Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules
will be subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by
the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose. Or three, when
asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances, are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags,
and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color,
that do not exceed 12 inches by six inches by twelve
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace, pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules
will be subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by
the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request. Individuals must remain seated at all
times except, one, when entering or exiting the
gallery. Two, when providing public comment during the
portion of a meeting set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting-
Close out of it
... or other loud utterances, are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
Sergeant at Arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags,
and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color,
that do not exceed 12 inches by six inches by 12
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace, pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these
rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the
meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or
any of its committees. All individuals and their belongings are
subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant-at-arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
sergeant at arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags,
and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color,
that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12 are
permitted and subject to search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated,
and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere
with the ability of other individuals to view or hear the
proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to
adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the
remainder of the meeting by the sergeant at
arms. City of Chicago City Council
Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings, 2023 to
2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the sergeant at arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council or
any of its committees. All individuals and their belongings are
subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
sergeant at arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or
metal canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags,
and sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color,
that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in
a manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules
will be subject to removal from the remainder of the meeting by
the sergeant at arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the sergeant at arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances, are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the
sergeant at arms, is prohibited in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, one, any
pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
Two, banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
Three, food and beverages, including in glass or metal
canisters. Four, backpacks, large bags, and
sealed packages. Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do
not exceed 12 inches by 12 are
permitted and subject to search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace pepper spray, and toy weapons, cell
phones, and other small handheld-
Good morning, everyone.
Tuesday, right?
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 Hall.
Alderman Beale.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Curtis. Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Sancho Lopez. Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas. Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell is here.
We have a quorum. We have 18.
Alderman Knutson, Nugent, Rodriguez,
Mitz, Harris, and Mitchell have requested to
participate remotely at today's meeting for
reasons stated under the provision of Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to allow these aldermen to participate?
So moved by Alderman Martin. All those in favor signify by saying
"Aye."
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it. And I'd like to confirm Alderman Knutson.
Present, Chair.
Nugent.
Rodriguez.
Present.
Mitz.
Harris.
And Mitchell. Present here.
At this time, we will begin the public comment period.
The public comment period will be limited to 30 minutes.
Yes, 30 minutes today. And out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is
limited to three minutes.
Our first speaker is Danielle Carter.
Ms. Carter, before you start, I just want to acknowledge Alderman
Lospada and Alderman Lee,
and Alderman Taliaferro, and Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Ms.-
Thank you.
Ms.-
Hello, my name is Danielle Carter, and I am running for mayor of
2027.
I wanted to talk about
what's happening
with the storm and water.
We pay 348
million a year
for the Department of Streets and Sanitation.
We pay 774 million a
year
for the Department of Water Management.
And I see all over Facebook, all over social media,
residents, especially on the South Side, complaining
because they still have trees all around blocking the
sidewalk, blocking the streets, which we know is a hazard,
and you all haven't came over to South Side and picked them up.
We also have water, and I experience that where I live
at. The water doesn't go down when we have rain, so we have the
water just stand up on the curb, which brings
mosquitoes, and it starts smelling.
So we pay too much in taxes to go through this, the
residents.
And what we want to know is where our money is going.
Because if it's not going for the basic services for the
residents, then where is it going?
And that's why my administration will conduct a full
forensic audit on every department here to see
where our money is going, and I will show the public that.
Because this don't make no sense.
Especially when our property taxes
tripled on the South and West Side, but we can't get no services
over there. Go look at your constituents. Go look.
They're all on Facebook and social media complaining about this and saying the
same thing.
So we know that you all are the legislative body,
but you all don't do anything to help or listen
to your constituents. Because if you do, you will see what's going on
in the community.
And what I'm saying now, we're going to be talking about these meters.
We know that it's still four aldermen in here that
voted on that terrible
meter
sale that you all should have said no to.
But four allowed it, and you all still here.
I'm not going to put y'all names out. I probably do when I speak the next time.
But you all have to do better as a legislative body.
Please listen to your constituents.
Please do, because when I'm sitting in that seat, I expect all of us to come
together and do what's right for the citizens.
Thank you, Ms. Carter. The next speaker is Zoe Lay.
Well,
I'm going to put them out there. Anthony Bill, Pat Dowd, Michelle Harris,
Walter Burnett Jr., but he's not here anymore.
Brandon Riley, Emma Mitts, probably some more.
And that was in 2008. I don't know what
made y'all think that that was appropriate at that time.
Just because if the meters was making
$23 million
for the city, and you guys sold it for
$1.15 billion
to a
country overseas,
and now you're thinking about going to New York and
selling it there,
the
taxpayers still have to pay
for that until 2083. I'm not even going to be here anymore.
And probably nobody else really in here
will be.
But because you guys are the legislative body, the city
council, and you guys vote
just terrible.
Fast-forward to the Narcan machines, the vending machines.
The fact that y'all are okay with Narcan vending machines
out here because you guys are going to just deal with the drug
epidemic 2.0, which the first drug epidemic,
Black communities, blighted areas still have
not been able to function
on top of the mass incarceration. Then the COVID
scam, and then the illegal immigration Ponzi scheme.
Now we're dealing with, you guys are trying to make
us LA or California or San Francisco
with the Narcan vending machines that we're paying millions of
dollars. The way that y'all vote in
here is ridiculous. And the fact that y'all think that people are
going to continue to allow this to happen is
crazy. I'm 40 years old. I'm not going another 10
years, 20 years of watching y'all not care about the
community because y'all get paid six figures.
Y'all get $1.5 million a year, and clearly the South Side,
West Side aldermen don't do nothing with it.
17th Ward used his for whatever he does with his
money, instead of making sure that my family was whole.
So I'm going to continue to come down here until y'all get up out
of office, man, because y'all really do not care.
Why would y'all sell the meters to a foreign
country
and then
y'all praise Daley? Daley is a piece of trash.
A piece of trash.
He should be locked up right next to Madigan.
Thank you, Ms. Lay.
Our next speaker is Andre Santana.
Want to acknowledge Aldermen Mosley, Cardona, and Riley have
joined us and will be counted towards quorum.
Mr. Santana.
Good morning.
I'm here to speak out and help out our school, Mariano
Izuela. I am a former student there,
graduated, and
we're here to talk about our artificial field that we want.
We've been working really hard and speaking out a lot to
really want this field.
For years now, we have had our soccer team and track and
field team not have a place to really practice at
all, and we are really good at our sports
here at Izuela.
We want to have this field to have our students
have a really better opportunity at what they do,
and I know as for me as a brother, my sister,
she really likes her sports and I like to see that in her,
and it really brings out the passion that she likes
to do soccer, to do track and field, and
cross country. She does a lot, and I really want her to have the
Really good opportunity to
have that opportunity. And not just her,
but everyone else in our school.
For me, I really wanted that opportunity, and we
really never had that chance. And now for me to speak up
and be able to put my voice out there, I really
want this field to come,
because obviously it's nothing. We have a playing out field,
and sports
is really, really important for us, and we just want to really put
it out there. And
let's see. Overall, we just really want this.
It's the
biggest hope we really want here.
We just love overall sports. That's all we can really
say.
But
I just really want to help out. I want to help out everyone that we can
and give them the chance to have a better
opportunity.
Just
a better chance than what I did, really.
I don't have much to say. That'll be all.
You've said it, Mr. Santana. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We got you.
Alison Santana
is the next speaker,
followed by Angelica Tapia.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Alison Santana.
Thank you.
I am 12 years old. I am a student at Mariano Azuela School, and I will be
entering seventh grade.
I'm here today to respectfully ask for your support in
building an artificial soccer field for our school.
This field will give students a safe and reliable place to play
sports, exercise, and stay active throughout the year.
Right now, when the weather is bad or the
fields get muddy, many activities have to be
canceled. An artificial field will allow students to practice and play
more often.
A new field will also help students develop teamwork, discipline,
leadership, and healthy habits. Sports teach us important life
skills and help young people focus on positive activities.
As a member of the soccer team at Azuela, cross country
team, and track team in Azuela,
I would like to say that this field will help us a lot.
We have gone to city and regionals,
even though we are one of the schools that are less advantaged.
I feel that with this artificial
soccer field, we could accomplish way more.
And it will not only help
students and our sports team,
this field could also help to be used
for school events, community programs, and youth sports,
bringing families together and creating a stronger community.
On behalf of my classmates, our families, and our school community, I
respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Santana.
Angelica Tapia,
followed by Angie Montalvo.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Angelica Tapia, and I'm here to
support the new soccer field at Mariano Azuela.
I'm the proud mom of four children, Andres and Alison
Santana, two of them. Andres already
graduated from Azuela, and then I had another son, Angel.
He graduated as well from Azuela. And then I still have
Alison and Alexander. So I'm here because we have been
working really hard
to get this soccer field for more than three years.
I know it's a lot of things going on, but as a mom,
I always try to support my children, and it
makes me really sad when my
child comes back home and states that,
even though they got to regionals and we
went really far in the soccer team, she did mention that,
"Well, our school is the only school that made it to the
final that didn't have a soccer field." So I'm here
because we've been working really hard, and
this will not only help that school, but everybody in the
community.
Currently, the children have limited access to
play outside. When it rained, they come back home
dirty because they want to play. They're children.
Obviously, they want to be outside.
So we're here respectfully to ask if you can help
us
with the soccer field.
That is not only going to be for soccer, but like my daughter mentioned, for
many other activities. And
I would just like to get your support on this matter. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I would like to acknowledge Alderman
Curtis, who's joined us and will be counted towards quorum,
along with non-members Alderman Hadden, Alderman Tabaras, and Alderman
Nugent.
The next speaker, Angie Montalvo,
followed by Briseyda Martinez.
Hello. Good morning. I'm going to do my speech in Spanish.
Can you speak into the
mic, please?
Gracias por brindarnos la oportunidad de dirigirnos
a ustedes hoy. Mi nombre es Angie Montalvo.
Soy madre de familia de la escuela Mariano Azuela.
Actualmente I work with CPS.
Donde tengo la oportunidad de apoyar y trabajar con los estudiantes todos los
días. Estoy aquí hoy en representante de muchos padres,
estudiantes y miembros de nuestra comunidad para
solicitar respetuosamente su
apoyo
para la instalación de un campo artificial de
fútbol en la escuela Mariano Azuela.
