Good morning, everyone.
Happy Wednesday.
The Committee on Finance is called to Order.
We'll have a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice Chair Conway. Alderman Lata.
Alderman Hopkins. Alderman Hall. Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris. Alderman Beal. Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez. Alderman Quinn. Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Curtis. Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Mosley. Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Ccho. Lopez. Alderman. Burnett. Alderman.
Talia Farrell. Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waba. Alderman Cazada.
I know he's here. Alderman Viegas. Alderman Mitt.
Alderman. S Spto. What? No. Nick Spto Here.
Um, alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knutson. Alderman Martin. Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowells. Here we have a quorum.
Alderman Moore is online. I'm sorry, chamber.
I haven't called, uh, the Rule 50 nines yet.
Alderman uh, chair Dowell is here.
We have a quorum in chamber at 19.
Alderman Scott Rodriguez Sanchez, Irvin Taylor
and more have requested
to participate remotely at today's meeting
for reasons stated under the provisions of Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to allow these alderman to participate?
So moved by Alderman Cazada.
All those in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed?
And the opinion of the chair.
The ayes have it and the motion carries.
I want to confirm Alderman Scott.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman Irvin
Al. Alderman Irvin is present.
Alderman Taylor, alderman Moore,
President. Chairman, thank you so much.
You are welcome. Alderman Hall has joined us
and will be counted towards Quorum.
Alderman Mitchell has joined us
and will be counted toward quorum.
At this time. We will begin the public comment period.
The public comment period is limited to 30 minutes out
of respect for everyone's time.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes.
We have no remote speakers today,
but we have four people to speak in chambers with us.
The first speaker is Zoe Lee.
Uh, my favorite meeting, finance
meeting, uh, chairman Do when I had my next
comedy show on your award.
I need you there, please. Thank you. I
I won't have to read it on Facebook
Though. I'm gonna send
it to, I I forgot to send it to you.
Send me Avitation. Yeah. I need you there. Happy birthday.
Thank you. Thank you, thank you.
I still don't like none of y'all. Okay.
I still don't like none of y'all. Um, but No.
But thank y'all. Thank y'all. I appreciate y'all.
I I love you too, osha. All right.
Y'all mess up my minutes now. I gotta tell on y'all. Okay.
Actually, we're gonna do you a favor today.
Can you start her back at three minutes?
Oh, okay. Okay, y'all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
See this. That my favorite meeting. All right.
Now, while y'all giving out all this money, um,
the Department of law, I just, you know,
I just got my case over there.
I just want to settle my case first.
You know, that's one thing I would like to do.
But my issue
with this is we always, you know,
settle in with 'cause of the police always
to keep this division going.
But it's over 259 sexual misconduct cases
over here at CPS.
They don't talk about it.
And they're not gonna talk about it because they're minors.
And by law you can't, just like with this whole Epstein
scam, they're never gonna be able to talk about
the victims and the lis because they were minors.
I was a minor when I got in a relationship with somebody.
That was 28 years. She was 28 years. I was 14.
And I had evidence. She, she was crazy.
She, she, she said she couldn't believe
she was in love with a kid.
She put it in a, in paper when she broke up with me,
even though she's, you know, uh, a pedophile.
I went to my therapist and I told her about the breakup
'cause I was heartbroken.
But at the end of the day, law is law. She's 28.
I was 14 by law.
My therapist had to go
and tell the behavior center
where I was at and was in Florida.
They let the girl go. They didn't fire her.
They didn't arrest her. They didn't do any of that.
I didn't care. 'cause I thought I was in love.
You know what I'm saying? I didn't
want anything to happen to her.
But I'm saying that to say is
she's now a principal at a school.
So the whole system is messed up and it's broken.
And no one is discussing that.
We have a mental health crisis.
We have a sexual abuse crisis.
We have a education crisis
and red, blue, green, purple.
That should be the forefront.
But instead, we're arguing back
and forth about GA gaming and gambling.
But there's 33 sweepstake machines
and Walter Burnett's ward, that's illegal.
And he getting money for it.
But we paying out all of this money
that we're not getting back in
gambling is hurting our communities anyway.
We don't have anything. But come on, man.
We ain't bringing no money in
no money in the best city in the world.
We gotta do something.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Um, alderman Mosley, we will count you towards quorum.
Okay, Ms. Mosley and Alderman Spto.
Our next speaker is Dennis White.
Good morning. Good morning, Mr. White.
Um, we have a problem.
Once again, it's called spending problems.
Um, when the snow hit the,
the snow covered and paralyzed the whole city while
Brandon Johnson was protesting for ice.
Then we over,
he overhear blaming everything on Donald Trump.
When it come down to this right here, now
we're 41 billion, billion in the whole.
So the question is now, what is he going do
to stop this unnecessary deficit?
Is he going to tax us again?
Because that's what he know how to do under the help of
CCTU and Tony Preckwinkle.
And what I don't understand is
why some of you aldermans over here voted for some
of these proposal that Brandon Johnson put on, on the table
or some of the other alderman, like, like
Vasquez, Saint Lopez,
or anybody else for that matter.
And then why is some
of you emis not speaking up against this?
Even Jason Irvin is always voted
for some whatever Brandon Johnson wanted.
And we're getting tired of this, spending
this unnecessary spending on the illegals,
these unnecessary spending on everything that
not helping the city.
So look at, look at, look what's going on now.
Business is gone. Um,
people moving out the city
because they can't afford this unnecessary taxes.
And they,
you all over here send down not doing nothing
to stop this branded Johnson Chaos that he loved to do.
Brandon Johnson is a social studies teacher.
He's not a finance expert. He's not into economic.
He's a social study teacher,
and he's not good at teaching the kids what's going on at
the school when he was a teacher and stuff.
And then CPS hitting us with another $25 million,
uh, property tax.
And so the revenue, the question is not where the revenues
is coming out 'cause it's coming out of the taxpayer pocket.
It's where is it going to?
And now all these traffic likes and the tickets
and stuff, where are the revenues going to
to stop this deficit?
That's something that the council member, you, you,
you guys need to figure out yourself.
This is not common sense right here,
what Brandon Johnson's doing.
He's not thinking common sense, but you all can. Thank
You, Mr. White. Our next
speaker is Scott Weiner.
Morning, everyone. Um, good morning. Thank you.
I wanna speak on the, uh, video gaming.
I represent the Illinois Restaurant Association as well
as the 50 50 Restaurant Group.
Uh, we have restaurants throughout the city
and the neighborhoods as well as downtown.
Um, the, uh, as we heard
that there are sweepstakes machines, uh,
throughout the city, and, um, the ability
to actually provide revenue
for the city from the legalized gaming machines, um, we know
will be great for the city.
Uh, we also know, though that
as many restaurants have struggled, continue
to struggle since the pandemic, this could be a lifeline,
uh, for a lot of places to keep the doors open
and somehow balance the balance sheet.
Um, in my personal, uh, experience here, I do plan
to bring them into one of my neighborhood restaurants, uh,
roots Pizza, which is currently just carry out only.
And, uh, currently it's carry out only
because it's challenging to not lose money any other way.
So having these machines is going to allow me to reopen
that front of the house
and bring back some jobs that have been lost.
Um, it is going to, in fact, provide a very real lifeline
to my business as well as
many local neighborhood.
Don't even just call 'em dive bars, but mom
and pops all throughout the neighborhoods of Chicago.
So, uh, I, I will be brief,
but I feel like this is a real good resolution for the city
to pass today.
Uh, and as we all know, it's happening anyways
with the sweepstakes machines.
It's happening online with the Super Bowl
and every which way you could think of it's happening,
let's at least make sure that the city is able
to use this revenue to balance our budgets.
Thank you.
This is Pat Do doer.
Uh, good morning. Members of the finance committee
and chairwoman Dow Pat Doer
for the Hospitality Business Association of Chicago,
speaking in support of Alderman Beal's resolution to do
what we all expected to be done six weeks ago
and notify the Illinois Gaming Board
that the 2026 budget opted the city into state licensed
regulated, and most importantly, taxed legal video gaming.
Um, please pass this resolution, and not least
because the average application at the Illinois Gaming
Board, which is incredibly thorough
because of their concerns about corruption
and crime, takes over four months.
Your budget that you passed is counting on several
million dollars from this.
Not a dime of that money will be realized if nobody can
apply to the city, and you can't apply to the city
until the Ellen and Gaming Board approves you
after their incredibly thorough process.
I understand many members have concerns
and questions about implementation.
Please pass this resolution
because we have three to four months
where I would happily work
with this body on making sure it's the best fit
for each individual ward.
And here's why is it so important.
On award wide level, most of surrounding Cook County,
by the way, cook County realized $6 million last year in
just video gaming license fees.
Not even the revenue share,
$6 million in the rest of the county.
Most of the surrounding suburbs, with a handful
of exceptions, already allow state licensed legal video
gaming, not sweepstakes machines.
And because they do 30 of the 59 zip codes in Chicago,
including almost every border ward,
have fewer places today than you did a decade ago.
Half the city's zip codes have fewer bars
and restaurants than they did a year ago.
I will provide the data through the chair.
I have it in the back of the room if anyone wants to see it.
Overwhelmingly, those losses are concentrated in wards like
Beverly, the far north side,
where over 30% fewer places exist now than they did, um,
in 2014 through 2016.
Even if your own individual ward may have concerns about
how we can better regulate video gaming
or how it can be implemented in your ward
or location, please vote yes on Alderman Beal's resolution
today because one, it will be a lifeline for these wards
that are lacking retail businesses, losing them
and having trouble hanging in there.
Nevermind the jobs
and extra sales taxes those
businesses would generate if they were allowed
to have legal VGT like their neighbors
just outside the city limits.
But the second part is, and I think this is one
of the few times I've been on board with Chicago, flips red,
the birthday guest is absolutely right.
Sweepstakes machines are everywhere in the city.
Unregulated, you're making no money off them.
I was in Chicago Avenue at a tavern last week.
There's six of 'em behind me
with four people popping away at 'em.
Gaming board doesn't regulate 'em.
Who knows what those algorithms are fair,
but they're definitely being played by your constituents.
I was on the far north side, there was a bar
with eight of 'em in there.
I mean, these are many casinos on the Polish Triangle at
Division of Chicago Avenue, Morris.
Thank you Mr. Dore.
Uh, that ends our public comment period.
Uh, this morning we have 12 items on the agenda.
We will begin with the monthly Rule 45 report,
which will send electronically to everyone.
This report is for January 20, 26.
And if there are no questions, can I get a motion
to recommend approval of the monthly 45 report?
So moved by Alderman Viegas.
All those in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye.
Opposed in the opinion of the chair. The ayes habit.
Um, item number one from the Department
of law is a communication transmitting reports
of cases in which verdicts, judgements,
or settlements were entered into for the month
of January, 2026.
This report was also sent electronically to everyone,
and if there are no objections,
this item will be placed on file with our city clerk.
Item number two is from the Department of Law.
Um, we have, uh, six proposed orders
authorizing the corporation counsel to enter into
and execute settlement orders in the following cases.
Um, can you please make your way up to the front, uh,
case two, a Santiago versus City of Chicago,
case number 19, CV oh 4 6 52
and Fitzgibbons v
and Fitzgibbons, excuse me, versus City of Chicago,
case number 22 CV oh 5 8 2 7
for an amount of
$1,962,000.
We're joined this morning by Deputy Corporation counsel,
Andrew Warick, who will present this case.
Mr. Warick, good morning.
Good morning. Chairman Dowell
and members of the committee.
Um, I am here to present again the lawsuits brought
by plaintiffs Andrea Santiago and Matthew Fitzgibbons.
These 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 these cases.
Uh, the plaintiffs, uh, had vehicles
with expired license plates that were parked on the street
for a period of time, and the vehicles were then towed
and impounded by the city in 2018,
under the city's ordinance
that addresses abandoned vehicles parked on the street
for more than seven days.
The vehicles were then disposed of
after they were not redeemed by their owners.
And plaintiff Santiago alleges that her vehicle was a van
with wheelchair lift equipment incited, uh,
the plaintiffs challenged two city practices that were used
regarding their vehicles.
The first practice concerns what happens
before a vehicle is towed under the abandoned vehicle
ordinance for vehicles with expired license plates.
The city posts a sticker on the car, uh,
but does not send a separate notice letter in the
mail before the tow.
And the plaintiffs argue that under due process principles,
the city was required
to also send them a notice in the mail before the tow.
The plaintiff's claim that the city does send a notice in
the mail when the vehicle has a current license plate,
and that the city is required to do the same for vehicles
with expired plates.
The second practice concerns what happens
after the vehicle is towed to the pound.
At that point, the city sends the owner two notices in the
mail before the vehicle is disposed of,
and both are sent on the same day.
But the plaintiffs argue that under the Illinois vehicle
code and our own municipal code, 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 just compensation.
The plaintiffs are seeking to have these cases certified
as a class action, and that means they are seeking to add
thousands of other individuals to the lawsuits
who had their cars with expired license plates, uh,
who had cars with expired license plates,
and that were impounded as abandoned,
or that were disposed of by the city.
And the 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
prior to the current judge.
Two other judges handled the cases
and earlier efforts by the city to dismiss.
The litigation were denied.
Uh, the issue of class certification itself has also
proceeded multiple times.
In the case. In November of 2020,
the court certified the case as a class action.
Uh, but that decision was then reversed on appeal
and sent back to the trial court for further development.
And the plaintiffs then filed an updated motion seeking
again to certify a class.
And that motion would be ruled on
by the judge if the case were to proceed.
Uh, so that is what the lawsuits are about.
And now I'll take a minute
to describe the proposed settlement.
Uh, we recommend, uh, approval of a monetary settlement
of the cases on a class-wide basis
that would work as follows.
A class would be certified,
and that class would be comprised of people who had cars
with expired plates that were towed
as seven day abandoned vehicles on or after June 11th, 2017.
