The committee on finance this call to order.
We will have a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice chair Conway.
Alderman laspata.
Alderman Mitchell Alderman Beal. Alderman, Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman, Curtis Alderman, OSHA Alderman, Taylor Alderman,
Mosley Alderman, Rodriguez, almond Scott Alderman, CEO
Lopez, Alderman, brunette Alderman. Ervin,
Alderman, tally, Farrell Alderman, Cardona.
Alderman waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez. Sanchez Alderman, Quezada.
Alderman. Vagus almond spaz.
Alderman Vasquez Alderman, Reilly alderman, kuden.
Alderman. Martin Alderman Silverstein
Chair dowel is here. We have a quorum. We have 16 present
in the chamber.
Alderman, Lee Alderman mitts Alderman Ramirez Alderman,
Harris, Hopkins and Hall, have Brooke, and Scott have
requested to participate remotely at today's meeting for
reasons. Under the provision of rule 59, can I have a
motion to allow these Alderman to enter the meeting so
moved by Alder?
Silverstein.
All those in favor signify by saying I opposed in the
opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and I want to
confirm Alderman Lee.
From president chair. Good morning, Alvin mitts I'm present
here, Alderman, Ramirez, present Alderman, Harris.
Alderman Hopkins uh president good morning all, good
morning Alderman Hall.
And Alderman, Scott.
All right, at this time, we will begin the public comment
period, which is limited to 30 minutes out of respect for
everyone's Time. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes.
We'll begin. This morning's public. Testimony with Zoe
lelay.
Good morning. Good morning. Happy Monday.
The city of Chicago is already gone through the 82 million
that Brandon Johnson set, aside for settlements and
judgments in 2025.
Now, the fund can soon be 62.4 million in the hole.
That's how much 6 new settlements today at the city
council. Uh can finance committee will end up paying us
now, that's not counting, the 15.5 million settled meant to
private investors who lease Chicago uh, parking meters when
daily Junior, sold the streets to Dubai.
um, our new attorney though, just filed a 60 rule motion
because we found fraud upon the previous, uh, case. And uh,
this is just isn't regular fraud, it's serious, you know,
the city of Chicago Law Department keeps assigning Bradley
Wilson, the same attorney, who committed the fraud uh to
this case. Now, he's handling the 1 Where My First
Amendment rights are being violated the case, I finally
filed after all of you guys, tried to defame me. Arrest me
and silence me. It's definitely a conflict of interest, but
this whole body and current Administration is a conflict of
interest. Now, for the last, uh,
Week.
uh, I have been getting all types of threats, uh, physical
altercation that led to Paul McKinley not looking too good
afterwards because he should never touch, no type of woman
just because of this movement that is happening. Now I
don't care what y'all bring up about my past. I know I used
to be a Savage, I know but they don't have nothing. It's
nothing compared to what y'all have done for you.
Years and decades. Even before I was born, you have a bank
robber who is the vice mayor and he sold out Cabrini Green
and Cha with the help of his wife and his wife was working
for cha. I know a lot of stuff so y'all can take it there.
I'm going to take it to hell. Do not bother me, settle, do
settle my cases. I got 4 cases and I'm about to do this
case with rainbow push because they keep violating my my
rights over there as well. I'm not playing with none of
y'all. I have an attorney now. Nobody is playing. This is
all going to stop. This is all corruption. This 1 big Rico.
Y'all been been stealing forever. Y'all the biggest
scammers on Earth so I don't care what y'all try to bring
up about me. I do not care so y'all can continue to find
stuff, send people all that stuff. I ain't Tha 1 I'm not
the 1 and I and y'all know that it's 3 years, it's going in
my third summer, this year is disrupt time. If y'all don't
settle my case, tell Bradley Wilson Mary Richard, the Lord.
Glory all them people sat on my case I'm not the 1. I'm not
the 1 Trump come here Department of Justice Kash Patel
dambo y'all come these people need to go to prison.
Operation grey Lord 2.0, I'm not playing with none of
y'all.
Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
Waste, Fraud and Abuse.
Empty seat. Can you imagine the second or third largest
city in in uh, in America and nobody's here?
Nobody's here.
It's sickening.
It's unamerican.
Its corruption.
Nobody's here. So I guess the people deserve the
government, they get and they get the government they
deserve and this just didn't happen.
Malcolm X birthday is the day you go to out to Malcolm X
all his family.
Something happened to the black man.
Inside in America.
All this money is now fifty million dollars.
Or more.
For illegal immigrants.
That's why you can't why you gonna get this money from and
I I watch you.
And I see how y'all interact with each other. Y'all are
quite comfortable periods of a Feather blocked together.
All of you.
Go Blue.
Corruption.
Slippery. Go red.
I, I
I had to do this.
You bad, you bad, you bad. All of them.
All of.
Now, where is fake news?
Look at the empty seat, something is wrong here to have
this meeting and and, and you have nobody here.
You have and you're happy.
You're happy. I notice how this man in an actor with the
children that came over you know racial turn. They just all
69 in each other. Why did you say that Mr? Blakemore.
Just watch him.
Just watch him not a 1 of them.
Not a 1.
Uhuh.
It's this man came and come way and you think he's gonna do
something with with with P. It's just a show.
Miss. I tried to explain to him.
1 Thing free. Look at here.
Something gonna happen here.
Come back to God, gonna come back here.
And something Gonna Change here, it got to change.
The change. Got to come here.
The change. Got to come. I don't know the results, but it's
Gonna Come.
Our next speaker is Allison Cruise.
Good morning Alders. Um, as a lifelong Chicago resident.
I'm grateful to be able to speak before you today, I grew
up in the 19th, Ward, and currently work and live in the
34th Ward. I work in mergers and Acquisitions for a utility
scale, renewable energy developer.
Today, I urge you to support the Hazel M Johnson
cumulative, impacts ordinance.
As a constituent in a proud. Chicagoan, I am looking for
the city and this committee to prioritize strategy over
sentiment.
Acknowledging. The burden placed on Frontline communities.
Is not enough.
This is what we need from our city strategy over sentiment.
Today, we can strategize on how to create a financial aid,
resilient Chicago?
Financial resilience as I've learned and security can be
achieved by managing risk and the biggest risk for the next
generation and my own is a changing climate.
Our inaction to protect Frontline. Communities is costing
us. We can confront this risk and protect our communities
or we can continue to do as we have always done and
discount tomorrow for the sake of today.
Chicago is facing more than a billion dollar deficit in
2025 economically as a country. We are being tested.
Hesitation to invest in our future is an understandable and
predictable reaction to the current uncertainties our
communities and Market space.
The factors that have caused these current conditions are
out of the control of this chamber. I understand that but
this chamber influences what our city becomes,
Chicago is going to, and arguably already has become a city
of climate migration.
Climate migration exists as an externality of the
Industrial Development of our world it occurs. When people
are displaced due to the climate crisis, he waves floods
droughts fires poverty and the list goes on. This is a
risk, mitigating ordinance, there are minimal additional
enforcement and implementation costs because the
departmental structure already exists within the city. So
how does Chicago want to adapt to this changing world? Do
we want to stay competitive in it? I believe measures like
this. Ordinance are how we do this by valuing the safety of
our communities Above All Else.
External costs created by industry. Do not just vanish Into
Thin Air. They embed themselves in communities and keep
those communities sick. We desperately need business models
that work for the people and our sustainable long term. So
both businesses and communities can flourish
Either we can create a better framework for Development.
Across the city are likely faced lawsuits difficult, policy
changes and the hidden costs of an action later. The choice
is yours. Thank you.
Our last speaker is Joseph Negron?
Good morning. I'm Joe. Nigro 41st Ward resident lifelong
Chicago and and right share driver.
First. Congratulations on.
Negotiating, a low payout.
For the parking meter company. The parking concession has
to be 1 of the worst long-term deals. The city has ever
made.
All the wealth is extracted from this city where would our
finances be if those funds stayed here?
As far as the right share ordinance, the fair share
ordinance, and indifference to the finance committee. Let
me focus on some numbers.
Over 1 billion.
Uber is required to provide passenger price information to
Chicago and New York power switch action compared over 1
billion rides. This is data directly from Uber.
Between 2019 and 2023 prices in Chicago skyrocketed by 54%,
in New York prices, only increased by 36.
The difference Chicago passengers are exploited by
algorithmic price discrimination. New Yorkers rates are
based on time and distance. Another study by Professor
Sherman at Columbia University showed that the national
average increase pricing during the pandemic was 40%. New
Yorkers saved money compared to the rest of the country,
certainly compared to Chicagoans
That same study showed, drivers earnings dropped by 17% from
2022 to 2023.
Further detailing that between 2018 and 2022.
Uber raised prices by 83%.
That's an annual average increase of 17.5%.
The recent grid rise study showed that in 2024, Uber again
raised prices by 7.2% a passengers.
While Uber drivers saw a drop if 4% in PEI.
All these price increases have been way more than even
inflation can account. For the wealth of Chicagoans is
being extracted by these algorithms. We need our
representatives to stand up for us. The fair share
ordinance, eliminates the algorithms, that overcharge
passengers and underpays drivers. There's also a take rate
cap of 20% so that passengers won't get gouged.
Imagine where would this City's finances be today if that
wealth stayed in the pockets of Chicagoans spent locally on
housing groceries, vehicle maintenance, and the many other
things we need in our day-to-day lives. This should be a
no-brainer.
The ordinance gives a raise to over 85,000 drivers and
protects passengers for those of you who haven't already
done. So I ask that you please sign up as a sponsor for
this ordinance and when the fair share ordinance comes to
the floor, please vote. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. This concludes public comment. I want to thank
everyone who spoke this morning. Um, I want to acknowledge
that we've been joined by Alderman. Quinn Alderman,
Rodriguez and Alderman laspada, who will be counted
towards, uh, Quorum. And, uh, Alderman Taylor has requested
remote participation by rule, 59, can I get a motion to
allow her to enter? So moved by Alderman Quinn, um,
All those in favor. Signify by saying I I opposed and the
opinion of the chair, the eyes, have it and alderman.
Taylor are you with us this morning?
All right, Cameron, ottoman Harris is here. I'm sorry.
Thank you Alderman. Harris, got you
Um, we'll begin with the monthly.
Rule, 45 report for April 2025. The report was sent
electronically to everyone. If there are no questions, can
I get a motion to recommend approval of the monthly rule,
45 report.
So moved by Alderman, Cardona. All those in favor, signify
by saying iOS and the opinion of the chair. The eyes have
it.
Um, we have a total of 5 items on the amended agenda this
morning and we'll begin with item number 1, which is from
the office of budget and management. It's an ordinance
authorizing. A 1-time fee, waiver for the Metropolitan
Water, Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, for the
construction of a project, at 1, 112 Ward. We do have a
letter of support from Alderman, Reilly and we are joined
by Dennis Barrett from the budget office and Kevin
Fitzpatrick from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District. If there are any questions on this matter
Alderman. Ervin.
Thank you, madam chair. What, what's actually being
constructed and how much is the waiver?
Could you repeat your question? I didn't even I'm sorry. I
said what? What are the constructing and how much is the
waiver? Thank you. Um,
Mr. Kirkpatrick Fitzpatrick.
Hi. Yes. So we are redoing our identify your name for the
your name and title for the record.
Yes, Kevin Fitzpatrick.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation, District of Greater
Chicago.
So we have uh, 2 Office Buildings at 111 East Erie and 100
East Erie and the building at 111 East area was damaged in
a flood. Uh, ironically last August, um, we are totally
redoing that building it hadn't been done since 1986, so we
are updating it to meet codes. Um, for safety reasons, the
permit is going to be in a a roughly, a 40,000 dollar cost
range um and we are trying to Fast Track so we can get our
employees back downtown.
Thank you.
