(Static noise)
(white noise) (silence)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your patience.
Uh, we are awaiting a quorum. We need, uh, four more aldermen
to show up. Thank
you.
(silence)
T- now we need three,
two...
(silence)
The first thing I want to say is that we are very pleased with
the work of the committee on finance. We have a lot
of questions and concerns about what's going on in our community, but also some things that we're not sure how they will be addressed. So it would be good if you could just give us
an idea of where you see the committee standing today. And then secondly, I'd like to ask you
whether or not you
think there
should
be a quorum for this
committee on
finance. So if you could just give us an idea of where you stand
today.
very
much.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
I appreciate your patience this morning
as we struggled to get a quorum. But I think that
we're ready to go so the Committee on Finance has called to order
will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice Chair Conway I know he was here.
He was
Alderman Laspada
Alderman Hopkins
Alderman Hall
Alderman Mitchell
Alderman Beale
Alderman Lee
Alderman Ramirez Alderman Quinn
Alderman Lopez.
He was just here so I will count him Alderman Moore
Alderman O'Shea
Alderman Mosley
Alderman Rodriguez Alderman Scott
Alderman Sicho Lopez was here.
Alderman Burnett
Alderman Irvin Alderman Taliaferro
Alderman Cardona
Alderman Waguespack
Alderman Villegas
Alderman Hopkins Alderman Mitz Alderman Spizzato
Alderman Vasquez Alderman
Riley Alderman Martin
Alderman Lopez I see you we counted you Alderman Silverstein
Chair Dowell is here
and Sichio Lopez right. We have a quorum we have
15. Alderman Taylor Alderman
Knutson Alderman Hopkins Alderman Curtis Alderman
Cazada Alderman Harris and Alderman Rodriguez
Sanchez have all requested to participate remotely at
todays meeting under Rule 59 may
I have a motion to allow these aldermen
participate. So moved by Alderman Laspata
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye opposed any opinion of his chair The eyes
have it and the motion carries. I would like to confirm Alderman
Taylor Here! Alderman Knutson
Here! Alderman Hopkins Present!
Alderman Curtis
Alderman Cazada
Present! Alderman Harris
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez Here Madam
ChairUh, thank you. At
this time, we will begin the public comment period.
The public comment period will be limited to 30
minutes. Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is
limited to three minutes. Alderman Martin, we will count you towards
quorum.
We have had no one sign up to speak, uh,
remotely at today's meeting, so we will begin with
in-person commentators. The first speaker is George
Blakemore.
Citizens, good- good morning. Isn't it a good morning?
I've been patient and waiting, and you was about all 20
minutes late. It's a culture of corruption
here, a culture of corruption.
No respect for your position. Now, the clock is
ticking and when
my three minutes is up, you'll have a sergeant of arms to come up
and- and pull me away from this mic, because
I- I'm breaking the law.
But you are above the law.
Now, there's something evil here w- with
finance.
Finance, chill.
(laughs) It's something
un-American here, something corrupt here.
And what do you all have in common? You're all
Democrats.
And, Mr. Blakemore, you got to learn the art of engagement.
Don't say that. "They're 69ing each
other." Mr. Blakemore, do you talk like
this in a public place? Do they act like this?
So they got the right one.
They got the right one.
It's terrible here.
It is corruption here, fraud and abuse here.
They got the right one.
So you know why they can do this?
Because the people are not
involved. The people are not
involved, so you allow them to treat you
that way. You must teach them how to treat you,
to respect you, because the people are not here...
Most of the people aren't here for financial reasons.
The seats are empty. It is all
blue. It's worse than Communist China,
fascist Germany, right here.
And l- long before I used the term com-
Trump. I'm not talking about flip red or go red.
I say, "Trump, come to Chicago and clean up the
swamp." It's nothing but a swamp
here. And some of the phony activists here
too, w- it- it's something
else. Go red, flip
red, go black. We were the only
people in America that was enslaved in
America. White wealth, Black
labor!
White wealth, Black labor. Now, when my time is up...
You dare look at it, waiting on me. Just, c'mon, you sit down.
Look, they need to step down, every one of them,
every one of them, with their corrupt self.
Now, I missed the... I gotta obey the time now.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. The next speaker is Danielle
Carter.
He's absolutely right. The meeting was supposed
to start at, uh, 10 o'clock. You
all get paid too much money. This is a part-time
job and you have no respect for our time.
We came down here cold, in the cold to come down
here, and you all have no respect
for the constituents, your constituents' time. That shows.
Look at the empty seats. This is a disgrace.
This is why we are coming for those seats.
And another thing, you all have the
power, and been had the power, to stop Brandon Johnson before it got
this bad in Chicago. You all did.
And you sat here complacent and you voted for the things that you
knew was gonna get us to this point where we at right now, and the
billion dollar deficit and what we are going through with the property
taxes, s- to the, uh, sky-high through the roof.
You knew that. But you continually keep voting for
this and play like you all are trying to do something about it when you know you
not, just like y'all might vote for this budget.
Now, in this budget, you already know with the head
tax, M- Maria Pappas got up there and said the
reason why the taxes skyrocketed because all the businesses,
everybody left from downtown.
If that is the case, that means the head tax, more business
will leave, which will in turn happen that...
Well, what happens then, that means that if they leave,
then our property taxes are going to go up even
higher. So it's going to fall on us
and somehow, you all just keep thinking we are stupid
and you can just keep playing this and doing, playing these games with
us, these mental gymnastic game with us and we are just gonna keep
going for this garbage. It's not going to
happen.
And now you have CTU going around making ads,
making commercials saying that you all, you are the aldermen
are proposing a- a property tax hike on us.
That's why you all want, uh, you all don't want to,
um...... say, you know, "Vote on this budget." So now
CTU will, CTU is blaming you all for this what's
happening. This is a dis- disgrace up in
here. We're getting rid of you all.
Nobody's seats in here is secure, I'm telling you right
now. If you all vote on this budget, we see
raises, his administration getting
raises. 10... In the
$10,000, $20,000 raises. And you all
keep thinking the taxpayer, we're gonna pay for that and we're gonna go for this
when you all don't even show up for your job and you all are DEI
hires, Brandon Johnson administration.
We coming for those seats, y'all. This is not going to
happen. Election time is coming.
Thank you, Ms. Carter. The next speaker, and forgive me, I really (laughs)
cannot read this. Um, uh, Mo- Mauli
Agetti.
Hello. My name is Mauli. I'm an avid reader, I'm bookish.
Uh, libraries offer many programs.
They are palaces for the people all over the country and the city, and at this
time where democracy and truth are under attack, it's the wrong time to be
cutting the library's budget. You don't have to do your own
research because you can do it at a library.
You can read newspapers and magazines online through the public
library. Uh, I wanna be clear, I oppose any staffing
cuts. I oppose, uh,
any further cuts to the library, uh, staffing levels.
I oppose any cuts to the book budget.
Um, I get there are hard choices that happen within the City Council,
but we can make those hard choices that don't impact schools
and at the cost of libraries. I also oppose any
increases to liquor or beer taxes.
Uh, in Chicago, people that live in Chicago and within Cook County pay some of the
highest taxes already on beer, wine, and
liquor. Uh, I support raising the levy
so the library has, uh, more proportional funding.
You know, a couple years ago, within five or six years, they made the decision
to raise the amount of money that the Forest Preserve got.
The Forest Preserve does a lot of great programs.
Um, I don't think we should live in a system that pits one public
agency against another public agency or department.
I think there can be enough money for all of these departments.
Uh, I'll also say, you know, from the time in the '70s to 2009 when the head
tax ended, um, you know, all these years weren't easy
in the city and the country. There were recessions and
economic downturns, uh, but the city is thriving
now. Uh, it's doing a lot better. People wanna live in
Chicago. And I would urge you to make those tough choices, but not
the cost of taking money away from
parks, schools, libraries, things that benefit the public.
Thank you, and I yield my time.
Uh, thank you. Our next speaker is Diana
Rocha.
And Alderman Sposato, we will count you towards quorum.
Thank you.
Hello. My name is Diana Rocha. I'm a bilingual
librarian for Chicago Public Library on the West Side of the city in
Alderman Sigcha Lopez's ward. Hi, Alderman.
Um, and I'm union. Getting to use my Spanish
skills to help people is important to me, something me and my family didn't
have when I was growing up in Chicago or in the libraries.
I work at my location on purpose, but guess what?
Since we had over 70 positions cut last year, my colleagues and I
don't always get to stay in our branch.
Management's solution has been to move staff around to cover gaps at other
branches like a game of musical chairs.
That often has meant we lose a Spanish speaker, a skill we need every single day
to serve our patrons. That means patrons get worse
service, either having to wait longer for a Spanish speaker or worse,
no one available to help in their language.
It also means Spanish-speaking staff get interrupted more from others, from
other tasks to provide translation.
This year, the proposed budget cuts 89 port- more
positions, yet we keep hearing, "No cuts to core
services." I'm telling you, that's not true.
With this method of filling gaps, there's already service cuts to some of our
more, most disinvested and marginalized communities.
I cannot run a program at my branch if I'm not there, and language
skills might get moved somewhere they're not helpful.
What other hidden cuts, uh, are there when we cut library
staff? Youth employment. We can't do that without adequate
staff. Last year, we employed 168 teen interns across our
branches. A cut to library staff is also a
cut to services for unhoused folks.
A cut to library service is a cut to violence
prevention. Alder Beale asked our
commissioner, "How can you operate with this many vacancies?" I'll
tell you, we're stretched thin. We love our libraries.
We wanna do our jobs well and do them safely.
A fully staffed library is safer, is a safer library and our
communities deserve that. Chicago deserves that.
I need y'all to support an increase in the library levy to save
library positions in all of your wards, 'cause these cuts amount to
two positions cut at each branch. And we're supposed to open a new
Obama Presidential Center Library next year? How?
I yield my time. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, the next speaker is Daniel
DeMarse.
All right. Good morning, everybody.
I wanna acknowledge just the difficult task that everybody's facing trying to make
financial, uh, decisions for the city.
Um, I'm sure every city department is kind of feeling the strain, but, uh, I work
for the library so I'm here to advocate for that.
Um, and specifically the location I work at is the Harold Washington Library
downtown there on State Street, and I work with the high school teenagers there.
So, uh, recently downtown, uh, during that Christmas tree lighting
ceremony, we had a terrible tragedy with the teen takeover event.
Uh, now more than ever, teenagers need a place to be and meaningful work and
activities to engage with. So, I know a lot of people might just see the library as
a building to come and get a book and then leave, uh, but it's so much more than
that these days. Uh, on a busy day, the space I work in the library has
over 150 teenagers come every day to hang out and, uh, spend
time with each other and with staff.
Uh, my coworkers and I do great work, and I think, um, there's not a lot of
libraries in the country that have that kind of engagement.
So I get to talk to the teens about their lives and how things are going, and, uh,
they tell me that downtown, a lot of the stores and the buildings, if they see them
come in with their school uniform or their school sweatshirt, they're just kicked
out immediately as a policy. Uh, they don't have any really places to exist
downtown. Uh, I believe that part of the energy of the teen takeovers is that
they're forcing their way into high traffic kind of public areas, forcing to be
acknowledged, to take up space. And, you know, when they get there without a lot to
do, a lot of problems have come up. So, you can't simply make it illegal for teens
to exist, and you can't really curfew your way out of this teen restlessness that
they're feeling. So, uh, cutting the library, uh, is cutting, uh, some
of the last few spaces where teens are welcomed.
The library also provides jobs and internships, as my coworker, uh,
mentioned, paid internships. Uh, under the current budget, we've had to cut
25% of those positions for teenagers.
And when the job market is tough like it is now, what you have a lot of times is
adults competing for teens for those entry level positions in, like, food service
or, uh, you know, sales, things like that.
Um, without the library there to give teens that first job experience to put on
their resume, teens are going into, um, applications with, uh, a blank
resume and it's really impossible for them to get hired anywhere.
Uh, and oftentimes the income that they make at these internships goes directly to
support their households. So, library cuts doesn't just mean cuts to books.
It means cuts for, uh, places for teens to be, uh, teen
jobs, job experience, uh, you know, for that first resume that they're
making. Uh, so the cuts would just mean more teens on the street without
anything to do.
Uh, the library has a way of shouldering a lot of the burden when other city
departments get, uh, cut. You know, we're warming centers, we're social workers,
we're internet access, job application assistance.
So the ripple effect of less library workers and less library budget is devastating
for community well-being. So I believe any money that you save cutting the library,
you'll end up p- paying back in a lot of other areas. So, thanks for the time.
That's it for me.
Uh, thank you. Our next speaker is Zoe
Lee.
Um,
my name is Zoe Lee, founder of Chicago First 4
Red. It is crazy to hear all
these, uh, layoffs
that's going on in this city, except the
layoffs of these 50 aldermen.
Also, these pay raises. You got
the aviation
commissioner set to receive a
$58,000 raise
if the two- 2026 budget
passes. But
our mayor, who loves to talk about him being
a social studies teacher and he loves kids
and he's doing this for the kids,
is okay with layoffs in a Chicago public
library?
That doesn't make any
sense. Now,
y'all are laying off the most important
positions,
from procure- in procurement services, the Chicago
Library, public health,
DFSS,
all the things that he will get on this- in this presser that he's about to
do in about 30 minutes
and blame white supremacy.
Is something wrong with each and every one of y'all
that will vote in favor of this budget
that's going to put regular working people in
jeopardy of being displaced?
I
am a person that is a entrepreneur.
I'm not a activist, I'm a entrepreneur.