Solicito su apoyo para la instalación de un campo
artificial de fútbol en la escuela Mariano Azuela.
Este proyecto beneficiará a cientos de estudiantes y
familias de nuestra comunidad. Actualmente, nuestros estudiantes
cuentan con acceso limitado a instalaciones
deportivas de calidad. Un campo artificial
proporciona un espacio seguro y
adecuado donde los estudiantes podrían
participar en clases de educación física, entrenamientos
deportivos, eventos escolares y actividades
recreativas durante todo el año. Los
deportes tienen una enseñanza, un papel
fundamental en el
desarrollo de nuestros niños y jóvenes.
Les enseñamos disciplina, trabajo en equipo, liderazgo
y
responsabilidades
y hábitos saludables. Además, los
mantiene activos, comprometidos y enfocados en
actividades positivas desde la escuela.
Este campo no solo beneficiará a los estudiantes de la escuela Mariano
Azuela, sino también a las familias y organizaciones
comunitarias, que podrían utilizarse para promover eventos
recreativos y comunitarios.
También quiero informarles que este proyecto cuenta con una
fuerte respuesta de
nuestra comunidad. Se realizó una
campaña de recolección de firmas entre los
padres de familias y la escuela.
El interés y la necesidad de contar con esta
instalación deportiva para nuestros
estudiantes es firmas representante a la voz a los
padres que desean mejorar oportunidades para nuestros hijos
y que crean en la importancia de invertir en
espacios seguros, positivos para nuestros
jóvenes. Por esta razón, lo pedimos
respetuosamente.
Gracias.
Briselda Briseida Martinez, followed
by Fernando Lino.
Hello, everyone. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Briseida Martinez, and I am
here today on behalf of our beautiful
community of Mariano Azuela, as well as
representing some of our families and some of our students as well.
I myself am a mother of a little one who's
joining me today. He will be going to second grade,
and we are requesting fundings
for a turf space that will help them on the better
development for the kids, have them entertained.
And not only that, but to benefit and contribute for their mental
health,
developing in areas to be more successful on their
schooling
subjects as well. Many of our students do not have access to
good quality outdoor spaces in our neighborhood,
and that's why we are requesting these funds for our turf field.
This would give them a place to play,
to run, learn, learn teamwork,
and stay active year-round. It is very important for
us to this field become a reality for our students because
we've been fighting for a couple of years now, and we have
all our support on this side.
We can raise our hands a little bit.
Our students deserve the same opportunity as children
across the city. A safe and durable turf space would
reduce injuries, improve accessibility, and
create a welcoming environment where students can build confidence,
friendships, and healthy habits.
As parent and community members, we see firsthand how
important outdoor activity is for our children's development.
By supporting this project, you are investing in the future of
our students and strengthening the entire community.
We respectfully ask for your support and funding
consideration for this much-needed activity.
Thank you all for your time, and have a wonderful day.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Fernando Lino, followed by
Gloria Taylo.
Buenos días, mi nombre es Fernando Lino.
Sí, buenos días.
Okay.
Sí, mi nombre es Fernando Lino.
Okay. Thank you.
Estoy aquí en nombre de las familias, los estudiantes y la
comunidad de la escuela Mariano Azuela.
Estamos solicitando financiación para un espacio de
césped que proporcione a nuestros hijos un
área segura, accesible y funcional para
la recreación, la educación física, las
actividades comunitarias.
Muchos de nuestros estudiantes no tienen acceso a
espacios al aire libre de calidad En su
vecindario. Un campo de césped les
debería lugar para correr, jugar,
aprender trabajos en equipo y
mantenerse activos durante todo el año.
Es
más que un simple campo, es una inversión
en su salud física, bienestar mental
y éxito
académico.
Nuestros estudiantes merecen las mismas
oportunidades de los niños de toda la ciudad.
Un espacio de césped seguro,
duradero,
reduciría las lesiones, mejoraría las accesibilidades
ambientes
acogedores donde los estudiantes puedan
construir confianza,
amistad y hábitos saludables.
Como padre y miembro de la comunidad, vemos de
primera mano lo importante que es la actividad al aire libre
para el desarrollo de nuestros hijos.
Al apoyo este proyecto está
invirtiendo en un futuro de nuestros
estudiantes y fortaleciendo a toda la comunidad.
Le pedimos
respetuosamente su apoyo y consideración de
financiación para esta mejora tan
necesaria. Gracias por su tiempo y por su
compromiso con los estudiantes de Chicago.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Gloria Taylo,
followed by George Blakemore.
Good morning, everyone. I'm the proud principal of Mariano
Azuela Elementary School, who
serves a little over 670 students in the West Lawn
neighborhood. I'm here to advocate today for the funding of the
artificial turf at our school. As you know, our
students love their time outside during recess.
But as it currently stands, we have an open dirt field space with
very little for them to do, especially when the weather gets
muddy and unsafe. I hear it every single day.
Students come in from recess, and they say, "Ms.
Taylor, recess was boring." And we know
this should be the most fun time of their lives during the school day.
At the same time, many families come to me concerned about
their uniforms. They're, "Ms. Taylor, the dirty uniforms, I have to wash
them every single day." And you know, as a parent, when you're
working long hours, it is tough to have to wash or go to the
laundromat to wash uniforms.
That tells me something important.
We have a space that students want to use, but isn't fully working for them
as it stands. One of our Aztec Warrior core values is one
community, and I see that value mostly clearly when students are
outside together, playing, laughing, and building
friendships. That's why I'm advocating for this funding, a
multi-use artificial turf that would completely transform the student
experience. It would turn an empty dirt field into a safe,
clean, and reliable space that students can actually use every
single day
of the year. And as you heard, many of our student athletes say
that this is a space that they actually want and need.
You heard it here first, we are the network champs for years,
years in a row, and this space is critical for our
students. Thank you for listening to us today.
Thank you.
I'd like to acknowledge Alderman Cesar Lopez, who has joined
us and will be counting towards quorum.
George Blakemore is our next speaker, followed by Kashona
Harris.
Make it make sense. It's been a controversial over the
years of artificial.
Artificial.
They're continuously coming up saying artificial.
And I'm wondering, I'm not a soccer fan or anything.
I wonder, they having that in the Americas there,
Mexico and the United States. I wonder if they're going to use
artificial
or if they're going to have the grass.
So
it's not
good,
this artificial turf.
It's no good. And another thing,
why would you come to this body?
These are aldermen here. They have a school
board, Chicago School Board, and
that's where you should address these act,
the crisis there.
But the TIF?
The TIF.
The TIF fund was never supposed to be
to
sponsor and help these schools.
That was for development in
the communities.
So the TIF,
you have to wrote, "But no, Mr. Blakemore, how can they do that?" That's what
they do. They 69 each other.
The school board and this body, they are two
separate taxing bodies.
But they come together when I use that term, 69-ing
each other.
There's supposed to be a separation between
Chicago Public Schools and Cook County
Board and these aldermen here
This mayor, where did he come from?
I say, "Don't beat up on Brandon Johnson." He comes from the school.
The racist Chicago school board.
So you're mixing water with oil here.
This is not the appropriate place, but they've been doing it.
Just because you've been doing it, doesn't mean it's right.
Just because you've got a culture of corruption, doesn't mean it's
right. And you're bringing these illegals in to get good
service contracts and jobs that these native Blacks can't
get. And these Black faces in high places voted for
them to get that. When your people need good service,
hospitalization, and
healthcare.
So again,
I deliberately put that red hat on because Trump didn't have
a darn thing-
Listen
... to do with racism here. It's been here.
It's been here with the all-Democratic party
here. Trump doesn't have a thing to do with it,
and it's still alive.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Kashona Harris?
Dr. Walker.
Hey, good morning.
My name is Kashona Harris, and I'm representing Bronzeville.
I'm coming on behalf of our community.
The predominance and the historical things that Ida B.
Wells Barnett, James Adams, Frederick Douglass, and et cetera, was
trying to uplift and build in our community, I hope to keep that driven and
going.
Today, I am here to address the critical gap in our city, one that directly
impacts health, dignity, and overall community stability.
The problem is,
in Chicago, 70,000 individuals experiencing homelessness is the
estimate. I believe there could be more due to the experience of
homelessness I endured.
While we have shelters and healthcare system in place, we're missing something
fundamental, consistent access to hygiene facilities.
Hygiene and health go hand in hand.
Without access to showers and sanitation, individuals are at higher risk for
infection, untreated wounds, disease transmission, and long-term health
complications. This is not just a social issue, this is a public
health issue.
When hygiene is neglected, it leads to increase in emergency room visits,
preventable illness, higher healthcare costs for the city.
Currently, there are little to no permanent hygiene facilities in the United States
designed to serve the communities in a structural, consistent way.
While cities like Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle have mobile hygiene programs,
those are temporary solutions.
Chicago, with its four seasons and harsh weather,
requires a permanent, stable solution.
CSA was designed to be the sanitation hygiene facility that
provides private shower stalls, hygiene supplies, clean clothes,
community resource listing, a safe and dignified environment.
This facility is not just about cleanliness.
It's about restoring dignity, improving health outcomes, and reconnecting
individuals back to society.
Health and hygiene. Health is directly connected to
hygiene. When individuals have proper access
to sanitation, infection rates decrease, mental health improves,
self-worth and confidence are restored, individuals are more likely to seek
employment and stability. Preventative care starts with something
as simple as access to water and hygiene.
After losing my brother to senseless gun violence here in Chicago,
I went through a period where I stopped taking care of myself.
I didn't shower, I didn't care about my appearance. I lost my sense of dignity.
One day, I was forced to look in the mirror and see how far I have fallen.
What helped me begin to heal was something as simple as a shower.
Day by day, piece by piece, hygiene helped me restore myself.
It helped me regain my confidence, my identity, my will to move
forward.
But the difference is, I had access to that.
There are people in our city who do not.
There are people who do not have access to these resources that seem so simple to
many of us, a therapeutic value of a
shower.
Thank you, Ms. Harris.
At this time, we have not received any written public
comments, and so this concludes the public
comment period.
I'd like to acknowledge Alderman Vasquez, who's
come in, and he's now part of the quorum.
