Yeah.
All right. Good afternoon.
The Committee on Environmental Protection
and Energy will now come to order today.
Three items will be presented
before the committee, an ordinance to prohibit condo boards
and landlords from restricting private
composting collection services.
A resolution that calls on the US government to recommit
to the Paris Climate Agreement.
And, uh, begin treaty talk on fossil fuel non-proliferation,
and a subject matter hearing on the lead service line.
Replacement program in Chicago.
First will begin with the roll call to establish quorum.
Uh, chair Haddon is present. Vice Chair Knutsen. Present.
Alder Lata Alder Ramirez. Alder Lopez.
Alder ez Alder. Sig Cha Lopez. Alder Cruz.
Alder Rodriguez Sanchez. Alder Conway Alder.
Riley Alder Lawson Alder. Clay Alder.
Martin Alder, Howorth Awesome Bean.
Nine members present. We have a quorum.
Um, if there's any Alder person joining
virtually, we can add them.
Do we have anybody in queue yet? Okay. Uh, 10 present.
We have a quorum
and fantastic.
Um, I will be stepping into a committee on workforce.
And so Vice Chair Knutson will be chairing in my stud.
Uh, we'll pass the virtual gavel to him. Virtual gavel.
There we go.
You got us for, Uh, public comment.
Go two. Yeah. Where are we? Sorry.
All right, everybody, at this time, we'll begin the com,
the public comment period.
Public comment is limited to 30 minutes out of respect
for everybody's time.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes.
First up, if we could have Mr. George Blakemore Moore
Believe this public comment
and two meetings at the same time.
Mr. Blakemore, could you please, are, are,
are You're at the mic right now. I'm
Already started. Now. You just speak
A little bit. Thank you.
My memory, that's not Timothy.
Listen, the chairman said I have to leave
and go over to Workforce.
Well, I have to leave also.
I'm entitled to, to speak at workforce
and in an environmental, uh, committee meetings.
Who does this? To do this? Why would you do this, Timothy?
What's wrong with y'all?
Why would you have two meetings the same date
and the same time at two different rooms?
You, you don't consider us nothing.
We just, nobody. We the citizens.
You had a whole month to do this.
And you dealing with environment over here.
This here is toxic.
It stinks in here. A toxic environment.
What are you saying, Mr. Blakemore? These people are bad.
Uh, are you smelling anything toxic?
Like, uh, at Waller Reclamation Garden out there, uh, uh,
that spool where they have that project?
No, I'm not smelling it here,
but it's fun in here, here.
Funk, peer.
I don't know what type of leadership that you call yourself.
This is disable. This is uner.
This is corruption.
And this is how the democratic machine work.
Guess what? Mr. Blakemore work. They're democrats.
No check in balance. They're terrible.
The black ones, the white ones, the Hispanic,
the Asian, they're terrible.
But what's so egregious?
When this election comes, they going
to all be back in.
Nothing going to change.
This is a culture of corruption here.
And even if they vote out some of these low,
like the Democrats here, some new ones will come in.
It's not gonna be any change.
It's not gonna be turning nothing red.
But I won't trump to come here
and clean up this toxic swamp here.
Something is evil here. un-American here.
What is a one party system here?
No checks and balance. It's worse thing coming.
Russia, a China.
This is a says pool here, and my minutes will be up
and I'm gonna run and over to the next workforce.
Trump come by and clean up this damn swamp.
Bye. Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
I want to quick, um, acknowledge for quorum, uh,
all our people, Cruz, Riley, and Viegas.
Thank you very much. With that, we're gonna go
to our second speaker
and our last speaker, Mr. William Donnelly.
Good afternoon. I'm Liam Donnelly, founder
and CEO of waste, not compost.
I'm here today representing over 10,000 Chicagoans
that have subscribed to our service,
and over 5,000 others that have subscribed
to other Chicago compost collection services.
In support of the amendment on municipal code section
7 28 7 15,
prohibiting restrictions on residential composting.
As composting has regained popularity
and methods of urban composting have
evolved over the last decade.
Composting has unfortunately been unable
to free itself from many of its negative associations.
Nuisance issues frequently associated
with mismanaged composting setups are used as rationale
behind rules and regulations prohibiting the use
of composting services throughout Chicago buildings.
Despite the environmental
and hygienic benefits,
separating food waste from landfill containers often offers.
Many composting services offer the cleanest method
of composting possible, providing an experience
that is both simpler than recycling
and easier than conventional trash.
For example, our service offers a swap method.
When our team services a resident,
we are taking away a full airtight five gallon bucket filled
with food scraps and leaving
behind an empty industrially sanitized five gallon bucket
for use until the next service.
This amendment to the municipal code will remove a barrier
that Chicagoans face with their building management, HOAs
and or landlords,
and allow residents access to the easiest,
cleanest way to compost.
The passage of this amendment is in line with the city
of Chicago's support for expanded composting efforts
and ensures accessibility to composting regardless
of homeowner or dwelling status.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Donnelly, and we'll hear more about
that from Alder person, Martin.
Shortly, um, there being no more speakers,
the public comment period has concluded.
Thank you to all of our speakers and attendees today.
I would like to note that the committee received one
written public comment.
It has been sent out to the committee members via email.
Our first order of business is the Rule 45 report from July,
which was sent out to the committee over email.
Can I have a motion to approve the Rule 45 report?
Alder persona. So moves all of those in favor, say aye.
All of those opposed say nay in the opinion of the chair.
The ayes have it. All right.
We're gonna start with SR 2025 dash
0 0 1 8 7 2 2.
Affirmation of commitment to the goals
of the Paris Climate Agreement
and call for the federal government
to support the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
Gabby Jameson, a high school student
who worked on the creation of this resolution
during her summer internship
with this Committee on Environmental Protection
and Energy, is here to talk about this item.
Members of the committee were sent a copy
of the substitute language ahead of today's meeting.
We have also provided physical copies
of the substitute resolution to members today.
No major substantive changes were made to the resolution.
Just an amendment to aware section
to reflect the preferred terminology of black
and brown people instead of people of color.
May I have a motion to accept the substitute resolution
for consideration
by the Committee on Environmental
Protection and Energy? This is
Just to consider it. Okay.
Alder person, Bennett Lawson.
So moves all of those in favor, say aye.
All of those opposed say nay.
And in, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it
and the substitute resolution is accepted in committee.
Okay. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Gabby Jameson
to share more about the resolution.
And I just wanna say thank you so much
for all the work you did for committee this summer
and for being here today.
Yeah, of course. Um, so I am here in support
of resolution SR 20 25 0 0 1 8 7 7 2, calling on our city
of Chicago to endorse the Fossil Fuel
Non-Proliferation treaty.
And this non-binding resolution is more than just a call
to environmental action,
but is also about protecting the health
and safety of a resident.
Chicago has already seen the impacts
of climate change firsthand from dealing with air pollution,
um, from wildfires to storms, unlike
what our city has ever seen before.
And the negative effects of these events disproportionately
fall in our most vulnerable communities,
and they will continue to get worse unless we act right now.
So the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty is a worldwide
initiative with support from the World Health Organization,
noble laureates and cities from Los Angeles to London,
and now hopefully Chicago.
And by joining this movement, we affirm
that our city recognizes the science behind climate change
and the need to keep global warming within a safe limit,
and that we need to stop expanding fossil fuel production.
Passing this resolution will send a powerful message,
not just to our country, but to our city
and around the world, that local governments are ready
to lead the ongoing fight against climate change
and pave the way for our national government to step up.
And this resolution isn't just symbolic, it's a commitment
to our children, environmental justice,
and our work towards a livable future for everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Gabby.
Um, to get started, are there any
questions for members of the committee?
Alder person? Conway,
I will tell you, I ap I appreciate your advocacy and
before I was in city council, I had a lot of different jobs,
but I was a solar energy developer, so a lot
of this is near and dear to my heart.
Uh, one thing that makes me a little concerned about this
though, and you and you discussed the fossil fuel,
non non-proliferation treating your remarks is the
whereas column that says, whereas, uh,
a new global initiative is underway, calling
for a fossil fuel, non-proliferative proliferation treaty
that would end new fossil fuel exploration expansion.
I mean, if we literally did no more drilling tomorrow, the
implications for national defense, for
gas prices, for Americans, for lot of, lot of jobs
by the, by the oil company.
I mean, that would kind of be devastating to our,
to our economy, to simply, um, so, so while I I,
I appreciate what the, you know, what the, um,
the resolution is I, regarding the Paris Climate Agreement.
I'm nervous about that piece of it,
but welcome you to respond to that.
Yeah. Well, the non-Proliferation treaty is more
of a non non-binding symbolic resolution.
And I think that the main goal is ultimately, you know,
years in the future to like accelerate the transition to end
to end fossil fuels into like, towards a,
like a green economy.
But it's not like by endorsing the phospho nonproliferation
treaty, we're saying that we need to end it like tomorrow.
It's more of just like to make sure that we commit ourselves
to the transition, which is what something
that our world needs. So
Thank you. Very well
said. I think it's, I think it's great
that we are talking about, uh, how we can, uh,
transition the energy of this country
and globally to, to more sustainable
and renewable resources.
Thank you.
Thank you Gabby. Great response.
We're gonna go to Alder person Daniel Lasa
for your questions or comment.
Thank, thank you so much.
Uh, vice chair Gabby, thank you so much
for your work on this.
I, it strikes me to the core every day
how urgent this is as a father,
like as a Chicagoan, as an American, as someone
who wants this planet to be livable.
As someone who I feel like on a daily
basis, there are forces trying to persuade us
that facts are not facts
and that we're supposed to just erase our knowledge of
what is and isn't happening on the planet.
And I feel like your resolution is a rebuke
to those energies.
So I really appreciate that.
I was wondering if you would share,
personally speaking why you wanted
to take this on as part of your internship?
Yeah, so for me, obviously as like a young person,
I've always been very passionate about climate change.
And ever since I heard about it when I was really young,
I was like, you know, just shocked
that like the world wasn't like, kind of taking the steps
that we need in order to make sure
that people like my generation,
younger generations will be able to like,
live on a safe planet and everything.
Um, and I kind of real, I was,
I learned about the false nonproliferation treaty from some
pe some of my friends in
Philly who passed it in Philadelphia.
And I kinda was looking at Chicago
and realized that we hadn't,
we don't have a resolution like this.
And I just felt like it would be a really, really,
really great way to kind
of make sure our city is just like committing towards like
what we, what we can
and what we can do in terms of just like climate justice
and yeah.
And I just felt like the resolution is just like a really
good stepping stone to just make, making sure
that Chicago can do as much as we can in order to make,
you know, to accelerate the climate transition.
I really appreciate it. And I mean, in light of
federal in action
or sometimes worse than inaction, um, we, we always need
to remember that cities are about 70% of the United States
and if we can solve for this issue in cities,
we solve for so much.
So thank you again for your work on
this. Thank you Vice chair.
Thank you. Any more questions from the committee?
Alright, Debbie, I just wanna also echo, um,
Alder person LaSpada and say thank you for doing this work.
It's interesting to learn
that we didn't have a resolution like this on the books.
And so often, especially on issues of climate,
it's youth led, right?
I feel like the youth movement on climate and
and push has pushed government into a much better direction.
So I want to thank you for being a part of that.
I hope that you share this resolution
with everyone that you're at school with.
