Good morning. Can you hear me?
Yes.
Wonderful.
Hi, it's Marcia.
Hi, this is Sarah.
Hi, Sarah.
Hi, this is Saima Bostic.
Morning, Saima.
Good
morning.
Mic
check, check. One, two, three. One, two, three. Check, check.
For the folks that are in Zoom, if you can hear me, we are waiting to make
quorum for, the commencement of our committee.
So if you will just sit tight for just a few.
Uh, we just wanna make sure to let you know, so you're not just staring at a screen
of the seal of the City of Chicago. Thank
you.
Good
morning, everyone. Um, sorry for the delay this morning.
Uh, the committee, th-the Committee on Economic Capital Development is called to
order. We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Please use the iPads provided to you and mark yourself present.
Note that your present response will be deemed a yes vote when this quorum call is
used as a reference vote for later. Mr.
Banegas, please open the vote.
Huh?
Oh, easy.
You got it.
Oh.
Please start
refreshing.
Got it.
All right. Mr. Banegas, ple-go ahead and
please call the-
We'll get your roll call in five minutes
... the roll.
Alderwoman Gutierrez. Alderwoman Lee.
Alderman Chico. Alderman
Waguespack. Alderman
Riley. Alderwoman Mana
Hoppenworth. Alderman
Mosley. Go ahead, call.
Uh, Alderman, we have a quorum.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum.
Uh, Aldermans Cru-Alderwoman Cruz and Tavares
have requested to participate, participate in today's meeting remotely under Rule
59. May I get a motion to allow them to participate remotely?
Alderman Riley motions to allow Alderwoman Cruz and Tavares,
Tavares to participate remotely.
Alder-
He's, he's not on our committee.
He's just-
Yeah
... participating as a... Yes, he does.
And also, Alderman Mor- Let me go ahead and
renew that motion. Uh, Alderman Cruz,
Tavares, and Moore have requested to participate in today's meeting remotely under
Rule 59. Alderman Riley made a motion to allow them to
participate. Uh, Alderman
Moore, are you online?
Alderwoman Tavares?
Present, Chairman.
Alderwoman Cruz?
I'm here, Chairman.
Thank you. Okay. Uh, all those in favor, please say aye.
Any opposed, say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Uh, the alderpersons mentioned are partic-are permitted to participate remotely
today. They will be marked as present for the quorum call.
For today's meeting, we did receive a written comment.
Uh, it should be in your shared drive.
Uh, at this dis-at this time, we will begin the public comment period.
Public comments are limited to 30 minutes.
Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to three minutes.
I've been informed that we have one that's pub-signed up for public comment,
Ms. Patricia Puente.
Thank you.
I take the Orange Line from Midway, and there's a lot
of visitors visiting our city, beautiful
city. But unfortunately,
when you pass through
31st and Ashland, when the bus
passes... The bus, the train passes Ashland,
on the water bank, they're dumping
trash, toxic garbage,
mattresses, everything. Is that what the
city wants our visitors to be seeing?
I've been fighting this for a year and a half.
It took me a year and a half for somebody to clean it
up. It's starting
again. I spoke
with David Vargas,
he's in charge of streets and sanitation, and he said that
he doesn't have the resources to clean that up.
I spoke with reclamation water. They said if that
is in the water, they will take care of it.
But it's not in the water, it's on the land.
Who takes care of it? Because it looks like David
Vargas says, "That's not my
responsibility."
Yeah.
We need that to be cleaned. A lot of visitors come.
31st and Ashland.
I love this city. Please, how much money does
it take with all the money, monies that you are giving
to other people that really, really the dirt and the
garbage is not seen? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Puente. Um, I have one of my staff members follow up with
you. We can get your information. Ladies and gentlemen, that
concludes the public comment portion of our meeting.
The first order of business is approval of the February 2026 monthly report, which
all members of the committee should have received via the shared drive.
Are there any questions or comments from the committee members regarding the
report?Seeing none, Alderman Riley makes a
motion to recommend approval of the February 2026 monthly report by the same roll
call vote as was applied to the term quorum. Hearing no objections so ordered.
Please let the record reflect that Alderman Napolitano has joined for the purposes
of quorum. Items one through 12 on the agenda are appointments or
reappointments to the following special service areas.
The following individuals are being considered before the committee.
Reappointment of John L. Ratzenberger as a member of Special
Service Area Number 21-2016, Lincoln Square.
Reappointments of Megan Schneider Gill and Charles J.
Stewart as members of Special Service Area Number 27, West Lakeview.
Appointment of Tatanya Williams as a member of the Special Service Area
Number 32-2024, Auburn Gresham.
Reappointment of Carolyn O. Schoenberger as a member of the Special
Service Area Number 48, Old Town. Appointment of David Rudd as a
member of the Special Service Area Number 56-2022,
Brownsville. Reappointments of Selma Kosovic, Andrew
S. Levin, Levin, Sara, Sara T. Lopez as members of
Special Service Area Number 60, Albany Park. Reappointment of N.
Marcia Jimenez as a Special
Service Area Number 62, Saganash.
Reappointments of Carlton F. Daniels Metz and Kirby Kaiser
as members of Special Service Area Number 18, North
Halsted. Mark Rochon, the Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Planning and
Development, is available to answer any questions on these appointments
or reappointments. The ECTD committee has confirmed the support
or non-objection from the following council members with appointments and
reappointments within their respective wards.
Alderman Burnett, Aldermoman Clay, Aldermoman Dow, Aldermoman Hal,
Hall, Aldermoman Hopkins, Aldermoman Lawson, Aldermoman Martin,
Aldermoman Moore, Aldermoman Nugent, Aldermoman Rodriguez
Sanchez, Aldermoman Casada, Aldermoman Vasquez, and Aldermoman
Waguespack. At this time, if any of the appointments are present and would like to
make a statement, please indi-indicate so.
Um, are the any of these SSA members online or
present here that would like to make a comment?
Don't be shy. Uh. Seeing none.
All right, seeing none, Aldermoman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman. Um, just in keeping with pr-previous
meetings, can
those appointees that are here raise their hand so at least we see who's
here?
Yep, can you raise your hands?
Um, cool. And, I'm sorry, and identify themselves
because...
Yeah. Um, if you'll just come up
here front, just identify yourselves.
And then those that are online, if you could, raise your
hand and just mention your name so that way, we know that
you're present, for the reappointment and appointment, so the SSA areas that
you've been identified
for.
