Good morning, everyone. Happy Monday.
The Committee on Finance is called to order.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Lospada. Alderman Hopkins. Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Beale. Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Where is she?
Okay.
Alderman Ramirez.
Okay, thank you. Alderman Quinn. Alderman
Lopez.
Alderman Curtis. Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor. Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez. Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin. Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitz. Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Knudsen. Alderman Martin.
Chair Dowell is here.
We have a quorum. We have 15.
Alderman Riley, Alderman Silverstein, Alderman Harris,
Moore, Hall, and Rodriguez have requested to
participate remotely this morning.
For reasons stated under the provisions of Rule 59, can I have
a motion to allow these aldermen to attend this meeting?
So moved by Alderman Casada. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Opposed? In the opinion
of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion carries.
I want to confirm, Alderman
RileyAlderman
Silverstein?
I'm present.
Alderman Harris?
Alderman Moore?
Here.
Alderman Hall?
Present.
Alderman Rodriguez?
Here.
I'd also like to confirm Alderman Mitchell, Talia Ferro,
and Sixto Lopez have joined us and will be counted towards quorum.
At this time, we'll begin the public comment period.
This period will be limited to 30 minutes, and out of
respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to three minutes.
We are going to go over our limitation by one, so
it'll be 33 minutes of public comment.
Our first speaker is Zoe Lee.
Good morning, Chairman Dowell.
Good morning.
So,
Olympic body Governor Pritzker said
yesterday that Illinois launched an access home just
nine weeks ago, and the program is offering up to
15,000 in down payment and closing cost assistance.
But last Monday,
Judge Honorable McKinley
said that Cook County was liable for property tax sale violations since
2020, and nearly 2,500 homeowners have lost
their properties and the equity in those homes after their delinquent property
taxes were sold.
So,
you've got
our mob of a governor, our incompetence of a
governor, saying that he's giving out $15,000 to
who? The new arrivals that he's protecting?
Because
the state of Illinois
has an issue with eminent domain. I call Governor Pritzker Mr.
Eminent Domain because there's a law called
the Blighted Property Act 1949. Maybe Jim
Hendricks maybe know about that over there, the most
corrupt city of Chicago Department of Law lawyer in
there that keeps this stuff going.
He's Mary Richardson Lowry's handler.
So,
Blighted Property Act 1949.
If you feel like the place was blighted in any type of way, right?
Like you guys are trying to say that the Sand Piper Lounge was, even though my
mother was fixing on it, because you guys wouldn't give her the TIF money because
you all planned on keep giving that to Steven Kwakenbush, Richard Daley's good
friend, that you all keep giving all the land to on the South Side with the help of
people like Hendricks. So, Blighted Property Act
1949. If they feel like the
place was blighted in any type of way,
Governor Pritzker, Mr. Eminent Domain, was supposed to go to
incompetent Kwame Raoul, we can never find him. That's the attorney general.
He's actually running again. I don't know why.
And ask for them to eminent domain it, right?
And then
Kwame Raoul is supposed to say yes, and then you're still supposed to compensate.
So that's violation of the Fifth Amendment.
So I'm going to need you guys,
I'm asking you this, Chairman Dowell, to see if you can contact somebody in the
buildings department, primarily maybe Judith Freyland.
She was the old building person. And ask
them how many buildings and properties have
they demolished on the South
Side without compensation versus the North Side.
That's all I need to know. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Our next speaker is Alex Nelson.
Hello, folks. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here today to speak on
behalf of a development at 3959 North Lincoln Avenue.
My name is Alex Nelson. I'm a property owner about 300 yards away from the
proposed site at 3851 North Damen Avenue.
And I have to say, I am tremendously excited about what this development
represents. On the east side, we are talking about
turning an old landmarked, really architecturally significant bank
building into supportive housing, alongside an institution
named Apana Gar. And on the west side of the development site, we are talking about
turning a parking lot into mixed-use new build housing.
This is a really great opportunity for a lot of different reasons.
I'm very fortunate to live in a neighborhood that has a lot of transit
options, grocery stores, schools, parks, just the kind of
amenities that make a neighborhood really lovely and resource rich to
live in.
But also, we know that a parking lot and a major intersection can be
dangerous and create a feeling of blight and insecurity.
So I think turning this site into housing, introducing
new neighbors into the neighborhood, and especially folks for whom this is
going to represent an opportunity for stability and
affordability that they might not be able to have otherwise.
Again, just speaking as a homeowner in the neighborhood,
the idea of increasing eyes on the street and what that will mean for public
safety, having more people investing in our neighborhood,
small businesses, and our public resources, I think is just going to add a lot of
vibrancy and richness.
So I'm here to say with great enthusiasm that I support
this development. I am really excited about the process that brought us
to this place, about the teams that have been working on this project, and
it has my full support. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Ms. Nelson. Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
Good morning to the-
Good morning
... citizens
of
ChicagoMadam,
you was 15 minutes late.
It's something
wrong with the citizens of Chicago.
They allow this type of corruption, fraud, and
abuse to exist.
The people
allows this. And when I get up and say, "It's not Brandon
Johnson, it's a culture of corruption here."
But instead of it getting better, it's getting worse
under you.
Burt was something else, stealing this city blind.
But he had some decorum.
He would never do what you're doing.
You're stealing, too,
but you're getting petty money from these
nail shops and Arab liquor stores.
This man was getting big money, and perhaps you're getting big
money, too, with this TIF and all this development
that's going on. This city has been a cesspool.
It's a culture of corruption here.
It's been a cesspool. But how
it has affected me,
I can't believe this. Now you got them turning
around to look at us. Burt would have us coming through this
door, and we would be sitting up here.
You let them come in late. And another thing,
it's worse. He would never have two meetings going on at the same
time. That big head white man had some decorum.
You with that wig, you don't have no decorum.
Now,
why am I talking about you? Because you're not a good
public servant. And when you see them
abusing another Black person, you still Black.
Some of you Blacks out here, you supposed to say, "Y'all, stop
it. Stop abusing these citizens. They have a right."
Some of them was put out for a month,
60 days, or
two months. And all you...
They abused the Black citizens,
and you were silent. You were silent because you a part of the...
Black
people out. One of y'all should say, "Leave him alone.
Leave Mr. Blakemore alone." But you was happy.
You was nappy and happy. Not the wig, nappy and
happy. Now, I'm getting low because you're
pulling me down, and you're making me look like a
clown. So I'm making you look like a clown.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Our next speaker is Shauna
McGoldrick.
Good morning. Hello. Thank you so much for having me here today.
Thank you for your time. My name is Shauna McGoldrick, and I am the Director of
Housing Advocacy at the Network Advocating Against Domestic Violence.
And I'm also here to speak in strong support of the Lincoln development.
If you haven't worked with the Network before, we are most known for running the
Illinois Domestic Violence Hotline.
And I see every day how limited the long-term housing options are for
survivors of gender-based violence.
This creates a cycle of housing instability.
Because without long-term options, survivors may find brief
respite in the truly life-saving emergency shelter
or rapid and transitional housing programs.
But the question is always, then what?
And survivors often then end up back in our domestic violence
shelters, where we are already facing a capacity crisis.
In 2025, there were 157 days with no
beds or cribs in our DV shelters in our cities.
That's nearly half the year. And no beds means survivors are forced to
stay in unsafe situations. So this project is
incredible because it will increase safety options for all survivors
by creating long-term housing for survivors, which then frees up that
desperately needed space in our DV shelters.
Survivors can thrive in housing that is designed to be trauma-informed and
centers their safety and healing.
And this project has been designed for survivors from the start.
The community space is just one example.
This is the space where our incredible DV partner, who you will hear from today,
Apne Aaghar, will be able to meet with survivors.
It's where survivors can watch their children play and where they can have space to
sit and safety plan or map out their next steps for their degree or
job program. And finally, for the first time, just get to think about
tomorrow without the threat of violence.
To briefly conclude, this project is the answer to the question that I asked
earlier. It's the then what for survivors of gender-based
violence. It's the road to long-term housing stability.
And our city can be a leader in creating this model and setting a precedent
for how our government and leaders address housing instability for
survivors of gender-based violence. Thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you, Ms. McGoldrick.
Our next speaker is Sun Young Choi-Morrow.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Sun Young Choi-Morrow.
I'm the interim chief of staff at Apne Aaghar, one of the co-sponsors
of the mixed-use development project at 3959 North
Lincoln Avenue, which you have heard from other supporters
so far. I'm here with our housing program manager, as well as a
survivor who has benefited from our shelter as well as our
temporary housing and is now on her journey to stability, starting her
new life. I'm here to speak in support
of the two ordinances under the Department of Housing portion of today's
agenda.
And UpNagar is an organization that has supported survivors of
domestic violence for 35 years. 80% of our
current participants are immigrants and refugees.
We offer wraparound support for survivors to start a
life free from violence. A major component of
success is having housing stability.
Currently, we offer emergency housing, temporary housing,
and to be able to add permanent supportive housing would mean that
many of our participants have a higher chance of obtaining
stability and becoming self-reliant.
We will not only maintain the building, but we'll offer
critical programs such as home ownership
classes and programs for first-time homeowners,
career coaching, and workforce development, as well as support
groups to our survivors, and play, music, and art
therapy for the survivors' children.
We're already speaking to our current funders, who have shown
enthusiasm and have agreed to increase their current giving to
us so that we can expand our programs
in this permanent supportive housing.
We will commit to over half a million dollars in annual budget for
programmatic and operational support for this project.
The communal space that is designed
as a part of the design of this building is crucial for survivors from
immigrant and refugee backgrounds, as having
community is a big part of our culture.
To call North Center home and send their children to top
quality CPS school and build a life for themselves would
mean the world to us at UpNagar and all of our survivors.
Thank you for your support.
Thank you, Ms. Charmaro. Our next speaker is Jessica Jackson.
Okay, so I'm glad to see that John
Hendricks, General Counsel John Hendricks, is here today.
Now,
you may not know me,
but I know you, and in fact, I know you know me.
Now, you keep playing with your papers.
Keep playing with your papers,
but I'm going to give you a paper to really play with.
The paper, the letter that was written by
Republican Senator Terri Bryant,
that talks about the meeting that she had with you
and Corporation Counsel
Mary Richardson Lori
regarding my case with probate, my mother's estate,
and Zoe Lee's case about her mother.
Now, according to Senator Terri Bryant,
she met with you on February 13th, 2025.
Hey, look this way. Look this way.
Oh, you're going back to your papers? Okay, I'm going to read it to you.
And it says that you told them that the reason why my
mother's estate had not been settled is because
my mother did not have a will.
Now, you know that's a lie, but you were trying to cover for the Office of
Public Administration, Louis G. Apostle, who was
appointed by crooked J.B. Priester, who's stealing
everybody's property.
You know who they are. Louis G. Apostle, Tina
Lostropolis, who's the real estate investigator for the
public administrator,
and Leah Jupokowski, who's general counsel for
public administrator. You know who these people are.
Now, you're going to lie to them and say that my mother didn't have a
will? There's too many people in this room right now that know that that's not the
truth.
Pat Dalles herself knows my mother had a will.
Emma Mitz, coming through that door, know my mother had a will.
Monique Scott knows my mother had a will.
Alderman Taylor Ferrell knows my mother had a will.
My alderman, Greg Mitchell, knows I had a will.
Alderman Lee, Quinn, Shay, every last one of them know my
mother had a will. You're going to go to that circuit court public record,
and you're going to get my mother's will.
August 9th, 2016, the estate of Mary Lou Thomas,
probate case number
2016PSN Paul
005729. Stop turning your head, because you didn't turn your
head when you was lying to that senator.
You're going to get that document, you're going to settle my case, and you're going
to give me my money, because if you don't, it's going to be another charge against
you. We're going to see to it that you lose your law license
for lying. Yeah, do your eyebrows, do all of that, because I got
it in writing what you said. And unless you're prepared to tell that
Republican senator that she's a liar,
and unless you're going to go in there and take my mother's will out
of the public records, you're going to be shown to be the liar.
Settle my case right now.
Thank you, Ms. Jackson. I'd like to acknowledge Alderman Litz,
who will be counted towards quorum, and Alderman
Knudsen, who will be counted towards quorum.
And our next speaker is Joe
Schweitzterman.
Chairman, I'm present. David Moore, I know you called me, but I was having
difficulty.
Alderman Riley's present, too.
You got the name and case number. Get busy,
damn it.
Members of
the City Council Advanced Committee, I'm Joe Sweeterman, professor at DePauw
University. Thank you for the chance to testify.
I'm here to express my support for amending the-
Excuse me, sir, could you give your name again? I might have butchered it.
Yes. Joe Sweeterman, DePauw UniversityI'm here to
speak on, express my support, and commend the city for
working on expanding the Canal Congress TIF
for the purpose of
acquiring the inner city bus station.
I've been following this issue closely
and have been very impressed with how the city has brought together the relevant
departments to discuss this. The police department, planning
department, transportation, facilities, and fleet, and it's
been a needed and impressive effort, but
expanding the TIF is a critical part of that.
This is a classic downtown TIF. So this is a part of the
city, in effect, that really serves everybody in the town.
And I just want to indicate, I'm going to keep it real short here, that
all the fundamentals make this a really favorable action.
The bus line station sees four bus lines at the moment,
Greyhound, Flix, Baron's Bus, and Jefferson Lines.
There's three other bus lines that operate from downtown that could be asked to
use the facility.
Around 85 departures or arrivals today.
With consolidation, would be well over 100.
Also, of the 12 largest metropolitan areas in the United States,
everyone except Chicago has taken action to
provide a public facility for inner city bus
service. We are alone among the 12.
I'm just going to give you a few highlights here.
In New York, the Port Authority of New York is building a brand new
$11 billion bus station in Midtown.
The City of Philadelphia, just this month through city
leadership, reopened the old Greyhound station as a public
facility after making improvements.
It's a really good example for Chicago.
Boston, the regional transit agency, with support of the city this year,
just expanded the South Station bus terminal, which is a sit station.
City of Atlanta facilitated the construction with the state of a new bus station in
2023. Los Angeles allows inner city bus
lines to use Los Angeles Union Station.
The list can go on, but this action is fully
consistent with what we're seeing around the country, and it's a great
opportunity because the station is relatively modern and physically attractive,
unlike many other stations. So I strongly support this
effort, and thank you for the chance to testify.
Thank you, Mr. Schwieterman. Next speaker is Kyle Lucas.
Followed by Samantha Rouzan.
Good morning, Chairwoman Dowell and members of the committee.
My name is Kyle Lucas. I'm the executive director of Better Street Chicago,
and I'm a Greyhound rider.
And today, on behalf of Better Street Chicago, I would like to express our support
for the City of Chicago to purchase 630 West Harrison to create a
municipally-owned intercity bus terminal.
Intercity bus travel is a cornerstone of our
transportation system, and Chicago plays an irreplaceable role as
a national hub for passengers. For many, intercity buses are
the only option for them to make trips to and from Chicago, whether that's
for leisure or to make trips,
or to access our critical services here, such as healthcare.
This is particularly acute as reproductive and LGBTQ+
care has come under attack in many other states, making Chicago a
haven for people seeking necessary care.
As cities across the US have struggled to address the crisis of the loss
of terminals due to the sale of Greyhound stations to private equity in
2022, Chicago has the opportunity to be a leader and
demonstrate a commitment to this critical piece of our transportation system.
Municipal ownership will provide the city the ability to address neighborhood
concerns while modernizing the facility to better serve passengers.
And make no mistake, a failure to act would mean Chicago and our
region will face a significant crisis that has played out over and over in other
cities. The difference is, if we don't act, we have a
crisis that impacts the entire nation because we are a hub.
And I would be remiss to not point out the moment that we are in right now.
Some are describing this as potentially the worst oil crisis that the United
States has faced in its history. We have to be thinking about ways that we can
expand people's access to transportation modes that go beyond
automobiles because the system we have designed has shackled us and made us subject
to significant harms whenever there is any sort of unrest across the world,
even when that unrest is our fault.
I believe very strongly that this body has not only a responsibility to the
citizens of Chicago to ensure that Chicagoans have world-class amenities to
intercity bus travel, but you have a duty to the American people to ensure that our
national bus network doesn't collapse.