We'll share it on our end to our communities and,
and just keep up the good work.
Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. Great. There. Motion.
Oh yeah, sorry. I'm so, I'm, uh,
I'm just a sub here, so you gotta be patient.
Uh, having no more questions.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval of this license?
Do I hear uh, Alder person Raymond Lopez? So moves.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval
of this resolution?
So moved. So moved. Alder person, Daniel spot.
So moves all of those in favor say aye. Aye.
All of those opposed say nay in the opinion of the chair.
The ayes have it. Thank you. And congratulations, Gabby.
Thank. Yes. Okay.
The chair will report this vote as a recommendation
to pass at the next city council meeting on
September 25th, 2025.
All right, our second agenda item today is item oh
2 0 2 5 0 8 16.
An amendment of municipal code section seven dash 28 dash
seven 15 prohibiting restrictions on residential composting.
Members of the committee were sent a copy
of the substitute language.
We shared a copy of the substitute ordinance
with members via email ahead of today's meeting.
The changes include clarification on
how an individual can seek injunctive or declaratory relief.
It also modifies the definition of composting
to exclude private collection services for the purposes
of the restrictions around dumping in section seven dash 28
dash seven 10 of the municipal code.
May I have a motion to accept the substitute ordinance
for consideration by the Committee on
Environmental Protection and Energy?
So moved. Alder person, Conway.
So moves all of those in favor say aye. Aye.
All those opposed say nay in the opinion of the chair.
The ayes have it and the substitute
ordinance is accepted in the committee.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to our colleague,
Alder person, Matt Martin, the lead sponsor
of this ordinance to share information on the scope
and purpose of the proposed ordinance.
Thank you chair. Uh, and good afternoon colleagues.
Um, so I wanna just do a little bit
of table setting in terms of the issues that, uh,
were flagged for our attention.
That prompted the introduction of this ordinance.
Um, we had heard from a number of residents as well
as providers that there were times where, uh,
an individual was not, uh, able, uh, to be able
to use offsite composting services where there was a pickup
or drop off component, um, at the, uh, place
of residents themselves for with little to no reason given.
Um, I worked with LRB to look at other jurisdictions
and how they look to address this,
because at the end of the day, I think that our need
around composting is going to grow, not shrink
and best for us to get a handle on it
before things really take off.
Um, we all know that our city has one
of the worst recycling rates
of any large city in the country,
but I think oftentimes what's under discussed is about 20%
of our waste stream, um, can be composted.
It's primarily food scraps and other organics.
Uh, so grass clippings, for example.
Um, to be able to make composting more readily available
for our residents is good for the environment.
Um, you have fewer greenhouse gas emissions,
but it's also good for the city's bottom line
because so much of this work is,
or so much of, uh, this, this waste is getting,
uh, sent to landfills.
Our landfills, I believe, are over 90% capacity right now.
And when it's time for us to secure new landfill space,
it's gonna cost us money.
So diverting up to 20% of our wave stream away, uh,
from, uh, these, these, uh, drop offs, um, these,
these large landfills, uh, is gonna be good for us
and gonna be good for the, for job
creation in this emerging industry.
So, uh, we took a look at
what other jurisdictions have done.
I believe the state of Maryland has passed substantially
similar legislation.
So we worked with LRB in the law department to both craft
and revise this legislation seeking input from people within
and outside of city government.
Um, one of the notable things I'd call your attention to
that was a change relative to what was initially introduced,
um, is on the second page, subsection a talks about how,
uh, collection shall be conducted entirely within a fully
enclosed container with no opening, have no opening,
having a dimension greater than a quarter
of an inch in any direction.
Um, as well as being done in such a manner is
to control unreasonable waste and odor.
Um, it's also important for us that there be some degree
of flexibility involved with this
because different, um, residents, different companies
and different buildings, be they smaller ones
or larger ones, will have different
needs and different opportunities.
Um, so being able to have language that is, uh,
flexible here in terms of, uh,
unreasonable restrictions while still having those baseline
components is clear.
And then lastly, uh, as you all know,
we already have these services, uh, existing right now
and they are subjected to various, uh,
regulations within our city's code,
largely depending on whether they, uh, qualify
as private scavengers or not.
So you might think about something
that is approximately the size of a blue bin
or a black bin that would be treated as a private scavenger,
um, if you're talking about something that might be closer
to a five gallon bucket, uh, also regulated,
but regulated in a different way.
Um, so I will stop there.
Uh, welcome any questions, uh, that this committee has
and hope to earn your favorable
consideration. Thank you, chair.
Thank you Alderman. Martin,
any questions from committee members?
Yes, alderman Conway.
Yeah, so I, I, uh, uh, as a, as directed
by our military, I lived in Stu Guard, Germany for,
for a year during, uh, during COVID.
And I will tell you that composting was just part of our,
our daily life there.
And you didn't really, you know, didn't
really think that much of it.
Um, so I, I commend,
I commend your leadership in bringing this forward.
One thing that was interesting, the quarter inch in any
direction, I I, I didn't quite know what that meant.
'cause if you think like a quarter inch
by quarter inch hole, you couldn't like
put up banana peel in there.
So I don't, I guess I don't understand what,
Yeah, if, uh, Mike Khaled from LRB if chair
with your permission, if he can, uh, uh,
add some clarity in terms of
that substitute language, that would be great.
Yeah. Mike, come on up.
Hello. Hi. Uh, Mike Haled, director of the LRB, um,
uh, Ulman Conway.
That is a similar provision to,
as Ulman Martin was mentioning about, uh, private scavengers
that, uh, large,
that language itself comes from that section.
Uh, and I'm by no means, uh, a scientist or anything,
but, uh, as I understand it, that has to do
with anaerobic versus aerobic composting.
And, uh, I'm, there's experts here, I'm sure
that could get into further detail about that.
Uh, but it's a comparable provision as I understand it.
There's, uh, filters for air
to come in and out and things like that,
But it doesn't sort of prevent it from being like a lid
that's longer, larger than that.
Correct. Anything. Correct.
I mean, that was kind of what I was getting. Yes.
Anyway, but yeah, that's all I got. Thank you.
Great. Thank you Alderman Conway,
any other questions from committee members?
Yes, older person Ray Lopez.
Thank you. Thank you Chairman.
And good Mor afternoon, members of the committee.
So is there anybody here from the departments speak to this?
I believe we do have a representative from the Department
of Streets and Sanitation, deputy Commissioner Chris sve.
Is there anybody here from the
Department of Health as well?
Uh, the Department of Health could not have a member, uh,
uh, be present today.
And may I ask why before Chris gives
his opinion on this?
Um, obviously the Department of Health is
an equal cohort to this,
So, uh, we did work with Commissioner IgE on reviewing
and revising this language, uh, when we reached out, um,
to Chris and, uh,
other representatives from various departments.
Um, it was late in the week last week,
so they did not have someone available.
Um, so I apologize, uh, alderman,
and if there are questions that we can get
through the chair, I'd be happy to facilitate that directly.
Well, thank you.
And I would just say that when we have issues like this,
I don't even take it as a slight from you, I take it
as a slight from the department
for not making themselves available,
but I guess we could always ask them
and budget how many employees they have working from home
today that could have easily have been
here for this discussion.
But Streets and Sanitation is here.
So I applaud you for being here.
What are your thoughts on this?
Uh, Chris Vey, deputy Commissioner Department of Streets
and Sanitation, we're in support of it.
Uh, alderman, uh, we feel like this type of legislation, uh,
provides that right to compost
that would be necessary in order for us
to increase the amount of material
that is going to landfill.
Um, I feel that there is enough legislation
or enough language in the legislation
that would prevent some of those, um, issues of, uh,
say rodent or vector invasion in a, in a scenario
where people are composting on site.
Uh, more specifically, uh, that was brought up about having
that third collection system
or third collection, uh, avenue added
to a waste prevention system like ours,
where we've got garbage, we have recycling,
getting into organic collections is where we need to go.
Uh, it's in line with some
of the other programming our department has introduced in
the last, uh, year
and a half, two years for organic material,
specifically for food scraps.
So we are in support.
So over the last year
and a half, this administration has pursued trying
to find ways to separate the scrap
food scraps, particularly.
Um, currently we do what,
So we have a food scrap drop off system
that we introduced in the fall of 2023.
Uh, we expanded, uh, we introduced with 15 locations
last year, we added five more.
So we have 20 drop off locations across the city.
We, we do ask residents to sign up to use it.
Uh, there were some statistics that were, uh,
brought up earlier about the number of households.
We do the same. We ask residents to register
to use a location as a household.
So we have about, uh, 7,000,
almost 7,400 household signed up
to use our 20 locations across the city.
And would, are you able to provide
through the chair both the locations
and the usage so we could see what the actual tonnage is
for these various locations?
Absolutely. Excuse me. Um, but this would be different
because this allows a third party operator,
if I'm understanding correctly, to come
and pick up the compost, the,
this material from a specific location.
Correct? Correct. Now, if someone were to overload a bin,
who's responsible for that?
So as far as the, the overloading of the material itself?
Yes. Um, I mean, it, it likely is the building that,
that is doing the, the overloading of the material?
Well, not likely. Because my understanding
that this allows for a tenant
or individual who's renting
or part of a, a group setting to be able
to have the opportunity to compost if they so choose.
Correct.
So I think there's two specific actions that are in,
in the, um, amended language.
One is to do composting onsite.
The second would be to have a collection container
that a third party would be servicing
Right. Right. To action
for a third party for people to do
that themselves if their landlord chooses not to.
Correct. Correct. Mr. Hall, is that correct?
Yeah, just that without splitting too many hairs here,
it specifically requires that, uh,
building management in whatever form that is cannot prohibit
or unreasonably restrict collection of organic waste
for drop off or collection for pickup.
So not necessarily composting on site inside the
Unit? No, I'm, I'm not referring
to composting on site. Got it.
I just wanna make sure that if I am in a four unit building
and my landlord, my landlord cannot stop me from doing this.
Correct. That's correct. Now I get a basket bin
or anaerobic or aerobic container.
And by the way, yes, I do know what both of those are.
Um, if I were to overload
that container with compostable materials,
and as someone in streets
and sand, we, you know very well that we have carts
that are overloaded, carts that are broken carts,
were garbage is all over,
and now we have a, a compostable bin
that is fully overloaded, who's responsible
and who gets the ticket
and who writes the ticket in that situation.
So overflowing containers has always been, as you alluded
to, a responsibility that our department has reacted to.
So first and foremost, it would be a streets
and sanitation ticket, or it is a
sanitation code violation Correct. For
An overloaded container? Correct.
Okay. So that's one who gets the ticket?
Well, in this instance it would be written
against a building itself.
So the owner who has nothing to do with this is the one
that's going to get the ticket for
what his tenant wants to do. Well,
That for an overloaded container, that's
how we we would've to write the ticket.
So this allows a tenant. So I'm clear.
And so the committee's clear, this allows a tenant
to have the private avail to not be restricted,
but then is not held in any way, shape,
or form accountable for their use of
that third party option. I Correct.
I don't believe that that's correct. Object.
I, I, but I, I wanna add,
because it's, it's, it's a ordinance
that there are reasonable
Restrictions. Respectfully.
My a fault respect, y apologies,
I'm still asking questions
and I will gladly defer to either of you who wanna answer
or to my colleague who wishes to opine as well.