Motion made by Alderman, Ervin, recommending do pass all
those in favor. Signify by saying I opposed and the opinion
of chair. The eyes, have it. And the due pass
recommendation will be reported out at the May 21st city
council meeting item number 2 is from the Department of
Law. It's a communication, transmitting reports of cases in
which verdicts judgements or settlements were entered into
for the month of April 2025. The list of payments approved
was sent electronically to everyone and if there are no
objections, this item will be placed on file with the
clerk.
Item. Number 3 is from the Department of Law. It is, uh, 5
proposed orders authorizing, The Corporation Council to
enter into and execute settlement orders in the following
cases. Uh, case number 3A is the Chicago parking meters,
LLC versus the city of Chicago Department of Finance, AAAA
case number 0224008 2839 and the amount of 15.5 million.
Um, we are joined this morning by James MacDonald, the
managing Deputy Corporation Council from the Department of
Law who will present on this matter.
Good morning, Mr. MacDonald.
Good morning. Chairman
And good morning members of the finance committee.
As was said, I'm Jim McDonald. I'm a managing, Deputy
Corporation Council for the Law Department.
And I'm here to discuss the proposed settlement agreement
between the city of Chicago and Chicago parking meters LLC.
this settlement agreement res, resolves, 3 separate
disputes,
The city has had for most of the past 5 years, where
Chicago parking meters LLC, who I'll refer to as CPM.
CPM is the concession are under the city's. Parking meters,
concession agreement.
On the first dispute, which I'll call the meter designation
dispute.
CPM claimed that the city owed them, 322 million and
compensation for alleged losses.
Due to certain meter designation actions. The city took in
2021 and 2022.
Under this settlement agreement.
The city will pay CPM 15.5 million.
We should note that the meter designation actions we took
Netted the city 26.2 million dollars in Revenue.
Which we get to keep under this settlement agreement.
To repeat for the meter designation claim.
CPM claim of 322 million.
City payout, a 15.5 million and revenue earned of 26.2
million.
On the second dispute.
Which I'll call the enforcement claim.
CPM claimed, we owed them, approximately 36 million in
compensation due to our alleged failure to effectively
enforce the metered parking system as the concession
agreement requires.
CPM lost that climate arbitration, but then brought a new
claim.
Of 9 million.
Under this settlement agreement.
The city will pay CPM 0 on that, 9 million claim.
I repeat, we pay zero dollars.
We do commit to hiring 2, additional FTE, contracted staff.
To do parking enforcement for 1 year.
I'm informed by the controller's office that these staff
bring in more Revenue than they cost the city and salaries
and benefits.
CPM. Also commits to sharing with the city.
Data on a weekly basis.
They got from their personnel writing parking tickets.
this will allow for more efficient streamline enforcement
by both the city and CPM
to repeat for the enforcement claim.
CPM claim of dollars.
A city payout of zero dollars.
A commitment by the city.
For 10 additional FTE stacks.
For parking enforcement.
and a CPM commitment to share, enforcement related data
with
The city.
On the third dispute.
Which I'll call the co claim.
CPM claimed, we owed them, 2 million dollars, for alleged
losses, due to our directive to stop ticketing outside, the
central business district for the duration of Governor
pritzker's, stay-at-home order,
The order was issued on, March 20th, 2020, and expired on
June 2nd, 2020.
An arbitration panel found that the city owed CPM $2
million on the co claim.
The city, paid the $0 but began the appeal process in court,
court, to reverse the arbitration, panel's decision, since
we disagreed with it.
under the settlement agreement, the city agrees to stop, its
appeal process,
To repeat for the coid claim.
A CPM claim of dollars.
The city payout of million dollars.
And an N to the city's appeal efforts.
for each of these 3 claims, the meter designation claim the
enforcement claim and the coid claim
The city has solidly legal arguments to support our
position that we owed CPM nothing on any of these claims.
but before we entered settlement, negotiations, we were
facing furtherly further, legal proceedings. On these 3
claims
We had already experienced adverse findings against us from
an arbitration panel with respect to 2 of these claims.
To avoid the risk and expense of further. Litigation on
these claims we entered into settlement negotiations with
CPM.
And have reached settlement agreement, which is subject to
your approval.
to recap the settlement agreement provides 1 on the meter
designation claim, a city payout of 15.5 million as against
a CPM claim of 322 million with 26.2 million in earned
Revenue which we get to keep
2 on the enforcement claim, a city payout of zero dollars.
As against a CPM claim of 9 million.
And commitments by CPM and the city, which will lead to
better parking enforcement.
And 3 on the coid claim resolution of that claim with the
city, payout of $2 million as required by the arbitration
panel to satisfy cpm's 2 million dollar claim.
Our exposure with us, could be 322 million plus, 9 million
plus, 2 million dollars.
With this settlement, we'll have paid out, 15.5 million,
plus 2 million.
And we get to keep the 26.2 million we made under the
meter. Designations
A respectfully request, your approval of this settlement
agreement and would be happy to respond to any questions,
you may have on it.
Thank you, Mr. MacDonald, before we get to questions, I want
to acknowledge Alderman, Reilly and Alderman. Mitchell have
joined us for uh the meeting. And we'll be counted towards
Quorum. And Alderman, Bernett has requested to participate
participate remotely under rule 59, 59, can I get a motion
Quezada? So moves all those in favor, signify by saying I
close in the opinion of the chair, the eyes, have it
Alderman brunette.
Vice mayor you with us.
Okay. Moving along, Madam. Madam chair. This is Alderman
Hall.
Yes, we counted you Alderman, haul. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Um, Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much uh Cheryl win. Uh thank you for the
presentation, Mr. MacDonald. Um,
Rather than going to a full-on die, tribe of how we all
hate the parking meter deal, which I'm sure we hear enough
of and who voted for it. It sounds to me from what you're
explaining, we come out ahead 8.7 million dollars on the
with the so-called on the deal, we're paying out, um the
15.5 May 26.2 pushes at a 10.7, uh, ahead and then the
other 2 million, which we had already paid out and aren't
going to further appeal, puts us ahead at 8.7, which I
think.
Reasonably we appreciate just want to thank you for that. I
think the question I've got related to the 2 full time
positions that are part of the agreement. Um,
What's the pay for the FTE positions? Do we know?
if you don't mind, I'd like to refer that question to Chuck
Billows, who is
Morning, uh, Charles Billows. Deputy director Department of
Finance, so they'll be 5 FTE. I'm sorry. 10 to the mic,
please.
There'll be 10 FTE which will be uh contracted staff.
There are approximately cost of the city, is 52,000 a year.
So I got a question because you said 2, is it 2 or 10?
10. If I said 2, that was a mistake. 10 full-time
positions. What's the cost of that? Again, 52,000 a year
per per per
uh, and then I guess,
Through the chair. Unless somebody from the controller's
office is, here you mentioned those positions, actually?
Bringing in Revenue. What does that look like in comparison
to the cost? Uh, each FTE. Will net the city about 490,000?
Okay. Um, what hours are they working? As far as those
particular FTE because I know, sometimes we're asking for
evening weekend hours. What does that look like? Uh these
these specific FTE will be in coordination with CPM uh on
where we're going to assign them.
Okay, is there anything that you could provide you to do to
share talking through?
Hours parts of the city what that all looks like as far as
what they're covering. Um, I think it's the reason why I'm
asking for all this is every single year we bring up want
to have more parking enforcement because it's always ways
to bring revenue. And so the fact that this was the way to
get 10 as opposed to what we bring up every year is a bit
frustrating. So I'd like to find out, you know what those
terms are.
Can that be shared through the chair?
Yes. Okay.
so we're looking at,
About another half a million.
They were paying for those 10.
Which still puts us ahead about 8.2.
Um okay so sorry. Just wanted to make sure I got my math.
Right. I think this makes sense and why I'd be support but
I do think we need more specificity in those terms up
front. And if we are going to get ourselves in a position
where the only way we get extra people to enforce parking
is getting sued. Uh, maybe we need to have better
conversations during budget. Uh, thank you very much. Thank
you. And I'm informed, I misspoke earlier when I
apparently, I said 2 ft positions. I should have said 10.
Thank you, apologize, for that mistake.
Alderman, Mosley is joined us and we'll be counted towards
Quorum Alderman, Quezada.
Um, yes I have some questions about um like what have we
learned from uh this settlement, you know, situation um
can help us, you know, avoid future settlements. Uh in this
in this regard, you know, I guess ask some questions
around. Did the previous administration have Clarity on
what the risk of legal action would be, by taking that
policy of known forcement? Uh, during the pandemic. Um, you
know, there there's a part of me that is sympathetic to
that policy for for not enforcing, you know, people who are
struggling, people who are losing their jobs. Um, but if
we're going to be in this, you know, this deal until 2083,
God forbid, we have another pandemic, God forbid, there's
something that prevents people from paying their parking
meter. What's going to prevent us from, you know, this you
know company from suing us. For any time. Do we take
action? Do we have any framework or guidelines? Uh for how
we can avoid these kind of settlements in the future?
We always try to learn from our experience.
As I said, in my earlier, testimony
Each time we did these actions we thought we had very good
legal arguments on our favor, right? And unfortunately the
arbitration panel found against us on 2 of the 3 clients.
We clearly will take and we know that CPM.
Is very aggressive in defending what they consider to be
their rights under the contract.
So it is something we will be, I can't promise what's going
to happen in the future. The contract expires in 2084 but I
would imagine uh, while I'm here and my successors, I'll
take into account.
the experience of the last several years, we've had
because this is not the kind of
Arrangement. You want to have with a long-term concession
here.
You want this? We need to work collaboratively with them
cooperatively.
To have a effective a parking system.
But we did think at the time we were well within our rights
with what we did.
Right. Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you Alderman. Uh, Alderman laspada, followed by
Alderman wages back.
Thank you very much chair. Um, I apologize for having
missed this part of the settlement briefing but can you
explain to us
What parking meter designation means to the extent that you
can within chamber.
Sure.
I'll try to be clear and correct me if I'm not
Meteor designations refer to.
the way the contractor structured,
We have certain metered spaces that are considered to be
concession spaces and others that are called reserved
spaces.
The way the contract.
Defines these 2 concession spaces or spaces in which CPM
gets 100% of the revenue.
Reserve Spaces by contrast, the city gets 85% of the
revenue. CPM gets 15% plus a small rental fee.
The city has the right under the contract to designate
spaces as Reserve or as concession and to change those
designations from time to time.
The city.
When the city changes, a designation from concession to
reserve.
We're a decreasing, the value of the system to CPM and we
have to pay them compensation.
This is the city, conversely changes, the designation from
Reserve to concession. We're increasing the value of the
compensation of the value of the system rather to CPM and
they get and we get a credit for that.
To process is called the true up.
The what the city did in late 2011?
Was to change certain concession spaces to reserve.
When we when we, as I said, when we change concession to
reserve we're taking value out of the system for CPM.
How do you value a system space?
You look at how its utilization is.
but you don't change that utilization on the on our books,
every week or every month, you change it, once a year,
So, the system's books.
Show utilization from the prior year.
so in 2021, we realized that
During 2020, utilization systemwide had dropped because of
the pandemic.
And it was increasing again in 2021 as things were
reopening.
So we realized that we could take spaces out, change them
from from concession to reserve at their lower 2020 values.
and then put them back 2 months later when you put them
back at from Reserve to concession you put them back at
their current values which were higher
So, we were able to take them out and have to pay CPM about
million dollars for doing that.
But later put back 2 thirds of them and get a credit.
Above 10 million because we are putting them back at a
higher value.
CPM was very unhappy with our ticking Spa Revenue. They
were getting
and converting it to City Revenue.
We had looked at and said we're within our rights. This is
the way the rules work.
And we are legally entitled to do that.
