You
know what today's date is, right? Friday the
13th.
So everything that could go wrong will go wrong, but we have to deal
with it. Uh,
would like to acknowledge Alderman Beale, Alderman
O'Shea, Alderman Waguespack, and Alderman
Casada have joined us and will be counted towards
quorum.
Madam Chair, this is Alderman Irvin.
Yes. Hi, Alderman Irvin. I s- have already counted you in,
in as part of rule fifty-nine. I'm confirming you
and Alderman Vasquez
and Roger.
President here.
Good morning.
All right. Let the record reflect that this is a public hearing that is
being held pursuant to the requirements of Section
147F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
as amended. Notice of this public hearing was published
on March fifth, twenty twenty-six on the website of the
Office of the City Clerk of the City of Chicago.
Let the reporter mark the screenshot of a notice of the committee's
exhibit number one for
identification.
This is a TEFRA hearing regarding the proposed plan to issue
multifamily housing revenue bonds, Prairie
District Apartments Project Series twenty
twenty-six, which we will refer to these as the bonds, in an
amount not to exceed thirty million dollars for the Prairie
District Apartments in the Third Ward.
The proceeds of the bonds will be loaned to MHL
2 Prairie District Apartments Wabash LP,
an Illinois Limited Partnership, which we will refer to them as the
borrower, in order to, one, finance an affordable
housing development project consisting of the acquisition,
rehabilitation, and equipping of a six-story
building located generally at 1801 South Wabash
Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, which will contain
s- excuse me.I'm sorry, which will contain 100
studios as well as a ground floor devoted to
residential amenities and community space and to
pay all or a portion of the costs of issuance and other
costs in connection therewith. We will refer to this
as the Prairie District Apartments project.
The borrower will be the initial owner operator of the Prairie
District Apartments project. MH-
MHL II Prairie District Apartments Wabash
GP LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company, we will refer to them as the general partner, is the
general partner of the borrower. Mercy Housing
Lakefront, an Illinois nonprofit
corporation, is the manager and a member of the general
partner, and Mercy Housing Inc, a Nebraska
not-for-profit corporation, is the sole member of Mercy Housing
Lakefront. The city will issue the bonds pursuant to its
powers as a home rule unit of government under the 1970
Constitution of the State of Illinois and an ordinance
adopted by the City Council of the city.
The bonds will not constitute general obligations
of the city, but will be special limited obligations
of the city payable from revenues derived under the loan
agreement with the borrower and otherwise as provided in the
indenture under which the bonds are insu- issued.
The bonds will not constitute an indebtedness of or a loan
of credit of the city, the State of Illinois, or any other
political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory provisions, and
no owner of any bond shall have the right to compel any
exercise of the taxing power of the city, the State of Illinois, or
any other political subdivision thereof to pay the principal
amount,
a premium, if any, or interest on the bonds.
Written comments related to the plan to issue these bonds must have been
submitted by email to the Committee on Finance
not later than ten AM, Thursday, March 12th,
2026. And let the record reflect that the committee
received no written comments. Ladies and gentlemen, if
any taxpayer, resident, or other interested person attending
this hearing desires an opportunity to express their views
for or against the proposed issuance of the bonds, please do one
of the following. For those attending this hearing in person, please
come up to the microphone in the aisle when your name is called.
And for those who have called in on the toll-free number, please enter number
nine on your phone to notify the host of the call-in number.
And once you are called upon to provide your comments, please enter star
six to unmute your phone. Each speaker will be
limited to three minutes. Is there any member of the
public, taxpayer, or interested person who wishes to make a
statement with respect to this matter?
I'll begin by calling the names of those who signed up to
speak today. We have one person who signed up, and that's
George Blakemore.
Mr. Blakemore.
Madam, the power of one. One
person signed up to speak, and
this city has ov- over, a million
people
in the Chicago land. It's something inherently wrong
with us, and we're getting ready to have an
election. My objection, I object
to this whole process when it comes to,
multi-house on, on eighteenth and Wabash
or any place, but you must, have,
Black people working and, and help
financing, this, this
housing. And so, they
say MBEs and WBs, minorities. I'm talking about Black
people working. So,
you're not doing your job. Y'all are not--
I'm using the term, the, the... Y'all are not doing your job
because you don't have anyone up here
speaking. You-- your job is to
educate, enlighten, and inform your constituents,
especially the Black ones. Now, while I'm talking, they carrying on
another, a, a conversation.
And I thought that these young people, was here,
for... No, it's because of the wickedness of what the
Chicago policemen killing Black men
and, and, and have to pay out millions of dollars.
So it's, it's something inherently wrong with the system.
And over here w- with this, uh...
It's terrible. It is-- And I noticed with your
agenda, it used to be more detailed.
You have it to-- You cut it out to maybe two
pages. I was trying to educate the people
to let them know that this is a non-functional
government. They're all of one party,
the Democratic Party, the, the Black
ones, the white ones, the Hispanic, the
As-- All of them.
All of them. You must have a
check and balance system, a multi-party
system. Otherwise, you'll have a
dictatorship. They, they, they are little
dictators. They... We gonna s--
put Mr. Blakemore out. We gonna lock him up.
We're not gonna let him speak.Every citizen have every
right to speaking this mic. And especially w- w-
you looking at Black faces in high places selling Black people
out.
Still on the plantation.
So your job is to educate your people.
The Mis-Education of the Black Man, Carter G.
Woodson says. We just had Black History Month.
Our people was a great people. Now, how many-
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Let the record reflect that the public hearing...
Or ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the public hearing on the
proposed plan for the City of Chicago to issue the
not to exceed $30 million aggregate principal amount of
multifamily housing revenue bonds for the Prairie District Apartments
project. Let the record reflect that the public hearing on this
matter was concluded at 10:40 AM, March
13th, 2026. This concludes the TEFRA
hearing for the Prairie District Apartments
project.
The Committee on Finance is called to order.
We will have a roll call to establish
quorum.
Can I have a roll call sheet?
Thank you. Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Harris. Alderman Beale.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez. Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez. Alderman Moore. Alderman
Curtis. Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman M-
Rodriguez.
Alderman Scott. Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Tally Farrell.
Alderman Cardona. Alderman
Waguespack. Alderman Rodriguez
Sanchez. Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitts. Alderman
Sposato. Alderman Riley.
Present.
Oh, sorry, Alderman Riley. I have you down for virtual, my
bad. Alderman Knudson.
Alderman Martin. Alderman Silverstein.
Okay.
Chair Dowell is present.
Alderman O'Shea is present.
And Alderman Harris is present.
We have a quorum. We have 22 members present.
Alderman Mosley-
Here it is
... Alderman Mosley, Alderman Irvin, Alderman
Spada, Alderman Taylor, Alderman Vasquez, and Alderman
Riley have requested to participate remotely today for
reasons under the provisions of rule-
And Alderman Mitchell
... 59.
Can I have a motion to allow these aldermen to participate
remotely? So moved by Alderman Lee.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying I.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the I's have it, and the motion
carries. I want to confirm, Alderman
Irvin, Alderman Spada.
Alderman Irvin is present.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman
Riley.
Present.
Alderman Mosley.
Present.
Riley's present.
And have joined today's meeting, and Alderman Mitchell.
Can I get a Rule 59 for Alderman Mitchell?
So moved by Alderman Lee. All those in favor, signify by saying
I. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the I's have it.
Alderman Mitchell, are you with us?
Yes, thank you for... chairman.
All right. Thank you. At this time, we'll begin the
public comment period. The public comment period will be limited to
30 minutes. Out of respect for everyone's time, each
speaker is limited to three minutes.
Um, the first speaker is George
Blakemore.
Again, it's very important to
have public participation.
It's not a good look
to have a meeting
and you have one or two people speaking out.
But this, to Michelle Harris, Al
Rider,
is on the Do Not Hire list.
Do Not Hire list, where he was a staff member for
Michelle Harris.
So, these aldermen
are corrupt.
N- not only our policemen,
but the aldermen.
I'm wanting to know what happened to the Rules Committee.
She used to be chairman of the Rules Committee, and once a
ordinance would go to the Rules Committee, it would never get
out. All of a sudden, the Rules Committee has
vanished,
is no longer.
So by me coming to these meetings for
years, it was an education
experience. Who would hire somebody that would be
so bad that the City of Chicago put out,
"Do not hire"?Do not hire this.
Mr. Blakemore's a bad man. Don't hire him.
But I, I was see... I saw him down here just chatting
with the alder-lady, and they have
business. So these aldermen are corrupt
here.
They have business here. Do not hire...
Oh, what did this man do so bad that the
city of Chicago say, "Don't hire him.
He's, he's unethical"? Now he's parading himself right
over here, right over here with the aldermen and
kumbaya.
Kumbaya, m-my Lord, kumbaya.
The, the... It's terrible here, and we have to vote
them out here. We got to get rid of
all of them
with this, non-functional government.
A one-party system
is not healthy to have
a, a, a, a family with only all women, or a
family with all men. We need a check and balance.
Young men, old men, we need a variety. But this is...
this look like it's a communist system to me, like communist Russia
or fascist Germany. One party.
Six to nine each o- Oh, Mr. Blakemore, you used that word.
You old man, you not... You vulgar.
That's what I said. It's something vulgar
here, something un-America here.
We got to make America great again.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Um, Alderman Knudson, who was
here, had to leave and has asked to be
allowed to pro- participate remotely under the provisions
of Rule 59. Can I have a motion? Alderman Casada so
moves. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and
Alderman Knudson,
has joined us.
Dennis White is our next speaker, followed by Kimberly
Myers, Kimberlyn Myers.
Good morning.
Um, we are in a
financial deficit beyond
reality. We got a
$41 billion deficit because of
mismanagement
from the mayor, and some of the cronies here
in this committee and city councilmen
approve it.
And the reason why, because it's all about money and
control. If you go to each
ward, half of them are f-
with their constituents. The other half, they don't care.
Rundown business,
rundown homes. People over there near s-
Hyde Park area, they losing their home because of the Obama Center.
And every time there's a budget proposal,
there's taxes. So they use the word
affordability as a code word
of property tax. If everybody who own
homes, your t- your property tax bill went
sky-high, especially
on the West and South Side.
So there, he add, the mayor add more
problems than trying to make
solution. If you notice, he have
150 police detail around
here, around him and his family. That's
good. Then he tell the voters
crimes are down, but we experience crime go up every
day.
And then you have these
so-called migrants, but I call them illegal aliens. They...
He funding them. Last year, two years ago, first it
was a $300 million property tax. The f- the
council member voted it down. Then he said,
"Okay, we ain't gonna do nothing else.
We're gonna put a $40 million high interest rate
short-term loan." That been passed.