Today, we have a total of nine items on the agenda,
and we'll start with the monthly Rule 45 report.
That report was sent electronically to everyone, and if there are no
questions, can I get a motion to approve the monthly Rule
45 reports?
Motion made by Alderman Taylor. All those in favor signify
by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it.
Item number one is from the Department of Law.
It's a communication transmitting reports of cases in which
verdicts, judgments, or settlements were entered into for the month of May.
This report was also 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.
It's three proposed orders authorizing the corporation
council to enter into and execute settlement orders in the
following cases.
2A, Jones versus City of Chicago, et al.,
case number
2023CV4975, in the
amount of $250,000. We're joined by
Chief Assistant Corporation... You're not-
I'm a deputy
That's okay. I'll take two.
Okay. You have Jones?
Yes.
Okay. We have Jessica Felter from the Department of Law, Deputy
Corporation Council, to give us this report. Jessica?
Good morning, Chair. Thank you. Plaintiff Michael Jones alleges that he was
wrongfully convicted for possession of a controlled substance,
heroin. He specifically claims that one or more of the defendant
officers fabricated a false narrative of his arrest,
memorialized that false narrative in reports, and
maliciously pursued his prosecution.
Plaintiff sued the City of Chicago and former officer
David Salgado, as well as three other defendant officers.
On March 31st, 2015, the defendant officers were
conducting narcotics surveillance in the area of
3903 West Roosevelt Road. First, they encountered a
man named Elgin Jordan. Officers Cox and Theodore
reported that they observed a man named Elgin Jordan selling
heroin. According to their reports, the officers arrested
Jordan at 9:45 a.m. Per his arrest report,
Jordan was transported to District 10 in a two-man car under Officer
Theodore's assigned beat. In contrast to
Jordan, the arrest report in plaintiff's case states that he was
arrested at 10:00 a.m. at the same location for possession of
suspected heroin. The original case report states that Officer
Cox witnessed plaintiff loitering at approximately
3903 West Roosevelt, and then on three similar
but separate occasions, witnessed three individuals approach plaintiff,
tender his money, and after plaintiff accepted the money,
the plaintiff would remove a clear plastic baggie from his right sleeve
and then provide it to the person. According to the reports, the officers
then approached plaintiff for a field
interview, and as they approached him, plaintiff looked at the officers, dropped
baggies which contained a white powder substance, and fled inside a store
at 3904 West Roosevelt. The report stated that
Officer Pruger recovered the baggies and plaintiff was placed into
custody. Plaintiff was then transported to District 10 for
processing. The plaintiff's arrest report says that he was
transported to the station at approximately 10:05 a.m.
under Officer Pruger's beat. Officer Theodore reported
that he recovered $53 on plaintiff's person, and the
original case report further states that while in the processing room,
plaintiff freely stated to Officers Theodore and Salgado, "Man,
I'm done working this drug BS. I needed
some quick cash for some new clothes." Plaintiff, however, has
alleged that the timing documented on his arrest report and in
the other paperwork contradicts officers' testimony in
Jordan's case.
Elgin Jordan was the other man who was arrested that day,
and he was arrested, according to the reports, at 9:45
a.m. But according to plaintiff, the testimony
of Officer Cox is
inconsistent because Officer Cox testified that after arresting
Jordan, he left the scene. But yet, Officer Cox
on the report says that at 10:00 a.m.
he observed plaintiff making multiple drug transactions.
According to plaintiff, it would've been impossible for Officer Cox to observe
Jones making three separate drug transactions and arresting him
approximately at 10:00 a.m. if they left the area with
Jordan at 9:45 a.m., as the report states.
Thus, plaintiff argues that the officers should not be believed
regarding all aspects of the arrest, including the documented admissions they
say plaintiff made at the station.
Plaintiff denies that he was ever in possession of the drugs, but he believed that
officers' lies would lead to his conviction and a significant
sentence if he opted for a trial, and therefore, he pleaded
guilty to a lesser offense of a sentence of three years.
He ultimately served 17
months total in custody.
After plaintiff had served his sentence in 2019, former
police officer and defendant in this case, David Salgado, was convicted of
various federal corruption charges stemming from the actions he took
while on duty as a Chicago police officer, including lying to
judges to obtain search warrants so he and then
Sergeant Xavier Elizondo could steal cash and drugs.
Salgado was sentenced to 71 months in federal prison.
He had been relieved of his police powers in 2018 and then
terminated by the police board in 2021.
In 2020,
plaintiff discovered the alleged discrepancy in the paperwork in his case
and the testimony between
his and Jordan's cases. Based on the allegations that Salgado and
his team lied to falsely convict plaintiff, plaintiff filed an unopposed
motion to vacate his conviction, and on August 26th,
2022, plaintiff's motion was granted and the state dismissed
the charges. On December 2nd, 2022, he was granted a
certificate of innocence.
When the state decided not to oppose plaintiff's petition to
vacate his conviction, the state's attorney told the court,
"Based on the documentation provided by the petitioner regarding the
timeline of his arrest and other arrests that occurred very close in
time, and sworn testimony by officers in a trial for the other
defendant and the preliminary hearing of Mr.
Jones, the People believe in the interest of justice that this
conviction should be vacated, so we will not oppose the petition for relief
from judgment." On November 3rd,
2025, plaintiff demanded a million dollars to settle all
claims in this case. After two settlement conferences,
plaintiff agreed to accept $250,000 subject to
this body's approval. Plaintiff will likely ask for $2
million or more at trial, and Salgado, in this
case, took the Fifth at his deposition, declining to answer any
questions about it.
If plaintiff prevailed at trial, his attorneys would also be
entitled to petition the court for attorney's fees, which
likely are going to be around $1 to $2
million. Considering the substantial risks at play
in this case with the main officer pleading the fifth,
the law department recommends a settlement in this case for
$250,000.
Thank you, Ms. Felker.
Any questions from members of the committee?
Hearing no questions, Alderman Lopez
recommends the due pass motion. 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 city council meeting. Thank you, Ms. Felker.
Item 2B is Nina Hunt versus City of
Chicago, case number
2025L9531, in the
amount of $425,000. We're joined
today by Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel Shilpa
Patel, who is newly presenting to us today.
And so she will give us the particulars of this case. Ms. Patel?
Thank you, Chair. Good morning. On August 4th,
2022, plaintiff Nina Hunt, then aged 55,
tripped and fell on a staircase at 500 North Michigan Avenue.
As a result, she fractured her knee and underwent three surgeries.
Two additional people tripped and fell on the same staircase as Ms.
Hunt and filed lawsuits. This case is the only remaining
lawsuit pertaining to the staircase at 500 North Michigan.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of
$425,000.
In the early afternoon of August 4th, 2022, Ms.
Hunt, along with her husband, was heading to Navy Pier using the staircase at
500 North Michigan.
Ms. Hunt held onto the handrail, and as she stepped with her left foot
onto the last step, her ankle twisted and she fell.
There were two prior incidents at this location.
The first one was on June 22nd, 2022, when
LaDonna Smith tripped and fell on the same stair as Ms. Hunt.
She filed a lawsuit, and that case settled for $30,000 in
2024.
The second incident was on August 1st, 2023, three
days before Ms. Hunt's fall. Danielle Young tripped and fell while
walking down the stairs at 500 North Michigan.
Ms. Young tripped on the second stair from the top, and that matter
settled for $125,000 in September of 2025.
On August 4th, 2022, Ms. Hunt fell.
Two city witnesses were deposed in this matter.
Arsalan Khan, the chief bridge engineer with the city.
He acknowledged that the city is responsible for maintaining the stairwell at
500 North Michigan. And the stairs were inspected on June
15th, 2022.
The inspectors at that time noted the stairs had wide cracks, broken
concrete, and an uneven surface.
Brian Crass, the foreman of Cement Finishers, who repairs
concrete on staircases, opined as of June
2022, the city was aware the staircase was a tripping
hazard. The staircase at issue was repaired in 2023,
the year after Ms. Hunt's fall.
Mr. Hunt obtained a wheelchair and
pushed Ms. Hunt to Northwestern. He testified she screamed in pain
with every bump they hit en route. At Northwestern, imaging revealed
a left broken knee, and an orthopedic surgeon performed a
surgery, a temporary fix to reduce the swelling.
She was discharged three days after admission.
Ms. Hunt followed up with Dr. William Obrunski at Vanderbilt,
and she underwent surgery on August 22nd and August
25th. She was discharged on August 27th.
She had home health care visits until November.
She used a wheelchair for two months and a potty chair for several weeks.
For three weeks, she was unable to use the bathroom or bathe on her own.
As of November, she was walking with a cane and continued to report
numbness.
As of May 2023, her pain had largely resolved.
She does have five scars from injuries on her leg.
On October 10th, she was cleared to return to work.
At the time of the accident, Ms. Hunt worked as the executive director for
Farm Service Agency, and she retired in March of 2023.
She claims $12,000 in lost wages. Her medical
bills totaled $247,000, her economic
damages totaling $259,000.
Plaintiff initially demanded $800,000.
If this matter were to proceed to trial, the plaintiff would seek damages for past
medical bills, disfigurement, past emotional distress,
past and future pain and suffering, past and future loss of normal
life, and lost wages. The Department of Law recommends
settlement in the amount of $425,000.
Thank you, Ms. Patel.
Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just
a couple of observations here.
So this is the third
lawsuit before this was fixed?
For the staircase, yes.
For the staircase. Okay. But it was reported after the
first incident, correct?
It was not reported to 311.
But there was a lawsuit
at the time after the first-
Yes
... incident.
Lawsuit was filed one year after the incident.
Okay. So
I guess this is a note, not only for this body, but the
departments.
At what point, if we have lawsuits being filed, that we
don't fix these things immediately
upon lawsuits.
Understood. Thank you. We did
fix the stair roughly within four weeks of the lawsuit being filed.
The first one or the third one?
The first one.
Okay.
And so there were still hazards?
The incidents themselves happened within a two and a half month
period,
all three of them.
All three of them.
A year later, the first lawsuit was filed, and we did repair the
stairs after the lawsuit was filed.
Okay. I just think we need to do a better job
once these things are reported.
There should be something triggered in the departments to fix this stuff
immediately
or within 30 days or something
of being notified, especially if there are hazards like this.