CPM claimed, it was what's contracts called a reserved
adverse action that had a material adverse effect on the
fair market. Value of the system. We said we did not think
taking 8 to 10 million out from A system that at that time
was making them 120 million a year was material. So it was
not a material adverse effect and therefore we did not owe
them compensation.
The arbitration panel decided that we had.
Oh, uh, owed them compensation and it left the amount of
the compensation that CPM claimed was 322 million.
An arbitration panel agreed with us.
said, the contract provides that if there is material
adverse effect,
The amount of the compensation is to be decided by an
appraiser.
So after the arbitration award, the CPM in the city,
Tried to negotiate, who would be the appraiser?
And perhaps unsurprisingly CPM, wasn't agreeing with us.
And we got into an impact.
And CPM said we're going to go back to arbitration over how
to select the appraiser.
We and CPM at that point decide to, maybe we should try to
settle all these claims as opposed to continuing more
arbitration.
And we settled that claim for 15.5 million as part of the
settlement.
Thank you for that. I feel like that's a very thorough
explanation at some point that is not right now. I would
like to understand the concession versus Reserve, sure
process and how we make those designations, particularly
understanding the the notification process internally on
that. Uh, but I will reach out for more information at a
later date. I appreciate that. I did have 1 question, uh,
following up on almond vasquez's comments on the parking
enforcement AIDS. And I feel like this was
Answered. But I just want to confirm it.
sure can I go parking meters LC will not be making the
determination of where these parking enforcement AIDS are
are sent that will be made at the discussion of Finance. Is
that accurate?
Charles Bose. Deputy director. Yes that's accurate. Well,
it'll be in collaboration with them.
With CPM.
Okay, I because I know that there's a lot anyone in this
room could talk about where their neighbors would like to
see more enforcement activity.
I would prefer not to see.
This company for many reasons, being 1, the 1 design where
that enforcement action is happening.
So thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you. Aldo in the spot.
And I do encourage the point that you made about, uh,
afterwards getting an understanding of the true up process
is something that, uh, you should talk to Jim about.
He's got a lot of information about this. I appreciate the
time that you took to explain it to me.
And if I could just follow up on your point and what Chuck
delos was saying, we've agreed to work with CPM but they
have no control over where we put our enforcement
Personnel, that is a city decision.
It makes sense to collaborate with them because they have
enforcement personnel as well. We want an efficient
enforcement system, but enforcement is definitely the
city's prerogative. CPM has no contract rights to tell us
where a personnel must be.
Thank you. We'll go to Alderman waguespack, followed by
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you chairman. Um,
And thank You, Chuck, and Jim for the explanation on these
on this item. Um, you know, I think this is sort of the
first win in a series of losses, over the last decade and a
half on this deal even though it doesn't feel like a win
and we're still losing money on it, um, but I am in favor
of the settlement, you know, the, um, I think the initial
attempt to make these changes during the pandemic was
important. And as, uh, Jim McDonald said we were well
within our rights, uh, by the way, I read the agreement and
the arbitration, uh, documents, um,
The initial demand I think was 322 million if I'm not
mistaken. So,
Overall for this. Um, so bringing it down to 15 and
Kind of going through it as Jim McDonald did. As important
to understand how complicated this deal was from day 1 and
how it continues to be complicated. It's it's really uh,
you know, looking at the arbitrators, uh, discussion and
agreement in it, um, or disagreements with the city's
position. Um, it's very frustrating to read that document
and see um essentially how Ironclad this deal is and how
uh, legal Minds, look at it in favor of CPM. Uh, pretty
much no matter what happens. So um,
You know it it just shows that it's such an ironclad deal.
It's so tight that it exceeds the death and destruction of
a pandemic and that nothing that when you look at a uh what
caused there is for changes, what could lead to termination
of a deal? That even a pandemic of the type that we had a
once in a once in a century couldn't break it. Uh, open in
any way. So I just want to say it's uh it's laudable what
uh Chuck in this case today. And and Jim have done all the
people that worked at law and finance to really uh, push
back on this. Um, when you look at the overall amount of
money that this company is going to rake in, it'll be
2 billion this year, I believe it's 2 billion this year.
um, and it was as a couple of us said, you know, a few
years back, we would be looking at 5 to 10 billion in
revenue for this company, uh, at a time when we were
Uh, obviously in Dire Straits financially but we rushed
through a deal. Um, that wasn't fully open wasn't fully
transparent.
And should have been shelved. But what we can learn from
this is not to repeat this kind of deal.
Uh again uh in this term or any term in the future. So
every deal that comes before us ladies and gentlemen has to
be open and transparent it has to be vetted and if it's not
fully so then it should be shelved. Um otherwise we lead
ourselves into a situation like this again. Where again
this is our first win in a series of losses on this deal
and it still doesn't feel like a win. So um, with that I'm
still in favor of the settlement and appreciate your
approach to trying to tackle this issue. Mr. MacDonald and
swissy. Thank you Alderman wag his back. Thank you, Cheryl,
1, Alderman Lopez. And we will count all the men. Oh Shay
towards quorum.
Good morning, chairman and members of the committee. I just
have a couple real quick questions. Um,
First.
uh, I do commend the department, uh, on
The price of this settlement, I hate the idea of giving
them money, as many of my colleagues. Uh, but knowing what
they originally wanted and where we're ending up. I think
is a win for Chicago. Um,
it was noted that the settlement was brought in part
because of the loss of revenue from the stay-at-home order.
Do we know if
This LLC applied for uh any of the PPP loans or any of the
those federally approved, uh, measures that were designed
to help keep businesses afloat for the pandemic.
I have asked that question of cpm's general counsel and he
is informed me. They did not apply for any of the pandemic.
Relief programs. So they willingly took a loss. Not
Choosing not to apply for anything that would mitigate
their revenue losses and are now coming to the city of
Chicago to recoup that loss.
Is that a fair assessment?
They've made certain assertions, that the arbitration panel
found in their favor.
Weather.
They actually lost the amount of money they claimed.
It's not something, the city agrees with.
if you look at how they calculated it,
I think it's subject their methodology for calculating
their alleged loss.
Is subject to argument, but we did argue it and we lost
that at the arbitration.
yeah, I'm looking at their
annual Audits and when you look on page 4 of their
both for 2020 2021 and then 2021 and 2022. You know, you
see and happy to provide this to my colleagues or through
the chair where obviously in 2020 they show that their net
income.
Um, was a negative -20 million.
Uh, in 2020.
um, even despite generating 91 million dollars in revenue
and then the following year in 2021 uh, they generated 136
million dollars in revenue and some of that I guess from
their Accounting. Standards is based on estimates. But
again, my question is and I understand how you're
answering, but I'm just going to say this part out loud is
that, you know, every business out there
In all our Awards, all our communities, even the city of
Chicago is government itself.
Availed themselves of both PPP as well as arpa 1 and 2 for
loss of Revenue.
Um, the fact that they chose not to
Uh that they chose to instead wait until the taxpayers had
to come up with the money. Um is a
is an unfortunate tactic that our
vendor chose to take. And I think that um, all of Chicago
needs to know that these are not people who have our
interests in heart, who willingly are trying to stick it to
us at every turn. And I think that as we move forward, even
knowing that we have decades to go, you know, when you look
at all of the ancillary things that they are taking money
on, it's not just the cost of parking.
The fact that they generate almost.
8 million dollars a year just on credit card fee processing
through this.
Is something that I think we also need to start taking
looks at. Um, and I would challenge my colleagues to figure
out what ways we can.
Not necessarily renegotiate but hold them to the standard
that they want to hold us to because if they're going to
look at us as their proverbial Cash Cow, then perhaps we
should start looking at the same. Thank you chairman.
Thank. Thank you Alderman, Lopez.
S good point there Alderman. Ervin.
Thank you, uh, Madam chair. Uh, just a couple of questions.
Will this settlement that uh been done? Will we be able to
pay that using arpa money since this was kind of an arpa
deal?
So are you asking whether or not this would be arpa
eligible?
Yes. Yeah, I you can look at it that way.
I'll have to get back to you through the chair with that. I
have not thought about it or as a source. Okay? No, that's
that's fair. Uh, and and secondly, what did what did the
um,
Like the cost of I guess the legal fees or the cost of
arbitration in this matter. What what did that cost us?
The city is paid out, 7.2 million dollars in legal fees.
Um, this
On all 3 claims on all on all 3 claims. Okay. I don't have
the
I think that includes the arbitrator's fees as well but I
don't have to check.
Okay. And
I, I guess the question is like, um,
and I'll go back to all the vascular, so we picked up 26
million.
So a theoretically this is almost a wash.
In theory, when we had the legal fees in and the, uh,
settlement revenue and uh, everything at the end of the
day, is a pretty much a wash is, is that a fair statement?
Couple million here and there if you consider that a wash,
yes.
Definitely not. What's in there a uh a statement of million
here, a million there pretty soon. We'll be talking about
real money. Uh I I don't I don't know where that statement
came from, but be that as it may, um, I I always get
always get cautious and I always questioned these
um, running up the tab on the legal side because that's
because that's kind of like a cost that we generally don't
talk about and that we that we don't see now, granted, uh,
we do have a 15 million dollar settlement, but, you know,
to spend 7 and a half million dollars to get there is is,
is is a bit challenging and, and I guess I'll go back to
the original assertion is like,
who made this decision in the first place, like suggested
that we make this move, um, to do this and like, are there
any other
uh, for a lack of a better term ticking time, bombs that
exist for decisions that we're not, we think might be
correct, but the other side may say hey hold up this we
don't agree with you on this and there hasn't there's a
potential Financial exposure on on such decisions. Being
made,
I might just to clarify you're talking about the meter
designation claim. In particular are all 3 claims I'm
talking about the meter designation in particular but there
are
Positions that are taken outside of this particular. It's
and it's more of a risk management question um, as to
Interpretations and what the financial exposure potentially
is on these interpretations or aggressive positions that we
may take uh not just today but have taken or potentially be
ticking time bombs in our portfolio for the fact that we
have taken a position that 1 may not that that the other
side may think different too.
Are there any others like this is? Is ultimately my
question I understand to my knowledge there isn't anything
else. The meter designation claim?
As I tried to alert to, in my earlier description, was due
to the effect that the pandemic had and lowering
utilization across the board and then springing back prior
to the pandemic. Utilization had had, I'm told been fairly
stable across the system. So the ability to say I will
remove concessions spaces at a lower value and put them
back 2 months later at a higher value.
Doesn't exist. If utilization stays stable.
And I'm not aware. So it's not unless we have something
like that again.
It's not likely that the city would contemplate doing that.
And to answer, I think 1 of the questions you had asked,
who made the decision to do this.
It was done by the Department of Finance Consulting with
the mayor at the time and Consulting with the law
Department.
So, I was involved in thinking about this decision.
And evaluating, whether whether we were were within our
rights legally to do. So,
and I had determined that I thought we were under the
contract.
Business decision was then made as to whether or not to
take the risk of a lawsuit.
Because we fully expected CPM would potentially assert,
bring an arbitration dispute.
Because of it.
Um,
I I'll I'll I'll well let me just ask as hell.
Um, we had to do this all over again when we have taken the
same position, do you feel the position that we took? Then
was the right position based on everything that occurred
and again these are
Decisions that are that we that we make, but again have
potentially adverse impacts, um, you know, down the road or
are we
I, I guess from a risk management process for, uh,
From a risk management, uh, issue.
How do we evaluate? Is there a standard framework? Is
there? A
Um a way that we look at this or is this just a purely
1-off situation that we should never see again?
I frankly, I don't think it's likely. We're going to see
this sort of situation again.
Um,
we do.
Learn from from our experiences and 1 of the things I've
definitely have learned is that arbitration panels may not
make decisions. That at least as I read the contract and I
understand the law, I would agree with
and that is a risk.