I dedicated three years of my life
trying to get each and every one of you to stand
behind me
in a press conference
because the city
unlawfully demolished
a family's property, and you guys know they were
wrong.
You know what they did was wrong. You know
that Alderman Moore was wrong. You know
Marlene Hopkins was wrong. You know Rahm Emanuel was
wrong. But y'all are the same people
that vote... when- when some of y'all voted for Daley
to sell them streets to Dubai. Y'all are the same
people that allowed that 99-year lease
sell for $10 for that Obama presidential
center.
But y'all are okay
with regular working people to get laid off?
You're okay with me sleeping on a couch, and my mother sleeping
on...
Thank you. Um, our next speaker is Josh
McGuire.
Josh McGuire, see
you.
Good morning. Um, I'll keep this simple, I didn't write anything down.
Um, I didn't want to come here in the cold before work but I felt like this was
important. Um,
we're asked to make do, uh, with little.
We're asked to do a lot. Um, we've been designated as official
warming centers so that means all of the people in the city who have no
place to go, they go to the library to keep warm.
We're at the front lines of the homeless crisis, the housing
crisis. Um, I'm not sure if City Council is
aware of all the services we do provide.
Uh, we help people apply for jobs, apply for unemployment.
Um, we really do a lot and that's in addition to, you know, our traditional
services which is also important, um, as far as literacy,
um, allowing people to research and, ah, access to information and
those things as well. Um, we make up a very
small amount of the budget
in that year after year
we seem to be the ones getting cut.
We're not gonna dig ourselves out of the budget deficit
by cutting the library. We're not asking for a
lot. We are just asking that our libraries be
adequately staffed and that our collection funds match
those of what a public library needs to provide for the
city. Um, we need
to have librarians at libraries. I've worked for
CPL for six years. I've been up north, out west, out
south. Um, many, many times we
have opened the library and we haven't had a librarian working
there. That is not acceptable. We need to have
librarians at the libraries.
Not having a children's librarian in a neighborhood
is a disservice to your community.
You need to guarantee that you have these services for your
community. It's only equitable and it's only
fair. I know it's difficult. I know we're in a budget
deficit, but I don't want to hear excuses.
You all are here to find solutions.
A lot of politicians like to talk about the value of
education when it is convenient, but when it
time to put your money where your mouth is, you forget.
I am only asking that you fund the public library.
I am not asking for a lot. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Tim
Hogan.
Thank you. Thank you.
It's 9:00 a.m. on a cold winter morning.
A crowd at the doors of the library is waiting to get in.
You are the person in charge. You open up the library to let your patrons in
even though there are only two of you on staff today.
Your coworker has called in sick with COVID.
Yes, it still exists. Your district chief says the new number of
staff needed to open is two. You are the person in
charge. The two of you work hard to help your patrons will all their
needs; computer access, printing help, job resume
help, and yes, help with finding a book.
It is 10:00 a.m. The neighborhood nonprofit is here to give out free meals.
They need you to open the community room.
Your coworker is at the circulation desk helping a line of patrons.
The phone rings. It is 11:00 a.m. A patron with their child is
asking for the popular book about the unlikely friendship between a moose
who wrestles and a science-loving bear.
You regret to tell them the book is not available.
As their face drops you wish you could have replaced the book, but the circulation
budget has been cut in half.
The young child's furrowed face holds two big disappointed eyes.
You are the person in charge. It is 12 noon.
As you work out with your coworker how you are supposed to cover each other's
lunches, a patron ou- starts shouting loudly, having what seems to be a
mental health emergency. You don't have a security guard today because,
yes, the budget has been cut. The day is not half over.
It is 10:45 a.m., December 4th,
2025. You are an alderman at the City of Chicago
Finance Committee meeting. You represent all the people at the library that
cold morning. They have all been impacted by the underfunded and understaffed
library system. Your consis- your constituents
need warming centers. Your constituents need help finding a
job. Your constituents need books.
Your constituents need a fully funded and fully staffed library
system, and they need you to vote for the revenue to fully fund
it. You are the person in charge. Thank you very
much.
Thank you very much.
(instrumental music plays) Super awesome.
Um, the next speaker is Jessica Jackson.
So, what we're going to do is we're going to deal with what's really going on here.
And what's really going on here is that our property taxes are being
blown out of proportion.
Now I'm sitting here
with a tax bill with an increase of
$1,811.61.
You make that make sense.
You all put on TV, you name
three communities that got exploded property
taxes, three, when you all know doggone well it's more than
three.What you all did is what you
always do. You found three Black
communities, put them up there
so they could be the "outrage."
Then you got your preachers
to come and stand with them like they outraged for 'em.
Then you had this bogus bond fire
to burn up taxes as if that don't...
Like, as if that's gonna take the actual tax debt out of the
system. We ain't playing no games.
We're not going to run this, "It's the city. It's the county. It's the county.
It's the city." Now, it's the school board.
No, it's all of you. It's all of you.
To save your seats, you know what y'all gonna do?
You gonna step out your lane
of s- sitting here corrupt with each other
and you gonna go to Cook County, you're gonna go to Toni
Preckwinkle who sit up here and lie and get in front of the mic and talking
about how there hasn't been a Cook County increase in taxes since
1994.
As if we're not looking at tax bills that we pay to Cook
County
because the city sitting here and make the
increase. So the city makes the
increase, we pay it to the county
and then all of y- all of you all wanna sit here and act like you all have no
connection to each other at all. When you all are gonna do to save your
seats, y'all gonna go to Cook County and y'all gonna tell them to
stop these taxes, roll them back. It's something that you all can
do. You all are the legisla... Okay, and if you feel that you can't, then I'm
gonna tell you what we're gonna do. We coming for them seats.
Ain't no way in the world I'm gonna pay this type of money and
I got all them empty lots still on my block, all those empty
abandoned buildings. Greg Mitchell don't even have people come and pick
up trash on a regular basis. And you're gonna charge me
$2,000 more for what? So keep saying it ain't
nothing you can do. Keep saying it and we're gonna show what
we gonna do. We getting them seats. We getting them seats.
All y'all gonna be out of business, all your little crooked
contractors, all that. You're going, you're going, you're
going-
Marshall, you're leaving. ?
Talk on that phone. See, that's... And you gone, Pat Giles.
I heard you gonna retire, but you're gonna be gone talking while I'm
talking.
Thank you. Uh, Alderman Irvin, we see you and we'll count you towards
quorum. Our last speaker for today is Dennis
White.
And Alderman Hall, we see you and we'll count you towards quorum. Quorum, Mr.
White.
Last time y'all vote 25 to 10 to say no to Brandon
Johnson. The question is, are y'all...
Is the 25 to 10 is going to be saying no to
Brandon Johnson or you gonna say yes to Brandon Johnson?
So there's something y'all got to think about.
We cannot continue on dealing with taxes that the
Democrats keep on proposing because they don't know how to do the budget.
Now here's the thing. I grew up going to the library.
We didn't have social media when we was young.
And we was happy to go to the library to do research.
That's what libraries are for. But, but because of the CTU
are... and Brandon Johnson who are in cahoots over here being
bedside fellas, they want to cut the library
budget. Because of what? For
CTU. You all are responsible, even though this
alderman right here is on his cell phone right there and he ain't listening to all
my time right there. That's
disrespectful. And he's still on his cell phone right there.
Right there. So here's the thing. I got less than, uh,
uh, a minute and 55 seconds left. You all better say no to Brandon
Johnson now because we don't have the damn
money to support these unnecessary taxes that he keep
on proposing on this budget. A $16 million
budget? Are you kidding me? This is gonna be another Zuman
Madami Detroit right off hand. And you all over
here... If y'all don't stop it,
like Jessica Jackson say, them seat is not... We...
Y'all seats are gonna be in danger because after we get done here at City Hall, we
going to Springfield and we're gonna take care of the state legislature.
So I'm urging you all to say no. Say
no. Say hell no to Brandon Johnson proposal
because we can't have it. And I'm with the, uh, t...
I'm with the libraries right there because they k- these kids here
cannot even read to pass the 8th grade level because
CTU ha- are hiring these purple hair, green hair
freaks to teach them something that they don't know what to learn around
thing. They want them to be transgender and
stuff. And then we got aldermen who want to tap into
TIF fund for a park. And so improving for the
park. Get the crackheads out of there, get the gang members out of there,
get the drugs dealers out of there, get the prostitutes out of there.
Am I right, David Moore?
You see what I'm saying? S- so... And most
importantly if you want the budget to be safe,
get these goddamn illegals out of our city, get them out of our
state, and most importantly, get them out of our country.
Because number one, I'm a, I'm a Black man, I'm a patriot,
I'm a veteran. I fought for that flag for the United States of
America. I did not fight for that flag for these illegal to do what they want to do
in this city.
Uh, thank you.
Uh, that ends the public comment period.
Um, I would like to say that we received one written public
comment from Sustainable Englewood
Initiatives, uh, regarding the new boundary map for
enterprise zone number two. Uh, this was sent to everyone
electronically. I want to acknowledge, uh......
Alderman Silverstein who joined us, and she will be counted towards
quorum. We have a total of 10 items beef- on the
updated agenda this morning. Uh, the first one is the monthly
Rule 45 report, um, which was sent electronically
to everyone. And if there are no questions, can I get a motion to recommend
approval of the monthly 45, Rule 45
report? So moved by Alderman
Lopez. All those in favor, signify by saying,
"Aye." Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it. We have, uh, item number one.
We have three proposed orders authorizing Corporation
Counsel to enter into and to execute
settlement orders in the following case.
Uh, the first case that we will hear is Chané
Flowers-James versus the City of Chicago, Case Number
23...
2023L6913
in the amount of $1 million. Uh, we're joined this morning
by, uh, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Margaret Mendenhall
Casey. Good morning, Ms. Casey.
Good morning. Thank you, Chair, and good morning, Committee on Finance.
On August 4th of 2022, CFD paramedics responded
to a call to provide treatment to the plaintiff, Chané
Flowers-James, who was then 27 years old.
Upon arrival, the paramedics observed Ms.
Flowers-James had a partially delivered amniotic sac and was
experiencing contractions. Ms. Flowers-James was 22
weeks pregnant. Paramedic Castiglione cut the plaintiff's
amniotic sac with a scalpel. The plaintiff was then
transported to the hospital and the fetus,
unfortunately, was delivered stillborn.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of $1 million for
this matter. While in her apartment, Ms.
Flowers-James observed her amniotic sac protruding from her
vagina. 911 was called at 6:14 in the
evening and paramedic Gino Castiglione arrived five minutes
later. Ms. Flowers-James indicated that she was 22 weeks
pregnant and experiencing contractions.
Paramedic Castiglione observed that she had the partially
delivered amniotic sac and that it remained intact.
The paramedic then cut the amniotic sac with a scalpel while
Ms. Flowers-James was in the apartment.
After cutting the sac, paramedic Castiglione attempted to
assist Ms. Flowers-James with childbirth.
However, the attempts were unsuccessful as Ms.
Flowers-James was unable to push between contractions.
She was then brought to the ambulance and transported to Roseland
Hospital. A 6:59
ultrasound taken at the hospital reflected that the fetus was
alive and had a heartbeat. The fetus, named
Saniya, was delivered stillborn around 10:00 in the
evening. Treating doctor also indicated that the
fetus died during labor as its vital signs
deteriorated over the course of the hospitalization.
Doctor also opines that a 22-week gestation fetus is
highly unlikely to survive s- childbirth, but that it is
not impossible. The family held a funeral for
Saniya where she was buried and a headstone was placed at the
cemetery. If this matter were to proceed to
trial, the plaintiff would seek compensation for loss of society,
and grief, and sorrow due to the loss of Saniya.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of $1 million for this
matter.
Thank you very much, uh,
uh, Ms. Casey. Uh, Alderman Curtis, just confirming that you are
on the line with us now.
I am. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, also, I also had, uh,
a question to that. Um, can I
ask a- Okay. Hold, hold, hold a second.
Okay. Thank you. All right.
Alderman Taliaferro, uh, we'll count you towards
quorum. Alderman Sposato followed by Alderman
Curtis.
So, yeah.
Uh, excuse me, Alderman Cichosz Lopez, if...
Um,
uh, one question. Uh, you know where I stand on this.
I'll be recusing myself, but that doesn't mean I can't ask a question.
Did he get any time? Was he suspended for this?
I didn't-
So, uh, Region 11, which governs, uh,
emergency medical system within the City of Chicago,
suspended, oh,
suspended Paramedic Castiglione's license for, uh,
14 days. And the Chicago Fire Department,
um, mirrored that suspension.
I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I couldn't hear it.
Excuse me, Alderman Cichosz Lopez, I'm sorry, and the l- young lady, um-
I'm, I'm, I'm only, I'm only trying to hear what's going...
Right, I know.
Let me move my seat. Hold on.
You don't have to move your
No, I'm gonna move my seat. Too many
distractions.
Ms. Mendenhall Casey, would you please repeat the answer to his
question?
Yes, Chair Dial.
Um, to your question regarding... No problem.
To your question regarding the discipline, Alderman Sposato,
Region 11, which governs emergency medical treatment within
the City of Chicago, suspended the paramedic's license
for 14 days. And the Chicago Fire
Department essentially mirrored that suspension based on his
failure to have a license.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Uh, Alderman Curtis.
Actually, I was gonna ask that same question about, uh, um,
was it suspended also, uh, what about
retraining? Did he have to go through additional
training to come back, um, to
service?
I believe the answer is no, but I can, uh, inquire further
and get you an answer through the chair, Alderman Curtis.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Curtis. Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.