But okay, I thought it was a wider timeframe in which,
so okay. I'm good.
Thank you, Alderman Beale.
Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow up on Alderman Beale's point, and
not to belabor it, but
this particular location is located in the 42nd Ward,
and
my concern is similar to that of Alderman Beale's.
I have trip and falls in the Central Business District on nearly a
daily basis, and the most frustrating thing is that oftentimes we see
it's occurring at the same location with the
same damaged infrastructure. And I'm hoping that Law
and CDOT can work up a formal
policy on getting these things repaired as quickly as
possible. And as
an alderman who is constantly being hit with discovery and subpoenas to
participate in these right of way lawsuits,
it's especially frustrating when these are locations that have
been reported by my office
prior to the injuries occurring, right?
And so then to have to spend time and resource
being deposed and it's usually my staff, sad for
them,
that's extra disappointing and frustrating.
And so my hope is that as we get these notices of trip and falls, we
don't wait for litigation.
CDOT should have a program in place that does not depend on our menu
to restore. And oftentimes these are not expensive fixes.
Get these things fixed as quickly as possible to limit our exposure.
This is something that comes up every budget session, it has for the
past 20 years I've been here, and it would be great for us to formalize
a program to limit future risk so we're not coming back
here on a monthly basis to consider giving out these massive
awards.
So mark me down as I'm with Alderman Beale on this one.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Riley. Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you. I'll just say ditto what Alderman Riley said, and I'll talk offline with
Department of Law. Thank you.
I thank everyone for their comments.
I
just want to opine as well on this, that I think this is something that we need
to look at,
especially since
we have a private contractor that only checks the sidewalks and
bridges every two years. We might need to do it more
frequently. So I appreciate the comments that were made this
morning. Can I get a motion to recommend do
pass? Alderman Mosley 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, Ms. Patel. I know you're here also for 2C,
Maria Navarro Escobedo and Yadira
Navarro Escobedo versus Julian, Martha
Juarez, Tobias Houston, Michael
Kosirka, and City of Chicago, case number
2023L 10937 in the amount of
$650,000.
Thank you, Chair.
This case arises out of a car accident at
4238 South California, in which fleeing offender
Julian Martha Juarez, then 16 years,
struck car driven by Maria Navarro Escobedo, 49,
with Yadira Navarro Escobedo, 21, as the passenger.
Maria and Yadira sustained broken bones.
Plaintiff argues the city's willful and wanton pursuit caused this accident.
The Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of
$650,000,
$325,000 for each plaintiff.
On January 2nd, 2023, at 7:48 PM,
Officer Tobias Houston, the driver, and Officer Michael
Kosirka were on patrol in a marked car.
Defendant officers observed a Mercedes SUV with all
three occupants wearing black ski masks.
Defendant officers followed the Mercedes on Damon, and as the
Mercedes turned onto 47th Street, defendant officers
notified OAMC of their location and provided the license plate
number.
OAMC asked defendant officers if they were following, and they
responded they were just keeping eyes on it.
The Mercedes turned north onto California, traveling at a high rate of
speed, and the officers followed.
Defendant officers did not activate lights or sirens.
Eventually, offender Juarez lost control of the Mercedes, entered the
opposite lane of traffic, and struck a Chevrolet Malibu stopped at
4238 South California. The Malibu was driven by Maria
Navarro Escobedo, with Yadira Navarro Escobedo as the passenger.
Defendant officers reached a top speed of 80 miles an hour during the
incident.
1.8 miles and two minutes passed between the defendant
officers calling in the license plate into OAMC and the
crash. Defendant officers arrived at the scene eight seconds
after the crash. At the time of the accident, defendant officers were
560 feet behind the Mercedes. The last GPS data
point before the accident shows the officers were traveling 48 miles
per hour. There is no evidence in the record
about the Mercedes speed, and private camera
footage captured the incident.
The defendant officers testified they were following the vehicle because they
believe they provided OAMC with the incorrect license plate
number. Audio from OAMC radio captures
Officer Kasirka initially calling out the plate, but
incorrectly stating the last digit.
Followed by Officer Houston correcting the error
by stating the correct digit.
Offender Juarez was detained and three firearms were
recovered. The Mercedes had been reported stolen, but this was
unknown to the defendant officers during the alleged pursuit.
Offender Juarez was charged with unlawful use of a weapon
and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
He was charged as a juvenile, and as a result, we do not have information
about the result of those charges.
Maria was transported by ambulance from the scene to Mount Sinai
and was hospitalized for two weeks.
Doctors diagnosed Maria with a fractured spine, ribs, and
ankle.
While hospitalized, she underwent two surgeries for the ankle and
required use of a back brace to stabilize her spine.
After
discharge, Maria attended five months of physical therapy.
She developed post-traumatic arthritis in her right ankle, which led to
pain, stiffness, and a limp.
Maria's past medical bills total
$222,000. Yadira was transported
by ambulance from the scene to Mount Sinai and diagnosed with a broken right
arm. Doctors set the broken bone, and she was hospitalized for three
days. In February of 2023, doctors
determined her arm was not healing properly and surgery was
needed. Later in February, doctors performed surgery in which pins
and screws were placed, and she was hospitalized for two days.
Yadira reports reduced range of motion as well as pain.
Yadira's medical bills total $114,000.
In total, there are $336,000
in past medical bills in the record.
At trial, plaintiff would have to prove, one, the pursuit was
willful and wanton, and two, the pursuit proximately caused
plaintiff's injury. As to the first point, willful and wanton,
the jury instructions define willful and wanton conduct as a conscious
disregard or utter indifference for a person's safety.
Policy violations are commonly used as evidence of willful and wanton conduct.
While we will argue at trial that the officers did not pursue,
plaintiff will rebut this argument by pointing to the officers following the
Mercedes at 80 miles an hour. If the jury finds this
was a pursuit, the evidence will support an argument by plaintiff
that the officers violated the general orders by failing to notify
OAMC and failing to activate their lights and sirens.
As to the second point, proximate cause, plaintiffs will critique the
defendant officers and state that they had no probable cause to
stop the car and were operating outside of the law.
We will argue that this was good police work, as the individuals in the
Mercedes were wearing black ski masks in an area known for
high gang activity.
Unfortunately, the recovered guns and the fact the car was stolen
likely will not be admitted into evidence to support the officers' police work.
We will argue that the fleeing offender was the sole proximate cause of the
collision. However, given a March 2026 Illinois
appellate court ruling, the city would
likely not be able to apportion fault with the fleeing offender at trial.
Practically, this means the city would still be obligated
to pay the entire verdict and then go after the fleeing
offender for payment of his portion.
The city has conducted an asset check and determined
offender Juarez is judgment-proof.
Plaintiffs initially demanded $3.5 million,
2.25 million for Maria, and 1.25 million for
Yadira. If this matter proceeds to trial, Maria
would seek damages for past medical bills, past emotional distress,
past and future pain and suffering, and past and future loss of normal life.
Yadira would seek damages for past medical bills, past emotional
distress, past and future pain and suffering, and past and future
loss of normal life. The Department of Law recommends settlement in the
amount of $650,000,
325,000 for each plaintiff.
Thank you, Ms. Patel.
Vice Chair Conway.
During the
radio call into OAMC,
what did the officers say regarding a pursuit?
It is my understanding that they gave the license plate number for a license plate
check.
Did they say they were or were not pursuing? You mentioned they're hanging out.
I forgot the words, but did they say anything else?
Understood. They
were asked if they were following, and they said they were keeping eyes on the
vehicle.
And when you said the offender was--
The asset check, was that on the fleeing offender driving the Mercedes?
Yes. The driver of the Mercedes.
And what did you say the
top speed of the officers was?
The officer's top speed was 80 miles per hour.
Okay. All right. No further questions, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you.
Alderman Lopez, followed by Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning members of the committee.
A couple questions. First, with regards to the last time we were
here dealing with judgment appropriation
You were not here, but what is the law department doing with
regards to addressing this matter?
Because I believe that we had all mentioned that after that ruling,
we need to have some sort of relief from Springfield.
So what exactly is the law department doing to effectuate that relief?
With respect to Springfield, I would have to provide an answer through the
chair.
Okay.
But-
Actually, Ms. Patel, we were going to let
John Hendrix respond to that. Hendrix, would you give your
title and state your name?
Sure. I'm John Hendrix. I'm the Managing Deputy
Corporation Council for Litigation Divisions.
And,
again, with respect to Springfield,
that's something that my understanding is that
IGA has taken information
from the law department and is working on some
amendments in various directions.
But I want to say,
in response directly to your first question, the apportionment
issue is being addressed in an appeal to the
Illinois Supreme Court.
Okay.
So is that case already been filed with the Supreme Court?
What we've done is we've filed a motion for
certification by the Illinois Supreme Court.
They then have to accept it before it's actually-
Right
... briefed.
So we are on track to--
The train's leaving.
Yeah.
Okay.
We've pushed it, yeah.
Okay. And since the Springfield session is over, was
anything actually done by IGA in Springfield, or are we waiting for the appellate
court?
With respect to this session, nothing, I think.
Nothing.
Yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
All right.
Offender Juarez, 16 years old, was he alone in that car?
There were two other individuals in the car.
What were the ages of those individuals?
One of the individuals was never apprehended.
The other individual was 19 years of age.
So he was with an adult and unknown offender,
all wearing ski masks. What kind of weapons were recovered from that car?
I would have to provide that answer through the chair.
I know there were three firearms, but I'd have to provide the specific type.
Okay.
So we have three offenders in ski masks driving at at
least 80 miles an hour, so that our officers had to keep up with them at 80 miles
per hour, from Back of the Yards into Brighton Park, which have
conflicting gang conflicts.
And we are now having to pay
$650,000 because three individuals,
likely gang bangers,
crashed and injured someone trying to flee,
while clearly
up to no good in Back of the Yards
in January 2023.
I represent this area,
and I formerly represented the area where
they crashed, half a block away from me.
Actually, this is right next to Kelly High School.
This area, these areas,
have seen generational gang violence
ad nauseam.
I've seen this committee
try to give
settlements to gang bangers time and time again.
Most notably, the start of this term, to Mr.
Godinez, who was high on coke,
whacked out, and died in custody in Brighton Park
while our officers were arresting him.