That you run when you potentially face an arbitration.
Can, can I ask you a question? Another way alderman?
so,
the meter designation looks like the enforcement claim.
Both parties are pretty much in agreement on on that. And
the meter designation claim in the true up is something
that both parties agree. This is the process. But are you
all thinking about? And I think this goes back to all them
and khazad question about if there is another
Pandemic, or any other.
Emergency.
Are you already talking about?
How to anticipate if that happens again.
Not to my knowledge.
I'm I'm I'm done. Thank you. Madam chair, Alderman. Reilly
Thank you, madam chair. Um, and and thank you for, for the
detailed explanation for this uh, quandry that we're in yet
again with the parking meter company.
um,
So something that stuck with me is something uh, automate
Urban just mentioned in his remarks and that is uh, he said
we make these decisions.
But did we? Um, this body certainly made the bad decision
based on a lot of false information and misrepresentation
to approve this meter deal many years ago um and I think
had this body been afforded more time. And frankly had
received answers to many of the questions we had asked.
Um, and especially in an honest fashion, we probably
wouldn't have had this deal.
Um, and ottoman wages back is, right. I think you've done
as best as you possibly can here to mitigate this, um, but
I do want to understand
A bit more about the decision-making process that went
into.
Trying to be creative as CPM. Certainly is at every turn to
try and maximize any kind of value out of this deal for the
city and and trying to do this Arbitrage of the, uh,
concession meters versus Reserve meters. I I like credit
you for making the account, but obviously, as you noted in
your remarks Council, um, you went into this understanding,
there would be some risk because CPM is litigious.
and, uh, I know that you had conversations with budget and
finance and certainly within your Law Department
to discuss that risk and, and, and weigh the benefits
versus the, the cost, um,
Did you seek outside counsel and third-party opinions to
validate what you thought was correct? That, that city was
within its right, um, to engage in that. Um,
That kind of swapping, of, of meter designations.
Or was it simply an internal discussion amongst a city
employees?
I'd have to check the records. We may have consulted, um,
cat and mutin the outside firm. That drafted the concession
agreement. Huh?
Uh you may, we may have sought the Council of the folks at
crafted this horrible deal.
I'd have to check the record. Okay, that's not that's not
an answer.
I would say that's probably the last Law Firm. We'd want to
approach for legal advice on a contract. That's been
killing taxpayers for for quite some time now.
Through the chair. If you could, uh, any outside, legal
opinions, we obtained before we entered into this risky,
maneuver would be helpful. Um, and, you know, when it was
decided to go ahead with this,
Um, who ultimately made that decision to execute this this
plan?
The mayor the mayor and uh I there wasn't a legislative
process built around, that was there.
No, there was not, there was not. So that was essentially a
unilateral decision by the mayor.
Correct.
It's a a decision by the executive branch, which basically
makes those decisions. Okay, so I guess I got my answer,
okay? Um, and to automate Lopez's point about the arpa
money, I I do strongly encourage this Administration to
look very carefully at remaining arpa funds to be dedicated
to pay for this. Um, it certain seems like it would be an
eligible cost.
um, I think also it'd be very helpful because, um, it's
acknowledged here that maybe some of the newer members
especially aren't familiar with the intricacies of the true
up process that perhaps through the chair. Um, Department
of Finance could provide a heat map and list of the
locations of concession. Um, uh, spaces versus
Reserve spaces, and I think it would be, um, eliminating
Madam chair for our colleagues to take a look at that map,
um, because as was noted, this contract rewards the city.
For creating new reserved spaces.
Um, those are Revenue producing spaces for us for the
taxpayer.
And there are large swaths of this city.
That still to this day have totally unregulated parking and
and lots and lots of it and we're not talking miles from
the central business district. We're talking about in the
outer fringes of it.
And I can tell you as, as I think the 34th Ward and 42nd
Ward have borne the Brunt.
Of meter ads over the last several years. And I'm, I'm, I
guarantee you the city's data will prove that.
um,
downtown has been bearing the brunt of of this burden.
And it's time I think for our colleagues.
To take a look at what they can do to assist in this
effort.
Uh, I'm not saying removing residential permit parking
zones that that benefit residents, but there are many,
many, many commercial quarters in this city.
That are still not being regulated at the way we see in the
central business district. And I think if we saw that
change, that would be a way to add some value for the
Chicago taxpayer.
Not CPM.
Um and so I just want to explore that more. Um, as we're
heading into a difficult budget season, I think the lesson
of the the settlement and this 10 full-time employees
That need to work in in tandem with CPM, is a good
reminder. Um, that what many of us have been talking about
every single budget season myself for 17 of them,
Is about how good consistent enforcement.
More than pays for itself.
The cost of these of these full-time enforcement AIDS.
Roughly thousand dollars a year.
when we know that they're going to produce a 10 time
multiplier in Revenue to the city,
That's really easy math and and this is not some bright
idea. I had many of us have called for this including the
chair.
Um, and so we need to really look at that. Not just when it
comes to parking meters,
there's a whole lot of the city code that this body takes a
lot of time writing and passing into laws, that is not
informed.
And those codes are on the books for good reason.
And so I'm talking to people like business Affairs
right-of-way. Inspections, these are the folks, we need to
really look at the amount of abuses that our on the right
of way, throughout the city on a day in Dale, ba basis is,
is staggering
And so, we really need to look at that. Never mind the the
the added benefit of infor enforcing the code even in the
smallest levels is like the broken windows approach to
crime fighting.
when you tolerate lots of minor infractions, people
graduate,
that's not just unique to crime.
Uh, it's also too bad behavior when it comes to permitting
and Licensing and the right of way in general.
um and so you know again I want to um give you the credit
that's due for for managing
This massive.
Disaster of a deal. Um, and in this latest round of legal
proceedings, um, it's incredibly frustrating that we're
here at all.
Um, but we do we we need to look at how we can exploit this
contract in in the smallest ways.
To add more revenue for the taxpayer to frankly, help to
fray, the massive cost of this horrible, horrible deal.
that frankly, the city council was sold a bill of goods on
Um, so uh, thank you chair. If we could through your
though, uh and hopefully all members of the committee and
the council get that heat map and and list of of stalls
of of stalls that I think would be very, very helpful. We
could do that. Um, just to give you a piece of information.
Um, Walter Bernett Alderman. Bernette, vice mayor, Bernett
has more of those parking meters than you and Conway
combined, no way. Yes. When did that happen? Thank you
Walter.
all right, um,
Alderman, CEO Lopez.
thank you, chairwoman and um, I was
I was not planning to speak, a lot of the comments already
and questions have been made, but I do want to, um, uplift,
I think the importance of consistency in the council
because these contracts, um, are costly to the taxpayer, I
want to. If anything, thank Alderman, wages. Back, who
actually was 1 of the 5 votes that actually voted against
this deal to begin with.
So I just find it inappropriate for members of the council
who actually voted in favor of this contract to now blame a
new Administration he is dealing with this issue.
and I know it is uncomfortable, some some members want to
deviate the attention
But, I hope that they pay attention when we speak that this
costly contracts.
Are really are are really hard to overcome. I would like to
suggest that the city council.
Looking some sort of task force of these members of the
finance committee to look at what, what can be done because
these contracts. Once they sign have handcuffed the city of
Chicago.
For the many decades to come.
So, I just want to elevate that because I just find it
problematic to even mention.
The previous that this Administration is to blame on
something that we inherited. I do think a chairwoman and I
would like to ask if we could have a task force I would
like to analyze this. So in the future when a potential of
reduction of a settlement, I do thank you chairwoman for
making sure that this is a much lesser amount but
systemically discontinued to be an issue. I will continue
to be an issue in a time with the city is really struggling
to balance the budget. I do would like to ask everything
that's been said, if the, if the committee can have a task
force to discuss with law and your committee on ways to
address this contract, this is a horrible deal for the city
of Chicago. I do, welcome the attempts to make this a
lesser pain. But I do want to ask our colleagues to be a
little bit more, uh a a little less cynical when we talk
about, who is to blame, when those people who voted for
this budget, however, for this contract, thank you. Thank
you. Uh, seeing no more questions. Uh, can I get a motion?
Moved to pass on this. So moved by Alderman Rodriguez. All
those in favor, signify by saying I opposed and the opinion
of the chair of the eyes, have it and Mr. MacDonald, I said
this in the media but I want to say it here publicly. I
think that the law department and the finance department
and the mayor's office, did a excellent job in making this
a more satisfactory outcome for the taxpayers. In this
case,
thank you.
Thank you.
Um, moving on to
item 3B Rihanna Keys versus City of Chicago case number 22
L 1158 in the amount of 5 million dollars. This case will
be uh, reported out to us, by Margaret, mendenhal Casey,
from the Law Department.
Thank you, chair.
On February 8th of 2021 Brianna Keys, who was then 34 years
old became locked out of her house.
An inch of previously, fallen snow, cover the ground. And
the temperature was 5 degrees above zero. Please interact
with Brianna and observed her wearing a bathrobe and no
shoes after the encounter Brianna continued walking and
arrived at a police station an hour later.
An officer admitted that the decision not to do more to
intervene was based on a mistaken. Belief that a police
station was a block away. In fact, the station was half a
mile away.
Bana suffered frostbite and eventually both of her legs
were amputated below the knee.
Brianna alleges the officer's violated CPD orders when they
they failed to transport her and fail, to obtain medical
assistance, the Department of Law recommends, settlements
in the amount of 5 million dollars,
Around 2 a.m. bana became locked out of her home at 51st in
Aberdine. She was wearing a bathrobe and sandals bana is
bipolar and was off her medication at that time, Brianna
called 9111 and requested assistance. The dispatcher told
bana that City personnel, do not respond to lockouts Banna
did not tell the dispatcher that she was having a mental
health crisis. Brianna plead with the dispatcher for
assistance and told the dispatcher that she was going to
die in the cold.
Bana told the dispatcher her car was running and the
dispatcher instructed her to get inside. After calling her
mother and sister multiple times with them, not answering
Brianna became frustrated through her phone into the snow
and lost her phone.
Brianna then decided to walk to the police station at 51st
in Wentworth, which was about 1.4 miles and 30 minutes
away.
On her journey Brianna knocked on Rose. Sanchez Sanchez's
door, which was half a mile away from her home
She told Rose she was locked out Brianna used Rose's phone
to call her mother and sister and again they did not answer
Brianna left. Rose call, 911 and officer slider. And
Martinez were dispatched Rose to the officers that she did
not know Brianna but Brianna suggested that they go to
Africa together.
As officer swidar walked back to his car. He then uttered,
Huh? That's crazy. He testified that he was referring to
the comments. About Africa, body 1, camera, captures the
officer's interactions with rose.
Officers white Arc and Martinez found Rihanna 5 minutes
after leaving Rose's home. There is conflicting, testimony
about the encounter and body worn camera. Only captures the
end of the interaction.
The officers testify that they had a normal conversation
with Brianna leading them to believe. She was not mentally
ill, and had only been locked out of her house.
Officer suite and Martinez testified that bana declined,
their offer to call an ambulance driver to her mother's
house or provide a ride to the police station bana.
Testifies, at the officer refused to give her a ride to the
station. Uh, stating she couldn't be in the car unless she
was under arrest.
The following points are objectively verifiable from the
body worn. Camera number 1, officer Martinez called bana's
mother. Number 2 Brianna is wearing a bathrobe in no shoes
3. At the end of the encounter bana stated because you guys
won't help, I'll walk to the police station myself and for
the officers chuckled slightly saying they would code the
incident as a client Police Services after bana left.
The remaining distance to the police station was half a
mile. However, the officers believed the station was only a
block away. Officer Martinez admitted that the decision not
to do more was based on a mistake and belief that the
station was closer and that had he known the actual
distance, he would have more strongly encouraged bana to
enter their vehicle.