Hi, I'm Kirby Kaiser. I'm with SSA 18.
Um, I'm a big fan of SSAs, and, really
like that, you know, they get the community involved.
And, you know, we can do more with the money that we collect than we
could individually do as building owners.
We own buildings all over the city, and, you know, where we have an SSA, we always
support that because, you know, you can do more w- you can do more collectively and
keep the neighborhood nicer.
Thank you.
Good morning. I'm Tatanya Williams.
I own Tati's Floral on 79th Street.
Um, I'm honored to serve and excited to support continued
growth and development in our community.
Thank you.
Good morning. Carolyn Schoenberger, and I'm very honored
to be considered to be reappointed to the Old Town
SSA. Uh, I love the city. I love Old
Town, and it's interesting to be back in this
building after being gone for 21
years.
Um, next we have online
John Ratze-Ratzenberger.
Hello. Uh, John Ratzenberger, SSA 21, Lincoln Square, up for
reappointment and, and very grateful for your consideration and grateful for all
the time I've already, spent on the committee.
It's, we've done amazing things up here, and so we're very grateful for this
opportunity to continue to serve.
Thank you. Uh, we have, next Dave.
Hi. Good morning, everybody. David Rudd with Rudd Resources.
Happy to be in, Special Service Area 56 on 47th
Street in Brownsville. I look forward to contributing to,
continued vibrancy of the, of the commercial road on 47th
Street. Thank you.
Thank you, Dave.
Um, Megan Schneider.
Hello, my name is Megan Schneider Gill.
Um, I live in this area as well as operate Bitter Pops, a local
business, and community support is incredibly important to us as
someone that lives in the neighborhood but also operates a business, so thank you
so much. And I've just been appointed the chair, so thank you and looking forward
to supporting the community.
Thank you. Uh, Marcia Jimenez.
David
Runn? Rudd?
Rudd.
Oh, he's right there. Okay.
Awesome.
Andrew Levin.
My name is Andrew Levin.
Okay.
I am a returning commissioner to Special Service Area Number
60, and I just love the support we give to our whole community and to our
all our business owners. We've been around for over 16 years now,
and we're gonna continue to do great things in Albany Park and Irving Park.
Thank you. Saima Kosevic?
Yeah, Saima Kosevic, SSA 60. I will,
confirm and agree with Andrew Levin.
We're on the same team, and glad to be, reappointed.
Thank you. Sarah Lopez?
Hi, Sarah Lopez, also from, SSA 60, Irving Park
and Albany Park. Um, I'm very excited to continue my work here
with, the SSA.
Did we have Carlton F.
Daniels-Metz?
Who was that?
Okay. So the only one absent is, Carlton F.
Daniels-Metz. Do we have
Charles?
Yes.
Charles Stewart.
Yep. Thank you, Charles.
I'm a member of SSA 27. I've been involved with it
for several years. I enjoy Lakeview area, enjoy the
Southport, Corridor.
Um, I'm a business owner and
resident.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir. And, so the only one absent is Carlton
F. Daniels-Metz, who spoke with my staff.
He had a work meeting that he could not
miss.
Okay.
All right. Are there any other questions from the members of the committee to
the, SSA ap- ap-
appointees?
Chairman, this is Alderman David Moore.
If you can put me down as a non-member, and I just wanna welcome Tatiana
Williams. Um, excited to have her on at SSA
32.
Thank you, Alderman Moore. We'll also mark you down.
I also wanna mark, Alderman Mitchell for the purposes of
quorum. Um, Alderman Mana Hoppenworth?
Thank you, Chair. As, as a small business owner,
I wanted to thank all of you for serving on your SSAs.
Your job is so important and so vital to your business
corridors, and I hope that you also
advertise to your own customers what you do for the community.
I know that you're very modest, but take this opportunity,
really, to, to share with the neighborhood what an SSA does
and why, why it's so important, because we need folks
like you to step up. You can't be in this role forever.
So let's, you know, figure out a pipeline so that when you do eventually give up
your post, somebody else is, is gonna follow in your place so that they can
carry on your work. Um, thank you all for your work.
Thank you. Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman. Just a quick comment.
Wanna thank everyone who showed up and participated.
It's always good to give our businesses an opportunity to see us face-to-face, and
see you face-to-face. Um,
welcome back, Commissioner. Um, and
lastly, perhaps just a suggestion for committee when we have
members, if we could also include their business,
because I think to Tatiana when she mentioned her business, some of
our, our appointees and reappoints did not.
So I think this is a great opportunity for a free plug, so to
speak, to help us elevate other small businesses in our neighborhood.
So if, if those could be added, to the agenda by their name
or in their opening remarks moving forward, I would appreciate that.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
Thank you.
DPD, if you could add the name of the businesses, that is some
free advertisement. That is correct.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee?
Uh, Alderman Lo- Lopez makes a motion
to, approve
of the appointments of, appointments or reappointments by the same roll call
vote that was applied to determine quorum.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Uh, the due pass recommendation of the appointments or reappointments will be
reported out at the next city council meeting.
Appointees, congratulations on your confirmation and partnership with the City of
Chicago. We look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Item 13 on the agenda is a direct introduction ordinance for a Class L
industrial property tax incentive at 30 North LaSalle Street.
Uh, Eilish Tuffy, Coordinating Planner, Department of Planning and Development, is
here to present in support of the item and will be available to answer any
questions. Ms. Tuffy, please begin the presentation when you are
ready. And for the record, Alderman Conway has provided
a letter of support for this
item.
Good morning, members of the committee.
Eilish Tuffy, DPD Historic Preservation Division.
Before you is a Class L incentive for the property at 30
North LaSalle Street, located in the 34th Ward.
We have a letter of support from Alderman Conway.
We also received a letter of support from Alderman Riley.
Additional comment letters were included in the ordinance
package.
The current curtain wall structure i- at 30 North LaSalle
is a 44-story tall structure. Like many
international style highrises, the ground floor glazing was original deeply
recessed, creating a covered arcade at street level.
In 1989, the recessed arcade was largely eliminated to
capture more square footage. The applicant, 30 North
LaSalle, proposes to substantially rehabilitate the building.
The diagram on the right illustrates the proposed uses.
The ground floor will be renovated for retail plus lobby space.
