Good morning. We'll start today with public comment.
As everyone who wishes to make public comment turned in a pink sheet via the sergeant at arms.
Do we have any online participants for the day?
OK. OK. Mr. Mr. Blakemore, please have a seat. Relax.
All right. All right. If you don't, if you keep with these outbursts, sir, sir, if you keep with the outbursts, if you keep with the outbursts, you will be removed.
I'll be very clear with you today. OK, just have a seat then. Have a seat, sir.
All right. Looks like we have over 15 today for public comment over 10.
Actually, we have 20. So what we will do is I'm going to ask the sergeant at arms to take out 15, 15 individuals who then will each have two minutes per person to speak in public comment.
So if you could proceed to remove to take out the names, take 15 names out and we'll go from there.
Okay, our first individual for public speaking will be Bonnie McKeown.
Bonnie McKeown, you have two minutes, followed by Chris Ramos.
Good morning, everybody.
Good morning.
I'm Bonnie McKeown.
I'm a musician and a promoter of West Side Blues.
I live in Austin, and I want to speak about the D.K.'s budget,
not so much about the totals, but the Chicago Blues Festival
and how the performers are chosen.
There's an unfair system in place, whereas music industry professionals
sit on what they call an advisory committee,
and they pick their favorites year after year after year.
My partner, Larry Taylor, is a heritage blues man
who I believe some of you all have heard him play.
He doesn't get much of a chance because the same people every year.
So I would urge D.K.'s to choose a fairer system for choosing the performers.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We have Chris Ramos, followed by Mia Berrios.
Good morning, council members.
My name is Chris Ramos, and I am a community organizer with Access Living,
and I'm speaking today on behalf of our community of people with disabilities in Chicago.
I have two urgent points to raise.
First, regarding the proposed rideshare tax increase.
I urge the city to exempt Wrap and Tap Rides from this tax.
Wrap and Tap Rides is a program for people who qualify for paratransit,
individuals who cannot reliably use fixed-route transit due to accessibility barriers.
Paratransit requires booking a day in advance and is often subject to cancellations,
leaving disabled riders stranded.
Wrap and Tap fills that gap and offers flexibility and spontaneity,
something non-disabled people take for granted.
It is indefensible that Wrap and Tap Rides were not exempted from previous rideshare taxes,
and even more so now, as the city expands what rides will be taxed.
This program serves people with significant mobility disabilities, many of whom are low-income.
Taxing it effectively reduces its benefit by 10% or more.
Let me be clear, disabled people help save transit in Illinois.
We went downstate, we lobbied, and we fought for the bill that passed,
a bill that protects transit funding and jobs.
Legislators cited the need to protect Wrap and Tap, and disabled riders is a key reason for passing it.
Now the city must do its part.
Taxing a government program designed for disabled people is not support.
It's exploitation.
And let's not forget, many Wrap-Tap Rides are needed because of the city's own failure to invest in accessible infrastructure,
broken curb ramps, missing sidewalks, and in winter, unplowed paths.
The city didn't fund its own Plow of the Sidewalks pilot, so disabled people are left to pay the price, literally.
Second, I urge you not to cut staff at Chicago Public Libraries.
Libraries are essential for disabled residents.
They provide access to information, technology, and community.
Cutting staff will disproportionately harm those of us who rely on these spaces for connection and support.
I ask you to protect Chicago Public Libraries.
Thank you for your comments.
Next, we'll have Mia Berrios, followed by Rocio Garcia.
Hi, my name is Mia, and I'm here today because I've been part of the revolutionary green social housing movement
that you all passed earlier in May.
But what we've accomplished is at risk of being torn down because Trump prioritizes billionaires over babies.
Embedded in the foundation of green social housing is permanent affordability, environmental sustainability,
community governance, and quality homes to age in place.
These mixed-income projects are aimed to help ease attention our rent-burdened neighbors' experience.
People of all income levels, not just the wealthy 1%, deserve to live in safe and resilient homes,
built and maintained with union jobs and green infrastructure that protects our environment.
My own sister moved out of Chicago due to the high cost of living, leaving the state of Illinois as a whole.
There was no way she could have afforded a home on her own unless she were to get several roommates
or confine herself to a studio-sized apartment.
She was already living paycheck to paycheck, and the constant stress of prioritizing food,
medical bills, utility payments, or rent wasn't worth it to her anymore.
She loves the city and still considers it her true home,
but the status quo halts her dreams of raising a family of her own here.
Her story is unfortunately not unique. It's all too familiar.
Green social housing can be the force that keeps people like my sister in the city before it's too late.
But that is in jeopardy if city council fails to turn their attention to those who can solve our budget crisis,
the rich and the wealthy.
In order to fund our communities and remove the burden of the budget deficit from working-class Chicagoans,
we must target the ultra-rich and large corporations to close gaps left behind,
instead of focusing on increasing property taxes, garbage fees, or grocery taxes that hurt already struggling families.
If Trump can hand out billion-dollar tax breaks to corporations and chip away at vital funding our communities need,
then we can tax those entities to provide the solutions to our budget crisis.
Progressive revenue isn't just a funding source.
It's the foundation of a just, green, and livable Chicago.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Next, we have Rocio Garcia, followed by Zoe Lee.
Good morning, Alderman.
My name is Rocio Garcia.
I am with the People's Unity Platform and the Grassroots Collaborative.
The People's Unity Platform was created in 22.
We are formed by a group of coalition community organizations, labor unions, and campaigns
that have been fighting for housing, for education, for violence prevention, for youth investments,
for environmental safeties, and for workers' rights and protections.
It is clear, it became clear to us, that in order for us to get the things,
Alderman Lopez, do you care to hear what I'm saying?
Okay.
So Alderman Lopez clearly does not care to hear what people are saying to him.
I am demanding that we invest in our communities by ensuring that we focus on progressive revenue,
that we ensure that we are taxing rich corporations.
This year's budget recognizes the need, it recognizes the historical approaches that communities
have taken to fight and demand on the streets.
We have been talking to people at the doors.
We have been talking to folks on the phones, and many of you Alder people have been receiving
calls from constituents.
That's a result of the work that the People's Unity Platform has been doing across our coalition.
And it's also because people at the doors and on the phones very much want to invest,
to see their communities invested in.
You know, they're telling us on the phones and on the doors that they're living check to check,
that they're struggling, working multiple jobs.
And in the meantime, there are corporations who are getting away by not paying what they owe.
And instead, they continue to develop a way of taking advantage of the amenities that exist in Chicago
without actually being responsible to Chicagoans.
Thank you for your comment.
Next, we'll have Zoe Lee, followed by Julie Dworkin.
I'm so tired of hearing about Trump's tax cuts, which I don't ever bring up Brandon Johnson cuts.
The man has literally taken away, he's trying to take away 100 jobs from public health.
He's trying to, he's trying to eliminate 17 jobs out of procurement services.
Clearly the library too, which at the end of the day, the library, they hit our footage when we were attacked.
So they probably need to be let go.
However, you guys, we're in the city of Chicago.
We're in the state of Illinois.
The deficit is because of the city.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
It has nothing to do with the federal administration.
This is Brandon Johnson.
This is Governor Pritzer.
These are these council members who voted for half of this stuff that we're dealing with.
Like the illegal immigration crisis.
This has nothing to do with this current federal administration.
We need financial audits.
We need a doge.
because they're stealing and you don't know because you're getting paid because you're a
liberal bum so liberal bums are the reason why this city is in debt because y'all are undiagnosed
and we don't have no mental health services for y'all so that's what we know it don't matter it
don't mean that i know it doesn't matter about them because they they're idiots anyway so that's
how that they don't know how the affordable housing is a racket affordable housing is never
going to work and every time you guys come and push it it's messing up our communities that's
why we have nothing but y'all don't know because y'all are delusional and are uneducated and don't
know how this works the system works affordable housing is never going to work because they are
making the thank you for your comment next we'll have julie dworkin followed by samuel beam good
morning i'm julie again so stop stop stop stop stop let's let's let's let's all let's calm down
um you may begin ma'am good morning i'm julie dworkin with institute for the public good
i want to start with a simple message if the federal government is going to cut vital services
to give money to corporations then the way to fight back is to tax corporations to give money
to vital services the proposed budget starts to do this through the community safety surcharge on
corporations over 100 employees and the social media tax on companies with over 100 000 users
these taxes will allow us to protect critical services but we still need more the chicago department
of public health is losing millions of dollars in expiring arpa funds which will hamper our ability
to deliver public health needed services when it comes to housing we're thrilled about the launch
of the green social housing program but we know it's not enough current funding will fund 500 units
in five years a drop in the bucket when there's over 76 000 people in chicago experiencing homelessness
we know we need more so we're asking the city council to start now on the path to getting the
resources we need we need to break the artificial barrier that has been in place since 2014 where the
city council has been unwilling to tax the rich unwilling to enact corporate taxes we need to change
that now we're asking you to support the community safety surcharge at a minimum of 21 and the social
media tax on large social media corporations we can have more we just need to be willing to tax those
who have more thank you thank you for your comment uh next we have samuel beam followed by larissa tyler
good morning uh my name is sam beam i live in the 47th ward and i'm here on behalf of one north side
in support for the community safety surcharge i think in moments like these it's important for us
to take a step back and look at the contours of the problem that we're facing first off as we all
know the current federal administration has gutted funding for social services and given huge tax cuts
to corporations uh secondly uh the reason we're all here today which is the city is facing a billion
dollar deficit um given that uh the taxes in this budget and the community safety surcharge are the
best course of action for meeting the basic human needs of this city um now there are some people
including members of this body who would disagree with me um who would call this tax a job killer
and to all those folks respectfully i would just say i'm not buying it uh i don't think that the data
supports what it is that you're arguing um studies tell us that local taxation is not statistically tied to
job growth likewise when you adjust for the national average the repeal of the original chicago head tax
in 2014 did not lead to any measurable growth now granted there are a myriad of factors that go into
the economy of a city like chicago but i would contend that a really big one is community safety
how many people do you see sleeping out on the streets at night how many employees and employers
feel unsafe on their commute home from work at the end of the day we can count on large corporations
to do the thing that they always do which is act in their own best financial interest it was in big
corporations best interest to lobby against this budget um and to convince members of this body to save
them the inconvenience of 21 a month but it would also be in their best interest to stay in the city
and not alter their hiring practices should this surcharge pass which it should the community safety
surcharge and the other taxes associated with this budget are necessary for the well-being of the
people of chicago not just the very wealthy few because as dire as this moment is it is an opportunity
to invest in the long-term safety affordability sustainability and equity of our city and protect
cpl thank you thank you for your comment next we have larissa tucker followed my uh jimmy rothschild
so larissa tyler thank you i'm sorry no worries tyler my apologies good morning everyone my name is
larissa tyler and i'm the executive director of the west ridge chamber of commerce in west ridge chicago
our chamber works closely with local business owners to strengthen the economic and commercial
health of the west ridge community which spans across the 50th and 40th wards here in chicago the
west ridge chamber of commerce has proudly served as a delegate agency for the city of chicago for over
eight years through bacp's neighborhood business development center program i've had the honor of leading this
work as executive director for the past six years we do important work every day supporting our
commercial corridors and small businesses and i want to take a moment to commend the bacp team
for their efforts this past year the new impact reporting platform they introduced for delicate agencies
has been a game changer what used to be a very time consuming and complicated process is now
streamlined and efficient freeing us to spend more time doing what really matters helping small
business owners thrive in our community programs like these are critical resources for small business
owners across chicago especially now when many are still navigating economic uncertainty and recovery
challenges i want to also highlight the small business roundtables that bacp convened this year
in my six years in this role this was the first time our chamber and our local businesses were
giving such a meaningful platform to share their voices directly with the city the roundtables were
interactive well designed and our businesses truly felt heard especially around concerns like community
safety and navigating city processes we're encouraged that these conversations are leading to a real problem
solving environment and finally i want to thank commissioner ivan thank you for your comment next we have
jimmy rothschild followed by michael harris the truck kings yeah uh good morning council my name is jimmy
rothschild i'm a resident of the 33rd ward and i'm an organizer with the jewish council on urban affairs uh jcu way has been
working for 60 years plus to make sure that everyone in the city has a safe place to call home and an affordable
place to call home housing justice has been the core of our mission the entire time we've been working
for the people of this city uh we most recently have been very proud to be members of the people's unity
platform and to have helped pass green social housing as people have testified already that program
is wonderful and green social housing and other key housing provisions need more investment in this
city you all have the opportunity to provide the funds for that kind of investment by passing and
expanding on the proposed city budget on the corporate taxes that are in that budget
i don't know if any of y'all have friends or relatives who work at a place like google if you've been to
their offices it's buck wild in there y'all uh they have corporate chefs making fancy meals for their
employees they have masseuses in there giving massages to their employees these people who say that they can't
afford uh 21 a month an employee that's the amount of one lunch a day for their employees they're providing
lunch every single day they're providing massages they're providing all all of these things for
their employees what are they what are they providing for us what are they implying providing for the city
of chicago that keeps their lights on that keeps their streets functioning that keeps internet coming to their
house we should ask them to pay a tiny bit more to keep the people of this city housed and keep the people of the city safe thank you very much
thank you for your comments next we'll have michael harris followed by alex golden bird
good morning mr chair members of this body i'm michael k harris jr on behalf of the illinois retail
merchants association and the thousands of retailers grocers and restaurants we represent across the city
i want to raise serious concerns about this about several elements of the 2026 budget while the
administration
describes this as a measure of shared responsibility. In practice, they layer overlapping
financial burdens on the very employers who invest in our communities, create local jobs,
and keep storefronts active. Let's start with the head tax. Rebranding a policy that taxes
job creation doesn't make it any better. $21 per full-time employee for businesses with over
100 workers. That's two or three grocery stores and a couple of restaurants.
Any tax on employment is a dissentive to invest or expand in Chicago. The bank tax is another
example of shifting costs onto retailers and consumers. In 2025, the city raised the tax to
10 cents but cut retailers' share just to 1 cent. Now the proposal eliminates that entirely,
turning businesses into unpaid tax collectors. In regards to ride share, Chicago already collects
$240 million from ride share fees amongst the highest in the country. Increasing fees will
make it harder for residents to afford essential trips to work, grocery stores, pharmacies,
medical appointments, and particularly for those living in transit and food deserts.
The expansion of the PPLT, also known as the cloud tax, penalizes innovation. It targets small
and independent businesses that depend on affordable digital tools to reach customers. Across all these
proposals, a common thing emerges. New taxes that shift costs onto local employees and consumers.
Members of the Chicago City Council, we urge you to reconsider these measures. Look for efficiencies
first. Work collaboratively with IRMA and the business community to identify sustainable,
balanced solutions. Let's move forward together, not by taxing the very people we're trying to keep
the city running. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comment. Next, we'll have Alex Goldenberg, followed by Nick Ayala.
Good morning. My name is Alex Goldenberg. I'm a proud resident of the 22nd Ward and organizer with
United Working Families. I'm standing here today to speak in support of the community safety surcharge
and the Protect Chicago budget. This charge would create safety in our communities. I've heard a lot
of arguments about how it kills jobs. It actually would create jobs. This past summer, we had 31,000 young
people working in the city of Chicago over the summer. What we want is to continue to expand that
and build on that. The community safety surcharge would provide those jobs. So you're telling me that
this tax will cut jobs. It will actually create youth jobs. We would like that number to get up
to 40,000 jobs. We think that every young person in the city should have a job. And the only reason
they shouldn't be working is because they had to say no to 10 different people offering them a job.
That is possible with this city. And this council has a choice to make that happen. You have a choice
to either tax the rich corporations to fund these safety initiatives, these youth job programs,
or make cuts to our services, or tax working families. We don't want that. We want you to
tax the rich corporations. For us, the choice is simple. I'm also standing here today because I have
a six-year-old who goes to a public school in this city that would face massive cuts if you all
don't pass this budget with this TIF surplus. He has a small school. It's called Tepo Cicali.
They would have seven positions cut mid-year if you don't pass this budget. That would be
extremely detrimental to his education. So we're asking you to make the right choice to fund our
schools, to fund safety in our communities. And we hope that you will stand with the people.
The majority of Chicagoans support this. As Rocio mentioned, we have been knocking on doors,
making phone calls, visiting your offices. And the support is resounding. 90% of the people we
talk to who we can get on the phone or answer the door are with us. Your constituents are with you.
We know that you're hearing from corporate lobbyists. We're asking you to hear from us.
Thank you for your comments. Next, we'll have Nick Ayala, followed by Danielle Carter.
Good morning. My name is Nick. I'm a librarian at Harold Washington Library, and I've worked at CPL
for five years. The library has 81 branches throughout the city where kids, teens, adults,
families, community groups, and more come to read, learn, study, borrow books and periodicals,
access the internet, attend programs, and take classes and more. In a day and age where free
public spaces are a rarity, we served more than 5 million visitors last year alone. But year after
year, frontline employees are being asked to do more with less. Staffing is down. Before the pandemic,
CPL had 1,242 staff. As of six months ago, it was 1,142. Just 805 of those are full-time positions.
The rest is part-time. This year's budget actually cuts 50 positions, and the proposed budget for 2026
would cut 89 more. The city has not kept its commitment under a 2019 agreement that restored
Sunday hours so that every branch, all 81, could have Sunday service hours. Management put in writing
that they would add 115 part-time and 62 full-time employees to manage the increased workload.
But instead of getting the staff we need, we've consistently lost them. That leaves our
workforce facing burnout and challenging conditions. Even at Herald, where I work, the crown jewel of the
system, understaffing has direct effects on our patrons. We once had specialized librarians on every
floor. Now we just rotate throughout the building to just try to keep the floors open. And because of
staff shortages around this time last year, patrons at branches were waiting a month or more for books
to be delivered. With adequate staff, books should only take a couple of days to arrive
at the locations in your wards. We need more, not fewer workers. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next, we have a Daniel Carter, followed by a Gordon
Donowski. What they don't understand is we wouldn't have a housing crisis if we would stop housing
illegal aliens and get those houses to American citizens. Also, while Brandon Johnson is going
around lying, talking about Trump is cutting jobs. No, he's doing that very same thing.
So he's going around in our communities with his 150 detail, police details, going to these fake
churches and anybody else who allow him to come in there and lie all while he's cutting jobs
secretly. We know that he's cutting over 100 jobs in the public safety department. And we also know
that he's cutting jobs. Thank you to Mr. Harris, who came up here and voiced concern about his job
being cut in the procurement office. And then we did a little research. And we saw that he wasn't
telling he was telling the truth. They're cutting at least 17 jobs in the procurement office department.
Now, these jobs are important jobs, because these jobs are the ones who do the checks and boundaries
and the ones who hold the people in the procurement office accountable. So those are the jobs that he
seemed to be cutting. And he's getting rid of the whole department in the procurement department with the
they oversee the in audits that the department that does the overseeing audits. So we know we need that
because the audits are to make sure the money is going where they're supposed to go. And the oversee
is just to make sure that on these jobs, they have the proper licensing, and they have the credentials.
So why would you get rid of those jobs? But we know, but we know that he's keeping the jobs
with the, and we looked at it, how is it that you have all these chief procurement?
Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Gordon
Danowski, followed by final speaker, Fernando Centraris.
Mr. Blakemore, could you please keep it down? Otherwise, we want to ask you to leave, sir.
I did say final speaker, the final speaker would be Mr. Fernando Centraris.
I understand you signed up. And again, you saw the gentleman pull all of the people out there 15
people for the 30 minutes of public comment. There were 15 people that were pulled out.
But you unfortunately were not one of them. Sir, that's the end of the conversation. Thank you.
All right. Mr. Blakemore, if you do not, if you continue down this path, I'm going to ask them to
remove you, sir. It's up to them. As long as you sit down and relax, it's not a problem.
You may proceed, sir. Yes, you may proceed.
Good morning. My name is Gordon Danowski, and I am a freelance marketing strategist.
I'm a navigator with Metropolitan Tenant Organization, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Chicago Healthy Homes Coalition,
a group of community organizations, health workers, and housing advocates seeking to create a proactive rental inspection system in Chicago.
We're seeking to have rental inspections of rental properties before there are health issues and can negatively impact tenant health.
As someone who's been a former caregiver for his chronically ill mom, who is also immunocompromised,
I face the challenges of landlords and property owners who couldn't or wouldn't make minor adjustments to the apartment
simply because they could impact her health in a positive way.
And calling for inspections is challenging.
34% of all large properties are owned by LLCs.
Tracking builder ownership is vital to drive healthy homes, and a rental registry is vital for ensuring health and welfare.
The city currently has access to a bare-bones registry through the mayor's office,
and we're thankful for the work that the mayor has done to get this registry off the ground.
But we need ongoing maintenance and regulation, and the registry belongs to the Department of Housing.
Sharing this information between housing, buildings, and Department of Health is critical to ensure adequate inspection and follow-up.
As a result, we're asking the city council to add $500,000 to the Department of Housing's budget to hire staff to grow
and maintain the city's current rudimentary rental registry.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Our final speaker is Fernando Contreras.
Mr. Contreras, you may proceed.
Hello, I'm Fernando Contreras.
I'm an hourly library clerk at the Portage Cragen Branch on the northwest side.
Our budget is already stretched thin.
As a result, library staff face a cacophony of demands from different directions.
Patrons on the library floor, others at circulation desk, all needing attention.
Yet, as you've heard from my coworkers earlier, we continually find ourselves with less and less to provide.
Less of our time because we're understaffed, fewer resources because we don't have the books and other materials they need,
and less digital access because we don't have enough equipment for everyone.
We need to do better and we can do better, but it requires the alders that were elected to improve people's lives to do better.
We need alders to not just say they support libraries, but to stand up and vote for the revenue needed to fund us,
along with all the other services the city provides.
Now more than ever, we can't continue to accept cuts to the programs and services our residents rely on.
I can't tell you how many people have come to my branch to print out their immigration forms or materials for work.
We're the only accessible location and resource that's able to give them this for free in multiple languages
and in connection to other free programs that help them improve their lives.
To give city residents the support they need, city services need to be adequately funded.
This budget proposal has many good ideas to raise revenue.
There are other ideas available as well.
If there are revenue proposals in this budget that alders don't support, they should say what they do support instead.
You can't cut your way to better libraries.
You have to invest in us.
That means voting for the revenue required.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Blakemore, that's number two.
Mr. Blakemore.
That is number two.
That's number two.
Again, if you continue down this path, we will have you removed, sir.
I got no problem with that.
Okay.
All right.
Are you ready to go?
Could you remove the gentleman, please?
The committee will stand and recess while it occurs.
Let's hear it.
centres in this untuk minute control.
see into those on board.
Bye.
Bye.
Good morning. We will begin with the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection.
We'll have a brief overview from Council Office of Financial Analysis, followed by an opening statement from Commissioner Capfali,
plus his introduction of the members that are with him in the well, as well as those that are in the box.
Director Oda Gray, you may proceed.
Chairman Irvin, Vice Chairman Lee, all other persons and guests.
Good morning. My name is Janice Oda Gray, Chief Administrative Officer for the City Council Office of Financial Analysis.
A brief overview for the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, BACP.
The proposed FY2026 budget for BACP totals $36.19 million, representing a decrease of $13.65 million from FY25.
BACP is 62.56% corporate fund-supported, with the remainder primarily from local funds and grants.
Spending overview, personnel services, $20.66 million, non-personnel, $15.53 million, total FTEs, 213 FTEs budgeted,
an increase of one FTE over FY25.
Looking at appropriations, the personnel services represents the largest share of spending,
followed by $8.3 million in the wheelchair-accessible vehicle fund, under the purposes of the specified $9,100 account.
Funding sources, all local funding categories increased in FY26.
However, grant funding tied to pandemic relief programs declined as one-time federal support phases out.
Looking at historical appropriations, BACP's budget peaked during the pandemic years of 2022 through 2024 due to supplemental federal funding.
The FY26 recommendation reflects a 27% decline from FY25, largely due to the reduction of ARPA-related funding.
FTE staffing, BACP staffing levels have remained constant since 2023, with a modest increase of one FTE in FY2026.
This concludes my report for the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection.
Thank you, Director.
Commissioner?
Good morning, Chairman Jason Irving, Vice Chair Nicole Lee, and esteemed members of the Chicago City Council.
I am Ivan Capifali, the Commissioner for the Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, also known as BACP.
I am joined by members of my team.
Next to me, Christopher Jessup, Assistant Commissioner of Intergovernmental Affairs.
To his right, First Deputy Commissioner Tiffany Brooks.
To her right, Local Liquor Control Commissioner Shannon Trotter.
And in the box, Miguel Campos, Director of Office of Labor Standards.
Lothika Pai, Managing Deputy Commissioner and Chief Small Business Officer.
A.J. Lee, Deputy Commissioner of Small Business Center and Licensing.
Ruble Bapat, Deputy Commissioner of Public Vehicle Licensing.
Dennis Guillermo, Deputy Commissioner of Business Compliance and Enforcement.
Elisa Sledzinska, Deputy Commissioner of Communications and Outreach.
Gerald Dawson, General Counsel and Deputy Commissioner of Prosecutions and Adjudication.
And Shama Gopin, Policy Analyst.
And James Harris, Assistant Commissioner for Small Business Advocacy.
First, I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to Mayor Brandon Johnson for his leadership and steadfast support throughout this budget process.
I also extend my appreciation to each of you for your support.
continued collaboration and commitment to our shared goals.
I would like to highlight the Department's achievements over the past year
and to continue our vision for a fair and thriving economic environment
for Chicago businesses, workers, and consumers.
This year, the Department continued to make significant strides
in streamlining operations and reducing costs without compromising quality.
Through city initiatives like Cut the Tape,
we help new and existing businesses save time and resources,
enabling them to grow and create jobs.
These enhancements have led BACP to issue nearly 5,300 new licenses in 2025,
helping new businesses get their start in Chicago.
Also, we have invested in our staff through cross-training
to build a more versatile team.
The result of our efficiencies is a department that continues to deliver
high-quality service while keeping the administrative costs flat.
Our second focus is to continue expanding programs and services
that directly benefit the public.
Under the BACP Neighborhood Business Development Center's programs,
65 local business service organizations help entrepreneurs and business owners
at no cost to start, grow, or sustain their small businesses
in every ward of Chicago.
Since January, our program's grantees have provided over 7,000 hours
of business consultations, consultation services to small business owners.
This year, we wrapped up our Small Business Storefront Activation Program,
part of our economic recovery programming,
by successfully supporting 287 small businesses
and activating over 50 storefronts or art installations
with the help of 31 community-based organizations.
Additionally, since January, BACP has hosted over 90 webinars,
reaching over more than 10,000 attendees.
And we also hosted three Chicago Small Business Expos
that reached over 2,000 attendees.
Notably, we partnered with Chicago Public Schools
for the second Chicago Youth Business Expo,
engaging over 170 juniors and seniors.
Also, BACP expanded the BACP Entrepreneur Certificate Program
by partnering with City Colleges of Chicago.
Now, those who complete our programs are eligible for credit,
for prior learning, as they began their journey
in the business world.
This reinforces our commitment not only to current small businesses,
but also future business leaders.
The same commitment that drives our support for business owners
also guides our approach to workforce protection.
Through engagement and enforcement of labor laws,
the Office of Labor Standards, also known as OLS,
enables Chicagoans to secure stable employment,
build wealth, and tackle economic disparities.
From January 2024, OLS has secured over 750,000 in restitution
and over 7,700 hours of paid time off
for more than 2,200 workers.
Since January 2025, BACP, talking about our enforcement,
our third priority being community safety,
which means protecting residents from fraudulent business practices.
And since January 2025, we have issued over 10,000 citations
to more than 2,000 businesses and public vehicle operators,
including over 800 unlicensed operations.
Additionally, BACP conducted over 2,400 proactive investigations,
providing non-disciplinary consultations
to help businesses maintain compliance.
We work very closely with the Department of Law
to revise the procedural rules
at the Mayor's License Discipline Commission
to decrease the amount of time it takes
to hold businesses that violate the law accountable,
and we're seeing a lot of progress there, too.
While we are here today to focus on the city's budget,
I feel compelled to address the current concerns
among the small business community.
BACP recognizes the uncertainty regarding deportation
and how it continues to affect many workers
and business owners in our city.
In response, BACP has strengthened collaboration
with the Mayor's Office,
Office of Immigrant, Migrant, and Refugee Rights,
and the Committee on Immigrant, Migrant, and Refugee Rights,
and community organizations
to ensure that all workers and business owners,
regardless of immigration status,
have access to accurate information
and safe channels for assistance.
Through efficient operations,
we strengthen our programs,
and we are very vigilant.
We're providing oversight,
and we are ensuring that our local economy
remains both competitive and compassionate.
With your support,
we will continue to protect investments
and maintain programs and services
for all Chicago businesses, workers, and consumers.
I want to thank all of you,
the Chicago City Council, for your time,
and ongoing partnership.
My team and I are happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Thank you, Commissioner.
We will, first off,
want to recognize Alderman Joe Moore,
who's joined us,
former Alderman,
as well as former Alderman Roderick Sawyer.
Welcome again.
I don't know why you all are here.
I thought you had enough of this.
But be, yeah, all right,
be that as it may.
We're going to open the session
with the Chair of the Committee on License,
Chair Deborah Silverstein,
followed by Alderman Beal.
Thank you, Chairman.
Commissioner, how are you?
Good morning, Chair.
How are you?
Good.
I want to first start by asking you
how many positions BACP is going to be losing
in the current budget recommendation.
We have 207 budgeted positions for 26.
And are any vacancies being eliminated?
No vacancies are eliminated.
We're actually gaining five positions this year
that are going to be assigned
to our Hospitality Bureau
directly into the licensing
of hospitality and entertainment.
Okay.
I can name those positions if you like.
Yes, please.
Two business consultants,
one administrative assistant,
and a supervising business consultant.
So you will have no vacancies left?
That will leave me with about 17 vacancies.
Okay.
How many full-time BACP personnel
are currently assigned to product inspection,
licensing, and enforcement?
That team is our largest bureau.
We have 65 people assigned to that bureau.
Okay.
I'm going to ask a couple of questions,
and the number of inspectors is important.
Sure.
Because I'm going to ask a few questions about hemp.
No problem.
Okay.
First of all,
many of us are concerned about that.
And if you could please give a brief summary first
of the ordinance
and clarify what BACP's role will be.
And I do have some other questions,
so if you could just kind of do that briefly.
Not a problem,
if you allow me briefly
to look up that chapter in my book.
Okay.
So just to give a quick background,
good morning, everyone.
Just to give a quick background,
as we know,
in 2018,
the federal farm bill
excluded hemp
from being a controlled substance.
While no longer federally illegal,
they lacked regulation.
So Illinois established,
as we all know,
in 2019,
Illinois established a licensing
and quality control program
that legalized cannabis.
But hemp products
were not included.
Hemp products are defined
of,
you know,
having 0.3%
Delta-8 THC
that were excluded
from that law.
Since neither the state
or the feds' authorities
regulated this product,
municipalities could impose regulations
to protect residents.
The proposed ordinance
that we're proposing
for 2026
establishes a local
regulatory framework
for cannabis consumption businesses,
hemp retail businesses,
and hemp consumption businesses.
Specifically,
it aims to protect
public health and safety
with imposing
an age restriction
of 21
for employment
and for purchasing.
It requires
warning signs,
labeling standards,
and bans on products
that are mimicking
candy or snacks
appealing to minors.
It will regulate
on-premise consumption
by establishing
a licensing process
for cannabis
and hemp lounges,
including operational requirements
such as security,
insurance,
hours of operation,
and health warnings
issued by CDPH.
It will also require
record-keeping
so that we know
where their inventory
is coming from.
It will control location
by restricting
hemp and cannabis
consumption establishments
from locating
near schools
and child care facilities,
establishing clear zoning
classifications
for hemp dealers,
and setting distance requirements
to reduce
neighborhood conflicts.
It will create
a licensing structure
that requires
hemp retailers
and consumption businesses
to obtain
city-issued licenses
with strict eligibility standards,
including automatic review,
community input,
and police input.
It will strengthen
enforcement tools
by granting
BACP, CPD,
and CDPH
authority to inspect
issue fines,
confiscate illegal products,
test,
and revoke licenses
for repeat violations.
We're anchored
implementing something that we have in the tobacco world is three violations in 24 months
can and shall result in license revocation. We have done some revenue projections. It is estimated
that this will collect between $25.7 and $35.4 million per year. In addition to that,
we have a licensing revenue of close to $3 million.
The implementation will take about six months between January 1st and July 1st. We're hoping
to hit the ground running by July 1st. During January 1st and July, we're going to be conducting
robust education, compliance education to all businesses in Chicago in many forms, webinars,
on-site visits, one-on-one. We'll have a lot of opportunity to educate our businesses
on this new law. Thank you for that. Are you going to have enough inspectors going out to these
locations? So we did not lose any vacancies or any positions in our investigation team. We have about
48 investigators. We have 25 that are assigned to our day shift, and we have about 13 with some in
the hopper right now going through interviews. We'll probably have about 16 by the time this rolls out.
Between 48 and 49 investigations, these products are going to be sold at locations that we are
already serving. So these businesses are already in our queue for inspection. So it will not be any
additional work for us. It will be businesses that we're already investigating or responding to complaints
to.
Well, how often are you going to be inspecting this?
As often as necessary. So this is going to be complaint-based. I mean, it will require pre-licensing
visit. It will be complaint-based. We'll be responding to any complaints from you, from the community,
from the CPD. So as much as is necessary.
So it's really only complaint-based. It is not a regular inspection. I mean, this is potentially a
very dangerous product.
Sure. So the only regular inspections that we have are under our tobacco sales to minor agreement with
the state where we have to test their licensing practice, their selling practices twice a year.
So that's the only license or investigation that we actually have set. Everything else is on our
complaint-based, follow-ups, complaints from you, complaints from the community, complaints from
the other departments.
And do you have the authority to remove the unsafe products?
Under this ordinance, yes. It will give us, again, on a complaint basis, if we get a complaint,
whether it is an adverse reaction to a product or allegations that it's not hemp, it's something
else, we can, under this ordinance, we have the authority to remove that from the shelves,
the Center for Testing, at a state-approved cannabis lab.
And that would be the same for items that are targeting children?
So this ordinance actually implements a 21 and under 21 restriction. No items will be sold to children.
I understand that, but I've seen like Captain Crunch packages.
Oh, no, this is all going away with this. So this is, part of the ordinance is to restrict,
and I'm reading from my book, it will protect public health and safety with aid restriction
and warning signs, labeling standards, and bans on products mimicking candy or snacks appealing
to minors. So all of that is going to go away.
Yes. And as you know, many of you know here, our enforcement team is very well known for it to be strong
and robust. So they will be responding to these complaints.
Yeah. On a personal note, I find this to be a very slippery slope. This is not regulated. And if
a child were to be harmed by having access to this, and God forbid killed, this is going to be a very
bad reflection on the city.
And I think this is the best thing that we're proposing right now. It is, I mean, the status quo is
unacceptable. We cannot continue to allow this to be out everywhere without an age restriction,
continue to mimic, you know, cartoons and be appealing for kids. We have worked, spent a lot
of time drafting this ordinance, working with many departments, Department of Law, CDPH, among
ourselves, having many discussions on this. And this is, what we're proposing is very solid,
very strong. But we cannot continue to have it out there. And, you know, of course, there is also
the revenue component of it. We've done the cost analysis, and the revenue that this is going to
generate is going to, you know, pay for our enforcement and our licensing process.
Well, no, can I just add one more question?
Go ahead.
Okay. I just want to say a life is more important than any revenue. That's number one. And I just
wanted to ask one final question. Total change of subject. With the current climate now in our world
and in our city, and especially with the immigrant owned and minority owned businesses, I know I have a
lot of small businesses in my ward, and employees are not coming to work, and people are not
frequencing the stores. And I'm just wondering if BACP is loosening the restrictions on any of these
licenses or doing anything to assist these small businesses so that they can remain open and
successful.
Support small businesses is what we do. We're constantly, we're very versatile when it comes to
this. We keep an eye. We're very well aware of everything that's happening around us. We work
closely with the chambers of commerce to promote programs, to promote businesses. We just launched
a new shop local neighborhood series campaign that's specific to neighborhoods. It's building up on our
yearly shop local campaign, but it's going to be specific to neighborhoods. So we're constantly
promoting everything that our small business community does. We're seeing great numbers. Our licenses
continue to stay steady at between 55,000 and 60,000. We have issued over 5,300 business licenses
this year. We are at an average of 530 licenses per month. The economy in Chicago looks very good,
and we are proud to continue to have these relationships at the community level with the
chambers of commerce and all business service organizations promoting from within.
Yeah. I'm just worried because, you know, on Devon Avenue, it's like a ghost town, and I'm sure
it's that way.
And we have many tools for that. I mean, we understand that businesses are hurting. On our compliance world,
we have our compliance education program that is assisting businesses to stay in compliance so that
they don't get into fines, put that money back on their business instead of paying high fines and
no. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. I just want to say a quick thank you to everyone. I'm not going
to mention everybody's names, but you have been wonderful. Your team has been wonderful. You always
get back to us and help us and assist us, and I just want to say I greatly appreciate it. So thank
you. No problem. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Next, Alderman Bill for the Alderman Harris.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning, Alderman.
That's a big right hand. I think it's a little troubling that we had the Commissioner of Health say
that hemp products harm people, but then you guys are looking to regulate it and legalize it in the
name of revenue. Can you help me understand, if it harms people, why are we looking to roll this thing
out? I think there is an assumption that all hemp harms people. We're not certain of that.
If we're not certain, then why even jump into it? So that's why this ordinance includes a testing
component, where if there is a complaint based on an adverse reaction or a harmful reaction to a
citizen, we can pull that product from the shelves, send it for testing, and find out whether that
person got sick on that product or something else. I don't think it makes sense to even open it up
until we know exactly, number one, if it's safe, number two, what the state is going to do, because
the state is looking to ban it across the entire state. I think we are at a position right now that
waiting, the status quo is unacceptable. Alderman, this product is being sold everywhere in the city.
Why not ban it? Bans don't work if it's not federally illegal or state illegal, and this is
federally and state legal. Ban is going to create a black market that is going to be impossible for
our team, CPD, everybody else that's involved in here to enforce. The status quo is not acceptable.
Banning this all across the city will create a lot of work for our team. It's not 100% that we're going
to be able to get it off.
We won't know where it is, number one.
We're going to be chasing it all over the city.
It's going to put a lot of burden on our staff, and we know that bans don't work.
It will continue to be sold in the black market, in the alley, somewhere else.
Now, what we're proposing, we can control it.
We'll control where it goes.
We'll control how much you can sell.
You can control how much is in it, and that's the best way to do it.
We can't wait for the state to do something.
I mean, they are a very busy organization or political.
Well, I mean, I can use that same argument on the fact that we have 3,000 illegal gaming machines in the city,
but we don't want to legalize video gaming.
So help me.
The same argument that you just gave is a reason that we need to legalize gaming.
The only thing that I ask from you and your team is let's have a sit down.
Let's discuss this.
Let's have a one-on-one.
Let's look at everything that's on the books.
You have presented in previous hearings, and let's plan it out.
We've spent over a year working on this HEMP ordinance with many members of this body, with other departments.
We want to do the same with what you're proposing.
We just, you know, let's have a conversation.
We're open to that.
Well, meanwhile.
I'm very accessible.
Meanwhile, I mean, you know, and like I said, I mean, you know, you and your people are great.
I appreciate you to say that, and I mean that sincerely.
But if we know that we have 3,000 illegal machines in the city and we're not doing anything to shut those down,
I mean, why are we not aggressively shutting those down across the city?
We are responding to those complaints, and we work very closely with CPD.
But I would like to see – I would like to have a sit down with you and just do an x-ray.
But if we have 3,000 of them, why do we need to sit down other than, you know, work with the police and say,
shut these places down?
Yeah.
If the police are all – they're everywhere.
If they see them, they call your department.
You all go in and shut them down.
Alderman, I just – one thing.
You speak – you say illegal machines.
Can you go a little deeper into what you're speaking of?
The –
The VGTs.
VGTs.
Yes.
The VGTs versus the –
The sweepstake.
Sweepstake machines.
The sweepstake – so you're speaking specifically to sweepstake machines.
I'm speaking of both.
The sweepstake machines are illegal.
It's 3,000 illegal sweepstake machines in the city of Chicago, and we are looking to try to legalize VGTs.
So what's illegal is the illegal gambling, and there are allegations that these sweepstake machines are paying out cash,
and that makes it illegal gambling.
So we're working – as we try to figure this world out – I mean, it's been an issue for a while.
Let's have a conversation.
We really want to look at this with you.
So I would like to start that conversation right away.
You know, I'm very accessible.
Let's put everything on the books, and let's talk about this.
Before you move on, the clarity of the sweepstake machines in and of themselves are not illegal.
It is the fact that they – if they do pay out cash, that's what then makes them illegal.
You're correct, you're correct.
Sweepstake machines usually pay out on tickets that you can then cash in the business in the form of discounts or in the form of a stuffed doll or something like that.
Say – think of it as a Chuck E. Cheese or something, you know, Little Caesars, where kids can, you know, get those coupons, and then they go and they cash it out for a price.
Okay.
It's when they start paying cash that they're illegal.
But as long as they do not pay cash, they are legal.
If they are – you have to go – also, you have to get the tax emblem.
You have to, you know, go through the city clerk to get the tax emblem, and yes.
So, back to Alderman Bill's question, a sweepstake machine that is – doesn't have a city amusement license or tax, whatever, is technically an illegal machine.
I am going to actually tag our liquor commissioner, Shannon Trotter, to build on that a little bit.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Shannon Trotter, local liquor control commissioner.
For the sweepstakes machines, we do require them to have tax emblems.
If our investigators find them without tax emblems, we do actively issue citations.
Vice Control actively also does undercover gambling investigations, where if there is an illegal payout, then we do prosecute those cases, oftentimes requiring the removal of the machines.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Go ahead, Alderman.
I just want some clarity on this sweepstakes.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So, based on your budget, your budget is decreasing $13.6 million?
Yeah.
Yeah, about 12.5%.
Okay.
There's a lot of ARPA grants that are losing.
Yeah.
Okay.
And ending in 2016.
You're not having any layoffs, losing those funds?
We are going to lose two positions that are ARPA positions right now, that are going to go at the end of 2016.
So, you're losing $12 million, and you're only losing two positions?
How do you justify that?
Lothika, can you confirm that?
Good morning.
Lothika Pai, managing deputy commissioner with BACP.
So, right now…
Speak up, please.
Speak into the mic.
Lothika Pai, managing deputy commissioner.
We only have three ARPA positions.
We have lost five.
So, the three positions will expire end of 2026.
We are wrapping up our programs, and also they're supporting all the food equity initiatives for the city of Chicago.
And we have one, just one outstanding ARPA program, which is the South Lawndale storefront activation, for which the RFP closed last week, and the program ends end of 2026.
Okay.
Well, if you're not losing that many people, what were you spending $12 million on?
This are…
Yeah.
She'll give you a breakdown of the ARPA funds that we…
This is not corporate money.
This is ARPA funds.
Oh, I get it.
So, we actually executed on economic relief initiatives about $13.7 million of programming.
So, last year, we had two rounds of storefront activation initiatives.
One was for around $2.7 million, and the other one was for $1.89 million.
We also completed the Small Business Capacity Building Initiative, which was…
That one was canceled.
And then we did one not-for-profit capacity building initiative.
The Good Food Fund grant, Altamambil, if you remember, that was grants that were given out to food-based businesses across Chicago.
That was also part of our ARPA initiative.
We had the Early Stage Incubator Initiative that funded incubators that supported food ecosystems across the city of Chicago that we've seen tremendous success with.
And then, finally, we have the Community Crewers Initiative, which is actually CDBG-funded, but is being run by the ARPA team.
Okay.
So, basically, you guys used ARPA money to create programs, again, to, I guess, food insecurities.
It was food insecurity.
It was vacant storefronts, commercial corridor reactivations.
We also had small business and not-for-profit support initiatives.
Okay.
How much of that food insecurity went towards working with the other departments for the migrant mission?
So, we did collaborate with other departments on it, and we also collaborated with the Food Equity Council,
which helped actually design the program in conjunction with community organizations across Chicago.
So, this was not just – BACB executed the program, but we did have a lot of community input into the design of the program.
Other departments created programs that were coordinated that are probably not reflected in our bottom line as far as how much we spent on migrants,
because this is under you guys' line item and not the budget line item when we say what the bottom line is that we've totally spent on migrants.
So, that's good.
I'm good with that.
I'm good with that.
Okay.
So, let's talk about gas stations.
Sure.
I've only got two more minutes.
You know, I wrote an ordinance years ago.
Basically, I think it's a $1,000 fine if the pumps don't have tape, receipt tape.
I don't think you can go to any gas station in the city of Chicago, especially on the south side, where they keep receipt paper in the machines.
Why?
