I don't know what I'm doing here.
Oh, she was there.
And then,
the boat was all that long
and the same person.
So, yesterday,
people should
be able to
all the
people are going to
just like
the
time
We've got to talk, we've got to talk, thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning, everyone.
The meeting of the Committee on Economic Capital and Technology Development is called to order.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Please use the iPads provided to you and mark yourself present.
Note that your present response will be deemed a yes vote when this quorum call is used as a reference vote for later.
Mr. Bonegas, please open the vote.
While we're waiting for people to sign in.
Old school fashion, right?
Okay.
Who's missing?
Okay.
Let's –
Alderman Tavares is here.
One second, Alderman Tavares.
Alderman Espana?
All right.
All right, there you go.
Alderman Hall?
Alderman Mitchell?
Alderman Chico?
Arthur.
Alderman Tavares?
Alderman Tavares is here.
Alderman Cruz?
Alderman Cardona?
Present.
Alderman Mitz?
Present.
Alderman Napolitan?
Alderman Napolitano?
Present.
Alderman Riley?
Alderman Lenny Mena-Huppenworth?
Alderman, we have a quorum.
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum.
Aldermans Chico, Cruz, Lee, Mitchell, Napolitano, Tavares have requested to participate in today's meeting remotely under Rule 59.
May get a motion to allow those to participate remotely.
Alderman Gutierrez, motions to allow Alderman Chico, Cruz, Lee, Mitchell, Napolitano, Tavares to participate remotely.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Any opposed, say nay.
Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
All the persons mentioned are permitted to participate remotely today.
They will be marked as present on the quorum call.
For today's meeting, we did receive a general public comment available to view in the committee's share drive.
At this time, we will begin the public comment period.
Public comments are limited to 30 minutes.
Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to three minutes.
With that, we will start with Mr. George Blakemore.
What do you know about these SSAs?
What do you know about them?
What I know is, again, that the Alderman is taxing people in her area, in certain commercial areas, an additional tax.
And she's able to hire these little people that put on these little neon shirts, and then she'll have a little security.
It's nothing but a scheme.
What?
You heard me.
She controls it.
And these other people down here, I read this fundamental.
I read that some of the reappointees, are they here?
Why do you want to be appointed?
What did you do previously, as on the part of this SSA, with security?
It's all a scheme.
It's all a scheme.
And I bet you everybody that's in here is getting some money from these SSAs.
Either they're working, they have a 501c3, or they have this and that.
It's all about the money, Mr. Blakemore.
It's all about the money.
The commercial area.
We have streets in sanitation.
We have the Chicago Police Department.
Who thought of that?
These old corrupt altamines,
but they can't control some of the money.
And everybody here is connected to the people.
All of them, this is easy.
Even if they are holding up,
the average person who says they deserve it,
the average person who's sitting in the city of Chicago,
they're not familiar with these SSAs.
Mr. Blakemore, it's familiar.
I say, now, what is that?
They say in these commercial areas,
and the streets on State Street sometimes are filthy
because these little men around us,
they give them a little.
It's all a dog and pony show.
And who's involved in this show?
The black ones, the white ones, the Hispanic,
they all love them.
And what type of system is this?
It's worse than coming is China.
It's the whole Democrats.
I advocate for swamp to clean up this swamp.
Now, why are you saying this?
They're going to get rid of all the game.
When this election comes,
they're going to all be right back in.
If it's not them,
though, they'll miss this here.
Holy miss this for their position here
and the game that people play.
All of y'all black ones are hooked up with this scheme, too.
You're getting paid.
So my ministers and the ancestors,
they just love me.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Our next speaker is Miss Diane Carley.
Good morning.
Morning.
My name is Diane Carley.
And I'm here regarding the property.
I'm sorry.
Can you hear me, sir?
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I apologize.
Good morning again.
My name is Diane Carley.
I'm here regarding the property at 5434 South Walcott Avenue.
This is basically a photo,
if anybody would be interested.
This property was the property of my late husband,
and he was born and raised at this property.
This property has been vacant for approximately over 40 years,
if not longer,
at which time it also has never, ever been occupied.
There is no electricity.
There's nothing ever in that property.
Along the issues that I'm having now is that I have received a water bill
for the amount of $233,000 for this said property,
which is totally vacant, no plumbing, anything.
I have never had an issue until the inspectors were out,
stated that they had to root the city.
They had to do an inspection on vacant properties,
which time they entered,
and I find out that they had installed a meter,
which I was not aware of.
But prior, but, and after that, I received a bill.
I apologize.
I'm just so nervous, and this is so, this has been so upsetting.
I apologize if I'm going in circles,
but I cannot understand this at all.
I received this bill.
I think it's a misprint.
I've never heard or seen anything like it.
There is nothing.
And at which time, they said to me,
after the inspection, that that's what the city is requiring,
that we have to go and inspect vacant properties.
So they went in, which I didn't go all the way with them because of my age
because I couldn't go.
And they came out, said everything was fine.
And after that, then, again, not to be redundant,
I received this bill.
So, I'm thinking it's a misprint.
Well, and further calling the water department,
I find out that, no, it's not a bill.
Mrs. Carley, this is the water you used.
The water I used?
Who called for water to be installed?
I never asked for water.
I don't need water.
Well, what took place was that they stated that, yes, I used the water.
A month, it was probably a month or so after that came out,
a new water, a new meter was installed.
So, Ms. Carley, what we're going to do is this.
If you can stick around, there may be some questions for you.
Apologize.
No, there's no need to apologize.
If you could stick around, the public comment period has ended,
but it looks like you may have more to share.
And I think Alderman Lopez may want you to explain a little bit more.
So, if you can stick around, that would be great.
Thank you, Ms. Carley.
All right.
Seeing no other speakers, they have signed up for the timely fashion.
That concludes with the public comment portion of our meeting.
The first order of business is approval of the September 2025 monthly report,
which all members of the committee should have received via share drive.
Are there any questions or comments from the committee members regarding the report?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to recommend approval of the September 2025 monthly report
by the same roll call vote that was applied to the term and quorum.
Alderman admits, so moves, hearing no objections, so ordered.
At this time, I would like to invite any special service area commissioners,
appointees that are present to come up front and take a seat.
If your name is called, please indicate your presence to be acknowledged.
Items 1 through 20 on the agenda are appointments and reappointments of the following special service areas.
Please note that items 3 and 4 will be deferred at the request of the Department of Planning and Development.
May I get a motion to defer these items at that time?
Alderman Cardona makes the motion to defer these items.
All in favor, please say aye.
All opposed, say nay.
The ayes have it.
Items 3 and 4 have been deferred.
The following individuals are being considered before the committee.
The following items are appointments of Diago Pappas for SSA number 8, Andrew Pillman, SSA number 34,
Mallory McClare, SSA 44, John-Claude Orell Jr., SSA 45, Marquita Gatling, SSA 45,
Veronica Clark, SSA 51, Francie Bordeaux-Griffin, SSA 81,
Nicholas Mallory, SSA 81, and the following items are reappointments of Lorraine Reif, SSA 16,
Nicholas A. Yasan, SSA 31, Noreen Keeney, SSA 34, Mathru L. Ruffey, SSA 34,
Carl D. Sullivan, SSA 34, Terry N. Toey, SSA 34, Robert H. Block, SSA 48, Jennifer L. Tremblay, SSA 48,
Vita L. Caldwell-Charles, SSA 51, Patricia McCoy, SSA 51.
At this time, Mark Roshan, the Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Planning and Development,
is available to answer any questions on these items, on these appointments and reappointments.
Please know that the ECDT Committee has confirmed a support or non-objection for the following council members
with appointments and reappointments within their respective wards.
Alderman Beal, Alderman Burnett, Alderwoman Clay, Alderman Conway, Alderman Hall, Alderman Michelle Harris,
Alderman Hopkins, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Lawson, Alderman Lee, Alderman Mona Hoppenworth,
Alderman Martin, Alderman Mosley, Alderman Nugent, and Alderman O'Shea.
Those appointees that are present, if you'd like to make a statement at this time, please indicate so.
No statements?
All right.
Any of the SSA appointees or reappointees online, if you'd like to make a statement,
please unmute yourself or raise your hand.
All right.
Jennifer?
Yes.
Good morning, Chairman and Alderman.
I'm Jennifer Tremblay, the Chairman of the SSA 48 in Old Town.
My Commissioner, Bob Block, is actually on vacation, so he's unable to attend.
But we just both wanted to say thank you for entrusting us again in our endeavors for the Old Town community,
residents and visitors alike for security, safety,
and the vibrancy that we bring back to our neighborhood.
Next year, 2026, we'll be starting our 17th year as a SSA with you.
So, deep roots.
Thank you.
Thank you for that, Jennifer.
Any other members, appointees or reappointees?
All right.
Seeing none.
First of all, I want to thank you all for volunteering to take on this work.
You are the business owners and business leaders that are in this corridor,
and we're looking forward to working with you to make sure that we can continue to revitalize these corridors
in order to create economic development, increase revenue for the city.