This is another situation where taxpayers are
basically having to be paying for what gang bangers are
doing into our neighborhoods. Aside from all of the terror that they cause, aside
from all of the pain they inflict on innocent people, now
we're going to hit taxpayers in the pocketbook yet again because a
16-year-old, being led by a 19-year-old and somebody else,
fully masked, I'm sure it wasn't because of COVID.
They weren't going skiing. They were out to kill someone in
communities.
And our officers
rightly knew what these young individuals were up to because they've
seen it. They know it. And I'm not going to question the ninth
district or their officers when they see someone out
to do harm in communities and say that they were at fault for this.
It's a slap in the face to the ninth district and to all of our officers,
whether they are uniformed or tactical units, to try and say that they were
at fault for this. They are protecting people's lives, and I'm actually
thankful that they went after these individuals, and at least we caught one of
them. But I can't support this, Madam Chairman, and I would ask my
colleagues to do the same because this, yet again, sends a very bad
message that we are willing to pay for what criminals do simply because we
have the biggest checkbook.
I want to ask one last question. When you did a asset check, do you only do it on
the minor, or do you do it on the parents as well?
My understanding is we only did it on the offender.
So what about the 19-year-old? Was he arrested with
them?
He was.
So was he charged with
contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
I would have to check on what the charge is against the other individual.
Was he also put under a debt check for being in that car as well, ski-masked
and gunned up?
I would have to provide that answer through the chair.
Okay.
But I do not believe there was a debt attached.
So we pick the weakest link in the car, who we know doesn't have
any assets because he's a 16-year-old, and we wash our hands of him and say, "Well,
he has no money because all he has is maybe his
$20 allowance," and we let everyone else off the hook.
I don't see how that's even possible, because you have an adult and he has
guardians, and all of them should have their assets
confiscated to pay for this before taxpayers have to pay dime one on this.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. To add some balance to
this however,
I hear what you're saying, Alderman Lopez, but we have to look at the fact
that the police officers in this case
did not pursued without lights, without a
siren, and without speaking to OEMC, which
is part of their general orders. So just to add some balance to
the point.
Nope, understood.
Alderman Quinn.
In your testimony,
and just as more of a point of clarification, you had commented about
48 miles an hour. Who was going 48 miles an hour?
At the time of the incident, our GPS data showed the officer, at the time of the
actual car crash, our GPS data showed the officers were going approximately 48
miles per hour.
48 miles an hour. And
the amount of time it took the officers to get to the
crash?
They were, I believe it was eight seconds
that took them to arrive at the scene of the crash.
So they're going 48 miles an hour and then eight seconds to the crash.
Okay.
And I believe they were 560 feet behind at the time of the crash.
560 feet behind. And
the offenders were going how fast?
We have no information about the offender's vehicle speeds.
Mm-hmm. And this 80 miles an hour, the
Chicago Police at one point were going 80 miles an hour?
That is correct.
And how long into pursuit did that take place?
I would have to see if we have that information available and can provide it
through the Chair.
Just to comment, I do feel like our officers are being penalized here
for their instincts, and so I'll be voting no. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn.
Can I get a motion to recommend approval of item number 2C?
So moved by
Rosana Rodriguez Sanchez.
Hearing a call for a roll call. We'll take a roll call.
Yes, Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Will that information be provided before city council?
The information that was requested from my colleagues, will that be provided before
City Council?
Yes.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Lospada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Yes.
Alderman Beale.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
No.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Curtis.
Alderman O'Shea.
Yes.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Yes.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Siccho Lopez.
Alderman Burnett. Alderman Ervin.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas. Alderman Mitz.
Alderman Sposato.
Sposato's a yes.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knutson.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell votes yes.
There are 19 yeses. Uh, excuse me, 17
yeses and 11 nos. The item
passes and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next City
Council meeting. Thank you, Ms. Patel.
Thank you.
Item number three is from the Department of Law.
It's the substitute ordinance amending the municipal code chapter
4-156 regarding the social media
amusement tax. There is a substitute ordinance which was
prepared and sent electronically to everyone.
Is there a motion to accept the substitute?
So moved by Alderman Mosley. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the substitute ordinance is
now before the committee and will be explained by Jung
Yoon, Chief of Policy, and Susan Jordan from the
Department of Law. I want to acknowledge Alderman
Fuentes, who has joined us as a non-member.
Ms. Jung Yoon.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Dowell.
As the chairwoman said, my name is Jung Yoon.
I'm the Chief of Policy and here to share about the social
media amusement and responsibility tax and the amendments put forward
before you today.
So as a reminder, the social media amusement and responsibility
tax was passed by City Council in the
FY26 budget.
It's a 50 cent per month tax per user on
social media companies for each active user over
100,000. It is not a tax on users.
So far, the Department of Finance has collected $16.4
million in the first four months from the 10 social media companies
since the tax has been in effect. The 10 pla-
Excuse me, Jung, before you
There is a presentation. Okay. It wasn't up.
Thank you.
We can... Yeah.
Okay, perfect.
Sorry about that.
So like I said,
the 10 payers include Meta, which owns
Instagram, Facebook, Threads, YouTube,
Twitter, Snap, TikTok, LinkedIn,
Reddit, Twitch, Pinterest and Nextdoor.
Revenue from this tax is allocated to the special revenue fund called the
Protecting Care Fund, administered by the Department of Finance.
And the state of Illinois passed a similar social media tax as part of their
FY27 budget. Like the city's tax, it imposes a
tax on the companies based on the number of users.
All SMART tax revenue is deposited into the special revenue fund called the
Protecting Care Fund, which will be used for expanding
and sustaining public healthcare programs, access to mental
healthcare, and trauma-informed services like the Crisis Assistance
Response and Engagement program, known as CARE.
No programming was budgeted for
FY26 on this fund.
So why are these amendments needed?
This is necessary to clarify definitions within the SMART tax, as well
as the law's original intent as drafted.
First, it will clarify the definition of social media within Section
4-1566-1010
to specify that social media means a website, platform or other application
where users provide the content. So this is in
contrast to platforms, websites or
applications where the content is created or
selected for inclusion by those who maintain the website platform, and
not the users themselves. So think about the Washington
Post or other websites like that.
Second, it removes from the definition of social
media any references to, quote, "bona fide news websites,
applications or internet platforms," because that was not necessary
in the inclusion of the definition because those websites do not fall under the
definition of social media under the law.
Third, we edit language from Section 1040 to
specify the other platforms and websites that would not fall within the definition
of social media because, again, that content is not user provided.
And finally, it clarifies Section 1040E
to
be applicable where there is a use by a Chicago consumer during a
calendar month. Even if the platform had previously collected
data on that consumer, they have to be actively using it for that month to
count towards the tax.
And that is the summary of the amendment before you.
Thank you, Ms. Young. Any questions from members of the
Committee on Finance?
Yes, Alderman Irvin.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
How does this reconcile with the recently
passed state
law relating to this area in
general?
Thank you, Chairman Irvin.
It is very similar to what the state passed,
although the state did not use it as an amusement tax as the City of
Chicago did, because that falls within our home rule authority.
But it is quite similar in its structure, so they did borrow a
lot from the city's version of this tax.
Are there any
issues related to what was passed in
Springfield that would hinder our ability to move forward with this,
or any other challenges or issues that you see
relating to us moving forward with this particular ordinance?
No, sir. The state tax as passed does not
implicate our ability to collect this tax.
Okay. That's all I have.
Thank you. Alderman Taylor.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Have the
social media companies sued us yet?
Yes, I'll pass it to Suzanne.
Yes. Thank you for that question, Alderman Taylor.
Yes, the social media companies have sued us.
Am I not on?
Can you speak up, please, and speak into the mic?
Yes. The social media companies have sued the city.
The lawsuit is at a very early stage.
Nothing has happened thus far, and we are defending it.
Are there any other states or cities that are following our lead?
I don't believe so.
Well, the State of Illinois has.
Other than us.
Not yet. Not to my knowledge.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's all.
Thank you, Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Vice Chair Conway?
Yeah. Based on that last answer, without
jeopardizing any litigation, perhaps somebody from the law department can speak
to how
we deal with this versus
any federal preemption that might exist, like the Internet
Tax Freedom Act and things like that.
What kind of research have we done to make sure it's not running afoul of that, or
anything the FCC may be doing?
Ms. Jordan?
Yes.
That is an issue in the litigation.
I'm not really at liberty right now in an open forum to talk about
what our views are, our legal analysis, but we
are looking at that, and that is one of the issues.
I'll add,
Alderman, that we did look in
the research phase drafting this to be very
mindful of those limitations, and we do believe we have strong defensible
arguments.
Okay. For the purposes of others, I won't ask follow-up questions, and I appreciate
those answers. Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
If there are no more... Alderman Lee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Given what's happened, what the state's introduced, and some of the
issues that have already been brought up here,
may I ask just what is the rush right now to
get this done if we're already being sued over it?
I unfortunately wasn't able to make it to the briefing, so I apologize that I
didn't have more of this information ahead of time.
I'm just asking a question of just timing.
Seems to me that there's still a lot of questions as to whether or not we're going
to be able to do this, and I get part of this might be we want to fight it in
court, but
yeah. Can you just comment on the timing of it?
Sure. Thank you, Alderwoman. The reason we're moving forward with this
substitute is because these definitions and
clarifications became apparent during implementation.
And so it just ensures
smooth, consistent implementation of this tax as originally intended.
So we're being-
Alderman Lee.
Yeah. So we're being sued over this currently.
And have we begun collecting this already or...
We have?
Yes. We have collected $16.4 million in the first
four months.
Okay. And what are we forecasting for-
What's that look like? I can't do the math in my head, I'm sorry.
I know I'm Asian, I should, but I cannot do that right now.
Oh.
So if you would-
Listen, I won't hold you to anything too.
It's okay if I say it. I said it. I said it.
Just a little levity here, guys. Yeah.
So if we maintain that same level, we're looking at just under $50
million for the year.
And what was forecasted in the budget?
$31 million.
Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lee.
Alderman Nugent.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just can you tell me what are the grounds for the
lawsuit? What are we being sued for?
The actual cause of action or the charge.
Yes.
One of the issues is the Internet Tax Freedom Act, First
Amendment, Commerce Clause, and our
authority to tax social media as an
amusement.