You can't control what the president does, but you do have power in this moment
to do something that will have long-range impacts.
People will remember if we don't act here in Chicago.
They will point and say, "Chicago failed to lead in a moment where they could have
been a national leader." So I urge each of you to take this as seriously as we do
as advocates do, and as me as a Greyhound bus rider does.
Some describe this as a troubled facility, but I believe this
to be a reductive view. It's a facility full of opportunity.
It's an opportunity for us to make things right and to invest in the people of
Chicago. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Samantha Rouzan followed by
Derrick James.
Followed by Derrick James.
Alderman Burnett, we see you and count you towards
quorum.
Ms. Rouzan?
Yeah. Hi there. I'm Samantha Rouzan, a sustainable urban development master's
student at DePaul University. And today, I'm in favor of expanding the TIF
district to include... Oh, sorry
Yeah.
Yes, I'm Savannah, sustainable urban development master's student at DePaul
University, and I'm in favor of expanding the TIF district, the Canal Congress
one, to include the Greyhound station.
I live car-free, and I rely heavily on bus and train
travel. For students and young adults like me, it's really important to
have a available intercity bus option, which is
critical due to cost savings, ability to get around without a car, ability to stay
flexible in travel, unlike air travel, without facing dramatically
increased fares. Especially as mentioned by others, with the cost of
oil right now, it's really crucial to have something that is affordable.
As well as the ability to travel places that isn't served by Amtrak.
Preserving and improving the current station is vitally needed to keep this mode of
travel a vibrant part of the city's transportation scene.
A shift to curbside loading or to an outlying neighborhood, which would likely
happen if the station closed, would be a huge failure.
I support the effort to amend the TIF district so the city can move forward.
Thank you.
Derek James, and our last speaker will be Taiwan Sims.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Derek James.
I'm with the Environmental Law and Policy Center here in Chicago.
I speak,
urging, our organization urges the city council to act to
expand the Canal Congress TIF
to include the intercity bus station.
Purchasing and renovating this station is an incredible opportunity to
build upon Chicago's legacy as a transportation hub for the
Midwest. Our city has always been a gateway for those seeking
opportunities in employment, education, culture,
healthcare, and self-expression.
We've been a launching pad to prosperity for millions for almost two
centuries, and they have come by many means over the years.
But when we look to transportation in the future, our priorities should
promote a cleaner environment and affordability.
We know that travel by intercity bus
emits one-fifth of the carbon emissions compared to driving, meaning
cleaner air and fewer climate impacts.
We know that a new car is approaching $50,000, and with
tariffs, inflation, and soaring prices, driving is
increasingly expensive. Our secret sauce as a city
has been the ability to attract strivers and talent to live
here, and it's been our transit system that is that secret sauce.
It encourages folks to come here with fewer resources.
They're able to get by car-free or car-light, saving thousands of
dollars annually that they could instead put towards housing,
education, or wealth building. College students, like the
woman before me, from around the Midwest can access our 30
campuses and get to and from hometowns even after they
graduate and hopefully settle here.
We have a proud history in Chicago of showing the world how to
build a transportation system of both functionality and
beauty. We take pride in having the busiest airport, being the
railroad capital of the nation. For us to succeed, we need
to be real about making opportunities available and accessible to
those with limited resources. That means continuing a proud
history of grand facilities
for Chicagoans setting out on journeys and welcoming
visitors who come here, not just at O'Hare, not just at
Midway, not just at Union Station, but at the bus station too.
The public has seen fit to provide a substantial and comfortable terminal
for plane passengers, train passengers.
The same should be true of passengers who arrive by bus.
Chicago is the undisputed mid-continent transportation hub for
planes and trains. We devote public resources to
make sure those visitors are wowed by our Emerald City.
By expanding the Canal Congress TIF, we'll have the resources to provide
the same for our neighbors and visitors traveling by bus.
If Atlanta, New York, Philly, and Detroit can do it, Chicago can do it
even better. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. James. The last speaker is Taiwan Sims.
And we will count Alderman Hopkins towards quorum.
Good morning, committee.
Good morning.
The financial status of Chicago should be treated as an urgent municipal
finance oversight issue.
Records show that Chicago is facing a structural budget problem, not
merely a temporary shortfall. Chicago entered fiscal year
2026 with a gap of,
let's just say a nice number, one billion.
We're still dealing with settlements, personal expense, and other fixed obligations
continue to consume growing shares of available revenue.
Ms. Dial, we was in the, what was it?
The bond meeting for the 830 million, and you
said that it was a sustainable thought
to, what,
pick the bond up, and that it wouldn't,
what, go into settlements. It wouldn't bother all the other
expenditures that we was looking forward to.
However,
Chicago is not just
$1.15 billion
in the shortfall. It's close to like two something.
And still, we have made allocations of $200
million for the new arrivals. CPS is still
736 million in the shortfall. And still, we're
allocating more and more and more and more funds for the new arrivals.
I'm just wondering,
and Chicago does have a fiduciary responsibility to the
constituents, to the voters.
And yet I'm a voter, I'm a constituent, and I'm a lifelong
Chicagoan who's been in this city for 46 years this
year.And yet I've not been given the consideration, considering
that for one whole year, my First Amendment constitutional liberty
was violated under illegal enforcement,
and the system that allowed it was financed through Chicago.
So with the oversight that you all have, I'm assuming that
you all would like to look into it,
because if our clerk system and our judicial system doesn't work
equitably for all citizens, then how does that work out for any
citizen?
I can't imagine anybody dealing with what I dealt with.
To have your reputation, to have your liberties and everything, to be jailed.
I was jailed April 16th, I was jailed June 3rd, and
I was jailed September 11th, all under illegal enforcement.
The case was over May 30th, 2025.
And I'm just trying to imagine, madam,
with everything we're dealing with financially in the city of Chicago, why wrestle
with just a citizen?
And when you talk about a liability, that's a great liability, to have a unit of
officers in here
manufacture information to have a citizen jailed.
What are we looking at in that settlement?
Thank you, Mr. Sims.
This concludes the public comment period.
We did receive written public comment for the
TIF expansion district, and that was sent
electronically to everyone.
We have 12 items on the agenda this morning.
The first one is the monthly Rule 45 report
for April 2026, and the approval of the
revised March 2026 monthly Rule 45
report for the Committee on Finance.
And these reports were sent electronically to everyone, and if
there are no questions, can I get a motion to recommend approval of the
monthly 45 reports?
So moved by Alderman Moore.
Motion made by Alderman Moore. All those in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion
carries. The first item-
Madam Chairman?
Yes, Alderman Riley, I did count you towards quorum.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Item number one from the Department of Law, a communication
of transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts, judgments,
or settlements were entered into for the month of April
2026. And this report was sent electronically to
everyone, and if there are no objections, this item will be placed on file
with the clerk.
Item number two
is from the Department of Law. We have three proposed orders
authorizing the corporation council to enter into and
execute settlement orders in the following cases.
Case 2A, Access Living versus City of Chicago, case
number 18CV3399, in the
amount of $2,250,000.
This case will be reported to us by the
managing deputy corporation counsel,
John Hendricks. Mr. Hendricks, good morning.
Alderman Irvin, we see you and count you towards quorum.
Mr. Hendricks.
Thank you, Chair.
And
thank you, members of the committee.
The settlement I'm presenting today resolves a case
brought in 2018 by the disability rights organization,
Access Living.
As many of you here know, Access Living has had a long, and for the most part,
collaborative relationship with the city.
In general terms, the lawsuit alleges that since
1988,
the city has funded tens of thousands of affordable rental
housing
units without ensuring that a sufficient number of those
units meet federal requirements under the ADA
or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Act.
This case is closely patterned on, and was
filed immediately after, a case that took place in Los
Angeles, and the same allegations were
used in both. It was filed by the same law firm.
Those basic allegations are that both cities
did not produce enough accessible units or affordable
housing
that were built to satisfy the federal scoping and
architectural accessibility standards,
and that both cities failed to set up
sufficient review of architectural plans to ensure compliance with
these federal standards.
In Chicago,
we disputed, and continue to dispute,
the sweep of these allegations.
And in many ways, discovery in this case, which
took several years,
has proven that Chicago does indeed, and has indeed for the
last 20 or 30 years,
employed a review process, which
assesses the design plans and architectural
plans of developers in compliance with federal standards.
But in the number of allegations involving the facts of this
case regarding
how many non-compliant units existed over the period of 30
years,
the city was unsuccessful in its efforts to have the case
dismissedOn a legal basis. And so
in that case, the case would
go forward to trial based on these factual allegations, which
are
quite substantial, quite time-consuming even further.
And we have therefore,
immediately after the city lost its motion for summary
judgment, the parties engaged in mediation and settlement
discussions, which have proceeded for the better
part of a year and have, I think, arrived
at
a set of terms that are amenable to both parties, and
certainly that's what we've agreed to. So I'll give you those briefly.
The settlement has three major components.
First, the city will be responsible for ensuring the
availability of 2,000 affordable units that are fully
accessible to persons with mobility impairments,
and an additional 800 affordable units that are fully accessible to persons
with hearing and vision impairments, for a total of
2,800 affordable accessible units
that the city is required to either
identify, build, or rehabilitate
in its affordable housing stock.
These requirements are spread over a 12-year period to ensure that we have the
opportunity to comply with this. Given the way that we develop affordable
housing, it, as you know, requires our use of private
developers. We provide gap financing,
gap funding, if you will. But we do not own or
control or construct any of these units.
Second component of the settlement agreement
is that the city, in light of the fact that it does not own these
units, has agreed to adopt two key policies.
The first is that we will impose requirements on the owners and developments for
marketing,
filling, and maintaining accessible, affordable units.
And they will also be required to set up a grievance program that we will
monitor to assure that they provide a grievance program to
persons with disabilities
whose needs are not being met in their
developments.
Secondly, there's a policy that will be
carried out by the city, and that is primarily related
to maintaining the list of accessible, affordable units
in a comprehensive fashion
that has already been underway but is now going to become more
robust under the settlement agreement.
The third part of that policy, or the third
policy in this case, is that the city
is adopting a policy of inspecting units.
It already has been inspecting plans and architectural
plans for such units to be built, but it will
also inspect construction
of these units and will have to
maintain
the accessibility standards in these reviews.
Finally, the third component is that the city has agreed to pay damages to
Access Living in the amount of
$2,250,000
to compensate the organization for its claim of diversion of resources
from its chief mission, which is to provide accessible
housing and
ensure disability rights.
So,
the law department recommends this settlement
even though it disputes the merits of this case,
in large measure because this
is a case that we
sympathize with the goals,
and we were able to
avoid the kind of draconian settlement that took place in
Los Angeles. And so we feel like this is in the best interest
of
the city.
Any questions?
That's my que-- I got this.
Vice Chair Conway.
Of the
first part of the settlement, the 2,840 units,
are we merely
requiring those units to meet those standards, or are we actually
paying for the upgrades?
Well, it's a good question.
The city can meet its obligations
in one of three ways.
Okay.
It can
pay for the construction of such units, which it would do through
funding developers the same way it funds developers
to date,
over a period of time that would get us to the number
that we've agreed to.
So we would not be paying for the construction
in any way other than we currently do, which is
through gap funding.
Is that
the equivalent of subsidizing the rent or something like that, or is that not...?
No, it's funding we get in
various programs, both from the federal government and
from
other resources such as TIF.
Okay. Sticking along that point,
our policy of inspecting the units, is
part of the settlement that we are maintaining,
that we are going to inspect all 2,840 units here?
Or is it some larger number or smaller number?
Good question on that as well. The 2,800
units will have to be
certified by a neutral accessibility expert that
the parties will agree to.
Oh, okay.
So,
in terms of signing off on whether those units are meeting
federal standards or the accessibility standards that we've agreed to here,
that'll be handled by a neutral party.
Got it. Okay. And
as far as the
damages to Access Living,
do we think their legal fees are anywhere near
2,250,000? That seems like an astronomical number.
Well, their legal fees are--
We haven't settled the attorney's fees claim that their
lawyers have brought.
So-
So this settlement doesn't do that.
We're actually going to litigate those attorney's fees.
Oh, okay. So this is simply, we are giving
2,250,000 to
Access Living here?
Correct.
But they're not the tenants necessarily. Is any of that money going to the tenants?
No,
I mean, not directly. But this lawsuit was not brought by any
individual tenants. It was brought by the organization.
We challenged their standing, but they prevailed on the
grounds that their
whole purpose
was responsibility for defending
and
advancing the rights of persons with disability in
Chicago, and that the city's alleged failure to build
sufficient numbers of fully accessible units
resulted in discrimination against those people and made
Access Living's job more burdensome and difficult.
It's a big number. Do we give Access Living any other
grants as part of the city?
Indeed, we do.
For the last 20 years, they have been a regular delegate
agency,
and over that time period,
they received almost $7 million.
Okay.
Are we under a legal obligation to give the other grants outside of this-
Well, the grants are part of a
competitive bidding process, so I
hesitate to-
That's fair
... comment on that.
Okay.
Yeah.
It seems odd to me that an
agency that we work with and give grant to has decided to sue us, and then is all
of the sudden getting a payment outside of the cost of
litigation on that. But perhaps this isn't the forum to deal with it, as when we
deal with the grant-making process, perhaps is a different place to do it.
But I appreciate your thorough brief. Thank you. I have no other questions.
Thanks.
Thank you, Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Irvin, followed by Alderman Lee.
And before you start, Alderman Irvin, I want to acknowledge Alderman Curtis and
Alderman Mosley counted towards quorum.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You spoke of LA.
What happened out in LA in a similar situation?
Well,
after four years of litigation, they entered into a settlement
agreement that was considerably more onerous.
They agreed to build
4,000 units
and to commit
a total over 10 years of $200 million
to the construction of those units.
Wow.
The facts on the ground were very different.
And Chicago, also LA, did not have,
by its own admission, a procedure for
reviewing architectural plans before
developments. The city does, and even though they
were required to show that over a year and a half of discovery,
that's a demonstrable fact. So,
in addition to that,
there were additional payments
set up in LA for
various obligations of the city. But basically, it was
$200 million and 4,000 units.
Okay. And ours is $2 million
in...?
Damages to
$2,250,000
to Access Living.
And no other commitments beyond that?
We may have to pay their attorney's fees, but we're going to fight
that issue, and that'll be a court decision.
Why aren't the attorney's fees incorporated as part of the settlement?
Generally, when we're dealing with federal litigation, we make that a condition of
the settlement.
We try sometimes, but
the law firm that handled this case
is a DC boutique, very aggressive.
This is all they do. This kind of lawsuit is all they do, and they
wanted $19 million in attorney's fees.
Oh, wow. Okay.
And
so we'll have to have that conversation later, and that'll come back before us for
approval?
That will not come back to you because the judge will make a ruling about how much
they owe.
Okay. Can you inform us of what that is via the chair
to let us know what that looks like?
Yes.
And this will dispose of everything related to this
topic?
Yes.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chair Irvin.
Mr. Hendricks, do you have a sense of how long it would take us to
complete our discussion or our negotiations with the
plaintiff's attorney?
With respect to attorney's fees?
Yes.
Well, the court is well aware of this.
The court is the one, in fact, that said, "I can see we're not going to be able to
reach an agreement here, soI suspect it will happen pretty
quickly, that there will be a motion filed.
We will demand to see the basis for these claims, and
that will take a briefing schedule, but it will
start immediately. When it ends, I'm not sure.
I was just trying to get a sense of when we would get information back on what
the damages would be.
It's going to be at least six months, I would say.
All right. Thank you. Alderman Lee, followed by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chair. Just to finish this topic, Mr.
Hendricks, do you have some sense of a ballpark of what you think they're going to
be asking for in legal fees?
What they're going to be asking for?
Yeah. What they're going to be asking for.
I know we're going to look for some settlement number that is significantly
lower, but I'm trying to just get a gauge for what the upper limits of
that
would be.
Well, I suspect this
is complex litigation. It has involved a lot of discovery over a
long period of time.
We think that's benefited us because
it doesn't
allow the demands that were made in LA to be rewarded.
But, that said, it did take a lot of time, and I suspect
they're going to seek,
if not the $19 million, they're going to seek
probably, I don't know, nine,
seven, something of that
magnitude.
Thanks for that. So just a couple other questions.
