は い 。
For those members that are on Zoom,
we will begin once we have quorum.
For those who are members of special service areas,
we will begin in just a few moments. Thank you for your patience.
Is there a Jose Cruz in-- Okay. Thank you, Jose.
Just wanted to keep track. Thank you.
Gotcha.
All right. Go ahead and slam it and set them off.
Slam it hard. Slam it hard a couple times.
It's best for Blakemore.
On the count of four.
Good morning, everyone.
You can sit right here for now.
Committee on Economic Capital Technology and Development is now
called to order.
I would like to start off with a roll call.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez, please
call the roll.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman Spada.
Alderwoman Metz.
Alderwoman Gutierrez.
Alderman Chico.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderwoman Tabaris.
Alderman Hall.
Who do I not have call?
Alderman Waguespack.
Yeah.
Chair, we have a quorum.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we do have a quorum.
Alderman Napolitano has requested to participate today
remotely,
under Rule 59. Can I have a motion to allow him?
So moved by Alderman Waguespack
to allow Alderman Napolitano to participate remotely.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
I want to make sure he's here.
Alderman Napolitano.
Present, Chairman. Can you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you.
We'll be marking you today present for the quorum.
Right now, we have-
14
... 14
items on... We have-
Yeah, right here.
For the meeting, we did receive. You got to start this part.
For today's meeting, we did receive written comments.
Those comments have been shared with the committee via shared drive.
At this time, we'll be beginning the public comment.
Public comments are limited to 30 minutes out of respective
time. Each speaker is limited to-
Two minutes
... two minutes. We have a lot of people that want to speak today.
So I will be definitely calling on,
our first speaker is Mr. Blakemore.
Yeah, that's good.
Okay.
Anyway,
I'm reading you about this SSA. I'm totally against the
SSAs because we have Streets and San, and we
have the police department. It's just another
scheme that they have in the City of Chicago to get
additional revenue that the aldermen
use. So Brandon Johnson is the mayor,
and he has every right to appoint who he
believes that would be able to fill these
positions. So
it's terrible down here.
It's a waste of time coming down here,
and time is very valuable.
So it's a machine here.
Everybody that's here,
99% of these people here are Democrats.
Trump did not bring this non-functional government here.
That big-haired white man did not bring it here.
It's been here.
So somebody need to clean up this
swampThis cesspool.
We have streets in sand.
We have the police department, and if they can't police the
community, why do you think some little hired men, you put on a
little neon
jacket,
can do anything?
Why would you think that they can keep the streets clean in the
commercial areas? Who does this?
And why do you do this? Because of money.
Because of money. This is terrible.
So when Brandon Johnson go out, another
one will come in. It's a culture of
corruption here.
When one ultimate misfit ultimate go out, a new one come in.
It's a culture of-
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Mr. Taiwan Sims.
Good morning, committee. Good morning.
Of the 20 SSAs located in the South Side
or the South and Southwest Side or West Side also,
how many of them are designated solely to foundational Black Americans?
How much of the economics or the
money that is given or gotten from you guys
goes towards those areas like South Shore, Englewood,
Austin,
Roseland? How many?
It says as of May 9th, 2026, Chicago does not appear to
have a single official five-year economic plan published under
the label Foundational Black Americans.
However, we do have a reparation study,
but
that you all classify Black Chicagoans, it's Black
Chicagoans, and that's a broad distinction.
Because we know that foundational Black Americans in this city have
a unique
issue, whether it be with public safety, public health,
education, all these areas.
But there's no economic plan. However, since
2022 when the new arrivals came here, you
all mechanized
pooled resources, whether it be from state, corporate,
or city, to the tune of two point something billion dollars.
And so Chicago finds itself still dealing with a financial issue,
but Black Americans, foundational Black Americans, are
dealing with the worst issue.
And that's the issue of disregard and no consideration.
That's the issue of being lumped in with our fellow immigrants
or Black immigrants, the Black Chicagoans.
So when will we see our five-year economic plan
for foundational-
Thank you, Mr. Sims. Our next speaker, Mike Massaleo.
All right. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members, staff.
Thank you for having us today. I'm here on behalf of the Chicago Cook County
Building and Construction Trades Council in support of the 1901 Project
near the United Center. I'm confident in the end that this project
will be good for all of our sisters and brothers in labor in the Chicago labor
movement, so thank you for your time.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Massaleo.
Our next speaker, Frank Taylor.
Good morning. My name is Frank Taylor.
I'm the secretary treasurer of Stagehands Local 2 and the president of the
Chicago Entertainment Industry Labor Council.
The United Center 1901 Project is more than just another development
project. It's an investment in Chicago's workers, neighborhoods,
and future. The United Center already supports thousands of good union
jobs through concerts, sporting events, conventions, and live entertainment.
This expansion will build on that success by creating long-term
opportunities for working families across Chicago.
The project will bring more visitors to our city, generate new tax
revenue, support local businesses, and strengthen
Chicago's economy at a time when we should be investing in projects
that create good union jobs here at home. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Taylor. I also want to recognize
Autumn Cruz for quorum.
Good morning, Autumn Cruz.
Yep.
Next person,
next speaker, Terry Young.
Good morning. My name is Terry Young.
I'm the vice president of Black Men United.
To me, this is more than just an opportunity or a
business transaction. United Center historically from the
community I come from over in the Henry Horner, where most people were
displaced, and they ain't even over there no more.
But what we know is that the United Center is just, this is not no business
transaction. They're more than our friends. They're our family.
Historically, before the city or anybody else was helping us
economically, the United Center has always been there.
So this is not no business transaction for us.
They making a way so most of those people that have been displaced can have
opportunities to do what? To have jobs, housing,
and some type of contractual involvement in this 1901
Project, and they done opened it up to everyone, and they made certain
by creating a
different type of programWhich they call the CIC, which is
Community Implementation Committee.
And as you notice, community is first because they always cared about our
community, our kids, our everyone.
So this project is more important to all of us who are from that community,
but they extended it. They did a little bit more than that.
They had us to go all the way out to even the suburbs. We was in Gary, Indiana.
We did something
in Cicero, Illinois, that brought together the
Hispanic community and the Black community, and we used the power of what Black Men
United do across not just this country.
It would not have been a Black Men United had it not been for the United
Center. I was a young guy. I was
the youth development director for the Horne Association of Men, and we would not
have been able to be successful had it not been for the United Center.
They helped us with our back office.
They gave us contracts, which we hired at the United Center,
also with the Comiskey Park then, and we hired over 200
people who presently still work at the
United Center. So thank you all.
Thank you.
I also would like to recognize Alderman Mitchell and
Alderman Cardenas for quorum.
Next speaker, Craig Carlson.
Good morning.
My name is Craig Carlson. I serve as vice president of the International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, business manager of IATSE Local
2, and Illinois AFL-CIO vice president.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Since 1929, the Chicago Stadium, and from 1995 to now, the
United Center, has stood as a pillar of Chicago's cultural and economic life.
It's not only a world-class venue for sports and live entertainment, it's also a
quiet engine of steady unionized employment that has supported thousands of
diverse Chicago working families for generations.
A significant part of that story is the stadium's now and
the United Center's longstanding relationship with IATSE.
For almost 100 years, skilled stagehands, riggers, wardrobe workers, hair and
makeup artists, and box office workers represented by IATSE have helped
make it possible for this building to safely and professionally host the
Democratic National Convention, ice shows, championship hockey and basketball
games, sold-out concerts, family shows, and many civic events.
These are careers, not temporary jobs.
Jobs built on safety, craftsmanship, and respect for labor standards.
The United Center has consistently relied on IATSE labor, not as a convenience, but
as a partnership. That partnership has meant stable work hours,
consistent training, and adherence to industry safety practices.
Many IA families, mine included, have worked these venues for generations, a
testament to trust built over time to an employer that understands the
value of institutional knowledge and professional skill.
Beyond its workforce, the United Center generates wide-reaching economic activity.
Each event brings visitors and supports local restaurants, hotels,
transportation providers, and small business throughout the West Side and beyond.
Equally important is the venue's experience in operating responsibly.
Over the years, the United Center has worked closely with city public safety
departments, transit workers, surrounding neighborhoods to manage large crowds,
minimize disruption. That track record matters.
At its core, this project is about job creation.
This project will create many more good union jobs, a stronger economic impact, and
help make larger an organization that operates responsibly and is part of-
Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Our next speaker, Terry
Young.
Yeah, Terry Young.
He did it twice.
Oh, he did it twice. Okay.
Next speaker, Matthew Hopkins.
Good morning.
I'm Matthew Hopkins. I'm the chief engineer of the United Center.
I know that the United Center has my core values in its back pocket.
They understand union labor,
what we stand for, what we want to do, how we want to better the community,
the environment,
and the West Side of Chicago. I've been lucky enough to work there
for my entire IUOE 399 career of
12 years.
I plan to do the rest of my career there, and I think that this
will create so many jobs where people could work an entire career,
on-site or in the neighborhood.
And
I think their core beliefs are our core beliefs.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Our next speaker, Dan Olis.
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me.
I just want to say that the United Center's fantastic.
Everybody loves the United Center. Lived down the street from the United Center.
I've been living there so long that I lived there when it was the Chicago Stadium.
So,
don't misunderstand me. The United Center is absolutely fantastic.
I'm all for the redevelopment of the area and very excited for it.
The only issue I have is the
$55 million in tax relief that's being provided to the
Wirtzes and the Ryan Stores, which are great people, by the way.
Worked with them a ton through charity endeavors. Wonderful people to work with.
But $55 million over the next 12 years from a city
that is, quite frankly, broke.
We've got a negative bond rating. We've got a
CPS system that's going to finish $45 million in the
hole. Conservatively, we're about $1
billion
in debt. We can't pay our bills.
I think providing this type of tax relief is irresponsible.
It's on the West Side of Chicago, whose residents were hit with
historically high property tax bills in the last
year.We don't have the money to give.
This stadium was supposed to be privately funded.
That was what was presented originally.
Then we find out that they want the tax money.
They're being included in a TIF district.
They're a part of the enterprise zone, so they don't pay sales tax on their
building materials. They've gotten a lot already.
These are very wealthy individuals who own these teams.
The deal's going to get done without the tax relief that we provide them.
And again, I just don't think it's responsible.
I don't think we can do it. We can't saddle the taxpayers with this additional
tab. And we've really got to give it some serious thought
because it's not just for today, it's for the future.
And
that's important. So please give that consideration. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Oljes. Vince Winters.
Vince Winters. There we go.
Good morning. My name is Vince Winters, Recording Corresponding Secretary for Local
399, and I am here in support of the 1901 Project.
We've got many members that work at the United Center.
This project is going to create a lot more unionized jobs.
As a lifelong resident of the city of Chicago, I'd love to see this move forward.
So I'm in support. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Winters.
Next speaker is Mary Rivera.
Good morning.
Hello, my name is Mary Rivera. I work for Levy at
the United Center, and I live in the 37th Ward.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I'm here today as a worker, but also as a homeowner and taxpayer
to urge you to vote no on the Class 7B tax break
proposed for the United Center's 1901 Project.
My partner and I worked for years to be able to afford a home.
Feels amazing to have reached that goal.
Part of me getting there was my good paying union job, which
made homeownership accessible for us.
Now one of our big worries is taxes.
Like many homeowners in Cook County, we've had our share of unwelcome
surprises when we open our tax bill.
It feels wrong to have struggled and sacrificed to become homeowners,
and now to have that bill be a source of worry.
When United Center proposed the 1901 Project, we heard a lot
about transformative $7 billion private investment in the west
side of Chicago. I was surprised to find out a couple of months
ago that the private investment came with strings attached,
and I was outraged to learn that this project is seeking more than $50
million in tax breaks just in its first phase.
I don't see why a wealthy private company should get special treatment while
ordinary homeowners like myself suffer uncertainty and real
need. And let's be clear, tax break for big developers
mean that individual homeowners like myself will end up picking up the
slack.
That's wrong. Please vote no on this ordinance.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Rivera. Next speaker, Paul
Stewart.
Good morning, Chairman Curtis and committee members.
My name is Paul Stewart, appearing on behalf of JCDecaux Chicago.
JCDecaux has been the city's exclusive partner for advertising bearing
street furniture since 2002. JCDecaux street furniture
program is among the most progressive vendor relationships the city has ever had.
JCDecaux earns money in areas where advertisers want to place ads,
and then uses that ad revenue to install and maintain bus shelters,
transit panels, public seating, and other amenities in every ward
in the city. Under its current contract, JCDecaux will deliver
$74 million in guaranteed cash to the city, $33
million this year alone, plus over $24
million in additional value. That revenue currently funds
city services and is already on the books.
The proposed way finder ordinance puts that revenue at risk.
It describes a four-year pilot program ending in 2030, but
the ordinance allows a vendor to keep operating the way finders for a term of
20 years. By the time the so-called pilot program ends, the
city will be locked into a vendor relationship that can run well
past the year 2040. This ordinance contains no defined success
metrics, no minimum revenue threshold, no usage target,
no equity benchmarks, and no off-ramp if the
pilot program underperforms. There is reporting, but reporting
is not the same as benchmarks. A real pilot program defines success
in advance, but this ordinance does not.
When supply rises, overall ad rates fall,
impacting the revenues generated under the existing street furniture program.
JCDecaux supports every public policy goal in this ordinance and
is prepared to deliver them under the existing street furniture
agreement with guaranteed revenue and contractual coordination
already built in. On behalf of JCDecaux, I respectfully ask this
committee to table the proposed substitute ordinance and direct the city
to engage JCDecaux on a way finder solution under the existing
agreement.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Our next
speaker,
Geraldine Blevings.
Good morning. It's Geraldine Blevings.
Good morning
Once again, good morning. My name is Geraldine Blevins, and I work for the Lady at
the United Center. I am a proud member of Unite Here Local 1 and a
union steward. I'm also a West Sider.
I remember when parts of the area around the United Center were skid row, when
Randolph Street was a real market, the riots, the Panthers' headquarters, the
projects. You name it, I've seen it.
I'm here to urge this committee to vote no on the proposed 7B tax break.
We all heard the story the developers told about this project more than a year
ago. They promised a private investment that would create new housing,
hotels, a music venue, and thousands of jobs.
But now they're asking for a 12-year tax break worth over
$55 million to build phase one. This looks less like a private
investment, more like a public handout.
My co-workers and I already make United Center run.
We know the value of our work, and we fought for years to get the wages we deserve.
The so-called jobs covenant in this proposal is shocking.
It leaves the door wide open to pay workers at the new facility minimum wage.
It's insulting to us and to anyone who works at the new development.
If you're serving the same fans in the same neighborhood, your paycheck shouldn't
look like it came from another planet.
We want a stronger West Side, and that means a place where workers don't have to
choose between paying rent and buying groceries.