So First Amendment, Internet-
Tax Freedom Act,
Commerce Clause,
and our authority to tax social media as an amusement.
How's it going? Can you just tell me about- You're looking at me, so yeah.
Excuse me, Alderman Rodriguez. Can you mute your
mouth.
Well done, Chair.
Can you just talk to me about the Commerce Clause a little bit?
Thank you.
Pardon me, Chair.
Could you just talk to me a little bit about
what we're being sued on with respect to the Commerce Clause?
Like, what they're saying?
I don't really want to characterize what they are saying.
I think it would be more useful to read the complaint,
which is obviously a public document that I'd be happy to send to you,
because it's difficult
to sort of understand exactly what they're getting at
in that. And I can pass that-
I guess I just kind of then at 50,000 feet, can you just tell me
if it's legally okay for you to say just why we think we're okay with respect to
the Commerce Clause? Can you say that just at 50,000 feet?
Given the litigation, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to answer that
question in the open forum.
Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Nugent.
Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
If we budget for $31 million
and we have to return those funds on top of litigation fees,
what is the budget department prepared to do to find those funds?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
So as a reminder, we did not budget any programming on the
Protecting CARE Fund for 2026 and would wait to do so
until the litigation is resolved.
But you're collecting funds.
Yes, we are collecting it in the Protecting CARE Fund,
but there's no expenditures allocated to that
fund.
Okay. So it's just the set aside. But what happens
if the firms or these companies sue us
on top of whatever we collected, attorney's fees
and otherwise?
Where is that coming from?
So, that will have to-
General litigation fund or
corp counsel's fund, your fund,
CARE's fund.
That's what we've got to figure out here, because I'm assuming the law department's
going to carry this. Then how much are you prepared to
litigate this in the Supreme Court or Illinois Court or
wherever?
The litigation is being handled in-house by the law
department-
Okay
... by the Revenue Litigation Division and the Constitutional and
Commercial-
Okay
... Litigation Divisions. So there are not outside counsel
fees being incurred.
Okay. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you, Alderman Waguespack.
Seeing no other questions, can I get a motion to move to pass?
So moved by Alderman Mosley. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Opposed. In the opinion,
Alderman Waguespack, we will acknowledge
Alderman Quinn, Alderman Waguespack, we will acknowledge you
as voting against this, and the do pass recommendation will
be reported out at the next city council meeting. Thank you.
Vice Chair Conway,
you.
Look at that. Tough sheet. Thank-
I'll just read what it is. Item number four from the
Department of Finance is an ordinance authorizing the
appointment of a successor servicer and an assignment agreement
execution between BNY Asset Solutions,
LLC, and MTAG Services,
LLC, regarding the city's special assessment improvement
bonds for Lake Shore East project.
It's the refunding of series 2022 in the
42nd Ward, and we're joined by Brendan White and Charles
Bennett from the Department of Finance.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Morning. My name is Brendan White.
I'm an assistant commissioner in the Department of Finance.
The ordinance before you
relates to the Lake Shore East bonds.
The Lake Shore East project is an approximately 26-acre downtown
development bounded by East Wacker Drive to the north,
East Randolph Street to the south, Lake Shore Drive to the east, and
Columbus Drive to the west. Portions of the project were funded by
special assessment improvement bonds originally issued in
2002 and refinanced in 2022.
The bonds were issued to finance a portion of the cost of acquisition and
construction of certain public improvements by the city, consisting of sanitary
sewers, storm sewers, water mains, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
streetlights, park improvements, and road improvements.
These are the only outstanding special assessment bonds that the city has,
and the final maturity on the bonds is December 1st,
2032. The bonds are repaid from a special
assessment levied on residents of the area, and the bills for such
special assessments are sent out and collected and tracked by a
firm called a servicer. The current servicer is BNY
Mellon, and they are winding down their servicer arm after running analysis on that
particular line of business. The successor servicer and
assignment agreement execution is necessary to transition services in advance of
the next tax year. This is a routine replacement of a servicer and is
necessary to maintain continuity of servicing the special assessments
associated with the project.
The new servicer, M-T-A-G or MTAG,
is a nationally recognized specialty asset servicer with more than 25 years of
experience managing complex non-traditional financial assets,
including tax liens, special assessments, structured receivables, and
municipal-related obligations.
It was founded in 2010 as a spinoff from the Moehring
Tax Asset Group, and MTAG currently services more
than $750 million worth of assets across 16 states
and has serviced over 6 billion in specialty finance assets since
inception, including having serviced over 30,000 tax
liens in Illinois.
The city has had similar instances in the past where trustees have decided
to get out of the business, and we had to appoint a successor trustee.
This also happens from time to time across the country for other local governments
when a particular firm is exiting the business.
Generally, this is not a regular occurrence, but it's also not completely
unexpected. There is no change to the substantive terms of the
servicer agreement, which is being assigned from BNY
to MTAG. And that is my summary of
the ordinance.
All right. Before we get to questions, I see we're joined by Alderman Chico as a
non-member of the committee. Sir, you are recognized for that purpose.
Are there any questions for Mr. White?
All right. Seeing none, is there a motion to recommend approval of item number
four? Oh, do you have a question, Alderman Riley?
The board, I move do pass.
All right. Motion made by Alderman Riley to recommend a do pass.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the acting chair, the ayes have it. The motion carries.
The do pass recommendation of the ordinance will be reported out at the next city
council meeting. Excellent job.
Hopefully.
All right. Item number five from the Department of Housing.
We are joined by Ms. Vonetta Jones, Financial Planning Analyst for the Department
of Housing.
Ms. Jones, the floor is yours whenever you're ready.
Thank you.
Oh, I got to read the top part? All right, great. All right.
This is an ordinance authorizing the issuance of multifamily program bonds and
other financial assistance to support the acquisition and development
of Abrams Intergenerational Village project at
the 5300 to 5318 South Calumet
Avenue. This is actually in Alderwoman
Dowell's ward, and this is amount not to exceed
3,250,000 of multifamily and 13 million of
TIF funds. And as previously mentioned, we are joined here by
Vonetta Jones, Financial Planning Analyst for the Department of Housing.
Thank you, Alderman Conway, and the members of the committee.
For the record, my name is Vonetta Jones from the Department of Housing.
For you today is the ordinance for the benefit of Abrams Intergenerational
Village. This transaction is located at 5300 through
5318 South Calumet Avenue in the Third
Ward, Washington Park community area under Alderman
Pat Dowell within the 47th and State TIF district.
This project was selected through the Department of Finance-- I'm sorry, through
the Department of Housing in the 2023 QAP
round. Today, we are requesting the authorization for up to
3.25 million in DOH multifamily program funds
and 13 million in TIF.
The development is led by a joint venture between MBE,
the Renaissance Collaborative, known as TRC, at 51%
interest, and MBE HHDC at
49% interest. The remaining
team consists of their GC with
Ujamaa, which is also MBE, and Moody
Nolan as their architect. They have received perm funding
with NeighborWorks program. Syndicator will be NEF,
and DTC lender will be US Bank.
HHDC will serve as their property management.
Attorney will be Applegate, Thorn, and Thompson,
with the Prem Lawrence Group Corporation as their financial
consultant, who is WMBE.
On this slide, I have included their org chart for your viewing.
This development will serve as a vibrant, intergenerational, and supportive
housing community for seniors, grandfamilies, and young adults
ages 18 through 24 who are currently enrolled in
secondary education. It is designed to support
individuals who are experiencing homelessness or
housing insecurity, with young adult residents also serving
for resident assistants. The development involves the new
construction along South Calumet Drive within the target
corridor for the Washington Park community.
The project consists of six stories, 71 unit, mid-rise
building that will include 24 parking spaces and two
elevators to ensure full accessibility.
This site qualifies as an ETOD project located just two blocks
away from the 55th and Prairie, and also the
51st and Prairie Green Line train stations.
The building will feature onsite management and a range of support
services. The first floor will include offices for the service
providers and administrative staff, along with multipurpose
room, library, computer room, and fitness center.
The second floor will offer community dining area dedicated to serving
residences of the Village Life Residences.
This development will be 100% affordable, with proposed units
ranging from studio apartments to three-bedroom units at
30% to 60% AMI.
There will be 29 studios, 17 one-bedrooms,
16 two-bedrooms, and nine three-bedroom units, making
a total of 71 units, with 4 of the 30%
studio units set aside for permanent supportive housing.
I have taken the liberty to list the square footages and the rents as well.
As noted at the bottom of the slide, the average AMI for Washington Park
community area is
24,919, with the link and the
information is also provided for your
perview.
This is a list of their sources and uses.
They will receive city funds for up to $13 million in TIF
and up to $3.25 million in DOH multifamily
funds.
Ida will provide a loan for $3.4 million and
also 9% tax credit equity at
85.5 cents on the dollar for a total equity of
approximately $12.8 million.
Other funding includes perm loan of $2.8 million,
grants for a total of $336,000, and
FHLB Affordable Housing program funds of
$975,000.
There will be a deferred developer fee of $608,000
and a developer general partner equity of
$332,000.
They also have land donation minus the remediation cost of
$639,000. They will acquire three
city-owned lots for the write down of $1 each, with
a total appraised value at $690,000, which
they will receive total equity of $300,150
for this at a buy-in rate of 87 cents on the dollar through US
Bank for the donation tax credit on the land.
They have also received cash donations of $1.6
million, and they will also receive a total of
$678,600 in
equity at 87 cents on the dollar through US Bank,
as well as a
grand total of
$978,750.
Uses consist of acquisition for the land at $3,
hard costs for $32 million for construction, and
$1.6 million in construction contingency.
Soft costs at $3.5 million with reserves at
$774,000. Developer fee at
$1.2 million and remediation at $51,000.
This making their total development cost at $40.7 million,
making the total cost per unit
$574,199.
This neighborhood map shows development is within the red parameters just
south of 53rd Street and east of South Prairie Avenue.
It will be one block west of Washington Park.
Here you
just have the zoomed-in view of the lots and the surrounding area.
Shown is the rendering for the proposed development.
Okay.
This slide shows you the current views of the site All three lots are
vacant grassy land, showing you the right on the path.
They are right on the path of the CTA Green Line.
So the public benefits include 71 affordable units, of which
four units will be set aside for PSH.