(clears throat) Excuse me. Um, how
many lawsuits against CFD or our
EMTs is it this year that we have seen settlement orders
for? (clears throat)
So, just to make sure that I understand your question, the question is how
many, um, CFD paramedic cases
have been presented to the Committee on Finance in the calen-
this calendar year?
Yes. Roughly.
Uh, uh, approximately, I, I, I would say
two... between two and four.
So I know we've had issues with a number of the per- It seems
as though we've had
several, especially in the last few months,
and that many of us have said that we're seeing the shift
now from CPD lawsuits to CFD
lawsuits. Would you say that's a fair
assessment?
I mean, th- that's a bit of a generalization.
Well...
Um, I- I don't
s- Yeah, that's a bit of a, a generalization.
I, I don't really have an, uh, anything to say in response to that.
Okay. It's... Well, it's... I think it's
anecdotally correct from
me being here in these meetings with my colleagues, voting on things that we
keep hearing. Um, I feel as though I've talked about it
ad nauseum that
the cottage industry of suing the City of Chicago is
shifting its sights, and yet here we are again.
We are going to put ourselves in a position where our
firefighters and, uh,
EMTs and paramedics and everyone cross-trained within
the fire department is going to become
a department that second-guesses itself in the same way
CPD now does because of these lawsuits that we keep
allowing to go unchecked.
I know we've asked for what we're doing in terms of risk mitigation and other
things,
um, but I, again, cannot sit here and say, if you have
someone who's doing the best... has the best interest of the
person at heart when they are trying to save a life, or in this case,
try to save two lives, that
we are going to basically say that they were wrong for doing
that. Um, so with that, Chairman, I would a-
re- ask that, uh, I be recorded as a no on this item
because I think it, again, sends the wrong message that we are not
supporting our o- our employees, not supporting our firefighters,
uh, paramedics, and EMTs when they are trying to do what's in the best
interest. There was no intentionality
o- of trying to harm this woman
who was in... at, at risk of losing her child, in
my opinion. And I think that we have to say that loudly in support of
that... of those individuals. Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Alderman Lopez, although I will want to note
that the cases that... I- in each case that has been before
us, the, uh, individual, uh, from the
Paramedic De- Department violated the orders of
the department. So, um, I, I, I think
it is a generalization to say that, um, this
is a cottage industry to be sued, where s-
suits are gonna take place. Um, I just wanted to st- uh,
put that on the record. Alderman Irvin?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, you said the
individual who,
who's being sued here along with us, uh, was
unlicensed at the time this occurred?
Sure. I'm happy to provide clarification on that.
Okay.
So as a re- At the time of this incident, Paramedic
Castiglion's license was valid. As a result of this
incident, the licensing organization
over, uh, S- Chicago Paramedics
suspended his license for 14 days as a result of this
incident. And then CFD mirrored that
discipline and suspended the paramedic for 14
days. At the time of this incident, though, his license was
valid.
Okay. All right. Thank you for, for, for the clarification of that.
Uh, the second question is, um, from
a... I guess from a, a supervisory
standpoint, uh, what measures o- of
accountability for supervision occur in instances such as
this?
Sure. So the, the question is what, what, uh, different
supervision could have been, been provided in, in this particular
case. Um, what I w- I would say is that the, the
supervision that is contemplated or envisioned
within the CFD orders is that in an instance
like that, the orders state the paramedic is supposed to
call to what we call medical control.
And medical control is a way for a paramedic to
consult with a doctor or a nurse who
specializes in the area, and they can get guidance
as to how to handle high-risk situations, novel
situations. Um, but kind of like our, our
pursuits with OEMC, the employees
on the ground need to be making the phone calls so that they
can get the guidance from the more
specialized medical providers.
And did that happen in this case or not?
Medical control was not called, um,
to report or to ask any questions prior to the
amniotic sac being cut. The only call to medical control was
just simply to, uh, inform them that
the ambulance would be arriving at Roseland
Hospital.
Okay. Um, that, that's all I have. One, I just, I just
say this, and I think this is just, uh, in ballist
of everything, w- we got a hold, I
understand holding actors accountable, but we
also have to hold the supervisors accountable
for, uh, things that are occurring with their,
um, with their subordinates. Uh, because again, if
we don't hold everybody accountable, then
there's no real
act to do, right? You know, if your, if your people in, in your
state or in your command are getting, uh,
dinged on violations, there has to be some accountability at the
supervisory level. And that's one thing that I, I believe that we do
poorly, is hold our supervisors accountable for the work that
they're theoretically supposed to be overseeing as part of this,
um, part of what, what it is that they're doing.
So, um, I understand that this is a liability that we need to deal
with and, uh, I support the, uh, support the settlement, but I, I definitely think
that we've got to, um, dig a little deeper with our supervisory
ranks to do what it is that they're supposed to do, provide oversight and
leadership to, uh, various departments and members.
And, uh, it just seems like something that's, uh, woefully, uh, lacking in
many of these cases, uh, when these types of things occur.
So thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman. Um, Alderman Riley, we count you towards
quorum. Alderman Laspada followed by Alderman,
um, Sposato.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to take a moment to
affirm your words in light of some of the dialogue
today that there is, as someone who is a parent and soon to be
a parent again, there is no amount of money that makes
up for the opportunity to hold your child for the first
time. There is no amount of money
that
makes up for not getting to watch that little person grow
up. And I s- I, in the midst of all this, I just want to have the
opportunity to say to Ms. James that we are deeply and profoundly
sorry for your loss. Deeply, deeply, deeply.
And nothing that we do today
makes up for that loss. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, uh, Alderman Laspada for the
compassion that you have just shown to the
victim. Uh, Alderman
Sposato.
Just a point of clarification, that, let everybody know
this was a ALS rig that was there in the beginning, right?
He was, this wasn't an ambulance, everybody.
So this is a paramedic on a rig with a
fireman. His supervisor is not a paramedic,
he's just his supervisor, so he doesn't know paramedic
procedures even though he's his supervisor.
Then an ambulance came, correct?
That's accurate.
And, and, and, and, and, and the, and the, uh, paramedic on the ALS
rig started to try to save this child or save this mother or whatever
it was, and they don't have access to call a hospital or help or whatever
until the ambulance comes there. So I don't know what the chronological order of
this was, but just so we know what the supervision is so everybody knows, these
weren't two paramedics where the supervisor of one paramedic is in charge.
This is a fireman that's in charge of a paramedic that knows nothing
about paramedic stuff other than he is the fireman and his supervisor.
So just a point of clarification on that.
I don't know if that clears anything up for anybody or if anybody has any
questions, they could feel free to ask me, but...
If, if I may, just to make sure that the, the record is, is accurate, at
the time that the amniotic sac was cut,
um, three additional paramedics were on
scene, but you are accurate about the fire, uh, truck was the
first on scene and that fire truck contained, um,
Paramedic Castiglione, and, um, neither I and
no one within the department, um, is in any way stating
that Paramedic, uh, Castiglione was
intending-
No, I'm not saying that at all, but I, some of my colleagues don't understand the
procedure-
Thank
you. ... the policy of how fire department works.
So we have ALS rigs that go there when ambulances aren't available
to start aid right away. They can do everything but transport.
So they're there to help out as one paramedic.
Then the ambulance comes, everybody. So that's how it works.
So the fire truck or fire engine that came with the paramedic
on there and the EMTs is not the same as when the ambulance comes and then the
ambulance comes and transports them and continues to stabilize them and so on and
so forth. So that's all, it was just a point of clarification.
Thank you, Alderman Sposato. Uh, Alderman
Taylor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, but aren't those people on the
rigs trying to do the exact same thing that paramedics would
do?
Uh, Alderman Taylor, I'm happy to answer that question through
the, the chair. Um, all I-
You can let Nick Sposato answer it. I'm sure he has the answer.
(laughs) Thank you. Thank you.
You're welcome. Aren't those people who are on the rigs-
Okay. ... that are firefighters trying to do the exact same thing that the paramedics are
doing?
Okay. Alderman Sposato is going to answer that question.
Uh, I'll, uh, Ms. Casey said it's okay
given the question, Alderman
Sposato?
Mm-hmm. Okay.
Yeah.
Parliamentary procedures. Hi, people. Okay.
Um-Alderman Taylor, uh, Alderman
Sposato is recusing himself on this matter and
therefore can't-
Absolutely. But then that just kills the point.
So-
That, that kills the point that he said, this my problem with all of it, and I
hate voting on these things because I do feel sorry
for the people who actually get hurt because we don't do all we
say we gonna do. But there is never any conversation about
retraining any of these folks. It's like they get suspended for a couple of
days and that's it. We see nothing about retraining, we see nothing about
recourse. And that's what all, most of these lawsuits, especially
against CFD and CPD.
And so, I, I feel for this family and it's
an insult to think a million dollars will fix losing a
child. Of course you would think that if you've never given birth, if
you've never been a mother. And some of y'all don't even have the decency
or human capacity for anybody other than people that look like y'all,
so let's, let, let's be honest with each other.
Um,
Ms. Casey, my only question is, so there was never
any retraining?
So Alderman Curtis asked this question as well.
Um, I will answer through the chair regarding retraining and in addition to
that, I will make sure to clearly convey to, um, the fire
department, I do regularly speak with their general counsel,
um, about this body's concerns about retraining,
uh, in particular for, uh, the paramedic who was involved in
this matter. I will make sure to convey that.
Retaining end supervision.
I'm so-
But that's for anything that happens 'cause see, too often, we keep taking
you to see these cases and it's the exact same thing every
time. And so everybody need to be retrained.
Everybody need to take a course. Just like y'all make us takes those
ethics trainings every year, they need to take training every year,
apparently. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor. We will get the answers about
the training and the, uh, how often that
happens, uh, to you through the chair.
Um, if there are no other questions, yes, Alderman
Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if this were to go to trial, how would the, the city
defend this?
Sure.
If this matter were to proceed to trial, the, the
city would lodge a defense primarily based on,
um, proximate cause. Um, the, the city would
make a, a strong argument that essentially what, what occurred is
tragic, um, but that the actions
of the city's employees were not the cause of it.
Uh, there's an argument to be made that 22 weeks of, uh,
gestation is considered to be on the cusp of
viability. However, uh, as a, a
litigator, I don't like being in the position of defending a
case on, uh, primarily on proximate cause,
um, versus saying... Well, I don't wanna get into that, but I
don't like defending a case primarily on proximate cause because it
is more of a, a legal issue. Um, and in particular in this
case where there is a, a strong emotional component, um, anyone
who's been a mom or had been pregnant, um, or has
seen their wife go through it, um, uh, pregnancy,
will likely be moved by this matter.
Um, and the plaintiff will present strong emotional testimony
about the funeral for Senaya, the tombstone for
Senaya and, and the process that occurs at the hospital.
Um, my sister's a labor and delivery nurse and she's gone through me about the
painstaking, um,
process at the hospital when there's a stillborn.
So the, the defense would be based on, on proximate cause and the fact
that the fetus was so young, um, but my advice would not
be to, um, proceed to trial and attempt to mount
that defense.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn. Alderman Vasquez, we will count you towards
quorum. Alderman Lopez again.
Who, was this
handled by in-house lawyers for our side and who was the, uh, plaintiff's
attorneys?
Sure. So this matter was hi-
handled by outside counsel and in terms
of the plaintiff's attorney, give me just one moment.
The plaintiff's attor-
And who was the outside counsel as well?
Sure. So the plaintiff's attorney was John
LaMatia and he's with the law firm of Weiss,
uh, Vogelstein, Foreman, Koch and Norman.
For the city's representation, we had Matthew Reddy
of, uh, the Fournane Glennon Law Firm.
Thank you. Um, motion made by Alderman Laspada
recommending do pass. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed? Uh, Alderman Lopez you
will be, uh, recorded as no and Alderman Sposato,
can you state the reasons for recusal?
A 60-year friendship with the, uh, Castigliones'
father.
Okay. Thank you. In the opinion of the chair, it's the ayes have it and
the do pass recommendation will reported out at the next meeting.
Thank you, Ms. Casey.
Thank you, Chair.
Um, the next item, number 1B, Se- Santiago versus
City of Chicago, case number
19cv04652
and Fitzgibmit- Fitzgibbons versus City of
Chicago, uh, case number
22cv05827 in the amount
of
$1,962,000.
The amount for this settlement was stated in the committee's agenda
as $1,000,930.However,
the law department noted that the correct amount for this settlement is
$1,962,000. We
now deliberate and vote on the corrected amount for this settlement, and
we will hear this case by deputy corporation counsel
Andrew Warsick. I think this is your first time before us,
huh?
Uh, in a- in a number of years.
In a number of years, okay.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Committee.
Um, these two cases are federal lawsuits
challenging city practices relating to the towing and
disposal of vehicles, and the law department recommends settlement in
the amount of
$1,962,000 in total to
resolve both of the cases. Uh, the plaintiffs in these cases
are Andrea Santiago and Matthew Fitzgibbons, and they had vehicles
with expired license plates that were parked on the street for a period of
time. The vehicles were then towed and impounded by the city
under the city's abandoned vehicle ordinance. Uh, Ms.
Santiago's vehicle was towed in June of 2018. Mr.
Fitzgibbon's vehicle was towed in March of 2018.
The vehicles were then later disposed of after they were not redeemed out of the
pound by their owners, and plaintiff Andrea
Santiago, in particular, alleges that her vehicle was a van that
had a wheelchair lift system inside
it. Um, these plaintiffs challenged two city
practices that were used regarding their vehicles.
The first practice concerns what happens before the vehicle is
towed under our abandoned vehicle ordinance.