Then he over here trying to do a corporate head
tax. So now the business are leaving, or they already
left. It look like a ghost town. Now we gotta pay for
it. Every... Now if you can imagine, let's
say all the taxpayer leave except for the migrants,
how the tax is gonna be paid? Now
Brandon Johnson and J.B. Pritzker, they're not gonna get the seats because of the
Bears gonna close that deal out there in Hammond, and
that's what it's gonna be all about.
He is more racist
than the Ku Klux Klan were back in the civil rights
era. And shame on some
of the Black aldermen, because you ain't doing
nothing.
Thank you, Mr. White. Our next speaker is Kimberlyn
Myers, followed by Dr. Sandy
Norman.
Good morning.
My name is Kimberlyn Myers. I am the daughter of Stacy Vaughn, Stacy
Auril, the woman who was killed in that accident, the fatal crash on June
24th. I am the individual who crawled out of that car, who
was not assisted by no officer. I didn't see not one hand reach out for me
in the middle of me crawling out that car.
We're not here to cause chaos to you guys.
We're here to be heard, we're here to be understood.
Every day, there's pain that we all go through.
And today is just as hard as it was on June
24th.
Thank you, Ms. Myers. Um, I wanna
express, sympathy for your loss
and how hard it is to come down here and, and, and
speak.
Uh, we acknowledge that this morning.
Dr. Sandy Norman.
Greetings, to the council. God bless you,
Pat Dowell, and to all the councilmen.
I'm a little bit shaky
as I just heard, the mom. She can't even speak
because of what has happened to her child.
And this is one of the reasons why I keep showing up, I keep coming
down here to City Hall as an
advocate. My name is Dr. Sandy A. Norman, by the way.
I have a, organization called Life Beyond Limits.
And even as we, talk about finances on, today, one of the
things that I wanna say is that also in our
communities, even coming here, we live in the community.
I've, I've lived in Lawndale, I lived in Bronzeville, I do
work all across the city of Chicago, and so we do need
economical development. It's so many things the
people in our communities, e- even as we hear this mother weeping, and
we talk about violence prevention.
My organization, as I keep saying, I have one of the best organizations here in the
city of Chicago. And what's a disgrace to me, and I'm
gonna keep on reiterating this, as a woman, I
had the AFT Black Caucus to give me an award,
and then they just abruptly took it back for no reason without any
explanation. I'm on the street feeding about 2 to 300
people weekly, on a weekly basis here in, in
Chicago. I don't wait for crime to happen in my community.
I don't have to be an elected official to care, but I go out there where
the people are to see about the needs of the people that are in our
communities. And one of the things that I will say, and I commend the
Hispanic community, because you guys, you speak up for your
communities and you make sure that things get done.
Also with the Jewish community. I had a lady that trained me by the
name of Dr. Kahana, so I had to learn what Rosh Hashanah
was, Yom Kippur. These are the people that, that helped me along my
journey, so I'm not racist. But we do need to have more economical
development in the Black communities.
Our communities are in ruins. And then we come down
here, as I'm always down here, and I get fought against.
I have the mayor, they do all these different things with faith leaders.
Where are the faith leaders in these meetings?
Where are y'all faith leaders when people are on the street
dying, when they are being murdered, when they are being shot?
And so when I hear the cries of this mother, this is what make me keep
coming down here. I have to spend money, I take time
out because I realize that there have to be more Black voices
that are raised up, and it has to be new people that are put in
leadership in our communities. I'm an advocate.
My grandson is a Hispanic, by the way, so let me say that I have a little
Hispanic boy that I'm raising. I don't just teach him
about the African American community, but I teach him also
about his roots. And so I'm saying to city council,
if... You... I've
been ignored and it's not fair.
Thank you, Ms., Dr. Norman. Uh, this ends
our public comment period,
and we'll move on to the items on the committee's agenda.
We have a total of 13 items on the agenda this morning.
The first one, we'll begin with the re- approval of the February
2026 monthly Rule 45 report from the Committee on
Finance. Um, this report was sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no questions, can I get a motion to recommend approval of
the monthly Rule 45 report? So moved by Alderman
Rosana Rodriguez Sanchez. Um,
all those in favor of the motion signify by saying "I." All
those opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the I's have it and the motion
carries. Um, would like to acknowledge that we've been joined
by Alderman Robinson of the 4th Ward, who is a
non-member but is here with us this morning.
Item number one, from the Department of Law, is a
communication transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts,
judgments, or settlements were entered into for the month of
February. This report also was sent electronically to everyone.
And if there are no objections, this item will be placed on file with the
clerk. Item number two are two proposed
orders authorizing the corporation council to enter into and
execute the settlement orders in the following case.
2A is case for Nikki
Yanoushatus versus City of Chicago, case number
2024L 007740,
in the amount of $350,000. We're joined this
morning by Deputy Corporation Council Margaret Mendenhall
Casey, and
I don't know your title, John Hendricks.
Managing deputy.
Managing deputy for the corporation council,
John Hendricks.
Thank you, Chair Dowell, and good morning, Committee on Finance.
On August first of twenty twenty-three, Brandon Licendrello was
driving his motorcycle with Nikki Yunisatus on the
back. They struck an elevated traffic circle and were
thrown from the motorcycle. Plaintiff Yunisatus, who is now
thirty-four years old, sustained broken bones and teeth.
Yunisatus alleges the city's failure to repair missing traffic
circle signals caused her injuries.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of three hundred and
fifty thousand dollars for this matter.
At two AM, Driver Licendrello, an off-duty CPD
officer, was riding his motorcycle with plaintiff Yunisatus, an
off-duty OEMC employee, on the back.
The pair were headed east on hundred and thirty-third at Avenue M.
Driver Licendrello passed a roundabout sign warning
of the traffic signal before his accident.
However, the four warning signs on the traffic circle
were knocked down. Via three one one, the city knew
signs were knocked down for six months before the accident and failed to
replace the signs before the accident occurred.
CPD officers arrived on scene in response to the accident.
Officer Noe Granda stated on body-worn camera that he
personally did not see the traffic circle when he arrived to the
scene. Officer Bailey wrote in his crash report
that the circle, quote, "Had no signs posted indicating it was
there," and that also there was low visibility at
night. Yellow reflective paint on the traffic circle
was significantly faded at the time of the accident, the plaintiff will
allege. The city's expert estimates Driver
Licendrello was traveling thirty-five to forty-five miles per hour at the
time of the accident, while plaintiff Yunisatus' expert
places Licendrello between twenty-five to thirty-seven miles per
hour. Plaintiff Yunisatus was diagnosed with broken left knee,
broken right ankle, and three broken teeth, and claims one hundred and seven
thousand dollars in medical bills.
She was admitted to the hospital for six days and had surgery on her broken
knee. Then she was transferred to inpatient rehab, where she remained for an
additional eighteen days. She underwent surgery to install
three tooth implants, and also had physical
therapy. She has a five-inch scar on her knee.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of three hundred and
fifty thousand dollars for this matter.
Uh, thank you very much, Ms. Casey.
Any questions from members of the committee?
Alderman Quinn, followed by Alderman
Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there, was there a stop sign at the intersection?
There was not a stop sign at the intersection.
Since this incident, the Chicago Department of Transportation has
placed four-way stop signs at the intersection.
Thank you. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, and good morning, Chairman and members of the committee.
Is there anybody here from CDOT today?
To my knowledge, no.
Okay. Um,
here we are yet again with another one of these
situations where our departments have known for months about
issues and are not responding. Every time we've had one
of these lawsuits, we always say we need to hear from the departments.
We need to hear what they're doing to address this.
We need to hear what they are doing to resolve these outstanding
issues. And yet we have had zero
action, in that
regard.
At what point do we start
looking at the sign department,
and asking what the holdup is? Especially now that we are in
this process of installing new traffic calming measures and
other things all throughout the city.
We have, bike lanes and, and pedestrian islands and
things of that nature, which all have signage, which all of us have seen, and in
the blink of an eye are disappearing
because of traffic incidents. Every one of
those is a potential lawsuit now because of this precedent that we've
continued to allow to go on unchecked.
I am going to support this today, but I really think,
Chairman, we need to bring these departments in and have a
serious conversation as to what they are doing to address this because this is
not going to end well for our taxpayers, and I'm damn tired
of seeing the same issue over and over and over
again. Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Alderman Lopez. Um, there was an opportunity
for, you to talk to
CDOT directly regarding this, and we will
continue to offer that to members of the committee.
Thank you.
Any other questions from members of the committee?
Uh, thank you, Alderman Moore. Um, Alderman Moore moves due
pass. Before we take the vote, Alderman
Burnett, has requested a rule
fifty-nine. Can I get a,
motion? So moved by Alderman Rodriguez
Sanchez. Um, all those in favor signify by saying "Aye." Aye.
Opposed? The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Um, Alderman Hopkins has joined us, and Alderman
O'Shea. And Alderman Sposato
has joined us as well.
Going back to the motion made by Alderman Moore recommending
due pass, 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 be reported out at the next
city council
meeting.Item
two B,
Henry Harrell, the independent administrator of the
estate of Stacy Vaughan Harrell versus City of
Chicago Megan Ryan and Sean
Sunnis case number twenty twenty-five L
zero one two seven two seven and Kimberlyn
Myers versus City of Chicago, Megan Ryan
and Sean Sunnis case number twenty twenty-five
L zero one two seven two two in the
amount of twenty-seven million dollars.
Twenty million to be paid by the City of Chicago and seven million to
be paid by the city's insurance. Again, we're joined by
Margaret Mendenhall Casey, Deputy Corporation
Counsel, and John Hendricks, Managing Deputy
Corp-- Managing Corporation Counsel for,
the city. Ms., Casey.
Thank you, Chair. On June twenty-fourth of twenty seventeen at
around one AM, Officers Powell and Murillo were on
Fifty-seventh at State Street. They heard shots fired and
observed a Kia driving away at a high rate of speed.
The Kia stopped at the red light at Fifty-seventh and State, and Officers
Powell and Murillo pulled behind.
Backup arrived, including Officers Sussnis and Ryan, as well as
Officer Biancolana and Wilkerson.
The Kia fled the scene, and Officers Sussnis and Ryan ran back to their
car and followed the Kia with lights activated but no
sirens. Eventually, the Kia disobeyed a stop sign at
LaSalle and Fifty-ninth Street and crashed into a car that was
occupied by driver Stacy Vaughan Harrell and her daughter,
Kimberlyn Myers. The Kia driver fled on foot and was
never apprehended. As a result of the accident,
Stacy was tragically killed and her daughter Kimberlyn was severely
injured. The plaintiffs claim that the Chicago Police
Department's pursuit caused the accident.
Plaintiffs allege that this was a pursuit that violated the general
orders because officers failed to notify OEMC
and failed to activate sirens. While general order
violations do not necessarily establish willful and wanton
conduct, jurors often heavily rely on
violations of the general orders to find officers
consciously disregarded the safety of others.