So does the property owner
who is renting to an individual who has
executed their right to do this,
that individual is held accountable?
Should this composting bin be ticket eligible?
I, I believe that's how that would have to be enforced.
Okay. I I, I would like to just say alderman, I,
I don't believe we've ever had a ticket
that was issued against one
of these third party food waste collection
Companies. Actually,
we write tickets against dumpsters. Do we not?
We do. Okay. So we do write tickets to third party folks.
But my issue is also with regards
to if this allows a tenant, the opportunity,
the tenant is not the one getting the ticket Correct.
Per this, how this is written.
And per the law right now, it would be
to the property itself, correct?
Yes. Thank you. Am I misinterpreting this Mr. Holick?
Because I see you're fidgeting over there.
A apologies for, uh, fidgeting.
Um, I, I wouldn't want to get, uh,
into a discussion about their ticketing practices,
but I, I would note that, uh, if it's not, uh, stored
or collected within an entire,
entirely within a fully enclosed container, it's not subject
to protection of the ordinance.
Uh, so in addition to whatever other nuisance violations
or other, or other failure to maintain your property, uh,
to be clean, it wouldn't be protected
and it would fall under reasonable
Rule. Correct? Yeah,
that would be my point. Mm-hmm.
Because I, and I will defer to you in a minute,
my point being this, as somebody who's seen broken carts,
garbage carts without lids garbage everywhere.
Mm-hmm. Human nature is at some point, one of these is going
to be overfilled.
Mm-hmm. Maybe we have an industrious composter
who doesn't want to pay for a larger composting bin.
Just as we've seen industrious people who buy a, a,
a small dumpster to empty out a three flat building,
they will overload it,
it will be ticket eligible who gets the ticket.
And my concern is, is that we are now giving the opportunity
to tenants to do this, which is fine.
I think that that's great, but they are not the ones
who are going to be held liable per our municipal code
when this is in breach of the law.
The building owner who has no third party contract,
who is simply the owner in the wrong place at the wrong time
now will be held liable for something that he
or she has no control over.
Correct. I will chairman with your
indulgence, I'd gladly defer to my colleagues
so he could respond to what I just said. Yeah. Let's
Go to Alderman Martin. Thanks again.
I, I wanna apologize Alderman Lopez for interrupting you.
Um, love your pain during that. So, um, uh, Mr.
Hallett, if, if you could share, um, your perspective on,
uh, reasonable restrictions that could in place,
uh, by a landlord and
or a condo association in the event that, uh, a,
a ticket is issued in response to an overflowing container.
Uh, certainly. Um, as an initial matter,
what is effectively prohibiting
and unreasonably restricting is an inherently fact
dependent question.
So, uh, meaning that
Specific, sorry to interrupt you, Mike.
We've gotta take a break while the computer system, uh,
starts recording again.
Let's see.
Accordingly. I broke it. We've been going for a while.
It's 14 hours. It's been
14 hours. It's
time flies when you're having fun. You
Know, I know. I'm good.
But you know, oh, sorry. It's not even for you.
Okay. Oh, it's counting down till we can start again.
Oh, yeah. Cool. Wait and see.
Trust me, it only feels like I've been
talking for 14 hours. It's
Not.
So we need to increase,
increase the contractual services budget for
city council for next year.
Yeah. Actually, we need to have our own, we need
to take our own in everyone's shares.
That's why we have position. No, it's always
That Responsible.
It's not a Yes. So rule within associations
Contract. Mm-hmm. That's
only 2%. Mm-hmm.
Contract Chicago 2%.
But we got 2%.
That's why I raised say,
said You lying.
I'm not, no, I'm not it.
I'm letting Them, You
know, better you do.
Ben
Chairman. Yep.
In the interest of being fully transparent, i, I move
to recess for five minutes until this resumes
Okay. Uh,
understood.
It said it's probably one minute, but let's see.
Um, and I'll move
to recess for, for five minutes.
Um, Derman Ray, Ray Lopez, seconds.
Um, those in favor say aye. Aye. Those again?
Say no, the aye. Have it.
We're gonna recess just for five minutes, everybody.
I,
yeah.
That was Al Lopez, right? Yep. Okay.
Go and see what's going on there.
Good idea.
Exercise. I think I,
you know what I,
Okay. Check my check, check,
check, check
Right now I'm left.
Yeah.
Literally
back.
We're not bouncing back in action. Sorry.
I would like be able
to, okay.
So I was just like trying to fix it.
Cool. And they'll go, they'll sit up. Yeah.
I think maybe you need to call them
and tell them to sit in there because right now we have, um,
He's on the phone.
Okay. That's it. Thank you.
Thank you. So yeah.
So he's gonna be able to reply for both.
Um, let see if I had to change,
I'll be kind of at the end
Here. So
here, probably burn now.
Cool. Yeah, no, that's fine.
And that's it. That's the only change
of course today from all the days we had to go
all day issues, but yeah.
Oh, are we back? Oh, so we're back.
He just told Okay, good. He told
me he didn't know how long it would take.
30 seconds. Go. That's that on that black box.
We are gonna hit recording. Great. Let's do it.
Okay.
Somebody in there no Million?
Yes. So it's been five minutes already. Lemme see.
Yeah. 20 more. Okay. Yeah.
Alright, everybody. Test, test, test
The mic. There we go.
Well, maybe mine's not on. Can you? Great. Thank you.
We're gonna move to reconvene this meeting.
Um, uh, alderman Ray Lopez.
So moves all of those in favor say aye. Aye.
All of those opposed say nay in the opinion of the chairs.
The ayes have it. I want to go right back
to Mike Hallett from LRB, who is in the middle
of a, of speaking.
Hi everyone. Uh, Mike.
Um, hold on. Mike.
Yeah, just wait for a second, Mike.
It looks like still having technical difficulties.
Hello. You, There we go.
You are plane on the job. You wanna try
One? Mike? Good to proceed.
Oh, no, this one works out.
Just give it a second. Let's check
to make sure it's recording.
Yes. The screen is blank,
so I just wanna make sure O okay, we're good.
We're,
Uh, thanks. Vice chair. Uh,
Knutson, uh, Mike Ette from the LRB again.
Uh, we were discussing, uh, Altman Lopez's question
regarding the issuance of tickets for overflowing, uh,
composting bins and collection bins.
Um, I I think there's a couple of different, uh,
scenarios under which that would be
addressed under the ordinance.
Um, first and foremost,
and I'm sure Alderman Martin could provide more detail on
this, but this is kind of exactly the scenario, uh,
that was contemplated by the re reasonable rules
and regulation language.
Uh, so for example, if a building were issued a ticket,
they could essentially in the lease
or in the condo declaration say that, that the liability for
that ticket or the payment of that ticket gets passed on
as a special assessment or something else
that would be potentially, uh, a reasonable rule, again,
depending on the un underlying facts and circumstances.
Um, also for, for what it's worth
and, uh, the DSSS can, can weigh in
with a little more specificity.
But as I understand it, part
of the reason why the building owner gets issued a ticket
for an overflowing garbage bin or recycling bin is
because they're obligated under the code to provide
sufficient container space to prevent overflowing
where no corresponding, uh, provision of bins
for composting is, is relevant under the code.
So, um, again, deferring is DSSS.
I would anticipate that, uh, a ticket for a tenant
or condo unit owner caused overflow would be, uh, ticketed
as a nuisance or failure to maintain property.
And, uh, of course would be subject to
penalties under their applicable lease
or condo board declaration.
So then chairman, if I may,
and I'm sorry, Chris,
are you in agreement with what he just said?
I, I, I am alderman.
Um, I think putting the finer point on it, the obligation
to provide the refuse service
to the recycling service is one thing.
This, again, is just allowing for, uh, tenant, you know,
an owner of a condo and a condo association to also go out
and obtain these third services for food scrap collection.
Is there anybody here from the law department?
Thank you, Ray. Yeah, if you can come up
and just introduce yourself, please.
Good afternoon. Yes.
Somebody is here from the law department.
Ray flips on to some behalf behalf the city of Chicago.
Sir, you heard what they said with regards to
the assigning of tickets
and liability, does the city
of Chicago have an option in which they can write a ticket
not to a property owner,
but to a tenant under this ordinance?
I'm not aware of that ability.
Anything in the municipal code that allows for such a ticket
delivery to a tenant
and not a property owner
on residential?
Let me on residential thank you to my colleague.
I am not entirely sure.
I'm not thinking of anything off the top of my head,
but that doesn't mean that when it doesn't exist,
I would have to defer to my colleagues in, uh,
who do enforcement more often than I do.
So my understanding,
and I'll gladly defer to anybody
who has more knowledge in this, is that when it comes
to residential property, it goes to the property owner.
That's generally the truth. Yes. Um, not the tenants.
And if you have a, to be clear, the
fines in this
under section 7 2 8 5 1 8
entitled penalties, um, of which this would be applicable,
says, any person who violates any pre provision
of this ordinance, its rules of regulation,
shall upon conviction be fine.
Not less than 500 nor more than 1000 for the first offense.
Not less than 1000,
nor more than 2000 for the second offense,
and not less than 2000,
nor more than 5,000 for the third offense.
So we are talking anywhere between 500
to $5,000 in potential fines if
an individual tenant were to overload
their compost bin
charged to the property owner who,
because of this ordinance, has no say in
that compost because we've given the tenant
the opportunity to do this.
Is that correct?
Because the other option that I think I may have heard
stated is that composting is exempt,
which means then there's no fines for anybody
who does anything, which would also be problematic.
Sorry, I was No worries. Working carefully.
I didn't rattle that off from memory.
I had to look it up too. So we're good.
So, and I'm sorry,
I'm gonna have to re repeat something.
So if I, if, if I get
what you asked incorrectly, please correct me.
Oh, I, um, this
ordinance similar to say if a tenant were
to overload the garbage can, right?
Uh, if you have a multi-unit building
and somebody overloads the trash, it's the building owner
who is liable.
This is similar to
that in the same way it's the building owner is liable if
something, if compost is overloaded
and there's a, a, a fine put against the,
the building owner.
That is the question. No, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm saying
that yes, that that would be the case.
So then is, is, is, is my reading and, uh, obvi, um,
but again, I am reviewing this as I sit here
and I'm listening to you
and I am doing the best I can, um,
shall I say shooting from the cuff?
I'm gonna pass it because we really have, in, in my opinion,
we have a, a, a meshing, if you will, of two different parts
of the municipal code when it comes
to third party operation.
Because currently if you are, what Chris five
and under you have city garbage cards, 4, 4, 4
and fewer four and four and less.
If you have five or more, you have a third party.
And if you have a third party, then both building and
or third party provider can get the ticket.
Would that be applicable in this instance?
And then conversely, if you have four
or less, then strictly falls down
to either the property owner again
or who obviously more than likely is the same.
But if not, we're trying to figure out how do you assign
blame and accountability to the individual
who signed up for this program?
Because there's nothing in the law that says
that you're gonna hold that person accountable
for their composting bin.
And I would defer to Mike for an answer with your grace.
Uh, Mike halt from the legislative reference Bureau, uh,
a, a couple notes I wanted to flag the enforcement
and penalty provision is actually, uh,
subsection six of the ordinance.