Of the
2,800 units that are going to be certified by a neutral third party,
I'm assuming the city's going to incur the cost of the contract for whoever this
neutral third-party inspector is.
We will.
Okay. And is it for a period of four years? What's the time period again?
I'm sorry. I didn't have that in my notes.
The period is for 12 years-
12 years
... but the actual identification process,
we may be able to get it done earlier.
Okay, great. It'd be great if we got it done earlier.
Yeah.
On the list of affordable units and accessible units that we're required
to provide as a term of the settlement,
where is this going to live, and who's going to manage that?
It will be managed both by MOPD
and the Department of Housing.
And do we have a time by which we have to get this done?
You mean in terms of identifying a
neutral-
Because, yeah, as part of the settlement, is there a date by which the court is
requiring us to have said list available?
12 years.
A starting date.
Oh. It will start immediately. We're already in discussions.
I know that counsel has, for both sides,
have been identifying a person to serve as the
neutral accessibility expert. I expect that will
come pretty quickly.
Chair, is it okay if we ask the two commissioners that are here about this
particular issue?
The question is-
Yeah, just-
... the timing of when they will start?
Yeah. When they will start. How's that work going?
Is there something already in the works?
Commissioner Castaneda from the Department of Housing, and Commissioner
Afra
from MOPD, would you comment on this, please?
Good morning. Yes. There are conversations that we've already
started jointly with the MOPD. But speaking
strictly for the Department of Housing, we have started these conversations already
within Construction and Compliances Department of Long-Term
Monitoring, and how we will monitor what things need to change, what work needs
to change for the staff.
Also, what the rotation is, making sure that folks are in compliance.
So any of the terms of the settlement agreement, we have already
begun those discussions and expect that in the next few weeks
or so, we'll continue to tighten up those processes so that we can be in
compliance with the settlement agreement.
So that'll include some online portal where people can view
available, affordable, and accessible units?
That is MOPD's housing locator, which is already online, and I'll let Commissioner
Afra speak to that.
Great. Thank you.
Thank you, and good morning. So MOPD already has a
housing locator, and we will be continuing to
expand and require different properties to add their
accessibility information. So we already have many of these
readily.
So while I have you, Commissioner, I have two other questions for you.
On the grievance process, is that something that is going to live within MOPD
as well?
We will. The commissioner-
It'll be a joint
... Castaneda and I will be discussing that to further finalize that.
But we're very in sort of
in.
Great.
And how many staff members does MOPD have currently
dedicated to this housing-related work, whether that be inspections
of buildings or plans? Can you just give us a sense of what
that infrastructure looks like in your department?
Sure. I'm happy to. So first, I have a deputy commissioner of
accessibility compliance who's an architect.
And then as part of that work, we have
two architects devoted to our pre-permit and permit plan
reviews. And we were able to break out that second architect
thanks to all of your support. And that has made a huge
difference in us being able to really
bring that expertise and build that knowledge in our permit and
pre-permit review. Which means that any government-funded housing
comes through us, and we assess to
make sure that their proposed plans are in compliance with all
the different housing regulations.
And then, as commissioner, I am creating a position called an
accessibility inspector because there was a gap.
I identified a gap, which is that we've had a
lot custom doing these pre-permit and permit reviews, but there
was never any-process for going
out to the housing properties while they were being
constructed. So
sometimes we found that maybe in the past, some
government-funded housing developments did not build the
accessibility that they promised.
But we have changed that because we have two accessibility inspector
positions who now go out during the construction phase
three times, and we create that documentation.
We have
one other
person dedicated to our team. But in order to meet
the terms of these settlements, we will need additional staff and be
able to hire our vacancies so that we can
dedicate resources to this.
No, thank you for that.
I think having sufficient staff to do this type of work is going to be really
important to protect ourselves against future litigation.
Do you know about how many more staff you
think would be sufficient to meet the demands of the settlement
and just the number of
housing units that the department's being asked to inspect?
So we have two vacancies, and if we're able to move forward
with hiring those
going forward, that would be a huge asset to our efforts here.
So you've got two vacancies that you are in the process of hiring for currently?
We have two vacancies that are not in the hiring.
They are pending for covered permission to be able to hire for them.
That will make a big difference toward being able to meet
these requirements.
Okay. So just to be clear, there's two vacancies that you have
budgeted for, but you've not been given the green light to hire those yet.
Correct.
Okay. Yeah, sure. I think we should probably make sure we get those hired
to make sure we're in compliance with all of this. I appreciate the time.
That concludes all of my questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lee. Alderman Lopez, followed by Alderman
Viegas.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.
A number of the questions that I intended to ask have already been asked by my
colleagues, so thank you. But I do just have two points that I want to
bring up. First off, I'm not comfortable
approving a settlement that our law department doesn't fully support
or questions.
I think we're just cutting and running
as opposed to fighting, and it sounds like we're still going to be fighting even
after this.
Second, the fact that our own delegate partners, who are
responsible for helping us address
housing,
are suing us
for the very thing that they're required to help us do, I think sets us on a
precedent that I don't like.
And I am constantly sitting in this room talking about
the precedent of the settlements that we keep making.
Access Living has been a partner to helping us ensure that we
are doing exactly what we thought we were doing, and then to turn around and
sue us because we didn't do it with their help
is mind-blowing to me.
What's next? Are the
CVI folks and the violence prevention people going to sue us as our delegate
partners for not reducing violence in neighborhoods?
Are the
folks that help us with
the bike lanes and pedestrian safety in the communities that CDOT has as
delegate partners, are they going to sue us because of car crashes?
This does not make sense to me,
because this is someone who works with us on these issues and
knows very well the efforts that we're making
and
the effort that our Commissioner of Housing and the
mayor has made specifically
with regards to affordable housing and ensuring that we
have new inspectors to ensure accessibility.
I honestly, Chairman, thought this was going to be an easy yes, but I will be
voting no on this today. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman Viegas, followed by Alderman Metz.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So we had a lawsuit and a settlement with
CDOT
around making sure, and then now this.
Are there any more in the pipeline, or is this, you think this is it?
There is another lawsuit that was filed within the last
three months, very similar to the CDOT lawsuit, over
infrastructure, especially pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, et
cetera.
Similar theories.
Okay.
Thank you. That's my question. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Metz.
Thank you.
Is it, what's the timeline for construction
for
the houses? Is there a timeline that you're setting?
And, well, maybe that's for housing.
And how will they be identifying these locations for these
houses?
Commissioner Castaneda?
So I think-
Like, are you using city lots? How are we going to identify
throughout the city?
Okay, got it. I was trying to clarify the question on the timeline. Yes.
And so, we have worked already with John and
his team to ensure that we have identified
all of the possible
list of locations where you could look at some of these things.
They're looking specifically at affordable rental housing.
And so things like city lots working families are meant for
home ownership opportunities. So I think in
general, it will be kind of doubling down on the course we've
been on, which is continuing the identification, plus the
building of new affordable housing.
Well, let me ask the question on new affordable housing.
What are the criterias for identifying
new affordable housing?
I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
I didn't-
What is the criteria for identifying the locations for new
affordable housing?
Oh, okay. So every two years we open the
qualified allocation plan, which is the process by which developers
come to the Department of Housing for gap financing.
So that is a really developer-driven process.
We generally put out some level of priorities.
For this last one, we talked about prioritizing permanent supportive housing.
We prioritized building on city lots.
There were some major sites that we'd been working on in conjunction with
DPD and their RFPs. And so developers bring to us the
projects that they want to build. We evaluate them for underwriting
feasibility, which essentially just means making sure that they are financially
viable. And then in April 1st of this year,
because we just had a QAP, we announced the
15 projects for this round of the QAP.
There is also the ability to come in to just get gap financing.
Say it's just TIF, you've got everything else you need from IDA, but you just need
a little bit of gap financing from TIF, then you can also come to us for that as
well.
That's the affordable housing piece. How about the hearing impairment piece?
The hearing impairment.
So the way that
our structure is set up is that we approve the project, and then we have a
certain requirement of a certain amount of units to be
mobility accessible and sensory accessible.
So things like for folks that are hearing impaired or
seeing impaired, they are able to have units within each of the
developments that we help fund.
Okay.
All right, very good.
Thank you, Alderman Pitts.
I would just add to that, that the sensory units-
Commissioner
... are for people who are deaf.
I would add that the sensory units are also for people who are deaf
or hard of hearing or blind or low vision.
So that is an important piece of the QAP.
Okay.
And Commissioner Castaneda,
you can also count towards our requirement
those projects that are privately funded-
Yeah
... that may come through the zoning committee, that would
be ARO?
Correct. As part of the work that DOL did,
we are also including in our count,
units that are triggered by the Affordable Requirements
Ordinance. Per the last version of the ARO,
100% of the affordable units have to be
type A units, which are accessible units.
Thank you.
What? Let me ask.
Alderman Pitts.
So is
there a price for these type of units,
or just affordable, nothing different for impairment?
Is there any differential?
Commissioner Castaneda, can you...
I guess the alderman's asking about the definition of affordability,
right?
And impairment. Is there going to be a different end price
for these rentals?
So these units will be funded the same way that we fund the
rest of our units, right? So-
Okay
...
they don't have to be 100% affordable projects, but they typically are, although
in some cases, like some in your ward, have been
50/50 cases. And then for the affordable units,
they can range up to 80% of the area median income, but
generally we cap it at about 60% of the area median
income. And so that changes
every year. And then, so the idea is that an apartment is affordable to
someone who is making only 60% of the area median income, and
affordable meaning that they're not spending more than 30% of their income towards
rent.
Okay.
Thank you. Alderman Lopez, you had a follow-up question before
we vote on this?
Oh, Alderman Hopkins.
First of all, Alderman Lopez, do you have any more questions?
I just have one.
Ask your question. I saw your hand first.
Thank you, Chairman. Actually, I was just going to ask if we could have provided
through the chair a list of all of the grants associated with
Access Living that they are engaged with, with the city of Chicago.
Yes.
Thank you.
Alderman Hopkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Question for counsel.
Can we employ no litigation clauses in our
contracts with delegate agencies, and are you aware that we've ever done so?
I think it depends on the nature of the
contract, and so I hesitate to ask without doing a little bit more
research on that subject.
Okay. Now may be the time to start doing research on that
topic.
Well, you make a good point.
Uh.
We have done some, and that's why I mentioned the point that many of these grants
are based on a process where we are not
just giving money to Access Living.
We are asking for people who have
qualifications to step up and do something.
And Access Living has frequently been the most
qualified organization to do that.
So the question is,
can we make the
grant contingent upon no additional litigation?
I will look into that.
Are you asking for a formal opinion, Alderman?
Yes, Chair. Thank you.
All right, thank you.
And also, could you expound on the
protections that may extend to contractors,
delegate agencies, et cetera?
Are they the same as employment contracts that would
prohibit any kind of retaliatory action?
If we were to terminate an agreement because of litigation, would
that create a cause of action for the contractor, or in this
case, the delegate agency? Are there things we can do explicitly
that would be in response to this action, that we would be
allowed to do under the current law?
I can certainly look into that in the same memo that I send you on the opinion
on the first question.
Okay. Thank you. No further questions, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Hopkins, and we'll get that opinion to everyone.
Alderman Lospada, we count you towards quorum.
May I have a motion to recommend approval of item number
2A? Motion made by Alderman Mitts, recommending do
pass. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed?
Alderman Lopez, we will record you as being opposed to this, but in
the opinion of the chair, the do pass, the ayes have it, and the do pass
recommendation will be reported out at our next city council meeting.
Our next case is 2B, Jose Gonzalez, as special
administrator of the estate of Jose Almanza
Martinez, deceased, versus City of
Chicago, Officer
Ashton Smiley and Officer Michael Carrion, case number
24L14052, in the
amount of $3.5 million. We are joined by
Deputy Corporation Council Margaret Mendenhall Casey for this.
And before you start, Ms. Casey, I just want to acknowledge,
I thought I saw my former seatmate here,
Alderman Will Burns from the 4th Ward.
Thank you for joining us, and welcome back to Chicago, man.
All right.
Okay,
Ms. Casey.
Thank you, Chair. This case arises out of the August
2nd, 2020 car accident at the intersection of
26th and Pulaski, where a fleeing offender, Cortez
Williams, who was 26 years old at the time, ran a red
light and struck pedestrian Jose Almanza Martinez,
who was 65 years old.
Unfortunately, Mr. Martinez passed away as a result of the
accident. The plaintiff alleges that the city's willful and wanton
pursuit caused the crash. The Department of Law recommends
settlement in the amount of $3.5 million.
Officers Michael Carrion, who was the driver, and Ashton
Smiley, who was the passenger, were on patrol in an
unmarked car when they observed an Acura driven by
offender Williams fail to use a turn
signal. The officers turned on lights and sirens
and conducted a traffic stop on Cermak, just east of
Pulaski. The officers pulled perpendicular in
front of the Acura.
Then offender Williams drove his vehicle up over the curb,
onto the sidewalk, and fled. The officers began a
pursuit and informed OEMC.
Offender Williams turned onto Pulaski and violated a red light.
The officers followed with their lights and sirens activated and also
violated the red light.
Shortly after, the officers and fleeing offender violated the red
light at Ogden and Pulaski.
The officers are unsure whether they used their signs the entire
time or just when clearing the intersection, but no sirens are
heard when Officer Smiley went over the radio to notify
OEMC.
The officers traveled at about 61 miles per hour on
Pulaski between Cermak and 23rd. The
speed limit at that location is 30.
The officers self-terminated the pursuit near
23rd Street and reduced their speed to 39 miles per hour.
The officers subsequently continued on Pulaski without lights
activated and violated a red light at 24th Street.
At Pulaski and 26th Street, offender Williams drove through a red
light and hit Mr. Almanza Martinez, who was in the
crosswalk with the right of way. He was tragically
thrown into the air and landed on the sidewalk.
The officers arrived at 26th and Pulaski 14 seconds
after the accident.
Approximately a half a mile and 40 seconds passed between
the offender fleeing the traffic stop and the accident.
Sergeant Olsen monitored the pursuit after the officers
notified OEMC. About a minute after the
initial broadcast, the sarge terminated the pursuit as it
was for a traffic offense. However, by this point, the
pursuit was already over, and the officers were attempting to
detain the offender.
A search of the Acura revealed marijuana, cocaine, and an
illegal firearm. Offender Williams was on parole for
a gun charge at the time of the accident.
As a result of this accident,
offender Williams was sentenced to 12 years and was paroled
in February of 2026. The car was not
stolen. It also was uninsured.
The general order in effect at the time is not the general order that we
currently have. The general order in effect at the time
prohibited an unmarked car from pursuing for a traffic
offense. Officers terminating a pursuit were
required to notify OEMC and remain at the location until a
supervisor arrived.
Pursuing cars were required to activate lights and sirens and to
obtain approval from a sarge to continue with the pursuit.
The officers were also required to notify OEMC about their
speed. The Traffic Review Board reviewed
this matter and found that the pursuit was in compliance.
Mr. Almanza Martinez was transported to the hospital, where he was
diagnosed with blunt force trauma to the head, and he was
pronounced deceased three days later.
At the time, he was survived by his wife and his two
sons.To succeed at trial, the plaintiff must prove two
points. One, that the pursuit was willful, wanton, and two, that the
pursuit proximately caused Mr. Almanza Martinez's death.
The jury instructions define willful and wanton conduct as a conscious
disregard or utter indifference for a person's
safety. Policy violations are used by the plaintiff
as evidence of willful and wanton conduct.
Plaintiff will argue that the only information known to the officers at the
time of the pursuit were the traffic infractions, and that the
officers violated the general orders by pursuing for a traffic
offense in an unmarked car.
The plaintiff will argue that the officers traveled at speeds over
twice the legal limit. While our officers testify
that they self-terminated the pursuit, the plaintiff's expert will say
that the officers did not terminate the pursuit, that they
continued following at a high rate of speed without lights or sirens
activated, and that the officers' actions violated the general order.
The plaintiff's expert will further testify that even if the officers
self-terminated the pursuit, they violated the general orders by
failing to notify OEMC of the termination, and not
remaining at the termination location.
Plaintiff will argue that the officers also were required to
notify OEMC of their speed, and failed to do that.