And so, please, if you have any ideas or any concerns,
please feel free to reach out to this committee so we can work together.
Thank you.
but to try to make sure that we're making the city as vibrant as possible.
So, again, thank you for your commitment to the city of Chicago.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I may have a motion to recommend approval of the appointments and reappointments by the same roll call vote that was applied to determine quorum.
Vice Chair Mosey, so Mosey, no objections.
So, ordered to do pass.
Recommendation of the appointments and reappointments will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Appointees, congratulations on your confirmation and partnership with the city of Chicago.
We look forward to working with you.
Thank you.
Items 21 through 28 on the agenda are ordinance dealing with the scope of services,
budget and management agreement for the different special service areas in the following locations.
SSA number 18, North Hofstede Street, SSA 23, Clark Street, Lincoln Park, SSA 26, Edgewater, SSA 34, Uptown,
SSA 35-2015, Lincoln Avenue, SSA 62, Sauganash, SSA 73, Chinatown, SSA 79,
Lawrence Pulaski Elston.
Mark Roshan, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Planning and Development, is here to present and support these items and will be available to answer any questions.
Mr. Roshan, please begin the presentation when you are ready.
Members of the committee, my name is Mark Roshan.
I'm an Assistant Commissioner with the Department of Planning and Development.
Before you today are the first eight of 58 ordinances for the 2026 budget year for the special service area program.
All of these budgets have been formulated by the local commissions, which make their recommendation.
All of the elders have been briefed or had the opportunity, and we have letters of support or no objection from all of the affected elders.
Also, these budgets have been reviewed by the city's Office of Budget Management and the law department to ensure that the expenses are reasonable
and that they all comply with the state statute for these levy budgets.
We ask for your favorable recommendation for these budgets, and we have 24 in the next batch that are being introduced next week.
So, thank you for your assistance in this process.
Thank you, Mark.
The elders that represent the SSAs have provided a letter of support for these items.
Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee?
Seeing none, you may have a motion to recommend to pass that these ordinances by the same roll call vote that was applied to the established quorum.
Alderman Laspato, so moves, hearing no objections, so ordered.
The due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you.
Item 29 of the agenda is Class 6B Tax Incentive for Property at 4435 Southwestern Boulevard and the accompanying redevelopment agreement.
Mike Carey, the financial planning analysis for the Department of Planning and Development, is here to present in support of the item
and will be available to answer any questions.
We also have members of the development team available to answer questions.
Mr. Carey, please begin the presentation when you are ready.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Villegas and esteemed members of the Committee on Economic, Capital, and Technology Development.
For the record, my name is Michael Carey, financial planning analyst for the Bureau of Economic Development within the Department of Planning and Development.
I am here today to request your approval for an initial Class 6B property tax incentive for Pictor 4435 Southwestern Boulevard, LLC,
a subsidiary of Brookfield Properties, for the purpose of developing four new Class A industrial buildings located near the 47th and Western Boulevard.
The project site is located at 2248 West 47th Street, 2260 West 47th Street, 4435 Southwestern Boulevard, and 4443 Southwestern Boulevard.
This site is in the 12th Ward, New City Community Area, Archer Western TIF District, and Southwest Planning Region.
Although Ramirez is supportive of the project and has provided a letter of support to the committee.
The property, highlighted in red, is located on the east side of Western Boulevard between West 44th and West 47th Street.
The immediate area is a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential properties.
Shown here is an aerial photo of the project site, highlighted in blue, looking eastward from Western Boulevard.
Currently, there are three separate industrial buildings originally constructed in 1893, 1942, and 2003.
The former owner, Wheatland Tube Company, sold the site to Brookfield Properties in 2021.
Brookfield Properties is planning to develop four new Class A industrial properties on speculation
and is requesting a Class 6B property tax incentive to support the project.
The buildings will range from 75,000 to 198,000 square feet in size.
Each industrial building will have a 32-foot clear height, and there will be 87 dock doors along with 635 parking stalls in total.
Brookfield estimates that the project will create 150 temporary construction jobs
and 25 full-time equivalent positions per building after it is leased.
DPD approximates that with the $104 million project budget,
the applicant would pay $30 million in property taxes
after receiving up to a $7 million tax abatement over the 12-year initial term.
Brookfield plans to break ground in May 2026 and complete the buildings by May 2027.
As of today, Brookfield Property owns the project site wholly unencumbered.
They plan to debt finance 50% to 60% loan-to-cost of the total construction cost for the project.
They have not selected a debt partner, but their capital group is in discussions with multiple lenders.
The total project budget includes the acquisition of the site and the hard-and-soft construction costs.
The majority of the construction costs are tied to the precast concrete exterior of the four buildings,
site improvements, and utility work.
Brookfield Properties is a subsidiary of Brookfield Corporation
and is responsible for the acquisition, development, and asset management of the company's real estate portfolio
that spans multiple sectors, including industrial, multifamily, and office.
For this specific project, Brookfield is constructing the four industrial buildings on a speculative basis.
They have engaged Avis and Young on a marketing plan to target tenants within the light manufacturing,
food processing, and logistics sectors.
Here is the proposed layout of the project site,
with Southwestern Boulevard on the bottom of the slide and West 47th Street on the right.
Building 4 would face Western Boulevard,
and Buildings 1 through 3 would be constructed in the rear,
with Building 1 facing West 47th Street.
The development team submitted this rendering of Building 4
to provide an enhanced visual of the proposed building and brick facade facing Western Boulevard.
Currently, the annual property taxes are $1.7 million for the entire project site.
Based on the total project costs and comparable properties,
it is estimated that the applicant would pay a total of $30 million
after receiving a $7.3 million abatement over the 12-year term of the incentive.
Over the same term, DPD estimates a positive $6.1 million net benefit to the taxing district.
The Department of Planning and Development have thoroughly reviewed the project
and recommended the Class 6B incentive for the following reasons.
The incentive will support the development and future occupation
of four new Class A industrial buildings
while creating 150 construction jobs
along with an estimated 100 full-time equivalent positions
across all four properties.
Developer will be held to construction compliance standards
such as WMBE, prevailing wage, and local residency.
Finally, DPD estimates the project will generate $30 million in tax revenue
and provide an estimated positive $6.1 million net benefit to the taxing district.
Thank you for your favorable consideration of this request.
I am joined today by representatives from the owner-developer, Brookfield Properties,
along with members of their development team.
We are happy to answer any questions the committee may have at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Carey.
I would also note that Alderwoman Ramirez has provided a letter of support for this item.
Are there any questions from members of the committee?
Alderman Laspata followed by Alderwoman Mitz.
Just one quick question.
So I appreciate the proposal, and I'm glad that it has Alderwoman Ramirez's support,
and I support it as well.
I was curious because we do see a lot of industrial light manufacturing spaces being built on spec,
and I'm just curious, like, do we feel like the market, the economy,
is moving in such a direction that there will be uptake for this level of square footage?
I appreciate the question.
I'd like to direct that to the development team for their assistance.
Sure.
Thank you.
And, uh, Turner Cook from Brookfield Properties will be joining me.
Yeah.
If you could just introduce yourself, um, before you speak.
Thank you.
Uh, good morning, committee members and, uh, Chair Venegas.
Uh, I am Turner Cook with Brookfield Properties.
I lead our, I'm a development manager and the lead on this project.
Um, the, the simple answer is yes, uh, the need and the...
The Chicago South sub market is there. We're at three point four percent vacancy.
We we do not have a tenant right now. They are built on spec, but we are designing to be very flexible with single tenant or multi tenant to where we can demise.
There's four buildings so we could have four tenants. We could have maybe up to 10 tenants, depending on how we cut them up.
And we're just we we really need this incentive to to ultimately have competitive competitive market rates and and drive and bring in high quality jobs that were lost since Wheatland Tube decided to relocate.
I hear you. Yeah, that's helpful. No, thank you, sir. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman, let me commend my colleague for the class six B.
But I am requesting through the chair description of what Department of Planning read.
Our screens are not accurate and I couldn't follow along.
There are several properties you mentioned, but we only have one listed on the agenda.
And there's a lot given.
And I wanted to know you said there were how many employees?
What was the number of employees and what are your hourly rates that you're paying for employees?
Certainly. So we have projected through working with our asset management team here internally in Chicago, as well as our brokers,
that the tenants in the market would likely employ around 25 employees.
So that we have it right now by building.
We are speculative in nature, so we don't have any tenants to date.
But the tenants who are currently in the market, typically it obviously varies between by the use.
But we could have 25 or we could have greater than that.
We could also have one building that has fewer employees.
And then we could have one building that has far greater employees.
Through the RDA and working with Mike Carey, we've determined that the project would have a minimum of 100 employees.
And to your question on price or hourly rate, obviously, that would be set by our tenants.
However, we are providing buildings of modern vintage and with high 400, excuse me, 4,000 amps per building,
which should drive light industrial assembly and some better uses, which accompanied with that is better, higher paid jobs.
So while I don't have hourly rates of prospective tenants, we are designing a habitat to bring in the best quality tenants that would then have quality jobs to back that.