If you look, any person who violates this section without,
uh, an 11 four permit, which is what we're talking about,
uh, would be subject to a fine of between 300 and 600.
Uh, I also note that it's any person not
building owner, right.
So the, the violations that could occur
of this new subsection eight
by a building owner would be effectively prohibiting
or unreasonably restricting, whereas, uh,
any tenant presumably could violate the requirement, uh,
that it be conducted entirely within their,
uh, an enclosed lid.
So that would be my reading, but again, I would defer
to the department
and the law department how they would operationalize that
500,000, Which
I didn't hear.
But I will say that
that section was also based on the assumption
that it's the individual that the individual asking
for this opportunity is one
and the same as the one getting the ticket
in the current municipal code.
I, I'm not sure if I understand your, your question.
So that section, this section
as a whole composting standards is re with regards
to individuals who are choosing to do that currently mm-hmm.
Not someone who's choosing it over the objection of their
landlord or out of the restrictions of their landlord.
Ah, so you went from being the,
the willing participant to the
un unwilling but mandated participant
and now you are the one
as the unwilling mandated participant who's going
to be per this section
of the municipal code responsible for that ticket.
So I would think that either we need
to clarify that part,
or we need to give some sorts of
language to this ordinance that holds without harm
property owners who are subject
to this ordinance
and are having this happen
without their acquiescence.
May I ask you a point of information? Yep, go right ahead.
So just so I'm aware, currently if you live in a residence,
you are collecting organic waste of your house.
You're just collecting it in the
same container as your trash.
So like right, right now, if you have an apartment No,
No, no. Your micro,
I'm Clear. We're just trying to put
your microphone.
Folks who reside in a residence in Chicago currently,
it's not like they're not not collecting organic waste,
it's just in a single container along with their trash.
So in this case, we're just talking about
two separate containers.
I wanna make sure I'm understanding that accurately.
We're talking about how people are
or aren't collecting their organic waste
in a separate container.
Not whether they can con collect organic waste or not.
Right.
That's what it sounds like.
Okay. Alright. I just wanted to be clear.
I'll have other questions later,
but I want to make sure I'm
understanding the, the questions.
Thank you.
Great. Alder person. Martin, do you wanna respond?
Sure. Um, I don't know if he's still here,
but we had a representative from Waste Not Compost,
provide public comment.
I would be interested if he's still available, um,
if he could share, uh, his company's experience in terms
of whether
and to what extent, um, these issues arise in terms of, uh,
overflowing bins and
or ticketing with, with the chair's, uh, approval.
Yep. Come, go right ahead, Mr.
Donnelly, if you want to come up
and, uh, take a seat next to Mr.
Hallett.
Yep. Okay. If you could just
introduce yourself as well.
Yeah. William Donnelly of Waste Knot.
Uh, answering the question about our experience, uh,
with overflowing containers, uh,
and the repercussions for those containers.
Uh, so I think something that is important to note is
that many of those individuals that are choosing
to separate their organic waste, uh, in the city of Chicago
and using a service like ours, uh, are subscribing
to the service, mostly motivated by the cleanliness of
that service rather than doing it themselves.
Uh, or bringing a container to a drop off that does exist,
courtesy of the Department of Streets and Sanitation.
Uh, that cleanliness is very important.
It's why we have an airtight lid.
Uh, it's why we swap out those containers
with a freshly cleaned
and industrially sanitized container each time.
Uh, and the way the ordinance is currently drafted, uh,
it does refer to that container being closed
with no openings greater than a
quarter inch in each direction.
Uh, we haven't had overflowing
containers on the compost side.
I don't think any of our subscribers, uh, want to invite
that experience into their, uh, kitchen, uh, or closet
or living room wherever they might keep that pale.
Uh, it's important, you know,
if these containers are kept within the participant's units
for the most part, especially if they're
in a condo or apartment building.
Uh, so my bucket is kept in my kitchen.
Uh, it's not kept in a drawer.
Uh, it is right out there next to my espresso machine.
I obviously don't wanna overfill that container.
Uh, that would create an issue for me within my unit.
And at the time that I'm bringing it out there,
I don't wanna embarrass myself, uh, to my neighbors.
Everybody knows I'm the subscriber bringing out a, uh,
overflowing, stinky container.
We do have a policy, uh, at our company,
and I believe all the other composters do as well.
Uh, where we will find, uh,
the participant for the overflowing container.
We charge 'em for an additional container, uh,
because we're not dumping those
containers in the back of a truck.
Uh, we are stacking those up neatly
in the back of a collection van.
They need to be closed in order
for those containers to stack.
Uh, and it's my experience.
And, uh, if the Department of Streets sanitation, uh,
might know better on this, uh, with a c and d roll off
or a construction roll off that is individually contracted,
uh, in my experience, it's been the waste hauler
that's received the fines, uh,
for the overfilled containers there.
And I believe we could treat it similarly,
uh, in this ordinance.
Thank you Mr. Donnelley. Chairman.
I I will, I will not belabor this point.
I think I've made my concerns clear,
but I would ask if there's any appetite to amend this
to ensure that composting is held to the same standard
as other waste haulers as the witness just mentioned, so
that it's clear and equivocal so that property owners
are not held if you have individuals who are not living up
to the same standard that was just described.
Great. Thank you. Older person Lopez.
I'm gonna move now to Alder person, Lawson.
Well, actually that was a question, but
I guess that's the answer.
Okay. I'd be, I'd be happy to answer if that's okay.
Ah, was that a question? It was a question. A question.
Go ahead Al Martin.
I'm always happy to look at, um, proposed redline language.
If you wanna share something with me, um, be happy to,
of course, loop in our stakeholders and discuss further.
So to hold this, uh, I would prefer not
to hold it right now, but if you have language
that you wanna share, um, uh,
if this does pass out a committee,
we could take a look at a substitute on the floor in advance
of a city council meeting or a trailer.
Great. Thank you. Moving now to Alderman Lawson.
Uh, thank you Vice chair. Um, thank you Mr. Donnelly.
The, uh, those are most of my questions.
What do you do if something's overflowing?
Um, if somebody has a, a capacity issue,
do they get more containers
or more pickups? How does that work?
That's a great question. Uh,
our most popular subscription is every other week.
Uh, we come by and swap out the container
every two weeks, right.
Uh, there's a weekly option
and there's also the option to add additional containers
that are relatively compact containers.
Uh, so most people, if they elect to have, you know,
weekly service, two buckets,
they can absolutely keep those in their kitchen in
place, both out of the time of service.
And your program is, is it exclusively residential
or do you have commercial users as well? We
Offer both a residential and commercial service.
What's your percentage? Commercial versus
residential? I would,
Off the top of my head, uh,
I can't give an exact percentage, uh,
but the majority of our business is
residential, direct to consumer.
Uh, so not contracted to a building, uh,
but rather it directly to the individual using our service.
Right. Um, I represent Lakeview, Wrigley Field, Boystown.
Um, we've, we've, I see your truck in a lot
of buckets in my neighborhood all the time.
We also have a pilot program
for composting through streets and sand.
Um, you're picking up more people in my neighborhood than
Streets and Sand is on compost right now.
And so I I I know we need to get to a way where it's,
there's, there's both, right?
I mean, they're paying you for a convenience.
Um, Alvin Martin added the language to this ordinance, um,
at my request on, on cleanliness, um,
on reducing vectors, which is a new word for me.
Thank you. Um, because my, my word goes from high rise
to single family, right?
And it's very, very different.
So every high rise has a chute for garbage,
but you're taking your recycling down in a bag or a bin.
And, and there are, most buildings have
standards on what that needs to be.
It's not leaking. You're not, you know, it doesn't stink
as best you can or it has to be enclosed.
Sometimes it has to be an enclosed bag, um,
to take a recycling down.
And so this is an extension of that, right?
So what you're bringing in the elevator,
what you're bringing in the stairs,
what you're bringing into the unit, um,
you can't just have a bucket on your back deck
and expect it to be okay with some sunshine and rain.
You'll get mosquitoes and other vermin real fast, right?
So, um, I, I wanna thank Almond Martin for putting that in.
Um, I, I do think there's reason
for reasonable restrictions, right?
Just like your, a landlord can say that, you know, this is
how you dispose of your garbage
and if there's a ticket, I'm gonna pass it on to you.
If it's identified as you, um, when people move out
and they fill everything up and they block the alley
with couches, yeah.
That might go to the landlord
who may then take it out of a security deposit.
Um, so I, I think that's where, and and,
and then also I just wanted to point out too,
'cause you can have a sanitation violation
that has nothing to do with garbage.
Um, you know, which this,
if you had an overflowing container on someone's
parkway, it's usually the parkway.
I don't see 'em in the alleys as much.
Um, that had been there for a few days.
That's the same as anyone who has an open,
con open anything of, of trash.
Um, you could find the company,
you could find the individual if you could find their
mail in there or something like that.
Um, or the property owner. We see that a lot too.
Um, so I, I guess on the streets
and sand pilot for compost, I'll just ask real quick.
We, that's about 60, 60 customers per ward.
I think it was just expanded.
So Alderman, you're referring
to the backyard compost, right?
Thin giveaway, right.
Which composting at a residential location. Right.
So we uh, I think there are 37 wards that have, uh,
distributed 60 bins. Right.
Okay. Okay. So not every ward is in probably not
so many around downtown.
Correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. We'll talk about that next month.
We have lots of questions about that next month.
I won't expect, uh, do that here,
but I wanna thank everybody for coming in today.
I think this is important. I think it's important we do it
in a, a way that makes sense for you and your neighbors.
So, um, appreciate the time. Thank you chair.
Thank you Alder person Lawson.
Um, we're gonna go move
to Alder person, Lata with some questions.
Thank you so much face here.
Just a couple quick questions.
I wanna make sure I understand things completely.
And Ottoman Lawson started to get at this,
but it's not that the ordinance prohibits restriction,
it prohibits unreasonable restrictions.
So like, I mean, my, my wife and I own a two flat.
We live in the two flat. We're gonna be moving back
to the upstairs unit,
renting the first floor unit, for example.
Like, it would potentially be a reasonable restriction
for me to say to our tenant, you can collect organic waste
for composting, but it needs to be kept within the unit.
Would that potentially be an example
of a reasonable restriction?
Anyone can answer?
Uh, Mike Hutt from the Legislative reference Bureau.
Uh, again, they're fact dependent
and, uh, will depend on the property itself,
but to me that sounds like it'd be
a fairly reasonable restriction.
Okay. Uh, For example,
another example I I suppose would be in a,
in a having a four by four area in the foyer
of a two unit building probably is okay.
But having a four by four area in a
200 unit building may not be okay.
As an example of how fact dependent it's
No, I appreciate that.
Um, I also want to ask about letter B.
Um, so eight residential composting prohi
prohibitions against public policy.
Letter B, uh, restricts in such a manner as to that you must
collect organic waste in such a manner as
to control any unreasonable odor
or the unreasonable attraction of insects, rodents, birds,
or other vectors or pests, uh, Ottoman Martin,
can you speak more to like the intention of
that clause of the ordinance?
Sure. So that was, uh, put in, um, at the request
of a colleague, uh, at the end of the day
to make abundantly clear, um, that, uh,
you cannot collect, um, uh,
this compostable waste in a way, um, that's going to,
uh, significantly attract, um, uh,
insects, uh, rodents, birds, um, as well
as cause of problematic odors.