Amenities include staff security, as well as camera
and a monitor security system.
HHDC will provide onsite management.
The building will include two elevators for full accessibility and five
onsite laundry facilities, for a total of 10 washers and 10
dryers, and
storage on each floor.
The residences will be able to use the onsite community
computer room with free Wi-Fi and internet
access. There will also be a fitness center, an outdoor play
area, and of course, all electric ENERGY STAR appliances.
There will be 24 street parking spaces and space for
30 bike racks for the youth and youth adults.
Both the development team and co-development team are MBE.
This development is estimated to create more than
147 temporary construction jobs, while
also creating 12 permanent jobs. This project will
also need to comply with the MBE/WBE of
26 and 6% requirements.
For environmental features,
the building design will meet Enterprise Green Standards, which will
satisfy the City of Chicago sustainability requirements.
The building will be all electric, containing ENERGY
STAR appliances. And lastly, repurposing of
long-term vacant land.
They are requesting up to $13 million in TIF,
which was
approved June 24th of 2025.
They are also requesting up to $3.25 million in DOH
multifamily funds,
along with a negotiated sale of three city-owned lots located
at 5300 through 5318 South Calumet
for the write-down of $1 each for a total of $3.
If we have passage this month, we are looking to close September of
2026 with construction approximately 14
months, making construction completion
estimated around October 2027.
Today, I have O.G. Eagleston of TRC,
Steven Porras of HHDC, and Teresa Primm of Primm
Lawrence Consulting. They have also brought along architects
Ronald Mitchell of Moody Nolan to answer any questions that you may
have.
We ask for your approval and support, and this concludes my
presentation.
Any questions from the committee?
Alderwoman Taylor?
Can you go back to the slide to show what's currently on that block?
This one?
Is this the slide you're looking for, Alderwoman?
Yes.
Is it 24, you all are making a parking garage or are you talking about street
parking?
Street parking.
Is that a multi-unit building at the corner?
I'll let the developer answer that one just to
confirm.
No.
If you could identify yourself for the-
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm O.G. Eagleston, the executive director of the Renaissance
Collaborative.
Can you tell me what's currently on the block? This property.
What's currently on the block is
multi-unit
buildings.
How many?
Going south of the proposed
land site,
I would say all of the block is multi-use buildings,
going south towards 54th and 55th Street.
Mm-hmm.
So it's about four buildings on the entire block?
On the west side of the street, there's a mixture
of six to 12 unit buildings. So there's more
than four. On the east side of the block
going south, it's larger multi-unit buildings.
I would say 20, 24 units and up.
That's it. Thank you.
Any further questions from members of the committee or non-committee members?
I have a few. If you could go back to the map.
So is the site within the TIF? It's hard to tell
based on that.
Yes, it is. I'm sorry. Yes, it is.
This shaded area is all the TIF here, and I just put the parameters in
red.
Oh, that's great. And
could you also go back to that sources and uses table?
I think it's the previous slide.
Looking at the sources, I noticed
you put a couple of them in red, and
perhaps you can speak up to the level of discount on the LIHTC and
the IAHC.
Oh, yes. So it's not particularly
in red for a particular reason, it's to just state that the
equity is going to be at 85.5 cents on the dollar that we're
receiving for the LIHTC equity. And then for the
tax donations, we're going to be getting 87 cents on the dollar
through US Bank.
Are those numbers typical in a deal like this?
Yes, they are. Yes.
And so understanding how that works, it's that they put in
Either 85.5 or 87 cents on the dollar, and then they get the tax
benefit for the full dollar.
Yes. And truth be told, those numbers are actually really good
because those numbers are starting to come in a little bit lower at this rate.
So those are some good numbers.
But you want the number to be, we want the number to be higher, right?
Yes. That's what I'm saying. These numbers are good. Yes.
Okay. Any questions? Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend Alderman
Dowell, because I'm sitting here looking at the cost per unit of
574, which is still high, but
typically when we come before this committee, we're at 8 and 900,000
per unit. And so this goes to show that we can
save the taxpayers money and still do development in our
communities, and bringing the cost per unit down.
So this is a prime example of the argument we need to be
making, that we're paying too much money for some of these developments for 8
and 900,000 per unit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I second that. Appreciate the comment. Yeah. Alderman Martin.
Yeah, I appreciate that as well. And I was hoping through the chair, if we could
get a description as to why the average cost per unit is
lower than some of the other
development proposals we've received in recent months.
Sure. And I will let the architect speak to that.
Good afternoon, committee members. Renald D'Andre Mitchell.
If you could identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Renald D'Andre Mitchell, Moody Nolan Architects.
And can you repeat the question, Alderman?
Yeah. I'm curious if at a high level you have insights into why the cost per unit,
as Alderman Beale mentioned, is lower than with
this project relative to many of the other LIHTC related
proposals that go through this council.
Sure. Thank you for the question. Probably the biggest driving factor is the cost
of real estate acquisition. In this case, there's virtually
no land cost. And so amortized across the development, that
reduces the cost per unit fairly significantly.
From a design standpoint, obviously we went through and we took great pains
to try to really streamline construction costs to the maximum
extent possible in terms of our material selections.
But yeah, the biggest factor is the real estate, frankly.
Okay. Well, if there's anything the department has to add through the chair,
I would welcome that. And that's all.
Yeah.
Acting chairman. Thank you.
Any further questions?
So yeah, is motion made by Alderman Quinn recommending due pass.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
All right. Any opposed? The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you, Ms. Jones. Turning to item number six from the
Department of Planning and Development.
We have an ordinance authorizing the execution of an
intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Park District to
provide TIF funds for improvements at Madigan Park, located at
4707 West Marquette Road.
Alderwoman Tabaras, I know you've really been working on this deal.
When they're done with the presentation, would you like to go first or
last?
First? Okay. All right. Joining it, we are joined by Beth Tomlin,
Deputy Chief of Operations of the Chicago Park District.
Ms. Tomlin, I'll let you take it from there.
Thank you. And I'm also joined here with Ivan Hansen from Chicago Public
Schools.
I hit the red one?
I think it's the go to the right.
There we go.
So thank you. We're here to talk about a collaborative project between the Chicago
Park District and the Chicago Public Schools,
at Madigan Park. It's located at 4707 West Marquette Road
in the 22nd Ward, 23rd Ward, excuse me.
The area improvement is here. So this is
a very good example of a campus park.
So the areas in green are all owned by the
Chicago Park District. It is a very robust
baseball programmed park. But it is also the outdoor
open space for the Azuela Elementary School.
So that area of improvement is primarily where the kids use
that space for before school activities, after school, and recess.
And this area, with the heavy use that it gets from all of the kids at
school, as well as the park programming, it's really
in a poor condition and needs quite a bit of
improvements.
So the request is to secure $1.6 million
out of the tax increment financing to restore and rebuild this
area of the park. The total project cost is 2.8 million, with
additional sources coming from the Chicago Public Schools.
We anticipate to start this late summer, early fall, with the project completing
before the end of the year.
This is a summary of hard costs versus soft costs on the project.
So this, as I mentioned, this location is a
unique condition in which the park is built directly,
or the school is built directly right next to the Park district property.
We have a 40-year lease with CPS
to have the school in place in that space.
But the park is
jointly used by both park programming and CPS.
I will show you that the area that we're talking about is in very poor
condition and needs a complete rebuild in order to best meet the needs of
both the kids who use this park space during school, and when they
use it after school, and on the weekends and the summers during park programming.
The proposed project will be to completely rebuild this section with an
artificial turf grass with a walking path around the perimeter.
And are there any questions?
No, you don't get to ask that.
Oh, I don't ask that.
Okay.
Alderman Tabaras,
you wanted to open up first?
Yes. May I?
Okay. Well, good afternoon, Chairwoman Dowell and members of the Committee on
Finance. Today, I'm here in strong support of this turf field project
for Azuela Elementary School in the West Lawn community.
This is a smart, community-driven investment that keeps our tax dollars working
right here in the 23rd Ward.
Right now, the grass area immediately behind the school is overused and
worn out. Students and families deal with exposed metal mesh
that has caused cuts and injuries.
Kids and community members have been injured falling on it, and it's simply not
safe or sustainable.
That's why the community stepped up.
Azuela families and residents collected nearly 800
signatures. We have them here. 800 signatures.
They collected petitions urging us to build this
artificial turf field. Today, Principal Gloria Taylor,
along with parents and students, are here in person to show support for this
project, and I want to thank them for their public comment, and I want to ask them
to stand up. I want to thank Fernando Lindo,
Angie Maldonado, Vicida Martinez, and
Angelica Tapia, who are here with their children, as well as seventh grade
student Allison Santana, sixth grade student Danielle Montalvo,
Azuela alum and sophomore at Hubbard High School, Andres
Santana, and Matthew Bundock. I want to give them a big round of applause for
coming down here.
Thank
you.
I support allocating 1.6 million from the 67 Sister TIF
District to build this recreational space that serves both the school and
the entire West Lawn community for years to come.
A large majority of students and West Lawn families play soccer.
This field will give them a proper home.
And in the spirit of the World Cup, this will give our
future soccer kids
to enjoy that as well.
This turf field will promote physical health, keep kids active and safe, and reduce
pressure on other parks, and strengthen community bonds.
I want to thank the dedicated families, Azuela Principal Gloria Taylor for
her leadership on this project, 13th Ward Alderman Marty Quinn, the
Chicago Park District, Chicago Public Schools,
DPD, and everyone who gathered those 800 signatures and spoke up.
Your advocacy made this possible.
I also want to thank the Midway Baseball and Softball Association for their written
testimony. I passed around a copy of their letter of support as well to
everybody on this committee. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
ordinance for a new turf field, and to deliver this win for Azuela Elementary
School, and for every child and family in West Lawn. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Tabaras. I just want to congratulate you, because
you've really organized your community, and you've got
a tight case today.
Thank you.
So, I want to just acknowledge that.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Alderman Quinn, followed by Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to offer congratulations to
Alderwoman Tabaras on a great job in navigating this project
through a couple of our sister agencies. Silvana, nice job.
And compliments to the Azuela community.
What a fantastic job of advocacy and
fighting the right way on how to get something done.
Congratulations to Azuela. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn. Alderman Beale, followed by Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'm kind of conflicted on
this one here.