A settlement fund would then be created to make payments
to those class members, and the maximum amount of
that fund would be $1,425,000.
If a class member wants to be eligible
to receive a payment out of that fund,
they will need to file a claim.
If they don't file a claim, they won't receive a payment.
If a person does file a claim, they could potentially get up
to $1,250 from the settlement fund as their payment.
But if their vehicle was not disposed of
because they had paid to get it out of the pound
before disposal, uh, then the amount
of their payment would just be the amount they paid at the
time to get it out of the pound.
Even if that was less than $1,250.
Um, if not enough claims are filed to exhaust
that $1,425,000, any money left over in
that fund would revert back to the city.
And conversely, if so many claims are filed that uh,
the amount of the fund would be exceeded if we were paying
out, uh, to each claimant $1,250
or whatever their particular payment would be, um,
we will not have to go over that overall cap
of $1,425,000.
What would happen is that the payments
to each member would be reduced on a prorated of basis
to keep everything, uh, under that cap.
Um, the $1,425,000 settlement fund is the largest component
of the monetary settlement.
Uh, I'll mention the other components just briefly.
Um, there would additionally be a $25,000 payment
to Ms. Santiago and a $5,000 payment to Mr.
Fitzgibbons as plaintiffs in this putative class action.
Uh, the plaintiffs would receive $395,000
for their attorney's fees.
Um, they would also receive up to $32,000
for their litigation costs.
And then finally, uh, $80,000 would be set aside
to pay a claims administrator
to administer the class settlement process.
Uh, if the, uh, cost of the administrator were
to exceed $80,000, any difference would be made up
by tapping into
that $1,425,000 settlement fund.
Uh, we would not have to put additional money into the
overall settlement to, uh, pay the claims administrator.
Um, there's one additional term
of the settlement that I want to mention.
Uh, we talked about this last time, uh, in December.
Uh, but in addition
to the monetary component I just described,
the city would also be making an operational change.
And that changes that for vehicles
with expired license plates that the city intends to tow
as seven day abandoned vehicles.
Uh, the city will start sending a notice letter in the mail
before the tow in addition
to placing a sticker on the vehicle.
Sending a notice in the mail is what the city currently does
for vehicles that have current plates.
And so the city would start doing the same, uh,
for the towing of vehicles with expired plates.
Uh, under the existing process for vehicles
with current plates, the vehicles are towed on average
around 15 days after the sticker notice is put on the car.
So that is the same general timeframe
that the city would be applying to vehicles
with expired plates.
Uh, following the settlement, uh,
when this settlement was initially presented back in
December, there were some members of the committee
who wanted more clarity on what things the city could do
outside of this settlement
to address vehicles on the streets.
Um, I wanted to emphasize
that this settlement only addresses the process
for towing seven day abandoned vehicles with expired plates.
It does not implicate any
of the other authorities in the municipal code
to tow vehicles from the public way.
Um, such as cars that don't have any plates at all, um,
are hazardous and dilapidated, um, are parked in violation
of a residential parking restriction, uh,
are parked in alleys, uh, constitute a hazard
or obstruction to traffic, uh,
or are in a state of disrepair such
that they cannot be driven.
Uh, in addition, the city has been looking at possible ways
to make the process for towing abandoned vehicles parked on
the street more efficient, uh, even
with sending a notice on in, in the mail.
Um, and that's been a subject of internal discussions
that have been ongoing.
Uh, to conclude, uh, the law department recommends approval
of this settlement to mitigate ongoing litigation risk.
The litigation has been pending for over six years.
The court's earlier rulings have allowed plaintiff's claims
to proceed beyond the dismissal stage,
and there is a risk of a potentially higher monetary
award to plaintiffs.
If the case proceeds further, uh,
the court could potentially certify a a larger class,
and that would increase the city's potential monetary
exposure as well as make the case more difficult to settle.
In addition, the amount of plaintiff's attorney's fees
and the city's outside counsel expenses would continue
to grow if the case proceeds.
We believe the settlement is a reasonable resolution
of the litigation, and we ask the committee
and the counsel to approve it. Thank
You. Uh, uh, thank
you Mr. Warick.
I wanna acknowledge Alderman Ccho Lopez, alderman Beal,
alderman MITs, and Alderman Silverstein will be counted
towards quorum.
We do have, uh, non-member Alderman Nugent, uh,
with us today.
Thank you Madam President.
Pursuant to my role as President Pro temp under Rule 36,
I intend to participate in Vote
and Committee today as an ex-officio member.
Thank you, alderman Nugent.
Um, any questions from the committee on this item?
Alderman Taylor.
Chairman Pat? Yes. Good morning, alderman Taylor. Good
Morning. No, this
is Alderman Scott. I just
Wanted to be counted for, um, we, we, uh,
we granted did that we granted you Oh, earlier.
Oh, thank you. Alderman Taylor,
is this is, are you doing the same?
Yes, ma'am. All right.
We counted you and, uh, you'll be part of this meeting.
And me, me too. Chair chairwoman Rosa Rodriguez.
Yes. Alderman Sanna Sanchez.
Um, we have counted you towards, uh, quorum as well.
Um, alderman Viegas followed
by Alderman Irvin.
Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair.
Um, I intend to support this, uh,
however, I did have some questions around, and maybe streets
and sand can't answer it.
So, when a person's vehicle is towed, whether,
uh, they have current stickers and plates or not,
and, uh, it's in the pound, um, for outstanding tickets,
um, what happens if no one picks up the vehicle
or they don't pick it up in time?
That's, uh, that's put forward by the city.
Um, thank you Alderman for that question.
Um, typically what happens if a vehicle is not redeemed out
of the pound within the timeframe allotted?
Um, the vehicle would then be subject
to disposal by the city.
Okay. Can you explain what disposal means?
Um, it, uh, generally means that, uh, the vehicles can be,
uh, sold to, uh, an auto, uh, recycling
or auto scrapping, uh, company.
So the, the vehicle would be sold, um,
and it would, uh, who, who sets the price
of the vehicle to be sold?
I would take it at the Kelley Blue Book.
Value is would be considered
There. Uh, the city has
a contract with an entity to, uh,
in shorthand refer, uh, to as URT.
Yes, alderman Lopez.
Should we take a five minute recess
with the fire alarm going off?
No. Five minute recess.
I don't think that this impedes anyone's ability
to hear within the council right now.
Last time the building was on
fire, so I just wanna make sure.
Well, if the building's on fire,
I'm sure somebody will let us know.
Um, continue.
What's, what's, uh, URT for you? You, you said U-R-T-U-R-T
Stands for United Road Towing. Oh,
Oh, that's the con the vendor we have, yes.
Okay. So the, the, uh, citizen, uh,
or the owner of the vehicle will then be notified
that they're disposing the vehicle when
the vehicle is disposed.
The value that's associated with, with the vehicle, is
that then taken that value of, of the, uh, the vehicle?
Is it subtracted from any of the tickets
or any of the services that, that, uh, have been, uh,
brought by the, uh,
Uh, we've been alerted, excuse me, ultimate Viegas,
we've been alerted that everything is fine in
Dandy and City Hall.
Uh, so we, we will continue.
Thank you. Um, so my question is, once that value
of the vehicle has been, uh, determined,
if the pers the owner of the vehicle has outstanding debt
to the city in the form of tickets
or storage, is that sales price
taken off what's owed to the citizen?
Or do they just dispose of the vehicle
and then that person
who owns the vehicle still owes the tickets
and does not have a vehicle?
Um, alderman, uh, that, that's a question that, uh,
you know, frankly is kind of beyond the scope
of this settlement and these issues.
I, I wouldn't wanna mischaracterize the process.
The contract, uh, with URT, uh, has a, uh, series
of terms and schedules in it that set forth the relationship
between the city and URT with respect
to the transfer of monies.
Um, and then our municipal code, uh,
would have particular provisions, uh, regarding
what the owner of that vehicle needs to do
and how much they need to pay,
and the timeframe in which they would need to pay.
No, I, there is some, there is some,
there's some similarity here
because I think that we've settled this lawsuit,
but I can see that potentially
another lawsuit on the horizon.
If the city has taken my vehicle
and is gonna charge me for storage, charge me
for the tickets, take my asset, sell it,
and not apply any of the, the, uh, revenue
that's generated from that sale
to the outstanding debt that I've owed.
So, in instance, you've taken my vehicle, you've,
the city has benefited from it,
but yet at the same time I'm owed, I still owe the, the,
the, the fines and fees and storage and stuff like that.
So I'm curious as to if someone from Streets
and San can talk about, do we do that?
Do we right now, do we take the vehicle
and not apply the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle,
the dispose of the vehicle to the outstanding tickets
and storage that's, that the citizen has occurred incurred
Alderman? Um, with
respect, we actually do have pending litigation
and a different lawsuit.
Not this lawsuit, a different lawsuit
implicating issues such as the ones you're raising now.
Um, I would not want to speak about that. Okay.
For that reason, I'd be happy
to have a private, uh, no, that's
Fine. Conversation with you. And
so have, have you,
has the law department proposed any type
of ordinances to, to remedy that?
Um, because it, it's still is,
it's still an outstanding practice right now,
and I think that's, it's unfair that, that, uh,
if I get outstanding tickets and my vehicle's towed that
and you dispose of it, that,
that those proceeds don't go towards paying the, paying the,
the, the tickets and stuff like that.
Um, I, I, I certainly understand your point.
Um, alderman, um, in the lawsuit I was just referring to,
the city has been successful, um, in two rounds of
that litigation in defending the city's ordinance.
Um, obviously people have, uh, views on that,
but legally, um, it has, uh, been something
that the courts have upheld.
And, uh, I'd be happy to discuss it in more detail
with you in a, in a private setting.
We're not going down this rabbit hole this morning on this
particular case, but I, I get your, the point
that you are raising and perhaps you and Mr.
Warick can have a discussion after. Okay. Thank you ma'am.
Chair the council meeting.
Alderman Irvin, followed by Alderman Spto.
Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair. Um, thank you Madam Chair.
Uh, and also wanna thank the team from, uh, streets
of Sanitation and the law department for, uh, working, uh,
with us on the previous issue that was raised.
Um, I, um, understand the, uh,
corporation Council's position, uh, support the settlement,
and, uh, we'll be bringing forth some additional legislation
to hear some other issues that we talked through,
uh, in that conversation.
So, uh, thank you Madam Chair. And that's has,
Thank you. Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Spto.
Uh, thank you Madam Chair.
Just a, just a suggestion about the notification here.
Um, I don't know
how these abandoned vehicles work in the city.
I do know how they work in the 38th ward,
and probably the fire majority of the time,
maybe four outta five, nine outta 10 times are from somebody
on the block that's oblivious to what's going on over there.
So, uh, if we're going out there sticking them
and everything, it certainly would be nice if the last known
address is somebody on that block, maybe knock on the door,
put a notice on the, on the house or something.
Just, just a suggestion just to avoid more problems.
So, um, if we could work with streets and sand,
or if you guys or streets
and Sand can notify our, our office, certainly my office,
we more than glad to go, go knock on the door
of the last known address because like I say, majority
of the time those abandoned cars are somebody on the block.
So, in my ward, I don't know about the rest of the city,
but my ward, I, you know, far majority.
So just a suggestion. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh,
Thank you Alderman Spto, can I get a motion
to recommend approval of item number two A.
So moved by Alderman Harris, recommending Do Pass.
All those in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed?
And 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, Mr. Warick. Thank you Chairman.
Item two B is Marilyn Rogel
as the special Administrator of the Estate
of Dominga Flores Gomez, deceased
versus City of Chicago,
Chicago Police Officer Tobias Houston,
officer Adam taping, officer Mark Peroni,
officer Kevin Sweeney, Sergeant Aaron Murphy
and Juan C. Vazquez.
Case number 2022 L
0 1 0 8 8 6 in the amount
of $8,250,000.
Um, in this case, Margaret Mindenhall,
Casey Deputy Corporation Counsel,
will report out on this matter.
Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning, chair.
Good morning. Uh, to the committee, this case arises out
of a car accident at 31st
and Kedzie, in which a fleeing offender, Juan Vasquez,
who was then 17 years old, drove a hijacked car,
threw a red light,
and crashed into Dominga Flores Gomez's car.
The accident unfortunately killed Ms. Flores Gomez.
She was 55 years old at the time of the accident.
Officer Tobias Houston pursued offender Vasquez for 11 miles
over nearly 10 minutes, reaching a top speed
of 95 miles per hour and running over 20 red lights.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount
of $8.25 million for this matter
on September 28th, 2022, at about 8:45 PM
Officer Tobias Houston, who was the driver
and Adam taping the passenger, were assigned
to an unmarked car.
Radio transmissions reflected
that offenders who'd committed a hijacking
of a black car earlier in the evening were now suspected
of committing a hijacking of a white car.
After hearing the transmissions about the hijackings
officers Houston and taping spotted the hijacked black car
Officer taping confirmed the license plate
and then attempted to curb the car.
The black car immediately fled at which time Officer Houston
and taping initiated a pursuit.
They notified OEMC and activated lights and sirens.
Sergeant Murphy, their supervisor, saw the beginning
of the pursuit, but fell behind within seconds.
Sergeant Murphy monitored the pursuit on the radio
and followed the pursuit route.
The pursuit lasted for 11 miles over nine minutes
and 48 seconds.
Officer Houston's vehicle reached a top speed
of 95 miles per hour.
Officer Houston ran 20 red lights
and several stop signs during the pursuit
At the intersection of 31st
and Kedzie offender Vazquez crashed into Domingo
Flores Gomez's car.
At the time of the accident,
Ms. Flores Gomez was traveling north on Kedzie
and had the right of way offender Vazquez T-boned Ms. Flores
Gomez's car on the driver's side front door.