Plaintiffs must also prove that the officers' pursuit was a
proximate cause of the accident. It is not a defense that
another actor also caused the injury if the city is
also a proximate cause. The city can be a proximate
cause even if it was not the last or greatest
cause. The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount
of twenty-seven million dollars.
As Chair Dial stated, that is twenty million funded by the city and seven
million funded by the City of Chicago's excess insurance
carriers. In twenty twenty-three, a jury found
the city guilty and awarded ten million dollars for this
matter. The trial judge ordered a new trial
because the plaintiffs' attorneys violated the court's
rulings, and the appellate court agreed.
The appellate court's decision to throw out the initial trial was
only based on the plaintiffs' violation of the initial judge's
orders. Let's talk about the kind of things that
change the complexion of this case from a juror's
perspective, the additional evidence that increases the
likelihood that a second jury will value this
case far higher than the first jury did.
Change number one, Stacy was forty-seven years old
at the time of the collision. She is survived by her husband,
Henry Harrell III, who's currently
fifty-seven. Stacy had a total of six
children ranging from thirty-six to fourteen.
In the first trial, only two heirs testified.
If this case proceeds to a second trial, a total of
seven heirs will testify, including minor
children who will talk about sorely missing their
mother. Change number two,
in the first trial, daughter Kimberlyn's doctor did not
testify. In the first trial, jurors did not hear
that Kimberlyn suffered from a traumatic brain injury, partially
collapsed left lung, blood in her right lung,
torn liver, and torn kidney. If this case proceeds
to a second trial, Kimberlyn's doctors will testify
about all of her injuries. Change number
three, Stacy homeschooled her minor
children. Stacy's husband, Henry III, is a truck
driver and could not continue homeschooling the children
after this incident. In the first trial, jurors did
not see videos of Stacy's homeschooling area,
area or hear from Stacy's children who lost both a
mother and a teacher. If this case
proceeds to a second trial, the second jury will see
videos of the homeschooling area and hear testimony from
Stacy's children about her role as their
teacher. Change number four,
in the first trial, the family did not seek money for the
pain, suffering, and emotional distress Stacy
suffered allegedly between the accident and her death.
If this matter proceeds to a second trial, the family will seek
compensation for those items and likely receive two
additional line items on the jury verdict form.
Change number five, the new trial judge has
already hinted that he is inclined to allow the jury to view
video from after the accident.Video
that the first jury did not see. Video
that the plaintiff's attorneys will likely use to argue that
our officers were callous.
Video of Kimberlyn crawling over her mother's dead
body and falling to the ground while officers stood by and
watched, the plaintiff will argue.
Change number six, I promise this is the last one, guys.
Change number six, the appellate court implied that the
initial trial judge barred too much critique of CPD's
investigation of the shooting, initial
stop, and accident. If this matter proceeds to a
second trial, presiding judge Tom Lyons suggested the
jury would be allowed to hear more criticism of
CPD's investigation.
As you can see, a second trial would have a
substantially different and larger case presented
to it on damages. This has altered the Department of
Law's assessment of the value of this case, as well as
the city's exposure.
If this matter proceeds to a second trial, the plaintiff will
ask the jury to award well over one hundred million
dollars. The Department of Law recommends settlement in the
amount of twenty-seven million, twenty million funded by the city, and
seven funded by the city's excess insurance carriers.
Insurers Argo and Allied World, multinational
corporations, each employed their own separate
attorneys to review the case, actively
monitor negotiations, and participate in settlement
conferences with presiding judge Tom Lyons.
Argo and Allied World individually determined that the
settlement amount was reasonable and provided authority to settle.
Argo provided five million, and Allied World provided
two million dollars. And with that, I'll turn the floor over to my managing
deputy, John Hendricks.
Thank you, Maggie. Um,
I want to
first of all thank Maggie for that very well done
presentation. My, my purpose here today is
to, add some remarks to
address why the law department, to put a finer point on
it, why the law department recommends a settlement in an amount in this case
that is higher than the jury verdict, found against it in the first
case. Um,
and
Maggie has gone a long way in, helping us to
understand why, but I wanna, I wanna spend a little more time on
that, on that question.
The answer really boils down to this.
From a jury perspective, we now have a different
case. We have a different case with new evidence.
We have a different case with new witnesses.
We have a different case with new and broader claims for damages.
And we have, a likelihood of more
evidence coming in that was not allowed in the first trial based
on judicial findings.
Maggie's identified most of these salient differences more
specifically, especially with respect to damages.
Um, for example, this jury
will hear from seven heirs of the deceased and consider the losses,
their losses, as well as the losses of, for, for pain and suffering
of the deceased. Um,
for the most part, these facts
affect our assessment of the damages
claim. Um,
and they, they were, they, they, we think they, they
substantially create a larger case that,
will potentially result or could potentially result in
a higher damages award. But how do we, how do we make
that determination? How, how did we decide that these
particular
facts that we're pointing to about the differences between the two
cases,
how do we know that, how does the law department assess them?
How do they, how do they assess the value of them?
How do we dis- arrive at twenty-seven
million? The general
point I wanna make is that we evaluate every case this way, but
especially in a case like this, we spend a good bit of
time,
doing, research on, on comparable
cases and also drawing on the experience of our
own teams as well as the experienced trial lawyers and jury
consultants that we have
engaged. Um, all of those
options give us larger databases from which to evaluate what may have
happened in cases over the past, three
years since the first trial occurred.
And our research and experience in this case is also,
based on cases
closer to home, and I wanna highlight one of those cases.
In December of twenty twenty-four, we,
we faced a police pursuit
case not dissimilar from this one, especially with respect
to the facts on damages. Th- that was the
Spicer Wright v. City of Chicago case.
In that case, as I mentioned, the factual analysis of the
damages
was very similar to this one. Um, and
after a week of witness testimony in that case from the family
who grieved the suffering, the loss of
a daughter and siblings,
a jury awarded damages against the city in the amount
of seventy-nine
point eight five million dollars.That was a jury
verdict that,
exceeded my expectations and exceeded
the expectations that we had been
prepared for. And I will say this,
that,
you know,
the assessments of our trial counsel as well as the jury consultant
turned out to be somewhat right on the money, and I
personally, disagreed with their assessments of the value of the
case. I was, I was mistaken.
So in part, why we're here today is because we have experience with
cases that go to trial, and we, we have other cases that have
gone to trial where we have succeeded in prevailing on pursuit
cases, but only one that I can think of in the last few
years. The difference is that
we have
a new set of facts which are similar to a set of facts that
resulted in what people sometimes refer to as a nuclear
verdict. And based on our analysis of that
case and other cases with similar facts and similar damages
claims, we think it's in the best interest of the city
to settle this case for
the amount of twenty-seven million dollars.
Uh, th-
Be happy to take any questions.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hendricks.
Uh, Alderman Taliaferro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and let me also express my sympathies,
and condolences to the family as well.
Um, does this settlement, settle all
issues as related, as it is related to this accident?
Or, are there still other claims that are
being pursued by other family members?
This settlement would resolve all claims stemming from this
car accident.
Okay. And so there, there are no, other claims, as
to the other victim in the accident?
As to Kimberlyn, Myers,
this settlement would resolve her claim as well as all of the
heirs. So there would be no more claims stemming out
of the accident.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Uh, thank you, Alderman Taliaferro. Vice Chair Conway.
Did, um... Procedurally, did, did the
city appeal the verdict, or did the
plaintiff?
Um, good question, Alder. And, and, the city did
not appeal the verdict. The, the city brought a motion for new trial
to the circuit court.
Okay.
And it was the circuit court who
issued-- who, who granted that decision for a new trial, but
she did so on a very narrow
basis. Uh, and it was, the basis of her
decision was that
plaintiff's counsel had disregarded her motions about whether evidence
could come into the case, and repeatedly did so in a way that she thought
was flagrant.
So she granted that.
Yeah.
Then the plaintiff's counsel took that up to appeal.
And on appeal, the court, of appeals,
had a very narrow question to address, and that
was, you know, did the trial court abuse its
discretion? And it found no. It said no, of course.
Um, and that's, that's why the appeal, I think, is
involved here. And it, it I think has been somewhat
mischaracterized in the press as, a-an
indicator of whether or not there's any, you know, merit to the
claims or whether... For example, it raises a separate question, and I
think you may be getting at it, and that is, wait a minute.
You, you appeal the case and you, and you won.
Why wouldn't that make your case actually look stronger in, you
know, in a new case? And the answer is twofold.
First of all, the answer is no, because the issues on
appeal didn't really relate to any of the issues on the merits
directly. The second answer is that the case has
changed dramatically as we've tried to
Um, you mentioned the, the ages of the children.
I think you said from fourteen to thirty-six.
Is that-- Were those the ages at the time of the accident, or are those the ages
now?
Those are the ages now. So-
Okay
... it'd be about, about ten years has passed.
So the youngest would have been about
f-four or five at the time of the accident.
Now,
cer-certainly a tragic case as, as,
my, my colleague, Alderman Taliaferro,
and also the, as the family related during, during a public
comment. Um,
do-- You know, when you look at the, at the behavior of the officers
here, the fact that you had, officers hear shots
fired, they see a car at a high rate of speed, they turn on their lights,
they go after the car, it seems that a lot of that sounds like reasonable
behavior. Did the jury in the first trial
determine that their behavior was willful and wanton, or did that-- did the, did
the-- get that far?
Yes. In, in the first trial, the jury determined that the City of
Chicago was willful and wanton, and that the
city's willful and wanton conduct was a proximate cause of the
plaintiff's injuries.
Okay. Thank you. I, I,
ba-based on all of that and the recitation, I, I think that, despite
the big dollar amount, I think this, this sounds like a reasonable
settlement, and, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Thank you both.
Thank you, Vice Chair Conway. Are there any other questions or--
from members of the committee? Alderman Harris makes
a motion to recommend approval of item number two
B. 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. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee.
Thank you, Chair.
Um, going out of order of, of the items on the
agenda, we are going to take item number
10
next.
Item number 10 is from the Department of Housing.
It's an ordinance authorizing the issuance of
multifamily funds to Park Manor.
I guess I should find out if the, uh...
Vanetta Jones, are you
here?
All right. We'll have to come back to item number 10.
Sorry, Alderman Hall.
Going to item number three, on the
agenda is an item from the Office of Budget and Management.
It's a substitute ordinance authorizing building and facility
related permit fee waivers for the Public Building Commission
of Chicago, between beginning January 1,
2026, until December 31st,
2031. There is a substitute ordinance
which w- has been prepared and sent electronically to everyone.
Is there a motion to accept the substitute ordinance?