Reason being, I have the pleasure of playing at this park with my high
school team every year, and by providing them with a
year-round facility to be able to practice on turf and things like that, they're
going to get better. And if they get better, that means it's going to be better
competition for me. So I don't know if I am going to support this one or not, but
in all fairness, this is a great project.
My colleague has done a yeoman's job of putting this together.
It's a great park. It's very heavily utilized.
Every time we go there, there's a lot of people there, a lot of kids, a lot of
families, and I think this will be a great asset.
So congratulations on this project.
Thank you, Alderman Beale. Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Chairwoman. First, I just want to say it's a great collaboration again
between CPS and CPD. We've seen it before on some of these
joint pitches or fields there, and I especially want to congratulate
Alderwoman Tabaras, but the families that spoke out were excellent.
I know it's tough to get up there and speak publicly, but I think every one of us
was behind you. So,
I just want to say, too, that you made some points about
less injuries. So when we were able to get turf on one of our school
lots, we didn't have TIF, but we saw an instant
reduction of injuries. We went from asphalt, in this
case, you're lucky it's a little less hard, but
going to turf really reduced the injuries for kids on a weekly
basis. And it's also a great tool to get the
community together and utilize that.
So just want to congratulate you all.
This is especially an awesome time with the World Cup.
I wish it were here, but
it's an awesome time, I think, for everyone, except for maybe Spain fans.
So, thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you-
Congratulations
... Waguespack.
Motion made by Alderman Beale to move 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 report it out at the next meeting. Thank you.
Item number seven is from the Department of Planning and
Development, an ordinance authorizing the execution of an
intergovernmental agreement With the Chicago Board of
Education to provide TIF funds for improvements at George
Rogers Clark Elementary School, located at
1045 South Monitor
in the 29th Ward, in the amount not to exceed
$1.5 million.
We're joined by...
I have Ivan Hansen and Venuette Dye. You Ms. Dye?
Very nice to meet you. Ms. Dye?
Good morning. Good afternoon, Chairman Dowell and members of the Finance Committee.
For the record, my name is Venuette Dye.
I am the executive director for Capital Planning Construction at Chicago
Public Schools. I am joined by Ivan Hansen, the chief facilities
officer,
and also Jeff Cohen, deputy commissioner in the
Department of Planning and Development.
I am here today to request your approval of an intergovernmental agreement that
would provide up to $1.5 million in TIF assistance
to provide improvements at George Rogers Clark Elementary
School.
Here is a map showing the general location of the project within the city.
The project is located at 1045 South Monitor Avenue in the
Austin community area in the 29th Ward.
It is located within the Roosevelt Cicero TIF.
The project site is bounded by Fillmore Street to the south,
Menard Avenue to the east, Arthington Street to the north,
and Monitor Avenue to the west. Here is
an aerial showing the school. GR Clark is a neighborhood
elementary school serving 128 students from pre-K through
eighth grade.
These pictures show the existing conditions of the asphalt pavement at the
school.
The total project will cost $1.5 million, with
completion of the building automation system,
for the BAS project, scheduled for fall of 2027, and
the turf field for winter of 2027. If approved, the
intergovernmental agreement would authorize
1.5 million in TIF assistance, which will finance the
entirety of the project.
If approved, the TIF would be used to... Okay, thank you.
The funding will allow CPS to replace the existing asphalt
pavement with an artificial turf
play field and install a new building automation system to support a
safe and comfortable learning environment for the school.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and I'm available for any
questions regarding this project.
Alderman Taliaferro?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Looked like I got back just in time, but I ask for your
favorable consideration on this matter.
It's an opportunity to improve some of the infrastructure of the school,
as well as provide an opportunity for a play lot where the children can play
safely. So thank you so much.
Thank you. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and
good afternoon, members of the committee.
So,
not wanting to take away from my colleagues,
all three of my colleagues, who are getting money for CPS, but where are we
with our agreement
for CPS employees to pay for their outstanding debt to the city of Chicago?
Again, Ivan Hansen, chief facilities officer, CPS.
We are currently notifying all employees that currently have
debt. We are also working on an escalation plan to those that
don't enter into the payment plan or make those payments.
We're going to be working with our board and our labor partners to
review that escalation plan in the coming weeks, to make sure we have something to
roll out if those payment plans are not put in place.
So the last time Chicago Public Schools was before this committee,
Mr. Chambers said that there was something being presented to the board to
effectuate the agreement. Has that been presented to them?
They're currently reviewing, yes.
So it was presented, and we're just waiting for them to vote yes or no?
Correct.
Can you provide through the chair what was sent to them?
Yes, we can.
Okay. Because I want to make sure that we are keeping the appropriate pressure on
our sister agencies so that we are collecting the
money that's owed to the city while not wanting to withhold or hold up
projects in wards that need it the most. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman
Beale?
Alderman Lopez moves due pass.
Woo.
I am.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you. Item number eight is from the Department of Planning as well.
It's an order authorizing the execution of an intergovernmental
agreement with the Chicago Board of Education to provide TIF funds for
improvements at Skinner-North Elementary School,
located at 640 West Scott Street in the
27th Ward, in an amount not to exceed a million
dollars.
Ms. Dye?
Good morning again, Chairman Dowell and members of the Finance Committee.
For the record, my name again is Venuette Dye, and I am the executive director for
Capital Planning and Construction at Chicago Public Schools.
I'm also joined by Ivan Hansen, our chief facilities officer, and Jeff
Cohen, the deputy commissioner in the Department of Planning and Development.
I'm here today to request your approval of an intergovernmental agreement that
would provide up to $1 million in TIF assistance to remove the existing
playground and construct a new playground at Skinner-North Elementary
School.
Here is a map showing the general location of the project within the city.
The project is located at 640 West Scott Street in the Near North
Side community area in the 27th Ward.
It is located within the Near North TIF.
The project site is bounded by Scott Street to the south,
Larabee Street to the east, Clybourn Avenue to the north, and Halsted
Street to the west.
Here's an aerial showing the school,
Skinner-North,
and the project neighborhood. The school
services 506 students from pre-K to eight.
These pictures show the condition of the current playground.
Here's a rendering showing the proposed playground improvements.
The total project will cost $2 million, with completion of the project scheduled
for winter of 2027. If approved, the intergovernmental
agreement would authorize up to $1 million in TIF assistance, with the
remaining $1 million coming from CPS.
If approved, TIF funding would be used to finance project costs, the majority
of which are hard costs associated with material and labor.
This funding will allow CPS to replace the current playground's outdated and
damaged equipment and soft surfaces with updated equipment that will
provide recreational opportunities in a safe environment for students and
the community at large. Thank you for your consideration of this request,
and we're available for any questions you may have regarding this project.
Thank you very much, Ms. Dye. Alderman Burnett?
Thank you.
I actually went to Skinner-North before it was considered North, so this is the
same playground that I played on 20 years ago.
It's about time that this community ends up getting more of the
investment that it needs, especially being the historic Cabrini Green community.
So, I ask my colleagues to support.
Thank you, Alderman Burnett. Alderman Taliaferro.
Thank you again, Madam Chair. I just wanted to know if this slide deck was
available.
Yes. We sent it to you.
Okay.
We sent it electronically.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Even yours.
Yep. That's what I wanted.
Seeing no-- Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Sposato makes the motion, recommending do pass of item
number eight. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass for recommendation
will report it out at the next city council meeting.
Moving on to item number nine from the Department of Planning and
Development, is an ordinance authorizing the execution of an
intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Board of Education to provide TIF
funds for improvements at John M. Smith Elementary
School, located at 1059 West 13th
Street in the 28th Ward, in the amount not to exceed
$900,000. Ms. Dye.
Good morning again, Chair McDowell.
And-
I'm sorry. Thank you, Renee. There is a
substitute ordinance which was prepared and sent electronically to
everyone. Can I have a motion to accept the substitute?
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 the substitute is now before the committee. Ms. Dye.
Thank you. Again, my name is Venuwa Dye.
I'm the executive director for Capital Planning and Construction at Chicago
Public Schools, joined by Ivan Hansen, our chief facility officer,
and Jeff Cohen, the deputy commissioner in the Department of Planning and
Development. I'm here today to request your approval of an intergovernmental
agreement with the amount that will provide up to
$900,000 in TIF assistance to renovate the
existing auditorium at Smith Elementary School.
Here is a map showing the general location of the project within the city.
The project is located at 1059 West 13th Street in the Near
West Side community area in the 28th Ward.
It is located in the Roosevelt-Racine TIF.
The project site is bounded by Maxwell Street to the south, Morgan
Street to the east, Roosevelt Road to the north,
and Saint Blue Island Avenue to the west.
Here's an aerial showing the school.
Smith is a neighborhood elementary school serving 398
students from pre-K to eighth grade.
These pictures show the condition of the current auditorium.
The total project will cost $1.4 million, with the completion of the
project scheduled for winter of 2026.
If approved, the intergovernmental agreement would authorize up to
$900,000 in TIF assistance, with the remaining
$500,000 in funding coming from CPS.
If approved, TIF would be used to finance the project cost, and the majority of
which are hard costs associated with material and labor.
TIF funding would allow CPS to
remove and replace all aging and broken seating,
as well as that were installed more than 100 years ago, and
make the improvements that would make the space more accessible and
enjoyable for everyone. Thank you for your consideration for this
request. I'm available for any questions you may have.
Alderman Irvin.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This particular school services the
Roosevelt Square, Adler Brooks area, and
is desperately in need of renovation.
So,
favorable consideration for the committee would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you, Alderman Irvin. Alderman Irvin makes the motion recommending
do pass of this item. 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 report it out at the next meeting.
All right. We've come to the end of our
regular meeting,
and we were supposed to have a subject matter hearing
on the Chicago parking meters immediately after this
meeting.
However, I have heard from a number of colleagues, both
on the committee and not on the committee, that they
need more time to review all of the
information that was sent to everybody on Friday.
And so, we will have a
notice put out, but you can mark your calendars now
for the
subject matter hearing or the next finance committee meeting
to be
June 25th at 11:00 AM.
And there being no further business before the committee, can I get a motion
to adjourn today?
So moved by Alderman Lopez. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the Committee on
Finance is hereby adjourned for today.
Thank you.