So she took the brunt of the impact at the time
of the impact offender,
Vasquez was traveling at 57 miles per hour
and Officer Houston was still pursuing in
three car lengths away.
Offender Vasquez pled guilty to reckless homicide
and was sentenced to 14 years and is still in custody.
Offender Vasquez is a name defendant in this lawsuit.
The Department of Laws inquiry revealed offender Vasquez has
no financial assets.
Both Sergeant Murphy
and the watch Commander sign off on a report indicating the
pursuit complied with the general order.
However, investigation into, um,
this particular pursuit is still pending.
Officer Houston has been the driver in at least four
pursuits, which have resulted in accidents, three
of which have resulted in lawsuits including this matter.
He was also involved in one incident,
which was originally categorized as a pursuit,
but was later to be found to be an eluding.
As to the incidents that proceeded our matter.
In November of 21, officer Houston was involved in a pursuit
that resulted in an accident.
Um, officer Houston was given a two day suspension
as a result of this incident.
No injuries were reported and no lawsuits filed.
In March of 2022, officer Houston was involved in a pursuit.
He, again, was given a two day, uh, suspension.
He was ordered to review the city's pursuit general order.
Um, this incident did not result in a lawsuit
in September 18th, 2022
with our incident happening on September 28th.
On September 18th, officer Houston was involved in incident,
which was a chain reaction car crash with five vehicles.
Um, Sergeant Murphy,
who was a sergeant involved in this matter, did not believe
that the incident was a pursuit.
She was ordered to complete a pursuit report.
Eventually, it was determined to be an eluding.
However, officer Houston did receive a two day suspension.
And then 10 days later, our, uh, pursuit occurred.
The trial judge in this matter, judge Cushing,
ruled evidence of the three prior incidents could be
presented to the jury.
Judge Cushing also ruled
that Sergeant Murphy could be criticized
regarding her supervisory responsibilities.
Um, in particular, the plaintiff will elicit evidence about
the sergeant not asking questions about the, um,
pursuit route, the weather, the pedestrian traffic,
what red lights were being violated.
Uh, throughout the near 10 minute pursuit
to prove their case, the plaintiff needs to establish
that the city was willful wanton
and that the willful wanton conduct approximately
caused this accident.
The jury instructions define willful wanton conduct
as utter indifference, which we think of
as ignoring the obvious danger to the public
or conscious disregard, which is knowing what the danger
to the public is in choosing to disregard it.
The plaintiff will argue Officer Houston
and Sergeant Murphy knew pursuits were dangerous
because Officer Houston was involved in three prior
incidents, and Sergeant Murphy was a supervisor in two
of those incidents As to approximate cause.
Jury instructions define that as a cause that contributed
to the plaintiff's injury.
The plaintiff will argue Officer Houston was approximate
cause because he pursued for nearly 10 minutes
and was only three car lengths away
at the time of the accident.
Ms. Flores Gomez is survived by five children.
Anna, who's 31, lived with her mother, Marilyn,
who was 27 at the time of the incident,
received scholarships for both her undergraduate
and her master's education.
Adrian 22 is a graduate of Brown University v Smar,
34 in Zulema 33 live in Mexico.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount
of $8.25 million for this matter.
Uh, thank you. Uh, Ms.
Mendenhall, um, alderman Taylor,
followed by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you. Madam Chair. Can you tell me, um,
this officer has been suspended several times.
Have any of the other incidents, um, has the city had
or sued that we had to pay?
Sure. So, um, there are three pending lawsuits,
including this matter.
Um, the two other pending lawsuits the city has not, um,
paid out on yet, and they have not been presented
to the Committee on Finance.
Almon Taylor Related? Yes. Related, but not related.
Um, can you tell me that once we
vote on a lawsuit, does it go on the officer's record
or is it taken off?
Sure. So, um, I can certainly get you clarity about that
through the chair.
I don't think that the approval
or disapproval of this, uh, settlement
or resolution of this lawsuit impacts the
disciplinary process.
I believe that they basically are on separate tracks.
So you said four incidents from this officer, correct?
Yes. Um, at least four, if not five.
And he's still on the force. Got it. Thanks Madam Chair.
Uh, thank you Alderman Taylor, uh, alderman Lopez.
Good morning chairman and members of the committee.
Um, first question I'd have would like
to ask is the term hijacked?
That's it, that's not what I'm familiar hearing
with our, our settlements.
What is that in reference to?
Sure. I'm, I'm happy to answer that question.
So hijacking means that a vehicle is taken, uh, by,
by force from somebody,
and by force could be pointing a gun, um,
by force could be threatening to shoot somebody, but not,
but not showing that gun.
That is what hijacking means.
So in this case, um, the vehicles in question were, uh,
taken by force.
Um, and the officer was aware of that.
And just for clarification, again,
'cause I I just wanna make sure I'm understanding the
terminology hijacking would be different from carjacking
based on, on, on what?
Sure. So carjacking in Hi in hijacking are the same thing.
Hijacking is just the, the technical criminal word for it.
And where was the vehicle originally hijacked from?
Um, gimme one moment. And I'm sorry, go ahead.
So the officers were on duty in the ninth District.
Um, the suspected hijackings of blo, the black Honda as well
as the white Honda, um, occurred within the ninth District.
And there's no evidence in the record to suggest that
the vehicle that was pursued was not the hijacked vehicle.
Our officer ran the plate, um,
and confirmed that this was a vehicle
that in fact was reported as being hijacked.
Do we know where in the ninth District, just for purposes
of trying to figure out,
'cause you said this pursuit on California, correct?
Is that Sure. So I don't know the exact address,
but I'm happy to get that to you.
Um, threw the chair
And the owner of the vehicles
that were hijacked, what is the condition?
Their condition?
Um, I I don't understand the question.
Do you mean were they injured during the hi?
Uh, um, no, they were not injured.
They, they were threatened,
but they, they were not a injured.
So we have individuals who were willing
to attempt murder to gain access to vehicles
that were the originator
of this incident. Is that a correct,
So I'm gonna Put interpretation of this.
So I'm gonna put on my, my hat As, as a former, uh,
prosecutor, um, as somebody presented me this,
this fact pattern, I, I don't think that the facts sustain,
um, a charge of, uh, attempted murder.
Um, if they shot, then perhaps,
but certainly, um,
vehicular hijacking is a serious felony.
Okay? So we have individuals who are willing
to commit serious felonies with bodily harm that,
or originated this, um, in a district that is,
um, routinely dealing with high crime
and cyclical gang issues.
Um, of which I'm very thankful
to my officers doing their job to apprehend these offenders.
And many, I think, who share the ninth District would
probably agree with that sentiment going
after somebody who clearly has, uh, individuals
who clearly has no regard for human life
and ultimately caused this accident trying
to evade capture.
This is, again, in one of, in my estimation, one
of those lawsuits where we are,
I'm not going to say rewarding criminality,
but we are definitely paying for the mistakes of others.
Juani Vasquez, that's the individual
who is in incarcerated currently, correct? That's
Accurate.
He is the one who's responsible for this.
He and his group are the ones attacking people
violently hijacking vehicles in Brighton
Park or wherever they did this.
And they are the ones that need to bear the burden of this,
the city of Chicago, simply
because we have the biggest checkbook, which is
what I know when we talk about why we are associated
with these, it, it's just not acceptable in my opinion.
And I will be voting no, encourage my colleagues to vote no,
because as much as it pains me
that we had a innocent life loss, it is still unacceptable
to say that this is be, this is origin
that this originates with us.
And when it's appropriate.
Chairman, I would ask for a roll call on this item.
Uh, thank you. Alderman Lopez.
Did you, um, alderman Talia Farrell,
followed by Vice Chair Conway.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Uh, I, I am sorry if I missed this.
Were were the, uh, the officers
and specifically, uh, speaking specifically about, um,
officer Houston, uh, were they unmarked or unmarked vehicle?
Officer Houston was in an unmarked vehicle.
Was he a, was he the primary vehicle? Yes.
How long did he remain the primary vehicle?
He remained the primary vehicle throughout
the duration of the pursuit. Does
That violate general orders?
Yes. So, um, under the general orders, a unmarked vehicle,
um, should be replaced by a marked vehicle, um, as soon as
possible within a pursuit.
And this pursuit lasted for over, uh,
10 minutes without a marked vehicle overtaking
or becoming the lead car.
And were there any, uh,
any marked vehicles in the pursuit as well?
Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
Thank you. Uh, alderman, vice Chair Conway, followed
by Alderman sdo.
Yeah, I think Alderman Lopez kind of, uh,
said a lot of what I'd say.
I, it's a tra it was a tragic situation, uh, certainly
and I certainly, uh, hate the officer's history
and that it was deemed, uh, admissible by the judge.
But you have a case
where the officer was pursuing a potentially armed CARJACK
or hijacker, uh, it, from the video, it's pretty clear
that it was a police vehicle.
So the fact that it was marked, I didn't think was much
of a much of an issue.
And then of course, the officer didn't hit the other,
other driver, so I didn't, I didn't think it, uh,
I didn't think the officer's behavior in this case was
willful and wanton, so
therefore I'd ask to be recorded as a no.
Uh, in the broader sense though, I hope that
we as a city council understand that we need
to be investing in either more helicopters
or drone technology.
So we don't put our officers in, in, in situations like this
and the public in situations like this
where we're doing chases like this.
So that's all I have. Madam Chairwoman. Thank you.
Uh, thank you Vice Chair Alderman Spto.
So my first question was answered with Ray at it.
This was involved the Ninth District, which, uh, Maggie,
by all means, is a busy district.
That is correct.
To my knowledge, yes. Fair.
We, we could, we could say that's a fairly busy district.
Yes. Okay. We're, we're, so we're, we're kind
of criticizing these cops,
but you know, the, they're in a busy district.
They're tack guys, you know, we know they're,
they're producers, they're workers.
So I just wanna, you know, bring that point up.
And also, as far as the chase, as far as, uh, uh, um,
as soon as possible,
or if possible, I believe that the marked car is supposed
to be in the lead.
So, and sometimes it's not possible
otherwise you're gonna, might,
you might lose, lose in the chase.
So, um, just,
just a couple points I wanna bring up everybody.
I mean, this is, this is another one of those deals.
I no doubt we're on the hook.
I, I support, I support paying out.
It kills me just like it kills you.
I'm sure Megan and kills everybody in here.
Um, but, you know, just to, to criticize people
for doing their job and trying
to protect the citizens of Chicago.
I just, just wanted to bring up those points.
So, and that's it. Thanks.
Thanks for the report and I appreciate you Madam Chair.
Thank you. Um, Ms.
Minal, Casey, uh, a question on Juan Vazquez,
who was the driver, correct?
Yes. Did you guys do a, uh,
did the law department do any kind of asset check on him
to see if he had any resources?
The Department of Law did conduct a,
a asset check on offender Vasquez.
Um, the asset check revealed that he did not have
and does not have any financial assets.
That's not particularly surprising in this case.
He was 17 at the time of the accident
and has been incarcerated since then.
Thank you. Um, alderman La Spotter,
Thank you very much.
Um, just two quick questions,
and to the extent that you can talk about this.
Um, was Offender Vazquez observed
committing the hijacking
or was he suspected of committing the hijacking?
He was suspected of committing the hijacking. Okay.
He was not charged with that.
He was charged with, um, the accident.
That's the subject of, of this lawsuit.
Thank you very much. And my, my other question is,
forgive me, for my memory being hazy on this was be this,
I know this was around the time that the city
changed its pursuit policies.
Was this before or after those changes were made?
Sure. So this was after the pursuit policy was changed.
So I, I think our question is getting to,
are pursuits under the policy, um, allowed for
hijackings taking car by force?
The answer to that is a yes, but the yes,
but is that the officers always have to, uh,
keep in mind the balancing test,
which is within the general orders.
And that balancing test says
that the officers are required if they're allowed to pursue,
um, and they're not prohibited from doing it based
on the crime they observe.
They have to weigh the danger to the public
by letting the bad guy get away versus the danger
to the public that is caused by the pursuit.
Um, and to the points of all of the, the members in here,
that's not a easy calculus, um, to make.
And that's not a calculus that the officer should be tasked
with doing on his own.
Um, especially over 10 minutes.
Uh, the plaintiff will argue that the sergeant
should have been asking questions about
how many lights were being violated,
what the pedestrian traffic is,
so she could conduct the balancing test.
The plaintiff will argue that
because this sergeant knew of at least two prior
incidents that, um, officer Houston had,
and that Officer Houston personally had his own knowledge
of three prior incidents he was involved in that, um,
his failure to terminate the pursuit
after 10 minutes, nearly 10 minutes was willful
and wanting either he showed a conscious disregard,
he thought about it and said, Hmm, I don't care.
I'm gonna still pursue.
That's what the plaintiff will argue.
Or during those 10 minutes, he utterly disregarded it.
He didn't think about the three prior incidents he had
and that that's how the plaintiff will lay
out their case in this matter.
I appreciate the further context. Thank you.
Thank you, chair. Thank you.
Alderman Lata, alderman Lopez, you're raising your hand
Again? Yes, please. Thank
you. Uh, couple quick questions.
Who's the, uh, counsel representing
the plaintiff?
The, those,
Um, representing the, the plaintiff, the
State? Yes.
Yes. Okay. The plaintiff is represented by, uh, Tom, power
of Power Rogers.
Okay. And what was AG
Juan C. Vasquez actually charged with?
Give me one second.
In terms of his charges, he was charged
with reckless homicide
and he was sentenced to 14 years in custody.
Thank you. And lastly, um, with regards, just
as a follow up to some of the things my, uh,
that you just referenced with regards to the supervisor, um,
uh, not being aware of past incidents when
officers are on the street
and dispatch is happening
and someone calls in, we are in pursuit per the policy.
Does a list of how many
of their past incidences show up on the screen?
To my, to my knowledge, no.
A, a list doesn't show up on, on the screen.