So moved by Alderman Harris. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it, and the substitute ordinance is now before the committee, and will be
explained by Director Borkman of, from the Public
Building Commission. Hello, Mr. Borkman.
Thank you.
Can you first explain the, changes in the substitute
ordinance, and then give your presentation?
Certainly. The substitute ordinance allows for a regular report to
be turned over to this committee, explaining the fees that have
been waived on behalf of your city council,
the city departments, and the sister agencies that are listed in the
ordinance. And that will be, that will
be, done, quarterly.
Go ahead with your presentation.
Thank you. So the ordinance is a continuation of a
1998 ordinance that was, entered to ensure
that the city is not double paying or paying itself, or using
taxpayer money, to pay itself for
public, projects. Specifically, the projects,
that the Public Building Commission of Chicago undertakes
on behalf of the City of Chicago and its sister
agencies.
Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions
related to item number three? Alderman
Waguespack.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Um, sir, could you answer what the
expected, cost or breakdown is for each
sister agency for the upcoming year?
Thank you, Alder Waguespack. It's, the Department of
Buildings has that information. We are not privy to that, because they
have a formula that's used to determine based on each project that we
undertake.
Okay.
I-
I'll work, I'll work through them to get that. Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Alderman. Um, hold on one
second.
Um, we do have a list of the PBC
projects that receive Department of Building permits, Alderman
Waguespack, from January 1, 2023 to
December, December 31, 2025.
Um, but not the amounts, but the projects, and we'll make
sure that members of the committee get that.
Do you, will you reach out to Buildings, or do you want me to
do it and then pass it through, or is that-
We can, we can find out the dollar amounts attached to all of
these projects, and we'll send it out to the, through the
chair. Alderman
Villegas.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Does PBC also do work with CDOT as well?
Yes. Correct.
You also will add that to the list as well?
I-
The projects.
Uh, I believe they are in this list-
They are? Okay
... that we have. Yes. Yeah.
Thank
you.
Yes. They are. Okay. Any other
questions on this item? Can I get a motion to recommend
do pass? So moved by Alderman Quezada.
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 council
meeting. Alderman Mitchell has joined us in person, and will be
counted towards quorum. And Alderman Mitz has joined
us. Is that Mitz?
No, I'm sorry. She looked just like Alderman Mitz.
Um,
that's Alderman Coleman
who has joined us and is not a member of the committee, but we'll
be, we'll acknowledge her. And Alderman
Curtis has joined us and will be counted towards quorum.
Um, we're now going back to... All
right. We're now going back out of
order of the agenda to item number
10.Which
is an ordinance authorizing the issuance of multi-family
funds to Park Manor, Phase One, MM
LLC for the development of Park Manor Senior
Residence of Chatham, located at eighty-three
twenty South King Drive in the Sixth Ward,
in an amount not to exceed fifteen point one million dollars
multi-family program funds. We're joined by Vonetta Jones
from the Department of Housing.
Thank you, Chairwoman Dowell, and members of the committee.
For the record, my name is Vonetta Jones from the Department of
Housing. Before you today is the ordinance for the benefit of
Park Manor Senior Residences of Chatham.
This transaction is located at eighty-three twenty South Martin Luther King
Drive in the Sixth Ward, Chatham community area under
Alderman William E. Hall. This project was
selected through the Department of Housing twenty twenty-three QAP
round. Today, we are requesting the authorization for up to
fifteen point one million in DOH multifamily program
funds.
The development is led by a joint venture between BIPOC Led
ZPAC II at fifty percent interest and
SPM Properties at forty percent interest, along with Park Manor Christian
Church, which is also BIPOC led at ten percent
interest. Park Manor Christian Church currently owns the
land and will be selling the land to this project for this
deal. Although ZPAC and Park Manor Christian Church
are new to the city, SPM Properties currently has private
properties with the city. The remaining team consists of their
GC with Skender and Architect Johnson and Lee, which is
also BIPOC led as well. They have received perm
loan funding and their syndication with PNC with
a eighty-eight and a half cents on the dollar buy-in
rate.
I'm sorry. They have chosen Pacific Management
Incorporated as their property management, Applegate &
Thorne Thompson as attorney, and Block Affordable Housing
Consultant as their financial consultant.
On this slide, I have included their org chart for your viewing in your
packet.
So this will be phase one of two, with location in the Sixth
Ward in the Chatham community area.
Park Manor will consist of a single new construction building.
This building will be five stories with two elevators for
accessibility. It will house fifty-two units of senior
housing, and they will have thirty-nine parking spaces with two ADA
spots for their residents. The building will maintain on-site
management, a large community room for the residents for gatherings and
programs that includes a warming pantry for meal
preparations. It will have a dedication wellness center to
accommodate visiting phys-physicians, and the site will also
include, include an on-site library and salon for their
residents with free Wi-Fi throughout the site to support resident
connectivity. This project will qualify as
ETOD, as the number three King Drive bus provides a
North South service directly in front of the
site.
The proposed units will consist of one to two bedrooms.
The development will contain eleven units at thirty percent AMI
and forty-one at sixty percent AMI for a total of fifty-two
units. Three of the thirty percent units will fall under
PSH units indicated by the asterisks.
I have taken the liberty to list the square footages and the rents as
well. And as noticed-- as noted, the average AMI for
Chatham community area is twenty-nine point two percent at
three hund-- thirty-five thousand seven hundred and nineteen dollars as of two
hund-- as of twenty eighteen. The link is in the information
provided at the bottom of this slide.
The development will be financed with up to fourteen point eight million in
DOH multifamily program funds
in, in the form of a loan and two hundred and fifty thousand in
federal earmark funds as a form of a grant.
They will also receive nine percent LIHTC equity for approximately
fifteen point nine million from a eighty-eight and a half buy-in
rate. This project has also received a perm loan in the
amount of one point one million and a hundred and ninety thousand grant
from ComEd. Sources will also include their deferred
developer fee of three-- thirty-- three hundred and fifty thousand and their
general partner equity of the standard one hundred dollars.
Uses of funds include acquisition cor-- for four hundred and
twenty-five thousand. The total for both phases one and
two equals eight hundred thousand.
However, this portion is four hundred thousand, and then the
transfer cost included with the acquisition cost will be the twenty-five
thousand. They also have twenty-eight million in
construction and contingency costs.
The development will accrue approximately two point eight million in
soft cost and one point four million in developer fee for a
total development cost of thirty-two point seven million dollars, resulting in
approximately six hundred and twenty-eight per
unit. Contributing to the high cost include, but not
limited to, our construction interest, at six hundred and
eighty-five thousand. Also, City of
Chicago has moved to be all electric, which makes cost and appliances more
expensive. Plus, the project will have Energy Star
appliances and water conserving plumbing fixtures in all
units. All of these items will attri-attribute to the per cost
units. Per unit cost, I'm
sorry.The neighborhood map shows development
is within the red parameters on the slide.
This development will be located south of 83rd and west of King
Drive, just east of Calumet, a few blocks east
of I-94. It will be considered as an ETOD, as
it is just two hundred and twenty feet away from the number 3 King bus
line, which is a high-frequency bus route.
The current location is a vacant lot that was originally a grocery
store and parking lot on King
Drive.
Here you just have a zoom in, view for the lots
for both phase one and two, phase one being in the
red and phase two being in the black.
Shown is the rendering for the proposed phase one with the northwest
and east elevations.
This is the mass rendering with both phase one and phase
two. Phase one to the far back left and phase two
to the front right.
Here is the site and landscape plan shown, showing
the parking lot as well.
And then here you have the existing views of the
lot.
So public benefits include fifty-two affordable senior units
with age restrictions of fifty-five and older.
All units will be accessible and there will be three PSH
units. Amenities include on-site management,
protected gate entry, two elevators, laundry
facilities, and inside storage. There will be a salon
and library for residents only and a community space for resident
gatherings and programs that include a connecting warmy
pantry that will help with the preparation of the food.
The site will have a wellness center to accommodate visiting physicians and free
con, Wi-Fi throughout the site to support resident
connectivity. And again, the site will be all electric with
ENERGY STAR appliances.
There will be thirty-nine parking spaces with two ADA and eleven EV
spots. This development will have sixty percent of the ownership
comprised of BIPOC organizations.
This will create more than a hundred and fifty temporary construction jobs
and two permanent part-time jobs consisting of
management and maintenance. This site is also being
designed to Enterprise Green standards, which will satisfy the City of
Chicago sustainability requirements.
The project will receive ninety of the hundred points required for new
construction, and an additional twenty-five points will be achieved
through the working landscapes, EV charger readiness, and indoor
water use reduction.
Today we, today we are requesting approval to issue up to fifteen point one
million in DOH multifamily program funds.
If we have passage this month, we are looking to close in May of twenty
twenty-six with construction completion around June of twenty
twenty-seven. Today I have Alvin
Rider, Dolly Saradon, and
Ted London with ZPAC, along with Bill and Steve Mapa of
S-SPM. They have also brought along architect Phil Johnson
of Johnson and Lee to answer any questions you may have.
We ask for your approval and support, and this concludes my
presentation.
Uh, thank you, Ms. Jones. Uh, Alderman
Villegas.
Thank, thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations, Alderman Hall.
Um,
y-you mentioned that there was a cost difference-- difference-- differentiation
between all electric, and I, I assume the other energy would
be gas. You know what that extra cost is? Just curious.
I do not have the cost on hand, but typically the electric
appliances are higher than the actual gas appliances.
Could you provide that through the chair when you get a chance?
I will.
Okay.
Yes.
Cool. Thank you. Congratulations, Hall.
Thank you, Alderman Villegas. Vice Chair Conway.
You, if you go back to page
five of the
deck.
Are those, th-those tenant rents, those are per month per unit
in that total tenant rent?
Correct.
Okay. And then on, and on slide six, if you just go to the next
one, the...
I, I no-I notice it says the
amount to exceed on the agenda says fifteen point one million in your presentation.
I see the multifamily loan is fourteen eight forty.
Is there
a reason for that buffer? Is that standard or is that, am I missing something why
those numbers don't track?
I'm sorry. I, I barely caught that part, that last part.
Okay. It says up there a multifamily loan of fourteen million eight hundred and
forty thousand, but you're asking this committee for fifteen million one hundred
thousand, so what's the difference?
Yes. It's right below it with the federal earmark funds of two hundred and fifty
thousand. So together they'll be f-the fifteen
point.
Right. Okay. Um, great. Uh, and, and what made me
ask the question is 'cause the number is very similar to the number on agen- on
number eight on this agenda, so I didn't know if there was a mix-up-
Okay
... in there. Um,
that's great. I have no more questions.
Congratulations, Alderman Hall, on a great development.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair Conway. Alderman Hall.
Thank you so much, Madam President, I mean, Chair.