Is that the product?
What is the product?
What are you?
So this is four industrial buildings.
They're designed for logistics.
It's warehousing, I guess.
Simply put, but they could be used for a couple of different food processing, light industrial, assembly of product, construction materials, automotive.
It's speculative in nature right now, but there's a low vacancy rate in this sub market.
And we hope to be very successful and bring back a lot of quality jobs.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Mitz.
And we'll make sure to get this presentation to you so that way you can take a look at it.
Okay.
I hope that the folks are working on these monitors.
These monitors are a little messed up here.
So sorry about that.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee?
Seeing none online.
I may have a motion to recommend to pass this item by the same roll call vote that was applied to the established quorum.
Alderman Mitz.
So moves here, no objections to order.
The do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Item 30 on the agenda is a class 7C tax incentive for property at 1840 East 71st Street.
Jeffrey Cohen, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Planning and Development, is here to present in support of this item and be available to answer any questions.
We also have members of the development team available to answer any questions.
I would also note that Alderman Yancey has provided a letter of support for this item.
Mr. Cohen, please begin the presentation when you are ready.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman Villegas and members of the Committee on Economic Capital and Technology Development.
For the record, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Planning and Development.
I'm here today to request the approval of an ordinance that would reclassify the city's support of a previously approved Class 7A property tax incentive
to a Class 7C for the property located at 1840 East 71st Street.
The project site located at 1840 East 71st Street is within the South Shore Community Area and the Fifth Ward,
represented by Alderman Desmond Yancey, who is in support of this ordinance.
Here is the aerial view of the neighborhood context with the subject property highlighted in red.
The property is located on 71st Street, South Shore's main commercial corridor, between South Constance and Benner Avenues.
As you may recall, the project consisted of the reoccupation and rehabilitation of a retail property that had been vacant for three years.
The developer undertook a gut renovation, including a facade restoration,
to create 6,500 square feet of modern commercial retail space.
The property is currently leased to Studio Yogi and in lease negotiations with a user to bring the property to 75% occupancy.
There is one remaining space, which is currently on the market, seeking potential tenants,
offering complimentary wellness services for the community.
The project was completed in February of 2023 and resulted in a total investment of around $1.43 million to the 71st Street corridor.
The project's use of a Class 7A incentive was previously approved by City Council in April 2025,
but today's action would instead recommend the use of a Class C incentive.
The primary difference between these programs is the term of a Class 7A is 12 years, while the Class 7C is only 5.
This change is necessary because as DPD and the developer moved to close on the RDA,
it was determined that the completed project had not retained records that could sufficiently satisfy City's construction compliance requirements,
including MWBE.
To be clear, though, the project did utilize minority contractors and vendors,
including a City-certified MBE as their primary general contractor,
and this issue is related to the developer being unable to produce documentation that is acceptable to the City.
DPD believes that all parties acted in good faith throughout this process with regards to these requirements.
Likewise, DPD believes that the project is an important part of the larger revitalization of the 71st Street corridor
by a minority and woman-owned business.
Given that, DPD is requesting to shift the incentive to a Class 7C since it does not have an RDA requirement.
This is possible because the project originally applied for a Class 7C prior to the City's RDA requirements,
and, in fact, only subsequently shifted to Class 7A with the guidance of DBT.
Here, if approved, this change would still provide a benefit to the applicant, but just in a lesser amount.
The total savings to the project under a Class 7A was estimated to be approximately $270,000,
where this would be reduced to approximately $88,000 with a Class 7C.
This would also result in a greater tax revenue to the city with the total amount of new revenues to the taxing body
increasing to approximately $16,000 from approximately $9,500.
Based on these facts, and DPD is requesting this change,
the project has resulted in a number of positive benefits for the corridor,
including investment and redevelopment of a critical commercial property on this corridor,
as well as the creation of new jobs.
And although the project is unable to meet the requirements of the original RDA,
the project utilized MWBE vendors, made good faith to resolve this issue,
and is legally eligible to pursue the use of a Class 7C in a matter consistent with the code.
For all of these reasons, DPD is seeking your favorable consideration of this request.
I'm also joined today by Julia Perkins, founder and president of UrbanCorp, Inc.,
as well as Jerry Brown, her legal representation for the developer.
I, as well as the members of the development team, are happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Are there any questions from members of the committee?
Seeing none, may have a motion to recommend to pass to this item by the same roll call
that was applied to the established quorum.
Alderman Cardona, so moves here, no objections.
So order, the due pass recommendation will be reported out.
The next city council meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Item 31 on the agenda is a Class 7D tax incentive for property at 5713 West Chicago Avenue
and accompanying redevelopment.
agreement. Aaron Fogel, Financial Planning Analysis for the Department of Planning and
Development, is here to present in support of the item and will be available to answer any questions
from the members. Mr. Fogel, when you're ready, please begin the presentation. I would also note
that Alderman Talia Farrell has provided a letter of support for this item. Mr. Fogel.
Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Villegas and members of the Committee on Economic Capital
and Technology Development. For the record, my name is Aaron Fogel, Financial Planning Analyst
in the Department of Planning and Development. I'm also joined by Kendrick Berry, Morris Reed,
Richard Ginsberg, and Dora Cornelio, representing the developer. I'm here to request the approval
of an ordinance supporting an initial Class 70 property tax incentive for 40 acres fresh for
the purpose of redeveloping and operating a grocery store at 5713 West Chicago Avenue. The Class 70
incentive is a relatively new Cook County program that applies to real estate used for the reuse of
vacant commercial space for grocery stores located in food deserts, among other eligible grocery store
related uses. The project site is in the 29th Ward, the Austin community area, the West Planning
area. Alderman Talia Farrell provided a letter of support for the project. Here's an aerial view of the
site located at the southwest corner of West Chicago Avenue and North Waller Avenue. This site,
indicated by the red square, is located in a food desert as designated by the Illinois Department
of Public Health's Illinois Food Desert's annual report, which is represented in orange on the slide.
Here's a view of the prior condition of the site, which was a Salvation Army store and then vacant
since 2018. The owner, Westside Health Authority, purchased the property in 2020 and is applying for
this initial Class 70 property tax incentive. Prior to the 2020 purchase, the site was exempt from property
taxes. WHA leased the property to 40 Acres Fresh LLC, who occupies approximately 10,000 square feet
and operates the full-service 40 Acres Fresh Market grocery store. The remaining space is dedicated to
a PNC bank branch. Tax savings from the incentive to the applicant are estimated to be about $485,000
over the 12-year life of the incentive, and the total tax amount over 12 years is estimated to be about
$411,000. The total project cost was about $13.2 million, and construction occurred from 2023
through 2025, and the grand opening was just a couple weeks ago. It doesn't seem to advance.
There it goes. Yeah, thank you. Just a lag. The $13.2 million project was financed via a $3 million
community development grant from DPD, $2.6 million of new market tax credits, and about $7.6 million
of other grants. A bit more of a lag. All right, here we go. This shows the current condition of the exterior
recently completed. We don't want to wait. Here's a hard copy of photos of the interior. Apologies.
Ain't this the tech committee? What's going on here?
Sure. Yes. Okay, so yeah, I was just, I don't know if there is a lag. So this is where you're at.
You can just move, instead of just presenting it, just move it down. Sorry. Thank you.
I appreciate it. Again, here is photos of the current interior with the grocery store now open.
We estimate the value of the tax abatement to the applicant to be up $485,000 over 12 years or $360,000
on a net present value basis. This city share of this amount is about $112,000 over 12 years or $83,000
on a net present value basis. DPD is in support of this project that invested over $13 million to provide
a grocery store in a food desert, brought a formerly exempt property back onto the tax rolls,
and will provide 12 full-time and 10 part-time jobs. Thank you for your favorable consideration
of this request. I, as well as members of the development team, are happy to answer any questions
the committee may have. Thank you, Mr. Fogel. Audermon admits, and then followed by Audermon
the spotter. Audermon admits. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me command my colleague,
Audermon Talaferro, for a wonderful project. I happened to be at the grand opening about a
week ago. This is the opportunity that we never had to bring fresh grocery into the Austin community.
in a site that was underutilized. I remember this young lady, Liz, who originally first stopped
in my office during a ward night, did not know where to go to start her vision. Of course,
as Audermons, we refer and use our resources. I told her to talk to Westside Health Authority.
It has taken her about five years since then, but she stayed committed.
Working at
Farmer's Market,
Park District, trying to provide
fresh groceries to the community
to get her name out.
And we were so excited.
the community were excited and are excited now because I was just there yesterday. We can get
fresh, healthy food. Healthy food. I'm not speaking of Burger King or McDonald's. I'm talking about
vegetables, things that going to keep us living for a good while. Fresh fruits that we can have,
not preserve, fresh. Of course, I'm a big fan of greens. Got some fresh greens in there. And it's an opportunity for the neighborhood to be able to shop
where there's no grocery store anyway. And now, Lord and behold, she has partners that were able to help her. Now we have a PNC bank that are there in the community, inside of the grocery store.