Um, but certainly as a, a supervisor myself,
and I believe you're a supervisor, a leader,
and a manager. Um,
Last time I checked, yeah, There we go.
Right. I think not most of us in this room are, um,
certainly the argument that the plaintiff will make is
that you should know when your employees have been
previously disciplined
and what they've been disciplined for.
I would say in probably every nine
to five job that might be true.
But when you're, I think it's an almost an unrealistic
expectation when you have life
or death scenarios, chasing individuals who are willing
to put other people's lives, uh, on the line
and kill them, harm them, um, to try to remember someone's
previous disciplinary actions resolved or otherwise.
Um, I think it is something
that we could have argued in defended in saying, in the heat
of that moment where you're chasing someone,
you're not going to remember whether
or not they had two sus, two write-ups, or three.
So thank you. Right.
Um, alderman Lopez, are you renewing your, um, can
I renew my motion for roll call?
I'm sorry. Alderman Hopkins, uh,
will count you towards roll call.
So you are able to vote.
Um, we'll take a vote on this matter.
Uh, Marilyn Rogel versus, uh,
all of the city of Chicago
and the officers, uh, vice Chair Conway.
Alderman LaSpada, alderman Hopkins,
alderman Hall, alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris. Alderman Beal.
Alderman Lee, alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn. Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore. Alderman
Curtis Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor. No. Alderman Moseley.
Alderman Rodriguez. Alderman Scott. No.
Alderman Cher Lopez. Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Uh, Madam Chair, what is the motion?
What did you say? What is the motion,
Uh, whether or not you support, uh, yes
or no item, uh,
two B, which
Is the, Which which is the case we just heard.
Um, Margaret Mendenhall Casey give us
This is to support the settlement.
Yes. Uh, vote yes.
Alderman Farrell.
Alderman Cardona Alderman
Wack Alderman.
Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
I, alderman Cazada Alderman Viegas
Alderman MIT Alderman Sdo
Alderman Vazquez Alderman
Riley Alderman Knutson.
Alderman Martin Alderman Silverstein.
Alderman Harris is a yes.
Alderman MIT Alderman. MIT is a no.
Uh, ex officio
Nugent chair Do votes?
Yes.
The vote is 15 ayes to 18 nos.
This matter does not pass. Thank you, Ms. Casey.
Thank you. Thank you all.
All right, moving on to item number two C
William Negro versus Gura.
Case number 18 dash CV 27 0 1 in the amount
of 800,000.
This, uh, case will be presented by Jessica Felker,
deputy Corporation Counsel.
Good morning chair Before you start, um,
alderman Curtis, we will count you towards Quorum
and Alderman Vasquez, we have you.
All right, you may go.
Good morning, chair. Um,
before I begin on the specific matter, as you can see,
there are four related matters that we are asking
for settlement funds today.
The Department of Law is recommending settlement funds in
this group of reverse conviction cases
to reduce financial exposure
and to bring the matters to a responsible close.
Although the cases share a common defendant,
they stem from separate events date as far back
as 35 years ago and involve a wide range of fact patterns.
Each has its own unique considerations.
The proposed settlements reflect that complexity
with payouts aligned with the individual circumstances,
each matter consistent with its fiduciary duty.
The law department conducted a thorough review
of the underlying facts
and engaged in extensive negotiations to reach resolutions
that are fair, fiscally responsible
and in the best interest of the taxpayers.
Alright, with that said, I will begin
with William Negro versus Aldo Gua et al William Negro
brought this lawsuit against Ronaldo Gua
and others claiming that he
and Roberto Almodovar were wrongfully convicted
of the 1994 double murder of, uh, Amy Merca
and Jorge Rodriguez, the Department
of Law recommends settling this reverse conviction case
for $800,000.
Uh, Negro and Almodovar had their convictions over
or vacated in 2017
and both received certificates of in Innocence
Almodovar filed suit as well.
And that suit has already settled.
This council approved settlement in Almodovar's case in
July, 2025 for $17 million.
The reason for the drastic difference in value is
that Negro's time, uh, is
because of Negro's time in custody.
Negro was simultaneously serving another murder sentence
for a conviction that is still intact when he was
serving time in this case.
So even though he served approximately 22.5 years
for the underlying murder in this lawsuit, uh,
he still would've served that time
for the other murder he was convicted of.
The underlying crime here occurred when Amy Marquez
and Jorge Rodriguez were killed in the area
of 39 20 West Courtland shortly
before 12:45 AM on September 1st, 1994
after a dark blue four door Oldsmobile
with three occupants drove past the building
and started shooting Jacqueline Grande
and, uh, Cannel Sez who were with Marquez
and Rodriguez survived.
Saez identified Alma Dover and Negro as the perpetrators.
During the investigation before the criminal trial,
however, Sez recanted his identification
of both in an affidavit
to Almodovar's criminal trial counsel.
However, at the trial, Sez took back his recantation
and did indeed identify almodovar and agro.
He said that pressure from gang members led him to recant
Sez, however, also contradicted the detective's versions
of events when he testified at the criminal trial
that when he stated to Guevara, when he stated
that Gua
and Grande came to his house
where Gua showed him two photographs
and Grande said, these are the guys that did it.
Trial was previously set for November, 2025.
If settlement is not authorized, it will proceed to trial
where Negro will likely seek up to $10 million
or possibly more.
The city would be responsible
for Negro's attorney's fees if he were to succeed at trial,
which could be in the range of three to 5 million.
For this. For these reasons, it makes
financially prudent sense to settle for $800,000.
Uh, thank you Ms. Falker.
And although these cases are all related to uh, Guevara,
we will be hearing them individually
and voting on them individually.
Um, do I have any questions regarding, uh,
the Negro case here?
Seeing no questions, can I get a
recommendation to approve this item number two C.
So moved by Alderman Martin.
Recommending Do pass All those in favor
signify by saying Aye.
Aye. Opposed? And the opinion of the chair, the A's have it
and the do pass recommendation will be Report out at the
next City council meeting will move on to 2D,
which is Ariel Gomez versus
Guvera case number 18, CV 33 35
and the amount of
$4,850,000. Ms. Felker,
Ariel Gomez brought this lawsuit claiming, claiming
that he had been wrongfully convicted of the 1997 murder
of conception Diaz.
The law department recommends settling this reverse
conviction case for $4.85 million for the 20.5 years
Mr. Gomez spent in custody.
Gomez was arrested at the age of 17,
and the c the state's attorney's office agreed
to vacate his mur murder conviction in 2018
and dismissed the murder charge.
However, in exchange, Gomez did plead guilty
to a Class four offense of reckless discharge of a firearm
because he admitted to fir a gun firing a gun,
but denied that he aimed it
or struck anyone on the crime occurred here on
June 13th, 1997,
a night when the Bulls won their fifth NBA championship.
The CPD detectives received a broad broadcast
of a man shot at the corner of Cicero and diversity.
Witnesses on the scene told detectives
that they observed a passenger fire shots at the crowd.
The people gathered to celebrate the win
and that these shots were from a Nissan Pathfinder.
At least one of the witnesses was able
to provide the detectives with a license plate number.
The vehicle was registered to Elia
or Celia Gomez
of 55 24 West Grace in Chicago.
Detectives went to that address
where the vehicle was registered
and found her son, Ariel Gomez and four other teenagers.
The five suspects, including Gomez, were taken to area five
where they were interviewed by various detectives.
All five confessed that while they drove, uh, the vehicle,
Gomez sat on the front passenger window frame pointing the
gun over the roof and fired toward the people.
The group of people on the corner,
Gomez contains contends now that
that was a false confession.
He contends that he merely shot once up into the air
before being confronted by an angry mob.
Police never found the gun that was used in the shooting
and Gomez claims his confession was the result of physical
and psychological abuse by Detective Guevara.
While Gomez was convicted of murder, one
of his co-defendants was convicted under a theory
of accountability, but his conviction was vacated in 2000
for evidentiary issues.
He was later found guilty
of aggravated discharge of a firearm.
The remaining three co-defendants were acquitted.
Gomez was incarcerated for, for approximately 20.5 years.
If he succeeded, he would seek, uh, uh, if we went
to trial, he would likely seek at least $40 million.
The city would be responsible
for his attorney's fees if he were to succeed,
which could be in the range of three to 5 million.
Considering the risks of litigation,
the law department recommends that the city settle this case
for $4.85 million.
Thank you, Ms. Falker.
Any questions from members
of the City Council Committee on Finance?
Seeing no questions, uh, is there a motion to amend
to recommend approval of item number 2D So moved
by Alderman LaSpada.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed in the opinion of the chair?
The ayes have it and the do pass recommendation will
report it out at the next city.
Council meeting. The, the, uh, third
Guevara case we're hearing today.
Item number two E is Angel Diaz versus Gua.
Case number 23,
CV oh 2 5 7 5 in the amount of
$6,950,000. Ms. Felker,
The Department of Law, recommends settling this case
for $6.95 million.
As the chair just said, for the 15 years approximately
that Diaz spent in custody, this lawsuit arises out
of his 1996 conviction for the shooting death
of Yolanda Leal
Diaz was 21 at the time he was taken into custody.
He was paroled in 2010. After 15 years.
In 2022, his conviction was vacated.
And in 2023, he received a certificate of Innocence.
Diaz alleges that his arrest, prosecution
and conviction were entirely based on evidence
that was knowingly manufactured by defendants,
including a false identification,
fabricated witness statements
and perjure testimony done in conjunction
with the concealment of exculpatory evidence
that could have established as innocence.
The crime here occurred on January 27th, 1995.
Patrol officers received a call
that a person was shot at 1840 North California Avenue,
where they found Yolanda Al in the driver's seat of her car.
She was shot in the head.
She was still alive when she was found,
but later died of her injuries.
Yolanda was the girlfriend of Louis Figaro,
an eyewitness to the shooting.
According to Yolanda's father, Willie Le Figueroa told him
that the shooter was Diaz, uh, at the urging
of Willie Le Figueroa.
Informed detectives that he had seen Diaz shoot Yolanda.
Subsequently, Figueroa identified Diaz
as a shooter from a photo array
and lineup gave a statement
to the felony review attorney implicating Diaz in the murder
and testified against Diaz in the grand jury.
However, at the criminal trial,
Firo then recanted his identification of of Diaz.
Firo testified that Gua told him who
to point out in the lineup and in the photo array,
and that Gura wrote his statement.
Figaro was fatally shot while committing a home invasion
and thus could not provide testimony in this case.
If settlement is not authorized, the party will see proceed.
The parties will proceed to trial
where Diaz will likely seek at least 15 to $30 million.
The city would be responsible
for Diaz's attorney's fees if he were to succeed,
which could be approximately three to 5 million.
Considering the risks of litigation the 15 years Diaz was in
custody, the law department recommends
that the city settle this case for $6.95 million.
Uh, thank you,
uh, attorney Falker.
Uh, any questions on the DS case here?
See, see no questions.
Alderman Lopez recommends to pass all those in favor
signify by saying Aye.
Opposed in the opinion of the chair.
The ayes have it and the do pass recommendation
will be reported out.
The last Avara case,
Guevara case is item two F Demetrius Johnson, uh,
versus Guevara case number 20, CV 41 56
and the amount of $16,600,000.
Jessica Felker,
Uh, Demetrius Johnson brought this lawsuit claiming
that he had been wrongfully convicted of the 1991 murder
of Edwin Fred and attempted murder of Raul Ortiz.
Johnson was 15 years old when he was arrested
and spent 13 years in custody before he was paroled in 2004.
His conviction was vacated in 2019
and he received a c certificate of innocence.
Two years later, the Department of Law recommends settlement
for $16.6 million.
The underlying crime here occurred on June 12th, 1991.
Edwin Fred, who was a Spanish Lord was fatally shot at 2333
West North Avenue, along with Raul Raul Ortiz,
who was shot in the shoulder but survived.
Initial witnesses at the scene suspected Latin
disciple gang members, and described two male
teenage offenders.
A police radio message transmitted that there was a man shot
and named one suspect as both little d and Brian Johnson.
Officers then used that information to locate Brian Johns,
who went by the nickname Little D.
He was 15 years old
and a member of the ma maniac Latin Disciples.
They brought him in and what happened then is disputed.
There is a dispute about what occurred
during the lineup that Johns was in.
A lineup report seemingly submitted by Guevara, reflects
that each of the witnesses failed to identify Brian Johns
as the offender, and as a result, Johns was released.
However, in 2018 during discovery,
in another reverse conviction case,
a second lineup report emerged
that plaintiff claims was signed
by a detective William Erickson.
Erickson is now deceased.
Uh, the lineup report indicates that the witnesses in
that lineup, one of the witnesses in that lineup conducted
with Johns, had identified Johns as a shooter.
Witnesses Elva Burgos
and Angel Cordova were shown photographs
of various man maniac Latin disciples,
and they identified Brian Jo,
or excuse me, they identified Demetrius
Johnson as the offender.
Demetrius Johnson was then identified
by three witnesses in a lineup.
Demetrius Johnson contends that he is innocent,
and Brian Johns confessed to him, uh, confessed to him
and said he was in fact the one who killed Edwin.
Fred Johnson claims
that the officers withheld the so-called Erickson lineup
report from him in a violation
of his constitutional right for a fair trial.
As I said, Erickson is deceased, so he can't explain, uh,
what this report is.
In nine or September, 2019, Johnson filed a petition
to vacate his conviction.
Based on Ericsson's lineup report,
the state's attorney's agreed to vacate the conviction
and dismiss the charges In December, 2019.
In 2021,
Johnson received an imposed certificate of innocence.
Trial was previously set for this January, 2026.
If settlement is not authorized, it will proceed to trial
where Johnson will likely seek at least $32 million,
uh, in damages.
The city would be responsible for Johnson's attorney's fees
if he were to see, to try succeed at trial,
which could be in the range of three to 5 million,
considering all these risks, the 13 years in
that Johnson was in custody his age
of 15 years old at the time of his arrest,
and that Erickson is deceased.