This committee should say no deal until there is a good path to good jobs for
hospitality workers. Thank you.
I also would like to
recognize our vice chairman, Alderman Mosley,
for quorum. Also,
Alderman Burnett as our
non-member. Also-
Alderman Coleman
... online we have-
Alderman Coleman
... Ald- Ald- Alderman Coleman.
And Alderman Lee just-
And-
Alderman Lee
... Alderman Lee just walked in. I would like to recognize
her also for quorum.
Our next speaker, Charles Wilson.
Good morning, committee.
Be back.
My name is Charles Wilson. I'm the vice president of Community Implementation
Committee, CIC. Also a lifetime resident of the West Side of
Chicago. The CIC was developed along the United Center to
ensure local residents are directly involved through training and
opportunities created through this project and future developments across the
city. This is about more than buildings.
It's about creating futures for people.
In partnership with the 1901 Project team, the CIC is helping
build a new model for community engagement rooted in transparency,
equity, and accountability. Our office near the United Center already serves as a
hub for workforce training, contractors connections, and union career
opportunities. Right now, of the 50 union tradespeople
available for work, 20 are residents of the 27th Ward.
This project gives us the opportunity to put our people to work, continue to invest
directly into our community. We're excited about this project, the vision to
reconnect the West Side and bring new residential development,
including affordable housing in the next phase.
It's the West Side time, and I respectfully ask for your support of the 1901
Project.
Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Our next speaker, Princess Shaw.
Good morning, everyone. I just wanted to
say that I see some people in the room that actually live around this 1901
Project, and it's very sad to say that we've seen this whole
dog and pony show before. And so I would really,
really hope, Chairman Curtis, as far as
anything, that there is a realistic approach
to making sure that these things are,
for lack of better words, I'll use a professional word, that they
are transcending down to the people that have lived there.
Because the only thing I see right now with this 1901 Project, and it's nothing
against the United Center, nothing against the Ryan's Daughters, but what ends up
happening time and time again, and we continuously see, is that people are going to
end up being displaced. You have the CIC that's being put in place, right?
Which I'm really, really grateful to see, but
then there'll be some type of backdoor deal that happens with them where they'll
get ousted out too. So I ask you to please really take a look at
this and make sure that even these ladies-- The lady said that she
just sat here, and she had to work very hard.
Even the stadium workers are not even getting paid enough to be able to make enough
in order to survive. What are we really doing here, right?
So I ask you not to not do it, but let's have realistic
conversations, because at the end of the day, what ends up happening is, as soon as
somebody goes in the back door and has a backdoor conversation, everything, all
this great work that's put forth, then goes away.
And we know people's pockets get padded a lot,
and it's time for us to actually not have to be sitting at that
really bad end of those pockets being padded.
So at the end of the day, I just ask that we have some real conversations
around this where people, everyone, can be
equitable, because there's enough money coming down the pipeline for nobody to have
to be a stingy stooge
in order to continuously make sure that their family heirlooms and all of their
family is actually able to continue with their legacy while we
continuously to be poor.
Thank you, Ms. Shaw.
I also would like to
recognize for quorum Alderman Manihotpeworth
today.
Write you down for quorum.
This concludes our public comment portion of our meeting.
First order of business is approval of the April
2026 monthly report, which all members in the
committee should have received via share drive.
Are there any questions or comments on the committee members on
the report?Thank you. We have a move to
pass by Alderman Riley.
May I have a motion to recommend approval of the April 2026
report of Committee on Economic Capital
Technology Development?
So moved by Vice Chair
Moseley. All in favor, say "aye."
Any opposed, "nay."
And the pending chair have it.
I think you just move to the next. Yep, items-
We have items-
Items 1 through 7
So the items we have before the committee, we have
items one through seven on the agenda.
Appointments to the special service areas, the following
individuals are being
considered before the committee.
One and two, appointments of Eric
Kitzmann
and Andrew Rizza
as members of the Special Area number
17-2025, Central Lakeview,
Wrigleyville.
Appointment of Anthony A.
Quayum as a member of Special Service Area
number 21,
2016 Lincoln Square.
Appointment of Jose Cruz
as member of the Special Area number
24, Clark Street.
Five through seven, appointments of
Lindsay Moyer,
Adam Zola,
and Loretta Stewart as members of Special Service Area number
82, Division Dearborn.
O'Nia Tate, City Planning Department, Department of Planning and Development
is available here to answer any questions on these
appointments or reappointments.
Go ahead. You can move on to the next one. You can move on. Continue.
The CDT-- CD
team has conferred the support and none
objective from the following council members with
appointments within their respective wards.
Alderman Clay, Hadden, Hopkins, Lawson,
Martin, Vasquez.
At this time, I ask the appointees
that are present
That is Jose Cruz
... to come up, introduce yourself.
Jose Cruz.
And Jean
Jean Salatore.
So they'll come up.
So-
Hi, thank you for having me. I'm Jeannie Salatore.
I'm in SSA 17. We reconstituted,
and currently I'm up for
recommission. And previously, before we did all the
recommissioning, I've been serving as a volunteer at SSA
17 for over 10 years. Also, I've served
on the Lakeview Citizens Council, as
well as our Central Lakeview Neighbors Association.
I'm a resident in the community. We have 51 units in our building,
all of whom pay into the SSA 17.
It's been a pleasure and an honor to serve all these
years,
helping out our businesses, helping out our visitors
and our tourists. And I'm hoping that I am reapproved
again this year. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Thank you,
Mrs. Salatore.
Yes. Thank you.
Oh, no. I'm sorry, Mr. Cruz?
No. Yeah, Mr. Cruz can speak now.
Yes.
Do you have any comments?
Hi. I'm Jose Cruz. I'm a branch manager at Byline Bank.
Been representing our business for the last 15 years.
My goal is to ensure the SSA continues to promote local business
development, safe and have safe and clean streets.
I'm thrilled to be involved.
Thank you.
And virtually we have Eric-
Virtually, we have
Eric Kitzmann. Would you like to have a comment?
Oh, I'm online. Is that all right?
Yes.
You're good.
Hi. Yeah. Just been a long time business
owner and property owner in Lakeview.
Been involved in the SSA and the
Chamber of Commerce for years.
Yeah, we just kind of pick up the
pieces and do the small stuff that a lot of you don't
really think about, to help promote the area, help keep it clean, help keep it
safe. I've been doing this for, oh my God, with the
Chamber or SSA for probably 30 years.
And,
yeah, it's been a great experience. I love doing it.
I love
feeling that I'm helping the community and helping the business community.
So thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Chair.
Sorry, just a matter. I think we have on the agenda,
Mr. Kitzmann name incorrectly.
I think it's with a T.
It's a-
To just to-
We'll check to confirm that it's not a scrivener's error-
Okay
... from the legislation itself.
Just flagging it in case we have to make the-
Yeah. Thank you. We saw that. Yeah.
Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. Also, we have virtually,
Lindsay Moyer. Would you like to speak?
Sure. Hi, I'm Lindsay.
I'm a resident in the Gold Coast area.
I'm part of the Junior League of Chicago and the Gold Coast Neighborhood
Association. I'm very passionate about the area that I reside in,
and very excited about this opportunity.
Thank
you.Laura
Stewart. We also have Lauretta Stewart.
Are you here,
Ms. Stewart?
I am here. Thank you.
I'm Lauretta Stewart, and I am excited about
the beginning of this SSA. I am
one of the owners of Butch McGuire's.
My brother runs that business, and we're also owners of the
building where it resides. And I'm also
a resident on Division Street in the Gold Coast.
So,
we're just excited about
providing further community outreach with these funds and security.
So thanks for your consideration.
And thank you, Ms. Stewart.
We also have someone else online. Is
Adam Rizzola?
Yes. My name's Adam Rizzola. Happy to be volunteering.
I'm an owner of the Division Street building where the Lodge Tavern is.
My grandfather also started the Lodge Tavern and many other famous
bars in the Chicago area. So I'm happy to volunteer and
help in any way I can.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. Would any members on the committee or the councilmember like to make a
statement? Any questions?
Alderman Candon.
Thank you, Chairman. Is Andrew Russo here?
Andrew Rizzo? If he's not online, then he's not.
Oh.
Tell him if he is-
Yeah, if he's not online, which-
We have him listed as on a Zoom call.
Mr. Rizzo, are you there?
He didn't respond online,
Alderman Candon.
Well,
past appointees that didn't show up,
we did not take a vote on them. We held it to the next committee,
because it's not fair that everybody else showed up.
So, regarding to Andrew Rizzo, I
ask the chair to hold his appointee until we
see him next committee.
Motion to withhold item number two, Andrew Rizzo, for
non-attendance. Can I get a-
Sorry
... motion to-
So, there's a motion on the floor to hold-
Item number two
... Andrew Rizzo, number two, on the
appointments of special service area
17, 2025 Central Lake View.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Mosley, so moved.
All those in favor, say "I."
All they in favor?
Any opposed?
In the opinion, the chair has it.
Sorry. Let's-
So,
Andrew Rizzo will be held.
And then at this point... No, go ahead. You're good. That's third page.
And here we go.
So now we've got all that. Do you have any other questions?
Yeah, any other questions for any other member?
Yeah. So now we have-
Yeah
... we have a motion to recommend approval of the appointments, items one,
three, four, five, and six.
You can say items-
Items one, two-
No.
One, three, four, five, and six.
One, three... So we have a motion from-
Alderman Linnear
... Alderman Linnear to approve
one, three, four, five, and six.
On the agenda
... on the agenda, by the same roll call that was applied
to determine quorum.
And seven.
And?
And seven.
I'm sorry.
And, yep, and seven.
Thanks.
So again, the motion is to accept
passage of items one, three, four, five, six, seven on the agenda.
Item is to accept passage of one, three, four,
five, six, and seven on the agenda.
All those in favor?
All those in favor, say "I."
Any opposed?
The due pass recommendation of appointments will be reported out in the
next
city council meeting. Appointees, congratulations on
your confirmation and partnership
with the City of Chicago. We look forward to working with you.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Item eight on the agenda
is an ordinance in support of Class B tax incentive
with United Center Joint Venture for property
located at 1931 to 35 West
Madison Street, 1950 to 51-
56
... 56, and 1830 to 1859 West Adams,
121 South Damen Avenue,
and 1728, 1859, and
1925 West Monroe Street.
Jeff Cohen, Deputy Director Commissioner of Department of Plan and Development,
is here to present the item,
and will be available to answer any questions. Mr.
Cohen?
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, Chairman Curtis, and esteemed members of the Committee on Economic,
Capital, and Technology Development.
For the record, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, Deputy Commissioner for the Bureau of
Economic Development within the Department of Planning and Development.
I'm also joined today by Michael Kerry, the lead financial planning analyst with
the bureau, as well as Steve Rock, CFO, Joe Mira, COO,
Annie Kazares, VP of the development team, and their counsel, Katie Jankae
Dale, with DLA Piper. I'm here today to request your approval
of an initials Class 7B property tax incentive for the 1901
project, phase one. The incentive is an abatement over a 12-year period that
is necessary for financial feasibility of the initial 500 million phase,
consisting of the construction of parking structures, a new entertainment venue, a
hotel, and ground floor retail space.
This will set in motion the commencement of the larger $7 billion master
development to be completed over the next 10
years.The
project site
is located at 1931-1935 West
Madison Street. The site is in the 27th Ward, Central West TIF
District, near West Side community and West Planning region.
Alderman Burnett has provided a letter of support for this initial phase.
The project site, highlighted in red, is situated to the southwest of the United
Center. The site is bordered by Madison Street and Monroe Street to the
north, Honore Street to the east, Adams Street to the south, and Damen Avenue
to the west. The immediate area is a mix of entertainment, residential,
commercial, and institutional properties.
Shown here is an aerial photo of the project site looking northeast.
The entire site is outlined in black, with each portion of phase one highlighted to
show their locations. Immediately to the west, and highlighted in blue, is the west
garage that will include street-level retail and back-of-the-house
operations for the United Center.
The music hall highlighted in green, and to the south, the south garage and
180-key hotel is highlighted in purple.
The sites have been used as surface parking lots and stadium operations since the
United Center was originally constructed in 1994 by the applicant.
The applicant for the incentive is the United Center Joint Venture, a partnership
between the ownership groups of Chicago Blackhawks and Bulls, and
that was formed to spearhead the 1901 Project, which is a catalytic
master plan development that will transform these underutilized parking lots around
the United Center.
Again, the applicant, United Center Joint Venture, is seeking approval of an
initial Class 7B property tax incentive to provide as an
abatement of real estate taxes for a term of 12 years.
The incentive is necessary to assist the economic feasibility of phase one of the
$7 billion 1901 Project. Phase one of the
1901 Project is estimated to cost approximately $500 million,
includes over 515 stalls of new structured parking in the west garage,
along with 20,000 square feet of street-level retail.
This also consists of a new 6,000 state-of-the-art arts and entertainment venue
and 180-key hotel with an additional 215 stalls of parking.
If granted the Class 7B
property tax incentive, it is estimated the applicant will pay
$66.7 million in property taxes over the 12-year
period and will be abated $54.7 million over the same period.
This will also create a net positive of $46.3 million over that same
period. Phase one is slated to begin in Q2 of 2026, with
completion in Q2 2028, and is anticipated to create an
estimated 1,900 construction jobs during the construction
period. Once operational, the developer approximates 600 full-time
equivalent positions, 180 part-time positions, and all will be
subject to certain criteria.
The phase one project will be entirely privately funded with a mix of equity and
construction loans. The United Center Joint Venture is proposing a
45/55 split between equity and debt.
The city will not make any direct capital construct contributions to assist the
financial structure. The project budget presented highlights the
$500 million investment by the United Center team.
Outside of the approximate $305 million in hard costs, $98 million in soft
costs, the United Center Joint Venture estimates a budget of $42
million in site prep, $29 million in contingency, and $23 million
in financing and closing costs.
Shown here is the proposed site plan with the multiple components of phase one.
Depicted are the ground floor plans of the three new buildings to be constructed,
as well as additional open green space to the west of the music hall and paseos for
the community and United Center attendees to enjoy year-round.
The green space also will connect the Malcolm X Campus to the 1901 Project
and the expanded community as the full project progresses.
To be eligible for the Class 7B property tax incentive, it is necessary that the
project satisfies all five eligibility requirements.
Phase one of the 1901 Project meets these requirements.
The first requirement is the designation of an area that must be designated by a
federal, state, or local agency as conservation blighted or a renewal area.
The project site is currently located within the Chicago Enterprise Zone Four,
which was established in 1982, renewed in 2016,
and is currently scheduled to expire in 2030.
The next eligibility requirement is unrealized property taxes.