And it is a fresh, welcoming location. If you haven't been there, I would say we will welcome your dollars there. We don't have to take them outside and go to Oak Park now. We can stop right there at 40 acres.
And they're two blocks outside of 37. So I commend all of the partners, Westside Health Authority, led by Morris Reed, the PNC Bank, and their team that was out to help to
move.
cut the ribbon, and you probably can find a website somewhere
where we were all going in shopping.
But it's a wonderful, wonderful opportunity.
You have a black-owned grocery store?
I can give a hand clap myself for that one.
It's okay, you all.
It's okay.
We don't have to be afraid to get credit where credit is due in times like these.
So I just want to commend my colleagues who are not here at the time,
but to say dittos to all of you,
and we'll look forward to continuing the work to make sure this owner don't fail.
And in her remarks as she was doing the grand opening,
she says her worry wasn't that she opened the store.
Her worry is that will the store stay open?
So thank you all so much, and God bless you.
Thank you, Alderman Laspata.
Thank you so much.
My congratulations sincerely both to the operator and to the Alderman
for this project coming to their wards.
I had one question, which is related to the tax impact analysis slide.
It shows both under either Class 70 or net present value,
a negative estimated net benefit to taxing districts,
which is unusual to see for these projects.
Can you speak more to that?
Sure.
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
I think this goes to a timing issue.
Westside Health Authority applied for this incentive this year,
though they were constructing the project since 2023 and purchased it in 2020.
So when you look at, in the analysis, what they're paying now,
that would be 2020 for property taxes.
And so just because of the way we run our analysis looking at last available tax
versus kind of this project has been longer in the works,
I think that's why you might see this negative benefit.
And so would you, sorry, so would you say that that's accurate to see a negative impact
over the next 12 years?
Or what's a better way of understanding the fiscal impact of the project?
I'm just trying to understand.
Sure.
I think you can think about it that they took over a vacant property
that was tax exempt prior in 2020.
They redeveloped it into a grocery store.
So they brought it back on the tax rule.
And going forward, we would estimate this number $410,000
as the value of the batement over 12 years.
The applicant?
I'll follow up offline.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Lispada.
Mr. Fogel, have we also done an analysis around how much revenue could be generated
like from worker income tax, et cetera?
Is that part of the analysis when you guys are saying what the benefit is?
We have not looked at that, Chairman.
All right.
Maybe think about that.
I think that just adds to what the economic activity is and then is able to kind of help
justify what we're not bringing in for property tax, but it allows for that revenue to be
accounted for.
Cool.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions from members?
All right.
Seeing none.
Seeing none.
Alderwoman admits, makes a motion to recommend passing this item by the same roll call vote
that was applied to established quorum.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
The do-pass recommendation will be reported out at the next City Council meeting.
Congratulations.
Thanks.
All right.
Our last item on the agenda, item 32 on the agenda, is an ordinance that directs the
City Comptroller to activate provisions, MC11-12-470, Leak Relief Pilot.
All of you should have received a copy of the ordinance and also a letter from Law Department.
We do have a law department here as well.
So we'll have Alderman Lopez.
If you want to speak from there, you want to speak from – it's up to you.
Yeah.
All right.
So there's been a motion to accept a substitute.
Does everybody have a substitute?
All right.
Everybody has a substitute?
Alderman Nwagasback moves to pass.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
And the polls, opinion of the chair of the ayes, have it, substitutes in front of us.
Law Department as well, can you come to the front as well?
Oh, yes.
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, members of the committee.
With your indulgence, I will like to introduce Mark Alvarez from my office and Ms. Carly, the owner of the property, in question.
Before you, with the substitute, is an order to the department – to the – excuse me, to the city comptroller to use the provisions under Municipal Code 11-12-470, the Leak Relief Pilot Program, to address a billing discrepancy.
And I would like, with your permission, to turn it over to Mr. Alvarez to explain in further detail the history of this situation.
Mr. Alvarez.
Good morning, chair and members of the committee.
My name is Mark Alvarez.
And I am appearing on behalf of Alderman Raymond Lopez to address the matter concerning the Carly's Family Water Bill at 5434 South Walcott Avenue.
This issue began on May 31, 2023, when representatives from the Department of Water Management visited the property without providing a stated reason, ostensibly to inspect the existing water meter.
The department returned on August 3, 2023, to install a new meter, but informed the property owner that certain repairs were necessary before the meter could be installed.
Those repairs were promptly completed, and the new meter, number 230272277, was installed shortly thereafter, before August 8, 2023.
A new account, under the names Lisa and Diane Carly, was activated on August 29, 2023.
However, on constant flow rate of approximately 2,000 gallons per hour, despite the fact that the property has no functional plumbing.
Over the following weeks, this malfunction led to an accumulation of charges equivalent to nearly 50,000 gallons per day, an amount that defies any reasonable explanation for a vacant structure.
Despite this clearly abnormal usage, the department did not flag the account until April 2025, more than two months after the water was shut off, and nearly a year after this issue began.
An inspection appointment scheduled for May 1, 2025, was unsuccessful due to lack of success, access.
However, the department later returned on May 19, 2025, and installed another new meter, number 231406976.
On August 25, 2025, representatives from the Office of the Comptroller, the Department of Water Management, the Department of Law, and staff from the 15th Ward Office conducted a joint inspection of the property.
All parties confirmed that there was no evidence of any plumbing or water use.
That could justify such excessive consumption.
Nevertheless, as of August 31, 2025, the Carley family's outstanding balance totaled $238,832.90,
with late fees totaling up to $24,939.20, an egregious financial burden on a homeowner over 80 years old who clearly did not consume this water.
It is important to note that the city has, in prior cases, adjusted similar billing errors.
Moreover,
moreover,
This case falls squarely under the provisions of the ordinance passed by this very committee on May 12, 2024, and adopted by the full city council on May 22, 2024, which requires the comptroller to address and remedy charges resulting from unexpected underground leaks or meter malfunctions.
To put this error into perspective, the billed usage would be equivalent to filling and draining a small swimming pool every single day for months on end.
Such a scenario is plainly impossible under the conditions we verified on site.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to pass this order and the relevant departments to ensure that the Carley family's account is adjusted or forgiven in accordance with city ordinance.
This action will reflect both fairness and fiscal responsibility while upholding the city's commitment to its residents.
Thank you, Mr. Alvarez.
Thank you, Chairman.
And I want to first thank Mr. Alvarez because I thought I was going to be in the other room, so I'm glad he was prepared.
And I also want to take a moment to thank Diane Carley and her family for joining us today.
We, Mr. Chairman, have been dealing with this issue for several months at the property located at.
As mentioned, all of us, as Mark has stated, have been inside this property, have seen where the water line and the meter connect,
and there's no other piping connecting within the house.
And yet, a meter that was installed went from showing zero water usage to 50,000 gallons a day for a year straight.
Not a single sink, not a single toilet, not a single pipe is connected to that meter.
Yet the water department and law department both contend water went through that meter.
So, by definition, they are insisting that there is a leak of some variety, which, in my opinion, falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinance.
The ordinance also states that we can do a six-month look back in a 12-month period to see if there's any billing irregularities.
If you look at the six months prior to when this started, bills for water usage were zero, zero, zero, zero, water meter, 50,000 gallons, without fail.
If you look at the six months at the end of the billing cycle in question, it goes 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 gallons, new meter, zero, zero, zero, and has remained at zero to this day because there is no water being used.
As Mark also mentioned, all departments impacted have been in the basement of this property.
All have confirmed visually on site that it was physically impossible for any of this to happen.
When I mentioned previously to the department, to the law department and to the water department, through multiple meetings, I've been told, no, the water had to have gone somewhere.
I don't think Mark does justice with his pool analogy, so let me put it this way.
You could fill up three 18,000-gallon swimming pools and still not use the water she's accused of using every single day for 365 days, winter and all.
That amount of water, that house would have floated down Walcott.
When this was presented to the departments, the departments changed their story and said, well, maybe the water just went straight to the sewer drain, bypassing the entire building and basement because there's no evidence of water damage, but somehow it managed to shoot from the meter to the drain in the middle of the basement floor.
It was perfectly, perfectly, never missing a drop.
Mr. Chairman, you introduced the original ordinance and the Johnson administration passed a version of it last year to address these types of billing errors that are so egregious, so outrageous,
that news agencies like CBS have won Emmys reporting about the stupidity of it all.
I'm here today with a very simple order, which is to authorize the comptroller to use some common sense and adjust the bill accordingly.
And this shouldn't be just because it's my ward or my resident or because Ms. Carly is here, because I'm sure all of us know and have examples in our wards where people have seen their bills spike for no reason
and then immediately reset once a new meter is put in place.
It should not take an act of the city council to introduce some common sense into this equation.
Now, I understand for my colleagues that there's been, and I'm sure the law department will get to that in a minute, with regards to their analysis on this item.
So let me first off start by saying that this order does not in any way, shape, or form contradict the municipal code.
It simply requires that the city comptroller do what the law allows, because for the past several months, both the water department and the law department has said the city comptroller has no ability to take corrective action on billing issues.