She arrived at the police station about an hour after
speaking with officers and 3 hours after calling 911.
Responding paramedics known to Brianna was acting bizarre
and suffering from a psychiatric disorder, after being
diagnosed with a frostbite at St. Bernard's Brianna was in
transferred to Advocate Christ for a psychiatric evaluation
at Advocate. Doctors treated bana's wombs as well as her
psychiatric condition Brianna was in transferred to Cook
County, Burn Unit, intensive care on February, 22nd of 21.
The doctor did amputate both the bana's legs below the
knee.
On March 4th Rihanna was discharged to inpatient facility
at rush. And then upon discharge on March 13th. She could
independently transfer from her wheelchair to the bed in
April, Brianna use a wheelchair or crawl to get around. She
required assistance with cooking and cleaning but could
bathe and get dressed independently. Finally, in July, she
was wearing prosthesis a few hours a day and October. Um
she noted experiencing Phantom limb pain, which is a common
condition where um a patient who has gone through an
amputation, feels pain in the limb that is no longer there.
She also was walking with her prosthesis had a chair lift
and Aid, assisted her 4 hours a day.
planus police procedures expert argues that the officers
violated CPD orders by failing to call an ambulance trait,
uh, transport Beyond into a warm location or take her to
the hospital on an involuntary basis.
The expert relies on the individuals, in crisis and
involuntary admission orders to form his opinion.
The individuals in crisis order States officers will make
necessary referrals or follow the involuntary admission
order when encountering a person unable to take reasonable
care for their welfare including clothing.
Plaintiffs police expert opinions at the officer's
violated, the involuntary admission order as well. That
order requires officers to take a person into custody and
transport them to a mental health facility when officers
have reasonable grounds to believe. The person is in need
of mental health, evaluation to protect themselves. The
city's police expert opinions, that the officers complied
with CPD orders. And that the officers May necessarily
referrals pursuant to the general orders by offering a ride
and ambulance or, uh, to take her to her mother's house.
Plaintiff's, economic experts opine that Brianna will has
3.5 million in past and future medical bills as well as $1
million in past and future lost wages. Plaintiff's, future
Medical Care will cost 2.1 million therefore they're
between 4.5 million. If you believe the plaintiff expert
account or 3.5 million, if you believe the city's experts
account in economic damages, in the record prior to this
incident, Rihanna was a driver for Uber. Currently, she is
working part-time. Um, as a receptionist Fielding M
maintenance calls for an apartment
Initially the plane of demand is 22 million. If this matter
were to proceed to trial, bana would seek compensation for
her past and future pain and suffering past and future
emotional distress past and future loss of normal life past
past and future medical bills past, and future lost wages.
As well as seeking a significant amount for disfigurement,
the Department of Law recommends, settlement, in the amount
of million dollars on this matter.
Thank you, Margaret.
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you again, chairman and good morning, still members
of the committee.
so,
When the police encountered her, they did offer her
Services. That's what I heard, correct.
Sure. There's conflicting testimony in the record. The
police state that they offered her Services bana states
that the police. Uh only said that they would put her or
that they could not put her in the car because she was not
in custody.
And then we have body warn camera but unfortunately it only
only captures the tail end of the interaction where bana
essentially, I'll walk to the police station because you
are not going to help me but they did call her family.
That is accurate. They did call her family and she called
her family.
That's accurate and did she ever make contact with her
family know, and she's suing them for this?
As well.
I don't know what legal Duty, her um, family members would
have to answer the phone giving that she is. Um, 34 years
old, it was 34 years old at the time of this incident
And you stated that she is.
Suffers from bipolar disorder.
That's accurate. And was she on her medication at that
time? No, she was off her medication and she was um going
through a mental health crisis at the time of this
incident.
That was not announced to anybody, correct?
We when you say not announced to anybody, I'm sorry. What
do you mean by that? As in, you you mentioned when she
called 911, she didn't say. So she didn't mention that. She
said, said anything to the police at that time, that she
suffered from mental health issues, just that there's a
conflict on whether or not they did, or did not offer
services, which our police officers say they did and she
refused and she said, they did not correct.
Um so there were a number of questions there. I apologize.
I didn't understand the initial 1. Yes that is correct.
That Brianna Keys did not tell the dispatchers and did not
tell police officers that she was experiencing a mental
health episode. Um as to the second part of the question,
the officers are officers do testify that they
Offered services to bana. Um, the way that I think about
about this case is that um the plaintiff will argue that
the real Crux of it is seeing that video with her outside
in a robe and no shoes. Um, as well as officer Martinez
stating that if he knew that the station was half a mile
away, he would have done more to encourage her to get into
the car. So even you know, if you take the officers, um,
Testimony and say the jury were to find that the testimony
is accurate, that still does not get us past the fact that
she was seen outside in a row, you know, shoes, 5 degrees,
um, above zero. And the officers were mistaken about the
location of the police station and I'm sorry what? What's
office for Martinez which officer Martinez
Um, you'd like his first name. Yes. Okay, it's Christian
Martinez. Okay.
And is he from the 7th District? Or is he from the 9th
District? Sure? So give me 1. Second, I have that answer,
but not off the top of my head.
And Margaret you might want to just inform the ultimate
about how long these officers have been working in the
district, they were in, thank you, shared all. So, as to
officer swider, he had been working for um in this district
for less than a month before the incident.
As to officer Martinez, he had been working in this
particular district for 3 to 4, working days before the
incident. Um, so these officers were new to the district.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman, Vice chair Conway.
Just as a, as a clarification. So
Did.
The officer offer her a ride and she refused or the officer
said she couldn't get in the car cuz she was in custody. I
just didn't understand, which way that sure. So, the
officers testify that they offered her a ride, um, and they
offered to take her to the hospital or to call an ambulance
ambulance, and that Brianna refused Brianna testifies that
officers said she was not allowed to get into their car.
Uh, as she was not under arrest in terms of the objective
evidence that we have it captures, unfortunately, only the
tail end of the interaction and it says the the
conversation essentially is um, I'm going to walk. Brianna
said I'm going to walk to the police station and the
officer say, okay, are you sure bana then says yeah, I'm
going to walk because you guys won't assist me. Then you
can
Here the officer's, chuckling slightly and saying they're
going to code this matter as decline Police Services.
That's all I got. Thank you.
Thank you, Vice chair, Alderman, Vasquez, followed by
Alderman spaz. Uh, thank you, madam chair. And thank you
for uh, this conversation. I guess this was going to start
at the point of musical. Cheers. Today. First shift. Then
you're there. Now, you're over there. Okay. I I apologize.
Um, I was gonna ask this at the point of clarification, but
it's appreciate. Are there is there? There's not a
precedent.
Sir. I'm on the microphone. Jesus. Okay. All right. So I
guess my question is this?
There's not an expectation or anywhere.
Any expectation to offer someone to be able to
self-identify as having a mental health issue, right?
Meaning, if we have somebody asking hey did this person let
the officer know that they had a mental health issue. First
1 would have to know they're going through a mental health
health issue to then declare they're having a mental health
issue. So the question itself is pretty interesting if I
put it nicely sure. Um, so I think I will turn to the
general orders in, in response to that question and state
that the, the plaintiffs will argue that the general orders
required, the officers to be aware of those in um, a mental
mental health crisis and to look for, uh, cues or maybe
engage in issues spotting, as we'd say as lawyers.
in that issue, spotting in this case, being
Outside in the cold Road, no shoes 5 degrees above an inch
of snow on the ground. That the orders say, the officers
supposed to be looking out for those type of cues including
inappropriate clothing. Yeah like if if I'm not even as an
officer driving around somewhere as in as as an older
person, we're driving around the ward. It's you know 5
degrees. You see somebody out there with a robe? No shoes
on. I'm not going to pull over and go. Are you going to a
mental health issue? If they say no, I'm going to keep it
moving. There's an assessment, especially if you're dealing
with Public Safety that you want, this person to be safe,
and you're going to figure out, we need to, to make sure
that they are right, that just Cod or not job or not,
that's just human decency. And so in hearing, kind of, if I
was playing out, um, it seems pretty clear-cut. And for
those who might find it challenging
I have a lot of questions now, I really do appreciate you
kind of articulating what's on the body cam because even
that small piece is very clarifying, right? If she's
saying, well, I'm going to walk on my own because you guys
won't help me.
that says a lot about what the conversation before might
have been and then for the officers to chuckle at somebody
out in the cold,
Again, a woman out in the cold in a robe, no shoes on.
This is a no-brainer and so I just wanted to make sure
there were there were all hearing the same responses. Um,
It's the right thing to do in officers. Have a duty to make
sure the public is safe. This woman was not safe in that
position and they're the step to take. That was not taken
and feels to me from even the body. Cam footage was refused
in some regard and so I'll be voting in support of the
settlement. Uh, thank you very much.
Thank you Alderman, Alderman. Best, uh, spado followed by
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Thank you, madam chair. Thank
you Maggie. Uh,
This is a terrible, terrible incident. I hate to refer to
it as a perfect storm, but it was appears to be the perfect
storm. So a lot of things I didn't understand. So she's a
troubled woman or a bipolar woman, young woman and
really didn't understand why she wasn't living with her
family. If she was
With that was that troubled? I mean, if that was my kid, my
my kid would be living with me. Um I know I mentioned the 2
cops that were new to the district, but they were new to
the job period. Correct. Then they both have less than a
year and a half.
So this incident occurred in February of 2021 and both
officers began um, service with the police department in
July of 2019.
Um, so yeah, less than 2 years on on the job, okay? So 1 of
the confusing things to me was she had a running car out
there but she was walking. I mean, I I I don't understand
actually your car's running, but yeah, you decide you're
going to walk, but the police did offer her a ride. She
refused it for a reason. Correct.
She was afraid they were going to do harm to her if they
she wanted a car with them. So there are a couple of
questions. So um prior earlier on in the interaction, Banna
did note to the 911 dispatcher that she had a fear of
police um in terms of the running car. Yes, there's
testimony in the record that there was a car that was
running. Um I agree with you, her not getting into it does
not make sense. Um, we are dealing with somebody who uh, is
is bipolar and was all her medication and in the midst of a
mental health crisis. Um, I'm sorry, I think there was a
third question in there that I may have missed.
I don't know. Maybe I'll remember it.
Point of clarification Alderman Vasquez, sorry? Yeah. The
pointer for clarification on third part was the assertion
that she refused to accept help which I believe. Was it
clarified by? Yes, thank you. Uh, for your freshman, my
recollection Alderman, Vasquez, as to the third question
that is where there's conflicting evidence in the record.
Um, the police say that she refused uh assistance and
refused a ride bana says that the police refused to help
her and then the only objective evidence we have captured
on body. Warn camera is bana saying, you know, you guys
aren't going to help me. I'll walk to the police station
and the officer's coding. It as declined police services.
So there is some conflicting testimony in the record but
what's not conflicting is as as I've said a number of
times, just the cold how she was dressed.
Um, that information that evidence is not conflicting.
Okay, so see, there was never any incident that she refused
to go to police because there's Raider going to do harm to
her. Not to the dispatch or anything like that. There was
that was that she did know she did indicate to the
dispatcher that she had a fear of of police earlier on. And
I'm happy to flush that out a little bit more. Um, at the
beginning of her night outside around 2:00, am Brianna did
call the dispatch.
Atcher and bana during the course of that. Interaction told
the dispatcher. I'm, um, going to break into my house to
inside. And the dispatcher said, okay, I'll notify the
police that you're doing that and then bana says, no, don't
tell the police, I'm afraid that they're going to shoot me
because I am black. So bana, uh, did articulate that night,
a fear of police officers. So, is that white or dispatched
there? Because the, the, the, the, the, uh, 911. Because
I'm not, I'm really not sure why the police were dispatched
and not the fire department, but I'm happy to go through
the chronology. Um, again, kind of at a high level so
Brianna calls 911. Um, she gets off the phone with 9111 and
begins to walk to her neighbor's house known police. No,
fire are dispatched after the 9111 call bana walks to
Rose's house, a half of a mile away now.