Uh, first of all, just wanna say that this is a long time coming.
Over twenty years of a, thirty years rather, of a vacant lot.
Uh, grateful for new beginnings and new, families into
the ward and just grateful that we're able to get it started soon.
So thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Hall. What is that next door to
the... What's next door? A cleaners.
It's cleaners.
Cleaners and a laundromat. So this is a whole block that will be
Black-owned, Black-led, and Black housing.
Alderman Harris
I want to commend Alderman Hall on this project, and to
put, put it all into c-context. Seven...
Since we all sitting here, seven, six, and eight, we have a aging
community. And we're a single family community, and over time as
we're aging out of our single family, we were never designed, our
community was never designed to for senior living, because we
were young people when we moved into the community.
So as we grow up and grow together and grow golden together,
there is a huge demand for senior housing as people
who live there in that community want to stay. They don't want to leave.
They love the community. They love where they come from.
So these housing, senior housing developments have become
such a big demand. I can guarantee that Alderman
Hall and the, and the developers will get a request for at least
2,500 people to live in 50 units. Um, in all the
buildings I've had, I have thousands of seniors that apply for those
buildings. We can't... We just need more senior housing in that
part of the universe. So, I'm happy to see this happen.
I hope phase two comes faster than phase one.
And, I wanna thank you all and thank everybody and hope that we can all
support this project, and I move do pass.
Thank you, Alderman Harris. I will, uh...
Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, I too wanted to congratulate my colleague.
This is a good project, but I do have a couple of questions.
Uh, the first is, was there an option,
to use gas, or was this,
you know, as far as electric from the beginning?
So per our 2023 ATSM, the regulate's that
we start moving the city to electronic appliances.
Is there an opt-out clause on that?
They would have to submit a waiver for that particular opt-out clause,
and it would have to go through the channels.
Okay. Is that something that we voted on in this body?
Have we what? Have we ordered?
Was, was that something that we voted on in this body?
Mm, I'm not particularly sure. I can refer to
my... No, ma'am. No, sir, I'm sorry. We have not.
Oh, okay. So we're just forcing people to use
electric.
Okay. All right. All right. Uh,
and secondly, where is the,
private equity in this? How much is, is, you
know... Where's the private funds coming from?
So the general partner equity is the $100 that you see on the
screen now.
That's it, huh?
Yes.
$100.
I mean, but then they get the perm loan at 1.1 million that is a actual loan, and
they have to pay that portion back, so.
Boy, that's a great deal. Uh, all right. Thank you.
Uh, thank you. I, you renew your
motion, but I, I have a couple of questions too.
The, so the electric
vehicle stations, the 11 that are in here,
are also required because of
the city's move towards electrical-
No, ma'am. So they are going through the sustainability, and
one of those that they chose was to have extra points through
EV. And so with the EV, it is a percentage.
30% of the actual units have to be EV, so
that accounts to the-
Okay. And now my question is, most
seniors probably are not moving towards
electric vehicles. Are, is that gonna be open to the
public?
Um, to answer that question, no. That's for the residents.
Um, because essentially what we don't want is people just
parking cars, 30, 40 minutes and gone.
So that's one of the benefits of living on 83rd and King Drive, but we would love
to take your application if, in due time, you know.
Oh.
We're electrical.
You're gonna table this one.
Right.
I'm only 39, brother.
I'm like, hello.
O- o- okay, Alderman Hall. Shots
fired. Um, did you say you
wanted to pass, Alderman Mitchell?
Um, can you... Uh, I, I noticed that it said, 30 and
60% AMI. I'm curious, what i- what is the AMI over
there?
The AM... I'm sorry. Say again. The AMI for what?
The AMI. It went-
35.
35,000.
That's 35,000.
Yeah.
Okay, I missed that.
It was, yeah, it was the 35,719.
Okay. I have to, pay attention to what-
719.
Okay.
Uh, Alderman Lee?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I had the same question regarding the, the
electric, the EV stations. At 30 and 60% AMI, and I
mean, like, no disrespect or judgment at all,
hybrid and electric vehicles are quite expensive at the
end of the day. I, I'm, I'm wondering, if
it r- actually makes sense for there to be 11 EV spots that are
not open to the public even. Um, it's something that I,
I would hope that people would reconsider in terms of, if
you're, we have to have them, perhaps there should be some access to the public
if the... Like, I don't know what the EV charging station landscape looks like at
this spot in Chatham, but it would seem to me that if they were
only for the residents, that those would just be sitting
there.
Uh, Alderman Hall, is there a willingness to at least look at that-
Oh, yeah. Abso- absolutely
... idea?
Yes, absolutely.
Maybe redesign it so, or add or put one somewhere on
the street, like-
Absolutely. Yeah. Especially with a laundromat next door.
Okay. That's a good idea.
Well, and I-
We can look at that.
And I'm sure that the, the parking spaces will be valuable for those that do have
vehicles. And if you're taking 11 spots away for EV charging stations,
unless you're gonna allow people to just park in those spots whether or not
they are charging, I would think that they, those, parking spots
are kind of a premium.
And it, it also is that they are above the actual City of
Chicago standards. So if this is something that we need to discuss and go back to
the developers and negotiate with them, then we can do so as well.
Yeah. Just from a practical perspective, it would seem to me...
I, like, I love the idea of expanding EV stations.
I don't think we have enough of them in general.
Mm-hmm.
I need to put more in my own ward. Uh, but for
the-From a practical perspective for the, the seniors that
live in this complex, I just don't know that, they would value more,
having more EV stations than just regular parking spaces.
Under-
That's all. I think-
I'll take that under consideration. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lee. Alderman, motion made by
Alderman... Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman. And again, good morning members of the committee.
Um, I have a question. On one of these
slides, it showed what the average unit price
was, and I believe it said $642,000.
Is that correct? Or $628,000.
Thank you. If you go back to that previous slide that showed
the units.
A majority of these are
single bedrooms, correct?
Correct.
So
this is $628,000
for a one-bedroom, one-bath apartment,
roughly?
Spread over, but yes.
Yes?
I get your point.
Okay.
My concern isn't this project. I love seeing
projects, and I wish we had them in all of our
communities. But we just saw
in the back of the yards, in another ward,
where the mayor and this administration celebrated
the
building of
multi-bedroom houses
for half a million dollars. $500,000
per house. Not a one-bedroom, one-bath, a
house.
And here we are looking at something
$130,000 more expensive
for a unit that will probably be roughly the size of the
garage associated with that half million dollar house we built in another
neighborhood.
I understand-
My concerns are this, and I'd love to know
your thoughts on this, or my colleagues, or the developers for that matter, since
they're here, which is, why is it we continue
to see these costs for smaller units
growing exponentially?
Additionally, as we continue to see these costs
balloon,
we're also seeing that, going back to those houses that
I just referenced, that half million dollar house
was roughly
subsidized seventy-six percent because
we anticipate that the purchase of that property would
roughly be $380,000 in back of the yards,
which I don't believe. But that also means that we're eating
nearly $120,000 in
costs, to help developers and
institutions with some of these
non-council approved mandates. So how do we scale some of that
back? Because in my opinion, if 76-- if
twenty-four percent of this cost
is inflated, then that means we are missing out
on the opportunity of increasing the scope of all our projects by
twenty-four percent simply because we're maintaining a
falsely elevated cost
structure.
I te- I, I understand where you're coming from, but also too, to keep in
mind, they have a lot of amenities.
They have a wellness center, they have all of that down on the first
floor. So all of these costs include everything that goes into
all of that. So...
So I, I ap- I appreciate that. Um, but I also think that, and I
would love to hear again, if they would care to add, the,
the developers, because I'm sure that we could do a breakdown of what the
amenities cost is versus what the unit cost is.
Um, and I'm sure we are still not going to be moving the needle that
much in a different direction.
All right. Yes. Uh-
Hi. Um, Al Reiter, ZPAC Development.
Will I--
Could you-- Hello, Mr. Reiter. Could you just, introduce
yourself?
Hi, my name is A- Al Reiter. I am, a part of ZPAC Development,
the majority partners, but I'll ask, Phil Mapa, who is
our other partner, who has done multiple, projects.
Oh, sorry.
Go.
So I'll ask, Phil Mapa, our, our, our partner who has done
multiple, buildings like this. He can probably speak to that.
I think it's Mr. Reiter's first time at that microphone.
They're taking it away. From the other direction.
My name is Phil Mapa. I'm one of the partners of SPM
Properties. Um, we've currently, I believe, have five or
six developments currently that we own.
We built approximately eleven in the city.
I think the comparison that you ask is a valid question,
but in order to compare the two, you have to compare the number
of units that we can build by building a five-story building
versus the number of units of single family that will be a
one-story building. The biggest difference, however, we're also talking
about seniors who are between the ages of fifty-five,
and we have some people in some of our buildings that have reached a hundred and
five, believe it or not. There's a big difference
between those seniors having individual homes and yet being
in a multi-story, multi-unit building that has on-site
management.
There are a number of the advantages that, the extras that we
can build into a multi-story building that typically aren't
availableIn a one story, but the number of homes that we could
build on this site, I haven't calculated, so I can't give you an exact number, but
it would be significantly less than the fifty-two units that we're able to build
on building a five-story building.
So yes, it is more costly, and I'll admit, a few
years ago, we could build these units at two hundred and fifty thousand,
but the cost of building has gone up.
Uh, I'd prefer to build it at two fifty if we could, but
I can't. If I could, I would, I promise you that.
Um-
Mm
... but I think you'll find that we would lose a substantial
number of units if, in fact, we were required to
build single story, smaller homes on the same type
of site. We would not get anywhere near the volume that's needed.
A- as Alderman Harris mentioned, the last two buildings that
we built... Well, actually, the last one we built, it took all of three
months to fully lease seventy-two units.
The previous building, we leased a hundred and thirty-four units in six
months. So there's a significant demand for multi-story
buildings. There's a safety factor for seniors of those
ages in a multi-story building with on-site management
that you do not have in a single family residence.
And I'd be happy to answer any specific questions.
Okay, that's it. Thank you, Mr. Mapel. All right.
Renewing, Alderman Harris's, due pass motion.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the due
pass recommendation will be reported out at the next, city
council meeting. Thank you, Ms. Jones, and congratulations-
Thank you
... Alderman Hall. Going back to the regular
order of the agenda, item number four from the Department
of Planning and Development, an ordinance executing...
Excuse me, an ordinance concerning the authority to enter into and
execute the first amendment to the intergovernmental
agreement with the Chicago Park District for
allocation of TIF funds from the Kennedy
Kimball TIF District for improvements at Avondale
Park, located at thirty-five sixteen West
School Street in the thirty-fifth Ward,
in an amount not to exceed five million.
Um, we're joined by Beth O'Reilly, Deputy Budget
Director, Chicago Park District.