So I think clarifying the fact
that there are times when you're dealing
with waste like this where there can be odors
and other things happening.
Um, so just like,
and this was in response to the same request, um,
making sure that it's a fully enclosed container like le
laying those ground rules that I think, uh, Mr.
Donnelly already shared are, uh, required by his company,
may well be required by many apartment associations
and condo boards, but still at, at a baseline level.
Um, you can't have the unreasonable order
or unreasonable attraction of various life things.
Uh, we, we wanna make sure we dissuade
that while also ensuring that, look,
if there's like just the teeniest bit
of odor when you're opening the lid
and then closing that, like that itself,
we don't wanna prohibit odors altogether,
but that, uh, maybe half second time
where there's a little bit of odor that,
um, that's tolerable.
That sounds right.
And that's an addition to reasonable restrictions
that a landlord or condo association may place
upon the collection as well, right?
Correct. Okay. That's helpful.
And, and I, I will say all of this is in line
with actually the guidance that the city of Chicago
through Streets and Sanitation sends out when you sign up
for this Food Scraps program.
And I think that's the intention behind having people
sign up, is that they're, you know, that they're doing this
for a purpose
and we can actually offer some guidance
to folks participation.
I will say my, my wife
and I have been collecting our food scraps as part of
that program for about the last year and a half.
And just by taking the, I would say modest precautions
suggested by Streets and Sanitation for participants in
that program, we've never really had issues.
And honestly, if we've,
I don't think we ever even have gotten
to the point of overflowing.
'cause for most folks who are participating like us,
you live within a 10 minute walk.
When you get close to that point, you
drop it off at the site.
And I, I imagine while it's not a drop off. That's fine.
Marginally true for waste, not participants,
that they're selecting the pickup cycle that is
corresponding to how quickly they accumulate organic waste.
Does that sound accurate, sir?
That's correct. We do our, uh, best
to assist our members at the time of sign up
to right sizing their program, whether
that's service frequency or the number of bins.
Uh, there's no exact science to it.
Some people eat out more than others.
Uh, some cook in all vegetarian diet
and fill up their ve bucket much faster than others.
Uh, but participants in this program like yourself
with the drop off program, they don't wanna deal with
that overflowing container either.
Uh, and it is, it would be a reasonable restriction
to require participants keep
that container within their unit,
with the exception of their service day.
Uh, so they would be dealing with that, so
that's very correct.
I appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Vice chair.
Yeah, thank you all person Loa.
Any other questions from committee?
All right, then I'll just say, you know, I, as someone
who lives in a pretty large multi-unit building that has one
of these composting service providers,
I don't know if this is yours, Mr.
Donnelley or, or someone else's.
It works really well, and it also starts a conversation
amongst residents as to why they should be doing this.
You know, we heard from the previous speaker
that we can all do our part in reaching the
Paris Climate goals.
These are these kinds of little things that we all do
that reduce emission emissions.
So I think it's very smart, this ordinance.
Um, and also just have reasonable restrictions,
so we make sure that it's done, um, correctly.
Um, and I'll look forward to in budget season
to talking about it with TSS as older person.
Lawson noted. I think
that the food scrap program is, um, a really good program.
We do not have a site that near the dense, you know,
43rd Ward lakefront, which is why I think it, a lot
of our buildings are doing services of their own.
Um, but we're gonna continue advocating for one
between Alder person, Lawson, and I.
Yeah. All right. Great.
Um, so having no more questions, can I have a motion
to recommend approval of this item?
So, 2025 dash 0 0 1 8 1 6 oh. Move to
Pass.
Alder person Lawson.
So, moves all of those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye.
All of those opposed, say nay a in the opinion of the chair.
The ayes have it. The chair will report this vote
as a re recommendation
to pass the next city council meeting on
September 25th, 2025.
Thank you to all of our speakers.
Welcome. The third item
before the committee today is item R 2025 dash
zero zero one eight seven one five.
Call for a hearing on delays by the Department of Water
and Management in notifying residents affected
by lead contamination and service lines.
May have a motion to recommend approval
of this item, Alder person, Martin.
So, moves all of those in favor, say aye.
Just as a, just as a point of order Chairman.
Yeah, we need to have the hearing.
Oh, sorry, I, I skipped ahead.
Um, I'm just skipping too much to the script. All right.
So I think on this one, um, we have a number
of people, people here today.
Um, if we start with Alder person
Viegas, I'd like to turn over to,
to Alderman Viegas lead sponsor the
resolution to share some words.
Thank you, chairman and members
of the environmental committee.
Um, yeah, it was like, this is a topic
and issue I've been talking about since 2018,
and unfortunately, there hasn't been a sense
of urgency from the federal government, state government,
and then also here, the city of Chicago, around this issue.
We are in a crisis as relates to lead service lines,
and it's a ticking time bomb.
Um, and I hate to sound dramatic, um,
but we have, uh,
over 400,000 lead service lines in the city of Chicago.
Uh, and when you take a look at the numbers
that have been mentioned around what the cost associated
with taking the lead service lines out, um,
we're looking at a staggering bill of about
$14 billion today.
In today's dollars, 14 billion,
the federal government has given us a 20 year
deadline to remove this lead.
Ser lead services out.
The state of Illinois has given us a 30 year deadline
to get the lead service lines out,
and they have sent no money to pay for the lead service, uh,
lines to be removed.
Uh, as people or may know,
or may not know, that, um, Chicago was the last large city
to, uh, stop installing lead service lines.
And it was only with the threat of holding federal dollars
that we decided to do that.
And as a result of that, that's why the city of Chicago has,
uh, the most lead service lines of any large city
or any city in the country at over 400,000.
Now, people don't usually talk about this infrastructure
that you don't see people turn their faucets on,
and water comes out, people flip the switch on their, uh,
their, their electric, uh, their light, uh, at home,
and the lights turn on.
Um, but there's a lot of, a lot of things that go around,
uh, that have to happen in order for that to occur.
Uh, and so it's important that we continue to talk about
that infrastructure that we don't see
because it's very important.
Children absorb, uh, anywhere between 40 to 50% of lead.
They ingest adults, um, 10 to 15%.
Children's brains are at risk of developing poorly due
to lead poisoning, increasing their risk
of development delays and disorders.
Us, uh, lead paint and,
and lead of gasoline are now banned along with the use
of lead pipes for plumbing.
The blood lead concentration in American Children's has
fallen immensely because we're a lot
more educated around this.
From 1978 to 26 20 16, the median dropped down
to less than 5% of its initial, uh, value.
In 2022, the, the guardian reported that one in 20, uh,
water, one in 20 tap water tests in Chicago found lead at
or above the US government limit of 15 parts per billion.
They estimated that 80%
of homes in Chicago had water connections made of lead.
And nine out of 10 zip codes with the largest percentage
of high test results were found in neighborhoods
that were made of a majority black and
or Hispanic residents, mostly on the, mostly on the south
and west sides of the city.
Now, I see this as an opportunity
for the city to really stand up.
Um, I see this as a jobs program where we can get people
to work, contractors to work
and put thousands of people to work.
But we need, as a city, um, we need the administration
to step up and start advocating for lead, um,
lead service dollar replacements instead of stadiums.
Um, what we're seeing is that we've had a, a, uh,
a great opportunity here, whether at the federal level
or at the state level,
to really hold our legislators accountable
and let them know that they cannot continue
to give us unfunded mandates.
We've gotta, we've gotta see help in this.
Uh, with this problem here.
As I stated, Chicago's lead service line replacements has a
cost of about 35,000 per line, 35,000 per line.
When you multiply that times of 400,000, that's
where you get the 14 billion today in today's dollars.
And that's climbing. Now, I'm hoping that there's technology
that comes in place where we can help, uh, whether it's
to cure and place piping
or lining of existing lines to minimize the cost,
because really the cost of, of, um, uh, why it's
so expensive is more of the, the rehabilitation.
Uh, when you're having to tear up the concrete
or tear up someone's lawn, it takes a lot of it,
it costs a lot more to rehabilitate that project.
Chicago's lead service line replacement is four
to five times more expensive than that of the American,
of the average American city, four or five times more.
We gotta find out why that's the case.
Um, in the last four years, the city has only managed
to replace approximately 7,923 lead service lines.
Federal law required Chicago
to warn approximately 900,000 people who were at risk
of lead, lead poisoning before November 16th, 2024.
Only 7% of the people on the list had been been warned
by July of 2025.
93% of people
that should have been notified were not notified.
Now, I've heard that the department has, um,
not detailed administrative or clerical staff.
Maybe it's because of overtime.
But this is truly a, an opportunity to get all hands on deck
to make sure that the residents of Chicago understand
and are notified under law, uh, whether
or not they have lead service lines.
The ill, now, I'll say that we have
to change some rules down in Springfield as well.
We have some archaic, uh, bills in place.
Uh, the Illinois Administrative Codes code includes a
separation rule, um, which requires
that the water service lines be separated
by 10 feet horizontally
and 18 inches vertically from sewer lines.
So that way to minimize any type of cross contamination.
But if we take a look at the, the new, uh, uh,
the new equipment that we're using, um, again, we have
to update this, this, this bill.
The intent was, you know, to minimize any type
of contamination of water lines, it's a overkill.
There are no documented cases of two tightly spaced, uh,
lines triggering contamination in Chicago
and other states, including California, Florida, and Texas.
And they all manage it with less spacing, again,
would minimize the cost, uh, to us.
But until Illinois, but
until Illinois EPA issued a waiver in 2022, it meant
that anytime Chicago found a lead service line too close
to a sewer line, department of Water Management had
to not only replace the line,
but also move it doubling the cost
and requiring more excavation,
tackling lead service lines replacement onto other tackling,
I'm sorry, tackling lead service line replacements.
Other programs that share costs would avoid duplicating
unnecessary work al all,
although it may take a little longer to coordinate.
Now, there are some organizations out there,
I've been working closely with the water now allowing, uh,
not Water Now Alliance, um, which is an organization
that advances transformation in urban water sector
to accelerate widespread adoption of resilient
and environmentally, uh, sub sustainable water strategies.
Uh, and they work to identify and, and with financial
and legal innova innovative, uh,
hurdles to, to remove these.
So there's solutions out there,
but we've gotta get really, uh, uh,
creative here on what we're gonna do here.
Now, the intent of this hearing was really to bring notice
that the fact that 93% of people have not been notified,
and so we've gotta do a better job.
And so with that, uh, Mr.
Chairman, if there's any other people
that wanna talk about this so we can have a dialogue
and have members of the committee ask questions.
Again, this is not a, this is not a, uh, a hearing
where I'm trying to put anyone on blast.
Sure. This is more of a hearing to bring notice
of this important issue that's impacting, um, uh,
people in the city of Chicago, uh,
predominantly on the south and west sides of the city.
Uh, and we have a huge problem,
and we gotta figure out how to tackle this.
Yeah. Thank you, alderman v Chairman.
And so I'm gonna open up the, the hearing,
and then we do have some speakers present
that'll go one by one.
And then, you know, colleagues
of this committee here will have the potential
to ask questions and comment per usual.
Um, so with that, after those words by older person viegas,
I just want to give a little bit of a summary.
Um, in December of 2023,
the Committee on Environmental Protection
and Energy hosted an initial hearing
regarding lead service line replacement programs.