Some roses door. Um bana then leaves Rose calls 911 and at
that point in time that's when the officers are dispatched
and they find bana about 5 minutes after they interact with
rose, leave Rose's house, go and look for baena and find
her 5 minutes later. We keep hearing a half mile and it
was, was the The Stranger. Half mile. By the way, the rose
was a stranger. Uh, she's an, I wish I could thank that,
lady, for opening the door. Trying to help somebody if
you're listening. Rosa. Nice job. Um, but um, so what was
it? What was the half? Mile away. A police station or
Rose's house?
So there's a couple of half miles. The end of then after
Rose is out, she was half a mile away to from the police
station, so that that's not adding up to me.
Sure. So I'm happy to give you a little bit more
information as well about the distances and play here. So
bana walked to Rose's house, which was about half a mile
away from bana's home at 51st and um, Aberdine and in terms
of distance this morning and a half mile,
So from 51st in Aberdine to 51st and Wentworth know oh oh
no I apologize. So from bana's home to Rose's, home was
about half a mile from bana's home to the police station at
51st and Wentworth was 1.4 miles.
Is that okay? That's better that tracks. Um, and in terms of
of this, the only other half mile that I did mention, is
that, when the police encountered, her, give me 1. Second
for that exact address.
Okay. The counter bana at 51 and Morgan.
And at that time, bana was a half a mile away from the
police station. All right? But the whole time, her car was
running obviously she wasn't stable. Um, the police get any
suspension or anything for this and you get time off? No,
no I mean we know they we know there was no cough or CIT
team. I mean I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.
Um, I just
Disappointed in the whole thing is a a a terrible thing.
But I I I just don't feel like I could support this. So I
will not be supporting this but thank you. Thank you, madam
chair. Thank you Alderman. Pisado Alderman Rodriguez.
Sanchez followed by Alderman Taylor. Followed by Alderman
Lee.
Thank you, chair. Um, can you tell me, why do we only have
the tail end of the conversation on body cam was? Was it
not turn on?
The body camera was turned on toward the end of the
interaction and so the way that our uh, BWC technology
works, is that it? It buffers. That's the, the technical
term meaning that it captures from the point that the
officers hit the the play button and record button it
captures 2 minutes before, but the 2 minutes that are
captured, do not have audio. So in this case, the officers
tapped record
Long into almost at the tail end of the conversation with
bana, so we do have 2 minutes before it does show the
officer calling bana's Mother. Um, it does show bana and
the officers interacting, but unfortunately, we cannot hear
that conversation for, um, the majority of of the
interaction.
Okay. Thank you. Um, for the last 6 years, we have been
working on trying to create uh Mental Health, crisis
response system for the city and cases like this, make it
evident that we need that. So bad um, all around uh the
city.
because if we had access to that, that officer, if they
didn't feel competent in keeping that person, safe, at that
moment either because they didn't understand what was going
on with this person or because they just didn't feel like
they could help her.
Um,
that person would have gotten help and we wouldn't be here
discussing that.
Um,
I have had issues like this in my work and I can tell you
for a fact that
my neighbors in my community would never leave somebody
alone even if they refuse help.
My neighbors would not leave somebody alone that they know
would be at risk in such low temperatures and dressed in
the way that she was dressed. So I do think that there was
a responsibility from those officers to figure it out to
make sure that she was protected and they didn't. So I
support, uh, passing this item out of committee. Thank you.
Thank you Alderman, Alderman, Taylor.
Thank you, madam chair.
Um,
I'm gonna ask this question and was training police
officers. Do we teach common decency?
Is that a class?
Because common decency would have said this young woman
needed help. She stabbed naked with a robe on and no shoes.
A person doesn't have to tell you, they got mental health
issue. The order for you to realize there's something wrong
or something was going on.
Hey, can you tell me who she made the statement to, which
is this ain't no 911 call when she said, she is scared of
the police.
Uh, she's, uh, Alderman. Taylor is asking who made the
statement that they were afraid of the police.
Um, Banna did state that she was fearful of the police.
Is that on camera? Is that on? Is that on the call? But she
sent an 911.
Yes, it's on. The 911, call.
And so is this 2 different days or is this the same day?
Because I'm, I'm a little confused about that.
Sure, it's the same day over the course of 3 hours. So she
initially calls. Yeah. Okay, answer your question.
Um,
and both of her legs were amputated because of this
incident.
Yes, both of her legs were amputated, uh, below the knee,
uh, after this incident.
Does she have children?
She does not.
That's that's all the thought that we're questioning
whether or not she deserved it. She lost her legs because
we didn't do what we stuck with supposed to do police cars.
Clearly say several protect but who
Thank you, madam chair.
Uh, thank you all the men, all the men lie.
Thank you, madam chair. Um, what year did this happen
again? I apologize. I missed that in the beginning.
No problem. Um, although I'm in Lee, this incident occurred
in 2021,
Okay. So in 2021 that was before we had the, the care teams
um,
Let me ask the a question and this is more about just how
procedurally things work. So there was a call to dispatch
that she made, um, where she she said that she was fearful
of the police. Um, sometime later there's another call. Um,
By the neighbor Rosa, uh, the the neighbor who called 911 to
to report that this woman was in distress at any point. Was
it established that it was the same woman in the police
system.
Like I just don't know how those things are tracked.
Yes. Um, it at there was no tie between the 911 call and
the call by uh the the neighbor Rose Sanchez. Uh until
after we were in litigation.
Okay. Um, and as far as, uh, when body warn cameras, get
turned on. Um, what what is the, what is the police
procedure? Uh, for 1, boddie warn cameras, get turned on
Sure. So um in terms of the the procedure for body warn
camera being turned on, um, I'm happy to answer that
question through the chair because litigation is pending it
in ongoing? Okay, okay, okay. Uh I I understand I the
reason I asked that question is because it's really
unfortunate that we don't have. Um, more of the the footage
here, this is a, a horrible situation. Um,
Yeah, I I I don't know that I can add much more than what
my colleagues have already discussed on on, uh, during this
conversation. Um,
I understand that we live in a really litigious society and
that um, we've got if someone is declining um,
Services. But, it seems pretty obvious that they need help.
Um, I I'm going to support this, uh, the settlement. I I
wish there was a different outcome for this young woman.
Thank you.
Thank you Alderman. Lee Alderman Lopez
Thank you again. Chairman, I'd have a
Another question if I may ask, because we've talked a lot
about the body cam footage. Um, we're the site where the
lights and Sirens activated on the car when they
Engage with this resident know.
Okay.
Uh, seeing no more question. Is there a motion to recommend
approval of item? 3B, some move by Alderman Vasquez,
Uh, roll call has been asked for. We will take a roll call.
Vice chair Conway.
Alderman laspada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Excuse me. Almond almond Harris. I yes. Oh, okay. Got you,
hold him in the hall and say, Yes, almond Hall is a yes
Alderman, Beale.
Alderman lie. Yes.
Alderman, Ramirez, Alderman, Quinn. Oh Ramirez. Good
morning. All
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman. Curtis Alderman. OSHA.
Alderman Taylor. Yes.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman. Sichel Lopez.
Alderman brunette.
Alderman. Ervin.
Alderman. Talia Farrell.
Alderman, Cardona.
Alderman waguespack.
Alderman, Rodriguez, Sanchez.
Alderman Quezada.
Alderman. Vagus Alderman mitts.
Alderman spaz.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman. Reilly
Alderman, Knudsen.
Alderman. Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dal vests.
The item passes 19 to 8 and will be reported out the due
pass. Recommendation will report it out. Almond mitz was
the eye.
Alderman mitts I ended the vote and call the vote total. So
I'm not going to be able to count you in this no problem.
Thank you. We will report the due pass recommendation at
the next city council meeting. Thank you, Miss Mendon Hall.
Item, 3 C, Leonard Gibson versus Ronald Watts at all. Case
number 18c, 5120 in the amount of 1.2 million we're joined
on this uh, Case by Victoria Benson from the Department of
Law who will report this matter out.
Good morning. Good morning. Thank you Cheryl.
Victoria Benson um Deputy Corporation Council with the mass
Schwarz and complex litigation division.
I am here today to request your approval to settle a
federal lawsuit filed by plaintiff. Leonard Gibson, seeking
to recover damages for the prosecutions arising from his
multiple arrests by former Sergeant, Ronald watts, and
Chicago police officers assigned to the Tactical Team of,
which he was a sergeant.
Plaintiff's allegations allegations include claims that he
was maliciously prosecuted and that officer's fabricated
evidence against him.
Plaintiff also makes monel respond yet Superior and admic
claims against the city.
A lot of Department, recommends, a settlement in this
matter, and the amount of 1.2 million dollars.
Plaintiff alleges that he was targeted by Watts because he
refused to pay Watts. A bribe to allow him to continue to
sell narcotics in the IBEW Wells Housing Development.
Plaintiff claims that Watts approached him sometime before
his first arrest by watts and officers assigned to the
Tactical Team of which he was a sergeant.
Plaintiff alleges that each of his 3. Arrests, conducted
their after, on January, 4th 2003, May 8th 2003 in August
28th, 2007, by watts, and members of the team of which
Watts was the sergeant, or based on fabricated evidence,
and undertaken because plaintiff refused to pay Watts
With each arrest plaintiff was charged with narcotics
related offenses, and prosecuted prosecutions that he
claims were malicious and based upon fabricated evidence.
He was first arrested by Watson other officers on January
4th 2003, the parties dispute how and why that arrest
occurred plaintiff was released on bond the following day,
a few months later on May 8th 2003 while released on bond
for his January, 4th 2003 arrest plaintiff, was again,
arrested by watts and officers assigned to the Tactical
Team of, which Watts was the sergeant. Again, the dep
parties dispute how and why that arrest occurred?
After this arrest. However, the plaintiff was detained in
Cook County, Jail, until the criminal proceedings, from
both his January, 4th 2003 arrest and his May 8th, 2003
arrest had concluded.
As to his January, 4th 2003 arrest, the plane to file a
motion to quash, the arrest and to suppress the evidence
and at the hearing on that motion. He presented testimony
from the janitor of the building at which he was arrested.
Who testified in support of the plaintiff's version of the
events leading to his arrest
The judge. However, ultimately denied, the plaintiff's
motion to suppress and on August 24th, 2004 the plaintiff,
plead guilty to possession of a controlled substance for
both his January, 4th 2003 arrest, and his May 8th, 2003
arrest.
He was then sentenced to Cook County boot camp program,
where he spent 4 months at the time that he plead guilty.
The plaintiff had had served approximately 1.32 years in
custody at Cook County Jail.
The following month in September 2004, the FBI jointly with
cpds internal affairs, division began investigating
allegations that Watts former officer kholat Muhammad and
other members of Watts's Tactical Team were engaged in Acts
of corruption that included collecting Street taxes from
drug dealers, that would allow them to continue their
business without being arrested and arresting. Sometimes,
falsely individuals and the involved in the drug trade who
refused to pay the tax.
While that investigation was preceding. The plaintiff was
arrested a third time on, August 28th, 2007 by Watson
officers, assigned to the Tactical Team. He supervised
again, the dep parties dispute how and why that arrest
occurred.
A few months later on November 15th, 2007, the plaintiff
pled, guilty to charges arising from this arrest and was
sentenced to 2 years incarceration. At the Illinois
Department of Corrections for each. Excuse me, we calculate
that he served approximately 273.5 days in custody for this
particular conviction.
in total for all 3 convictions, the plaintiff spent
Approximately 2.07 years in custody for convictions
attributable, to arrest, by watts and officers assigned to
the Tactical Team. He supervised.