Current uses are not fully realizing real estate taxes due to the
underutilization as surface parking lots and not achieving the highest and
best use.
Viability and timeliness is another test.
There
needs to be a reasonable expectation that development is viable and likely to move
forward on a reasonable, timely basis.
The 1901 team has provided DPD project material, which
has been reviewed to the department's satisfaction that this project will move
forward if granted the Class 7B based on the site control entitlements,
design documentation, and proposed financing, with the groundbreaking to
occur shortly thereafter if this incentive is granted.
Another test is the necessity of the incentive.
This requires that the commercial development and
qualification for the 7B will materially assist development of the project and
would not go forward without the full incentive.
The 1901 Project team provided a distinct discounted cash flow analysis
highlighting the economic feasibility of the project with and without the Class
7B. Without the Class 7B, the project would not be able to achieve generally
acceptable market returns to attract the appropriate investments and would not be
feasible for the development team.
And last but not least, increased tax revenue and employment.
In order to receive the 7B designation, it needs to have a reasonable expectation
that the development will result in increased property taxes and job creation.
Based on the tax analysis performed by DPD,
this new component would increase the tax revenue generated by the
new construction, and there will be significant employment added to the
job
requirementsHere
you can see the tax impact analysis completed by the Department of Planning and
Development to assess the applicant's proposal.
Currently, the three surface parking lots generate
approximately $330,000 in annual taxes.
If granted the Class 7B incentive after the completion of phase one,
total property taxes paid by the United Center would increase to 66.7
million over the initial 12-year period, providing a $54.7 million
tax abatement. However, the development will prove a 46.3 net
positive to all taxing districts, the city's share of which would be 12.6
million.
Phase one of the 1901 Project delivers several important public benefits.
First, it brings a new 6,000-seat live entertainment venue, along with community
focus space that will support local performing arts.
It will have a development of a new hotel that will generate long-term tax revenue
and jobs, and the project will also convert long underutilized surface parking
lots into productive revenue-generating assets, significantly improving real estate
tax performance on the site.
The development team is committed to strong equity and contracting goals, and is
committed to achieving 30% MBE participation and 8% WB
participation, surpassing the city standard 26 and 6%
requirements.
Importantly, there is no direct city financial contribution to phase one.
The only support involved is the property tax incentive, which functions strictly
as an abatement.
Beyond that, the project supports high-revenue asset types such as hotels, retail,
and entertainment venues that generate additional non-property tax revenue,
including hotel taxes, amusement taxes, sales taxes, and living
wage jobs. It also reinforces the city's broader strategy of building a
cultural and entertainment district that attracts visitors locally and from around
the world. Notably, phase one offers a nine to one ratio of private
investment to tax savings.
Finally, the project will comply with all ongoing RDA covenants, including
occupancy and operations requirements, hiring commitments, the creation of
roughly 90,000 square feet of new open space within the first four years,
as well as adherence to the 50% city residency prevailing wage
standards, while maintaining the enhanced MBE/WBE goals.
The Department of Planning and Development has thoroughly reviewed this incentive
request and recommend the committee support the ordinance for the Class 7B
incentive for the following reasons.
The $500 million investment will transform the project site from underutilized and
community-dividing parking lots into the cornerstone of the 1901 Project
that will establish the transformative mixed-use campus, beginning with the music
hall, retail, hotel, parking, and connected green space for year-round use.
Over the two-year construction period, the development team estimates approximately
2,000 temporary construction jobs will be created.
Mandatory construction compliance requirements will apply to this project, and the
developer will be held to the MWBE local hiring and prevailing
wage standards. Post-completion, the United Center estimates that phase one
will create approximately 600 full-time equivalent positions and 180
part-time positions. Finally, post-completion, the developer will pay
67 million in property taxes over the term of the incentive,
creating a $46 million positive net benefit to all taxing
districts while receiving a 54 million abatement.
Again, this represents a nine to one investment to savings ratio.
This concludes my presentation. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this
request. I, as well as the development team, are here to answer any questions.
Thank you. Do we have any questions from the committee?
Alderman Mitchell.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Indulge me for a little bit so I can catch
up on some things. Who's the development team?
What is the development team made of?
The development team?
Yeah.
It's a joint venture between the two entities that are the controlling members of
the Chicago Bulls and
United Center. And Blackhawks, apologies.
Okay.
Has the
prime GC situation been-
I'll allow the development team to answer that.
Yeah.
Yes, sir. So we have three-
And your name.
Oh, hi. My name is Joe Myer, chief operating officer of the United Center Joint
Venture.
Of the phase one that Jeff went over, we have three
full partner joint venture participation minority contractors.
First phase is with GMA and McCue.
The second piece of phase one is with McCue and Uchiyama. Yes, sir.
One sec. You've given me the names, which is fine.
Can you give me the percentage, their JVs?
Yes. I'll get you the
exact answer.
The
third one is with Milhouse and McCue.
Those are
70/30.
Yep.
I'll get you the exact answer of those.
And we can get you the exact percentages through the chair.
You don't have them ready? I want the
committee to hear them.
If you give us a moment, then.
Sure, we can get those for you.
Okay.
And also, when you mention that,
I also would like to know the
function.
Who on the JV is signatory to the unions?
I want to see what that looks like. And you know what?
If you do what you can to get that now, I still have time to review
it prior to a final vote. So if you can't get it today, which I
would prefer, I definitely want to get it through the chair.
I can say each of those joint ventures are full participant, full
signatories.
Say that again.
Both are full signatory on the
GC joint venture.
Every entity of the JV are signatory to the unions
based on the entities that you just described?
All three entities, correct, yes.
Okay.
And we'll get the percentage for you.
Okay. All rightYou can continue.
So, okay.
That was my second one.
Alderman Mitchell.
Yes, sir.
You wasn't done, right? Just speak into the mic.
Oh, sorry about that. Okay.
It's okay, got the development team.
During
the presentation, you mentioned 1,900
construction jobs, and you mentioned all of that, which is kind of standard stuff
that you guys feed us. Let's get a little bit more granular
because I like to know if
I'm voting on a $54
million
abatement for you guys over four years, which is $4.5
million, and based on what you're saying, that's a but for.
If you don't get this, you can't continue with that part of that project.
So I want to know how... I see the benefit to you
guys. How does that translate to the local community and
Chicago at large? And let me be more specific.
The MBE portion of that.
I saw the 50% local hiring. I saw the
30%, which you touted. It's over the 26, which you're
kind of saying that that's the ceiling, which that shouldn't be
the ceiling, should be the floor.
So I want to totally understand
that.
So if you can please kind of speak to that.
Sure. So each,
as Jeff had mentioned, within the RDA agreement, we have covenants on
those commitments.
Each of those joint ventures I mentioned will have similar targets.
We are certainly always going to follow up on our commitments.
We've done that historically at the United Center with more projects.
This one would be no different, and we'll continue to achieve as high as we can
get, and
we're already starting that with those three joint ventures that I mentioned
earlier.
Yeah.
So has a plan been formulated to that point?
You mentioned GMA, you mentioned Giami, you mentioned Milhouse.
All of which have been subject to a lot of
growing pains over the years. So
in brief, what's a plan to ensure
one local hiring or hyper local hiring, which potentially
includes not just people that's already ready, but getting people ready.
This is a $500 million project.
To get them ready, what does that look like?
What does that look like over time?
Yeah.
Katie Jankey Dale from DLA Piper. So when we did the zoning initially,
the plan development back
a few... What?
January '20.
In January of 2026,
we developed a CIC
that, I know we have a representative from them here
today. They since have continued to kind
of move forward. They now have office space close by, right in the
community.
And as part of that formation of the CIC, we came
up with
a hard copy plan that has several pillars, and workforce
development is one of those.
So not only are we setting our floor at exceeding
the 26 and 6 with the 30 and 8, we have a
plan that we've already put into action,
again, with physical office space, walking distance from the project,
to focus on that local hiring, of course, in coordination with the alderman's
office, but all the other community stakeholders.
And you say that plan is already devised?
Correct.
Can you provide that through the chair?
Absolutely.
Yeah. Okay.
Did I do the calculation correctly?
$4.5 million a year, basically that's what that translates
into.
And you're saying that this project cannot get done if you didn't
have the assistance of $4.5 million as
part of your capital stack. I guess you guys include that into your capital stack.
That's-
Can you say that last point one more time?
Is not having $4.5 million a deal breaker, a
showdown?
Yeah. So Steve Rux, chief financial officer at the United Center Joint Venture.
So it turns down to a financability perspective at that point.
And as it sits here today, we've only secured
roughly 20% of that commitment from various lending
institutions. And with the market where it is today and
construction costs where they are, it's been a struggle to get that remainder.
And so a lot of that remainder, 80%, is contingent upon the resolution of this
7B.
Okay.
When you mentioned the 1,900 construction jobs, you mentioned certain criteria.
Was the certain criteria the 30% MBE or was there some other
criteria that you guys are trying to
incorporate in the workforce?
Jeff Cohen, deputy commissioner, DBD.
It was the three mandatory construction compliance requirements,
so the 26 and 6 Illinois prevailing wage and
50% city residency requirements.
Okay. And the reporting, would the reporting of those
numbers be after the fact or
would they be real time numbers? Because all too many times when we see
these plans,
we don't know what that looks like until after the fact,
and all too many times, you guys are not, not you guys, but people are not
making the numbers.
Yeah. So unlike some of the other
MNWBE commitments that are just goals,
and then just reported after the fact, like for planned developments, for example,
these are codified in our redevelopment agreement.
Prior to commencing construction, we actually already had the meeting.
We met with the various city departments that oversee that.
We provide them with a plan of how we intend to meet those
requirements, and then they have full access throughout construction.
They can come on site and confirm that we are
meeting those commitments. And then at the end, there is a true-up that we
have to show that we met the requirements per the RDA.
So it's not just a goal, and if we don't hit it, we just walk away.
They are codified in the RDA that we would be entering into with the city.
Okay. And just for clarification,
are you guys looking to calculate the
MBE/WBE participation on hours only,
or is it a mixture of both hours as well as the actual
contracts that are giving out? Because I
get the hours, but we want to see
real contracts given out. And does that plan also
include the breaking out of contracts to
create the opportunity for smaller subs to be able to
participate?
So the first answer is yes, both. So I believe,
Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong, but the city residency is based on hours, but
the MNWBE is based on spend.
Okay.
I don't believe that the RDA requires that breaking out to smaller contractors,
but our commitment through and working with the CIC and what we've done
in the 30-plus years in the community, we are committed to doing that,
and have been working with them very closely in order to do that.
Is that explicitly stated in whatever language that you guys, in your agreement
that you have with CIC? Or is that just a commitment, a verbal
commitment?
No. When we send over the hard copy plan that we
have, that we developed as part of the initial zoning approvals, you'll see in
there that there are very much references to working with smaller businesses
and hyperlocal.
Okay.
All right.
For those that know me, I'm extremely interested in that.
This is a great project, and I'm
happy
for Burnett to
further this. We just want to, I like to
ensure that it's
reflective of progress that we're attempting to make in this
city. As you look at this body, we are very diverse.
So we want to see that
in these projects, especially when you're dealing with an astronomical number like
this.
So I will be paying attention.
So,
thank you. Thank you for answering my question.
I look forward to the information through the Chair. Thank you, Chair.
I had a point of clarification, Chairman, but now that we are here.
I know you mentioned the companies, the GC companies.
Can you say that one more time?
Sure. I can repeat that. Of the three verticals
essentially within phase one, the
first vertical is the west garage, which was shared in the
presentation.
That is McCue and GMA.
The second vertical that we reference is the music hall, which is the entertainment
facility that was shared. That is with McCue and Uzama.
And the third
joint venture will be the southeast parcel, which includes the hotel,
parking garage, and retail space. That is with Clayco and Milhouse.
Of all those companies, are there any of them that are Latino-owned
companies?
I will get that information for you.
It doesn't seem like it, based on the companies.
Perhaps I may be wrong, but when we talk about parity, when we talk
about minority representation, I'm not seeing that here when it
comes to the GC. Do you have an answer as to why?
They have the same capability,
ability rather, say,
as some of these GCs. Why was not a Latino-owned company selected?
It
wasn't that Latino-owned companies were not considered or were
excluded. We certainly, as we work with those
three JVs that have been
identified for phase one, we'll make sure there will be Latino
participation in these jobs, even though those three JVs,
I believe,
are not with Latino-owned companies.
But there will be Latino involvement with the subs and other
trades.
Okay, because you mentioned all the phases, and perhaps there
will be Latino representation on subcontracting, but I'm focusing more on
lead contractors
to be part of this project, and that's where I want to
head. I know subcontractors will be-- parity will show that Latino
representation will get subcontracting and are part of the
industry, but not at a lead role, which there's
plenty of companies, just like the ones you have mentioned, that have the ability
to be able to hold these contracts as well.
Understood.
Okay.
That's it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
let me congratulate you on your
first meeting
that you're holding with this group.
So you're doing a fine
job.I
have a
big concern. I
just told Alderman Burnett that this is one of the
largest projects that I've seen in
the city of Chicago during my time as being
an alderman.
I'm like, "Wow,
look what the West Side is getting ready to get." But notice I
said West Side, and 37
is on the West Side. So if you all could tell me how this
project is going to impact my community, when I got constituents
here who's talking about a project in Alderman Burnett's ward,
but it's affecting the West Side.
What outreach have been done
with the surrounding aldermen, as well, for the project?
And then you can go on and answer the questions for me in terms of
tracking your
MBE, WBE contracts. I'm hearing
a lot, but what department with the city is tracking that?
Because we have a problem right now on how we are
calculating contracts.
I can answer the first question. Jeff Cohen, Deputy Commissioner, DPD.
The Department of Housing's Construction and Compliance team monitors the ongoing
construction compliance requirements, so that's the WMBE
city residency and Illinois prevailing wage during the construction period.
Okay. And that information is just housed with the
housing department?
Yes.
Not procurement-
No, procurement-
... contract oversight?
It's with DOH, and we go through the two systems that are set up that are
typically-
Okay. So that's why we can't get an actual number for the city,
because we got two different houses that we're housing these
contracts in. As the chair over contract, I'm just pointing that
out to the group that we can't really see our picture
here. But also, I think that
this is a huge project for the West
Side.
I'm looking at a memo from the United Center that
generating 32,000 construction
jobs. And if you could share with me,
even with the restaurants, the vendors,
is there any ongoing work on how to bring in other wards
surrounding into this project?
Yeah. So,
we first launched this project back in July of 2024, so
coming up on two years ago.
Mm-hmm. I'm sure.
Through that, and
over the last two years, we have engaged with alderpeople
all across the city,
and we continue to do so. We'd be happy to come meet with you going
forward.
Have you met with me? Wait a minute, now. I just told you I'm on the West Side now.