While narcotics and guns were recovered in the car, it is
unlikely that this evidence will be presented to the jury.
Recovered contraband unknown to the officers at the time of a
pursuit is generally not admitted into evidence,
absent testimony from the offender that they fled because
contraband was in the car. Excuse me.
As to the second element, so we first talked about the plaintiff needs
to prove that, thank you, that our officers were willful and wanton.
The plaintiff also needs to prove that the pursuit proximately caused Mr.
Almanza Martinez's death.
The jury instructions define proximate cause as a cause that contributed to
the plaintiff's injury.
It's not a defense that another actor also caused the injury if the City
is also a proximate cause. The City can be a proximate cause if
it's not the last cause. It can be a proximate cause if its
actions combine with another cause.
If this case were to proceed to trial,
Department of Law would argue that the fleeing offender was the sole cause of the
accident. However, recent case law issued
by the Illinois Appellate Court may limit the City's
ability to make this argument. The plaintiff initially demanded
$19 million.
If this matter were to go to trial, Mr.
Almanza Martinez's family would seek compensation for
past and future grief and sorrow, past and future loss of
society, and for Mr. Almanza Martinez's
pain and suffering for the three days he lived after the accident.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of $3.5
million for this matter.
Thank you, Ms. Mendenhall Casey.
Vice Chair Conway, followed by Alderman Taliaferro.
According to the officers, how long before the accident did they
terminate the pursuit?
So the officers will testify that they terminated the
pursuit about 0.2 miles before the
accident occurred. Our officers say that
they
self-terminated the pursuit around
23rd Street, with the accident happening at 26th
Street.
Okay, got it. And
did you say the Traffic Review Board found this pursuit was in
compliance?
Yes, that's accurate. The Traffic Review Board found that the pursuit was in
compliance, as I previously testified, the
general order in effect at the time of the accident
stated that an unmarked car cannot pursue for a
traffic offense.
Mm-hmm.
Certainly, if we were to try this case,
typically, actually, the findings of the Traffic Review Board are not admissible.
We don't like that to come in. If we were to try the case,
we would argue that the offender was driving
recklessly when he drove up on the sidewalk.
However, the general orders do say an unmarked car
cannot pursue for a traffic offense, and it defines a traffic
offense as anything that's 625 ILCS, which includes
reckless driving.
But wait, why did it find that the officers were in compliance then?
I can't opine as to what the Traffic Review Board's
thought process may have been. I
certainly can provide more information through the Chair about
distinctions between how the Traffic Review Board functioned in
2020 and how it functions today.
Fair. I just want to make sure I understand, but in compliance means that
the Traffic Review Board said that the officers did not
violate the general order?
Yes.
Just making sure I understand-
Yes
... the definition.
Yes, that is what the Traffic Review Board
said.
I would also note that in addition to the rule
about pursuing for a traffic
offense,
the general order in effect at the time said that the
officers were required to remain at a location until the
supervisor arrives if they self-terminate,
and that they were to obtain approval from a sergeant to
continue with a pursuit.
And the
appellate court case you mentioned, you said it limits our ability
to argue that we weren't the cause of the... crash?
I may have misunderstood that.
Sure. I'm happy to go into that in a bit more detail.
So in March of 2026, the Illinois Appellate
Court issued the Lamb ruling. And what the Lamb
ruling,
some courts have said means that the
city likely would not be able to apportion fault with the fleeing offender
at trial. So practically, that would mean, a number
of courts have said that first, if there was a trial,
it would be a trial where the city would be the only defendant
on the verdict form. If the jury were to find the city
guilty, then the jury would apportion
or say a number that the city owed. Then after that,
that same jury would then be able to apportion fault
between the city and the fleeing offender.
However, the apportionment of fault only would impact the
city's ability to go after the fleeing offender.
It would not absolve the city of its
responsibility to the plaintiff.
And so that means basically we have to go after them to recover, and in this
case, we've determined that the fleeing offender is judgment-proof.
Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Yes. Just to round out the questions from Vice
Chairman.
Yes.
When the officers self-terminated the pursuit, did they
notify OEMC?
They did not notify OEMC that they self-terminated
the pursuit, and the general order at the
time did require notification.
Okay, thank you. Alderman Talley Ferrell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That was the question I was going to ask.
Oh, good.
The-
I see I'm getting better at understanding-
Yeah
... police general orders.
As well. I just have one other.
Were there any other vehicles involved?
Any other Chicago Police vehicles involved?
No.
So there were no marked units as well?
No.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you,
Chairman Talley Ferrell. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and again, good morning, members of the committee.
Who were the justices involved in this March 26 case?
Give me one moment to pull
my printed copy of the case.
And as well, if you could provide that case through the chair, I'd appreciate it.
Sure, of course.
So,
Huchinsky was the one who wrote the opinion.
Give me one second.
Justice Hyman and Justice Walker concurred.
Thank you.
And if you could explain
the... I guess I'm having a hard time with the apportionment part where we
say that we can't hold the driver of the
vehicle.
Yes, just give me a moment.
Sure.
I'm going to take a note from you as well as Vice
Chair Conway so I can make sure to answer these through the chairs.
Thank you.
Let me share
screen.
Okay, so as to the Lamb decision,
what the Lamb decision says or what a number of
judges
in the Circuit Court of Cook County have told me that they interpret Lamb to
say is that first, if the city were to go
to trial... Let me restart. The plaintiff sues the
city, and the city then sues the fleeing offender.
The way that the trial would proceed, according to a number of the judges in the
circuit court, is that first the jury would determine is the
city liable,
and if the city is liable, how much does the city have to pay?
Then after that decision is made, that same
jury would be called to apportion fault
between the city and the fleeing offender.
However, the city and the fleeing offender would never be on
the same verdict form for the jury to fill out.
And so what practically that means is that if, let's say,
a $10 million judgment were entered,
and then after that the jury found, okay, the city
is 20% responsible and the bad guy
is 80% responsible. That would mean
that the city still would be responsible to pay that $10
million to the plaintiff,
and then the city would have to go after the bad
guy for the $8 million. Essentially what
the Lamb ruling did is said the city can go
after the bad guy on their own to recoup costs,
but the city is not allowed to apportion
fault with the bad guy for what the
plaintiff is owed.
I'm sorry, I hope that that makes sense.
Yes and no. So if I may.
Of course.
Since this is a relatively newer ruling,
it's almost as when you have a car accident and you're trying to get the
money out of your
insurance to cover what the other guy's insurance didn't cover, in a way.
So my question is
this:
In the... three months or
so, or two months since this ruling.
Are we pursuing,
basically as a cost recovery or as a
punitive way of
sending messages to bad guys,
that they will be held liable and held harmful for the
actions that they're causing in the city of Chicago?
So I just wanted to first say my managing deputy came and
reminded me that, of course, I want to advise you all that
we have filed a PLA, a petition for
leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
So we are continuing to fight this case and this
Lamb ruling. In terms of going after the fleeing offen-
And if I may, thank you, because that was going to be one of my next questions.
Why are we not fighting this ruling against us?
Okay. And do we know when that will be?
Is there a schedule on that, or is that just recent filing?
No, there's no schedule.
Okay.
We filed our request in a timely fashion, and then from there it's
on the Illinois Supreme Court as to if they are going to hear the
case or not.
In terms of your question regarding cost recovery,
as you did note, it's been three months.
Of course, each one of these cases has to be analyzed on an
individual basis.
If this body were to approve the settlement
ordinance, as I previously mentioned,
the fleeing offender in this particular case is judgment
proof. For each one of my pursuits, I have in-house
attorneys
conduct a asset check on the
offenders. And I would also note that we
did have a pursuit trial that went to a
jury about two weeks ago, where there was a
request for $30 million from the jury, and that ended
up being a not guilty for the city, where zero was paid.
So fortunately in that case, we didn't have to go after the fleeing
offender because it ended up being a defense verdict.
Well, congratulations on saving us $30 million.
Thank you, Alderman.
And for judges finally doing the right thing.
But I think that, again--
And if I may also ask then, too,
this
appellate decision, how far back are they able to go
on forcing this upon us?
Or is this for all things moving forward? Is there a retroactive date?
No, there's no retroactive date. It would be moving forward.
Okay.
All right. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
You need a booster chair over here, maybe.
The screen is new.
You're kind of like me. I like to look at people when I talk to them.
How long did this chase go on for?
It was for less than a minute. I believe it was about 40 seconds, but
give me just one moment to verify that.
That's all right. Less than a minute is good enough.
Yes. I was correct. 40 seconds and about half a mile.
So 45 seconds, a half mile.
Hard to believe a half mile took 45 seconds, but
whatever.
I mean, was he driving reckless before this already?
I mean, I
can't believe he was just
lollygagging around, driving Miss Daisy and
putzing around, and this happened.
So
the reason that the officers initially tried to curb Mr.
Williams is because they observed him commit a
traffic infraction of changing lanes without
signaling. Those are the traffic violations that the
officers observed the offender committing
before they attempted the stop. So no speeding.
No-
But driving reckless, changing lanes without putting your signal in, basically.
He w-
I call that reckless driving. I mean, if people...
I'm driving to work today, and some,
it was a woman, so don't go on at me, that kept going back and forth, back
and forth, lane to lane, not putting her signal in.
I don't know where she thought she was going. I mean, she wasn't getting anywhere.
She was in the same
pace with us, but she just kept bouncing back and forth, bouncing back and forth.
And, I mean, to me, that's reckless driving.
So, I was a professional driver. I drove for
a trucking company. I drove a fire truck, so I know a little bit about driving.
Mm-hmm.
These things are just so tough. I just don't understand.
It's hard to accept these. Why we're responsible?
Once again, damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I mean, this didn't happen
in the pursuit. I mean, it happened, I know,
only two blocks away, but, I mean, the accident happened two blocks away,
correct?
Not two miles, but two blocks.
When you say the accident happened two blocks away, I'm sorry, do you mean
from where the
incident began and where it ended?
No, from when he stopped.
Okay. Understood what you're saying. I understand.
Now, two blocks later,
was he continuing to drive reckless, do we know?
Or did all of a sudden he say, "Oh, the cop stopped," so just-
He stopped on the curb. When he parked on the curb-
He went up the curb
... on the sidewalk.
Yeah.
Okay. So I'll just go briefly through the facts
of the driving. First, officers a little bit east
of
Pulaski on Cermak see the fleeing offender change
lanes, no traffic signalThey light him up,
they pull perpendicular to him, then the fleeing offender goes up on
the curb, makes a left, goes onto Pulaski,
and goes at a fast rate of speed. Our
officers follow
from Cermak to 23rd. At 23rd,
our officers say that they self-terminated, and then the accident
happens at 26th Street. If I may,
Alderman Sposato, in terms of reckless
driving,
traffic infraction, lane signaling, the
general orders at this time said that a unmarked
car cannot pursue for a traffic
offense. And as I mentioned with Vice
Chair Conway, traffic offense in the general
orders is defined as anything that falls under
625 ILCS, which is the Illinois Vehicle Code,
and reckless driving is under that particular section.
But the so-called monitor said we didn't do anything wrong, correct?
The traffic review board found that the officers did
not violate the general orders. That's accurate.
Thank you. Thank you.
And I would also note that typically, traffic review board
findings
are not admissible. We typically don't admit them.
We consider that to be a subsequent remedial measure.
So while the traffic review board found that there was
compliance, that may not be a fact, and likely will not be a
fact that the
jurors hear.
So we don't use it. But would the defense say they're going to say you can't
use it, or we just don't use it? How does that work?
Sure. So typically, we do not
want subsequent remedial measures entered into
evidence. And by subsequent remedial measures, I mean anything that we
do to correct
an alleged wrongdoing or malfeasance
after the incident has already occurred.
And so if we were, for instance, to introduce the traffic
review board finding or seek to introduce that
finding, then there'd be evidence about what the investigation process
looks like. If there happened to be some members
of the board that agreed or disagreed.
Typically, we don't want the jury thinking about disciplinary process
after. We want them to focus on the incident
itself.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
But unfortunately, at this point, I'm going to have to be a no. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Sposato. Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Good afternoon, Ms. Mendenhall.
Good afternoon.
Has
the DOL, after this case, make any recommendations
to CPD on the general orders?
So we are in ongoing discussions with the
police department about our general orders.
What I would say about this particular case is
that the general order in question is
not the current general order that we have.
So under our current general order, there's no
requirement that you have to get the supervisor's permission before you
continue, and our current general order just says you need to notify
OEMC. In our current general order, it doesn't
say that when you self-terminate, you have to
remain at the termination spot until a supervisor comes on
scene. That's not in there. So,
the order that we're discussing today is not the order that currently
governs our pursuits.
So in the future, if we have a similar fact pattern,
what would the outcome be for a similar fact pattern here,
hypothetically?
So typically, I don't like to speak in hypotheticals.
I will say about the status of our current
policy,
our officers, whether marked or unmarked, are not allowed
to pursue for a traffic offense.
And a couple of years ago, we asked you, through the Department of
Law,
for a memorandum or a policy position on the
city's efforts to challenge
the proximity clause in the tort law.
Has the Department of Law taken up any effort to do that?
So-
To share with the council what your position is with the state,
the General Assembly, to go to them, as we asked over two years ago,
to say,
"This is basically preventing the city from doing any pursuit
whatsoever." Because two years ago, you said that if it
was even 1% liability, or 1%
proximity, we were on the hook for the entire
settlement. So I'd just love to know if any time in the last two
years we've made any effort by the city to go
to change this law or to effectuate some kind of
change.
I appreciate that inquiry, Alderman.
I would say that the answer to that inquiry, one, is
something that the corporation council would be more
than open to entertaining a conversation with you about,
as well as I'm sure that IGA would be open to that
conversation. But that, unfortunately, is not something that I can have, and
certainly not in a public forum, but the corporation council would be more than
willing to speak with you.
Well, I think we made the case pretty clear two years ago
that you came to us with the case,
had not informed anybody in the city council that the law had changed, and then
just saidIf there's even 1% proximity,
we were on the hook for anything. And I think the indication at the time was,
could you provide some type of memo that would dictate what the
corporation counsel would do to change that?
I think corporation counsel herself had made a comment that
you were looking into it. Not you, but Department of Law.
So whether it's on the council floor or somewhere else, I don't want to wait for
IGA.
That'll never happen. So it's up to the Department of Law
to tell this body what the position of the city is on that
state law. And if they're not going to do it, then maybe it's the
position that the city council has to take with the
general assembly to say,
this is damaging not just the City of Chicago, but perhaps every
municipality out there.
Alderman, I believe that this is probably
something that the city council needs to take up.
We've
asked the Department of Law. They have responded
in terms of thinking about what's wrong with
the current legislation, and no action has
been taken.
Right.
So I think it's on us to-
Okay
... make the case that we need to make in Springfield.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And if I also may say, Alderman Waguespack, I really would
implore you to please speak with the corporation counsel.
As I mentioned, there are things that I cannot discuss in a public forum, but
I would encourage you to please speak with corporation counsel or even
Managing Deputy Hendricks.
Okay. Thank you.
Is there a motion to recommend approval of item number 2B?
So moved by Alderman Mosley, recommending due pass.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed?
Alderman Quinn is a no, Alderman Lopez is a no,
Alderman Curtis is a no, and Alderman Sposato is a
no, and Alderman Taliaferro is a no.
And-
Alderman Riley's a no as well.
Alderman Riley and Alderman Scott and Alderman Villegas.
Let's just do a roll call. How about that?
Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Lospada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Yes.
Alderman Mitchell. Hall is a yes. Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Yes.
Alderman Beale. Alderman Lee.
Yes.
Alderman Ramirez.
Yes.
Alderman Quinn.
No.
Alderman Lopez.
No.
Alderman Moore.
Aye.
Alderman Curtis. Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor. Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez. Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Ervin.
Yes.
Alderman Taliaferro.
No.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman
Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman Quezada.
Alderman Villegas.
Yes.
Alderman Mitz.
Alderman Sposato.
Thank you.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley. No.
Riley's a no.
Yeah.
Alderman Knutson.
Yes.
Alderman Martin.
Yes.
Alderman Silverstein.
Silverstein's a no.
Chair Dowell's a yes.
You're an aye. Vasquez is a yes. Alderman Vasquez.