That, as Maury Povich would say, is a lie.
We also know that the municipal code is very specific when it comes to this, and I believe that we do meet the criteria of the ordinance,
because if you are to take the departments at face value, then there is a water leak, because somewhere they're saying that the water went through the meter.
However, today they say there is no water leak, so therefore this order is insufficient.
So if there's no water leak, what are we billing for?
If there's no issue, why are we here?
The department needs to pick a lane and stick with it, Mr. Chairman, because every time we approach this, they shift and say, well, that doesn't apply because of this.
Okay, well, how about this?
Well, no, that doesn't apply, but then that puts us back in the other category, as I just described.
We can talk about basis periods, because I'm happy to pick front or back, because it's all the same.
It's zero, as I said, at the front end.
It's zero at the back end.
And lastly, and I'm happy to wait for the law department to challenge me on these assertions, we can, in fact, take corrective action on billing.
We can, in fact, take adjustments on billing, because the water department and the revenue department both do corrective billing all the time when they think that they've underestimated or under-metered you without any issue.
They instruct the comptroller, adjust the billing accordingly, raise the rates, get our money, do what you have to do.
Well, you know what?
This time we need to do it in reverse, because we've charged someone too much, and now we need to make it right by that individual.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor the point.
I think we've explained it well, and I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have at this time.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
Law department?
Thank you, Chairman.
Can you speak into the mic?
Yes.
This is Justin Edge from the Department of Law.
Thank you, Chairman Villegas.
Thank you to the committee.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
Chair, would you like me to summarize the legal conclusions in the letter that I submitted to you yesterday?
Yes, please, and that letter has been circulated to the committee, so that way we all know.
That seems like a good place to start on the same basis.
Just to preface, speaking from my personal knowledge as well as details that have been made available to me,
I was given a set of information from the Department of Water Management and Department of Finance
and at least one member of Department of Law that I know is familiar with the case,
though I did not know if he was the person referred to as going to the site.
So I just wanted to state that I can't – my conclusions would be the same for what I've stated,
which is based on the facts that I was given, regardless of whether it was this situation one year ago
or one year from now, it would be the same.
So I'm not going to actually contest any facts stated by Mr. Alvarez or by Alderman Lopez.
I simply can't because I don't know anything about those.
I don't know anything about the fact that they're going to do that at all.
Usually they have something that is going to do the same thing that they're going to do as a couple of various кус
with N themselves.
So I think that's the words that they're going to do practice when they're going to do process.
I.
So I'm not going to contest any of those.
I have no response to them because I have no personal knowledge.
And that would include factual statements about the situation itself and also statements made by the Department of Law,
Department of Water Management, and Department of Finance.
I have no personal knowledge of that, so I can't speak to that.
But the details that were shared with me were that there were two critical elements in eligibility for the two different water billing relief programs,
only one of which was mentioned in the initial order, but I went ahead and addressed the other as well in the legal analysis.
Specifically, that is a requirement in the eligibility under the definition of eligible leak under the leak relief pilot program
that says that the water service line is controlled by a meter located outside the property, and the property here meaning the structure.
I was given the facts from those two departments that the meter is actually inside the structure.
So those were the grounds I was given for why it was ineligible, why the departments had determined it ineligible for that program.
But turning to another option, which would be the utility billing relief program,
what makes this situation ineligible in that case was what was described to me in which I've heard confirmed that it is not occupied by the owner.
That program states in its requirements in two places, actually, that the owner occupy the home to be eligible for the program.
So being ineligible for either of those programs, what is in the initial order, and from my quick reading of the substitute order,
I would say is still true of a substitute order, is that it is directing actions which would be in opposition to conflicting with standing law
for the city of Chicago, and that is what makes it an improper order, because it is contravening the actual laws as they stand.
Again, that's based on the facts as shared with me, and that's what makes it an improper order.
Now, improper order sounds like a fancy semantic turn or whatever in trying to pull some parliamentary tricks.
It's not.
This could come back, and we could have a similar discussion under a subject matter hearing,
or, as the letter points out, a legislative change.
I would point out that I focus the analysis on the fact that to accomplish the ends that this initial order
and the substitute seem to be asking for would require a change in law.
That can't be done by an ordinance under the precedent that I stated in the letter.
I can stop right there if you'd like.
I really don't have much more, and I see that Alderman Lopez – or Alderman Spada has a question.
But I'll let you – sorry, Chair.
I'll let you – go ahead.
Alderman Spada, you asked your question, and then Alderman Scott Wagesback, Cardona, Mitz?
Thank you, Chair.
Justin, my question, because I'm – the ordinance – the substitute order in front of us
directly references activating the provisions of MC 11-12-470, which I have opened on my phone right now,
and it looks like there are five qualifying points for a leak to have been deemed eligible.
Does it need to – for a leak to be eligible under the – this pilot program,
does it have to qualify for all five, or can it qualify for a certain number of them?
Yes, it's – there is an and at the end of each one of those items requiring all five
to be considered an eligible leak under that definition.
Okay, thank you.
You're welcome.
Alderman Lopez, can you help us understand – because, again, like I have not been to the property.
You can clearly see, though, if you look it up on your phone, that it's a vacant property,
so it is admittedly exceptionally hard to conceive how that much water could have possibly been used.
Can you help us understand, though, how it – how this is an eligible leak under the five points of the ordinance?
Sure.
Thank you for the question.
First off, I need to just clarify one thing.
We are not asking for utility billing relief, so I don't know why that came up,
because we don't believe that the water actually flowed through that meter.
I think he was mentioning two of the programs that might get –
But I just want to make sure that we're not trying to go after that,
because we know that it's a vacant property.
To my colleague's question, that property has been vacant since 2007.
In roughly 2023, the water department came out, presumably, I believe,
doing possibly lead service line replacement work, because the whole block was recently resurfaced,
and oftentimes they will come and check to see about connectivity for all properties when they're on a block, I believe.
That is when the water department contacted Ms. Carley and pushed to have a meter installed in that property.
Now, when I look at the eligible –
Very quick.
So from 2007 to 2023, the bill was zero?
Yes.
Okay.
And that was also in part because the Buffalo box had been shut off for 20 years.
Now, you ask about the five points.
It does say eligible leak means a leak on a property where service – on a property owner's water service line where 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are there.
Yes, it says and, but it doesn't say anything about all criteria must be met.
So I think that's a legal interpretation or a departmental policy interpretation because it does not say eligible leaks mean – eligible leak means a leak on a property owner's water service line where all 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
It just says where 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
So I think that gives room for interpretation at the department level.
Where's the room?
That's just what I'm trying to understand because as Mr. Edge pointed out, there's an and after each one of those points.
So I don't want to belabor the point, but after 1, it says da-da-da-da-da-da, and number 2, da-da-da-da-da-da, and.
And so like to me that implies that all 5 points have to be met.
Does that feel accurate?
I want to make sure I'm interpreting the law.
I think we have a difference of opinion between the law department and myself as to who has the ability to make that interpretation.
So your interpretation is that any of these points in and of themselves makes it an eligible leak?
An eligible leak?
An eligible leak?
Yes.
Okay.
If I may, I'm not prepared to provide exact citations at this moment.
But before the end of the day, I could provide through the chair many, many citations of judicial precedent about statutory construction
that would affirm that this is a statutory construction requiring all five elements,
dating back to the 1800s.
Respectfully, I would, if there is a question about that, and we would like to try to find a conclusive answer,
I'd be happy to do that today.
And just so I'm clear, and one last question, the water service line, point number one was the water service line is controlled by a meter located outside of the property.
Is the meter for this property outside of the property or inside of the property?
It is inside the property.
Of the five points here, which is the qualifying point that you're referencing, sir?
If I may, all of Chicago's residential meters are now inside the property.
So if that's going to be the standard, as just an aside, then this is a meaningless section of the municipal code.
So just as a point of reference.
So there's some point in amending the code, that's correct?
Well, I think if that's going to be the standard, then that is quite literally the poison pill of this entire segment
because the water department no longer installs things on the outside for residential property.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alderman Cardona, let me say single family residential property because I see Alderman Wagusbeck giving me a look.
Yeah, thanks, Chairman. This is very interesting. And Mr. Edge, thank you for that commentary there.
It kind of puts us into legal purgatory and it isn't where we should end up here.
I don't think I know we can sit. It sounded like you were saying you can stipulate to the facts.
Of what happened, that you weren't contesting any of the facts put forward by the 15th Ward, partially because you had no personal knowledge.
But is any department contesting that the car it's Carly's Carly's Carly Carly is are not responsible.
Is anybody in any department saying they are not responsible for the water that that the departments are not responsible?
Or that Ms. Carly is?
I can answer.
Earlier, as I mentioned, I believe Alderman Lopez said that he had heard some statements on exactly that from Department of Water Management, Department of Finance and Department of Law.
I have not.
Yeah.
So and I I wasn't conceding that all those points were true.
I was just stating that I'm in no position to contest those facts because I don't know.
I'm just.