No, I think-
And I'm
the oldest one over there now. Have you met with me?
We'll have to-
Okay. I see one of your lobbyists back there saying they met with me.
Yeah.
I see the head.
We have a big team.
Okay.
So-
You got a lot of pieces.
Yeah. And it may have been a couple years ago-
Uh-huh
... but we're happy to continue to have those meetings.
Yeah, but still.
It was with Rocky and Jerry, so it wasn't with-
Let me ask you this question-
... your group, I think
... about those taxes.
Mm-hmm.
Have anyone did an analysis on what
taxes could be after this project is completed?
Give me that information.
Can I ask you to just clarify? You're talking about taxes for the entire
10-year master plan or just this phase?
Surrounding area.
For the surrounding area, no tax analysis was made for the surrounding area.
But for the specific first phase component, there was,
and then there's a projection of annual taxes for the larger
10-year master plan, once it's completed, of around $100 million annually
in new real estate taxes.
That's for the projects.
Yes.
I'm speaking for residents.
Then, no, there was no analysis done for the resident taxes.
That's what I was thinking about.
Anybody-
But this will be a net benefit, so hopefully that the idea here is that if you're
increasing all the taxes-
But you got to look at the big picture, as that's what you looking at to get this
project. So the big picture would be to look how is it going to affect the
area
and the residents that live there.
Well, again, I think the fact that we're going to be lifting up and creating
additional revenue, that this will have impacts across not just the West Side, but
the entire city of hopefully lowering the tax bills across all the neighborhoods.
Okay.
One other thing to add to that, well, I guess two things.
On your first question about meeting with you,
I was told it was with Rocky Wirtz and Jerry Reinsdorf a few years ago.
Yeah.
On surrounding property tax impacts for homeowners, that's something that's part
of that CIC program, is
bolstering up a program where we do help surrounding property owners with their
property taxes.
Okay. I'll work with my colleague here to find out
the additional information. I just want to put it on record, though, that I
have a concern about that as well,
if it's concerning
folks that live in their home already, and once all of this get through, are you
going to be pricing them out? That's a real issue, that's all.
Thank you.
Next, Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good
morning, members of the committee.
How many phases are in this
project?
Overall, there will be seven phases.
Seven phases. And is today's
abatement the only request that DPD's going to come with for these phases?
At the moment, there hasn't been any, and we aren't considering any other ones at
the moment.
Are there applications?
No, there are not
Is there any other potential asks that are
in the pipeline from the developer,
or is it just this singular event?
No, that's the only request that we have.
For all seven?
We only are working with phase one right now.
We don't
know what the next phases will look like, but the only request we have right now is
the current one.
Okay.
I want to just first say a couple things.
First off, I want to echo what my
colleague Alderwoman Cruz mentioned, which is
about the lack of Latino direct participation.
That is something that we've seen time and time again out of this administration,
and it gets
old
seeing that one third of this city continuously gets shut out from these
conversations.
Two,
I think that as we're having a more robust conversation
about
large scale projects like this,
I want to congratulate
Alderman Burnett,
as well as the other guy with the same name,
for helping to bring this
in rapid succession,
less than two years,
through the process.
Building puts people to work. Building employs union
folks throughout all of our neighborhoods, and that is a good thing.
So when we have conversations about who's impacted, all of us get impacted.
But at the same time, it's very
infuriating to see this department, yet
again, picking winners and losers when we know that we have
several large projects in the pipeline collecting
dust thanks to DPD, thanks to Housing, thanks to this
administration that doesn't give a crap about making sure that we build throughout
the entire city of Chicago.
That frustration is real. That frustration is why so many
people start questioning these deals, because when we have these
conversations,
this shouldn't just be a singular event, this should be a replicable event.
This should be something that we are seeing in Austin, that we are seeing in
Englewood, that we are seeing in Back of the Yards, and yet time and time again,
we are not.
I think this is a great project. I'm glad time
did not kill this deal like it did Lincoln Yards.
But I think what I want to see, Chairman, and would love to see
your leadership on, is how we are equitably having these conversations
throughout the entire city of Chicago.
This committee has asked for that time and time again, and DPD and others have
always refused to share with us, both in terms of where they are
going, as well as what the return on investment is by everything that we do in
this committee.
It's time that we start getting some real answers.
Because when we see that we are being
intentional, not just in building, but intentional in
excluding people, excluding communities,
our voters see it, and I'm sure in less than
40 weeks, they're going to remind us all of that fact. Thank you, Chairman.
Alderman Chico.
Good afternoon,
and thank you for being here. As somebody who, on the other side of
town, has a project just as big as this, the Illinois Quantum and Microelectronics
Park,
me and my colleague from the Seventh Ward often deal with
representation. And as the echo of the
sentiment of Alderwoman Cruz and now Alderman Lopez,
I think you had three opportunities to include
Latino representation, and you did not.
Phase one of our project at the IQMP,
in a joint venture, there is Latino representation.
You had three opportunities, and they were not included.
Help me wrap my head around why that is or why that happened.
We were selected.
Yeah,
selected.
Mm-hmm.
Just because of the rest of the process.
I think we'll have to follow up with you on the process to select
those three JV partners. We do need to talk to McHugh and
Clayco, and just get more information about that process.
I just want to make sure it's very clear, for the record, we
haven't started construction yet,
and so we haven't identified some of those subs and additionals.
But I just want to make it very clear for the record that there will be Latino
participation in this project.
But none of us here have the answer on how the
first three were selected.
Talk about mega-projects and mega-development.
This represents an opportunity
for contractors, and the opportunity is right
here to help build some of our smaller ones.
So I would love to follow up with it,
get your take on it, and have a more broader conversation of making sure we're
including everybody in the project. Thank you.
Sure.
Thank you,
Alderman Chico.
I have a question.
It's probably for DPD.
Did DPD do any other analysis
to talk about additional taxes
that this project may bring?
Yes, we did. We did projections for the hotel
portion of this project in terms of the tax generation that the
hotel, as well as sales tax from the operations of the hotel,
would generate. It's a little bit hard to peg down something in
terms of the entertainment value, given the variability of ticket pricing,
attendance, things like that. But we think at a minimum standard that based on
the hotel revenue generation, that the city will
bring in about $32 million over the 30-year period, as
well as an additional, call it, 3 million for the new tourist
improvement district as well. If you're going to include other taxing
bodies within the city, MPEA and IFSA,
that number grows to about $67.7 million of tax generation
just from hotel room sales tax and potential
amusement taxes just at the hotel itself.
Okay. And let's go back to parking.
So
when the entire project is finished,
do you still think that you will have enough
parking where you wouldn't have to
go out into the community?
Yes, we believe that's the case. I think that given the more efficient
structure and the
underutilization of the exterior parking lots currently,
this will still be an ample parking spaces available for anybody who wants to
commute to the center itself. I think this is also part and parcel from the
Damen Green Line station opening, that you have more transit-oriented people
attending games.
Okay, great.
Alderman Lee.
Thank you, Chair.
And I'm
just going to join the chorus here.
As one of two, and you've got the two Asian-American representatives here in the
room, I'd be remiss not to also put the
plug out there. We also have contractors.
We live in a very diverse city, right?
So inasmuch as
my Latino colleagues here are advocating for their businesses, I'm going
to do the same thing with ours. I would encourage you heavily.
This is phase one. You said there's seven phases.
Please don't come back for the rest of the phases without answers to these
questions. That's really not going to be acceptable to this committee, I can
promise you that.
I know that this is the very first phase of a $7 billion
project, and I don't want to miss the opportunity to say thank
you, first.
Second, I guess,
I don't want to miss the opportunity to acknowledge that this is a $7 billion
investment, private funding.
And the 7B kind of came as a surprise to
some of us. So, the questions that you were asked earlier by my
colleague, Alderman Lopez,
is one just for our knowledge, too, right?
So it came as quite a surprise, but I do think that this is the
appropriate use for a 7B. We're generating a lot of revenue here, but there's
a lot that goes into projects like these, and there's lots of opportunities, and
we want to make sure that that's equitable at the end of the day.
We want to make sure that everybody's benefiting from this.
First and foremost, the surrounding community.
So encourage you to continue to keep the dialogue going with all of the
surrounding alders that are going to be impacted by this.
This is a big project for the city of Chicago as a whole, so
inasmuch as there's construction involved, looking at the long-term tenants that
you're going to have in terms of restaurants, in terms of other
vendors that are going to be used, please keep all of this in mind, because these
are the types of questions, and
those are things that you're going to have to bring proof of for us
to be able to support this type of tax benefit.
We are foregoing tax revenue for it, and I, again, believe that
this is the right use of a 7B.
But these are the types of things that we're going to continue to come back with
questions on. So please just keep that in mind as you come back
for the rest of these phases. We have the opportunity to
question all of you guys every time you come back with these, and making sure that
you're having good faith conversations and negotiations with all
the parties involved is something that is going to, I think,
make the way easier moving forward.
That was more a comment than a question.
I already know the answer to the question here, but please come back with that
information next time you come.
Absolutely.
Okay. Thank you. Alderman Lopez. Be good.
Alderman Spaulding. Oh, Alderman Spaulding, I'm sorry.
It's great. It's like public comment in the back.
Thank you so much, Chair.
I
don't want to be repetitive of questions if this was asked before I was in the
room. I apologize for that. The union
commitments that are listed on the paper here,
have these been codified in writing outside of these
printouts, or are these verbal commitments? Can you share more on that?
I don't know what printout you're looking at. I don't know if I have it.
Oh, okay.
I guess I can address that.
Honestly and truly, I would not have
asked if it had not been handed to us through the chair.
Of course, Alderman. I think it's a great question.
Again, Joe Meyer from the United Center.
The current union participation in the memo that was distributed is
essentially our current percentages of full-time labor, part-time
labor. So this is our current participation of union labor in our building.
As it's mentioned here, 73% of all of our labor
is union affiliated, and 80% of our part-time
workforce is union at the United Center.
So I would ask this follow-up question because it
speaks further about phase one
union commitments. And my question would be, has this
been
codified? Is this in writing? What is
this reflective of?
These numbers are reflective of our current CBAs with every of our participating
unions or our service agreements with our operations team.
So that's current state as of today.
Phase one is, as we develop we'll continue those conversations with our union
partners as we go forward.
So the phase one union...
I
feel like I'm being confusing, and I don't mean to be.
Oh, sorry. I'm on the first page.
Yes. We are on different pages. I think I'm on the second page here that
says, "Phase one union commitments." I guess I'm asking, is this
in flux? Is this firm?
This is currently
in discussion, yes.
Okay. Thank you, sir.
Just discussion.
Alderman Gutierrez.
Thank you, and good afternoon. Which unions will be
working on the construction of the site?
I don't see it in the document.
Construction?
Yes.
So construction of phase one will have all of our trade unions.
I could get the list of that if we need to, as a follow-up.
Yes, please, if you can send it through the chair.
And would also like to echo what my colleagues mentioned.
We all know a lot of these unions
hire a lot of our Latino fellows, but it would be important for them
as well to participate as leaders in these projects
as well,
as well as the workers. I know once it's built, I know a lot of Latinos, and
everyone would be a good place to work, but just would like to see
more of a leadership
opportunities. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderwoman. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman. Is there anybody here from the law department
that assisted with crafting this ordinance?
We have some-
Or the law department, period.
All right.
Jeff?
Justin.
Go ahead.
Justin.
Jeff-
Justin Edge, Department of Law. There is no one
here who participated in the crafting of this ordinance.
It is handled by a division that's not represented today.
Which division?
That'd be the Finance and Economic Development division of the law department.
So if we have a question with regards to whether or not
waivers and their usage are included in this ordinance, there's nobody here that
can expound on that?
There is no one from Department of Law who can speak to that today.
If there is a specific question, then I could follow up on by contacting my
colleagues in that department and doing a through-the-chair response.
I'd be happy to do that.
So then I guess the question that I have, Chairman, and it apparently will have to
be through the chair,
is we have seen in certain
very large scale projects where waivers are used to get around everything
that we're promised.
And I know my colleagues and I have had numerous conversations publicly
and privately about the use of waivers to say,
"Thanks, but no thanks."
And I'm not insinuating in any way, shape, or form that I anticipate that out of
this group, so please don't get me wrong.
But my question with regards to the issue of waivers is
that
those should only be used in the most extreme of cases, not as a standard course of
business.
And
in a project that's going to be multi-phased with
large amounts of opportunity and access,
the ability to waive that opportunity and access is something that I
think should concern us all. So I would like, through the chair,
what in the ordinance the exact wording is
with regards to waivers
on this, whether it's in the code, whether it's in workforce, what
have you, and what is required in terms of both the
application and the acceptance of those
waivers. And I would like that before this goes
to the full city council so that we don't have
to stop this, because I think that we've asked this numerous times,
and we are never taken seriously on this matter. Thank you.
Alderman Lopez. Justin Edge, Department of Law.
I don't anticipate that being a problem, sir.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Go ahead, Justin. I'm sorry.
Sorry to interrupt you, Chair.
Keep going.
I was just stating that the timeline that Alderman Lopez stated, I can't
make a firm commitment for my colleagues. That's not in my division.
I won't be handling it personally.
But with the time before council, I don't anticipate that being a problem, so
we'll do our best.
Alderman Lopez, could you give me that item again, that request?
Yeah, I have it. I got it. I wrote it down.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Go ahead, Alderman Mitchell.
I don't know if I requested this during my questions.
And I don't know, I'm assuming the redevelopment agreement is pretty
large.
Is a lot of the things we're asking for have already been codified in the
redevelopment agreement?
In terms of the construction compliance metrics, and yes, they
are. Those are standard requirements in the RDA.
There's also going to be minimum investment requirements as well as the total
dollar amount that will be associated with the MWBE compliance portion.
I
guess
I'm still...
How can I phrase? I'm really concerned.
You know what, Chairman? Now let me get my thoughts together, because
all too many times, you can see, we have a lot of
concerns, because this is just like the
project that Alderman Chico mentioned on the southeast side.
These mega projects are opportunities
for
us to move Chicago forward in a way
where
minority contractors
have
experienced a lot of roadblocks and barriers, and these are
our opportunities to ensure they get those kind of shots.
And once projects are out of the gate, it's really
hard to incorporate
ways in which that can happen.
So,
while I'm not one to...
I don't know. I definitely look forward to, through the chair
request and any other information you can provide, so we can get a
better comfort level
with letting this out of the gate, so to speak.
I know it's already progressing, but this is still time for us to
have some
things codified, explicitly stating some real
commitments. And I'm sure this is not the first time you guys have heard any
of this. It's just that we always talk about it,
and at the end of the day, we don't see the kind
of progress that
we need to see.
Go ahead. I see you're ready.