The law department recommends the city settle this case
for 16.6 million.
Uh, thank you Ms. Felker.
Um, was there any physical evidence connecting Johnson
to either the murder or the attempted murder?
No. Physical evidence. Yeah. Right.
Uh, any questions from members of the committee?
Seeing none, can I get a recommendation
or a motion to do to recommend approval of item two F?
So moved by Alderman Lata.
Recommending Do pass All those in favor
of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye. Oppose and the opinion of the chair. The ayes have it.
Thank you very much. Thank
You, chair. Moving
on to item number three from
the Department of Finance.
It's an ordinance concerning the designation
of municipal deposit depositories for the city of Chicago
and the Chicago Board of Education
for fiscal year 2026.
Uh, we are joined by Comptroller Mike Belsky
and Joel Flores, first Deputy director
of the Department of Finance.
You want to testify from there?
Can you come on up?
And as he's making his way up, this is a, uh,
the ordinance approving these, uh,
municipal deposit depositories.
We did have a subject matter hearing
on this matter on Monday.
Good morning.
Morning. Thank you.
Uh, chairwoman, do members of the finance committee.
We, uh, we presented information on our, um,
election of city depositories at the last, uh,
council meaning or finance committee meeting,
subject matter hearing.
I don't think we have anything to add.
We're happy to answer any questions.
I have one, which was, uh,
have you made a decision on Liberty Bank?
Is it liberty or, yeah. Okay. Yeah.
What we, uh, determined there is that they ri had written
and said that, uh, they are domiciled
in Chicago, but they're in process
of being domiciled in Chicago.
They're, they've, um, obtained space.
They're building it out,
and the ordinance says that at the time of application,
you have to be domiciled in taking deposits in Chicago.
So they're not yet taking deposits in the
city, but they will be.
And so they will be eligible next year for consideration.
All right. Thank you. Any questions
for the comptroller on this matter?
And if not, can I get a recommendation
of approval of item number three?
So move by Alderman Cazada recommending Due Pass.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye. Aye.
Opposed? And the opinion of the chair. The ayes have it.
And thank you for coming up here.
I know you know it was quick,
but I appreciate it. Thank you.
Anytime. Thank you Joel as well. Welcome.
You are here for the next one, so you can say, yeah, we
Could Stay. Um, item
number four, the department from the Department
of Finances and Ordinance amending the municipal code
section two dash 32 dash oh nine six
regarding publication requirements for rules proposed
by the Department of Finance, uh, comptroller. Belsky.
Yeah. Thi this, uh, um,
ordinance just makes a change right at, at,
at present costs us about $7,000 a year
to publish notices of any rule changes, uh, in newspapers.
Um, this is an exception of the rule.
Most departments are posting rule changes on their websites
or doing direct emails to
regulated entities.
So we are asking if we could go
to the model of other city departments and
therefore save the city $7,000 a year.
We need every dollar we can get. Right?
I'll second that. Uh, can I get a motion?
Any questions first on this matter?
Um, seeing no, uh, questions, uh, motion made
by Alderman Martin recommending Do pass.
All those in favor 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 count Council meeting.
Thank you, comptroller.
Thank you. Thank you, Joel.
The Department of Planning
and Development will present items number four and five
and six together, however,
the committee will vote on these matters separately.
Item number five is from the, uh,
department is an ordinance authorizing the execution
of a HUD Section 1 0 8 loan guarantee
and associated loan agreement with BR Congress owner LLC
for the Congress Theater re Rehab project
located at 2135 North Milwaukee in the first ward.
And item number six is a substitute ordinance authorizing an
amendment to the redevelopment agreement with
Congress owner, LLC
and Congress Theater, uh, NFP,
to provide tax increment financing assistance
for the property located at 2135 North Milwaukee Avenue.
In the first ward, there is a substitute ordinance
for item number six, um, which was prepared
and sent electronically to everyone.
Can I get a motion to accept the substitute ordinance?
So moved by Alderman ada.
All those in favor signify by saying Aye.
Opposed in the opinion of the chair. The ayes have it.
And item six and five are now before us
and will be explained
by Jeff Cohen from the Department of Planning and Development.
Hey, morning.
Uh, good morning, chairwoman Dowell
and members of the Committee on Finance for the record,
my name is Jeffrey Cohen, deputy Commissioner
with the Department of Planning and Development
and the Bureau of Development, sorry, the Bureau
of Economic Developments Bureau.
Uh, I'm here today seeking the committee's favorable
consideration for two requested actions.
The the first action agenda item number five,
will provide DPD the authority to execute a US Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
section 1 0 8 loan guarantee
and corresponding loan agreement in support
of the redevelopment of the Congress Theater.
The second action agenda, item number six,
will approve an authorizing ordinance amendment
of an unexecuted TIFF redevelopment agreement
with BR Congress owner, LLC
and br Congress NFP previously approved in December of 2024.
Encompassing updates and modifications to technical
and administrative items within the existing TIFF RDA,
which require city council approval.
Uh, for those of you who don't know the project, uh,
the Congress Theater is located at 2135 North Milwaukee
within the Logan Square Community area, Fullerton,
Milwaukee, TIFF District, and Northwest Planning Region.
The property, it also sits in the first board represented
by Alderman LaSpada, who is in support of these actions.
Uh, this slide depicts the neighborhood context.
The property highlighted in red is located in the
neighborhood's primary commercial corridor at the
intersection of Milwaukee and Rockwell Avenues.
Although it sits on the neighborhood's primary commercial
corridors, it sits between larger centers
of activity in Worker Park and Logan Square.
The Congress Theater was originally constructed in 1926
as a movie palace, but was eventually converted
to a live entertainment venue in 2002.
The property was designated
as a city landmark in recognition
of the building's outstanding architecture
and unique character, excuse
me, apologies.
It is one of a only a handful of properties
where the designation also included its interior features.
Uh, the property, however, has sat vacant since 2013
and has fallen into significant disrepair
that urgently requires stabilization.
Shown here is the exterior, which as you can see,
has had its frontage boarded up
and emergency scaffold installed.
The interior of the building has
experienced a rapid deterioration as a result
of significant water infiltration
that is evidenced by this photo.
Uh, despite the significant damage, the incredible features
of the Congress are still evident throughout the building.
And DPD does believe,
however, that the deterioration has reached a point
where the viability of the structure
as a whole may soon be in jeopardy.
Uh, the property was
however acquired for redevelopment in 2021 for the purposes
of implementing an 89.4 million redevelopment
of the entire property
that would reactivate the historic Congress Theater
as a state of the art live entertainment venue
with a 4,900 maximum capacity and house, the first revenue
and house, the first venue operated by a EG in the city.
The completed project will also include 16 residential
units, all of which will be affordable, 13,000 square feet
of retail space along Milwaukee Avenue
and 23,000 square feet of office space, which will be
provided to local businesses, nonprofits,
and community groups at a discounted rate.
The project has previously been awarded 27.25 million
of TIF assistance with the pending application
for 25.25 million in section 1 0 8 proceeds
completing the capital stack.
The approval from HUD
and authority to execute corresponding agreements will allow
the project to commence on,
commence an 18 months con construction period as early
as March, 2026 with issuance of a certificate
of completion within 30 months.
The project budget, which is shown here on this screen,
will be funded with a mixture of equity state
and federal historic tax credits.
TIFF assistance and proceeds from the Section 1 0 8 program
structured as a senior loan,
the project is substantially ready to start construction
with most due diligence
and pre-development actions having been completed.
Securing and funding the appropriate debt is the final
critical path item necessary
to move the project into construction.
Further delays in securing debt financing will likely
increase the risk of further physical deterioration
resulting in higher rehabilitation costs
and the potential loss of the opportunity
to restore the landmark in its entirety.
Uh, at the last meeting,
this body approved DPDs authorization
to submit an application
to HUDs Section 1 0 8 loan Guarantee Program,
which is currently being finalized to ensure compliance
with HUD's national Objectives and Eligibility criteria.
Upon submission, this application will also be made
public per program rules.
By providing DPD execution.
Authorization at this juncture will save precious time
and allow for an efficient process for the project
to commence in a timely manner
avoiding the stated negative outcomes.
Furthermore, execution of contracts
and legal documents will only occur upon full review
and negotiation to the city satisfaction, uh,
per the Department of law.
DBD believes the strategy is the best option
for the Congress Theater because it can only,
because it can only address the critical issue facing the
project, but would do so in a way
that would not require the city
to provide additional TIFF assistance,
which would result in over subsidizing the project
and provide a clear pathway to, for construction
to commence, uh, relevant
to the second action previously described.
This slide presents the modifications to the TIFF RDA
for the Congress Theater previously approved
in December, 2024.
Due to the passage of time, the RDA required amending
to update technical administrative items
that require city council approval.
In addition to incorporating the Section 1 0 8 loan
as a source of funding, this action does not amend
previously approved financial economic terms structures,
nor increases TIF assistance from the city.
Additional items requiring amending include administrative
updates to items such as project commencement,
which will occur 60 days from RDA execution
and project completion
to occur occur no later than 30 months from commencement.
Uh, the amended RDA also includes updating sources
and uses the forgi, the forgiveness
and amortization schedule,
and required government approvals to commence construction,
providing DPD with the authority
to execute a Section 1 0 8 loan
and incorporate this as a source of funds
with the r within the RDA, along
with the stated revisions would allow
for the full public benefits this project would
deliver to come to fruition.
The restoration of a landmark theater that has been vacant
for nearly 15 years would in turn assist catalyzing further
neighborhood and corridor activation
and small business support along Milwaukee Avenue,
while achieving economic development goals
by providing affordable housing job opportunities to low
and moderate income individuals and affordable commercial
and retail space to local organizations.
Uh, for these reasons, DPD is in support of this,
of these ordinances and requests.
The committee's favor consideration
with a due pass recommendation.
Uh, I'm also joined
by representatives from the development team,
and we are happy to answer
any questions the committee may have.
Uh, thank you Mr. Cohen. Um, alderman la spot.
I know you wanna speak, but I'll ask you to close
because some members of the committee have questions
and we'll start with Alderman Beal, followed
by Alderman Viegas.
Thank you. Um, Madam Chairman, just a couple
of quick questions 'cause this is a great project, um,
and I believe it's really gonna be breathtaking once it's
done and restored.
Uh, but just a couple of questions.
Um, was there a full traffic study done on this project?
Uh, I would defer to the development team, uh,
if there was an existing traffic study. Uh, there was,
There was, yes. Okay.
And how many people that you say
that this development can hold?
Uh, the maximum capacity would be between or would be
4900 4945.
4,500. Did
You say 45 or 40 49.
4,900 as the maximum capacity? Mm-hmm.
Uh, probably with an average around 3,500.
Okay. Uh, and if you can just answer, where is the parking
for 4,900 people?
Uh, I believe that this is a very highly transit served,
uh, site, uh, and it would be provided within the area.
Okay. Do you have specifics on
where the parking would would be? And,
Uh, I can get that through,
through the chair with the traffic.
Okay. That that'd be helpful, because that's a lot
of people, um, that's gonna be impacting.
And, um, you know,
It, it was an operating venue, uh, 15 years ago.
Again, the time of change, times of change. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Field Alderman Viegas, followed
by Alderman Cazada.
Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Is this it on this project?
I mean, this project's been discussed for a long time
and all the financial stacks.
I'm just curious, is, is this it?
Like, are we gonna actually see
some construction going here?
My hope is that you will not see me
before this committee again for this item up.
Perfect. And then, um,
if you could just give some past examples on section
1 0 8 HUD loans.
Uh, the most recent section 1 0 8 HUD loan was done 15
years ago, uh, with the similar developer
for the Green Exchange up in Logan Square as well.
Green Exchange? Yeah, the Green Exchange.
Oh, um, on, uh, diversity by the Expressway. Correct.
I gotcha. Okay. Um,
and then, uh, have they selected contractors
already yet, or still?
Uh, I believe that they have, yes.
Okay. And this is subject to M-W-V-B-E as well?
Uh, MWBE from my understanding.
And I believe they'll make efforts
to include Veteran Business enterprises.
Okay. Um, do we need to change legislation to, to, um,
incorporate VBE into these type of transactions?
Uh, I believe so for, uh, RDA contracts.
Okay. Could, could I work with your, you
and your department to figure out
what that language looks like?
We'd be more than happy to. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
And finally, finally, gonna get this project started.
Thank you. Alderman Cazada, followed by Alderman Lee.
Thank you chairman. Uh, and thank you
very much for the presentation.
Uh, I'm a First Ward native.
I grew up going to the Congress theater a lot.
I was just talking to my colleague here about going
to Lucha Libre when I was a kid
to watch, uh, those shows there.
And so this, uh, this project is very near and dear.
It's also just recounting the fact that, uh, you know,
the storefront, the actual ground floor storefront used
to be, um, home to a lot of local business owners.
I know my, my best friend Gabriel Gonzalez
and his dad, Guillermo Gonzalez, owned a jewelry shop, uh,
Guillermo's Jewelers on the first floor.
Um, and so I heard you talking about the storefront being
open to local businesses.
Just wanted to hear like, what is the developers plans to,
you know, you know, uh, promote that
to our local businesses.
And then if you can also speak about the, um,
housing breakdown, I saw that there are 16 units.
Can you explain how many bedrooms per unit
and who's gonna be the, uh, housing developer
or management company for that?
Uh, sure. Uh, in, in terms of the marketing
of the local spaces, I believe the developer will be,
who is a seasoned real estate group, will be marketing this,
uh, uh, throughout the city,
but also in conjunction with the First Ward.
Um, and again, this would be to the preference of local, uh,
organizations as well.
Uh, in terms of the housing breakdown,
I do not remember the exact breakdown off top of my head.