Floors 2 through 18 in yellow will be residential, so are
not included in this Class L application.
Floors 19 through 44 in blue will be
offices, plus a rooftop amenity level will be
added. Exterior work to the building envelope includes
reglazing all windows on floors 19 through 44 with
one-inch insulated
glass.Existing
nonhi-historic storefronts on the ground floor will be removed.
The replacement storefronts will incorporate a setback to impart the feeling of the
original arcade. The outdoor plaza's nonhistoric
pla- pavers and planters will be replaced with both salvaged
and new materials.
The top two floors of the building do not currently have windows, but rather
solid metal exterior panels. The project will
introduce new glazed opening on the top s- two floors in
keeping with the existing curtain wall design on the remainder of the building.
At the roof level, a proposed rooftop addition and outdoor terrace
were reviewed by the Landmark Commission's Permit Review Committee to
ensure minimal visibility from the public right of way.
The existing elevator penthouse will be expanded to accommodate the rooftop
area, and a new rooftop roofing membrane will be
installed.
Interior work to office floors 19 through 44 will include
demolition of existing office build-outs, abatement
work, building system upgrades, and finishing
common hallways, elevator lobbies, and restrooms in
advance of tenant occupancy.
The total project cost is $132.4
million. The full market value of the building is
$68.7 million. The commercial portion
of this building is 64% of the
total building square footage, which is equal to 44
million in market value. Therefore, the
50% required minimum investment that's part of the Class L
requirements would be $22 billion
invested in eligible rehabilitation
expenses. The project team expects to spend
seventy-three point four million on eligible rehabilitation costs, which is
well over the 50% requirement.
Currently, the annual taxes on the building are three point two six
million. When the incentive expires in year
thirteen, the estimate is those taxes will be
appro-approximately eight point seven six million,
which is an increase of over five million dollars from the current amount.
The total tax abatement to the applicant is forty-seven point two
million. The city's share of that is estimated to be ten point eight
million dollars, and the net benefit to the taxing districts is
six million dollars.
The Commission on Chicago Landmarks voted at its December meeting
to support this Class L application and recommend approval
to City Council. We have members of DPD's,
Bureau of Economic Development here, as well
as Lee Golub, the developer, and Julie Almond from Power
on the project team, and Mar-Moriah DiGrino th- with DLA
Piper, the project, the project team's attorney.
We're all available should there be any
questions.
Thank you, Elise. If the members of the team could come up front so that
we, we could have, committee
members.
Thank you. Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman. And again, good morning, members of the committee.
Um,
can, can we go back to what the diagram of the building looks
like?
Certainly.
So this is-- So I'm, so I'm clear, and sorry, it's a little grainy on our
side.
Mm-hmm.
Um, so we're trying to struggle through this.
Um, the
floors two through
eighteen, this is to help assist with their
transformation into residential apartment?
Uh, no. So today's-
Could you identify yourself for the-
Of course. Yes. Thank you. Uh, this is Moriah DiGrino from DLA Piper.
So what you're looking at is of, of course, the building kind of broken up into the
components, and you are correctly identifying the floors two through eighteen as
the residential component. The residential component is a separate
project, for which, the, the city is, is granting
TIF under the LaSalle Street Initiative.
Today's Class L request pertains to floors nineteen
through forty-four above, above the residential.
Um, the Class L program is intended to incentivize the renovation and
rehabilitation of the building for the office uses.
The Class L, only applies really to commercial
non-residential uses.
And is this building,
a planned development?
It is currently a planned development today.
Um, it was a planned development that was established many decades ago after
the building had already been constructed.
Uh, and so the, if I can anticipate your question, the
zoning strategy, the anticipation is to, sunset
that PD and seek a type one map amendment to,
properly zone the property for the residential uses.
Now, when does that sunset?
Uh, w-we would have to file the-- Uh, an application is already on file for that,
so that would have to come before the zoning committee in order to-
And when is that expected to be before the zoning committee?
When, when there is a meeting scheduled.
Ah. Shameless.
Um,
I know that we've been spending hundreds of
millions of dollars for projects like this, to
transform buildings like this. Um,
is there any kind of,
um...Historical
aspect to this building, this particular building or no?
So the building is, has been recommended for designation as
a Chicago landmark by the Landmarks Commission.
Uh, again, the designation is u- awaiting approval by the zoning
committee at the next available zoning committee meeting.
Um, so that would be the, the historic component of this.
And will that interfere with any of the plans for transformation
here?
No. Those plans have been reviewed and approved by the PRC, and,
I'm sure Eilish can validate and elaborate as
necessary on that.
Will that interrupt or will that require the change in the PD,
the planned development?
Um, the change in the planned development is being driven by the fact that the
planned development when it was established, only
permits the use of the building for office.
So the reason for changing the planned development, uh-
Residential
... is to allow the residential, correct.
I may not be a zoning committee-
Yeah
... but I'm familiar.
Yeah.
So, so... And the reason I ask is because I know this
has been brought up with regards to some of the other projects where we've seen,
the
sequence of events, I'll put it like that, to change
PDs to get around landmark preservation and to start
building, and there's been some concerns raised that I've
heard, with regards to that approach to doing this.
Um, because oftentimes it feels as though that's a manipulation of
the,
process to get around, or to get
beyond the units that are being created.
How much money in TIF is being, has been, excuse me,
allocated to this project?
57 million.
Is it fair then to say that this is a...
this says 57 million in TIF with an anticipated...
What was the other abatement? 43 million
total.
The... It's 47.2.
And that's for the duration of how long? Or is that annual?
For 12 years.
So,
so for 12 years, it'll get $47 million
abatement.
In total. Right.
Correct.
So roughly $100 million.
Mm-hmm. Correct.
Correct? Okay.
And lastly, Chairman, and I appreciate kind of veering a
little off-topic since we don't have zoning committees anymore to talk about
this, but I just wanted to ask, so how much of this work has
already begun?
None of it, right? I mean, you can-
None of the work's actually... I'm sorry.
Lee Golub, managing principal, Golub & Company.
Sorry, I've had a cough, so I'm wearing a mask.
Um-
You can keep it on. Go ahead.
Okay. None of the work has actually started yet.
We're all in the pre-development and design stage. Designing.
So I know that one of the issues that we have often
cited, with regards to any tax incentives is that we
don't necessarily see the participation from our neighborhoods and our
workforces. Um,
thankfully, you haven't started your end of it.