But so, yeah, I have no knowledge on that.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
If you want.
Sure.
I could answer that.
As to the question of whether or not the departments are holding Ms. Carly liable for the water.
Yes, they are.
Michael Grillo from the Chicago Department of Water Management has said that, in his opinion,
water magically flew, float, had flown, had, had flowed through the meter, even though it was capped, and that the usage must be real because the meter says so.
Catherine Wheeler from the Department of Law said the water must have gone through the meter, even though there's no evidence to that and nowhere for it to go because of the lack of plumbing inside the inside the property.
The city comptroller, Michael Belsky, has said under the advice of the two departments that he believes that it's not probable, but he's going by what they say, which and they're going based on a meter, which showed 50,000 gallons of usage daily until it was replaced.
As far as what they all said when they were on site, I would defer to Mr. Alvarez, who was there with them, when they were all in the basement of an abandoned house with the Carly family, and what they all remarked while they were in the basement.
I could also speak to just a couple of the points raised by Alderman Lopez as well, based on what I learned in the last few days getting prepared for this response.
I was just probably makes no difference, but Catherine Wheeler works with the Department of Finance.
And so if comments that she made were attributed to the Department of Law, she's not with the Department of Law.
But I did speak with her, as well as several others that I do believe were involved and may have been the exact ones that you were speaking of that may have been at these sites.
All that I would note, from what I understood, is that at some point, and I don't know exactly when in the timeline,
because of the concern about the accuracy of the water meter,
I know that that Department of Water Management removed the meter, tested it, and then offered to, I am not sure,
I know that it was one or the other or both, the Alderman, Alderman Lopez, or to Ms. Carly,
to have it tested, the same meter, to have it tested by a third party if they would like, if they were not sure about that.
But that's what I was told.
And I will tell you that in that test, I was told that the meter tested up to their standards,
which their standards are based on accurate up to a flow rate of 25 gallons per minute.
So was that same meter that was tested up to the same standards and then reinstalled?
I do not know about that.
No.
But this was the meter.
My understanding is this was the meter that was in place during the time period in which this water flow created the charge.
Right.
So it was tested, it was made up to standards, and then was that meter reinstalled?
I do not know about that.
I can get in touch with the Department of Water Management and ask them to follow up through the chair.
Chairman, I can tell you it was not.
We have two different numbers for the meters, and happy to reread them into the record.
And I also would state that third party conversations can't match first party conversation.
So if you want to hear what they said from people in that room, Mark is here.
Gotcha.
Yeah.
Chairman, if I could just, I'll just try to finish it up.
So we've all had similar situations, maybe not to the 233,000, I think it was, or 238.
38.
But all of us have had these similar types of situations where they all seem improbable, if not impossible, to utilize that kind of water for what we're going through here.
So, Alderman, did you find any human error, or did anybody talk about any human error or technical error from those departments?
Because I know that a lot of these meters were old meters.
I mean, we had problems with them going back over a decade.
And as far as I know, I thought we were in the works for a new RFP for meters, which would indicate that there is some type of technical issue here.
I don't think it's a human error.
I think it's more either an application or problems with the physical meters, which would lend credence to the fact that they removed one and put a different one in.
So I don't know if you want to answer that.
But, Chairman, that's all I had.
I just think we have a long history of problems with this meter system, and it needs to get resolved.
I can tell you that the water department and Mr. Grillo told me emphatically there's nothing wrong with our meters, that they work wonderfully.
Now, the problem that we have is that the water department has no records of the meter's installation.
They have no records of what the picture looked like when it was installed, because as you all may be aware, once you install a water meter, whether it's private or public, they have to take a picture of the work that they've done.
The department is unable to provide that as well to prove that when they installed the meter, there was no plumbing associated with it into the rest of the property.
They insist this is complete usage and are sticking with that.
And the best that the Department of Finance has offered was a $25,000 discount to Ms. Carly on a quarter of a million dollar water bill that came out of nowhere.
So they are in full control of amending this bill, if they so choose to, today.
Because if you could just arbitrarily drop it $25,000, you can arbitrarily fix it to zero, knowing that you made a mistake.
Without sounding like I'm speculating too much, I believe that the reason that they are fighting so hard is because they don't want to admit that we have a problem with our meters, even though it's been well documented by things that this committee has done, as you said, for decades.
Justin, $25,000, is that fines and fees, late fees and stuff like that?
That's exactly what I wanted to correct.
There's a block quote in the letter presented to you, so I won't quote it in complete.
But it essentially says water, which passes through a meter, must be billed.
There are no discounts.
There's not within the discretion of any city employee to provide discounts.
That's why the billing relief programs are set up as relief of a debt that is already owed.
They're not canceling out the debt.
It says that it must be billed.
What is within the discretion of the comptroller, from what I understand, is the waiving of additional late fees, penalties, fines, service charges.
And I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but there has not been a reduction by any percentage of the actual water bill itself because of that prohibition within the code.
And so I believe what Alderman Lopez is referring to is the waiving of fines and fees.
And so that's very disappointing because we've been talking about this for years now.
Matter of fact, as Alderman Lopez mentioned, a news outlet.
Ran a series on this, and we had a lot of discussions that we put forward recommendations.
So we thought around how to deal with this, and it turns out that we didn't deal with this.
All we did was allow for the comptroller the ability to relax any types of – or waive, rather, any types of fines, late penalties, et cetera.
What we were trying to get to is to the point that there's a small percentage of 1% of people that get bills in error in dealing with that.
And the remedy that was proposed by the former comptroller was that they would allow for a six-month smooth-out period where they would look back, determine what was the average there, and then whatever was above the average would be waived.
And it's – now I'm hearing that that's not the case and that the code specifically states that if the water goes through a meter, that that person has to pay that bill regardless.
And so we need to figure out from a statutory – from a legal standpoint, an ordinance, how we fix that because it's 1% of people that have errors.
And there's nothing – we understand there's errors.
But when you have people that are being impacted, and we had a hearing last year or two years ago rather around this where we saw people coming in with bills of $100,000, and now we're hearing one, $238,000.
And the lady that had a $100,000 bill had a stroke, and she couldn't even speak, and she had to have her son provide testimony.
And as we take a look at how you build wealth, typically it's real estate.
And so in that case there, it was a $100,000 water bill that the city was going to put a lien on, and so whenever that property was sold, the city would get its money, therefore taking any type of growth of appreciation that that person had.
So we've got to fix this.
This is out of control.
Could I respond to that?
Actually, if I may –
Hold on a second, because I'm going to get to questions, but just chew on that for a minute.
But this is out of control.
So Alderman Cardona followed by Alderman Mintz and then Alderman Lee.
Chairman, I just want feedback.
I can't.
Because how do you expect her to pay the late fees and fines when there's an error already in the bill and it's extremely hot?
I mean, the controller is definitely – I understand they're looking at that, but when they're appealing, they're not looking at the total of the bill.
And you're – I mean, if her first bill was – ma'am, what was the first –
Possibly $213,000.
So who in their right minds have $213,000 in their bank account and be like, I'm going to go pay this?
No one.
So when that happens, they put fines and fees.
No one's going to pay that $213,000 because they don't have that kind of money.
And the thing is, when we're – and then when they're contesting it, and then I see that Alderman Lopez did – they did mention there was two different meters installed.
The first meter was – something was totally wrong with that meter because when he replaced it with the second meter, it came out to zero.
That should be red flag.
We need to see what's going on.
And can I ask Mr. Alvarez, right?
Yes.
Who went to the House when – what departments went with you to the House to investigate this?
Introduce yourself again.
Hello.
My name is Mark Alvarez, and the question to that answer would be the Office of the Comptroller, the Department of Water Management, and the Department of Law, as well as staff from the 15th Ward Office.
All right.
Department of Law was there.
Who in that Department of Law was there?
That went to go see.
Was it you, sir?
So where is that person at?
I will say everyone that was there is not here.
We could see that.
And that's why I apologize if what is – may seem like technical arguments and deflection makes it sound as though I don't think that this is a problem as an individual who works for the city and the administration as well as a resident.
This is terrible, and to your first question, I know it was rhetorical.
No, I don't expect, and no one should expect something like that to – if a person to pay that out of their pocket, that would wreck – I mean, and it's cold comfort to say your only option is a payment plan that you'll be paying on for God knows how long.
So please don't – I would just say that I would – I personally am not the one stating that I believe that a person needs to be pushed to the limit here.
I would also like to point out that the substance of this letter is stating that while we can't do what is being requested under the municipal code as it stands, I'm speaking to the people who changed the municipal code, and I'm stating in there that it can be changed.
It can't be changed by an order that contradicts the law.
A lot has to be changed through an ordinance.
I actually spoke with Chairman Villegas earlier before the committee hearing, and when he asked, volunteered to personally work on legislative changes, whether it be a new relief program or changes to the existing ones, to address what he's called the 1% of outliers, whether they're mechanical errors, human errors, or whatever.
I mean, you asked, again, it may have been rhetorical, why would we expect someone to pay a bill that has an error?
Well, I don't think we would.