Um, before you get started, Beth,
you... Didn't you tell me you were retiring?
Soon.
Okay. Beth is retiring soon.
Soon. So get your projects in.
So I wanted to... I, I just wanted to acknowledge
her and acknowledge that, at this meeting.
I- Yes, me too.
Aw, thanks. Thank you. Yeah.
We'll turn this over to you.
Long time coming. I can't believe I've been at the Park District almost nine years,
after I, like, grew up with you guys.
Yeah.
All right. My mom needs me. Um,
okay. So we are here to, s- get an amendment, or
seek an amendment for Avondale Park.
Uh, it's in the thirty-fifth Ward.
It is, on School Street in the
Avondale community area in the Kennedy Kimball TIF.
We started this project, in twenty-twenty, we got funding.
That's when we came in one time and got a whole lot of
money when the administration at the time wanted to know
everybody's projects. So it has been a long time coming,
but we knew that when we were asked to put these projects in, that they were gonna
be metered out. We had site improvement work and facility work.
We completed the site improvement work here.
We did the outside pieces. We,
then turned our attention to the new
work happening on the inside. We sent the, engineers
in because they... First design crew went in
and said, "Whoa, this is, bigger than we thought." This is the
work that we finished. We did the ADA ramp on the outside, a splash pad,
new drinking fountains.
Now we are addressing the facility itself.
We have a lot of masonry work to do. We have really
old, beautiful windows that are,
hanging on, let's say. So this is some of the roof and
window work that needs to be done. Th- this is the doorways that we're gonna be
replacing. The bathrooms are not accessible at
all. We are looking to improve accessibility throughout the
building,
work on the dry-in tight,
and, stabilize this building and turn it into something that the community
would really appreciate coming into.
You can see our initial cost versus our current cost.
We did have, design increases.
Uh, the roof, came in a little bit under.
The waterproofing and masonry really, really,
jacked up, but there's really no way to shorten that up.
You need to make that building tight.
We added a considerable number of windows to the project
and, increased the budget for
the,
restrooms, electrical upgrade, and air conditioning in the
facility. The site improvements that we did complete came in
higher. And then we do, because this is a rehab, we are seeking
four hundred thousand dollars in this budget
just for contingency, because when you remodel, it's always more expensive
than building new. So the total project cost will be seven
million eight hundred and fifty-five thousand for this project.
Yeah.
And that's Avondale. So,
um...
Alderman Lopez, followed by Alderman Beale, followed by Alderman
Villegas.
Thank you again, Chairman, and, still
good morning, members of the committee.
Um,
first off-
Sorry to hear you're gonna leave us.
Thank you.
Um, but actually I have questions, and they're gonna be relevant to all
the items, but I'm gonna start with this one.
Um,
during our budget disc- discussions this year,
l- this past year, we talked at length
about debt collection.
Park District employees owe the City of Chicago hundreds of thousands of dollars
in, in unpaid city fines, fees, and debt.
Are we doing any debt related collection before we issue a $5
million check to the Park District for this project?
I don't think that's something that, she
can answer. She's not here from the finance division
of the Park District.
Has the Park District looked to see how much debt they owe us before asking us for
money?
I don't know the answer to that question, 'cause I haven't had the conversation
with, with the Park District.
Okay.
While I support the projects,
what concerns me is that
we are now in March, heading towards April, nearly
a full quarter from when we had this discussion with regards to
collection of debt, and we are
still steadily writing checks to our sister agencies, who
overwhelmingly owe us nearly $24 million as a
government body. Um,
and while I generally, would support these things,
I think that we need to get an answer before we start writing checks to see
whether or not we are
owed money by these sister agencies, regardless if it's the Parks,
CPS, which owes half that amount of the
20-plus million, and all of our sister
agencies, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman, Lopez. The debt that is owed to the city
is debt owed by individuals, not owed by the Park District as
a-
It's their employees
... as their employees, yes.
So they should be able to check their employees.
The, uh-
And-
Not, not the, corporation.
But I, I-
But I hear you, your point. I, I, I'm, I'm agreeing with you.
Um, Alderman Villagran.
Let's make it.
Thank, thank you, Madam Chair.
And Al- Alderman Lopez, thank you for that question.
We do have an ordinance that was submitted, and we're in the final
stages of,
getting some responses that were asked from, Department of
Finance
and the Comptroller. Um, so as soon as,
the, the Committee, on Finance
is satisfied with the responses, we're looking forward to introducing
that ordinance so that way we can address the issue of the 23-plus
million dollars that's owed to the City of Chicago.
So we're working on it, and we're just getting final responses before we have
the legislation voted on, in this committee, hopefully in April or May at
the latest.
Thank you, Alderman Villagran. Yes, Alderman Beale f- with,
Alderman Quezada to close.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I'm another one.
You know I'ma hate to see you go as well.
We've been working together a long time together.
I know.
And you know I definitely appreciate everything that you've done to give, of
yourself-
Oh, thank you
... for the City of Chicago, so thank you for that.
Um, I just have a couple of questions.
Um,
we're looking at TIF. I- how much is the Park District putting into
this
out of their capital budget?
Uh, out of this project, nothing right now.
Okay. Uh, didn't we just give you guys a big TIF sweep
of influx of funds?
Uh, as part of our operating budget, yes, you did.
And you couldn't use any of that operating funds to go towards
this project?
No, we build that into our operating account.
Mm-hmm.
Um, we do have... We did
parse out a piece of that for
district-wide programming and projects like, I think we're
putting in, like, for the lead line replacement across the district, things like
that, we- where we don't have the resources to do the
base infrastructure everywhere.
We have designated certain buckets for the TIF surplus
from those funds.
Okay. I would just think that, you know, the influx of,
TIF sweep money that we sent to you guys, you guys could move some
money around to where you wouldn't have to come back for additional TIF
money. Um, you know, so, you know, that's-
This is a sizable increase, so-
Oh, it is
... I mean, I, I mean, I know you... I say the same thing all the time, right?
We have $35 million. That's it for our capital
program.
Yep.
So we get extra surplus money. Just as the city puts their surplus money in their
operating budget, so do we. I assume
CPS does as well.
Right.
So we build that into our budget, that we're filling
pension obligations, insurance costs, employee costs, same as the
city.
No, I get that, and, I'm just, I'm just-
But I don't know that the city puts-
I mean, I look at the stat.
Yeah.
You know, y- typically when we do projects like this, you know, the state
kicks in. We get a state grant from the state rep or the state
senator to kind of do some matching funds and everything.
Right.
It's just, you know, I just see as of late, there's just a, a
huge, you know, plethora
of projects coming through that are totally funded by the
department. So I just have a problem with that, so thank you.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
I, I, I will say, Alderman Beale, I have to say this, that,
there are projects that, I think last month,
we had some projects that came through that had,
support from the State of Illinois, from the park, some that
from the Park District. Your point here is,
well taken, but they, that's not the
rule.
Okay. Just an observation.
Uh, Alderman Quezada.
No, I mean, just, you know, we have 400 for contingency.
We're not com- I'm-Well, I'm not gonna be here, but we're not coming back for more.
So anything, you know, it gets worse, we absorb it,
and that's typically our position. We don't know. These are rehabs.
So in a lot of cases, we're putting in extra
money. We're putting in our money.
Alderman Casada.
Thank you, Madam- Madam Chair. Um, so this, Avondale Park is a beloved park in
the 35th Ward in the Avondale community.
It's actually home to one of nine of the Chicago Park District's gymnastics
centers. Um, we have a wonderful youth gymnastics center, in
Avondale Park. Um, home to, local
residents, who really utilize this park.
We have a outdoor pool. We have a little water play center.
Um, but what I've heard from families and from students alike are, are what
w- was listed out in this presentation. The bathrooms are inaccessible.
Uh, the windows are drafty. Um, you know, our, our infrastructure is becoming
outdated. But this is a heavily used inf- facility,
in, in, in our Avondale community, so I'm very grateful for the collaboration with
the Chicago Park District over the years for the investments that we've made thus
far. And I'm really urging my colleagues, for an aye vote in support of
this, amendment. Thank you very much.
Uh, thank you, Alderman Casada. I will say that,
hav- having the, bathrooms done
changes the m- public's
mind about-
Absolutely
... the use of the park.
And-
So I congratulate you on this project.
Yeah, and just, one closing thing. So as... Exactly.
I mean, we all deserve that dignity.
Our communities deserve the dignity of accessible, clean facilities.
I also just wanted to say that all the alderpeople in the overlapping TIF district
signed letters of support, for this transfer of funds.
Right.
Thank you very much.
We have letters of support from the, other aldermen.
Uh, can I get a motion recommending due pass on
this? So moved by Alderman Villegas.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed, and the opinion of the... Who was the opposition?
Alderman Lopez?
Uh, the due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council
meeting.
Yeah.
Item number five is an ordinance concerning the authority to
enter into and execute an agreement, the
third amendment to the intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Park
District for the allocation of TIF funds from the Montrose
Clarendon TIF District for improvements at Clarendon
Park, located at 4532 through
34 and 4538 North Clarendon
Avenue in the 46th Ward, in an amount not to ex-
exceed two million. Beth?
Again, this is a- another amendment, for
Clarendon Park. Uh, if you have not seen the news,
this park opened up la- reopened last year.
It's an amazing, amazing transformation, to the
community. We are seeking an additional two million dollars- you guys are
not gonna like this, because we did have an overrun on this project that,
we're hoping that we don't need to absorb.
Um, this was a rehab. There was a lot
of underground utility that hadn't been mapped, a lot of unsuitable
soil. So as we got into the project, it,
was, like, crumbling. So you can sort of see the before
and after pictures of this, this project up
here. Again, the remodeling of the bathrooms on the left to the
right, and then the, the fitness room, the gym
transformation, the assembly area.
It's... If you guys wanna go up to the lakefront one day and go
check it out, it's an amazing project.
We did have a cost overrun, as I mentioned.
Um, and when we were doing the walkthrough with
Alderman Clay, she did ask for additional scope and site improvement work.
Because we were so focused on the building, we didn't build in site
work into our original agreement, and that amendment will address-- the
amendment will address that. We're looking at playground upgrades,
exterior lighting improvements, and landscape improvements in the open field
to,
smooth it all out to, for open field.
That's it?
That's it.
All right. Thank you, Beth. As you can see in this one, we have
participation from the Park District and from DCEO.
Um, we do have a letter of support from, Alderman
Clay, who has 100% of the TIF. Is there a motion to
recommend approval for this item, number
five? So moved by Alderman Sigcho-Lopez,
recommending due pass. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Aye. Opposed. Alderman Lopez will be
recorded as a no. The due pass recommendation, however, will be
reported out at the next city council meeting.