For vehicles with expired license plates, the city posts a sticker on the
vehicle before it is towed, but it does not send a separate notice letter
in the mail to the owner, and the plaintiffs here argue that under due
process principles,
the city was required to also send them a notice in the mail before the vehicle was
towed. The plaintiffs claim that the city does send a notice in the
mail when the vehicle has valid license plates and that the
city is required to do the same when the vehicle has expired license
plates. The second practice at issue in these cases
concerns what happens after the vehicle is towed to the
pound. At that point, the city sends the owner and any
lien holder two notices in the mail before the vehicle is disposed
of, and both of those are sent on the same day.
And the plaintiffs here argue that under the Illinois Vehicle Code and city
ordinance, the city is required to send these notices on different
days, and the plaintiff's claim that when the city disposes of
vehicles without sending the notices on different days, the city
commits an unconstitutional taking of their property without providing
just compensation.
The plaintiffs are bringing both of these legal claims on their own behalf, but
they are also seeking to have the cases certified as a class
action, and that means they are seeking to add thousands
of additional individuals to the lawsuits, uh, who had cars with
expired license plates and that were impounded, uh, as
abandoned or that were disposed of by the
city. Plaintiffs seek monetary
payouts from the city on a class basis reaching as far back
as 2014. Uh, these cases have had a long
procedural history in the court system.
Uh, prior to the current judge, uh, two, uh, other
judges handled the cases and earlier efforts by the city to
have the cases dismissed, uh, were denied.
Um, the issue of whether the cases should proceed as a class action
has also proceeded, uh, multiple times in the courts.
In November of 2020, the trial judge certified the case as
a class action. That decision was later reversed on appeal
and sent back to the trial judge. Um, the plaintiffs then filed
an updated motion seeking to have the case, uh, certified as a class
action, and that motion would be ruled on by the judge if the case were to
proceed, uh, rather than settle.
So that's what these lawsuits are about, and now I'll take a minute to describe the
terms of the settlement, uh, that we are seeking, uh, your
approval for. Um, we recommend in the law department a
settlement, uh, uh, a monetary settlement of these cases
on a class-wide basis that would work as
follows. First, a class would be certified and
that class would be comprised of people who had cars with expired
license plates that were towed as abandoned under our- our
ordinance, uh, on or after June 11th,
2017. A settlement fund would then be
created to make payments to class members who filed
claims and the amount of that fund would be
$1,425,000.
If a class member wants to be eligible to receive a payment from that
fund, they would need to file a claim seeking a
payment. If they don't file a claim, they will not receive a
payment. Uh, if a person does file a claim, they could potentially
get up to, uh, $1,250, um, from
the settlement fund as their payment.
But if their vehicle, rather than being disposed of by the city, um, had
been returned to them because they paid the amount, uh, due to get it out of the
pound, um, then their recovery would be that amount that they
paid, um, even if it's less than
$1,250. Um, if not enough
claims, uh, are filed overall that would add up
to the overall, uh, amount in the pot, uh, the settlement fund pot of
$1,425,000, then, uh, money
leftover in that fund would revert back to the city at the end of the
process. Um, on the other hand, if the number of
claims that are filed, uh, would be so large that it would
actually result in payments that would exceed that cap of
$1,425,000, then the cap will not be
exceeded. What will happen is that the amounts paid to any particular member
of the class would be reduced on a prorated basis to keep the
overall amount, uh, at that, uh, cap of
$1,425,000.Now, that
am- amount that I've just talked about is the largest monetary component of the
settlement, but there are a few other, uh, monetary components that I'll just
mention. Um, first, there would be
additional separate payments to the two, uh, named plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Uh, Santiago and Mr. Fitzgibbons. Ms.
Santiago would get $25,000. Mr. Fitzgibbons would get
$5,000. Um, the plaintiffs would also receive
$395,000 in attorney's fees.
Um, they could receive up to $32,000 for their
litigation costs. And, uh, finally, there would be an
additional, uh, $80,000 that would be used to pay
a claims administrator to administer this settlement
process that I just described. Um, and if the, uh,
cost of the claims administrator were to, uh, go above that
$80,000, then, uh, the excess would be paid out
of the settlement fund that I mentioned earlier, the
$1,425,000 to make up any
difference. Uh, no further outlay from the city would be
required. Um, one last term of the settlement that I want to
mention, um, is that in addition to the monetary
component that I just described, the city will also be making an
operational change. Uh, and that change is that for vehicles with
expired license plates, uh, that the city intends to tow as
abandoned. The city will start, uh, sending a notice letter
in the mail, uh, before the tow, in addition to placing a sticker on
the vehicle. That's the same process that the city follows for vehicles
with valid license plates. Uh, and so we would just be bringing those
two, uh, practices into a single alignment.
Uh, the law department recommends approval of this settlement to mitigate ongoing
litigation risk in the lawsuits. Um, this litigation has been
pending for over six years so far. Uh, and the court's
earlier rulings have allowed the plaintiffs' claims to proceed beyond the dismissal
stage. Uh, and there is a risk of a potentially higher monetary
award to the plaintiffs if the case proceeds further.
Proceeding further could also result in the court certifying a larger
class, uh, than would be at issue in the settlement,
uh, which would make the city's potential, uh, monetary
exposure larger, as well as make the case more difficult to
settle. Um, and it... Last, uh, in
addition, uh, to what I just described, if the case proceeds further, plaintiff's
attorney's fees will continue to increase, as well as, uh, the
city's, uh, expenditures for outside counsel in the cases.
So for all these reasons, we believe this settlement is a reasonable resolution to
the l- litigation and we ask, uh, the committee's approval. Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Warych. I wanna acknowledge Alderman Mitchell and Alderman
Moseley. He counted towards quorum.
We'll start our questioning off with Alderman Hopkins.
(clears throat) Yeah, thank you.
Uh, d- did I hear you say that the city filed
two separate motions to dismiss?
Yes, there have been multiple motions, uh, throughout the two cases.
(clears throat) Can you describe, uh, the, uh, justification
in the judge's decisions, uh, both times and what
was the, uh, difference? Uh, w- obviously we
didn't file the same motion, so, uh, describe what the,
uh, changes were, uh, to the attempt to dismiss this
case.
Yes, thank you, Alderman. And I'd be happy to follow up with you in more
detail, um, outside of this, uh, proceeding.
Um, these cases have been, uh, very complicated
procedural cases. Um, they have kind of
bounced back and forth. At least pieces of them have bounced back and forth between
the federal court and the state court system, uh, based on the nature of
claims that were presented, uh, at certain points in
time. Um, the, uh, the claim that I've been discussing,
uh, primarily today, um, initially was allowed to proceed
because the judge at the time, uh, believed that the
plaintiffs had, uh, pled enough in their complaint
to state a violation of due process, in so far as the city was
not sending a notice letter in the mail, um, prior to towing these
vehicles. Um, we obviously disagree with that conclusion and
we argued against it, but that, that is a, a, a high-level overview of the
rationale.
Okay, thank you. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. No further questions.
Thank you, Alderman. Uh, Alderman Irvin followed by Alderman
Lee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,
so
just operationally, I wa- I wanna, wanna focus.
So the current process is
traffic services goes out, puts the sticker on the
vehicle, the seven-day sticker. So now what you're saying
is that for an expired plate, at time they put the
seven-day sticker on, they have to send a letter or is it
after the expiration of the seven days that a letter then is
sent to
the registered owner before a vehicle is towed?
Yes. Thank you, Alderman. Uh, my understanding is that the city would simply be
using its current process for vehicles with current license
plates and, uh, adopting that process for vehicles with expired
license plates. And so under that current process, as I understand
it, um, a sticker is put on the vehicle and then the notice letter that
is also sent, uh, usually goes out the next day, maybe e- a k- a
day after, uh, uh, one or two days after the sticker is placed.
Okay.
Um, so it's not, uh, too long of a delay.
Does the... Is the vehicle still able to be towed after
day seven or must some other mechanism
occur prior to the city removing the
vehicle?
As I understand the process, when the notice letter goes out in the
mail, it contains a hearing date that the owner
can take advantage of if they wish to oppose the
impending tow. Um, and Streets and Sanitation
will wait for that hearing date to come and go before they
would, uh, tow the vehicle to see what the response of the owner is.
The... Well, that's not how I understand it.
That generally on day eight, if the vehicle has
not been moved, um, the vehicle is, is
towed. So, is the hearing
like
instantaneous or... 'Cause it, this has
a, um, a very wide impact on
operationally as it relates to these abandoned vehicles
that, in many cases, um, litter some communities.
So I, I just want to be clear on how this process is going to
play out going forward because the process, as I
understand it, is that after day seven,
on day eight, that vehicle is
removed.
Thank you for that clarification, Alderman.
Um, that, uh, aligns with my understanding as to the practice for a
vehicle... The current practice for vehicles with expired
plates. Um, but for vehicles for which a notice letter is
sent out in the mail, uh, which contains a hearing date, then the,
uh, the tow would occur after that hearing
date.
So,
just so we're clear, a vehicle that has a
valid
registration, is seven-day stickered,
and then after the seven days, the...
So the seven days now doesn't matter.
You can't do anything until after the date of a proposed hearing?
Is that, is that what you're stating?
My understanding operationally, I would obviously, uh, defer to Streets and
Sanitation on this, but my understanding is that, uh, they, they wait for
that hearing date to come and, uh, come and go.
Alderman, we're going to see if we can get, uh, Mike Lococo to come
down.
Okay. Uh, uh, if, if, if he makes himself, uh,
available, uh, might we hold this
until we can get some clarity on that?
Yeah. Let me take some other questions.
Fair, fair, fair.
Uh, Alderman
Lee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I may have missed it at the beginning. I apologize.
What's the, uh, what's the anticipated size of the
class?
Um, thank you for that question, Alderwoman.
Um, in this setting, I'm not at liberty to,
um, provide, um, uh, a current internal estimate.
But based on information that is in the public record of the
case, um, there was an estimate of approximately
32,000, uh, people who would be in the class between a
four-year period from, uh, roughly the summer of 2017,
uh, to the summer of 2021.
Mm-hmm.
Um, so, uh, if you double that, uh, you would be,
uh, bridging the four years between 2021 to
2025. So you would be looking, uh, based on that estimate, uh,
information in the record at, uh, something around 6,400,
uh, members. Uh, but that would just be an estimate.
Was it 100 or 1,000?
Uh.
I heard thousand the first time.
3,200. Um, and was the-
Was 1,600 the first time. Not 16,000 'cause I...
Oh, did I... I, um, uh... I'm sorry.
Uh, 32,000. (laughs)
3,200.
Oh.
Uh, based on the public record information.
Okay.
Multiply that by two to bridge the additional four years to get to 64.
Okay. 6,400. Okay.
We just want to get that clarified. (laughs) Thank you.
(laughs)
Um, and then I, I know that there's a, a maximum cap amount for the
pot. You mentioned there were additional settlements for the two named,
uh, plaintiffs, um, as well as, uh attorneys' fees
and, and other potential fees. What's our total exposure on this?
The total exposure would be
1,962,000. That would be the maximum
payout. As I mentioned earlier, we might get some of the money back from the
settlement fund, if not-
Depending on who and how many. Okay. I understand.
The, the other questions were already asked and we're waiting for other answers.
So thank you. That's all I have, Madam Chair.
Uh, thank you. We will be getting, uh, Mike
Lococo on Zoom. Alderman
Scott.
Um, question.
That one point... Is it 1.9? That 1.9 million is
like a class action suit for multiple,
um,
offenders, right? So, do you look at the value of the
car that was... I mean, so essentially that
$25,000 and that $5,000 and that
$395,000 to those two individuals,
what's the value of their cars?
The value of their cars, I think, is a matter of dis- that would be in dispute in
the litigation. The, uh, individual payments to the two named
plaintiffs that I mentioned, the $25,000, uh, and the $5,000, those
are what's called incentive payments and those are typical payments that
are made to the, the lead plaintiffs who bring a class action.
It's kind of a little extra that they get for having brought and fought the
litigation on behalf of a class. So, that's what those two payments represent.
Um, and then the payout amount that would, uh, be paid out to members of the
class who file a claim, that was simply an amount that's been negotiated
between the attorneys for both sides.
And we believe it's a reasonable amount.
What was the 395,000 for, the $395,000?
That is for the plaintiff's attorneys' fees-
Oh.
... in bringing the case.
Okay. So, we're gonna pay somebody who probably had a car sitting at, on the city
lot for like six months for... The car could have been anywhere
from the, what is it? The Kelley Blue Book value of
$15,000 and you're gonna essentially pay them
almost...
... $400,000, $500,000 for, um, an
ordinance that was in place that they didn't follow the
rules?
The, uh, $395,000 would be for the, the plaintiff's
attorney's fees. So that would go to their attorneys, not to the individuals
themselves who had the cars on the street.
But we're still paying that?
Yes, we would be paying that.
All right.
No more questions.
All right. Thank you, Alderman Lee.
Alderman Martin, followed by Alderman Mitchell.
Thank you, Chair. My questions are a follow-up to, uh, Chairman Irvens, and I'll
just wait until Mike comes. Thanks.
Okay. That's you. Alderman Mitchell, are you our operational question?
Yes, I'm gonna be operational.
But I wanna, at this point, can I add a little context around where I think,
um, Alderman Scott was going? Um, some of
those cars that sit in vacant lots and on the street have been there for a long
time and some of them don't even run.
And in some of our neighborhoods, they treat the street and vacant lots as, as,
dark as pounds or parking lots. So I think that's where she was going and I wanted
to provide that context for you guys.
And 'cause the operational piece, I don't think anybody...
It sounds like you guys did a masterful job at, at the settlement piece but the
operational piece, uh, has a gross effect on, on our, on a lot of our
neighborhoods.