Because they want you to come in and buy the little knick-knacks that they got on the wall, on the counter, and they want to nickel and dime you, instead of letting you get your gas, pay, and go your way.
Okay?
So, that's low-hanging fruit.
I mean, each machine is $1,000.
So, why are we not banging away at these gas stations that are just creating havoc on our communities, and they don't do anything to help our communities?
Why are we not going after them aggressively to, you know, at least do the minimum, put tape in their machines?
We are.
I mean, we are.
Gas stations, I mean, we have a weights and measures team that's assigned to our business compliance team that's checking gas stations all the time.
They're checking their pumps.
They're checking the nozzle.
The Department of Health also has an environmental team that checks gas stations.
They check the underground storage tank system.
So gas stations are very well regulated.
If you have a specific location, I'd like to take a look at that.
Yeah, I got several locations.
I mean, gas stations are called all of them.
It's called all of them.
It's not a problem.
I will make sure that.
This is a huge problem.
Sure.
Okay?
And I understand, I mean, this is just something that should just be, you know, you guys go
out, regularly check their machines to see if they got tape in them.
I know you guys go out based on complaints.
Usually when we call you guys, you go out and do a thorough job.
Okay?
But those store owners know for a fact that you all are not coming around unless somebody
called and complained.
But if you guys constantly just made those stop visits, you know, your people drive past,
hey, let's stop into this one, or let's stop into that one.
And if you check, there's no reason.
If they get hit with $5,000, $6,000, $10,000 for their machines for not having tape, I guarantee
you they're going to put that $2 roll of tape in that machine versus having to pay out $10,000.
I appreciate that.
The gas stations also, their pumps go through a certification process.
So we're there every year because we certify the pumps.
If you look at the pump, there's a sticker that says BACP.
So they have to go through a certification process yearly.
I will make sure that our team is looking for that.
We rely on you guys.
We, you know, we, in our department, the ultimate, we rely on you guys.
And when you guys go out, you do a thorough, you do a great job.
But I think we just need to do a better job on making sure that we send a message because
these store owners don't give two hoots about our community.
Oh, no problem.
They don't care nothing about the well-being of, you know, what their store looks like,
what their landscaping looks like, what their employees look like.
They don't care any of those things, man.
So we need your help in a larger way.
So I need you guys to step up to the plate and work with us on a large level.
So thank you, Mr.
Not a problem, Alderman.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alderman Moore, you had a point during his conversation.
Yeah, because I wasn't trying to make it a question, but so I wouldn't just have to beat
up on that situation when I got to it, because it was what you were trying to get at, Chairman,
with the machines, the sweepstakes machines.
And to your point, you said some don't have a license or a sticker on them, but you would
give them a fine.
Why can't we just remove those?
Well, Alderman, again, I think it goes back to the notion that the machines themselves
are not illegal.
It's the use of them for gambling that's illegal.
I'm not talking about when they switching out money.
I think that's what the chairman was getting at.
That'd be hard to proof out.
I was talking about if they're not licensed and you said fine them, why can't those be removed
immediately?
I don't believe that we have confiscation authority for lack of tax emblems.
That would result in any type of automatic amusement device where you're a jukebox, a pool table,
a Pac-Man machine that didn't have a tax emblem possibly needing to be confiscated.
Yeah.
And Alderman, that's why I wanted, when Alderman Beal was talking about this, if there's an
opportunity to discuss this, everything that comes with licensing, confiscation, all of
that needs to be discussed.
Well, through the chair, can you all provide us with a, I guess, a listing as to what constitutes
the legality and or illegality of these machines and what powers the department has to regulate
the machines as it exists today and potentially any recommendations that you guys may have
going forward dealing with those?
No problem, Chair.
All right.
Alderman Harris, followed by Alderman Quinn.
Good morning.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, Department.
Most of my questions have been answered.
I'm still a little concerned about the hemp process.
And could you walk me through, when you say it's going to be regulated, how are we going
to do regulation on hemp products and where are we getting the additional time and bodies
to kind of do the regulation on the hemp products?
You want me to go through the overview again?
Okay, so what we're proposing is to protect public health and safety, implement an age
restriction of 21 plus for employment and for purchasing.
It also comes with warning signs, labeling standards, and bans on products that may make candy or
snacks that appeal to minors.
Fruity Pebbles, Flintstone, things like that, you know.
Okay, so stop me.
I'm going to stop you right here.
So say for some reason we decide to pass this and we move forward.
Tell me about how across the city with the number of gas stations and little bit small
little potato chip stores and small stores that sell all these hemp products, what's the plan
citywide, how to map it out where we're rolling out a program that works for everybody
on the south and the west sides, where it's just everywhere.
This ordinance is going to give us six months to prepare.
So starting in January 1st, all the way to July, where we're proposing to start licensing
businesses.
We're going to have a very strong education component.
We will work with all of our partners, business service organizations, our outreach and education
team, our investigators, our better business team to make sure that everybody understands
what's coming.
It's going to be a very strong compliance education initiative before we roll it out in
July 1st with the license.
So it'll be a rollout July 1st?
Yes.
Tell me more about the part of this where we're saying how much product should be in it, because
to me, if we can't regulate, if we can't ban it and make it work, how can we then regulate
a product that isn't regulated by the feds or the state of Illinois?
Well, because it's not regulated by the state of the feds, it gives us the opportunity to
regulate it.
And to talk about what's in it, the ordinance is very, very clear.
No license shall sell, offer for sale, barter or expose for sale any cannabinoid hemp products
that contains for hemp flour.
So this is going to be, it's being sold in many ways, in a flour form, in edibles and drinks.
For hemp flour, no more than 12 grams in a single package.
For inhalable cartridges or concentrates, no more than 2 grams in a single package.
And we can send you that, this through the chair, too.
For any hemp-containing beverage, this is the cans, more than 10 milligrams of THC per
12 fluid ounces of liquid.
And that would include water products, too?
Anything that is liquid is in a can.
But it's mostly flavor, you know, flavor cans.
And for all other cannabinoid hemp products, more than 10 milligrams of Delta-9 THC or 20
milligrams of cannabinoids in a single serving.
And more than 100 milligrams of Delta-9 or 200 milligrams of cannabinoid in a single package.
It's a little bit of math in there.
Okay, so if we, if the state regulated and sold cannabis license for an outrageous amount,
and now we're going to legalize a product and don't attach a license to it.
So I'm a little concerned about us legalizing it by putting a fee on it while cannabis went
through this huge, and it's like, I feel like we're going around a process to get to an end.
And so I'm concerned about the fact that we don't have a licensing product attached to this, a licensing fee for this.
There is a license fee for this, other woman.
This will create three licenses.
It will create a retail hemp license at $1,750 for one year, a hemp consumption license at $2,200 for a year,
and a cannabis consumption license at $2,200 for one year.
So dispensaries, cannabis dispensaries that are not regulated by the city.
We don't, we don't license cannabis dispensaries.
We don't.
We will license hemp.
We don't license cannabis dispensaries.
So cannabis dispensaries will now have an opportunity to apply for a consumption license,
and they will be able to responsibly allow their customers to indulge at the location.
And there are some restrictions to that.
All right.
So could you, through the chair, get me all that information and writing so that I can have an opportunity
to read it and understand exactly what we're doing?
So one, we're licensing, and we're taxing the product.
Yes, we're taxing the working with finance, a $2 per unit, and then the licensing fee.
And, of course, any fines.
that come out of the enforcement team.
So what are the fines and fees associated with noncompliance?
I mean, Shannon, do you have that?
The fines are up to $10,000.
There's also a...
$10,000 a day, a month.
It would be per violation.
It's a fine range.
Yes.
It's a fine range.
And then there also is a three-strike similar to what you may know from tobacco.
So if there are three violations within 24 months, then the hemp license is to be revoked.
Oh, okay.
So hemp license revoked, does that mean we get a closure of a store at the same time,
or we're just going to revoke the hemp license and let the bed act to keep the store running?
It would depend on what other licenses they may have.
So those other licenses could be under the municipal code.
We have the authority to revoke any license for a violation of state, city, or federal law.
That is in Title IV.
So that always stands.
Specifically, this has three-strike provisions that require the revocation of a hemp license
if there are any of those violations specific to hemp.
Okay.
So I just think that we allow bad actors just to continue to be bad actors.
So if they're bad actors, before they get it, they get the hemp blankets, they continue to be bad actors,
then we give them a license and say, oh, we're going to slap you on the wrist.
You can stay here.
You can continue to stay open.
Even though you don't know bad about the rules, we should tie all those licenses together and shut a store down.
It's absolutely possible, Alderman.
Thank you.
And just for clarification on where these shops can go, the ordinance has a robust licensing structure.
It's mostly derived from the liquor and the tobacco ordinances, and it does have strict zoning provisions for –
and it makes a distinction between hemp accessory and hemp dispensaries.
So you won't see what, you know, the tobacco shops or the hemp shops that only are selling hemp products popping up.
They will be subject to the same restrictions as cannabis has.
And the application process also provides for aldermanic inputs, commander inputs, and community inputs.
There is a 35-day provision.
There is the ability to impose plans of operation.
So there are a lot of, you know –
So hemp dispensaries can go in C-zones just like cannabis and –
Subject to a special use.
Okay.
They would be subject to the same provisions as cannabis, which require special use.
I think we need a public hearing so that we can really be educated on the whole ordinance and get all the information.
But having said that, I need more – you all send it through the chair so I can read through it.
But I do want to thank everybody in the department who works wonderfully with the 8th Ward.
There's not a time when I pick up the phone that I don't get a response.
I still think that there are some areas, and Ivan knows it, that I think we need to work on to – especially when you have, like, illegal street vendors who don't follow any kind of health code.
And Ivan kind of knows what I'm talking about and how frustrating it is to be able to cite them but not be able to physically remove them from the street.
So to – where it just creates a huge problem for me and the community not to be able to confiscate.
Again, bad actors who come out selling food products with no running water, no – no – nothing, no truck where you can go wash your hands.
So – but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you – again, thank you, everybody, who's been just, like, cool to work with.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a quick follow-up.
Is there anything that prohibits the city from charging a licensing fee for a cannabis shot?
We were preempted at the – right?
Yes, there is.
We are not allowed to regulate dispensaries under the Cannabis Act, the state statute.
We only have the capacity to license for consumption, which is what we're proposing in the ordinance.
And if the dispensary is selling retail shirts, mugs, things like that, they have to get a retail – limited business license for retail sales.
So – so we do have some involvement only on the – to the extent that they are selling something outside of the cannabis.
Correct.
And that's – most of them do that, I'm assuming, because they're selling pipes.
They're selling other ancillary items to go with it.
For pipes and things that are used for smoking, they need a tobacco license.
So I'm talking about shirts, mugs, or branded items.
And based upon what Chair Harris talked about, does the three strikes rule make the location dry for the one-year period, similar to a revoked liquor license?
The revocation – and actually, can you confirm that, Gerald, or Shannon, if there is a revocation?
I – I'm searching the ordinance, but I don't believe it imposes a ban on the location.
It will – it will stop the selling of the product.
However – and I think this is something that we continue to see.
We see Tom's LLC today, we kick him out, and then Johnny's LLC show up tomorrow, and he started from scratch.
So it seems like we have some, I would just say, bad actors in specific locations that they just keep churning licenses and continue to say bad behavior,
even though it's somebody's cousin or nephew or whatever under the guise of a different LLC.
What specifically can you all do with that, or do you need legislation that would essentially prohibit or make that specific location dry for that type of activity for a period of time?
So this is – thank you for that, and I think this is the opportunity for us to that, you know, reconsider or – but this is – what we're presenting right now, it's a good start.
I might not include everything that we're discussing here today, but it's definitely a good start.
Chairman, if I could clarify.
To Gerald Dawson, Deputy Commissioner of Prosecutions and Adjudications, there is a one-year ban in the proposal,
and a four-year ban for the specific licensee, very similar, I believe, identical to tobacco.
Oh, hold on.
Go ahead.
Chair Harris.
Thank you.
Hey, Gerald, is it for the license or the address, too?
Like with liquor, that address is shut down for a two-year period, one year, one year, one year period.
Is this for the address or just for the licensee?
There's both.
There's a one-year ban for the premises, the address, and four years for the specific licensee.
Thank you.
All right.
You have point of information.
I have a quick, clarifying question.
So if a business gets a license before this ordinance is passed, would that business automatically be grandfathered into selling him?
If they have a license already in place at that location where they're selling, yes.
No, no.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Alderman Mitchell, they have to apply for the license.
They would not be subject to the distance restrictions, but they would still have to meet the application requirements, which would include aldermanic police and community input.
You're referring to another license.
If they have a previous license at the location, that's where, okay.
Are you speaking to a hemp license or any other license?
A proposed hemp license or another license?
Another license.
Okay.
Do they automatically get grandfathered into being able to sell hemp?
There will be grandfathered in the distance restriction, but they still have to apply for the license.
Why is that?
Why the distance restriction?
Because it's already being sold everywhere.
So, you know, we can't engage in, you know, who's going to get the first license or who's not going to get the first license when it's at approximately 2,000 locations already.
So, but certainly there are the other protections for the application process, which includes eligibility and, you know, the community sentiments about whether that license is proper at that location.
Okay.
Okay.
Alderman Quinn, I made a mistake.
I skipped over Chairman Dowell.
I'm going to go to Chairman Dowell and I'm going to come to you.
Is that okay?
All right.
Very well.
Chairman Dowell.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn and Chairman.
Hi, Commissioner.
Good morning.
Hello, Chairman.
I agree with my colleague about really trying to understand the infrastructure that you're putting in place for hemp.
And I'll just leave it at that.
Would like to understand what – can you talk a little bit about the testing protocol?
So, the testing is going to happen on a complaint base.
If we –
getter complained that somebody had a bad reaction to a product,
our investigators working with CDPH will take a sample of that product
and send it out to a lab to check for,
and then the ordinance is very clear on what to test.
It talks about no license shall sell, offer for sale, barter,
or expose for sale any cannabinoid hemp products that includes toxic chemicals
or organisms of public health concern.
So we will get a result and work with CDPH to read those results.
That violation has a cost recovery aspect to it,
so the business will be on the hook for that testing fee if there's an underlying violation,
and then that will be added to the 3 in 24 violations that will lead to revocation.
Is the ordinance specific in terms of how much time you have to respond to a complaint?
No, but we usually, our average response time on complaints,
it's something that we set with 311, and we give ourselves about 30 days.
What do you think a good response time would be for a hemp complaint,
which is, you know, when we're dealing with something that can harm children,
what do you think is an appropriate response time?
I would say immediately.
Immediately?
Yes.
It will take priority to any other complaints.
All right, I think we should know, we should feel comfortable knowing that if a complaint
for something like that comes in, you can respond in X amount of time.
Yes.
I like more specificity.
Not a problem.
How much is in the budget for testing?
There isn't a budget for testing.
This testing is cost recovery.
So there is, if we get a text.
Right, but we have to spend the money up front, right?
Yes, but I, you know, based on the fees that we've put in place and on the taxes that we've
put in place, it's going to be something that the city will be able to afford.
So what line item would that money be in right now?
Is there a line item?
We have this right now.
AJ Lee.
AJ Lee, Deputy Commissioner.
I don't believe that we have any budgeted funds for that purpose right now.
If we were going to use money that's currently budgeted, and it was, I wonder if it comes
from our department.
I don't think the testing would be a cost for BACP, but if it were, we would use the 140
line for professional technical services.
All right, moving on.
The $13 million reduction in your budget, that does not reflect, hopefully, with any reductions
in the neighborhood development centers, delegate agencies?
Right, the NBDC, there is, so we lost some money in our delegate agency program, I'm sorry,
our delegate agency line.
We lost $590,000.
So that is $340,000 is a reduction for our Chicago business centers.
It's a program that was very, very, that we launched in 2020 when the pandemic kept everybody
at home and city services were a little slow.
We partnered with community-based organizations to provide pre-licensing and post-licensing
technical support.
So let me make sure I'm clear.
So you are, we will see a reduction for the small business centers, but not in the MBN.
MBDC will not see, so that's 3.3, about 3.37 million.
What steps has the department taken to address the unlicensed vendors that are selling food,
beverages, including liquor, on the public way leading the soldier field?
So we-
Are they being fined?
And if so, can you give me the number of fines that have been issued and the number of licenses
revoked, if any?
Through the chair, do you want the information now?
I'll take it now.
I don't need it.
So I don't, I don't have specific numbers about, about that, but I tell you that illegal
vendors, illegal pedicabs, all that informal economy that is happening around soldiers field
is something that we address, we're constantly addressing.
We work with OEMC.
Every time there is a special event, there is a soldier's field or in other areas of the
city, we deploy our investigators to address all the informal economy.
That includes all the sales of, you know, food and liquor.
With liquor, we work with CPD.
So we're constantly addressing that.
Okay, I just want to see some numbers because I need to be able to tell my constituents that
there are complaints to me, which are many, related to soldier field activity.
Also in Bronzeville, I have complaints related to peddlers that stick and stay.
I need to be able to demonstrate that their complaints are being addressed by the department.
So any information you can provide to me on that through the chair would be helpful.
One thing that I have to say about peddlers, you know, we work, we address peddlers.
We have a two-prong approach.
We try to get them into compliance.
Our first time, we respond to complaints on peddlers.
We try to connect them with city hall so they can come in and apply for a license, depending
on their activity.
And then if that doesn't work, then we go to an enforcement.
So we'll get you the enforcement numbers.
And I know you told Alderman Silverstein you had 65 inspectors.
Is it?
Yes.
Can we get through the chair some definition of how you break those inspectors up?
You know, is there a set for convenience stores, liquor stores, peddlers?
Yes.
We'll get you that information.
We call it buckets.
So we have a tobacco bucket.
We have a consumer fraud bucket.
We have a licensing and public way bucket, public vehicle bucket.
All our investigators are cross-trained so they can all complement each other.
And there's no interruption in the service that we provide or the complaints that we're
serving.
But I'll send you a diagram on how they're broken down and how many are assigned to each
area.
I was taking a look at your 311 request, and I see that you have had about 412 shared housing
vacation rental complaints.
It's, is that number up from last year, down from last year?
And can you give me a sense of what kind of, what's the typical set of complaints that you
get in this area?
Give me one second.
I have some information here that I can get to you.
Give me one second.
Sure, we do.
Okay.
So we received in 2025, year to date, 358 complaints.
Same timeframe in 24, 390.
So we've received 8% less this year than last year.
We conducted 106 investigations.
Last year, we conducted 175 investigations.
So we're down a little bit from last year.
It could be for many reasons.
The complaint was unfounded.
Complaint.
What's a typical complaint?
Parties, unregistered units.
Okay, thank you.
Yes.
And also, you can, don't close that page.
The wage complaint line, you have had 191.
Can you tell me if that's up or down from last year and this time?
And how many of them are regarding the tip wage complaints?
Sure.
So for tip wage, give me one second.
I'll get that right to you.
So we've had 217 minimum wage complaints that we received in 2025.
Out of those 217 complaints, 153 identified as a non-tip wage employee.
So I'm sorry.
Let me rephrase that.
So out of the 217 minimum wage complaints, 62 identified as a tip wage employee.
So about 29% of those 217 identified as a tip wage employee.
Great.
I don't have a, just one, just a comment.
I wanted to just support something that the chairman said about extending the premise ban to bad actors, to other industries, not just tobacco.
Thank you, Hollywood.
I'm thinking of people that are, you know, we have problems with PPAs, mini marts.
I'm thinking of people that are, you know, we have problems with PPAs, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini marts, mini m
Liquor stores, gas stations, all of it.
And if we could just get these businesses to respect the community and be better actors and serve our people the right way, that's all we're asking for.
And we need your department to help us right the ship.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you.
Question?
Point?
To request that Chairman Dallas, through the chair, request be expanded to include all the wards.
I heard her request about Soldier's Field, the peddling and everything around there.
Add that for all the wards, including our parks as well.
Okay.
Yes.
All right.
Alderman Quinn, followed by Alderman.
You're not Sposato.
You're O'Shea.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Commissioner.
Good morning, Alderman.
I want to stick on him for just a second.
As you may recall, I think I was the first to put a ban on hemp in the Midway region.
The mayor's proposal, that doesn't have an adverse impact on my ban, correct?
That's correct.
You're already.
Great.
I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
Can you talk a little bit about consumption on premise, hemp specifically, and what does
that look like?
So let me pass that to Shannon Twitter here.
She'll answer that question for us.
Sure.
Before you answer that, and his question is specific to hemp, but I don't read the legislation
that way.
It's hemp and any other product is my assumption.
There are two.
There's cannabis consumption, one license that we're creating, and there's hemp consumption,
another license.
Two separate things.
Cannabis consumption license will be attached to a cannabis dispensary or a tobacco location
where 80% of their income comes from tobacco.
Smoking needs to happen outside because we have to be in compliance with the smoke-free Illinois.
So what's the difference between a hemp consumption, cannabis consumption, and a cigar lounge?
Hemp consumption dispensaries will be hemp-specific.
Is that correct, Shannon?
Yeah.
So cannabis consumption lounges can be located in two locations per the state statute.
Those are attached to dispensaries or are attached to tobacco shops with 80% more in tobacco sales or not.
So we do anticipate the majority of them would be at dispensaries.
This is something that we have engaged the cannabis industry on, and they've been asking for really since pre-COVID,
and something that this administration felt very favorable to bring forth in making a level playing field for those locations.
So for cannabis consumption, it would be primarily at dispensaries where the cannabis can be lawfully sold,
and they can have any type of on-site consumption.
If that consumption is smoking, then it needs to be outdoors.
Similarly, for hemp consumption, the smoking would need to be outdoors.
The hemp consumption license is for people who have retail food licenses.
We already have these businesses that exist, such as bakeries or coffee shop-type places,
where they are infusing hemp into food products.
And these locations that are – are your questions more specific to hemp consumption?
Well, for both of the consumptions, there are additional requirements than a hemp retailer.
A hemp consumption location would need to have a more robust safety plan,
including exterior lighting, additional insurance requirements, security guards, and security cameras.
As I said, both of them would require – if you want to have smoking, it needs to be outdoors.
They have restricted hours, which are aligned with liquor hours.
So the outdoor consumption is aligned with an outdoor patio hour.
In the ban that I placed in the Midway region, that would cover the consumption licenses?
It would cover the hemp.
I can't – I don't know if you have any cannabis restriction zones.
Okay.
It would not cover the –
Oh, I'm sorry.
I have one.
Okay.
I – without knowing what you have in place, I won't speak to cannabis, but for hemp, yes.
Okay.
And then moratorium.
How did – I presume you could lay a moratorium?
The ordinance doesn't anticipate moratoriums.
You know, there – as you know, there are already bans in certain jurisdictions.
You know, the hope is that this licensing structure will provide a framework where people, communities, and patrons can feel more comfortable allowing these licenses so that there wouldn't be the need for only restricted or only prohibitions, but that they would be tailored to communities in a way that best suits them and in the protection of minors and other community members.
And I presume you're working with the Chicago Police Department on the rollout?
Well, the Chicago Police Department has been involved in the drafting as well as CDPH and the city's law department.
Mr. Chair, that's all I have.
Commissioner, thank you very much for all your hard work.
Chris and Shannon and your team do a fantastic job.
I'm grateful for all of the due diligence.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Quinn, Alderman O'Shea, followed by Alderman Riley.
Alderman – I'm sorry, Sposato.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, Commissioner.
Good morning, Alderman.
It's been brought up a couple times, but I think it's worth continuing on this topic.
When it comes to hemp, I am very concerned that the city of Chicago is attempting to engage in this.
I think hemp is very dangerous.
I don't think we know what's really in there.
I have strong concerns that three months, six months, a year from now, we're going to wake up and find out that some young children somewhere in a neighborhood in our city died
because the city's making money off hemp, and we don't know what the hell's in there.
But that's not a decision you get to make.
Your job is to try to staff what you need to keep an eye on it.
Last week, we had the health commissioner here, and it was very evident that the highest-ranking medical license in city government agrees with me and many others.
Are you comfortable that you have the staff if we move forward with this?
And I believe there's $10 million earmarked for this.
Alderman, I have to say that working with OBM has been extremely helpful.
They are very available.
We have been discussing this for over a year now, and we've landed at this structure, this regime that we're proposing.
Our enforcement team is not losing any positions.
These products are being sold already at locations that we already investigate, so it's not going to create additional work.
It's just going to be another check that we do.
Our hospitality bureau that is going to be handling the licensing is gaining flight positions.
That's going to give us plenty of resources to address this right away.
We believe that the education portion that we will have at the beginning of the year is going to reduce the number of complaints that we receive,
because we're going to educate the business community very well prior to launching the licenses.
So we're hoping that by staying engaged from the get-go, from the start, and teaching them the ropes of this ordinance,
that we will be successful at the end and then, you know, be able to manage the amount of complaints.
Thank you.
Kind of just moving forward on that topic of your staff and keeping an eye on things.
Recently, I had a business open in my community that clearly had illegal gaming machines in there.
You guys have been out there several times based on complaints I'm receiving from the community that's very concerned about this.
Just want to say I appreciate everybody's work on that.
You mentioned in your statement here the concern about the hospitality industry with all that's going on with ICE.
We continue to lose our workforce.
the people that make the restaurant work, the back-of-the-house employees, what more can we do?
We have been very, very active doing this.
We have worked with the Immigrant Migrant Refugee Rights Office of the mayor, connecting people to information,
working with organizations like Arise Chicago that's already doing the work, pro-workers work.
Connecting them to our business service organizations so that that information is passed on.
We have been involved in the sign distribution.
At BACP, on the eighth floor, people can come in and pick up the signs.
We have been involved in the FAQ creation for the signs so that people understand the protections that they have under these signs.
What the sign is representing, I'd rather say.
We would like – this is an ongoing issue, and we will continue to work with all of our business service organizations
to make sure that they are getting that information into the businesses and down to the employees.
Okay.
In closing, I just wanted to say I appreciate all your hard work.
You came up through the system.
Yes, sir.
You were the guy that I was meeting out in the middle of the night when we had a problem business back during the pandemic and the civil unrest.
Appreciate all that you do.
Thank you, Chris, Tiffany, Shannon.
Appreciate you guys always being just a phone call away.
To everybody in the box, thank you for all the support you give my community, my delegate agencies, my staff, and those that are out there in the field.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Chairman, that's it.
Thank you, Alderman O'Shea.
Thank you, Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Riley, follow them out.
Alderman Viegas.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, Commissioner.
Good morning, Alderman.
Appreciate all the work that you and your staff do for the city.
I wanted to pick up just where Alderman O'Shea left off on hemp.
You are aware of the letter the National Association of Attorney Generals has sent to the ranking members of the House and Senate committees
that have subject matter jurisdiction over that product.
You're aware of that?
Yes.
38 attorneys general citing health concerns and risks to children.
And I want to make sure I'm reading this correct.
The revenue projection for legalizing and taxing hemp in Chicago is $10 million per year?
No, that is because those numbers reflect the July 1st date, half of the year.
This is in line to generating between $25 million and $35 million in taxes.
And then there is another close to $3 million in licensing.
I see.
And how many inspectors will be dedicated to enforcing this part of the city ordinance?
Our entire inspection or investigating workforce is cross-trained, so they're all going to be able to address and respond to complaints.
And you feel that you have the bandwidth to properly police this new industry that we'd be legalizing,
despite the fact we don't require testing of these products before they're sold?
And I have to say, not regulating it right now, it's not an option.
It's not good business.
Well, yeah, I agree, Commissioner.
There's one way to regulate it, and that's to ban it, just to outright say, you can't sell this stuff.
That's real simple.
Well, then your inspectors aren't forced to kind of wade through the weeds and the gray area of the law
and various laws versus ordinances, all that jurisdictional issue that you have to deal with.
It doesn't seem to me that putting children's lives at risk is really worth it.
But that's my opinion.
I wanted to thank you for stepped-up missions for enforcement of city code around taxis, livery, DNPs in hotspot locations where we have geofencing
or where there are significant public safety or traffic safety concerns.
One address that pops up routinely, this should be of interest to my colleague, Alderman Conway, is at 500 West Madison.
Lots and lots of tickets have been issued there.
Across the spectrum of vehicular services, whether it's a taxi, a livery, or a TMP, or even a party bus.
We see this address pop up in your – through the chair responses.
Thank you for those, by the way.
No problem.
It seems to me that the enforcement is not deterring the bad behavior, however.
On this list, we have many of the same routine addresses popping up with violations.
Does that make an argument for substantially increasing the fines?
Hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I don't think you were recognized, Conway.
You was not.
So I'm going to leave.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
All right.
And the reason I mentioned 500 West Madison and mentioned my colleague, Alderman Conway, is not to blame him for it, but actually the residents in that neighborhood belong to him.
This business address belongs to me, and despite the fact I don't get residential complaints about it, because it did used to be in my ward.
The residential areas he represents, I am attuned to it.
But regardless of the location, does this make an argument to increase the fines for this illegal activity, given the fact we continually are writing the same tickets at the same locations?
I think this gives us an opportunity for you and I to discuss the ordinance in that section specifically.
It's showing that address over and over because we are actively working that address, make sure that we, you know, catch those bad operators.
But I think there's an opportunity for us to talk about this and see where, you know, if there's a need to increase the fines, we can have that discussion.
And these citations that you list here, are these only issued by your inspectors or are they issued by everybody, all the different folks that have the authority to issue these citations?
The information that I gave you through the chair is just BAC.
Just for your department?
Yes.
Because there are other folks who are empowered to enforce this ordinance, correct?
Police is empowered to enforce the entire municipal company.
How about OEMC?
I believe it's more of a parking enforcement.
We are looking for licensing.
We're looking for registrations.
We're looking for other things.
OEMC is empowered to enforce parking violations.
Okay.
We can take that up.
There's probably more, but they're not involved in the public vehicle licensing enforcement.
Okay.
And, you know, you call out in your narrative, in your initial remarks, that you worked with the Department of Law to revise procedural rules for License Discipline Commission
to decrease the amount of time it takes to hold businesses that violate the law accountable.
And you celebrate the fact that as a result of your hearing officer's diligent work, the average number of days from referring a case to the Department of Law for prosecution to receipt of the hearing officer's recommendation has been reduced to just 161 days.
Are we satisfied with that length of time?
It's definitely an improvement.
It's 21 percent less.
It's a 21 percent improvement over miserable.
So how are we feeling about the current rate?
I'm actually going to ask our general counsel, Gerald Dawson, to dig a little deeper on that.
Thank you, Gerald Dawson, Deputy Commissioner, General Counsel.
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
As the commissioner said, it's an improvement.
We can do more, and I and my team push our hearing officers to do better, to hold licensees feet to the fire, to move processes along so that we can get bad businesses prosecuted and penalized as quickly as we can.
And those hearing officers, do they report to your department?
They do, yes.
They do.
And how many do we have?
We have four.
And are those fully – are those full-time city employees?
They are contractors.
They're part-time.
Part-time.
And those contractors, where do they work?
They work on the eighth floor in our offices, in our hearing room.
Do they work for a law firm?
I believe some of them, at least one of them, I believe at least two of them do work for law firms apart from the city business.
So at least two of the four of these officers work for private law firms?
Correct.
Correct.
And who's in charge of monitoring their judgments?
That would be me and the commissioner.
You and the commissioner.
Okay.
We can discuss that offline.
Alderman Moore.
And if it's not, I think it's a point of information based on something that Alderman Raleigh raised.
Are any of those law firms that they work for, can any of those businesses hire those law firms to represent them?
I would say that these are independent contractors for the city, but they are bound by the conflict of interest.
And that's not what I understand.
I don't mean to cut you off.
Can any of those law firms hire any of those business, hire either of those law firms to represent them?
So that's why I said there would be a conflict of interest.
So you're saying no, they are not.
They're not supposed to.
And they are bound by the conflict of interest policy with the city.
Alderman, just for clarification, they're practicing attorneys,
so they are bound by the ARDC rules.
I'm not talking about the attorney.
I'm talking about the firm that they work for.
Can any of those business hire their firm?
I didn't say hire that attorney.
Hire their firm.
Well, I think the answer is that that would pose a conflict for that particular hearing officer
if their firm was also representing an individual that was coming before them.
So they would have to conflict themselves out and they would go to another hearing officer.
That particular attorney would.
That particular hearing officer.
You can't control what the client does, but you can control what you do.
So that person ultimately would be conflicted out in a case such as that is what the commissioner is stating.
Thank you.
Okay.
On Riley.
And that's certainly something we could cure by ordinance if we want to bar law firms
from representing clients before us if they want to participate in the administrative hearing process.
Does the mayor's proposed revenue ordinance increase fees for BACP-regulated sidewalk cafes
and right-of-way permits?
For sidewalk cafes, no.
No, but now we have the option to go to a two-year permit instead of one.
So the applicant can up for a year or two years.
So we're not increasing any permit fees?
No.
Not sidewalk cafe permit fees.
Okay.
Any other right-of-way fees associated with businesses?
No.
No.
And the mayor's budget projections include a roughly 20% increase in the alcohol dealer license revenue
while you're projecting a slight drop in liquor tax revenue.
Is this increase due to higher fees for licensure?
I'm not aware of the revenue projections you're talking about,
but there is no increase in the license fees specific to liquor.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, I guess we'll take it up with budget,
but the 2026 budget projections include approximately 20% increase in the alcohol dealer license revenue
while at the same time projecting a slight drop in liquor tax revenue,
which to me doesn't quite add up.
We'll take that up with them.
So you're telling me there won't be any license or permit fee increases for small businesses
in this year's budget?
There is a proposal to increase limited business licenses, not public way, what you mentioned earlier.
So limited business licenses have been for many years at 250.
Now it's going to be – there's a proposal to increase to 500.
That's for limited business licenses and most basic operations.
For regulated business licenses, from 500 to 1,000.
And those fees have not been revised since 2012.
Okay.
So both limited business licenses and all business licenses are going to see fee increases?
Limited business licenses from 250 to 500.
Uh-huh.
Regulated business licenses.
We also call it RBLs.
Uh-huh.
And that includes tobacco, liquor.
I mean, not liquor, but –
No, it includes things like hotels, tow trucks.
It's a classification under the Rahm administration when there was the license consolidation
where we moved certain very specific licenses to be called regulated business licenses.
It does not include the hospitality.
So all told – okay, thank you.
So all told, how many total licenses in the city of Chicago are scheduled to see a fee increase
between the limited business licenses and the regulated business licenses?
How many total licenses are going to see a fee increase in next year's budget?
Because a lot of the folks that fall under those licenses are, by every definition,
a small business in the city of Chicago.
If you're looking for a number of all the businesses, I can get that through you?
No, no.
All the businesses that will be subject to this increased fee for the privilege of doing business
in the city of Chicago.
So every – so, for example, the limited business licenses has – that's the over arc of the LBLs.
There's a lot of activities that fall under that.
Sure.
If you want all that information, I can get that from you.
I would.
I want to understand the extraordinary burden we're going to be placing upon small business
owners in the coming budget season if this budget is passed as proposed.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'll wait for round two.
No problem.
No.
Oh, you want me to keep going?
No.
Okay, well, I'll see you in round two.
All right, Alderman Villegas followed by Alderman Moore.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner.
Hello, Alderman.
So first of all, I wanted to first thank you and your department for working with the body
around road towing.
That's something that continues to be prevalent in the city.
We're finally getting our hands – our arms around this thing, but there's still a lot
of work left to be done, and I'm going to be inviting you and your department to work
with Secretary of State Janoulius as well, especially from the licensing standpoint, because we feel
that the state has a role to play in this, and unfortunately, they just don't have the
resources.
So once we start this discussion around legislation, I'll invite your department to be a part of
it.
But I really appreciate the fact that we've taken two stabs at putting forward ordinances
to deal with this industry, and we're getting close.
So I really appreciate that.
I'm going to start off by saying that.
And then could you talk a little bit about how your department is using tech to deliver
services for the residents as well as the businesses?
Sure.
I am going to actually ask our Chief Small Business Officer to talk a little bit about
Smartsheets and how great it's been done for our MBTC program.
Good morning.
Lothar Kapai, Managing Deputy Commissioner.
So one of the things that we've done in 2025 is change the way delegate agencies across the
city of Chicago report into BACP so that we can measure the impact of what they are doing
more effectively.
And to that effect, we have introduced a new platform, which has made it incredibly easy
for them to do that reporting.
And that platform is Smartsheet.
And we've linked in mapping functionality as well.
So not only is it easy for all our partners that are doing in-community services, providing
services to small business owners, but also within the department, the team can, at a
glance, get real-time data on where the services are provided, click on a map and see which
business is being helped, what kind of help they've been provided.
So we have made it really introduce accountability measures into the program using technology in
a very effective manner in 2025.
Thank you for that.
And then along that same line, Commissioner, as it relates to the Enterprise Resource Planning
System, the ERP system, I wanted to know, like, where is your department within this process?
And then do you guys support the implementation of the ERP for your department?
Can you talk about ERP a little more?
Yeah, Enterprise Resource Planning, it's the Department of Technology and Innovation as well
as procurement that are providing a pathway, and all departments are going to be a part
of this.
I was curious as to whether or not your department, since you deal with businesses, small businesses,
have you been in touch with DTI and procurement around this ERP system?
Not specifically about ERP.
I'm having conversations with DTI on other IT issues we're facing.
I'd like to learn more about it.
Yeah, and I would encourage DTI to talk to you more about that, because right now they're
going to be phasing it in three, and I thought for sure, since you're a revenue-generating
department, that you would be right for that.
Thank you.
And then if someone from your department as well could just talk a little bit about, I
wanted to get a sense as to how much fines we've collected around the sale of synthetic
marijuana, which has been illegal in Chicago since 2011, just curious as to if there's
been any fines collected on that.
If you allow me to do a little bit of digging on our records, I don't have that information
available right now.
But you are, your department is aware that since 2011?
Yes.
I just, I don't recognize that type of complaint.
I don't think it's a complaint that we receive a lot, but we have received at least two complaints
in 2025, just two complaints in 2025 about hemp products.
So the volume of complaints that we're receiving on hemp is extremely low, just two for 2025.
And then, Mr. Chairman, I've submitted about 12 questions through the chair around hemp.
And so I won't ask all of them, but I did submit them through their chair.
But I did want to ask this one, because I think this is an important one.
Has the law department issued a written opinion on state preemption risk?
We know that right now the main sponsor of the hemp bill in the General Assembly is seeking
higher office, and there's a new state representative who's taken over that baton.
But that's no guarantee that it will pass.
So since we have revenue that's tied to our budget, and there's been discussion at the
state level around taking a position, whether, you know, legalized.
or banning it. Has the law department provided any type of written opinion on that? And if they
have, could you provide it to the council? And then if the General Assembly alters hemp policy
this spring, how does the city unwind or line from this scheme? Let me say this, Mr. Chairman,
I think that would be a little premature. If something passes, then we have to deal with it.
But as it is today, the law does allow us to do such. And I think it would be a little presumptive
of us to assume what the GA may do without direct action and without gubernatorial action as well.
So it's a long stretch to make. Okay. Well, I'm just curious if the law department has
provided any type of information around that, given there is a lot of interest from the GA as
well as the governor's office, given that there's been multiple states, multiple municipalities that
have banned this product. I just don't want to put us in a position if the hemp ordinance does pass
that we're relying on that revenue and all of a sudden the rug gets pulled from us. Just wanted
to see if the law department had an opinion on that. Alderman, I am not aware, personally aware
of any precision statements from the law department. I will follow up with them, but I can tell you that
we met with the state and we had a very good discussion about this. We hope that if something
happens at their level, that the city is a partner.
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then my final question is, as it relates to inspections,
right, around hemp, like what is going to be the cadence, like pre-license, routine, complaint-based
follow-up? Like what is, how does that look like?
Yes. Pre-license, for sure. That's going to happen. And then complaint-based after that.
But how, how is, how is that? How?
The complaint-based 311 complaints, community complaints from your office, these bodies,
everybody here.
So, so wait, so the public and the alderman have to police this?
No, no, no, no. The complaints will come to BACP, but we have three departments that are
going to be able to enforce this. If they see it in their routine businesses, they will
be able to enforce. Department of Health, the police department and BACP as the lead, because
we're licensed, we're the licensing department, main regulator here. Complaints from 311 will
come to us. And then our enforcement team will respond to those.
And did I hear that there's already like 2,000 stores already in place?
We're expecting about 2,200 plus businesses to come to apply for a license come July 1st.
And is there going to be a limit as to how many the city would issue licenses for?
The ordinance does not impose a limit of a number of licenses.
Wow. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Moore, followed by Alderman C.T. Lopez.
Thank you so much, Chairman. Commissioner, to you and your entire team, thank you so much.
I've leaned on you all heavily probably the last year and a half. And I just want to say thank
you so much. You guys have really stepped up. And I mean, each of you, Commissioner Trotter,
you've been so, you know, great in everything that you're doing to help me get certain businesses
open and but doing the right thing. And I appreciate that as well, because I know sometimes, you know,
we're in line trying to get things open and do things, but you also want to make sure that you're
protecting us from us. And you do that so well. And I want to say thank you so much.
You yourself, Commissioner, anytime I call upon you, you know, you answer and being responsive
and that I appreciate. And Chris, try to keep things out of your way. And so, you know, he's
being proactive and calling me. But Tiffany, I mean, you've come back in here and you came
in roaring like a lion and just being very helpful. We had a business on 76 that you got
on right away, still dealing with it a little bit, but you were on it. And I appreciate that
so much as well as we try to put these business on a plan of action. And some we're working with. So
to get to that point, I think, and help me if I'm wrong, I thought we passed some type of, well,
I think there's an ordinance out there in terms of window covering. What's state that ordinance what
it is so I can fully read it, but percentage of windows being covered right now, whatever it is,
now I know we tried to pass some before. I don't think we've finished getting through that. But
what's out there now? Because, and I'm focusing not only on the gas stations, but mainly the gas
stations, but there's other stores too. Everything is just covered from, you know, top to bottom.
So what does the ordinance say today?
The ordinance is housed in the Department of Buildings and it prohibits signage covering 25%
of the window space.
Okay. So it's in buildings.
It's in the Department of Buildings.
What we proposed earlier was just to add BACP to that existing ordinance so that we can enforce
it together.
So right now, buildings are the only one that can go out there and inspect and write the
violation on that BACP.
Right now, Department of Buildings, this is housed in the Department of Buildings.
Building, right.
And zoning. So by extension.
But if we amended that ordinance, when you are out there, you guys could hit them as well.
Yes.
We need to amend that ordinance.
So what we proposed was to add BACP to it and add a tinted windows.
A what?
Tinted windows.
I mean, businesses that are covered from top to bottom, completely blacked out where you
can see inside. And lights, LED lights, those distracting LED lights that, you know, when
you're driving around, you take the view away from the road because you're looking at the
lights. Right.
Those three things.
I think BACP, add tinted windows, and the lights.
Okay. Chris, you want to add something?
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman. Chris Joseph, Assistant Commissioner. So I just, a little bit of clarity,
and I don't want to pretend like I know the building code or the zoning code well, but we
do work really closely with buildings and DPD when there are existing complaints. So I don't
want the body to think that BACP isn't doing anything about things like these gas stations
that you referenced. I work really closely with Patrick. And when there is a
concern on the existing window coverings, we will refer that complaint to the zoning inspectors
who almost always refer violations to the Department of Law for processing that violation.
So I'm happy to work with you on that. I don't know the calculation, the existing calculation
in the code. But it's based on a percentage of the entire window space. Right. But all that
right, Commissioner Hopkins are amazing to work with. Oh, absolutely.
And they, there's no problem there. Whatever we, it's always an amazing relationship with those two.
Now getting to, this is one of my questions that Alderman Rowley brought up in terms of
the repeat tickets and stuff like that on business. We, could we change, and I don't know,
you know, from a legal standpoint, can we change and put in the ordinance if you get so many tickets
in the year that are, I don't care if you pay them or not, that are, I don't care, because I know
sometimes people write so many for cigarettes, then that's something else. But is there so many
tickets within a year that you can get that we could shut the business down for a certain
period of time?
So our enforcement authority comes from the code. Of course, our enforcement is progressive. If a
building, a business continues to violate the law, whatever, if it's a tobacco violation,
liquor violation, public way violation, it tells the story that that business is, you know, it's not
running well. And we work with our prosecutions and adjudication and with the law department to make
sure that we bring that business and we held that business accountable through citations first,
community meeting process if we have to. And if that doesn't work, then we can take it for the
mayor license discipline.
And I get that, but I'm getting that. I guess I want it in its simplest form. Can we, this body,
codify that if any business gets so many tickets in a year that their licenses are automatically
suspended for a certain period of time? I'm happy to have a discussion with you on that one. But I
mean, there is other stuff that we have to consider. Go ahead, Shannon.
So, Alderman, it would need to be more than the issuance of the citation. There would have to be a
disposition finding liability. And the code already authorizes license revocation for any violation of
state, city or federal law under Title IV. So, we already have those capabilities. There is a body
of case law that governs licensed discipline, which imposes a progressive discipline.