18 to nine, the motion passes and the due
pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you, Ms. Mendenhall Casey. Our
last
settlement is 2C, Arnold Dey versus Kenneth
Boudreaux, case number
19CV7286, in the
amount of $13 million. And this is going to be reported
out by Deputy Corporation Counsel, Jessica Felker.
Hello, Ms. Felker.
Hello, Chair. Thank you so much. As usual, I bring up the bottom
of a batting order.
Again, I don't take it personally.
So this is Arnold Dey versus Kenneth Boudreaux.
The settlement amount is $13 million, that we recommend.
Arnold Dey brought this lawsuit alleging he was wrongfully convicted for the
1991 murder of Jared Irving.
Jared Irving was fatally shot shortly after midnight on May
17th, 1991, at 927
West 54th Street.
Officers on the scene interviewed a witness, Corona Taylor,
who stated that two Black men, around 20 years old, had
approached Irving, and then she heard gunshots and found Irving
shot. Ms. Taylor was brought into the station for
further questioning. She remained overnight and did not leave
until early the next day. She eventually implicated
Dey. Ms. Taylor, however, did not testify at
Dey's criminal trial, and in 2007, she recanted her
identification. She claims that she was screamed at by detectives
until she decided to give them a couple of names, but really, she did
not know the offenders. However, she also states now that she
knows it was not Arnold Dey who shot Mr. Irving.
On the day after the murder, a detective learned about a tip
that nearby drug dealers nicknamed Spook and Mark were
possibly involved in Irving's murder.
There were notes that indicated officers investigated this lead, but the
notes did not indicate what steps they took or what information they
learned.A 9-millimeter bullet and two
9-millimeter shell casings were found at the scene.
No prints were found on the ammunition.
No gun was found on the scene. But about a month after Irving's murder,
a 9-millimeter Smith & Wesson used in a different homicide
was retrieved as part of that investigation.
That Smith & Wesson matched as the weapon used to kill Irving.
The suspects in that homicide stated they received the gun after
Irving's murder.
About six months after the Irving murder in November
1991, detectives questioned Ralph Watson.
He was a suspect in a string of armed robberies in the same area.
According to detectives, Watson said that he saw G-Nate and
Little A, AKA Arnold Day, shoot Irving.
G-Nate was already deceased. He had been killed shortly after
the Irving homicide.
Watson recanted this implication before the
criminal
trial, and has alleged that Detective Boudreau fed him the information
and threatened to charge him with other crimes.
In February 1992, about nine months after the Irving murder,
police located Day hiding at a fellow gang member's home.
They had a warrant for his arrest on an unrelated gun charge and brought
him in for questioning. Day claims that one of the officers
apprehended him, stomped on his head, and then
handcuffed him.
Day was brought into the station and questioned about the Irving murder and
another murder. Day testified that Detective Boudreau came
in with Watson's statement and told Day that
Watson implicated him in the Irving murder, and then
Detective Boudreau proceeded to feed Day all of the
facts. When an ASA came to take a statement, Day
states that he did not confess, and then the ASA left, and Day
alleges that Detective Foley threatened to throw Day out a window,
grabbed him by the neck and shoved him against the wall while Detective
Boudreau watched. The ASA then returned, and Day
confessed, stating that he used a Tec-9 handgun.
In June 1994, Day was convicted. Day
continued to challenge his conviction, and in
2017, the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief
Commission determined by a preponderance of evidence that Day's
claim of torture merited judicial review.
On December 19th, 2018, Day's conviction
was vacated, and the charges against him dismissed by a special
prosecutor. On April 4th, 2019, Day
received a certificate of innocence.
The special prosecutor took no position.
Day alleges that his confession was coerced, that he was maliciously
prosecuted without probable cause, and that Watson's witness statement
was fabricated. To support his claim, Day will argue that
his confession contains an inconsistency, that he used a
Tec-9, whereas the shell casings recovered from the Irving crime match a
different gun, the 9-millimeter Smith & Wesson.
Day will rely on Crona Taylor's statement that Day was not one of the
individuals she saw just before Irving was shot, and on
evidence that Watson's statement had to be false because two of the
individuals Watson identified as being present were actually in custody at
the time.
Day will rely on testimony from a false confessions
expert, who will opine that the conditions and circumstances
present in his interrogation have been shown to cause false
confessions.
Though Day had an established criminal record by the time of the Irving
homicide, according to the defendants, and a status as a
high-ranking gang member, the court has the ability to limit or
bar such evidence as too prejudicial should we go to trial.
If settlement is not authorized, the parties will proceed to trial, where
Day will likely seek $50 million of warrant damages.
If he succeeds at trial, he would be entitled to his attorney's
fees, which could be about $3 to 4 million.
Based on the risks associated with taking this matter to trial, and to
limit the city's exposure, the law department recommends settling this case for
a total of $13 million, inclusive of all attorney's fees and
costs.
All right. Before we get to questions, I see that Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez has
joined us for the meeting, will be added to the quorum.
All right, any questions from the committee?
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman. Just a quick question so we're all clear.
The certificate of innocence was not a Kim Fox
certificate of innocence, correct?
That is correct.
Thank you.
Alderman Hopkins.
Is there any physical evidence tying Day to the crime, other than the
forensic weapons suggestion?
No, there is no physical evidence whatsoever.
Okay. Thank you.
Alderman Mitch.
Attorneys on the case.
For the-
The law firm.
For us or for the plaintiff?
For the plaintiff.
Lovi & Lovi.
Any further questions?
Actually, I have a question.
You
noted that the special prosecutor took no
position on this. Could you maybe explain who that was and more about that
process? Which kind of goes with Alderman Lopez's question.
Yeah. So the special prosecutor in this case was Bob Milan.
And so the special prosecutor agreed to vacate the
case, which the court granted, and then the special
prosecutor chose to dismiss the charges.
After that is the certificate of innocence proceedings.
Arnold Day applied for one, and the process
is the only people who can intervene are the
AG or the state's attorney. Given that this was a Cook County,
Chicago case, it goes to the Cook County state's attorney.
In this case, they wereConflicted off, which made Bob Milan the
special prosecutor who was in charge of those proceedings, and he
decided to take no position. Or it's
also called not intervening. When the special prosecutor or the prosecutor
overseeing this does not take any position, it means the court has
only the
petitioner's information to make a decision on.
The court is not allowed to consider any other evidence other than what was
presented in the four corners of the petition
by the petitioner, in this case, Arnold Day.
So reading the information that Arnold Day provided, the court
issued the certificate of innocence.
Thank you. Now is there a motion to recommend approval of item
2C?
All right, moved by Alderman LaSpada, recommending due pass.
All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
All right. Any opposed? All right, in the opinion of the acting
chair here, the ayes have it. The due pass recommendation will be reported out at
the next city council meeting.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right, moving to item three, an ordinance
amending Section 2-32-085 of the
municipal code regarding the voluntary charitable payroll deductions
program. And we're joined by Michael
Penesnak, Projects Administrator, Financial Policy Department of
Finance.
Michael, it's all yours.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good afternoon.
I am here to present an ordinance
revising the voluntary charitable payroll deduction program.
As a brief overview, the most
recent iteration of this program was established in 2007.
It allows employees to deduct to their post-tax
income to up to 10 charities. This is not
a matching program. These are entirely from
employees' wages.
So no city money is given.
There is an application process. The charities
do reach out to us if they are interested.
They complete our application.
They certify that they are in compliance with the various
guidelines, or I should say, rules in the ordinance.
But ultimately, the decision on whether or not a charity is a member
is in the hands of
the city council.
So this ordinance specifically
removes Global Impact. They have requested to
leave the program due to limited contributions, and it adds
CHC, Creating Healthier Communities.
Listed here as Community Health Charities.
This group previously participated as Community Health Charities of
Illinois.
It is now a legally distinct entity, and so that triggered the need to
reapply.
So Global Impact, the charity leaving, is a
nonprofit intermediary that advises philanthropy and
manages workplace giving campaigns.
They are an original participant from 2007.
And at the time of their request
to leave, they had 27 contributors.
CHC, Creating Healthier Communities, previously participated as
Community Health Charities of Illinois.
The organization merged with another organization
into CHC, Creating Healthier Communities.
Because they are a legally distinct entity, they had to reapply.
CHC supports 14 Chicago organizations, including, but
not limited to, the Greater Illinois Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Dare
2 Tri, Epilepsy Foundation of Chicago, National Kidney
Foundation of Illinois, and the American Lung Association of
Illinois. Additionally, they also tailor corporate
initiatives to volunteer for vulnerable population,
and their Breaks with a Purpose provides educational
programming with webinars with health
experts.
The CFO respectfully requests your favorable
consideration of this ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Penesnak.
Alderman Sposato.
Madam Chair, just a quick question.
I've been in this since '93. Actually, I'm probably way overdue to up the
ante, but can you tell me how much city workers donated in maybe
'24 and '25? You have it broken down by year? I'm just very wordly.
I just want to let everybody know, especially my colleagues and any city workers
there, it's a minimal amount of money out of your check.
You're not going to miss a few dollars.
Think about, there has to be something in there that somebody feels is worthy of
donating to. So I'm just putting a plug in to say, "Hey,
shell out a few bucks." I know we have many, many generous people in this council,
so I'm sure they'd be more than anxious to join this program, so...
Thank you, Alderman Sposato.
You didn't get the numbers for '24 and '25.
Yes. Approximately 420,000 for both
years.
All right. That's pretty good.
And I do owe you the 2025 numbers.
Thank you.
Okay. Alderman
LaSpada.
Here we go. This is the second Alderman Sposato residing.
I was curious, why would one
request to
leave? There's no
cost associated with participation, is there?
Not at this time, no. They
are facing a lot of
increased administrative burden, and so processing our 27
employee contributions that gross them
$1,527 was
putting them in the red. So they have requestfully-
There we go
... asked to withdraw.
That makes sense. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Lospada. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the committee.
Thank you, Alderman Lee.
Quick question.
Can you provide through the chair what the totals were for last year for all of
these entities?
Yes, I can.
And are there any entities here that are part of this program that receive
$0?
No. There are a couple of
low
contribution receiving entities that you will see
through the chair material.
And when you say low, are we under $100? Under 50?
I think that they are over $100, but there are a couple with
two contributors, 10 contributors that,
I think are what you would be referring to.
And
is there a threshold from the department to say at a certain point that we
need to reevaluate,
so that we're not,
as you just said, causing fiscal
issues for people trying to do the paperwork just to get 20 bucks
a month from 10 people?
So we can certainly
do that. I know that we are required by ordinance once a year to ask
for certain information. I think that Global Impact is
a very large, eight, nine-figure advisory, was
unique
in its
view that $1,500 was insufficient.
And I know, Chairman, I think we've actually had this discussion at one of these
other meetings with regards to the employee payroll deductions
for charities where we talked about looking at this,
modernizing it a little bit, and going through some of the old partners who don't
necessarily benefit in finding new partners.
I'm sure my colleague from the 38th Ward will recall that we even mentioned
things like Friends of Animal Care and Control, which should have been included at
some point or sought after. So would love to have that conversation
down the road. Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah. The Friends of Animal Care and Control have a pending
application with the finance
department. After meeting with the commissioner, I
suggested to her that she try to get involved in this, and looks
like this may happen.
How many other pending
applications do we have?
Just the one from Friends of Animal Care and Control.
Okay.
I want to also acknowledge that the department created a
program-specific component on their
website about this program so that more city
workers would get to know that this exists and
that they can contribute to various organizations through this program.
And I thank you for that.
Can I get a motion to recommend approval of item number three?
So moved by Alderman Martin,
recommending due pass. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the due pass
recommendation will be reported out at the next meeting. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Items number four and five, we will hear together, but we will
vote on them separately.
From the Department of Housing, an ordinance
authorizing the issuance of multifamily program
funds to 3959
Lincoln 4 Manager, LLC, for the mixed-use
development of 4% project at
3959 North Lincoln Avenue in the
47th Ward, in an amount not to exceed
a little over $11 million, and you'll give the exact figure.
And an ordinance authorizing the issuance of multifamily
program funds to 3959
Lincoln 9 Manager, LLC for the mixed-use
development, a 9% project at
3959 North Lincoln Avenue in the 47th
Ward in an amount not to exceed a little over
$350,000. We're joined today
by Amisi Creighton
and Michael Roan.
Excuse me, Amisi Creighton from the Department of Housing.
Good morning, Chairwoman Dowell and members of the committee.
My name is Amisi Creighton, and I'm a financial planning analyst with the
Department of Housing. I'm joined today by Joseph Lewis, Deputy
Commissioner of the Department of Housing.
We're also joined by the project's co-sponsors, including Michael Roan of Benshire
Development, along with his team, as well as representatives from ABNAR.
Before you today is an ordinance to authorize the use of multifamily
program funds to support the adaptive reuse of an historic
bank building and construction of new service enrich affordable housing
at 3959 North Lincoln in the North Center community
area.
Specifically, the ordinance before you requests authorization for the city to
provide multifamily program funds in an aggregate amount not to exceed
11.5 million to support the development of the project.
Because the project is structured as a 4% and 9% low-income
housing tax credit twinning transaction, the development will
proceed through two separate but coordinated ownership entities and
financing structures. As a result, there are two ordinances before the
committee. One for the 4% LIHTC component,
3959 Lincoln 4 LLC, and one for the 9%
LIHTC component, 3959 Lincoln 9 LLC.
Together, the two ordinances authorize the city's financial
assistance for the overall 64-unit permanent supportive housing
development at 3959 North Lincoln Avenue.The
subject property is located at 3959 North Lincoln Avenue
at a highly visible six-corner intersection where North Damen
Avenue, West Irving Park Road, and North Lincoln Avenue converge.
The property is located in the North Center community area
and the 47th Ward, represented by Alderman Matthew Martin, who has
provided a letter of support.
The proposed redevelopment at 3959 North Lincoln will combine the adaptive
reuse of the existing historic bank building with new construction of the
adjacent surface parking lot. The project will result in
mixed use. Thank you. Mixed use. The project will result in mixed-use
service-enriched and affordable housing development containing 64 units of
permanent supportive housing, as well as approximately 3,852 square
feet of retail space for local businesses.
All residential units will serve survivors of gender-based violence
and will include access to on-site trauma-informed supportive services
designed to promote long-term housing stability, safety, and recovery.
The 3959 Lincoln development project is structured as a twinning transaction
utilizing both 4% and 9% low-income housing tax credits
allocated by Illinois's Housing Development Authority to maximize
available equity financing. Construction is anticipated to
commence in fall of 2026, with completion
projected for Q2 of 2028.
The project site is located in a transit and amenity-rich
portion of the North Center neighborhood.
The site is within a short walk of the CTA Brown Line Irving Park
station, multiple CTA bus routes, including the
number 50 Damen and number 80 Irving Park buses, and the Ravenswood
Metro station, located approximately one half mile from the
property. The surrounding area also includes grocery stores,
pharmacies, restaurants, medical facilities, public parks, a post
office, banking services, and other daily neighborhood amenities within
walking distance. This location will allow residents to access employment
services, public transportation, and community resources without relying
on a car.
Shown here is the existing view of the property and exterior rendering of the
proposed project looking northeast toward Damen Avenue
from Lincoln Avenue. As depicted, the development will combine the existing
historic bank structure with new construction to create a cohesive
mixed-use residential building.
The first floor will include retail storefronts, a main residential entry lobby,
multipurpose amenity areas, management offices, and 18
covered parking spaces. The amenity areas will be located
within the repurposed two-story banking hall, allowing the project to preserve the
character of the original building while adapting it for community and resident
use. Residential units will be located on the upper floors, along with shared
laundry, support offices, community
spaces, and other resident amenities.
The basement will retain the existing bank vault and will include utility
rooms and bulk storage for residential use.
Displayed is a two-level bank atrium and lobby that will
be redeveloped into approximately
3,800 square feet of
commercial space. The area will include a dedicated ritual
de-escalation space, offices for Apne Gar staff, a management
office, a mail room, bike storage, a fitness room,
a lounge, and a work studio. On the second floor, a
glass-enclosed toddler playroom overlooks the lobby.
This feature reflects a trauma-informed design approach, offering
visibility, safety, and a sense of security for survivors and their families.