So if we need other means of, you know, actually addressing this issue that aren't addressed in the code as it stands, I'd be happy to work with you on behalf of the Department of Law and with others who know this area possibly better than me to get it right on a legislative fix.
So I just wanted to state that, that this is obviously a terrible situation, and I am not even trying to insinuate that this bill is due in owing.
Give us the money, ma'am.
I'm just stating that the order is not the way to do it.
A legislative change would be the way to do it.
And, Justin, we want you to understand that, yeah, this is not an attack.
We're just trying to figure out how to solve a solution.
I'm not taking it personally.
I understand completely.
And then we have to do two things here.
We have to change the legislation, but also we've got to look at these water meters that have been out there for so long that are basically reading the water wrong and charging the owners of the property improperly.
So I think we need to probably audit or do something to the water meters because they just did a test.
They just took the old one that was reading water that supposedly was going through the house, which it wasn't because it was shut off from the bee box.
If it's shut off from the bee box, there's no water coming into the house.
And, again, I mean, that's just the logistics of it.
But the thing is, if you have these water meters that are reading the water intake of the property wrong, you know, there's a serious problem.
And I think we need to audit or probably figure that out.
So we have to do a couple things here or talk to my colleagues to figure this out because we, as being elected officials, ultimate, we have several residents that come in and they're like, how is this bill?
So, like, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 when I have a single family home and I have a water meter, how old is your water meter?
10, 15 years or whatever old, 10 years old.
But what I'm saying is that we need to really have a real conversation with the water department and who is the vendor of these water meters because we need answers and we can't continue doing this.
I have no further comments.
Thank you, Alderman Cardona.
Ray, you wanted to say something.
Alderman Lopez, you want to say something and then Alderman Mintz.
I'm on this side of the table.
I guess I go by Raymond.
It's fine.
I just want to mention two things.
First off, I'm not my usual antagonistic self towards Justin because he was not part of this conversation.
I know he's just the messenger from law, but he was not part of this.
But I will say this.
They are trying to collect a quarter of a million dollars.
They've already threatened to garnish her pension and the pensions of her daughter, who's a former police officer, and have also stopped the employment of her other daughter, who is applying to work for CPS because of this.
So there are some very real-world consequences for what's going on, notwithstanding, as you mentioned, Diane's health.
We talk every week, and every week she's in tears in my office.
So I think we can argue the semantics of the letter, but I think at some point, collectively, either the departments need to just stop with this foolishness until we come up with a remedy, or we could pursue and carry on forward.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Alderman Mintz.
And then Alderman Lee, you're after Alderman Lee, you're after Alderman Mintz.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
This issue breaks my heart, particularly when it happens to our elders.
And what I can't understand, if everyone went out and there was nothing hooked up for water,
to me, that's a red flag there.
And do humans make mistakes out of a hole?
You may tell me somebody make a mistake.
Right? And if you could tell me who went back to look at the history of that bill
to see what it has been for you as to why did the spike happen?
And would they use that much water?
Something just don't make sense. It's common sense.
You know, and then to do it to a senior and not even show up here today?
The department who are causing this senior this great harm is just unacceptable.
But let me ask this, isn't there a bill that you get if you've got a water leak?
Doesn't the department send you information out saying there's a water leak in your home?
Is that for me?
So, thank you, Chairman.
Yes, theoretically, if there's any significant change within a certain threshold,
you're supposed to get notified either on your bill or if it continues,
theoretically, with outreach from the Department of Revenue and Water Management.
Neither happens anymore because of the fact, for whatever reason,
there's a policy change that does not put priority on recognizing or highlighting billing irregularities.
So, very quick, is this because the city has taken the position during COVID not to turn off water,
that people are not notified?
I could not speculate on that.
Is that the case?
I know we have $900 million in outstanding water bills.
And we're just curious as to because we're under – I think that time is going to come up pretty soon
where we're going to have to start collecting again.
If Mrs. Carley's estate did not receive any notice, is it because we're not shutting off water?
I also couldn't speculate on that.
There are a number of policy changes that began at COVID time or began at the beginning of Great Recession
and different things that impacted homeowners.
So, I think you're probably right in guessing that it would coincide with one of those, a policy change,
in some cases, individual fine changes and changes in the code.
But I do not know it.
But I also want to stress that there was no water service to this property until 2023 when the – or until 2024 when the meter was actually installed.
So, even through COVID, this never would have been on the radar as needing any kind of billing relief because there was no billing relief,
because there was no water.
Did Ms. Carley call for water service or how does that work?
The department called her.
And said, we want to give you water?
And said, we need to install a meter in your property.
And just for the record, the water department has no records of the initial contact with Ms. Carley,
no proof of pictures, no invoices, and things of that nature.
If I may, I believe that if those departments were here to speak to the matter,
or were able to, you know, present facts and sit down and try to come to some common understanding and conclusion on this,
from what I was told, they would contest a number of the facts that were stated by Mr. Alvarez and Alderman Lopez.
I am not contesting those, but they've told me.
For instance, I'll just give you one example that really seems important here.
I was told in no uncertain terms that the water department has no record of turning on the water
because they did not turn on the water.
And if you are thinking, but that is required, it must be done by order of the actual, you know,
I don't know who has the exact authority, but it has to be done by a city employee.
Yes, it is required.
I could find the code here.
I brought it with me.
I was told they did not turn on the water.
And that some plumbing was done related to the meter by a third party plumber, not a staff member of the city.
Now, those specific facts, again, I don't have all of them, but that was made pretty darn clear to me.
And I would just state that though they're not here to speak to those points, those things were made clear to me.
And so I believe that not all of it is perhaps as clean cut as it seems, though the result of it is absolutely adds up to the same thing
and something that obviously no one here finds acceptable.
Yeah, I think that as meant from the law department, and just as we're looking at this, something is wrong somewhere.
And that somebody from the law department need to make sure that this senior is not picking up a responsibility that don't belong to her.
And the hardship and the trauma that's coming along with her not even having, not only does she live, don't live in the building,
but the plumbing is not there for to even occur, this amount of water to be used in the first place.
And who is it in the city that used that amount of water?
Something is just not clicking where the data is not showing here.
You can't show me a bill.
You can't show me something other than disputes from one side to the other one of what's not right.
Because even she's spoken to herself that something is not right.
So I would like to see something done and done expedient for her to help this senior out that she can move on with her life
and not have to deal with the city that's supposed to work is now working against her.
Thank you, Alderman Mintz.
Alderman Lee?
Thank you, Chair.
What a terrible situation this is.
I don't want to rehash all the things that my colleagues have already said.
It seems to me that making the changes necessary legislatively is the way to go on this
because I've been wanting to say that, as all of my colleagues have stated,
we've had people come into the ward with water bills that are, you know, huge at the end of the day
and no real apparent reason as to how they got so big.
I will say that, you know, I've recently had a couple of occasions to have folks come in
after they've received a new meter, after they had a previous meter, they just replaced it.
They get a new meter.
They've been paying their bill the entire time.
They were not paying an estimated bill.
They were being billed from an actual water meter.
They got a new meter.
And the new meter is now reading something new.
And now, all of a sudden, the city is billing them, backbilling them for water that they apparently used,
but the other meter wasn't capturing.
It seems to me we shouldn't be able to have that both ways as the city.
That seems pretty unfair.
Because if you're saying there was a second meter that was installed,
and that second meter shows zero for any amount of time, we need to consider that.
It's not fair for the city to go back and say, okay, well, you were paying an estimated bill for this time,
and now that we've installed the meter, you owe us this money for all of these months back
because we know what your current usage is.
I have people who are desperate for meters because they're paying an estimated bill.
They're two seniors living in a household, and they have neighbors with, like, six kids in the family,
and their water bill is higher than their neighbors because they're paying an estimated bill,
not having a water meter installed.
But the only way to get a water meter installed right now is through the lead service line replacement program.
Folks, we've got a lot of problems with the water meters, and I think we really need to take a hard look.
I like all of the ideas of an audit, taking a look at how it is even possible
that this amount of water could have been measured out of this water meter when there was nothing on the backside
in the house to receive it, and there was no indication of any sort of leak.
I mean, I would imagine that if there was a leak that big that the entire ground in front of the building
would have collapsed by now.
So, Chair and Alderman Lopez and colleagues, I think that, you know, part of what is tying the hands of our departments
as well as the way that the legislation is written.
You know, if the ordinance says that any water that is passed through that we have to bill for,
that's something that we have to undo, and we have to empower these city departments
to make better decisions about what we can waive and what we can't,
because there's clearly a problem in this case.
That's all I had to say.
It would be great to have...
I have other experts from the Water Department finance are available to answer to some of these questions,
because I guarantee you we've all seen this come through our doors at our ward offices.
Thanks.
Thank you, Alderman Lee.
Alderman LePolitano?
Alderman LePolitano?
Yep.
Thank you, Chairman.
Really quick question here, or actually a statement.
I mean, if this is something that we should kind of hold back on and collectively as a council be putting together some legislation to change this,
I mean, I think Ray might have written some legislation a couple of times in his career.