Yeah, thank you for that, uh, Alderman.
And, uh, just to clarify, the, uh, settlement, uh,
that I'm discussing here would only apply to abandoned vehicles that are
parked on the street. It would not be vacant lot via- vehicles.
That, uh, those are addressed under a separate ordinance.
Thank you. Point of clarification?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Uh, my in-ordinance correction
are, if we go to a point
where... Could we correct the ordinance to get it to where
we need to be or does this settlement
tie our hands to making any changes to the
ordinance, um, where we may come up with a
shorter period or do some changes that are outside of
what this settlement has, uh, we've agreed to in the
settlement?
The settlement does not, uh, dictate, uh, that
we amend or not amend our ordinance.
Uh, I, I question whether any settlement could, could do that.
Um, in sending the notice letter, um,
uh, that would be a term of the settlement that we would be agreeing to.
That's simply something that the city, uh, can do without an ordinance
amendment. There's actually not a provision in the current ordinance that, uh,
addresses sending out the notice letter, uh, as we currently do, to
vehicles with current license plates.
Um, so again, we would just be taking that existing practice and applying
it, uh, slightly more broadly to cover vehicles with, uh, expired license
plates that are parked on the street.
So then our, our hands are not tied
going forward to adhering to this if
we make the necessary changes in the code to accommodate
that?
W- we would be bound by the settlement agreement.
But in terms of whether the council wanted to amend the code in other
respects, uh, to address various, uh, vehicle
issues that this, this, uh, agreement would not speak to
that.
So-
You wanna come back around? You asked for a point of clarification.
I'm sorry. I apologize. I,
I- 'Cause you, you've got a bunch of questions.
Yeah.
Uh-
Also, is that touche or something?
What are you, like- (laughs)
Um, so we'll come back to you. We'll add
you. Uh, Alderman Harris, we
see you and we count you towards quorum.
Alderman Lopez
has stepped out. Alderman
Curtis.
Alderman Curtis.
Yeah, Madam Chair. I, I think I wanna, uh, wait on, um, Mike to come
down also, because I think that...
Uh, and, and I'm so in agreeance with, with Alderman Irven.
I mean, we're gonna have to do something with
this ordinance. Uh, we, we're gonna have to amend it if, if that's the
case because it's gonna, it's gonna be
devastating to our communities if we don't.
And then if we don't amend it, all, all that'll happen
is they're gonna come back and sue again.
(laughs)
Okay.
But,
but- Um, Alderman Curtis-
... bye.
Um, I'll, uh, Mike Lococo, uh, f- managing deputy
commissioner for Streets and S- and Sanitation, has joined
us by Zoom. Um, if you could ask your question of
him and then I'd like to go back to, uh,
Alderman Irven, Alderman
Martin, Alderman Mitchell for their operational
questions. So proceed with your question, Alderman
Curtis.
No. Uh, you know what? I would like for, uh, you to go ahead
with, um, with, um, uh, uh,
Mike Lococo on, on this, um, with the original
ask,
because-
All
Yeah. All right. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, Alderman Curtis.
Alderman Stazado, you were saying?
Can I... I, I have a point of clarification I'd like to say before Mike speaks,
though. So my, my, my point of cl- and an operational point of
clarification, and it should be- s- what it is for me, I'm guessing it's the same
for everybody, the way a seven-day tow goes, everybody, is
most likely your constituents call you, which happens to me quite
often, but they can't call and say a car's out in front and it has to be there for
a week. They call me and say it's there for a week, we have to call them.
They have to identify it. They have to wait a week.
They mark the tires, whatever they do.
And then after a week, then they put a sticker on there. So then they get a week.
So you're probably looking at three weeks to a month before somebody
even... before it even gets towed.
That's all I wanted to say, and Mike could dispute that or whatever, but that's how
it works in my community. People, more often than not, it's somebody that's on that
block. Somebody, uh, uh, if they're on side streets or somebody on a, on a main
arterial street that's parking there, it's somebody in the neighborhood.
But you can't, somebody just can't call us and say a car's there and then we give
them a seven-day notice. It has to be there for a week that they notify it.
They have to identify it, then they give them a week's notice or
they can- Alderman Stazado, we're gonna let-
Okay.
... uh, Mike Lococo give us the 411 on the
to- on the towing. So we're gonna go back to Alderman Irvin.
Hello, um, M- Mike, are you on Zoom?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay. So, um, we're gonna go back to Alderman
Irvin, who had some operational questions, and we have a couple more
aldermen who also have questions for you.
Alderman Irvin.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this is in relation to, um,
I don't know, uh, h- how familiar you are with this particular, uh,
case, um, but operationally, for
a
expired plated vehicle parked in the public
way, uh, the change that is being contem- that is, I guess,
theoretically being agreed to is that a vehicle would have a
seven-day sticker, uh, and at that point, after
day eight, would an abandoned vehicle...
what happens at day eight after the seven-day is
applied?
Okay. Basically, what's going on is they're gonna issue a...
When we go out there, we get a, a complaint about a vehicle, we go out to the
vehicle, we put a seven-day sticker on it, and then we afford the
people a court hearing if need be. So that's why we
gotta, we gotta send a pre-tow notice out to the people.
So after the seven day is up, they still get a pre-tow notice, which is
gonna push this back maybe 10 to 15 more days,
allowing them to have a pre-totice- notice hearing.
But these are only for vehicles with license
plates on them or valid registration.
That's what these are for. So vehicles with no license plates at all
will still be done the, the same way.
But in, in this case, w- this case is of an expired, a
vehicle with an expired registration, are, i- is
it, is it the current practice that after, uh, on day eight that
vehicle is eligible to be towed?
The current practice is yes, on day eight, that vehicle is eligible to be towed if
it has expired. We do not have to do pre-tow
notices to the people. Now we have to do pre-tow
notices.
So now what you're telling us is that this vehicle that does not
have current tags will now be subject
to the same as the ones that do have tags, which now is
gonna extend the time for removing the vehicle from eight
days to possibly 25 or 30 days?
Yes, possibly 15 days. We're looking at 15 to 20 days.
Yes, that is correct.
Um, are we, um, similar
to, um,
like someone gets their vehicle towed and they can request a, a
hearing on the tow, um, if they do have their
hearing, then they can be refunded or whatever, um,
are we able to still tow a vehicle,
however, through the hearing process, be refunded
or some other remedy set forth, uh, by the administrative, uh, hearing
officer?
Well, basically right now what happens is if the vehicle gets, if the
vehicle gets a seven-day sticker and they get towed, they could call and ask for a
hearing, yes. They could at any time call and ask for a hearing.
But the way the new, the way the new situation's gonna be is, any
reg- any vehicle on it with a plate, expired or not, will get
a pre-tow notice before we tow it.
But does that preclude you from towing the vehicle prior to that
time? Even though they may go into the hearing and be
successful, um, are, are we now unable to
move a vehicle after day eight?
Correct. Yes. We will not be able to move it if they call and ask for a hearing or
request a hearing on it. We have to wait 'til after the hearing is over with.
Okay. Thank you.
Um, Mike, on that question, if someone requests a
continuance, uh, continued, continuances through
administrative hearings, you would still be unable to
tow?
This is not done through administrative hearings.
This is done through our, our bureau at our shop.
So this is not an administrative hearing.
It's like an informal hearing, basically.
And can a person request a, a continuance?
No. No continuances.
All right. Uh, Alderman Mitchell.
My questions...
Your ha- question's been answered.
Alderman Martin, your question has been answered.
Alderman Curtis?
(laughs) We in trouble. We better change the
ordinance. Uh, my question's been answered.
All right. Thank you. Uh, seeing no more
questions, Alderman Irvin?
Um-
You just full of questions today.
I, this is, I, I mean, no, w- we, these cars, man, are like, they're like cancer,
um-
I know you have been, um, very focused on ten-
Yeah. Um,
so going forward, we won't be able to adjust this
per the settlement, and we will have to, unless...
If we change the ordinance, uh, to not...
I- is there something that precludes us from saying, "We do not have to have a
pre-tow
hearing?"
W- we would be bound by the settlement agreement, which contemplates the
sending, basically adopting the same practice that we currently use
for vehicles with current plates.
We would be adopting that practice for vehicles with expired
plates, and so as Mr. Lococo, uh, described that process, that would be
the process that would be followed.
Is, is that, has that, was that process set by ordinance or by rule?
That process is not set by ordinance.
It's been, uh, it's been a practice, as I understand it.
I-
if, uh, are, are we,
are we able to change our, well, the department's
practice via ordinance to change that, even though we have
this... we make this settlement?
We would be bound by the settlement agreement, uh, I believe that if
the council, uh, pass an ordinance, uh,
requiring a practice at odds with the settlement agreement, that that would, uh,
result in litigation.
Um, I- I-
this is, um... I'm- I'm sorry. I- I
understand, um, I- I understand the- the- the city's
position on this. And what is the...
and I'll just ask this, and- and if we need to have a separate conversation,
so be it. Uh, what is the
risk of not settling this particular case?
Uh, thank you, Alderman. That would be a conversation I'd be happy to have with
you, uh, in a s- confidential setting.
Um, uh, at- at a general level, I can- I can say that
if the case were to proceed, we would be facing potentially much
larger monetary exposure, um, in addition to,
uh, court orders requiring changes in practices, uh, that- that may
be, uh, broader than those, uh, at issue here.
Okay. Thank- thank you, Madam Chair.
Alderman Silverstein.
Thank you, Chairman. Is Mike still on, or did he jump
off?
No, I'm still here.
Okay. I'm sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself again.
I just wanna make sure I have this clear.
So, we report an abandoned vehicle.
You come out and put the seven-day notice
up. And at that same time, you
s- you send out a notice
for a hearing?
Yes. When we put the seven-day sticker on, and we have to wait till the next
day to get leads. Once we get leads on the vehicle, then we send
out the notices, the pre-tow- pre-tow notice on the vehicle.
Now, this is only for vehicles
that have valid registration. If it has no
plates or no- nothing on it that's totally different, that's
basically an immediate tow with no plates.
So if you-
So if it has no plates, you can immediately tow it?
Correct. Yes.
If it has valid plates, then-
Or- or expired plates.
Or expired plates, then you're gonna put the seven-day notice.
The next day, you're gonna send them out a letter saying that they
can ask for a hearing.
Correct.
And so when would the soonest time you would be able to tow that
car?
Probably we're looking at 15 days, 15 to 17
days.
So that's longer than-
We
That's longer than what's current?
That's longer than the seven-day grace period.
So normally what we do right now on a seven-day vehicle, a seven-day vehicle is
with valid registration, we put out, uh...
we put a seven-day sticker on it, we send out notification the next
day. And now, if it has valid registration, we do this now, it's a current
procedure now with a seven-day sticker, if they have current...
if they have a valid registration, we send out a pre-tow notice.
That's why sometimes when you guys call us, if we can't get the,
uh, vehicle towed right away, it's- we're waiting for a hearing.
That's all we're waiting for. But-
Right.
... now, it used to be that way. Now, it's changed, b-
meaning, if it has a- a- a license plate on
there, but it's not a valid license plate, meaning it's not...
it's expired, so if the sticker's expired, now we have to allow them
vehicles to have a pre-tow notice hearing.
Right. And they could technically go and move the car one
space over, and then this whole process starts over again?
That is correct.
Okay. Um, I'm- I'm just speaking for my ward.
I mean, it's a big issue to have cars sitting there,
um, for such a long time. I'm just worried that extending it an
extra 10 days is
not gonna make the constituents happy. Just saying.
So, okay.
Thank
you. Especially if they move the car and then the whole process has to start again.
It's just gonna frustrate everybody. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Silverstein.
I just conferred with, uh, Attorney Warych.
Um, I think we're gonna hold this in committee for...
to the next meeting, to get a little more
clarity on what kind of changes can be made in the existing
ordinance. Um,
or, uh... I mean, there is no existing ordinance
basically, but what changes we could make to address
some of the concerns that have come up in this
meeting here. Yes, Alderman Lispo- Alderman
Sposato first, and then Alderman Lospada.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mike.
I don't know if you're still there or not, but, uh, while I...
we're saying... uh, said one- one of the things I wanna say, it can move, and
afoot, they come back to check, the- the markers on the tires are different,
so then it was considered moved. But more often than not...
I don't know if you're still with us, Mike, more often than not from the time the
constituent, that it gets towed, whatever, the car's there usually at least a
month. So, it's really not a seven-day, it's almost like a month that your car's
been sitting there. That's all I wanna say, just a point of information. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Lospada.
Thank you, Chair. My- my one question was, if we- if we hold this till the
next committee, 'cause you stated this about a half hour
ago, will the judge have ruled on whether this proceeds to
class action by the time this would come before the- the committee
again?
Uh, thank you for the question, Alderman. No.
Um, es- essentially, the litigation has been, uh, put on pause,
uh, while the parties are working the settlement agreement
process through... to its conclusion.
Um, so there's no firm deadline by which the court would
issue rulings. It's just that if the settlement, uh, is ultimately not
approved, then the litigation will resume, and the court will start setting new
dates for things to happen in the litigation.
We will have this on our next, uh, finance committee agenda
beyond, uh, the budget,
uh, finance committee meetings.
Okay. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Warych.
Appreciate your-
Mr.
Chair. ... time this morning.
Thank you to the committee.
Moving on to item number 1C, Robert Smith Jr.
v. City of Chicago, et al., case number
21cv1159 in the amount of
$15,376,742.37.Um,
we are joined by Deputy Corporation Counsel Jessica
Felker. Good morning, Ms. Felker.
Good morning, Chair. Thank you. I'm here to present, as the chair said,
Robert Smith Jr. v. City of Chicago.