The FBI IAD joint investigation, had continued through
February 2012, when Watson Muhammad were indicted for theft
of government funds.
Watson, Muhammad ultimately plead guilt both plead guilty
and served time in federal prison.
Plaintiff used watts and Muhammad's convictions is newly
discovered evidence in support of his petitions seeking to
overturn his convictions. Those convictions were vacated on
February 13th 2018 and on March 15th, 2018. He was granted
a certificate of innocence for each of the a aforementioned
convictions.
Given the risks associated with proceeding to trial in this
case, we recommend settling this matter for 1.2 million
dollars.
Uh, thank you, Victoria.
Any.
Questions from members of the council.
Alderman Moore.
I think I asked this in committee, I just want to be clear.
Um, it was
2 years in jail. Correct.
For all 3, it comes to approximately 2.07 years.
when you say for all 3, for all 3,
Convictions.
So so for all 3 of his convictions. So for January 4th
2004, alright, alright, alright, yeah, okay, I'm sorry that
and
And it's the they're asking for 1.2, you say correct.
That's the recommended settlement.
All right. Thank you.
No, more questions. Chairman
Thank you Alderman, Moore Alderman, Ervin.
Oh, I I was just gonna move past this.
Motion made by Alderman. Ervin, recommending do pass all
those in favor. Signify by saying, I
I,
well, Rosanna we we Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez, all those
opposed
Alderman, Moore is a no and that will be reported out. The
due pass recommendation with the exception of alderman.
Moore voting no will be reported out at the next city
council meeting.
Item number is 3, D. John vez versus City of Chicago at all
case number 18, seavey 81444 and the amount of 8.25 million
Uh, Jessica Felker from the Department of law is here to
give us that account.
Miss Felker? Yes, good afternoon. My name is Jessica
Felker. I'm the deputy Corporation Council in the federal
civil rights. Litigation division, I'm here to present John
vez versus the city at CV. 8144, the Department of Law had
excuse me. Recommended settling this reverse conviction
suit for 7.6 million dollars. In July 2024, this committee
voted it down and that reduction was reported out and
adopted by the full Council.
We now present the settlement. Again, this time for 8.25
million, if this settlement doesn't pass the trial will go
forward on July 21st, 2025 since then, there have been
recent large verdicts, excuse me since the vote last time
there had been recent large verdicts and the defense
learned a key witness. Since his deposition has entered
prison for a felony conviction of sexual assault of a minor
family member the Department of Law therefore recommends
authorizing this settlement
in this case plaintiff vests was convicted in 2002 of the
2001 murder of Anthony huanca, who has spent a year and a
half in pre-trial detention and additional 15 years in
prison. Until in 2017, his conviction was vacated in the
charges were dismissed. The victim. Mr. Huanca a member of
the Latin Kings which fatally shot by 2 individual.
Uals in a gang related shooting on. March 19th. 2001 near a
nightclub at Marshall Boulevard in smack road before the
shooting 3 individuals in a car were held by gunpoint by
the perpetrators. Another friend had exited the vehicle and
was on the street during the shooting.
Based on gang named shouted by the perpetrators, the
evidence pointed to a shooting, being in the shooting,
being an attack on the Latin Kings by members of the Satan
Disciples during the CPD investigation. 1 of the
individuals held by gunpoint in the car. The 1, who is now
convicted of a Class 1 felony came into area, 4
headquarters to be interrupted. Coincidentally, the last
was at the station, he had been the victim of an unrelated
drive by shooting 1 of the detectives assigned to the
Hanukkah murder detective burrow.
Spoke to Valles to gather information on the shooting, the
detective used a previous book. Shot of the Les to verify.
the Lees identification information when he was finished
detective biccard, put that box out of the Les on his
clipboard and then went to interview the eyewitness from
the car.
During the huanca murder.
detective Bardot reported that when he opened the clipboard
to interview the witness that witness spontaneously
identified VZ eventually that led to the detective showing
all 4. Eyewitnesses a photo array Andor a line lineup, they
they all identified vests, the Lev's disputes those
identifications and claims that detective Bardot
fabricated.
the clipboard identification entirely detective Bardot,
failed to inventory the photo or document the clipboard
incident in his police report. The assistant States
Attorney who approved felony, charges had no recollection
hearing about the clipboard identification when Valles was
was arrested. It was reported that he had admitted to being
a Satan's disciple in his deposition. He stated that he was
a Satan disciple as a teen, but disassociated before his
arrest 1, piece of evidence that was used to tie Les to the
crime, had to do with an incident shortly after Hank's
murder bless. His girlfriend had been shot, visiting the
grave site of veza's. Uncle vesa's. Uncle was killed,
approximately a year before the Helena murder.
Detectives reported that vests told them a Latin King had
shot. His uncle who was a Satan disciple, they reported
that vests said, his girlfriend was shot by the Latin Kings
Cook County, Sheriff's Office visited vesa's girlfriend in
the hospital. They reported that while in the hospital,
visiting his girlfriend a nurse overheard vests. Tell his
girlfriend that she was shot because of something he did
after an interview by the detectives, an assistant States
Attorney interviewed vesa's girlfriend. And she signed a
statement that vests admitted that to her that she was shot
because vests had a shot, a member of the Latin Kings. As
payback for the shooting of his uncle bles was charged and
proceeded to trial the 4 eyewitnesses
Is identified as and his girlfriend and or identified bles.
Excuse me, his girlfriend testified, but denied that she
had reason to believe bles shot her Anica. The prosecution
told the jury about her statement. Anyway, a jury found
Valles guilty on in October 2002
In December 2017, the State's Attorney's Office, agreed to
vacate bz's conviction and dismiss the charges Valles.
Argued his conviction should be vacated because among other
reasons 1 of the witnesses stated that witness falsely
implicated. Vests and vesa's attorney was ineffective
because the attorney failed to introduce evidence of
alessa's Alibi, which was that he was doing laundry with
his cousin and that attorney failed to object to the
prosecutors impermissible, use of the girlfriend's
statement at trial, the State's Attorney's, office said it
determined the Constitutional violations occurred at trial.
And so it was willing to vacate the conviction and dismiss
the charges. The Les never sought a certificate of
innocence in 2018 VZ filed suit alleging that the Chicago
police officers, misconduct resulted in his wrongful
conviction, well, as contends that a among other things.
The identification of him from the clipboard was a sham and
it's
own statement was fabricated, but as his girlfriend claims
that detective Ricardo threatened, her, if she did not
cooperate and that she signed the statement, only because
he promised her, she could go home. She claims that the
assistant States Attorney wrote the statement, and that she
did not give the ASA that information.
Veza's cousin testified. In this case that Visa was doing
laundry with her, at his aunt's house. At the time of the
murder. In this lawsuit, 2 of the witnesses to the shooting
were not located, or could not be properly served for
depositions the other 2. Testified in depositions, in this
case, 1 of those Witnesses, stood by her identification and
testified that she was not pressured by police the other
witness who testified at trial that he identified the LZ
from the clipboard is a man. I referenced earlier who is
now serving a prison sentence for sexual abuse of a minor
family member when he was deposed he had a different
version of events than at trial, he testified during his
deposition that he identified Valles, looking at a photo
let looking at photos in a game book and then he saw a
photo on top of a stack of pictures on the clipboard. He
testified that he lied at vesa's criminal trial when he
said he did not look at a game book. He also testified that
he when he viewed the live lineup he had
Brought with him a photo of the Les and when he could not
tell who in the lineup, matched the photo. He seen an
officer told him which man in the lineup matched the photo.
However he still does stand by his identification as of the
last as a perpetrator.
2 Cousins of 1 of the witnesses, who was not able to be
disposed testified. In this case, they said that their
cousin admitted that he falsely identified Valles Valles
retained. An expert who will testify that these factors
that the factors present that night, reduce the ri
of the eyewitness. Identifications in this case, the Les
also has a policy and practice claim against the city
alleging that the city's disciplinary system was deficient
bless has retained. An expert who will testify that Chicago
Chicago at the time of this homicide investigation, had an
unacceptably, low sustained rates for police. Disciplinary
investigations resulting in a system where officers did not
fear. They would face discipline for misconduct vests
Further alleges that the officers here committed misconduct
because of the city's allegedly deficient disciplinary
system.
Bes initially asked for 14.25 million to settle against the
city, but the city was able to get him except 7.6 million
for his 7 or excuse me, 16 and a half years of
incarceration, the county settled for 2.4 million. Not long
before the city reached its settlement. After the
settlement was rejected by this, this
Committee and Council the 2 recent runaway verdicts occurred
and we discovered that the key witness. As I mentioned
involved in the identification was convicted of that class
that class 1 felony of criminal sexual assault against a
a family member at this point of the litigation. If the
litigation. If the case does not settle, it will proceed to
trial on July 21st 2025. There's a large Financial Risk to
proceeding at trial. The Les May seek anywhere from 30 to
75 million from the jury. If successful, he will also be
entitled to attorney's fees which would likely be in the
range of 3 to 4 million. Given the risks, the city
recommends settling for 8.25
happy to take any questions. Thank you. Miss Falcor.
Alderman Lopez.
Followed by Alderman Conway. I mean, Vice chair Conway.
Thank you and good afternoon. Now, chairman and members of
the committee uh, just a couple quick questions. Um,
When you say that, they're not properly disposed or
deposed.
Um, is that with regards to their statements from before, or
currently?
So, what I mentioned was that for this lawsuit, they could
not be located or properly served with a subpoena. So we
weren't able to depose them because they we couldn't serve
them with a subpoena.
so, because you weren't able to,
Subpoena them that hurts. Our
Case.
Because they were our they were testifying on our behalf.
Well, we don't know how they would have testified today. We
did everything we could to try to locate them, but
sometimes it happens especially in a case like this that
you can't find all the witnesses. So if we were able to
find them and if they stood by their identifications today,
obviously that would strengthen our case and is that
something that the Law Department itself was handling or is
that something that a outside Law Firm was handling. Uh we
are represented by an outside law firm in this case. So we
have an outside Law Firm.
That is, as we've seen time. And time again, not
necessarily eager to do the due diligence on Witnesses, um,
saying that we can't find people who would strengthen our
case and thereby, we need to settle.
I I don't think that's a fair characterization of what
occurred, as I said, there are many times through, no fault
of anyone that Witnesses from from 25 years ago, can't be
located. They may be deceased and we don't know it, they
may have left the country. It's, um, unfortunately trying
to locate these people, you send out investigators, you do
all your do diligence and you still can't find them.
and I guess the other question that I have and chairman, I
don't I don't know who
To throw this out. So I'm just going to throw it out there
and whoever wants to answer,
This body in July rejected this settlement for a host of
reasons.
so, is it the
Intent of the Law Department.
when we reject settlements to just sit and wait and then
not,
continue to defend the city of Chicago but just wait for an
opportunity to provide for another settlement opportunity
because I would imagine many of us thought that once this
matter was dead in July of 2024 that it was, in fact, dead
pending lawsuit, or what have you and then to find that
we've been sitting on it for now.
Or a year and getting ready for a possible lawsuit in 2026.
That I think should give all of us. Pause when we think
about how many settlements namely like the Dexter Reed
settlement that this committee has rejected only to find
that the law department is has been a Lazarus effect on our
decisions.
Well, I will say that we did not sit on this. What we did,
was re-evaluate understand that we had a new trial date and
it is our fiduciary responsibility to evaluate what we
think is going to happen at trial in this case. Uh, we
believe that we should as a responsibility to the city and
the taxpayers bring this for an opportunity for you to vote
given the risks that have outlined. Um, obviously it is
your body's, uh, ability, and right, to reject it again.