Um, but I know if Alderman Mitchell and others are, are here, we've had this
conversation routinely that we don't, get approached
until, you know, work's already started or things of that nature.
So, can you
explain to us what your, plan is to
achieve, the inclusions,
metrics that are so highly anticipated by this
body?
Yeah. I s- I was gonna let-
I can
... our representative from Power Construction, 'cause we have been doing that
all along in the des- in the designing phase.
So I'm Julie Allman with Power Construction. Um, so we have an outreach program.
We have a partner that we're gonna partner with, which is, Toro Construction.
So we have committed to partnering with them.
They will perform both general conditions and subcontractor work, 'cause they're
also a drywall subcontractor and rough carpentry.
So, Power, as a matter of course, does a lot of outreach within the
community. So we do onboarding. We bring subs on board.
Um, we plan on bringing more subs on board-
Mm
... specifically for this project so we can advertise it to the community as
well. Um, last year in 2025, I think we had 89
companies that came through our doors as an onboarding process, which we do
quarterly, and 60 of them I've already done work with on Power
projects. So it's part of our business core, and then that's our commitment to
Golub too, and to this project.
Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Any other questions from members of the committee?
Uh, Alderman Lee?
Thank you, Chairman. Can you go back to the slide with the dollar breakdown-
Sure
... for the abatement and the costs?
Gotcha.
So the, the project cost only applies to the upper
floors then. I just wanted clarification on that.
Correct.
Okay. Um, and then the- ... the total cost of the,
the entire project, can you give me a sense of what that
will be?
For the residential plus the commercial?
Yeah.
Yes. It's,
rough- I think it's be- two f- well...
It's about 133, 34 million for the residential.
I s- can you say that just one more time?
100... I know. I was gonna s- The
residential piece is about 100 and...
roughly $135 million in total cost, and the office
piece will be roughly
240 in total cost.
240 million.
For the two together, so that's... No.
375 for the whole thing.
Yeah, 300-plus.
So what's that number?
No, you're correct.
375 million?
In total cost to do what we wanna do, yes.
It includes the million square foot building.
So you got the residential piece at about 135 million, and then
the, the 630,000 square feet of office above, about 200
and-Total project cost, including the allocation
of price, about $250... $240
million.
That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. I just wanted clarification on that.
That's all I've got, Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. Um, Eileesh, on the document here, it s- on the
presentation, it says 132.
Yes. Uh-
That's just for that specific portion that we're talking about. Okay.
That's the residential.
Yep.
Correct.
Gotcha. Um, Alderman Laugesen.
Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Eileesh, what is the overall tax bill right now
that they're paying for the entire property?
Sure. The current annual taxes are
3,262,609.
Was that 3 million?
Correct.
Okay. That's for the entire building?
Yes. Or-
Yeah
... no, I'm sorry. This is the breakout just for the Class L eligible square
footage.
So 18 and above?
Yes.
19.
Okay. And
what's that due to,
that tax bill? Uh, let me ask it this way.
It's probably vacancy, but what, um...
how long has the... that portion of the building been vacant, and what
has... what was the property tax bill?
Was it higher over, like, a five-year period or 10 year?
The, the current building is about
30% occupied. The tax bill for the entire
building, I can't remember. Last year was...
I can't remember what it was. Yeah.
Oh, 30% occupied.
Probably. Oh, yeah, yeah.
We're trying to... I'm trying to pull up the tax data.
I think in the interest of time, though, the $3 million figure
is a, a rough proportion of the building as a whole,
so we can extrapolate and understand the ta- the full tax
bill for the building to be, you know, proportionate to the 3 million, so
probably in, in the neighborhood of 5 to 6 million.
Because-
And, okay
... it's about 64%.
64%. And when did that bill... Um, was that through an
appeal because of the vacancies? So what was
the last highest amount or higher amount before
that, when it was more fully va- fully,
occupied?
We would have to do more research through the Property Tax Council, and, and we can
provide that information through the chair.
Okay. Thank you.
However, the building has been... Now it's about 30% leased.
It was about... You know, the entire low-rise was essentially vacant 'cause the
City of Chicago was the tenant for many years, but they vacated four or five years
ago. So the building went into foreclosure because of the vacancy of-
Yeah
... it couldn't support the loan.
Yeah, I was just trying to figure out-
Yeah
... five plus. That's why I said 5 to 10 years ago, what, what kind of-
Yeah
... tax, property tax was it generating,
and to tie that into, what we're voting on here.
Thank you. If you can get it through the chair quickly, that would be helpful.
And it can be a rough estimate. It doesn't have to be, exact for the
last, you know, 15, 20 years.
Thank you, Alderman Laugesen. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you. I'm sorry, one last question.
Um,
are you also the developer for the residential site?
Of... In the entire building?
Yes.
How much affordable housing is in that?
30%.
And how is that funded? From the rest of the
project?
It's, it's-
Yes
... the capitalization of it.
Yeah.
It'll be from an investment from our firm with a
LP capital partner. That'll be...
Again, the property is being split into two from tax ID and everything.
Yeah. They don't have-
So both these projects are separate projects where we'll be a
partnership of us and an LP capital partner in both.
So did the Department of Housing
offer to help with any funding, since they have a billion dollars in-
They asked us if we... When, when we looked at this project originally, you
know, it's not a landmark... it wasn't a landmark project at the time.
Um, and on the residential side, they asked us to look at LIHTC.
We, decided not to do LIHTC. But this is a,
you know, public-private funding between the TIF and then private capital
and construction loan.
So it was their decision or your decision?
Our decision not to do LIHTC.
So... But they did, they did not offer any of the housing
bond funding for this project to help create
or-
Mm-mm.
Oh, hello, Jeff. How's it
going?
Uh, good morning. Uh, Jeff Cohen, Deputy Commissioner with the Bureau of Economic
Development. Um, the LaSalle Reimagined program was really
gonna be dedicated towards the usage of leveraging the LaSalle Central TIF
district, since that had a, a pretty large liquidity,
rather than dipping into the housing and economic development bond portion,
whether a DOH decide or DPD, we could utilize those,
funds for other projects throughout the city.
And whose decision was that? Because as we've seen in this last
budget,
surplusing a billion dollars in TIF kind of changes that liquidity that you're
referring to.
Sure.