It is a federal lawsuit in which the plaintiff claims he was wrongfully
convicted. Plaintiff Robert Smith Jr.
was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the 1987 murders of
his then-wife, Dia- De- excuse me, Diane
Yaeger Smith's mother and grandmother, and arson of their
home. Smith was 39 years old at the time of the crime.
He remained incarcerated for 33 years before being released in
2020, after his conviction was vacated on recommendation of the
Office of Special Prosecutor. The Office of Special Prosecutor
declined to intervene in the Certificate of Innocence
proceedings, and he was awarded that COI the same year.
Smith filed suit shortly thereafter.
The current defendants in this case are city and former
Chicago police de- detectives, all retired many years
before this suit. Steven Brownfield, William
Peterson, John Solecki, John Ukaitis, who is deceased,
William Higgins, who is deceased, Robert Rice, who is deceased, Daniel
McWeeney, who is deceased, and former superintendent, who was
then-Lieutenant Philip Klein. During the pendency of
this lawsuit, Smith experienced cognitive decline caused by
dementia. In 2022, the Illinois Probate
Court appointed his ex-wife, Diane Yaeger Smith, his
plenary guardian, and she became the plaintiff in this matter.
It is her mother and grandmother who were
murdered. On September 19...
September 19th, 1987, Edith Yaeger and
William B.... Excuse me, Willie Bell and Alexander were fatally
stab- stabbed in their home located at 325 West
107th Street. After they were killed, their house was set on
fire. The Chicago Police... or Chicago Fire Department came to the scene in the
early morning hours after the fire was reported, and they extinguished the
fire to discover the bodies. The bodies were found in a hallway
off the first floor... on the first floor, near the stairway to the
basement. The fire damage was minor and limited to a burned sto-
sofa and severe charring on the floor.
Investigators from the fire department and from the police department's Bomb and
Arson Unit determined the fire was set to cover up the murders, and
likely started between two... li- likely started around 2:30
AM.
Evidence technicians photographed the first floor, basement, and victims.
There were no signs of forced entry to the home.
The bolt on the open basement door was extended, and there was bloody water
around the basement washer and dryer, suggesting the offender
used the machines. Smith and his then-wife arrived at the
scene about an hour after the detectives from the police department
arrived to investigate. There is a dispute about what happened at the
scene. Smith ended up coming into the house near where the bodies had been
discovered. There was blood on the floor as well as water from putting out the
fire. There was a scuffle, uh, uh, near Smith's
entry on the scene.
Uh, s- The... Smith claims that Detective
McWeeney threw Smith into the bloody water.
Detective McWeeney testified that Smith actually dove into the bloody
water. After the scuffle, Smith was arrested and taken to Area 2
for questioning. When he was brought into the station and examined, he had a small
amount of blood on the soles of his feet and was wearing no underwear.
Smith eventually confessed, stating he killed the women with a
straight razor that he kept in his wallet, washed his clothes, then set fire to
the scene. Detectives went back to the scene.
They did not find a razor, but found Smith's underwear with blood on it on the
first stair to the basement. Smith's claims center around his allegation
that detectives coerced and fabricated this confession.
He also claims that the officers planted Smith's bloody
underwear, and he brought a Monell claim against the
city, but that was bifurcated for trial.
Smith claims that his confession was the result of physical and psychological
abuse that he endured in his 18 hours in custody while
detectives fed him a confession. Smith claims his abuse was part of
a pattern and practice of abuse of Black men at Area 2 in the
1980s, in the Burge era. Smith
alleges that his confession about the weapon, being a straight razor,
is inconsistent with the wounds that the murder weapon
left, and that the actual murder weapon was a knife that was
photographed on the scene. However, the knife was later destroyed before
any forensic testing was done. Smith made multiple immediate
outcries relating to the abuse. First, upon arriving at Cook County
Jail, then during his bond hearing, and later in written letter to
OPS, claiming of the abuse. He alleges no
one listened because the alleged abuse that went on at Area 2 was being covered
up. While his post-conviction proceedings were ongoing, Smith
submitted a claim to the Torture Inquiry and Relief
Commission, and they evaluated his claims of abuse.
They found that Smith presented sufficient evidence of torture to conclude that
there should be judicial review of his claims.
If this case does not settle, the next step is trial.
Plaintiff will attempt to pres- sent evidence of prior allegations of
abuse made by Black men in similar circumstances against the
detectives here. Plaintiff will also attempt to present evidence
that, uh, one of the detectives, Detective Peterson...
Pederson, excuse me, was convicted in federal court as a result of selling data
that he was able to access only through law enforcement
databases. Plaintiff is expected to seek damages,
uh, at trial of $66 million or more for Smith's
33 years in custody. Following a two-day settlement conference,
the party accepted... parties accepted the judge's settlement recommendation
of
$15,376,742.37.
Taking all the risks into account, and the potential liability,
the law department recommends settling within the amount recommended by the
court.I'm happy to take any questions.
Uh, thank you, Ms. Felker. Uh, Alderman
Stahlschulte?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Jessica.
Uh, quick question, the bloody underwear, were they ever checked?
Are they intact still? Were they ever checked for DNA or anything?
Yes. So it's undisputed they... we still...
they still exist today and it is undisputed that the
victim's blood was on the underwear that was
discovered.
So is there any explanation how that possibly could have happened if he didn't do
that?
Well, he claims, "We planted the blood and pla- planted the
underwear."
Oh, okay. I'm sorry. So he claims, "We took his un...
stole his underwear, put his blood on there and then planted it over
there."
Yes or i- that it was contaminated because of the scene,
had water and blood.
And, and I... and I'm not a judge or nor an attorney and a judge would be like,
"Yeah, I believe you planted this because it was in the Burge
era." I mean, I mean, obviously we're
worried about this, uh. I mean, yeah? I mean, yes?
Uh-
Fortunately?
I mean, a jury, a jury could believe his
explanation for how the underwear got there and
believe that these officers did something to put the
victim's blood on it or that they were contaminated at the scene.
Um, like I said, they were found...
So the first floor is where the bodies were located, where the fire happened.
So there was blood and water after the fire was put out by the fire
department. This underwear was on the first step,
right under, like first step from the first floor
down to the basement.
So the explanation would be not from him, but from his attorney about,
correct?
I mean that, that's the-
Because they're capable of...
Correct. Yes. The plaintiff is actually his ex-wife and it
would be obviously his attorneys who are making that argument.
Um, you know, he wasn't present. He wouldn't, he wouldn't have
knowledge of, uh, of what the officers
did. He would just have knowledge-
But unfortunately with a certificate of innocence and no challenge from the
State's Attorney, there's really not much we could do. But thank you.
Thank you so much.
Yeah.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Alderman Stahlschulte.
Any other questions from... Yes, Alderman
Quinn.
Um, thank you Madam Chair. You mentioned Phil Klein's name in your
initial testimony. What was his role here?
So he took the confession, um, ultimately from the
plaintiff. Or I'm not... Sorry, from Robert Smith.
Right. And was, was he at the
scene?
Um, I am not sure if he went to the scene.
Um, he did... So there is a
contention between the city and the plaintiff in this
case. The plaintiff claims that he could not have taken his
confession because he was not working that day.
Um, the position of the city and of him is that
e- he was a lieutenant and when there was a double homicide, even though he
was supposed to have the day off, he did come and take the confession.
And do we have... We know that to be
true?
There are discrepancies. I mean,
from, uh, defendant client's position, yes, that he
says that he did do that. We do have a discrepancy in some
of the police reports that, um,
unfortunately, uh, Lieutenant Klein, at the time,
Lieutenant Klein's, um, name was left off the
report that said he was there during the confession.
So then we have, um, our defendants with
big or little memories or are deceased to
explain why his name was not on that report.
Okay. Thank you.
Uh, thank you Alderman Quinn. Any, uh...
Oh, Vice Chair Conwayh.
Yeah, just... It was a, a brief follow-up.
Um, uh,
versus, uh, it's a follow-up from Alderman Stahlschulte's question. So it's...
Uh, in this, it was the Office of the Special Prosecutor that decided not
to object to the certificate of innocence, not the State's Attorney's Office in
this case?
That's correct. I double-checked and it was the special prosecutor.
Okay. And that... Do we, do we know who it was at that...
the special prosecutor was at that point in time?
Miles O'Rourke.
Okay, great. That's, that's all I have, uh, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you. Uh, um, just how was the special
prosecutor selected?
Um, so in this, uh, the court
appoints the, the special
prosecutor. Once... And in this case, it was
done because there was a conflict that was determined with
the state's attorney at the time. So when there's a
conflict, they will appoint a special prosecutor not associated with the
office.
Thank you. Uh, not seeing any more questions.
Is there a motion to recommend approval of item number
1C?
Um, Vice Chair Conwayh? Uh, recommends do
pass. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying
aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next
city council meeting. Um, thank you,
Jessica. Item number two, from the Board of
Education. An ordinance concerning the authorization of
fee waivers for the Chicago Board of Education or
its contractors for buildings and facilities
used for public or governmental purposes with annual
reporting of fee waivers to the Office of Budget and
Management. We're joined by Jamel Chambers, Executive
Director of IGA for CPS to present this
matter. Good morning, Jamel.
Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman.
Ah, good on- t- good afternoon, Chairman Dowell, members of the Committee on
Finance. Um, for the record, my name is Jamel Chambers.
Executive Director of Government Affairs for Chicago Public Schools.
I'm also joined by Venuet Dai, our Executive Director of Capital Planning and
Design, um, for CPS. Um, I'm here today to request your
approval of a two-year ordinance authorizing the provision of fee
waivers for the Chicago Board of Education to support the district's building and
facility-related projects. The board has historically been exempt from paying
most of city permit fees. This propo- ordinance is simply an
extension of a current fee waiver ordinance that expires on December
31st, 2025. While CPS has
estimated that the city will waive apar- approximately, um, 900
and 9- $973,000 in permit fees for
FY26, the proposed ordinance has no net effect on city
finances. Any fees required for public projects paid by the board would
simply be transferring funds from one public agency to another.
If approved, this ordinance will go into effect on January 1st, 2026
and was set to expire on December 31st, 2027.
I thank you for your consideration and I am happy to address any questions this
committee may have.
Ah, Alderman Villegas followed by Alderman Riley.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, and this is perfect timing around this 'cause I need to get some clarification
around, uh, what type of... Um,
how do you identify the, the infrastructure projects, because I, there's been an
issue around fiber optics and how fiber optics is installed
and how the city is pursuing those types of inv- those
types of, uh, uh, permit fees when
it's for the betterment of CPS. So can you...
Do you know about the fiber optic, um, fees that are being imposed
on contractors that are working on behalf of CPS?
I do, but I think that I'm gonna ask Ivan Hanson to step to the podium.
He can better address that. But I am aware of that, uh, there
was a- Can you please identify yourself for the record?
I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Venuet Dai.
I'm the Executive Director for Capital Planning and
Construction.
Hi, thank you. Ivan Hanson, Chief Facilities Officer at CPS.
Um, so to answer the alderman's question about the, the infrastructure.
Yeah, so we, uh, are working with a few companies to run
fiber, um, through the streets. One will be used for
OAMC, others used for, for CPS projects.
Um, we currently, um, do not have a few
waivers for utilities. Our few waivers are for permit fees only
and not subcontractors or any outside-sourced, uh,
permit fees that the city may use. So MWRD, if they have somebody that's,
uh, an outside vendor that is reviewing the permits, that fee is not waived.
We do pay for those because there's a cost to that.
Um, so just like with ComEd, um, any of those utility fu- those fees
are not waived. This is sheer for, uh, building permit, uh, fees.
No, no I appreciate that but the contract is specifically with CPS, so it's
acting in, on behalf of CPS to install fiber
for CPS. So wouldn't that qualify because it's,
it's, you, it's, it's representing-
It, it, the fee waiver does not cover utilities.
S- but
you don't... So you mentioned ComEd, right?
So you don't hire ComEd for installation of, of,
uh, of electrical, uh, delivery to your
CPS, correct?
We pay ComEd for new service installs and upgrades to
our, our facilities, yes.
CPS pays ComEd for... Yeah, right.
So, what I'm saying is the, the, the CPS
under a grant from the federal government
is
using fiber op- has, has contracted with a fiber optic
firm to install fiber op- optic on behalf of CPS.
So it's acting in the department's behalf in order to
deliver on a grant and yet they're being told they have to
pay fees. And so I'm wondering why...
What's the difference between a contractor that's doing work on behalf
of CPS with a grant in order for the betterment of the city and for the
students at CPS and why are they being charged fees?
Uh, and why a- aren't they falling under the same umbrella?
This is a building permit fee
waiver. The-
It's a fe- it's a fee waive
for- What you're referring to is, is a utility-
Right.
... a public utility that's being run and those fee waivers are not waived.
I don't know. Madam Chair, I, this-
I guess if you want to have utilities waived, you
probably would have to change the ordinance because the ordinance covers
certain types of fees. Um, permit fees,
inspection fees, application fees, plan review
fees, license fees, fees to cut off or reconnect
water and sewer lines, fees to occupy or use the public
way, uh, fees to install or maintain
driveways, canopies and other structures on the public
right-
Y- and, and I think that, and that's something I have in the finance committee,
would love to get that, uh-
All right.
... at some time heard only because
as technology is evolving and, and fiber optics is
e- e- an asset that CPS was able to win a grant and I think
we're, we're, we're missing those opportunities to, to
leverage, um, those grants and making sure that
we're getting the biggest bang for the buck.