I would be extremely happy to support it.
And I think one of the big issues that comes up, and I'm sure you guys as my colleagues can attest to,
that what we've noticed here in our ward is people who have water meters,
they're not being notified when these water meters go to an estimated bill.
And what I mean by that is, you know, the Water Department,
if someone's on a water meter and they have a regular bill that's coming in at a regular amount,
then all of a sudden it goes to an estimated bill,
and they're not really being told this or realizing this has happened up to a year, if not longer.
That's when we're seeing these bills hit $10,000 plus.
I mean, that's something that we should create a flagging system,
flagging that there's an issue where we've gone from a regular meter to an estimated bill,
and that's where we're noticing that this is coming up constantly.
And I was wondering for the people sitting in here today going through this issue,
has there been any work done in that area?
Is there a hydrant with a broken stem that's leaking?
Has any ground been opened up recently in the last couple of years that this bill has sparked something like this as well?
Chairman, I believe I could answer that for my colleague.
I believe that this block may have been targeted for a block-level lead service line replacement a few years ago
because as we're seeing in the 606, 36, and 09 zip codes,
and this being in 09 in New City and in Englewood,
we're doing a lot of water department work
and also engaging with vacant properties where they are connecting up to the private
and if they're able to get in touch with the owners
and they continue on through with the full lead service line as well as meter installation.
I believe, don't quote me on that, but I believe that may have been the case
because that's the only explanation I have for why someone from water would randomly show up
in an abandoned property to install a new line.
Okay, totally understood.
At CDOTMAPS, we probably could get more correct,
but I believe my gut tells me that's probably what happened.
Okay, I appreciate that, Alderman.
Chairman, I would love to be a part of this, us all as a working group,
because I think we all see a little bit of this happening in all of our wards,
and I think, you know, I'd say for the last five or six years, it's kind of ramped up,
so I think I'd love to be part of a working group that puts together some legislation,
at least create some stopgaps when these estimations start to increase dramatically
and maybe these residents aren't aware of it,
and just to give a sign that, hey, we've got to get ahead of an issue over there.
So I appreciate you bringing this forward, Alderman Lopez,
and thank you for the opportunity to speak, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Napolitano.
Yeah, this is a horrible situation, Ms. Carley,
and what we're seeing is that as much as has gone wrong with this, it's gone wrong.
I mean, to think about how a department is continuing to bill you,
and it's $238,000 over a four-month period.
No, I'm sorry, a five-month period, which is about $48,000 a month,
that after the $48,000 bill that you wouldn't be notified to say, hey, like, what's going on here,
and then automatically the department stopped the water until there was some questions answered
is obviously a process where we're seeing an issue here, number one.
Number two, to the law department, based on the order that was presented by Alderman Lopez,
legally, under the current laws that are in place,
do we have the authority to pass something like this that would allow the comptroller to move forward
without violating the law?
No, in brief.
I can expound on that a little bit more, but the letter goes as well.
So that way everyone knows, because, again, we've been working on this for quite some time.
Last year we thought we figured it out, and it looks like we didn't figure it out,
and we need to get down to a point where we can get this thing resolved.
So that way we allow the flexibility by the departments to take a look
and put forward some common sense on issues like this.
So go ahead and expound on.
Sure.
I'll try to keep it brief.
It's simply that it's ordering city officials to take action that is not allowed under the municipal code.
So it's ordering action that is in violation of the laws of the city.
Now, I mean, to maybe extrapolate a little further, the end goal, if I may surmise,
is to deal with this bill being so large and the fact that there may have been an issue here.
And that is what I'd note as requiring a legislative fix.
And so to the extent that this order orders something that is not allowed under the current code,
it is attempting to do what an ordinance may do, which is repeal or change the municipal code.
And all of the authority for all of those and the decisions and things backing that up is in the letter that I provided.
But that's essentially it.
That's a direct order is contrary to law, but that if we look past that to what it's trying to do,
dealing with this situation of this bill and possible error, that's what would require a legislative fix.
Right.
So this is, again, a situation we've been trying to deal with.
While we're trying to solve this from a legislative standpoint, I'd like to issue a commissioner's authority to suspend collection until this issue is resolved.
We cannot allow Mrs. Carley to continue to be victimized because of mistakes on the city's part.
And so the fact that you have her pension on the verge of being garnished, her daughter's paycheck being garnished,
her daughter trying to get to work for the city at CPS being told that there's a debt potentially impacting her employment.
Like, what are we doing?
So we have to put ourselves in a position to fix this.
But in the meantime, we have to stop the collection process so that we were not impacting her family from potentially feeding her family living.
I mean, this is this is out of control.
So the $238,000 that's there, we have to get this resolved and the collection has to stop.
I believe I understand the request.
But let me just restate it.
And then I'd like to follow up with a response through the chair once I check with my colleagues on this who do the actual work within the division that does collections.
Just please correct me because I'm just trying to restate your question, make sure I've got it right.
You'd like to look into the use of an order or possibly if I find that it needs to be done by other means,
what the if there is a mechanism that could be passed legislatively that would at very least order the comptroller to delay further action on this debt until a broader legislative fix is in place.
Would you say that that's roughly right?
We see that collections is occurring right now.
This needs to be halted until we resolve the issue.
We can't continue to have her on the verge of having her pension garnished.
Her daughter's paycheck garnished and her daughter trying to apply for CPS, not having to be not be eligible because she has outstanding debt.
So, again, we're going to we need to take that authority now to stop it so that we can figure it out.
But in the meantime, stop the bleeding.
Alderman Lopez.
If I may clarify for Justin, as we do with other committees and departments,
when we know that there's going to be pending legislation that ultimately will be the enabling ordinances to enact policy,
we are also asking in this instance if a commissioner's authority or in this case,
a comptroller's authority letter could be issued suspending collection.
Fe牌 I just want to tell you to fill in a collection.
each investment card,
until this committee comes up with the appropriate language
to permanently remedy the situation.
And I didn't even go to law school.
I would sort of take that as two sides of the same coin,
and I will address them both.
As opposed to the earlier offer that I made
about citing a bunch of cases about statutory construction,
I don't think I will have this done, buddy.
No, no, no, no, no.
But I will get it to you as promptly as possible
because I will need to speak with colleagues in different positions.
Yeah, let's try to figure this out.
Absolutely.
I will look into it and respond to you as soon as I can.
I'm sorry, Chairman.
I just want to also point out this order is not an attempt
at subterfuge of the law.
As we found out today, there's deficiencies in the law
that was provided and worked with the law department to create
that we are now falling in the cracks.
So I think that all of us had the assumption that the spirit of the law
was to address situations like this,
only learning now that the letter of the law was designed against it.
Yeah.
So and we're going to we're going to address this.
We're going to address this and we'll work together.
All of us work together on this because it's not just impacting the 15th board.
And if if we are able to ascertain a letter ending suspension
until it's rectified, then I have no issue holding this.
Yeah.
So we're going to work on that.
And then also we're going to work with Miss Carly to figure this out.
Matter of fact, I envision a Carly Miss Carly ordinance
named after you in order to fix this because this is out of control.
And we're sorry.
We're sorry that you're having to have gone through this process
where bureaucracy has failed and government has failed you.
And we want to make sure we want to we wanted to have this hearing.
We wanted to try to figure this out because you're entitled to that.
And it's a shame that as a as a as a senior resident of the city of Chicago
that you're going through this, you and your family are going through this.
So we're going to fix this.
We're going to we're going to work with law departments to stop the
collection process.
So that way you don't have to worry about this.
And then we're going to come back from a legislative standpoint in order to
fix this, because it's not just impacting you, Miss Carly, but the fact that
you're two hundred and thirty eight thousand dollars for water bill.
It's just mind boggling.
And quite frankly, it's very disturbing.
And there's hundreds of stories out there.
And we would talk about one percent of impact.
We're talking about potentially thousands of people because of the number of
people that we serve.
But I've never seen it at two hundred and thirty eight.
So we're going to fix this.
So with that, we'll work with the law department and we'll get you a response
back.
Yeah.
So we'll work with we'll work with the law department, work with
Alderman Lopez and our colleagues to put forward a solution to this.
Yeah.
So Alderman Lopez, we'll we will work together to figure this out.
Like I said, I see a Carly resolution, our Carly ordinance coming forward to deal
with this finally.
But we'll follow up with the the the authority to stop the collections.
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
Any other questions from members of the committee?
All right.
I do want to acknowledge Alderman Mitchell for purposes of quorum.
So we're going to go ahead and hold this.
Since there's no further business, may have a motion to adjourn by the same roll call vote
that was applied to determine quorum.
Alderman Cardona, so moved.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
OK, so I got you a little bit of technical.
So we're going to make.
I'd like to have a motion to defer this for now.
Alderman Lopez makes a motion to defer this.
Since there's no further business, may have a motion to adjourn by the same roll call vote
as was applied to the term quorum.
Alderman Cardona, so moves.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
The meeting of the committee on economic cabinet technology development is adjourned.
Thank you, everyone.