No, I think one thing that we've
failed to underscore today as far as our commitments, in addition to that
written plan,
we're not new. We've been here for 30 years, and we've been working with the
community for 30 years, and with the various stakeholders
across the city. And I think the alderman has
grown up right here, so he's been there the whole 30 years, and he can probably
speak better than most with how we've engaged with the community.
So while I
don't want to downplay how critical and transformational
these large projects are, I completely and wholeheartedly agree.
Unlike many of those, we've been here in the community
for three decades and been working with the community.
So
we tried to codify some of that in that written document that we--
I guess we kind of forgot about it because we used it
16 months ago, and it's been put in motion.
And I think, having that physical space now for the CIC,
that's unprecedented from what I've seen across the board.
So hopefully when we get that to you, that will give you some comfort.
But I just don't think that we underscored that enough
throughout our answers, that we've been here, we've been
doing this for 30 years, and we plan to continue it and use this
opportunity to continue and expand on that commitment.
Yeah.
I don't doubt that you worked with the community, but for these mega projects,
this has to transcend. I know Autumn and Mitch talked about the west
side. This has to transcend that. It's
too large.
So I look forward
to the information,
so we could kind of get a better comfort level
with the progress.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Mitchell. Alderman Burnett,
do you have any comments?
Absolutely.
Alderman Burnett.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to everyone who's presenting.
Thank you to members of the committee for asking such thoughtful questions.
This project is so much more to me for so many different
reasons. I grew up across the street from these parking
lots. So my entire life, 30 years, across from these
parking lots.
And my parents own a home, and I now rent on that same block.
So these concerns and fears about gentrification are personal.
But I've also seen the change in this community in a way that
isn't as
bright as people think about it. When people think about West Loop and Fulton
Market, they assume that the United Center and the Near West Side is a part of
that. It's not the case. We've seen more buildings deconstructed west of
Ashland than we have
in any other part in the west side of Chicago.
So I remember personally going to Popeyes on
Ashland and Madison growing up because that was the closest restaurant that we
had. That was demolished 10 years ago.
And we haven't seen any type of investment come this way at any point in
time, especially of this scale. And so there's a question I have
to those presenting, but it's a later
point, and we can talk through the chair, but
let's talk about what those parking lots produce in taxes currently.
It's a fraction, if not minimal, to what can be utilized on this
land.
Yeah, that's good.
Let's talk about all the efforts that the United Center have done over the 30 years
to engage in the community. People don't know, but 30 years ago, when they were
building the United Center, the United Center were the first to engage with the
community and Ernest Gates to make sure that those who lived there weren't being
displaced. They created a framework that is now considered more standard,
but it was revolutionary at the time, and they continue to do this work.
The CIC is so transformative, and mind you, my background is in real estate
finance. So I worked five years at Goldman Sachs looking at deals
exactly like this, and I guarantee you that none of the community
work that they're doing would've been a flag for these
financers.When you think about the order of operations, about how people invest in
large scale projects like this, the last thing you want to do is put in the
infrastructure like a parking lot, because that makes no money in comparison to
everything else. The housing would be the best option to build first, because
there's housing demand. You can build a market around it.
But they can't do that because they need to actually have parking infrastructure.
So the parking lot in itself is more infrastructure related than it is
revenue, and that's what we're really funding.
And then when you think about the evergreen market of what it is to have a
13,000
venue strictly dedicated to music, you think about the hotel.
We haven't had this type of investment on the West Side. We just haven't.
And so when people think about what this investment means, as
a real estate professional who doesn't live in Chicago, this
is unheard of. Why would I make
an investment in a United Center project
where they're not main developers, they don't have experience in this capacity,
albeit experts in running concerts and entertainment,
when I can go invest downtown, in River North, and even two blocks away and get a
better return? So, the $55 million
is a way for us to continue the larger scale of this project.
And I've hit on some of the CIC requirements.
When I say that the United Center are trailblazers in this department, they came
to us talking about how they can help out the community.
And so we talk about how has there been outreach for this project.
I think about a month ago, maybe two months ago, we had a large
subcontracting fair that was broadcast across the entire city.
Everyone from local hiring
partners in our community, but also to Hire
360, and broadcast on TV, sent out on
newsletters to the entire city. The goal of this is to make sure
that those 32,000 jobs are coming from Chicago, and not just the
27th Ward, which I would love for it to be just the 27th Ward, but we don't have
32,000 people interested in construction to do that job.
So we need to hit on the West Side. We've been out there. I've been at job fair.
They're doing another job fair
further west
soon. Right? So I know for a fact because we've been so intimately
engaged in how the commitment is to hire locally, and
locally is so important because this community's been so disinvested, and people
forget that this is primarily CHA housing surrounding the
United Center. So we have to engage in this community that feels like they have
nothing and they're getting pushed out.
The CHA housing, these folks, they're going nowhere, but they're scared of the
gentrification. Like, "So what does this mean to my building?
Are you all going to push us out?" So I appreciate the United Center for first
engaging with the local folks there who have concerns about their displacement,
and going above and beyond and trying to figure out how do we keep the people in
that community. Figuring out unique tax structures, figuring out ways that we can
help people directly, helping them reinvest in their own
homes and staying in that area. But gentrification is a problem when you don't
allow the people who live there to participate in the economics, and they've done a
great job of doing that. And I know my colleagues have mentioned some of the
diversity concerns. I talked to Hasia, is that how you pronounce
it? The Hispanic organization, just last week about the participation.
Again, CIC going above and beyond.
There's been a lot of media press around Derrick Rose trying to be a GC and
going through this process. This is through CIC and the United Center project.
They're training people like Derrick and others.
I use Derrick because his name is prominent. He's Derrick Rose.
But there are so many different subcontractors who have gone through this process
to learn how to be professionals in this space, and that's something that the
United Center has led on their own
in making sure that people, and the ones who testified here today are a part of
that process, but there are so many others who are engaging in this.
So I can't stress enough, and I know it's hard to
believe because this is a mega project and it's $7 billion and this is a large
institution, but the community engagement aspect is unlike anything I've ever
seen. And I hope it's something that sets a tone of what all of these mega projects
have to be going forward, going above and beyond on the minority hiring, not
utilizing minority hiring capacity as an excuse, and training
people to be in those positions, and then making sure that majority
of the labor on this project is union.
They're not cutting costs on the labor piece.
They're making sure that we're reinvesting in all phases of it, not just the
construction, but the full-time jobs, working with SEIU, working with
Local Union 1, working with Unite Here.
We need this type of encompassing project to help build up the entire
ecosystem of the West Side. And because these
parking lots, which is almost half a mile, half a mile of just gray surface
parking lots exist, we have a disconnected Chicago and a disconnected West
Side. People who live west of Damen don't necessarily feel like
Union Park and West Loop are a part of their community, and that's just not
the case. So I really do implore, and there's just so many other facts and
information that I'm happy to talk to my colleagues about in terms of the actual
engagement piece and making sure that we get West Siders involved, of all
creeds and backgrounds. But I really do
ask my colleagues to support this project because it will be transformative to
everything we're doing on the West Side.
Great. Thank you.
Last remark.
Thank you,
vice chair.
Any more questions from anyone else before
I make a statement? So,
first of all,
I would like to thank my colleagues
for trusting me
to move
this committee forward,
and I am going to do it and execute
it fairly to the best of my ability
while I'm here. I'll say that.
Just sitting here listening to this,
when I first
took over
Econ1901 was the first
project that they came to me with, and I was so
excited about this project because
I think that
it's going to move Chicago
in a place where other cities, man,
probably can't even go.
There are some concerns here.
And I do understand that you have a large team,
a lot of people out there, but a lot of the committee members
also, I've been writing this down, some concerns
that they have.
Union participation, which wasn't really
answered. I've experienced that myself.
I asked was all the parties on board with this?
Come to find out all the parties are not on board
with it.
Another member talked about outreach.
Of
outreach, diversity participation.
But we have the list.
We got nine days. My recommendation is to pass
this out of committee,
but I do not want to report it out
to the entire city council
until these nine days. All we asking
for nine days
is to you to answer the questions, do
a reach out to those aldermen that had specific questions,
and you can do it through the chair also.
Alderman Burnett, I know you said we could all come to you, but I
also want 1901
to come to you also. So my recommendation is
to pass this out of committee today,
and
I pray and hope
everyone will be satisfied for us to pass this out
on next city council date, which is, I think, the
20th.
I know that our Vice
Chairman Moseley asked
to move
motion to-
To move
... to move to pass,
and Chairman Netz second that.
Second that.
So you have that, so then we go to establish-
So,
I make a motion, a roll call vote.
No, don't.
No, no. I'm sorry.
No, it's not a roll call.
Make a motion to remove-
To move passage
... the passage of this ordinance by the same roll call
that was applied to establish quorum.
Again, Vice Chairman Moseley
so moved. Well, moved,
and it was so moved by Chairman Netz.
Do I have any objections?
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
So,
this item will be passed out of committee.
Thank you. And we will follow up on all of those items.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you.
Item nine on the agenda is a substitute order to establish
an interactive digital wayfinder pilot program.
Alder Burnett is the sponsor of this legislation,
and will be available to answer any questions.
Are they gone?
They're leaving. They're off. Just give them a second.
$7 billion just walked out the door.
Except for all of us.
But, hey, at least it was passed.
Yeah. Now
the room can breathe a little. You can have the door open a
little bit. Now Blake Ort can come back.
Well, he's having fun outside.
Chairman Curtis.
Oh.
I've had my hand raised for a while.
Oh.
It's okay. I know you can't see me, you can only hear me.
No. Yeah, I'm sorry, Alderman Coleman.
It's okay. As a non-committee
member, I did want
to commend Alderman Burnett on Project
1901. There has been a lot of engagement and
outreach amongst not only HCEA, but BCO, BCU,
ACA, and other firms. And in the next 11 days,
I would like to be helpful, perhaps as chair of the Black Caucus, and
with Alderman Vasquez with the Latino Caucus.
Perhaps we can come together and have some type of
engagement for our colleagues so that we can make sure you are
successful on May 20th for passage with City Council
at hold. As we know that Mr. Jerry Lewis' life was
taken as he was one of the heads of Project
1901, and I had never witnessed in my seven years as
alderman so many Black subcontractors
in one space. And this man brought everyone together from the west side
to the south side, north side, and the Southland.
So tons of engagement have taken place, but I really feel with his
absence, Alderman Burnett, I think you can agree, with his absence in the
last year, some things have just gone astray.
And we want to make sure that we keep his legacy going, and this project was
so important to the west side of Chicago in the 27th Ward.
So Alderman Burnett, we got you.
Thank youAlderman
Coleman,
I couldn't agree with you more. I think this is a great project.
I think just that little extra push will get us
over the hump
in the next nine days. Alderman Burnett, would you like to
give a presentation on this
item nine,
the Wayfinder pilot program?
Yep. I've prepared some remarks to talk to the committee
about this.
So thank you everyone, chairman, members.
This ordinance is to get a digital Wayfinder pilot program in Fulton
Market, Near North, within the 27th Ward,
and to authorize a procurement process for between 25 and 50
digital wayfinding kiosks in the public way.
And as was noted during the budget cycle, we need
new avenues to generate revenue for the city that are more sustainable and
reoccurring.
And
this is intended to explore
if we are ready to deal with public way assets to create
long-term structural
revenue streams in the public way.
These kiosks are not intended to function simply as advertising
structures, but they're intended to be a broader public purpose.
Under this ordinance, a vendor must propose systems that
support real-time wayfinding, transit and mobility information,
public alerts, civil messaging, local business promotion, tourism
information,
and integrate with city services and platforms.
This requires it to be a financially self-sustaining model, including
operation maintenance and technology reporting, and a revenue share proposal.
The goal is to evaluate whether this is actually something that could be delivered
at a broader scale. And so, as we continue discussing
what it means to invest public dollars equally across the city,
I believe city resources should be used to prioritize areas that need more of this
type of advertising and infrastructure improvement.
I think about areas in my ward, like East Garfield and
West Humboldt, who are lacking dearly in some of these larger scope capacities for
local businesses to advertise, and not
necessarily in high demand commercial corridors, that
people are willing to pay for this infrastructure themselves.
Vendors might be willing to pay for these infrastructure themselves.
And so
this is structured as a pilot because we need to get real data, and
I know there's a process to considering a broader implementation,
but we have to really realistically evaluate performance,
reliability. What does it mean to have public usage?
What does it mean to engage with our local SSAs and what will
eventually become Chicago, which is the bid district, to which they're establishing
one in the Loop area, but also trying to establish one
in Fulton Market.
And so I know there's already a street furniture agreement in place,
and so this ordinance isn't meant to supersede that by any means.
There's a process that we have to run with JCDecaux in order to meet our
obligations, meaning that they will have the opportunity to
give us their proposal for what this might look like in Fulton Market.
But my goal is to utilize some of the best technology out there because Chicago
deserves the best. We should be getting an engagement process because everyone
in our local community are competing with advertisers on people's phones.
And so we need to be thinking about things in a more structured way
about how do we make our streets more of a walkable,
safe, and engaging platform for people
to conduct tourism but do everyday life with.
And so more broadly, I hope that this is providing us an opportunity to
have a conversation around technology and public infrastructure,
and see how we utilize our cross-department coordination
to effectively generate revenue and provide services that people in our community
need. So I'm here to answer any questions about the intent,
and work with my colleagues in the different departments to talk about the
structure and how we can move forward with this.
Thank you, Alderman Burnett. Are there any questions from the committee?
Sir, Alderman Spada.
Thank you so much. Chair, could I first ask, because I know
that representatives from JCDecaux are with us as well, or their
representatives. Could you make them, have them be available to answer questions?
Yes.
Okay.
So-
After yours or before?
During.
During, please.
During.
Thank you.
Would you mind coming up
to the dais? Thank you. Because I want to
make sure I fully understand
what is being provided and how this
intersects or potentially conflicts with
JCDecaux's contract, because I want to understand because I've
seen SSAs with wayfinding, like going down
Fullerton, particularly in Lakeview, east, I've seen
digital information kiosks currently being provided
by JCDecaux.
Could you speak to the gap that we're trying to fill first, sir?
Right. Could you identify yourself?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I'm Amy Curson from the law firm Reyes Curson on behalf of
JCDecaux. JCDecaux has been the city's partner on the street furniture
contract since 2002, and I am happy to answer
questions about how this competing advertising
program might impact your relationship with your existing partner,
JCDecaux.
Could you allow her to go ahead?
Yes, so I guess I'll direct the question there first, Ms. Curson.
So the contract with JCDecaux, this is not
a new contract. It's longstanding.
I'm curious, particularly with the kind of kiosks being
describedDoes JCDecaux
provide
comparable items in other cities?
Have you been ever asked to provide those in the City of Chicago?