And if we have a billion dollar credit line to build
housing, I'm just curious as to why we have not used
that to build housing, especially when a third of
it is affordable, versus dipping into
the
citywide TIF piggy bank, for this
project.
Um, I will admit that the decision of whether or not to use TIF for
this specific project was part of the initial planning for the,
LaSalle investment proposals. Uh, that predates my tenure here at the
city, but I'm w- willing to figure out the decision-making process behind that,
to address potentially the-
And, and conversely-How many more housing projects
are similar to this downtown?
Uh, in total there are six funded through TIF.
Um, and we also have, I believe, fourteen or fifteen other office
residential conversions that are not receiving subsidies.
Yet?
Uh, to my knowledge none of them have filed applications with our department.
But the anticipation is that
since we have helped fund, either through a, tax
exemption or TIF, six of
them, fourteen of them are not going to just do it on their own.
I would imagine that fourteen of them are going to at some point ask us for money.
Correct? You don't have to answer that.
I already-
I mean, I, I don't mean to speculate-
So-
... but they will-
Well, I'll speculate. So we have a total of 20, of
which six have gotten funding and, and tax
incentives.
We have 14 that have not as of yet, for whatever reason,
whatever stage they find themselves in.
I don't, I, I don't hold them ac- liable for that.
But at the same time,
that li- that TIF liquidity
is evaporating. So are we going to start using
the housing bond authority which City Council
gave this administration to actually build housing or to
help
support housing efforts, in this
project?
Uh, I-
Fair enough. Chairman, maybe we should have that as part of our discussion moving
forward, because I think that while this
administration is telling us how dire the budget is because
of even with a billion dollar surplus, next year, this year, the
2027 budget will be no better. And I don't think we can count on
surplusing, and I don't wanna stall projects meant to
improve and transform the downtown area.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. DPD, if you could begin to take a look at that
information, send it through the chair.
Yes, sir.
Any other questions from members?
Uh, Alderman Palatano?
Hello. Um, yes, just very quickly.
Besides the questions that my colleague, has brought up, which is
very concerning and very valid, I would just like to thank you for coming
to Chicago and developing some vacancy that we've
mysteriously had for the past seven years.
Um, and I, I hope that we get through this project and, help
the city grow once again and, and fill these vacancies.
So we're, we're more appreciative on this side than it might come
off, but what my colleague brings up is extremely valid,
that we should be looking into a little bit more deeply.
But thank you for choosing to do this project.
Thank you, Alderman. And just so you know, our, our company is a
sixty-six-year-old family business, third gener- three generations,
and been developing in the city since the, the early
1960s. So very happy to come back and,
and help to revitalize the Loop. We were involved in Block
37 for many, many years to help that project.
Uh, this project, very, very crucial for the, for
the, you know, redevelopment and reactivation of LaSalle Street and the
corridor. So thank you. Appreciate it.
Thank you. And then, Elish, if, when
the, when the develop... I'm sorry.
When the general contractor, Power begins to
advertise and put out information around selection of these firms, could you report
back through the chair who they selected?
Sure. Absolutely.
Okay. Thank you. Um, any other questions from members of the committee?
Alderman Riley makes a motion to recommend pass of this ordinance by the same roll
call vote that was applied to establish quorum. Hearing no objections to order.
The due pass recommendation will be reported at the next city council meeting.
Thank you.
Great.
Number fourteen on the agenda is an ordinance for a Class
6B industrial property tax incentives at 501 North
Sacramento Boulevard. Jeff Cohen from the dep- the depart- the Deputy Commissioner
for the Department of Planning and Development is here to present in support of the
item, and will be available to answer any questions. Mr.
Cohen, when you're ready, please begin your
presentation.
Uh, good morning, Chairman Villegas, and members of the Committee on Economic
Capital and Technology Development.
For the record, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, Deputy Commissioner in Department of
Planning and Development. I'm also joined by Billy Graham, Financial Planning
Analyst with the department, as well as Mike and Alex Diakos from the
development team, and property, proprietors of DWF Food
Redistributors, as well as Greg Diamopolous, counsel for
the developer. We're also joined by Todd Ashman and Steve Piekarski of Goose
Island Beer Company. Uh, I'm here today to
request the approval of an ordinance supporting the renewal of a Class 6B property
tax incentive for Market Properties LLC to support the ongoing business
operations of existing business at 501 North Sacramento
Boulevard. Uh, this item was previously presented at the September
2025 meeting, where DPD was provided direction from the chair to provide
additional details regarding capital investment and job creation in support
of this incentive.
The project site is located at 501 North Sacramento Boulevard, which is in the
27th Ward, Humboldt Park community area, and West Planning region.
The property also lies within the Kinzie Industrial TIF District and PL- PMD Number
Four. Alderman Burnett has provided a letter of support for the
project.
Here's an aerial view of the site showing its neighborhood context.
The nearly 500,000 square foot facility spans nearly all the land it's s-
situated on, and is located pro- prominently within the Kinzie Industrial
Corridor, an established industrial area that the city has long sought to preserve
and strengthen as a hub for manufacturing and distribution employment.
Uh, here is a view of the current conditions at 501 North
Sacramento.Uh, the facility comprises four hundred and ninety-three
thousand five hundred square feet and is one hundred percent occupied by two
active tenants. The building was originally renovated between 29--
twenty-twenty and twenty-thirteen under the initial Class six B incentive, and
ownership has invested more than eight million in total capital improvements during
the initial incentive period. Looking ahead, Market Properties
LLC, the owner of the property, is proposing an additional two point five five
million in owner-level capital investments during the renewal period, part of
a total eight point nine four million commitment by all
parties. Fulton Street Brewery
LLC, doing business as Goose Island Beer Company, occupies just sigh
of-- just shy of three hundred and five thousand square feet, having expanded their
footprint from approximately one hundred and forty-five thousand, one hundred
and forty-five thousand square feet since taking occupancy in twenty-fourteen.
The property serves as the primary Chicago, location for mixing,
aging, and distribution of the Bourbon County Stout line of products, one of the
brewery's fastest-growing and most nationally recognized product lines.
The facility also features a dedicated event and gathering space capable of hosting
more than one hundred and fifty seated guests, two hundred and fifty-plus cocktail
reception... In a two hundred and fifty-plus guests in a cocktail reception format,
and has catered to many community organizations throughout Chicago.