So if a business has no discipline, the case law is that a revocation may not be justified.
But once a business gets some license discipline and really depending on the severity and the type of that discipline, you know, for example, posting a sign is certainly less severe than a bartender selling drugs.
So, you know, looking at the nature of the violation, that's when we impose, you know, different different dispositions.
But certainly the code already gives us this authority to revoke licenses.
OK, but to my point, whether it's the bartender serving, which is in your mind's eye, a higher threshold to assign to window covering.
To me, that's three and you're in violation.
And it's proven that you're in violation.
My point is, is there a number?
Is it six, seven, eight?
Before we can say license revocation is implemented.
There is the ability generally to do things like that, which is what you see with our three strike rules.
So it's three.
We got a three strike rule that we have it in tobacco.
We are only in tobacco, though.
Yes.
But with in some cases, it's it's prohibitive.
So if we say you have to have three tickets and your bartender sells cocaine, that means then we don't have three tickets.
But right now we have the ability to potentially revoke just based on that one violation.
So it's looking at the body of case law in addition to just a strict co-provision and allowing that room for the right discipline to be applied based on the severity of the offense.
I'm hearing you, but I'm not getting it because we're just out there writing too many tickets over and over again.
And and whether they pan them, whether it's a three day, it's got to be we got to have a heavy hammer because it's killing our communities and it's costing us.
It's costing us.
It's costing the police.
And so I guess my question becomes, can we I know what you're saying was there.
Can we I'm asking the question.
Can we codify something in this council?
Is there, you know, I'll defer to the law department to give you the legal opinion on that.
Just as a former prosecutor, I know the body of case law and it really suits us well to have the discretion to impose based on the severity of a violation.
We'll be happy to work with you, please, because it's follow up with you.
It's it's killing me and and and especially when we get to my Airbnb thing, because I'm trying not to go to.
Are you you are we aware that some Airbnbs or have you you said you complaints for partying?
Do you know of because I've heard this, of course, I haven't verified it because I haven't been there.
That some Airbnbs people use as their own personal strip clubs.
So we put a lot of restrictions around Airbnb.
Have you heard of that?
I've heard a lot of things around that.
And people use the term Airbnb very loosely.
They say Airbnb parties or Airbnb strip club is because colloquially people refer to to that rental, that share housing as an Airbnb.
There are other companies that operate.
We put that two day restriction on stays in Airbnb in 2020 when when everything was closed and people were going to use in this Airbnb units for parties.
I'm happy to work with you if you have a location.
No, I've heard.
I don't reason why I'm saying is because it may just sound like partying, but we get the sex trafficking thing is major.
And I don't know the young girls and people can get caught up in that.
And I just want us to really focus on that and really hitting those hard in terms of, I mean, I know there's partying, but this here, that's next level stuff.
It's becoming, from what I understand, a business.
And I think we have to hit that hard not only to protect children, but to, you know, eliminate this from the communities.
We are tied to the hip to the advice unit at CPD and things like this, we work with them.
So I'll be happy to follow up on that.
Yeah, I don't.
Yeah, I've just I've just a couple of people have told me I don't know a location.
I haven't done my due diligence to.
But when you start hearing things from more than one person, it's like, wow, this is going on.
And I had, you know, in the Airbnbs, you know, I know people were doing them at the hotels and, you know, trafficking women at the hotels.
But now they're really turning the Airbnbs into like a little strip club.
And then other things go on.
We saw that, too, on licensed event spaces.
Thanks to Alderman Taliaferro and his ordinance, we have been able to reduce the amount of complaints that we get around that.
All right.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Real keen on the subject, I see.
Man, you got to protect our children, man.
I got you, man.
Me, too.
I'm with you on that one.
Alderman Conway, followed by Citra Lopez.
Most of my questions have been asked.
So I'll be brief.
I share the concerns of my colleagues that hemp is a very, very dangerous substance and concerned about what we can do to keep it out of the hands of children.
So, which makes me ask, what type of age verification is currently in place for hemp-derived THC products?
In the city of Chicago?
In the city of Chicago.
21.
You have to be 21 to buy him?
Yeah, maybe you want to.
So you're asking what existing requirement is there for the retailer to card somebody purchasing hemp?
Yeah, today.
Today.
I'm sorry, Alderman.
You don't understand.
There's no requirement right now.
Anybody can go up to the counter and buy it.
And what kind of testing is currently in place for hemp-derived THC products?
There's no testing required right now.
And what kind of packaging standards are there for hemp-derived THC products?
What kind of?
What kind of what?
Packaging standards are there for hemp-derived THC products.
There are no standards right now.
I had an incident happen to me about two months ago that was personally shocking.
I had my five-year-old tell me that she wanted to buy these products that look like Jolly Ranchers.
And I think, you know, everyone would say look like Jolly Ranchers, but they were hemp-derived Jolly Ranchers that my five-year-old child wanted to buy.
And I think it is an absolute failure of the federal government and state government that there has been no regulation in this area.
And while perhaps some of the things regulation proposed is not perfect, I want to tell you that as a parent of a five-year-old, four-year-old, and three-year-old,
I appreciate that you and CDPH and this city are trying to do something about this because it's unbelievable that these products exist.
If you want to respond to any of that, please feel free.
This is exactly what we're trying to accomplish here.
We have – the status quo is not acceptable.
We have to do something.
And what we're proposing is an amazing start.
So I hope that everybody here has paid attention to what I presented on hemp and consider this in the near future.
But we have to do something about this.
Yeah, I appreciate that.
And I agree with a lot of my colleagues that it's not perfect, but I feel like we're starting at a place of nothing.
So I think it's important that we do something, and I appreciate your leadership on that.
Mr. Chairman, that's actually all I have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alderman C.T. Lopez, followed by Alderman Mosley.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Commissioner, for your dedication and commitment to the city of Chicago.
I think that it is, in a time like this, very good to see public servants dedicated to the work.
I'm concerned about the situation with our small businesses.
Right now, the illegal occupation and the attack on our community has also been felt in our small businesses across the board,
but especially in our Latino and Latino community.
My question to you is, I know you have, you know, a budget that has been, that represents a 30%, almost 30% cut across the board.
How can we help in these efforts to help the small businesses in a time like this?
How can we do, or what can we do together to elevate and promote our small businesses or locally owned, hardworking people that are suffering right now?
What are some of the initiatives or highlights that you see are important to preservers, especially in this proposal from your department?
So let's start.
Start with what we have right now going on in 25, the store activation program that we're doing there, right?
It's intended to assist some of those businesses that were displaced from the discount mall.
Similar to that, you know, our MBDC program continues to work with Chambers of Commerce,
providing hyper-local technical support to all businesses so that it can continue to grow and scale.
And, you know, we want to make sure that we continue to show up for you.
So if there's anything else that you think we should be doing, I'm happy to have those conversations with you.
We are very serious about supporting small businesses.
They're the backbone of the community, and we want to make sure that they know that.
If there's any more, when it comes to street vendors, for example, there's another area that we are looking,
how do we work with them to try to get them into compliance, right?
I mean, knowing that it's very difficult to go around the whole city and enforce against street vendors
because they move when you show up five minutes later when we move to another complaint, they come back.
So going, you know, chasing them around is a big problem.
I, you know, continue to work with you and members of this body to find solutions
and to try to come up with new initiatives to support our small business.
Thank you, Commissioner.
In terms of, like, the street vendors, like you mentioned, over the weekend,
it was really meaningful to see Chicagoans coming and helping small, helping and donating to a GoFundMe,
I think about almost $300,000 that they have gathered because the need is great.
I think that over a dozen or so street vendors have been detained and families who are afraid to go to work,
oftentimes the children coming out to work.
What can we do, I think, as a city?
And I think just to see how hard these vendors are working to put food on their table and in our table,
as a city council, how can we help to provide a path towards them to have a license, you know,
in terms of operating and contributing as they continue to do so for the city of Chicago?
That work, it's already on the road.
I mean, we have been working with our BEND team from the mayor's office.
We have been working with the Street Vendors Association, an amazing group, and others to find ways to license this.
Working with the Department of Public Health, which, you know, also has a very important role when it comes to licensing food preparation on the public way.
So promoting what we have right now is important.
You know, our Shope Local, 77 Ways to Shope Local is one initiative that we're launching, that we launched actually yesterday,
just promote what we have right now and push people to the community so they can shop local.
Thank you, Commissioner.
I'd definitely like to encourage and urge city council members to be sensitive to the needs of all Chicagoans.
I think in Chicago, in a moment like this, I think that, you know, we need a city council that, one, is paying attention,
and, two, that we need a city council that pays attention to what's happening to the ground.
Sure.
It is critical and essential that street vendors and vendors and small businesses receive support.
I hear a lot of punitive measures, right, and I think that it's good to have the regulatory power,
but it's just as important to provide a space and support.
I would like to see another, for instance, you have good initiatives about outreach, education, municipal TV,
how we can even create an app when we can promote local businesses from our neighborhoods.
I think that one of the things that our neighborhoods can be proud of is the diversity, 77 neighborhoods that offer so much,
and our small businesses do represent that, and our street vendors represent that fabric that has been here in our community for a long time.
So my full support and commitment to help with you get these updated ordinances so that we can have dignity and respect for the street vendors as well.
My question around, it seems like to me that this issue of hemp and cannabis, it is very important.
I think that we, for one end, should not allow lobbying on one end or the other to dictate what is one public health matters.
I think that we leave that to the Department of Health.
We leave that to the experts.
But I do think in terms of regulatory powers around cannabis, for instance, right,
my big concern continues to be licensing that oftentimes is only available for those big companies,
these corporations that have allowed to continue to make money out of this industry.
How can we make this more – just if you can expand, I think that you have some good vision in terms of regulation
and bringing more revenue to the city around cannabis and hemp.
It is a place where we can have a balance where we can talk about revenue but also talk about the health of our minors.
I do think that it seems to me that there seem to be contested interest in this.
But at the end of the day, I think we look at the public health of minors, public health of our Chicagoans,
and also how we can bring more revenue.
I think that the cannabis regulation has been, especially at the state level, not as equitable as we would like to,
and how we can correct that at the city level in your view.
Sure.
So we are preempted from licensing cannabis.
So what we're doing right now is we're proposing to create a consumption cannabis license that will be available
to all those dispensaries that are already doing business in Chicago.
The hemp ordinance that we're proposing is available to everybody that applies and meets the criteria.
So it's going to be easier to obtain.
It's going to be equitable because it's going to be all throughout the city.
I mean, businesses that are already selling it will be an opportunity to apply for this license.
They will have to go to the licensing process, the licensing criteria, meet all the standards.
But it's going to be more accessible than cannabis was at the beginning.
Anything around cannabis that can, maybe at the local level, I know that it's an industry, like I said,
that we're being hard because it's regulated at the state level in terms of licensing.
But anything around revenue that can help in terms of consumption on premises,
I know that that has been, unfortunately, sometimes events that happen without regulation.
So we want to make sure that, you know, we provide a path towards an industry that must be regulated,
but also can generate revenue for the city.
So this is what we're presenting.
So the licensing, the cannabis consumption license costs $2,200.
That's a proposed fee.
And, of course, that will be revenue to the city.
Well, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
I appreciate your hard work and your commitment to the city of Chicago.
I do think this is a time where we got to look at how small businesses have been impacted by the level of chaos
that the federal government bring to our city.
And anything that you can, that we can do to help small businesses, street vendors,
and anything for the city of Chicago, you have a full support.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Burnett, followed by Alderman Sposato.
You have anything?
Sposato, followed by Sposato.
Thank you, Chairman.
Commissioner, it's a pleasure to meet you.
Pleasure to meet you, sir.
Looking forward to working with you all, as I know a few faces I recognize over in your cabinet over there.
And so thank you all for all the work you do and my warden for the rest of the city.
You know, as kind of following a little bit of a similar line of questioning from my colleague,
I'm just concerned about small businesses.
Can you talk about the decision in increasing the fee to create a business?
I think it started at $250 and it's going to raise?
It has been, the cost of the limited business license, it's been $250 for at least in 2012 for a two-year license.
So we're talking about $125 per year for a license.
You know, working with our partners in the city, other departments, we recommended that, you know,
the license see an increase to make sure that it keeps up with the cost of issuance.
So the licensing process, of course, handled by our licensing bureau, you know, requires, you know,
our personnel to, you know, to work.
So what we're proposing, it's aligned to the cost of processing.
Got it.
But no ramp up into this fee.
It's just immediate from $250 to $500.
To $500.
It's a two-year license.
It'll be, it's, so it's $250 per year.
So it goes from $250 a year to $500 a year.
So from $500.
$250 for two years.
For two years.
So $500 for two years.
So it's a two-year term license.
Okay.
And then when you were doing your evaluation of this new licensing structure and understanding
that it costs to implement all this, deeply understanding we should have people pay for
the cost of the work that is done, what was the analysis when we were thinking of the
impact on small businesses?
For this ordinance, we worked with our, AJ, can you talk a little bit about how we work
with EY on this?
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
AJ Lee, Deputy Commissioner. We worked with Ernst & Young through the Office of Budget and Management with some recommendations that they brought to the department, and we worked through both the independent research that they did, as well as coordination with Lothica and the small business community to make sure that anything that we recommended would be, you know, balanced to reasonable cost for operating in the city.
And not be a burden that would prevent new businesses from opening, not be way out of line with cities of similar size throughout the country. And so I think that's where these numbers come from. And that was, you know, a wide input range to come together to the numbers that we actually proposed.
Thank you. And I appreciate that EY has presented a lot of options. And it's great to see that you all are trying to implement some of these tactics. I think it's even more important that we have this dialogue with our small businesses so they're just not blindsided by the increase.
You know, people budget these things out. And so we have to be able to give them a chance to prepare for these changes, especially when you're talking about 100 percent increase for what they're normally paying.
And so to that point, you know, I've been very vocal about some of the impact our initiatives on transportation has made into some of our small businesses.
There's a few businesses in my ward that are detrimentally impacted by the changes on Chicago and Halstead.
And there's been some efforts to communicate with these businesses, but I would like to talk to you all and hear from you about your efforts.
When things like this happen, where there's great structural changes to businesses that are dependent on transportation and traffic,
how are we engaging with these businesses to make sure that they're able to stay alive,
understand the awareness of the assistance programs that are in place to keep them there,
and see thinking about other opportunities to make sure that they are better off after our impact.
I appreciate that, Alderman Burnett. You know, we work when it comes to public improvement projects like this one.
We work with CDOT, and I know they have community meetings where businesses are invited to attend to learn on, you know,
how the project is going to impact them. We work closely with the Chambers of Commerce,
and this is something that, you know, we would like to discuss with you.
I know we have a meeting, a coming meeting, so that, you know, we can, you know, meet each other in more details,
but we would like to work with you, CDOT, and find ways that we can collaborate more when businesses are impacted this way.
And, Alderman, again, Chris Jessup, Assistant Commissioner, I just want to add to the Commissioner's comments.
I think we're meeting tomorrow. The small business advocacy team led by Lothica and our partners at DPD have already begun meeting on your specific issue.
And so looking forward to talking to you about it more in detail, but there's going to be collaboration between multiple departments here.
I appreciate the urgency there.
Going on to that note about, I know we're discussing these efforts of engaging with businesses impacted by these transportation issues,
but more so in the grand scheme of how we are engaging with our small businesses across the city.
Can you talk to me about the effort your team are making in terms of outreach across the city,
your collaboration with our sister agencies, whether that's World Business or Choose Chicago,
to make sure that we're highlighting some of the marketing of the great work that these businesses are doing,
and then also the awareness opportunities we're presenting to these smaller businesses and venture businesses that are so prominent across my work.
We work very closely with both organizations, World Business and Choose Chicago.
During the summer, we were, and just to give you an example of the collaboration, around the Mexican Independence Day,
we were working with them trying to find ways for our tourists to go into the neighborhoods and enjoy some of the businesses that are in the neighborhood,
keeping people, you know, promoting the city as a whole, not just for people to come downtown and enjoy themselves,
but just pushing everybody to the neighborhoods.
That's just one example.
World Business Chicago, it's an organization that, you know,
we're constantly finding ways to collaborate and promote Chicago at an international level.
These are organizations that have been around forever and have been partners to BACP.
You know, if there's any other way of collaboration that you think we should do,
I'm happy to discuss that with you tomorrow.
Our small business advocacy team is constantly communicating with the Chambers of Commerce, again,
because they are our extension to the community, sending information, passing out, you know,
keeping them aware of what's happening with the city.
We're having roundtable discussions to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats so that we can make better decisions and present to you better,
you know, the information that we are seeing is coming from them so that we can pass it on to you and then, you know,
so we can make better decisions.
Is there anything else there, Lothar Kapai?
Lothar Kapai, Managing Deputy Commissioner.
So you're absolutely right.
Alderman, there's a lot of economic uncertainty.
So small businesses, while they are the growth engines for our economy, they're also the shock absorbers when things go wrong.
So what we have been doing very deliberately is not just partner with organizations like World Business Chicago, P33, with Choose Chicago.
We also partner with Cook County, with the Small Business Source Program, with the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity at the state of Illinois.
So we really are trying to collaborate across government units and then also with our private partners, which are small business service organizations.
These are chambers of commerce, economic development organizations across the city.
So we would like to think that we have boots on the ground in every single one of Chicago's 77 community areas.
So that one of the first things that we like to kind of think about is how do you make people aware of programs that are accessible and available to them?
And once they are aware, how do you prepare them to access those initiatives?
So there's a very concerted and deliberate efforts across government and then also across departments.
So we collaborate very closely with DPD as well in all our initiatives.
And Alderman,
we've had seven roundtables discussion.
We have an eight coming up next week.
After we wrap them up, we're going to write a report with all of our findings and that's going to be available to you.
Thank you.
And so this leads to possibly my final question for this round is just how does this all really work with your budget?
You know, a few of my colleagues are talking about how the implementation piece of getting enforcement of some of these laws or business requirements in terms of hemp
is not necessarily something they're ready for.
It doesn't feel like your department has enough capacity for.
And so I wonder about, A, like, do we feel like we're properly structured in order to both implement the new endeavors that we're proposing for our taxing body
and then also making sure that we're still able to allow these businesses to be educated on the endeavors to help boost their prosperity?
So the education, Pete, is going to take part in the first six months of the year in 26.
January 1st, we're launching in July.
That whole six months is going to be education, education, education.
Outreach, we're going to have webinars, we're going to have in-person meetings with them, whatever is necessary.
And then what was the second part of your question?
More so just concern, do you feel like you have an adequate enough staffing in order to do the education for both the initial endeavors that you have in place today
but also the education for the new taxing policies that we're implementing from hemp to the bag taxes to whatever?
How are we making sure everyone's aware of the new requirements?
So, yeah, of course.
Our outreach and education team works very closely with other departments.
So we promote everything that's coming out, everything that's around the tax, you know, the Department of Finance sets that, right?
And they do the collection, they do the implementation.
We are the voice.
You know, we uplift everything that is put out there that's going to impact businesses.
That's how we communicate with them.
So we have a very strong outreach and education team.
We have a very strong enforcement team that is going to be on the ground, you know, passing this information to everybody.
Understood.
I don't know if my question was fully answered there.
You know, I know you're missing ARPA grant funding, and that's taking a significant amount of resources in order to create this programming.
I'm just very direct about it.
Do you feel like there's enough staffing in place in order to execute these efficiently over the next year?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
I'm good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Okay.
The time is 1235.
We're going to go to Vice Chair Lee.
We're going to break after that, and we're going to come back at 115 because we've got a long day ahead of us still.
So we're going to take a shorter lunch.
Lunch is ready for those of you who want to start up now, what we do, Vice Chair Lee, and then afterwards we're going to recess until 115.
So we'll be back on at 115 after Vice Chair Lee concludes her round.
Thank you, Chair.
Hello, Commissioner.
Hi.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
All of the amazing BACB.
team that are here today. I'll echo a little bit about the hemp stuff. I think we all share
the same concern, right? We first and foremost want to get this away from children. I think
we're unfortunately in a very limited capacity in terms of what we can ultimately do.
When CDPH was before us last week, I asked a question about whether or not they had the
ability to do the testing, and she assured me that they had the capacity to do it, but
they weren't budgeted for it. So that was a little disconcerting. So on the testing, I think
I would echo the sentiment for a special hearing, a subject matter hearing, so that we can dig way
further into the hemp issue. I think lots of people have questions about that. But I wanted to flag
that I know that there's cost recovery in it, but that presumes that we're going to be able to recover
the cost. So I'll start the questions with the number of citations that are issued. I know some
of these go through administrative hearings. You don't necessarily recover every single citation
that's issued. Do we have any data on how much we're recovering in citation fines and fees compared
to what we're issuing?
I'll get you that. I mean, because we, we, we, one thing is fines assessed and another one is
fines, fines issue, fines assessed. We don't collect it. Finance, finance collects it. Department of
hearing, administrative hearing sets the fine based on our ranges, and then Department of Finance
collects them. But I, if you want, if you want fines assessed versus fines collected for BACP,
we'll get, we'll get, we'll get you that. Yeah, through the chair, that'd be great. So I, I looked
at the revenue ordinance. I did see the, the sort of doubling and in some cases quadrupling of
business license fees. A concern for small businesses. I think you've heard that today,
especially when, you know, many of us still have empty storefronts in our, in our districts here
within our wards. Can you talk a little bit about the, the rationale? And I know you said earlier
that some of these fees hadn't been increased in over more than 10 years. Can you talk a little
bit about that, that rationale? Cause I did have specific questions. There's one that's gone up
four times, I think, and that was the limited license for. The limited business license is going
up. It's proposed to go up from 250 to 500 is the regulate, the RBL is the regulating, regulated
business license from 500 to a thousand. From 500 to a thousand. For a two year license. And then
there's the, I'm looking at page seven of the revenue ordinance and it's under limited, uh, it's
under the fees and, uh, for business licenses issued for certain to title four. Um, and number two
on page seven says, except as otherwise provided in the section, regulated business license. Yes. Um,
currently two 50 and that struck and it says, um, one thousand. It's also, we've also struck
out the language other than hotels and, uh, and booting of motor vehicles. So what does
that actually cover? Cause that's, that's four times, right? Two 50 to a thousand. So, so those
are the ones. So, so regulated business license previously two 50 for two years, now a thousand
for two years. And then specifically to 32 types. And just to give you an example, those
are health club, tattooing, hotels, dry cleaners, massage establishments.
Um, so in addition to, uh, the cost of processing the license. Sure. Yeah. A.J. Lee, uh, deputy
commissioner, uh, the regulated business licenses require a lot more staff time to process because
of the various additional, uh, regulations around them and therefore more depth, uh, background
checks, more detailed, uh, review of their financials and things like that. So it really is a cost
recovery, uh, price increase and differentiation between a limited business license, which is
relatively simple to process versus the regulated licenses in those 32 categories, um, where we
want to make sure we're licensing the right person and that we have the correct information
before we issue a license. And it takes more time and staff effort, uh, and resources.
I got that. If you can provide through the chair, um, for everybody, just the list of all of the,
um, titles that it covers, I think that would be really helpful. I think someone already asked
for that. Um, because I see that there's a new, a new item here, regulated business license,
uh, for massage establishment. That's actually five 50. You can talk about why not the thousand
versus the five 50. I think we would refer back to the office of budget and management about
which license fees were changed or not changed. Um, we'll do a little digging for you. We'll do
a little digging for you. We'll get back to you. You know, we're not with the gun with time here. Um,
I'm looking at now, um, okay. So we talked about staffing and I see, I think you mentioned at the
top of your comments that you're, you're getting five more staff people. I noticed there's been some
rejiggering of, you know, positions across different, uh, functions and you're taking,
we keep asking you to take on a lot more responsibility, right? We talk about the window
ordinance, um, you know, allowing your inspectors because they're already going out to businesses.
And I understand that rationale, but that is one more thing that you're being asked to do
while you're out there. Um, and now we introduce hemp to all of this too. And I know you said
you think you have enough, but also in that category, you're going from 60 to 57.
I just, I worry about your ability. Not, I don't, not that I don't have confidence in your team.
Um, but we continue to put things on your department that I, I really question whether
or not it's the right thing to do, not to give you more resources, frankly, um, with all of the
enforcement that we're asking you to do. Um, do you currently have vacancies in the inspector
positions? Have you had them this year and where are you right now?
Yeah. So we have six vacancies, uh, seven vacancies. Um, and so three are going through
hiring process right now. And then that'll, that'll leave us with four before the end of
the year. Working with OBM has been great. Um, they, you know, every time there's some,
something comes up like hemp, every, all of these conversations, we engage with them and we
recognize where, uh, resources are needed and they're there for us. Um, uh, we do not lose
anybody in any positions in the BCE team, the business compliance enforcement. We're
still going to have four vacancies after we hire these three are going to be aligned or
in line to hire, uh, next year. And then we have those five positions that are going to
be in the licensing, um, you know, for, for, for the, uh, hospitality.
Okay, great. Um, I appreciate the, the compliance team very much, right? And then Dennis and his
team with the task force has been incredible to work with. I really want to acknowledge the work
that they do. Um, and I know that there's challenges with that too. So, you know, we
talked a little bit earlier, um, about hemp, but I'm not going to jumping off of the, the,
the sort of, uh, suspension of a license or when we get stickers up on a, on a business.
Um, if they get, I'm going to give you a specific, a specific example, cause it's easier to do that.
Um, if I have a salon, a nail salon that's licensed to do nails, but they get a citation for,
uh, operating a massage parlor without, uh, without the proper, uh, license, the business
isn't closed. The, they're cited for the massage piece of it. They are not allowed to do that any
further. And if they're caught doing that, there's probably stiffer penalties, but they're still
allowed to operate on the nail side of it. Yes. Oftentimes, you know, from a constituent
perspective, when they see something, they're happy that they're shut down for the, for the sort of
more illicit type of behavior, but they see that the business is still open and they can't,
they don't know what's going on inside. So, you know, I don't know if that's a legislative thing
or, or how we can better communicate some of that. Um, I, I know that you are not in the business of
shutting down businesses. I can, we, we want, we want good businesses to be open and operating
according to the letter of the law. Um, I think it just gets really challenging, uh, when it comes to
when there are issues with problem businesses, uh, and the, we're, we're limited by the ordinances
as they're written. So, you know, I'd be interested in a conversation at some point about where,
where there might be gaps that we can help sort of tighten up. Um, of course, allowing for due
process for these businesses at the end of the day. Um, I think that's all I've got for this. Um,
because everybody else asked the other questions already. Chairman, I think we're good.
All right. Thank you. We're going to take a, uh, break. We'll be back at, uh, 1 15, starting with
Artemis Pizzato.
Bye.
good afternoon committee will come back to order uh we're still with department of business affairs
and consumer protection next up we have our alderman sposato thank you chairman uh good
afternoon commissioner and staff thanks thanks for all you guys do i just want to say uh you
settled into this position uh pretty well ivan so i'm proud of you and appreciate your friendship
and communication with me you and shannon seem to be the only two people i ever call but i appreciate
both your promptness and responses i like to think i don't bother that much so i don't know where i
stand in the pecking order of phone calls but uh hopefully it's at the bottom so um uh just
everything i had was kind of talked about so i just want to kind of just comment about them and just
basically maybe maybe one two questions maybe so i just want to start off by saying um i don't know
and you don't have to answer this i'm not putting you on the spot so it's just more of a statement
about the head tax um i don't know if there's discussions with your office at all or not i
think it's a terrible idea um i don't have a another idea for it but uh i think it'll destroy
us i don't think businesses will want to come here when they could go especially me being a water border
ward they can go across the street um the sweepstakes thing we touched on that we've been talking about
this eight or ten years ago we had a meeting about this these people are begging to be regulated
begging for permits begging for license i don't know why we can't do that so it's it's some low
hanging fruit that we could get some chump change for so i just think everybody knows what they're
doing people know they're playing them they know what it is so i just think we ought to license those
give them licenses for those machines um the hemp products were touched on pretty much uh very
concerned about that especially when uh um my colleague uh panway mentioned about his kid i mean that
was one of my things i'm worried about the products the labeling the age of them you know i had all
kind of issues with them so but that that's been beaten down already but so the two things i really
have and for uh consideration well really one i guess and that is fines and fees all right if we
could look and i'm not expecting an answer now and because and probably can't do it this year but for
14 years i've been hearing about equity equity equity over here so and my thing is and i didn't come
in here with this question but i thought of it being here as far as when i say equity i mean if you
have joe's pizza or pizza hut being fine for the same thing the same price doesn't seem too fair and
if you got a bag fee and you got jewel being charged for the same thing that joe's grocers being chads
the same thing that doesn't seem too fair so just something i'd like you to look into for next year we're
not too late to do anything this year just something to maybe work on something the small
guy helped a small guy a little bit um with some fees or fines or whatever i want to call them
um and that's really about it i like i didn't have a whole heck of a lot every like i say once again
everything was beaten down just want to thank you for the job you're doing and your communications
with me and that's about it chairman thank you thank you uh alderman sposato alderman martin
thank you chairman and good afternoon commissioner and team good afternoon um was wondering if you
have at the ready and if not through the chairs fine um some quick hitting explanations on some modest
but much appreciated efficiencies around um i'm looking at page 408 uh delegate agencies for prof or
for professional services for information technology management um let's see another one lease purchase
agreements again i know it's modest but it adds up to maybe 800k and i'm just curious if that was
something that was done through you combing through things or if there was just a change in
the sorts of services that were being provided especially for outside entities yeah i'll give you a quick
breakdown so this is under the contractual services section uh zero one zero zero what's the uh um 408
408 in budget recommendations.
The reduction that you see in your book.
Oh, I see
some reductions, for example,
0138 for professional
services, then below that
professional technical
services, even above that for
delegate agencies. And it's fine through the chair if you're like,
hey, we got it.
Yeah, so, I mean, there were some reductions
there. I'm going to actually
A.J. Lee can just give you a quick
breakdown.
A.J. Lee Deputy Commissioner.
Sure. So, we did
reduce significantly
the Chicago Business
Centers. There you go.
Chicago Business Centers program.
The contracts end at the end of 2025.
So, we reduced
the funding for that program. We reissue it
later this year for next year.
So, it'll just be a condensed program. That was
one of the savings, or a big chunk of the
savings, about $390,000.
And then we also cut
$250,000 grant
program that was in our budget from this
year into next year. Again,
just trying to right-size the budget, working
with the Office of Budget and Management to make
sure that we're being responsible with the funding that we're
given. The other things, the smaller
amounts that you're seeing, like $50,000, $25,000
here and there, again,
just based on our spend. So,
we've had some cushion in our budget because
we don't always know our expenses up front, and
we've kind of given up some of that cushion that we've
been keeping for the last few years
because we haven't been needing to spend
it. So, hopefully, that continues.
Another question I had
was around
the
Cable
Local Origination Fund. And apologies if this was
something that was shared earlier, but
both that page, so this is 418,
then the previous page,
417,
and 416 with
public vehicle licenses and
permits, these seem like items that
weren't necessarily shifted
from one part of your budget
to this part. They
might be new. And I'm wondering,
one, is that true? And if so,
what are
some of these newer
positions, especially these 15
positions on page 418?
Why that?
So, the Cable Fund
was actually previously,
0P120 was on the
grants budget.
it's now
a revenue fund. That's the
fees that we get out of the
franchise,
the Cable franchise. We've been getting that money
for years. It pays for
our outreach and education
team,
Bureau,
but it pays specifically for Channel 23,
Channel 49,
Municipal TV.
It also pays for
the video
production team
that's housed
at BACP. They're the ones that,
you know, film
everything that's happening in the city.
They have the archives,
you know, city archives,
all that film, all that footage.
So, that 15
FTEs is all outreach and education.
That team,
and then six
members of that,
project coordinators,
the deputy commissioner,
project coordinators,
our FOIA officer is housed
in that office,
and others,
administrative assistants.
So, that whole bureau,
it's
part of
that grant.
Understood. So, these are
existing positions
that are just getting a different
revenue source.
Yes, they were removed
and then we'll just add it back.
So, I appreciated
some back and forth earlier
with a colleague around
the different inspector positions.
I appreciated you
talking about what's in the queue
in terms of hiring
and then some other positions
that maybe aren't yet in the queue
but we know we want to hire.
Two-part question.
First one is
that's not subject
to the hiring freeze, right?
Because these are
revenue generating positions?
Correct.
Okay.
And then second,
I'm wondering if,
to your knowledge,
when the last time was
that BACP
did an analysis
to see
maybe in a more ideal world
what an appropriate number
of inspectors would be?
maybe working backwards
from here's approximately
how many inspection requests
we're getting
and then second,
here's an acceptable load
that maybe is based on,
again,
in terms of ideals,
the preferred amount of time
within which
an inspection happens.
Because I think,
to be clear,
this isn't just an issue
for BACP.
I think you could say
the same of DOB,
CDPH.
I'm wondering,
you know,
when the last time
you've had a chance
to say,
hey,
here are different scenarios
where if we want,
an inspection to happen
in certain situations
within five days,
here's how many inspectors
we need.
If it's 10 days,
here's how many.
If it's three days,
here's how many.
Well,
thank you for that.
So,
we are always looking
at our resources
and finding ways
to do the work.
In 2018,
we created
our nights and weekends team.
We added positions
back then
and we were able
to launch
a second shift.
Now we have three shifts
because we're always
looking at ways,
you know,
to do the work.
In 2018,
we started our nights
and weekends team.
We launched
a four-day work week team
that was operating
between Thursday
through Sunday
from 1 p.m.
to 10 p.m.
It was a four-day work week.
We did that
in order to,
you know,
have people
apply for the job
knowing that they were
going to be sacrificing
their weekend.
We made it into
a four-day work week.
It was very,
very well received
by members
of this council,
members of this body.
COVID hit.
We had to reassess
our workforce again.
We extended
our nights
and weekends team
now from 2 p.m.
to 2 a.m.
Now we have three shifts.
Since then,
we have three shifts
now that are operating
from Wednesday
through Sunday.
So we have
seven days a week coverage.
Wednesday,
Wednesdays
through Sunday
from 9 a.m.
to 2 a.m.
And Mondays
and Tuesdays
just regular 9 a.m.,
5 p.m.
All that to say
that we're constantly
looking into ways
to, you know,
service our constituents
better.
Yeah, that sounds great.
And I would just say
I know I have a
through-the-chair request.
I look forward
to getting a response
when you're able
to provide it
around key performance
indicators,
this idea
and it's getting
at that question
that I just mentioned
which is
what are we
working backwards from?
You know,
what's that time frame
within which
we want to make sure
that these inspections
are happening
because at the end
of the day
we don't want
to just simply
balance the budget
year over year.
We want to make sure
that these core
responsibilities,
I think for BACP,
one of them
is inspections
that we are providing
them in the ways
that people want.
So looking forward
to continuing
the dialogue
with you after that.
No problem.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you,
Alderman Martin,
Alderman Hall.
Go ahead.
Thank you so much,
Mr. Chair.
First of all,
I just want to say
to BACP,
I think I call you
all more
than I do
some of my family
members and thank
you for being
consistent with
answering phone
and also showing up.
The first question
I have is about
these sweepstakes
machines.
Just based off
of a rough
estimate,
a rough estimate
of any kind,
how many calls
do you all get
complaining about
the functionality
or incidents
involving these
sweepstakes machines?
Specifically about
functionalities,
I think we get
a lot of those,
Alderman,
to be honest with you.
I'm looking at
my enforcement team
deputy,
he's waving no.
We don't get a lot
of functionality
complaints about
these machines.
But we get
complaints,
it's about
paying out cash.
In that world
of sweepstakes,
that's the number
one complaint.
Do we have
any numbers
of complaints
around that
issue with
the illegal
payouts of cash?
I'll get you.
I'll get you
that information
through the chat.
The second question
to the same question
would be,
has there been
any incidents
of any violent
acts as a result?
For example,
in Dalton,
there was an
incident where
someone broke
into,
what seemed
like a sweepstakes
lounge with a hammer
and it was a
smash and grab.
Has there been
any incidents
of sorts
recorded
pertaining to
sweepstakes?
Not by BACP.
That is something
that will go to
CPD.
You know,
breaking in
and vandalism
and theft.
It will go to
CPD.
I do not
have any
information
about that
type of
complaint.
That's
you.
In
concluding,
first of all,
the outreach
that you all
have done
to answer
questions
has been
very helpful,
not just to
me,
but to
those who
are potentially
wanting to
get licenses
and things
of that nature.
In 26,
the year
coming up,
are there
any plans
to continue
or what's
the strategic
marketing
or outreach
plan for
those who
want to
start up
businesses
to get
the 1-2-3s?
Is that a
part of
you all's
engagement
plan for
26?
Absolutely.
And this
is continuing
to build
on what
we already
have,
our
relationship
with the
chambers,
supporting
small
businesses,
our neighborhood
business
development
center.
That's
exactly
what they
do.
They help
new
businesses
scale.
They help
entrepreneurs
move from
an idea
to a
location.
So this
is something
that we
continue to
do,
and this
is how
we keep
our corridors
vibrant.
Got you.
Last question
pertaining to
him.
Everyone has
pretty much
asked a lot
of questions.
You've
answered the
majority of
them.
Has there
been an
uptick or
decline in
calls,
complaints,
rather,
to BACP
around different
locations,
gas stations
included,
that have
been selling
this?
Have you
seen an
increase,
decrease?
How would
you describe
the amount
of calls
you get?
We've only
received two
complaints in
2020.
Twenty six about twenty twenty five. I mean, I'm sorry. Twenty twenty five.
OK, guys. All right. Well, again, to the entire staff of BACP, we have some long days and long afternoons and definitely appreciative of the work that you all do.
Thank you. Anytime. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Hall. Alderman Walker Speck has two quick ones for Alderman Lawson.
Thanks, Chairman. Commissioner, first of all, just on the hemp issue, I know we've been discussing some aspects of this hemp licensing scheme.
How much funding would be allocated to fight youth addiction to using these hemp products?
How much money is being allocated? Can you repeat the question? My apologies.
Just how much funding would be allocated to fighting youth addiction to these hemp products using this licensing scheme?
Alderman, I would defer you to OBM on this and I can probably I can help you find an answer to that question.
I don't have that answer right now. I do have how much money this would generate and how much money is going to cost us in personnel.
OK, I'll have the licensing.
Yeah, I'll direct that elsewhere. I had a whole bunch of other issues with that, too, but I'll hold those.
My other question is, while you guys have improved the internal business license application process over the last few years,
how do you track the long how long licenses take to go through the whole process, including zoning review,
debt check reviews by finance and and more of a comprehensive approach to that?
How long or do you track that to see how long it takes?
Yes. So right now we went from a average of forty nine days to an average of a little bit less than a month.
So we have reduced our licensing processing timeline about thirty three percent.
Just in the last year or last year?
Yes. OK.
For two into it between twenty twenty twenty twenty four and twenty twenty five thirty three percent reduction and in wait time.
And what do you I'm sorry?
I was going to say, do you expect to be able to reduce that more with information that you receive from?
Say the E.Y. report or other aspects?
Yes. And not exactly E.Y., but us working with our our our sister departments to kind of find ways.
Everybody that is involved in the licensing process, Department of Buildings, Department of Health, zoning,
everybody that is part of the licensing process.
We're all coming to the table to find ways to reduce that time even more.
OK. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, all the men.
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioner.
And I interface with you a lot.
So I have some things that have not been covered yet that I'll just go through.
You mentioned that there were 217 wage complaints in the city last year.
I believe wage related complaints to the Office of Labor Standards, 62 of which were in regard to tip wages.
62 out of the 217, 62 out of the 217 identified as tip workers.
So if someone has a wage complaint in the city, they can go to the state as well, right?
The state would also investigate that or do they kick that to us?
No, they can't actually file.
I'm going to ask Miguel Campos from the RLS office.
Miguel Campos, Director of the Office of Labor Standards.
Thank you for your question, Alderman.
Yes, a citizen would have an option of which path to choose.
They couldn't simultaneously do both.
Right.
So it'll be a personal decision based on efficiencies.
Sure.
So I guess the question I have is, do we know the universe of – we have our 217 that came to us.
Do we know how many city of Chicago residents went to the state for enforcement?
So I'm trying to get an entire universe of all of the wage complaints in Chicago.
And then looking at that number of 62 involved with tipped wages, how many of those were sustained?
And through the chair is fine, but if there's a ballpark.
I'm not sure if we even capture that because the information that we capture are based on flex questions that are asked through 311.
Right.
So if we're not asking that question, can we actually – can we find that information?
We can provide additional information through the chair.
Okay.
Right.
Specifically on how many of those 62 tipped wage complaints were sustained.
Okay.
But I think that's helpful to know.
We've had a few instances in my ward and some high profiles and others where businesses have not renewed their licenses and they continue to operate.
In some cases, it's liquor.
I had a car wash use.
Where is the trigger when a license isn't renewed where BACP or CPD or someone goes back to see, hey, are they still operating?
Are we in contact with them?
Because some of this has gone on for months when they don't have a license.
Yes.
We do missions.
Our enforcement team do missions with expired licenses where we're actually visiting – not only visiting them, we're contacting them on the phone.
Okay.
To see if they're picking up the phone number.
It's disconnected.
So we can know if they're out of business.
And then we send our investigators.
Our system will deactivate a license after 18 months of non-renewal.
So after 18 months of non-renewal, the license automatically will be non-active.
So how far past due, though, does an inspector make a call or make a visit?
So I expire on November 1st.
When should the GACP plan to be out there?
So right now we implemented a 30, 60, 90-day follow-up process where we're sending a notification either by email or by phone at 30, at 60, and at 90.
Okay.
That's helpful to know.
And I'm assuming you hear from the Alderman on it too.
I want to ask about short-term rentals.
It looks like there are some – the special revenue funds are expecting a pretty big hit, the DV and homelessness fund for short-term rentals, house shares.
Are we – I mean, in some cases, it's like a third.
Are we anticipating that much of a decrease in short-term rental activity?
Is it an issue of increased transparency and regulation?
Can someone speak to that?
Excuse me.
I had a conversation with the new commissioner of DFSS a couple of days ago.
Right.
She contacted me, brainstormed some ideas on how we can help these funds.
So we have that conversation pending.
I know that the share housing fee fits into those funds.
Right.
I'm not anticipating a big decrease, but I know that there are opportunities to have conversations and see how we can increase this revenue.
I mean, the projected revenue is $3 million less than each fund, right, which is significant.
It's a quarter or a third, depending on the two different funds.
I know we've got more transparency.
We now know where they are in our wards.
But I just – I'm curious if we're seeing less nights being rented, if there's been any additional enforcement, which is why we're anticipating that those receipts go down.
And you can get us that through the chair.
But, you know, to see a big hit in a fund like that, you think there's something going on?
So Commissioner Green and I will have a – we have an upcoming meeting where we're going to see ways that DFS is.
I'm more concerned about people's tourism, right?
Are we seeing less hotel nights or are we seeing less house share nights because we're reliant on that, especially the hotel nights, for our revenues, right?
Not that we shouldn't regulate short-term rentals more than we have because I think everybody still has an issue.
There's probably 49 others.
Obviously, the corporate head tax has been a topic of discussion.
What analysis has your department done to determine how many employees in the city and which companies would be subject to the proposal?
So we have not done that type of analysis, but we – one thing that I can say about this is that public safety is one of the top topics that we discuss with the business community.
Our roundtable discussions, that was one of the top, you know, public safety crime.
And we had a conversation the other day with a few of them, and they will support anything that would definitely decrease crime, that impacts them.
They recognize that, you know, violent crimes and crime in general is a deterrent to the business.
Absolutely.
But you're saying that you've spoken to large employers who are in favor of this head tax?
We have not talked to large employers, though.
Okay.
Who is in favor, employee-wise?
Employer-wise, I mean, if there's anyone in favor, I'd be curious to know because –
The smaller businesses.
Under 100.
Yeah.
Sure.
Sure.
All right.
The yacht tax.
I know it's a jump change, but who pays that tax?
Is this average Joe with a 20-foot boat?
Is it Wendella and Chicago's First Lady?
I know there's some big fee increases for the people that have fleets.
They're going to double.
This is going to apply to the mooring tax.
It's going to apply to any watercraft or anybody of water that's located within the city.
So that's a commercial operator as well.
Is that – Ruble, can you talk a little bit about that?
So Ruble Babat, public vehicle licensee, she also licenses food, water, and water taxis.
Hi, Ruble.
Hello.
This is Ruble Babat, deputy commissioner of BACP.
I'm a complication of the 就是 married الله.
But I'm your name.
I don't know.
You re-asked that question because I want to make sure I understood it.
The pouring fees, right?
We're calling it a yacht tax, but I know it's going to apply to both private boats
but also commercial operators.
So a question about the commercial operators,
because I know we're increasing their fee on the license side.
We're doubling that, basically.
So it's the commercial passenger vessel ordinance, and that's the license.
That is for any of tour boats and water taxis.
