wish you were there with me
to give them the good news
that today we were going to pass this
in City Council's Finance Committee
and then at City Council.
They're ecstatic about this
and I think you're exactly right.
I want to thank the Park District,
especially Beth Tomlins
for her work on this endeavor
and I definitely want to move
for a favorable consideration of this item.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Rodriguez
and again, congratulations.
I was jealous when I learned about this project
because you're going to have the only covered pool in the city.
It's going to be pretty cool.
Those doors will open.
It's going to be indoor, outdoor through the summer.
It's going to be something to watch.
So, Beth, I'm sure you'll get more requests for projects like this.
Yes, Alderman Burnett.
Thank you.
Vice Mayor.
So this is a new pool or an existing pool that you're putting a cover over?
Yes, that.
Existing pool that you're putting a cover over?
Correct.
Like we're trying to.
Building a structure around it.
Like we're trying to do in my ward in Union Park.
With my TIF money.
We're trying to do that in Union Park.
I'm not familiar with what's going on with you.
We hear you.
Okay.
We know how you operate this, ma'am.
Thank you.
No excuses.
Okay.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next meeting thank you miss o'reilly thank you
um item number six is the substitute ordinance amending chapter 2-4-5 of the of the municipal
code to authorize the issuance of non-invasive right of entry agreements there is a substitute
ordinance which has been prepared and sent electronically to everyone is there a motion to
accept the substitute so made by alderman quinn all those in favor signify by saying aye all those
opposed in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the substitute is now before the committee and
will be explained by uh kalpana plaman who's the deputy commissioner in the department of planning
and development thank you chair dowell uh good afternoon members of the committee for the record
my name is Kully Plowman or Kulpina Plowman, Deputy Commissioner with the Department of
Planning and Development. I am here today to seek your approval to authorize the DPD Commissioner
to enter into non-invasive rights of entry. This authority will allow DPD to issue rights
of entry to potential buyers of city-owned land for non-invasive due diligence such as surveys
and phase ones having this authority will reduce the time that it takes to sell a vacant lot
due to volume and capacity 2fm can take as long as six months to issue a right of entry
DPD can reduce that time frame to less than a week as it has the capacity to issue non-invasive
rights of entry for both DPD and DOH.
The Law Department will draft the template right of entry for DPD.
DPD will provide notice of issuance of every right of entry to 2FM.
In order to streamline this process, DPD will not require full EDSs to issue the right of
entry.
Instead, DPD will require the following certifications from the licensee and its contractors under
the right of entry.
First, family employed by the City.
Second, payments to elected City officials within the last year.
third any financial interest in it by any elected city official or city employee
when dpd brings the land sale ordinance to city council for approval a full eds from the
bot from the buyer will be required thank you thank you very much alderman burnett yes uh thank you
Madam Chairman, I just want to commend the law department, the Department of Planning and the Department of Housing.
You know, for years, and I don't know, you know, I've been griping about the fact that it takes so long for us to even sell a vacant lot to someone.
We have to go through all of this.
And sometimes by the time we go through everything, the lot has increased in value.
And then people don't want it anymore.
So by doing this, this will help the city to be able to capture some of those dollars and get these lots, you know, back onto the tax rolls.
So I want to commend you on this.
This is a good addition to the cut to take.
It's very important.
And we need it.
And, you know, I still don't understand why the law department just don't allow us to sell lots like we used to sell them.
We used to just sell them and buyer beware.
Why do we have to go through everything for someone to buy a lot?
Just sell it to them and let them excavate it, clean it, do whatever they need to do.
Just pay us the money.
Stay tuned.
We're still working on those kinds of incentives.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Mayor. I too want to thank the Department of Planning and Development for this work. I also want to acknowledge my staff as well, Audrey Wade, Constantine Carrigan, and Brian Friedman for some of their input into the final product.
And with that said, motion made by Alderman Quinn,
recommending do pass.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
All those opposed in the opinion of the chair,
the ayes have it.
Item number seven, Ms.
Is thank you, is a proposed ordinance authorizing
the payment of various small claims against the city,
a direct introduction, which was sent to everyone
electronically if there are no objections these will be placed on the omnibus item number eight
is the proposed order denying the payment of various small claims against the city also a
direct introduction which was sent electronically to everyone if there are no objections these will
be placed on the omnibus item number nine is miscellaneous under a a proposed order authorizing
charitable solicitation on the public way permits this was a direct introduction for worldwide
worldwide wildlife foundation for their actions city-wide april 16 2025 to june 30th 2025
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 alderman quinn all those in favor of the motion signify by saying i oppose in the
opinion of the chairs the ayes have it the committee on finance is adjourned everyone have a great
weekend.