Goose Island has outlined two point five seven million dollars in proposed capital
improvements during the renewal term, including a line-- a barrel line
expansion, tank capacity upgrades, which will directly support
expansion into new markets and further diversification.
DWF Food and Paper Distributors Inc., occupying the remaining one hundred and
ninety-one thousand square feet, is a family-owned bulk dry goods, paper
product, and food service distributor that has been serving the Chicagoland area
since nineteen fifty-eight. DWF supports a wide range of small
businesses and restaurateurs throughout the Chicago region and is proposing three
point eight, three point eight two million in capital investments during the
renewal period. These investments include construction of a frozen storage
facility, supplementing its existing cold storage capacity, and the
expansion of a private label line of bulk products, initiatives that will
directly serve the restaurant community and create new permanent employment
opportunities.
Uh, the applicant, Market Properties LLC, together with its two tenants, has
committed to a total of eight point nine four three million dollars
in physical improvements to the property during the first seven years of the
renewal term. These investments are intended to improve business operations,
expand production capacity, and support the creation of thirty-two new
full-time equivalent positions and thirty-five temporary construction
jobs. Notably, seventy percent of the committed capital investment
and the associated job creation are concentrated within the first three years of
the renewal term, demonstrating the ownership's near-term commitment to the site.
Uh, again, to summarize the breakdown of investments by party, Market Properties,
the owner, will be investing approximately two point five five million dollars.
DWF Food and Paper Distributor, one of the tenants, also a
ownership with, similar, ownership to the ownersh-- Market
Properties, of three point eight two million, and Goose Island Beer
Company, the second ten-- of two point five million
dollars. The estimated tax savings to the applicant over the twelve-year renewal
period is approximately six point one million, while total taxes paid
to all taxing bodies during the same period are estimated at approximately five
point six million. Um, this slide details
the proposed capital improvement schedule.
Uh, as you can note, in years one through three of the renewal term, a total
of six point three million dollars is committed across the following improvements.
Uh, by Market Properties, they intend to, enhance the fire
pump and suppression system, security system upgrades, and LED lighting
upgrades. Uh, Goose Island will facilitate expansion of their event
space, as well as the expansion of barrel line capacity and
a tank capacity expansion. Uh, DWF Foods will
also create an automated spice packaging system and
improve, vacant space to a frozen storage improvements of approximately three
point two million. In years four through seven, an additional two point six
million is planned, including roof seal coating and tuckpointing and the
installation of solar panels. Uh, this is an-anticipated to
generate an estimated fourteen additional temporary construction jobs.
Again, in total, the eight point nine four million commitment results into
thirty-two new permanent full-time positions and thirty-five temporary
construction jobs across the renewal period.
Uh, taxes at the property, are currently, three hundred and
sixty-five thousand five hundred and thirty-two in the last certified tax year at
the ten percent assessment level.
Uh, twenty-twenty-four taxes, as noted here, at the fifteen percent assessment
level, have increased to five hundred and fifty-one
thousand. Without the renewal of the Class six B, full
taxes on the improved property are projected to be at eleven point seven million
over a twelve-year period, which would translate to nearly one million dollars
annually. With the renewal, however, property taxes are estimated at five
point six million over the same period.
The estimated total tax abatement to the applicant based on taxes paid in the
final year at the ten percent assessment level is six point one million
dollars.
Uh, as detailed on this slide, the public benefits of this renewal are meaningful
and tangible. First, the ownership and tenants have committed to eight point nine
four million in property and facility improvements that will modernize and
strengthen a nearly half-million square foot industrial building within a protected
manufacturing district. These improvements will yield thirty-two new permanent
full-time positions and thirty-five temporary construction jobs.
Uh, second, because real estate taxes are a direct pe-- di-direct pass-through
expense to both tenants, the benefits of the renewal accrue immediately and
directly to tenants. This is essential to maintaining long-term lease commitments
from two Chicago-founded businesses that provide stable, accessible employment
opportunities within Humboldt Park, one of the city's priority community investment
areas.Third, the proposed capital improvements will enable both tenants to
enhance their respective capacity and product lines.
For Goose Island, that means expanding distribution of nationally recognized craft
products, and for DF- DWF, growing a private label operation
and frozen storage capabilities that directly serve Chicago's restaurant
community. Uh, for these reasons, DPD is in support of this Class
6B renewal, and we want to thank you for your favorable consideration of this
request. I, as well as the members of the development team and tenant represents
are present today, and are happy to answer any questions.
Thank you,
Mr. Cohen. I'd like to also, add to the quorum,
Alderman Mitts. Um, any questions from members of the committee?
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman. And again, good morning, members of the committee.
First off to our business owners, it's great seeing you again, and I will
remind everyone again, no 312 samples, so
thank you. Um, to the department,
what's changed since September?
In terms of our analysis?
Yeah.
Uh-
Because I remember this-
Mm-hmm
... last time. Um,
and I'd like to know,
has anything specific- is anything specifically different as requested by the
committee with what you're presenting today that was held months
ago?
Uh, I believe that the circumstances of giving you more information
about the improvements that were intended at the last meeting are more
detailed and, explained in terms of their timeline as well.
What I didn't hear an explanation of was what was the primary
points of our conversation last time, which
was that the issues out and around
this facility were ch- were, were what was
putting, having tenants and occupancy at risk.
Is that still the same?
That is not still the same. And I also-
Can I have the owners tell me that?
Well, I-
Good morning, everyone. Uh, my name is Michael Fiacos, and I represent the
property owner, Market Properties LLC, and I also represent the,
second generation business that occupies a portion of this
building, DWF Food and Paper Redistributors.
Um, as far as the issue, I was not here in the last committee meeting.
I was, out of the country, unfortunately.
Okay.
Um-
May I have that gentleman?
Sure. I'm Todd Osman, president of Goose Island.
Uh, since the last meeting, we have done a lot of outreach with,
a lot of community organizations, ChiCare as being the
lead. Uh, the situation
has mostly been relieved right in front of the entrance of
the building. Um, but we, we are still actively
working with the community organizations,
that are relevant for, for
our portion of it.
And is that s- And so we're all clear, we're referring to the
homelessness and other criminal activity,
correct?
Uh, correct.
Okay.
I, I don't like dancing around things because we didn't last
time, and I wanna make sure
because when we were here last time, we were actually
trying to manipulate our
incentive process
to cover both additional expense,
as well as the potential loss
of revenue because of everything that was happening
around this property.