It's not private for private-use boats.
It's for businesses.
So this yacht tax only applies to businesses?
It's not a yacht tax.
It's commercial passenger vessel.
He's asking you about the boat mooring fee, not the other related item.
Right.
There's the two.
So the boat mooring fee is not paid by commercial?
Okay, the boat mooring fee, I don't, that is, that is not within business affairs
and consumer protection.
That's just sex.
But I'm reading, I'm reading a memo that was handed to me.
It says any watercraft in any, in a body of water located within the city is subject
to this tax.
So that's, I guess, what I would like to figure out.
If we're charging the passenger vehicle companies, right, that are providing a great amenity
to tourists in a country, are they paying both this increased fee for their fleets plus
this tax?
If it's any, you know, and maybe this is something that comes back through the chair.
Yeah, I would, I would suggest that it sounds like there's some confusion about what, who,
I mean, I guess the location, what it's paid, the way I understood it was that, you know,
the boat out in the water and let's say Belmont Harbor has got the thing that it attaches
to the ground and to attach to that.
That was, that was my understanding that it tax now as it relates to larger, larger vessels
that may not dock somewhere here.
I don't know if it applies, which is a question I think we can get an answer back through,
through OBM.
Yeah, I think so too.
Just, just understanding that is, is helpful.
The only thing I'm going to ask about hemp is who came up with this idea of an accessory
retail license, which I think is a really bad idea.
Maybe don't tell me who came up with it because I think it's a bad idea.
I'm just leaving it at that.
It's just a bad idea.
So the idea that, you know, I'm going to sell, you know, stuffed animals and hemp, right?
Right.
I can't do that with traditional cannabis.
Well, the retail license, let's keep in mind, is for other items.
Everybody that sells outside of the regulated stuff is subject to a regular business license
for sales tax purposes anyway.
So it's not like, I mean, if they're selling paper or other products, they're still subject
to that tax.
But what we're giving them is more favorable zoning.
They're allowed by right in every C-zone without special use, like a regular cannabis dispensary
would be.
And that's if it's the, it's the 25% rule like liquor, right?
If it's 25% of your floor area is hemp.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Trotter.
Accessory would be any, well, a hemp dispensary would be defined as 50%.
50?
For it to become a dispensary.
All right.
I think that's, again, I think that's a bad idea.
If it's going to be a dispensary, it should be treated, I'm all about parity between these
industries.
The beverages, we know how to regulate.
We've had this here in our conversation once or twice in this room, I think.
But we have to get, if we're going to regulate hemp, we have to get a lot closer to how we
regulate cannabis for it to be really fair and to protect those cannabis social equity
entrepreneurs that are getting crushed by illegal hemp.
No sympathy there.
I'll just ask real quick then, or if I may, Chair, the vendors, the street vendors.
I think we saw a real explosion earlier this year that has obviously died down quite a
bit.
I want to thank you guys for enforcement with food trucks and those people cooking.
But I don't know that I've seen much enforcement on people who are just selling booze.
They're selling airplane bottles.
They're selling cans of beer or pre-mixed cocktails.
So what I'd like to do is understand how much enforcement's happened on liquor.
And if we can, through the Chair, if you could provide all the different fines and locations.
Let me see.
Right.
Outside of establishment.
So break down a fines by type and ward.
And then if it's outside of an establishment, I think where they are.
And how can we bolster that?
Because there's way too much being sold illegal on the street that you can sell legally other
places.
Forget the stuff that's illegal to sell anywhere.
But, you know, again, I enjoy working with your department.
I, you know, small businesses are the lifeblood of my community.
We've got some big ones, too, that help bring people in.
And then tourism.
So I want to continue to be a partner.
But I want to make sure we're not breaking these guys over a lot of little things when a
lot of them are still really stretched in every community.
So appreciate the work you do and look forward to the responses through the Chair.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you, Alderman Lawson.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Taylor.
No.
Okay.
So just text me.
I'm here.
Hey.
Okay.
Go ahead.
How y'all doing?
Commissioner.
What's going on?
How are you?
So let's have a conversation about the hemp thing.
Can you all hear me?
Yes.
All right.
Hold on.
Okay.
As it relates to hemp, if you've got a new question on hemp, that's fine.
I mean, we have beat the crap out of hemp today.
So it looks like we're going to have another hearing around that matter.
I do want to remind us that we've got some other departments to get through today.
So if you've got something new on hemp, that's fine.
Otherwise, I'm going to ask you to go to some.
It's fine.
You know what?
You chairman.
Didn't nobody tell you how to put all these people on the same day?
And you know how important these hearings are.
So I appreciate you.
I'm not about to be hemp.
What I'm about to say is, why did we not, and I asked this to CDPH, put in an ordinance
that says you can only sell it in smoke shots?
Since we're not clear about who's selling it, what we're actually selling, that type of thing,
why was that decision not made?
That's all I'm asking.
That's a fair question.
Do you want me to go over what we're trying to propose here?
I just want you to answer the question, Commissioner.
Can you answer the question?
I've heard everything you said in relation to this.
And right now, the bag is to be held in the hands of you, CDPH, to be able to tell these
people, and Commissioner, let's be perfectly clear.
Two summers ago, you and I had a conversation about them selling in the store in my ward and
the two young ladies who went to the emergency room, who I sent you all the police report.
And so at that point, my expectations of the city of Chicago and your office was to say,
let's not sell it in liquor stores, convenience stores, any stores other than a smoke shop.
And I don't care what y'all love.
We love shuffling blank.
I don't care.
We got home rule.
Am I correct?
And so there should have been something put in to say we don't sell them in anything other
than smoke shops, because we know smoke shops are not supposed to allow people in there
that are 21 and older, nobody younger.
We know we're going convenience stores.
We send our kids in there, because then a bunch of communities is all we got.
Explain.
Other women, this is exactly what we're trying to prevent from happening.
This product is already everywhere.
We're trying to control it.
We're trying to control it.
We don't have anything else on the books right now that's controlling this.
We're putting a 21 and under restriction.
We are requiring that these products are behind the counter.
You have to have 21 to purchase and 21 to dispense it.
Commissioner, I'm going to stop you, because these are the same stores that will sell cigarettes,
cigarellos, and lighters, and other things to young people.
These are the same stores that have hookahs hanging up in them.
I'm going to say it again, so there's some clarity.
We're also implementing a three-strikes-in-24-month enforcement regime that would lead to license revocation.
Right now, there's nothing else that's preventing kids to access this.
We have to control it.
We have to have a regulatory regime in place to be able to regulate it.
We have to charge for it, too.
We have to make sure that our kids...
Commissioner, if you all would say, is the law on our side to say you cannot sell this in convenience stores
and gas stations and any of those other little stores, and this can only be sold in a smoke shop?
I want yes or no, and how quick can we write that on?
No, this ordinance does not restrict businesses from selling.
You have to go through the licensing process.
The licensing process will require automatic input, community input, and commander input.
That is something that is not in place right now.
So that does not answer the question.
That does not fix the problem.
We told y'all this was going to happen with marijuana, and with all due respect, Commissioner, you wasn't here.
We knew what was going to happen.
Everybody was going to be selling it with no regulations, and people were going to get hurt.
But I'm going to move from that, because at the end of the day, we could have done something,
and as usual, we do the bare minimum.
why is it that when we go after bad businesses and they're closed why are they allowed to keep
their license is there a conversation that your department is having because and what i will say
is commissioner you did get that store closed for almost almost a year so i appreciate it because
it's a bad business in my ward it does bad things it does not do right by people in my community
my thing is it's like the first second third or fourth time that business has been closed
why are we allowing these people to keep their business license
alderman if you have a specific location i'll be happy to discuss it with you but
a license revocation process it's it's it's a legal proceeding proceeding that takes
that includes appeals conversations businesses can remain open when they are going through the
appeal process um you know we once the license is revoked the license is revoked the license the
business is closed do you have a particular location that we can discuss offline i have
several i'll give you a call afterwards please because what they do is so right on 60th and king
driving you know the business i'm talking about they close one side of the business only to open up the
other side and do the same thing and then when you all close that side they open the other side
it's the same family it's the same business they've been doing it for decades even before i got in the
office how are we holding those folks accountable and they don't care about your plans and fees
because these are the same people who allow people to use their link cards to buy energy drinks and then
sell them back to the store for an inflated price i'll tell y'all what they do i y'all see it
i'm confused why they are still allowed to do business in our community no problem
let's talk offline about those those locations i mean our enforcement team is always available to
everyone here we're very aggressive so i never got a problem with your enforcement you are
absolutely right commissioner what i got is these bad actors continue to do what they're doing and we
do nothing let's move to something about holding business accountable when they are mistreating
people when they are aggressive and when they target homeless folks what does the city chicago have in
place it seems like nothing can you repeat the question other woman what do we do about businesses who
mistreat homeless folks people of color and children that are in our communities i've sent bacp in and
buildings in that building which they find very little to nothing but what are we doing about how they
treat people so so other woman you know we so you know our authority comes from the code we inspect licensing uh
you know we regulate licensing if there's anything around uh that that pretends to other department we
always uh uh uh refer complaints if uh homelessness and and things like that we can work with the human
relations the commission of human relations to enforce i mean to uh uh uh you know refer this this
complaint so again i'll be happy to talk to you about specific locations and we have a very good
relationship with the commission when it comes to liquor how are you all coordinating with um cpd
around these liquor stores that that shootings happening from people outside lottery um i want to say
last week we before last um literally an incident that happened in front of a liquor store in my ward
somebody got shot how are you all coordinating with cpd to hold those businesses accountable
hi alderwoman shannon trotter local liquor control commissioner so whenever there is a incident
especially a violent incident that involves um a store or a business the the sort of the order of
operations and assessing that is that um if they're like if there was a shooting the detectives would go
in they would be investigating the shooting in the background we would be doing an assessment um
the city would be doing an assessment to see if the summary closure ordinance would apply and that
is um a closure that is issued by the superintendent so that is a police closure they are working in
conjunction with the law department to see if that incident meets the requirements of the summary
closure if it does then the police will close the business um and that business can stay closed for up to six
months then as a follow-up to the the incident whether it is closed or not closed both vice control the cpd
licensing unit and our bacp investigators will go in and do a follow-up investigation so we will receive
the reports relating to the incident itself so the shooting and we will receive reports relating to
any follow-up violations that occur meaning when our teams go in if they you know find that they don't
have um you know proper signage or outdated food or any any other violations the plan of operation
violations anything we will get those reports and then we can use those for licensed discipline
so we are working very very closely with with police on and anything that involves a business
through the chair can you all send all the incidents um that have happened this year and closures for
businesses um we we would have to get that information from from the police department they're the
issuers of the summary closures we we receive the cases where people appeal because we there those appeals
are heard in our courtroom but not every business would appeal the summary closure but um that
information we we can get is there something in the code that allows us to go after to make sure that
businesses within a four-year span have an inspection uh what kind of inspection uh alderman
all kind of inspection business making sure they're paying employees
hey elder woman this is uh chris assistant commissioner can you repeat the question
is there anything in the code that says within a four-year span that you get to go to a business
and so you know how we have a bunch of businesses that you all just sent us i understand that's a list
of businesses that are registered and who have licenses within a four-year span to make sure that
they're doing what they're supposed to do even before we get a complaint is there something in the
code that has you go to inspect those business or does it have to be a complaint does it have to be my office
so so again alderman alderman this is chris assistant commissioner i'm gonna um ask commissioner trotter
to expand but it there are uh sections of the code depending on license type where there are routine
inspections yeah i i think that the the bulk of our our inspections are complaint related but certainly
there is a cadence um where we do try to get to every business um prioritizing those with complaints um
and as chris stated there is certain businesses that do require annual or bi-annual inspections either
from bcp or other um departments so for example uh a ppa license has a bi-annual inspection by the
department of buildings um who license i'm sorry say the license again a public place of amusement
license that one is the one that i would say i'm most familiar with because it's under my purview and
so it has a bi-annual so every time the license term comes up it has an inspection that goes um that is a
requirement for the license to be renewed which requires that the department of building do that
inspection um i don't know if if our head of enforcement wants to add anything to the cadence
you have to add that to the chair we thank you okay all right alderman you reach your time limit
do you want to go to round two you got anybody else on round two yes no i'm good okay thank you thank
you all right um alderman fuentes you have anything okay hold on the cruise is not in
two tiers and then alderman coleman you have anything i'm sorry i apologize i'm sorry
glass out real quick go ahead and i'll come back to you go ahead alderman thank you chairman commissioner
uh and deputy commissioners uh thank you so much the food truck illegal food trucks uh is there any
new protocol or procedures and addressing um these pop-up kind of illegal food trucks that are infiltrating
in our neighborhoods same as any other complaint we'll we'll address it i mean if you have uh illegal
food trucks operating in your ward there's a lot of restrictions that come around that it's a very
very well regulated business license um that involves bacp involves department of health uh
thoroughly and there's some uh our restrictions there is time restrictions when it comes to to
to that food preparation i mean it's a lot if you have a specific location please let us know and
it's something that we investigate i like to see a little bit more enforcement uh because the food trucks
they are operating at during evening hours sure and it is a disturbance to neighborhood blocks
specifically on 64th and morgan 54th and ashland
where actual community leaders and representatives reside.
So I'm gravely concerned about that and the enforcement of those after hours,
because it draws crowds, loud music, garbage that we find ourselves cleaning.
No problem.
Last, I just want to especially thank Commissioner Shannon Trotter
for the diligence work of the business that I inherited from the Great Six Ward.
Thank you so much.
I want to publicly thank you and acknowledge you.
My buddy next to you, Chris, you are always a phone call away.
So thank you.
And thank you, Deputy Commissioner Tiffany, for all that we do.
Last thing, sidewalk appliances stores, sidewalk vending, sidewalk.
What is the official ordinance on that?
Because I'm noticing more and more are easing on up, specifically along Ashland.
We saw that when we took our tour, and we immediately addressed it.
But I know it continues to happen.
They shouldn't be putting anything on the public way without a permit.
Okay.
Without a permit.
Without a permit.
Anything that's on, above, or below the public way requires a permit.
What is the cost of that permit?
Hi, Chair.
I just want to clarify.
And I'll pivot to AJ on the public way use permit,
because it might be a little bit different.
But I did.
So operating on the, like, storing your supplies on the public way,
we wouldn't give a permit for that type of activity.
Okay.
You could go through the Department of Transportation for, like, a sidewalk sale.
That's not what you're talking about, though.
No.
I'm speaking of, like, appliances, furniture.
Yeah, storing that type of material on the public way is never anything that we would permit or authorize.
And so we would have to send out enforcement on that.
Is that illegal?
It is illegal.
It is illegal.
You're blocking the public way.
So, yes, it is illegal.
Okay.
Thank you.
No problem.
Thank you.
Thank you, Autumn.
Autumn Gutierrez.
Thank you, Chairman.
I just wanted to thank the commissioner, the assistant commissioner, and all of the staff in that office.
You guys do God's work.
I know sometimes you either take my call right away or just call me back within minutes, you and your team.
Thank you so much for helping our businesses and our constituents with any question or any complaint.
Thank you for the enforcement, what needed, and thank you for all the hard work.
Thank you, Autumn.
Thank you, Autumn.
Autumn LaSpada.
Thank you, Chair.
Not a great amount of questions.
My thanks always out to your team.
Like, there's a reason that this year we're at three shootings in the ward rather than the 17 we were last year.
And honestly, that's related to your team.
And everything that we're talking about today, the community meetings process, the administrative hearings process,
that's a hard road to go down to get to license revocation.
But I appreciate every member of your team that has been a part of that with us.
And the first ward is safer for it.
I did have two particular questions.
Number one, you mentioned that as part of the PPA license, buildings does an every two years inspection.
Is BECP able to do any sort of proactive inspections where PPA licenses are concerned?
There is a pre-license inspection that happens during the licensing process.
Shannon, do you want to expand on that a little bit?
Yeah.
So there are a bunch of pre-license inspections for public place of amusement licenses.
They do include several Department of Buildings, and it does include a BACP investigation.
I know about the pre-license, and I appreciate that.
I'm saying, like, I would say, like, what if there is a source of frustration to our neighbors,
it is the complaint-based enforcement around PPA licenses because oftentimes we do go through a community meetings process
or do some hard work to put a strong plan of operations together,
and then our neighbors feel like it's on them to be the watchdogs for that plan.
And I'm asking, like, is there a way for BACP to have the capacity for proactive, even if it was, as you're saying,
like a once-every-other-year thing?
Sure.
Yeah.
So a couple of things that we can do around here.
We can do a better business team business, like a compliance education program around PPAs.
We've done that in the past.
I think we're due for another one.
And then we can also do a mission specifically to PPA locations where we'll do license premise checks.
We'll do insurance checks, all of that.
So thanks for bringing that up.
I appreciate that, sir.
My only other question, which was flagged from our team,
is it was related to a program called the Emergency Transportation of Devices Pilot.
I know that there was funding around this last year.
Apparently, it was if you had to be taken to the emergency room by ambulance and had to leave your mobility device behind,
you might have to leave it behind because ambulances aren't accessible for mobility devices.
I'm told that there had been a pilot.
I'm reading this from my staff, so apologies.
It was supposed to be a pilot, but then they said they found sustainable funding for it
and haven't heard anything beyond the RFP.
Is the pilot that I'm describing familiar to members of – I see a hand going up.
Yes.
Hello.
That's –
Hello.
This is Rupal Bobbitt with Deputy Commissioner of BACP.
We are hopefully going to launch the RFP this year.
Before the end of the year, there was an issue of funding source.
We did secure funding – we did figure that out.
I am – I'm working on that project.
It's an active project with the MOPD, Law Department, and Public Safety Administration.
And we just met yesterday to hopefully wrap up and launch the RFP this year for –
to secure a vendor for – I think it's an unattended or unoccupied mobility device
that's left behind during an emergency situation.
Exactly right.
I'm curious, do we have – contracting can be a pain.
I think the whole room acknowledges this.
That said, do you think there's an estimated timeline for how long the RFP will be open,
vendor selection, getting them actually contracted?
I will follow the same timeframe that we've – BACP has done in the past
for the Centralized Wheelchair Accessible Taxi Cab Dispatch contract.
I'll be mirroring the timeframe on that contract because that seems to be successful
in having the RFP out long enough for potential vendors to review.
And we'll do the same, have a bid, open bid meeting, a pre-bid meeting, answer questions.
I can't tell you the exact timeframe, but it'll be what we've done successfully in the past.
What would be a fair expectation for following up?
Would you say like Q1 of 2026?
That's very fair.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
And if – when the RFP goes live, I will make sure that we share it with you.
I appreciate that tremendously.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
No other questions on my part.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman LaSpada.
Alderman Mitchell.
After Mitchell, we're going to go to round two.
I don't have anybody that is – Alderman Napolitano, do you have anything?
You're good.
Alderman Scott, you're good.
I know I got you, Alderman Mitchell, and then you – just two, quickly, please, sir.
Alderman Mitchell.
All right.
Thank you, Chairman.
Commissioner, I'm going to just dive right in.
Based on your experience, because you've been around a long time as an investigator, as a deputy,
and you've heard a lot of different complaints from all 50 of us.
You've been exposed to a lot of the dynamics of our different wards.
Basically, you should have a good grasp of what we've got going on in our wards.
My question is, based on all of that, you know, what legislation, what policies, what procedures have you sought to put in place
to address any or all of those situations that are really specific and very dynamic to our wards?
I know – and can you be very specific and then say what the issue was and then what –
Again, we can talk a little bit about gas stations if you want.
I mean, I know that gas stations is a problem.
It's not a – it's a problem in some wards, but not in every ward.
I know that, you know, what happens in the 6th, 7th, 8th ward is not happening in other areas.
So we have to be very cognizant about that.
But I also know that when we propose legislation that's going to impact the entire city –
So what's the issue with the gas stations that you seek into it?
Oh, you know, the loitering, the crime, you know, things that happen, the tobacco sales to minor problems,
the lack of security, you know, everything that happens around that.
So what legislation, policies, procedures are you –
We have to be very careful when we do that because what we –
That's fine.
You be careful as you work on them.
So which – what are we –
doing. So, you know,
I think we have to address issues in a per ward basis.
So whatever you're going to propose to remediate some of your problems
should be specific to your ward. I agree. Yes. And you
know all these issues. Yes. What are we
doing? You're top spot now. You know about all the issues.
I mean, I've seen it. Yes. You've got, especially these three right here,
extremely competent. I don't know what I would do without these three, but
what you brought up. We have to work together. Which I have 10.
Yes. Which on the west, south and the west sides, we have over almost 260.
What, what, what, knowing all of that, what are we doing?
We need to continue the conversation, Alderman. I mean, we have to talk about your
specific problems. You are well aware of these issues.
What are we doing now?
Like, like, as an example, Alderman Bill
bought up something about the tape. You mentioned
that we go out to these gas stations
all of the time. You said that all of the
time. Yeah.
Please provide through the chair
a whole, to
show us that you guys go out to these gas stations
all of the time. I would love to see that.
Sure. I have 10. I, and I
have, I, I, I, I,
I don't like my gas stations.
I don't like the way they function. I would love to see this rotation that you guys have
that you go to all these, all of the time with the 65, I think you said, uh, people that
you have doing the best. I want to see that.
Sure. Yeah. I want to see that.
For gas stations. I mean, we do tobacco sales to minor inspections. That's twice a year.
No, I'm, I'm, every gas station, we do a certification on the pumps, but we're talking about specific, uh, uh, public safety issues that you're facing with the lawyer.
I'm referring to legislation, policies and procedures that you felt need to happen in order to address those specific issues that's in our wards that you know about.
Alderman, I have to work with every single individual, Alderman here, you know, on, on, on, on, on legislation proposals. It has to come from you to us. What do you want? What do you want? What do you want to have to do that?
We are open to conversations, but you, this is your, your area. It has no better. No, no, no, no. This is your area.
I worked with several departments where they proactively knew they proactively listed out issues that we over time have reported to them based on their experience and based on the things that we've talked to them. And they've come up with legislation and zoning changes, ordinances. And they've done it. They've initiated from these departments and Alderman helped them carry the water.
But this has happened. So I can go back to an email that I sent you in January.
And so you, and I know you, and you've been around, I've heard you talk, you, you are aware of all these issues in our wards.
What with the staff that you have, with the intellectual capital that you have, this is that you have a team of smart, talented people, lawyers, and committed people to the city.
What have you put on the table in the way of legislation, policies, and procedures to assist us in addressing these issues that we have in our wards?
I'm making all my resources available to you and work with you to identify solutions to your problems.
But we have to understand that BACP is the department that licenses all businesses, not just businesses in the sixth ward, seventh ward, eighth ward.
So I am offering and continue to offer my resources, my availability to sit down with you and identify those problems and come up with solutions, either in the form of legislation or other.
You know, I know you keep looking down at the book.
And that's why I don't like these hearings, because I know you guys rehearse on things that you, that we may say, and that's irritating to me.
That's why I started out by reverting to your experience and all of that, because you've been here, and you know I've talked to you.
That's why I wanted to see what you, as the leader of BACP, and based on being committed to addressing, being committed to providing quality programs and service to all 77 communities.
Of course.
What are, what is being done?
We've asked this question.
He's made his statement for the question, and I think he's looking for a little bit of guidance from the council on, as it relates to legislation for that.
Hold on one second.
We'll go to Alderman Bill for the point of clarification.
I just wanted to, I mean, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, Alderman.
Are you just basically asking him what his vision is on what his department can do to better the city of Chicago?
I mean, is that where we're trying to?
I think Alderman Mitchell has asked for some very specific things on issues that are being brought forth, that what the department's position is or legislation that they're wanting to bring forth for that.
His essential response is, you know, he's the enforcement agent.
He's not the policy agent, per se.
So, again, some of that, some of that responsibility as it relates to policy is going to come back to us and for them to either implement and tell us what we can and cannot do and work through that.
So, I think that I understand what you're asking and I understand what he's saying and sound like you all need to probably have a one-on-one conversation on this.
So, let me, let me, let me go into policy because let's talk about cut the tape initiative.
That's a policy.
That's what we move into.
All right.
The cut the tape initiative has some unintended consequences.
Would you agree or disagree?
Meaning that once Chicago is not a one-size-fits-all.
The tape in my world is it's going to, it's going to help businesses get their, entrepreneurs get their business licenses quicker.
Okay.
So, they can open their doors quicker and see a profit.
I'm saying new businesses.
So, with the cut the tape initiative, in my war and in other wars of Alderman that I've spoken with, by being so kind of lax with allowing businesses to just pop up in our neighborhoods, it is having a detrimental effect on our communities, which mean you talked about before.
So, that, I don't, I don't think, I think that with BACP being as integral a part of building our corridors, part, actually part of development, policing the type of businesses, there's too many things that still exist in these wards that aren't being addressed.
That, to me, that, to me, are easy.
And they're, and they continue to persist, and that puts the alderman in a bad spot, and it makes us feel like we don't have a partner in this department.
I appreciated all the work that I've done with Commissioner Trotter in addressing all our bad liquor stores, because these guys are sloppy.
They leave footprints.
They leave trails.
They leave breadcrumbs.
And outside of my efforts with her, I have not been able to attack the issues that I'm seeing in these other businesses, and it's frustrating.
So, that's why I asked the question, you know all the issues, you know, so what are you being done proactively?
And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and bring, that, that, and I'm not, and I'd say nothing.
I'd rather, I'd rather just say nothing.
Other than that, that's my point.
This is a partnership between community and.
But I don't feel like it's a partnership.
I don't, I, I don't have any examples of being, of a partnership.
I don't like smoking mirrors.
I don't like the makeshift drive-arounds to say, you did, I want, I want these problems in my ward addressed by the body.
That is charged with addressing them.
And I don't see, I'm not, I'm not having no success with this.
No, no, no, no real tangible success with this.
And, and, and, and normally I don't do this in, in this type of hearing, but it's the frustration because you know about these issues.
And they're not being addressed.
We're not ignoring any of your issues.
We are not ignoring any of your issues.
We are addressing every single complaint that you bring to me and to our department.
I have the enforcement team right here.
We have numbers on your ward.
We're, we're there a lot.
We have to continue working together.
If you have.
So just the last thing I'm going to say, you said we're addressing.
I need them addressed.
They still exist.
We have addressed.
No.
And we continue to address.
And we will continue to address.
Okay.
We'll continue.
All right.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
I have Alderman.
Villegas had a quick follow-up, followed by Alderman Moore.
And then we'll.
Thank you.
I'll be real quick.
Thank you.
BACP around technology.
Just wanted to make a recommendation or maybe you're doing this.
Sure.
Wanted to see if there's a possibility where your department could do two things.
Number one, do some YouTube videos around all the documents that you have.
So that way, if the small businesses want to submit applications that they can just easily look at the YouTube video, YouTube channel, put forward, you know, fill out the form.
If they have questions, then they contact you.
Then second, taking a look at using AI bots in order to help the businesses that are navigating the website.
Those bots could ask questions, kind of prompt them to get them to the right place.
Two recommendations.
So just for the YouTube, Elisa, can you speak a little bit about our social media?
Yeah, absolutely.
Elisa Slizinska, Deputy Commissioner of Communications and Outreach.
Thank you.
so much, Alderman, for that question. So we do host webinars twice a week, which do include
business licensing that would address some of the license types for businesses in your words and
across the city. And then we do post those on our YouTube channel. We have, I believe, over 5,000
subscribers. And then we also share it on social media as well with 29,000 followers.
I appreciate that. And I appreciate the webinars, but I was just taking a look at
per document or whatever documents the most that you get questions about. So that way
it would make it easier. That's all. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Moore? Alderman? You okay?
Okay. All right. All right. I got to go. I got to go. Hang up.
Um, God be the glory. Um,
just real quick. And I think somebody was hitting on this and I don't want to repeat it. I think as
part of, I guess it was cut the tape, um, when we, when we did things about signage,
because I know that certain things zoned for certain things that business is automatically
open. Right. And, but we used to control when the signage come our way. And I know people saying,
oh, you all get those emails, but they get sometime go to ward 17 or whoever 17, that stuff get lost.
I'm getting at this point of, I don't know how we can bring that back in house. Is that something we
have to do? Because here's what's happening. And this is, and I think maybe just Alderman Taylor or
somebody else hit on it. So store opens, um, with the drug paraphernalia, right? That wasn't there that
I wouldn't even allow there that I wouldn't even allow to get not only a license, but I wouldn't
even allow them to get signage. Something would have put the kibosh on this. Now I'm spending police
resources. I'm calling BACPL. All of this, when I could have just stopped that from the beginning.
What are you all thoughts on that? Because something has to give, uh, um, it's destroying
neighborhoods. It's costing us money. Something has to give. And so it's not that Alderman just
want all this control to be assholes. This is real in terms of what we, in terms of how we care about
our community and, and it's, and it's costing us. I know what it is. I mean, drug paraphernalia,
it's illegal. So if you, if you have a location that's selling that, I mean, of course, we're
going to respond and, and, and issue citations. I mean, it's illegal. You're talking about
like the pipes and all that. They, they opening up legitimate business on the North side and
the South side. That's that, that's not illegal. They're just masking to something else. They
had the little flower inside and, but it's usually used for, for, for drug consumption.
Um, that is illegal. We check for that stuff.
So if there's a pipe, any store selling pipe, you're selling a pipe, uh, uh, to smoke, you
need a tobacco license, anything that is, uh, uh, my point is you probably gave my license.
That's my point. That's why I went back to the signage thing. That's why I went back because
we used to control things like that because the signs, you know, for them to put up, came
my way. And we used to put the kibosh on this because they come to you all get the license.
They get the license. It's done. And then we're, the community is screwed.
But are you, I'm sorry, Tiffany Brooks, our first deputy, are you asking about receiving
notifications when licenses are applied for in your ward?
Well, if they apply for it, we don't get, we don't get the control in no way. I got to
get back to control to stopping things. That's what I'm trying to get back to.
Tobacco license do not require all the manic, uh,
I know the tobacco license don't, but we hear, that's why I've talked about the signage.
That's, I guess that's back in buildings too, right?
Signage, uh, public way signage goes through your office.
Not for, not for, it's just a, it's just for us to, uh, have a comment on it. It's, and sometimes
that comes to Ward 17, it's not coming, and they get caught up in all that other crazy
stuff. Before, they used to come to us, and if we didn't sign off on it, they did not get
it. And that changed, I think, under, I can't remember if it was the wrong, the manual or, um,
Lightfoot administration. I can't remember. All I'm asking is, can we go at least back to
that under automatic control? Something that you want to propose to change the code?
You know, we, you will, right now, the way it is, uh, it goes through Ward 17 because
that's the main, uh, email to the aldermen. You know, that's the junk email. You get stuff
from Minnesota, Texas, everywhere. That's the junk email. Thanks for letting us know. I mean,
we've heard, we've heard that before from other aldermen. So we have to do something because
it's, uh, it's, it's costing the city money and it's costing communities. And I'm almost about
to lose a good business because of the activity that's going on by the bad business. You know,
it's just, it's, it's, it's killing us. It's killing us. Okay. Chairman, I'm done. Thank you. Um,
let me just say this. Um, there, there seems to be a general consensus that there's a need for more
enforcement, uh, by the department and various aspects of the service. Um, not sure if this is
a resource issue or a, uh, issue of just getting it done. Uh, I think many of the conversations and,
uh, complaints from the body are unchanged, uh, while we've had some strides with the weekend
enforcement and other items and other things that have moved on, uh, we're still at the core of some
very basic things that I think the department, uh, has to address, uh, in order to, um, I think move
communities and move the, move the city forward. So I, uh, I hope you take the conversation from
today and implement some, uh, changes. I do believe that, uh, um, based on some of this conversation,
especially around hemp and the, uh, other regulations, uh, hemp and for, um, the sweepstakes
and items, uh, I'm sure there'll be additional conversations around those issues for, uh, in the
weeks and months to come. Um, but I think the general consensus from what I'm hearing is that we,
we need to step up the enforcement and, uh, in more ways than one, uh, not only for this for the
enforcement, but also for revenue, as we find that there's a lot of things being kind of left on the
table, uh, you know, with the enforcement aspect of it. So I think everybody's just, you know, hyper
concerned about their local communities and, uh, know that you guys, you know, can and, um, can get
things done. Uh, we just need a little more, uh, not, like I said, not sure if it's your resources.
We need more people or we need something because I just don't think that, um, we can continue to
sustain, uh, like this without making some strides in that direction. So I do, um, I do hope that you've
taken this and, uh, you can get the duty chair items back to us with haste. We would, uh, would
greatly appreciate that. Uh, with that, uh, committee will stand at ease, uh, while we
transition to, uh, DPD. Um, you all be good. Uh, vice chair is taking over for a minute. I'll be back.
Okay.
We're going to come back to order, everybody.
Don't forget, we have four to go, and it is 3 o'clock.
We've got the Department of Planning and Development up next.
We're going to allow Chloe from COFA to give their analysis first,
and then we will do introductions with the department.
Chloe, over to you.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Good afternoon, Vice Chair Lee and members of the City Council.
This is Chloe Ute-Maine from COFA.
I'll give a very brief summary for Department of Planning and Development.
For fiscal year 2026, the department's recommended budget is $121 million.
Compared to previous year, that's a $11 million decrease, which is around 8.5%.
Within the department's budget, 12.11% is corporate funded,
and its other major funding sources are other local funds and grants fund.
Spending overview, personnel cost is $19.97 million,
and non-personnel makes up the remaining $101 million.
The department has 194 full-time equivalent positions budgeted for FOA 2026,
which is one position fewer compared to the previous year.
This slide provides a detailed breakdown for DPD's appropriation by category and fund.
The largest decline is in category 9,000 purposes as specified,
and this decrease of $12.9 million is...
primarily due to the elimination of ARPA funding.
Local funding remains stable at about $114 million, while grant funding drops by around 57%.
Now we're looking at the historical trends for DPD appropriation by fund for the past 10 years.
For FY2026's recommendation, total appropriations decreased to $121 million.
Lastly, this slide presents DPD's full-time equivalent positions by fund over the past 10 years.
This year, it maintains a nearly identical staffing level at 194 FTEs.
Within this total, 111 positions are funded through Corporate Fund, 69 through other local funds, and 14 through grants.
And this concludes my summary. Thank you.
Thank you, Chloe.
Now we'll introduce Commissioner Boatwright and her team.
Please go ahead.
You can read your statement first, and then you can do introductions.
Awesome.
So thank you, Zweno Chairman Irvin sat here.
We're really hard on it.
Everybody works hard on these statements.
I would like it.
And Vice Chair Nicole Lee and esteemed members of Chicago City Council, I'm happy to provide a brief overview of the department's work in 2025 and our core priorities for the months ahead.
I'd like to first introduce my team.
With me on the dais is my first deputy and zoning administrator, Patrick Murphy, Deputy Commissioner of Finance, Alex Butnick, and Assistant Commissioner, Paul Moody.
In the box, we have Managing Deputy Tim Jeffries, Managing Deputy Daveed Scully, Deputy Commissioner Cindy Rubick, Deputy Commissioner Mary O'Connor, Director of Planning, Research, and Development, Brad Rubick, Director of Land Disposition and Acquisition, Whitney Mungin, Human Resource Director Amy Henry, and Assistant Commissioner Noah Sopranik.
We're currently staffed with 159 full-time professionals across five bureaus, plus a sixth bureau of operations that we share with the Department of Housing.
Among the projects that we have advanced under the leadership of Mayor Johnson are $900 million in adaptive reuse investments that are reshaping LaSalle Street with more than 1,700 new housing units,
30% of which will be affordable to ensure the corridor is not only mixed-use but also mixed-income as we continue to revitalize and reimagine downtown.
The city assistance is priming the pump for other nearby investments, including 11 office-to-residential conversions proceeding downtown without any city subsidies.
Collectively, these 17 projects involve more than $1.5 billion in new investments, 3,200 new housing units, and more than 3 million square feet of repurposed office space that will help maintain Chicago's distinction as having the fastest-growing downtown in the country.
These totals are more than all the residential conversions that occurred downtown over the previous two decades, and nearly half of them involve current or pending landmarks.
So, we're as excited by the historic preservation components as we are by the mixed-use and mixed-income diversity.
Our housing efforts don't end in a loop.
Our Missing Middle initiative is priming the pump throughout the South and West Side, where dozens of city lots in North Lawndale, Chatham, Morgan Park, and South Chicago are poised to be redeveloped into 219 market-rate units.
This pilot is a direct response to communities' needs involving the city's number one resource, its people.
Missing Middle will add population, increase density, and provide community wealth-building opportunities through market-rate homeownership,
all made possible by the Housing and Economic Development Bond.
These initial projects are being driven by 11 minority developers, and they represent $75 million in total investment and $33 million in anticipated city support.
33 additional lots are currently listed for Missing Middle housing in East and West Garfield Park and McKinley Park that could produce over 100 units based off current zoning.
The Missing Middle portfolio is part of the city's twice-yearly lot offerings through the Chi Block Builder land sales portal.
In 2025, we listed roughly 850 parcels, collectively valued at $60 million, so I expect significant returns from more than 250 purchase applications submitted this spring and more to come this fall.
Note that 85% of city land sales are at market rates and 70% are for new construction projects, versus side yards and open spaces that dominated our land disposition a few years ago.
In fact, this year's building permits for former city land are valued at more than $150 million in investment, which underscores our focus on timely dispositions and vertical development.
There are approximately 7,000 available lots remaining in DPD's inventory, and while every listing doesn't lead to a sale, overall process improvement and Chi Block Builder website are substantially increasing our output, increasing investment, and putting more eyes on the street.
We also issued 10 RFPs in 2025 that focus on redevelopment of transit-oriented development sites owned by the city, such as 63rd and Ashland, near the CTA Green Line, the Plymouth and Van Buren site, near the Brown, Pink, Green, and Red Lines, and 43rd and Cicero, near Midway Airport.
We hope to announce winning responses early next year.
I'd like to pivot to Chicago Plan Commission projects and our plan development recommendations to City Council.
Plan Commission approvals in 2025 are valued at $9.7 billion, which is roughly double the amount at this time last year, and more than 2022 and 2023 combined.
These approvals pave the way for 11,500 new housing units, including 2,400 affordable units, with two more Plan Commission meetings to come by years in.
You can track project details with the new dashboard on the Plan Commission website, which is among DPD's recent transparency implementations.
I'll also note there is about $1 billion in PD development construction underway, a portion of which involves 18 active crane permits citywide.
A major PD that started construction this fall is the Quantum Microelectronics Park in South Chicago,
with additional progress to follow at the 1901 project on the near west side, the recently amended 78 project on the near south side, and a portion of Lincoln Yards along the north branch.
We continue to engage with all our mega project developers on their needs and goals, and additional groundbreakings are anticipated in 2026.
I also want to mention the individual map amendments that have advanced citywide in support of contemporary land use patterns.
Nearly 5,000 parcels were proactively rezoned in recent months through partnerships with local aldermen, often through formal community planning processes administered by DPD staff.
Each planning effort includes wide-ranging public outreach surveys and feedback that are essential for meaningful, community-driven improvements.
Current planning work includes commercial corridor studies along portions of Madison, Cicero, Archer, and other major arterials.
Industrial studies involving the Calumet, Burnside, and Pullman corridors, and community area studies that include the first update to the Central Area Plan in 20 years that will be heard at Plan Commission this month.
Also, on January 1st this year, the city's sustainable development policy went into full effect, ensuring Chicago buildings, people, and wildlife collectively benefit from modern construction technologies and best practices.
All of these efforts are shaped by public engagement.
In fact, DPD staff have participated in about 380 automatic briefings and more than 250 community meetings, roundtables, webinars, and focus group gatherings over the course of 2025.
Staff also coordinated several special events like the second annual Preservation Expo this spring and our third annual City Civics Day held on November 15th for Chicagoans that want to play more active roles in their communities,
including our youth, including our youth.
Authentic Outreach also helps increase the number of grant applications submitted from our small businesses to the department, along with better outcomes.
In 2025, DPD has announced more than 425 million in grant awards and related incentives for 226 neighborhood development projects valued at $1.4 billion, which is about 50% more than last year's total value for an equivalent number of projects.
Approximately 75% of our 2025 projects are located on the south, southwest, and west sides, most involving sole proprietorships and mom-and-pop enterprises.
Before I close, I want to reference ongoing cut-the-tape improvements, including efforts that reduce plan commission application timelines by nearly 40%,
reduce valuation timelines for city-owned parcels from six months to one month, reduce right-of-entry timelines for certain city land sales from months to days,
and cut zoning Board of Appeals meeting lengths by half on average.
Time is money.
And our pipeline, and as our pipeline continues to grow, our timelines continue to shrink.
I'll end by reiterating the department's commitment to your constituents' needs to maximizing the city's resources and working with you to make development happen.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
We're going to allow for Vice Chair Lawson to open, and then we'll go to Alderman Beal.
Thank you very much, Vice Chair Lee. Good to see you, Commissioner, and your team. I spent a couple hours with a few of them yesterday, as I do every month, and appreciate all the work that they put into the Zoning Bureau.
I think a couple questions. You talked a lot about residential conversions. I think it's 1,700 on LaSalle alone and 3,200 going on downtown, roughly, yes?
So 17 office-to-resi conversions overall are currently underway. The six initial projects, as part of LaSalle Initiative, is the partnership between DPD and DOH to really advance more housing and put the vacant office spaces back in productive use.
The additional 11 are private market developments, and so I think that's a really impressive trend when we think about office-to-resi conversions.
And are the private market developments subject to the ARO then?
Yeah, so some of the projects are hitting 20%. Some of them are moving forward by right.
So overall, from our office-to-resi conversions, I can actually give you a number because I actually have it handy.
I can give you the exact total for the number of units. One second.
So between all the projects, all 17, we have 3,291 units. Of the 3,200 units, 2,567 are market rate, and 724 are ARO units.
That represents $1.5 billion of new investment.
Awesome. I had dedicated a good portion of the last year to finding housing in spaces that already exist, and this is next level.
So I appreciate that, and I'm sure my colleagues from downtown in the 34th Ward will have more to say there.
We also – you were in my ward for disbursement from the Housing and Economic Development Bond, the Great Music Box Theater.
That bond, my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is $125 million per year for five years?
Across five years.
Right.
And so it's $1.25 billion split between DPD and DOH.
Our portion is $625 million.
And so across five years, on average, is $125.
Okay.
Some years may be higher.
Some years may be lower as we anticipate projects coming down the pipeline.
You don't have any problems spending that $125 a year, do you?
I mean, it was approved in April of 2024.
We've allocated approximately $75 million to date.
That $75 million is supported in approximately $240 million in new project costs, and that's without this next round that's happening.
Announcements, grant announcements happening before the end of the year, which will inevitably use a portion of our Housing and Economic Development Bond.
I think the other thing that's important is, while it was approved in April of 2024, we've rolled out two new initiatives.
I mentioned Missing Middle in my opening statement.
Missing Middle is one of the initiatives that we've rolled out.
And our second new initiative that was just approved at council is our Workforce Solutions that allows us to provide support citywide for local training and hiring dollars that our small businesses desperately need.
We're not limited to TIF districts anymore.
We're able to do it citywide.
So two new initiatives under the Housing and Economic Development Bond.
I love it.
I don't have a TIF.
Let's talk.
Housing and Economic Development Bond will be helpful for you.
Right.
I also – I want to lift up Missing Middle because I think for a long time we were building single-family homes or large multifamily projects.
And, you know, our city was built on the three flats, certainly neighborhoods like mine and a lot of others.
And so that we're – sorry, I think I took all of them on the spot as question.
As density guys, though, I mean, that's really refreshing to see as we start to repopulate our city and do it in every neighborhood that's out there.
I wanted to ask about tech, right?
Everyone is sort of leaning into tech.
It looks – I think my staff gave me a number here, maybe not for you.
What sort of is on the radar as far as tech improvements and how will that help get projects approved?
Sure.
So one of our biggest tech improvements, I would say, is our PROMA improvement.
And PROMA is our project management tool.
PROMA should and will be the sole kind of platform that we use to manage our projects.
And so whether they are large-scale projects through PDs, whether they're smaller-scale projects like our CDG small grant projects,
we'll know exactly where those projects are.
And so the PROMA improvement that we're making that's underway, you know, kind of start actually early next year,
will allow us to better track those projects and know exactly where they stand.
So maybe to piggyback a little, we always hear from developers that whine about, you name the department or the alderman, right?
What sort of barriers are you able to address in the next year in this budget that come up most often for smaller or larger developers?
Yeah, I think a lot of, not all, but I think a lot of the challenges we have proactively addressed through cut-the-tape measures.
One of the biggest complaints that you hear from developers is that time kills deals.
And so they want a sense of urgency from departments to move forward.
I think I mentioned in my opening statement that we've cut the timeline from planned development approvals by 40%.
That's substantial.
Additional cut-the-tape measures that I mentioned is the right of entry for our city-owned land, for non-invasive testing.
We've gone from months to days.