That will consist mainly of one, uh, studio
and one bedrooms with a blended a MI of 60%.
And I can get you through the chair of the exact writedown.
Okay. I think Alderman la Spot, I can answer that question
for you, alderman Ada.
Sure.
So let me, let me say Alderman ada, it's even stronger
than that because it's actually built into the RDA.
It would be one thing if it was up to me.
But the RDA for the affordable commercial space
that's included in this is legally bound
to be marketed and leased to nonprofits, arts groups,
and local entrepreneurs
before it can be marketed more broadly.
We wanna make sure we're not just creating a community
benefit that this benefit is being
directed towards the community.
Fantastic. And do you have any information about the unit
breakdown or how those are gonna look?
I do. I, We'll get that through the chair. It's
Like, they're Like one bedrooms.
I will confirm this through the chair,
but I believe it's 14 studios and two one bedrooms.
Okay. With a range of from 40% a MI to 80% a MI. Great.
Well, I'm very excited for this project.
Again, uh, it's, it's one of the great prides of,
of Logan Square, one of our great landmarks.
So, uh, hope to see this move forward. Appreciate
It. Thank you. Alderman
Kada, uh, attorney Scott,
I saw you stand up
and perhaps you can answer the housing questions
so we don't have to come back through the chair.
Uh, yes. Uh, just for the record, uh, Andrew Scott
with the Law Offices of Dykema Gossett, it's a total
of 16 affordable units, and there will be 4, 4 1 bedrooms
and the Balancer studios.
And as Jeff had mentioned, you know, it's an average
of a MI, uh, 60%.
But we also are,
have specific numbers within the redevelopment agreement
for very low percentages, a MI all the way up to 80%,
getting us to a blend of 60
Alderman Lee.
Thank you Chair. Um, I'm excited for Alderman LaSpada
and his ward for this, uh,
development of the Congress Theater.
We have the Reva Theater Project that we did,
uh, in my ward.
Um, and I'm, I spoke up this time
because of something that, uh, alderman Beal had mentioned.
Uh, that's a big venue.
So the Reva maxes out around 1800, um,
and they, they do have some parking.
So I would encourage just having some,
some ideas about a parking plan.
We, you really don't know the impact of that until,
until you've got, uh, a few thousand people, uh,
converging on there.
Um, I think it's gonna be a great thing for the community,
especially with all the, uh, affordable, uh, rental units
for, um, commercial as well as affordable, uh,
residential units and with all of the, the people
that are gonna be coming through in traffic.
I, my suggestions to you, alderman,
just lessons learned from me, um, you know, some
of the things that we don't necessarily think about, um,
that we've had to sort of consider is just
what does parking look like right
out in front of the theater too?
Is there, you know, Uber drop offs?
I highly transit served for sure,
and we get, uh, we get Uber drivers coming in as well.
Um, traffic can be an issue.
So I, I just caution everybody on that.
Um, as you're taking this on,
I think this is absolutely a great thing.
Um, but I offer up, uh, sit down if you would like
to talk about, um, just how we're handling traffic
and parking and, and the like, uh, as, as far
as the impact on your constituents will go for the people
who live in that immediate area.
Um, it is something that I'd love to explore as a council.
Um, when we have big venues like this, what sort
of public benefit, uh, type parking situations
or Uber drop off type, uh, shared, uh, ride share districts
or spaces that we can set up just to help traffic flow,
because we, we do get a little bit of trouble, um,
when we have big shows and on the exit, especially
as people are leaving, um,
not having traffic management available
to help in those situations can, uh,
can be a little problematic.
So as more of these come out, which I think are,
are great things for the city, um, it's worth talking about,
um, how we make sure that we're, we're being
as gentle on the community
as we can, uh, as people are leaving.
That's all I've got. Thank you.
Thank you for that Alderman Lee. I appreciate that point.
And Alderman Lata, uh, raised his hand back there,
so I think he wants to respond to that
and say some other things Almond
Spotted Yes, indeed.
To say, I mean, particularly to other woman Lee's point,
the, the First Ward is no stranger
to transit served entertainment, uh, theaters,
the Chopin Theater, the Den Theaters,
subterranean, Concord Music Hall.
People come for great shows.
I guarantee they are not coming for the parking.
Uh, but as, as all of our other venues have learned how
to respectfully operate in our community, I have no doubt
that the Congress will as well, in part
because our developer also worked
with you on the remote theater.
Um, when we started voting on this project,
I had zero daughters.
I am about to have two.
Um, I would, I would not continue down this path
if I did not believe both in the comprehensive nature
of the community benefits they're gonna be
provided to the First Ward to be,
I I think someone can confirm this.
The first redevelopment agreement to have legally
mandated affordable commercial space to have
that affordability baked in, uh, makes me really,
really proud of this project.
I genuinely walked by it on a daily basis
to the hardware store to pilot project in Logan Square.
It genuinely grieves me that it has taken us this long,
but I believe the time
and consideration overall has made this a stronger project
than it would've been even three years ago.
And just to give a, a brief comment, uh,
I would ask Rolando Acosta if you could speak to the success
of this developer with HUD 1 0 8 loans in the past.
For the record, Rolando Acosta here on behalf
of the development team, I actually had the pleasure
of doing the 1 0 8 loan 15 years ago for the Green Exchange,
uh, for members of the same development team.
So BA was involved then Bomb Revision is involved now, uh,
that in that case, we received the prior loan to
that was in 1996.
So there's been large gaps here.
Uh, but we, uh, received $15 million
through a HUD 1 0 8 loan with a mortgage.
It was in that case, a second mortgage to the city
of Chicago, in this case, it's a first mortgage
to the city of Chicago.
The loan was fully paid by,
within its terms, by the developer.
And we, uh, had promised 400 jobs. We delivered a thousand.
Here are the, uh, job numbers are about 125 jobs.
Hopefully we'll deliver more than that, but it's to be seen.
But the track record is there by this developer
with these projects on the 1 0 8,
and having them fully repaid without any
obligations to the city itself.
Thank you. I appreciate that. That's, uh, all I would say.
I have the full
and complete confidence in DPDs work here in the
development team's work here.
And I would ask the
favorable consideration of the committee. Thank you.
Thank you. So, is there a motion to recommend approval?
So moved by Alderman Cazada, uh, recommending do pass
for item number five.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye. Aye.
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.
And is there a motion to recommend approval
for item number six?
Motion made by Alderman las uh,
SPTO recommending Due Pass.
All those in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye.
Oppose in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And the DO Pass recommendation will report it out at the
next City Council meeting.
Congratulations, alderman LaSpada. Let's get this done.
And thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Item number seven, in order an ordinance
authorizing the assumption of the home loan,
a loan subordination,
and the restructuring of the loan agreement
with the Habitat company LLC, and the sale
and transfer of Renaissance St.
Luke, located at 1501 West Belmont Avenue in the
32nd Ward.
Um, were joined by Katrina Collins from the Department
of Housing who will give this presentation.
I, good morning, Ms. Collins.
Still morning.
All right. Good. After Good morning. Afternoon.
Chairwoman dll, a member of the committees for the record.
My name is Katrina Collins,
and I'm a Financial planning analyst
with the Department of Housing.
Today, we will discuss Renaissance St.
Luke, located at 1501 West Belmont.
It is located in Lakeview in the 32nd Ward under
Alderman Scott Waba.
This propo this project is a seven story elevator senior
housing building that includes a total
of 90 units in which 72 units are restricted at
or below 60% a MI and 18 R market rate units.
The building was originally constructed in 2005,
and today we will review the request for as sale
and transfer of the building loan subordination
and assignment assumption of the loan regulatory agreement
and other loan documents.
The property was originally developed
by RRG Development, Nancy capp.
The property is being sold from Renaissance St.
Luke LP to a new single purpose entity to be formed
by the Habitat Company.
The sale is a result
of the retirement of the principal member.
Nancy Kapp has helped develop eight affordable housing
buildings in Chicago over the last 37 years.
And the Habitat Company has over 50 years experience in
Chicago, and they currently have 15 developments
that are affordable and or mixed income buildings.
The building consists of a total of 90 units that, um,
are made up of 18 market rate units.
And again, 72 units restricted at or below 60%.
A MI project has a total
of 18 accessible units in two hearing
and visually impaired units shown are the hud the
2025 HUD rent limits.
This project received $4.375 million of home funds,
donation tax credits,
and 4% tax credits from the city of Chicago
for the original financing, which closed in 2004.
The bonds were paid in full in November of 2019,
around the time when the original limited partner NEF exited
from the limited partnership,
all subordinate debt will be assumed
as part of this transaction.
The afford affordability
of the building will remain unchanged.
The BMO Harris loan will be paid off
as part of this transaction.
And a new first mortgage will be issued by PNC Bank for up
to $5.3 million.
The city will subordinate our current loan
and remain in the second lien position.
The property is located east of Ashland
and on the south side of the south sides of Belmont.
And here's an image of the property.
And then the request of finance committee today is
to approve and refer finance, or excuse me, Renaissance St.
Luke transaction to City Council for the approval
of the following, to allow the sale
and transfer of Renaissance St.
Luke from Renaissance St.
Luke LP to an affiliated entity of the Habitat Company,
to allow the assignment
and assumption of the home loan regulatory agreement
and all other loan documents, um, to approve the, excuse me,
approval to authorize a loan subordination
and allow PNC as a replacement lender of the first mortgage.
And as part of the consent for approval
of the requested actions, the seller will be repaying 50%
of the accrued interest at closing,
which is approximately $475,000.
And the remaining accrued interest will be applied
to the principal balance of the loan.
Any questions?
Uh, alderman, ADA?
Uh, yes. Thank you, chair.
I don't mean to be a stickler,
but you showed the map for the location in number eight
on your, your presentation here.
That's the Wicker Park location. Coming up next,
Then I must have just, I have presented both today,
so I must have made an area in my That's all right.
You're right. I have that exact same image.
Image on the next one. Okay.
But for reference, it is just at the
corner of Ashland and Belmont. Duly
Noted. Thank you so much. Thanks.
Thank you,
Terry. That to my attention.
Thank you. Um, seeing no other questions, alderman, WABA,
Uh, thank you, chairwoman.
Um, just want to thank Katrina
for Ms. Collins for her Great work on this.
And I would ask for the committee's favorable
consideration of this ordinance.
Thank you.
Uh, can I get a motion for approval of this item?
So moved by Alderman MITs, uh, recommending Do pass.
All those in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed?
And the opinion of the chair. The ayes have it.
And the do pass recommendation were reported out at the next
City council meeting.
Um, item number eight is an ordinance authorizing the
assumption of the multi-family program funds a loan
subordination the restructuring of the loan agreement
with the Habitat company LLC, and the sale
and transfer of Wicker Park Renaissance,
a single room occupancy development located at 1527
through 1531 North Wicker Park Avenue.
In the first ward, uh,
Katrina Collins from DOH will also make this presentation.
So these are going to be sounding similar
because it's the same seller to the same buyer.
So thank you for your attention
while I walk through this one.
Um, again, for the record, my name is Katrina Collins.
I'm a financial planning analyst with DOH.
Today we're discussing Wicker Park Renaissance,
located at 1527 through 31 North Wicker Park Avenue.
It's located in Wicker Park in the first ward under
Alderman Daniel nepa.
Up this project is a four story
elevator, SRO building that includes a total of 61 units
that are all restricted at or below 60% a MI.
The building was originally constructed in the 1920s.
It was rehabbed by the current
developer as affordable housing.
In 1990, the building underwent a rehabilitation in 2007,
in which the building was converted from 112 unit SRO
to a 61 unit SRO that includes private baths and kitchens.
Today, we'll review the request for as sale
and transfer of the building loan subordination
and assignment, an assumption
of the loan regulatory agreement
and loan documents, um,
as mentioned re re repeated information,
but the, um, the original, this was originally developed
by RRG Development, Nancy Cap,
and the property is being sold from Wicker Park Renaissance
LP to a new single purpose entity to be formed
by the Habitat Company.
The building includes a total
of 61 units in which all units are restricted at
or below 60% a MI.
The project has a total of nine accessible units,
13 adaptable type A units, and two, hearing
and visually impaired units shown are the
2025 HUD rent limits.
This project received 891, approximately $891,000
of CDBG funds from the city of Chicago.
For the most recent financing of the project,
which closed in 2007, all subordinate debt will be assumed
as part of this transaction.
The affordability of the building will remain
until the loan is repaid in full.
The BMO Harris loan will be paid off
as part of this transaction.
And a new first mortgage will be issued from PNC Bank for up
to $2.8 million.
The city will subordinate our current loan
and remain in the second lien position.
Oops. Sorry, I didn't switch slides. That last one.
The property is located east of Damon
and south of North Avenue on Wicker Park Avenue.
Here is an image of the property.
The request of today is for finance Kitty Committee
to approve and refer Wicker Park re Renaissance transaction
to City Council for the approval of the following,
to allow sale and transfer
of Wicker Park Renaissance from Wicker Park Renaissance LP
to an affiliated entity of the Habitat Company,
to allow the assignment and assumption
of the CDBG loan regulatory agreement
and all other loan documents approval
to authorize a loan subordination,
and allow PNC
as the replacement lender of the first mortgage.
As part of consent for the approval
of the requested actions, the seller will be repaying 50%
of the accrued interest at closing,
which is approximately $162,000.
The remaining accrued interest will be applied
to the principal balance of the loan.
Uh, thank you very much Ms. Collins.
Any questions on this project?
Seeing none, alderman LaSpada. All right.
Nice looking building. Yeah.
Um, motion made by Alderman Lata.
Recommending Do pass all those in favor
of the motion signify by saying Aye.
Aye. Aye. Opposed?
And the opinion of chair, the ayes have it
and the do pass recommendation.
Were reported out at the next city Council meeting.
Ms. Collins, thank you so much. All right.
Moving on to item number nine, uh, city Council.