Correct?
I can... Uh, Craig Demantopoulos.
I'm with the, Burrows Berkshire.
We're the counsel for the developer.
To answer your question, you, when I was discussing with, the
chairman, at the time we presented, we didn't have the projects,
you know, fully vetted, so we didn't have amount of capital improvements,
amount of jobs. And I did mention, that we'd be doing a security upgrade,
and that's when that discussion, started.
So, as part of that ongoing discussion, the,
the, the, our item was held, and part
of the request was to, instead of having general, you know, items
outlined when regarding capital improvements and jobs, to outline those more
specifically. But our initial application back in January
2024 didn't mention, anything with, with homelessness.
It was just based on, the economic, you know, potential economic
contributions and potential job creation.
Refresh my memory. Were you here when we had this last meeting?
I was.
Do you remember our conversations here?
I do.
And I remember that we had a very lengthy and
in-depth conversation with regards to
the One Chicago initiative, which deals with
homelessness. We had a very lengthy conversation
about the impact on maintaining
tenants and recruiting patrons to come to an event space when they had
to run the gauntlet to get in there.
And even now, with that not having been
rectified, the conversation was about using tax
incentives to divert costs from failed
policies of this building. Does that sound
familiar?
It... Yes, it did come up.
That sounds familiar?
Yes, it does.
Does that sound familiar?
Yeah.
Has that changed from the last time?
By the sounds of it, it has not. So I have a hard time
sitting here,
and again, this isn't meant to bash the building
or what goes on there, because I said that last time.
My heart goes out to folks who invest in
communities only to have bad policies
crap all over their vision.But at the same
time,
if w- why this was held last time hasn't been
resolved, I feel as though all of this is just an attempt to
divert attention from where we were months
ago, just in order to, pass
something somewhat more
digestible to this body.
Is that a mischaracterization of what we're seeing?
I don't believe it was a mischaracterization of what was occurring at the last
meeting. However, I will be fully culpable and admit to the fact that
DPD was not even aware of that situation prior to the committee meeting, and
our decision prior was not based on anything related to policies or
homelessness. It was an unfortunate situation that is now being addressed.
There's been significant community outreach by both the tenants as well as the
ownership group. We also have a sitting alderman who was able to speak on behalf of
his efforts in, in mitigating those issues.
But to be, to be honest and fair, and I am
willing to admit that, this was not an issue that DPD considered in its
analysis of the initial recommendation, nor was it part of our i- recommendation
today.
I am fairly confident it was absolutely on everyone's minds when we were here
before.
I, I don't disagree with that as a point.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman Riley?
Uh, thank you, Chairman. Um,
and just as a... Or maybe DPD can answer this
question. Um, you know, I wanna support
the building owner and the businesses housed there as much as the next person, and
I don't wanna put the, the burden for maintaining
public safety, enforcing city policy on these
private business owners. So what is the city doing to address the
problem, using existing city
resources?
I would have to defer to colleagues at the Department of Family Services for the
exact, outreach that was made.
Okay. Well, through the chair, I'd like to know, and I'm sure the
alderman, can, can probably elaborate on that when it's his turn to
go. Um, but, you know, this discussion's about promoting
economic development and growth.
And, while I share my colleague, Alderman Lopez's
concerns, I, I don't wanna hold up
progress. But, we shouldn't have to be using
incentives to have the city do its job.
And, again, to the businesses that are housed
here, this is obviously, an impediment to
them. Uh, and the city has a responsibility, a basic
responsibility, to provide these services.
And so Family Services needs to get a better answer, for, for
members of this body. Uh, I will support this in committee today, but I would
like to hear from Family Services in writing as to what the plan is
here. Um, this should not be, something that falls on the
building owner and the businesses, in this
community. So thank you, Chairman.
Thank you. Any other questions? I have a question around
what the intent of the incentives...
What, what, what are they... What, what's, what are they supposed to
accomplish? And did the incentive that was
initially provided 12 years ago
actually, successfully complete what it was
tasked with doing?
Well, I, I think the renewal of an incentive is to,
make sure that we do have capital investment and job creation, which we have
detailed in this. Uh, to your point about has the or initial
incentive achieved the object- the objectives of, what
was the intent of them, I think that that was probably something that was
achieved. However, I think given that this was an, an incentive
issued over 12 years ago, circumstances can change as
well. However, I do believe that the objective and intent of the incentive was
successful.
So just so I'm, just so I'm clear, I remember this facility
a while back driving down. It had some challenges, but now it's 100%
occupied. There's folks that are attending.
There are folks that are going there for venues.
The area is, on the upswing. There are two businesses
there that employ people, 100%,
occupied. Um,
and currently it went from
paying less taxes to now paying more taxes,
and the city provided incentive in order to, to spark that economic
development. So I would argue that the incentive
worked. And so now we're in a position
now that we've, you know, pushed them off the, out of the
nest. Now it's time for them to, to, you know, to fly and
continue creating, making investments, doing their own, you know,
business, 'cause we've done our part already.
I'm just having a hard time when, if this property was, like, 30%
vacant, then that's a different, that's a different argument.
But we're talking about 100% occupancy.
Um, everything that the incentive was outlined to do ha-
has accomplished. Just having a hard time with the renewal on,
on... E- especially at a time when we're looking at a deficit in
2027. Like, we're, we're trying to,
we're, we're trying to get more revenue in, and the fact that we would
subsidize the improvements for this property that's already
100%
occupied, I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
And, and I'm just not, I don- I just...
I'm not
understanding DPD's... Like, how, how you're anal-
how you're analyzing this investment of their property,
when it's already f- when it's already full. The, the...
You know, it's f- 100% occupied. Just having a hard time wrapping my head around
that because I, I, I'm all for the incentives, but on
the renewal portion, if this was 50% vacant and
we needed to give another boost in order to continue to get that
momentum-I would s- I would be more than happy to,
support this thing. I'm just having a hard time right now where the incentive
has, has, accomplished everything that it was supposed to accomplish.
But I'll let my colleague from the 27th Ward, I know that,
when this was heard in September there was no alderman, but I wanted to
hear from, Alderman
Burnett.
Thank you, Chairman. And thank you to members of the committee.
Uh,
I appreciate DPD's efforts. It's awesome to see the team here from 501
North Sacramento. Uh, you know, I wanna first address the
homelessness or the unhoused issue over there.