We're able to issue right of entries to our small businesses, individual purchasers,
to be able to advance the process and do their due diligence so they can buy city land and we can get it back in productive use.
And so I think PDs are one extreme, and a sale of a vacant lot and how to access that vacant lot to do your due diligence is another, you know, extreme.
But the point is we're moving much faster and far more collaboratively with our developers.
I think there are other measures that we're implementing beyond just traditional development and the development process to make sure that businesses can access funding.
And so streamlining application processes, doing necessary outreach to make sure that businesses and developers understand what resources are available.
It's not enough just to say, hey, we opened up a grant round.
We want to make sure that the grant application process is far more intuitive, easier to access.
And so those are some of the measures that we've implemented and will continue to implement next year to make doing business with the city a lot easier.
Excellent.
I use the city zoning map a couple times a day.
I'm probably not the only one in the room, but there's a lot more in there.
We've added a lot more information.
Has there been an idea of maybe is there a way to clean – there's a lot of layers.
There's a lot of colors.
There's a lot of different – as we've added things, which is great because it means we're modernizing our code.
We're modernizing our map.
Has there been a thought of looking at the map as a whole and see if there's a way to clean it up or simplify it that makes it just maybe a little more user-friendly or less maybe stuff right away?
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
So we pursue it to a contract that the city council gave us authority to pursue.
We're working with DataMaid to look at all of our application processes and the zoning map to potentially clear up some of the layers.
I mean, one of the issues is that it's one of the only resources that depicts all of that information in one location.
So it does provide people – it can be a lot of information, but it also gives them an idea of things that might overlap or conflict.
But what we're working with DataMaid on is to, A, not only produce some streamlining for our applications from an electronic standpoint,
but then also to look at ways to better address information that's available to the general public that explains projects both that are already approved
and things that are anticipated through the various commissions and boards that we report to.
I think it's a great resource.
There's so much info there.
You know, I can click on a PD and get all the PD documents, and they're there by date.
You know, when did they go to the ZBA?
That could be a little better because you still have to search the ZBA records differently.
It doesn't take you right to the docks.
But there's a lot of functionality that you and I know about, but a lot of other people don't.
And maybe a training on that for some folks, maybe a term thing is something we should always do.
I appreciate the Northside team that I work with closely and all of the neighborhood teams, the regional teams.
I said this, I think, at the mid-year hearing, but if we're going to continue to rezone large swaths of area of the city,
we've got to figure out how to pay for it.
But between Zoning Committee and DPD, there are costs there.
And we have never ran out of money at Zoning Committee like we did this year.
And so let's just have a collaborative conversation on if we need to do some transfers to the council budget or within your own so that we could do all the projects next year.
I agree. This year was an unprecedented number of proactive rezonings.
And so I agree we should.
If I could add two additional points you asked about technology improvements.
One I mentioned in my opening statement, but I just want to call out our plan commission dashboard.
If you all haven't seen it, please look at it.
You can see all the plan commissions, the plan development approvals going back to the last, I believe, two years that are available online.
You can search by ward. You can search by community areas. It's a great improvement.
We're really excited about it.
The other thing I wanted to mention, as you talked about the Housing and Economic Development Bond, I mentioned the new Missing Middle Initiative that we rolled out.
I mentioned Workforce Solutions.
I did not mention our pre-development grants.
We often see a lot of really great concepts that aren't quite ready for funding.
And so through our Housing and Economic Development Bond, we're able to provide pre-development grants to turn those good concepts into ready-to-fund projects.
And so that's another new rollout under the Housing and Economic Development Bond.
Excellent.
All right.
Just one more question.
I mentioned I don't have a traditional TIF in 44.
I think I'm one of two wards that doesn't.
But there's a lot of talk about TIFs and taking money out of TIFs, which is a...
your wheelhouse. Are you concerned about the amount of the TIF sweep this year and impacts
that will have on our ability to leverage those dollars for projects going forward?
Yeah. I mean, I think the surplus is significant, but I would remind us that TIF is one tool. It's
not the only tool. You all approved in April of last year the Housing and Economic Development
Bond, and that's a significant economic tool for us to go beyond districts that aren't TIFs or
beyond districts that don't have healthy TIFs. And so while TIF isn't important too, it works well
when it works well. We have examples where it doesn't work well. I think as the commissioner
for the Department of Planning and Development, I can't rely only on TIF. I will still use TIF,
but I'll also use our Housing and Economic Development Bond. I'll use NOF. I'll use
other funding sources to be able to advance economic development across all 77 community
areas, regardless of if it fits in a TIF or a healthy TIF for that matter.
Right. Nice. Thank you, Commissioner, and your team. You're a joy to work with. I think you bring
a lot to this role that we haven't had from a commissioner in a long time, and you've proved
that year over year. So keep doing it. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Thank you, Vice Chair. We're going to go to Alderman Beal, then to Chair Harris, and then Chair Dowell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioner and team. Let me get to my notes here. Well, while I'm
getting to my notes, if you can just address your $11.27 million decrease in budget, what was that
attributed to and what was it spent on? Yeah, the majority of it is ARPA. We've allocated the
majority of our ARPA dollars, and so that's the majority of the decline. I'll have Alex over our
finance department go into greater detail to kind of hit that exact number. Thank you for the question,
Alder. We did also have... You identify yourself for the records, Murray. Oh, I'm sorry. Alessandra Budnick,
Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Admin. We also did see a slight decline in our corporate funding
per budget reduction requested by OBM. So we did see a slight decline in our
0140 account. We transferred $100,000 from corporate into our TIF budget. I just want to know what the
11 million... Oh, it's ARPA. Okay, and what was it spent on? Oh, it was spent on our cap and our pop
projects and small business plazas, which are how we activate vacant city-owned spaces so that it becomes
public amenities. We have grant programs that were funded with ARPA dollars, and I'm happy to provide
a list of how the funding was allocated through the chair. I don't have the... And how are you going to
fulfill those objectives knowing that you're $11 million short? I think we recognize that ARPA was
a one-time funding. It was wonderful to have this influx of new dollars, but it was just that. It was a
one-time funding source. We don't have new public outdoor plazas that we're able to fund outright
going forward in the traditional sense. But with our new housing and economic development bond, it
allows us to still make significant investments across the city in the way that ARPA allowed
significant investments when those additional dollars were available. But I think it is important
to acknowledge that one-time funding is just bad. It was COVID relief dollars, and it wasn't something that
was intended to stay in place. But we do use every tool in our toolbox, and we'll continue to do just
that to make sure that we are able to support our small businesses, we're able to subsidize large-scale
impactful development, and we're able to really think about how to support open public space in the
same way, in a similar way. Well, I know you like to use the tool in the toolbox, so let's get into
your tools. I mean, you came before us and you told this body that having a $1.2 billion bond was an
extra tool that you needed. Well, I mean, that tool was given to you, but then a billion-dollar tool was
taken away from you. And so how are you going to continue to do the development you need knowing that
you know, a billion dollars being taken out of your preview? Yeah, great question. I think that, to your
point, as we talk about tools in the toolbox, TIFF is not my only tool in the toolbox. That was a big one that
you relied on. And I won't minimize the importance of the tool, but it's not the only tool in a toolbox. The other
thing that I would say is that we talked about ARPA. ARPA was a one-time funding source. I think when we think about
the surplus, the good thing about TIFFs is that new increment is generated on an annual basis. And so I'm confident as
new increment is created that I'll be able to tap those TIFFs in the same way that I have been in
prior years. The other thing I think is important to acknowledge, and I've said it, and so I apologize
if I continue to sound like a broken record, but I can't just use TIFFs. While some auders have healthy
TIFFs, some auders have no TIFFs, and others have unhealthy TIFFs. And so TIFF was never the only tool
that I leaned on. The other thing I think is important to acknowledge, yes, it's a powerful tool, but it's not the
most flexible tool. And so I'm going to absolutely use my housing and economic development bond. I will
continue to tap NOF when and where appropriate. And as TIFF is replenished and increment is created,
I'll continue to tap TIFF when and where appropriate. While you're waiting on it to replenish,
isn't that going to hurt community development? You know, communities like mine that rely on TIFF
waiting for it to replenish? I mean, isn't it going to set us back? I don't think so. I mean,
my focus is how is economic development across all 77 community areas. And so we can't afford
for projects to be set back. I think I would ask two questions just generally. Are we talking about
projects that have already, you know, made its way through the entitlement process? Or are we talking
about concepts that have not received site control, that have not identified a gap for us to support?
As we think about the traditional timeline for real estate development, it doesn't happen overnight,
right? And so when we get to a point where we're talking about how to fill a gap,
that's when we have a conversation about what tool we'll tap for that said gap. And so if we're
talking an idea that you have or a developer has brought forward, I would want to sit down to
understand what their timeline looks like and how we can help to subsidize that development if we need
to subsidize it at all. Okay. So, I mean, knowing it, I mean, talking to my colleagues, you know,
we rely on having conversations with you as it relates to projects we have in our area. You know,
I mean, I don't think anybody that I've talked to in this body has said that they had a conversation,
you know, with you as far as projects in their ward, as far as TIF is concerned. And, you know,
what our priorities are in our ward as far as the TIF. So, you know, what was communicated,
you know, from you to us about what projects are important to us before we swept a billion dollars in
TIF? Well, I'm sorry. I just want, for clarification, are you stating that none of
the aldermen and I have talked about projects that were priorities? No, we talked about priorities as
far as if we're sweeping a billion dollars, we rely on your department to tell us or work with us on
what our priorities are. Nobody has said they had any conversations about their priorities as it
relates to your department before a billion-dollar TIF was announced. Sure. Well, go ahead,
Alderman LaSpada. Just as a point of information, I have had such a conversation with Commissioner
Boatwright and her staff. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I would argue that I actually- Prior to? Yeah. I
would argue that I actually talk to most of my aldermen on a regular. To be clear, the conversations
don't start at budget prep. I talk to my alders all the time. We talk about priorities. The other
thing I think is important to note is rarely do aldermen say, I've got a project that has a gap
and I need to use TIF specifically. I often hear, I have a project that has an identified gap. What do
we have? At that point, we decide, okay, it's TIF more, you know, the best tool? Is it the Housing and
Economic Development Bond? Is it NOF? Are you in an NOF corridor? And so I just want to kind of caution us
with the broad kind of brush approach to talking about TIF as the only source of funding to fill
gaps. It's an important one. I will not minimize the tool. It's an important tool. So we're all on
the same page, but it's not the only one. And so, yes, it is true that I often talk about concepts that
are at the very early stages and how we can potentially turn these concepts into financeable
and feasible projects. When they're conceptual, though, we're not at a point where we've identified
a funding source. Once we get there, for example, some of your projects that have gone through
entitlements and plan commission, and we've gone through TIC or TRR, those projects are on hold.
The funding is on hold. And so those projects aren't going to be negatively impacted by that surplus.
But I want to be really clear. I work with my aldermen on a daily basis to talk about projects that are
priorities in the pipeline.
Okay. Well, let me narrow because, I mean, we do work with your office and we work with everybody
in the department. But the Department of Budget Management presented us with a list of TIF sweeps.
Okay. How much input did you have on that TIF sweep?
On the TIF surplus directly?
Yes.
We work closely with the Department of Budget Management, with Director Guzman directly to talk
about TIF holds and TIF allocation. That's typical. Those conversations help to inform
surplus. However, surplus is not a function of DPD. And I want to be really clear on that. But the
information that we collaborate on, as you all know, help to inform that. But that's not under my purview.
Okay. I get it. So you had no input on that information that was presented to the five.
That's not what I stated. I stated that we work closely with the Department of Budget Management.
closely together with OBM to talk about TIF holds and TIF allocation that then informs surplus.
I get it, but that's not my question. My question is specifically, how much input did you have
on the TIF sweep information that was provided to us?
My answer is still the same because that's input that helps to inform a surplus. I don't know that
a surplus can be made in isolation of details in terms of projects that are on hold that are
using TIF or TIC, that have gone through TIC, if you will. I mean, that's part of the conversation
between DPD and OBM. I don't. Well, I have projects that need TIF and based on the information that's
on that sheet, it's going to hinder projects that I have in my ward. And I haven't had any
conversation with anybody as it relates to that TIF sweep in my ward. And if my colleagues are
saying that they had input or knowledge about their TIF sweep, that's news to me because
everybody that I've talked to have said they didn't have any knowledge on the magnitude of
the TIF. We all knew it was going to be a TIF sweep, but we didn't know it was going to be a
TIF sweep of a billion dollars, which entail is going to hinder community development, is going to
hurt the small businesses and the increments that we've been making in our community as far as jobs
an opportunity is going to be hindered because of this magnitude of this TIF sweep that is basically
bailing out CTU, CPS at our expense of community development. So I'm going to close with this.
I think all of you all are wonderful. I think you are the best commissioner in the city of Chicago.
And my questions are not directed towards you or anybody in this body. I just want to be crystal
clear. But when we're talking about a magnitude of a $1.2 billion TIF sweep, we have to ask these
tough questions. But as it relates to this department, you all, I believe, are one of the
shining stars in this city. And I just want to say that for the record. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Beal. And just to be clear, I think the earlier comment about you
talking to Alderman consistently, we talk all the time too. I think the question where Alderman Beal
was going was just how much influence did you have over? And I know you answered the question.
I think the way to ask the question is what I heard was anything that was already through TIC or TRR,
that was to that extent confirming those, that's where they were. And you can correct me if I'm wrong,
was the extent of the input. What we didn't get necessarily was a conversation with anybody,
whether that be EPB or OBM, about the sweeps from each of our wards and what that was going to do.
I think that I'm going to look around the room to see if anybody had that conversation.
But that's where that's coming from. I just want, yeah, I want to clarify that. So we're going to go
to Chair Harris and then Chair Dahl. Thank you. I don't have any questions. Your department is by
far the easiest to reach people. I can get a call back from you and from Patrick and from the whole
entire team. Anybody we email, we're going to get a response back. So I thank you for taking the lead
and being a real leader in terms of having a great relationship with the Alderman. And I just
appreciate everything that you all do. It's a real difficult job in that you might get 10 calls from
people when they are in panic mode about, hey, this just happened and calming us down and saying,
hey, I got you on it. And so is Patrick in terms of the zoning and what we go through with zoning and
what people can come in and projects that they could do and what we could get stuck with and kind of
easing our fears on what the zoning code will say that we can do in our ward. So just want to thank
everybody on the whole team. Simply fabulous. Everybody there is just really super amazing.
And I appreciate all the time and the energy that you give me and my staff. So we greatly appreciate
everything you do. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Harris. So we're going to go to Chair Dahl and then
we're going to go to Alderman. He's back in the room at the time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello,
Commissioner, and good afternoon to you. I'm going to take my prerogative and just there's people that
I want to thank in your department. I am very pleased with how your department rolls. And I would like to
formally acknowledge Justin Peterson, David Scully, Todd Wyatt, Noah Safrancic, Deanna Kavala, Tim Jeffries,
Patrick Murphy, Emily Thrun, and Heidi. They are terrific. You've got a terrific staff. So I just
want to say that. Thank you. I have three questions. One is, I think under your leadership, Commissioner,
we've made great strides and headway in our neighborhoods. And I wonder, are there any efforts
in place to support high capacity and low capital, hyper-local not-for-profits that are involved
in development? So I'm talking about perhaps land set-asides or zero to a dollar acquisition costs,
a grant pool, for example, for proven, that's set aside for proven not-for-profits. Have you given
that any thought? Yeah. It's not just for nonprofits, but I think Missing Middle is an example of how we
want to work with smaller, fully capable developers. I think when we think about large-scale mega
development sites, you think of large developers. And so our Missing Middle is an example where we set
aside $75 million to leverage our city vacant lots, which we sell for $1 because we understand that
acquisition can be a barrier for development. We also provide capital because capital is also a barrier
for development. So Missing Middle, what I didn't state earlier, is we provide up to $150,000 per unit.
The 11 developers that we have already selected for our first two rounds are small developers.
Some of them have partnered. They formed some really incredible joint ventures, but we are
leveraging the city lots, selling them for a dollar, leveraging our housing and economic development
bonds. Yes, but I'm talking about for not-for-profits specifically.
I mean, some of them can be nonprofits. Some of them can partner with nonprofits. I think there are
different tools that nonprofits gravitate toward. The grants are one. New market tax credits for
larger-scale developments are another tool that nonprofits often gravitate toward.
There are different funding sources that both nonprofits and for-profits can access under our
department. When priority is given for affordable housing, those lots are also sold for a dollar. And so
it's not just market rate missing middle deals. It's capital A affordable deals. But I would argue that
whether it's NOF or whether it's our housing and economic development bond or other funding sources,
whether it's a nonprofit specifically or a smaller scale developer, they can access that too.
We don't have one funding source exclusively for nonprofit that we create.
And I do appreciate the missing middle program, which is focused on housing. I think I'm looking for
more support on commercial development, retail development. So I'll just leave that there.
This week, I had a site on the 47th Street corridor go for a tax sale. A young person in our ward who
was local, lost the building to some out-of-town, out-of-state, I believe, person.
A company. And my question to you is, does DPD work with the Cook County Land Bank on priority
corridors, such as 47th Street, where you've got a big investment, I've got a big investment there.
We want to see some things done. And that sale this week sort of upset the apple cart.
We absolutely work with the Cook County Land Bank. In fact, I sit on the board for the Cook County Land Bank
to make sure that we're coordinated as we think about land disposition and acquisition strategies.
My team has standing meetings with the Cook County Land Bank to make sure that there is a path for
acquisition. So when they have tax certificates and we can say, hey, this aligns with one of our RFPs or
our future RFPs for a transit-oriented site, we want to figure out how we can actually acquire this site
to make a larger contiguous vacant site for redevelopment. And so, yes, I would say that
for our aldermen in the room, when you have projects that, or sites in particular, that you think
could be acquired or potentially could be in Cook County Land Bank's inventory, I would love for you
all to just flag it. We can work directly with them. And if it's not in Cook County Land Bank's inventory,
we can ask them to keep an eye on it so that if those taxes become delinquent and potential tax
certificate, there could be an opportunity for an acquisition from us.
And who on your staff, if we didn't call you, who would that call go to?
Will Holland joins those calls. I believe David Scully sometimes joins those calls. Whitney Mungin
joins those calls. So depending on where that site sits, we may bring additional partners in.
I'm happy for you to call me directly on those.
I'll call you directly. You know that. Okay, now my last question.
Thank you.
This is, I had an issue with the $900,000 contract that was provided to the Urban Land Institute last year.
It went through, I believe, the housing committee and passed the city council.
I just want to know, what did they do?
ULI?
Yeah, Urban Land Institute.
I would have to – I'm going to pass it to Daveed, who probably has more specifics on that contract, Daveed Scully.
Yeah, so Daveed Scully, for the record, our elder woman.
So for that contract, that is a maximum for us to allow us to do advisory service panels with them.
We're probably never going to hit that, you know, sort of maximum.
Right now we have only one project in the pipeline with them, which is a $25,000 tour, look at a stretch of Stoney Island,
looking at kind of the – how to leverage the Obama Presidential Center that's going to be happening next year.
And we're working with those elders on that.
But that's the only project that we have in the pipeline.
So you have a $25,000 contract, but you have an allocation, a budget hold for $900,000.
It's a contract maximum, it's not a budget hold.
I understand it's a maximum, but the money is set aside for – it is not.
No, the money is not set aside.
So the contract allows us to issue – the same way we do task orders,
we can leverage our planning money to issue a task order to that contract to leverage their services.
When does that contract end?
It's not set aside specifically for them.
When does that contract end?
It's five years.
Yeah, five years for that contract.
I still have a problem with that contract, so I will skip that.
I think that's it, Madam Chair, for now.
Thank you, Chair Dell.
Well, we're going to go next to, in this order, O'Shea Moore-Villegas.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon, Commissioner.
Good afternoon.
Like many of my colleagues, I just want to start out by thanking you for your professionalism and leadership
to the folks up there with you and the folks in the box.
Your department is very helpful to me and my staff regarding many issues in my community throughout the year.
So I just want to start out by saying that.
Although it doesn't come from you, I submitted paperwork and was well down the road regarding using TIF funds
for investments and improvements in my community over a year ago.
And for one year, the city's had a brick on that.
I don't know why that is.
I think a lot of it has to do with the surprise TIF sweep of a considerable amount.
But these were projects that I held community meetings on, projects that would create jobs, projects that would improve many of my local parks.
Many of which are over 100 years old.
And I will exhibit some of the frustration that many of my colleagues will exhibit as we probably go through this afternoon.
I was not informed of any of this.
There was never a discussion.
There was never an email.
There was never, hey, Alderman, we just want to let you know this is where we're headed.
And it's very evident to me that you were not aware of this.
I'm not going to ask you to comment.
But getting to know you since you've been the commissioner, you're a straight shooter.
I'm not going to ask you to comment on that.
But it's frustrating that, once again, leadership in this building lacks integrity, transparency, and communication with many of us.
And that's the core of where we're at today when we talk about this topic of TIF.
And obviously, many of my colleagues who represent underserved communities lost a lot of potential investment to improve their underserved communities.
And that's really frustrating.
Were any of the TIF projects that were in the mix with anybody, as far as you know, were they paused, held, canceled to create the conditions that we now have to sweep TIFs at a billion dollars that you're aware of?
No, not that I'm aware of.
My understanding is that projects that have gone through TIC, the newly formed TRR, are not subject to the surplus.
And so those projects are still protected and still will advance.
For projects that haven't made it through TIC, I think it's important on a project-by-project basis for us to sit down to understand what exactly is the project.
Is it an economic development project that was slated to advance in 2026?
Could I potentially tap a different funding source to still move that priority forward?
Is it parks?
Is it libraries, which obviously I can't tap my housing and economic development bond for, but I would love to have a conversation with my aldermen that are concerned about the surplus and the impact that it could potentially have on a potential project to understand, could we pivot to a different funding source?
Or is the project still very much early on where there's enough time for more increment to be created to still be able to support that project potentially in 2027 or 2026 for that matter?
Additional increment will be created.
And so I can't say now without understanding which project that we're referring to, but I'd be happy to sit down and strategize with you.
Thank you.
The Ernst & Young report, now more commonly referred to as the EY report, included an analysis on fees and fines.
Were any of those fines with the greatest potential increase included in the fiscal year 2026 budget?
No, those fines, additional fee increases, for us as fee increases, weren't included in this budget.
And I can share some insight.
Some of the proposed fee increases felt so minor that it didn't create substantial revenue from that standpoint.
As commissioner, I was actually concerned, does this give, does this, you know, target development in a way that we don't want to?
Does increase in these fees give a message that we're not pro-development?
I think there are other strategies that were proposed that we're actively working on that have the potential to generate a lot more revenue.
An example is the sale of our city-owned vacant land for development.
And so we're seeing an increase in revenue being generated there.
A $25 fee increase for permit fees didn't feel like it was big enough to make a significant dent in revenue from that standpoint,
but could potentially send a message that's not pro-development.
And so I think as commissioner, kind of weighing those two to figure out how do we ultimately just get more deals going?
How do we get more deals going that can then feed into the NOF and help to kind of fund projects throughout the city, outside of a few areas?
And so it was really kind of an analysis that we did at the department level to say a $25 increase per permit is not going to move the needle substantially in revenue.
We have other ways to really move the needle from a revenue-generating standpoint that can make a far greater impact in a much shorter timeframe.
When we talk about vacant lots, how many is that citywide?
Just under 8,000.
I think when I started as commissioner, I think we were over 10,000 vacant lots.
And so we're working aggressively to sell our lots, and not just for a dollar, at market rate values.
The other thing that we focused on, and I mentioned this, is more vertical development.
That vertical development is important.
It should be important to all of us because we're talking about selling them and getting it in the responsible hands of private owners,
which puts those lots back on the property tax roll.
Our strategy to focus on 70% vertical development and 30% open space and side yards is another way to drive economic investment along these corridors.
You can imagine where the majority of our lots are.
They're on the south and west sides.
And so we've got to be far more aggressive than we've ever been to get these lots back in productive use.
And we're doing just that.
We're seeing our revenue numbers increase.
Our numbers, I think if we compare last year, last year we sold approximately, Whitney, can you chime in on the exact revenue from last year?
And then where we are this year, we've got some really impressive projections.
I was just going to follow up with that, so thank you.
Sure.
Whitney Mungin, Director of Land Acquisition and Disposition.
Last year we had $2 million in revenue from our lot sales.
I'm sorry, what was that number?
$2 million.
Do we feel – so – and how many lots was that?
Hold on.
Do we feel this year we could be even more successful?
We will.
So projected sales for this year is just under $4 million, which is an increase.
I think what's more impressive is what we see in the pipeline for next year
and the following year.
So we're talking going from, as Whitney mentioned, just what the $2.9 million I think
is the number that she just got out.
I totally just lost it on my sheet.
I got it.
So, okay, last year it was 249 pins at $2 million.
This year we are projecting $3.9 million.
We've currently sold 110, but we have some high-value sales that we're anticipating
before the end of the year.
Here it is again.
And then if I could talk 2027, 2026, we're looking at maybe $6 to $8 million
in projected revenue from just the lot sales, 2027, $8 to $12 million.
And so we're seeing positive results of strategic lot sales.
The other thing I think is important is we're not just talking about one-off.
We're talking taking block-by-block, no-by-node approaches to really putting these
lots back in productive use.
That involves RFPs.
We've been really aggressive with issuing new RFPs, plus leveraging initiatives,
plus working with just individual owners that say, hey, I want to purchase this lot.
I want to develop something on the lot.
And so I think it's not just one strategy, but actually employing multiple complementary
strategies to drive both revenue, economic development, and get the lots on the property
tax roll.
That's where they need to be.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thanks, Commissioner.
Thank you.
Thanks.
And if I can add a request through the chair regarding the land sales of vacant lots and
how much we've raised.
So in addition to how much we've made in the sales, the number of pins, also, are we tracking
what is then being developed?
We are.
What it's producing from a tax perspective.
I'll keep that one up for you.
We actually are.
Not just from a property.
I don't have the property tax number, projected property tax revenue.
But what I do have is projected economic development numbers.
And so I'm actually going to pass that back to Whitney.
Do you have it handy?
If not, I'm happy to talk about the sales and the investment, I believe, is over $125 million
in proposed new development based off the sales that we currently have underway.
I can get you the exact number.
I actually have it here.
Yeah, through the chair is fine.
I just think it'd be interesting for us to take a look at that because I don't think
we're always looking back to what the land sales produced.
Okay.
Next, we're going to go to Alderman Moore.
Are you ready?
Moore than Viegas.
I used to say I stayed ready, but the last time I wasn't ready, was I?
I think everybody echoes this commissionable right.
My pastor used to use this term, you are doing a Herculean job in that planning department.
And the fact that people like Alderman Bill and everybody can come to the consensus on that says a lot.
And that's a testament not only to you, but your entire team.
Now, this young lady is going to kill me for forgetting her name.
Who was your predecessor, Patrick?
Patty Scudiero.
Patty.
Yes.
Who was just awesome, a beast.
Patrick, you have just, you know, I mean, did not miss a beat, man, from the point.
And it's appreciated so much.
When we have so many questions concerning zoning and other things, you step up and you answer those questions and you direct us, right?
Sometimes you think that, you know, you're really going to, because there's some good people that we have here.
And sometimes you think we're going to lose a lot of something, whatever that something is, because they have that it factor.
Well, you, along with your commissioner, y'all got that it factor.
And I duly, I truly appreciate it.
And it's showing throughout our communities.
I just want to, I just, I just want to just say thank, you know, I just want to thank you all.
David, I remember David, because I want to say David, but it's not David.
David is David, Scully, again, another bright person that adds value.
And all I can say is I don't have any questions because you're accessible anytime, not just your team, but you make your way there.
And so we're going to continue to work through the things that we work through, continue to make the progress and build for this city.
And continue to make sure that, you know, the south and west sides are developed and the challenges that we have, whether we agree with TIF, the total TIF sweeps or not.
We have those conversations with the administration, you know, during this budget season.
But as for you and your team, you know, I don't think we're going to be at a six or seven o'clock meeting here with you all.
It's sort of like buildings.
You guys have just, you know, been doing a great job.
And if you wasn't, trust me, I'd be the first one to let you know.
And I just want to say thank you.
You guys keep doing what you do.
Keep the communications open.
And then we'll just keep plugging along.
So I think somebody asked about, you know, your needs.
I was one of the ones.
My only thing would be, and I asked last time because I was fighting to make sure no cuts were made.
Are you good?
I'm going to ask again.
Are you good?
Yes, I'm good.
I'm excited to keep making the impact and make greater impact in years to come.
I'm good.
I feel very supported.
You guys are amazing partners to work with.
And I think that collaboration helps us to make the impact that we all want to continue to see across our city.
So thank you all for incredible partnership.
And I know sometimes things can't say publicly, I believe you, but if you need to sidebar me, let me know before I vote for this budget, because if you're not good, I'm not good.
All right.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Alderman Moore.
We're going to go to Chair Villegas and then over to Alderman Conway, Vice Chair Conway and Alderman Burnett next.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioner, over here.
How are you doing?
Again, I really appreciate your department.
I was happy to vote for your confirmation.
I think it was a breath of fresh air when you get someone from the private sector in here to kind of see where some of the barriers are and then realizing, like, why the heck are you guys doing this?
And so looking forward to seeing some of the changes, more changes that you're thinking about as well as the ones that you've already started on.
So as it relates to technology, with the Red Tape Initiative, where are you at in the Red Tape Initiative if you were to rank it from 1 to 10 as to where you see this initiative finally landing where we can get development up and running quicker?
I would say on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of what we've accomplished, I think that we're at a solid 8.
Here's the thing I would say.
Cut the Tape, the Cut the Tape Initiative is not a one-time kind of initiative.
This is ongoing.
So are you in the first phase then?
How many phases of this?
Well, it's not a set number of phases, but I would say for our department, we want to continue to Cut the Tape.
I don't think that, you know, I think 40% is impressive.
As I mentioned, the plan development kind of timeline, 40% reduction in our application timeline, I think is impressive.
I'd love to continue to work to increase the reduction in time.
It's not one and done.
I don't think we're going to rest on our laurels there.
I think there's several measures that we want to continue to focus on.
I talked about the land and the selling of our land.
I want to be more aggressive with selling land.
That's an additional Cut the Tape measure that I think could get us to a 10 easily and that you all will see in your respective wards, right?
Less vacant lots, more economic vitality.
And so that's an example of how we can be far more bullish on cutting the tape so that you can see demonstrated success on your side.
That's just one example, right?
We've already implemented some things that's going to help that move forward, but we're not done.
I talked about our timeline for right of entry for non-invasive testing.
We've gone from months to days.
I don't know that we can go to hours, but I think there are other cut-the-tape measures that we can implement to get those lots back in productive use.
I think there's ongoing efforts, and I think we're constantly talking about how can we do better?
How can we be even more developer-friendly?
How can we advance development at a far more aggressive pace?
Our PD pipeline is impressive.
It's really impressive.
We're at over $9 billion.
That's a big deal.
That's a big deal and a difficult-to-develop climate nationally, right?
So it's $9 billion in the pipeline, but how long has it been in the pipeline, and when do you insist it?
So this is just 2025's pipeline with two more months to go.
We haven't had our November plan commission, and obviously we haven't had December's plan commission,
but that pipeline is a pretty good indicator on what's to come.
No, no.
So-
Can you can you through the chair provide the last five years of the pipeline, what those numbers look like and actually what actually got completed?
Sure. Because I get you. We can talk about projects, but the reality is how do we get them funded?
No, absolutely. And given the how New York, the financial places are looking at Chicago,
be interested to see what that percentage is of what's actually being proposed, actually, actually what's being funded.
Yeah, I will definitely submit something through the chair.
One number that's pretty impressive, and I'm going to actually have Noah Sopranich chime in on this number.
We have we have some some some movement and the movement is pretty impressive to see across the projects.
I'll have Noah kind of chime in on our nine hundred and ninety four million dollar kind of total and what that represents as it relates to projects that have gone through plan commission.
Sure. Good afternoon, Alderman. So, yes, as the commissioner just stated, this this year alone of the.
Projects that are coming through plan commission, there are fifty five building permits issued within plan development boundaries.
And those fifty five permits represent the nine hundred and ninety four million dollars of project cost that's been permitted.
So those are the projects you're seeing actually being built now.
The crane number was mentioned earlier. Some of those cranes are part of the PD process.
And so those are up and running. And those are those are buildings that are coming online right now to show the pipeline moving.
Perfect. Thank you, because there's a lot of property tax revenue. So that's why we're interested in getting that thing going.
If you. So, yeah, again, I like just through the chair, I'd like to see what that looks like.
Sure. And then also through the chair, if you could provide you mentioned those eleven developers, small developers that were part of that.
Could you provide who those are and ethnicity, gender, et cetera?
Yes. OK. And then you mentioned also number of building permits, like three thousand.
Is that what you mentioned for the year? I did not mention three thousand building. Four thousand.
Sure. You mentioned something about seeing the permits that have been pulled tied to the land sale, city land sale or the value of economic development tied to the land sale.
Now, you know what, then I must I must have misheard you.
I thought you had said that there was about four four thousand building permits or I tend to stay away from building.
I reserve that for the Department of Buildings unless it's tied specifically to a problem.
Our vacant lot sales or the PDs in particular.
Gotcha. No problem. I must have been scrolling on the phone or something like that.
Compliance. So your department also is part of compliance as it relates to MWBE as well as workforce on projects. Is that accurate?
As part of the redevelopment agreements, developers have to adhere to the MBE WBE requirement as well as the prevailing wage requirement.
They have to report on that. The reporting and the compliance is actually managed through the Department of Housing from a monitoring standpoint.
So so then what can you repeat what you're responsible for? You're responsible for the RDA and the development agreements that mandate the twenty six six MBE requirement and the 50 percent city residency requirement, along with other requirements.
But the Department of Housing. But the Department of Housing is the responsible department for the monitoring.
The developers report per the RDA, you know, agreement, but it's reported to the Department of Housing.
I got you. So that you have no your department has no oversight over MWBE and the workforce compliance.
You hand that off to housing once the RDA is executed.
Yeah, I'll have Tim Jeffries talk about kind of the pass off to the Department of Housing and how, you know, functionally it.
Tim Jeffries, Managing Deputy Commissioner.
Yeah, chair, as you know, the RDAs have that requirement in it.
That's twenty six and six prevailing wage city Chicago residency.
And as part of our agreements, developers are required to sit down with the Department of Housing monitoring our construction compliance group with their GC to develop a plan and go through the overall process of entering data and giving them the things they need to certify the figures.
We work with them on a continual basis. And for the purposes of the RDA, when it's done, housing will issue a construction compliance closeout letter that is part of our package in order to issue the certificate of completion.
Is there a reason why is it just through legislation that.
The RDA is given to housing versus to the procurement office, which has a compliance which deals with MWBE and and workforce specific to.
Housing, I think why DPD's items go to housing. I think it's a function of our departments used to be combined.
And then we split in twenty nineteen and housing.
Took that component. So there's a number of the elements of housings deals that that my group, the monitoring compliance bureau or division, rather, they we monitor their provisions and they monitor part of ours.
In terms of why it's with DOH and not DPS, I'm not I'm not specifically aware.
Right. Right. So then does your department report out any type of.
MWBE attainment or is that housing is housing does all that?
I believe like in our budget, like this year's budget, when it talks about MWBE figures, their RDA is associated with DPD that is tracked by DOH, but reported out under DPD.
I got you. OK. OK. OK. I was just I've always been confused as to why the Department of Housing and Planning had anything to do with the MWBE workforce.
When we have a whole department of procurement that has a compliance, that sole sole purpose of that department is to deal with.
My assumption is that it was specifically focused on the legislative actual all the other obligations that exist underneath the RDA, not just MWBE or construction compliance.
That was that was one facet. And it had an apparatus set up around that.
And so we continue to do those things just with different personnel.
OK. OK. Well, I appreciate it. Well, Commissioner, your department is is very important.
I look at it as an economic development department and the it's it tells by the number of projects that you have in the pipeline.
And we're hoping to get funded so that we can realize those property tax revenue and and change the narrative, change the narrative.
I think that the I shouldn't say I think I know that under your leadership, you're signaling out there to the developers that, hey, I've been there in your shoes.
I understand some of the challenges and you have great staff that's with you that has institutional knowledge on how to navigate the bureaucratic process.
And I'm happy that you're trying to cut the red tape, trying to cut the bureaucracy to actually get construction projects moving, built, revenue generated.
So very excited about where we're heading right now with DPD.
So thank you. Keep up the great job and looking forward to continue working with you and your team.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Chair.
We're going to go to next Vice Chair Conway, Alderman Burnett and then Alderman Chair Laspata.
Wonderful.
There we go. Hey, how are you?
Commissioner, you know, it's all right.
So, you know, up here, you know, people don't look at us up in the chief seats that often up there in the 30s.
Question for you on the LaSalle Street TIF.
I was looking back at my TIF waterfall tables from the last three years on the LaSalle Central TIF.
And I was looking at it for the, I guess it was for the 2024 budget.
And it was estimated then that the TIF net revenue each year from 2025 to 2027 was projected to be $187 million.
That was in the, that was for the 2024 budget received at the end of 2023.
Then I was looking at last year's, you know, which TIF waterfall, I got it in the end of 2024.
It estimated that the TIF net revenue each year from 2025 to 2027 was going to be $192 million.
So it had gone up, you know, from 187 to 192.
However, when I look at it for the 2026 budget, it identifies that the TIF net revenue each year of 2025 to 2027 is projected to only be $125 million.
So we have, it seems that the net revenue from that TIF has somehow fallen about 35% in the course of a year.
And I was curious where those numbers come from and how reliable they are.
Yeah, I think it's a result of reassessment declines.
I'll have Tim chime in a little bit more just in terms of the trend and the decline overall.
Yes, again, Tim Jeffries, managing deputy.
The commissioner's right.
The decline this year was attributed to the latest figures that we have from the assessor.
This is a triennial year, which tends to have significant spikes or drops.
And that obviously happened with LaSalle Central.
There was a fairly significant drop last year.
I believe it did have a year-over-year increase, even though the market didn't – there's not a, you know, distinct difference between this year and last year.
Yeah, that's like the TPI, yeah.
Yeah, it's a function of the timing of the reassessment.
And so our projections usually predict fairly steady 2% growth, which is consistent with historic averages across any span of time you look at.
But when we get new information, we update the figures.
And so this is based on the latest information that we have out of the assessor's office, inclusive of the first, second, and third passes.
So we did.
So we did.
So we did.
Would it be fair to make the leap that the assessor seems to indicate that property values on LaSalle Street have fallen by 35% of those – amongst those properties that are actually in the TIF?
Yes, I want to be – of those properties in the TIF because in other parts of downtown, we're seeing increases.
So I think that LaSalle Street – I don't need to speak to the LaSalle Street corridor initiative, but it has a higher percentage of sort of these Class C historic legacy buildings that saw a more precipitous drop in its occupancy rates as well as foreclosure actions.
And those affect the price of trades and sales, which in turn affects the price of the assessment.
And so I think there was just a general drop based on that.
But, you know, the TIF exists to – because the TIF exists, it buffers us a little bit, and it also is an opportunity for it to increase over time with actions like LaSalle Street.
Sure, I – and Mr. Jeffries, no, I appreciate it because I know you are not the assessor and merely the messenger in this situation, but I was trying to get a little clarity on how that goes.
And, Commissioner, I said I wasn't going to ask you about this, and you don't really need to respond, but I feel like I got to at least make a record of it.
First of all, I think you do a fantastic job, and I really want to thank you for everything you're doing.
We're blessed to have you in this role, but as I – as you know, yesterday as I was looking through my TIF waterfall for the Canal Congress TIF,
I somehow found out that the mayor's office had allocated – or seemingly wants to spend $50 million on a Greyhound station,
including $35 million of taxpayer funds in the 2026 budget.
And I appreciate that when I found this out, I called you, and you're going to get me more information on that and set up a meeting,
which I greatly look forward to finding out what that project is.
But I think it's shocking that seemingly we are allocating $50 million, of which some part of it is going to its owner,
20 Lakes Holdings, which is owned by Alden Capital, or is an affiliate thereof.
And seemingly the mayor's office is making that decision without even coming to the local alderman at all.
So I look forward to that meeting, and I will say that I wish everyone in this building was as easy to work with as you are in your department.
So that is not directed at you.
But that's how I found out about this project.
Thanks, Vice Chair.
You can respond if you want, but please don't.
I don't, you know.
I think the response is, as I mentioned, we'll organize a meeting with 2FM and CDOT and the partners in the mayor's office
to explain kind of, you know, where the project is at the very early stages so that you're fully briefed on, you know,
why, A, this is moving forward, why it's a priority, just to ensure that this transportation mode is still protected.
But you've got our commitment to schedule that meeting.
An email will be forthcoming to bring all the responsible parties together.
Great.
Thank you very much.
That's all I have, Madam, my Vice Chair.
Sure.
Point of information, all of you more?
Curiosity, whatever happens, would that eventually have to come through council?
Absolutely.
I mean, if we're talking about the use of TIF, you all would all do that.
I just want to be clear because the importance, and I guess I get where he's going,
and I think that's why you're going to set up the meeting,
that those conversations with anybody is important to have with the auditorium
because if it gets soured, most aldermen are going to support things that go on in that aldermen's, you know, area.
And although we want things bigger for the city and things that impact the city,
if that aldermen is disrespected in any type of way, it's going to trickle down.
And we would rather clean up stuff on the front end than having to deal with it on the back end
because it begins to impact not just that local alderman,
but when we come to a vote in city council, it begins to impact all of us.
Understood.
Thank you, Alderman.
All right.
Thank you.
Next, we are going to go to Alderman Burnett followed by Alderman Chair Laspata.
Thank you.
DPD, I've only been here a month, but I feel like I've talked to you guys every day.
So I always knew you guys were fantastic.
Commissioner, you've been doing a great job.
To my friends in the box, everyone over there, I'm super impressed with
and super excited to be working with you all going forward,
especially Noah came out to our community meeting yesterday
and answered some really tough questions that I definitely didn't have the answers to.
So I want to definitely give a shout out to Noah for all the hard work
and being on the ground floor.
So thank you all for everything that you do.
And so my line of questioning will center around the economic development piece
of the work that you all do.
There's a lot of talk about the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund,
and I know Fulton Market is a big contributor to that fund.
When we think about the allocation of those dollars as it goes out,
could you just share for the record what the breakdown is of how much is allocated
towards specifically the ward and where it goes outside of it?
And then how have we been doing in terms of actually utilizing those dollars
when they come into the door?
Sure. So I can give you an idea, very high level for our NOF kind of balance.
We're talking about $65 million or so with about $49.8 million in active projects.
Those are, excuse me, active awards.
Those are allocations, not disbursements just yet,
leaving about $15.7 million available in NOF for this second round of funding,
which I mentioned we have a grant round that will be announced probably November or December,
but also for next year. Now, this is why it's important to advance these projects that are
coming to plan commission as PDs, because those PDs are actually helping to, you know,
generate more NOF dollars that we're then able to put into community.
I don't have the exact breakdown by ward in terms of which projects we've allocated from the NOF funds.
I'm happy to pull it together and provide it through the chair if that would be helpful,
but I just wanted to give an idea of what's actually been allocated.
You're talking just under $50 million of the $65 million balance.
And so we're working to get these dollars out the door to communities that need it and deserve it.
And we're getting dollars out aggressively.
I love it. I've seen some of the projects that have come across and it seems really awesome.
I guess the next question on that line is when you allocate,
how have you been seeing like the actual matriculation to those dollars being used?
I know some of these projects sometimes have a longer life in terms of how long it takes them to develop.
What is the conversion rate?
On average, for just our grants as a whole, when we're talking about brand new construction,
we're talking about like a two-year timeline, right?
From once the grant is awarded to when, depending on the scale of the project.
Obviously, if it's a larger scale, it's going to take a little bit longer.
But on average, about 24 months is what we're kind of seeing from a timeline standpoint.
Sam, did you want to chime in on NOF specifically?
I think overall, whether it's NOF or whether it's, you know, CDG using the Housing and Economic Development Bond
or other funding sources, it really is going to depend on the scale and the scope of the overall project.
Yeah, just like what the commissioner says, we're looking right now.
Our average is to move from announcement to RDA execution to start a construction is about 16 or 17 months.
That's about an almost 40% reduction from what it used to be at two years,
and then construction after that just depends on the project.
And with these projects on NOF, is there a sunset once it – so say someone receives a grant today,
is there a period of time in which they have to execute on the project
and actually start building before it returns to the bucket?
Short answer is yes.
We have term sheets that turn into redevelopment agreements with them,
but the initial term sheet says that they have about 18 months to get to the closing table,
but we have the ability to extend that.
And if someone is showing demonstrably good faith effort to move a project forward,
we have the ability to be flexible.
We have the deadlines in there to be able to hold people accountable,
but these are oftentimes not professional developers working in communities that are frankly harder to develop
than other places in the city.