It is a resolution introduced by Alderman Anthony Beal
of the Ninth Ward, calling on the Chicago City clerk
to provide the Illinois Gaming Board with a certified copy
of the council ordinance.
Uh, O 2025 dash
0 0 2 1 7 1 9, adopted
by the City Council on December 19th, 2025,
allowing video gaming terminals within the city
of Chicago, alderman Beal.
Thank you. Uh, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman.
Is there anybody from the departments here to testify on?
Um, we invited
or asked for the participation of, uh,
the BACP Commissioner Ivan Capillary,
and also the BACP Liquor Commissioner
Shannon Trotter.
However, they were not available this morning.
Um, that is extremely disturbing
that you have two commissioners, uh, that were invited
by this body and are too busy to show up, uh,
to talk about how we can implement over a hundred
million dollars in new revenue here in the city of Chicago.
Um, this is something that was passed in the budget.
Uh, and this is a, this is just a formality, uh, as far
as notifying the state that we are accepting applications
for video gaming.
And so, you know, one of the questions I wanted
to ask the department is, how soon can they be up
and running as far as accepting these applications?
When you look at the rest of the state, other municipalities
are just rubber stamping the state's application.
Once these people are vetted through the state
and get their license from the state, they come
to the municipality and they just basically rubber stamp it
because the state is the one that regulates these statewide.
And this could bring us over $6 million in just
application fees alone here in the city of Chicago.
Not even talking about the revenue, just
simple applications.
And so if our departments aren't interested in helping us
bring in extra revenue, I think they need to just get out
of the way if they can't do their job.
And so, um, Madam Chairman,
I already have a stamp sealed signature from the Clerk's
office, uh, that will be filed today.
Uh, and I have multiple signatures from my colleagues.
So if this administration doesn't wanna notify the state
that we're accepting video gaming terminals, uh,
then we'll take matters into our own hands
and we will do the job that the mayor is supposed
to do. Thank you. Chairman
App, an application Applications,
Right?
Uh, if anyone is, are you Sue?
Yeah. And if anybody would like to sign, uh,
an get their wet, wet signature, um, you know, I have the,
the forms here to sign.
Before I take this over to the state for filing,
Any comments or questions related
to the resolution presented by the alderman?
Uh, vice Chair Conway? Uh,
Yeah, I, I, I mean, I share Alderman be's concern
that it's deeply disturbing than either BACP
or the Liquor Commissioner would come.
I think there's a whole lot
of questions we'd have into, are they working on this?
What's their plan? Why haven't they certified it?
Or is it some kind of willful absence on their part?
Are they trying to obstruct this?
I mean, I, that we at least made it clear
that anybody from BACP could show
Up. I don't know.
I would not say willful
because the request
that was sent was sent late yesterday afternoon.
Um, they were not available.
So, um, just wanna put that to, just
to be completely transparent, uh, about how we did it.
Did, did we make it clear that even it didn't have
to be the commissioner or even a substitute a representative
at all from BACP would be acceptable?
Well, I think that would be their decision on
who they would want to represent the department.
We always go to the head.
I, I have no further questions.
Thank you. Alderman Vasquez.
Yeah. Thank you very much. Um, I, I appreciate this.
I think being somebody who isn't on either side
of this equation, um, I think I have questions just related
to homework in general.
And how this plays out, I think is someone who clearly,
whether it was a counselor
or the administration, we're trying to figure out a budget,
looking at what this part of the puzzle is,
makes absolute sense.
I have a bunch of questions that I feel are unanswered that,
one, I would share the exact concern of our colleagues,
that the administration didn't have anybody up.
But hearing that they weren't asked until the day before,
and knowing if someone who chairs the committee
how challenging it could be to try
to get somebody in 24 hours, I think that's an unfair way
to try to get the conversation.
And in absence of that, one would imagine the proponent
of the resolution would then have their own subject matter
experts to come and speak to the matter.
Has that, are they here?
Alderman Bill, did you invite anyone to?
No, no one was invited because this is a formality,
and I didn't see a need for, um,
to bring anybody down for that.
Uh, because most of the questions are directed towards
the administration
and how they're going to start accepting these applications
and get it implemented.
So the, the problem lies with the city of Chicago.
I, I appreciate that response.
I think if somebody was a chief Co-sponsor,
that would be how they would look at it.
They would largely say, here's what we wanna do.
But if you're not a part of the inception of it, an author
of it behind the, the thought, you might have a bunch
of questions as to the formality, that exactly that point.
The administration can't answer the questions,
and there's not a subject matter expert on the
other side to answer the questions.
It makes it a lot harder to make a decision,
period if you're not already on board one way or the other.
And as someone who isn't on board one way
or the other, I got a bunch of questions
and don't know who to direct all of them to,
or even have the conversation
or presentation as to what we're talking about.
And so I think that's more my sense of it and,
and general concern.
So it, it feels like a formality,
but we're talking about government.
So there's different departments related both to our side
and the state side that I would have a bunch of questions.
That's the process in general,
how it plays out what's happening in different
municipalities in comparison to ours.
All those things are unanswered questions
as I'm looking at it.
And so it's less of a being for
or against the more like bunch of question marks
that nobody here ask them to, which is a bit of a problem.
All I, I, I think it is the alderman's, um,
if I'm speaking for you, alderman Beal, the alderman's, um,
effort to spark that conversation,
uh, where it needs to take place. Alderman Nugent,
Thank, thank you, Madam Chair.
I, I echo that sentiment
and I'm, I'm happy to support Alderman Beal today.
Um, the truth is, is this is just a, a measure to push
for notification and hopefully encourage more
conversation and dialogue.
I think all of us have a lot of questions.
Uh, it has been 44 days though since we passed the budget
on December 29th.
And we have not had communication from the administration on
how we're to move this VGT portion forward.
It does include a notification portion.
And so I think we're just taking the step
and hopefully this step will encourage further
conversation and collaboration. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Alderman NuGen, uh, alderman, osha
Thank you Chairman.
Um, just a
Followed by Alderman Viegas
As my colleague, alderman NuGen just pointed out
more than six weeks ago, we passed a budget
overwhelmingly by this body.
Whether you agree with it, don't agree with it.
It's a living, breathing document.
It's a 52 week year.
We've now gone six weeks with what I view as
a dereliction of duty of the mayor's office,
this administration to work with us to have an open line
of communication, to be discussing these things.
And everybody in this room should be very
concerned where we're headed if we don't start communicating
and we don't start having participation, collaboration,
transparency, all those buzzwords
that everybody likes to throw about.
Um, we're six weeks into this year
and the administration needs to work with us.
Thank you.
Uh, thank you Alderman.
Osha, alderman Viegas, followed by Alderman Lee.
Thank you. Um, thank you Madam Chair.
And I appreciate my colleague from the
Ninth Ward bringing this forward.
Um, and with this notification, um, alderman Beal, we,
we feel confident that that's sufficient enough
that the Illinois Gaming Board would begin the process of,
um, putting forward a, putting forward a process rather for,
to allow for licensing in the city of Chicago.
So we can rev, so we can, um, begin to generate revenue.
The 6.8 million that was passed by this, by this body, um,
in the fourth quarter of this year.
Madam Chairman, Um,
can you repeat your question? Oh,
I mean, I got the question. I just wanna
make sure. Um, that's
Okay. You're right. Thank you,
bill.
Uh, thank you, um, for that question.
Um, I am 1000%, uh, confident that,
um, the steps that we're taking will trigger
the gaming board to start accepting applications.
Uh, their rules state that they only have to be notified.
And so that's what this certified copy
of the revenue ordinance
that we passed is being forwarded to the state.
Uh, and that alone is enough for them to say, uh,
we can now put the zip codes in their system for people
to start, uh, going in.
'cause right now, when you go in
and ask you for your zip code,
and if your zip code is not in that formula,
it won't accept it, right?
So this will allow them to put our zip codes in their system
to start accepting application.
So this is only thing they require is notification.
It doesn't say who the notification comes from.
It just says they need notification.
And we as elected officials have every right to send
that notification for them
to start accepting these applications.
Gotcha. And, and so this is the very first step
and a parallel track where, uh, members
of the body will have the ability to, uh,
ask commissioners in the future around rules,
et cetera, and all those things.
So this is the first step. So,
But this is, this is the first step.
Uh, and I will tell you,
after talking with, uh, a lot of people in the industry, uh,
and, uh, I've reached out to a couple of mayors
outside the city of Chicago, uh,
and they only rubber stamp with the state.
Once they get their state license
and it comes to their municipality,
they just rubber stamp it
because the due diligence that the state puts these people
through, they run you through the ringer.
And so, just like your, a liquor license
or anything else, once you get past the state,
the municipality basically rubber stamps it.
And we have put fees on ours,
which other men municipalities do.
So the fees that are put on
what we're looking at here in the city
of Chicago would generate that six
and a half million dollars that we put in the budget.
That's no revenue. Yep.
That's just the fees for them to apply
for their license here in the city of Chicago.
Yeah. And, and I would, I would note that the Cook County,
uh, already has their licensing process in place
and generates about $6 million with absolutely comparable,
uh, sizes that we've determined, uh,
would be eligible in the city of Chicago.
So I appreciate you taking the first step.
I mean, there's a lot of discussion, um,
that I think will take place throughout this whole process.
So that way, uh, once the licensing starts, then, um, again,
we'll, we'll have a clearer path mm-hmm.
From the administration as well as
what the body looks like in order to enact this.
So thank you for taking leadership by this. Thank you.
Uh, thank you. Alderman Viegas Alderman Lee, followed
by Alderman Lata.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, uh, I,
I'm gonna echo a lot of what was already said.
Uh, and I won't do it redundantly here,
but we, we did pass this budget, BGTs was part of it.
Um, appreciate that.
Uh, alderman Beal has taken the step to ensure that
we are moving forward with the state to, uh, notify them
that we have officially, um, approved them in the city
of Chicago so that we can get in line, uh,
as we understand it.
Uh, there, there are many other applications
that are in the queue, and we know that it takes time, uh,
and time is of the essence
for the budget for the city of Chicago.
So we wanna act, um, as quickly
as possible to get things moving.
Surely, uh, that doesn't mean that it's a, um, it's,
I'm gonna push back on the rubber stamp piece
of this just just for a second.
Um, I don't think that this means
that we're going to rubber stamp anything.
I think that to Alderman Vega's point, uh,
there's many more conversations that need to be had,
but this is the first step to get us on that path.
Um, so I look forward to engaging, um, as a council with,
um, BACP
and others who are working to help promulgate the rules
for this so that the, uh, all of the,
the voices on the council, as well as our,
importantly our constituents, um, are,
are heard in this as well.
Um, but this is an opportunity for the city, um, to have,
uh, revenue that we desperately need.
And for this year, it's a small amount
of money, just applications.
But if we don't get the process going,
we're not even gonna be able to see that.
So, um, you know, I'm,
I'm in full support of the resolution.
Be signing the letter as well, uh,
to get the ball rolling here. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Lee.
Alderman La Spota, followed by Aldermen Cicio Lopez.
Thank you so much, chair.
Uh, not here to step on the resolution. It's in the budget.
The budget is what it is from 45 days ago.
I, I, at least to get
to neutral on the $4 million we're gonna lose some valleys,
means that we need to make some kind
of progress on this item.
I would say, I, I hope as we're talking about it,
that there is some kind of a subject matter hearing on VG ts
that follows after this.
I know reading about the number of burglaries associated
with VG TS makes me concerned about the kind of
security pro protocols we're gonna require as well.
But I did want to, I have one through the chair request,
which is, if we can be
provided the list of companies
that are VGT operators in the state of Illinois,
and which of those are M-B-E-W-B-E certified?
I don't have that list. Uh, who would I get that from?
Is there, is there a sense of, it
Would be, that would be a question for, for BACP
or the gaming board?
I I, I don't have the, I'm not that information
Is there, do you have a sense of who that's, in terms of
who that's working on this within council or with BACP?
Do you know who could provide that to us?
Uh, alderman Beal, do you,
do you have, repeat your question. Alderman's,
Alman Beal, do we know the list of companies
that are VGT operators
and which of them are M-B-E-W-B certified?
Uh, right now there are zero, um,
VGT manufacturers, uh, in the, in the, in the pipeline.
There's no, um, minority participation whatsoever.
The area in which you're gonna pick up minority
participation is when the bars
and restaurants are able to take advantage of the revenue
of having these machines.
That's where you're gonna pick up your lion's share
of minority participation.
So more than the lion's.
So like, just to be clear, there aren't any manufacturers
or operators that are M-B-E-W-B certified?
Nope. Not one.
Can you provide us the list of the current manufacturers
that we would be asking restaurants to work with? Sure.
We'll get that to you. Okay. Can you get that
through the chair and we'll distribute that. Thank
You. Thank you, chair.
Yeah. And in the spirit, take this in the spirit
that you gave your suggestion for a subject matter hearing.
I appreciate that in your committee as you move forward
with p requiring PPAs for establishments
that won BGTs as well.
I think there's a whole compliment of, um,
topics that could be part of a subject matter hearing.
So as you ask for one from this committee,
I ask the same outta yours.
Just, uh, to be clear,
that ordinance is not in my committee. Well,
Whatever committee it is, I know it's your ordinance.
I, I agree with, I agree with you.
I feel like I, I don't see the joke.
I'm, I am, I believe that there is a, a right
and good need for regulatory framework around VG T's.
That was the spirit in which I submitted that.
I would be very happy for a subject
matter hearing on that item.
Okay. Great. Thank you, chair. Thank you.
Um, alderman Ccho Lopez, followed
by Alderman Vazquez, followed by Alderman Cazada. Alderman.
Thank you, chairwoman. And I appreciate the,
the opportunity to discuss this important matter, matter.
I think I'm, um, I'm also supportive
of having a subject matter hearing.
I'm for one, curious about who in the industry,
quote unquote, we have been talking to.