It has been an ongoing issue for many, many years, particularly in front of this
property. They were dealing with an encampment that was sitting right in front of
their building, to which we've addressed that for the most part of
directly in front of their building.
But unfortunately, as we know, around viaducts, it seems to be
a gravitational pull for the people who are
unhoused, and that Sacramento viaduct has been something that has been concerning
the Humboldt Park and Garfield Park community for a long time now.
And beyond the unhoused, there is crime that is associated with that
corridor. And so I understand the security needs.
And to all of Commissioner Green's credit, there is a effort and a
plan to remediate some of those issues that we actually discussed last
week. Um, and I will let her department, when they are ready, talk
about what that initiative is and how long it's gonna take to remediate that
process. But I expect something to be done there soon.
And so, to my colleague, Alderman Lopez,
I'm sure the Department of Family Services can answer that question.
But getting on to the meat of the issue here and
the conversation about why I support and why I think this is a good idea to
continue to support the 6B incentive for 501 North
Sacramento, it's... When you look at these tax incentives for
an office building that is occupied versus an industrial building that is occupied,
it's two-- I see it as two different buckets.
Office buildings need to continuously get new tenants, and they have
to figure out how to increase their occupancy because that's how
they generate revenue and that's how they generate taxes.
When you have large industrial tenants, they usually occupy these buildings for a
very long time. They have special equipment, they have special
tools, and the buildings often need infrastructure work that
re- ends up renewing every ten, fifteen or so years that require a lot of money.
And what we do know as well is that these industrial tenants are often the ones
who are paying for these out of pocket.
So if it's any of their equipment, if it's any of the specialized needs, or even
building, building maintenance.
And the taxes that are passed through are
prohibiting them from actually investing into the property.
And what I can say about the two tenants that are sitting in front of us is that
they're good community partners, both in terms of their engagement with
nonprofits who want to utilize the spaces that are intended for community
gatherings, but even more so, hiring from the community.
When you say thirty-two jobs that are generated from these capital improvements, if
you look at the average income, sixty-five thousand dollars, and in Chicago you're
looking at two million dollars a year in, additional
revenue or additional wages that are presented to a neighborhood that is really
lacking job opportunities. And we know firsthand that they've been in the
communities in Garfield Park and, and Humboldt Park looking for people to work for
these jobs. And so with that, them being good community partners,
what these dollars do for the broader investment in making sure
that that community has the ability to grow, I am
supportive, and I hope that the rest of the committee could,
lend their support as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman. Any other questions from members of the committee?
Um, I see that the improvements are for seven
years of the twelve. Was that accurate on the
slides?
Yes.
Yeah, it's an estimated proposed timeline.
We were looking to do a short, you know, looked at it as a...
I know it's a twelve-year incentive, but we're looking at it in the terms of the,
what, you know, first ten years, kinda short term, midterm, long term.
Um, and that, that's the proposed timeline in the first seven
years.
All right.
Um, DPD, we need to have a discussion with the committee
around how these projects
are selected from the adminis- from the department,
and how, what the ROI is,
and then what is the formula or what, what is
the deci- how does that decision come down to a renewal?
Um, I, I understand the, the, that the, in this s-
in this case here, that the incentive will be passed down to the
tenants. Um, but we need to have a discussion around
how this looks, because I would argue that the incentive, the initial
incentive did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Uh, it spurred economic development.
The area is, is changing. Uh, and, it's coming
further west, the development, so you guys are in a prime position for whoever the
property owner is. Um, and it's doing what it's
supposed to do. These incent... On, on the, on the renewals though, that's
where we need to have a discussion around how this is...
What's the, what are the matrix you use to, to figure out how to do this?
So we're gonna have a discussion on that.
We're gonna have it publicly too, around how that, how that, how you guys do
that. Um, are there any other questions from
members of the committee? Well, a-and I also wanna say, look, for those companies
that are located in Chicago, thank you for investing in Chicago.
It's not, it's not at you. It's, i-this is more just we're trying to make
it consistency, transparent. Obviously, you know we're in a, in a
budget crisis, and so it's tough for us to, at this time, talk
about a, a situation where the incentive worked and take, and then saying,
"No, we're gonna, we're gonna hold, we're gonna, we're gonna provide a tax
break, for, for corporations," at this time.
If it was half empty, I'd say let's do it. Let's continue to...
It's, it's, we're getting there. We're getting close to hundred percent occupancy.
So we just wanna... Uh, it's not at the t- it's not at the tenants.
We appreciate the investments here, but we gotta just get a better process, a, a,
a, a, a better process from DPD for us.So that we can, we
can, understand exactly how these decisions are
being made.
Any other questions? So seeing no other questions,
uh-
Can we have a roll call, please, on this?
Al-alderman Gutierrez makes a motion to recommend pass of this
ordinance. A roll call has been, recom-- has been
called by Alderman Lopez. Uh, Mr. Villegas, can you please call
the roll? We'll do it, just w-w-- just
do it by, with the mic, so that way
we can move on.
Alderman Napolitano?
Aye.
Alderman Riley?
Chairman Villegas?
Alderwoman Metz?
Aye.
Alderman Cardona?
Aye.
Alderwoman Gutierrez? Alderwoman Le-Leni
Manaa-Happenworth? Not present.
Alderwoman Lee?
Alderman Chico?
Alderman Lopez?
Alderman Mosley?
Aye.
Alderman, Alderman, Waguespack?
Aye.
We don't have, okay,
Cruz.
They're not paying me. No. Alderman, th-this motion
passes.
Hold on. Wait, hold on a second.
Oh, Chairman.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
Um,
did you, did you call Alderwoman Cruz and Tavares?
They're not on the-
They're off the call?
They're, they're off the call.
Okay. I'm gonna vote aye as well. However, DPD, we're
gonna have a meeting on this, because we need to figure this thing
out. What's the, uh...
It goes seven, eight, nine, ten. Ten, one, and three not
present who were previously.
Okay. So ma-- the motion does pass, ten to one.
The do pass recommendation will be reported at the next city council meeting.
Uh, so ladies and gentlemen, since there's no further business, may I have a motion
to adjourn by the same roll call vote that was applied to the adjournment?
Vice, Vice Chair Mosley so moves. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
The meeting of the Committee on Economic Capital Technology Development is
adjourned. Thank you,
everyone.