So we tend to give them a little bit of grace.
Yeah, that's a great point.
The purpose of this fund is to help developers or businesses actually get off the ground,
whereas they don't necessarily have the full bucket of capital to support this deal.
With that being said, I know there are sometimes challenges with businesses in terms of the initial funding portion.
Is there – what is the function of partners or working with different banks
that could actually help these businesses transition into utilizing these funds at the tail end?
I would love for Mary, because while we talk about NOF's kind of larger projects,
I think it's important to know that we're funding smaller projects as well.
Those are typical capital projects that are $250,000 and lower, and so maybe Mary can kind of chime in.
This is a ploy to get Mary some time, just so we all know.
This is a ploy to get Mary some time on the mic to shine.
Mary O'Connor, Deputy Commissioner of the Small Business Development Bureau.
So for our smaller projects, we're working with CDFIs,
and we currently have for the NOF small program a loan loss reserve fund that allows some of our applicants.
who have great projects, but may not have the capital, that they are able to, we're working
with the CDFIs to allow riskier applicants to move forward. We're also looking at applicants
that need additional coaching, so they may not make it selected for this round, but we've then
connected them with the CDFI to help build up their financial capacity, as well as business
coaching. That's awesome, and I just also just really want to applaud that, because I know that
there's great intentions with NOF. Structurally, some of these deals can be very difficult to
accomplish, and so having that partnership and having that communication between DPD, CDFIs,
and the actual businesses they look to support is extremely important, because a lot of the time
they don't have those resources to know where to go, so thank you all for doing that. Now, when it
comes to TIF, can we just, can you give me a rough number in terms of like the economic benefit
that we've received? Just, I don't know if you can do it by ward, but the allocation of TIF dollars
that have actually been used for projects over the last five years, how much economic development has
that generated for our city? That's a great question. Over the last five years? Five, ten, whatever is
easiest. Just give me some numbers, because I know it's a lot. I would, it's going to be substantial. I'll
have to submit that through the chair. I don't have that number readily available, but we can run
a report to show how much we're seeing in terms of economic impact from TIF. You want just TIF
alone, or do you want TIF and other grants? I would love TIF alone. Okay. Just so, I want to
just emphasize for the record just how much of an impact these dollars make into our local communities
and our city on a larger basis when they're actually used for the purpose that they're intended
for. These TIF dollars, I know alone in my district, the Damon Greenline stop, cost north of
$50 million, which is significant for the TIF that is set in. We're fortunate that it has created an
economic boost to the community and we'll be able to replenish, but it's challenging for some of these
districts that have been sitting on TIF dollars for years, waiting to build up the coffers in order to make
these larger development projects happen. Yeah. So, I think it's important when we frame this
conversation, what it means for these TIF dollars to actually be input into the community and how it
actually grows the bigger bucket of tax revenue for us long-term. We'll submit it through the chair,
for sure. Thank you. And when we think about also the impact of TIF with transportation projects,
I see on my waterfall that Alderman Conway noted that we all received, which has been awesome to just
look at. There's a significant amount of allocation that is presented for bridges repairs,
school repairs for, and that's not transportation, but also school repairs as well as the CTA.
When we are having these conversations and when you all are having these conversations with the
Department of Transportation and other sister agencies, how early in the process do you all know
that you're going to need to allocate some of these dollars for these last-minute repairs?
I guess it's probably more project-specific in terms of the need situation. It's not, I don't know
that there's just a one, you know, rule, you know, a year, six months. I think it's very much project by
project. But sometimes it's like, all right, we need these funds and we kind of need it in the next
three months, six months, nine months. It could be. It could be. I mean, whether it's
transportation, whether it's infrastructure, whether it's parks, libraries, it just depends
on how dire the situation is. It depends on how proactive that agency is with coming to us to say,
hey, we're going to need allocation. We're working on updated cost estimates. It depends on how ready
they are, if you will. In order for us to advance the project, we need to have a number to understand
what the overall ask is. And so I would say it depends on a couple factors. One of the most
important factors is if we have real estimates to know what we're actually holding.
And the point I'm getting here is that it helps when we have a reserve of TIF to actually deal with
some of these problems as they come up and still be able to allocate dollars to the projects that
are so desperately needed by our community on a larger scale term. So again, I want to thank you all for the
work that you're doing. It's been awesome to work with you so far. Even the technological
updates with the whole planning map and understanding what's going through planning
commission has been super awesome. So looking forward to working with you all and thank you
for the work that you do. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you, Alderman Burnett. We're going to go next to Chair Laspata and then Alderman Quezada.
Thank you so much, Commissioner. I don't, cannot say at this time that I have any particular
pressing questions. You know what, I'll say this. You were here with us maybe just a month
or so ago. A lot of us made the point that department spaces that generate revenue that
move the city forward ought not to be held to this mandatory, I might argue arbitrary six
to eight percent cut. I'm glad to see that message was heeded where the Department of Planning
and Development is concerned. There's not a person in this box on your team that hasn't
been a pleasure to work with either on a legislative or developmental level. I suppose I would ask
one quick question. I am looking at the fact that the department, based off of the book that
was put in front of us, is carrying forward 35 vacancies. I know this is not always reflective
of moment in time where you are on hiring. And while I would argue that directly or indirectly
everyone at DPD helps generate revenue for the city, I want to get clarity on whether these
positions are being filled or whether we can expect them to be filled in the next calendar
year. Yeah. So of the 35, I expect approximately 22 to be filled before the end of this year.
And so that's great for us. And then the other 13 in the future, but 22 are underway.
Hopefully in the future, that is the next six to eight months as well. But yeah, I will only say
like everybody in this room, whether it's been not only drafting, but implementing the Scott up in
Milwaukee on Milwaukee Avenue with Carmen and her team, the work we're doing around SPF,
the redevelopment agreements that we're pushing. I mean, Chairman Lawson stole all of my praise and
thunder for missing middle, but that I, someone should at some point write about how transformative
that has been on how we approach vacant lots, particularly on the south and west side.
It's not what we were doing six years ago or, or arguably even three years ago. And it is,
it's really profound. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Chair Laspata, we're going to go next to Alderman Quezada and then to Alderman Fuentes.
Thank you, Chair. And good afternoon, Commissioner. It's always so good to see you. I also want to echo,
I think the words of appreciation that my colleague Alderman Burnett mentioned, you know,
the first commissioner to reach out to me after my appointment was you. And I was very grateful for
your warm hospitality and all the work and wisdom that you have provided in my time in this position.
So thank you very much. And for your dedication and leadership for the people of Chicago and to
your team as a whole. I believe I missed the first part of your presentation. I had stepped up for a call.
So looking at these numbers for your budget allocation, I saw that there is, of course,
these decreases due to the ARPA fund. This decrease of $11 million, how is that impacting
your operations? Sure. So that decrease of $11 million is tied to ARPA funding. We knew that that
was one-time funding source. We've allocated all of our ARPA funds. And so we're not talking about a
negative impact. One-time funding source, you know, some of the programs that we loved, like POP,
which is our public outdoor plazas that use city-owned vacant lots and make it active,
public open spaces, we're not able to fund in a traditional way. You know, I think it's opportunities
for us to explore other ways to continue to support that. But leveraging our housing and economic
development bond, leveraging NOF, we're still able to make impactful investments to support community-based
projects. ARPA was just that, a one-time COVID relief funding source that we use and we use well.
Yeah. So we're not seeing any substantial impact to your organizational capacity or anything of that
nature? No, we had one ARPA-funded staff. And because there's no more ARPA dollars, I think that's a loss for
our team. We've shifted some of the ARPA programs that we want to continue to support to housing and
economic development bond. And so, you know, we're still able to make the impact that we want to make
across all 77 community areas. Excellent. And I believe we talked about this previously outside of
budget hearings, but could you speak to a little bit about the strategies that you are deploying in
regard to vacant lots and affordable housing development? Yes. So we are aggressive on our vacant
lot disposition strategies. I shared with members a little earlier that at one point, 70% of our lots
were reserved for open spaces.
side yards. In the last two years, we've reprioritized. We want to see economic development
on our lots. And so our priority is to sell 70% of our lots for vertical development. That's
important for us because this is an opportunity for us to ensure that we have more vibrant
corridors. When we think about some of the challenges, you can imagine where the majority
of our lots are. They're on the south and west sides. And so we think about some of the challenges
that we see on the south and west sides, whether it's food deserts or culinary deserts,
one way to address that is more rooftops. And so by us focusing on more vertical development,
focusing on more housing, it helps to increase population, which then supports more vibrant
retail corridors. And so we're far more aggressive with the disposition of our lots. The other thing
that we're seeing in terms of trends is as we focus on more market rate sales, we're able to drive more
revenue from those sales. And so not only are we focused on economic development, but now those
parcels are back on the property tax roll. All of those components are really important.
You know, I called out a little earlier, I didn't have the exact number. I believe Alderman Quinn
asked me for a number in terms of our sales that have gone through in lots that we're starting to see
more economic development on. I believe the number was $154 million in permits tied to previously city-owned
lots. That's impressive to us. So it shows it's not just about driving the revenue, it's about what
comes after that revenue, right? So to be able to say, hey, we're able to identify $154 million of
economic investment tied to these permits for once city-owned parcels is something I'm excited about.
We've gone from 10,000 vacant lots to just over what, seven, we're under 8,000 vacant lots. And so
we're talking about a reduction in about 2,000 lots. The other thing I think is important to note,
we're not talking about one lot at a time. We're pulling together contiguous vacant lots to do
transit-oriented RFPs, to have more large-scale catalytic projects near transit, leveraging our
lots. We're working with our partners at BACP. We're working with our partners at DOH to really
think about affordable housing, to think about ways to help support our BACP partners and our
businesses. We're not doing it in isolation of other key departments. And so it's something I'm
excited about. I never thought I would be so excited to talk about vacant lots. I think I light up when
I talk about vacant lots because I see what these lots have the potential to become. I see how important
density is, and most importantly, repopulation across our city as a whole.
Well, thank you so much for speaking on that. Out of curiosity, does the department
assist private land owners on their private lots? Like, so is there any form of assistance,
guidance that is provided by the department for private owners of empty lots?
In terms of resources?
Yeah.
Or how to, you know, if they want to propose a development and they recognize that there's a
financial gap, absolutely come to the city. They can come to the city. They propose a mixed-use
development or they propose a new retail development. We've got developers that have
proposed community centers that we're really excited to announce that we've funded, you know.
And so I think that there are many opportunities. We welcome that, not just for vacant lots, but for
vacant storefronts, vacant retail spaces.
Has the city purchased empty lots from private owners?
We have purchased some privately owned lots as it relates to larger scale development. So when we
think about RFPs, it is important to have contiguous vacant land to be able to assemble
these lots to have a larger scale site. In those cases, yes, we'll purchase a vacant lot on an as-need
basis. I think it's important to know when you've got 8,000 lots, you want to focus on your position,
an additional acquisition from a revenue standpoint. But when and where appropriate, we will purchase.
Yeah, I can imagine there might be some times where that may be a strategic investment.
Correct.
Lastly, as it relates to land use studies, could you speak to what is like the average timeline to
initiate a land use study and what is the proper process for them?
A land use sale?
Like a development study in a certain area. Are we able to request those land use studies
in a given area? And essentially, what is the timeline currently that your department has for
those studies?
Sure. We can probably give a couple examples of different studies to show. Some of them are,
we can. We can talk about 11. We can talk about the 11th Ward. We can talk about 95th Street
Corridor, which involves multiple wards. I'm going to actually pass it to Daveed because I would love
for him to highlight his amazing team. And he's leading as it relates to more proactive
zoning. And most importantly, how we're really thinking about these land use studies.
Sure thing. Hello, everybody. Daveed Scully, Managing Deputy Commissioner. I think that the timeline
is very much dependent. I would say just in general, you know, kind of nine months just gives us enough
time to actually evaluate, to do any community engagement, to work with you. But that very much
is scalable depending on the situation, the scale of the land you studied. Depending on the area,
it may actually take a little bit longer to actually work and collaborate. But we're always happy to,
you know, have that conversation with you. If you identify areas, please definitely, you know,
feel free to reach out to me. Feel free to reach out to your regional team. And we can, you know,
strategize on exactly what the process and schedule and timeline is that fits your community. Because
we also know all communities are a little bit different. So we need to tailor engagement.
Sometimes we need to actually focus on specific items to really get community warmed up to the
idea around land use planning. But we're happy to have that conversation with you.
Great. Yeah, thank you. I just saw the opportunity to ask. So get a little bit of information while you
all are here. Thank you very much. And thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Alderman. We're going to go to Alderwoman Fuentes.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Commissioner, I just want to thank some folks on your team that has made
dreams come true in the 26th Ward. So Carmen Martinez, Brian Hacker, Brian O'Donnell,
sitting right beside you, Patrick Murphy, and in the box, Tim Jeffries. I mean, I think
there are projects in the 26th Ward that are coming to realization this year and next year that have
been sitting in queue for almost a decade. And you have a team that has worked really hard
to make these things happen. So I want to thank you and your team for always answering the call,
showing up, truly being supportive of my team. I think when you can have two teams that are really
dedicated to growing the city, a lot can happen. And so thank you all for doing the work that you do.
Commissioner, can you briefly tell us how many vacancies do you have and then how many of them
are held to the vacancy freeze and how that would impact the work in 2026?
Yeah, we have 35 vacancies. Of the 35 vacancies, we expect to fill 22 before the end of this year.
And so that leaves 13 vacancies with the hiring freeze. I don't anticipate a negative impact in terms of
our collaboration, our planning, our economic development goals and priorities. You know,
you've got a team of brilliant, committed, passionate partners that will, would, you know,
do everything to ensure that we continue to drive and support economic development across our city.
And so 13 in the grand scheme of things will be okay. All right.
We know that TIF, NOF, all of those are tools in the toolbox. Some of us are in wards where we have
very small NOF districts, but if we expand those boundaries just a little bit, a lot can happen.
What is the process and possibility of expanding NOF boundaries? Is that conversation you and your
team are having? Yeah, it's actually very preliminary conversations. We, you know,
we recognize the need to kind of expand tools to ensure that more corridors are included. The idea
is that the entire city can't be an NOF corridor, right? You will be spreading the peanut butter a
little too thin, you know, in that case. But I think that we are at very, very early stages of
exploring how we can ensure that NOF can be a bit more impactful. I won't, I won't undermine how
impactful it is, though. I think it's important to just call that out. But I think it's also
important to recognize that the impact can be greater. But there's no kind of timeline just yet,
because the conversations are so preliminary. I wouldn't want you to hold me to that yet.
I appreciate that. I don't have a lot for you, Commissioner. You're doing a great job. It's
an honor to watch you lead. I think as much as you need from us, please call us as much as we
bother you and your team. And then I'll end with also wanting to thank your Historic Preservation
Division. They've done a lot of work around the historical landmark on Humboldt, which is going
to make a huge difference for an amazing corridor around the park. So thank you and your team.
Thank you.
Chair Taylor, are you on the line? You are up next.
I am here, Chairwoman.
All right.
Hi, Commissioner. How are you?
Can you see me or hear me?
Yes, we can.
Okay. So, Commissioner, what I will say is you definitely have been a breath of fresh air.
I appreciate folks who are from Chicago who get it and actually walk in communities and walk.
Oh,
with elected officials, and actually, listen, we did not have that in the last administration.
I feel like they pushed on us what they thought our community should be, and you are the totally
opposite, and so I want to say thank you. I only got a few questions. My first is,
what are the number of Chicago-based developers who have completed projects in the past five
years forward, how many are color, and how many are women? You might not have that now. If you
could give me that through the chair, I would appreciate it. Yes, I can get that through the
chair. Okay. What is your department doing to increase the number of opportunities for home-grown
developers? A lot of times we got, like... Can you repeat the first part of the question,
Otterwoman? I'm sorry. What is your department doing to increase the number of opportunities
for home-grown developers? Oh, great question. I think a couple things. Leveraging our housing
and economic development bond. I mentioned a little earlier that we often see good concepts
that aren't quite ready for full funding. There could be because developers just aren't used to
applying for funding. Maybe they have a difficult time expressing what their gap is, going through
the feasibility process, engaging the right consultants to turn a good concept into a great project, and so
leveraging the housing and economic development bond, we're able to provide pre-development
grants to our smaller developers to turn good concepts into great projects that are ready for
funding. The other thing I think is important is that we've worked really aggressively to make sure
that we're making our application tools far more intuitive. And so whether it's providing FAQs,
whether it's providing webinars, when an applicant is denied for, or a grant application is declined,
providing deficiency letters, offering one-on-ones so that they can understand how to strengthen their
application so that when they reapply, they have a much stronger chance of being approved. And so some
of it requires more partnerships. And I think my entire team, whether it's large grants, medium grants,
or small grants, our team is happy, willing, and able to work with those developers. We understand that
access to capital is one of the biggest barriers to advancing projects, and so we don't want the lack
of communication to be another barrier on our watch. And so I think it's just being collaborative,
leveraging opportunities, you know, moving barriers for capital, and just being far more
communicative. That's important. And I think we're starting to see, you know, strides. I mentioned
earlier, older women, that our missing middle, which is our housing, wealth building, repopulation,
new initiative. We've got $75 million set aside. We've announced just October 1st, our third round.
And of the first two pilots for missing middle, 11 minority development teams. That's something that
I'm really, really proud of. While we talk often about building wealth, this is an opportunity for
not only the homeowners to build wealth and generate wealth, but it's an opportunity for our developers to
build wealth. And so those are just a couple of the measures that we're implementing to ensure that
we're leveling the playing field, removing barriers, and ensuring that access to capital
isn't as big of a barrier as it once was.
How many developers reapply after being denied and are successful?
How many developers apply for?
They'll reapply. So they put in a project, they didn't get it, but then they reapply and do the work
and actually are successful.
Yeah. Actually, for the last round of announcements, I don't want to give a number and be incorrect,
but several of our grantees had applied two, sometimes three times before they were successful.
Now, is it common for us to have successful grant applications or grantees on the first round?
We do. But I think it's important that the reason that I mentioned those one-on-ones and the deficiency
letters that we can offer those applicants who have received a denial, that helps to encourage them so
that they're not discouraged by that denial. We encourage them to reapply. We want to say, hey,
you know, you didn't exhibit site control or you didn't identify what the actual financial gap is.
We want you to resubmit this application for consideration. And so we actually have worked hard to
encourage that. You don't always get it the first time, but that certainly won't discourage you.
And that's the case for several of our grantees.
Good to hear. Where are we getting our planners from? Is there a pipeline from CPS or City College?
Well, because what I found out in my first year of that, a lot of our planners don't, they've never been in my community.
They don't know who in the city of Chicago. They don't know nothing about Chicago.
I think a couple of things. When we think about planners, actual planners, a lot of our planners are coming from planning programs.
So UIC has an amazing planning program. I actually am a MUP from UIC. It's a master's program for urban planning.
I think what's important when we talk about high schools and when we talk about community colleges is that early exposure.
We actually had Lindblom students on the 10th floor to talk about what planning looks like.
I think that early exposure is so important as young people are starting to navigate potential career paths.
We don't have a direct pipeline from CPS to DPD directly.
But I think, you know, making a concerted effort to talk about what planning is, to talk about what economic development is, and not waiting until high school.
Early exposure, as early as possible, is really key.
When we think about planners that have come online, I think it's also important to do the outreach.
And so we find ourselves, you know, when we have a position, making sure that it's, you know, the notices go out to different planning organizations so that we cast a wide net.
But there's not one source, one school that we primarily go to for our planners.
I don't know if David wants to chime in or if Amy from our HR team wants to chime in on more specifics.
Yeah, I mean, Davey Scully, Managing Deputy Commissioner.
I hate holding a woman.
You know, so I think, you know, this is definitely something that, you know, myself, other folks in the Bureau of Planning and Design are really passionate about,
kind of getting out, working with high school students as much as possible, finding our ways.
As Commissioner mentioned, Lindblom, you know, some of the students have – we've actually participated in the planning fair the last several years.
Similarly, we go to, you know, other high schools, you know, work with local colleges, try and get out as much as possible, just to be as visible as possible and provide people the opportunity.
Because, you know, I went to Morgan Park.
I went to architecture school at IIT.
I didn't learn about urban planning until I got to architecture school at IIT.
So trying to make sure that people really understand what the pathways are, that there's multiple pathways,
but also be diverse in our outreach for the positions we have open to make sure that we're getting as broad and representative a group as possible.
And if I can also chime in, social media is really powerful for us for hosting positions.
I also mentioned that City Civics Day is another really powerful tool to make sure that we have youth understanding what planning and development is.
You know, I think this is our third City Civics Day that's going to happen on November 15th.
And I'm always encouraged when I see the number of youth that show up.
And so that's another way to really build a strong pipeline.
I think it can be less traditional ways to expose young people to the field of planning and development.
City Civics Day is a perfect example of a less traditional way to create interest and a pipeline.
We just completed a DPD coloring book.
These are for the littles, right?
And the DPD coloring book talks about planning, and it talks about development.
High schoolers won't get excited about it.
You know, middle schoolers won't.
But the young folks, you know, your primary grades may be a little excited about it.
But it's one way to do the outreach to talk about planning and development in less traditional ways.
I like that, but I think at every one of these departments, we need to have a conversation about how we're developing our own people through CPS and through city colleges.
Like, we got to do it because what I realized in the last administration is you got planners who've never stepped foot in Woodlawn but are making decisions about what happened in Woodlawn.
And that's an issue.
And so, appreciate your team for spending time walking the war with us this summer around SPF.
But I know more needs to be done.
Among the lines of what Alderman Burnett's question was, how does your department spend, how much does your department spend on marketing for CDG, NOF, and SPF per war?
How much do we spend or how much outreach?
Like, dollar amount in terms of marketing or how do we market?
I don't know that I have.
No, I've seen some of the ways that you all market.
Ms. Mary has literally listened and did some outreach and did some work with us.
I want to know how we inflate that a little bit more because some of my word is Latinx and we don't always have a person that speaks Spanish so that folks kind of understand what the city is offering, how that process works.
But really making sure that what also happens in my word is a lot of people don't apply for it.
SPF because they don't know anything about it. They're unclear on how to do that work with the
city. And so how will we reassure when we're putting these dollars in the SPF that they
actually get spent in the ward? Yeah, a lot of it, yes, is marketing, but I think more of it is
door knocking. I think it's leveraging our SSAs, it's leveraging our corridor manager, and it's
also leveraging our team to actually meet people physically where they are and make sure that
they're aware of the resources. We've actually seen an uptick in our applications overall, not just
SPF, but across our applications, and I think that's a direct response of the outreach. I think
we're far more intentional about going to corridors where we haven't seen the number of applications
that we want to see, that we think we need to. We can't fund a project unless we have an application,
and so I think we're hyper aware of areas that we're not seeing grants funded, and so we're doing
that door knocking. We're partnering with other partners, other chambers, like I said, the corridor
managers to make sure that the word is out. It's also important that we're providing translation
services, and so it's not enough to provide a flyer in English. We've got flyers across five different
languages to make sure that the language isn't a barrier to access those tools. I'd also say is
when we go into certain wards and we need to make sure that we've got bilingual planners and others
it's intentional to ensure that there are no barriers as it relates to language, we're getting
the resources out the door, and so if you have specific concerns about areas where you're like,
hey, this language, I need translated, let us know. We'll make sure that we're getting the information
out, and I don't want to use, you know, marketing dollars as a reason why we're not. We've got tools,
we've got an amazing comms team, and we're committed to doing whatever we need to do so people know how
to access resources. I appreciate that. Need some of them coloring books. My last question is,
are we having a conversation with folks about actually developing? So my ward is one of the
wards that does not have something for us. How are you, how are we trying to gavinize? Like,
I've reached out to a couple of people just on my own, and they've given me information,
but I don't really know how to engage them around actually developing and what they have and what
they bring, and so if you don't have that answer now, you can get it to the chair.
One example is RFPs. I think RFPs are a really powerful tool. Before an RFP is issued,
we typically work with our aldermen. We work with the community groups to understand what are the
priorities, and so as you talk about fun projects, it's something that David and I have actually been
talking about for your ward specifically. How do we think about our city lots? How do we think about
leveraging a brand new RFP to solicit interest? We don't just say, here's an RFP, develop whatever
you want. We specify this RFP is intended for mixed-use development. This RFP is intended for
affordable housing, and so I think our RFPs can kind of shape the interest that shapes the outcome
that you want to see. It doesn't control who applies, but those applicants that are exploring
whether or not to apply, they understand what the priority is on that site, and so I'd love for us
to continue our conversations about, hey, which parcels of land do we want to prioritize,
and what's the right time to issue an RFP to actually articulate what the intended or the
prioritized use could be? I know I'm over my time, Chairwoman. One last question. Are you all working
with the Black Illinois Chamber of Commerce? Go ahead. I'm sorry. Are you all working with the
Illinois Black Chamber of Commerce? I'm not sure if we're working with them directly. I'll pass it to
Mary in case there's any, you know, ongoing conversations. I know that the Illinois Black
Chamber of Commerce was on your bus tour, and we had a chance to meet, you know, a couple of members
to kind of talk about some of the resources that we have, but I'll have Mary kind of chime in,
and if we're not, we certainly can begin to work with them. Mary O'Connor, Deputy Commissioner of the
Small Business Development Bureau. We are not currently working with them, but it's now on my
radar, and I will make a call tomorrow and set up a meeting with them. Thank you, Ms. Mary. Thank
you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, so I just want to make
sure I'm covering everybody in the room. We've got Alderman Chair Mitchell, Chair Sichel-Lopez,
and then we'll close things out. Thanks, Chair. All right, Commissioner, I don't have – it's been
a pleasure working with you, but I have a question, a really big question. Based on your
experience, you've worked on the other side of the aisle, basically. You've been on the private side,
now you're on the public side. From your lessons learned, from your experience gained,
from your conversations with Alderman about a lot of – particularly the challenge wars
about the issues that they face, what have you done from a legislative standpoint, policy
procedures to address all – address the issues that we brought to your attention and you've
noticed based on your background? That is quite the loaded question. I think, you know,
I called out some of the cut-the-tape measures, and I won't go through all the things, but,
you know, what I started to mention is that time kills deals. It's one of the biggest frustrations
for developers overall. I don't care what city you're in, this is what you hear developers
state all the time. We need to advance development projects much faster. We're making huge strides
there, 40% reduction in our application timelines for plan commission. That's a demonstrated,
quantifiable kind of, you know, measure that we've implemented, and we're hearing positive results.
from developers. I talked about our conversions, office to residential conversions downtown. We've
got 17, 17 projects underway. That's a big deal. That started with six DPD and DOH RFPs to, you know,
really reimagine office to residential development. And now we've got 11 non-city subsidized projects
moving forward. It's a big deal. $1.5 billion, over 3,000 units. That's something that I'm really
proud of. Some of the challenges that we often hear from our aldermen is, hey, I need to see a
more thriving corridor. Well, zoning has a lot to do with that. I called out a little earlier over
4,900 proactive rezonings that we've done, and that's in collaboration with our aldermen. We're
not doing it on our own. We're not doing it without you. We're doing it with you, your constituents,
your community organizations, to ensure that the zoning really reflects the priorities that you've set
forth. Now, what does that mean for developers? That means that developers don't have to take the
time or absorb the expense that's required to change the zoning. That also helps to prime the
pump for economic development. From a population standpoint, you know, we think about population
loss. Over the last 40 years in Chicago, we've lost population. That's equivalent to Boston's current
population, right? Yeah, right? So Boston's not a huge city, but to lose population over 40 years,
that's equivalent to a small city is not insignificant. And so as commissioner under
this administration, we're focused on repopulating, and not just repopulating a couple community areas,
but I think initiatives like LaSalle Initiative, our Missy Middle Initiative, which focuses on
block by block, no by no. This isn't single-family homes. We're talking two units up to six units.
You know how I feel about my single-family homes. You've got Missy Middle in your ward, right? And so this
is an opportunity for us to really think about strategic repopulation. And so I think those
are just some of the measures, not to mention the grants that we have allocated that's driving
catalytic development. The other thing I am really stoked about, and I haven't spent hardly any time
talking about it, is our large, our mega development sites. Under this administration,
we've got two new mega development sites. We're reviving additional mega development sites that have
set dormant. I'm really excited about that, right? And so whether we're talking about the 78, whether
we're talking about 1901, whether we're talking about you and, yeah, our quantum development sites,
those are opportunities for large-scale catalytic development that won't just sit at that site.
The economic impact will be felt in adjacent wards. This is a regional benefit. Those are things that I'm
really excited about, that my team and I are working on, and I think it's important to acknowledge
the collaboration with other departments. I called out DOH. I called out BACP, DOB. There's so many
departments that are pulling up their sleeves to say, hey, yes, we can move faster. And these are our
cut-the-tape measures that are helping to make Chicago far more pro-development, if you will.
That's just a couple that I want to call out.
All right. I appreciate that. You mentioned the cut-the-tape initiative. I definitely feel that
that initiative has some unintended consequences. I know it doesn't necessarily, everything about
this initiative doesn't fall under your purview, but the unintended consequence I think it has had
is by making it almost too easy for bad actors to open up businesses in our wards, which hinders
development, which creates public safety issues, and it puts a drain, a burden on the ultimate.
And you've been, you had discussions about that, how I'm trying to attract certain things to the war.
That ability for just anybody, and Patrick, these two words, by right, to do...
whatever they want to in our ward, which doesn't line up with the direction of the ward has been
a real problem. Can you speak to that? Yeah, I think that's an example of a proactive zoning
that we're doing. You know, when we talk about by right, it's by right only because it's zoned that
way. And so I think it's so important for us to really think about zoning in a way that we have
and to think about land use in a way that really attracts the type of development that you want
to see. When we talk about our land use plans, these planning studies, I mentioned a little
earlier, it's in response to priorities set forth by your constituents, your developers, your
nonprofits, by you directly. And so those priorities aren't always aligned with the zoning in those
areas. And so that's an example of how we took 4,900 parcels and rezone them so that it reflects
better what your priorities are. I think we're going to continue to do a lot more of that. I think
the 4,900 that are underway is in response to zoning that just was not in line with what you wanted to
see. Not you particularly, but aldermen as a whole wanted to see. And so working closely together,
we want to get it right. And we want to let developers know these are the priorities. These
RFPs and these, you know, these corridors, this is what we want to see. So come with an amazing plan
and we can talk about potentially filling the gap on an as-need basis.
Thank you for that. I mean, I talked to you a lot. I talked to Patrick, so I don't really
have a lot of questions, but I wanted to ask that question particularly because I know that you guys
get put on the defense a lot. So I wanted you to go on the offense by describing some of the things
you've put together to assist us proactively and in collaboration with us. So that's it,
I can talk to these guys anytime. I work great with them. So I'm fine. I just wanted to ask those
particular questions. But thank you guys for always working with them. We got a long road ahead over
in the Seventh Ward, but I appreciate what we've done to this point. Thank you, Autumn. Thank you.
Chair Mitchell, Chairman Sigcho Lopez, would you like to go ahead? Thank you. Thank you, Chair
a lot of the questions. And I may have missed a few that have relevance around housing in particular
that is important for us. It's around the vacant lots. I know that we're on track to reach 700
lots, if I'm not mistaken, on the Chai Block Builder. I just want to check the numbers on the goal that
the city had for empty lots. Just if you can talk about the Chai Block Builder initiative.
I know that there was, you know, I just want to be clear with the numbers. So the goal for the end
of this year, and then, you know, kind of how you envisioned that. I know that with the limitations
on budget, I know that this is, you know, it is an important effort as we have, I think, close to 15,000
empty lots throughout the city. Just want to check on the progress on those goals for the Chai Block Builder.
Sure. So Chai Block Builder, for those that are less familiar, is our land disposition platform.
And so the goal of that platform was to provide far more transparency in terms of where those lots are
located. When we list lots for sale, we list it to show what the goal is in terms of use. We list it
to show what the value of that lot is, and obviously the priority for development. When I started, we had
over 10,000 vacant lots. We currently have 8,000 vacant lots that are reflected on Chai Block Builder.
You can search Chai Block Builder by ward, by community area, by lot size, etc. It's a very
intuitive platform to understand where we are. When we think about overall the use of Chai Block
Builder, and I mentioned this earlier, so I apologize. I'm going to repeat it. We've prioritized 70% of our
lots for vertical development. We have to see more economic development on these lots. 30% is set
aside for open space and side yard because that still is important, but we need more vibrant
wards, more vibrant community areas and more vibrant corridors. And that's done by focusing on
repopulation and vibrant investment. In terms of the use for Chai Block Builder overall, we're talking we've got
some commercial uses, we've got some affordable housing uses, we've got lots of different uses that really help
focus on more holistic real estate development. In 2025 alone, we've listed, I think, 923 parcels
through two rounds of Chai Block Builder. We list lots on April 1st and October 1st.
For the number of closings, I think we're at approximately 110 closings in 2025 alone. And I think that that's
generated, I think we're projecting, Whitney, this number always escapes me in terms of revenue from
those sales. Yeah, we're projecting 3.9 million for this year. And so we're talking about just
under, you know, $4 million in revenue. What I'm most excited about is not just thinking about this
year's revenue, but thinking about next year and the following year. As we really ramp up and focus
on more market rate sales, focus on more vertical development, we're projecting much more in revenue
being produced. A number that I called out, and I'm going to mention it again, because I'm excited
about this number. The lots that we've sold, we were able to work closely to figure out what permits
have been pulled. What's the value of economic development for those lots? And I think the number
was $154 million tied to those permits from city-owned land. And so when we think about those lots,
it's important to get the lots back on the property tax roll, get it back on productive,
back in productive use in neighborhoods that need it most. And I think it's really awesome when we're
starting to see those permits being pulled that really speak to catalytic, robust, meaningful
investment in those corridors and neighborhoods. Thank you, Commissioner. And I commend you for
streamlining this process. And as they go through our committee in housing or real estate, we see the
difference of having a clear process. And I commend you for your leadership on that.
I think that you already touched on the missing middle. And I also commend you for, I think, you exceeded
the goals for that project, but I'm not mistaken. So I also want to recognize that.
In terms of, so I have just two more questions. The next one, of course, you know, and I asked in the
previous round with BACP, I run small businesses. I know that that's a big core. And I tell you that,
I would say, at least in my experience, I think you being the commission on planning,
the most active being out there. And I see you in different communities very often. So I want to
recognize your team with Mary O'Connor and many others. I've seen you very, very active throughout
the city. And that is very good. As a time, in a time like this, where a lot of small businesses are
hurting, right? We're really concerned about the sustainability of some of the businesses,
given the climate and the inadequate enforcement that we have in immigration. It is really creating
a lot of fear, people not coming out, not going to restaurants and businesses as they used to.
So around, you know, the planning, I know with BACP and your efforts providing grants, I know it's
BIF, as we speak, that's been kind of sharing throughout our community. What are the things
you think could be done around promoting the small businesses, supporting these small businesses,
especially in communities like us, that are really seeing a significant decline in areas like 18th
Street, 26th Street, vital corridors for a city that have seen a significant decrease in economic
activity. And I know that you've done a lot of work in BIF. And again, I recognize and I welcome
your leadership and your urgency on this. So just wanted to ask, I mean, what else can we be doing
as well here to help these small businesses to survive? I think continue to work collaboratively.
I really appreciate just the partnership with our aldermen. I think when we talk about small
businesses in particular, and the unique challenges of small businesses, I think it's the exposure,
making sure that they're aware of the resources. And that requires us not to wait for them to apply,
but to literally meet them where they are. And so sometimes that requires us to do door knocking.
Sometimes that requires us to do in-person, you know, you know, informationals about, hey,
this is how you apply for a grant. These type of uses are eligible. These are ineligible. This is what
the timeline looks like. We're doing direct contact to businesses. We're doing corridor walks. We're doing
in-person presentations. We're doing roundtables. We're doing webinars. We're doing meetings at
you all's offices directly. And so I would say that we are not opposed to any form of engagement,
whether it's a couple businesses or 50 businesses that will ensure that we're getting the resources
out and the information out that's desperately needed. And so whether it's leveraging our housing
and economic development bond to get CDG small grants out the door, whether it's larger projects
and leveraging our NOF, I think we're just committed to making sure that we're meeting our businesses
where they are. And so if you have specific businesses, specific industry that you're like,
hey, I'd like to kind of bring some business owners together and I would like you and your team to come
out, Alderman, as you know, I'm happy to do that. We want to meet our businesses where they are. We want
to make sure that they have exposure to the resources, that information or lack thereof isn't,
you know, getting in the way of getting dollars out the door. We'll continue to do that.
I mentioned a little earlier, I don't know if you were here, but we're starting to see an uptick
in our application. That's a good sign. I think that has a lot to do with marriage.
and her team and Tim and his team actually getting out and doing door literally knocking on doors to
say hey we want to make sure that you're aware that we've got a cdg round open right now that
closes on february 13th do you have questions alter woman taylor asked earlier what about
those grantees that have been denied for a grant we want to issue deficiency letters we want to do
one-on-one meetings so that we can a encourage you to reapply but most deficient so that when
you reapply you have a much greater chance of having a stronger application it's also important
to note that we've done we've made a concerted effort to make sure that our application guidelines
are now publicly available right and so Tim and his team Mary and her team have really done a
phenomenal job of making the application process far more intuitive and less overwhelming and
confusion confusing for businesses that don't have a grant writer if you will to submit a successful
application so those are some of the measures but again I welcome additional ways to do outreach
and ways to engage from both you and all of our other aldermen that can yield better results because
we want to be available we want to get the resources out thank you and definitely it has a lot to do with
you know and I've seen your team going out there door to door and makes a difference when people cannot
come out and we meet them where they are so I appreciate and thank you for your leadership my final
question is around tips we've been collaborating a lot on the studies around the inequity of the
program you know for the last 40 years about 70 percent of all tips have gone to the same areas
and that creates serious inequities one of the questions that I have and I welcome you know money
going actually to schools you know to where it's supposed to do to go back to to the places that
needed the most and I think our children do need it the most right now my question is around some of
the things that we look into the the TIF usage about exposure I think sometimes these TIF reports
include staffing DPD staffing that is supposed to fund or funding any any exposure to that in terms of
you know the the funding the TIF has gone through the department how that may change just given the TIF
surplus and you know in terms of just in general I mean I was curious to see in our in our in our
local appeals in industrial TIF there was like some funding for positions so I just want to have
clarity on that if there's any positions that are filled with that and also any kind of risk of
issue that you have with the surplus thank you. I'm actually going to pass that to Tim Jeffries from
our team he can kind of chime in on the admin line item for TIF directly. Tim Jeffries managing deputy
commissioner uh the TIF act allows any municipality to take up to five percent of revenue in order to
administer activities associated with the TIF um my my uh okay uh do you want me to repeat that yeah
sure uh the TIF act allows um any municipality to take up to five percent uh of annual incremental
property taxes for the purposes of administration uh of the TIF district including staff time
uh and that is calculated on an annual basis by OBM it's not just DPD that uses uh those dollars but
it's it's a lot of different departments doing a lot of different functions um and any surplus is net
of that so I think short answer is no that has surplus has no impact on on the ability to staff up
thank you thank you Alderman Central Lopez um that leaves me uh I'm going to submit some things
through the chair but I want to ask a question that one of my colleagues wasn't able to stay so I'll
ask this one um regarding the open space impact program how much was generated uh how much was
generated this year through the open space impact fee and have any communities used funds in 2025
sure uh Patrick Murphy uh zoning administrator so all other women in the past year there were
1.45 million dollars generated uh and of that and then separately there have been almost 1.5 million
dollars uh approved right for projects thank you and then that is in addition to 4 million that's
already out underway for projects currently so that's excluding that one and a half million
and then as a total dollar amount there are an additional 17 million uh that is available for use
but it is limited to the community area in which it was generated in so they're not they're not
portable to other areas of the city would you be able to provide through the chair so that everybody
just has some awareness breakdown of the program uh where the funds are generated the communities where
um it's eligible to be spent yes we can get that through the chair lovely um I know I've talked to
you and your staff um a little bit already about and you've heard just some frustrations about the
the budgeting uh tiff suite process so I look forward to coming back and talking to your team and to
iga and to the budget office as well um I made a request through the chair when um when director
guzman was here so I'm hopeful that we can come back around to get that information the request really
was to go back to dpb chicago public um sorry chicago park district cps to see what projects
have been I'm going to say I'm doing air quotes right now discuss like that this is not something
that's being imagined for the future but like my donovan park project we are down the road we just
haven't gotten to the point where the funds could technically be encumbered um and a big concern for me
and you heard that also from alderman beal um it's just what that's going to look like because we're
we're worried about delays in my case donovan park has been it was delayed for a lot of different
reasons before I got there and then you know it's been slow going um and we finally have had momentum
just like alderman uh or alderman o'Shea I've had several community meetings about this already as
well so look forward to that um I was writing down all the names I wanted to say thank you to
it's a lot of people uh you you all absolutely are like the easiest to access I mean I don't Patrick
anytime that I ping you you you are back to me within minutes um even if it's just to say hey
I'm in a meeting I'm gonna I'm gonna get you back um I'm going to I'm going to thank everybody um so
it but in particular the people that we work with so often and who have come into our community um which
in this last year I think has been amazing um the things that we have going on in the 11th ward I'm
very excited for um so um Patrick obviously all the time anytime I need a question answered about the
zoning code um you have it memorized like an encyclopedia in your brain and I'm very sorry
that you have all of that in your head um so Mary O'Connor and your team uh with all the various
programs uh and I you know I'm so excited for the work that we're going to continue to do and I
I want to applaud you all on just really thinking about how these programs are working or are not
working and how you've tweaked them to make sure that they are benefiting people um you know to uh
to Nolan with all of this with all of the bigger um so with Nolan and and the team who we work with
just on a very regular monthly basis they've been in the ward multiple times I I joke with them we we
have a we have a rule about our meetings what happens on their you know 11th ward TPD call stays on
the call but you know we have had so much great stuff actually Haley just sent me an email about
the Archer corridor study so we talked about studies earlier we've got two of those going on
I'm just I'm really excited for the work that's going on under your leadership and with all of the
dedicated people on this team Tim Jeffries is another one who you know I reach out to so regularly um and
he's amazing um along with Cindy uh Noah and Heidi um and and Max I'm getting to know a lot more
because we're working on some sales which is really exciting um so you know I I appreciate all the
work that you're doing and I mean in all of the stats that you've rattled off um there's good
stuff going on and I think lots of things to be excited about um and what was great for me to hear
today was just how much stuff is actually going on um and how great that is because we're open for
business here in Chicago and we we want growth and development and I know you know we've housing
coming in next and we we want to balance all of that out you know we've been in plenty of
conversations this year uh where people are worried about what development brings um and we
think development brings good stuff it brings jobs it brings opportunities and it's housing and stuff
um and that all has to be balanced right but I want people to know that um this department in
particular is just so focused on generating great stuff for this city so that we can grow so that people
can build wealth so that our communities can be great um so just thank you I appreciate all the time
and effort that you all put into everything that you do every day um and for making it through here
that was only two hours and 15 minutes not bad not bad guys thank you so much um with that the
community the committee's going to stand at ease until we switch out here and get housing in
Good evening, everybody. The Committee on Budget is going to reconvene here, and I can't roll
forward. Sorry. We are on the Department of Housing now. We have with us Director Janice
Oda-Gray from COFA, who's going to give her summary of the Department of Housing's budget,
and then we'll go over to Commissioner Castaneda for her statement. Go ahead, Janice.
Thank you, Vice Chairman Lee, auto persons, and guests. Good afternoon. My name is Janice
Oda-Gray of COFA. I'm going to provide a very brief overview for the Department of Housing.
The proposed FY26 budget for DOH totals, $169.25 million, a decrease of $68.74 million. The
Department is 6.1% corporate fund supported, with most funding from other local sources
and grants. For spending overview, non-personnel spending $153.83 million. Personnel spending
is $15.42 million. Workforce and staffing, FTE's budget at $122.00. That's one less than FY25.
Going to appropriations. The purposes as specified remains the largest appropriation category.
While most grant funds decreased in FY26, DOH realized an increase of $1.2 million in the
tax increment administration fund, representing a 103% increase over FY25. Funding sources,
the local funding sources, increased modestly, while pandemic-related grant funding declined
substantially as one-time relief programs concluded. Looking at
historical appropriations. DOH reestablished itself as a standalone department in 2019
and experienced a significant increase in resources during the pandemic. Funding peaked
in 2022 and has since gradually declined with the FY26 budget recommendation 28.8 percent lower than
the prior year. FTE staffing. Staffing levels have remained stable since 2023 with a reduction of
one FTE in FY26 budget recommendation. This concludes my report for the Department of
Housing. Thank you. We're going to go over to Commissioner Castaneda. Over to you.
So much, Chairwoman. Vice Chair Lee and Honorable Memos of the City Council, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Department of Housing's proposed FY2026 budget and share how we are
building on the progress made in 2025 to deliver on our mission for the year ahead.