Today's hearing will be an update on
what progress has been made since then,
what efficiencies have been identified
to streamline these processes
and the projected timeline for completion.
We've also asked our department representatives
to share any insights into
how any federal funding rollbacks will impact the program,
and if they're exploring creative
alternative funding options.
Finally, earlier this year, the Chicago Sun Times reported
that the city had informed only 7% of households
with potential led contamination.
We've asked them to touch on these efforts
and share any updates since that article was published.
With that, I want to turn it over
to our department representatives
to share their updates joining us today,
and I'll invite them up.
Um, to, to our front table is Director of Water Quality,
pat Pat, Patrick Sch, Swearer
and Director of Public Affairs,
Megan Vidi from the Department of Water Management,
assistant Commissioner Brendan White from
the Department of Finance.
Um, and you all can come up
and we'll have you, uh, go one by one.
Oh, thank you. Um, so my name's Patrick Schwar.
Uh, I'm the Director of Water Quality Surveillance
for the City of Chicago Department of Water Management.
I'm also the registered operator in charge, uh, for
distribution, uh, for the city.
So essentially, I'm in charge of sampling, uh,
notifications, uh,
and EPA compliance for the Department of Water Management.
Uh, commissioner question? Sure.
Uh, commissioner asked me, uh, to come
and address this committee, uh,
as I am the subject actor expert,
and especially in terms of notifications.
Uh, I wanted to give an update on the department's, uh,
methodology and, uh, progress associated with notifications.
Um, city Department of Water Management is we try to be
as transparently transparent as humanly possible in terms of
what both you have, uh, in terms of material on the ground,
what your service line material is,
and what your potential lead exposure is.
Uh, we have provided a online searchable database, uh,
for any resident in the city of Chicago
who can look up their address
and determine what materials we have on record.
Um, we've had that since 2023.
Additionally, we have the most comprehensive, uh,
and easiest lead testing program in the country.
Uh, it's by far the largest, most comprehensive.
Uh, we provide a significant amount of data to folks, uh,
who are concerned about lead.
It's a major component of our,
uh, consumer confidence program.
Um, the city of Chicago is under two independent
lead notification requirements.
One is the 1712 Lead service line Replacement
and Notification Act, which is put put forth the state
of Illinois, um, that went into effect for the city
of Chicago in 2023.
Uh, additionally, there is the lead
and copper rule, uh, revisions,
which went into effect late last year.
Uh, both of these rules, uh, have
specific lead service line notification
requirements associated with them.
Um, as federal
and state rules, uh, are want to be, uh,
they don't necessarily work
particularly well with each other.
Um, the only way for the city of Chicago
to effectively meet, uh, the requirements associated
with both rules would be to send a physical
mailed letter, uh, to each individual unit
of each individual building
and their landlords, so
that it is associated approximately 800, 850,000 letters
to 900,000 letters would have to be written
and mailed, uh, to each individual unit.
Um, the cost associated with that is very large, um,
millions of dollars in terms
of administrative and postage fees.
Uh, additionally, uh,
when we've done large mailings in the past, uh,
we receive approximately 10 to 12%
of folks receiving those letters asking
for a follow on test kit.
Um, if we've sent out 900,000 letters,
we would expect somewhere in the order
of a hundred thousand tests are test, uh,
LED testing kit requests.
Uh, that would, uh, co essentially be two thirds
of the entire program that we've run since 2016.
Uh, at the cost of something along this lines
of $7.5 million.
It may take a few years to actually process through.
There are not enough physical lead sampling bottles in the
country to be able to, uh, fulfill those requests.
Um, noticing that, uh,
and saying that, you know,
if we're potentially spending tens of millions of dollars
to meet this requirement, we went to the state, uh,
basically immediately said, well, we are committed to, uh,
transparency in terms of notification for folks.
Uh, this seems like an unfunded mandate.
And, uh, we were, we requested, uh,
to get some leniency in terms of
how we can properly notify folks.
Again, we are open. We want to make sure that we are open
and honest with every resident we have.
We want them to know what we know.
Uh, but again, spending $10 million, uh, just
to send a bunch of letters that people throw in their, uh,
trash, uh, seems like a waste of money, especially when
that money should be spent on replacing actual
lead service lines.
Um, so we went to the state.
We actually made a proposal to them in June, 2024, uh,
trying to utilize our, uh, online database so that people
would be able to know,
but we wouldn't have to essentially waste, uh, you know,
significant amount of paper and administrative
and money, uh, to do.
So. Uh, we were some back
and forth due to the strict legalities
and some of the language in these, in these, uh, laws.
Uh, we could not come to an agreement at that time.
Uh, we've, since we've been working,
but the state, we've been fully transparent
with them about our entire procedure.
Through this, we meet with them monthly
to give them updates on what our proposal is, how we,
how we are gonna meet these requirements.
Uh, in 2025, we, to date,
we sent roughly 75,000, uh, physical letters to addresses.
And those are specifically going to single family homes
with lead service lines.
Those are the homes that are at highest risk of, uh,
potential lead exposure.
Uh, additionally, uh, we've sent
to date approximately 120,000 additional notices
that were sent through billing inserts.
Uh, so those are going to homes
where we technically don't know if
they have a lead service line.
They're considered what is unknown.
We term them as suspected lead just through the nature
of the plumbing code in the city of Chicago.
But we don't have a physical verification
that they have a lead service line.
Uh, we men, we, we message that as
that they're lead service line, uh,
but it's technically under the rules, a unknown
or suspected lead.
Uh, we have sent 120 of those, 20,000 of those to date.
Uh, we'll be sending another 120 to 200,000 of those
by the end of 2025.
We expect to send another 50,000 physical letters to homes,
uh, to order to meet this law.
The city of Chicago is gonna be compliant
with the federal rule in 2025.
Uh, we will not be compliant with the state rule
because a state rule, again, is com requiring us to send
physical notices to every single person.
We've done specific pilots to determine exactly what kind
of requests we are getting.
After we, uh, send these notices, we had determined
that 3000 letters per week is
what the city could handle in terms of being able to respond
to residents, answer their questions,
get them lead testing kits, uh, in an appropriate amount
of time, uh, so
that essentially they can feel confident in their water.
Uh, and we are able to respond to any of their concerns.
Uh, we will continue to do this.
Uh, this is an annual requirement.
Uh, we are consistently working with the state to ensure
that they are happy with our all, with,
um, with our efforts.
We've made a additional proposal to them
that we are currently, uh, working through.
So we can have a formal agreement onto, uh, exactly
how we will meet this notification requirement.
Thank you very much, director sch swearer.
Um, I'm now gonna welcome questions from the
committee to get us started.
We're gonna go to Alder person, Lopez.
Thank you chairman. And still good afternoon members
of the committee, and thank you.
Uh, we heard a lot about postage, not a lot about water,
so let's talk about water.
Sure. Um,
a couple things concern me, one of which is a lot
of lost opportunities when it comes
to lead service line replacement.
Are we still impacted by the direct line
and the tree issue from a few years ago
where we are not asking for IEPA waivers so that we can go
around trees as opposed to having to cut them all down?
Um, unfortunately, I'm not gonna be able to answer that.
My, again, my expertise is lets, and who's
Compliance? Is
there anybody else here from the water department?
Um, not that can particularly answer
that question, but we were is there anybody,
I'm sorry. Is there anybody else here from
the water department?
Our, our public information officer.
Okay. Can you answer that question then?
If you could provide that through the
chair, I would appreciate it. You'd
Be happy to. So,
with re, so let me ask you this
before I go through a whole list of questions,
and I hear, I can't answer this, I can't answer this.
Are you familiar with lead service line
replacement construction?
I am. So then you can tell me
how many waivers have been issued.
Um, I would have to pull the exact number.
It is roughly 30%.
I'm Sorry. I believe it's 30%, but it varies.
Three zero. It depends on the job.
Uh, but we can provide you an exact, so if you could
Provide through the chair by Ward,
how many waivers have been issued, uh, for lead service
line replacement, how many are non-res respondents?
Um, uh, we would have to pull that data for you. Okay.
If you could provide that through the chair.
How many crews are working
to address lead service line
replacement in the city of Chicago?
I do not have, the number is
significant, but I do not have the number.
Is it both public and private or is it all in-house?
Uh, it is both public and private. There are,
So then if you could provide through the chair the number
of crews and where they're working,
which in which of the districts.
Um, you stated that you have monthly
LSLR proposals shared with the state.
Um, we have continuous update associated
with lead compliance sampling.
Um, there's a
And does that include the replacement?
It does not. So do you track monthly replacement
and share that with the state?
Uh, we do not share that with the state,
but we have a comprehensive tracking
of where we're replacing this.
And do you share that with city council?
Uh, I could not answer.
That i's not, I'm not, I'm not in control of that.
Then if you could share for the past 12 months what the,
those look like so that we could get an understanding.
Because I have a, a, a, an issue
as my colleague from the 36th Ward brought up,
it appears as though we've been wasting time, energy,
and money to do a whole lot of nothing here in the city
of Chicago as it relates to lead service line replacement.
A few years ago there was a study with regards to meters
and lead service line replacement.
Are you familiar with that study? Yes, I was.
Are we using that study
as we are replacing lead service lines to replace meters
or to install meters throughout the city of Chicago?
Uh, the study you've referenced was associated with, uh,
the installation of a water meter on a lead service line.
So when we identified
that when we were disturbing lead service line
or disturbing internal, uh, domestic plumbing
by installing lead service line
through our meter save program, we saw a small
but statistical increase in the lead content
associated with that home.
Uh, that's why we stopped that, uh, that program.
Um, currently when we are installing a new, uh,
copper service line meters are being installed there.
So knowing that, so then can you tell me
how many meters have we installed without installing lead
service line doing the replacement?
Um, I believe every full lead service
line replacement would have a meter.
So whatever that number would be.
And does that go both ways?
So if you do the, the lead line,
do you install a meter as well?
We, we would not install lead line. But if, if we
Could only, I mean you were replacing a lead line,
were you, would you be installing a meter as well? Yeah,
The new meter wouldn't be installed with
a new service. Okay.
Without exception. Uh, I believe so.
Uh, that is, I believe municipal code.
But again, I will, I can get those answers specifically
to you via the chair.
And how many contracts are out there with regards
to lead service line replacement?
Um, there're numerous. I do not have that number. If
You could provide us through the chair,
how many contracts, how many, again, what districts, things
of that nature with regards to CIP in our menu,
when we have menu, oper menu
and CIP working to replace a hundred year mains
and things of that nature, we generally do
lead service line
replacement. 'cause the street is open, correct?
Um, yes. There's al also legally mandated.
Right. Well, what else is legally mandated?
Uh, many things Because are you supposed to
inform residents of their options
to get lead service line replacement when you're,
when you have those things that are available?
Um, yes. During any, uh, lead service line
or any new water main replacement, uh,
there is very specific notification requirements. And
What is that? Uh,
the notification is required, um, 45 days prior
to us, uh, leaving.
So if there is a homeowner on that block who, uh, would like
to get their service line replaced, um,
we are legally required to talk to them, make sure
that they have all the information that they have, they need
to make those decisions.
We cannot currently, uh, replace the private side
of alleged service line without their cooperation.
Uh, if, if we do not, we have to track
and maintain each individual contact that we have, though,
as with that resident, which we do, uh, to ensure
that if they want a service line, we are out there.