But okay, so I guess that's the problem, right? Because we
did reject it and then you had a witness who subsequently
has been arrested for something else, which is the whole
Crux of why we're trying to settle now.
Why didn't why did we not pursue quicker just quicker legal
actions?
Last year to try to bring this to trial sooner as opposed
to saying, look the council said no we're going to defend
ourselves in court and take and take their chances as
directed by this body. Why don't we do that then?
Um we learned of the conviction after this was presented to
to the body. Last time we are we re-evaluated the case as
as the recent presidents that um, similar cases have had
huge verdicts. So if I may just interrupt then
With this individual already in jail, when the settlement
was presented.
This. Yes, this individual. We did not know at the time and
that was our at the time council at the time at the time of
his deposition he was not incarcerated when he was
relocated. It was determined that he was in fact in prison
under this uh, in this situation. So between that
discovering that and the recent verdicts, uh, the
Department of Law is bringing it to this body so that you
can decide whether it's in our fiduciary interest to settle
again. And who's the outside Council?
um the outside Council in this case is boring and scahill,
who represent represent the individuals and Nathan, and
kamianske, who represent the city of Chicago, and the
council that represents the city of Chicago, how much have
they been paid up until this point?
Um,
Sorry, let me just look it up.
Um, so I don't have it broken down between City and
individual officers, but the total to date is $2 million.
Thank you.
Thank you Alderman Lopez Alderman. Vice chair Conway.
Followed by alderman laspada.
Uh thank you madam. Chairwoman I I, you know, I initially
voted no on this settlement, but I think new things have
come to light that have, uh,
Uh, changed the balance here, I voted. No because, you
know, the fact that
The plaintiff's attorney who probably has received more
certificates of Innocence than anyone in the history of the
county certainly in States. Attorney Fox's, tenure um,
In this case, didn't even seek 1 and I thought that was a
pretty, pretty relevant fact. Um, because it was hard to
show hard to show innocence clearly, but um,
Since then, we have 1 of our key Witnesses has been that.
We discovered I guess is, is a convicted felon, which the
jury is likely to hear that, and the sex assault thing,
obviously makes it worse, but unclear if that becomes, uh,
comes before the jury, but in addition to that, I could
tell you having read the order after we, um,
after we rejected this settlement previously,
It is clear that we have a federal judge that is uniquely
upset with the city.
And based on the complicated issues of admissibility here
based on this complicated fact, pattern, I don't know if
that will affect the judicial rulings, but I suspect it
would be very expensive for us to find out.
And based on the change in in uh tenor with regarding the
witness as well as uh, the judge in this matter. I think we
should go ahead and uh,
Accept the settlement. Thank you.
thank you, Vice chair Conway, uh, Alderman, the spotter
Um, simply glad to concur with the opinion of aldermen
Conway and when the motion, uh, opportunity comes happy to
make the motion to pass, okay? Well, the opportunity is
coming. I wanted to say that I too, uh, based on the uh,
Evidence changes in the witness. Uh,
Problem. Uh a trial is indeed very risky and we should uh
Vote in favor of this.
Settlement agreement.
so motion made by Alderman Lepa, recommending, do pass all
those in favor of the motion signify by saying I, I opposed
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman spaz.
Alderman, Cardona, Riley and Lopez.
In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. And the due
pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city,
council meeting with the exception of those Alderman
voting. No.
um,
thank you very much, Miss Felker, you can stay, you've got
another case, um, 3 e, John Galvin versus switzky at all,
case number
23 seavey 3158 in the amount of 20 million.
Author Al mandaras versus switzky at all case. Number 23.
seavey 3165 in the amount of 20 million dollars.
And Francisco Nanz versus switzky at all. Case number 23,
seavey 3162 in the amount of $8 million, these 3 cases have
been Consolidated and we're joined by Jessica Felker who
will give the account here, miss Felker.
All right. Thank you, chair. I'll try not to take it
personally that I'm always at the end of the batting order
here.
Uh, so these are 3, reverse conviction cases. Again, um,
these arise from convictions for a 1986 aggravated arson
and double murder plaintiffs. Were sentenced to a life.
Imprisonment for this, for these crimes, eventually their
convictions were overturned, as a result of an appellant
decision in 2022. On July, 21st 2022, the State's
Attorney's Office agreed to dismiss their cases. Each at
that point, had spent 35 years in custody petitions for
certificates of Innocence, filed by plaintiffs, or pending
in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Cook County
State's Attorney's office has opposed these positions
plaintiffs filed suit in 2023. They sued retired and
deceased Chicago police officers, as well as assistant
States Attorney Joel Leon days before the city, reached a
settlement, the county settled for 7.45 million for each
plaintiff. If this settlement does not pass city council,
these cases will proceed to
Trial on June 16th 2025.
At approximately 4:35 a.m. on September 24th. 1986, a fire
broke out at 2603 West 24th Place in Chicago originating in
the rear of the Martinez residence. Blanco Martinez
resided. On the second floor and her brothers Julio
Guadalupe and Jorge lived in the Attic apartment. Blanc and
Jorge were able to escape while Julio Julio and Guadalupe
were
Trapped in the attic and died.
Jorge was a member of the Latin Kings, the police
investigation, unfolded, over several months and did not
conclude until June 1987, a neighbor who witnessed the fire
sought 3. Hispanic males walking in the alley and saw 1,
throw an object wrapped in a cloth, through a rear porch,
window of the house before it burst into flames. She was
never able to identify any of those men based on her report
and inspection of the premises. It was concluded that this
was arson. There was no trace of an accelerant discovered.
However,
for a while, the investigation centered around reports of
those, who had em motive to hurt Blanca and her Latin King
brother, Jorge Blanca, 2x, tenants of Blancas and others
made various allegations against a woman named Lisa, who
knew the Martinez's. Those allegations included that Lisa
made verbal threats to burn down the Martinez's house and
kill Blanca and Jorge Martinez.
That Lisa had a personal dispute with Blanca and that
Lisa's brother. A Satan disciple was supposedly killed by a
Latin King in 1985. So she wanted to seek Vengeance against
Jorge.
Lisa was interviewed and stated that 4 Satan Disciples
approached her and said they would Avenge the death of her
brother. She identified, 3 of the 4 by nicknames officers
later determined that those were 3 were plaintiff, John
Galvin, his brother, and Michael almendarez, the brother of
plaintiff Arthur almadar.
Another witness Frank partida who was in the alley at the
time of the fire told police that he was with 2 teens. He
had knew knew from the neighborhood. When he observed 3,
Hispanic males in the alley shortly. Before the fire
started 1 of those teams identified plaintiff Arthur Aladar
as his brother, Michael almadar, and John Galvin in
photographs as 2 of the people, he saw in the alley,
both the teens with parda that night perta excuse me that
night are now deceased Peta has testified in this case that
the 2 teens were to
Eventually plaintiff Arthur as his brother. Michael was
interviewed, and he denied involvement. But pointed the
finger at plaintiff's, John Galvin and Francisco Nas
saying, they admitted to firebombing the house.
Plaintiff John galban was interviewed and confessed saying
that the molotov cocktail failed to ignite the building. So
he threw a cigarette to start the fire and he implicated
plaintiff's, Francisco nagas and Arthur almadar both those
men then confessed implicating, the other 2, plaintiffs
plaintiffs were separately interviewed by Cook County, uh
Cook County defendant felony review, assistant State's
Attorney, Joel Leighton and provided accounts,
substantially similar to what they had related to
detectives all 3, plaintain plaintiffs and Michael almadar
as all assert. Now that their statements were physically
and psychologically forced and fabricated, they claimed
that assistant, State's Attorney Leighton was involved in
the fabrication of their statements and was fully aware of
the physical abuse perpetrated by the detectives.
In this suit, plaintiff's claim that there is no evidence
to support that the fire was an arson, but even if it was
an arson, the fire could not have occurred in the manner.
They described in their confessions proving their innocence
and that they were wrongfully. Convicted plaintiff will
present testimony from a fire origin expert to show that g.
John galvin's story that a cigarette ignited the fire and
began it is scientifically impossible. The expert will also
testify that there is no way to determine exactly where the
fire started but the fire could not have started in the
back porch. As the confessions indicate plaintiffs alleged
that if the fire was an arson, defendant's abandoned viable
leads.
Lisa was the arsonist plaintiffs argue supported by the
testimony of Frank partida that the 2 teens witnessing, the
events were too drunk and too high to be able to identify
anyone in the alley before the fire and defendant te
detectives knew that they could not see that.
Could not see the perpetrators and fabricated the
statements from those Witnesses.
the case outcome depends largely on whether a jury believes
plaintiffs account or if they believe defendants account
about the time in custody and how of the interrogations
went out,
He Witnesses in this case, including a number of defendants
and the only eyewitness identifying any of the defend or
plaintiffs are now deceased at the time of the fire, John
Galvin had turned 18. Arthur Al laderas was 20 and
Francisco Naas was 21. They each served 35 years before the
charges were dismissed.
Galvin and Aladar will testify that they endure trauma as a
result of their imprisonment imprisonment.
Francisco na admits to being a leader of a gang while he was
incarcerated. And as a result denies that he suffered any
psychological or physical abuse while in prison. He was
recently arrested in his Cook County Jail. While the jury
will not know about his arrest, it factors into the
settlement given that he will be limited in his testimony
about how the conviction or how his conviction back in 1986
and his subsequent imprisonment.
Affects his life today also.
An assistant States, Attorney came forward who was involved
in the post-conviction, proceedings and testified. That
Nana's, admitted to him in an interview conducted in 2005,
that he and the other 2 plaintiffs committed, the crime
that assistant State's Attorney, however, did not document
that confession and he never testified to that. Confession
in the post conviction proceedings, plaintiffs made a
collective demand to the city of 105 million dollars to
settle their claims but they will seek much more if they go
go to trial the week of the mediation, the, the plaintiff
settled with Cook County for 7.45 million dollars each.
If the settlement is not the authorized by city council the
city, defendants and plaintiffs will go to trial on June
16th. 2025 plaintiffs will likely ask the jury for an award
in excess of 200 million plaintiffs attorneys. Fees will
likely be 3 to 5 million. If they are successful at trial,
taking an account, the risk of those lit.
ation, the Law Department recommends, a total of a
settlement of total 48 million, 20 million to Plaintiff
Galvin 20 million to Plaintiff Al madaras and 8 million to
Plaintiff Naas. This is inclusive of fees and cost for
their Collective. 105 years in custody approximately
457,000 per year to avoid significant financial exposure.
That could result from a jury trial, the Department of Law
recommends, this settlement.
Thank you, Miss Felker.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Alderman spaz.
Uh, I think I know the answer to this but the arsonist was
never caught.
Um, correct. If you if you believe the plaintiff's version
and the true arsonist was never. I like the way I put that.
Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. Any other
questions?
Is there a motion to recommend approval of this item? So
moved by Alderman, Martin recommending do pass.
all those in favor of this motion signify by saying, I
Opposed.
And the append. Oh, and the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it. And the due pass recommendation will be reported
out at the next city, council meeting Miss Felker. Thank
you very much. Thank you chair.
Item. Number 4 is a proposed order. Authorizing, the
payment of various small claims against the city. This was
a direct introduction and those payment that payment list
was sent to everyone electronically. And if there are no
objections, these will be placed on the Omnibus and item.
Number 5 is a proposed order denying, the payment of
various small claims against the city of Chicago, also, a
direct introduction, and the list of payments were sent
electronically to everyone. And if there are no objections,
these will be placed on the Omnibus.
There being no further business before the committee. Can I
get a motion to adjourn? So, moved by Alderman Cardona.
All those in favor. Signify by saying I I oppose and the
opinion of the chair, the eyes have it, the meeting is
called to the end. Have a great afternoon, everyone.