The project will be co-developed by Bryn Mawr Development, LLC, and Apne Gar,
Incorporated. The ownership entities, 3959 Lincoln Four
LLC and 3959 Lincoln Nine LLC, are jointly owned by
Bryn Mawr Development, holding a 49% interest, and Apne Gar holding
a 51% interest. Bryn Mawr Development LLC is a national real
estate company specializing in mixed income and affordable residential development.
Bryn Mawr's portfolio includes 8,936 total project units,
7,849 income-producing units, 105 low-income tax
credit developments, and 7,663 low-income
tax credits units in 13 states and the District of Columbia.
Bryn Mawr's recent projects in the city of Chicago include Legend South
Phase A-3, a 52-unit rental community
continuing the redevelopment of the former Robert Taylor Homes CHA
complex. The Folia Residence is at Chicago Lighthouse,
a
76-unit affordable rental community for visually impaired residents in the
Illinois Medical District. And West Haven Park Station, a 96-unit
mixed-income rental community and a component of the redevelopment of the
former Henry Horner Homes CHA complex on the Near West Side.
Now, founded in 1990, Apne Gar Incorporated is a nonprofit human
rights organization that works to end gender violence.
Apne Gar provides services to 56 housing units, which include
emergency shelters, rapid rehousing, and transitional
housing. Apne Gar will serve as both co-sponsor and supportive services
provider for the development. Other members of the development include the
architect, which will be LBBA Architects, a general contractor, which will
be a joint venture between Berglund Construction and Toro Construction, a minority
business enterprise. The property manager will be Leasing and
Management Company. The LIHTC syndicator is Hudson Housing
Capital. The developer's attorney will be Applegate and Thornton-Thompson, and the
development consultant will be The Network.
Total development costs are estimated at approximately $59.5
million. Because the project is structured as a 4% and 9%
low-income housing tax credit twinning transaction to maximize
available equity to the project, the development will
proceed through two separate but coordinated ownership entities, which will be
executed concurrently as one coordinated project.Shown here are the
permanent sources. The project will be financed through a combination of public
funding, private lending, tax credit equity, seller
financing, and a developer fee. The city funds comprise
19% of total development costs. The remaining 81% is from
other non-city resources.
IDA will issue tax-exempt bonds to support construction to permanent
financings, which will generate tax credits of $1.9
million for the benefit of the transaction.
IDA is also issuing tax credits of $1.5 million to support the
transaction.
Tax credit equity will be syndicated through Hudson Housing Capital at
approximately $0.94 per credit, generating approximately
$31.6 million in combined equity.
Upon completion, permanent debt will be provided through Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust
with the 4% and 9% LIHTC components
together supporting approximately $12.1 million in permanent first
mortgage financing. The project also includes an Illinois
affordable housing tax credit structure.
LDI Partners LLC, which is the market rate developer, will donate
$2.46 million to ABNAGAR in
connection with the property acquisition from Fifth Third Bank.
The donation is expected to generate $1.23 million in
Illinois donation tax credits, which will be syndicated to provide approximately
$1.12 million in additional equity for the project.
The Department of Housing will provide $11.35 million, but not to
exceed $11.5 million in multi-gap financing across
two components, and approximately $736,000 of the developer fee
will be deferred. These sources support total
estimated development costs of $59.5 million, which
equates to approximate development costs net of
acquisition costs of $780,000 per unit.
And lastly, the city's investment is approximately $180,000 per
unit.
The development will provide 64 affordable rental units, all of
which will be permanent supportive housing.
The unit mix will consist of 14 one-bedroom units at approximately
572 square feet for each unit, 36 two-bedroom units at
approximately 831 square feet for each unit, and 14 three-bedroom
units at approximately 1,010 square feet of each unit.
The unit mix is intentionally family-oriented to serve
survivors of gender-based violence, including households with children.
Affordability will be structured as follows.
35 units will be restricted to households earning at or below 30% of
their area median income, and 29 units
will be restricted to households earning at or below 50% of the
AMI. All 64 units will be supported by Chicago
Housing Authority project-based vouchers, ensuring that residents have
rental assistance and the rents remain affordable to the households being
served.
As previously mentioned, the development will be structured with two separate
ownership entities due to the twinning structure of the financing.
While there are two separate owner entities and financing plans, the
3959 North Lincoln redevelopment will proceed concurrently as one
coordinated development. The 4% LIHTC component will be owned
by 3959 Lincoln 4 LLC, and the 9%
LIHTC component will be owned by 3959 Lincoln 9 LLC.
Shown here is the 4% and 9% project
organizational chart for both entities, which is
jointly owned by ABNAGR Inc, which holds 51% interest,
and Brintreau Development, which holds a 49% interest.
In connection with the low-income housing tax credit financing, an
investor affiliated with Hudson
Housing Capital will be admitted at financial closing to contribute
equity in exchange for the
associated tax benefits. Brintreau and ABNAGR will remain
responsible for development, sponsorship, and long-term operation of the
project, with ABNAGR as also providing supportive services.
Turning now to the structure and requirements of the city's financial assistance
for this development. Because this is a 4% and 9% LIHTC twinning
transaction, the city's assistance will be provided through two separate loans to
the two ownership entities, consistent with their separate
financing structures. City assistance is expected to
be provided in the form of HOME American Rescue Plan or
HOME-ARP funds. With the use of this source, the project
will comply with applicable federal HOME-ARP
requirements, including serving eligible qualifying populations,
meeting HOME-ARP affordability and rent restrictions, and
satisfying income occupancy, tenant selection,
documentation, and ongoing compliance requirements.
The project will also remain subject to the city's standard affordability,
construction compliance, and regulatory compliance, including applicable
wage and workforce requirements, MBE/WBE
participation goals, and other city compliance obligations.
Next, I'd like to highlight the public benefits associated with this project.
First, the project will create 64 new affordable rental units in a
high opportunity, amenity-rich area of North
Center. All units will be supported by CHA's
project-based vouchers, ensuring long-term rental assistance and deep
affordability for residents. Second, the development will provide
permanent supportive housing targeting survivors of gender-based violence
and open to residents that meet Section 8 qualification for the project-based
vouchers, including survivors with limited English proficiency,
and immigrants as well. ABNAGR will provide on-site
trauma-informed supportive services to help residents achieve stability and
long-term success.
Third, the project will advance adaptive reuse and redevelopment by
restoring and reactivating an architecturally significant bank building, or former
bank building, at a prominent intersection and replacing underutilized surface
parking with a mixed-use development that includes affordable housing, commercial
space, and active for-Active ground floor uses.
Fourth, the project offers strong transit accessibility with nearby access
to the CTA Brown Line, CTA bus routes, Divvy stations,
and Metra, connecting residents to jobs, services, schools, and neighborhood
amenities. Finally, the project will support economic development job
creation, including more than 115 temporary construction jobs and at
least eight permanent jobs in property management, commercial uses, and
supportive services. Together, these benefits represent a meaningful
public investment that expands deeply affordable housing, supports survivors of
gender-based violence, preserves an important neighborhood building, and advances
housing opportunities in North Center.
In summary, the Department of Housing respectfully requests the Committee on
Finance approve the ordinances authorizing the use of up to
$11.5 million in multifamily program funds to support the
redevelopment of 3959 North Lincoln Avenue.
Representatives from Brinshore and Apne Gar are here with us today to answer any
questions you may have about this project. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Creighton.
Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, everybody.
I just want to highlight the domestic violence related piece of
this, which is something that my office had worked on very closely and
collaboratively with Brinshore and Apne Gar and is a reason why
I'm very excited about this proposal and why we've been so supportive
of it from the jump.
We all know that domestic violence is a growing challenge, not just across the city
and the state, but the country. The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
estimates that 42% of women across our state and
26% of men have experienced domestic violence in their
lifetime, and that while certain types of violent crime may be trending
downward over the last several years, that unfortunately is not the case with
domestic violence. DV related homicides just last
year were up 15%. Calls to the
domestic violence hotline surged 26%
in 2024, mirroring similar increases in
prior years. And finally, I'd emphasize that this type of
violence figure or impacts directly housing insecurity, and
that domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness for
women. And so this was something when we were talking with our community
about how to rehab this now vacant bank building.
What do we want to do? How do we want to support people in our community, not just
our 47th Ward community, but citywide?
And this is one that my team and I had identified as a priority, and thankfully,
we received a lot of community support around it.
So,
the last thing I would mention, this project came together
over a six-year period.
Starting in 2020 is when we had redevelopment conversations that
resulted in four community meetings and over 400 people reaching out
to share written comments, to say nothing of walk-ins, phone calls, and the like.
So a lot of work has gone into this with my office across the community and
obviously the development community, and I hope for a favorable
consideration from the committee. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Martin. Alderman Lee.
Thank you, Chair.
What an exciting project. Congratulations to you, Alderman Martin,
to your community, and to the developers.
And I'm very familiar with Apne Gar and their work, their invaluable
work, and their partners with the network.
I think this is a overall really great thing.
I just had a couple of questions just for clarification, because I think
when we fund projects like this, it's real easy to sit here and
divide 11.9 million by 64 and see
a really large number and feel like that's
what the actual cost is per unit. I think in this case, it's worth highlighting.
So my question is highlighting that it's not.
So what I want to say, let me be clear, rewind the tape, please.
What percentage of the development's going to be non-residential but supportive
services space? Do you know?
3,800.
You said 3,800 square feet. I just don't know what that is in sort of reference-
Well, 3,800 square feet encompasses-
Commercial
... the retail space that we have not leased out yet.
The retail space also, the toddler playroom, the trauma
rooms, deescalation room, the Apne Gar
staff
offices. So that includes all that atrium
area and that second floor lobby. That's what that encompasses.
Yeah. It's also
part of the broader redevelopment is kind of more my point, right?
So it's not
100% of the $11.5 million
that will be invested in this is going specifically just
to 64 individual units. The supportive services and the retail
and all of that is-- or is that separate from the-
The supportive services are
for the tenants of the building.
So,
Joe Lewis from the city's Department of Housing.
Yeah.
The total rentable area of residential units at the property
is approximately 56,000 square feet.
As that relates to the gross square footage of the overall footprint of the
building, I don't have that detail at hand.
We do have a representative from the developer here who might be able to weigh in
on that particular point.
The city financial assistance is generally targeted
to the project as a whole on the
understanding that it's the 64 units of permanent supportive
service enriched housing that is really the sort of
qualifying costs for this particular source of funds.
The city's funding will help with the core and shell of the rehab
and some of the new construction, the addition piece for the new
units. But as it comes to funding services and direct
funding of operations,
or the specific build-out of some of these
non-residential spaces, that's not exactly what the city's funding is targeting.
Got it. Yeah. And the $11 million's just part, that's the city's contribution.
Can you go to the slide with the total cost of the
redevelopment?I'm doing a very
poor job of the point I'm trying to make right now.
I promise I'm going to do better here.
So the total cost of the development
is how much?
59.5 million. All right, so that's the number I plugged into my calculator.
Divided by 64, because that's generally what we would do sitting here, right?
And that's
a little over $900,000 a unit. My point is,
the total cost of the project encompasses a lot of things, that it's
not just the 64 units. The supportive services are
so important, especially for a development like this for
the people that this is going to be serving. So question for Abnagar.
So the supportive services that are provided
in Abnagar's space there,
is that exclusively for the residents, or will they also be serving
other clients, other victims of domestic violence in this facility?
I'd like to-
I think we have someone from Abnagar here.
Hi there.
Good afternoon. My name is Michael Rowan. I'm with Brunschwig Development.
I'm part of the sponsorship. Our colleagues and our partners from
Abnagar had to leave because they had other obligations, but I can
speak to that. So they will be serving exclusively the
residents of the building at the building.
Very good. Thank you.
That was really my main question here.
I really appreciate the work that everybody's done on this.
I think this is going to be an incredible model, and doubling the
capacity of what Abnagar is doing, I think is going to be really game-changing.
So I wish everybody good luck. I will be in full support of this
funding. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lee. Alderman Mitchell.
Thank you, Chairman. Can you go back to the slide where it talks about the
benefits, and I think the last point was
economic development?
Yeah, supports job creation includes.
Okay, considering these funds available from the
city,
what is the plan for the
MBEWB participation,
and
where is it at this point?
Has that even been discussed?
Well, that will be actually discussed when we actually have a compliance meeting
with the long-term monitoring team, which will go over what type of applicable
wages need to be discussed as far as prevailing wages.
What type of participation as far as how many contractors, or the
percentage of contractors that have to live in the city as far as
MBE. The percentage of, what is it, 26% that
the-
The floor
... yes, have to abide by. And that will be discussed probably actually
by a week or two after, and we'll sit down with the compliance team and with the
developer and the sponsors.
Is the customer to only have those conversations after it's been approved?
I would assume that there is some conversation going on right now about that.
I can weigh in on this. So Joe Lewis from the Department of Housing.
The project will be required to adhere to the
26/6 target.
How the particular-
Target means?
Yes, the MBE participation requirement, that is.
You said target like it's the ceiling.
Well, there's a compliance method by which they could opt out by
paying fees in that way.
Now you have the opportunity to opt out.
Well.
I'm glad you said that.
Let me be clear.
The plan is to adhere to 26 and six.
Mm-hmm.
Which subcontractors would contribute to that plan to
hitting those hurdles is a point that we
will discuss with the developer, with our construction period
monitoring staff,
at this upcoming
orientation meeting to touch on that, as well as the broader compliance
obligations during construction that the project will be subject to, including the
local hiring, the Davis-Bacon wages, and any other
applicable federal or local requirements in addition to 26 and six.
Okay.
You said something very key, that they will have the opportunity to opt out.
Is that-
Let me be clear too, that the idea is not that they have an option to opt
out. The idea is that there is a goal that they have to hit, and there are
penalties if they do not-
Yeah
...
meet that goal.
And
restitution as to those penalties would be
required to demonstrate compliance with us, if that is
ultimately the state of affairs we find ourselves contending with.
Mm-hmm.
The requirement, though, is 26 and six, is the participation.
In the event that that does not occur, there's no active opt-out option.
Let me be clear for the record.
Okay.
No active opt-out option. In the event that those targets are not met,
there is a financial penalty that the city will realize as a result of
that, or financial benefit
as a penalty to the developer. Yeah.
Okay.
I could go on and on about this. Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman Mitchell.
I think you could also speak to Alderman Martin.
Okay. Motion made by
Alderman Lee. Oh, she walked out. So
moved by Alderman
Irvin, recommending due pass. All those in favor of the motion
for item number four signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion carries.
The due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next meeting.
And Alderman O'Shea makes the motion recommending due
pass of item number five. All those in favor of that
motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the due pass recommendation
will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Congratulations, Alderman Martin.
Item number six-
Yeah
... is-- Oh, thank you, guys, too
Item number six is from the Department of Planning and
Development. It's an ordinance authorizing the
execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Board of
Education to provide TIF funds for improvements at
Irving C. Mollison Elementary School, located at
4415 South King Drive in the Third Ward, in
an amount not to exceed $5 million.
We're joined by Jamel Chambers,
and Vinnie Dye from CPS.
Morning,
Mr. Chambers.
Morning, Chairwoman Dowell.
Get close to the mic.
Yep. Good morning, Chairwoman Dowell, members of the Finance Committee.
For the record, my name is Jamel Chambers, and I serve as the Executive Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs for the Chicago Public Schools, also joined by Vinnie
Dye, our Executive Director of Capital Planning and Construction,
and Jeff Cohen with the Department of DPD.
I'm here today to request your approval of an intergovernmental agreement to
provide up to $5 million in TIF assistance to provide a
facade, associated exterior improvements at Mollison Elementary
School.
Here is a map showing the general location of the project within the city.
The project is located at 4415 South King Drive in the
Grand Boulevard community area and Third Ward.
It is located within the 47th King Drive TIF District.
The project
site is bounded by 45th Street to the south, Vincennes Avenue to the east,
44th Street to the north, and King Drive to the west.
Here's an aerial showing the school.
Mollison is a neighborhood elementary school serving 220
students from grades pre-K through eight.
These are pictures to show the condition of the current facade.
If approved, the intergovernmental agreement would authorize up to $5 million in
TIF assistance, with the remaining $3 million coming from
CPS. The project will be completed by the winter of 2026.