Uh, and so, uh, looking for, looking forward to continuing working with
that. Working with CPS to figure out a way to,
um, find a solution to this because again, fiber optics is, is
an asset that ultimately helps not just CPS but as
you build out the fiber optic network, uh, it allows
for other entities that maybe park districts, et cetera, to
use those, that conduit that's there in order to expand the
ability for folks that are having a hard time connecting to the internet,
uh, to do it at a low cost.
So we're aware of your ordinance and, uh, would
like to encourage the conversa-, you know, some conversation-
Thank you,
... between you and CDOT and IGA.
I appreciate that.
Um-Just have that conversation and we
may be able to move it.
Cool. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Okay. Uh, Alderman Riley.
Uh, thank you, Madam Chair and, uh-
Ivan, don't go anywhere. You don't know what Alderman Riley's got.
I'd, I'd, I... Actually, it's not that, that difficult.
It's more of a question/statement.
Um, i- in your opening remarks, sir, you, you mentioned that this is around a
$995,000 or so, uh,
projected, uh, waiver of fees for 2026.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And you also said w- which is why I'm asking the question, it caught my
attention, Madam Chair, um, that there is no fiscal
impact here because it's one public body, uh, waiving the
fees of another. And, um, while
that's, I guess, technically correct if you're sitting in the mayor's
office, um, i- i- it's not so correct
applying to this body, uh, because we don't control the
appropriations of CPS, as you know.
And we're currently struggling with a $1.2 billion budget deficit
here. Um, and as is at least proposed in the mayor's
budget, he's seeing fit to surplus a
billion dollars in TIFF, which will provide a substantial windfall to
CPS. Um, and now, with the change in governance at
CPS, uh, with the elected school board, um,
and in the next election cycle, all the members being elected,
um, that is now a directly accountable board, um, to
the public and to the taxpayer. And they have the fiscal responsibility to
balance their own budget. And the way I'm looking at things, although
we all here care very much about the future of CPS and appreciate your
leadership, um, we have to manage our own fiscal
house. And so, um, while there are all sorts of projects
that this body supports at CPS via TIFF funding and
other, um, revenue streams, um, when you come in and,
and suggest that there's no fiscal impact, there actually is.
Um, these are fees, if collected, that help offset the cost of us
administering permits as a city. And so, I just wanted to
correct that for the record, Madam Chairman.
Um, there was a day, not that long ago, when
CPS was entirely accountable to the mayor and really solely the mayor.
Um, but again, uh, for our purposes here as a legislative
body, um, we've a responsibility to the taxpayers to the City of
Chicago's finances, not CPS's directly.
Um, so I just wanted to say that. Um, and my, my, I guess, my question is
how did you go about projecting, um, that actual number?
Uh, I'll take that question. The, the way we project it is based
on the, uh, capital budget for and the projects that we are proposing
that were approved in our FY 26 capital plan.
So we're projecting around 200 permit, uh, applications
based on the projects that we have allocated for this year.
Understood. Okay. Well, I appreciate you answering that question for me.
A- again, I just wanted to underscore that point for all of us while we're
currently here in budget hell, um, trying to figure out a way to, to get to
solvency for 2026. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Uh, thank you, Alderman Riley. I think it's a fair point when you look at not just
CPS, but all the other, um, agencies that
we waive fees for. This might be something to, that maybe a
group of you guys wanna look into
in the future. Alderman Moore?
Yes. A- and I've talked about this in the past before, so b- but based
on that, what, what is the to- estimated total cost then
of those 200 p- uh, projects?
973,000.
973,000? Thanks, Chairman.
Is there a motion to recommend approval of item number two? Uh, Alder...
Hold on a second. Alderman Vice Chair Conway, you have a-
Ye- I, I just wanted to... Alderman Riley essentially asked all my questions.
But the, the... I just wanted to triple-check.
This is not a perpetual waiver. It is a waiver for the next year
only. Is that correct?
It's for two years. For, for, for two years.
For, for two years?
So uh, it expires... If this is approved, it would expire on December 1st,
2027.
12/1/27?
31st. Sorry, December 31st, 2027.
So it's... Okay, so through, through the year 2027?
Mm-hmm.
Okay, that's all I have. Mo- move to pass.
Alderman Villegas?
Thank you, Madam Chair. The young lady from CPS mentioned approximately 200
projects. Could you provide those list of projects through the chair?
The chair... We can share that.
We can do that, list of projects through the chair.
Alderman Moore, you renew your motion for do pass?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and
the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city
council meeting. We're gonna skip item number three and
four and at the request of, uh, Alderman Mosley and
CPS, um, we're gonna go to items five and
six. Item number five is an ordinance concerning the
vital- the, concerning the authority to enter into and
execute an intergovernmental agreement with, uh, the Chicago Board of
Education for the allocation of TIFF funds for,
from, uh, from the 105th Street and Vincennes
Avenue TIFF district for improvements at Langston
Hughes Elementary School, located at 240 West
104th Street in the 21st Ward and an amount
not to exceed $200,000. We're joined by
Jamel Chambers who will report on this matter.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Good afternoon, again, members of the Committee on Finance.
For the record, my name is Jamel Chambers.
I'm Executive Director of Government Affairs at CPS, joined by Sean Nord, our
Director of Facilities for CPS, as well as Tim Jeffries, Managing Deputy
Commissioner, um, in the Department of Planning and Development.
Uh, we are here today to request your approval of inti- intergovernmental agreement
that will provide up to $200,000 in TIFF assistance for the installation of
a new marquee...Um, new marquee sign in Langston Hughes
Elementary School.
Here's a map showing the general location of the project within the city.
The project is located at 240 West 104th Street in the Roseland
Community Area, in the 21st Ward. It is located within 105th and
St. TIF District. The project site is bounded by 104th Street to
the south, Woodworth Avenue to the east, 103rd Place to the north,
and Princeton Avenue to the west.
Here's an aerial showing the school.
Hughes is a neighborhood elementary school serving 419 students from
grades pre-K through eighth.
These pictures show the existing outdated marquee sign, and that requires manual
changing of the letters.
If approved, the intergovernmental agreement would authorize up to $200,000 in TIF
assistance, which will finance the entirety of the project.
The project will, we, w- the project will be completed, um, by the end of December
2025. The
city is providing TIF funds to, to finance the project costs, um,
the majority of which are hard costs associated with materials and
labor. TIF funding will allow CPS to replace the
outdated sign with a modern digital marquee sign that will provide a
platform, um, to share multiple informational, uh, messages, um, in real
time with students, staff, and community.
Uh, thank you for, for your consideration and we are happy to address any questions
that the committee may have.
Alderman Moseley, do you have anything you wanna add to this?
Sure. Thank you so much Madam Chair, and I'll, I'll take a point of privilege just
to thank, uh, Jamel, uh, who is also a good brother from
Morehouse College and our president of our alumni association, on
the phenomenal job that you've done, uh, in welcoming our 13th
president, uh, to Chicago. So thank you for your efforts there.
Uh, and thank you for these efforts in education.
Uh, to my colleagues, uh, this is, uh, I'll speak to both
schools. These are schools that are an inspiring, uh, TIF district,
um, that we are trying to make sure that we can give real-time
updates to parents, to staff, to youth that are
there. Uh, in my visits to my schools, I often see the
marquees like this that have outdated information,
and, uh, we want educators to focus on being in the
classroom, and this is a way, a tool that we can help to make
sure that they are educating, uh, the public at
large, but not really, uh, taking on a huge burden
and doing it in a real-time fashion.
Would ask for your favorable consideration.
Happy to answer any questions should they arise. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Alderman Laspada.
Th- thank you, chair. Support, happy to make the motion.
I, uh, asks this
40% jokingly, this weather, you can get this marquee built in the
next 27 days?
Uh, Sean Newert, Director of Planning and Design for CPS. Uh, yes.
And we are fortunate, uh, as shown by the photos, we're a- actually able to
reuse the foundations of the existing sign, so that is gonna save us time
and possibly funds.
Th- there, well, and I don't think you could dig it out, uh, with the current
conditions anyway. Um, all right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, uh, Alderman Laspada. And, uh, we
will, you will renew your motion of due pass for
this. All those in favor, signify by saying "Aye." Aye.
Opposed in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the due
pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council
meeting. I wanna correct something on the record.
Uh, Vice-Chair Conway, you asked about the, uh, fee waiver
ordinance. It is an ordinance for one year, not two,
and it, uh, remains in effect if passed by us
at the next city council meeting until December 31st,
2026.
Um, item number six is an ordinance
concerning the authority to enter into and
execute an intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Board of Education for
the allocation of TIF funds from the 105th and
Vincent's TIF district for improvements at Marcus
Mazera Garvey Elementary School, located at
10309 South Morgan Street in the 21st Ward
in an amount not to exceed 200,000.
Um, we're joined by Jamel Chambers to give that
report.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Um, again, we are here today to request your approval of an
intergovernmental agreement that will provide up to $200,000 in TIF assistance
for the installation of a new marquee sign at Marcus Garvey Elementary
School. Um, here's a map showing the general location of the project within the
city. The project is located at 10309 South Morgan
Street, in the Washington Heights community area, in the 21st Ward.
It is located within 105th Vincent's TIF District.
The project is bounded by, um, 104th Street to the south, Sangamon Street to the
east, 103rd Street to the north, and Morgan Street to the
west. Here's an aerial showing the
school. Marcus Garvey is a neighborhood elementary school serving
265 students from grades pre-K through eighth.
These pictures show the existing outdated marquee sign that requires, uh,
manual changing of the letters. If approved, the
intergovernmental agreement would authorize up to $200,000 in TIF assistance,
which will finance the entirety of the project.
The project will also be completed by the end of December 2025.
The city is providing, um, TIF funds to finance the project's costs, the majority
of which are hard costs associated with materials and
labor.
TIF funding will allow CPS to replace the outdated sign with a modern digital
marquee sign that will provide a platform to share multiple informative
messages and in real time with students, staff and community.
Uh, thank you for your consideration and I'm happy to aggress- address any
questions that the committee may have.
Um, Alderman Moseley, in, in the es- essence of
time-Can we just move on and-
(laughs)
... can you make a motion to do pass?
'Cause I know you're gonna say the same thing about this-
(laughs)
... this sign that you said for the other one.
We'll just renew my, uh, uh, previous comments, Chair.
Okay. Thank you. Um, Alderman Moore moves do
pass on this, on this item. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye. All: Aye. Oppose? In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes
have it and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next City
Council meeting. Thank
you. Thank you. Happy belated birthday, Alderman Scott.
Alderman Scott, did you hear that?
He means that my belated birthday.
(laughs)
And is that, uh, little Ms. Conway over
there?
It's, you know, um, I- I got some childcare issues, so my- my
three-year-old daughter has, uh, joined us today.
And I- I sat her in the, uh, in my colleague and friend, Alderman
Quijada's seat 'cause I know the 35th Ward is often really embraced
youthful leadership as we look to, uh, Alderman
Quijada's obviously youthful. Our Alderman Ramirez Rosa was that.
I believe Ray Colon was an old ma- uh, young man early in his time too.
So continuing that rich tradition, I've brought my three-year-old daughter here to
sit, uh, here and she's being shockingly well-behaved-
All
right. ... frankly. So I appreciate the indulgence of City Council,
letting my- my, uh...
No problem. Let's not jinx her though.
Yeah, that- that is true.
It's a great representation of the 35th Ward.
(laughs)
All right. Um, can I get, uh, Alderman Sicho
Lopez has requested a Rule 59- 59
to be admitted remotely under Rule 59.
Can I get a motion to all- to allow him to
participate? So moved by Alderman Moseley.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Oppose?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Alderman Sicho Lopez, um, thank
you. Going back to item number three on the
agenda, an ordinance concerning the authority to enter into
and execute an intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Park
District for the allocation of TIF funds from
the Lincoln Avenue TIF District for improvements at Mather
Park, located at 5941 North
Richmond Street in the 40th Ward in an amount not
to exceed
$2,750,000.
And we're joined by Beth O'Riley from the Sh- Park District
for the update.
Uh, thank you. Good afternoon. I'm, uh, Beth O'Riley from the Park
District, coming here today to seek funding for important improvements
at Mather Park.
Mather Park, as the Alderman Dowell had mentioned, is at
5941 North Richmond out of the Lincoln Avenue
TIF. Alderman Vasquez is the parent alderman,
and it's in the West Ridge community area. Yeah, you like that?
Um, the project will consist of site work
throughout the park, uh, including electrical upgrades to add power
capacity, or new athletic field lighting to the
basketball, baseball, and softball diamonds, new turf
infield, uh, and outfield
restoration. Re-grading is also included to
alleviate field flooding. In addition, the pathways will be
re-paved with bench replacements, tennis court and basketball
reconstruction, and redevelopment of the existing garden
area. We are seeking an amount not to exceed
$2,750,000. Um,
design is in process. We expect to start construction next
summer, and the project will roll through 2027.
Some of the conditions that we will be addressing, the old-style benches,
many of which the, um, wooden seats have
been, uh, destroyed. Um, the existing
basketball court, you can see has got grass growing through the court.
The, um, unstable pathways will be
re-paved. Uh, we are finding with the, um,
very popular pickleball, uh, getting into our tennis court
restorations, uh, we're- they're very expensive.
We have to go down much further than we originally thought, so that is driving this
budget up. This, um, community also is seeking to have
a turf infield for their ball diamond.
Um, here is the rough outlay of the budget.
150,000 in design, ball field lighting is, um,
very expensive. We have to do a power upgrade from ComEd into the
park. Um, ball field rehab with the turf, turf's
about $500,000, $600,000 for an infield.
Um, basketball and tennis courts, they're running about
$300,000, $250,000 to $300,000 a piece.