Joining me on the dais is Tamara Collins, Managing Deputy Commissioner for the Department,
and Matt Stern, Deputy Commissioner for Policy Planning and Evaluation. Also in the box with
us today are Alexandra Budnick, Deputy Commissioner of Finance, Amy Henry, Director of Human Resources,
Asia Bonner, Assistant Commissioner for Asset Management, Joe Lewis, Assistant Commissioner
for Multifamily Finance, Sam Drew, Project Coordinator for Affordable Requirements Ordinance,
Will Edwards, Deputy Commissioner of Neighborhood Preservation, Chris Smith, Deputy Commissioner for
Construction and Compliance, Lisa Lewis, Assistant Commissioner for Construction Monitoring, Margarita
Vega, Assistant Commissioner for Long-Term Monitoring, Dan Rico, Assistant Commissioner for
Construction Services, Edwin Ortiz Reyes, Director of Planning, Research, and Development, Steph O'Connor,
Project Manager for Owner-Occupied Repairs, Mike Weber, Assistant Commissioner for Ledge Affairs
and Budget. In 2025, the Department of Housing, under the continued leadership of Mayor Brandon
Johnson, advanced a housing agenda rooted in equity, inclusion, and long-term stability for
all 77 community areas. These priorities reflect our belief that housing is more than shelter.
It is a foundation for public health, education, safety, and economic opportunity. On the ground,
we have already constructed, rehabbed, or preserved more than 4,000 units. We are also monitoring the
construction of approximately 1,600 units of affordable housing, supported by over $344 million in
investments. We also prioritize the fight against vacancy and disinvestment and support reinvestment
and neighborhood stability by acquiring 78 vacant buildings, 72 of which had been transferred to local
developers for rehab and reuse. In addition, we have 4,756 total units in the pipeline, of which 3,425
are designated as affordable housing. Our shared equity pilot took significant steps forward. With
just $4.1 million, we helped acquire four cooperative or community land trust properties,
totaling 20 permanently affordable units, and supported 23 homebuyers in securing long-term
affordability. In 2026, we will continue implementation of transformative housing solutions.
In our work to address and prevent homelessness, the coming year we'll see the completion of all
shelter acquisition and construction projects in partnership with the five shelter operators and
the Department of Family and Support Services, bringing over 300 non-congregate shelter beds online
through the $55 million in local bond funding and leveraged local, state, and federal resources. We will continue
our monitoring of the single room occupancy preservation ordinance and deploy the SRO preservation fund to
preserve these most affordable housing options in our city. In our work to build, rehab, and preserve
affordable housing, we will announce the next round of projects that will be awarded through our 2025
qualified allocation plan, aligned with Mayor Brandon Johnson's Build Better Together and Cut the Tape
initiatives. This plan modernizes how we allocate federal low-income housing tax credits, prioritizing
transparency, equity, and geographic balance. The passage of Green Social Housing Ordinance earlier
this year also positioned Chicago as a national leader in permanently affordable housing. This new
authority allows us to leverage the housing and economic development bond funds to create city-owned
climate-forward housing options, and we look forward to taking big steps to advance this in 2026.
Also in 2026, we will work with the Department of Buildings and the Mayor's Office to advance a rental
registry. The rental registry will support the department and city's work to track building
conditions and code violations in privately owned housing, helping DOH and DOB identify troublesome
property owners who hide behind complicated ownership structures to allow their buildings, tenants,
and communities to suffer real harm, and also allow the Department of Housing to effectively track trends
and data in private market rentals, which we currently cannot track, including number and size of apartments
in the city, rent levels, and changes over time and unit vacancies. The rental registry is one of multiple
policy initiatives we hope to advance next year in partnership with this body. We also hope to advance
security deposit reform, formalizing the Right to Eviction Council program and making it permanent,
streamlining rental affordable housing regulations with Cook County, and expanding renter protection so
every tenant in Chicago has access to housing stability. Vice Chair, members of City Council,
the Department of Housing enters 2026 with clear priorities, strong leadership, and a demonstrated
ability to deliver. Our proposed budget reflects the urgent need to expand and protect affordable housing
and the belief that every Chicagoan deserves a stable, dignified home in the community of their
choice. Thank you for your continued partnership and your commitment to housing justice in Chicago. I
welcome your questions. Thank you. Will you please introduce your team that's here? Oh, you already
did. I'm so sorry. I missed it. I was reading my phone. So busted. Thanks for paying attention,
Chair. All right, moving on. Chair Sigjo Lopez, please open us up here. Help me.
Long day. Long day. Thank you very much, Chairwoman and also Commissioner. I want to commend you first
and foremost for your leadership on the very difficult times for our city. The One System
shelter program, I think, has given a little light in kind of what is possible, and I hope that we
continue to partner with the state to do that and continue to help in that house. The Green Social
Housing and many other initiatives and your leadership, I think, speak about your care and
commitment to public service in our city. In terms of the, there was a letter, and I think you already
responded, but I think I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to respond. This is around the
small accessible repairs for seniors. I know that you and I have had conversations with the advocates,
and it's certainly something that I think every other person can attest that this is a necessity.
I want to make sure that we respond to the letter that everybody received. So that is a while,
you know, I know that we've talked about it. You already responded to me, but I thought it was
important for every council member to respond to the letter that they sent. Great. Thank you so much,
Chairman, for the opportunity to be able to talk about this. As part of our work on both efficiencies,
transparency, and equity, we have been looking at all of our programs to streamline and really think
about what the best way is for folks to access the various programs that we have. One of the decisions
that was made was to include accessible repairs for seniors in our general home repair program.
This allows us to streamline the program. It allows seniors to only have to access us once in order to
tell us what they need, and it means that we can save on administrative costs and put more money
directly into construction. We certainly, we've partnered long for a long time with the advocates
and certainly understand where they are coming from. And I think ultimately, what we're looking
at is knowing that the program that we have is addressing those needs and is addressing the needs
of the seniors. So we're confident that that work is still continuing. Thank you. Thank you,
Commissioner. I think one of the concerns in specific, and I just want to make sure that we respond publicly,
is that, you know, seniors oftentimes have difficulties accessing to the help, getting connected
to the help. And I think in the letter sent by North Branch Works and Executive Director Jonathan
Snyder, there is a concern about like 44 seniors that were contacted in September. There's still 10 that
there were, that only 10 have been contacted, just to make sure that they are continued given just
within that general, general fund, that special attention, understanding that they are a vulnerable
community and the difficulties that we think we all can attest, they have access in these resources.
Yeah. Yes, of course. Fully agree. And I think so just generally for everyone's knowledge,
our home repair program currently is serving clients with an average age of over 76 and an
average AMI of 36. And the majority of homeowners have been in their homes 50 years or more. Again,
we are very confident that we are reaching the population that we are both worried about.
In addition to the other pieces around the waitlist, my team has reached out to all the names that we
were given. And there were various folks who perhaps were not qualified because they didn't live in the
city or for other reasons. But we have reached out to all of the people that we were given by the
organizations. This is also one of the concerns that we had about the way that the program was being
run, that we did not want there to be wait lists outside of the waitlist that the city had. So there
was one single centralized place where we could ensure that we could ensure that we could ensure that we
everyone is being served. And unfortunately, some of the organizations were still keeping
some names separate. So we have worked to address that when all the organizations
were brought in and the program was brought into the home repair program, we were able to
reach out to every single one of the folks on that list. I'm happy to have my team reach back
out to specifically the organization mentioning their wait list, but I am confident that
we have ensured that every single name that they gave us is someone that we have reached out to.
Thank you, Commissioner. My next question, I'm looking forward to continuing working
and our commitment with the advocates to make sure that all the seniors are served and, again,
that we have a general system that is not in any way or shape or form dismissing these
applications or not prioritizing them. So looking forward to working together. The next question
is, again, I think the goal and I think the city is certainly positioning itself as a leading
municipality around affordable housing. I think is in terms of some of the results that I think
we have is around 4,063 units that have been built, rehab or preserved in this year, correct?
That is that since May of 2023.
Since May of 2023. So in this in this last term, in this term, my question to you is around,
one, especially with the budget constraints that we have. And, you know, we're definitely trying to overcome
a very, very tough climate with a federal government that continues to withhold funds
or not funding agencies and projects that are critical to create more affordable housing.
The biggest or the fastest way that we can make our city the most affordable city in the country
is by creating affordable housing and preserving natural-according affordable housing. In this line,
my question around, you know, it's becoming very expensive to build new housing, right?
So I know that you have, especially in retrofitting and other proposals, how we can expedite the rehabbing
of units, the preservation of natural-according affordable housing, and what you see as one
of the biggest challenges, especially right now with high property taxes and other challenges
for small homeowners. What do you think of those strategies that I think that we can work
understanding a tough climate and how we can work together to ensure that we expand or affordable
housing? I'm talking about initiatives as social housing and co-ops in particular.
No, absolutely. Thank you for the question, Chairman. We think a lot about what are other ways to build
affordable housing outside of the traditional LIHTC pipeline. And so that is where the idea for green
social housing came from. That is also where we have other initiatives, particularly in areas like
the south and west side, where affordable housing looks a little differently because of market values
there. So that's really where the Neighborhood Rebuild Program really comes in. And that is the
program that I referenced in our opening statement, where we talk about we've acquired properties and
have turned the majority of them over to be rehabbed. The idea is really how do we ensure that
vacant properties are not just a blight in a community, but that we're taking the opportunity
to say we're going to put this back into productive use and, again, preserving some level of natural
affordability because these are often smaller properties, right? These are not multi-like hundred
unit properties necessarily, but that we can ensure that there is that naturally occurring affordable
housing that is happening through that. Also to that end, we have a really strong partnership with the
Community Investment Corporation. They work with us on a variety of things, and their focus is really
kind of in that mid-size area of, you know, 30-unit buildings that are doing naturally occurring
affordable housing. And we work with them through our Troubled Buildings Initiative, and we work with
them in the Preservation Compact when we talk about the preservation and building of affordable
housing, again, including naturally occurring affordable housing. So we ensure that all of the work
that we do is on a range of affordability, not just in sort of what we call that capital A
affordable housing, and are always happy to continue to explore even more ideas.
Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Certainly, I think that the idea of housing co-ops is a model that
we've seen in our neighborhood at least being successful. I think that they continue to acquire
more property and sharing costs among, and maintaining ownership, I think is a way, and I hope that we can
continue identifying funds to scale up as traditional banking doesn't fund, unfortunately, those initiatives,
as you know. So I'd love to continue partnering and working on that. My next question is around
the flood repair program. You know, flood repair, roof, porch repair. I think these are programs that are
becoming more and more in... I think the demand for these programs is growing. I'm concerned about
the climate change. You know, we saw what happened in the west side and other parts of the city.
So how do you see the funding? I know that in, I think it was 2023, there was some bond allocation,
like a $40 million allocation. How can we continue funding those kind of projects, programs? Because
I see the need, especially for seniors. Once again, I know that there's a small repair program,
but oftentimes we see seniors who need roof repairs, porch repairs, and there's really not a lot of options
out there. So is it possible to look into bond programs or other ways to not only maintain,
but hopefully get more help with some people in need? Yeah, absolutely. We, I have moved at this
point almost every single one of our capital repair programs onto the bond, onto the housing and economic
development bond. That allows us flexibility. It means that we can keep administrative costs down
because other sources of funding like CDBG, which have been traditionally used for these programs,
require extra steps like environmental clearances that can make it really difficult to have these
programs on those funding sources. And so as long as we have the bond right now, and that's really how
we're sort of focusing on all of those things. And we know that there will be certainly other
opportunities for funding, and we want to continue to look at them as well. The $40 million specifically
you referenced is the money that is being put towards the flooding that happened for the three
specific events that FEMA designated in 2023 that is also bond funded, that is out of CRP bond funds.
And so again, we look forward to being able to like look at all the different sources because
100% you are right that the more, the thing that we need more and more is to help folks preserve and
maintain their homes and preserve that equity and that wealth that they've had in that.
Thank you, Commissioner. I am thankful for your leadership. I'm looking forward to keep working
together and see how that economic and housing bond can help, especially across neighborhoods
that oftentimes don't have TIVA availability and other options. So I commend you for your
commitment to equity in North City. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. We're going to go to Chair Harris and then to Chair Mitts virtually.
Hi. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for being here today. I'll start off with all my wonderful
thanks, how I appreciate you, Commissioner, and your staff. It's just really talented and
amazing. So thank you to everybody. I'm not going to get in trouble naming names because
I'm going to miss somebody. So, but thank you all for everything that you do. I am, I really
appreciate it. These programs are super valuable on my side of town, on the south side, because
I represent communities, large, a bulk amount of people who are in their golden years. And of
course, as we get older, sometimes our incomes do not keep up with us, i.e. that the roof and
porch and the furnace program becomes so important this time of year and the repair programs. So I
wanted to ask, how much do we bond for since you said it's now you all bonded for it? What was the
total amount of the bond? For next year, the home repair program, we're planning 5.6 out of the
housing and economic development bond, 5.6 million out of the housing and economic development
bond. And that would include for the roof and porch and the furnace program? That's just for
the roof and porch program, the emergency heat program. I have an answer for you. Give me one
second here. See if you find out. Go ahead.
Hi, all the women. Three million.
Three million. Okay. So, again, I don't have a lot of comments because, like I said, you're
amazing. You work with our offices. Of course, I would love to see the bond be double that amount
so that we could really help and take care so that it's not ever a waiting list on these programs,
which is always a waiting list. So, again, just thank you. These are like the heartbeat of my
community in terms of resources. I'm always going to have a number of seniors that will need the
furnace program and the roof and porch program. And, again, thank you all. I can't thank you enough.
I am really grateful. I mean, whether it's helping me build a senior building or helping me with the
small stuff or Will helping me get all the information right. And so, whether it's me calling
Tamara on the weekends and bothering her. So, again, I am so grateful to your staff for being so
accessible. So, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair Harris. Chairwoman Mintz, are you on the line? Chairman Mintz, if you can hear us,
you're on mute. That's okay. We'll come back to you. Alderman Moore, do you have anything?
No. I'm on mute.
Oh, sorry. There you go. We'll come back to you.
Go ahead, Chairman Mintz.
Sorry about that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Good evening, Commissioner, and to your team.
I appreciate the work that you've done with me in my area as we toured the ward.
And, of course, there's opportunities for development here.
And as we went on the tour, I was showing those locations to you.
And I still would like to continue to move forward on those projects of vacant land that we have.
But I want to talk about the flood from 2023.
And if you could tell me where we are at in terms of receiving some assistance,
because I know we've been working with your department now for a while.
Thank you so much, Chairwoman.
So, as you know, last year we launched the Flood Assistance Recovery Program,
and we were able to serve a little bit over 50 families that had been affected by the 2023 flood.
In conjunction in conversations with you and with others,
it was decided that among the better ways to serve the folks in your community through the program was to do a delegate agency contract
so that the folks who had been doing the most work on the ground would be able to be the ones to serve people moving forward.
And I am pleased to report that we are very close to being able to execute on that contract.
And I hope to be able to call you very early next week with some final very good news.
Well, I'm hoping that that's the case because, you know, it seems as if though two or two years plus is a long time for people to still be.
And when we talk about 50, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the help that was given already.
I think you have done a tremendous job by coming out and having her come out and take applications and making sure people is meeting the requirements.
But out of 50 people in my whole world was devastated.
That leaves a lot of folks that I still have to answer to on a regular basis about this fund.
And I certainly would love to be able to tell them that the help is there.
I can't keep pushing them back.
I can't keep saying that and nothing has happened.
That's not a good look for myself or the city of Chicago.
So I'm just hoping that next week is going to be the date that we'll be able to get something moving here
in terms of helping the families in the long-term recovery group to be able to work along with the Westside Health Authority to be able to get this work done.
On another note, I want to talk about the contracts that your office hold.
How do you work with the Department of Becurement in terms of the contracts?
You are overseeing Dallas Casino, is that correct?
The Department of Housing Construction Compliance Monitoring Team oversees the construction monitoring of that project, yes.
Does that work, get forward to the numbers to procurement, or do you all work with that department on compliance?
We follow the same compliance guidelines that DPS does.
The reason the casino, and again, this all predates me, but it is my understanding that the reason that the casino ended up being monitored through our division
was because it was considered a non-DPS contract, and therefore it was deemed that DOH's team who does monitoring for non-DPS contracts
could do the monitoring for that project.
We are always happy to share those numbers and can share those numbers as asked by DPS, and obviously we also do the quarterly reports,
plus the annual hearing that we bring to your committee to update on the casino as well, where we also can provide those numbers.
I would like to know still, how are we consolidating that effort in terms of the city being able to have numbers from one location?
We would certainly be happy to talk to DPS about like a single way in which all the numbers get reported.
Again, our numbers get reported as part of our budget hearing, and the numbers for the casino particularly are getting reported
on a quarterly basis, and we would be happy to engage in further conversation with you and DPS to talk about
if you would prefer to see that from a single place.
Do you know what's the percentage of the contracts that you handle from your department?
Percentage in terms of what, Chairwoman?
I'm sorry, can you clarify?
In terms of the contracts.
Compliance.
Like what percentage?
On any projects.
Total number, not just on values.
Yes, we do have numbers for our total compliance for our contracts for WBMBE, and that is, it's part of our packet,
and we would also be happy to provide a further copy through the Chair.
Okay, very good.
And I have a senior in my ward that's been in communication with your office.
Her furnace went out, and whether, I guess according to your department, that she didn't meet the qualifications.
But I don't know how we can interpret that if we're still struggling and she can't, she don't have heat.
So I would request that someone reach out to me so we can further discuss this and how we can help this senior.
It would break my heart to know that somebody needs some help, whether they qualify or don't,
and they can't get any help.
So we should be able to find some other alternative on how we can help her to be able to have heat.
Chairwoman, if you send me that name or someone on your staff sends me that name,
my team and I can connect and we can figure out what qualification this person is not meeting and see if there's anything that we can do.
Her name is Delores Jones.
Can you repeat that?
Delores Jones at 1416 North Rockwood.
Why don't we get the address offline?
Okay.
Yes.
Thank you.
We will make note of that, and I will talk to my staff,
and we'll reach back out if we need some other specific information from you.
All right.
Very good.
Well, I thank you all for the work that you're doing.
I would like to have close communication with you within the next week or so.
about the funding.
So that's something that's been riding for a long time.
And I could talk about a lot of other issues, but that's at the forefront and it's been there.
And I'm taking my time today to talk with you about it because it's a concern, a great concern, given the climate we're in now.
And it seems like there's no hope, but I know hope is going to be there because we won't give up.
But we're just not going to allow no assistance to come when we've been devastated by a storm, such as what happened twice in 2023.
And I know my colleagues had won just this year, but we have federal dollars that are there already that should be able to get out the door.
So I would appreciate you reaching out to me so I don't know when we're going to be able to get those funds down and get them into this community.
And let it be Thanksgiving and a Christmas present for this year.
Absolutely, Chairwoman.
Heard and we'll be in touch early next week.
All right.
Thank you so much, Commissioner.
And thank you and the team.
I'll send my accolades out to everyone a little bit later.
So I'm going to hold up the time today.
Thank you so much.
You all have a great evening.
Thank you, Chair Mitts.
We're going to go next to Alderman Scott, followed by Alderman Conway and then Chair Taylor.
Good evening.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Wait, Ms. Moore.
Sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I'm having the worst chair right now.
I'm so sorry.
You feed me so you can never be wrong, you know.
You're all right with me.
I don't care what Greg Mitchell says.
You all right with me.
First of all, thank you all for appearing.
Thanks for staying so late.
A couple of quick questions on this roofing porch through the chair.
Can we have, again, the total amount that was allocated for this year
so we can have that by ward and the number of people by ward.
My staff is reaching out, and tell me who they should reach out to
because I told them to find out.
I got a gentleman, and I didn't know we was doing this thing by,
and so I don't know how I missed it, by age and number of years,
and he's been waiting a while.
He's got his ladder and everything, and I have to get him done.
You know, I don't want people, God bless them, to live long,
but, man, I don't want nobody to go to glory, and this stuff hasn't been done yet.
So, you know, I want to work with you all,
and I want to make sure this gentleman get his done.
So who should I?
That would be Steph O'Connor.
She's in the box, and she is the person to talk to directly about our home repair program,
and we will provide you through the chair the amount and the numbers for this year.
Okay, and I have my staff get to you to get you that person's name,
so I've got to get that executed.
Now, the other part is the – and I hope I got my numbers right.
I'll try to remember this stuff.
$1.25 billion economic and housing bond.
Was that it?
$1.25?
$1.25, yes.
And $500, basically, each?
$625.
$625.
Okay, and so how much on your end has been put out already?
Because you haven't put out the whole $625 yet.
No, correct.
The idea would be that it is a five-year bond, so it would be roughly $125 million a year.
As of right now, in terms of what has been awarded or is in implementation,
is approximately $130 million.
Of the $625?
Of the $625, yes.
Okay, and so we'll be doing another $125 this year?
Roughly, like, yeah, for next year.
So the $130 –
I mean, next year, I meant to say, of 2026.
Next year, the hope would be roughly $125, you know,
and it ebbs and flows depending on the projects, but roughly about that, yes.
Okay, now, is all of this specifically for affordable?
If we have someone that's doing market rate in an affordable area, if that makes sense,
because our market rate is affordable, but they got to build, and the cost of building
is basically the same, whether it's on the north side versus, you know, the south side.
How do housing from that bond can assist in that?
Do they have to – if you assist, do they have to do affordable,
or can we assist with some market rate as well?
We mostly concentrate on, yes, that capital A affordable,
so where there are restrictions for regulations.
There's a couple of other places in where we do some work.
So, again, our rebuild program does work with market rate developers, again,
because to your point, in some community areas, some market rate is affordable already,
and so there are some instances in which we could talk to a developer about that.
And the other thing that is not under my purview,
but that I would certainly encourage them to look at,
that would be DPD's Missing Middle Program, which is aimed also at market rate developers.
Okay.
We'll probably all both have to get in the room,
because I've got a serious developer along Halston or 78th Street,
which is a project that DPD is looking at, and we've got to make this work,
because here is a property that's been off the tax roll for years,
and the critical piece is making sure that this stuff gets back on the tax roll.
So he's like a perfect candidate for our rebuild program,
and so that's certainly a conversation that we're happy to participate in.
Deputy Commissioner Edwards, Will Edwards, oversees that program.
Okay.
And speaking of Will, I want to thank you so much.
Anybody on your team that I call is very responsive, including yourself,
and I want to thank you all so much, again, for, I guess you had to,
but you could have, Will could have went home and got his kids or something, I don't know.
But thank you guys for staying this late and being able to address our questions.
And again, if it's something that we can do, as I think Alderman Harris said,
and I want to make sure that we're on that, and if we can double that bond for roof and porch,
that's something I would, you know, as an Alderman, support and vote on.
And I think we can get others to get that passed, you know.
So let's look into doing that.
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you.
Okay.
I'm going to redo the order, and I'm going to get it right this time.
We have Chair Villegas is going to be next, followed by Alderwoman Scott, Alderman Conway,
and then Chair Taylor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And good evening, Commissioner, team.
My question is going to be simple.
It's going to be around, well, two questions,
one around compliance and then the other one around procurement.
So as it relates to compliance, and Madam Chair,
I have submitted some questions from through the chair for the department.
Around compliance, though, when DPD executes the RDA,
my understanding it's your department, which then in turn monitors
and ensures compliance with MWBE and also the 50% requirement.
Can you ask me why – I'm sorry, can you answer me why that's under your purview
and not under the Chief Procurements Office's purview?
So all of this predates me, but my understanding is that because both DPD
and DOH have non-DPS authority, contract authority, right,
and so that just means that we bring contracts like for our affordable housing
developments or our programs directly to this body rather than going through
a DPS process that we then are able to do our own monitoring
and compliance to keep up with that, essentially.
Also, it is also my understanding that DPS monitors projects
that they themselves have let, so they've done the process.
In our case, we are monitoring compliance for work that is being let
by the developers or the GCs themselves.
So we do not bid out subcontracts.
We do not bid out the electrician and things on a project.
That is something that the GC that has been chosen by the developer does.
So we monitor to ensure that they are compliant with all of the various regulations
set forth by this body.
But because we do not do that directly, it differs from the way that DPS does.
So really, it's just something that the body would need to change because the reality is
that regardless of who lets it, compliance is a compliance.
So DPS works with the departments in order to put forward a procurement opportunity,
just really the action of the procurement where there's a difference,
whether it's DPS that's actually in charge of the procurement versus DPD,
but it's still a procurement that has taken place.
And then the compliance portion is something that DPS already has in place.
And then it's either – I think there's – I'm not sure if it's duplicative so much,
but, I mean, you're doing the same work, the compliance portion, as DPS.
So that's something that we need to take a look at legislatively, I take,
because there's nothing.
And then the second part – the second part was around – what was I going to ask you?
Oh, the – specifically around the host agreement with Bally's.
Can you talk about – what's your department's role in that whole thing?
So my understanding is that the host agreement was executed through the office
of the chief financial officer, because the chief financial officer does not have
their own construction compliance division the way that we do.
The contract was treated as a non-DPS contract, which, again,
are the contracts that we monitor for DPD and DOH,
and therefore it was given to DOH's division, which monitors DPD and DOH,
non-DPS contracts, and that is why we have done that construction compliance work.
Right. So, again, that's just a part of procurement that – it's not your department
that actually let the project. It's just another department that's doing it,
and you're doing the compliance on behalf of that department.
Correct.
Okay. Now, procurement had mentioned during their hearings – that's what I was going
to say. Procurement had mentioned during their hearings, and we were all surprised
because it's called the Department of Procurement Services,
but they're only responsible for 51 percent of all procurement in the city of Chicago.
And so what does the Department of Housing – what do you guys procure separate from DPS?
Thank you for that question, actually. So we only – our non-procurement authority
allows us to do things like come before this body with our affordable housing projects,
for example, right? So, like, all the projects that go through Finance Committee.
It also – any of the programs that we run last –
we probably have a lot of programs that go through.
I don't know if there's a lot of records that work does exactly
So, it's good.
I think that's all the colleges, you know,
So, absolutely.
month, I think we brought, like, our TaxSmart program, which is a home buyer program that we
run. All of those we just bring directly here, and they don't necessarily go through the procurement
process. And so for us, we are not procuring goods, nor are we procuring, like, services in
the traditional sense. We are procuring projects where we are building affordable housing. And so
it's considered procurement, but again, it's not, we're not buying things for ourselves or for the
department or for others. That actually still all happens through DPS contracts. When my team needs
things like construction equipment, we get that through DPS contracts. We do not get that separate.
So as you're in charge of compliance for the DPD projects and the casino, if a developer fails to
meet the 26 and 6 or the 50% residency, we collect fines on that or enough penalties on that.
Correct.
Can you let me know how much we've collected thus far and where are those funds going?
Yes, we could get you that answer through the chair. Is there a timeline for which you want that for?
Like a time period?
Well, I mean, maybe under your tenure, I guess. But then where does that money go?
That money, I believe, goes into a general fund. Again, we can get you for sure a confirmation of
that through the chair.
Okay. And also how much you've collected, right?
Yes.
I think I asked that already. Okay. So again, Madam Chair, I put a bunch of questions through the chair,
so we'll get that information. But I'm interested in talking to you as well around the bond program
that you have as well, just to kind of get a sense. So I'll talk offline with you on that.
Okay.
But yeah, just so keep up the good work and looking forward to continue working with you guys.
Thanks. Thank you. Chair Villegas, if you wouldn't mind just sharing the request that you sent
through the chair request that you sent online with me, I'd just like to keep track of them.
Yes. I'll make sure that.
Okay. We had a couple more people join us, for those of you who are online and can't see the room.
Alderman Beal, go ahead.
Good evening. Good evening, Commissioner.
Evening.
How are you doing today?
I am well. How are you?
Wonderful, wonderful. All right. We're going to dig right.
Right on in. I'm going to ask you, and I'm sure you were probably upstairs listening.
I'm going to ask you some of the same questions.
You sold this console on a $1.2 billion bond for housing.
And you said that was a tool that you also needed in order to do housing.
And so how do you justify, you know, how your department can move forward if you're going to be losing a billion dollars in TIF money?
How do you continue to do the job on a high level?
Yeah.
TIF, along with the bond, are one tool in a toolbox.
And so part of what we know that we have is that we can look at a variety of funding sources the same way that we look at CDBG or home or home art money in order to move our projects forward.
And so the one thing that we are confident of right now is that any project that is in our pipeline and the projects that we're looking at and currently vetting for our next round of awards through our low-income housing tax credits will be able to move forward.
And some of them will be able to move forward with TIF.
Part of it is that the TIF will regenerate.
And because of the timeline of development, particularly affordable housing development, which can take 18 months of underwriting plus another 18 months of construction, we know that there will be some money available in those TIFs again.
Okay.
And so with the current TIF sweep, how much input did you have in the letter that was sent out to the alderman with the $1 billion in TIF sweep?
Into the letter itself?
And did you have direct input on the priorities of how much money was coming out of each TIF?
It is not within the purview of the Department of Housing to talk necessarily about specifics of each TIF.
However, again, all of our projects that are in the pipeline and the projects that we're looking at for the next funding round, we are confident that there will be enough TIF money for for the ones that are eligible for that.
Okay. Now, did you communicate with the aldermen on, you know, what TIFs they were, that they're looking at and what their priorities are before this TIF sweep was announced?
It would be outside the purview of the Department and my purview as Commissioner of Housing to talk about TIFs in general.
However, for all of the projects that are in the pipeline, there has been some conversation with the alders.
We generally, again, it takes some time to move projects forward.
And we always are talking to the alders about the various projects that we're moving.
And whenever there is a TIF ask, the alders are aware of that.
Well, it's, you know, I mean, you're saying a little something different than what the budget office said and also what the Commissioner of Planning has said, you know,
because I don't think any of the aldermen say that they had legitimate conversations on what their priorities were with your department as far as housing as it relates to what went on that sheet.
So, I mean, hopefully you can help me out with that.
Well, again, I'm talking about what is currently in our pipeline and what we are looking at for the next round.
What we're looking at for the next round has actually not been broadly discussed generally because we are still under review, under the review period for that.
For anything that is in the pipeline, these are projects that have been previously discussed with the alders.
But I guess my specific ask is, did you have any input on the $1 billion TIF sweep that was presented to this body?
It is outside the purview of this department and my purview to have had any input into that.
So that's a no.
Okay.
All right.
Now, let me ask you.
Over the last couple of years, we have basically swept almost $2 billion in TIF.
Out of that $2 billion, we only get 21% of that.
Okay.
Do you think it hurts your mission to be able to do housing, which we all know we need affordable housing, if you had $2 billion?
Couldn't you do a lot of housing with that?
I think that we use TIF as one of the tools in the toolbox.
I'm asking you, do you think your department can, you know, basically go bonkers building affordable housing?
And if I gave you $2 billion today, don't you think you can spend it?
If you gave me $2 billion today, I could absolutely spend it.
But that is a general sort of any number of wish list items that we have, right?
I don't think it's a wish list.
The money is there and it's being swept.
As an affordable housing advocate, I would always want us to have more money from any source.
It does not actually matter what the source is for us.
But, again, there is no project that has come through us that we're working on that is in the pipeline that is not able to move forward because of whatever other work is being done on the TIF suites.
Well, you know, I would tend to disagree with you because with that amount of money being swept, something has to sacrifice.
Something has to hurt somewhere.
And I think the communities are going to be hurting.
And I think development in the community, I think your department, as far as providing affordable housing, it's going to be hurting because anytime you take a billion dollars, you can't tell me it's not going to hurt somewhere.
It's going to hurt.
Okay?
But if I gave you a billion dollars and gave planning a billion dollars, you all could go nuts.
I think you guys could really be impactful with development, creating jobs and opportunity, doing housing, and that could be real impactful.
So the return that we're getting in the city council, which is 21% of the TIF suite, truly does not outweigh what we could do if we were to give your department and get these department of buildings on board with expediting permits and doing different things.
I think we can do a lot of damage in this city.
But I think we're being short-sighted by constantly sweeping these TIFs.
And like I said earlier, I think this sweep of this TIF is basically a bailout for CPS and CTU.
And I think we need to rethink that because I believe that if we gave you a billion dollars, that you can do some wonderful things in this city, maybe even in the Ninth Ward.
You know, I really believe that.
You know, so, but again, I think you all do a lot of good work as well as, you know, the Department of Planning.
You all do good work and we need you all.
But I think we're handcuffing you all to be able to do the job that you all are capable of doing.
So that's all I have.
And I hope we rethink this TIF suite, you know, because I just, you know, you got on money green.
You look like you can spend a whole bunch of money.
So let's make it happen.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you, Alderman Beal.
Alderman Lopez.
Good afternoon.
Excuse me.
Good evening, Chairman, members of the committee.
Commissioner, good evening.
Good evening.
Thank you for sticking around into the wee hours with your money outfit, as my colleague just stated.
I just want to correct what my previous Alderman just mentioned.
If we gave you a billion dollars, you could go nuts because we've already given you a billion dollars, correct?
No.
The $1.25 billion housing and economic development bond is split between both DPD and DOH, which means that DOH's half is $625 million.
So I heard you.
state and from the previous conversation that you guys, that TIF is outside of your purview.
I also know that we have oftentimes relied on your department under this administration to
work hand in hand with DPD, which manages TIF. So how is it that while they have a pool of money,
your department has a pool of money, we're not coordinating on how to maximize those pools or
addressing the impacts of where the spending priorities are between the two departments
that are both trying to simultaneously address the same issue? I would not necessarily say that
we are not coordinating. The Department of Planning and Development and Department of Housing are
coordinating often. We share back office staff. We share space on the 10th floor. There is a lot
of coordination that happens between the two departments. I think, to be clear, what I was
saying was that the Department of Housing doesn't have purview into TIF sweeps and how that happens
or where that happens. The thing that we have done is that we have coordinated to ensure that the
projects that are in our pipeline are projects that we can continue to move forward and make sure that
we can maximize on those opportunities as they have been available to us. Did the Department of
Housing previously have representation on the TIC? I am not aware that we've ever had representation
on the TIC. It is my understanding that we've always brought our projects to TIC or what is now TRR,
but we do not have representation on that. And in its current iteration, do you have representation
on the TRR? We do not. It's a new iteration of that, so we're all trying to figure out exactly
who's on what. A couple things that I want to just touch on with regards to the investments that
we're making. And forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I want to bring it up because
it's something that pains me greatly. The cost per unit that we're seeing when we support affordable
housing, what are we doing to ensure as a department and as a city that we are being as close
to market rate when it comes to these units? Many of us have seen, excuse me, time and time again,
where rental units are being rehabbed at nearly a million dollars now by our delegate partners and
individuals. And in my 10 years here, I've seen that number, especially as of the last three,
balloon exponentially. How are we allowing to see these costs continue to rise? What are we doing
to mitigate that? And what are we doing to address when we have vendors who are also unable to complete
tasks because of cost increases that we are no longer funding? So, and forgive me if this has
already been answered. No, thank you, Alderman. So number one is going to be that there will always
be a higher cost to affordable housing than there is in the market because of what the affordable housing
is paying for. Part of what we are looking at is 30 years of affordability minimum. In some cases,
it is beyond that. And so it requires underwriting and putting financial resources to projects to
help achieve that. However, we have looked extensively at what are the things that we are
doing that might be contributing to higher costs to see what we can do to mitigate that. Particularly
under the Cut the Tape initiative, we have done a year and a half plus of work on our architectural and
technical standards manual to ensure that while the housing continues to be good and dignified,
it is also not adding any unnecessary burdens on to the development process and thereby adding any
unnecessary costs. In addition to that, we have put out our new QAP that indicates that we will be capping
the amount of cost escalation that we will see from final application to final underwriting closing. Part of
what we know has happened and often happens is that the projects will come in at a certain cost and by the time we
get to closing, the costs have ballooned. We have put a cap on that now to ensure that there is not
just this increases in costs that we are not accounting for. Lastly, one of the things that we've looked at
really closely has been the way that our processes work because we know that time is money. And so part of what
we're looking at is ensuring that we can bring down closing timelines from three, four years long,
or at least down to 18 months and hopefully less. Well, I'm glad that you referenced time is money
because I think many of our private developers readily recognize that working with the city of
Chicago to get through permitting and all of these things that help us build housing in the city of
Chicago oftentimes is becoming counterintuitive to the production of housing. The delays, the permitting
process, notwithstanding the cut the red tape, which is still very much in its infancy, we are still not
meeting goals that allow us to do things in a quick and timely manner to be within 18 months.
I think also when it comes to the city of Chicago, I hate to say it, but I feel as though your department,
as well as Commissioner Boatwrights, are picking winners and losers in communities where we've seen
projects stall and sputter because they're not getting the support and the continued aggressive
support that we need to create housing and development in the city of Chicago on all fronts,
regardless if we're using the housing bond TIF or whatever tools in the toolbox that we have.
I don't know how we address that because hearing that we have constant communications with aldermen
who have projects and things going on, I don't believe that. I don't. I have two developments that
we've been, three developments that are in my ward, two of which you've been to because most of the work
was already done before this administration's arrival. The third, you all are, it wasn't until
I got a little crazy that I got everyone's attention to get the ball rolling again, but I've seen where
a hundred plus unit building has gone sideways with no support from the city of Chicago in a community
that serve, that is mainly African-American and Latino, no housing support, no department of planning support,
and yet we play lip service to how we're quickly we're able to do things and at what cost we can do them.
So I just wish we could see a little more consistency across all neighborhoods when it comes to this
because I think there are many opportunities where I'd love to see housing do more that we're not seeing it.
I will reference, for example, I think that the Department of Housing needs to also do a bigger job
in support of the Mayor's Office of Persons with Disabilities. When Commissioner Arfa was here,
we asked how are we doing in the home modification sphere of helping those individuals who have special needs,
and even though this body added $4 million to her budget for the purposes of home modification,
they actually did less year over year. And I believe that with all the tools that are available
in the Department of Housing, that just as we are concerned about affordable housing, housing for
persons with special needs must be a top priority for this administration and for the money that we've
now created and made available for your department. The fact that we have people who are suffering in
their own homes when we have tools to help them needs to be a priority for this department. And I hope
that as we move forward with this next year, when you talk about all of the hundreds of units that
you've made affordable, that we also have a report of how many you've made to help with the backlog
in many of the remodel, remodification programs that we offer in the city of Chicago.
So with that, thank you. And I look forward to seeing better investment by the city of Chicago
and all the neighborhoods I represent, particularly as it relates towards affordability for veterans
and other individuals whom, like the vice chair and I share, many missed opportunities that I think
that we can build upon, no pun intended.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderwoman Scott, you're up. It's your turn finally.
I'm exhausted. Good evening.
Good evening.
I just want to send some, you know, I don't have much, but I just want to send some shout outs.
Thank you, Commissioner Lizette.
Can you talk into the mic, Alderman?
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me scoot over.
Thank you, Commissioner Lizette. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner William Edwards,
Christopher Smith, Deputy Commissioner, and Irma Morales. I know I have some difficult people in
my ward and you all have been gracious and I thank you. But, you know, that's a project that I think
that's near and dear to me. So I want to make sure that I can wrap my arms around it and support it
the best way that I can to make sure that we get those houses, you know, so that we can reclaim the
24th Ward and put those houses in the ground. So whatever support that I can offer, I'm here.
You know, it's a lot going on in my ward.
Between, you know, Department of Housing and DPD.
So I want to thank you all because those the projects with Missing Middle, I think that's going to be miraculous for the 24th War, that that infill housing.
I think that's going to be great. And I look forward to continue work with the Department of Housing.
Thank you all. Everybody in the box, because nothing goes unnoticed.
I have a we we discussed the the lots and in the DPD hearing and, you know, I'm well over 3000 vacant lots.
And so any kind of help or support that I get from you all is always welcome.
So just want to say thank you and good night. Thank you, Alderman.
Thanks, Alderman Scott. Alderman Conway. There we go.
So I will I'll be brief following up a little bit on what Alderman Beal was saying.
How do you decide what comes from the housing bond versus what might be a TIF loan or TIF grant even like how does that decision made?
So that's all part of the underwriting process. Right.
We have a few things available to us and we look at every project individually during this process.
So it can be any number of things such as like how many TIF eligible expenses will you have?
Our home money is capped. There's only so much home we can put in each project.
So sometimes it's like, OK, if we're going to put money in this project here and CHA is already participating, then we probably can't do home.
We've got to do bond. And so, again, because we look at all of our menu of options and treat each project individually,
because they are they're all different. We just sort of go through the process of figuring out what makes most sense and what is available for each project.
Is the home money? Is that TIF? What is what is that?
What is home is home investment partnership is formula funding from the federal government.
Got it. Got it. Got it. Got it. And and do you know how much is is outstanding of the housing bond or how much we've spent on that or where we're at with regard to that?
Yeah. So we have awarded or an implementation for approximately one hundred and thirty million dollars.
And so the rest of that is still kind of outstanding to be in that kind of implementation period.
So we so we've issued one hundred and thirty million of it awarded an implementation might mean that we've made a commitment,
but it's not necessarily that the bonds have been issued.
That would be a question for the CFO's office, although we do work with them to let them know approximately when we'll need each tranche of money.
So so we so we have in that in that bond we've awarded through Department of Housing.
We have awarded one hundred and thirty million.
We've technically awarded awarded an implementation is one hundred and thirty million awarded is about 80 million.
And the remainder of that is in the implementation phase.
Got it. OK, Madam Vice Chairwoman, that is all I have.
Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Vice Chair, thank you for your wonderful comments and questions.
Chair Villegas, I think you've got you've got one more to go.
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize for this.
Commissioner, I wanted to thank you and your team for working with us, the body this year or last year, rather,
to get in place the expansion of the ARO, the 10 percent for veterans.
That means a lot. And at a time where we see that people are always talking about homelessness and are pointing to veterans,
the city has stood up and said, hey, we're going to provide this opportunity.
And I really wanted to thank your department for helping me with that. Thank you.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
That is all on the speaker. So I've just got a couple to to ask myself.
I've I've I've talked to a few people.
Well, we've had some conversations very recently in the 11th Ward with constituents who are,
I think, running into what we see all over the city right now, which is, you know,
as properties turn hands, rents go up and, you know, we get a lot of people who are sort of lost in the shuffle.
You have a great resource. I love the little book. We have the we have all of your material.
I wonder from a community engagement perspective, one of the things that I've seen a great need for is just
for people to understand what their rights are as both tenants and landlords.
And so rights as tenants, but also obligations as landlords.
I get a lot of folks that come in who, you know, took on becoming a landlord without a whole lot of
there's not training for it, but like you got to do your due diligence because you have accountability and responsibilities,
legal ones. And, you know, what I hate to see is folks that get into this and then, you know,
they didn't do a very good job of vetting the individuals who are living there.
They don't understand what they can and can't do in terms.
And they come to us to ask these questions. We're not the experts, but I'm pretty sure you can lock out your tenant.
So let us find you the resources. I wonder how much community engagement do you guys do?
Like, do you come out towards to do workshops and things like that for both?
I'd love to be able to just raise awareness.
Absolutely. Thank you so much for that question.
We have a great community engagement team under the direction of Edwin Ortiz Reyes,
and we would be more than happy to work with you on an event or something that was specifically targeting some of that.
We've done several of those events this year, and the team is constantly working to sort of spread awareness.
We work with our partner agencies who are really the super experts in this work, right,
like Metropolitan Tenants Organization, Lawyers Committee for Better Housing.
One of our housing counseling centers, the Spanish Coalition for Housing, that specifically does work to help landlords learn how to be a landlord.
And so we would be really happy to work with you on something.
That's great. Thank you.
I've got a couple of questions related to the ARO as well as the for sale requirements as well.
So let's talk first about just rentals.
The ARO has taken a little bit of a nosedive in the last few years.
Do you guys have – have you evaluated kind of what's happening that this is declining, if you will?
Sure.
And I think you're talking specifically about the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund, the money that we're coming.
Right.
Because, yes, we've looked at that a lot, and often we don't not miss the money.
However, we're getting units.
Okay.
And to the point that it is expensive to build affordable housing, we have been really excited, actually,
to see that we're getting affordable units without necessarily putting any money into them.
However, yes, there has been a nosedive in the AHA fund, and we are continuously looking at ways in which we can continue to figure out
where are other sources of revenue that could be brought in to help us and anything else that is being funded out of AHA.
Can you talk a little bit about just what we're doing to sort of lift up naturally occurring affordable housing
and, like, existing units?
Because we know how expensive it is to build new.
I think we've talked ad nauseum about it.
I think you have the same conversation every single year when you come before this committee.
Because it is – to build is so much more expensive.
Can you talk a little bit about the DOH's efforts around naturally occurring?
Yeah, so I think really around naturally occurring, we really leaned in on our partnership with folks like a community investment corporation.