If approved, TIF funding will be used to finance the project cost, the majority of
which are hard costs associated with materials and labor.
TIF funding would allow CPS to renovate the current facade and provide associated
exterior improvements to create a safe and welcome entrance for
students and staff. I thank you for your consideration, and I'm available to
address any questions that the committee may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chambers.
Any questions from members of the committee? Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and again, good afternoon members of the committee.
Good afternoon to our friends from CPS.
I feel like it was a month ago I asked, and we were joking about paying
parking tickets. Yet,
the most recent inspector general report shows that there are
5,413 CPS employees that owe the city of
Chicago
over $4 million.
Have we made any headway
in getting the scofflaws of CPS to pay what is owed
to the city of Chicago?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
So we do have a process at CPS where if an employee does
have an outstanding balance to the city for parking tickets, they are
required to make those payments, and it is sent over from our
general counsel to their supervisors to ensure that they make those payments.
And are they making those payments?
I would assume so. I can follow up with our general counsel.
Well, I wouldn't make that assumption because we had this conversation
for a number of months now, and
while I
would love to congratulate the chair on this
issue for her ward for the CPS,
we were told last month that you guys were going to have this rectified,
that we were going to start addressing this.
And
even in the inspector general's own report,
it says, and highlights, that there are
debt-related restrictions,
not just for businesses,
but also within the municipal code for corporations, partnerships,
and any entity with more than two people, which I believe CPS is an
entity with more than two people.
And for all of our edification, Municipal Code Section
2-154-010, actions
requiring city council approval,
subsection four references the fact that
you are required as an entity
to ensure that the city's scofflaws
are being addressed in accordance with Chicago Municipal Code
Section 2-92-416. So
we have multiple sections that have been referenced, multiple
conversations with regards to addressing
the outstanding debt. Now, going on
five and a half months into this year's budget,
I think we'd like a better understanding, other than an assumption, as
to whether or not we are collecting from those employees.
Yes, I understand. And while there may be existing debt that may be
owed from employees, I know that some employees have signed up for the payment
plan. So the debt may not be paid in full at this moment, but some people are
making monthly payments.
So some employees out of 5,400.
I don't have an exact number.
So what I would like, if you could provide through the chair,
out of the 5,400, how many of your employees
who clearly our inspector general has identified as owing us
over $4 million, how many of them are
actually getting on track to pay us what is owed?
They are all collecting paychecks from the taxpayers.
They all owe this body money, and you are here today asking
us for $5 million when you owe us $4 million.We should
just give you one and split the difference.
But that's not how this works. That's too easy.
What we do need to do is have
the Board of Education and the Chicago Public Schools take
seriously what we are asking when we say, "Start
dealing with the scoff laws within your employees."
So Chairman,
if we can have that provided to us.
Yes. I appreciate your sensibilities,
Alderman Lopez, and agree with
your point. So
we can get through the chair from CPS
their understanding of where they are with scoff law
payments, and we can on the other hand, also ask our
chief financial officer
or our comptroller,
what they're seeing too for this year,
and get that back to you through the chair.
Yeah.
Okay?
Got you.
Got that?
But I need somebody to make a motion on my project right here.
I'll take it, Alderman Lopez. Motion made by Alderman
Lopez, recommending do pass. All those in favor of the motion
signify it by saying "aye."
Aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this.
Mollison Elementary School is a neighborhood elementary
school in my community,
long disinvested in.
And we have been able through CPS to get
lots of things done there, a new
HVAC system, the playground, the parking
lot, and now the exterior improvements that are most needed.
So thank you very much. Appreciate you all.
Thank you. Moving on to item number seven is an
order from the Department of Planning and Development, is a ordinance
authorizing the execution of the first amendment to the
redevelopment agreement with West Side Health Authority to modify
the disbursement structure of tax increment financing assistance
for Aspire Center project located at
5500 West Madison Street in the
29th Ward, and in an amount not to exceed
$12,250,000. We're joined by
Jeffrey Cohen, from the Department of Planning and
Development, who is the deputy commissioner, who will be the presenter on
this. Good morning or good afternoon now,
Mr. Cohen.
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair Dowell and members of the Finance
Committee. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, deputy commissioner of the
Bureau of Economic Development within Department of Planning and Development.
I'm joined today by Shivam Patel, financial planning analyst in the box, who
is also with the bureau, as well as Willis Reed, CEO of West Side Health Authority,
and Darnell Shields of Austin Coming Together, representing the development team.
I'm here today to request your approval of a first amendment to the redevelopment
agreement between the city and West Side Health Authority and Austin Coming
Together. The action being requested today is the advancement of the final
installment payment of $6,125,000 in
TIF funds. If approved, this action will assist with the cost savings in
conjunction with the now completed redevelopment of the former Emmett Elementary
School into the Aspire Center, a workforce training, career and
entrepreneurial development center, which was originally approved by this body and
city council in April of 2023.
The project is located at 5500 West Madison Street in the 29th
Ward, Austin Community area, and West Planning region, as well as
in the Madison-Austin TIF district.
Alderman Taliaferro is in support of the amendment.
The subject property is highlighted in red on this map, which sits at the northwest
corner of Madison and Central. The site takes up more than half of the block, and
the building itself is approximately 76,000 square feet.
The property is notable as it was originally constructed as the Emmett Elementary
School in 1911 and had been vacant since its closing in 2013.
The project, which received its certificate of completion in February of
2026, again, took a long vacant and shuttered CPS school and
transformed it into an architecturally significant resource for the community.
The project consisted of the exterior stabilization, window replacement, and a new
dramatic glass atrium. The project also continues to be in strong alignment
with the Austin Forward Together plan, which identified the community's priority to
advance job training efforts and invest in entrepreneurialship programs, as well
as the development of a dedicated facility to support both.
Just as a recap, the project redeveloped the former school as an approximately
76,500 square foot workforce training and career development center,
as well as a manufacturing training center with commercial space and community
plaza. The interior spaces are primarily used to serve the function of West Side
Health Authority and the Austin Coming Together program.
As mentioned, the scope of work included the full redevelopment of the building,
including stabilization of the exterior masonry, roof replacement, the
replacement of all building systems, interior build-out, and the construction of a
new three-story glass atrium and front entry addition.
The developer of this project is a joint venture between West Side Health
Authority and Austin Coming Together, two of the West Side's most prominent
nonprofit organizations.
If anybody does not know, West Side Health Authority has been serving the
Greater West Side since 1988 with a focus on community organizing,
employment services, and community re-entry through its Austin Wellness Center.
Austin Coming Together is a support organization that connects 50 nonprofit,
faith-based, public, and private entities that provide Austin residents with
critical service.
The total cost of the construction for this project was approximately $41
million. $12.25 million of that budget, or
approximately 30%, was approved to come from TIF assistance.
Other funding sources for this project included $10.6 million in new market tax
credits, $10 million in state funds, and $8 million in philanthropic
donations.The originally approved financial structure was
to reimburse the developer up to 12.25 million in TIF eligible
costs into installment payments.
The first payment was to be provided at the certificate of completion, and the
second would be made one year after receipt of the certificate.
The project was issued COC in February 2026 and did receive its
first installment payment.
Oops.
The purpose of the amendment is to revise the terms of their existing redevelopment
agreement to restructure the second disbursement.
The necessity of the amendment is to realize approximately one million in savings
by extinguishing high cost bridge financing and associated interest expenses,
allowing the development team to apply savings to the center's operation and
mission. This simple action will allow the developer to receive the second
disbursement of TIF funds equal to 6.125 million as a
reimbursement upon the execution of the first amendment.
No other modification or financial assistance is being proposed under this
amendment. The city's investment will continue to be protected by provisions in the
RDA that require the development team to operate the facility and maintain no less
than 50% occupancy for no less than 10 years following project
completion. Additionally, the project will also continue to deliver at least 500
individuals annually, receiving
training or job placement services over that same period.
If any of these conditions are not met, the city has the right to lien the property
and recapture previously disbursed funds.
DPD is supportive of this amendment, as it will save nearly one million in interest
expenses that will allow WHA and Austin Coming Together to apply
savings in support of operations at the Inspire Center to achieve its
mission of delivering job training to low income and vulnerable groups, including
youth, retired citizens, veterans, and disabled individuals on the West
Side. This amendment is also a demonstration of DPD's efforts and its approach
to community development by being a good faith and pragmatic partner when logical
cost saving measures are presented to ensure and enhance the long-term delivery of
essential community services. This amendment will have a meaningful impact on the
economy of not only the West Austin neighborhood, but also the greater West Side
of Chicago.
For all of these reasons, DPD is seeking the committee's favorable consideration of
this request. I, as well as members of the development team, are happy to answer
any questions the committee may have.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen. This area is served by the TIF
area, has a lot of aldermen involved in it, and we do
have letters of support from the 28th Ward Alderman Irvin
and the 37th Ward Alderman Mitts. However, the project is
located in the 29th Ward, where we have a letter of support,
and Alderman Taliaferro, would you like to comment on
your project?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to
reiterate some of the things that were previously said.
The Aspire Center, under the leadership of, West Side Health
Authority, as well as Austin Coming Together, have been a great
asset on the West Side, and particularly in the Austin community.
This allows them to continue to do their work, to finish
completion of the build-out of the space, and so I ask
for your favorable consideration.
Thank you, Alderman Taliaferro.
Seeing no questions from members of the committee, Alderman Sposato
recommends do pass. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it,
and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council
meeting. Thank you, Mr. Cohen, on that one.
Alderman Lee has requested a Rule 59,
for reasons
stated under the Rule 59. Can I have a motion to allow Alderman Lee
in the meeting? So moved by Alderman Irvin.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and Alderman
Lee, you are in the meeting when you get in.
Item number eight from the Department of Planning and Development is an ordinance
authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement with the
Workshop
Arts Collaborative LLC to provide tax increment
financing for
3741 through 3749 West
Lawrence Avenue in the 33rd Ward in an amount not to
exceed $1,550,000.
We're joined by Jeff Cohen to give this presentation. Mr.
Cohen?
Thank you again, Chair Dowell, and good afternoon, members of the Committee on
Finance. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, Deputy Commissioner of the
Bureau of Economic Development. I'm also joined today by Aaron Fogel,
Financial Planning Analyst in the box, who's also with the bureau, as well as James
Yellen with the developer. I'm here today to request favorable consideration of
an ordinance supporting a redevelopment agreement between the city and
the Workshops Arts Collaborative LLC for the purposes of providing TIF
assistance not to exceed $1,550,000 to
redevelop approximately a 6,500 square feet vacant building into an
arts hub and the new home of Workshops Art
Collaborative.
The subject property is located at 3741 West Lawrence Avenue in
the 33rd Ward, Albany Park community area and northwest planning
region. It is also located in the Lawrence Kedzie TIF district.
Alder Rodriguez Sanchez is in support of the project.
Here is an aerial view showing the surrounding neighborhood context consisting
primarily of residential and commercial uses along major
thoroughfares. The subject is located on the Lawrence Avenue corridor between
Hamlin and Lawndale Avenues. The property is within walking distance to the Kimball
Brown Line station to the east and less than a 10-minute drive to I-90 to the
west. It is also proximate to three Chicago public schools.
Here's a view of the current conditions of the site from the exterior.
The 104-year-old, 6,500 square foot common brick building is currently
vacant and only needs masonry work to the exterior.
On the other hand, the interiors are in need of significant rehabilitation and
modernization as shown here. The property has been vacant
for years and was last used as a commercial tools and construction equipment
wholesale shop.The building is currently divided into four tenant spaces, all of
which are in deteriorating conditions.
The project team is led by James Yellen, a Chicago-based community development
professional and artist who will also be operating the Workshop's Art
Collaborative. The project was designed by Future firm, and the
GC is Trellis.
Blue Eddy, led by Andrew Greer, provided development consultant services, and the
development team is represented by Elizabeth Santas of Elizabeth Santas
PC.
Financing for the project will be provided by First Eagle Bank and Cenare CDFI.
As mentioned, the applicant is Workshop Arts Collaborative LLC.
The project will redevelop a 104-year-old property into a dynamic
arts hub for local residents. It will offer multipurpose
space to musicians, as well as community-focused arts organizations,
emerging young artists, and other creatively inclined residents of Albany Park,
including students from Chicago Public Schools.
In addition to exterior masonry repairs, there will be an extensive rehabilitation
of the long-vacant property, including modernizing or replacing mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems with energy-efficient systems, as well
as weatherproofing and rooftop repairs to ensure the longevity of the
property. The applicant was selected as part of the Medium Community Development
Grant program in June of 2025 for a total investment by the city of
$1,550,000 provided as a TIF
grant. The total project cost is approximately $3.1 million, and
construction is slated to commence in June of
2026 and complete in February of 2027.
The project will be financed with a combination of equity, debt, and other grants,
in addition to the TIF funds. The developer will invest nearly $400,000,
has secured $250,000 in other grants as well.
These sources will be supplemented by a hybrid debt structure totaling $900,000.
The city's investment, again, is $1.55 million,
comprising approximately 50% of the total project cost.
Seventy-eight percent of the project will encompass hard and soft costs, with
approximately 21% applied to the acquisition.
On this slide here is a rendering of the proposed exterior rehabilitation,
and here are renderings of the interior showcasing the cafe space
and rehearsal corridors and rooms.
The TIF grant will reimburse eligible expenses upon achieving completion milestones
of 30%, 60%, and 90% completion, with the
last 10% being withheld until the issuance of the certificate of completion.
Also included in the redevelopment agreement are covenants that govern job
creation, as well as needing to operate and occupy the property throughout the
five-year compliance term. Finally, the developer will also be subject to
typical construction compliance
of prevailing wage, MWBE participation, and city residency requirements.
DPD is in support of this project, as it will bring $3 million of investment along
a primary corridor to create the Workshop Arts Collaborative and will
establish a multifaceted hub for arts and culture situated within the walls of a
currently vacant 100-plus-year-old building.
The Workshop Arts Collaborative aspires to be a catalyst for economic development,
revitalizing a quiet stretch of Lawrence Avenue into a dynamic space that will not
only provide affordable rehearsal studios, but also extend discounts to Chicago
Public School students, fostering accessibility and inclusivity.
Furthermore, the project demonstrates a commitment to equity by supporting
BIPOC-led small businesses and arts nonprofits through affordable
leases, contributing to the enrichment and vibrancy of the local cultural
landscape. The project will also increase access to the arts,
stimulate small business and artist entrepreneurship, fostering community
identity, and serve as a model for equitable arts-driven revitalization.
For these reasons, I would like to thank you for your
consideration of this
request. I and Jason are welcome to answer any questions the committee
may have.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen. And although Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez is not
here, she did provide a letter of support to the committee,
and if there are no questions, can I get a due pass
motion by Alderman Mitchell recommending due pass of
item number eight? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying
aye. Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the
ayes have it, and the due pass and recommendation will be reported out at the
next city council meeting. Item number nine is from the
Department of Planning and Development.
It's an ordinance authorizing the execution of the first
amendment to the redevelopment agreement with Celadon
Construction Corporation, NFP,
Celadon Partners, LLC, Blackwood Development
Partners, LLC, United Yards I, B,
LLC, and United Yards
I B
QALICB, LLC, to provide
tax increment financing, assistance, and modification of the
disbursement structure for the United Yards Project
I B at 4700 South Ashland
Avenue in the 20th Ward, in an amount not to exceed
$1,813,375
in TIF. We are joined by Jeffrey Cohen from
DPD. Jeff?
Thank you again, Chair Dowell, and good afternoon, members of the Committee on
Finance. Again, for the record, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, deputy commissioner
in the Department of Planning and Development.
I'm joined by William Grahams, financial planning analyst with the bureau,
as well as members of the development team.
I'm here today seeking an amendment of a previously approved redevelopment
agreement between the city and Celadon Construction Corporation, NFP,
Celadon Partners, LLC, and Blackwood Development Partners, LLC, for the
purposes of authorizing approximately $1.8 million in additional TIF
funding, as well as a restructuring of the disbursement structure for the
redevelopment agreement that represents the showroom floor of the former Globets
department store.The subject property is located at
4700 South Ashland Avenue, which is in the New City community
area, and 47th and Ashland TIF district.