So, and then some pathway paving and access improvements through the park.
That, uh, sums up Mather.
Thank- thank you, Beth. We do have a letter of support also from
Alderman Silverstein of the 50th Ward who shares this TIF, and so
we'll turn it over to Alderman Vazquez.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, I really do appreciate, uh,
that this has been moving forward.
It's something we've, um, actually been talking about for a number of years, and
part of the reason why the Lincoln Avenue TIF had been extended for
13 years is knowing that there are investments in that stretch that need
that kind of support. Um, I think as shown, uh,
by Beth, uh, related to the pictures,
uh, it still looks like 1990 over there.
Uh, and as we know, it's harder for folks to walk. The path is very beaten.
So I know, and sometimes we look at some of the park upgrades and you
think you're gonna have like, the flashiest thing, we just want this thing to look
functional and be able to support the students there at Mather High School, which
is one of the most diverse schools in the City of Chicago.
And so, um, we're really appreciative of that.
I am gonna say I am also personally appreciative, uh, and I'll share a little bit
of history that-... not the happiest about before I got here.
The basketball courts actually don't have the rims on them, uh, because in the
past they thought it would be a safety measure to take the rims off of the
basketball court. That is something that I never would support as somebody
who only played basketball (laughs)
. Uh, and when you think about the kind of recreation, the kind of spaces
we want to bring together where everyone is allowed to use the public
space, um, I think being able to remodel, fix that,
get the rims back up and create the kind of environment where people can
make sure they're improving their health while also coming together, while feeling
like they're students, they have a park at this high school.
Um,
it's one of the things that I know I'll be most proud of because I think about the
kind of school environment I had and a lot of places I didn't have.
So I'm very appreciative. I'm looking forward to what this will look like when it's
completed, uh, and would ask all of our colleagues here for their favorable
consideration. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Vasquez. Um,
seeing no other questions, can I get a motion to approve this item?
So moved by Alderman Sposato. Recommending do pass, all those in
favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Um, and we will move on to item number four and
the do pass recommendation will report out on this matter.
Item number four, from the Department of Planning and Development, an ordinance
concerning the authority to enter into and execute an
inter-governmental agreement with the Chicago Park District for the
allocation of TIF funds from the 105th Street and
Vincennes Avenue TIF District for improvements at
Jackie Robinson Park, located at 10540
South Morgan Street in the 21st Ward in an amount not to
exceed two million. Beth?
Uh, good afternoon. Again, I'm here seeking, uh, an- an amount not to exceed
two million dollars from the 105th and Vincennes police, or TIF
district. Uh, this is for improvements to supplement the
existing funding for Jackie Robinson Park new field house.
Um, as we mentioned, it's down in the 105th and Vincennes
TIF, Alderman Moseley. This was Jackie
Robinson Park, basically a field, lots of, uh, high power
baseball and softball down there, with a D-class
facility.
Um... Oh, okay, and now it-
there's a school, Mount Vernon School.
So we purchased this property in red
to create more land space. That is the property on which
the new field house is being constructed.
Uh, so the building is up. It's in construction.
It's mid-construction. This is the schematic of what it will look like when it
is done, so going from a D-class facility that had
maybe a bathroom, maybe a small room, to this is
transformative for the community.
Um, this project is amazing. It is the
same contractor that worked on Clarendon, so if anybody's been up to
see the amazing transformation up there, uh,
phenomenal design. It'll be super welcoming, nice
gym, um, we go through... This project
is primarily funded with DCEO funding.
We have a 15 million dollar grant from the state, DCEO, we are
seeking two million dollars to supplement that fund source.
That will allow us to go beyond the existing
building, uh, and make improvements to the existing
field, sort of marry them together.
We- with community involvement, we'll look at, uh, what are we gonna
do to re- maybe repurpose that D facility into a, um...
I know the alderman is curious to find out what we could do to support the baseball
program directly
without traipsing back into the field house.
We also have, um, are going to be using the supplemental
funding to help with the site utility expense.
When we purchased the new property from CPS, when
we went in for permit
with, uh, for water, we got flagged for having
to disconnect all of the water, uh, that had been laid
when the original park was gonna be set up for residential.
So that was a huge hit to the project, um, to the tune of
$460,000 to terminate the water. So
all of this is, uh, leading us to go over budget and the alderman has,
um, expressed his support in helping us secure the two
million dollars to level up the budget and we can continue to,
um, make improvements to the existing park and complete the new
facility.
Thank you, Beth. Um, Alderman Moseley, busy day for
you today. Um, I- I would like to congratulate you,
however, on the DCEO grant. That's a big
achievement, getting that much money out of this state for this
project. So I turn it over to you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our- our partners at the state.
Uh, I have to acknowledge State Representative Justin Slaughter, uh, who
was the- the champion for this, and thank Park District for being champions
as well. Ladies and gentlemen, this is, uh, not just Jackie Robinson,
uh, Field House that we're- we're bringing here, but also the
longstanding, uh, championship caliber team, the Jackie Robinson
West Program. And we didn't want to do a disservice of putting
this world-class amenity into the park and not upgrading the
entire park, uh, and features to match it.
So this helps synchronize the energy or that- that
championship vibe, uh, that they and the community
bring, and would ask for your favorable consideration. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman. Uh, seeing no other questions, is
there someone who would like... Alderman Martin moves to pass on
this item. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye. Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next
meeting. Beth, thank you very much.
Thank
you. And if I don't see you, happy holidays.
Same.
Item number seven from the Department of Planning and Development is
an ordinance amending enterprise zone number two to reflect
the expanded boundaries. Um, we are joined
in this presentation by Kyle Brandon, Assistant
Commissioner at DPD, and Jeff Cohen,
Deputy Commissioner at DPD. Mr.
Brandon.
Afternoon.
Good afternoon.
And good afternoon to the members on the Committee on
Finance. Good to see some of you again.
Uh, for the record, my name is Kyle Brandon, Assistant Commissioner for the
Department of Planning and Development.
I'm here today to present information on the proposed legislation to
amend Chicago's enterprise zone two boundaries.
The amendment would expand the enterprise zone boundaries to include major
development sites that will deliver catalytic projects to
Chicago.
The four proposed areas centered on Leclaire Courts, Bronzeville
Lakefront, Ford City Mall, and the 26th and Costner
and Little Village industrial corridor.
The expansion will directly impact the 4th, 18th, and 22nd
wards. Alders Robinson, Curtis, and Rodriguez have expressed
their support.
The purpose of the Illinois zone program is to revitalize
neighborhoods in economically depressed areas by offering tax, tax
incentives and regulatory relief.
Accordingly, state and local governments offer a suite of benefits for commercial
and industrial projects located within a designated enterprise zone.
The city conveys exemptions on retailer's occupation tax paid on building
materials and exemptions on real estate transfer taxes for
commercial and industrial properties.
Meanwhile, the state administers a range of additional incentives, including
sales tax exemptions, utility relief, ICC fee
exemptions, and construction jobs
credits.
In order to be eligible, an enterprise zone must demonstrate that the area
has at least three of the 10 qualifying criteria.
This proposed expansion satisfies the following four, as it will result in the
development of substantial employment opportunities, it contains a labor
market area that demonstrates high levels of commercial or industrial
vacancy, including widespread vacant or demolished structures or
facilities sitting unused due to age, deterioration, relocation, or
closure. It contains significant public infrastructure
in addition to a plan for infrastructure development and improvement.
And finally, it contains high schools or community colleges located within the
labor market area that offer industry-based credentials that prepare students for
careers.
Slide four offers a map of the existing enterprise zone two boundaries.
The proposed expansion areas are noted by diagonally orange
striped patterns.
Slide five contains a detailed map of the expansion in the Leclaire, Leclaire
Courts neighborhood. This expansion area
covers the site of the Chicago Housing Authority's 32-acre former
Leclaire Courts development, which is now subject to a redevelopment agreement with
Cabrera Capital. Phase one, a $127 million
investment and the first of five phases, is expected to start in
early 2026 and provide 183 housing units.
A 14,000 square foot early childhood center and a
2,200 square foot, uh, additional f- first
floor retail space will be included in the two structures.
At completion in 2031, the development will provide a total of
725 residential units and retail spaces and
contribute $80 million annually in new property taxes.
Slide seven contains a detailed map of the expansion in the Bronzeville Lakefront
location. This expansion area
overlaps with the former Michael Reese Hospital, a vacant
48-acre property and site of the proposed Bronzeville Lakefront
development. The project is expected to deliver 5,000 residential
units and eight million square feet of mixed-use space, including retail
and office space. When complete, the project is estimated to generate
$3.1 billion over the next 15 years, or an annual
average of more than $200 million.
The expansion area also includes the Insight Hospital and Medical Center,
formerly known as Mercy Hospital.
Insight purchased the hospital in 2021 and has stated that they plan to make
investments and improvements to the campus and surrounding
areas. Slide nine contains a detailed map of
the expansion area covering Ford City Mall.
For 20 years, the property struggled to retain tenants and is now more than 50%
vacant. The site is the subject of a proposed redevelopment that would
result in more than 900,000 square feet of industrial
space. A review of industrial projects that are comparable to
the proposed Ford City Mall redevelopment show that the property could generate
between three to four million dollars in annual property taxes, an amount
that is more than two to three times what is currently generated by the
property. An industrial user of this size could reasonably be
expected to create between 500 and 1,000 permanent jobs when
completed and commit to paying living
wages. Slide 11 con- oops,
sorry. Slide 11 contains
a map of the expansion area in Little Villages industrial area.
The area is bordered by the BNSF train tracks to the north,
Costner Avenue to the east, 35th Street to the south, and
the Belt Railway train tracks to the
west.
This area contains a blend of occupied residential properties, vacant industrial
properties, and adaptive reuses for civic facilities like Zapata
Academy. The area notably includes the former StorCline
factory at 26th and Costner, which was destroyed by a fire in
2016. The property has been the subject of several
redevelopment proposals, including a retail concept in 2012 and
affordable housing in 2016.The redevelopment of the
18.5 acre historic land property would provide a significant economic
benefit to the city as it currently generates just
$270,000 in property taxes. But based on other properties in
the area, it could generate as much as three to 4.5 million in
annual property taxes once developed.
Staff recommend that the City Council support the proposed legislation to expand
Enterprise Zone Two boundaries, as doing so has the potential to reduce
barriers for major developments that will deliver job creation and training
opportunities for residents. Just as notably, these major
catalylic- catalytic development sites will serve as anchors for broader
corridor revitalization and economic stability.
Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you, Kyle. I wanna thank the members of the committee who, uh,
came out to the, uh,
public meeting on this item. I want to also acknowledge,
uh, that the department provided, uh,
Aldermen Vasquez, Quinzana, Irvin, and Vice
Chair Conway with their through-the-chair request,
uh, on a timely fashion. That was a quick turnaround.
Um, so I'd like to extend,
uh, opportunity to my colleague to talk about this.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the Department for a really wonderful job.
Um, and most importantly, thank you to my colleagues who came out to the 22nd
Ward. You're always welcome. Uh, and as I said there, next time
we'll make sure that y- when you fly, we buy.
Uh, and we'll have some good, uh, good meals there.
But, you know, um, as a city we look for
creative ways to spur development.
And it was no, uh, coincidence that we had this meeting
at the site of the former Le Claire Courts, uh, in the Hearst
community, which is a beautiful community of homeowners
mostly. Um, but over the years we've known that
there has been real disinvestment and these enterprise zones are some of those
areas. Um, there's disinvestments
from the private sector, uh, there is public
sector needs. Um, and I do think that
this effort to expand the enterprise zone and include
these various zones, uh, most notably the zone that I
represent, um, will really spur development at the end
of the day. They- it really will, uh, help us,
um, get these great initiatives going.
I can't help but think about the fact that we were in a $50 million beautiful
school in this meeting, but across the street from
where we're gonna have a grocery store in a, in a somewhat of a food
desert, where we have childcare, where we're gonna have a childcare center and
affordable housing. And really, um, this
effort is really gonna help make that happen.
And that's what this effort's about, and, um, I'll move due pass at the appropriate
time. I know two of my colleagues also, uh, are being impacted positively by
this effort, I don't think either here.
Um, but I'll speak for them saying, uh, thank you all for, uh,
supporting all of our wards.
Thank you, Alderman Rodriguez. Alderman Robinson is not here, but
Alderman Curtis is on the Zoom. And if you wanna add
anything, Alderman Curtis, please do.
And if not,
Alderman Robinson move... I mean, Alderman Rodriguez moves due
pass on this item.
You both ball?
All right. All those in
favor,
signify by saying aye.
All those opposed? In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the due
pass recommendation will report it out at the next City Council meeting.
Congratulations, and thank you, Kyle.
Thank you.
Item number eight is a proposed order
authorizing the payment of various small claims against the City of
Chicago. This was a direct introduction and the list of payments
approved was sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no objections, these will be placed on the
omnibus. Item number nine is a proposed order
denying the payment of various small claims against the City of
Chicago. Also a direct introduction and the list of
payments that were denied was sent to everyone
electronically, and if there are no objections, these will be placed in the
omnibus. Item number ten are two
proposed orders authorizing charitable solicitations on the
public way permits, another direct introduction.
One was for the American Civil Liberties Union citywide from
January 1st, 2026 through December
31st, 2026. And the second one was the Nature
Conservancy, uh, also citywide
January 1st, 2026 through December 31st,
2026. If there are no objections, these permits are
approved and will be placed on file with the clerk.
Uh, there being no further business before the committee, can I get a motion to
adjourn? So moved by Alderman Mitchell to adjourn.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, in the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the Finance
Committee is hereby adjourned. Thank you all for
coming.