That is the cheapest
and most effective way
of actually replacing those full service lines.
We make every single effort that we can to get
to those residents and ensure, uh, that they're aware. And
What are those major projects called?
Uh, water main replacements to remain replacements?
So the smaller versions are what block,
like block projects or something?
Um, it goes under various names of block level projects.
So for example, if we, so are
Block level projects held to the same standard?
Uh, yes. Are you sure?
Um, I, again, I'm not over that,
but, uh, my understanding, if you
Could provide through the chair the block level mm-hmm.
Responses and outreach and participation,
because I have personally found a flaw
with your notification system mm-hmm.
That the department does not notify at block level events.
So you can literally be opening up blocks at a time
and do absolutely nothing to notify people
and oftentimes give them less than five days in
advance notice mm-hmm.
To sign up or participate.
And then when they don't, you halt right at
the private part.
Mm-hmm. And say that you have zero response
If that's the case in any, I would
like to know where those projects are. Well,
I've already shared that with the department,
but my concern is that if we're not able to install
and if we're having such a poor participation rate, I
think we're starting to see
where these participation problems are.
Because we're really not doing our best to try
to get people engaged.
We are not doing our best to try to get people connected,
because to be perfectly honest with you,
the example I'm giving you is in back of the yards
where you are doing multi block level
repairs, which don't trigger the full scope of
what you just described as mandated by law.
And in turn give residents less than
I think Yeah.
Five business days to fill out forms
and register to participate.
So you basically gave them a big middle
finger to participate.
And especially at a time where even more education is needed
when individuals with badges are knocking on
people's doors looking for people.
So it's quite shameful, in my opinion, that you'd sit here
as a department and say
that we're doing this great job, but we just don't know why.
Or it's too costly when we know what works.
We know that we have to do the work,
but I, it, I feel like we're just playing lip service at
this point, especially in communities like mine that
are older than most
and oftentimes are quite literally only seeing one block
for every 150 that we have in the warden.
Mm-hmm. So I thank my colleague for bringing this
to our attention, um, for pushing departments to do better.
But I, you know, I feel
as though ever since Andrea Chang was here,
we're playing semantics with how we do this,
how we've been letting, leaving money on the table when we
had administrations that were cooperative with us,
and now seeing the tides change.
Our fortune is not improving any better
for the, in the community.
So, thank you, chairman.
Thank you Alder person. Lopez, I want to go
to Alder person, Matt Martin for some questions.
Thank you, chairman. Good afternoon.
Thank you to my colleague Alderman Viegas for, uh, being,
uh, uh, steady voice of reason
and urgency when it comes to this important issue.
Um, I, I think it's hard, if not impossible to quantify how,
uh, challenging the health impacts can be when a young
person ingests lead, whether it's through water,
paint, other things.
And it's certainly something that our city needs to, uh,
not just identify as a problem, which I think it has done,
but really work backwards from a solutions oriented
perspective of, okay, how many lines do we have
and where are we gonna find the funds to have this occur
and not point to the federal government?
Um, which we are, uh, often inclined to do, especially
with numbers this big,
but I don't think we can reasonably assume that, um,
the federal government anytime soon
is gonna come to our aid.
Um, so I think recognizing that we need
to move quickly on this, um, is critical.
Um, I had a question, um, for the water department,
it's fine to get this through the chair.
Um, if that would be easier.
There was some reference, I believe
by Alderman Vegas at the outset that, um,
replacing a lead service line here in Chicago
often costs many times the amount
that it does in peer jurisdictions.
Mm-hmm. I'd be interested to know, um,
the key drivers for that.
And, um, if, again, you can't rattle them off the top
of your head, happy to get it through the chair,
because at the end of the day, if it's hard
to understand why it might cost three times as much
to replace, uh, comparably sized
and located lead service line
here somewhere else in the country,
I think we can get you a detailed answer.
But primarily we are including all
of the associated costs with it.
So many utilities that I know of, for example,
do not include restoration costs
associated with that number.
Uh, and so there is a potentially different accounting
that the city of Chicago does,
but we can get you a more detailed answer through the
Chair. Understood.
And, you know, to that end, I'm curious, um,
what various types
of replacement technologies the city is using.
Mm-hmm. I understand that, um, there are some places
that utilize pipe pooling.
Mm-hmm. And that's a way where maybe there's not as much
of a, a digging of the trench that's required.
Obviously there has to be some, you know,
at least two large holes that are created.
But if part of what that technology can do is ensure
that the lead service lines are replaced
more quickly mm-hmm.
And more cheaply in part
because of restoration, it seems like something
that we should not just explore,
but if it makes sense adopt.
So with regard to lead polling
or line polling specifically, do you know if
that's something that the city currently does?
Uh, I can say that the city is in, uh,
looking at every single technology
that we can have to reduce costs.
Uh, pipe pulling is one of those.
Um, directional drilling is another one.
Um, there are certain areas of the city of Chicago
that pipe pulling simply does not work.
Uh, there's certain areas of the city
that have built on slag
that pipe pulling essentially cannot work
and we have to open cut.
Uh, but we do look at every single technology.
I know pipe pulling and directional drilling
are both associated with that.
Um, exactly what percentage it breaks down is highly
dependent and almost job dependent.
I see. If you can provide
through the chair the approximate percentage of, uh,
replacement technologies that are used, uh, you know,
we've just talked about three today.
If there are others that would be good to know as well as
how they break down by way of percentage.
Um, the other question I have concerns, um,
the types of, uh, funds that are used for this,
I think it would be helpful, and I'll just ask
through the chair over the last five years, uh,
how much money we have spent annually on lead service line
replacement, how many lines have been, um, uh, replaced,
and then what portion each of those funding,
uh, streams comprise.
Because I do think that
to the extent we're gonna continue having our residents
reach out to us, asking us to prioritize this,
we're gonna have to share different scenarios, some
of which will, in my opinion, need to include okay,
if we go primarily
or exclusively our own way in terms of local funding,
what are our options and what will people tolerate?
Because I don't wanna wait another 20
or 25 years until the federal government gets a bunch
of leaders in place where they're willing to work with us.
Um, so, uh, thank you in advance for providing that.
Thank you Alderman Vegas for your leadership on this issue.
Um, I don't know if there's anything
you would like to respond to.
It seems like a no. So that's all I have Chair. Thank you.
Let's go to Alder. Perman. Haworth
Thank Chair.
Uh, thank you Alderman for, for bringing this forward.
It's, it's absolutely important that we try
to reverse the wrongs that our,
our own government, you know, put in place.
Um, and we need to continue the work
to replace these lead service lines.
Um, understand that
we have 400,000 to replace.
Is that right? And at the pace that we're going right now,
it's gonna take how many decades to do that?
It's, it's really not acceptable.
Um, but,
but I know that Chicago has been trying, you know, since,
uh, 2023 put in place the, um, lead Safe Chicago program.
And I was hoping that you could speak on that and,
and how, how that program is going.
I know that in, in Edgewater we have a, a lot of folks
who are interested in that program
and we've been doing, um, as much as we can to promote it.
But, but how is that going so far?
Um, the city has multiple lead service
line replacement programs.
I'm, I'm not sure exactly which one we're discussing here.
For example, there's a equity led service line replacement
program, uh, which, uh, is funded through CDBG funds, uh,
community development block funds, uh,
where you people have to apply for.
Uh, we are always looking for, uh, uh,
applications for that.
Uh, it's going well.
It's a very successful program, especially with targeting,
uh, lower income Chicagoans.
Uh, it's a, but we have space and we have money,
and we want to make sure that,
but in the, you know, as, as we were saying, there's
multiple pots of money and there's specific limitations on
each individual pot of money, uh, that's a, you know,
un unfortunately cumbersome one associated
with federal red tape that's required.
Um, we do our best to get people through that program.
Uh, we work very, very closely with any resident who wants
to be part of our equity program.
Um, and, but we do have space, we do have capacity.
So, um, we are actively currently, uh, recruiting, uh,
anybody who wants to get their lead service line replaced
to participate in that program.
Um, and we are more than happy.
You can give 'em my name. We'll, I'll help 'em out.
Can can you speak a little bit more about how,
how you notice, um, 'cause
because the 40th ward particularly has a lot
of renters mm-hmm.
And, um, and,
and more density is in those areas, uh, where,
where there are renters.
How, how do building owners get involved
or how have they been noticed,
or how much do they know about the program?
Um, unfortunately for the specific equity program, um,
it has to be homeowner occupied.
That is a federal rule.
Um, so it can, you can have a multi-unit building where the,
as long as one person, the person applying for
that program is a resident of that building,
say they live in the first floor
versus then rent out the second.
Um, but if it is a purely rental building, uh,
those funds can't be used for that, unfortunately.
Got it. Um, I wanted to
say thank you to DWM
because Edgewater was a recipient of a
$9 million water
and lead service line replacement program this summer
where everybody in the ward knew about it
because we closed down ridge.
So, um, and,
and I, I do wanna say that the,
the departments were very much in, in involved
and helping our residents know that the project was coming.
Um, DWM was involved during the project
and was also involved at the end of the project as well.
So in terms of, um, engagement from the ward we're,
we were very impressed with that.
So thank you for your work, um, on that.
And thank you to, uh, chair Vegas for bringing this forward,
and I hope to have more conversations on this.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Alder person. Minal Haworth.
I wanna recognize, um,
older person Julio Ramirez for quorum.
Um, do we have any other
questions for members of the committee?
For director sch swearer?
Okay, thank you. Director SCH swearer.
Um, and we're gonna now call up assistant commissioner
Brendan White from the Department of Finance
to give an overview and also to be available for questions.
Hi, uh, good afternoon. Good afternoon.
My name is Brendan White. I'm an assistant commissioner
in the Department of Finance.
Um, my primary role is serving
as debt manager working in the CFO's office.
Um, and so I'm here to talk just a little bit about, um,
uh, a handful of the, um, funding sources
that we've been using to fund the lead
service line replacement program.
Um, there have been, there are a number of different, uh,
pieces that includes community development block grants, um,
loans from the Illinois EPA.
Uh, we have a loan from the federal government with the, uh,
that was, um,
granted under the Water Infrastructure Innovation
Act or wia.
Um, and we also fund a good amount with, uh,
water revenue bonds
and general obligation bonds in addition to some, uh, amount
of pay as you go financing.
Um, uh, don't really have terribly much
to say other than the fact that as we continue
to ramp up both the, the programs, if we were to continue
to fund this entirely through debt financing
or, uh, Beit general obligation bonds
or water revenue bonds, it would quickly become, um,
pretty unsustainable.
The water fund already spends about 25%
of its operating revenue servicing debt that's issued, um,
partially as, uh, a result of the Emmanuel administration
dramatically increasing the scope of the CIP.
Um, and then if we were to continue
to fund the entire in the entirety of the private side, um,
replacements with the general obligation bonds, uh,
it would effectively, uh, in the timeline
that we're talking about here, would effectively double the
amount of debt that the city has outstanding
and more than double the, uh,
annual debt service costs to the city.
Um, we did issue, um, bonds
to fund about 72 million
of private side lead service line replacement, uh,
earlier this year in June.
And about 5.4 million of that has been spent, uh,
pre the previous bond authorization.
The previous bond authorization authorized $60 million
of which about 41 and a half million has been spent.