Item number six is from the Department of Planning and Development.
It's an ordinance concerning the authority to enter into
and execute an intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Park
District for the allocation of TIF funds from the Northwest
Industrial TIF District for improvements at Hermosa
Park, located at 2240 North Kilbourn in
the 26th Ward, in an amount not to exceed four point
two five million. Beth?
Thank you. This is Hermosa. We are coming seeking,
significant rehab dollars for this
facility. Uh, it's in the 26th Ward.
Um, the Hermosa field house is a smaller field house.
Some of the work's already been done. The gym's been done. The roof has been done.
But, when we went in, we were working on the roof, it was
noted that the facility had significant
structural issues. Um, and we've sent in a team of
engineers to, review the
program and, the rehab that's required.
S- This is going to be reframing the structural,
support system, extensive wall
repair
Subgrade waterproofing, regrading, removal, and replacement
of the adja- adjacent paving to assist with the
drainage. Uh, you can see the
cracking on the floor was the first indicator, that the s-
underlying slab has been, compromised.
Uh, you can see that the walls are pulling apart, evidenced
by the window sills and the window framing.
This, building needs a lot of care, and, we are
seeking, again, $4.2 million
to, improve this project.
Uh, thank you, Beth, O'Reilly.
We do have a letter of support from Alderman Fuentes, along
with letters of support from the 36th, 28th, and
37th Ward, which share in this TIF.
Is there a motion to recommend approval of item number...
So moved by Alderman Cardona, recommending do pass.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed? In the op- Alderman Lopez, we will record
you as a no. However, 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. Uh, item number seven is from the Department of
Planning and Development,
concerning the authority to enter into... Thank you, Beth.
Uh, enter into and execute an intergovernmental agreement with the
Chicago Board of Education for the provision of tax increment
financing funds from the 43rd Street Cottage Grove
Avenue TIF District for improvements at Carter
G. Woodson South Elementary School, located at
4414 South Evans in the 3rd Ward,
in an amount not to exceed $900,000 in
TIF. We are joined by Jamel Chambers from
CPS, for this presentation. Jamel?
Thank you, Chairwoman. Um, good morning, Chairwoman Dowell, members of the
Committee on Finance. For the record, my name is Jamel Chambers, and I humbly serve
as the Executive Director of Government Affairs for Chicago Public Schools.
I'm also joined by Sean Newark, who is our Director of, Facilities
for CPS, as well as Tim Jeffries, Managing Deputy Commissioner of the
Department of Planning and Development.
I'm here today to, request your approval of intergovernmental agreement
to provide up to $900,000 in TIF assistance to replace the
current playground and provide associated exterior upgrades at Woodson
Elementary School.
Here's a map showing the general location of the project within the city.
The project is los- is located at 4414 South
Evans Avenue in the Grand Boulevard community area in 3rd
Ward. It is located within the 43rd College Grove
TIF. The project site is bounded by 45th Street to
the south, Evans Avenue to the east, 44th Street to the
north, and Langley Avenue to the west.
Here's an aerial showing the school.
Woodson is a neighborhood elementary school serving 308 students from
grades, pre-K through
eighth.
These pictures show the condition of the current playground.
That includes damage to the soft surface and outdated
equipment.
Here's a rendering showing the proposed playground
improvements.
If approved, the intergovernmental agreement will authorize up to $900,000 in TIF
assistance, which will finance the entirety of the project.
The project will be completed by the fall of 2022-
2026.
If approved, TIF funding will, be used to finance the project
costs, the majority of, which are hard costs associated with
materials and labor.
TIF funding would allow CPS to replace the current playground's outdated and
damaged equipment, soft surfaces with updated equipment that
will provide, recreational o-
opportunities and a safe environment for students and community at
large. Uh, I thank you for your consideration for this project, and we are happy to
address any questions that you guys may have.
Thank you, Jamel. Um, this TIF is shared by
both, Alderman
Lamont Robinson and myself, who support this project.
Uh, if there are no questions, can I get... Ah, you have a question.
Yes, Alderman Lopez.
I, I, I paid my parking tickets, Alderman. Just wanted to say that.
I'm, I'm glad
you have paid your parking tickets.
Now if we could get the other nine thousand members of CPS to do that, we would
appreciate it. Um, but I... You heard what I said
earlier. Since you are next up, I'm gonna say
these.
Yes, sir.
I'm just going to say, please carry that message.
I know my colleague stated that they're working on something, but it is very
frustrating, especially for a ten billion dollar
agency with thousands of employees all across this city, to
have well over ten million owed to us while we are
supplanting some of the f- financial needs of your operation.
So please share that, with your superiors and those above
you, because it would be wonderful if they would
willingly jump in and do the right thing.
But as you can h- as you've heard, we will force the matter
shortly. So it's sometimes better to jump before you're pushed.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Uh, is there a motion to recommend approval of
this item?
So moved by Alderman Cardona, recommending do pass.
All those in favors of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed? Alderman Lopez, I gotcha.
Um, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass the
recommendation will report it out at the next city council meeting. Thank you, Mr.
Chambers.
Thank you. Thank you.
Um, Alderman Clay, we have approved Clarendon Park.
We just wanted to congratulate you.You wanted to say anything
since you're here?
Chairwoman, I absolutely would love to.
Thank you so much for recognizing me, and I know it was a chatter before I got
here. I was trying to get here, y'all, okay?
But it was career day. So, apologies that I
came a little late. One, Clarendon Park, what's the significance?
Clarendon Park has a historic over
hundred-year-old building that just got fully
rehabbed. Um, this rehab comes in the midst
of, our community getting safer, our
children getting to experience different things that the parks have to
offer. Um, and this TIF will solely go to
making sure that that project is completed to the best of our
ability. So as a mom and a parent who's at Clarendon
Park daily, I really appreciate the
opportunity to bring resources and to make this park as beautiful
as possible. So thank you.
Thank, thank you, Alderman Clay, and congratulations again.
Moving on to item number eight, which is an ordinance authorizing an
increase in multifamily loan funds and the issuance of
tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds to
MHL2 Prairie District Apartments Wabash
LP for the rehabilitation of the Prairie District
Apartments located at 1801 South Wabash in the
third ward, in the amount not to exceed,
fourteen
million eight hundred and seventy-two thousand three hundred and
forty-four. We're joined by Dina Wayne, Wayne from
the Department of Housing for this presentation. Dina.
Thank you, Chair. As the chair said, this ordinance
is to increase the amount of multifamily loan funds for
this project at 1801 West, West, South
Wabash. Uh, we came before you,
t- finance committee in September, and an ordinance was
passed September 18th, 2024 to incre-
to fund bonds for this project and for a somewhat
lower, multifamily loan amount.
In that time since the approval, one of the lenders had to pull out because of
other financial, obligations.
And so a portion of that, their five point two
million dollar loan, we are, are going to replace with city
funds, assuming this passes. So this is in-- this ordinance
represents an increase of three point nine million dollars,
from the old multifamily loan to the new one.
The other money will be, replaced by an increase in tax
credits that the project will be eligible for because the, costs have
gone up, and they now have more that they can put in tax credit basis.
You can see the development team here.
Mercy Housing Lakefront is the developer.
Ujamaa is the general contractor.
Uh, Nia Architects is the architect.
Other than, what I've just described in terms of
the increase in multifamily loan funds, nothing has changed
since September of twenty twenty-four.
Here's a picture of the building. It mentions the up to thirty
million dollars in bond funds that were, approved last, or
two years ago September.
Here's the financing that shows the increased, DOH loan
amount, representing about twenty-eight percent of the project
budget.
This is an SRO building that would have, would be in great danger of either
being torn down and probably a new building built or these units being
lost. So a hundred units of S, of SRO
deeply affordable housing will be, available when this
building is,
rehabbed. They,
have a bunch of environmental features, as you can see there.
They too are providing an EV charger.
Um, there's a lot of public transportation there as well, and they have eighty
percent waste diversion as part of the ways to meet the city's
sustainability requirements.
We expect that, assuming this gets through finance committee, it'll be approved by
the full council next week. We would close by the end of April.
They could get started right away, and it's an about a year anticipated
construction period. Uh, that completes my presentation, and I'm,
open for any questions that the committee may have. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Dina. Uh, any questions from members of the
committee?
Uh, I, I have to say, Dina, I wanna thank you and Tamara
for your work on this, and I want to, just thank
Edgar Flagg and Mark Angelini, who I see sitting back
there, from
Mercy Housing for your patience. Uh, this project has
been a long time coming, and,
I'm glad to see us get to this
day. Uh, so if there are no questions...
Do you have a question, Alderman? Alderman Viegas moves do pass.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Uh, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do
pass recommendation will be reported out at the next meeting.
Uh, thank you, Dina.
Thank you, Chair.
Um, item number nine is from the Department of Housing as well.
It's an ordinance authorizing a bond inducement
for a tax inc- tax-exempt housing revenue
bonds for MPC Phase One
LLC in connection with the affordable housing development
located at one fourteen twenty South Halsted Street in
the twenty-first Ward, in the amount not to exceed twelve point
five million. Uh, we're joined by Reagan Walsh
from the Department of
Housing.
Uh, thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Uh, good afternoon.
Uh, for the record, my name is Reagan Walsh, from the Department of Housing.
Before you today is a bond inducement ordinance for the Morgan Park Commons Phase
One four percent project.
The requested transaction is to authorize the issuance of up to twelve and a half
million in tax-exempt housing bonds or notes in connection with affordable housing
development located at one one four two oh South Halsted Street for the
benefit of Morgan Park Commons Phase One four percent
LLC.
Uh, just before jumping in, as a quick reminder, when it comes to bond
inducements, the requested action, does not concern the official issuance or
final approval of any city financial assistance.
This action instead just allows the developer to incur certain project costs with
the expectation those costs can be reimbursed from bond proceeds at a later date.
Uh, the ordinance that approves the final issuance or approval of city financial
assistance is expected to return to this committee in the coming
months.
Uh, the project is located in, um...
Morgan Park Commons is located approximately one one four two oh South Halsted
Street within the twenty-first ward represented by Alderman, Mosley.
The project is within the Morgan Park community area and is part of the Far South
Planning Region.
The development, is proposed by Far South Community Development Corporation in
coordination with POA and DL3 Realty.
Um, the development is proposing a roughly fifty-four million dollar development
that will construct two new multi-family rental buildings.
Each building will hold thirty-five dwelling units, of which thirty-three of the
thirty-five units in each building will be designated as
affordable. Two market rate live-work apartment units in
each building will be on the ground floor that will be targeted to support
neighborhood-serving entrepreneurs.
Um, there will also be additional retail and commercial space provided.
Uh, the site's planned development zoning was approved in December of twenty
twenty-five. This project is a twin deal, meaning it will utilize both four
percent and nine percent LIHTC funding.