Sure. Let me address that as a multi-part question.
The relationship with JCDecaux does go back to 2002,
so that's longer than some of the members of the committee, I think,
have been alive.
The relationship is a longstanding one, and the company has really
made an effort to do its best to bring
everyone from the city into the program.
It is the city's most progressive program.
We sell advertising downtown, and then city services
benefit from that
throughout 2,200 bus shelters all through the city.
You ask about the contract. The current contract was just signed
three months ago, and under that contract, as indicated in some of
the correspondence transmitted to the committee, JCDecaux has made a tremendous
financial commitment to the city, including trying to plug this year's budget
gap by providing a $33 million upfront payment in
2026 to help with the current budget woes.
The next question you asked related to kiosks.
Yes, JCDecaux is absolutely ready and able to
provide way-finding kiosks. They do it in other cities.
I don't have those cities in front of me.
But
the company has been working on a plan where kiosks could be
provided in the Fulton Market. They could also be provided in some other places
where other community groups have asked JCDecaux about kiosks.
The problem with this proposed ordinance is not way finding.
JCDecaux absolutely supports way finding.
The city's been doing a way finding program through Choose Chicago.
We think those programs are terrific and would like to be part of that solution.
Our concern is a policy concern, and that relates
to supply and demand. In this case, the City of Chicago is the
seller, so you want to keep prices high.
If you put a lot of opportunities for advertising out on the street, that
drives prices low. You don't want prices to be low.
What you want is less advertising in more selective
locations and more desirable for advertisers, where they
pay more money to the city. The city ultimately is the
beneficiary through the contract with JCDecaux in that revenue share.
In the $33 million,
because that's a
relatively high revenue-
It is
... payment that you make to the city.
What are the commitments that the city makes to JCDecaux
or vice versa in terms of
guaranteeing that revenue?
Well, first of all, there's the understanding when you have a
contract with somebody that they live up to the terms of the contract, and the
contract is that JCDecaux sells advertising on the public way
and uses that money to pay for these big cash outlays
to the city, plus international advertising about the city.
Okay.
Plus, in the latest contract, eight public toilets, plus an
additional $2 million worth of
street furniture,
plus all the maintenance. So, all of that comes out to well over
$100 million worth of value. How does JCDecaux pay for that?
By being the partner who sells advertising on your public way.
If you clutter up the streets with a lot of other advertising, that's
very likely to depress prices. There is a
practical issue here, too. The city just came out with an
RFP in early April. Sorry, an RFI, request for
information, where it asked companies from around the
world to make proposals to the city, to give ideas to the
city, information about could public assets be used
to generate more money on the public way.
JCDecaux responded to that, and those responses were due May 1st.
This committee has not heard anything about those responses to the
RFI. So this is a little bit of acting before you even
know what the situation is, were you to
approve this alternative advertising ordinance.
Thank you. I'll hand back the mic, but my one question to my colleague, Alderman
Burnett, is I'm just trying to understand what is
the dissatisfaction or the insufficiency in
the offerings provided through JCDecaux that makes you want to
pursue a different provider?
How is new infrastructure funded?
If I were to have this kiosk program through JCDecaux, where do those funds come
from?
In the contract that was signed in December, JCDecaux
advised the city that there is a fund of money that is
provided in the contract, in this case
over $2 million, that can be used for new
infrastructure. So that is a citywide amount of money that could be used
for way-finding kiosks. It could also be used for more
bus shelters throughout the city.
In addition to that, I believe that JCDecaux has also been working with people in
the Department of Finance to bring a very limited number of
kiosks to the city at its own cost. The way the program
agreement works is that should a way-finding program be
desired, the city would just ask
JCDecaux to present a proposal for way-finding
kiosks. It would discuss what that would be and make a plan.
So you said $2 million fund that you recommended the city use for
infrastructure across the city.
That's provided in the contract that there is an allocated
value of up to $2 million. So that's in addition to the
other funds that have already been given or committed by JCDecaux.
They have committed to give up to-- I have it in the letter that-
I understand the 30 or so million that's committed, that should be for the general
fund. The two million currently for infrastructure across the city.
So that $2 million could be utilized in my ward, it can be utilized in Emma Mitts'
ward, it could be utilized in Peter Chico's ward.
Correct.
So you're asking me to take my money or take from my project of this
$2 million to put kiosk in Fulton Market when there's an
opportunity for someone else to fund it completely?
If what you're looking for is wayfinding kiosks, the contract
provides a way for JCDecaux to give you those
kiosks. There are other provisions that are in the JCDecaux
contract that indicate that you can't have too much
infrastructure on the public way.
So there are restrictions so that infrastructure can't be placed within
25 feet of JCDecaux infrastructure.
I understand. I know my ward, so I know that there's-
50 kiosks may be a bit much in your ward.
I appreciate that.
But the company is prepared to provide kiosks, yeah.
I appreciate that. I know my ward, and I know where 50 can go.
But I also know where the JCDecaux advertising signs are in my ward currently, and
none of them are in Fulton Market, and very few are in
the North Side. I think there's one or two of these signs that are static
or unengaging. But Alderman Espada, you
asked what is my concern. My concern is that there's $2 million of
infrastructure fund provided through this contract, and if not, I would have to pay
for it with other dollars from my ward.
What has typically been stated is that menu funds or TIF funds could be
utilized to pay for these things, and I'm not utilizing TIF fund or menu
funds in order to actually execute on something that I believe broadly can
be funded by someone else. I understand JCDecaux's concern.
I think we do need to invest in some of these things, like bus shelters across the
West Side of Chicago especially. And I'm willing to work with them on that
capacity. But when it comes to something that is more of a evergreen
and an opportunity to see what this type of engagement can do, I don't want to
utilize city funds to
experiment in that capacity.
Again, Alder Burnett, JCDecaux does not have a problem with wayfinding.
We are very comfortable if you want to do wayfinding.
Many of your SSAs do wayfinding across the city, and we support that fully.
Choose Chicago is also engaged in wayfinding, and that's terrific.
Our concern is a competing advertising program.
And so,
when the SSA
pays for these wayfinding platforms, they do it out of their own SSA?
Again, I have heard that there are SSAs that do them.
I am vaguely familiar with them. I'm not someone who can advise you about the
SSAs.
And so again, my issue is more so about the funding.
And Fulton Market doesn't have an SSA, so they can't utilize the dollars to pay for
that themselves. And so I think we need to expand
our out-of-home marketing in totality.
That includes what we work with in JCDecaux.
But I also want to make sure that we are
actively engaging with our procurement department to start on these processes,
because the request to generate revenue from advertising was
seven, eight months ago now, and I don't know how much we've been working towards
expanding the opportunities that we have.
And I know there's a substantial amount of dollars that we receive
for JCDecaux. I mean, this
$33 million or this contract is news to me.
I don't know the details of what's all in here.
So this is helpful to see that we're generating revenue in this capacity.
But I feel like the city can always do more.
Thank you.
Gentlemen in the back, can you identify yourself?
Yeah. Good morning, folks. Steven Maher, acting CFO.
Acting CFO of the City of Chicago.
That's correct.
Thank you.
Next questions, Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
I wanted to follow up a little bit on Alderman Espada's questions.
And look, I give my colleague, Alderman Burnett, credit for thinking
outside the box and wanting to find ways to get
more wayfinding infrastructure in his ward where it's needed.
But it seems that perhaps it would be good for Alderman
Burnett to get up to speed
on the
JCDecaux contract that's been in place here for quite some time
and was just recently renegotiated with the City of Chicago a few months ago.
But before I get to my question, since the acting CFO is
here,
do you support this pilot project,
Acting CFO?
The ordinance before us today gives the Department of Procurement Services the
option to go out with a RFP.
So the Department of Finances is indifferent to the ordinance
itself. But the chief financial officer would have the
responsibility of implementing the program if an RFP is
released.
Sure. But as the chief, I guess acting chief financial officer,
you do have to keep an eye on existing contracts that we have
with folks like JCDecaux, correct?
That's correct.
And as the acting CFO, and understanding that
adding a lot more supply to an advertising market could have
an impact on the value,
the cost, frankly, that can be charged to advertise.
More supply means lower prices, and given the fact that
JCDecaux is a partner with the city,
they're not just renting this space from us.
We share in the revenue and the profit.
Do you have any concerns about what this program might do to our
existing advertising revenues that the city realizes?
And frankly, you're looking to plug a big hole
this fall with a big advance payment from our partner.
I'd like to hear your comments on that.
Yeah, the first thing I'd note is that this ordinance proposes a pilot.
So relatively modest in scope. When it comes to
revenue generation-
Uh-huh
... the city does benefit from its contract with JCDecaux, as it has for many years
now. So when it comes to supply and demand in the market for
wayfinding and advertising, our goal would be to appropriately
analyze the opportunity in front of us
and to adjust as time goes forward.
And as you understand it, this pilot that's been
proposed,
where do those revenues go? How are they distributed?
I ask because were this pilot to be expanded citywide, the way I
read this pilot,
it would be an absolute windfall for my ward,
given the value of advertising in my ward is higher than anywhere else in the
city. We have the highest pedestrian volumes than anywhere else
in the city in the 42nd Ward, and maybe to a lesser degree, the 34th Ward.
I understand this to keep a good chunk of the revenues derived
within the area boundary
where this is set up.
So what about that?
As it stands today, the JCDecaux advertising program, which
a lot of it is also based in my ward, is used
to subsidize street furniture and infrastructure across the city's
50 wards. And so I want to understand
the distinction between the two programs, the one that exists and the one that's
being proposed.
Yeah. Thank you for your question.
To the best of my knowledge, the ordinance is silent
on how these funds, if any, were to be used.
Well, that's a
concern.
And as you understand it, CFO,
this is a three-year agreement?
The ordinance-
This pilot project.
Yeah. The ordinance that we have in front of you,
the duration of the wayfinder contract would not exceed 20 years.
As mentioned previously, that contract would be no fewer than
25 and no more than 50 wayfinders,
and that the pilot program would expire on December 31st of
2030.
And then what happens after 2030 when the pilot program expires?
I'm looking at a 20-year
wayfinding contract. So the pilot goes away, and then the
person who participated in that pilot then has themselves a 17-year contract?
This is one of the issues that I anticipate will be negotiated
through the RFP itself to
understand over what term might an interested party
participate in that pilot.
That's a pretty big loose end to have sitting out there at a
time when the city's in a pretty precarious financial position, I have to tell you
that, CFO.
We're how many months away from going into dealing with another massive budget
deficit?
That seems like homework that should be done on the front end, not the back.
Don't you agree?
I would say the Department of Procurement Services is going to do its best in
evaluating a few different things.
I'm sure it does.
One is, who are the interested parties that may apply
via this RFP? Two, to your earlier point about where the
locations might best be suited,
and then three, ultimately, where those funds are going to be used.
And so as I understand it, JCDecaux is
committed to giving the city $74 million in cash over the term,
including $33 million
this year alone,
plus $22 million in global tourism marketing.
More street furniture.
To JCDecaux's representative,
would you litigate if the city were to implement this pilot program?
Would you have to consider that on behalf of your investors?
JCDecaux values its relationship with the city, and we
would evaluate all options
in front of us. We like to preserve our
relationships to the extent we can.
I know that you're not interested in aggressively litigating against your partner,
the city.
Yeah.
But you also have fiduciary duties.
We do. And a- as structured, we believe that this ordinance
violates the JCDecaux contract.
I think it does too,
based on my read.
Are there a lot of firms out there that do this
work, this wayfinding work and infrastructure
installation?
I think there are a few that do it. There's one that's
well known around Chicago.
Okay. And,
well, I don't want to get too far into the weeds.
Chairman, again, I applaud my colleague for being
creative and
wanting to get some more infrastructure for his ward.
But it seems that maybe some negotiating and conversations with JCDecaux could
accomplish the same goal
without putting our contract with them in jeopardy.
Again, a contract that
we just renewed a few months ago.
And I'm agnostic on the provider of this infrastructure and the content
and all that. The JCDecaux contracts that exist
today certainly predate my time on the city council.
I came here inheriting those. But I would say that the
current
arrangement-
This was done before-
... greatly benefits the 49 wards that aren't mine.
Okay.
And my constituents get to navigate
around the right of way obstructions and
the visual glare and the light pollution, et cetera, et
cetera,
in exchange for this.
I see a lot of upside to the city because these JCDecaux
folks provide a lot of infrastructure like bus shelters,
wayfinding when requested,
and until they were rendered obsolete, newspaper boxes.
And my experience with JCDecaux recently in
trying to find some more public benefits
beyond the international advertising, which I've been pushing very hard
and did with the previous administration as well, to leverage that for our
tourismUm, Alderman Lospada and others
have had, I think, very productive conversations getting public bathroom
facilities, um, installed to the public benefit,
and certainly the tourists who visit the city,
um, and folks who are unhoused. Um,
these are the benefits we derive from the relationship that exists with JCDecaux,
and I would hate for us to put that at risk and
jeopardize the contract. And worse yet,
um, the prospect of a lawsuit against the city, which could be costly, and
if we lose, could cost us lots and lots of money
that we need right now to help us balance our budget.
So,
I would ask that, um, this ordinance be held
and that some more work be done and some more conversations be had,
um, if the sponsor would get familiar with the current constraints of the city
contract and what that means, um,
and then maybe reengage on this. Uh, it's troubling to me-
This has-
... however-
... to the-
... that the CFO
for the City of Chicago is not raising alarm bells here-
... city
... uh, and that it is members of the City Council who is, who have to do that,
uh, when the CFO, more than anyone,
should be guarding our coffers like a hawk,
especially when they're going to come and tell us in a few months the city is in
deep doo-doo yet again,
and needs more taxes raised.
God forbid we talk about cuts, but more taxes are going to be suggested here.
And so, that's very troubling. Chairman, I'd ask that we hold this in committee.
Look, I'll make a motion if the sponsor
doesn't want to. I think the sp-
Sponsor is a reasonable person, and he may want to work on this with us, and maybe
there is a way to affect a pilot that accomplishes his goals
without threatening an existing city contract that provides a lot
of good
to the public benefit and frankly, to our city finances.
Thank you. Uh,
yes, and, Alderman Burnett is,
what should this be
to you? Um, what's the difference between the original and the
substitute?
Um, the difference is in the,
um, execution language on what can
happen in terms of dealing with specific departments, understanding
how this works with the Department of Transportation.
Um, but the key piece is that this is not something that can be executed
on before we do the proper, um,
process with JCDecaux, which is the, what is they're describing as the
issue with Section 4.782.
And so, it basically says that we have to go through and talk to them first
and allow them to submit their offer before we are able to go send this out to
bid. Meaning that if JCDecaux isn't able to do so and we
go through that process, then we will start with procurement on
executing on something that can happen.