So, um, happy to address any questions that you may have.
Thank you. Assistant commissioner.
We're gonna start with questions
From older person Lopez.
Thank you chairman, and I'm glad, uh,
chairman head and has returned in.
The air conditioning has been turned on in this room.
Um, trying to get me outta here quick.
We spoke in generalities
how much CDBG money has been allocated or appropriated?
Let's do both appropriated
and expended with regards to
Ellis lr,
Uh, I do not have that information.
Can get that through you dude. Fine.
The chair if you provide that through the chair.
How about IEPA loans?
How much has been granted to the city of Chicago
and how much has actually been expended
per year for the last five years? Uh,
I would also need to get that to you through the chair.
How about your W-I-F-I-A loans, your WFI loans
That we've drawn about $70 million so far on that out of,
uh, the total loan amount is for about 325 million.
And what's the expiration on the 325 million?
Um, by that do you mean the period
that we're able to spend it?
Yeah. Brought down, Uh, I'd have to double check.
I think it's through the end of 2026.
So they gave us 325 million and we've spent how much?
Uh, I think we've drawn down about 75 to 90 million,
but I'm not sure the exact number off the top of my head.
And when was that given to us?
Um, the loan was finalized, uh, in 2023.
Um, it was initially signed in,
I believe it was, um,
22 maybe.
No, 'cause it was after the, um, it was
after the mayoral election, so it was in the first, uh,
six months or so of the current administration's term.
Um, I, I'm pretty sure it was in October, 2023.
Okay. If you could provide specifically,
but my con so my question with regards to that, that since
that's the first one, we actually have numbers on
in October, 2023
and in the 18 months since we've spent $75 million
roughly at minimum 75 to 90, correct?
Uh, yeah, I can get you that exact number.
And we've got about another 18 months to go to spend
230 million.
Yeah. And that's roughly consistent with
how we're ramping up the program
and expecting to spend a lot more
next year than we did this year.
Based on what, Uh, just the,
getting the, the work done.
I understand from di that there are a lot
of operational challenges involved
with getting the program ramped up.
So what does the Department of Finance base
and I quote, getting the work done on, um,
as we've heard from the previous speaker,
we've got about a 30% non-participation rate.
We've got our non-response rate, we've got a lot
of operational challenges as you just stated.
So what makes you feel confident that we can literally spend
almost two
and a half times what we spent in the first half
of this program in the last half of this program?
Yeah, so the, under this administration? Yeah.
So the draw drawdown for the WFI loan is done entirely
on a reimbursement basis.
So we, um, do quarterly check-ins where we provide, uh,
invoices and lists of work orders
and that sort of thing to, uh, the federal government
and they, uh, approve those spend
and then, uh, do a drawdown
That much. I understand.
Mm-hmm. But I was asking with regards to
what gives the Department of Finance the confidence to think
that we're going to be doing two
and a half times the work that we've done the first half
of this administration's tenure?
Uh, I mean, we're working with DWM, um,
I really don't have terribly much insight into the
operational side of things.
Understood. So we're it's they're
what they're telling you they can do versus
what we've seen historically they've been able
to do, correct?
Yes. Yes. Thank you.
You mentioned that you provide invoices.
Could you share those with the chair?
Oh, through the chair please.
Uh, Yes.
The same documents you share with the federal government
for reimbursement for the entirety of this program.
Can you share those with the chair?
Uh, I would have to check. I'm not sure if there are any
like, privacy issues involved with sharing,
like the exact materials
that we share provide to the federal government.
I'm sure you share invoices with the federal government,
which would make them still a government.
So I would appreciate chairman if we could have
what is shared with our federal partners shared with us.
Um, moving on revenue
and geo bonds, how much have we allocated from the revenue
bonds for lead service line replacement?
Uh, you mean as part of the total CIP or
Just for, you mentioned four different categories
of funding that we have
for lead service line replacement, correct?
Mm-hmm. Three of which we talked about.
And then it went to bonds, which are geo bonds,
which handle the private side.
Right. And water,
I'm assuming the water enterprise fund bonds?
Yes, correct. Mm-hmm.
How much of those bonds
or how much has been appropriated
and spent for water line replace
for lead water line replacement?
Uh, I would have to get that. I don't have that.
Great. Then you could add that.
We'll take that through the chair.
Now, with regards to the go bonds, which you said are
for private installation, you gave two different numbers.
So I just wanna make sure that we're all understanding.
You said in 2025 we had $72 million
Yep, that's right.
Fully spent, or is that what That is? What was spent,
That was what was authorized
by the general obligation bond ordinance
passed in May. And,
And, and I'm sorry, before you continue, what was the,
so we authorized in May 72 million,
or was it more than that?
The total amount authorized in May was 830 million.
But is it, that was just the overall
all inclusive geo bond, not just for water, right?
That's right. So the geo bond doesn't necessarily give us
a full picture of what we're borrowing for,
what we have the capability of borrowing for for lead line,
for private side lead line re replacement.
Correct. There's no specific delineated
bond that simply says lead service line
replacement geo bond. Oh,
No, there is, there Is.
Yeah. So it's not just wrapped in the whole big $800 million
borrowing, there's a specific line, specific
sole purpose bond just for lead service line replacement.
Yeah. I believe when we presented the bond to you, uh,
earlier this year, we included like a breakdown of
what adds up to that 830 million.
Actually what you provided us was an ordinance
that said we needed $800 million.
I wanna, it wasn't a collection, it was just
that we need this for a host of different things.
There was definitely an itemized list including
what adds up to 800 million.
So then what was the itemized part from that geo bond?
Just 72 million. Yep.
And over that 72 million, how much has been spent?
About five and a half million.
So you've borrowed
72 million in May.
We are in OCT in October, and we've only spent $5 million.
That's right. Now, you also went on to say
there was a $60 million borrow from last year
or the last time, or you referenced $60 million.
What was that a reference to?
That was the amount that was authorized
by the previous general obligation bond
Two years ago. Roughly,
Uh, the 20 23, 20 24, That would, okay.
So that is what was authorized back then, we'll say 2023,
how much of that was spent?
So we, we haven't borrowed for the full 60 million
that was authorized by the previous, uh, ordinance,
but about 41.5 million of that has been authorized,
has been spent and borrowed,
I'm sorry, About 41
and a half million of that has been spent and borrowed.
So we're all clear.
In 2023, you had spending authority for $60 million,
of which you used 45 million only,
Uh, 41 and a half, Four, excuse me.
4 41 0.5.
And then you asked for another 72 million this year,
even though you didn't first off finish spending the
19 million from two years ago
and have thus far borrowed 72 million
and only spent 5 million.
Am I keeping are, am I on track with what I'm saying?
Yeah, that's in part
because the, there's some lag
between when the spending authorization
and when the money actually, uh, goes out the door.
So for 23 and 24, we've been doing
that on a reimbursement basis.
So we haven't been borrowing the money for that
until it's actually been spent.
We've been floating it on the, um,
the water funds available cash, sort of, uh,
self financing it. Um,
So why are you borrowing if you're not spending,
Uh, I mean the intent for the 2025 bond was
to provide forward funding so that the Department
of Water has a pot of money that's ready
and ready to go as we continue to ramp up and to make
Sure that, and do you, the Wa the work was not
being slowed down by, uh,
And forgive me chairman, but,
but I just wanna make sure we're all understanding this.
So for forward funding, right.
But you've executed those bonds correct? In both instances?
Uh, what instance, what
In 2023
and in 2025, you executed both bonding authorities
for the full amount or just for the part that you used?
Uh, in 2324. That was for The 60 million in
Those? Yeah, that was on a reimbursement
basis so that all
that money that was borrowed represented money
that had already gone out the door.
And then 2025, we wanted to provide front funding so
that we would not be the source of holdup for, um,
as we ramp up the replacement program.
Oh.
So then we are still sitting on 19 million in outstanding
reimbursements from 2023.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Um, I'm not sure if that work has been done or not,
but it would probably be, um, included if
that work has been done, it would be included in the next,
uh, bond offering that we sell.
And the
67 million that you're sitting on
that was front loaded from May, all of that was executed,
which means you got the money, correct? That's
Right.
And what's the work schedule for that?
Because I'd like to know why we are paying interest on work
that we're not doing.
Uh, I mean that was all work that is scheduled
to be done in 2025,
Which is this year.
Mm-hmm. And what's the work schedule for that?
Uh, Have to, was that provided
to you by the Department of Water?
Uh, yes, but I don't, So I would've
To talk to Understand water.
I'm not gonna ask you specifics,
but I'm gonna ask you for the bill
because you were given a bill for 2025
for $72 million Correct.
For multiple sites and locations.
That's why you asked for that money.
Uh, not really sure what you're asking.
You are borrowing money, correct? Yes.
I'm gonna go very simple so I don't lose
anybody in the room.
You're borrowing money $72 million, correct.
Based on the assumption that you are paying
for something in 2025, correct?
Yes. Were you given a list of what you are paying for
that equals $72 million,
Uh, As a department, was finance given a bill
of what you are paying for that costs $72 million?
Yeah, we had to, uh, the various programs that add up
to $72 million for work
that was anticipated to be done in 2025.
Right. Can you provide through the chair the list
of all those programs and where we're at?
Because here we are getting ready to enter into month 10
of 12 with only $5 million spent up to this point.
The larger point that I bring,
and I will close with this chairman, is that the department
through finance keeps asking for more
and more money while not even spending
what we have outstanding.
We have federal loans of which 200
and almost $250 million has gone unspent.
We have 67.
Well, no, I'm gonna embarrass myself with my bad math.
We have, yeah, 67 million unspent from the bond from this
May with almost 20 million from two years ago.
We are literally also paying millions, adding
to our debt since you brought it up, the question of
how we go forward without federal partners, we're paying
through the nose right now
for work we're not even doing or can't explain.
So I'm, I'm really concerned, chairman, that
as we're heading into the budget season,
when we look at our debt load, we have such a high debt load
because we have tapped into resources
that we're not even fully executing.
So hopefully the department can share quickly
what exactly it's getting asked to pay for,
because it should make us all very nervous as stewards
of government that you have so many open lines of credit
unused with work unfulfilled
or having to give money back in about 18 months
at a time when people are really struggling.
At a time when we keep having these circular conversations
with Chairman Viegas about
how do we do lead service line replacement,
and we hear, oh, there's no money, the resources,
the Trump does this, that quite literally we just found out
we've got hundreds of millions of dollars sitting somewhere
with nobody doing anything.
So look forward to those through the chairs
and look forward to better answers from departments
who should actually know how to explain
where we're getting these numbers from.
Thank you so much, elder person.
Lopez, any other questions for members of the committee?
We do pass. All right. Having no more questions.
We don't pass this right. Pass?
Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. All right.
Having no more questions.
That includes the items before the committee today.
I wanna thank Alder person Viegas, um,
for bringing this forward
and saying staying so steady on this issue, um, as well
as the, the director
and the assistant, um, uh, commissioner for,
for providing answers.
I know we have a lot of answers coming from the chair
and we will get everyone those.
Um, and um, just thank you again.
So with no further business being
before the committee, can we have a motion to adjourn?
So move by chair Maria Hadden.
Um, uh, all those in
support say aye.
All as opposed say Na, the A's have it.
Um, we are adjourned. Thank you so much everyone.