Uh, while constructed at the same time, building A one will utilize four percent
funds, while building A two will utilize, nine percent LIHTC
funding. Building A one is, the only part of the
development that is subject to the bond inducement, and therefore it is kind of the
focus of today's presentation. Um, with that being said, building A one has a
total development cost of roughly twenty-five million dollars.
Uh, phase one in total has a estimated cost of approximately fifty-four
million. Um, the estimated timeline for phase one is to close in Q four of this
year and then c- start construction
the beginning of twenty twenty-seven and complete in twenty
twenty-eight.
As I mentioned briefly, the-- here is the development team.
Um, the chosen architect is Lamar Johnson Collaborative.
The attorney and counsel is Applegate and Thorne-Thompson for the developer.
Um, no GC has been chosen as of yet, and private lending is still being
negotiated. Just a little bit about the development team.
Um, Far South Community Development Corporation is an Illinois not-for-profit,
that provides business, housing, and neighborhood planning and development services
to residents and businesses located, on Chicago's far South
Side. They have extensive experience in investing and participating in
single-family residential, commercial renovations, and planning efforts for the
surrounding neighborhoods. For POA, they're a national nonprofit
organization and has proven to be a successful partner in the city.
Um, they have a multitude of projects.
We've worked with them on affordable housing.
They range from developing, managing, acquiring, properties as a sole developer
and as also as team member, as we see here.
DL3 Realty is a locally engaged and national recognized full-service real
estate, development firm, and they will be helping involvement in assisting
attractive private investment and planning
efforts.
The development organizational chart shown here.
Um, the ownership and financing of Morgan Park Commons will be structured through
two similar limited partnerships, both for the four percent and the nine percent
deal. As I mentioned, the subject for today's inducement, is the four
percent. So we are showing here Morgan Park Commons Phase One four percent
LLC. The LLC is a single asset, project-specific
entity, and will be the owner borrower for this project.
Uh, the entity itself is owned by POA and Far South,
Development in a seventy-thirty
split.
The overall Morgan Park Commons site shown on the slide is approximately thirteen
acres. Um, it's bordered by West Hundred and Fourteenth Street to the
north, South Halsted Street on the east, and West Hundred and Fifteenth Street
on the south. The Major Taylor Trail on the west also borders the
site. Uh, the project site was formerly a commercial grocer.
Uh, the current site conditions, though, include the vacant commercial,
building that was vacated for some time and also an asphalt parking
lot.
Uh, phase one is located along the eastern boundary of the site
as seen there across Halsted. Um, it'll include two point six acres that will
support each new building. The future phases of the plan include a performing arts
center in phase two and further additional mixed income housing and, and green
space in phases three and four, as you can kind of see there.
Uh, site infrastructure improvements needed to support phase one will be completed
under separate scope and land sale with DPD that's currently underway.
These improvements will help, include site preparation and pad-ready
improvements for the future phases, as well as improving the trail access,
at the west border of the
park.
This is just another slide to kind of show you the potential overall site plan with
the phases. Um, again, as noted, you can see
the, the access to the west border of the project site with the inclusion of
that two-acre part on the west side.
For project budget, again, we're just looking at building A one here today, but the
total development cost for building A one are approximately twenty-five million one
hundred thousand. Uh, the transaction will include developer four percent equity
low-income housing tax credits, generating approximately nine point six million in
equity for the benefit of the transaction.
Uh, tax-exempt housing revenue bonds up to twelve and a half million are
also, as what we're approving here today, will to be partially repaid at
completion, resulting in an approximately five hundred thirty thousand
permanent loan.There will also be approximately nine million in DOH
multifamily funds. City TIF funds were, which are expected not
to exceed four million, are also listed.
Illinois donation tax credits, of which the proceeds are expected to approximately
provide seven hundred and seventy-five thousand.
This will actually be split between the 4% and 9% deal, which is why you see
that three hundred and eighty-five.
And then there's also other financial support, including, an infrastructure
reimbursement grant from the state, reinvestment earnings, GP equity, and a
deferred developer fee. Approximately 75%
of the costs are hard costs, contingency, and acquisition costs, while the
remainder 25% of costs include soft costs, reserves, and the
paid and deferred developer
fee.
Uh, building A1 will provide, as mentioned, 35 units, which will be broken out into
three studios, 17 one-bedrooms, and 15 two-bedroom
units. The 33 affordable units are distributed across multiple income
tiers, serving households at 30, 50, 60, and 80%
AMI. A subset of the lowest income units, those at the 30 and
50% AMI levels, will be supported by the Chicago Housing Authority,
project-based vouchers, thus will ensure long-term affordability for extremely low
income residents.
Unit sizes will range from approximately five hundred and seventy square feet for
studios, seven hundred and twenty square feet for one bedrooms, and one thousand
square feet for two bedrooms. The two live-work one bedroom
units will be approximately one thousand one hundred and forty square feet and rent
for, around fifteen hundred dollars.
For the units supported by CHA project-based vouchers, tenants will pay 30% of
their income toward rent, with the vouchers covering the balance up to the full
contract rent. The remaining affordable units will be leased at the rent
set in accordance with HUD and City of Chicago affordability limits for the
Chicago metro area, based on the applicable income
tier.
Uh, there are several public benefits for this project.
Um, maybe most notably activating a very long vacant and prominent
corner, within the Morgan Park neighborhood.
Uh, with over eighty-five thousand square feet of new development expected, the
project will bring 70 new units, resulting in hundreds of, permanent
residents. The residents will, bring additional foot
traffic, along with the commercial spaces on the ground floor to the South Halsted
area, and also have, a chance to increase public transit ridership with bus
routes nearby. In addition to housing benefits, the project will
return, a tax-exempt property to the tax rolls, generating new revenue for the
city, and support the creation of three hundred and eighty construction jobs and
three to four permanent new positions.
In summary, the Department of House-Housing respectfully requests the Committee
on Finance to approve the bond inducement resolution authorizing up to
twelve and a half million in tax-exempt housing revenue bonds or notes for the
benefit of Morgan Park Commons Phase One, 4%
LLC. I am joined by representatives of the development team to answer any
questions, and, I thank you for your time.
Uh, thank you, Reagan Walsh. Uh, any, uh...
Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, just a couple of questions.
Has there been any community meetings on this project?
Has there been any what on-
Community meetings on this project.
The alderman is on the, the alderman is here.
Okay.
Alderman Mosley.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Uh, yes.
I mean, I, I can't, I, actually lost count the amount
of community meetings that this particular site has,
had and have gone through.
For, for this project, Alderman?
Correct.
Okay. All right. Um, now, what I saw is this is a
CHA or HUD
supported project.
Yes, there will be, CHA project vouch- based vouchers.
So how many of the, how many total units? Seventy?
Seventy for phase one, and then the building A1 we're looking at is thirty-five.
Split between the two. Yeah, thirty-five.
Okay. And so... And h- what's the percentage that's going to be supported by
CHA vouchers?
I believe if, POA is here, they were going to the board
to present to CHA, but it may be up to fifty percent of
the units.
Seventeen per building or just one? Oh, seventeen total units.
Okay. Okay. All right. I just, you know...
I mean, I'm very familiar with this community, I'm just curious that they would
support,
'cause this is a single family, community, a lot of single
family homes that, that, you know, they're not
familiar with this, so.
I'll vote no on this one.
Say, say what?
On this one.
Okay. We haven't got to a vote yet. Alderman Villegas.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
W-what was the tax revenue that was going to be put on, put back on
the-
The-
... on the, on the roll?
So half of the site right now is currently owned by the city.
Oh, okay.
And so during the land sale, it will be transferred to the entity and then...
And, and what's the anticipated revenue there?
I don't, we- I'm not sure if we have those numbers quite yet, but it's just from
the transfer of the land from the city to a private developer.
But once it's developed, though, what, do you have any anticipation of what that
number looks like?
If, if you could provide it through a chair that'd be-
Yeah, we can-
Okay
... we can do that absolutely. Thank you.
And, you're asking for the whole site or just for the A1?
Just, for, for just for the phase that is under
contract. The other half that we don't own, I'm sorry, the other half that
we do own, that we haven't sold yet, obviously there's nothing, but the half that's
already committed.
Sure. Yeah. Absolutely.
Thank you. Alderman Mosley,
do you want to speak to your project?
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Uh, this project, is one of the
catalistic projects of the far South Side, and this
is just the beginning. Uh, I want to actually pick up on the
sentiments that my colleague just right next to me, spoke to,
that we are a predominantly single family home.And as we have
the aging population, that is looking to
maintain and be in the community, as we have,
newcomers and, and folks who are,
my generation a-and below that are looking for housing and so
forth, this diversifies our entire portfolio,
but more importantly, stabilizes.
This is part of a comprehensive plan of housing throughout the twenty-first
ward where we can make sure that everyone has shelter, whether
we're talking about an actual shelter, single room
occupancy, whether we're talking about multi-family
homes, whether we're talking about more single family homes from
infield housing, and new developments, this com-
helps to really complete the entire
picture. Uh, and so would ask for your favorable support to
help bring forth, the beginning of a site that has been vacant
for almost fifty years, I'm sorry, not fifty years,
fifteen, years that has been vacant, and giving it the
opportunity to really bring forth the unit count that helps
support the retail, products and services that the
residents have been calling for and are having to currently
leave, the community in order to get.
Would ask for this committee's favorable consideration. Thanks.
Uh, thank you, Alderman Mosley. Is there a motion to recommend approval of item
number nine? So moved by Alderman Sposato,
recommending do pass. All those in favor, signify by
saying "aye." Opposed. In the opinion of the chair,
Alderman Beale, you'll be reco-corded as a no.
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. Mr.
Walsh, thank you for your presentation this morning.
Uh, moving on to item eleven, is a mis-
a proposed order authorizing the payment of various small
claims against the city, a direct introduction.
Uh, the list of payments approved was sent electronically to
everyone. If there are no objections, these will be placed in the
omnibus. Item twelve, a proposed order
denying the payment of various small claims against the City of Chicago,
also a direct introduction, and, this
list was sent electronically to everyone, and if there are no objections,
these, too, will be placed on the omnibus.
Item number thirteen is one proposed order authorizing charitable
solicitation on the public way for the NAACP.
It was a direct introduction. This is a city-wide,
permit from April first, twenty
twenty-six to December thirty-first, twenty twenty-six, and
if there are no objections, this permit is approved and will be placed
on file with the clerk. Um, there being no further business
before the committee, can I get a motion for adjournment?
So moved by Alderman Lopez. No lo- no roll call,
Alderman Lopez. Sorry. Uh, all those in favor of the
motion, signify by saying "aye." Opposed.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the committee meeting is
over. Have a great weekend,
everyone.