And so, the way that it is structured, it's meant to comply with the
contract, uh, understanding their, um,
current... Understanding that we do not want to,
uh, provide an issue to the CFO office and anyone in the city on what
is existingly structured.
Okay.
Alderman Riley, was you... Were you going to?
Uh, Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to hold this ordinance in committee.
There's language to hold this item.
There's-
Huh? Hold this item in committee.
Hold it?
Um, I'm sorry, what do I do?
There's language to hold this item in the committee.
Um-
I'm fine with holding it.
Oh.
And the roll call.
And a roll call vote on that. Could we call a roll?
Yes, sir.
Roll call.
Pass the substitute and hold. So,
can I... Excuse me, can I ask to accept the substitute and then hold it?
Uh,
the substitute has already been adopted-
Yeah
... through the clerk's office. So it was submitted to the clerk's office last
week.
Yes.
We don't have to substitute. We... The substitute is the substitute.
It's already-
Substitute.
You can tell him. Substitute has already been accepted through the clerk's office.
Substitute has already been accepted through the clerk's office, right?
Yes.
Hold it.
So we don't have to change it.
You want to see Mosley?
Yeah, and that's it, right.
Hold on. Let me see what Justin says.
Let's... Let's-
Yeah, roll call vote.
So, we're in motions.
Okay. Alderman?
He's willing to hold it.
I don't also don't vote on this committee, so.
Can you stay long?
So, we can just hold it without having a vote. He just said yes.
It could be held without the substitute.
If you want to do the-
No
... substitute, you can-
Well, the substitute has already been submitted, not through committee, through the
clerk's office.
It has to be done here by the committee.
Even if it's already been submitted to the clerk's office?
Yes. Absolutely, yes.
It's fine. It can be taken up the next item.
Can I amend my motion?
Yeah, absolutely.
All right. Chairman, I would first move that we accept the
substitute to committee to make sure that's official,
and then I will renew my motion to hold this ordinance in committee as amended,
unless the sponsor is willing to
hold this item until it's been worked on and it's ready for
future action.
Right. And the author, go ahead.
I'm willing to-
Burnett?
I am willing to hold it as the sponsor.
All right. Then Chairman, I would request that the
committee accept the substitute.
Uh, I make that motion.
So the motion has been called and seconded.
Motion has been called and seconded.
To accept the substitute-
To accept the substitute
... of this legislation.
On this, uh, on item nine, uh-
And we have now had a
motion. Can I entertain a motion to hold this item?
Can I entertain a motion to hold this
item?So moved by Alderman
Lopez
So this item has been held
This item has been held at this time, item nine.
Yep.
What's that?
We need to take a vote on the substitute.
We do? Okay. So let's go back and then...
Sub.
Yeah.
So on the substitute, we can do a voice vote.
Yeah.
Just saying, now on the question, we have on the substitute.
We have a motion and a second.
Yeah, we have a motion and a second.
We have a motion to vote in favor.
Yes.
And aye.
He's got his water working.
The water?
The water.
Oh, yeah.
So, okay. Let's just correct the record.
We can go back, say we have a motion to accept the
substitute.
We have a motion to accept the substitute.
We have it seconded.
We have a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
Any opposed, say nay.
No? Okay.
Chair, the ayes have it. The substitute has been accepted.
You can say that.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, substitute has been accepted.
We now have another motion
Now there's another motion
To hold item nine on the agenda.
Beautiful. Oh, can I have it seconded by...
Okay.
Question,
Vice Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you to JCDecaux for being a partner here.
I just want some clarity on my end. What's the
cost of an average kiosk?
I'm sorry, I don't have that information, but I can get it to you.
Great. I request that through the chair.
Sure.
And additionally, that $2 million
fund that you spoke of earlier, what are the uses of it?
Or should we get that through the chair also?
Unlimited uses. Those are
some things that we've suggested to some of your colleagues.
Mm.
Additional bus shelters, we've talked about that.
Maybe Wi-Fi in some shelters. Shade mechanisms in
places where you don't have shelters.
So sometimes just having a shade can really help, especially in the hot
months. There are some other exciting things being done internationally with
green roofs and trying to improve environmental
impact of the shelters, or improve the environment around them.
There is a lot of wonderful things that can be done with the shelters.
Phenomenal. I also request just some of those
breakdowns of uses and their approximate or estimated costs-
Happy to provide that
... will be helpful.
I've also seen throughout the City of Chicago some bus benches
that have advertisement. Is that JCDecaux as well?
No, those are not.
Okay. And does that fall under street furnishing?
It's not under our contract. In
2002, there were lots of those benches all over the city, and this street
furniture program in part was designed to help eliminate those ad benches.
We know that they still provide a service in some places where there are not bus
shelters, and so haven't struggled with the city about those.
Okay.
But if you want bus shelters in those places, we're happy to talk
about that.
And there's been no litigation against them, or even the
SSAs that do way finding?
The SSAs that do way finding are actually providing way finding.
What's on the block? Where are you?
Where can you go from here?
Okay.
That's fine. Those are great.
Got it.
We haven't done the holding.
Technically, we haven't-
And to Chicago, I guess, as well.
To Chicago has recently put up some way finders around the city.
I think they put up 40 of them.
Great. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Chair, that's my questions.
Thank you.
So now we can do a motion to hold this item.
Thanks. There's a motion to hold item nine.
Can I get a vote? Can I get a motion?
Second. Second.
So moved.
Can we get-
And there was second
All those opposed?
All those...
Any opposed?
Chair has it.
Yep.
Okay, Chair,
this item has been held.
This item has been-
Has been held
... has been held-
For this committee
... for this committee at this time.
We're going to have to go through-
Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. We appreciate you very much.
Oh, we can go ahead and get done. Back.
Okay. Item number 10 on the agenda is an ordinance
for the amusement
amendment of a special service area 34 uptown,
regarding special provider agreement with
Uptown United, and a 2026 tax
levy.
Onita Pate, City Planning and Development,
is here to answer any questions on this item.
Oh, my gosh. Where can I get hold and double?
Right.
I'd rather a
case like that, too.
It's very... Doesn't hurt.
I think we should have had a subject matter hearing on this because
for the city to come up.
There was no past hearing.
And it's going to be-
There's the public chiefs.
Should I go on and get started?
It's going to work.
So maybe we could just call it, right? We call a subject meeting?
Yeah, I think it's better.
Are you going to hold? Okay. I see everybody leaving.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I'm Onita Pate, Planner V with the Department of Planning and Development.
Is that moving?
Situations from 12 people.
Give me a moment. I'm not used to...
No, I need the
Yep, got it.
There you go.
Okay.
DPD is requesting an amended 2026 service provider
agreement and budget for Special Service Area number 34.
SSA number 34 is located in the Uptown community area in the
46th, 47th, and 48th wards.
Alders Clay, Martin, and Manna Hoppenworth have
expressed their support or no objection for this proposed
development.
The amendment will increase the TIF rebate amount in their current
2026 budget from $0 to $300,000.
The requested increase is the result of a TIF surplus declared at
the end of 2025.
The surplus is needed to start a strategic plan for Argyle Street,
provide streetscape enhancements, add public art
grants, and expand media relations to promote Uptown.
We ask for the committee's support in approving this amended
2026 service provider agreement and budget for Special Service Area
number 34. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the committee?
Make a motion to, uh-
The motion.
So moved.
Motion.
So moved by-
By Alder woman Gutierrez
... by Alders-
Gutierrez
... Gutierrez, yeah.
And seconded by Savannah. Um.
So Alder woman, those in case of no objections to orders and then-
No objections so ordered. The due pass recommendation reported out at the
next city council meeting.
All right, we're good.
Okay. Did I hear-
No, did you say roll call?
Yes, I did not say roll call.
I just-
Yeah.
And we go ahead and say, "What's that?"
Living next door.
You have to have that mic.
As I thought, right?
All right, so just read this whole entire section, and then just say, "Alderman
Gutierrez." So just read the whole entire thing so we have-
May I have a motion to recommend passage of the item by the same roll
call vote that applied to establish quorum.
I'll move.
Alderman
Gutierrez so moved. Hearing no objects to so ordered.
Due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Payton.
Thank you.
Item 11 is a substitute order directing the city
controller, who's not here, to activate, uh,
provisions of
MC11-12-470
leak relief pilot program.
Alderman Raymond Lopez is the sponsor of this legislation and
will be available to answer any questions.
Please, Alderman Lopez, begin your presentation.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the committee.
I will spare you the 47-page statement that I had prepared for today, and just
remind everyone that 214 days ago, we had a
senior citizen, Diane Carley, who was in tears here
over her water bill that was
$233,000 on an abandoned property with
no plumbing. We were told 214 days ago that we
were going to rectify it. Our former chairman said there should be a
commissioner's authority to suspend collections, that we should do this promptly as
possible, and that there were deficiencies in the original leak law
that did not meet the spirit of said law.
Our former chairman even said that we would name it the Carley Ordinance so that we
could help her and all of those individuals in our
wards who are suffering from mistakes in our billing.
Since October, no resolution has come forward.
The bills keep coming. The penalties keep rising.
And our witness
suffered almost a minor stroke from the stress.
We need to act, and we need to act now.
This substitute order was crafted previously.
It has set, and I ask for everyone's
approval on this item because we can no longer wait for the law department and
intergovernmental affairs to take the appropriate actions to do right by our
seniors. And with that, I move for its immediate passage.
Any questions or comment? Uh, Alderman Wackerspad.
Thank you, Chairman. Um, Alderman Lopez, what is the total amount now?
You mentioned that it was rising.
Uh, including the, uh, the additional compounded fees.
I believe we are surpassing a quarter of a million dollars.
Jesus Christ.
And the department said they would waive $24,000 in late fees
as a way of helping her out.
And, um, it's my understanding this was the, uh,
home... Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the home where there
was a disconnect on the pipe to the house
s- uh, years ago, if I'm not mistaken.
And there was no way for the water to,
uh, get to the house unless it was jetted through the air- ...
100 feet, something like that.
Yes. Previously, before the city's first water meter was installed in
2023, her water bills were zero because the water was shut
off, and there was no piping, no plumbing inside this property.
Not a working sink, not a working toilet, nothing.
Then the water department came, installed a meter, and
immediately her bill skyrocketed to
500,000 gallons of water usage per month on
a vacant house with no plumbing, interior plumbing.
That went for one year straight. A second meter
eventually was installed, and her water usage dropped
back to zero with the second water meter.
However, the water department and law department both contend that it must have
went through the meter, and they expect her to pay.
Everyone who has been in this house has seen no water damage, has seen no evidence
of water usage, and pr-privately contends that
this obviously is a mistake, but no one wants to step up and meet it.
Our law department has said that our leak relief
program is missing one word
in the ordinance to comply with the spirit of what we all intended and
passed years ago. But this order should direct the comptroller
to zero out the bill
immediately, so that we can do right by our
residents.
Thank.
Yeah. Can we call
Justin Edge from the law department?
Chairman, I would just make a motion when you're ready to
pass the order.
Right.
Well, got a question?
Justin Edge, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Department of Law.
Available for any questions. I would
say that
probably the most important that I speak to is the legal validity of an
order, this order specifically, and why
it is legally deficient and the problems that that creates.
If you'd like me to
speak to that first, I can begin there, but I'm available for any questions.
Okay. Alderman
LaSpada.
Cover it up. There you go. I would give leave to the law department first
and then ask my question. Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Alderman.
The
orders, as they
have been used both under precedent of the council under
Illinois state law, have very specific uses.
They need to be in furtherance of an existing
ordinance, specifically directing an executive
official to do something they were required to do in a
non-discretionary sense. And just to unpack that a little bit, for
instance,
if there was an order to direct the traffic compliance
administrator to install parking meters,
there is a section in the code which says, "The comptroller shall
install parking meters where directed by the City Council."
That would be a completely legitimate use of an order.
Now, where there is not actually an ordinance, an order is improper
due to separation of law principles and it can create
issues where you're basically directing a member of the
executive branch to act in a way that might be a discretion of
authority. So when we're talking about discretionary matters.
So putting aside that discretionary, non-discretionary
distinction because it actually doesn't matter too much here.
The important thing is the ordinance which is actually
stated, I mean, the section of the code specifically stated in the
substitute order,
does not
make this property eligible for the leak relief
program.
Point of information, Chair.
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you. Did you write the substitute order?
No, I did not, Alderman.
Who wrote the substitute order?
Ordered the substitute order?
Who wrote?
Who wrote the substitute order?
I do not know, Alderman.
Because my understanding was that it came from the law department.
I have no knowledge of that, sir.
So between the law department IGA
and
finance, a substitute order
to what was originally produced was given to the former chairman, and now
one of the three entities involved is now saying that that
order is not legal.
Well, I can say that-
So I think that
the
audacity to present things to the committee
chairman in one meeting and then turn around and
type torpedo it in another
shows the effort that this bureaucracy
is going through to avoid any kind of real functional
change here. Because that what you just said
was said over 200 days ago. And the substitute order was
presented to the chairman of this committee
to rectify all of those concerns. And now you're saying that that same substitute
is now deficient itself?
Respectfully, Alderman-
So we're going to keep creating deficient ordinances,
legislations, and substitutes for this body-
Alderman, I-
... so that we are manipulating our residents?
Chairman, I would tread very carefully with this department
if this is how they're going to react every time that we ask them for their
assistance, because quite literally, right now,
we are being set up for failure, as we have been 200 days
ago by what they provided us, and now are saying it's deficient.
Alderman LaSpada.
Thank you, sir. So
I
want to acknowledge things. Number one, Alderman Lopez is entirely
in the right to fight for his constituent.
The water bill is absurd.
The means by which we check people's meters is absurd.
The fact that your meter can be
malfunctioning for up to two years,
and you can be responsible for that two years of false
readings,
is absurd.
Wait, because I don't know that you're going to entirely like where I'm going.
There should be legislation
addressing all of this. I also believe that there should be some kind of
comptroller-led or comptroller means of addressing and
erasing irrational and clearly false
water debt. But at the timeTo
the best of my knowledge, we have not passed that legislation.
Sir, I know that it was 214 days ago, because I was in the room with you at the
time.
In the past 214 days and to that point,
had there been a leak discovered at the property?
Yes, sir. Yep.
No. Actually,
they are in their second water meter, and they've had a water bill of
$0 monthly since.
So, in all of this, I agree with you, and we have seen similar
cases in the First Ward, but I think the challenge
being addressed here by the law department
is that the leak relief pilot
does not provide,
based off of city code, for the relief that you're requesting.
That is my concern.
Clearly,
the debt that is owed is irrational and false, but I believe at the
same time, the existing ordinance does not provide for the
relief that your constituent deserves.