There's also some developers that we've worked with in our pipeline that are also concentrated in that space.
But generally, preservation is a really huge focus for us as well.
We understand that the cheapest money, so to speak, is the money that went into the project originally.
And ensuring that the properties are well-resourced now is really important to us so that they don't have to continuously come back to us to be recapitalized or have more money.
And so that's a huge part of the work that we do through our asset management division, which is really looking at, you know,
what is happening at the properties and what are the things that we should be looking at that we can do differently.
And sometimes, you know, what is the little bit of capital that might be needed that will keep them going without having to come in and do a full recapitalization.
Sure, like a six- or eight-unit building that maybe needs a new roof or something like that.
Is that – are those – are there resources – because, look, in a community like mine in Chinatown, let's say,
there are so many buildings that people are paying really high rents for, and the units are – they're all very run down.
I mean, in some cases, you know, the building owners haven't taken care of the properties,
and they find little reason to because they continue to be able to collect these rents.
Yeah.
But in order, I think, for us to have more – these buildings have to be sustainable.
So where a landlord is interested but doesn't necessarily have the resources, are there programs that they can come to?
They can definitely reach out to us, and we can connect them all to the right places, again, including CIC.
CIC really specializes in working with sort of these mid-sized landlords who might be in need with that
and ensuring that we can sort of move forward for those because we completely agree that folks deserve to live in good spaces
if they're going to be paying for them.
That's great.
Thank you for that.
And, you know, I've had at least one or two developments sort of fall through the cracks – not fall through the cracks,
but just, like, fall apart because of the affordable requirement for forced sale.
So can you talk a little bit about how that is performing versus the for-rent affordability requirement?
I will say generally right now is a rental market.
Everyone is building rental, so a lot of what we're seeing is rental.
There was a period of time.
where we were seeing more for sale being built.
That is simply not the market that is out there right now.
There are very limited instances in which the team right now is working on like for sale components,
but they're often one component of larger projects that also have a bunch of rental in them.
Generally, yes, I think that developers have found it a little harder to figure out the for sale component.
I do not think that it is solely about ARO.
I think it's generally the market, whether it's the interest rates or just, again,
how do you sell in this market where that's just kind of not what the business is and that model is.
And so, you know, we're always happy to work with folks.
We definitely for the for sale pieces of it, we've definitely had people come in and ask for waivers
or ask us to consider alternate options.
And we're always looking at those and always willing to consider something because we don't want to be the one stalling development.
We just want to ensure that there's some affordability.
I got it.
Thanks.
Okay.
This one's probably going to be a through the chair request.
Can you provide the council with the average total development cost per unit for all multifamily projects DOH has closed in the last two years?
So I don't expect you to have that here, but just to let you know.
And then can you tell us how that average compares to the total development cost for IDA finance projects in Chicago that didn't require DOH gap funding?
So, yes, we I think we might have the answer to not the average in the last two years, but certainly we have this year's average and last year's average.
We would have to figure out finding IDA information because that's just not something that we would necessarily have because if we're not in the deal, we're not usually privy to that.
But do you have the number?
Sure.
I think for 2020.
Can you see her name for the record?
Sorry.
Tamara Collins, the managing deputy commissioner for the Department of Housing for 2024.
I think the number was somewhere around $608,000 a unit.
I'm sorry.
2024 was around $705,000 a unit.
2023 was about $605,000 a unit.
And I think in 2022 was closer to like $600,000 a unit.
So it's gone up over time.
And then we, you know, we work closely with IDA.
But one of the things that the commissioner talked about was the cap that we put in place, not just on escalation, but for projects that are coming in to bring them in at a more reasonable cost.
And then they might escalate as they get closer towards closing just because of the timeline.
But I think the cap we put in was $750,000 a unit on our last QAP.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Those are all my questions.
Appreciate you all hanging tight with us here.
And it's not too bad.
It's not even 7 o'clock yet.
So there's two more departments going after you.
Count yourself lucky.
Thank you very much for all that you all do.
I know you guys have a gargantuan task ahead of you, but I appreciate your passion and the work that you guys put into it.
All right.
You guys have a good evening.
Thank you so much, guys.
Sure.
The committee is going to stand at ease while we transition to our next department, Chicago Public Libraries.
Everybody, welcome back.
It's still Tuesday.
It's 645.
We're here with the Chicago Public Library.
We're going to have Katie from COFA provide their summary and evaluation of the budget.
And then we'll go over to Commissioner Brown for his introduction and his staff.
They work really hard already.
They can have all the treats they want.
The treats.
All right.
Thank you.
Good afternoon or good evening, I suppose.
Vice Shirley and members of the City Council, my name is Katie O'Toole.
I'm with COFA.
I'll provide a brief overview of the proposed budget for Chicago Public Library.
The recommended budget for fiscal year 2026 is $107 million.
This is $2 million less, or a 2% decrease from revised appropriations for fiscal year 2025.
The library receives both local and grant funding, though no appropriations come from the corporate fund.
Out of the proposed spending for 2026, the majority, nearly $84 million, is allocated to personnel.
The public library is budgeted $1,033 full-time equivalents for next year.
This is $1,033 full-time equivalents for fiscal year 2026, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority
69 less than fiscal year 2025, or a 6% decline.
Here you can see the breakdown of the recommended budget for 2026.
The percentage change between 2026 and 2025 is compared to the revised appropriations.
These are below the 2025 budget ordinance due to lower-than-budgeted grant funding.
Spending on personnel largely stays the same, with a slight increase, despite losing positions.
There is also an increase in purposes as specified, which is a reserve balance for the library,
and this is due to an influx of $10 million from the state capital construction program.
The biggest decrease is in the spending category at $9,100, specifically for the purchase of books and materials.
This is a $5 million decline, or 50%.
There is also a decreased budget for contractual services and travel.
The bulk of appropriations come from the library fund, though they do receive some grant support from federal and state grants.
Looking at historical trends for the appropriations, local funding is trending down in 2025 and 2026 after seeing slight increases in earlier years.
Grant funding has fluctuated, contributing to some of these funding levels and the peak in 2022.
And then staffing levels have remained pretty consistent for the library, staying above $1,100 between 2020 and 2025 until this year.
Proposed FTEs for 2026 returns to 2019 levels.
That concludes our summary.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
In the interest of time, I think we'll waive the reading of the opening statement.
Commissioner Brown, will you go ahead and introduce your staff that are here?
Yeah.
Good evening, Council.
To my right, I have Mary Robinson, Deputy Commissioner of HR and Finance.
Next, Deputy Commissioner Maggie Clemmons.
Next, First Deputy Mary Ellen Mesner.
And then in the box, starting from front row right to left, Patrick Malloy, Director of Government Affairs.
Nicole Steeves, Director of IT.
Lindsay Lahren, Assistant Commissioner of Content.
Shamil Clay, Director of Marketing.
Tamela Chambers, District Chief.
Irma Jackson, Director of Finance.
Esme Bueno, District Chief.
And then in the back row, from right to left, Director of Teen and Youth Services.
Julie Kozlowski.
Shelley Hughes, Director of Children's Services.
Julia Brockda, Assistant Commissioner of Facilities.
Aaron McKinney, District Chief.
Nisha Saunders, District Chief.
Brent Lipinski, Assistant Commissioner of Operations.
And I think that's it.
We've got the whole crew.
All right.
Alderman Beal, why don't you kick us off?
Good evening, Commissioner.
Good evening.
I just have one question.
At what point are we going to look to tear down and rebuild the library on 110th in Indiana?
It's probably one of the oldest libraries in your database.
It's not on a main street.
We've been talking about this for over 10 years.
Okay.
So it's just not on you.
I've been talking about this for a long time.
We need to find TIF money, NOF, whatever we need to try to piece it together.
And we can even go down to Springfield and get some money from them to try to piece this together.
You know, because it's a totally, totally underutilized library because really, believe it, nobody knows it's there.
Even people that grow up in the community because it's tucked away, hidden off, it's near Main Street, but it's like two blocks off of a Main Street.
And so my request is to look at this very seriously to see if, you know, we have land.
I've got plenty of city land we can find in order to try to build a new library.
Okay.
Other than that, I see your budget is being cut by $2 million.
Is that more grant money that's being – is that ARPA money that you're losing as well?
Primarily in collection funding, so funding for books, that's $5 million.
And then reduction of vacancies that are a total FT of 68 vacancies.
So how is it – your budget is going down $2 million, but you're losing almost 70 people.
Help me understand the math.
When we just had other departments that were here that were losing $30 to $40 million, and they weren't losing anybody.
Explain that one to me.
High level, our fund, you know, is static.
So we have 90% of our workforce who are union employees.
And so every year we have a cost of living increase.
And so we are not able to live on our fund.
And so this is what allows us to avoid layoffs effectively.
But you're losing 69 positions.
69 vacant positions.
Vacant positions.
Correct.
So you're not feeling – feeling 69, almost 70 positions.
So how have you been able to function with 70 vacancies?
Like all departments, we have been going through an efficiency process to really look at all of our portfolios.
So we've looked at how we staff the Herald-Washington Library.
We looked at how we staff our regionals.
We have data from Civic Consulting Alliance to really, you know, help us think about need-based and equity-based staffing at our branches.
Using that data, we looked across the board at our departments to identify positions that would not reduce core services.
So this allows us to not close libraries, to not reduce hours of service, and to avoid layoffs.
But these are positions that we felt confident in looking at what we need to operate those locations and to continue core services like our summer reading program, our children's program.
We could maintain those in giving up these positions.
I think you're probably one of the first departments that have come before us with that many vacancies being cut.
Am I wrong, coming from your department?
Say it into the mic.
And, Alderman, one thing that we can also get through the chair, we do an analysis of how many total hours we'll have within our department, across the board, taking into account all of our positions.
So we calculate how many total human resource hours will we have to manage the department.
And this will be consistent with other years of service, like 2024.
I credit that to the team that has really reduced our vacancy rate.
So right now we're currently at a 16% vacancy rate.
In the past, when we've been in front of you, we've had upwards of 26%, 28% vacancy rate.
But why is it that you have such a high vacancy rate?
We've reduced it to 16%.
I'm saying, but if you had 69 vacancies last year, that means we budgeted for you to have all these positions.
How come you didn't fill those 69 positions?
Thank you, Alderman.
I appreciate your question.
So, you know, we hire in every position every year, and we also have promotions internally.
So that's where we do also a lot of our hiring.
So it's kind of a constant churn.
So we'll promote somebody, and then a position becomes empty also.
And we actually, because of our speed hire efforts, so we had this new program we engaged in in 2023,
and we were able to hire close to 400 people, which really set a record for that year.
So we've been doing exceptionally well with our hiring.
And so that's probably why, for us, the vacancies are actually pretty low versus past year.
How did you hire those 400 people off of, was it ARPA money?
No.
Why did you have over 400 vacancies?
And how were you all able to perform your duties with that amount of vacancies?
Well, what I can say is that when we've done our hours worked analysis, so we've looked at every year from 2022 forward,
and we've determined how many hours we've needed to serve our public, and we've actually been able to do that.
Now, certainly, what I can also add is that in the past,
past, we've had pretty high overtime to fill in those gaps. And this year we're predicting that
we're actually reduced by 40% in our overtime because we've been able to hire that certain
amount of people that we have been able to hire. So we've reduced quite a bit in our overtime
that we had to use in the past when our vacancies were high. All right. I'm sorry. Can the department
answer? Can you answer that question for me, please? Can you repeat the question? Yes, me to go back.
I'm sorry. Yes. Out of all the departments that have come before us, this is one of the largest
decrease in FTEs. Thank you for the question, Alderman. From the top of my head, there are
a handful that have larger numbers like in the double digits, but I can look for you. It would
be in our book, but they would be coming from vacant positions. Yeah. Why don't we get that
as a through the chair just overall by department? Yeah, because that's troubling. That's troubling
that we lose two million and we have 69 vacancies wiped out, but then other departments had 30,
40 million wiped out of their budget because of ARPA, and they didn't have any FTE positions,
maybe one, maybe two. So that math ain't math to me when it comes to that.
Alderman, can I have one thing? 90% of our budget is personnel, and so I don't want to speak for other
departments, but the majority of our budget is tied up in people, if that's not at all.
Yeah. And we want to make sure you guys are fully staffed and been able to function, but at the same
time, we have to make sure that we manage all the departments. And so I'm just looking at just the
raw numbers, and we need to dig into that a little bit more.
So just for COFA, the request would be by department, the number of vacancies, so year over year,
so from 25 to 26 proposed, what was budgeted for 25 and what is proposed for 26, do that alongside
the dollar amount, too, overall? Because I agree with you, and the libraries provide such vital
community services. Absolutely. And we know that, you know, even with limited hours, we know that
your people work really hard. We know that we see it every day. We appreciate it. We want to make sure
you've got what you need at the end of the day. That's all I'm saying. But other than that, thank you
all so much for everything you all do, and I'm glad you all over there are still smiling at this late
hour. And I think the commissioner is providing dinner for all of us after this is over.
Thank you, Alderman.
All right. Alderman Sposato.
Chair Sposato.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No real budget questions, Commissioner, but I just was thinking I have
a curiosity question. I honestly and truly, and this is not curiosity, to me, this is fact that
schools, parks, and libraries are major anchors of communities, and certainly
I'm blessed with two awesome libraries and librarians and do a good job. But I always
wonder nowadays with technology and everything, do we track how many people come into a library
or do they use as much as they were when 60, 55, 60 years ago when I was a kid? They were
always packed. I know they have awesome programs and things they do, but do people really go
in there a lot? Do seniors go in? Do they use computers? What's really the main function
nowadays for a library? I'm really not sure, to tell you how it's got the truth.
So we see over 5.5 million attendees each year. We actually have seen double-digit increases in
attendance this past year compared to the year before, so we're doing great in terms of attendance.
We also just did a door count software upgrade, so Nicole Steeves, our director of IT, and team have
updated our locations, so we have a better sense of how many people are coming in each day and also
each hour, so we could also understand how do we best resource those libraries. And I also appreciate
your comment about the importance of our students. This year, we've executed a data share agreement
with CPS. It's 10 years in the making, and so coming sometime in the new year, with the mayor,
we'll roll out our 81 Club next stage where every CPS student, 330,000 students, will automatically get
their library card through their student ID. So there'll be many more students coming in.
Well, that's awesome, Commissioner. Like I say, once again, when I first ran, one of my campaign
things was I'm going to put a new library in my community, and the alderman beat me to it,
so I couldn't take credit for that. But to me, it's very important to a community and just
keep up the good work. And I know you know both of my librarians, and they're both awesome. So just
appreciate all you all do. Thank you. I appreciate it, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Sposato.
We're going to go to Alderman Lopez next. Thank you, Chairman, and good evening members of the
committee. Good evening, Commissioner, to all of my friends at the library. A couple things. First off,
I know my math isn't the best, but last year you said you had five million visitors to the Chicago
Public Libraries, correct? Yeah, a little bit over. I look on
your statement. This year we have five and a half million people visiting our libraries.
How is that a 26% year-to-year increase? Because my guess would have been 26% of five million would
have been 1.3 million, not 26,000, or not half a million. Yeah, so last year we had, and of course
the year's not over, but looking at January through July, we had three million visitors, and this year
we've had 3.8 million visitors, so a 26% increase. So that's just for me. And of course we can't count
the whole year until we're done. I'm just curious as I'm going through, you know, numbers. Yeah, no,
we appreciate the detail. So back, as I'm reading your statement, a couple things jump out that I want
to touch on. And I'll go in reverse. Culture, memory, and representation. It sounds very good.
But when I look at numbers that I'm seeing in terms of ethnicity and race, your management team,
representation doesn't seem to be the word of the day that I would choose to associate with the
Chicago Public Library. Now, I would imagine that most in management are Shackman exempt, and you
have more flexibility and intentionality that can be applied. But when I look at the budget book,
that is nowhere near reflective of what the demographics of the city of Chicago looks like.
So why is it that we have a hard time when we have 77 communities, 81 libraries, that our management
at the Chicago Public Library is not reflective of the library system, or the city of the residents of
the city of Chicago? Excuse me. You know, I think when you look at the progress we've made over the
years, we've significantly increased our African American and Hispanic representation in our leadership
roles. Our senior leadership team, more to your point, Hispanic representation, Latino representation is
4%. Correct. In our senior leadership role, it's a smaller team. In our total system, we have 21%
Latin A representation in our workforce. Absolutely, to your point, it's something we take very seriously,
and every higher chance that we get, we want to encourage our staff to move into those leadership
roles and to compete for those jobs. And I know our HR team and I are committed to that. We're not where we want to be,
to your point. You know what it was last year? Yeah, so last year, for our supervisors, we're 28% African American,
um, 11% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 56%. So you've gone from 11% to 4% while you're telling me that we're being intentional.
I have a hard time accepting that answer. And as someone who's been in this room, and I get to say as the most senior Latino,
that's an abysmal direction for you to be moving. I'm sorry, I quoted the wrong statistic, 8% to 4%, but
again, you're still going the wrong direction. So I would hope that you would take this seriously.
Because if every question, or if every dollar that's requested that comes before this body has to be
added, if the ethnic question has to be added, it will be added. Because that means you're not
getting the message. Your supervisors, your hiring practices are not getting the message.
So,
and I fully expect you to do better.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
Libraries is civic infrastructure.
Even before your arrival, for 10 years,
I've been asking, what is the library system going to do for Gage Park?
Even before it was in my ward, I cared about the library,
the storefront library, one of the few that are still left, for Gage Park.
We're working on it. We'll get to it.
Blah, blah, blah. BS, BS, BS.
10 years.
That library is now in my ward.
Do you know what happened this summer?
Two massive flooding events that damaged that library.
I had librarians, I had people who used that library begging for help.
What is the public library's efforts going to be to address the situation
for Gage Park to finally have a modern library
to join its brother and sister libraries throughout the city of Chicago?
Thank you, Alderman.
I visited that very same day of those floods to make sure that in partnership
with 2FM, we were getting the building engineers to put their eyes on it
and get our facility issues addressed.
We've also publicly stated that we are committed to putting $11 million in state funding
that's already been allocated into that future neighborhood spot.
I'm sorry.
So there's $11 million allocated from the state for Gage Park specifically?
Correct.
Not from any other neighborhood.
This is for Gage Park specifically?
Correct.
So at what point were you going to engage either the local alderman or DPD
to say we need matching funds to the tune of about $19 million from TIF or what have you
to create a neighborhood library in this area?
We have engaged DPD in looking for potential sites.
We'd love to kind of go over those with you as well.
Have I become the afterthought on this library?
I have literally brought it to your attention every single year since you've been in this role.
I brought it to your predecessors every single year.
DPD has already shown itself not to care about priorities of the aldermen or the local communities
as we've seen by a billion-dollar TIF sweep.
So to tell me you talked to Commissioner Boatwright, who could give two shits about that library,
is really disingenuous right now.
And forgive my language, but that doesn't even –
Register, in my mind, that that's the answer coming from this department.
That community has been waiting well over a decade.
Gage Park is nowhere near on this administration's radar.
And to tell me that you're just dealing with them and that maybe I'll let you know,
100% wrong answer.
Absolutely the wrong answer.
Maybe if I've never brought it up, I could say yes.
But I've brought it up when every single one of you have been up there.
And I get the same answer year after year after year.
And here you are punting to the department that just took a billion dollars for investment
to give to somebody else.
I don't accept that answer.
I don't accept it for my community, and I certainly don't accept it coming from this department.
I generally think that I try to praise the libraries as institutions because I know and have worked well
with all of my libraries, as some of you have known from previous roles.
I've tried to relocate when libraries that were commingled didn't quite work to try to give
a full functional space, as you know.
But it takes two to dance.
And right now, I feel like I'm dancing by myself.
You're relying on partners who aren't helpful to the needs of the community.
You are now turning mute to people who can advocate for you and not telling them what's available.
And then as I look at the funds, your library fund comes solely from property tax levies, correct?
Correct.
A little bit from state grant for personnel.
How much is the levy?
The library fund levy?
$22 million, that's not about right?
Yeah.
Same this year, last year, next year, kind of?
Why don't you raise your tax levy?
The library department does not manage our library fund, the funding strip.
So that would be a conversation between OBM and, you know, OBM and the city.
So you have your own property tax levy.
You have your own direct funding source from property taxpayers.
And yet, as a department head and as a department, you are not maximizing that levy to the fullest of its potential to address the issues that are in our system, correct?
Around capital?
Around everything.
Have your costs remained flat year to year?
No.
But your levy has.
Have your grants remained flat or have they increased to make up the difference?
Our personnel increase every year due cost of living.
They're 90% union.
And so with a flat –
Well, I'm not going to fault the union.
I'm just asking – forgive me because I don't want to come back for round two.
But I'm just saying it's hard to say when you have your own dedicated revenue stream that is separate from the corporate fund, that is separate from everything we do, that there's no money for you to do what needs to be done to address the issues in the city of Chicago.
And if that is the mayor, if that is Ms. Guzman putting bricks on you, then that should be advocated and made known because it is completely unacceptable, as my colleagues will attest to, to know that you have options available to you that we are not fully engaging simply because other people want to reserve all the property tax increases for themselves.
As a sister agency, you have a job to do.
So I can't – it's bad enough I have to deal with a Gage Park situation, which I hope none of my colleagues have to deal with.
But when you say you can't even buy books for a library for this system, then we have a problem.
Thank you, Chairman.
No problem.
Thank you.
Yeah, please, if you would like to respond to that, please do.
And, Alderman, I apologize.
We will schedule a meeting with you about Gage Park.
And I am glad that at least the last remaining storefront location that we have without a path forward does have some funding that we've set aside for it.
And I'm looking forward to talking more with you about it.
Go ahead, Alderman Lopez.
You almost made me break my microphone.
Just because there's funding set aside, I have no faith in this administration to activate it because I know I've been dealing with your team for the better part of three years while sitting on state money to replace the library and back of the arts.
So by the time this three-year Gage Park conversation continues, the back of the arts will be going on almost a decade with money sitting around waiting to be spent.
No money should be sitting when we have communities that need help immediately.
Thanks, Alderman Lopez.
And, Commissioner, I hope that you hear Alderman Lopez and his desire and you know we need to move things forward.
I mean, if aldermen are coming and there are funds set aside, we need to, at a minimum, keep the communication going to understand it.
Because there are things that are going to be out of your control.
But when we don't know those things, as the representatives locally who are hearing all of it from our constituents, we can all help each other if we just have a better understanding of where the comms are on these things.
Yeah, understood.
Yep.
Okay.
So we have, whoever's left, raise your hand if you want to ask a question.
Okay.
Okay.
Gotcha.
Okay, we're going to go with Alderman Villegas, then Nugent, then Wagusbeck.
Thank you.
Sorry, you're the non-member.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioner.
Good evening.
Good evening.
So pick off a little bit about from Alderman Lopez as it relates to, could you through the chair provide, or if you know offhand, what your deferred maintenance costs are for the actual libraries?
We can get that through the chair.
Yeah, yeah.
And then through, well, you have, you're a taxing body.
Who gives you the authority to increase the levy or leave the levy flat?
Is that something through state statute, through ordinance?
How does that, how does that work?
How does that work?
Thank you.
I'm going to have our director of finance, Irma Jackson, answer that.
Okay.
Thank you.
Hello.
Can you identify yourself for the record, please?
Irma Jackson, director of finance.
The library levy, the property tax is through the state statute, but CPL does not control
or control how much it comes from the levy.
That is through the Office of Budget Management, finance, and the mayor's office would determine
how much to take for the library levy.
So then in the state statute, you're telling me that the state statute authorizes you, the
public library for the levy, but the state statute also is in there that's through the language
also states that the mayor's office will determine what that levy is?
From my understanding, property taxes, any type of increases in property taxes is determined
by the budget office and the mayor's office.
CPL does not determine the amount of property taxes for the levy.
So through the chair, if you could do a little research on that, because I find it hard pressed
to think that if there was an increase in levy and people actually saw that in levy going
up in the investment in the libraries, that you would get a lot of pushback.
So I think that's a funding source that's badly needed for you guys, because I suspect
that when you give me the number of deferred maintenance, that you're going to be close
to a billion dollars in deferred maintenance, guaranteed, just because of how old the libraries
are throughout the system.
And we want to help you find that funding for libraries.
I think people would be willing to pay a little bit more if they saw that investment.
So if you can get that through the chair, we'd appreciate it.
Will do.
And then a couple more questions.
Despite an increase in hours to cover seven days a week in 2021, the past two years, CFL
has cut a significant, CPL has cut a significant number of positions.
This year, the 26 budget reflects a cut of 69 FTEs, though it's a mix of full-time and part-time
hourly positions.
What impact do these continued cuts have on delivery of services?
And what we heard in public comment was longer wait times and less programming opportunities.
Is that something you want to expound on?
Yeah, I think what I mentioned earlier was the process we went through.
So understanding our current fund and the challenge of that fund not increasing, we went through
every portfolio, as I mentioned earlier, we went through how we run Herald Library, how
we run our regionals, how we run our branches.
We went through our administrative staffing.
And across all those departments identified those 44 vacant positions and the 24 FTE hours.
And so it's those 44 positions that effectively we put towards meeting this budget gap.
The goal was to make sure that no core services would be reduced, no libraries would be closed, no hours would be reduced, that we would maintain access to our 6 million item collection and our broadband access and computers, and that core programming would be able to continue.
So, you know, our summer at CPL, our jump in a reading program, the things that we offer for kids and teens.
And so we've worked with every deputy in our department to identify those positions that would not impact core services.
We will need to still make sure we fill any vacancy.
We'll need to keep hiring.
But we felt we could maintain core services.
Okay.
Thank you.
My understanding is that the CPL will receive approximately $18 million in TIF funds if the surplus is declared at the introduced level.
Is that money already built into the CPL budget?
Or would it be a windfall that allows CPL to plug some of the holes we focused on for the comments we heard earlier today?
Yeah, again, because our fund is not increasing, but we're 90 percent union funded, made up of 90 percent of the union workforce, that means our cost of living increases every year.
It's to simply make our department whole, but we still have to do these reductions to meet our budget amount.
Gotcha.
Hold on one second.
Alderman Lopez, did you have a point of information?
I do.
Yes, please.
And excuse me, Chairman Villegas.
So the municipal section, the municipal code section 2-64-010 says that it's the city council that has the authority to issue the levy for this library fund.
Is that correct?
We'd have to get that.
Since I'm reading it straight from the municipal code, I'm sure – so are you aware that that is who has authority to deal with the levy for the Chicago Public Library?
I'm going to infer from what the finance director said earlier that with OBM and the mayor's office making that decision, the city council would still have to vote on that.
Whatever recommendations coming out of the mayor's office or ultimately whatever is put forward in a budget would have to be approved by the city council.
So I throw that out there, and I don't want to capitalize or co-opt what my chairman's questioning is.
But if the authority is our own and we're asking you for what you need, then it's up to only the 50 people in here whether or not to determine.
Because unlike other elected park boards, we are basically the park board here as it relates to your levy.
So I guess my question as the point of information, so that I don't get yelled at by my chairman, is if we were to take a different action with regards to your levy, how much money would we need to address – how much would we have to change the levy for the library to address the needs that you have currently using our authority in the code and state statute?
We could get that through the chair.
You know, I think there's many parts of our operations.
There's our personnel, capital, materials.
And so it all depends what we were trying to affect.
And so we could get that through the chair.
I think – so through the chair, if I'm – jump in here, Alderman Lopez.
Can you provide through the chair to the council the cost of keeping all of your positions in place?
And maintenance.
And maintenance.
And deferred maintenance.
Okay.
Back to you, Chair Villegas.
Thank you.
And then you mentioned something that – pick knife is broad.
Can I answer just one quick thing?
If it's just for the staffing, it'd be $4.46 million for everything.
Okay.
Yeah, we'll get that to you.
$4.46 million.
I got it.
Yeah.
Go ahead, Chairman.
Yeah, of course.
Thank you.
And then you mentioned something, broadband.
So are – is the Chicago Public Library pursuing any of those federal grants around broadband connectivity?
And what – how successful – how successful have you guys been?
We haven't traditionally gone after more e-rate money.
It would require us to add filtering software to our computers.
And so historically, we haven't gone that route just because what it would mean for people to be able to come in and seek information on medical information or sexual identity.
And so we've historically not gone after more e-rate funding.
Nicole Steeves, our IT director, do you want to add anything?
Try it now.
Don't press the button?
Okay.
Thank you.
Nicole Steeves, IT director, Chicago Public Library.
We receive just under $300,000 per year in some e-rate grants that help to pay for the circuits that allow us to offer high-speed Internet at all 81 of our locations.
But as the commissioner said, there are additional e-rate grant funds that we have not been able to pursue because of the limitations that they would put on information access for our library patrons.
Alderman, I do appreciate that question, though, because there are other large city libraries across the country that do have that software.
And that software has been in place for a number of years.
I think it's worth us looking at the current state of that software and the impact and just making sure that nothing's changed in that landscape.
We shouldn't be leaving any money on the table.
Well, and, yeah, the reason why I ask is I had a friend that worked under the previous administration, and that whole broadband initiative, it went for…
Their budget went from, I'm sure you would love to have this problem, went from about a billion dollars to $72 billion.
And so they were trying to get the money out as quickly as possible.
That's why I asked, because CPS has taken advantage of some of this broadband e-rate money, and there's some connectivity there.
And as it creates the loop of fiber that allows the folks that are having a hard time to connect the Internet,
which we know everyone needs to connect the Internet to do it at a cheaper price.
So that's why I was asking, given the fact that kind of the whole portfolio, when you look at the city and all of its assets there,
and you start to loop and connect CPS with libraries, with firehouses, et cetera, all that fiber really connects the city.
So thank you.
Yeah, and I know a number of libraries in Illinois are working with e-rate consultants to make sure they understand the most up-to-date landscape.
And so I think it's worth us just digging into it and making sure that we fully are versed on what those filters would mean
and if there's any money that we'd be, you know, that we're missing out on.
Cool.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
And, again, libraries are a huge asset to the community, and so we definitely want to work with you guys.
So thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you, Chair Villegas.
I just have a clarifying question from our previous conversation.
Does your current budget proposal, as presented, assume the full TIF surplus,
which would return to CPL as a taxing body, $18,611,165?
It assumes that whole $18 million in order to get what's been presented.
Okay.
So even with those reductions and the collection budget, yeah.
Yeah, we've got to work on that.
Okay.
That's it.
I'm going to go to President Pro Tem Nugent.
You've been so patiently waiting.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Nice to see you.
So welcome, Commissioner and team.
Nice to see everybody.
Good evening.
I want to just bring up a few things that I think you guys have done really well over the past year.
For my colleagues at EarnAware, the public libraries introduced the reading set.
It's a book club program so that you can access a lot of books pretty easily to do a book club in your community.
I think that's a really big deal.
I know, Commissioner, you brought up the 81 club card.
That is a big deal if all CPS students can use their school ID as a library card.
That's huge, and it's a big win for kids in the city.
Also in conjunction with the Library Foundation, I know we just had Percival Everett in Chicago.
Everybody needs to read the book, James.
I will leave the book club for city council, but we need to read it.
And as we were in here tonight, I had an update on social media about the Renaissance Project that I know you guys work on,
which you do with the Mellon Foundation, and it does a lot of work with black history in the city.
So kudos to all of those things.
Now I kind of want to go back to a little bit more of the work stuff.
Commissioner, can you talk me through what falls under a line item, collections?
Yeah.
Yeah, so our collections, it goes towards our databases for students, supporting our academic community.
It covers all of our journals, magazines, serials, newspapers, and then our book budget, of course, and our e-book budget.
So e-audiobooks, e-books, all of that, that's kind of what's contained in there.
And that's a big swath.
So the budget this year calls for the collection budget to be cut in half from $10 million to $5 million.
Is that correct?
Correct.
Okay.
Do we know how we compare to similarly situated cities with respect to the spending on collections?
I don't have the data in front of me, you know, and some of what I would also add for context is the budget that we've kind of put forth is really to make sure that the library hours or locations are not closed.
And that, in this moment, we are now losing access to our 6 million items that are in those 81 collections.
So, yeah.
So, I guess maybe I can answer my own question.
So, currently, in the city, we budget approximately $3.86 per capita for library collections, and that's based on us currently getting $10.4 million to go towards the collection.
New York Public Library, serving Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island, so that's leaving out Queens and Brooklyn.
They spend $7.81 per capita.
Los Angeles, they spend $3.79.
So, we'd be the lowest out of New York and L.A.
That's upsetting to me.
That's scary to me, particularly when we're seeing ice and all sorts of folks in our city right now that are forcing people to not leave their homes.
I think that it's a big deal if we don't have access, because I believe you said in collections it's digital as well?
Correct.
Okay.
What factors led to the decision to reduce the collection budget by 50%?
Because 90% of our budget is in our workforce, if we were to not reduce from our collection budget, the only other option would be to have layoffs.
And so, the decision is to maintain the library locations we have and maintain the access to that $6 million item collection, as I mentioned, understanding that the only other route would be to eat into actual current staff and pursue layoffs.
Who was involved in making the decision, and did we utilize any other data or criteria?
Like all departments, we work with OBM and review our current fund and expenses.
And again, this is the budget line that we can impact to that degree with our layoffs.
Do you think, or if it's more appropriate for others in the team to answer, that we can be a world-class city spending $1.83 per capita on our collection fund?
I think, as others have mentioned, long-term, we do need to look at that fund.
We do need to look at what kind of city we aspire to be.
And that will be a multi-year process.
Okay.
I find it concerning.
And I recognize that everybody is trying to deal with the budgets and hopefully we'll find some more efficiencies as a council, because I find this one pretty traumatic.
I just want to go back to, we were talking about the employees, and the 69 employees.
Is Chicago Public Library part of the hiring freeze?
Say that again?
Are the libraries part of the hiring freeze?
Well, the library is on, as you know, what's called a special fund.
So, and we have, of course, grant hires that aren't considered in the freeze, so to speak.
We are able, through the assistance of OBM, to continue hiring a few positions as they give us their approval.
Okay.
So you have to, you just, can I point, can I do a point of my own clarification?
So, so help me understand that.
So you, you are part of the hiring freeze, but OBM can give you permission to do some hiring?
Help, help me understand.
We'll have vacancies this next year that, from my understanding, we will be able to hire for.
We've hired 57 positions so far this year with a pretty historically low vacancy rate.
So, so, from my understanding, we're not on a hiring freeze.
Okay.
Okay.
How do aldermen help you right now with what you're up against?
I've definitely heard colleagues say they want libraries guilty as, guilty as well.
And I also have spent a lot of time with you guys in real life.
You don't have any money.
So, how can we be helpful right now when I think, for me, books have been such a vehicle
for hope and opportunity.
I'm going to say that, on the way, how do you do this, on the way?
So that's not what you call you.
So, so good work.
With us want me to ask you.
You're still keeping up because of time when we're looking for this response that we're going,
they're the greatest form of resistance reading um what can we do what do you what do you tell us
as a council right now in this moment what can we do i think as a number of other council members
have have pointed out um we need to think about the long-term health of this fund and you pointed
out what does it mean to be a world-class library in a world-class city and i think um it's going
to be important for us collectively to define that and explore what's the right long-term funding
beyond beyond this budget understood um well thank you thank you commissioner and your team
uh that's all i have madam chair uh thank you alderman nugent uh alderman wag is back thank
you chairwoman um good evening commissioner knowledge staff um so uh i think everyone's
pretty much covered the big issue here um which are these cuts that your library system is seeing
um you know other than the head tax and some other significant tax items with the mayor's budget
proposals i think uh the next biggest item of concern included these cuts to the library system
and um chairwoman i don't know if we were able to read some of the letters uh into the record
but um i just wanted to touch on one that all of us got from the friends of edgewater library
please go ahead and um just to kind of paraphrase a little um in the past the cpl has consistently
ranked in the top five in the nation for total collection expenditures a 50 percent reduction in
this budget would drop our ranking considerably placing us among mid-tier cities instead of where
we belong as a world-class cosmopolitan city this coupled with any staffing reductions would further
impact our residents and how we are viewed by individuals and businesses considering chicago as
a potential home i urge you to reject the proposed budget cuts to collection expenditures and staffing
it is essential to the health of the city's economy to maintain consistent budget resources for cpl a vital
arm of chicago's government and a critical asset to the well-being of our citizens and all who come to
our city and i think um that was one portion of this letter that i think all of us received and i
received many others similar to that and i know that you're being put into a very difficult position
um with the cuts and the vacancy cuts um i think my colleagues have already touched on the issue of
how you came about that that obm is basically saying um you know this is what you are being forced to do
um but you are a special fund so um i mean unless uh
i guess the question is when was the last time the levy was raised for the library system
patrick are you or that our iga director i'm going to pass it to him i think he was around during that
increase for was it for sundays patrick malloy director of government affairs i think that last
time is when we opened all of our libraries on sundays so i believe that was 2019 2019 okay and how
much was that of an increase i don't have the figure uh and and was it typically for doing the sunday
hours um for staffing uh that was the primary part of it but i think it was also to and to increase the
operational capacity okay and i and i think in 2019 there was also an inspector general report that
basically said we would like you to uh do staffing audits um and personnel management practices that
uh were more in line with i think not maybe not other departments but other libraries have you
undertaken that on a consistent basis every year we have done um uh an analysis with civic consulting
alliance to really look at um all the equity indicators in you know neighborhood by neighborhood
um we've looked at it also looks at the activities um and the use levels of those libraries to come up
with staffing levels um that's a multi-year plan so we haven't rolled it out in mass but that's
some of the benchmarking and data that we're using as we look through these um staffing levels
okay um if uh if you were and this was maybe for your finance director if you were able to
uh convince the mayor that this is a good idea to raise the levy um how hard would that be to do
in this time frame would you have to do it during this budget could you do it in january what is the
practical process for raising the levy there's some very legal you know clear time frames for that so
sure i will pass that to irma jackson so um again cpl is not involved in raising the levy or determining
the amount of it uh so from my understanding that could be done probably you know through during this
budget cycle but that would be budget the city council the mayor's office to determining uh when
that could be done and there's some specific language around how and when that we can get to the chair
okay that would be helpful i already have it but i just wanted to make sure you had it um i mean
really unless you know there's groups out there in the burning books or banning books i don't think
anyone would be opposed to raising the levy ever so slightly to make sure that the collections
which you listed uh all those different things and i know we could get through maybe get through
this year with some of those items but once you start going backwards like we are here with this
mayor's budget saying we're going to cut the collections it's hard it's going to be harder to
get back up to par again when we should be well be above par and that's the problem i'm having with
this that um and i don't want to put it on you it should be on office of budget and management it
should be on the mayor's office to say this is unacceptable there are things that we can cut in
this city budget but cutting the most fundamental thing that we have which is essentially teaching
starting at a young level all the way up through our seniors um it's just unacceptable and i i'm having
a hard time along with my colleagues uh accepting this fact that the administration feels it's good
to cut this collections budget and i understand you've already gone through the vacancies i i understand
some of that you will have some room to be able to hire 57 if you need to but um as i indicated with that
letter and dozens of other letters emails phone calls to our office and probably thousands around this entire
city people just will not accept this kind of cut so we have to figure out what that levy number is
if we have to do it in this budget let's do it um the mayor's office clearly isn't getting the message
here and it's really not that much we're talking about so i think it behooves you as the commissioner
to go back and say you hear it resoundingly in this city council you hear it resoundingly throughout
our city system our library system that this is unacceptable especially at a time when we're
looking at people around the united states and you and i have had this conversation you talked about
it in here the banning of books organizations out there making a concerted effort to undermine the
american library system and for the fifth floor to come back here and say we're going to cut the
collections it's unacceptable to everyone in this body i can't think of anybody in here who thought
this was a good idea and i can't believe anybody up on the fifth floor thinks it's a good idea either
so i would suggest that we go back figure out where we can get that funding i would gather that there's
probably some business out there that would step forward and donate it but they shouldn't have to
when it should be a fundamental function of our government our local government to make sure that this
happens um it's upsetting i think to a lot of people in here to continue to hear this narrative
and it should stop and it should stop right here with you to be able to go back up and say
everybody downstairs wants a change and we're going to see it in this budget so i just want to say thank you
uh for standing strong in all the other areas that you have and i hope that you'll go back to carry
the message that we've given you that says either raise the levy or find money to put back into
collections as everybody in this city is wishing for thank you very much thank you chairwoman thank
you alderman wagasbeck um i think that's everybody um so i will dispense with my comments oh sorry
um yes he wants his chair back so much he came all the way back that's love
you
Thank you. I've kind of been listening as it relates to libraries.
Now, you all's levy is remaining flat for everything.
Only thing that I will say is it's been a very low tolerance for increased property taxes.
So do understand that raising the library's levy is raising the tax levy.
I just want people to understand that if that is the will of the body, then so be it.
But do understand that that will be an increase in increase in the tax levy for the city of Chicago, which, again, many people have said that they were opposed to.
So long as we're of all of one mind on increasing the levy, then that's something that we can consider.
But just do understand that is not what the what we have said as a body from last year to this year.
And understanding that these. Without increasing the levy, these are some of the decisions that have to have to be made.
So I think we need to be cognizant of that. And we want to have that larger conversation.
I think we should have that larger conversation as it relates to the levy that is desired to body.
So vice chair. Thank you, chairman.
Commissioner, I just want to I get to rave every year about the great libraries that we're blessed with in the 11th Ward.
Between the Chinatown library, which is, I believe, still the most highly utilized branch in the city of Chicago.
Libraries mean so much to my community.
They are a safe haven for a lot of people.
It is the place where they connect back to their culture.
They learn about something new.
Kids go after school and they let that is and that is where they go after school.
There's some kids that that just basically live in the library until their parents can pick them up and they're safe places for people to be.
So the thought that we would.
That we have been forced at this point to make things work because the levy is what the levy is.
And I hear you, chairman.
I think there's a there's a lot of tough decisions that have to be made here and how we find a way to to keep y'all whole is is I think what you're hearing from many of us here, especially as it pertains to the collections budget.
I couldn't agree with Alderman Wagesbeck more about the, you know, making the cut now is going to make it even more difficult later.
And if there's not a plan at some point to increase your part of the levy at a minimum, we're going to be back here again in the same place and that will will pull us down.
So I think you've got a lot of support here to see what we can do to improve the situation so that the cuts are not as severe at the end of the day.
These are basic services that Chicagoans have come to rely upon.
And as we're looking at the budget as a whole, I think many of us are looking at this as what are the minimum things we want to be able to provide?
And I think you're hearing here that the minimum that you can provide really isn't enough by our standards.
And I know it's not for you, but you and your staffs do a great job.
Like I said, every single library that we're blessed with in the 11th Ward, they're great.
They take on a lot.
They deal with a lot.
Librarians all over this city don't just check books in and out.
They are really influencing lives.
They are helping to be, in some cases, you know, mental health clinicians and security guards, too.
So just like teachers, they're having to take on way more, teachers and police officers take on way more than any traditional positions have been in these roles before.
So I just really, on behalf of the 11th Ward, say thank you for all that your staffs do.
Thanks.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Any other items?
I see we have a new member over there.
Who do you have with you over there, Audemont Lopez?
Joining me on the floor is Mark Alvarez, who's new to my office, but very excited to learn how to solve the financial woes of the city of Chicago,
starting with the library system.
I took him for like an eighth grader over there.
He looks awful young.
We have good genes in the 15th Ward.
Oh, okay.
I see.
Okay.
Very well.
Well, as you can see, I think, you know, people actually like you, so that's a good thing.
So you can hopefully get some resources out of the till.
But as I think, as Vice Chair Lee has indicated, libraries are a point for the community.
I have two very strong libraries in 28th Ward, one in Little Italy and the Regional Library at Legler.
Both have proven to be great resources for the community.
Also, with the mental health condition that's been added, as well as the artists in residency there.
So I hate to see any of those items we've subtracted from.
I know you all are only reacting to some of the things that we have stated as it relates to increasing the levy and the like,
but it sounds like people are given a different tune.
And I do remind us as a council that we did, I believe just about everybody was here,
when we decided that we would try to keep pace with inflation.
And as I as it's been pointed out to me, we have done everything except for look at our our levy.
And I'm reminded that had we continued on a inflationary track with the levy as we are,
as we voted to actually do, we would have continued on that track.
We'd still on our parking meters and we still on the Chicago Skyway.
And the rates in the levy today would be the same, even though we'd have those two assets still.
So I think it's a cautionary tale that we must be honest with ourselves, be honest with the taxpayers.
Our taxpayers do expect us to deliver services,
and it's impossible to deliver services in an increasing expenditure environment with declining revenue.
So ergo, these decisions that have been made, unfortunately, have reared their ugly heads
based on the available resources that are allowed.
So I'm hopeful that we can make some adjustments and give people the resources that they need,
especially for our libraries.
And we appreciate your work.
We appreciate your help.
We appreciate your support.
So with that, the committee will stand at ease while we're bringing our last item for the case.
Thank you.
Thank you.