Alderwoman Jeanette Taylor of the 20th Ward has also provided a letter of support.
Okay.
An
RDA was previously approved for this project in April 2023 and
amended in October of 2024. The project involves the
rehabilitation of approximately 14,600 square feet
of ground floor space occupied by Friend Health, a federally qualified health
center, and another 8,200 square
feet of ground floor space leased by Back of the Yards, as well as
other locally owned businesses. The additional funding will specifically fund
costs outside the original scope of the project related to signage, storage,
and plumbing, as well as associated design and engineering expenses,
as well as interest-carrying costs to achieve stabilization.
The revised total project cost is approximately $19.2
million, which is an increase from the expected 17.4 at the time this was
previously approved. The increase is due to added scope for Back of the Yards
work and Friend Health, as well as additions for signage, storage, and plumbing.
As detailed on this page, you can see the specific budget that the
additional funding will provide a reimbursement for.
This item is part of the proposed United Yards development that was selected by DPD
as the winning respondent to a competitive Invest South/West RFP at
this location.
The matter before you today, phase 1B, is outlined in the yellow box
in this image. Phase 1A includes an affordable multifamily building with a
ground floor opportunity hub at 1515 West 47th Street.
Shown here is the ground floor space of the historic Goldblatt's building, a City
of Chicago landmark designated in 2013, which is the subject of
this RDA. The building was originally constructed in 1915 as the
J. Oppenheimer department store, but was later sold to Goldblatt Brothers, a
prominent Chicago-based department store that primarily operated in middle and
working class neighborhoods. The building was designed by Alfred Alschuler, a
prominent Chicago school architect, who also designed the London Guarantee Building
and the Hudson Motor Car Co. showroom at 222 South Michigan Avenue.
Shown here are the current facilities for Friends Health, which is now occupied.
And here are renderings of the Ira Saez Bakery,
Back of the Yards Coffee,
and the streetscape where the new additional blade signage will be present.
In addition to increasing the TIF grant by
$1,813,375, the amended
RDA also revises the payment schedule of the previously approved $5
million in TIF funds. The new structure is as follows.
The initial payment of 2.5 million will
occur at issuance of the certificate.
The second payment, equal to the amount requested under this ordinance, will be
made available upon execution of the first amendment.
A third payment will equal 1.25 million to be made available upon the
six-month anniversary of the certificate, and the final payment of
1.25 million will be made available upon the one-year anniversary of the
certificate. The city's investment will be protected by provisions in the RDA
that require the project to continuously operate for 10 years, and for the retail
spaces to be at least 80% occupied.
In addition, the RDA requires that the developer provides the retail tenants with
continued support and resources to maintain good standing and mature their business
operations, as well as a pathway to future ownership for their
spaces. The concept of local ownership was an issue that was identified as being
especially important to the community during the RFP process, so this provision
represents a significant benefit to the Back of the Yards
neighborhood.
Overall, DPD is highly supportive of the proposed project and the additional
funding. The project is in strong alignment with the community's desires for more
retail uses along the Invest South/West corridor.
The additional funding will also serve to complete the renovation of the building
and the completion of the build-out of the retail spaces.
As previously mentioned, the project will also fulfill the community's reinvestment
goals, including providing a pathway for local ownership, as well as providing
additional technical assistance for small, locally owned businesses operating from
the location. Finally, the project will serve to activate a major corner
and catalyze future development along this thoroughfare.
I'd like to thank the committee for your favorable consideration of this request.
Again, I am joined by William Grams, as well as Aaron Weisner with
Celadon Partners, Jose Duarte and Rafael Hernandez of Blackwood,
which comprise the development team, as well as Jesse
Iniguez from Back of the Yards Works, and we are happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen, and this TIF district is shared by a number of aldermen,
and we have letters of support from all of them, including
Alderman Taylor, Alderman Lee,
Alderman Gutierrez, Alderman Lopez,
and Alderman Coleman.
Any questions from members of the committee?
Seeing no questions, Alderman Lopez moves do
pass. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city
council meeting. The last item on the agenda is actually
three items that will be presented by the Department of Planning and
Development, items 10, 11, and 12.
We will hear them together, but we will vote on each item
separately. And to give us that
report, item number 10 we'll take first, is an
ordinance approving amendment number three to the redevelopment plan
for the Canal Congress Tax Increment Financing redevelopment
project and plan to provide for the redevelopment of the
expanded area, which takes in the 28,
34th, and 42nd Ward. Mr. Cohen is here
from the Department of Planning to present that item to
us.Mr. Cohen
Thank you again, Chair Dowell, and again, good afternoon members of the Committee
on Finance. My name is Jeffrey Cohen, deputy commissioner with the Department of
Planning and Development.
I'm also joined by Emily Kish, financial planning analyst in the box.
I'm here today to present the proposed third amendment to the Canal Congress
Redevelopment Area
and to request the committee's approval of this amendment.
These three ordinances collectively expand and establish the legislative and
financial framework for the amended expanded Canal Congress Tax Increment
Financing District. The first ordinance approves amendment number three to the
original redevelopment plan, modifying the scope to integrate and
designate designated expanded area.
The second ordinance formally designates this newly added territory as a
localized redevelopment project area in accordance with the statutory
guidelines of the Illinois TIF Act.
And finally, the third ordinance legally adopts tax increment allocation
financing for the expansion, enabling the city to capture and reallocate
localized property tax to fund specific infrastructure and economic
development initiatives within that footprint.
The Canal Congress Tax Increment Financing District is in the Near West Side
community area and the central planning area.
30% of the current TIF district falls within Ward 28 and
68% in Ward 34. Alderman Irvin provided a
letter of support in January of 2026, and Alderman Conway provided a
letter of no objection in April of 2026.
The Canal Congress TIF district was designated on November 12th, 1998, for
an initial term of 23 years. It was amended the first time in
2002 to extend the termination date and a second time in
2022 to extend the term of the TIF by 12 years for an expiration
date of 2034. The changes proposed today constitute the third
amendment of the Canal Congress TIF.
The current Canal Congress TIF district, shown here in blue, is generally bounded
by Madison, Monroe, and Adam Streets on the north, Clinton and Canal
Streets and the south branch of the Chicago River on the east, and Congress Parkway
and Harrison Street on the south.
The Kennedy Expressway and Des Plaines Street on the west are the western flank.
This area comprises approximately 41 acres.
For reference, critical infrastructure improvements in the district that have been
funded by TIF over the past five years include the Harrison and Canal Streets
viaduct improvements and improvements to Union Station.
The third amendment will allow the city to expand the current TIF boundary
southward to incorporate two tax parcels comprising the Greyhound bus
station located at 630 West Harrison Street.
The amendment will also allow the city to acquire these parcels.
It is important to note that allowing the city to acquire these parcels does not
constitute approval of the acquisition of these parcels, nor does it obligate the
city to acquire these parcels. It simply provides the city the authority to do so.
The amendment will also include an updated land use plan and a revised budget to
accommodate future project expenditures, including the acquisition.
The proposed added area is generally bounded by Harrison Street on the south,
Congress Parkway and Service Street to the north, Des
Plaines Street on the west, and Jefferson Street on the east.
The added area falls completely within the 34th Ward and comprises
approximately three acres. Again, the total area of the amended TIF district
would be approximately 44 acres. Here is an
aerial image of the current Greyhound bus facility bounded by Jefferson, Harrison,
Des Plaines, and the Service Street to the north.
The owner of the existing Greyhound bus station plans to sell the property at
630 West Harrison and discontinue all bus operations as part of the
company's business realignment.
Existing bus service at the Greyhound station is heavily utilized by locals and
visitors, primarily due to its proximity to Union Station, the CTA Blue
Line, and several CTA bus routes. The city values this community benefit
and plans to acquire the station to preserve its continued use as an inner-city bus
station.
To retain this transit asset, correct the impacts of the site's neglect, and
support continued economic development in the area, the city proposes to expand the
current TIF boundaries to include this block and to amend the redevelopment project
cost to accommodate the acquisition.
Again, the purpose of this amendment is not to approve the acquisition, but to
allow the city the authority to acquire those parcels.
In conclusion, I ask for the committee's approval of the third amendment of the
Canal Congress Redevelopment Project Area.
Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have regarding
to this matter.
Thank you,
Jeff Cohen. I will go first to Alderman Vice
Chair Conway.
If, Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to speak last, if that's okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Chairman Irvin.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This
redevelopment, I guess, expansion to bring in the
Greyhound station, I think makes total sense.
I was in conversations with Greyhound to come up with a new
facility. However, the facility that currently exists has the
best access to everything, including CTA,
Amtrak, and other modes of transportation
connection that generally would find its way
with individuals who use the bus as their primary
means of transportation. So, definitely support this, as
this does help people who,
in many cases, don't have any other options to move around.
So again, thank the department
for their work on this and look forward to supporting this at the appropriate
time. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman. Who is the property owner?
The property is owned by 20 Lakes Holdings.
They're the real estate division of Alden Global
Capital, the same people that bought "The Tribune."
They bought Greyhound, the property, and the operations.
It has since been split into two parts of the real estate on one
side and the operations operating under FlixBus as the other side of
this.
Okay. Thank you. Alderman Lopez, did you have a question?
Yes. Thank you, Chairman, and again, good afternoon, members of the committee.
So I appreciate the
trifecta of the conversation,
but so that I'm understanding this correctly,
we want to amend this TIF so that we can purchase
this station?
Yes, that's the primary purpose.
And the cost of the station is how much?
The acquisition, I believe, is approximately $19 million, and
there will be a robust and comprehensive plan put together that
the
2FM, CDOT, as well as CPD will put together-
Can you speak a little louder to-
Sorry.
Repeat your-
Yeah. So the acquisition cost will be approximately $19 million, and
there's currently a development of a plan that will be introduced in this month's
city council to further explain what those redevelopment costs would be.
And what are those redevelopment costs in the ordinance that you're planning on
introducing?
Well, I'd rather let my colleagues at the other department speak, but generally
speaking, it's going to be to rehabilitate, modernize HVAC facility,
provide updated streetscape, and safety improvements.
And how much is that?
We currently have allocated approximately $30 million on the TIF cash flow
report for that.
So it'll be a $30 million facelift for the station?
I think those numbers are still being determined at this point.
As in, is that the lowball? You're asking us to
expand for a purpose, and I'm assuming you know the purpose,
so I'm trying to understand and have this make sense to me.
So
let me maybe re-explain that. So there's essentially two phases to this,
is the acquisition and immediate repairs, which there is a defined number for.
I believe it's around $27 million.
This will allow us to acquire and do the immediate upgrades that are necessary for
public safety and the improvements to the facility.
So if I may, so there's $6 million in immediate repairs on top of the
$19 million for the purchase price?
That's my understanding, yes.
Okay.
Continue, please.
And then, over the next couple of months after the acquisition,
we'll be able to do a more comprehensive plan to finalize the actual redevelopment
costs.
So after we spend $27 million to buy it, $6 million
and rehab it, then we'll have another $30 million to
give it a facelift and do everything else?
Yes.
So as of right now, we are
talking about roughly $57 million at minimum
for this project, yes?
No.
We only have $50 million allocated for this project-
We only have what?
... through the city. Only 50 is allocated for the city at the moment.
So
then where are we short? Because you just said that we had...
Is the 50 inclusive of the 27?
So sorry, the $50 million is inclusive of the acquisition, immediate repairs, as
well as additional funds for the future enhancement of the facility.
So then...
I'm sorry?
What?
Repeat your question before I go over to here.
Well,
I'm asking what the cost after we buy and do the
immediate repairs is. You said there's only $50 million for the entirety of what
we're talking about, but you said that we're already looking at tomorrow's or
Wednesday's introduction being roughly $30 million.
So
that does not equal 50. We're $7 million beyond that.
So I'm just trying to get a sense of what we're talking about here.
I think that the current estimates for the-
And if my colleague would like to...
Alderman Urban.
I think your question is, is the six inclusive of the 30 that's
being allocated on with the 19 and the 50?
That's what you're really asking.
Then if that is the question, no. The six is currently with the acquisition
authority and immediate repairs, with an additional up to $30 million
available for improvements down the road.
You don't have a full budget for the
additional improvements beyond acquisition and
stabilization, maybe?
I do not have that in my knowledge, but I can ask my colleagues at
2FM for their estimates at the moment.
Through the chair.
With respect to my colleagues,
I feel like this is a half-baked plan that's being presented to us, and that I'm
being asked to pay the bill, and I don't even know if we're done eating yet.
Clearly this is a large project. Clearly,
our departments know exactly what the end game is here, and
clearly, we're not being told what the final cost is.
I
have difficulty with that,
because I think that at a time when we've
seen our TIFs being
used as piggy banks at the end of the
year,
this could easily be
a lot more than what we're talking about.
And that can definitely have a very adverse impact on
what we're trying to do. This TIF that we're talking about
amending, when is its expiration date?
2034.
And
in eight years, we plan to have all of
these obligations paid off by then?
That is my understanding, yes.
Okay. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman Conway.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I appreciate my
colleague, Alderman
Lopez'sQuestions on this?
And I would simply note that today we're here just talking about
expanding the boundaries of the Canal Congress TIF to include
this station.
And it is extremely important that this city have a
multimodal bus station. This
bus station serves thousands of Chicagoans and visitors who rely upon
multimodal transportation options.
And it's also worth noting it stands as a
important access
for women's healthcare as well. There was a recent article
that said Illinois is the destination for one in four people looking for
reproductive services in this country.
And
the clinic, Family Planning and Associates, is actually five or six blocks from
this very facility. And many of those folks
utilize this bus network. And
so we need to make sure for everyone, and
all the users of this, that we preserve access to regional bus transport and make
sure we
set up this station safely and successfully.
And I can tell you that my community and myself have shared many concerns
about the ongoing issues at this site, particularly regarding safety and
traffic.
And from previous presentations, it seems that these were
not thoroughly considered
by the administration, and I brought them up to DPD and
at CDC as well. Some things to note is, first,
on a public safety matter, this station has had
significant public safety issues for years, including a tragic
murder of Greyhound employee Dejuan Gaddis there in
2022, shortly before I took office.
And neighbors and passengers certainly deserve a clear plan on that.
Second, this is already a busy area.
It's near a courthouse. It is part of major commuter routes.
So we needed to understand the impact of additional traffic in this area.
And lastly, if we're taking over a bus station, we need some clarity on the
governance and operational plans for the station.
And after the hearing at CDC, I think made clear that many of those
important
questions remain unanswered. I have since worked with the
Department of Planning and Development to convene a meeting of roughly
20 representatives from not only DPD, but CDOT, Streets and
Sanitation, the Chicago Police Department, and other key
stakeholders to work through these issues in great detail.
And I will tell you that I have appreciated the
collaboration that has followed.
More work to be done, but I've appreciated that collaboration, and as a result,
I think plans are certainly beginning to come together to address
many of the community's concerns, including enhanced
security, traffic management, sanitation, and
day-to-day operations. I think we need some more input from Chicago Police
Department, but things are heading in the right direction.
So I will assure my colleagues
that looking forward, before we spend tens
of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to buy the station itself,
I will certainly make a continued effort to work with the departments to advocate
and ensure that we operate this facility in a way that is
safe for commuters, the community, and is
a great asset for the city as well. And with that,
Madam Chairwoman, I move to pass.
Thank you, Vice Chair Conway. I just wanted to acknowledge that Planned
Parenthood of Illinois did send in a support letter in support of
the actions that we're taking today.
And I wanted to say to Alderman Lopez that the
effort to acquire rehab,
develop that location does have to come back before us,
where we'll get a chance to really dig into those numbers if that is
the desire of the committee. And look at the safety
and operational plans that Vice Chair Conway is talking
about. That comes before us again.
So with that, is there a motion to recommend approval of item
number 10?
Motion made by Vice Chair Conway
recommending passage of item number 10.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass the recommendation
will report it out at the next city council meeting.
Alderman Irvin makes a motion recommending passage of
item number 11. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass the
recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
And Alderman Knutson recommends passage of item number
12.
All those in favor of that motion signify by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass the recommendation
will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
And there being no further business before the committee, can I get a motion to
adjourn? So moved by Alderman Martin to adjourn.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
This finance committee meeting is hereby adjourned. Thank you all.
Have a great afternoon.