That, to me, is the challenge. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Chairman Mims.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When you start talking about
the water bills, and I heard
Alderman Lopez concerned about his constituent,
but also I know of other constituents.
Can you tell me how many constituents we have
that are in court or
that they're
filing
for non-payment of a water bill that's
similar to this case?
People owe a water bill. But in similar cases like Alderman Lopez,
where the city went out and tore buildings down,
and
the owner did not turn off that water meter,
but yet that bill kept growing.
They file liens on their property,
and they can't get anyone to even listen to them about
a building being torn down, or there were no
meter.
I would be happy to try to put together the information as well as I can.
I don't have those numbers for you now, but let me just-
I just would like to know that because I think it
is critical that this
city don't put that harm or hurt
on folks who have worked all their life, and what
they have, that we can't rectify it.
Mm-hmm.
That we continue to harm them
instead of trying to help them, and I think that there is a
problem that we need to be addressing with the leak
program.
Yeah, if I could just split out.
Okay.
I think there are three different categories-
Okay
... that I think ideally would all be addressed through
policy measures.
Okay.
The law department, we help in drafting, stating what is legal
or not legal. We defer on all
policy and operational considerations to the departments.
And the way that this works generally in this field is once a meter reading is
taken,
then that information is passed over to Department of
Finance, and the Department of Finance handles it from there.
Department of Finance, under the authority of the comptroller, may
assess late penalties and fees, may recommend out for
collection actions, past due bills,
and all of that's addressed in this same section, Chapter 11.12 in
the code. So we have a few different types there.
And
then I'll say that the last piece, last bucket, would be once referred
over back to the Department of Law for
some type of collection action, that's when the Department of Law would be
involved. It's a little difficult to say cases like
this because, from my understanding from Department of Finance,
there is only one
situation that has this high a dollar amount, though I do understand that there
are a wide range of other scenarios like this.
Under the direction of this committee,
I understand that the Department of Finance has been working on developing
an expanded leak relief
program that would encompass a broader array of these
policies, possibly reaching some of the others.
But,
I do not know all the specifics and can't speak to that.
As far as I know, it's pre-decisional as far as the policy that they'll recommend,
but I'll try to get a breakdown as well as I can of different property types at
different phases of that.
What I wanted to say was, if a person is not in a
home and a water bill is continuing to grow, where is the
process of who goes out to that house?
Mm.
Who goes check
before these bills continue to rise?
Where is the checks and balances with government?
Now is that a problem or not?
Okay.
One thing that could be considered in future legislation would be a
system that actually notes when water
usage jumps drastically.
Okay.
That is not currently addressed in the leak relief program or the utility bill
review programs.
That's the problem now.
Actually, it is.
If I may, too, I'd like to just speak back to some comment that
Alderman Lopez mentioned, just simply because I want to make
sure that the record's correct as far as what I stated or did
not say. I was the only representative of the Department of Law
sitting up here that day. I was here October 9th,
and I went back and reviewed that video just last week
andAs I said, I have no personal knowledge
of having written that. It would have been written, typically, it would have been
written in my division.
This is the first I have ever heard the Department of Law was involved in drafting
that substitute. It surprises me because there are several
stylistic differences that we never use in the way that this is
drafted, so it surprises me to hear that.
But like I said, I did not state that that day, and I don't believe any
representative of the Department of Law stated that that day.
That day, in fact, I stated, and I do know this, that
both the original substitute and the substitute as
amended, which I saw for the first time when it was placed in front of me in hard
copy that day, both have the same legal
deficiencies. Because they're saying that this water bill should be
zeroed out under the authorities of the Comptroller under the
leak relief pilot, and this is not an
eligible leak under the ordinance as passed by City Council.
Basically, the principle underlying all of this is only an ordinance can change
an ordinance or a portion of an ordinance.
That's the ordinance, that's the law that's been passed by Council.
It can be changed, but it has not been yet, and so that
is the leak relief pilot that we're left to rely on, and it doesn't
provide legal authority to forgive this
debt.
Now, ordinances could be drafted which grandfather,
which provide look-back periods, which could address situations
like this, but that is not what we have right now, and so-
Thank you
... this ordinance is directing-
Can you renew the motion, please?
... the passage against the-
Yeah
... code that it references.
Yeah, I have
one other question. Justin, so what would happen if we
voted to
move and pass this item out of committee
to the City Council?
And report out.
Please go ahead and finish. Sorry.
Yes. And to be reported out to City Council.
So,
nothing technically would happen with the passing out of this
committee and the recommendation to Council.
But when Council, if Council, passed such
an order, it is doing so against the letter of the law
of the code.
And so it is ordering an executive branch
official to give a credit of over
$200,000 to an individual person in the
city,
not under an existing program. In fact, directly counter to the program that
it's referencing. So, we get into legal
hypotheticals pretty quickly because this council does not do that generally.
So,
if this committee decided to
vote to recommend it out and recommend it for passage,
I could follow up with some legal research on what that could possibly mean
if passed by City Council then, and could submit that through the
Chair. But it would be concerning under
fiduciary duties, separation of powers, multiple
concerns.
Which again, a change to an ordinance would not
have any of those issues, changing the code through an ordinance.
So,
clear out amendments.
I just wanted to ask, why would the code change? Where is it?
Yeah.
Can't you
submit
information that we can introduce to change the code?
That's the law department, that's who we got.
So the law department will do things like this, like opine on
legal sufficiency of things. But my division does
most of the drafting of ordinances when we're asked by an alder or
the administration, as you know.
We defer to the operational departments on
all questions of policy and operations.
So they're the ones that would be able to speak to
questions of what that ordinance might look like.
I haven't drafted that ordinance because I don't have the information to draft that
ordinance. So,
generally, the law department, this is our rule
across the board, we don't make policy decisions on our own.
We're directed to write policy into law by the operational
departments. So once we receive that directive, we'd be happy to-
Point of information. It'll pass.
Respectfully, we're going around in circles.
Because- Chairman Mitz, to answer your question, on October
9th, then Chairman Viegas directly pointed a question to Justin saying,
"Can we get language to make this change necessary?
That's why we held this the last time." And to hear today that he doesn't know what
we're talking about is absurd. It's actually dereliction of
duty and a
violation of the municipal code because you are misrepresenting, you are lying to
this body right now. You were asked by the chairman in that video, and I
checked it before we started this.
So
we can keep going around in circles.
There's a
substitute order that was crafted to meet all of the
requirements at that time in reference to what is listed in the municipal
code,
that was even signed and co-sponsored by the then
chairman, who wouldn't have put his name on something that was deficient,
because we wanted to give the administration time to correct this.
They have punted, and we are here today to take action, and I would ask if my
colleague could renew his motion so we can move forward.
Alderman, I would like to speak to that since I was just
explicitly told that I was
violating city law and my legal ethics under my law
license. I would just like to state that I stated I
would work-
It wasn't a question to you, sir.
No, it was, sir.
It wasn't a question to you. It was a question to my chairman.
I would like to just state that I stated that day that I would
be happy-To work with the
department on crafting a policy, and would
continue to do so. I am not denying any knowledge of that,
sir. None whatsoever.
Thank you. Alderman
Moore-Kopper.
Thank you, Chair. And you're doing a great job, so.
Under pressure.
Almost there. We're almost there. I do have a question.
If we pass this and it goes through City Council,
and we have all these other folks that need relief, is
this how we do it?
Is this how-
Well-
Well, I
don't know who to ask, because it seems like this is not the
way to do it
... that question was answered. So if we pass this out,
would you, with the law department, and I don't even know if you can answer that
question because it's not in your division,
to work with Alderman Lopez
on this particular ordinance.
Yeah, it seems to me that this is not the way we want to set
a precedent.
Yes, I'm saying we want to fix this
problem for
this constituent. Obviously. That's quarter of a million dollars.
Yeah.
And I'm ready to renew Alderman Waguespack's...
Yeah.
But what I'm asking is, is this
the way you want
this to happen? You want this-
So-
... to pass? Do you want it to go through council, and then for others who are in
other wards-
So-
... that need relief, this is how we're going to do it?
We're going to-
So, if I may.
Yes.
If I may.
When we met last time,
we had asked the law department, IGA, the
committee, myself and others, to come together to
correct what they perceived were gaps in the
ordinance.
I understand that. I-
We have not taken that action.
I understand that. It sounds like this
is not the way to do it.
Well,
this is one way to do it-
But I don't think-
... that they just don't want to proceed with
... the best way to do it, is it?
It's not the-
It is what it is.
It's not the best way.
I mean, we're-
But in the absence of making the changes that keep getting alluded to, this is
where we are.
But so what you're asking us to do is say
to the executive
person who's supposed to be fixing this, is to fix this.
To fix this, yeah.
Instead of crafting... It's our job to craft the ordinance.
It's our job, right? To fix an ordinance that is
broke, basically. Obviously.
So it's our job to fix the ordinance.
I don't think that we're doing
this in the way that we should be doing it.
So there was a fix, and they're sitting on it, too.
Yeah.
It was presented.
Oh.
The fix to the code was presented.
Yeah.
And
all four impacted departments have not moved on it at all.
So they-
Which is what brought us to this
... so where are they?
That-
Where are they? Where are those departments that have been sitting on it?
So they have not responded in like, what, nine months?
Yes.
So that's the reason why
I will renew Alderman Waguespack's
recommendation to pass this item.
Anybody have any objections?
I do. I think that this is not the way to do this.
Wait. Oh, okay.
Well, we're going to make a roll call vote.
There's a motion.
So there-
Vote move, pass. There's a roll call.
There's a motion to move to pass.
And there's a roll call vote.
Roll call motion, and we can do it.
And Christian can open the roll call.
And I think he was-
Yeah.
Trying to get it.
Yeah.
Christian. Alderman Halas.
Thank you, Chairman. Just wanted to ask, because I know there's some legality
about how properties need to be registered as vacant in
order for them to benefit from some of this legislation.
I just wanted to ask, because I know we have a case in our ward as
well, where also, the house was even being
remodeled, no water was connected, and they were still getting a
really high
bill. So I'm for it to change any legislation that we
need to in order to help our constituents, or in this case,
I wanted to
thank
Chairwoman Mitz for asking for that list of other constituents in the
whole city of Chicago that are facing something like this, because I bet we all
have plenty of them in our communities that we need to help out as well.
So that's number one. I would love to see that list about all the 50
wards, so that way we can expand and create more
ordinances to help those constituents.
But also, I wanted to ask, and my question was, where does that being
registered as vacant
houses falls into all of this?
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman, for your question.
So there is actually a separate section of this chapter
that deals with if a property is registered as
vacant. This property in particular that we're talking about here
was not registered as vacant, so it isn't eligible for what
I'm talking about. But if a property is registered as vacant,
then it addresses, right in the code earlier in this section,
earlier in this chapter, that when it's vacant, there's
going to be a presumption, essentially, that there's no water usage taking place
there.
Just want to say-
So in that case, it actually, until the water is either
turned back on or the vacancy is removed, that's when it enters
back into the regular billing cycle and checks.
So that could be part of legislation folded into or
considered as a separate section, coexisting
with the leak relief program in the future. But that's how that would work.
UmI think that it's pretty well known that there are
many vacant properties throughout the city that don't end up getting registered as
vacant, although it works best within our systems if they do.
But I don't think anyone's casting aspersions
because of that.
No, I'm not saying.
That is just a factor in this situation.
So can we go? We-
Yeah. Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Chairman. Just before I renew my motion,
Mr. Edge, I understand what you're going through here.
You're trying to stick to a strict legal construct about what we're
doing here. I get that. I think the problem here is that you've been
constantly thrown under the bus by departments that fail to show
in this committee and other committees.
So it's not your fault that there is an effort here
to move forward on something that doesn't quite meet what we see
as
what might be in a broader policy approach to
doing business.
I would suggest that we expedite that legislation,
that the relevant departments show up,
and craft that very quickly. And that's not your job, it's their job to get this
done.
But I think we've seen too much of this over and over again,
Chairman, where
the departments are just dropping the ball.
We saw it half an hour ago where procurement failed to show up
on an ordinance for advertising. We've seen it with CDPH
dropping the ball on $40 million with the federal government that was being
handed to us. So I think what's happening here is the frustration level
on this one with a person who is clearly
suffering, in ways that we haven't seen lately,
where we have a direct opportunity to do something.
That's why I was renewing my motion.
I think to give you the opportunity to call those departments up and say,
"We don't want to hear phrases like we're indifferent to something.
We want to hear we have serious reservations or
considerations on the other side of things."
So
that's why I'm renewing my motion, Chairman, to make sure that we can
satisfy this issue. If that legislation is done in time
to look at it retroactively, that's fine.
But I think what we need now, because we know that it's going to take some time for
the department to actually do their job on this,
Comptroller maybe to process this.
In the meantime, I think we need to renew that motion to satisfy the needs of
that person who is now 250,000 in debt
for no reason whatsoever.
One.
And in serious medical distress because of
this. So, Chairman, I would
renew my motion. Thank you.
And before that motion, Alderman Espada.
Just so I have the facts before we vote.
So the leak relief ordinance provides
for debt relief when a leak has been identified at the
property.
All the facts and frustrations on the table, a leak has not been
identified on the property. And so
moving forward, because this is precedent setting.
We will use council orders to direct the
Comptroller to erase water debt
regardless of identified leaks.
No, that's not-
There were... Excuse me, if I may.
Yeah.
There was no leak.
There's no leak.
No leak.
But we are addressing-
And to-
... pushing the Comptroller to erase the water debt-
Pushing through the-
... through the leak relief ordinance-
Yes
... despite the
leak never having been identified.
And they never moved on it.
And the leak relief program
is by name because it also deals with billing errors.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I had the facts. Thank you.
Okay.
So are we doing a motion or-
Yeah.
Just a roll call.
Okay.
All right. Alderman Chico.
Alderman Cruz.
No.
Alderwoman Gutierrez.
Alderman Espada.
Alderman Lopez.
Yes.
Alderwoman Mana Hoppenworth.
Chairwoman Metz.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderwoman Tabaris.
Three, four, five, six, seven. Alderman
Curtis. Chairman Curtis.
Yes.
Eight. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
Chairman Curtis, on a vote of eight to two, this
legislation passes. Ordinance passes. Order passed.
Thank you.
Okay.
Hearing... Okay, so now what's the... The do...
Okay, so then-
The do pass we read that?
Yeah. Go ahead. So you say the legislation has passed on a vote of eight to
three, the do pass recommendation will be.
This motion will pass eight to two.
The do pass recommendation reported out to our next city
council meeting.
Since there is no other business, may I have a motion to adjourn by- So
moved.
That's the move by Chairman Metz,
and so moved by Lopez. Hearing no objects, so ordered.
The meeting on economic capital technology
development is now adjourned. Thank you, everyone.
I see more green.