Uh, what is the list of entities?
'cause I think it's important that we discuss, I mean,
I'm representing the city of Chicago
and the fiduciary responsibility.
I know there's a lot of, uh, a lot of industry out there.
This is a big industry.
'cause last time we didn't have a negotiation.
We ended up having,
even though project coverage generates about 20% of revenue,
we only get 5%, uh, from the state.
We cannot negotiate after the fact.
I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned
that we are gonna negotiate
after the fact, having a subject matter, hearing
after the fact, and then wanna be once again coming
back and crying.
Woo. So, well, who approved this?
So I do think it's very important
that we have a conversation.
So I, for one, I'm curious to see who in the industry, um,
the sponsors of this have been talking to.
Do we have a list of people, also the gaming board?
Do we have a representative of the gaming board?
I also wanna know what are the conversations
with the state 'cause those negotiations.
And I think chairwoman, I can, I will say that I think
that you have been very collaborative in the spirit
of finding a right balance.
I don't understand, you know, the, the issues
of not collaborating.
So, um, I would like to request
that we do have a subject matter hearing
before and not after the fact.
I do think that this is significant revenue
that the city needs,
and we do need the revenue, and we cannot.
And look, look at the experience that we have had
with gaming, with the gaming industry in particular.
Our city has been cheated of revenue that we need.
And that's not gonna happen after the fact.
It's gonna start now. So our urge, you know, in,
in the spirit of collaboration,
can we have a subject matter hearing
before we take that vote?
So we can learn from the industry,
we can learn from the facts with the gaming board,
and we cannot speculate in some ch in something so delicate.
Delicate as the revenue for the city of Chicago.
So that would be my request that we have full information,
you know, not after the fact,
but while we having this conversation. Okay.
Think, no, we have other comment.
We have other people that wanna speak.
Alderman, um, alderman Cazada, followed
by Alderman Vasquez, followed by Alderman Irvin, followed
by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I agree
and echo the sentiment of my colleagues in terms
of our fiduciary responsibility in carrying out the task
for us because of our, our past city budget.
But I, I do just wanna highlight the, the need
to have further discussion in terms
of the mental health impacts,
because I've seen this in my community.
Um, you know, I represent a lot of working class poor,
lower income community, uh, areas.
And, you know, we have seen an increase of people
who are vulnerable, who are relying on VGT.
So I think it's important that we have a nuanced policy
discussion around the increase in crime, yes,
as the Chicago sometimes reported, um,
but also with addiction and public health.
Um, and the public health impacts that, uh,
gambling include, which are, are, you know, job loss,
financial strain, poor family relationships,
emotional distress, mood and substance disorders.
Um, so I do think that it's important that we have
that discussion, um, as we're looking
to implement this in our communities.
Thank you very much. Thank
You. Alderman.
Alderman Vazquez, followed by Alderman Irvin.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Um, I appreciate, uh, all my colleagues comments,
especially, uh, alderman Casada right now.
I think that tangential
to this conversation is figuring out the policy.
And I think if we're looking at things like liquor,
cannabis, hemp as vice is where we have processes.
If we want to do moratoriums
or block 'em out of the ward, a conversation
around gambling, which would have the same kind
of effect is a fair conversation to have.
But where I, why I raised my hand initially is
I just received information about a budget accountability
coalition communication that was delivered out.
And so I just wanted to kind of speak on something
that I've been seeing in the past six weeks
that I think is fair
and we should all be thinking about as a council,
a budget was passed, this body did
what a budget was passed last year.
A body did have the votes to move it forward.
It appears that since that time, there's greater divide
that's occurring, as opposed to figuring out how,
as one city government, we're gonna get a budget passed
and we're gonna have challenges coming up this next year.
So when there are town halls
that are making people feel like
even though a budget was passed,
they're attacking constituents.
And it's creating that kind of dynamic,
it makes it more challenging to find consensus on a budget
where you're gonna need 26 votes
plus at the end of this year.
Um, I think having some level of accountability as to
how a budget is implemented once it's passed is an
absolute fair thing to have.
I am worried that if it appears that there are two groups,
that it's basically binary,
a council versus an administration,
and we hear a lot of echoes of the verex,
although I don't think that's near
what's occurred this time.
I think you've got in a body
that's establishing its independence, I I think you have a,
a legislative body establishing a level of independence
that hasn't happened in this, in the history of this city.
But because the dynamics are happening that way, it's going
to make it a lot harder to solve any level of budget.
And so I would say in understanding what I believe
to be the spirit of the Budget Accountability Coalition,
there needs to be a larger conversation on codifying certain
things to make sure it's moving forward.
It is why we keep, I keep bringing up an independent budget
office, having somebody who can call balls and strikes
and provide the data to all parties involved
that make sure things are being implemented in a way that
that feels impartial rather than what's I see developing,
because we're only in the second month of the year
and these kind of dynamics playing
out are gonna make it that much harder.
So I would, for all the colleagues that want to be involved,
whether it's the Budget Accountability Coalition,
whether it's other members of the council, do think we need
to look at the management ordinance to make the kind
of process changes that would take out the emotion out
of this thing so that we move forward
and get something that makes sense for everybody.
It's absolutely fair that if something got passed in a
budget, it needs to be implemented.
I understand spirit, but I,
I would invite the colleagues all to find a conversation
around codifying processes.
'cause this is gonna get more tense the later it gets in the
year, and I don't think it'll be productive. Yeah.
I would encourage you Alderman to get involved with the,
uh, budget accountability group
because there are actually conversations that are occurring
that are positive around the items
that we passed in the budget.
I think yesterday there was a release of A RFI
around augmented reality.
There's a task force that's a working group
that's been set up around debt collection.
I mean, so there has been some movement.
I think we're not seeing any movement
and discussion around the issue
that Alderman Beal is bringing to our attention here.
And hopefully we will start to have some conversations
around that moving forward.
Yeah. So I don't wanna characterize it
as a us versus them kind of thing. Um,
I I totally appreciate that.
I think there's also the, them potentially characterizing it
as such and making it challenging.
Yeah. And I would say something
that we all understand and well, I
Hope they heard the message about the, uh, some
of the them stuff that's been, that's, uh, continuing
and that we will see some modification in that. Um, yeah, I
Think the less, sorry, one thing to articulate on
that is I think we all have a shared frustration sometimes
when administration doesn't talk to anybody about things,
and then we're finding out about the press
or through public communications.
Similarly, the coalition not having invites
or talking to other members who haven't voted on any of them
might have been a missed
opportunity. But thank you very much.
Thank you. Alderman Vazquez.
Alderman Irvin, followed by Alderman Lopez.
Um, we wanna acknowledge Alderman Mana Howorth, who is, uh,
come in now as a non-member.
Thank, thank you, Madam Chair.
Um, the, uh,
say legislative legislating is, is like sausage making, uh,
there, there's some cliche to that.
I I don't know. It, um,
Another urban analogy, huh?
No, this is not an urban analogy.
No, I won't, I won't, won't take credit for that one.
Um, this kind of reminds me of, uh, this kind of reminds me
of the, uh, conversation around, uh,
around Le Penske
and how we ended up getting the orange line in out
of the federal government.
Um, however, when I look at this, uh,
this particular piece of legislation, I know
that many members of this council do not support this.
I know that many members of this council do not believe
that this is the best step for the city of Chicago to take.
But as part of a overall package of things
that were brought together, uh, you know, in some ways, uh,
accepted it, there are a plethora of questions
around this issue.
And this issue is too big of an issue.
Too many concerns for it to be passed in such a manner.
Um, now I respect the legislative process
and how we got here, and I understand that.
And now it is part of, uh, for lack of a better term law.
Uh, however, uh, this particular subject
does need some further consideration.
Um, there are many aspects, uh, of it that bring concern.
Um, there bring concerns around, uh, minority participation.
It brings concerns around addiction.
It brings a ton of concerns even around revenue.
Uh, and will it bring forth, uh, what it is that we
as a city, uh, desire.
Again, legislating is, is like sausage making.
And I know that, um, we, um, have to, had
to get to where we needed to get to.
And again, I, I respect that process.
Uh, however, I do believe that this particular portion
of the process, if it were taken out
and stood along, would not stand.
Uh, and I think that as a city, I think that as a council,
I think this is something that we need to reconsider
because not only of the revenue implications that exist
for the city of Chicago, but the long-term implications, uh,
that also exist as it relates to revenue.
Because, and this is just me, I don't think it makes sense
to trip over dollars to pick up quarters.
'cause that's what we're exchanging here in this
particular conversation.
Now, again, the policy conversation, I think that, that,
that we can, we can have,
we know from the Illinois Gaming Board,
they're two years backed up on, on applications.
Uh, this is not something that's going to happen overnight.
I don't even believe that we can collect an application fee
until a, to the IGB license
or give somebody even initial license, which is a lease, uh,
more than a year away.
So I, I think the misnomer
of revenue coming in this year is, I think,
uh, false at best.
Uh, and I think that we will ultimately have to get back
to the table related, uh, to revenue overall as a,
uh, as a point.
Uh, one thing i, i, I will say is that, um, I hope
that sooner, uh, rather than later, that
that calmer heads do prevail
and that we can, uh, come up with the construct on revenue,
uh, that not everybody may be able to live with,
but at least, uh,
both branches can have some level of ownership with.
Because what we're experiencing today is a point
where the executive branch without, you know, buy-in and
or agreement, is essentially
not moving at the speed at which it normally should
and would under, uh, circumstances
where everybody is at the table.
Um, I, I think this is the beginning
of a very ous period for this city.
And it is gonna be on us as a body of, of this body
to come up with solutions along, uh, with the, uh,
administration so that we can move this city forward
because, uh, you know, I will do this one.
He said the elephants fight, but the ground gets trampled.
And the grounds that get trampled will be the communities,
uh, in our city that either miss something,
don't get something, have something that they don't need
or don't want, because we're down here arguing
over quarters.
So again, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to just try
to figure out the path of
how we're gonna solve this challenge.
Uh, and again, uh, while I do, do respect the, uh, the rule
of, of, of this, of this body
and the fact that it has been passed,
I think it is something that we need to reconsider
because ultimately it's not in the best interest
of our city financially
and on a number of, uh, number of points.
So, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Alderman Irvin,
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, chair. Thank you, chairman.
Uh, am I the last speaker? Yes.
Behind me. 'cause we got four urbanisms in
that speech right now, uh, in addition to four too.
So I do listen. Sure, I do listen.
Um, I don't wanna belabor the point,
but I think we need to get back on topic.
There are plenty of issues with regards to video gaming.
Today's resolution has nothing to do with them.
It has to do with the execution of the law, the law
that this body approves, the management ordinance,
that this council approved something on a topic
that both the license committee as well as this committee
approved, and the failure of the administration
to execute the will of the legislative branch
of government, which is us.
We are here sending this resolution
because the law required the administration
to give notice of our intent to,
to participate in video gaming.
That's all this is about.
Everything else that we're talking about.
Once the ball gets rolling, we could have those discussions
and we've all talked about them, whether it's the tax, the,
the, the money for the city, licensing, all
of those, security, all of that.
But we can't have discussions on hypotheticals
until we open the door and move this forward.
And that's what we're here to do.
Everything else is a distraction from that point.
So with that, if there's no, if there isn't a motion,
then I would make motion or join my colleague
For already. But
Alderman Viegas, um, wanted to say one more thing.
I'll be very quick. I just wanted to remind abody
that back in 2010, that when these Illinois, um,
the General Assembly passed the capital bill,
there was three funding components in order
to pay back the bonds around Capital.
One was the increase in the motor fuel tax
associated with E Cola.
Number two was the increase in the state plate stickers.
And the last, uh, funding mechanism was video gaming.
Uh, and for video, video, uh, V GTS in the state
of Illinois, the General Assembly, as of recent,
has made comments around the fact that the city
of Chicago does receive a hundred percent
of capital dollars, despite the fact that only two thirds
of the funding mechanism is being contributed
in order to pay back bonds.
I think it's incumbent upon us as a city
that there's an opportunity there to, uh, increase revenue
for the state, but also for the city.
If the administration
and this body are collectively going down to Springfield
to advocate for the split.
But right now, if you're not advocating for the split
and you're not participating in it, then we're in,
in essence, just on the sidelines.
This OP allows us an opportunity to make sure that we're,
we're funding capital,
which in turn helps the city of Chicago as well. Thank you.
Vice Chair Conway, you raised your
Hand. Yeah, I, I just have
a, I have a question.
Um, I, I'd either direct it to the sponsor or to you.
Madam Chairwoman did, has BACP
provided anybody a reason why they haven't filed this
yet? I
Don't have a response to that
'cause they have not come before this committee.
I, I don't know if Alderman Beal has been told
no, I guess as good as mine.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
That's all I have. Madam Chair won.
Thank you. So, um, alderman Beal,
you're renewing your motion for recommend due
pass of item number nine.
Yep. Renew motion. All
Right. All those in
favor of the motion 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.
Item number 10. Under miscellaneous is a proposed ordinance
authorizing the payment of various small claims against the
City of Chicago.
A direct introduction.
Uh, these payments were sent electronically to everyone,
and if there are no objections,
these will be placed on the omnibus.
Item number 11.
Also, under miscellaneous is a proposed ordinance denying
the payment of various small claims against the
city of Chicago.
Also, a direct introduction sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no objections,
these will be placed on the omnibus.
Item number 12, again, under miscellaneous one,
proposed order authorizing charitable solicitation on the
public way permits a direct introduction by Ms.
Accordia, Mr. Cordia Foundation,
a citywide permit from April 22nd, 2026
through April 25th, 2026.
If there are no objections, this permit is approved
and will be placed on file with the clerk.
There being no further business before the committee.
Alderman Mosley makes a motion to adjourn.
All those in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed?
If then chair, it's over y'all.
The Committee on Finances ended.